THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 From the collection of 
 Julius Doerner, Chicago 
 Purchased, 1918. 
 
 ao-o.3 
 
 I960 
 
 CP P'2- 
 
CYCLOPAEDIA 
 
 BIBLX 
 
 j 
 
 NOTED BIBLICAL Vi 
 
 The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 the University. 
 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 7 m 
 
 RCHES. 
 
 ILLTJS 
 
THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Prom the collection of 
 Julius Doerner, Chicago 
 Purchased, 1918. 
 
 KCb5c 
 
 reeo 
 
 V.2. 
 
 CPp'-i 
 
BIBLICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 < 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 JOffiST KITTO, D.D., F.S.A., 
 
 NOTED BIBLICAL WRITERS, REPRESENTING ALL THE GREAT EVANGELICAL CHURCHES. 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY NUMEROUS ENGRAVINGS. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 VOL. II. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 AMERICAN BOOK EXCHANGE, 
 Tribune Building. 
 
 1 88 0 . 
 
CYCLOPAEDIA 
 
 OF 
 
 BIBLICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 IBZAN. 
 
 
 V 
 
 IBZAN illustrious ; Sept. ’A/3 auraav), 
 
 the tenth ‘judge of Israel.’ He was of Bethle- 
 hem, probably the Bethlehem of Zebulun and not 
 of Judah. He governed seven years. The pro- 
 sperity of Ibzan is marked by the great number 
 of his children (thirty sons and thirty daughters), 
 and his wealth, by their marriages — for they were 
 all married. Some have held, with little proba- 
 bility, that Ibzan was the same with Boaz : b.c. 
 
 1 182 (Judg. xii. 8). 
 
 I-CHABOD (“1*133 'N, where is the glory ; 
 Sept. ’Axitw/ 3), son of Phinehas and grandson of 
 Eli. He is only known from the unhappy circum- 
 stances of his birth, which occasioned this name to 
 — be given to him. The pains of labour came upon 
 nis mother when she heard that the ark of God 
 was taken, that her husband was slain in battle, 
 and that these tidings had proved fatal to his 
 father Eli. They were death-pains to her ; and 
 when those around sought to cheer her, saying, 
 ‘ Fear not, for thou hast borne a son,’ she only 
 answered by giving him the name of I-chabod, ad- 
 ding, ‘The glory is departed from Israel' (1 Sam. 
 iv. 19-22): b.c. 1141. The name again occurs 
 in 1 Sam. xiv. 3 [Eli]. 
 
 ICON1UM Q1k6viov), a town, formerly the 
 capital of Lycaonia, as it is now, by the name 
 :>f Konieh, of Karamania, in Asia Minor. It is 
 situated in N. lat. 37° 51', E. long. 32° 40', about 
 one hundred and twenty miles inland from the 
 Mediterranean. It was visited by St. Paul in 
 a. i>. 45, when many Gentiles were converted; 
 but some unbelieving Jews excited against him 
 and Barnabas a persecution, which they escaped 
 with difficulty (Acts xiii. 51 ; xiv. 1, &c.). He 
 undertook a second journey to Iconium in a.d. 51. 
 The church planted at this place by the apostle 
 continued to flourish, until, by the persecutions 
 of the Saracens, and afterwards of the Seljukians, 
 who made it one of their sultanies, it was nearly 
 extinguished. But some Christians of the Greek 
 and Armenian churches, with a Greek metro- 
 politan bishop, are still found in the suburbs of 
 the city, not being permitted to reside within the 
 walls. 
 
 Konieh is situated at the foot of Mount 
 Taurus, upon the border of the lake Trogitis, 
 in a fertile plain, rich in valuable productions, 
 particularly apricots, wine, cotton, flax, and 
 grain. The circumference of the town is between 
 
 VOL. ii. 2 
 
 IDDO. 
 
 two and three miles, beyond which are suburbs 
 not much less populous than the town itself. The 
 walls, strong and lofty, and flanked with square 
 towers, which, at the gates, are placed close to- 
 gether [see cut, No. 317], were built by the Sel- 
 jukian Sultans of Iconium, who seem to have 
 taken considerable pains to exhibit the Greek in- 
 scriptions, and the remains of architecture and 
 sculpture, belonging to the ancient Iconium, 
 which they made use of in building the walls. 
 The town, suburbs, and gardens, are plentifully 
 supplied with water from streams which flow 
 from some hills to the westward, and which, to 
 the north-east, join the lake, which varies in 
 size with the season of the year. In the town 
 carpets are manufactured, and blue and yellow 
 leathers are tanned and dried. Cotton, wool, 
 hides, and a few of the other raw productions 
 which enrich the superior industry and skill of 
 the manufacturers of Europe, are sent to Smyrna 
 by caravans. 
 
 The most remarkable building in Konieh is 
 the tomb of a priest highly revered throughout 
 Turkey, called Hazreet Mevlana, the founder of 
 the Mevlevi Dervishes. The city, like all those 
 renowned for superior sanctity, abounds with 
 dervishes, who meet the passenger at every turn- 
 ing of the streets and demand paras with the 
 greatest clamour and insolence. The bazaars 
 and houses have little to recommend them to 
 notice (Kinneir’s Travels in Asia Minor ; Leake’s 
 Geography of Asia Minor ; Arundell’s Tour 
 in Asia Minor). 
 
 1. IDDO (i^, seasonable; Sept.’A5$c0, a pro- 
 phet of Judah, who wrote the history of Reho- 
 boam and Abijah ; or rather perhaps, who, in 
 conjunction with Seraiah, kept the public rolls 
 during their reigns, it seems from 2 Chron. xiii. 
 22 that he named his book KHTD, Midrash, or 
 ‘ Exposition.’ Josephus ( Antiq . viii. 9. 1) states 
 that this Iddo was the prophet who was sent to 
 Jeroboam at Bethel, and consequently the same 
 that was slain by a lion for disobedience to his ixs?- 
 structions (1 Kings xiii.); and many commenr 
 tators have followed this statement. 
 
 2. IDDO, grandfather of the prophet Zecha* 
 riah (Zech. i. 1 ; Ezr. v. 1 ; vi. 14). 
 
 3. IDDO (HK), chief of the Jews of the capti- 
 vity established at Casiphia, a place of which it 
 is difficult to determine the position. It was t» 
 
X 
 
 IDDO. 
 
 IDOLATRY. 
 
 min that Ezra sent a requisition for Levites and 
 Nethinim, none of whom had yet joined his 
 caravan. Thirty-eight Levites and 250 Nethi- 
 nim responded to his call (Ezra viii. 17-20), 
 B.c. 457. It would seem from this that Iddo 
 was a chief person of the Nethinim, descended 
 from those Gibeoniies who were charged with the 
 servile labours of the tabernacle and temple. 
 This is one of several circumstances w.hich indi- 
 cate that the Jews in their several colonies under 
 the Exile were still ruled by the heads of their 
 nation, and allowed the free exercise of their 
 worship. 
 
 4. IDDO (fa', lovely ; Sept. TaSaf), a chief of 
 -the half tribe of Manasseh beyond the Jordan 
 ■{! Cbron. xxvii. 21). 
 
 IDLE. The ordinary uses of this word re- 
 •quire no illustration. But the very serious pas- 
 sage in Matt. xii. 36 may suitably be noticed in 
 this plate. In the Authorized Version it is trans- 
 lated, ‘ I say unto you, that every idle word that 
 -men shall speak, they shall give an account 
 thereof in the day of judgment.’ The original 
 is, *Oti irav prjpa apyoe, t> ihv ol 
 
 Urdpcviroi, aTTo8'J>aov<n rrepl avrov \6yov ev rj/xepa 
 ♦rpjVews. The whole question depends upon 
 the meaning or rather force of the term pvpa 
 dpy6r, rendered ‘ idle word,’ concerning which 
 there has been no little difference of opinion. 
 Many understand it to mean ‘ wicked and in- 
 jurious words,’ as if apy6v were the same as 
 ■novr}p6v. which is indeed found as a gloss in Cod. 
 126. The sense is there taken to be as follows : — 
 J Believe me, that for every wicked and injurious 
 word men shall hereafter render an account.’ 
 And our Lord is supposed to have intended in this 
 passage to reprehend the Pharisees, who had spoken 
 impiously against Him, and to threaten them 
 with the severest punishments ; inasmuch as every 
 one of their injurious and impious words should 
 4>ne day be judged. This interpretation of the 
 word apy6 v is, however, reached by a somewhat cir- 
 cuitous process of philological reasoning, which is 
 examined with much nicety by J. A. H. Tittmann, 
 -and shown to be untenable. He adds : ‘ This in- 
 terpretation, moreover, would not be in accordance 
 with what precedes in verses 33-35, nor with what 
 follows in verse 37. For it is not any wicked 
 •discourse which is there represented; but the 
 feigned piety of the Pharisees, and their affected 
 zeal for the public welfare. In order to avoid a 
 charge of levity and indifference, they had de- 
 manded “ a sign,” crypeiou ; as if desirous that 
 both they and others might know whether Jesus 
 was truly the Messiah. Against this dissimula- 
 tion in those who uttered nothing sincerely and 
 from the heart, Jesus had inveighed in severe and 
 appropriate terms in verses 33-35, using the com- 
 parison of a tree, which no one judges to be good 
 and useful unless it bears good fruit, and from 
 which, if it be bad, no one expects good fruit. 
 But if now the sense of verse 36 is such as these 
 interpreters would make it, there is added in 
 it a sentiment altogether foreign to what pre- 
 cedes, and apy6v becomes not only destitute of 
 effect and force, but involves a sentiment incon- 
 gruous with that m verse 37. For where our 
 Lord says that hereafter every one shall be judged 
 according to his words, He cannot be understood 
 V) mean that every one will be capable of prov- 
 
 ing his integrity and goodness merely by Ilil 
 words alone — a sentiment surely as far as possible 
 from the intention of our Divine Master. We 
 must, therefore, necessarily understand a certain 
 kind of words or discourse, whicl under the 
 appearance of sincerity or candour, is often the 
 worst possible, and /caraSi/ca^et rbv avbwnov, “ com 
 demns a man,” because it is uttered with an evn 
 purpose. If, then, we interpret apyiv according 
 to established Greek usage, there arises a natural 
 and very appropriate sense, namely, apy6v is the 
 same as &epyov, otiosus, vain, idle ;■ ' then, void 
 of effect, without result, followed by no corre- 
 sponding event. Therefore prjpa apyou is empty 
 or vain words or discourse, i. e. void of truth, 
 and to which the event does not correspond. In 
 short, it is the empty, inconsiderate, insincere 
 language of one who says one thing and means 
 another ; and in this sense apy6s is very fre- 
 quently employed by the Greeks.’ This Tittmann 
 confirms by a number of citations ; and then 
 deduces from the whole that the sense of the pas- 
 sage under review is: ‘Believe me, he who uses 
 false and insincere language shall suffer grievous 
 punishment : your words, if uttered with sincerity 
 and ingenuousness, shall be approved ; but if 
 they are dissembled, although they bear the 
 strongest appearance of sincerity, they shall be 
 condemned ’ (See Tittmann, On the Principal 
 Causes of Forced Interpretations of the New 
 Testament, in Am. Bib. Repository for 1831, 
 pp. 481-484). 
 
 IDOLATRY. In giving a summary view of 
 the forms of idolatry which are mentioned in the 
 Bible, it is expedient to exclude all notice of 
 those illegal images which were indeed designed 
 to bear some symbolical reference to the worship 
 of the true God, but which partook of the nature 
 of idolatry ; such, for example, as the golden calf 
 of Aaron (cf. Nell. ix. 18); those of Jeroboam; 
 the singular ephods of Gideon and Micah (Judg. 
 viii. 27 ; xvii. 5) ; and the Teraphim. 
 
 Idolatry was the most heinous offence against 
 the Mosaic law, which is most particular in de- 
 fining the acts which constitute the crime, and 
 severe in apportioning the punishment. Thus, it 
 is forbidden to make any image of a strange God ; 
 to prostrate oneself before such an ima^e, or before 
 those natural objects which were also worshipped 
 without images, as the sun and moon (Deut. iv. 
 19) ; to suffer the altars, images, or groves of ido.8 
 to stand (Exod. xxxiv. 13); or to keep the gold 
 and silver of which their images were made, and 
 to suffer it to enter the house (Deut. vii. 25, 26); 
 to sacrifice to idols, most especially to offer human 
 sacrifices; to eat of the victims offered to idols 
 by others ; to prophesy in the name of a strange 
 god ; and to adopt any of the rites used in idol- 
 atrous worship, and to transfer them to the wor- 
 ship of the Lord (Deut. xii. 30, 31). As for 
 punishment, the law orders that if an individual 
 committed idolatry he should be stoned to death 
 (Deut. xvii. 2-5) ; that if a town was guilty of 
 this sin, its inhabitants and cattle should be slain, 
 and its spoils burnt together with the town itself 
 (Deut. xiii. 12-18). To what degree also the 
 whole spirit of the Old Testament is abhorrent 
 from idolatry, is evident (besides legal prohibitions, 
 prophetic denunciations, and energetic appeals like 
 that in Isa. xliv. 9-20) horn the literal sense of the 
 terms which are used as synonymes for idols and 
 
IDOLATRY. 
 
 IDOLATRY. 
 
 3 
 
 their worship. Thus idols are called 
 the inane (Lev. xix. 4) ; vanities — the rd 
 
 udraia of Acts xiv. 15 — (Jer. ii. 5) ; pN, nothing 
 (Isa. lxvi. 3); abominations (1 Kings 
 
 xi. 5); dMj, stercora (Ezek. vi. 4); and their 
 worship is called ichoredom, which is expressed 
 by the derivatives of POT. 
 
 The early existence of idolatry is evinced by 
 Josh. xxiv. 2, where it is stated that Abram and 
 nis immediate ancestors dwelling in Mesopotamia 
 ’ served other gods.’ The terms in Gen. xxxi. 
 53, and particularly the plural form of the verb, 
 *eem to show that some members of Ter ah's 
 family had each different gods. From Josh. xxiv. 
 14, and Ezek. xx. 8, we learn that the Israelites, 
 during their sojourn in Egypt, were seduced to 
 worship the idols of that country ; although we 
 possess no particular account of their transgression. 
 In Amos v. 25, and Acts vii. 42, it is stated that 
 they committed idolatry in their journey through 
 the wilderness; and in Num. xxv. 1, sq., that 
 they worshipped the Moabite idol Baal-peor at 
 Shittim. After the Israelites had obtained pos- 
 session of the promised land, we find that they 
 were continually tempted to adopt the idolatries 
 of the Canaanite nations with which they came 
 in contact. The book of Judges enumerates 
 several successive relapses into this sin. The 
 gods which they served during this period were 
 Baal and Ashtoreth, and their modifications ; and 
 Syria, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia, are 
 named in Judg. x. 6, as the sources from which 
 they derived their idolatries. Then Samuel ap- 
 pears to have exercised a beneficial influence in 
 weaning the people from this folly (1 Sam, vii.) ; 
 and the worship of the Lord acquired a gradually 
 increasing hold on the nation until the time of 
 Solomon, who was induced in his old age to per- 
 mit the establishment of idolatry at Jerusalem. 
 On the division of the nation, the kingdom of 
 Israel (besides adhering to the sin of Jeroboam to 
 the last) was specially devoted to the worship of 
 Baal, which Ahab had renewed and carried to an 
 unprecedented height ; and although the energetic 
 measures adopted by Jehu, and afterwards by the 
 priest Jehoiada, to suppress this idolatry, may 
 have been the cause why there is no later express 
 mention of Baal, yet it is evident from 2 Kings 
 xiii. 6, and xvii. 10, that the worship of Asherah 
 continued until the deportation of the ten tribes. 
 This event also introduced the peculiar idolatries 
 of the Assyrian colonists into Samaria. In the 
 kingdom of Judah, on the other hand, idolatry 
 continued during the two succeeding reigns ; was 
 suppressed for a time by Asa (1 Kings xv. 12) ; 
 was revived in consequence of Joram marrying 
 into the family of Ahab; was continued by Ahaz; 
 received a check from Hezekiah; broke out again 
 more violently under Manasseh ; until Josiah 
 made the most vigorous attempt to suppress it. 
 But even Josiah’s efforts to restore the worship of 
 the Lord were ineffectual ; for the later prophets, 
 Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, still continue 
 to utter reproofs against idolatry. Nor did the 
 capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachim awaken 
 this peculiarly sensual people ; for Ezekiel (viii.) 
 shows that those who were left in Jerusalem under 
 the government of Zedekiah had given themselves 
 up to many kinds of idolatry; and Jeremiah 
 (xliv. 8) charges those inhabitants of Judah who 
 
 had found an asylum in Egypt, with paving 
 turned to serve the gods of that country. On the 
 restoration of the Jews after the Babylonian cap- 
 tivity, they appear, for the first time in their his- 
 tory, to have been permanently impressed with a 
 sense of the degree to which their former idolatries 
 had been an insult to God, and a degradation of 
 their own understanding — an advance in the cul- 
 ture of the nation which may in part be ascribed 
 to the influence of the Persian abhorrence of 
 images, as well as to the effects of the exile as a 
 chastisement. In this state they continued until 
 Antiochus Epiphanes made the last and fruitless 
 attempt to establish (he Greek idolatry in Pales- 
 tine (1 Macc. i.). 
 
 The particular forma of idolatry into which 
 the Israelites fell are described under the names 
 of the different gods which they worshipped [Ash- 
 toreth, Baai,, &c.] : the general features of their 
 idolatry require a brief notice here. According 
 to Movers (Vie Phonizier , i. 148), the religion of 
 all the idolatrous Syro-Arabian nations was a 
 deification of the powers and laws of nature, an 
 adoration of those objects in which these power’s 
 are considered to abide, and by which they act. 
 The deity is thus the invisible power in nature 
 itself, that power which manifests itself as the 
 generator, sustainer, and destroyer of its works. 
 This view admits of two modifications : either the 
 separate powers of nature are regarded as so many 
 different gods, and the objects by which these 
 powers are manifested — as the sun, moon, &c. — 
 are regarded as their images and supporters ; or 
 the power of nature is considered to be one and 
 indivisible, and only to differ as to the forms 
 under which it manifests itself. Both views co- 
 exist in almost all religions. The most simple 
 and ancient notion, however, is that which con- 
 ceives the deity to be in human form, as male 
 and female, and which considers the male sex lc 
 be the type of its active, generative, and de- 
 structive power ; while that passive power of na- 
 ture whose function is to conceive and bring 
 forth, is embodied under the female form. The 
 human form and the diversity of sex lead natu*- 
 rally to the different ages of life — to the old man 
 and the youth, the matron and the virgin — ac- 
 cording to the modifications of the conception ; 
 and the myths which represent the influences, the 
 changes, the laws, and the relations of these na- 
 tural powers under the sacred histories of such 
 gods, constitute a harmonious development of 
 such a religious system. 
 
 Those who saw the deity manifested by, or 
 conceived him as resident in, any natural objects, 
 could not fail to regard the sun and moon as the 
 potent rulers of day and night, and the sources cf 
 those influences on which all animated nature 
 depends. Hence star-worship forms a prominent 
 feature in all the false religions mentioned in the 
 Bible. Of this character chiefly were the Egyptian, 
 the Canaanite, the Chaldaean, and the Persian re- 
 ligions. The Persian form of astrolatry, however, 
 deserves to be distinguished from the others ; fot 
 it allowed no images nor temples of the god, but 
 worshipped him in his purest symhol, fire. It is 
 understood that this form is alluded to in most, 
 of those passages which mention the worship of 
 the sun, moon, and heavenly host, by incense, on 
 heights (2 Kings xxiii. 5, 12 ; Jer. xix. 13). The 
 other form of astrolatry, in which the idea of the 
 
4 
 
 I DU M. LA. 
 
 IDUMAEA. 
 
 sun, moon, and planets, is blended with the wor- 
 ship of the god in the form of an idol, and with 
 the addition of a mythology (as may be seen in 
 the relations of Baal and his cognates to the sun), 
 easily degenerates into lasciviousness and cruel 
 rites. 
 
 The images of the gods, the standard terms for 
 which are mVD, 3VJ1, and D btf, were, as to 
 material, of stone, wood, silver, and gold. Tlie 
 first two sorts are called as being hewn or 
 
 carved ; those of metal had a trunk or stock of 
 wood, and were covered with plates of silver or 
 gold (Jer. x. 4); or were cast (IT3DD). The 
 general rites of idolatrous worship consist in 
 burning incense; in offering bloodless sacrifices, 
 as the dough-cakes (D'MS) and libations in Jer. 
 vvi. 18, and the raisin-cakes 'tWN) 
 
 in Hos. iii. 1 ; in sacrificing victims (1 Kings 
 xvia. 26), and especially in human sacrifices 
 [Moi.och]. These offerings were made on high 
 places, hills, and roofs of houses, or in shady 
 groves and valleys. Some forms of idolatrous 
 worship had libidinous orgies [Ashtoheth], 
 Divinations, oracles (2 Kings i. 2), and rabdo- 
 mancy (Hos. iv. 12) form a part of many of these 
 false religions. The priesthood was generally a 
 numerous body ; and where persons of both sexes 
 were attached to the service of any god (like the 
 and TVlKHp of Ashtoreth), that service 
 was infamously immoral. It is remarkable that 
 the Pentateuch makes no mention of any temple 
 of idols; afterwards we read often of such. — 
 
 J. N. 
 
 IDUMLA. J I 5ovpala is the Greek form of the 
 Hebrew name Edom, or, according to Josephus 
 (Antiq. ii. 1. 1), it is only a more agreeable mode 
 of pronouncing what would otherwise be \A5 a>,ua 
 (comp. Jerome on Ezek. xxv. 12). In the Sep- 
 tuagint. we sometimes meet with ’ESi^u, but more 
 generally with ’Idovjuala (the people being called 
 ’ Idov/uaioi ), which is the uniform orthography in 
 the Apocrypha as well as in Mark iii. 8, the only 
 passage in the New Testament where it occurs. 
 Our Authorized Version has in three or four 
 places substituted for Edom ‘ Idumea/ which is 
 the name employed by the writers of Greece 
 and Rome, though it is to be noted that they, 
 as well as Josephus, include under that name 
 the south of Palestine, and sometimes Pales- 
 tine itself, because a large portion of that coun- 
 try came into possession of the Edomites of later 
 times. 
 
 The Hebrew EHX Edom, as the name of the 
 people is masculine (Num. xx. 22) ; as the name 
 of the country, feminine (Jer. xlix. 17). We 
 often meet with the phrase Eretz-Edom , * the 
 Land of Edom/ and once with the poetic form 
 Sedeh-Edom, ‘ the Field of Edom ’ (Judg. v. 4). 
 The inhabitants are sometimes styled Beni- Edom , 
 ‘the Children of Edom/ and poetically Bath- 
 Edom, ‘ the Daughter of Edom’ (Lam. iv. 21, 
 22). A single person was called Adomi, 
 
 ‘an Edomite’ (Deut xxiii. 8), of which the femi- 
 nine plural IVD'li'? Adomith occurs in 1 Kings 
 xi. 1. The name was derived from Isaac’s son 
 Edom , otherwise called Esau, the elder twin- 
 brother of Jacob [Esau]. It signifies red , and 
 seems first to have been suggested by bis appear- 
 ance at his birth, when ‘ he came out all red ’ 
 
 e. covered with red hair, Gen, xxv, 25), and 
 
 was afterwards more formally and permanently 
 imposed on him on account of his unworthy dis- 
 posal of his birth-right for a mess of red lent! let 
 (Gen. xxv. 30). The region which came to bear 
 bis name, is the mountainous tract on the east 
 side of the great valleys El Ghor and El Araba 
 extending between the Dead Sea and the Elanitit 
 Gulf of the Red Sea. Some have conjectured 
 that the latter sea was called ‘ Red/ because i ; 
 washed the shore of ‘ Edom ;’ but it never bears in 
 Hebrew the name of Yam-Edom : it is uniformly 
 designated Yam-Suph, i. e. ‘ the Sea of Madre- 
 pores.’ Into this district Esau removed during his 
 father’s life-time, and his posterity gradually ob- 
 tained possession of it as the country which God 
 had assigned for their inheritance in the prophetic 
 blessing pronounced by his father Isaac (Gen. 
 xxvii. 39, 40; xxxii. 3; Deut. ii. 5-12, 22). 
 Previously to their occupation of the country, it 
 was called TJJL? “1H, Mount Seir, a designation 
 indeed which it never entirely lost. The word 
 seir means hairy (being thus synonymous with 
 Esau), and, when applied to a country, may sig- 
 nify rugged , mountainous, and so says Josephus 
 {Antiq. i. 20. 3) : ‘ Esau named the country 
 “ Roughness ” from his own hairy roughness/ 
 But in Gen. xxxvi. 20, we read of an individual 
 of the name of Seir, who had before this inhabited 
 the land, and from whom it may have received 
 its first appellation. Part of the region is still 
 called Esh-SAeraA, in which some find a trace of 
 Seir, but the two words have no etymological 
 relation : the former wants the )}, a letter which 
 is never dropped, and it signifies ‘ a tract, a pos 
 session,’ and sometimes ‘ a mountain.’ 
 
 The first mention made of Mount Seir in Scrijv 
 ture is in Gen. xiv. 6, where Chedorlaomer and 
 his confederates are said to have smitten ‘ the 
 Horim in their Mount Seir.’ Among the earliest 
 human habitations were caves, either formed by 
 nature or easily excavated, and for the construc- 
 tion of these the mountains of Edom afforded 
 peculiar facilities. Hence the designation given 
 to the Aboriginal inhabitants — Horim, i. e. cave- 
 dwellers (from “)H, a ‘ cave’), an epithet of similar 
 import with the Greek Troglodytes. Even in the 
 days of Jerome ‘ the whole of the southern part of 
 Idumaea, from Eleutheropolis to Petra and Aila, 
 was full of caverns used as dwellings, on account 
 of the sun’s excessive heat’ (Jerome on Obadiah, 
 ver. 1); and there is reason to believe that rho 
 possessors of the country in every age occupied 
 similar habitations, many traces of which are ye» 
 seen in and near Petra, the renowned metropolis. 
 
 VVe are informed in Deut. ii. 12, that ‘ the 
 children of Esau succeeded \marg. inherited] the 
 Horim when they had destroyed them from be- 
 fore them, and dwelt in their stead, as Israel 
 did unto the land of his possession, which Je- 
 hovah gave unto them.’ From this it may 
 inferred, that the extirpation of the Horim by 
 the Esauites was, like that of the Canaauites by 
 Israel, very gradual and slow. Some think this 
 supposition is confirmed by the genealogical 
 tables preserved in the 36th chapter of Genesis 
 (comp. 1 Chron. 1.), where we have, along with a 
 list of the chiefs of Edom, a similar catalogue of 
 Horite chieftains, who are presumed to have been 
 their contemporaries. But for the chronology of 
 these ancient documents we possess no data what- 
 soever, and very orecarious, therefore, must b* 
 
IDUMEA. 
 
 IDUMAEA. 
 
 ft 
 
 tny deductions that are drawn from them. This 
 much, however, we there learn of the political con- 
 stitution of the Seirite Aborigines, that, like the 
 Ksauites and Israelites, they were divided into 
 tribes, and these tnbes were sub-divided into 
 families — the very polity which still obtains 
 among the Arabs by whom Idumaea is now 
 peopled. Each tribe had its own Alhif— a term 
 which is unhappily rendered in the English Ver- 
 sion by ‘ Duke ' — for though that has, no doubt, 
 the radical meaning of the Latin dux, a 4 leader,’ 
 it now only suggests the idea of a feudal title of 
 nobildy. Of these chiefs of the Horites seven are 
 enumerated, viz., Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, 
 Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. The only one of 
 these who is spoken of as related to the other is 
 An ah, the son of Zibeon. The primitive and 
 
 i iaatoral character of the people is incidentally 
 irought out by the circumstance that this Anah, 
 though a chieftain’s son, was in the habit of tend- 
 ing his father's asses. It was when thus employed 
 that he found in the wilderness eth-ha-yemim, ren- 
 dered in the English Version by ‘ the mules,’ but 
 meaning more probably ‘ the hot springs and 
 thus interpreted, the passage seems to be an inti- 
 mation that he was the first to discover the faculty 
 with which asses and other animals are endowed, 
 of snuffing the moisture of the air, and thus 
 sometimes leading to the opportune discovery 
 of hidden waters in the desert. There is in the 
 country to the south-east of the Dead Sea (which 
 formed part of the Seirite possessions), a place, 
 Kallirhoz, celebrated among the Greeks and 
 Romans for its warm baths, and which has been 
 visited by modem travellers (Josephus, De Bell. 
 Jud. i. 33. 5; Pliny, Ilist. Nat. v. 5. 17 ; Legh's 
 Travels). 
 
 Esau first married into two Canaanitish families 
 if the Hittite and Hivite tribes (Gen. xxvi. 34 ; 
 xxxvi. 2 ; in one or other of which places, how- 
 ever, the text seems corrupt) ; but anxious to pro- 
 pitiate his offended parents, he next formed a 
 matrimonial alliance with one of the race of 
 Abraham, viz., Mahalath, otherwise called Bashe- 
 math, daughter of Ishmael, and sister of Ne- 
 baioth, whose descendants, the Nabathaeans, by a 
 singular coincidence, obtained in after times pos- 
 session of the land of Edom (Gen. xxviii. 9). 
 Esau’s first-born (by Adah or Bashemath, of the 
 daughters of Iieth) was Eliphaz, whose son 
 T 'eman gave name to a district of the country 
 (Gen. xxxvi. 11, 34; 1 Chron. i. 45; Ezek. xxv. 
 13; Obad. verse 9). The Temanites were re- 
 nowned for their wisdom (Jer. xlix. 7, 20 ; Baruch 
 iii. 22, 23). The chief speaker in the book of 
 Job is another Eliphaz, a Termini te, — which is 
 one of the circumstances that have led many to 
 place the scene of that story in the land of Edom 
 IJob]. The name of Teman was preserved to 
 the days of Eusebius in that of Thaiman, a small 
 town five Roman miles from Petra. Another son 
 of the first-mentioned Eliphaz was Amalek , who 
 is not to be confounded, however, with the father 
 of the Amalek ites, one of the doomed nations of 
 Canaan, of whom we hear so early as the age of 
 Abraham (Gen. xiv. 7). 
 
 As a modem Arab sheikh is often found to ex- 
 rrcise influence far beyond the sphere of his here- 
 ditary domain, so in the list of the Edomite emirs 
 preserved by Moses we have perhaps only the 
 names of the more distinguished individuals who 
 
 acquired more or less authority over all the tribe*. 
 This oligarchy appears gradually to have changed 
 into a monarchy, as happened too among the 
 Israelites; for in addition to the above mentioned 
 lists, both of Horite and Esauite leaders, we have, 
 at Gen. xxxvi. 31, a catalogue of eight kings 
 (Bela, Jobab, Husham, Iladad, Samlah, Saul, 
 Baal-hanan, Hadar or Hadad) who ‘reigned in 
 the land of Edom before there reigned any king 
 over the children of Israel.’ It is not necessary 
 to suppose that this was said by Moses propheti- 
 cally : it is one of those passages which may 
 have been inserted by Ezra when finally arranging 
 the canon, inasmuch as it occurs also in thefirst 
 book of Chronicles, of which he is the reputed 
 compiler. The period when this change to regal 
 government took place in Idumaea can only be 
 matter of conjecture. In the Song of Moses 
 (Exod. xv. 15) it is said that at the tidings of 
 Israel's triumphant passage of the Red Sea the 
 rulers or princes (. Alluf ) of Edom trembled with 
 affright, but when, some forty years afterwards, 
 application had to be made by the Israelites for 
 leave to traverse the land of Edom, it was to the 
 king (Melek) that the request was addressed 
 (Num. xx. 14) The road by which it was 
 sought to penetrate the country was termed ‘ the 
 king s highway ’ (ver. 17), supposed by Robinson 
 to be the Wady el-Ghuweir, for it is almost the 
 only valley that affords a direct and easy passage 
 through those mountains. From a comparison of 
 these incidents it may be inferred that the change 
 in the form of government took place during the 
 wanderings of the Israelites in the desert, unless 
 we suppose, with Rosenmiiller, that it was only 
 this north-eastern part of Edom which was now 
 subject to a monarch, the rest of the country re- 
 maining under the sway of its former chieftains. 
 But whether the regal power at this period em- 
 braced the whole territory or not, perhaps it did 
 not supplant the ancient constitution, but was 
 rather grafted on it, like the authority of the 
 Judges in Israel, and of Saul, the first king, 
 which did not materially interfere with the go- 
 vernment that previously existed. It further ap- 
 pears, from the list of Iduinsean kings, that the 
 monarchy was not hereditary, but elective (for no 
 one is spoken of as the son or relative of his pre- 
 decessor); or probably that chieftain was acknow- 
 ledged as sovereign who was best able to vindi- 
 cate his claim by force of arms. Every succes- 
 sive king appears to have selected his own seat of 
 government : the places mentioned as having en- 
 joyed that distinction are Dinhahah, Avith, Pagu 
 or Pai. Even foreigners were not excluded from 
 the throne, for the successor of Samlah of Masre- 
 kah was Saul, or Shaul, ‘ of Rechoboth, on the 
 river.’ The word ‘Rechoboth’ means, literally, 
 streets, and was a not uncommon name given to 
 towns; but the emphatic addition of ‘the river,’ 
 points evidently to the Euphrates, and between 
 Rakkah and Anah, on that river, there are still 
 the remains of a place called by the Arabs Ra- 
 chabath-Malik-Ibn Tauk. In the age of Solo- 
 mon we read of one Hadad, who ‘was of the 
 king's seed in Edom’ (1 Kings xi. 14) ; from whitm 
 some have conjectured that by that period there 
 was a royal dynasty of one particular family ; but 
 all that the expression may imply is, that he wa» 
 a blood-relation of the last king of the country 
 Hadad was the name of one of the early sore- 
 
IDUMAEA. 
 
 0 IDUMAEA. 
 
 reigns 4 who smote Midian in the field of Moab’ 
 (Gen. xxxvi. 35). 
 
 The unbrotherly feud which arose between 
 Esau and Jacob was prolonged for ages between 
 their posterity. The Israelites, indeed, were com- 
 manded ‘not to abhor an Edomite, for he was 
 their brother’ (Deut. xxiii. 7) ; but a variety of 
 circumstances occurred to provoke and perpetuate 
 the hostility. The first time they were brought into 
 direct collision was when the Edomites, though 
 entreated by their 4 brother Israel,’ refused the 
 latter a passage through their territories; and they 
 had consequently to make a retrograde and toil- 
 some march to the Gulf of Elath, whence they 
 nad to •' compass the land of Edom’ by the moun- 
 tain desert on the east. We do not again hear of 
 the Edomites till the days of Saul, who warred 
 against them with partial success (1 Sam. xiv. 
 47) ; but their entire subjugation was reserved 
 for David, who first signally vanquished them in 
 the Valley of Salt (supposed to be in the Ghor, 
 beside TJsdum, the Mountain of Salt) ; and, 
 finally, placed garrisons in all their country (2 
 Sam. viii. 14; 1 Chron. xviii. 11-13; 1 Kings xi. 
 15. Comp, the inscription of Ps. lx. and v. 
 p , 9; cviii. 9, 10, where ‘the strong city’ may 
 denote Selah or Petra). Then were fulfilled the 
 prophecies in Gen. xxv. 23 and xxvii. 40, that 
 the ‘elder should serve the younger;’ and also 
 the prediction of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 18), that 
 Edom and Seir should be for possessions to Israel. 
 Solomon created a naval station at Ezion-geber, 
 at the head of the Gulf of Elath, the modern 
 Akaba (1 Kings ix. 26 ; 2 Chron. viii. 18). To- 
 wards the close of his reign an attempt was made 
 to restore the independence of the country by one 
 Hadad, an Idumaean prince, who, when a child, 
 had been carried into Egypt at the time of David's 
 invasion, and had there married the sister of Tah- 
 panhes the queen (1 Kings xi. 14-23) [Hadad]. 
 If Edom then succeeded in shaking off the yoke, 
 it was only for a season, since in the days of Jeho- 
 shaphat, the fourth Jewish monarch from Solomon, 
 it is said, ‘ there was no king in Edom ; a deputy 
 was king ;’ i. e. he acted as viceroy for the king of 
 Judah. For that the latter was still master of the 
 country is evident from the fact of his having 
 fitted out, like Solomon, a fleet at Ezion-geber 
 (1 Kings xxii. 47, 48; 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37). It 
 was, no doubt, his deputy (called king') who 
 joined the confederates of Judah and Israel in 
 their attack upon Moab (2 Kings iii. 9, 12, 26). 
 Yet there seems to have been a partial revolt of 
 the Edomites, or at least of the mountaineers of 
 Seir, even in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 
 xx. 22): and under his successor, Jehoram, they 
 wholly rebelled, and ‘ made a king over them- 
 selves’ (2 Kings viii. 20, 22 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 8, 10). 
 From its being added that, notwithstanding the 
 temporary suppression of the rebellion, ‘ Edom 
 revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this 
 day,’ it is probable that the Jewish dominion 
 was never completely restored. Amaziah, indeed, 
 invaded the country, and having taken the chief 
 city, Selah or Petra, he, in memorial of the con- 
 quest, changed its name to Joktheel ( q . d. sub- 
 dued of God); and his successor, Uzziah, re- 
 tained possession of Elath (2 Kings xiv. 7 ; 2 
 Chron. xxv. 11-14; xxvi. 3). But in the reign 
 of Ahaz, hordes of Edomites made incursions into 
 Judah, and carried away captives (2 Chron. xxviii. 
 
 17). About the same period Rezin, king of Syria, 
 expelled the Jews from Elath, which (according tc 
 the correct reading of 2 Kings xvi. 6) was thence- 
 forth occupied by the Edomites. In our version 
 it is said, ‘the Syrians dwelt in Elath;’ but the 
 Keri, or marginal Masoretic reading, instead of 
 D’EHN, Aramaeans, has rnDYlN, Edomites, the 
 letter T being substituted for 1 ; and this is fol- 
 lowed by many MSS., as well as by the Sept, and 
 Vulgate, and best accords with historical fact. 
 But then, to make both clauses of the verse to 
 correspond, we must, with Le Clerc and Houbi- 
 gant, read the whole thus : ‘At that time Rezin, 
 king of Aram, recovered Elath to Edom, and 
 drove the Jews from Elath ; and the Edomites 
 came to Elath, and continued there unto this 
 day.’ Now was fulfilled the other part of Isaac’s 
 prediction, viz. that, in course of time, Esau 
 ‘ should take his brother’s yoke from off his neck’ 
 (Gen. xxvii. 40). It appears from various inci- 
 dental expressions in the later prophets, that the 
 Edomites employed their recovered power in the 
 enlargement of their territory in all directions. 
 They spread as far south as Bedan in Arabia, and 
 northward to Bozrah in the Hhauran ; though it 
 is doubtful if the Bozrah of Scripture may not 
 have been a place in Idumaea Proper (Isa. xxxiv. 
 6; lxiii. 1; Jer. xlix. 7, 8-20; Ezek. xxv. 13; 
 Amos i. 12). When the Chaldaeans invaded 
 Judah, under Nebuchadnezzar, the Edomites be- 
 came their willing auxiliaries, and triumphed 
 with fiendish malignity over the ruin of their 
 kinsmen the Jews, of whose desolated land they 
 hoped to obtain a large portion to themselves 
 (Obad. verses 10-16; Ezek. xxv. 12-14; xxxv. 
 3-10; xxxvi. 5; Lament, iv. 21). By this cir- 
 cumstance the hereditary hatred of the Jews was 
 rekindled in greater fury than ever, and hence 
 the many dire denunciations of the ‘ daughter or 
 Edom,’ to be met with in the Hebrew prophets 
 (Ps. cxxxvii. 7-9; Obad. passim ; Jer. xlix. 7; 
 Ezek. xxv. and xxxv.). From the language of 
 Malachi (i. 2, 3), and also from the accounts pre- 
 served by Josephus (Antiq. x. 9. 7), it would seem 
 that the Edomites did not wholly escape the Chal- 
 daeari scourge; but instead of being carried captive, 
 tike the Jews, they not only retained possession of 
 their own territory, but became masters of the south 
 of Judah, as far as Hebron (1 Macc. v. 65, comp, 
 with Ezek. xxxv. 10 ; xxxvi. 5). Here, however, 
 they were, in course of time, successfully at- 
 tacked by the Maccabees, and about b.c. 125, 
 were finally subdued by John Hvrcanus, who 
 compelled them to submit to circumcision and 
 other' Jewish rites, with a view to incorporate 
 them with the nation (1 Macc. v. 3, 65 ; 2 Macc. 
 x. 16 ; xii. 32; Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 9. 1 ; 15. 4). 
 The amalgamation, however, of the two races 
 seems never to have been effected, for we after- 
 wards hear of Antipater, an Idumaean by birth, 
 being made by Caesar procurator of all Judaea ; 
 and his son, commonly called Herod the Great, 
 was, at the time of Christ's birth, king of Judaea, 
 including Idumaea ; and hence Roman writers 
 often speak of all Palestine untier that name 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 1. 3; 8.5; xv. 7. 9 ; xvii. 
 11. 4). Not long before the siege of Jerusalem 
 by Titus, 20,000 Idumaeans were called in to the 
 defence of the city by the Zealots ; Out. both par- 
 ties gave themselves up to rapine and murdei 
 (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. iv. 4. 5; 6. I ; vii 8. 1) 
 
1DUM/EA. 
 
 IDUM.EA. 
 
 7 
 
 This 13 the last mention made of the Edomites 
 in history. Tlie author of a work on Job, once 
 ascribed to Origen, says that their name and lan- 
 guage had perished, and that, like the Ammonites 
 and Moabites, they had all become Arabs. In 
 the second century Ptolemy limits the name 
 Idumaea to th® country west of the Jordan. 
 
 360. [Ravine in Idumaea.] 
 
 But while, during the captivity of the Jews in 
 Babylon, the Edomites had thus been extending 
 their territory to the north-west, they were them- 
 selves supplanted in the southern part of their 
 native region by the Nabathseans, the descendants 
 of Ishmael’s eldest son, and to the article Ne- 
 baiotii, we must refer the reader for the subse- 
 quent history of the land of Edom. 
 
 From the era of <be Crusades down to the pre- 
 sent century the land of Esau was, to Europeans, 
 a terra incognita. Its situation was laid down 
 on the best maps more than a hundred miles from 
 the true position, and as if lying in a direction 
 where it is now known there is nothing but a vast 
 expanse of desert. Yolney had his attention 
 drawn towards it, when at Gaza, by the vague 
 reports of the Arabs, and in 1807 the unfortunate 
 Seefzen penetrated a certain way into the country, 
 and heard of the wonders of the Wady Musa; 
 but the first modern traveller who ‘passed through 
 the land of Edom ’ was Burckhardt, in the year 
 1812. And it has been well remarked by Dr. 
 Robinson (Amer. Bib. Reposit. vol. iii. p. 250), 
 that ‘ rad he accomplished nothing but his re- 
 searches in these regions, his journey would have 
 been worth all the labour and cost expended on 
 it, although his discoveries thus shed their 
 strongest light upon subjects which were not 
 comprehended in the plan or purpose either of 
 himself or his employers.’ Burckhardt entered 
 Idumaea from the north, and in the year 1818 he 
 was followed in the same direction by Messrs. 
 J>*gh, Bankea, Jrby and Mangles. In 1828 
 
 Laborde and Linant found access from the so nth ; 
 and since then it has been visited and described 
 by so many that the names of its localities liave 
 become familiar as household words. 
 
 The limit of the wanderings of tne Israelites in 
 the desert was the brook Zered, after crossing 
 which they found themselves in the territory of 
 Moab (Deut. ii. 13-18). This brook is supposed 
 to be identical with the Wady-el- Ahsy, which, 
 rising near the Castle ehAhsy, on the route to 
 Mecca of the Syrian caravan upon the high 
 eastern desert, penetrates through the whole chain 
 of mountains to near the south-east corner of the 
 Dead Sea. It was thus the southern border of 
 Moab and the northern of Edom, whence the 
 latter region extended southwards as far as to 
 Elath on the Red Sea. The valley which runs 
 between the two seas consists first of El-Ghor, 
 which is comparatively low, but gradually rises 
 into the more elevated plain of El-Arabah to the 
 south. The country lying east of this great 
 valley is the land of Idumaea. It is a mountain 
 tract, consisting at the base of low hills of lime- 
 stone or argillaceous rock, then lofty mountains 
 of porphyry forming the body of the mountain ; 
 above these, sandstone broken up into irregular 
 ridges and grotesque groups of cliffs ; and again 
 farther back, and higher than all, long elevated 
 ridges of limestone without precipices. East of 
 all these stretches off" indefinitely the high plateau 
 of the great eastern desert. Robinson and Smith 
 estimated the height of the porphyry cliff's at 
 about 2000 feet above the Arabah ; the elevation 
 of Wady Musa above the same is, perhaps, 2000 
 or 2200 feet, while the limestone rkiges further 
 back probably do not fall short of 3000 feet. 
 The whole breadth of the mountainous tract 
 between the Arabah and the eastern desert 
 does not exceed fifteen or twenty geographical 
 miles. Of these mountains the most remark- 
 able is Mount Hor, near the Wady Musa. 
 [Hor, Mount]. While the mountains on the 
 west of the Arabah, though less elevated, are 
 wholly barren, those of Idumaea seem to enjoy a 
 sufficiency of rain, and are covered with tufts of 
 herbs and occasional trees. The wadys, too, are 
 full of trees and shrubs and flowers, while the 
 eastern and higher parts are extensively culti- 
 vated, and yield good crops. Hence Robinson 
 thinks its appearance fulfils the promise made to 
 Esau (Gen. xxvii. 39), ‘ Thy dwelling shall be 
 the fatness of the earth and of the dew of heaven 
 from above.’ Yet many critics are of opinion 
 ( e . g. Vater, De Wette, Geddes, Yon Bohlen) 
 that should there be rendered ‘ from,' 
 
 i. e. ‘ far away from, or destitute of,’ the fatness 
 of the earth, &c. ; and it is immediately added, 
 ‘for thou shalt live by thy sword ;’ and it does 
 not appear that Idumasa was ever particularly 
 noted for its fertility. Th is mountainous region 
 is at present divided into two districts. The 
 northern bears the name of Jebdl , i. e. ‘ The 
 Mountain,’ the Gebal of the Hebrews (Ps. 
 lxxxiii. 8), and the Gebalene of the Greeks and 
 Romans. Commencing at Wady el-Ahsv, it 
 terminates, according to Burckhardt, at Wady 
 el Ghuweir, the largest place in it being TufileK 
 perhaps the Tophel of Deut. i. 1. The southern 
 district is esh- Sherah, extending as far as 
 Akabah, and including Shobak, Wady Musa, 
 Maan, &c. Burckhardt mentions a third dis- 
 
s 
 
 IDUMAEA. 
 
 IMMANUEL. 
 
 trict, Jtbal Hesfna ; hut Robinson says that 
 though there is a sandy tract, el-Hismah, with 
 mountains around it, on the east of Akabah, it 
 does not constitute a separate division. 
 
 The whole of this region is at. present occupied 
 by various tribes of Bedouin Arabs. The chief 
 tribe in the Jehal is the Hejaya, with a branch of 
 tire Kaabineh, while in esh-S/ierah they are 
 all of the numerous and powerful tribe of the 
 Haweitat, with a few independent allies. The 
 Bedouins in Idumaea have of late years been par- 
 tially subject to the Pacha of Egypt, paying an 
 annual tribute, which, in the case of the Beni 
 Sukhr, is one camel for two tents. The fellahin, 
 or peasants, are half Bedouin, inhabiting the few 
 villages, but dwelling also in tents; they too 
 pay tribute to the Egyptian government, and 
 furnish supplies of grain. 
 
 Among the localities connected with Edom 
 which are mentioned in Scripture may be noticed 
 Dinhabah, Bczrah, Theman, Maon (now Maan), 
 Kadesh-barnea (which Robinson identifies with 
 el-Weibeh in the Wady el Jeib), Zephath (which 
 he supposes to be the pass of Es-Sufah), Elath, 
 and Ezion-geber, & c. ; but the most celebrated 
 place in all the region was the chief city, Selah 
 or Petra, for a description of which the reader is 
 referred to the latter head [Petra]. 
 
 Could the scene of the book of Job be with 
 certainty fixed in Idumaea, we should then pos- 
 sess much curious and valuable information re- 
 specting both the country and people soon after 
 it had been colonized by the descendants of 
 Esau (See Mason Good, Wemyss, and others 
 upon Job). But all that we learn directly of 
 the ancient Edomites from the historical books of 
 Scripture represents them as not, indeed, neglect- 
 ing agriculture or trade (Num. xx. 17), yet, on 
 the whole, as a warlike and predatory race, who, 
 according to the prediction of their progenitor 
 Isaac, ‘ lived by their sword.’ The situation of 
 the country afforded peculiar facilities for com- 
 merce, which seems to have been prosecuted from 
 a very early period. ‘ Bordering,’ says Volney, 
 
 ‘ upon Arabia on the east, and south, and Egypt 
 on the south-west, and forming, from north to 
 south, the most commodious channel of commu- 
 nication between Jerusalem and her dependencies 
 on the Red Sea, through the continuous valleys 
 of El-Ghor and El Araba, Idumaea may be said 
 to have long formed the emporium of the com- 
 merce of the East.’ The era of its greatest pros- 
 perity was after the Nabathaeans had become 
 masters of the country and founded the kingdom 
 of Arabia Petraea, of which the renowned metro- 
 polis was Petra. The religion of the early Edom- 
 ites was, perhaps, comparatively pure ; but in 
 process of time they embraced idolatry : in 
 2 Chron. xxv. 20, we read of the ‘ gods of Edom,’ 
 one of whom, according to Josephus ( Antiq . xv. 
 7. 9), was called Kotze. With respect to the 
 striking fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations 
 upon Edom, we need only refer the reader to the 
 well-known work of Keith, who frequently errs, 
 However, in straining the sense of prophecy be- 
 vond its legitimate import, as well as in seeking 
 out too literally minute an accomplishment. On 
 Idumaea generally, see C. B. Michaelis, Diss. de 
 Antiquiss. Idumccor. Ilist. in Pott and Ruperti's 
 Sylloge Comment. Theologic. Part VI. p. 121 ; 
 J D. Michaelis, Comment, de Troglodyte Set- 
 
 ritis, in the Syntagma Commentt ., Part I. p :94 ; 
 but especially, Sketches of Idumea and its presenx 
 Inhabitants, by Dr. E. Robinson, in the Amer 
 Bib. Repository for April, 1833, p. 217; and 
 the Bib. Besectrches of the same writer, vol. ii. 
 p. 551.— N. M. 
 
 ILLYRICUM (*IAA vpu<6v), a country lying 
 to the north-west of Macedonia, and answering 
 nearly to that which is at present called Dal- 
 matia; by which name indeed the southern part 
 of lllyricum itself was known, and whither St. 
 Paul informs Timothy that Titus had gone 
 (2 Tim. iv. 10). Paul himself preached the 
 Gospel in lllyricum, which was at that time 
 a province of the Roman Empire (Iiom. xv 
 19 ). 
 
 IMMANUEL Sept. ’Fju/eavo^A) 
 
 or Emmanuel. This word, meaning ‘ God with 
 us,' occurs in the celebrated verse of Isaiah (v ii 
 14), ‘ Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a 
 son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’ ii 
 forty-three MSS. and thirty-nine printed editions 
 the word is given in the separate form 
 hut, as Dr. Henderson remarks, ‘ in the ortho- 
 graphy of all compound names, the MSS. and 
 editions widely dilfer.’ In the name itself there is 
 no difficulty ; hut the verse, as a whole, has been 
 variously interpreted. From the manner in which 
 the word God, and even Jehovah, is used in the 
 composition of Hebrew names, there is no such jk> 
 culiarity in that of Immanuel as in itself requires 
 us to understand that he who bore it must he in 
 fact God. Indeed, it is used as a proper name 
 among the Jews at this day. This high sense has, 
 however, been assigned to it in consequence of 
 the application of the whole verse, by the Evan- 
 gelist Matthew (i. 23), to our Divine Saviour. 
 Even if this reference did not exist, the history 
 of the Nativity would irresistibly lead us to th« 
 conclusion that the verse — whatever may have 
 been its intermediate signification — had an ulti- 
 mate reference to Christ. 
 
 The state of opinion on this point has been 
 thus neatly summed up by Dr. Henderson, in bis 
 note on the text : — ‘ This verse has long been a 
 subject of dispute between Jews and professedly 
 Christian writers, and among the latter mutually. 
 While the former reject its application to the 
 Messiah altogether, — the earlier rabbins explain- 
 ing it of the queen of Ahaz and the birth of his 
 son Hezekiah ; and the later, as Kimchi and 
 Abarbanel, of the prophet’s own wife, — the great 
 body of Christian interpreters have held it to lie 
 directly and exclusively in prophecy of our 
 Saviour, and have considered themselves fully 
 borne out by the inspired testimony of the Evan- 
 gelist Matthew. Others, however, have departed 
 from this construction of the passage, and have 
 invented or adopted various hypotheses in support 
 of such dissent. Grotius, Faber, Isenbiehl, Hezel, 
 Bolten, Fritsche, Pluschke, Gesenius, and Hitzig, 
 suppose either the then present or a future wife 
 of Isaiah to be the almah [rendered 
 
 “ virgin”], referred to. Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler 
 and Ammon, are of opinion that the prophet had 
 nothing more in view than an ideal virgin, and 
 that both she and her son are merely imaginary 
 personages, introduced for the purpose of prophetic 
 illustration. Bauer, Cube, Steudel, and sorn4 
 
INCENSE. 
 
 INDIA. 
 
 fi 
 
 ttfiiers, think that the prophet pointed to a young 
 woman in the presence of the king and his 
 courtiers. A fourth class, among whom are 
 Richard Simon, Lowfh. Koppe, Dathe, Williams, 
 Von Meyer, Olshausen, and l)r. J. Pye Smith, 
 Admit the hypothesis of a double sense : one, in 
 which the words apply primarily to some female 
 living in the time of the prophet, and her giving 
 birth to a son according to the ordinary laws of 
 nature; or, as Dathe holds, to some virgin, who 
 at that time should miraculously conceive; and 
 the other, in which they received a secondary 
 and plenary fulfilment in the miraculous concep- 
 tion and birth of Jesus Christ.’ 
 
 INCENSE, a perfume which gives forth its 
 fragrance by burning, and, in particular, that 
 perfume which was burnt upon the altar of in- 
 cense [Altar; Censer]. Indeed, the burning 
 of incense seems to have been considered among 
 the Hebrews so much of an act of worship or 
 sacred offering, that we read not of any other 
 use of incense than this among them. Nor 
 among the Egyptians do we discover any trace 
 of burnt perfume but fa sacerdotal use; but 
 in the Persian sculptures we see incense burnt 
 before the king. The prohibition of the Hebrews 
 to make any perfume for private use — ‘ to smell 
 to ’ — like that prepared for the altar, merely im- 
 plies, we apprehend, that the sacred incense had 
 a peculiarly rich fragrance before being burnt, 
 which was forbidden to be imitated in common 
 perfumes. 
 
 The incense is denoted by the words ItDpD 
 miktar (Exod. xxx. 1); ”|J3p hitter (Jer. xliv. 
 21); and HlIDp hituroth (Exod. xxx. 1 ; xxxi. 
 11; Ezek. xvi. 18) ; all of which are equally 
 from the root “UDp, which, in Pihel. signifies gene- 
 rally to raise an odour by burning ; and in the 
 verbal form it is applied not only to the offering 
 of incense but also of sacrifices, the smoke or efflu- 
 vium of which is regarded as an acceptable orsweet 
 odour to God. Indeed, the word which denotes 
 an incense of spices in Exod. xxx. 1 describes 
 an incense of fat in Ps. lxvi. 15. 
 
 The ingredients of the sacred incense are enume- 
 rated with great precision in Exod. xxx. 34, 35 : 
 
 ‘ Take unto thee sweet spices, stacte netaph ), 
 
 and onycha (r&nt? shecheleph), and galbanum 
 chelbenah ) ; these sweet spices with pure 
 
 frankincense lebonah ) : of each shall 
 
 there be a like weight. And thou shalt make of 
 it a perfume, a confection after the art of the 
 apothecary, tempered together, pure and holy.’ 
 For an explanation of these various ingredients 
 we must refer to their several ifebrew names in 
 the present work. The further directions are, 
 that this precious compound should be made or 
 broken up into minute particles, and that it 
 should be deposited, as a very holy thing, in the 
 tabernacle ‘ before the testimony ’ (or ark). As 
 the ingredients are so minutely specified, there 
 was nothing to prevent wealthy persons from 
 having a similar perfume for private use : this, 
 therefore, was forbidden under pain of excom- 
 muuication : ‘Ye shall not make to yourselves 
 according to the composition thereof : it shall 
 Ixs unto thee holy for the Lord. Whosoever shall 
 make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even 
 he cut off from his people ’ (ver. 37, 38). 
 
 The word which describes the various ingredi- 
 ents as being ‘tempered together' literally means 
 ‘ salted ’ (rfcDD memullach)j The Chaldee and 
 Greek versions, however, have set the example ol 
 rendering it. by ‘ mixed ' or * tempered ,’ as if their 
 idea was that the different ingredients were to be 
 mixed together, just as salt is mixed with any 
 substance over which it is sprinkled. Ainsworth 
 contends for the literal meaning, inasmuch as the 
 law (Lev. ii. 13) expressly says, ‘ With all thine 
 offerings thou shalt offer salt.’ In support of this 
 he cites Maimonides, who affirms that there was 
 not any thing offered on the altar without salt, 
 except the wine of the drink offering, and the 
 blood, and the wood ; and of the incense he says, 
 still more expressly, that ‘they added to it a cab 
 of salt.’ In accordance with this, it is supposed, 
 our Saviour says, ‘ Every sacrifice shall be salted 
 with salt ’ (Mark ix. 49). Ainsworth further re- 
 marks : * If our speech is to be always with grace, 
 seasoned with salt, as the apostle teaches (Col. 
 iv. 6), how much more should our incense, our 
 prayers unto God, be therewith seasoned?’ It, is, 
 however, difficult to see how so anomalous a sub- 
 stance as salt could well be combined in the 
 preparation; and if it was used, as we incline 
 to think that it was, it was probably added in the 
 act of offering. 
 
 The above reference to Maimonides reminds ua 
 of the reason which he assigns, in the More Ne- 
 vochim , for the use of incense in the Jewish 
 ritual service : ‘ To prevent the stench wnich 
 would otherwise have been occasioned by the 
 number of beasts every day slaughtered in the 
 sanctuary, God ordain, d that incense should be 
 burned in it every morning and evening, and 
 thereby rendered the odour of the sanctuary and of 
 the vestments of those that ministered exceedingly 
 grateful : which has occasioned the saying of our 
 rabbins, That the odour of the incense extended 
 to Jericho. This, therefore, is another of the pre- 
 cepts conducing to the reverence and veneration 
 which ought to be entertained for the sanctuary : 
 for if the perfume thereof lmd not been pleasant, 
 but the contrary, it would have produced con- 
 tempt instead of veneration, since a grateful 
 odour pleases and attracts, while an unpleasant 
 one disgusts and repels.’ 
 
 Tin’s is very well ; and no doubt the use of 
 incense, which we always find in religions where 
 worship is rendered by sacrifice, had its origin in 
 some such considerations. But we are not to lose 
 sight of the symbolical meaning of this grateful 
 offering. It was a symbol of prayer. It was 
 offered at the time when the people were in the 
 posture and act of prayer ; and their orisons were 
 supposed to be presented to God by the jrriest, and 
 to ascend to Him in the smoke and odour of that 
 fragrant offering. This beautiful idea of the in- 
 cense frequently occurs in Scripture (comp. Ps. 
 cxli. 2; Mai. i. 11 ; Zech. xiv. 16; Acts x. 4; 
 Rev. v. 8 : viii. 4). 
 
 INCHANTMENTS. [Witchcraft.] 
 
 INDIA (•Vnn ; Sept. *1 f5ik^). This name 
 occurs only in Esther i. 1 ; viii. 9, where the Pei 
 sian king is described* as reigning ‘ from India 
 unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven anu 
 twenty provinces.’ It is found again, however, in 
 the Apocrypha, where India is mentioned among 
 the countries which the Romans took from Anti- 
 
10 
 
 INDIA. 
 
 INHERITANCE. 
 
 ochus and gave to Eumenes (1 Macc. viii. 8). It 
 is also with some reason conceived that in Acts ii. 
 9, we should read 'Ij /Stay, India, and not 'IovSatav, 
 Judaea. If this could be admitted, an interesting 
 subject of inquiry would arise ; for these dwellers 
 in India — that is, Jews of India — are described 
 as being present in Jerusalem at the Passover. 
 There is much to say in favour of this reading, 
 but more in favour of Idumaea ; for the name of 
 that country, T Sovjualav, might, much more easily 
 than that oflndia, 'li/Siau, have been accidentally, 
 or rather careless'ly, corrupted into TouSalav : and, 
 at the same time, the name of Idumaea would 
 come better into the list than that of India, seeing 
 that the enumeration is manifestly taken from 
 east to west; which allows Idumaea with great 
 propriety to follow Mesopotamia, but forbids India 
 to do so. Whichever may be right, Judaea can- 
 not but be wrong ; and, indeed, on the face of the 
 list, we cannot but see the superlluousness*of the 
 information, that tire people of Judaea were present 
 in their own city at, the Passover. 
 
 It is evident on the face of the above intima- 
 tions, and indeed from all ancient history, that the 
 country known as India in ancient times extended 
 more to the west, and did not reach so far to the 
 east — that is, was not known so far to the east — 
 as the India of the moderns. When we read of 
 ancient India, we must cleaily not understand 
 the whole of Hindustan, but chiefly the northern 
 Darts of it, or the countries between the Indus and 
 the Ganges ; although it is not necessary to assert 
 that the rest of that peninsula, particularly its 
 western coast, was then altogether unknown. It 
 was from this quarter that the Persians and Greeks 
 (to whom we are indebted for the eailiest accounts 
 of India) iuvaded the country ; and this was con- 
 sequently the region which first, became generally 
 known. The countries bordering on the Ganges 
 continued to be involved in obscurity, the great 
 Kingdom of the Prasians excepted, which, situated 
 nearly above the modem Bengal, was dimly dis- 
 cernible. The nearer we approach the Indus, the 
 more clear becomes our knowledge of the ancient 
 geography of the country ; and it follows that the 
 districts of which at the present day we know the 
 least, were anciently best known. Besides, the 
 western and northern boundaries were not the 
 same as at present. To the west, India was not 
 then bounded by*the river Indus, but by a chain 
 of mountains which, under the name of Koh 
 (whence the Grecian appellation of the Indian 
 Caucasus), extended from Bactria to Makran, or 
 Gedrosia, enclosing the kingdoms of Candahar 
 and Cabul, the modern kingdom of Eastern Persia, 
 or Afghanistan. These districts anciently formed 
 part of India, as well as, further to the south, the 
 less perfectly known countries of the Arabi and 
 Haurs (the Arabitae and Oritae of Arrian, vi. 21), 
 bordering on Gedrosia. This western boundary 
 continued at all times the same, and was removed 
 to the Indus only in coniequence of the victories 
 of Nadir Shah. 
 
 Towards the north, ancient India overpassed 
 not less its present limit. It comprehended the 
 whole of the mountainous region above Cashmir, 
 Badakshan, Belur Land, the western boundary 
 mountains of Little Bucharia, or Little Thibet, 
 and even the desert of Cobi, so far as it was 
 known. The discovery of a passage by sea to 
 tkz coasts oflndia has contributed to withdraw 
 
 from these regions the attention of Europeans, 
 and left them in an obscurity which hitherto has 
 been little disturbed, although the current Oi 
 events seems likely ere long to lead to our better 
 knowledge. 
 
 From this it. appears that the India of Scripture 
 included no part of the present India, seeing that it 
 was confined to the territories possessed by the Per- 
 sians and the Syrian Greeks, that never extended 
 beyond the Indus, which, since the time of Nadir 
 Shah, has been regarded as the western boundary 
 of India. Something of India beyond the Indus 
 became known through the conquering march of 
 Alexander, and still more throrgh that of Seleu- 
 cus Nicator, who penetrated to the banks of the 
 Ganges ; but the notions thus obtained are not 
 embraced in the Scriptural notices, which, both 
 in the canonical and the Apocryphal text, are 
 confined to Persian India. (See Heeren’s Histo- 
 rical Researches , i. c. 1, § 3, on Persian India; 
 ami Rennel's Geog. of Herodotus). 
 
 INHERITANCE. The laws and observances 
 which determine the acquisition and regulate the 
 devolution of property, are among the influences 
 which afl'ect the vital interests of states; and it is 
 therefore of high consequence to ascertain the 
 nature and bearing of the laws and observances 
 relating to this subject, which come to us with 
 the sanction of the Bible. We may also premise 
 that, in a condition of society such as that in 
 which we now live, wherein the two diverging 
 tendencies which favour immense accumulations 
 on the one hand, and lead to poverty and pau- 
 perism on the other, are daily becoming more 
 and more decided, disturbing, and baneful, thers 
 seems to be required on the part of these who 
 take Scripture as their guide, a careful study of 
 the foundations of human society, and of the 
 laws of property, as they are developed in the 
 divine records which contain the revealed will of 
 God. 
 
 That will, in truth, as it is the source of all 
 created things, and specially of the earth and 
 its intelligent denizen, man, so is it the original 
 foundation of property, and of the laws by which 
 its inheritance should be regulated. God, as the 
 Creator of the earth, gave it to man to be held, 
 cultivated, and enjoyed (Gen. i. 28, sq. ; Ps. 
 cxv. It) ; Eccles. v. 9). The primitive records 
 are too brief and fragmentary to supply us with 
 any details respecting the earliest distribution 
 or transmission of landed property ; but from 
 the passages* to which reference has been made, 
 the important fact appears to be established 
 beyond a question, that the origin of property is to 
 be found, not in the achievements of violence, the 
 success of the sword, or any imaginary implied 
 contract, but in the will and the gift of the com- 
 mon Creator and bountiful Father of the human 
 race. It is equally clear that the gift was made 
 not to any favoured portion of our race, but to 
 the race itself — to man as represented by our 
 great primogenitor, to whom the use of the divine 
 gift was first graciously vouchsafed. The indi- 
 vidual appropriation of portions of the earth, and 
 the transmission of the parts thus appropriated, 
 in other words, the consuetudinary laws of pro- 
 perty, would be determined in each instance by 
 the peculiar circumstances in which an indivi- 
 dual, a family, or a clan, might find itself placed 
 in relation to the world anti its other inhabitants, 
 
INHERITANCE. 
 
 INHERITANCE. 
 
 
 5or is it now, in the absence of written evidence, 
 possible to ascertain, and it is useless, if not worse, 
 to attempt to conjecture, what these laws were. 
 This, however, is certain, that if in any case 
 they inflicted injury, if they aided the aggran- 
 disement of the few, and tended to the depression 
 of the many, they thereby became unjust, and not 
 only lost their divine sanction, but, by opposing 
 the very purposes for which the earth was given to 
 man, and operating in contravention of the divine 
 will, they were disowned and condemned of God, 
 die tenure of the property was forfeited, and a 
 recurrence to first principles and a re-distribution 
 became due alike to the original donor, and to 
 those whom He had intended impartially to be- 
 nefit. 
 
 The enforcement of these principles has, in 
 different periods of human history, been made by 
 the seen hand of God, in those terrible providen- 
 tial visitations which upturn the very foundations 
 of society and reconstruct the social frame. The 
 Deluge was a kind of revocation of the divine 
 gift ; the Creator took back into his own hands 
 the earth which men had filled with injustice 
 and violence. The trust, however, was, after that 
 terrible punishment, once more committed to 
 man, to be held, not for himself, but lor God, 
 and to be so used and improved as to further 
 Inc divine will by furthering human good. And, 
 whatever conduct may have been pursued, at any 
 period, at variance with the divine purpose, yet it 
 is in trust, not in absolute possession, it is for 
 God’s purposes, not our own, that the earth at 
 large, and every portion of the earth, has been 
 and is still held. In truth, man is the tenant, 
 nor the proprietor, of the earth. It is the tem- 
 porary use, not the permanent possession of it 
 that he enjoys. The lord of ten thousand broad 
 acres, equally with the poor penniless squatter, is 
 a sojourner and pilgrim in the land, as all his 
 fathers were, and is bound, not, less than the 
 other, to remember, not only that property has 
 its duties as well as its rights, but also that 
 its best titles are held by a momentary tenure, 
 revocable at the will of an omnipotent power, 
 and subject to unerring scrutiny, in regard both 
 to their origin and their use, in a court where 
 the persons of men are not respected, where justice 
 is laid to the line, and judgment to the plummet 
 (Isa. xviii. 17). 
 
 The impression which the original gift of the 
 earth was calculated to make on men, the Great 
 Donor was pleased, in the case of Palestine, to 
 render, for his own wise purposes, more decided 
 and emphatic by an express re-donation to the 
 patriarch Abraham (Gen. xiii. 14, sq.). Many 
 years, however, elapsed before the promise was 
 fulfilled. Meanwhile the notices which we have 
 regarding the state of property in the patriarchal 
 age3, are few and not very definite. The products 
 of the earth, however, were at an early period ac- 
 cumulated and held as property. Violence in- 
 vaded the possession; opposing violence recovered 
 t lie goods. War soon sprang out of the passions 
 of the human heart. The necessity of civil go- 
 vernment was felt. Consuetudinary laws ac- 
 cordingly developed themselves. The head of 
 the family was supreme. His will was law. The 
 physical superiority which he possessed gave him 
 this dominion. The same influence would secure 
 he transm'esion in the male rather than the fe- 
 
 male line. Hence too the rise of the rights of 
 primogeniture. In the early condition of society 
 which is called patriarchal, landed property had 
 its origin, indeed, but could not be held of first 
 importance by those who led a wandering life, 
 shifting continually, as cor venience suggested, 
 from one spot to another. Cattle were then the 
 chief property (Gen. xxiv. 35). But land, if held, 
 was held on a freehold tenure ; nor could any 
 other tenure have come into existence till more 
 complex and artificial relations arose, resulting, in 
 all probability, from the increase of population 
 and the relative insufficiency of food. When 
 Joseph went down into Egypt, lie appears to have 
 found the freehold tenure prevailing, which, how- 
 ever, he converted into a tenancy at will, or, at 
 any rate, into a conditional tenancy. Other in- 
 timations are found in Genesis Which confirm 
 the general statements which have just been 
 made. Daughters do not appear to have had any 
 inheritance. If there are any exceptions to this 
 rule, they only serve to prove it. Thus Job (the 
 book so called is undoubtedly very old, so that 
 there is no impropriety in citing it in this con- 
 nection) is recorded (xlii. 15) to have given his 
 daughters an inheritance conjointly with their 
 brothers — a record which of itself proves the sin- 
 gularity of the proceeding, and establishes our 
 position that inheritance generally followed the 
 male line. How highly the privileges conferred 
 by primogeniture were valued, may be learnt from 
 the history of Jacob and Esau. In the patriarchal 
 age doubtless these rights were very great. The 
 eldest son, as being by nature the first fitted for 
 command, assumed influence and control, under 
 his father, over the family and its dependents ; 
 and when the father was removed by death, he 
 readily, and as if by an act of Providence, took 
 his father's place. Thus he succeeded to the pro- 
 perty in succeeding to the headship ot the family, 
 the clan, or the tribe. At first the eldest son most 
 probably took exclusive possession of his father's 
 property and power; and when, subsequently, a 
 division became customary, he would still retain 
 the largest share — a double portion, if not more 
 (Gen. xxvii. 25, 29, 49). That in the days 
 of Abraham other sons partook with the eldest, 
 and that too though they were sons of concubines, 
 is clear from the story of Hagar’s expulsion : — 
 ‘ Cast out (said Sarah) this bondwoman and her 
 son ; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be 
 heir with my son, even with Isaac ’ (Gen. xxi. 10). 
 The few notices left us in Genesis of ihe transfer 
 of property from hand to hand are interesting, 
 and bear a remarkable similarity to what takes 
 place in Eastern countries even at this day (Gen. 
 xxi. 22, sq. ; xxiii. 9, sq.). The purchase of 
 the Cave of Machpelah as a family burying- 
 place for Abraham, detailed in the last passage, 
 serves to show the safety of property at that early 
 period, and the facility with which an inheritance 
 was transmitted even to sons’ sous (comp. Gen. 
 xlix. 29). That it was customary, during the 
 father’s lifetime, to make a disposition of property, 
 is evident from Gen. xxiv. .35, where it is said 
 that Abraham had given all he had to Isaac. This 
 statement is further confirmed by ch. xxv. 5, 6, 
 where it is added that Abraham gave to the sons 
 of his concubines ‘gifts, sending them away from 
 Isaac His son, while he yet lived, eastward unto 
 the east country.’ Sometimes, however, bo far 
 
INHERITANCE. 
 
 INHERITANCE. 
 
 13 
 
 were (he children of unmarried females from 
 oeing dismissed with a gift, that they shared, 
 with what we should teim the legitimate children, 
 in the father’s property and rights. Thus Dan 
 and Naphtali were sons of Bilhah, Rachel's maid, 
 whom she gave to her husband, failing to bear 
 children herself. So Gad and Asher were, under 
 similar circumstances, sons of Zilpah, Leah’s 
 maid (Gen. xxx. 2-14). In the event of the 
 eldest son’s dying in the father’s lifetime, the 
 next son took his place; and if the eldest son left 
 a widow, the next son made her his wife (Gen. 
 xxxviii. 7, sq.), the offspring of which union was 
 reckoned to the first-born and deceased son. 
 Should the second likewise die, the third son 
 took his place (Gen. xxxviii. 11). While the 
 rights of the first-born were generally established 
 *nd recognised, yet. were they sometimes set aside 
 in favour of a younger child. The blessing of 
 the father or the grandsire seems to have been an 
 act essential in the devolution of power and pro- 
 perty — in its effects not unlike wills and testa- 
 ments with us ; and instances are not wanting in 
 which this (so to term it) testamentary bequest 
 set aside consuetudinary laws, and gave prece- 
 dence to a younger son (Gen. xlviii. 15, sq.). 
 Special claims on the parental regards were ac- 
 knowledged and rewarded by special gifts, as in 
 the case of Jacob's donation to Joseph (Gen. 
 xlviii. 22). In a similar manner, bad conduct 
 on the part of the eldest son (as well as of others) 
 subjected him, if not to the loss of his rights of 
 oroperty, yet to the evil influence of his father’s 
 dying malediction (Gen. xlix. 3) ; while the good 
 and favoured, though younger, son was led by 
 the paternal blessing to anticipate, and probably 
 also to reap, the richest inheritance of individual 
 and social happiness (Gen. xlix. 3-22). 
 
 The original promise made to Abraham of the 
 land of Palestine was solemnly repeated to Isaac 
 (Gen. xxvi. 3), the reason assigned being, be- 
 cause ‘ Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my 
 charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my 
 laws while it is expressly declared that the 
 earlier inhabitants of the country were dispos- 
 sessed and destined to extermination for the 
 greatness of their iniquity. The possession of 
 the promised land was embraced by Isaac in his 
 dying benediction to Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 3, 4), to 
 whom God vouchsafed (Gen. xxviii. 15; see also 
 xxxv. 10, 11) to give a renewed assurance of the 
 destined inheritance. That this donation, how- 
 ever, was held to be dependent for the time and 
 manner of its fulfilment on the divine will, ap- 
 pears from Gen. xxxiii. 18, where Jacob, on 
 coming into the land of Canaan, bought for an 
 hundred pieces of money 4 a parcel of a field, at 
 the hand of the children of Hamor.’ Delayed 
 Chough the execution of the promise was, con- 
 fidence never deserted the family of Abraham, so 
 that Joseph, dying in the land of Egypt, assured 
 his brothers that they would be visited of God 
 and placed in possession of Canaan, enjoining on 
 them, in this conviction, that, when conducted 
 to their possession, they should carry his bones 
 with them out of Egypt (Gen. 1. 25). 
 
 A promise thus given, thus repeated, and thus 
 oelieved, easily, and indeed unavoidably, became 
 the fundamental principle of that settlement of 
 property which Moses made when at length he 
 had ^fleeted the divine will in the redemption 
 
 of the children of Israel. The observances ujuJ 
 practices, too, which we have noticed as prevailing 
 among the patriarchs would, no doubt, have great 
 influence on the laws which the Jewish legislator 
 originated or sanctioned. The land of Canaan 
 was divided among the twelve tribes descended 
 through Isaac and Jacob from Abraham. The 
 division was made by lot for an inheritance 
 among the families of the sons of Israel, accord- 
 ing to the tribes, and to the number and size of 
 families in each tribe. The tribe of Levi, how- 
 ever, had no inheritance; but forty-eight cities with 
 their suburbs were assigned to the Levites, each 
 tribe giving according to the number of cities 
 that fell to its share (Num. xxxiii. 50; xxxiv. 1 ; 
 xxxv. 1). The inheritance thus acquired was 
 never to leave the tribe to which it belorged ; 
 every tribe was to keep strictly to its own inherit- 
 ance. An heiress, in consequence, was net allowed 
 to marry out of her own tribe, lest property should 
 pass by her marriage into another tribe (Num. 
 xxxvi. 6-9). This restriction led to the marriage 
 of heiresses with their near relations : thus the 
 daughters of Zelophehad ‘ were married unto then- 
 father’s brother’s sons,’ 4 and their inheritance re- 
 mained in the tribe of the family of their father ’ 
 (ver. 11, 12; comp. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 7. 5). In 
 general cases the inheritance went to sons, the 
 first-born receiving a double portion, ‘for he is 
 the beginning of his father’s strength.’ If a man 
 had two wives, one beloved, the other hated, and 
 if the first-born were the son of her who was 
 hated, he nevertheless was to enjoy 4 the right of 
 the first-born’ (Deut. xxi. 15). If a man left no 
 sons, the inheritance passed to his daughters ; if 
 there was no daughter, it went to his brothers ; in 
 case there were no brothers, it was given to his 
 father’s brothers; if his father had no brothers, 
 it came into possession of the nearest kinsman 
 (Num. xxvii. 8). The land was Jehovah’s, and 
 could not therefore be permanently alienated. 
 Every fiftieth year, wha f ever land had been sold 
 returned to its former owner. The value and 
 price of land naturally rose or fell in proportion 
 to the number of years there were to elapse prior 
 to the ensuing fiftieth or jubilee-year. If he who 
 sold the land, or a kinsman, could redeem the 
 land before the year of jubilee, it was to l)e 
 restored to him on his paying to the purchaser 
 the value of the produce of the years remaining 
 till the jubilee. Houses in villages or unwalled 
 towns might not be sold for ever ; they were re- 
 stored at the jubilee, and might at any time be 
 redeemed. If a man sold a dwelling-house situ- 
 ated in a walled city, he had the option of re- 
 deeming it within the space of a full year after it 
 had been sold ; but if it remained unredeemed, it 
 belonged to the purchaser, and did not return to 
 him who sold it even at the jubilee (Lev. xxv. 8. 
 23). The Levites were not allowed to sell the 
 land in the suburbs of their cities, though they 
 might dispose of the cities themselves, which, 
 however, were redeemable at any time, and must 
 return at the jubilee to their original possessors 
 (Lev. xxvii. 16). 
 
 The regulations which the laws of Moses esta- 
 blished rendered wills, or a testamentary dispo- 
 sition of (at least) landed property, almost, if no 
 juite, unnecessary; we accordingly find no pro- 
 vision for anything of the kind. Some difficulty 
 may have been now and then occasioned when 
 
INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 IS 
 
 near relations failed; but, this was met. by the 
 traditional law, which furnished minute direc- 
 tions on the point (Misch. Baba Bathra , iv. 3, 
 c. 8, 9). Personal properly would naturally fol- 
 low the land, or might be bequeathed by word of 
 mouth. At a later period of the Jewish polity 
 the mention of wills is found, but the idea seems 
 to have been taken from foreign nations. In 
 princely families they appear to have been used, as 
 we learn from Josephus ( Antiq . xiii. 16. 1 ; xvii. 
 3. 2 ; De Bell. Jud. ii. 2. 3) ; but such a prac- 
 tice can hardly suffice to establish the general 
 use of wills among the people. In the New Tes- 
 tament, however, wills are expressly mentioned 
 (Gal. iii. 15; Heb. ix. 17). Michaelis (Com- 
 mentaries, i. 431) asserts that the phrase (2 Sam. 
 
 xvii. 23 ; 2 Kings xx. 1 : iTltf) ‘set thine 
 
 house in order ’ has reference to a will or testa- 
 ment. But his grounds are by no means sufficient, 
 the literal rendering of the words being, ‘ give 
 commands to thy house/ The utmost which 
 such an expression could inferentially be held to 
 comprise in regard to property, is a dying and 
 final distribution of personal property ; and we 
 know that it was not unusual for fathers to make, 
 while yefalive, a division of their goods among 
 their children (Luke xv. 12 ; Rosenmiill. Mor- 
 genl. v. 197).— J. R. B. 
 
 INK, INKHORN. [Writing.] 
 
 INSPIRATION. This word is sometimes 
 used to denote the excitement and action of a 
 fervent imagination in the poet or orator. But 
 even in this case there is generally a reference to 
 some supposed divine influence, to which the ex- 
 cited action isowing. It is once used in Scrip- 
 ture to denote that divine agency by which man 
 is endued with the faculties of an intelligent 
 being, when it is said, ‘ the inspiration of the Al- 
 mighty giveth him understanding.’ But the in- 
 spiration now to be considered is that which 
 belonged to those who wrote the Scriptures, and 
 which is particularly spoken of in 2 Tim. iii. 16, 
 and in 2 Pet. i. 21 : ‘ All Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of God ;’ 4 Holy men of God spake as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost/ These pas- 
 sages relate specially to the Old Testament; 
 but there is at least equal reason to predicate 
 divine inspiration of the New Testament. 
 
 The definition which Dr. Knapp gives of in- 
 spiration is the one we shall adopt. He says, 
 ‘ It may be best defined, according to the repre- 
 sentations of the Scriptures themselves, as an ex- 
 traordinary divine agency upon teachers while 
 giving instruction , whether oral or written , by 
 which they were taught what and hoio they 
 should write or speak.' Or we may say more 
 briefly, that the sacred penmen were completely 
 under the direction of the Holy Spirit, or that they 
 wrote under a plenary inspiration. Dr. Calamy’s 
 definition agrees substantially with that of Dr. 
 Knapp. 
 
 To prove that the Scriptures are divinely in- 
 spired we might with propriety refer to the 
 excellence of the doctrines, precepts, and pro- 
 mises, and other instructions, which they contain *, 
 to the simplicity and majesty of their style ; to 
 the agreement of the different parts, and the 
 scope of the whole; especially to the full dis- 
 covery they make of man's fallen and ruined 
 state, and the way of salvation through a Re- 
 
 deemer; together with their power tc enlighten 
 and sanctify the heart, and the accompanying 
 witness of the spirit in believers. These are cir- 
 cumstances of real importance, and the discerning 
 advocates of inspiration have not overlooked them. 
 But the more direct and conclusive evidence that 
 the Scriptures were divinely inspired, is found in 
 the testimony of the writers themselves. And 
 as the writers did, by working miracles, and in 
 other ways, sufficiently authenticate their divine 
 commission, and establish their authority and in- 
 fallibility as teachers of divine truth, their 
 testimony, in regard to their own inspiration, is 
 entitled to our full confidence. For who can doubt 
 that they were as competent to judge of, and 
 as much disposed to speak the truth on this sub- 
 ject as on any other? If then we admit, their 
 divine commission and authority, why should we 
 not rely upon the plain testimony which they 
 give concerning the divine assistance afforded 
 them in their work? To reject their testimony in 
 this case would be to impeach their veracity, and 
 thus to take away the foundation of the Christian 
 religion. And it is well known that those who 
 deny the justice of the claim which they set up 
 to divine inspiration, do, in fact, give up the in- 
 fallible truth and authority of the Scriptures, and 
 adopt the principles of deism. 
 
 It is, then, of the first importance to inquire 
 what representations are made by the prophets, 
 and by Christ and his apostles, respecting the inspi- 
 ration, and the consequent authority, of the sacred 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The prophets generally professed to speak the 
 word of God. What they taught was introduced 
 and confirmed by a * Thus saith the Lord ;’ or 
 4 The Lord spake to me, saying/ And, in one 
 way or another, they gave clear proof that they 
 were divinely commissioned, and spoke in the 
 name of God, or as it is expressed in the New 
 Testament, that God spake by them. 
 
 But the strongest and most satisfactory proof of 
 the inspiration and divine authority of the Old 
 Testament writings, is found in the testimony of 
 Christ and the apostles. 
 
 The Lord' Jesus Christ possessed the spirit of 
 wisdom without measure, and came to bear wit- 
 ness to the truth. His works proved that he was 
 what he declared himself to be — the Messiah, the 
 great Prophet, the infallible Teacher. The faith 
 which rests on him rests on a rock. As soon then 
 as we learn how he regarded the Scriptures, we 
 have reached the end of our inquiries. His word 
 is truth. Now every one who carefully attends 
 to the four Gospels will find, that Christ every- 
 where spoke of that collection of writings called 
 the Scripture, as the word of God ; that he re- 
 garded the whole in this light ; that he treated 
 the Scripture, and every part of it, as infallibly 
 true, and as clothed with divine authority, — thus 
 distinguishing it from every mere human produc- 
 tion. Nothing written by man can be entitled to 
 the respect which Christ showed to the Scriptures. 
 This, to all Christians, is direct and incontro- 
 vertible evidence of the divine origin of the 
 Scriptures, and is, by itself, perfectly conclusive. 
 
 But there is clear concurrent evidence, and 
 evidence still more specific, in the writings of the 
 Apostles. In two texts in particular, divine in- 
 spiration is positively asserted. In the first (2 
 Tim. iii. 16), Paul lays it down as the charac- 
 
14 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 ferististic of ‘ all Scripture ,’ that it ‘ is given by 
 inspiration of God' ( QeSrcvevaTos , ‘ divinely in- 
 spired); and from this results its profitableness. 
 Some writers think that the passage should be 
 rendered thus : All divinely inspired Scripture, 
 or, all Scripture, being divinely inspired . is 
 profitable. According to the common render- 
 ing, inspiration is predicated of all Scripture. 
 According to the other, it is presupposed, as the 
 attribute of the subject. But this rendering is 
 liable to insuperable objections. For Q*6trvev- 
 <rros and <y#eA ipos are connected by the con- 
 junction Kai, anil must both be predicates, if 
 either of them is ; and uuless one of them is a 
 predicate there is no complete sentence. Hen- 
 derson remarks, that the mode of construction re- 
 ferred to ‘ is at variance with a common rule of 
 Greek syntax, which requires, that when two 
 adjectives are closely joined, as OeSTryewTos and 
 axpetepos here are, if there be an ellipsis of the 
 substantive verb ian, this verb must be supplied 
 after the former of the two, and regarded as re- 
 peated after the latter. Now there exists pre- 
 cisely such an ellipsis in the case before us; and 
 as there is nothing in the context which would 
 lead to any exception to the rule, we are bound 
 to yield to its force.’ And he adds, that ‘ the 
 evidence in favour of the common rendering, 
 derived from the Fathers, and almost all the ver- 
 sions, is most decided.’ It cannot for a moment 
 be admitted, that the Apostle meant to signify 
 that divine inspiration belongs to a part of Scrip- 
 ture, but not to the whole ; or that he meant, as 
 Semler supposes, to furnish a criterion by which 
 to judge whether any work is inspired or not, 
 namely, its utility. ‘ That author proceeds fear- 
 lessly to apply this criterion to the books of the 
 Old Testament, and to lop off eight of them, as 
 not possessing the requisite marks of legitimacy. 
 Most, of the German divines adopt Sender's hypo- 
 thesis.’ But it is very manifest that such a sense 
 is not by any means suggested by the passage 
 itself, and that it is utterly precluded by other 
 parts of the New Testament. For neither Christ 
 nor any one of his apostles ever intimates a dis- 
 tinction between some parts of Scripture which 
 are inspired and other parts which are not in- 
 spired. The doctrine which is plainly asserted 
 in the text under consideration, and which is 
 fully sustained by the current language of the 
 New Testament, is, that all the writings deno- 
 minated the Scriptures are divinely inspired. 
 
 The other text (2 Pet. i. 21) teaches that ‘ Pro- 
 phecy came not by the will of man, but holy men 
 of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost.’ This passage, which the apostle Peter 
 applied particularly to the subject of which he 
 was speaking, may be considered as explanatory 
 of what is intended by inspiration. For to say 
 that all Scripture is divinely inspired, and that 
 men of God wrote it as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost, is one and the same thing. 
 
 The various texts in which Christ and the Apos- 
 tles speak of Scripture as the word of God , and 
 as invested with authority to decide all questions 
 of truth and duty, fully correspond with the texts 
 above considered. 
 
 From this view of the subject it follows, that 
 the attempt which has been made by a certain 
 class of writers, to account for the production of 
 tl/e whole or any part of the Scriptures by the 
 
 will or agency, the ingenuity, diligence or fide- 
 lity of men, in the use of the means within theit 
 reach, without the supernatural inlluence of the 
 spirit, is utterly at variance with the teachings ol 
 Christ and the Apostles as to the origin of the 
 sacred writings. 
 
 As the Christian dispensation surpasses the 
 former in all spiritual privileges and gifts, it is 
 reasonable to presume that the New Testament 
 was written under at least an equal degree of 
 divine influence with the Old, and that it comes 
 recommended to us by equal characteristics of 
 infallible truth. But of this there is clear positive 
 evidence from the New Testament itself. 
 
 In the first place, Jesus Christ, whose works 
 proved him to be the great unerring Teacher, and 
 to be possessed of all power in Heaven and earth, 
 gave commission to his Apostles to act in his 
 stead, and to carry out the work of instruction 
 which he had begun , confirming their authority 
 by investing them with power to perform miracles. 
 But how could such a commission have answered 
 the end proposed, had not the Divine Spirit so 
 guided the Apostles as to render them infallible 
 and perfect teachers of divine truth? 
 
 But, secondly, in addition to this, Jesus ex- 
 pressly promised to give them the Holy Spirit , 
 to abide with then), continually , and to guide 
 them into all the truth. He said to them, ‘ When 
 they shall deliver you up, take no thought how 
 or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you 
 in the same hour what ye shall speak. . For it is 
 not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father 
 that speaketh in you.’ Storr and Flatt. think this 
 is the idea intended: ‘The instructions which 
 ye in general give are derived not so much from 
 yourselves as from the Holy Spirit. Hence, whei 
 ye are called on to defend your doctrines, ye need 
 feel no anxiety, but may confidently rely on the 
 Holy Spirit to vindicate his own doctrines, by 
 suggesting to you the very words of your defence.’ 
 If these promises were not. fulfilled, then Jesus 
 was not a true prophet. If they were fulfilled, as 
 they certainly were, then the Apostles had the 
 constant assistance of the Holy Spirit, and, whe- 
 ther engaged in speaking or writing, were under 
 divine guidance, and, of course, were liable to no 
 mistakes either as to the matter or manner of their 
 instructions. 
 
 In the third place, the writers of the New 
 Testament manifestly considered themselves to 
 be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and 
 their instructions, whether oral or written, to be 
 clothed with divine authority, as the word of 
 God. 
 
 ‘ We speak,’ they say, ‘ as of God.’ Again, 
 ‘Which things we speak, not in the words which 
 man’s wisdom teacheth, but in words which the 
 Holy Ghost teacheth.’ They declared what they 
 taught to be the word of God, and the things 
 they wrote to be the commandments of God. 
 Now the Apostles, being honest, unassuming, 
 humble men, would never have spoken of them- 
 selves and their writings in such a manner, had 
 they not known themselves to be under the un- 
 erring guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their 
 instructions perfectly in accordance with the mind 
 of God. 
 
 From several passages in Paul's epistles to the 
 Corinthians, it has been supposed that, in the 
 cases referred to, he meant to disclaim inspiration. 
 
INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 15 
 
 Bill that those passages will bear another con- 
 struction, ami ouglit to he understood in another 
 manner, has been satisfactorily argued by several 
 writers, particularly by Haldane and Gaussen in 
 their treatises on inspiration, and by Henderson 
 in his lectures. And the writer of this article 
 would take the liberty to refer also to his lectures 
 on the same subject. 
 
 It is perfectly consistent with the plenary in- 
 spiration here maintained, that God operated on 
 the minds of inspired men in a variety of ways, 
 sometimes by audible words, sometimes by direct 
 inward suggestions, sometimes by outward visible 
 signs, sometimes by the Urim and Thummim, 
 and sometimes by dreams and visions. This 
 variety in the mode of divine influence detracted 
 nothing from its certainty. God made known 
 his will equally indifferent ways ; and, whatever 
 the mode of his operation, he made it manifest to 
 his servants that the things revealed were from 
 him. 
 
 But inspiration was concerned not only in 
 making known the will of God to prophets and 
 apostles, but also in giving them direction in 
 writing the sacred books. They wrote as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost. And in this, 
 also, there was a diversity in the mode of divine 
 influence. Sometimes the Spirit of God moved 
 and guided his servants to write things which they 
 could not know by natural means, such as new 
 doctrines or precepts, or predictions of future 
 events. Sometimes he moved and guided them 
 to write the history of events which were wholly 
 or partly known to them by tradition, or by the 
 testimony of their contemporaries, or by their own 
 observation or experience. In all these cases the 
 Divine Spirit effectually preserved them from all 
 error, and influenced them to write just so much 
 and in such a manner as God saw to be best. 
 Sometimes he moved and guided them to write a 
 summary record of larger histories, containing 
 what his infinite wisdom saw to be adapted to the 
 end in view, that is, the benefit of his people in 
 all ages. Sometimes he influenced them to make 
 a record of important maxims in common use, or 
 to write new ones, derived either from their own 
 reason or experience, or from special divine 
 teaching. Sometimes he influenced them to write 
 parables or allegories, particularly suited to make 
 a salutary impression of divine things on the 
 minds of men ; and sometimes to record super- 
 natural visions. In these and all other kinds of 
 writing the sacred penmen manifestly needed 
 special divine guidance, as no man could of him- 
 self attain to infallibility, and no wisdom, except 
 that of God, was sufficient to determine what 
 things ought to be written for permanent use in 
 the church, and what manner of writing would 
 be best fitted to promote the great ends of revela- 
 tion. 
 
 Some writers speak of different modes and 
 different kinds, and even different degrees of in- 
 spiration. And if their meaning is that God 
 influenced the minds of inspired men in different 
 ways ; that he adopted a variety of modes in re- 
 vealing divine things to their minds; that he 
 guided them to give instruction in prose and in 
 jjoetry, and in all the different forms of composi- 
 tion ; that he moved and guided them to write 
 history, prophecy, doctrines, commands, promises, 
 reproofs, and exhortations, and that he adapted 
 
 his mode of operation to each of these cases — 
 against this no objection can be made. It is a 
 fact, that the Scriptures exhibit specimens of all 
 these different kinds of writing and these different 
 modes of divine instruction. Still each and 
 every part of what was written was divinely in- 
 spired, and equally so. It is all the word of God, 
 and clothed with divine authority, as much as if 
 it had all been made known and written in one 
 way. 
 
 Dr. Henderson, who labours perhaps with too 
 much zeal against carrying inspiration to extreme 
 lengths, still says that if those who hold to different 
 modifications of inspiration intend that there are 
 different modifications and degrees of authority 
 given to Scripture, their opinion must meet with 
 unqualified reprobation from every sincere be- 
 liever. He insists that a diversity iri the modes 
 and degrees of divine operation did exist in the 
 work of inspiration, and that this diversity was 
 the result of infinite wisdom adapting itself to 
 different circumstances. He thinks that, unless 
 we admit such a diversity, we cannot form correct 
 ideas of the subject. But he is confident that the 
 distinction which he endeavours to establish is not 
 in the slightest degree hostile to the divine au- 
 thority of Scripture. He affirms that no part of 
 that holy book teas written without miraculous 
 influence ; that all parts were equally inspired ; 
 that in regard to the whole volume the great end 
 was infallibly attained, namely, the commitment 
 to writing of precisely such matters as God de 
 signed for the religious instruction of mankind ; 
 that the sacred penmen wrote what had for its 
 object not merely the immediate benefit of indi- 
 vidual persons or churches, but what would be 
 useful to Christians in all future times ; and that 
 in regard to the most minute and inconsiderable 
 things which the Scripture contains we are com- 
 pelled to say, this also cometh from the Lord. 
 
 The controversy among orthodox divines re- 
 specting what is called verbal inspiration , appears 
 to arise, in a great measure, from the different 
 senses affixed to the phrase. Dr. Henderson, who 
 is among the most candid and able writers op- 
 posed to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, seems 
 to understand the doctrine as denoting the imme- 
 diate communication to the writers of every word , 
 and syllable, and letter of what they wrote, inde- 
 pendently of their intelligent agency and without 
 any regard to their peculiar mental faculties or 
 habits while those who most earnestly and suc- 
 cessfully contend for the higher views of inspira- 
 tion, particularly Calamy, Haldane, and Gaussen, 
 consider the doctrine they maintain as entirely 
 consistent with the greatest diversity of mental 
 endowments, culture, and taste in the writers, and 
 with the most perfect exercise of their intelligent 
 agency, — consistent with their using their own 
 memory, their own reason, their own manner of 
 thinking, and their own language, — consistent, 
 too, with their making what they were to write 
 the subject of diligent and laborious study, — only 
 insisting that it was all under the unerring 
 guidance of the Divine Spirit. 
 
 In a controversy of such a character as this, we 
 may often succeed in removing difficulties, and 
 in presenting the subject in a light which will be 
 satisfactory to all concerned, by laying aside an 
 ambiguous word or phrase, and making use of 
 one which will express the idea intend© l with 
 
INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 1C 
 
 clearness anti certainty. The word verbal , in its 
 most common senses, is not well suited to the 
 present subject. According to the best philolo- 
 gists its first signification is, ‘spoken, expressed to 
 the ear in words, not written.’ But no one sup- 
 poses that when God inspired the sacred writers 
 he generally spoke to them in audible, words. It 
 is, indeed, true, that he sometimes uttered articu- 
 late words in making known his will, as at Sinai, 
 at the baptism of Christ, and on some other occa- 
 sions. In such cases he did, properly speaking, 
 make verbal communications, or give verbal in- 
 struction. Bur we should hardly call this verbal 
 inspiration. Who can suppose that, this was 
 commonly, if ever, the way, in which God inspired 
 holy men of old while engaged in writing the 
 Scriptures? Who can suppose that he taught 
 them what to write by speaking words in their 
 ears, as a man teaches his amanuensis? His in- 
 fluence was doubtless imoard. He guided them 
 in writing by an operation in their minds. 
 
 The next meaning of verbal is ‘ oral, uttered 
 by the mouth ;’ and this agrees no better with our 
 subject. Other significations of verbal are, ‘ con- 
 sisting in mere words ; respecting words only ; 
 literal as in a translation, ‘ having word answer- 
 ing to word.’ Neither of these senses is adapted 
 to the subject. Now it would be nothing strange, 
 if applying this word to inspiration, and thus 
 giving it an unusual sense, should occasion need- 
 less perplexity and confusion. For the sake of 
 avoiding this evil, why would it not be expedient 
 to employ such words as will convey the idea 
 intended clearly and definitely ; and, if necessary, 
 to incur the inconvenience of using an exact ex- 
 planation, instead of the word or phrase which 
 causes the difficulty? 
 
 The real question, and the whole question at 
 issue, may be stated thus : did the work of the 
 Divine Spirit in the sacred penmen relate to the 
 language they used, or their manner of express- 
 ing their ideas ; and if so, how far, and in what 
 way ? 
 
 All those with whom we are concerned in the 
 discussion of this question, hold that divine in- 
 spiration had some respect to the language em- 
 ployed by the inspired writers, at least in the way 
 of general supervision. And Dr. Henderson 
 shows, in various passages of his excellent lectures, 
 that there is no material difference between him 
 and those who profess to maintain higher ground. 
 He allows that, to a certain extent, what is called 
 verbal inspiration, or the inspiration of words, 
 took place. ‘ In recording what was immediately 
 spoken with an audible voice by Jehovah, or by 
 uu angel interpreter; in giving expression to 
 points of revelation which entirely surpassed the 
 comprehension of the writers ; in recording pro- 
 phecies, the minute bearings of which they did 
 not perceive ; in short, in committing to writing 
 any of the dictates of the Spirit, which they could 
 not have otherwise accurately expressed, the 
 writers,’ he alleges, ‘ were supplied with the 
 words as well as the matter.’ He says, that 
 even when Biblical writers made use of their own 
 faculties, and wrote each one in his own manner, 
 without, having their mental constitution at all 
 disturbed, they were yet ‘ always secured by 
 celestial influence against the adoptiou of any 
 forms of speech, or collocation of words, that 
 would have injured the exhibition of divine truth, 
 
 or that did not adequately give it expression;' 
 that the characteristic dill'ereuces of style, sa 
 apparent among the sacred w riters, were employed 
 by the Holy Spirit for the purposes of inspiration, 
 and ‘ were called forth in a rational way ;’ that 
 the writers, ‘ being acted upon by the Divine 
 Spirit, expressed themselves naturally ; that while 
 the divine influence adapted itself to whatever 
 was peculiar in the minds of inspired men, it 
 constantly guided them in writing the sacred 
 volume.’ He declares his belief that the Scrip- 
 tures were written not under a partial or imper- 
 fect, but under a plenary and infallible inspira- 
 tion ; that they were entirely the result of divine 
 intervention, and are to he regarded as the oracles 
 of Jehovah. Referring to 2 Tim. iii 16, he says, 
 ‘ We are here expressly taught the divine inspi- 
 ration of the whole of the Old Testament Codex ; 
 that the Scriptures are inspired as written docu- 
 ments ; that they are the result of the special 
 and extraordinary influence of the Spirit, and 
 contain whatever the Spirit caused to be written 
 for our instruction.’ Referring to 1 Cor. ii. 13, 
 he says, ‘ It is past all dispute that the apostle 
 here unequivocally ascribes both the doctrines 
 which he and his fellow labourers taught, and 
 their manner of propounding them, to the influ- 
 ence of the same divine agent ;’ that the passage 
 conveys the idea 4 that the style, or mode of ex- 
 pression which they used, was such as they were 
 instructed by the Spirit to employ ;’ that ‘ in 
 delivering their doctrines they were under the 
 constant guidance of the Great Instructor, and 
 clothed them in that garb which he directed 
 them to use ;’ that, in the passage alluded to, the 
 apostle refers ‘ to the entire character of the style 
 whicli the first teachers of Christianity were 
 taught to use in announcing its all important 
 doctrines.’ The passage in Matt. x. 9, 10, he 
 says, implies, ‘ that (he subject matter of apology 
 was to be supplied to the apostles; and they 
 might be well assured that if this, which was the 
 most important, wa3 secured by divine instruc- 
 tion, the mere expression would not be wanting. 
 
 ‘ To remove all ground of hesitation from their 
 minds, our Lord says, it is not ye that speak, 
 but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in 
 you. By his teaching and superintending influ- 
 ence, they would always be enabled to express 
 themselves in a manner worthy of the divine 
 cause which they were called to defend — a man 
 ner which they could never have attained by the 
 exertion of their unassisted powers; so that, al 
 though these powers were not to be superseded, 
 but employed, it was to be as the organs of the 
 divine agency by which they were employed.’ 
 And he concedes that, as to all practical pur- 
 poses, they were favoured with divine influence 
 in composing their writings, as well as in their 
 public speaking. 
 
 Our author says that on the day of Pentecost, 
 when the apostles were filled with the Holy 
 Ghost, ana spake with other tongues, as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance, ‘ verbal inspiration in the 
 strictest sense of the term took place.’ ‘ The im- 
 mediate supply of words,’ he holds, ‘ was in this 
 and every similar instance aiisolutely necessary. 
 And he thinks that direct veibal inspiration waj 
 indispensably requisite in all instances in which 
 prophets and apostles were employed to write 
 what they did not cleaily comprehend. The 
 
INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION 
 
 n 
 
 passages in which such terms as the word of God f 
 the Lord spake , etc., occur, are, in this view, de- 
 scriptive of immediate verbal communications. 
 He supposes that, in all such cases, ? cords were 
 literally spoken, or audibly pronounced by God 
 himself, or by an angel in his name. In this 
 opinion, however, I think he is mistaken. For 
 unquestionably the word of the Lord often, if not 
 generally, came to the prophets in the way of 
 dreams, or other modes of inward suggestion. 
 
 The doctrine of a plenary inspiration of all 
 Scripture in regard to the language employed, as 
 well as the thoughts communicated, ought not to 
 be rejected wifircr.it valid reasons. The doctrine 
 is so obviously important, and so consonant to the 
 feelings of sincere piety, that those evangelical 
 Christians who are pressed with speculative ob- 
 jections against it, frequently, in the honesty of 
 their hearts, advance opinions which fairly imply 
 it. This is the case, as we have seen, with Dr. 
 Henderson, who says, that the Divine Spirit 
 guided the sacred penmen in writing the Scrip- 
 tures ; that their mode of expression was such as 
 they were instructed by the Spirit to employ; 
 that Paul ascribes not only the doctrines which 
 the apostles taught, but the entire character of 
 their style , to the influence of the Spirit. He 
 indeed says, that this does not always imply the 
 immediate communication of th-e words of Scrip- 
 ture ; and he says it with good reason. For im- 
 mediate properly signifies, acting ivithout a 
 medium , or without the intervention of another 
 cause or means , not acting by second causes. 
 Now those who hold the highest views of inspira- 
 tion do not suppose that the Divine Spirit, except 
 in a few instances, so influenced the writers of 
 Scripture as to interfere with the use of their 
 rational faculties or their peculiar mental habits 
 and tastes, or in any way to supersede secondary 
 causes as the medium through which his agency 
 produced the desired effect. 
 
 In regard to this point, therefore, there appears 
 to be little or no ground for controversy. For, if 
 God so influenced the sacred writers that, either 
 with or without, the use of secondary causes, they 
 wrote just what he intended, and in the manner 
 he intended, the end is secured ; and what they 
 wrote is as truly his word. , as though he had 
 written it with his own hand on tables of stone, 
 without any human instrumentality. The very 
 words of the decalogue were all such as God chose. 
 And -they would have been equally so if Moses 
 had been moved by ihe Divine Spirit to write 
 them with his Hand. The expression, that God 
 immediately imparted or communicated to the 
 writers the very words which they wrote, is evi- 
 dently not well chosen. The exact, truth is that 
 the writers themselves were the subjects of the 
 divine influence. The Spirit employed them as 
 active instruments, and directed them in writing, 
 l>oth as to matter and manner. They wrote ‘ as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ The mat- 
 ter, in many cases, was what they before knew, 
 and the manner was entirely conformed to their 
 habits; it was their men. But what was written 
 was none the less inspired on that account. God 
 may have influenced and guided an apostle as 
 infallibly in writing what, he had before known, 
 and that guidance may have been as really neces- 
 sary, as in writing a new revelation. And God 
 may have influenced Paul or JohD to write a 
 
 von. ii. Q 
 
 1 
 
 hook in his own peculiar style , and that influence 
 may have been as real and as necessary as if the 
 style had been what some would call a divine 
 style. It was a divine style, if the writer used it 
 under divine direction. It was a divine style, 
 and it was, at. the same time, a human style, and 
 the writer's own style, all in one. Just as the 
 believer’s exercises, faith and love, are his own 
 acts, and at the same time are the effects of divine 
 influence. ‘ In efficacious grace,’ says Eduards, 
 
 ‘ we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do 
 some and we do the rest. But God doe3 all, and 
 we do all. God produces all, and we act all. 
 For that is what he produces, namely, our own 
 acts. God is the only proper author and founda- 
 tion : we only are the proper actors. W e are, in 
 different respects, wholly passive and wholly 
 active. In the Scriptures, the same things are 
 represented as from God and from us. God is 
 said to convert men, and men are said to convert 
 and turn. God makes a new heart, and we are 
 commanded to make us a new heart — not merely 
 because we must use the means in order to the 
 effect, but the effect itself is our act and our 
 duty. These things are agreeable to that text, 
 “ God worketh in you both to will and to do.” ’ 
 The mental exercises of Paul and of John had 
 their own characteristic peculiarities, as much as 
 their style. God was the author of John's mind 
 and all that was peculiar to his mental faculties 
 and habits, as really as of Paul’s mind and what 
 was peculiar to him. And in the work of inspi- 
 ration he used and directed, for his own purposes, 
 what was peculiar to each. When God inspired 
 different men he did not make their minds and 
 tastes all alike, nor did he make their language 
 alike. Nor had he any occasion for this ; for while 
 they had different mental faculties and habits, 
 they were as capable of being infallibly directed 
 by the Divine Spirit, and infallibly speaking and 
 writing divine truth, as though their mental facul- 
 ties and habits had been all exactly alike. And 
 it is manifest that the Scriptures, written by such 
 a variety of inspired men, and each part agreeably 
 to the peculiar talents and style of the writer, are 
 not only equally from God, but, taken together, 
 are far better adapted to the purposes of general 
 instruction, and all the objects to be accomplished 
 by revelation, than if they had been written by 
 one man, and in one and the same manner. 
 
 This view of plenary inspiration is fitted to 
 relieve the difficulties and objections which have 
 arisen in the minds of men from the variety of 
 talent and taste which the writers exhibited, and 
 the variety of style which they used. See, it is 
 said, how each writer expresses himself naturally, 
 in his own way, just as he was accustomed to do 
 when not inspired. And see too, we might say 
 in reply, how each apostle, Peter, Paul, or John, 
 when speaking before rulers, with the promised 
 aid of the Holy Spirit, spoke laturally, with his 
 own voice, and in his own way, as he had been 
 accustomed to do on other occasions when not 
 inspired. There is no more objection to plenary 
 inspiration in the one case than in the other. The 
 mental faculties and habits of the apostles, their 
 style, their voice, their mode of speech, all re- 
 mained as they were. What, then, had the divine 
 Spirit to do? What was the work which apper- 
 tained to Him? We reply, His work was so ta 
 direct the apostles in the use of their own talents 
 
18 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 and habits, their style, their voice, and all their 
 peculiar endowments, that they should speak or 
 write, each in his own way, just what God would 
 have them speak or write, for the good of the 
 Church in all ages. 
 
 The fact that the individual peculiarities of 
 the sacred penmen are everywhere so plainly 
 impressed on their writings, is often mentioned as 
 an objection to the doctrine, that inspiration ex- 
 tended to their language as well as their thoughts. 
 This is, indeed, one of the most common ob- 
 jections, and one which has obtained a very deep 
 lodgment in the minds of some intelligent Chris- 
 tians. It may, therefore, be necessary to take 
 some further pains completely to remove it. 
 And in our additional remarks relative to this 
 and other objections, it will come in our way to 
 show that such a writer as Gaussen, who contends 
 with great earnestness and ability for the highest 
 views of inspiration, does still, on all important 
 points, agree with those who advocate lower views 
 of the subject. 
 
 Gaussen says, ‘Although the title of each book 
 should not indicate to us that we are passing from one 
 author to another ; yet we could quickly discover, 
 by the change of their characters, that a new hand 
 has taken the pen. It is perfectly easy to recog- 
 nise each one of them, although they speak of the 
 same master, teach the same doctrines, and relate 
 the same incidents.’ But how does this prove that 
 Scripture is not, in all respects, inspired ? ‘ So far 
 are we,’ says this author, ‘ from overlooking human 
 individuality everywhere impressed on our sacred 
 books, that, on the contrary, it is with profound 
 gratitude, and with an ever-increasing admiration, 
 that we regard this living, real, human character 
 infused so charmingly into every part of the 
 Word of God. We admit the fact, and we see in 
 it clear proof of the divine wisdom which dictated 
 the Scriptures.’ 
 
 Those who urge the objection above men- 
 tioned are plainly inconsistent with themselves. 
 For while they deny the plenary inspiration of 
 some parts of Scripture, because they have these 
 marks of individuality, they acknowledge inspi- 
 ration in the fullest sense in other parts, particu- 
 cularly in the prophecies, where this individuality 
 of the writers is equally apparent. 
 
 In truth, what can be more consonant with our 
 l>est views of the wisdom of God, or with the gene- 
 ral analogy cf his works, than that he should make 
 use of the thoughts, the memories, the peculiar 
 talents, tastes, and feelings of his servants in 
 recording his Word for the instruction of men? 
 Why should he not associate the peculiarities of 
 their personal character with what they write under 
 his personal guidance ? But, independently of 
 our reasoning, this matter is decided by the Bible 
 itself. ‘All Scripture is divinely inspired,’ and 
 it is all the Word of God. And it is none the less 
 “die Word of God, and none the less inspired, 
 because it comes to us in the language of Moses, 
 and David, and Paul, and the other sacred writers. 
 
 ‘ It is God who speaks to us, but it is also man ; 
 it is man, but it is also God.’ The Wor l of God, 
 in order to be intelligible and profitable to us, 
 
 •‘ must be uttered by mortal tongues, and be 
 written by mortal hands, and must put on the 
 features of human thoughts. This blending of 
 humanity and divir.ity^in the Scriptures remind* 
 
 of die majesty an I t he condescension of God. 
 
 Viewed in this light, the Word of God has une* 
 quailed beauties, and exerts an unequalled powei 
 over our hearts.’ 
 
 The objection to the plenary inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, from the inaccuracy of the translations 
 and the various readings of the ancient manu- 
 script copies, is totally irrelevant. For what we 
 assert is, the inspiration of the original Scriptures, 
 not of the translations or the ancient copies. The 
 fact that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, 
 cannot be expunged or altered by any subsequent 
 event. The very words of the decalogue were 
 written by the finger of God, and none the less so 
 because the manuscripts which transmit it to us 
 contain some variations. The integrity of the 
 copies has nothing to do with the inspiration of 
 the original. It is, however, well known that the 
 variations are hardly worthy to be mentioned. 
 
 But if the copies of the Scriptures which we 
 have are not inspired, then how can the in- 
 spiration of the original writings avail to our 
 benefit? The answer is, that, according to the 
 best evidence, the original writings have been 
 transmitted to us with remarkable fidelity, and 
 that our present copies, so far as anything of con- 
 sequence is concerned, agree with the writings as 
 they came from inspired men ; so that, through 
 the gracious care of divine providence, the Scrip- 
 tures now in use are, in all important respects, 
 the Scriptures which were given by inspiration of 
 God, and are stamped with divine authority. In 
 this matter, we stand on the same footing with the 
 apostles. For when they spoke of the Scriptures, 
 they doubtless referred to the copies which had 
 been made and preserved among the Jews, not to 
 the original manuscripts written by Moses and 
 the prophets. 
 
 It has been made an objection to the plenary 
 inspiration of the writers of the New Testament, 
 that they generally quote from the Septuagint 
 version, and that their quotations are frequently 
 wanting in exactness. Our reply is, that their 
 quotations are made in the usual manner, accord- 
 ing to the dictates of common sense, and alwa) \ 
 in such a way as to subserve the cause of truth , 
 and therefore, that the objection is without force. 
 And as to the Septuagint version, the apostles 
 never follow it so as to interfere with the authority 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their references to the 
 Old Testament are just such as the case required. 
 There is a noble freedom in their quotations, but 
 that freedom never violates truth or propriety. 
 
 If any one, like Priestley and others of the same 
 school, alleges, that there are in the Scriptures 
 errors in reasoning and in matters of fact, he opens 
 the door to the most dangerous consequences. In- 
 deed he takes the ground of infidelity. And if any 
 one holds, that some parts are inspired, while other 
 parts are not inspired, then we ask, who shall make 
 the distinction?' And if we begin this work, where 
 will it end? But our present concern is with 
 those who deny that inspiration respected the lan- 
 guage of Scripture. 
 
 There are some who maintain that all which 
 was necessary to secure the desired results, was an 
 infallible guidance of the thoughts of the sacred 
 writers ; that with such a guidance they might be 
 safely left to express their thoughts in their own 
 way, without any special influence from above. 
 
 Now, if those who take this view of the subject 
 mean that God not only gives the sacred penmen 
 
INSPIRATION. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 19 
 
 the very ideas which they are to write, but, in 
 tome way , secures an infallible connection between 
 those ideas and a just expression of them in words ; 
 then, indeed, we have the desired result — an infal- 
 lible revelation from God, made in the proper 
 language of the writers. But if any one supposes 
 that there is naturally such an infallible connec- 
 tion between right thoughts and a just expression 
 of them in language, without an effective divine 
 superintendence, he contradicts the lessons of daily 
 experience. But those to whom we refer evidently 
 do not themselves believe in such an infallible 
 connection. For when they assign their reason 
 for denying that inspiration related to the language 
 cf the Scriptures, they speak of the different, and, 
 as they regard them, the contradictory statements 
 of facts by different writers — for example, the dif- 
 ferent accounts of the crucifixion and the resur- 
 rection, and the different accounts of the numbers 
 of the slain in Num. xxv. 9 and 1 Cor. x. 8. 
 Who, they say, can believe that the language was 
 inspired, when one writer says that 24,000 were 
 slain, and the other 23,000 ? But it is easy to see 
 that the difficulty presses with all its force upon 
 those who assert the inspiration of the thoughts. 
 For surely they will not say that the sacred writers 
 had true thoughts in their minds, and yet uttered 
 them in the language of falsehood. This would 
 contradict their own idea of a sure connection 
 between the conceptions of the mind and the 
 utterance of them in suitable words,, and would 
 clearly show that they themselves feel it to be 
 necessary that the divine guidance should extend 
 to the words of inspired men as well as their 
 thoughts. But if Paul, through inadvertence, 
 committed a real mistake in saying that 23,000 
 fell in one day, it must have been a mistake in 
 his thoughts as well as in his words. For when 
 he said 23,000, had he not the idea of that num- 
 ber in his mind ? If, then, there was a mistake, 
 it lay in his thoughts. But if there was no mis- 
 take in either of the writers, then there is nothing 
 to prove that inspiration did not extend to the 
 language. If, however, there was a real mistake, 
 then the question is not, what becomes of verbal 
 inspiration, but what becomes of inspiration in 
 any sense. 
 
 As to the way of reconciling the two statements 
 above mentioned, but a few words can be offered 
 here. Some writers attempt to remove the diffi- 
 culty in this manner. The first writer says, 
 24,000 were slain, meaning to include in that 
 number all who died in consequence of that' rebel- 
 lion. The other writer says, 23,000 fell in one 
 day, leaving us to conclude that an addition of 
 1000 fell the next day. But it may perhaps be 
 more satisfactory to suppose, that neither of the 
 writers intended to state the exact number, this 
 being of no consequence to their objects. The 
 real number might be between 23,000 and 24,000, 
 and it might be sufficient for them to express it 
 in general terms, one of them calling it 24,000, 
 and the other 23,000, that is, about so many , 
 either of the numbers being accurate enough to 
 make the impression designed. Suppose that the 
 exact number was 23,579, and that both the 
 writers knew it to be so. It was not at all neces- 
 sary, in order to maintain their character as men 
 of veracity, that they should, when writing for 
 such a purpose , men ;_on the particular number 
 The particularity anh length of the express ior 
 
 would have been inconvenient, and might have 
 made a less desirable impression of the evil of sin 
 and the justice of God, than expressing it more 
 briefly in a round number; as we often say, with 
 a view merely to make a strong impression, that 
 in such a battle 10,000, or 50,000, or 500.000 
 were slain, no one supposing that we mean to state 
 the number with arithmetical exactness, as our 
 object does not require this. And who can doubt 
 that the Divine Spirit might lead the sacred pen- 
 men to make use of this principle of rhetoric, and 
 to speak of those who were slain, according to the 
 common practice in suchacase,in round numbers? 
 
 It is sometimes said that the sacred writers 
 were of themselves generally competent to express 
 their ideas in proper language , and in this respect 
 had no need of supernatural assistance. But there 
 is just as much reason for saying that they were 
 of themselves generally competent to form their 
 own conceptions , and so had no need of super- 
 natural aid in this respect. It is just as reason- 
 able to say that Moses could recollect what took 
 place at the Red Sea, and that Paul could recol- 
 lect that he was once a persecutor, and Peter 
 what took place on the mount of transfiguration, 
 without supernatural aid, as to say that they 
 could, without such aid, make a proper record 
 of these recollections. We believe a real and 
 infallible guidance of the Spirit in both respects, 
 because this is taught in the Scriptures. And it 
 is obvious that the Bible could not be what Christ 
 and the apostles considered it to be, unless they 
 were divinely inspired. 
 
 The diversity in the narratives of the Evan- 
 gelists is sometimes urged as an objection against 
 the position we maintain in regard to inspiration, 
 but evidently without reason, and contrary to 
 reason. For what is more reasonable than to 
 expect that a work of divine origin will have 
 marks of consummate wisdom, and will be suited 
 to accomplish the end in view. Now it will not 
 be denied that God determined that there should 
 be four narratives of the life and death of Jesus 
 from four historians. If the narratives were all 
 alike, three of them would be useless. Indeed 
 such a circumstance would create suspicion, and 
 would bring discredit upon the whole concern. 
 The narratives must then be different. And if, 
 besides this useful diversity, it is found that the 
 seeming contradictions can be satisfactorily re- 
 conciled, and if each of the narratives is given 
 in the peculiar style and manner of the writers, 
 then all is natural and unexceptionable, and we 
 have the highest evidence of the credibility and 
 truth of the narratives. 
 
 We shall advert to one more objection. It is 
 alleged that writers who were constantly under a 
 plenary divine inspiration would not descend to 
 the unimportant details, .the trifling incidents, 
 which are found in the Scriptures. To this it 
 may be replied that the details alluded to must 
 be admitted to be according to truth, and that 
 those things which, at first view, seem to be trifles 
 may, when taken in their connections, prove to be 
 of serious moment. And it is moreover manifest 
 that, considering what human beings and human 
 affairs really are, if all those things which are 
 called trifling and unimportant were excluded, 
 the Scriptures would fail of being conformed to 
 fact; they would not be faithful histories of hu- 
 man life : so that the very circumstance which 
 
to 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 is demanded as proof of inspiration wouk be-, 
 come an argument against it. And hereir wo 
 cannot but admire the perfect wisdom which 
 guided the sacred writers, while we mark the 
 weakness and shallowness of the objections which 
 are urged against their inspiration. 
 
 On the whole, after carefully investigating the 
 subject of inspiration, we are conducted to the 
 important conclusion that ‘all Scripture is di- 
 vinely inspired that the sacred penmen wrote 
 ‘as they were moved by the Holy Ghost and 
 that these representations are to be understood as 
 implying that the vi liters had, in all respects, the 
 effectual guidance of the divine Spirit. And we 
 are still more confirmed in this conclusion be- 
 cause we find that it begets in those who seriously 
 adopt if, an acknowledgment of the divine origin 
 of Scripture, a reverence for its teachings, and a 
 practical regard to its requirements, like what 
 appeared in Christ and his apostles. Being con- 
 vinced that the Bible has, in all parts and in 
 all respects, the seal of the Almighty, and that 
 it is truly and entirely from God, we are led by 
 reason, conscience, and piety to bow submissively 
 to its high authority, implicitly to believe its 
 doctrines, however incomprehensible, and cor- 
 uially to obey its precepts, however contrary to 
 our natural inclinations. We come to it from 
 day to day, not as judges, but as learners, never 
 questioning the propriety or utility of any of its 
 contents. This precious Word of God is the per- 
 fect standard of our faith, and the rule of our life, 
 our comfort in affliction, and our sure guide to 
 heaven. — L. W. 
 
 INTERPRETATION (BIBLICAL), and 
 HERMENEUTICS. There is a very ancient 
 and wide-spread belief that the knowledge of divine 
 things in general, and of the divine will in parti- 
 cular, is by no means a common property of the 
 whole human race, but only a prerogative of a few 
 specially-gifted and privileged individuals. It 
 has been considered that this higher degree of 
 knowledge has its source in light and instruction 
 proceeding directly from God, and that it can 
 be imparted to others by communicating to them 
 a key to the signs of the divine will. Since, how- 
 ever, persons who in this manner have been indi- 
 rectly taught, are initiated into divine secrets, and 
 consequently appear as the confidants of deity, 
 they also enjoy, although instructed only through 
 the medium of others, a more intimate communion 
 with God, a more distinct perception of his 
 thoughts, and consequently a mediate conscious- 
 ness of deity itself. It therefore follows that 
 persons thus either immediately or mediately 
 instructed are supposed to be capable, by means 
 of their divine illumination and their knowledge 
 of the signs of the divine will, to impart to mankind 
 the ardently-desired knowledge of divine things 
 and of the will of deity. They are considered to 
 be interpreters or explainers of the signs of the 
 divine will, and, consequently, to be mediators 
 between God and man. Divine illumination and 
 a communicable knowledge of the signs and ex- 
 pressions of the divine will, are thus -supposed to 
 be combined m one and the same person. 
 
 This idea is the basis of the Hebrew K'QJ, pro- 
 pksi* The prophet is a divinely-inspired seer, 
 and, as such, he is an interpreter and preacher of the 
 divine will. He may either be directly called by 
 God, or have been prepared for his office in the 
 
 schools of the prophets (comp. Knobel, Der Pro 
 phetismus der Hebrcier vollstdndig dargestellt, 
 Breslau, 1837 , pt. i. p. . 02 , sq. ; pt. ii. p. 45 , sq.). 
 
 However, the being filled with the Holy Ghost 
 was the most prominent feature in the Hebrew 
 idea of a prophet. This is even implied in the 
 usual appellation $ 033 , which means a person in 
 the state of divine inspiration (not a predicter of 
 future events). Prophetism ceased altogether as 
 soon as Jehovah, according-to the popular opinion 
 ceased to communicate his Spirit. 
 
 The ancient Greeks and Romans kept the idea 
 of divine inspiration more distinct from the idea 
 of interpretation of the divine will. They, accord- 
 ing to a more natural manner of viewing the sub- 
 ject, recognised generally, in the mediator between 
 God and man, more of an experienced and skilful 
 interpreter than of a divinely- inspired seer. They 
 distinguished the interpreter and the seer by dif- 
 ferent names, of which we will speak hereafter. 
 It was the combination of the power of interpreta- 
 tion with inspiration, which distinguished the 
 Hebrew prophets or seers from those of other ancient 
 nations. The Hebrew notion of a 8023 appears, 
 among the Greeks, to have been split into its two 
 constituent parts of p duns, from palveaOai, to rave 
 (Platonis Phcedrus, § 48 , ed. Steph. p. 244 , a. b.), 
 and of t £77777x775, from ifyyeTadai, to expound. 
 However, the ideas of pavns and of i^yywvs 
 could be combined in the same person. Comp. 
 Boissonnade, Anecdota Grccca, i. 96 , Adpiruy 
 <^£77777x775 pavns yap rfy /cal XPVO'povs e£ Tjyeiro 
 (comp. Scholia in Aristophanis Nubes, 336 ), and 
 Arriani Epictetus, ii. 7, rbv pdvnv rbv e|?jyoi>- 
 psvov ra orjpeia ; Plato, De Legibus , ix. p. 871 
 c., per e£pr)yr)rcov Kal pdmeeov, Euripidis Phce - 
 nissce, v. 1018, 6 parr is €£7777700x0, and Iphigenia 
 in Aulide, l. 529 . Plutarch ( Vita Numce, caj. 
 xi.) places €£77777x775 and Tvpo^A]Tys together; sc 
 also does Dionysius Halicarnassensis, ii. 73. The 
 two first of these examples prove that €’£77777x011 
 were, according to the Greeks, persons who pos- 
 sessed the gift of discovering the will of the Deity 
 from certain appearances, and of interpreting 
 signs. Jul. Pollux, viii. 121 , €’£77777x01 Se eKa- 
 Kovvto, ol ret, irepl reev Siocppelccv Kal ra twv 
 &\\ oov tepefy bibdffKovTes. Harpocration says, and 
 Suidas repeats after him, €£77777x775 6 i^yyovpevos 
 ra Upa. Comp. Bekker, Anecdota Grccca, i. 185 , 
 i^gyovyrai oi epireipoi. Creuzer defines the efy- 
 77 7x01, in his Symbolik und Mythologie der Alten 
 Vblker, i. 15 , as ‘persons whose high vocation it wag 
 to bring laymen into harmony with divine things.’ 
 These €’£77777x01 moved in a religious sphere (comp. 
 Herod, i. 78 , and Xenophontis Cyropcedia, viii. 
 3 , 11 ). Even the Delphic Apollo, replying to 
 those who sought his oracles, Is called by Plato 
 ityyTiT'fjs (Polit. iv 448 , b.). Plutarch mentions, in 
 Vita Thesei, c. 25 , Scrluv Kal Upwv €’£77777x00 ; comp, 
 also the above-quoted passage of Dionysius Hali- 
 carnassensis, and especially Ruhnken (ad Timcci 
 Lexicon, ed. Lugd. Bat. 1789 , p. 189 , sq.). The 
 Scholiast on Sophocles (Ajax, l. 320 ) has (£777770-11 
 €7 tI tu>v Oelcov, and the Scholiast on Electra, 
 426 , has the definition €£777770-11 biacrd<pri<ns QViuiv. 
 It is in connection with this original signification 
 of the word €’£77777x775 that the expounders of the law 
 are styled €£77777x01 ; because the ancient law was 
 derived from the gods, and the law-lang Mtge had 
 become unintelligible tc the multitude. (Comp. 
 Lvsias, vi. 10 ; Diodorus Siculus, xiii. 3 *« ; Ruhn 
 
 
 
INTERPRETATION. 
 
 ken, as quoted above; the annotators on Pollux 
 and Harpocration ; and K. Fr. Hermann, Lehr- 
 buch der Griechischen Staats-alterthiimer , Mar- 
 burg, 1836, § 104, note 4). In Athenaeus and 
 Plutarch there are mentioned books under the title 
 r^riyrfTiKd, which contained introductions to the 
 right understanding of sacred signs. (Comp. Yale- 
 sius, ad Harpocrationis Lexicon, Lipsiae, 1824, 
 ii. 462.) 
 
 Like the Greeks, the Romans also distinguished 
 between votes and interpres (Cicero, Fragm. ; 
 Hortens.) : — Sive vates sive in sacris initiisque 
 tradendis divinae mentis interpretes.' Servius 
 (ad Virgilii jEn. iii. 359) quotes a passage 
 from Cicero, thus : — ut ait Cicero, omnis divi- 
 nandi peritia in duas partes dividitur. Nam 
 aut furor est, ut in vaticinantibus; aut ars, ut 
 in aruspicibus, fulguritis sive fulguratoribus, et 
 auguribus : that is, ‘ the science of divination is 
 twofold ; it is either a sacred raving, as in prophets, 
 or an art, as in soothsayers, who regard the intes- 
 tines of sacrifices, or lightnings, or the flight of 
 birds.’ The aruspices,fulguriti,fulguratores , and 
 augures, belong to the idea of the interpres deo~ 
 rum. Comp. Cicero, Pro domo sua, c. 4 1 Equi- 
 uem sic accepi, in religionibus suscipiendis caput 
 esse interpretari quae voluntas deorum immorta- 
 lium esse videatur : — ‘ I have been taught thus, 
 that in undertaking new religious performances 
 tlie chief thing seems to be the interpretation of 
 the will of the immortal gods.’ Cicero (De Divi- 
 natione, i. 41) says : — Etruria interpretatur quid 
 quibusque ostendatur monstris atque portends. 
 
 ‘ The Hetrusci explain the meaning of all re- 
 markable foreboding signs and portents.’ Hence, 
 in Cicero ( De Legibus , ii. 27), the expression, 
 
 ‘ interpretes religionum.’ 
 
 An example of this distinction, usual among 
 the Greeks, is found in 1 Cor. xii. 4, 30. The 
 Corinthians filled with the Holy Ghost were 
 yXuxroais X aXovvres, speaking in tongues , conse- 
 quently they were in the state of a pavris ; but 
 frequently they did not comprehend the sense of 
 their own inspiration, and did not understand how 
 to interpret it because they had not the eppgveia 
 yXonrauv, interpretation of tongues : consequently 
 they were not e^riygrai. 
 
 The Romans obtained the interpretatio from 
 tne Etruscans (Cicero, De Divmatione, i. 2, and 
 Ottfried Muller, Die Etrusker, ii. 8, sq.) ; but 
 the above distinction was the cause that the 
 interpretatio degenerated into a common art, 
 which was exercised without inspiration, like a 
 contemptible soothsaying, the rules of which were 
 contained in writings. Cicero ( De Divinatione , 
 i. 2) says: — Fur or is divinationem Sibyl linismax- 
 ime versibus contineri arbitrati, eorum decern 
 interpretes delectos e civitate esse voluerunt : — 
 ‘ Supposing that divination by raving was espe- 
 cially contained in the Sibylline verses, they ap- 
 pointed ten public interpreters of the same.’ 
 
 Tin ideas of interpres and of interpretatio were 
 not confined among the Romans to sacred sub- 
 jects ; which, as we have seen, was the case among 
 the Greeks with the corresponding Greek terms. 
 The words interpres and interpretatio were not 
 only, as among the Greeks, applied to the expla- 
 nation of the laws, but also, in general, to the ex- 
 planation of whatever was obscure, and even to 
 a mere intervention in the settlement of affairs ; 
 for instance, we find in Livy (xxi. 12) pads 
 
 INTERPRETATION *1 
 
 interpres, denoting Alorcas, by whose instrumen- 
 tality peace was offered. At an earlier period 
 interpretes meant only those persons by means erf 
 whom affairs between God and man were settled 
 (comp. Virgilii JEneis, x. 175, and Servius on 
 this passage). The words interpretes and con- 
 jectores became convertible terms : — unde etiam 
 somniorum atque ominum interpretes conjectores 
 vocantur : — ‘ for which reason the interpreters of 
 dreams and omens are called also conjecturers ' 
 (Quintil. Instit. iii. 6). 
 
 From what we have stated it follows that 
 i£'fiyr]<ns and interpretatio were originally terms 
 confined to the unfolding of supernatural subjects, 
 although in Latin, at an early period, these terms 
 were also applied to profane matters. The Chris- 
 tians also early felt the want of an interpretation 
 of their sacred writings, which they deemed to lw 
 of divine origin ; consequently they wanted in- 
 terpreters and instruction by the aid of which the 
 true sense of the sacred Scriptures might be dis- 
 covered. The right understanding of the nature 
 and will of God seemed, among the Christians, 
 as well as at an early period among the heathen, 
 to depend upon a right understanding of certain 
 external signs ; however, there was a progress from 
 the unintelligible signs of nature to more intelli- 
 gible written signs, which was certainly an im- 
 portant progress. 
 
 The Christians retained about the interpreta- 
 tion of their sacred writings the same expressions 
 which had been current in reference to the inter- 
 pretation of sacred subjects among the heathen. 
 Hence arose the fact that the Greek Christians 
 employed with predilection the words i^ynois 
 and 6^17717x775 in reference to the interpretation of 
 the Holy Scriptures. But the circumstance that 
 St. Paul employs the term ep/xijveta yXuoauv 
 for the interpretation of the yXcoocrais AaAefv 
 (1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 26), greatly contributed that 
 words belonging to the root kpppv^veiv were also 
 made us^of. According to Eusebius (Historic 
 Ecclesiastica, iii. 9), Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, 
 wrote, as early as about a.d. 100, a work under 
 the title of AoyiW KvpiaKcov i£r]yricns, which 
 means an interpretation of the discourses of 
 Jesus. Papias explained the religious contents 
 of these discourses, which he had collected fmm 
 oral and written traditions. He distinguished 
 between the meaning of e!;r)ye?(r0ai and kpp.r\vev*Lv, 
 as appears from his observation (preserved by 
 Eusebius in the place quoted above), in which lie 
 says concerning the A oyta of St. Mathew, written 
 in Hebrew, epprii/evoe avra iSuvaro e/caoTos, 
 ‘ but every one interpreted them according to hi3 
 ability’. In the Greek Church, 6 i^yprys and 
 e^yijTal rod x6yov were the usual terms for 
 teachers of Christianity. (See Eusebii Historia 
 Ecclesiastica, vii. 30, and Heinichen on this 
 passage, note 21; Photii Biblioth. Eod. 105; 
 Cave, Hist. Liter, i. 146). Origen called his com- 
 mentary on the Holy Scriptures i^riyrjriKa ; and 
 Procopius of Gaza wrote a work on several books 
 of the Bible, entitled cr^oXai e^ypriKal. How- 
 ever, we find the word epfj.7)vdu employed as a 
 synonym of e^rpyricris, especially among the inha- 
 bitants of Antioch. For instance, Gregorius 
 Nyssenus says, concerning Ephraim Syrus, ypacpijy 
 oXr)v aicpifi&s irphs Xe^iv r)pfj.r,uevaev (see Gregorii 
 Nysseni Vita Ephraimi Syri ; Opera, Paris, ii. 
 p. 1033). Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Theodore^ 
 
12 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 and others, wrote commentaries on the sacred 
 Scriptures under the title of kpgyvela (compare A. 
 H. Niemeyer, de Isidori Pelnsiotce Vita, Scriptis , 
 et Doctrina, Halae, 1S25. p. 20V). 
 
 Among the Latin Christians the word interpres 
 had a wider range than the corresponding Greek 
 term, and the Latins had no precise term for the 
 exposition of the Bible which exactly corresponded 
 with the Greek. The word interpretatio was 
 applied only in the sense of occupation or act 
 of an expositor of the Bible, but not in the sense 
 of contents elicited from biblical passages. 
 The words tractare, tractator , and tractatus 
 were in preference employed with respect to bib- 
 lical exposition, and the sense which it elicited. 
 Together with these words there occur commen- 
 taries and expositio. In reference to the exege- 
 tical work of St Hilary on St. Matthew, the 
 codices fluctuate between commentaries and 
 tractatus. St. Augustine’s tractatus are well 
 known ; and this father frequently mentions the 
 divinarum scripturarum tractatores. For in- 
 stance, Retractationes 1.23. divinorum tractatores 
 eloquiomm. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 6. 
 onginis .... qui tractator sacrorum peritissimas 
 habebatur. Vincentius Lirinensis observes in his 
 Commonitoriem on ICor. xii. 28 : — tertio doctores 
 qui tractatores nunc appellantur ; quos hie idem 
 apostolus etiam prophetas interdum nuncupat, eo 
 quod per eos prophetarum mysteria populis aperi- 
 antur : — ‘ in the third place teachers who are now 
 called tractatores ; whom the same apostle some- 
 times styles prophets, because by them the mysteries 
 of the prophets are opened to the people’ (com- 
 pare Dufresne, Glossarium mediae et infimee 
 Latinitatis, sub tractator et tractatus ; and 
 Baluze, ad Servat. Lupum, p. 479). 
 
 However, the occupation of interpres , in the 
 nobler sense of this word, was not unknown to St. 
 Jerome ; as may be seen from his Prafatio in 
 libros Samuelis (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ix.p. 459) : — 
 Quicquid enim crebrius vertendo et emendando 
 solicitius ei didicimus et tenemus, n<#trum est. 
 Et quum intellexeris, quod antea nesciebas, vel 
 interpretem me estimate si gratus es, vel irapa- 
 <Ppaaryv si ingratus : — ‘ for whatever by frequently 
 translating and carefully correcting we have 
 learned and retain, is our own. And if you have 
 understood what you formerly did not know, con- 
 sider me to be an expositor if you are grateful, or 
 a paraphrast if you are ungrateful.’ 
 
 In modern times the word inlerpretatio has 
 again come into repute in the sense of scriptural 
 exposition, for which, indeed, interpretation is 
 now the standing technical term. 
 
 The German language also distinguishes be- 
 tween the words auslegen and erkl'dren in such a 
 manner that the former corresponds to e^rjyeiadae 
 and interpretari. The word auslegen is always 
 used in the sense of rendering perceptible what is 
 contained under signs and symbols. Compare 
 Dionysii Halicarnassensis Antiq. Rom. ii. 73 : 
 rv7s re ISiwrals, oiroaoi gy laaai robs re pi ra 0e?a 
 ere Baa govs, e^yy yral yivovrai /cal npoepyrai : ‘ for 
 the ignorant, who do not know what belongs to 
 divine worship, there are expositors and prophets.’ 
 
 The word erkldren , on the contrary, means to 
 clear up by arguments what has been indistinctly 
 understood, so that what was incomprehensible 
 is comprehended. 
 
 The Erklarer does not develope wnat is hidden 
 
 and concealed, but explains what is uncieur an* 
 obscure (see Weigand, Wortcrbuch der Deut* 
 schen Synonymen, 1 . Mainz, 1840, p. 140 sq ). 
 Hence it follows that the Ausleger of the Bible 
 occupies a position different from that of the 
 Erklarer , although these terms are frequently 
 employed as if they were synonymous. The 
 Ausleger, e^yyyr-fjs, opens what is concealed under 
 the words of the Bible. He unveils mysteries, 
 while the Erklarer, epgyuevs, sees in the words of 
 the Bible not merely signs for something concealed 
 and hidden, but words the sense of which is to be 
 cleared up whenever it is obscure. The Erhldrei 
 stands on natural, ground, but the Ausleger on 
 
 SUPERNATURAL. 
 
 From ancient, times the church, or rather eccle- 
 siastical bodies and religious denominations, 
 have taken the supernatural position with reference 
 to the Bible, as, before the Church, the Jews did 
 in respect of the Old Testament. The church and 
 denominations have demanded Ausleger , not 
 Erklarer. They have supposed that in the authors 
 of Biblical books there did not exist a literary 
 activity of the same kind which induces men to 
 write down what they have thought, but have 
 always required from their followers the belief 
 that the Biblical authors wrote in a state of in- 
 spiration, that is to say, under a peculiar and 
 direct influence of the Divine Spirit. Sometimes 
 the Biblical authors were described to be merely 
 external and mechanical instruments of God’s 
 revelation. But however wide, or however nar 
 row the boundaries were, within which the ope- 
 ration of God upon the writers was confined by 
 ecclesiastical supposition, the origin of the Bibli- 
 cal books was always supposed to be essentially 
 different from the origin of human compositions; 
 and this difference demanded the application of 
 peculiar rules in order to understand the Bible. 
 There were required peculiar arts and kinds of 
 information in order to discover the sense and 
 contents of books which, on account of their ex- 
 traordinary origin, were inaccessible by the ordi- ! 
 nary way of logical rules, and whose written 
 words were only outward signs, behind which a 
 higher and divine meaning was concealed. Con- 
 sequently, the church and denominations required 
 Deleter, Ausleger, efyyyral, or interpreters, of the 
 signs by means of which God had revealed his 
 will. Thus necessarily arose again in the Chris- 
 tian church the art of opening or interpreting the 
 supernatural ; which art had an existence in 
 earlier religions, but with this essential difference, 
 that the signs, by the opening of which superna- 
 tural truth was obtained, were now more simple, 
 and of a more intelligible kind, than in earlier 
 religions. They were now written signs, which 
 belonged to the sphere of speech and language, 
 through which alone all modes of thinking obtain 
 clearness, and can be readily communicated to 
 others. But the Holy Scriptures in which divine 
 revelation was preserved, differ, by conveying 
 divine thoughts, from common language and 
 writing, which convey only human thoughts. 
 Hence it followed that its sense was much deeper, 
 and far exceeded the usual sphere of human 
 thoughts, so that the usual requisites for the right 
 understanding of written documents appeared to 
 be insufficient. According to this opinion a 
 lower and a higher sense of the Bible wer* 
 distinguished. The lower sense was that which 
 
INTERPRETATION. 
 
 INTERPRETATION 
 
 could be elicited according to the rules of 
 grammar; the higher sense was considered to 
 consist of deeper thoughts concealed under the 
 grammatical meaning of the words. These deeper 
 thoughts they endeavoured to obtain in various 
 ways, but not by grammatical research. 
 
 The Jews, in the days of Jesus, employed for 
 this purpose especially the typico-allegorical in- 
 terpretation. The Jews of Palestine endeavoured 
 by means of this mode of interpretation especially 
 to elicit the secrets of futurity, which were said to 
 be fully contained in the Old Testament. (See 
 Wsehner, Antiquitates Hebrceorum, vol. i. Got- 
 tingae, 1743, p. 341, sq. ; Dopke, Hermeneutik 
 der neuiestamentlichen Schriftsteller , Leipzig, 
 1829, p. 88, sq., 164, sq. ; Hirsc’nfeld, der Geist 
 der Talmudischen Auslegung der Bibel, Berlin, 
 1840 ; comp. Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ; Justin 
 Martyr, Apol. i. pp. 52, 61 ; Bretschneider, His- 
 torisch-dogmatische Auslegung des Neuen Testa- 
 mentes, Leipzig, 1806, p. 35, sq.) 
 
 The Alexandrine Jews, on the contrary, en- 
 deavoured to raise themselves from the simple 
 sense of the words, t6 xj/uxinSr, to a higher, more 
 general, and spiritual sense, rb TrvtvyariKov (see 
 D'ahne, Geschictliche Darstellung der J'udisch- 
 Alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie, Halle, 
 1834, i. p. 52, sq.; ii. 17. 195, sq,, 209, 228, 
 241). Similar principles were adopted by the 
 authors of the New Testament (see Be Wette, 
 TJeber die Symbolisch-Typische Lehr art in Brief e 
 an die Hebraer, in der Theologischen Zeitschrift , 
 von Schleiermacher und De W ette, part iii. ; 
 Tholuck, Beilage zum Commentar uber den 
 Brief an die Hebraer, 1840). 
 
 These two modes of interpretation, the alle- 
 GOrico typical and the allegorico-mystical, 
 are found in the Christian writers as early as the 
 first and second centuries ; the latter as yuuais, 
 the former a? a demonstration that all and every- 
 thing, both what had happened, and what would 
 come to pass, was somehow contained in the sacred 
 Scriptures (see Justin Martyr, as quoted above, 
 and Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem , iv. 2, 
 Praedicatio disci pul orum suspecta fieri posset si 
 non assistat auctoritas : — ‘ The preaching of the 
 disciples might appear to be questionable, if it 
 was not supported by other authority ’). 
 
 To these allegorical modes of interpretation 
 was added a third mode, which necessarily sprung 
 up after the rise of the Catholico-apostolical 
 church, namely, the dogmatical, or theolo- 
 gico-kcclesiastical. The followers of the 
 Catholico-apostolical church agreed that all 
 apostles and all apostolical writings had an equal 
 authority, because they were all under an equal 
 guidance of the Holy Ghost. Hence it followed 
 that they could not set forth either contradictory 
 or different dochines. A twofold expedient was 
 adopted in order to effect harmony of interpreta- 
 tion. The one was of the apparent and relative 
 kind, because it referred to subjects which appear 
 incomprehensible only to the confined human 
 understanding, but which are in perfect harmony 
 in the divine thoughts. Justin ( Dialogus cum 
 Tryphone, c. 65) says : — e/c it avr6s ireneurperos 
 Srt ovbepia ypaipj] rf/ It epa ivavria early, avrbs 
 vouv paWov opoXoyrjaw ra elpi jpeya : — ‘ Being 
 quite certain that no Scripture contradicts the 
 other, I will rather confess that I do not under- 
 stand what is said therein.’ St. Chrysostom 
 
 restricted this as follows : — iravra ffcuprj kc n ebdta 
 ra irapa ra?s OeiaTs ypa<pa?s, iravra ra avayuaia 
 5rj\a ( Homil . iii. c. 4, in Ep. 2 ad Thessaloni- 
 censes) : — ‘ In the divine writings everything is 
 intelligible and plain, whatever is necessary is 
 open ’ (compare Homil. iii. de Lazaro , and 
 Athanasii Oratio contra gentes ; Opera i. p. 12). 
 
 The second expedient adopted by the church 
 was to consider certain articles of faith to be 
 leading doctrines, and to regulate and de- 
 fine accordingly the sense of the Bible wher- 
 ever it appeared doubtful and uncertain. This 
 led to the theologico-ecclesiastical or dog- 
 matical mode of interpretation, which, when 
 the Christians were divided into several sects, 
 proved to be indispensable to the Church, but 
 which adopted various forms in the various sects 
 by which it was employed. Not only the heretics 
 of ancient times, but also the followers of the 
 Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, the Syrian, 
 the Anglican, the Protestant Church, &c., have 
 endeavoured to interpret the Bible in harmony 
 with their dogmas. i 
 
 The different modes of interpreting the Bible 
 are, according to what we have stated, the follow- 
 ing three — the grammatical, the allegorical. 
 the dogmatical. The grammatical mode of 
 interpretation simply investigates the sense con- 
 tained in the words of the Bible. The allegorical, 
 according to Quintilian’s sentence ‘ aliud verbis, 
 aliud sensu ostendo,’ maintains that the words of 
 the Bible have, besides their simple sense, another 
 which is concealed as behind a picture, and en- 
 deavours to find out this supposed figurative sense, 
 which, it is said, was not intended by the authors 
 (see Olshausen, Ein Wort iiber tieferen Schrift- 
 sinn, Konigsberg, 1824). The dogmatical mode 
 of interpretation endeavours to explain the Bible 
 in harmony with the dogmas of the church, lbl 
 lowing the principle of analogia fidei. Com 
 pare Consilii Tridentini sess. iv. decret. 2 : — Ne 
 quis Sacram Scripturam interpretari audeat con- 
 tra eum sensum quern tenuit et tenet sancta 
 mater ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et 
 interpretatione Scripturarum Sacrarum : — ‘ Let 
 no one venture to interpret the Holy Scriptures 
 in a sense contrary to that which the holy mother 
 church ha3 held, and does hold, and which has 
 the power of deciding what is the true sense and 
 the right interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.’ 
 
 Rambach, Institutiones Hermeneuticoe Sacra", 
 Jenae, 1723 •. Auctoritas, quam haec analogia 
 fidei in re exegetica liabet, in eo consistit, ut sit 
 fundamentum ac principium generale, ad cujus 
 normam omnes Scripturae expositione3, tamquam 
 ad lapidem Lydium, exigendae sunt : — ‘ The au- 
 thority which this analogy of faith exercises upou 
 interpretation consists in this, that it is the foun- 
 dation and general principle according to the 
 rule of which all Scriptural interpretations are to 
 be tried as by a touchstone.’ 
 
 Ecclesia Anglicana, art. xx. : — Ecclesije non 
 licet quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei script© 
 adversetur, nec unum Scripturae locum sic ex- 
 ponere potest, ut alteri contradicat : — : It is not 
 lawful for the church to ordain anything that is 
 contrary to God’s word written, neither may it 
 expound one place of Scripture so as to be repug- 
 nant to another.’ 
 
 Confessio Scotica, 18: — Nullam enim inter 
 pretationem admittere audemus, quae alicui oria 
 
IN TERPRETATION. 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 M 
 
 cipali articulo fidei, ant alicui piano textui 
 S;rlptura). ant caritatis regulae repugnat, &c. : — 
 ' We dare not admit any interpretation which 
 contradicts any leading article of faith, or any 
 plain text of Scripture, or the rule of charity,’ &c. 
 
 Besides tire three modes of interpretation which 
 have been mentioned above, theologicil writers 
 have spoken of typicai., propiieticai , empha- 
 
 TICAI., PHILOSOPHICAL, TRADITIONAL, MORAL, 
 
 or practical interpretation. But all these are 
 only one-sided developments of some single fea- 
 ture contained in the above three, arbitrarily 
 chosen ; and, therefore, they cannot be considered 
 to be separate modes, but are only modifications 
 of one or other of those three. The interpretation 
 in which all these modes are brought into har- 
 mony, has lately been called the panharmoni- 
 cal, which word is not very happily chosen (F. 
 H. Germar, Die Panharmonische Interpretation 
 der Ileiligen Schrift , Leipsic, 1821 ; and by the 
 same author, Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Ilermc- 
 netttik, Altona, 1828). 
 
 The allegorical, as well as the dogmatical, 
 mode of interpretation, presupposes the gram- 
 matical, which, consequently, forms the basis of 
 the other two; so that neither the one nor the 
 other can exist entirely without it. Consequently, 
 the grammatical mode of interpretation must have 
 an historical precedence before the others. But 
 history also proves that the church has constantly 
 endeavoured to curtail the province of grammatical 
 interpretation, to renounce it as much as possible, 
 and to rise above it. If we follow, with the exa- 
 mining eye of an historical inquirer, the course 
 in which these three modes of interpretation, in 
 their mutual dependence upon each other, have 
 generally been applied, it becomes evident that 
 in opposition to the grammatical mode, the alle- 
 gorical was first set up. Subsequently, the alle- 
 gorical was almost entirely supplanted by the 
 dogmatical ; but it started up with renewed vigour 
 when the dogmatical mode rigorously confined 
 the spiritual movement of the human intellect, as 
 well as all religious sentiment, within the too 
 narrow bounus of dogmatical despotism. 
 
 The dogmatical mode of interpretation could 
 only spring up after the church, renouncing the 
 original multiplicity of opinions, had agreed upon 
 certain leading doctrines; after which time, it 
 grew, together with the church, into a mighty tree, 
 towering high above every surrounding object, 
 and casting its shade over every thing. The 
 longing desire for light and warmth, of those who 
 were spell-bound under its shade, induced them 
 to cultivate again the allegorical and the gram- 
 matical interpretation ; but they were unable to 
 bring the fruits of these modes to full maturity. 
 Every new intellectual revolution, and every 
 spiritual development of nations, gave a new 
 impulse to grammatical interpretation. This im- 
 pulse lasted until interpretation was again taken 
 captive by the overwhelming ecclesiastical power, 
 whose old formalities had regained strength, or 
 which had been renovated under new forms. 
 Grammatical interpretation, consequently, goes 
 hand in hand with the principle of spiritual pro- 
 gress, and the dogmatical with the conservative 
 principle. Finally, the allegorical interpretation 
 is as an artificial aid subservient to the conserva- 
 tive principle, when, by its vig orous stability, the 
 \atter exercises a too unnatural pressure. This is 
 
 confirmed by the history of all times and countries 
 so that we may confine ourselves to the following 
 few illustrative observations. The various ten- 
 dencies of the first Christian period were com- 
 bined in the second century, so that the principle of 
 one general (Catholic) church was gradually 
 adopted by most parties. But now, it became 
 rather difficult to select, from the variety of doc* 
 trines prevalent in various sects, those by the 
 application of which to biblical interpretation, a 
 perfect harmony and systematical unity could 
 be effected. Nevertheless, the wants of science 
 powerfully demanded a systematical arrangement 
 of biblical doctrines, even before a general agree- 
 ment upon dogmatical principles had been 
 effected. The wants of science were especially 
 felt among the Alexandrine Christians ; and in 
 Alexandria, where the allegorical interpretation 
 had from ancient times been practised, it offered 
 the desired expedient which met the exigency of 
 the church. Hence, it may naturally be ex- 
 plained why the Alexandrine theologians of 
 the second and third century, particularly 
 Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, interpreted 
 allegorically, and why the allegorical interpreta- 
 tion was perfected, and in vogue, even before the 
 dogmatical came into existence. Origen, espe- 
 cially in his fourth book, De Principiis , treats 
 on scriptural interpretation, using the following 
 arguments : — The Holy Scriptures, inspired by 
 God, form an harmonious whole, perfect in itself, 
 without any defects and contradictions, and con- 
 taining nothing that is insignificant and super- 
 fluous. The grammatical interpretation leads to 
 obstacles and objections, which, according to the 
 quality just stated of the Holy Scriptures, are 
 inadmissible and impossible. Now, since the 
 merely grammatical interpretation can neither 
 remove nor overcome these objections, we must 
 seek for an expedient beyond the boundaries of 
 grammatical interpretation. The allegorical in- 
 terpretation offers this expedient, and consequently 
 is above the grammatical. Origen observes that 
 man consists of body, soul, and spirit; and he 
 distinguishes a triple sense of the Holy Scriptures 
 analogous to this division : — ovkovv rpicc&s 
 anoypacpecdai Set els rrjv eavrov tyvxw Ta cwv 
 ayloov ypa.jAixa.T 06 v voi'jpara' 'Lva 6 pev an rXovcrepos 
 olKoboprjrai , anb rf;s olovel ca.pK.bs t rjs ypaoprjs, 
 0UT06S OVOpa(6vTC6V Tj/ACOV TT)V 7 Tp6\^^pOV OKboX^V 
 6 de iirl nocbv avafiefiTjiccos- anb rrjs ucnepel 
 i/zuX’fs avrrjs ‘ 6 be rehetos /cat ttpoios roTs napa t $ 
 anocroKcp (1 Cor. ii. 6, 7) A eyopevois’ collar 
 
 tie \a\ovpev anb rod nvevpariKOv v6poo 
 
 CKiav exovTos rwv peWovroov ayaOwV tSocnep yap 
 6 IxvOpunGs cvvecTTjKev etc coo par os ical xpvxvs kou 
 nveiparos, rbv avrbv npinov Kal p olKOVcppOelca 
 vnb rov 6eov els avdptioncov cooTpplav boOrjveu 
 ypacpiiv : — ‘ The sentiments, therefore, of the Holy 
 Scriptures are to be impressed upon our minds in 
 a three-fold manner, in order that whosoever be- 
 longs to the simpler sort of persons, may receive 
 edification from the flesh of the Scripture (thus we 
 call their obvious meaning), but he who is some- 
 what more advanced from its soul ; but whosoever 
 is perfect, and similar to those to whom the apostle 
 alludes, where he says, “ we speak wisdom”. . . 
 from the spiritual law which contains a shadow 
 of good things to come; for as man consists oi 
 spirit, body, and soul, so also the Holy Writ, 
 which God has planned to be granted for thr 
 
INTERPRETATION. 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 25 
 
 salvation of mankind’ (De Princip., iv. 108; 
 compare Klausen, Iiermeneutik des Neuen Tes~ 
 tamentes, Leipzig, 1841, p. 104, sq.). 
 
 Since, however, allegorical interpretation can- 
 not be reduced to settled rules, but always de- 
 pends upon the greater or less influence of 
 imagination ; and since the system of Christian 
 doctrines, which the Alexandrine theologians 
 produced by means of allegorical interpretation, 
 was in many respects objected to ; and since, in 
 opposition to these Alexandrine theologians, there 
 was gradually established, and more and more 
 firmly defined, a system of Christian doctrines 
 which formed a firm basis for uniformity of inter- 
 pretation, in accordance with the mind of the 
 majority, there gradually sprung up a dogmatical 
 mode of interpretation founded upon the inter- 
 pretation of ecclesiastical teachers, which had 
 jeen recognised as orthodox in the Catholic 
 church. This dogmatical interpretation has been 
 in perfect existence since the beginning of the 
 fourth century, and then more and more sup- 
 plauted the allegorical, which henceforward was 
 left to the wit and ingenuity of a few individuals. 
 Thus St. Jerome, about a.d. 400, could say : — 
 Regula scripturarmn est : ubi manifestissima 
 prophetia de futuris texitur per incerta aele- 
 gore® non extenuare quae scripta sunt ( Com ■- 
 merit, in Malachi i. 16): — ‘The rule of scriptures 
 is, that where there is a manifest prediction of 
 future events, not to enfeeble that which is written 
 by the uncertainty of allegory.’ During the 
 whole of the fourth century, the ecclesiastico- 
 dogmatical mode of interpretation was developed 
 with constant reference to the grammatical. Even 
 Hilary, in his book De Trinitate, i. properly 
 asserts : — Optimus lector est, qui dictomm infel- 
 ligentiam expectet ex diefis potius quam imponat, 
 et retulerit magis quam attulerit ; neque cogat 
 id videri dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem 
 praesumpserit intelligendum. ‘ He is the best 
 reader who rather expects to obtain sense from 
 the words, than imposes it upon them, and who 
 carries more away than he has brought, nor forces 
 that upon the words which he had resolved to 
 understand before he began to read.’ 
 
 After the commencement of the fifth century, 
 grammatical interpretation fell entirely into de- 
 cay ; which ruin was effected partly by the full 
 development of the ecclesiastical system of doc- 
 trines defined in all their parts, and by a fear 
 of deviating from this system, partly also by the 
 continually increasing ignorance of the lan- 
 guages in which the Bible was written. The 
 primary condition of ecclesiastical or dogmatical 
 interpretation was then most clearly expressed by 
 Yincentius Lirinensis ( Commonit . i.) : — Quia 
 videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitu- 
 dine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt, 
 sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque 
 alius interpretatur, ut psene quot homines sunt, 
 
 tot illine sententiae erui posse videantur 
 
 in ipsa catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum 
 est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, ' 
 quod ab omnibus creditum est: — ‘Since the 
 Holy Scriptures, on account of their depth, are 
 not understood by all in the same manner, but 
 its sentences are understood differently by different 
 persons, so that they might seem to admit as 
 many meanings as there are men, we must well 
 take cart that within the pale of the Catholic 
 
 church we hold fast what has been believed every 
 where, always, and by all’ (Compare Commonit. 
 ii. ed. Bremensis, 1688, p. 321, sq.) Hencefor- 
 ward, interpretation was confined to the mere col- 
 lection of explanations, which had first been give*, 
 by men whose ecclesiastical orthodoxy was un- 
 questionable. Prsestantius presumpta novitate 
 non imbui, sed priscorum fonte satiari : — ‘ It is 
 better not to be imbued with the pretended no- 
 velty, but to be filled from the fountain of the 
 ancients ’ (Cassiodori Institutiones Divines, Preef. 
 Compare Alcuini Epistola ad Gislam ; Opera, 
 ed. Frobenius, i. p. 464. Comment, in Joh. 
 Preef ., ib. p. 460. Claudius Turon, Prolego- 
 mena in Comment, in libros Regum. Hayrno, 
 Historia Ecclesiastica, ix. 3, &c.). Doubtful 
 cases were decided according to the precedents of 
 ecclesiastical definitions. In his quae vel dubia 
 vel obscura fuerint id noverimus sequendum 
 quod nec praeceptis evangelicis contrarium, neo 
 decretis sanctorum invenitur adversum : — ‘ In 
 passages which may be either doubtful or obscure, 
 we might know that, we should follow that which 
 is found to be neither contrary to evangelical 
 precepts, nor opposed to the decrees of holy men’ 
 (Benedicti Capitulara, iii. 58, in Pertz, Monu- 
 menta Veteris German. Histor. iv. 2, p. 107). 
 But men like Bishop Agobardus (a.d. 840, in 
 Galandii Bibl ., xiii. p. 4-16), Johannes Scotus, 
 Erigena, Druthmar, Nicolaus Lyranus, Roger 
 Bacon, and others, acknowledged the necessity of 
 grammatical interpretation, and were only want- 
 ing in the requisite means, and in knowledge, for 
 putting it successfully into practice. 
 
 During the whole period of the middle ages the 
 allegorical interpretation again prevailed. The 
 middle ages were more distinguished by sentiment 
 than by clearness, and the allegorical interpre- 
 tation gave satisfaction to sentiment and occupa 
 tion to free mental speculation. 
 
 When, in the fifteenth century, classical studies 
 had revived, they exercised also a favourable 
 influence upon Biblical interpretation, and re- 
 stored grammatical interpretation to honour. It 
 was especially by grammatical interpretation that 
 the domineering Catholic church was combated 
 at the period of the Reformation ; but as soon as 
 the newly sprung-up Protestant church had been 
 dogmatically established, it began to consider 
 grammatical interpretation a dangerous adversary 
 of its own dogmas, and opposed it as much as did 
 the Roman Catholics themselves. From the middle 
 of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth 
 century this important ally of Protestantism was 
 subjected to the artificial law of a new dogmati- 
 cal interpretation ; while the Roman Catholic 
 church changed the principle of interpretation 
 formerly advanced by Vincentius, into an eccle- 
 siastical dogma. In consequence of this new 
 oppression the religious sentiment, which had 
 frequently been wounded both among Roman 
 Catholics and Protestants, took refuge in alle- 
 gorical interpretation, which then re-appeared 
 under the forms of typical and mystical theology. 
 
 After the beginning of the eighteenth century 
 grammatical interpretation recovered its autho- 
 rity. It was then first re-introduced by the 
 Arminians, and, in spite of constant attacks, to- 
 wards the conclusion of that century, it decidedly 
 prevailed among the German Protestants. It 
 ei >rcised a very beneficial influence, although it 
 
tb 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
 cannot be denied that manifold errors occurred in 
 its application. During the last thirty years both 
 Protestants and Roman Catholics have again 
 curtailed the rights and invaded the province of 
 grammatical interpretation, by promoting (accord- 
 ing to the general reaction of our times) the op- 
 posing claims of dogmatical and mystical inter- 
 pretation (comp. J. Rosenmiiller, Historia In- 
 terpretationis Libronmx sacrorum in Ecclesia 
 Christiana , Lipsiae, 1795-1814, 5 vols.; W. Van 
 Mildert, An Inquiry into the General Principles 
 of ScriptiiYe Interpretation , in Eight Sermons., 
 &c., Oxford, 1815; G. W. Meyer, Geschichte 
 der Schrifterkldrung seit der Wiederherstellung 
 der Wissenschaften, Gottingen, 1802-9, 5 vols. ; 
 Richard Simon, IJistoire Critique des principaux 
 Commentateurs duNouv. Test., Rotterdam, 1693; 
 H. N. Klausen, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testa - 
 mentes , Aus dem Diinischen, Leipzig, 1841, p. 
 77, sq. ; E. F. K. Roseumiiller, Handbuch fiir 
 die Literatur der Bibhtchen Kritik und Exegcse , 
 Gottingen, 1797-1800, 4 vols.). 
 
 The aim of human speech in general may be 
 described as the desire to render one’s own thoughts 
 intelligible to others by means of words in 
 their capacity of signs of thoughts. These words 
 may be written, or merely spoken. In order to 
 understand the speech of another, several arts and 
 branches of knowledge are requisite. The art of 
 understanding the language of another is called 
 Hermeneutics, t&xvt), or imaT-ppy]. 
 
 Every art may be reduced to the skilful applica- 
 tion of certain principles, which, if they proceed 
 from one highest principle, may be said to be 
 based on science. 
 
 Here we have to consider not the spoken, but 
 the written language only. The rules to be ob- 
 served by the interpreter, and the gifts which 
 qualify him for the right understanding of written 
 language, are applicable either to all written lan- 
 guage in general, or only to the right understand- 
 ing of particular documents ; they are, therefore, 
 to be divided into general and particular, or espe- 
 cial rules and gifts. In Biblical interpretation arises 
 the question, whether the general hermeneutical 
 rules are applicable to the Bible and sufficient 
 for rightly understanding if, or whether they are in- 
 sufficient, and have to undergo some modification. 
 
 Most Biblical interpreters, as we might infer 
 from the principle of dogmatical and allegorical 
 interpretation, have declared the general hermen- 
 eutical principles to be insufficient for explaining 
 the Bible, and required for this purpose especial 
 hermeneutical rules, because the Bible, they said, 
 which bai» been written under the direct guidance 
 of tht Holy Ghost, could not be measured by the 
 common rules which are applicable only to the 
 lower sphere of merely human thoughts and com- 
 positions. Therefore, from the most ancient 
 times, peculiar hermeneutical rules, meeting the 
 exigency of biblical interpretation, have been set 
 forth, which deviated from the rides of general 
 hermeneutics. Thus Biblical Hermeneutics were 
 changed into an art of understanding the Bible 
 according to a certain ecclesiastical system in 
 vogue at a ceitain period. 
 
 The advocates of grammatical interpretation 
 have apposed these Biblical hermeneutics, as 
 proceeding upon merely arbitrary suppositions. 
 Sometimes they merely limited its assertions, and 
 sometimes they reiected it altogether. In the 
 
 latter case they said that the principles of genera' 
 hermeneutics ought to be applicable to the Holy 
 Scriptures also. Against tire above-mentioned 
 train of argument cited from Origen, on which the 
 demand of particular Biblical hermeneutics essen- 
 tially rests, the following argument might, with 
 greater justice, be opposed : if God deemed it 
 requisite to reveal his will to mankind by means 
 of intelligible books, he must, in choosing this 
 medium, have intended that the contents of these 
 books should be discovered according to those 
 general laws which are conducive to the right 
 understanding of documents in general. If this 
 were not the case God would have chosen insuffi- 
 cient and even contradictory means inadequate to 
 the purpose he had in view. 
 
 The interpretation, which, in spite of all eccle- 
 siastical opposition, ought to be adopted as being 
 the only true one, strictly adheres to the demands of 
 general hermeneutics, to which it adds 1 «ose par- 
 ticular hermeneutical rules which meet the requi- 
 sites of particular cases. This has, in modern 
 times, been styled the iiistorico-grammaticai. 
 mode of interpretation. This appellation has 
 been chosen because the epithet grammatical 
 seems to be too narrow and too much restricted to 
 the mere verbal sense. It might be more correct 
 to style it simply the historical interpretation, 
 since the word historical comprehends every- 
 thing that is requisite to be known about the lan- 
 guage, the turn of mind, the individuality, & c. of 
 an author in order rightly to understand his book. 
 
 In accordance with the various notions con- 
 cerning Biblical interpretation which we have 
 stated, there have been produced Biblical her- 
 meneutics of very different kinds; for instance, 
 in the earlier period we might mention that of the 
 Donatist Ticonius, who wrote about the fourth 
 century his Regulce ad investigandam et inveni- 
 endam InteUigentiam Scripturarum Septem ; 
 Augustinus, De Doctrina Christiana , lib. i. 3; 
 Isidorus Hispalensis, Sentent. 419, sq. ; Santis 
 Pagnini (who died in 1511) Isagoga ad Mysticos 
 Sacrce Scriptures Sensus, libri octodecim, Colon 
 1540; Sixti Senensis (who died 1599) Biblio- 
 theca Sancta , Venctiis, 1566. Of this work, 
 which has been frequently reprinted, there be 
 longs to our present subject only Liber tertius 
 Artem exponendi Sancta Scripta Catholicis Ex - 
 positoribus aptissimis Regulis et Exemplis 
 ostendens. At a later period the Roman Catholics 
 added to these the works of Bellarmine, Martianay, 
 Cal met, Jahn, and Arigler. 
 
 On the part of the Lutherans were added by 
 Matt. Flaoius, Clavis Scripture Sacrer , Basileae, 
 1537, and often reprinted in two volumes; by 
 Johann Gerhard, Traciatus de Legit ima Scrip- 
 turee Sacrce Interpretations, Jenae, 1610 ; by 
 Solomon Glassius, Philologies Sacrce , libri 
 quinque, Jenae, 1623, and often reprinted ; by 
 Jacob Rambach, Institutiones llermeneuticcc 
 Sacrce, Jenae, 1723. 
 
 On the part of the Calvinists there were fur- 
 nished by J. Alph. Turretinus, De Scriptures 
 Sacrce Interpretations Tractatus Bipartitus . 
 Dortrecht, 1723, and often reprinted. In the 
 English Church were produced by Herbert Marsh 
 Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation oj 
 the Bible, Cambridge, 1828. 
 
 Since the middle of the last century it has been 
 usual to treat on the Old Testament hermeneuiica 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 fend on those of the New Testament in separate 
 works. For instance, G. W. Meyer, Versuch 
 finer Eermeneutik des Alten Testamentes, Lii- 
 beck, 1799; J. H. Pareau, Institutio Interpret is 
 Veteris Testamenti, Trajecti, 1822; J. A. Er- 
 nesti, Institxdio Interprets Novi Testamenti , 
 Lipsias, 1761, ed. 5ta., curante Ammon, 1809. 
 Translated into English by Terrot, Edinburgh, 
 1 833 ; Morus, Super Hermeneutica Novi Testa- 
 menti acroases academicce , ed. Eichstaedt, Lipsiae, 
 1797-1802, in two volumes, but not completed; 
 K. A. G. Kell, Lehrbuch der Eermeneutik des 
 Neuen Testamentes , nach Grundsdtzm der 
 grammatisch-historischen Interpretation , Leipzig, 
 1810; the same work in Latin, Lipsiae, 1811; 
 T. T. Conybeare, The Bampton Lectures for 
 the year 1824, being an attempt to trace the 
 History and to ascertain the limits of the se- 
 condary end spiritual Interpretation of Scripture , 
 Oxford, 1824 ; Schleiermacher, Eermeneutik 
 und Kridk mit besonderer Beziehung auf das 
 Neue Testament , herausgegeben von Liicke, 
 Berlin, .838; H. Nik. Klausen, Eermeneutik 
 des Neuen Testamentes , aus dem Diinischen, 
 Leipzig, 1841; Chr. Gottlieb Wilke, Die Her- 
 meneutik des Neuen Testamentes systematisch 
 dargestellt, Leipzig, 1843.* — K. A. C. 
 
 INTRODUCTION, BIBLICAL. The Greek 
 word elcraycayp, in the sense of an introduction to 
 a science, occurs only in later Greek, and was 
 first used to denote an introduction to the right 
 understanding of the Bible, by a Greek called 
 Adrian, who lived in the fifth century after Christ. 
 ’Adptavov etcrayuy )] rrjs ypacprjs is a small book, 
 the object of which is to assist readers who are 
 unacquainted with biblical phraseology in rightly 
 understanding peculiar words and expressions. It 
 was first edited by David Hoeschel, under the title 
 of Adriani Isagoge in Sacram Scripturam Greece 
 cum Scholiis, Augustse Vindobonae, 1602, 4to. 
 This work is reprinted in the London edition of the 
 Critici Sacri , tom. viii. ; and in the Frankfort edi- 
 tion, tom. vi. Before Adrian, the want of similar 
 works had already been felt, and books of a 
 corresponding tendency were in circulation, but 
 they did not bear the title of elcra ywyy. Melito of 
 Sardis, who lived in the latter half of the second 
 century, wrote a book under the title y Kheis, 
 being a key both to the Old and to the New Testa- 
 ment. The so-called A el-eis, which were written 
 at a later period, are books of a similar description. 
 Some of these A e|e;s have been printed in Mat.thaei’s 
 Novum Testamentum Greece , and in Boissonade's 
 Anecdota Grceca , tom. iii. Parisiis, 1831. These 
 are merely linguistic introductions ; but there was 
 soon felt the want of works which might solve other 
 questions ; such as, for instance, what are the prin- 
 ciples which should guide us in biblical interpre- 
 tation. The Donatist Ticoniits wrote, about the 
 year 380, Regulee ad investigandam et invenien- 
 dam Intelligentiam Scripturarum Septem. St. 
 Augustine, in his work De Doctrind Christian d, 
 
 * The writer of this article does not seem to 
 nave become acquainted with a very valuable 
 work on the general subject, recently published in 
 this country, under the title of Sacred Herme- 
 neutics developed and applied; including a 
 History of Biblical Interpretation from the 
 earliest of the Fathers to the Reformation , by 
 * »» Rev. S. Davidson, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1843. 
 
 (iii. 302), says concerning these seven rules, that 
 the author's intention was by means of them to 
 open the secret sense of Holy Writ, ‘ quasi cla- 
 vibus,’ as if it were by keys. 
 
 There arose also a question concerning the ex- 
 tent of Holy Writ — that is to say, what belonged, 
 and what did not belong, to Holy Writ ; and also 
 respecting the contents of the separate biblical 
 books, and the order in which they should follow 
 each other, &c. 
 
 About a.d. 550, Cassiodorus wrote his Institu- 
 iiones Divines. He mentions in this work, under 
 the name of Introductores Divince Scriptures 
 five authors who had been engaged in biuiica. 
 investigations, and in his tenth chapter speaks of 
 them thus : — Ad introductores scripturae divinao 
 
 sollicita mente redeamus, id est Ti- 
 
 conium Donatistam, Sanctum Augustinum de 
 doctrina Christiana, Adrianum, Eucherium, et 
 Junielum, quos sedula curiositate collegi, ut, 
 quibus erat similis intentio, in uno corpore adu- 
 nati codices clauderentur : — ‘ Let us eagerly 
 return to the guides to Holy Writ ; that is to say, 
 to the Donatist Ticonius, to St. Augustine on 
 Christian doctrine, to Adrian, Eucherius, and 
 Junillus, whom I have sedulously collected, in 
 order that works of a similar purport might be 
 combined in one volume. 5 
 
 Henceforward the title, Introductio in Scrip- 
 turam Sacram, was established, and remained 
 current for all works in which were solved ques- 
 tions introductory to the study of the Bible. In 
 the Western, or Latin church, during a thousand 
 years, scarcely any addition was made to the col- 
 lection of Cassiodorus ; while in the Eastern, or 
 Greek church, only two works written during this 
 long period deserve to be mentioned, both bearing 
 the title, 2vvo\(/is rrjs Betas ypacpijs. One of these 
 works was falsely ascribed to Athanasius, and the 
 other as falsely to Chrysostom. 
 
 At the commencement of the sixteenth century 
 the Dominican friar, Sautes Pagninus, who died 
 in 1541, published his Isagoge, by means of which 
 he intended to revive the biblical knowledge of 
 Jerome and St. Augustine. This work, consider- 
 ing the time of its appearance, was a great step 
 in advance. Its title is, Santis Pagnini Lucensis 
 Isagoge ad Sacras Literas , liber unicus. Colonise, 
 1540, fol. 
 
 The work of the Dominican friar, Sixtus of 
 Sienna, who died in 1599, is of greater importance, 
 although it is manifestly written under the in- 
 fluence of the Inquisition, which had just been 
 restored, and is perceptibly shackled by the de- 
 crees of the Council of Trent. Sixtus had the 
 intention, worthy of an inquisitor, to expurgate 
 from Christian literature every heretical element. 
 The Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was 
 then first published, had the same object ; but 
 Sixtus furnished also a list of books to be used by 
 a true Catholic Christian for the right understand- 
 ing of Holy Writ, as well as the principles wnieh 
 should guide a Roman Catholic in criticism and 
 interpretation. The title of his work is, Bibliotheca 
 Sancta ab A. F. Sixto, Senensi, ordinis preedir 
 catoo'um, ex preecipuis Catholics} Ecclesice auc- 
 toribus collecta, et in octo libros digesta , Venet.iis, 
 1566. This book is dedicated to the Cardinal 
 Ghisleri, who ascended the papal throne in 1566, 
 under the name of Pius V. : it has liequeutlv 
 been reprinted. 
 
28 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The decrees of the Council of Trent prevented 
 the Roman Catholics from moving- freely in the 
 Geld of biblical investigation, while the Protestants 
 zealously carried out their researches in various 
 directions. The Illyrian, Matthias Flacius, in 
 his Clavis Scriptures Sacra, seu de Sermone Sa- 
 crarum Liter arum, which was first printed at 
 Basle, 1567, in folio, furnished an excellent work 
 on biblical Hermeneutics; but it was surpassed 
 by the Prolegomena of Brian Walton, which be- 
 long to his celebrated Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 
 London, 1657, six volumes fol. These Prolego- 
 mena contain much that will always be accounted 
 valuable and necessary for the true criticism of 
 tne sacred text. They have been published sepa- 
 rately, with notes, by Archdeacon Wrangham, in 
 2 vols. Svo. Thus we have seen that excellent 
 works were produced on isolated portions of bi- 
 blical introduction, but they were not equalled in 
 merit by the works in which it was attempted to 
 furnish a whole system of biblical introduction. 
 
 The following biblical introductions are among 
 the best of those which were published about that 
 period : Michaelis Waltheri Officina Biblica no - 
 viter adaperta, & re., Lipsise, first published in 
 1636 ; Abrahami Calovii Criticus Sacer Biblicus, 
 8fc., Viternbergae, 1643 ; J. H. Hottinger, The- 
 saurus Philolvgicus, seu Clavis Scriptures Sacrce, 
 Tiguri, 1649; Johannis Henrici Heidegger En- 
 chiridion Biblicum Upopv7)poviK.6u , Tiguri, 1681 ; 
 Leusden, a Dutchman, published a work entitled 
 Philologus Hebrceus, §c., Utrecht, 1656, and Phi- 
 lologus Hebrceo-Grcecus Generalis, Utrecht, 1670. 
 All these works have been frequently reprinted. 
 
 The dogmatical zeal of the Protestants was 
 greatly excited by the work of Louis Capelle, a 
 reformed divine and learned professor at Saumur, 
 which appeared under the title of Ludovici Cap- 
 pelli Critica Sacra ; sive de variis qua in veteris 
 Testamenti libris occurrunt lectionibus libri sex. 
 Edita opere ac studio Joannis Cappelli, auctoris 
 filii, Parisiis, 1650. A learned Roman Catholic 
 and priest of the Oratory, Richard Simon, who 
 was born in 1658, and died in 1712, rightly per- 
 ceived, from the dogmatical bile stirred up by 
 Capelle, that biblical criticism was the most 
 effective weapon to be employed against the Pro- 
 testantism which had grown cold and still’ in dog- 
 matics. He therefore devoted his critical knowledge 
 of the Bible to the service of the Roman Catholic 
 church, and endeavoured to inflict a death-blow 
 upon Protestantism. The result, however, was the 
 production of Simon’s excellent work on biblical 
 criticism, which became the basis on which the 
 science of biblical introduction was raised. Si- 
 mon was the first who correctly separated the cri- 
 ticism of the Old Testament from that of the New. 
 His works on biblical introduction appeared under 
 the following titles : Histoire Critique du Vieux 
 Testament , Paris, 1678. This work was inaccu- 
 rately reprinted at Amsterdam by Elzevir in 1679, 
 and subsequently in many other bad piratical edi- 
 tions. Among these the most complete was that 
 printed, together with several polemical treatises 
 occasioned by this work, at Rotterdam, in 1685, 
 4to. ; — Histone Critique du Texte du Nouveau 
 Testament , Rotterdam, 1689 ; Histoire Critique 
 des Versions du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 
 1690 ; Histoire Critique des principaux Com- 
 menteteurs du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 
 1693. By these excellent critical works Simon 
 
 established a claim upon the gratitude of all real 
 friends of truth ; but he was thanked by none of 
 the prevailing parties in the Christian church. 
 The Protestants saw in Simon only an enemy 
 of their church, not the thorough investigator and 
 friend of truth. To the Roman Catholics, on the 
 other hand, Simon’s works appeared to be destruc- 
 tive, because they demonstrated their ecclesiastical 
 decrees to be arbitrary and unhistorical. The 
 Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament was sup- 
 pressed by the Roman Catholics in Paris imme- 
 diately after its publication, and in Protestant 
 countries also it was forbidden to reprint it. The 
 Roman Catholic bishop, Bossuet, lamented that 
 Simon had undermined the dogma of tradition, 
 and had changed the holy fathers into Protestants. 
 Simon, as an honest investigator and friend of 
 truth, remained undisturbed ; but kept aloof from 
 both Roman Catholics and Protestants, by both of 
 which parties he was persecuted, and died in 1712, 
 in a merely external connection with the Romish 
 church. 
 
 The churches endeavoured, witn apparent suc- 
 cess, to destroy Simon and his writings, in a host 
 of inimical and condemnatory publications, by 
 which the knowledge of truth was not in the least 
 promoted. However, the linguistic and truly 
 scientific researches of Pocock ; the Oriental school 
 in the Netherlands; the unsurpassed work of 
 Humphry Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus Ori- 
 ginalibus Versionibus, S$c., Oxoniae, 1705, folio; 
 the excellent criticism of Mill, in his Novum Tes- 
 tamentum Gr cecum cum Lectionibus Variantibus , 
 Oxoniae, 1707, folio; which was soon followed by 
 Wetstein’s Novum Testamentum Gr cecum edi - 
 tionis receptee , cum Lectionibus Variantibus, 
 Amstelodami, 1751-2, folio, and by which even 
 Johann Albert Bengel, who died in 1752, waa 
 convinced, in spite of his ecclesiastical orthodoxy 
 (comp. Bengelii Apparatus Criticus Novi Tes- 
 tamenti, p. 634, sq.) ; the biblical works by Jo- 
 hann Heinrich Michaelis, especially his Biblia 
 Ilebraica ex Manuscriptis et impressis Codicibus , 
 Halae, 1720 ; and Benjamin Kennicott's Vctus 
 Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis Lectionibus , 
 Oxoniae, 1776, and the revival of classical philo- 
 logy ; — all this gradually led to results which 
 coincided with Simon’s criticism, and showed the 
 enormous difference between historical truth and 
 the arbitrary ecclesiastical opinions which were 
 still prevalent in the works on biblical introduc- 
 tion by Pritius, Black wall, Carpzov, Van Til, 
 Moldenhauer, and others. Johann David Mi- 
 chaelis, who died in 1791, mildly endeavoured to 
 reconcile the church with historical truth, but has 
 been rewarded by the anathemas of the eccle- 
 siastical party, who have pronounced him a heretic. 
 By their ecclesiastical persecutors, Richard Simon 
 was falsely described to be a disciple of the 
 atheistical Spinoza, and Michaelis as a follower 
 of both Simon and Spinoza. However, the me- 
 diating endeavours of Michaelis gradually pre- 
 vailed. His Introduction to the New Testament 
 appeared first as a work of moderate size, under 
 the title of Johann David Michaelis Einleitung 
 in die Gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, 
 Gottingen, 1750, 8vo. It was soon translated into 
 English. In the years 1765-6 Michaelis published 
 a second and augmented edition of the German ori- 
 ginal, in two volumes. The fourth edition, which 
 received great additions, and in which many alter- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 36 
 
 ations were made, appeared in 1788, in two vols. 
 4to. This edition was translated and essentially 
 augmented by Herbert Marsh, afterwards Bishop of 
 Peterborough, and appeared under the title, Intro- 
 duction to the New Testament, by John David 
 Michaelis, translated from the fourth edition of the 
 German, and considerably augmented, Cambridge, 
 1791-1801, 4 vols. 8vo. Michaelis commenced also 
 an introduction to the Old Testament, but did not 
 complete it. A portion of it was printed under 
 the title, Einleitung in die Gottlichen Schriften 
 des Alten Bundes, Theil i. Abschnitt 1, Hamburg, 
 1787. 
 
 A work by Ed. Harwood, entitled A New In- 
 troduction to the Study and Knowledge of the 
 New Testament, London, 1767-71, was translated 
 into German by Schulz, Halle, 1770-73, in three 
 volumes. In this book there are so many hete- 
 rogeneous materials, that it scarcely belongs to 
 the science of introduction. 
 
 The study of New Testament introduction was 
 in Germany especially promoted also by Johann 
 Solomon Semler, who died at Halle in 1791. It 
 was by Semler’s influence that the critical works 
 of Richard Simon were translated into German, 
 and the works of Wetstein re-edited and circulated. 
 The original works of Semler on biblical intro- 
 'uction are his Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Tes- 
 tamenti Interpretationem, Halae, 1767, and his 
 Abhandlung von freier TJntersuchung des Canons, 
 4 vols., Halle, 1771-5. 
 
 Semler’s school produced Johann Jacob Gries- 
 bach, who died at Jena in the year 1812. Gries- 
 bach’s labours in correcting the text of the New 
 Testament are of great value. K. A. Haenlein 
 published a work called Ilandbuch der Einlei- 
 tung in die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes, 
 Erlangen, 1794-1802, in two volumes, in which 
 he followed up the lectures of Griesbach. A 
 second edition of this work appeared in the years 
 1801-9. This introduction contains excellent 
 materials, but is wanting in decisive historical 
 criticism. 
 
 Johann Gottfried Eichhom, who died at Got- 
 tingen in 1827, was formed in the school of Mi- 
 idiaelis at Gottingen, and was inspired by Herder’s 
 poetical views of the East in general, and of the 
 literature of the ancient Hebrews in particular. 
 Eichhcrn commenced his Introduction when the 
 times were inclined to give up the Bible alto- 
 gether, as a production of priestcraft inapplicable 
 to the present period. He endeavoured to bring 
 the contents of the Bible into harmony with mo- 
 dem modes of thinking, to explain, and to recom- 
 mend them. He endeavoured by means of hypo- 
 theses to furnish a clue to their origin, without 
 sufficiently regarding strict historical criticism. 
 Eichhorn’s Einleitung in das Alte Testament was 
 first published at Leipsic in 1780-83, in three 
 volumes. The fifth edition was published at Got- 
 tingen, 1820-24, in five volumes. His Einleitung 
 in das Neue Testament was published at Gottin- 
 gen in 1804-27, in five volumes. The earlier 
 volumes have been republished. The external 
 treatment of the materials, the style, aim, and 
 many separate portions of both works, are masterly 
 and excellent ; but with regard to linguistic and 
 historical research, they are feeble and over- 
 whelmed with hypotheses. 
 
 Leonhardt Bertholdt was a very diligent but 
 Bncritical compiler. He made a considerable step 
 
 backward in the science of introduction, nut only 
 by reuniting the Old and New Testament into 
 one whole, but by even intermixing the separate 
 writings witli each other, in his work entitled 
 Historisch-hritische Einleitung in sammtliche 
 kanonische und Apocryphische Schriften des 
 Alten und Neuen Testamentes, Erlangen, 1812- 
 19, in six volumes. 
 
 The Isagoge Historico-critica in Libros Novi 
 Foederis Sacros, Jense, 1830, of H. A. Schott, is 
 more distinguished by diligence than by penetra- 
 tion. The Lehrbuch der Historisch-kritischen 
 Einleitung in die Bibel A. und N. T. Berlin ; 
 Theil 1, Die Allgemeine Einleitung und das Alte 
 Testament enthaltend, 1817 (fifth edition, 1840); 
 Theil 2, Das Neue Testament enthaltend, 1826 
 (fourth edition, 1842), by W. M. Lebrecht de 
 Wette, is distinguished by brevity, precision, 
 critical penetration, and in some parts by com- 
 pleteness. This book contains an excellent survey 
 of the various opinions prevalent in the sphere of 
 biblical introduction, interspersed with original 
 discussions. Almost every author on biblical cri- 
 ticism will find that De Wette has made use of 
 his labours ; but in the purely historical portions 
 the book is feeble, and indicates that the author 
 did not go to the first sources, but adopted the 
 opinions of others; consequently the work has no 
 internal harmony. An English translation of 
 this work, with additions by the translator, Theo^ 
 dore Parker, has lately appeared in America, 
 under the title of A Critical and Historical In- 
 troduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 The word ‘ introduction ’ being of rather vague 
 signification, there was also formerly no definite 
 idea attached to the expression Biblical In- 
 tkoduction. In works on this subject (as in 
 Horne's Introdxiction ) might be found contents 
 belonging to geography, antiquities, interpreta- 
 tion, natural history, and other branches of know- 
 ledge. Even the usual contents of biblical intro- 
 ductions weie so unconnected, that Schleier- 
 mac’ner, in his Kurze Darstellung des Theolo- 
 gischen Stadiums, justly called it ein Mancherlei ; 
 that is, a farrago or omnium-gatherum. Biblical 
 introduction was usually described as consisting 
 of the various branches of preparatory knowledges 
 requisite for viewing and treating the Bible cor- 
 rectly. It was distinguished from biblical history 
 and archaeology by being less intimately con- 
 nected with what is usually ca’Uu history. It 
 comprised treatises on the origin of the Bible, on 
 the original languages, on the translations, and 
 on the history of the sacred text; and was divided 
 into general and special introduction. 
 
 The author of this article endeavoured to re- 
 move this vagueness by furnishing a firm defini- 
 tion of biblical introduction. In his work, 
 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, von Dr. K. 
 A. Credner, th. i. Halle, 1836, he defined biblical 
 introduction to be the history of the Bible, and 
 divided it into the following paits : 
 
 1. The history of the separate biblical books. 
 
 2. The history of the coUection of these books^ 
 or of the canon. 
 
 3. The history of the spread of these books, or 
 of the translations of it. 
 
 4. The history of the preservation of the text. 
 
 5. The history of the interpretation of it. 
 
 This view of the science of introduction has 
 
30 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 received much approbation, and is the basis of 
 Reus’s Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des 
 Neuen Testamentes , Halle, 1842. The results 
 of the critical examination of the books of the 
 New Testament are comprehended in the follow- 
 ing work, Das Neue Testament nach seinem 
 Zweck , Ursprunge und Inlialt, von A. R. Credner, 
 Giessen, 1841-3, in two volumes. 
 
 The critical investigation which prevailed in 
 Germany after the days of Michaelis, has of late 
 been opposed by a mode of treating biblical intro- 
 duction, not so much in the spirit of a free search 
 after truth as in an apokigetical and polemical 
 style. This course, however, has not enriched 
 biblical science. To this class of books belong 
 a number of monographs, or treatises on separate 
 subjects ; also the Handbuch der Historisch-kri- 
 tischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Erlan- 
 gen, 1836, by H. A. C. Havernick, of which there 
 have been published two parts, in three volumes, 
 and of which an English translation is in pre- 
 paration ; and also H. E. Ferd. Guericke’s Ein- 
 leitung in das Nene Testament , Halle, 1843, in 
 which too frequently an anathema against here- 
 tics serves as a substitute for demonstration. The 
 apologet.ical tendency prevails in the work of 
 G. Hamilton, entitled A General Introduction 
 to the Study of the Hebrew Scriptures, 8$c., 
 Dublin, 1814; in Thomas Hartwell Horne’s 
 Introduction to the Critical Study and Know- 
 ledge of the Holy Scrip hires, 8$c., London, 1818, 
 four volumes (the eighth edition, 1839, five vo- 
 lumes) ; and in J. Cook’s Inquiry into the Books 
 of the Neto Testament, Edinburgh, 1824. 
 
 The Roman Catholics also have, in modern 
 times, written on biblical introduction, although 
 the unchangeable decrees of the Council of Trent 
 hinder all free, critical, and scientific treatment of 
 the subject. The Roman Catholics can treat bibli- 
 cal introduction only in a polemical and apologe- 
 tical manner, and are obliged to keep up the atten- 
 tion of their readers by introducing learned archae- 
 ological researches, which conceal the want of free 
 movement. This latter mode was adopted by 
 J. Jahn (who died at Vienna in 1816) in his Ein- 
 leitung in die Gottlichen Bucher des alten Bundes, 
 Vienna, 1793, two volumes, and 1802, three 
 volumes; and in his lntroductio in Libros Sacros 
 Veteris Testamenti in epitomen redacta, Viennae, 
 1805. This work has been republished by F. 
 Ackermann, in what are asserted to be the third 
 and fourth editions, under the title of lntroductio 
 in Libros Sacros Veteris Testamenti, usibus aca- 
 demicis accommodata, Viennae, 1825, and 1839. 
 But these so-called new editions are full of altera- 
 tions and mutilations, which remove every free 
 expression of Jahn, who belonged to the liberal 
 period of the Emperor Joseph. 
 
 Johann Leonhard Hug’s Einleitung in das Neue 
 Testamert, Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1808, two 
 volumes, third edition, 1826, surpasses Jahn’s 
 work in ability, and has obtained much credit 
 among Protestants by its learned explanations, 
 although these frequently swerve from the point 
 in question. Hug’s work has been translated 
 into English by the Rev. D. G. Wait, LL.D. ; 
 but this translation is much surpassed by that 
 of Fosdick, published in. the United States, 
 and enriched by the addenda of Moses Stuart. 
 The polemical and apologetical style prevails 
 Lu the work of J G. Herbst, Historisch-kri- 
 
 tische Einleitung in die Schriften des Alter, 
 Testamentes, completed and edited after (he 
 death of the author, by Welle, Carlsruhe, 1840; 
 and in L' Introduction Historique et Critique 
 aux Livres de V Ancien et du Nouveau Testa- 
 ment, par J. B. Glaire, Paris, 1839, four volumes. 
 The work of the excellent Feilmoser, who died in 
 1831, Einleitung in die Bucher des Neuen Bundes , 
 in the second edition, Tubingen, 1830, forsakes 
 the position of a true Roman Catholic, inasmuch 
 as it is distinguished by a noble ingenuousness 
 and candour. All these last-mentioned works 
 prove that the science of introduction cannot 
 prosper in ecclesiastical fetters. — K. A. C. 
 
 [It seems desirable to add to this article a short 
 view of the works on Biblical Introduction which 
 have appeared in England. These are mostly of 
 small importance in comparison with the great 
 works on the subject which have been produced 
 on the Continent ; and hence few of them have 
 engaged the notice of the Contributor to whom 
 we are indebted for the preceding article. 
 
 Collier’s Sacred Interpreter, 2 vols. 8vo. 1746, 
 was one of our earliest publications of this kind. 
 It went through several editions, and was trans- 
 lated into German in 1750. It relates both to 
 the Old and New Testament, and is described 
 by Bishop Marsh as ‘ a good popular preparation 
 for the study of the Holy Scriptures.’ 
 
 Lardner’s History of the Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists , 3 vols. 8vo. 1756-7, is described by the 
 same critic as an admirable introduction to the 
 New Testament. ‘ It is a storehouse of literary 
 information, collected with equal industry and 
 fidelity.’ From this work, from the English 
 translation of Michaelis’s Introduction , 1761 
 and from Dr. Owen’s Observations on the Gos- 
 pels, 1764, Dr. Percy, Bishop of Dromore, com- 
 piled a useful manual, called A Key to the New 
 Testament, which has gone through many edi 
 tions, and is much in request among the candi- 
 dates for ordination in the Established Church. 
 
 The Key to the Old Testament, 1790, by 
 Dr. Gray, afterwards Bishop of Bristol, was writ- 
 ten in imitation of Percy’s compilation ; but it 
 is a much more elaborate performance than the 
 Key to the Neio Testament. It is a compilation 
 from a great variety of works, references to 
 which are given at the foot of each page. Bishop 
 Marsh speaks of it as ‘a very useful publication 
 for students of divinity, who will find at, one 
 view what must otherwise be collected from 
 many writers.’ It is still popular, the tenth 
 edition having been published in 1841. But a 
 professed compilation, which contains in its latest 
 edition no reference to any work published for 
 above half a century past, must necessarily be far 
 behind the present state of our information on the 
 subjects of which it treats. 
 
 Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the Study and 
 Knowledge of the New Testament, 2 vols. 8vo. 
 1767, 1771, although noticed by our contributor, 
 is not properly an introduction to the New Tes- 
 tament, in the usual and proper sense of the term. 
 It does not describe the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, but is a collection of dissertations relative 
 partly to the character of the sacred writers, Jew- 
 ish history and customs, and to such parts of 
 heathen antiquities as have reference to the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The first volume of Bishop Tomline's Elements 
 
IOTA. 
 
 IRON. 
 
 3 
 
 vf Christian Theology contains an introduction 
 both to the Old and to the New Testament, and 
 has been published in a separate form. It is 
 suited to its purpose as a manual for students in 
 divinity ; but the standard of present attainment 
 cannot be very high if, as Marsh states, ‘ it may 
 be read with advantage by the most experienced 
 divine.' 
 
 The works of Dr. Cook, the Rev. G. Hamilton, 
 and the Rev. T. H. Horne, are mentioned in the 
 above article; but the slight notice of Horne’s 
 Introduction which it contains will scarcely 
 satisfy those who are aware that it is the largest 
 and most important work of the kind which we 
 uossess. We cheerfully subscribe to the opinion 
 of Bishop Marsh, that it is ‘ upon the whole a 
 very useful publication, and does great credit to 
 the industry and researches of the indefatigable 
 author.’ We may add, that it has worthily 
 occupied for above a quarter of a century a high 
 and influential place in our theological literature ; 
 during which it has satisfied the current demand 
 for the kind of information which it offers, and 
 has done much to form a class of students who 
 now take their stand upon it, and look with desire 
 to the fields beyond, where lie the vast treasures 
 in every department of biblical literature which 
 the wonderful activity of continental research 
 has of late years accumulated. Had the able 
 and pious author more largely availed himself of 
 these important sources of information, the value 
 of his work to a large and rapidly-increasing 
 class of students would have been very much 
 enhanced. A very useful abridgment of this 
 Introduction , in 1 vol. 12mo., appeared in 1829 
 under the title of A Compendious Introduction 
 to the Study of the Bible. Another manual, 
 under the title of A Scripture Help, 1806, by the 
 Rev. E. Bickersteth, has been received with emi- 
 nent favour ; and we have seen the first volume 
 of an admirable work for junior students pub- 
 lished in the United States in 1835 under the 
 title of Introduction to the Criticism and Inter- 
 pretation of the Bible , by C. E. Stowe. We 
 know not whether the second volume has yet 
 appeared]. 
 
 IOTA (Auth. Vers. ‘‘Jot ’), the smallest letter of 
 the Greek alphabet (4); derived from the He- 
 brew jod(f) and the Syriac judh (-**), and em- 
 ployed metaphorically to express the minutest 
 trifle. It is, in fact, one of several metaphors 
 derived from the alphabet — as when alpha , the 
 first letter, and omega , the last, are employed to 
 express the beginning and the end. We are not 
 to suppose, however, that this proverb was exclu- 
 sively apposite in the Greek language. The 
 same practical allusion equally existed in He- 
 brew, some curious examples of which may be 
 seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot. One of these 
 may here suffice : — In the Talmud ( Sanhed . xx. 2) 
 it is fabled that the book of Deuteronomy came 
 and prostrated itself before God, and said, ‘ O 
 Lord of the universe, thou hast written in me thy 
 law, but now a testament defective in some parts 
 i3 defective in all. Behold, Solomon endeavours 
 to root the letter jod out of me’ (i. e. in the text, 
 
 D WHITT ah, ‘he shall not multiply wives’ 
 (Deut. xvi. 17). ‘The hnly, blessed God an- 
 »w«red- — Solomon, and a th< usand such as he, shall 
 
 perish, but the least word shall not perish out of 
 thee.’ This is, in fact, a parallel not only to the 
 usage but the sentiment, as conveyed in Matt, 
 v. 18, ‘ One jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass 
 from the law.’ 
 
 IRON. This word, wherever it occurs in the 
 English Version, answers to or to its Chal- 
 
 daic ; to alorjpos in the Sept. ; and to ferrum in 
 the Vulg., except where it gives an explanatory 
 translation, as ‘ falcatos currus’ (Judg. iv. 3), 
 though it sometimes gives the literal translation 
 of the same term, as ‘ ferreos currus’ (Josh. xvii. 
 18). The use of the Greek and Latin words, in 
 classical authors of every age, fixes their mean- 
 ing. That c'ibppos means iron, in Homer, is 
 plain from his simile derived from the quenching 
 of iron in water, which he applies to the hissing 
 noise produced in piercing the eye of Polyphemus 
 with the pointed stake ( Odys . ix. 391). Much 
 stress has been laid upon the absence of iron 
 among the most ancient remains of Egypt ; but the 
 speedy decomposition of this metal, especially when 
 buried in the nitrous soil of Egypt, may account 
 for the absence of it among the remains of the 
 early monarchs of a Pharaonic age (Wilkinson’s 
 Ancient Egypt., iii. 246). Tubal-Cain is the 
 first-mentioned smith, ‘a forger of every instru- 
 ment of iron’ (Gen. iv. 22). From that time we 
 meet with manufactures in iron of the utmost 
 variety ( some articles of which seem to be anti- 
 cipations of what are commonly supposed to be 
 modern inventions) ; as iron weapons or instru- 
 ments (Num. xxxv. 7 ; Job xx. 24) ; barbed 
 irons, used in hunting (Job xli. 7) ; an iron bed- 
 stead (Deut. iii. 11) ; chariots of iron (Josh. xvii. 
 16, and elsewhere); iron weights (shekels) 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 7); harrows of iron (2 Sam. xii. 
 31); iron armour (2 Sam. xxiii. 7); tools 
 (1 Kings vi. 7 ; 2 Kings vi. 5); horns (1 Kings 
 xxii. 11); nails, hinges (1 Chron. xxii. 3); fet- 
 ters (Ps. cv. 18); bars (Ps. cvii. 16); iron bars 
 used in fortifying the gates of towns (Ps. cvii. 16 ; 
 Isa. xlv. 2) ; a pen of iron (Job xix. 24 ; Isa. 
 xvii. 1); a pillar (Jer. i. 18); yokes (Jer. 
 xxviii. 13); pan (Ezek. iv. 3) ; trees bound with 
 iron (Dan. iv. 15) ; gods of iron (Dan. v. 4) ; 
 threshing-instruments (Amos i. 3) ; and in later 
 times, an iron gate (Acts xii. 10); the actual 
 cautery (1 Tim. iv. 2) ; breastplates (Rev. ix. 9), 
 
 The mineral origin of iron seems clearly al- 
 luded to in Job xxviii. 2. It would seem that in 
 ancient times it was a plentiful production of 
 Palestine (Deut. viii. 9). There appear to have 
 been furnaces for smelting at an early period in 
 Egypt (Deut. iv. 20). The requirement that the 
 altar should be made of ‘ whole stones over which 
 no man had lift up any iron,’ recorded in Josh, 
 viii. 31, does not imply any objection to iron as 
 such, but seems to be merely- a mode of directing 
 that, in order to prevent idolatry, the stones must 
 not undergo any preparation by art. Iron was 
 prepared in abundance by David for the building 
 of the temple (1 Chron. xxii. 3), to the amount of 
 one hundred thousand talents (1 Chron. xxix. 7), 
 or rather ‘without weight’ (1 Chron. xxii. 14). 
 Working in iron was considered a calling 
 (2 Chron. ii. 7) [Smith], Iron seems to have 
 been better from some countries, or to have under- 
 gone some hardening preparation by the inha- 
 bitants of them, such aa were the people called 
 

 ISAAC. 
 
 ISAAC. 
 
 Chalybes, living near the Euxine Sea (Jer. xv. 
 12 j; to have been imported from Tarshish to 
 Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 12), and ‘bright iron’ from 
 Dan and Javan (ver. 19). The superior hardness 
 of iron above all other substances is alluded to in 
 Dan. ii. 40. It was found among the Midian- 
 ites (Num. xxxi. 221 , and was part of the wealth 
 distributed among the tribes at their location in 
 ti.e land (Josh. xxii. 8). 
 
 Iron is metaphorically alluded to in the fol- 
 lowing instances: — affliction is signified by the 
 furnace for smelting it (Dent. iv. 20) ; under the 
 same figure, chastisement (Ezek. xxii. 18, 20, 22); 
 reducing the earth to total barrenness by turning 
 it into iron (Deut. xxviii. 23) ; slavery, by a yoke 
 of iron (Deut. xxviii. 48) ; strength, by a bar of 
 it (Job xl. 18); the extreme of hardness (Job xli. 
 27) ; severity of government, by a rod of iron 
 (Ps. ii. 9) ; affliction, by iron fetters (Ps. cvii. 10); 
 prosperity, by giving silver for iron (Isa. lx. 17); 
 political strength (Dan. ii. 33); obstinacy, by an 
 iron sinew in the neck (Isa. xlviii. 4) ; giving 
 supernatural fortitude to a prophet, making him 
 an iron pillar (Jer. i. 18); destructive power of 
 empires, by iron teeth (Dan. vii. 7) ; deterioration 
 of character, by becoming iron (Jer. vi. 28 ; Ezek. 
 xxii. 18), which resembles the idea of the iron 
 age ; a tiresome burden, by a mass of iron (Ec- 
 clus. xxii. 15); the greatest obstacles, by walls of 
 iron (2 Macc. xi. 9) ; the certainty with which a 
 real enemy will ever show his hatred, by the rust 
 returning upon iron (Ecclus. xii. 10). Iron 
 seems us6d, as by the Greek poets, metonymically 
 for tire sword (Isa. x, 34), and so the Sept, under- 
 stands it, paxaipa. The following is selected as 
 a beautiful comparison made to iron (Prov. 
 xxvii. 17), ‘Iron (literally) uniteth iron; so a 
 man uniteth the countenance of his friend,’ gives 
 stability to his appearance by his presence. A 
 most graphic description of a smith at work is 
 found in Ecclus. xxxviii. 28. — J. F. D. 
 
 ISAAC (pnv? i Sept. I <raa/c), son of Abraham 
 and Sarah, born in his parents’ old age. The 
 promise of a sort had been made to them when 
 Abraham was visited by the Lord in the plains 
 of Mamre, and appeared so unlikely to be ful- 
 filled, seeing that both Abraham and Sarah were 
 ‘ well stricken in years,’ that its utterance caused 
 the latter to laugh incredulously. Being reproved 
 for her unbelief, she denied that she had laughed. 
 The reason assigned for the special visitation thus 
 promised was, in effect, that Abraham was pious, 
 and would train Iris offspring in piety, so that he 
 would become the founder of a great nation, and 
 all the- nations of the earth should be blessed in 
 nim. 
 
 In due time Sarah gave birth to a son, who re- 
 ceived the name of Isaac. The reason assigned 
 in Gen. xxi. 6 for tire adoption of this name, has 
 reference to the laughter occasioned by the an- 
 nouncement of the divine intention — ‘and Sarah 
 said, God hath made me to laugh, all that hear 
 will laugh with me" — the laugh of incredulity 
 being changed into the laugh of joy (comp. Gen. 
 xxi. 0; xviii. 12; xvii. 17). In the last passage 
 Abraham is said to have laughed also when in- 
 formed of God himself that he and Sarah should 
 nave a son, though he was a hundred and his 
 wife ninety years old. 
 
 Some writers have seen a discrepancy in the pas- 
 
 sages before referred to, and nave hence conjectured 
 that we have here to do, not with history, but 
 historical legends (Winer, Ilandwdrterb .). Wo 
 are unable to find anything of a nature to excite 
 suspicion or abate confidence, there being scarcely 
 any variations, and certainly none but such as 
 might easily arise on a purely historical ground. 
 
 The first fact that we read of in the hfstory of 
 Isaac, is the command given to his father to offer 
 the youth — ‘ thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom 
 thou lovest’ — for a burnt-offering on a tnountain 
 in the land of Moriah. Abraham proceeded to 
 obey the divine direction, and was on the point of 
 slaying Isaac, when his hand was withheld by tlw 
 interposition of God, a ram for sacrifice being 
 provided instead. 
 
 This event has found no few detractors. Eich- 
 horn (Bibl. f. Bibl. Lit. i. 45, sq.) regarded the 
 whole as a vision ; Otmar (Henkes's Mag. ii. 517), 
 as the explanation of an hieroglyph; Bruns 
 ( Paulus Memorab. vi. 1, sq.) finds the source 
 of it in the Phoenician custom of sacrificing 
 children. Some compare (Rosenmiiller, Mor- 
 genl. i. 95) with this narrative the Grecian story 
 of Iphigenia, and other fables of a similar kind. 
 The general aim of certain writers has been, as 
 they consider it, to relieve the Bible from the 
 odium which the narrated circumstances are in 
 their opinion fitted to occasion. That the passage 
 is free from every possible objection, it may be 
 too much to assert : it is, however, equally clear 
 that many of the objections taken 1o it arise from 
 viewing the facts from a wrong position, or under 
 the discolouring medium of a foregone and ad- 
 verse conclusion. The only proper way is to 
 consider it as it is represented in the sacred page. 
 The command, then, was expressly designed to 
 try Abraham’s faith. Destined as the patriarch 
 was to be the father of the faithful, was he worthy 
 of his high and dignified position 1 ? If his own 
 obedience was weak, he could not train others in 
 faith, trust, and love : hence a trial was neces- 
 sary. That he was not without holy dispositions 
 was already known, and indeed recognised in the 
 divine favours of which he had been the object ; 
 but was he prepared to do and to suffer all God ; 3 
 will? Religious perfection and his position alike 
 demanded a perfect heart : hence the kind ot 
 trial. If he were willing to surrender even nis 
 only child, and act himself both as offerer and 
 wiest in the sacrifice of the required victim, if 
 le could so far conquer his natural affections, so 
 subdue the father in his heart, then there could be 
 no doubt, that his will was wholly reconciled to 
 God’s, and that he was worthy of every trust, 
 confidence, and honour. The trial was made, 
 the fact was ascertained, the victim was not slain. 
 What is there in this to which either religion or 
 morality can take exception? This view is both 
 confirmed and justified by the words of God 
 (Gen. xxii. 16, sq.), ‘ because thou hast not with- 
 held thy only son, in blessing I will bless thee, 
 and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as 
 the stars of the heaven, and in thy seed shall all 
 the nations of the earth be blessed.’ 
 
 We remark also that, not a part, but the entire, 
 of the transaction must be taken under considei- 
 ation, and especially the final result. If -^e 
 dwell exclusively on the commen cement ol it, 
 there appears to be some sanction j? .ven to human 
 sacrifices; but the end, and the ;oncl tiding and 
 
ISAAC. 
 
 evfor-endnring fact, has the directly opposite bear 
 ing. Viewed as a whole, the transaction is in 
 truth an express prohibition of human sacrifices. 
 
 Isaac passed his youthful days under the eye 
 jf his father, engaged in the care of (locks and 
 herds up and down the plains of Canaan. At 
 length his father wished to see him married. 
 Abraham therefore gave a commission to his old- 
 est and most trustworthy servant to the effect that, 
 in order to prevent Isaac from taking a wife from 
 among the daughters of the Canaanites, he should 
 proceed into Mesopotamia, and, under the divine 
 direction, choose a partner among his own rela- 
 tives for his beloved son. Rebekah, in conse- 
 quence, becomes Isaac’s wife, when he was now 
 forty years of age. 
 
 In connection with this marriage an event is 
 recorded which displays the peculiar character 
 of Isaac, while it is in keeping with the general 
 tenor of the sacred record regarding him. Pro- 
 bably in expectation of the early return of his 
 father’s messenger, and somewhat solicitous as to 
 the result of the embassy, he went out to meditate 
 in the field at the eventide. While there engaged 
 in tranquil thought, he chanced to raise his eyes, 
 when lo ! he beheld the retinue near at hand, and 
 soon conducted his bride into his mother’s tent. 
 In unison with all this is the simple declaration 
 of the history, that Isaac ‘ loved her.’ Isaac was 
 evidently a man of kind and gentle dispositions, 
 of a calm and reflective turn of mind, simple in 
 his habits, having few wants, good rather than 
 great, fitted to receive impressions and follow a 
 guide, not to originate important influences, or 
 perform deeds of renown. If his character did 
 not take a bent from the events connected with 
 his father’s readiness to offer him on Mount 
 Moriah, certainly its passiveness is in entire agree- 
 ment with the whole tenor of his conduct, as set 
 forth in that narrative. 
 
 Isaac having, in conjunction with his half- 
 brother Ishmael, buried Abraham his father, ‘ in 
 a good old age, in the cave of Machpelah,’ took 
 up a somewhat permanent residence ‘ by the well 
 Lahai-roi,’ where, being blessed of God, he lived 
 in prosperity and at ease. One source of regret, 
 novvever, he deeply felt. Rebekah was barren. 
 In time, two sons, Jacob and Esau, are granted 
 to his prayers. As the boys grew, Isaac gave a 
 preference to Esau, who seems to have possessed 
 those robuster qualities of character in which his 
 father was defective, and therefore gratified him 
 by such dainties as the pursuits of the chace en- 
 abled the youth to offer ; while Jacob, ‘ a plain 
 man dwelling in tents,’ was an object of spe- 
 cial regard to Rebekah — a division of feeling and 
 a kind of partiality which became the source of 
 much domestic unhappiness, as well as of jealousy 
 and hatred between the two sons. 
 
 A famine compels Isaac to seek food in some 
 foreign land. Divinely warned not to go down 
 to Egypt, the patriarch applies to a petty prince 
 of Philistia, by name Abimelech, who permits 
 him to dwell at Gerar. Here an event took place 
 which has a parallel in the life of his father Abra- 
 ham. Rebekah was his cousin : afraid lest she 
 should be violently taken from him, ami his own 
 life sacrificed to the lust of Abimelech. he repre- 
 sented her as his sister, employing a latitude of 
 meaning which the word ‘sister’ admits in Oriental 
 usage. The subterfuge was discovered, and is 
 VOL. II. 4 
 
 ISAIAH. 33 
 
 justified by Isaac on the grounds which prompted 
 him to resort to it. 
 
 Another parallel event In the lives of Abraham 
 and Isaac may be found by comparing together 
 Gen. xxvi. 26, sq., and xxi. 22, sq. If these 
 parallels should excite a doubt in the mind of 
 any one as to the credibility of the narratives, let 
 him carefully peruse them, and we think that 
 the * simplicity and naturalness which pervade 
 and characterize them will effectually substan- 
 tiate the reality of the recorded events, and ex- 
 plode the notion that fiction has had anything to 
 do in bringing the narrative into its present shape. 
 
 Isaac, in his old age, was, by the practices of 
 Rebekah and the art of Jacob, so imposed upon 
 as to give his blessing to the younger son Jacob, 
 instead of to the first-born Esau, and with that 
 blessing to convey, as was usual, the right of 
 headship in the family, together with his chief 
 possessions. In the blessing which the aged pa- 
 triarch pronounced on Jacob it deserves notice 
 how entirely the wished-for good is of an earthly 
 and temporal nature, while the imagery which is 
 employed serves to show the extent to which the 
 poetical element prevailed as a constituent part of 
 the Hebrew character (Gen. xxvii. 27, sq.). Most 
 natural, too, is the extreme agitation of the poor 
 blind old man, on discovering the cheat which 
 had been put upon him : — ‘And Isaac trembled 
 very exceedingly, and said (to Esau), Who? where 
 is he that hath taken venison and brought it me, 
 and I have eaten, and have blessed him? Yea, 
 and he shall be blessed.’ Equally natural is the 
 reply of Esau. The entire passage is of itself 
 enough to vindicate the historical character and 
 entire credibility of those sketches of the lives of 
 the patriarchs which Genesis presents. 
 
 The stealing, on the part of Jacob, of his 
 father’s blessing having angered Esau, who seems 
 to have looked forward to Isaac’s death as afford- 
 ing an opportunity for taking vengeance on his 
 unjust brother, the aged patriarch is induced, at 
 his wife’s entreaty, to send Jacob into Mesopo- 
 tamia, that, after his own example, his son might 
 take a wife from amongst his kindred and people,. 
 ‘ of the daughters of Laban, thy mother’s brother.’ 
 
 This is the last important act recorded of Isaac. 
 Jacob having, agreeably to his father’s command, 
 married into Laban’s family, returned, after some 
 time, and found the old man at Mamre, in the 
 city of Arbah, which is Hebron, where Abraham 
 and Isaac .sojourned. Hero, ‘ being old and full 
 of days ’ (ISO), Isaac ‘ gave up the ghost, and 
 died, and was gathered unto his people, and his 
 sons Esau and Jacob buried him ’ (Gen. xxxv. 
 27, sq.). On the subjects treated of in this article 
 the following works may be consulted : — H. A. 
 Zeibich, Isaaciortusinfab.Orionis Vestigia; De- 
 Wet te, Krit. d. Is. Gesch. p. 133, sq. ; Niemeyer, 
 Charakteristik der Bibel, 2nd part ; Ew aid’s Is - 
 raeliten , p.' 338, sq. — J. R. B. 
 
 ISAIAH (n$fc” ; Sept. 'Htrafes). I. Times 
 and circumstances of the Prophet Isaiah. — The 
 heading of this book places the prophet under 
 the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Heze- 
 kiah, kings of Judah ; and an examination oi 
 the prophecies themselves, independently of the 
 heading, leads us to the same chronological re- 
 sults. Chapter vi., in u'liich is related the call of 
 Isaiah, not to his prophetic office, but to a higher 
 
S4 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 degree of it, is tnus headed : ‘ In the year in which 
 king Uzziah died I saw the Lord,’ &c. The col- 
 lection of prophecies is chronologically arranged, 
 and the utterances in the preceding chapters (i. to 
 vi.) belong, for chronological and other reasons, to 
 an earlier period, preceding the last year of the 
 reign of Uzziah, although the utterances in chap- 
 ters ii. iii. iv. and v. have been erroneously assigned 
 to the reign of Jotham. We have no document 
 which can, with any degree of certainty, or even of 
 probability, be assigned to that reign. We by no 
 means assert that the prophetic ministry of Isaiah 
 was suspended during the reign of Jotham, but 
 merely that then apparently the circumstances of 
 the times did not require Isaiah to utter pre- 
 dictions of importance for all ages of the church. 
 We certainly learn from the examples of Nathan, 
 Elijah, and Elisha, that a powerful prophetic mi- 
 nistration may be in operation, although the pre- 
 dictions uttered, finding their accomplishment 
 within the times of the prophet, do not point to 
 subsequent ages. As, however, the position of 
 affairs was not materially changed under the 
 reign of Jotham, we may say that the first two 
 utterances have a bearing upon that reign also. 
 These two prophecies contain the sum and sub- 
 stance of what Isaiah taught during twenty years 
 of his life. If these prophetic utterances belong- 
 ing to the reign of Uzziah had not been extant, 
 there would, doubtless, have been written down and 
 preserved similar discourses uttered under the 
 reign of Jotham. As, however, the former utter- 
 ances were applicable to that reign also, it was 
 unnecessary to preserve such as were of similar 
 import. 
 
 The continuation of prophetic authorship, or 
 the writing down of uttered prophecies, depended 
 upon the commencement of new historical deve- 
 lopments, such as took place under the reigns of 
 Ahaz and Hezekiah. Several prophecies in the 
 seventh and following chapters belong to the 
 reign of Ahaz ; and most of the subsequent pro- 
 phecies to the reign of Hezekiah. The prophetic 
 ministry of Isaiah under Hezekiah is also de- 
 scribed in an historical section contained in chap- 
 ters xxxvi.-xxxix. The data which are contained 
 in this section come down to the fifteenth year 
 of the reign of Hezekiah; consequently we are 
 in the possession of historical documents proving 
 that the prophetic ministry of Isaiah was in opera- 
 tion during about forty-seven or fifty years, com- 
 mencing in the year B.c. 763 or 759, and extend- 
 ing to the year b.c. 713. Of this period, from 
 one to four years belong to the reign of Uzziah, 
 sixteen to the reign of Jotham, sixteen to the reign 
 of Ahaz, and fourteen to the reign of Hezekiah. 
 
 Stiiudlein, Jahn, Bertholdt, and Gesenius,have, 
 in modern times, advanced the opinion that 
 Isaiah lived to a much later period, and that his 
 life extended to the reign of Manasseh, the suc- 
 cessor of Hezekiah. For this opinion, the fol- 
 lowing reasons are adduced : — 
 
 1. According to 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, Isaiah 
 wrote the life of King Hezekiah. It would hence 
 appear that he survived that king. 
 
 2. We find a tradition current in the Talmud, 
 in the Fathers, and in Oriental literature, that 
 Isaiah suffered martyrdom in the reign of Ma- 
 nasseh, by being sawn asunder. It is thought 
 that an allusion to this tradition is found in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 37), in the expression 
 
 they were sawn asunder (e-rrpla07i<rar'), which seem* 
 to harmonize with 2 Kings xxi. 16, ‘moreover 
 Manasseh shed innocent blood very much. 1 
 
 3. The authenticity of the second port.on of 
 the prophecies of Isaiah being admitted, the 
 nature of this portion would seem to confirm the 
 idea that its author had lived under Manasseh. 
 The style of the second portion, it is asserted, is 
 so different from that of the first, that both could 
 not well have been composed by the same author, 
 except under the supposition that a .considerable 
 time intervened between the composition of the 
 first and second portion. The contents of the lat- 
 ter — such as the complaints respecting gross idol- 
 atry, the sacrifice of children to idols, the wicked- 
 ness of rulers, & c. — seem to be applicable neither 
 to the times of the exile, into which the prophet 
 might have transported himself in the spirit, nor 
 to the period of the pious Hezekiah, but are quite 
 applicable to the reign of Manasseh. 
 
 These arguments, however, do not stand a strict 
 scrutiny. The first can only prove that Isaiah 
 survived Hezekiah ; but even this does not follow 
 with certainty, because in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, 
 where Isaiah’s biography of Hezekiah is men- 
 tioned, the important words ‘first and last 1 are 
 omitted; while in chap. xxvi. 22, we read, ‘Now 
 the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and i.ast, 
 did Isaiah, the son of Amoz, write. 1 If we take 
 into consideration this important omission, we can 
 easily believe that Isaiah died before Hezekiah, 
 although he wrote his biography up to a certain 
 point ; more especially if we bear in mind that, 
 according to the books of Kings and Chronicles, 
 the latter years of the reign of Hezekiah were de- 
 void of important events. We certainly find, in 
 all ages of literature, biographies of persons written 
 during their life-time. 
 
 W e may well suppose that the history of He- 
 zekiah terminated with the glorious aid granted 
 to him in his war with the Assyrians, and with 
 the events immediately consequent upon that 
 war. 
 
 In reply to the second argument, we observe, 
 that it is not certain that the word iirpiadrjaav, 
 they were sawn asunder , is used in Hebrews 
 with reference to Isaiah. The statement in the 
 Fathers, and in Oriental writers, is entirely de- 
 duced from the Jewish tradition, which is 
 throughout of so doubtful a character that no 
 conclusive argument can be based upon it. 
 
 With regard to the third argument, we remark, 
 that the difference discernible, if we compare the 
 latter with the former portions of Isaiah, can, and 
 ought to be, differently accounted for. Such 
 merely external attempts at explanation, when ap- 
 p’lied to Holy Writ, always appear unsatisfactory 
 if closely examined. We invariably find that the 
 real cause of the external appearance lies deeper, 
 and in the nature of the subject itself. For 
 instance, the peculiarity of Deuteronomy arises 
 from the special bearing of that book upon the 
 other books of the Pentateuch, and the peculiar 
 style of the Apocalypse arises from its relation 
 to the gospel of St.John. The appeal to such 
 merely external arguments always proceeds from 
 an inability to understand the essence of the 
 matter. In reference to the censures occurring 
 in the later portion of Isaiah, we observe, that thej 
 might also have a bearing uj>on the corruptions 
 prevalent in former reigns, and that they wer* 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 S» 
 
 not necessarily confined to manifestations of 
 wickedness occa Ting at the time when they were 
 written down. These censures might also refer 
 to the gross perversions under Ahaz; and it is 
 also unlikely that the personal piety of Hezekiah 
 entirely extinguished all abuses among his people. 
 We certainly do not find that the personal 
 piety of King Josiah had that effect upon all his 
 mbjects. 
 
 Several other arguments adduced against the 
 opinion that Isaiah died during the reign of Ma- 
 nasseh, are certainly of little weight. For in- 
 stance, the argumentum e silentio, or the proof 
 derived from the silence of the historical books 
 respecting Isaiah during the reign of Manasseh. 
 This argument is of no importance at all, since, 
 at any rate, the death of Isaiah is nowhere men- 
 tioned in the Bible; from which circumstance 
 we infer, that, on account of his advanced age, he 
 had retired from active life. 
 
 Of somewhat more weight is the objection that, 
 according to the supposition that Isaiah died 
 under Manasseh, too great an age would be 
 ascribed to the prophet. Although we were to 
 suppose that Isaiah, as well as Jeremiah, was 
 called to the prophetic office at an early age — 
 perhaps in his twentieth year — he, nevertheless, in 
 the fifteenth year of Hezekiah, up to which date 
 we can prove his ministrations by existing docu- 
 ments, would have reached quite or nearly to his 
 seventieth year, which is the usual duration of 
 human life ; consequently, at the time of the acces- 
 sion of Manasseh he would have been about 
 eighty-four years old ; and if, with the defenders 
 of the tradition, we allow that he exercised the 
 prophetic functions for about seven or eight years 
 during the reign of Manasseh, he must at the 
 period of his martyrdom have attained to the age 
 of ninety-two. This, indeed, is quite possible. 
 The example of the prophet Hosea, who exercised 
 nis prophetic calling during sixty years, and that 
 of the priest Jehoiada, who, according to 2Chron. 
 xxiv. 15, was a hundred ami thirty years old 
 when he died, prove the possibility of the age as- 
 cribed to Isaiah. 
 
 The chief argument against the tradition, how- 
 ever, is contained in the inscription of the book 
 itself. According to this inscription all the 
 prophecies of Isaiah in our collection are included 
 within the period from Uzziah to Hezekiah. Not 
 one of the prophecies which are headed by an 
 inscription of their own is placed after the fif- 
 teenth year of Hezekiah; and the internal evi- 
 dence leads us in none beyond this period. 
 Hence we infer that the prophetic ministry of 
 Isaiah terminated soon after its fullest develop- 
 ment, to which it attained during the period of the 
 Assyrian invasion, in the reign of Hezekiah. 
 
 According to these statements Isaiah belongs 
 to the cycle of the most ancient prophets whose 
 predictions have been preserved in writing. He 
 was a contemporary of. Hosea, Amos, and Jonah, 
 although younger than those prophets, who be- 
 longed to the kingdom of Israel. He was like- 
 wise a contemporary and co-worker of the prophet 
 Micah in the kingdom of Judah. We infer also 
 from the circumstance that, the prophecies of Joel 
 are inserted among the books of the minor pro- 
 hets before those of Micah, that Isaiah must 
 uve been a contemporary of Joel, since the minor 
 prophets are chronologically arranged. 
 
 Micah entered upon his prophetic office und«l 
 the reign of Jotham, consequently somewhat later 
 than Isaiah commenced his prophetic career. 
 Obadiah, who is placed among the minor pro- 
 phets, between Joel and Micah, was likewise a 
 contemporary of Isaiah. It is not accidental 
 that Isaiah and all these prophets commence the 
 series of those whose prophetic utterances were 
 written down and preserved. Nor is there any 
 reason to assert that the preceding age was 
 neglectful of the preservation of prophetic litera- 
 ture, although even Ewald, in his Propheten (i. 
 p. 54, Stuttgard, 1840), asserts that beyond the 
 prophetic literature which we possess there lay an 
 earlier, which was more comprehensive. There 
 is, however, no one genuine proof sufficient to 
 evince that there were written prophecies before 
 Isaiah and his contemporaries. Hosea refers 
 (viii. 12), not to earlier prophetic writings, but to 
 the books of Moses. This has been proved by 
 Hengstensberg ( Beitrcige , part ii. p. 604, sq ). 
 Isaiah ii. and Micah iv. do not rest upon an ear- 
 lier prophetic production which was lost; but 
 Isaiah rests upon Micah as Jeremiah do® upon 
 Obadiah ; and it is not the case that both prophets 
 rest upon a third unknown prophet. At the period 
 when these prophets commenced their career, pro- 
 phetism itself had attained a new epoch, at which 
 a great number of important prophets were ranged 
 beside each other. The affairs of the Israelites 
 became at this period more interwoven with those 
 of the great Asiatic empires, which then began 
 to bring about the threatened judgments of the 
 Lord upon his people. Henceforward, also, the 
 prophetic office was to be conducted on a grander 
 scale. To the prophets it was now assigned to 
 declare and to interpret the judgments of the 
 Lord, in order to render the people conscious as 
 well of his chastising justice as of his preserving 
 mercy. A larger field was now opened to the 
 strictly prophetic office, which consisted in utter- 
 ing predictions of the future. The admonitions 
 to repentance were now also supported by more 
 powerful motives. The hopes of a coming Mes- 
 siah were revived. To the worldly power, which 
 threatens destruction to the external theocracy, is 
 henceforth opposed the kingdom of God, destined 
 to conquer and to govern the world through the 
 Messiah. This consolation was offered to those 
 who would otherwise have been driven to despair. 
 Now only was prophetism able to develop its full 
 power and become important for all subsequent 
 ages. This persuasion induced the prophets to 
 write their prophecies, and it caused these docu- 
 ments also to be carefully preserved. The reason 
 why the earlier prophets did not commit their 
 utterances to writing is the same that, with two 
 exceptions, led Isaiah not to write under Uzziah, 
 and to omit writing his utterances under Jotham 
 altogether. 
 
 Little is known respecting the circumstances 
 of Isaiah’s life. His father's name was Amoz. 
 The fathers of the church confound him with the 
 prophet Amos, because they were unacquainted 
 with Hebrew, and in Greek the two names are 
 spelled alike. The opinion of the Rabbins, that 
 Isaiah was a brother of King Amaziah, rests also 
 on a mere etymological combination. Isaiah 
 resided at Jerusalem, not far from the temple. 
 We learn fr*m chapters vii. and viii that he 
 was married. Two of his sons are mentioned. 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 »6 
 
 Shear-jashul and Maher-shalal-hash-baz. These 
 significant names, which he gave to liis sons, prove 
 how much Isaiah lived in his vocation. He did 
 not consider his children to belong jnerely to 
 himself, but rendered them living admonitions 
 to the people. In their names were contained the 
 two chief points of his prophetic utterances : one 
 recalled to mind the severe and inevitable judg- 
 ment wherewith the Lord was about to visit the 
 world, and especially his people ; the other, which 
 signifies ‘ The remnant shall return,’ pointed out 
 the mercy with which the Lord would receive the 
 elect, and with which, in the midst of apparent 
 destruction, he would take care to preserve his 
 people and his kingdom. Isaiah calls his wife 
 prophetess. This indicates that his mar- 
 riage-life was not in opposition to his vocation, and 
 also that it not only went along with his vocation, 
 but that it was intimately interwoven with it. 
 This name cannot mean the wife of a prophet, 
 but indicates that the prophetess of Isaiah had a 
 prophetic gift, like Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah. 
 The appellation here given denotes the genuine- 
 ness of their conjugal relation. 
 
 Even the dress of the prophet was subservient to 
 his vocation. According to chap. xx. 2, he 
 wore a garment of hair-cloth or sackcloth. This 
 seems also to have been the costume of Elijah, 
 according to 2 Kings i. 8 ; and it was the dress of 
 John the Baptist. Hairy sackcloth is in the 
 Bible the symbol of repentance (compare Isa. xx. 
 11,12, and 1 Kings xxi. 27). This costume of the 
 prophets was a sermo propheticus realis, a pro- 
 phetic preaching by fact. The prophetic preacher 
 comes forward in the form of personified repent- 
 ance. What he does exhibits to the people what 
 they should do. Before he has opened his lips 
 his external appearance proclaims perayoeirt, 
 repent. 
 
 II. On the Historical works of Isaiah. — Be- 
 sides the collection of prophecies which has been 
 preserved to us, Isaiah also wrote two historical 
 works. It was part of the vocation of the prophets 
 to write the history of the kingdom of God, to 
 exhibit in this history the workings of the law of 
 retribution, and to exhort to the true worship of the 
 Lord. History, as written by the prophets, is itself 
 retroverted prophecy, and, as such, offers rich ma- 
 terials for prophecy strictly so-called. Since all the 
 acts of God proceed from his essence, a complete 
 understanding of the past implies also the future; 
 and, vice versa , a complete understanding of the 
 future implies a knowledge of the past. Most of 
 the historical books in the Old Testament have 
 been written by prophets. The collectors of the 
 Canon placed most of these books under the head 
 D'iO!!13, prophets ; hence, it appears that, even 
 when these historical works were re-modelled by 
 later editors, these editors were themselves pro- 
 phets. The Chronicles are not placed among the 
 DW33 : we may, therefore, conclude that they 
 were not written by a prophet. But their author 
 constantly indicates that he composed his work 
 from abstracts taken verbatim from historical mo- 
 aograpbies written by the prophets; consequently 
 me books of Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 
 tie t’ne only historical books of the Old Testament 
 <hich did not. originate from prophets. 
 
 The first historical work of Isaiah was a bio- 
 grapny of King Uzziah (comp. 2 Chron. xxvi. 
 32), ‘Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and 
 
 last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz^ 
 write.’ The second historical work of Isaiah was a 
 biography of King Hezekiah, which was subse- 
 quently inserted in the annals of Judah and Israel. 
 These annals consisted of a series of prophetic 
 monographies, which were received partly entire, 
 partly in abstracts, and are the chief source from 
 which the information contained in the Chronicles 
 is derived. In this work of Isaiah, although its 
 contents were chiefly historical, numerous prophe- 
 cies were inserted. Hence it is called in 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 32, inW' flTH, The Vision of Isaiah. In 
 a similar manner the biography of Solomon by 
 Ahijah, is called in 2 Chron. ix. 29, ‘ the prophecy 
 of Ahijah.’ The two historical works of Isaiah 
 were lost, together with the annals of Judah and 
 Israel, into which they were embodied. Whatever 
 these annals contained that was of importance for 
 all ages, has been preserved to us by being received 
 into the historical hooks of the Old Testament, and 
 the predictions of the most distinguished prophets 
 have been formed Into separate collections. After 
 this was effected, less care was taken to preserve the 
 more diffuse annals, which also comprehended 
 many statements, of value only for particular 
 times and places. 
 
 III. The integral authenticity of the prophecies 
 of Isaiah. — The Jewish synagogue, and the Chris- 
 tian church during all ages, have considered 
 it as an undoubted fact that the prophecies which 
 bear the name of Isaiah really originated from that 
 prophet. Even Spinoza did not expressly assert 
 in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (viii. 8), 
 that, the book of Isaiah consisted of a collection 
 originating from a variety of authors, although it 
 is usually considered that he maintained this 
 opinion. But in the last quarter of the eighteenth 
 century this prevailing conviction appeared to 
 some divines to be inconvenient. In the theology 
 of the natural man it passed as certain, that nature 
 was complete in itself, and that prophecies, az 
 well as miracles, never had occurred, and were 
 even impossible. Whoever is spell-bound within 
 the limits of nature, and has never felt the influ- 
 ence of a supernatural principle upon his own 
 heart, is incapable of understanding the super- 
 natural in history, and feels a lively interest in 
 setting it aside, not only on account of its appear- 
 ing to him to be strange and awful, but also because 
 supernatural events are facts of accusation against 
 the merely natural man. The assumption of the 
 impossibility of miracles necessarily demanded 
 that thq. genuineness of the Pentateuch should be 
 rejected ; and, in a similar manner, the assumption 
 of the impossibility of prophecy demanded that a 
 great portion of the prophecies of Isaiah should be 
 rejected likewise. Here also the wish was father 
 to the thought, and interest led to the decision of 
 critical questions, the arguments for which were 
 subsequently discovered. All those who attack 
 the integral authenticity of Isaiah agree in consi- 
 dering the book to be an anthology, or gleanings 
 of prophecies, collected after the Babylonian exile, 
 although they differ in their opinions respecting 
 the origin of this collection. Koppe gave gentle 
 hints of this view, which was first explicitly sup- 
 ported by Eichhorn in his Introduction. Eiclv 
 horn advances the hypothesis that a collection oi 
 Isaian prophecies (which might have been aug- 
 mented, even before the Babylonian exile, by se- 
 veral not genuine additions) formed the basis of 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 37 
 
 the present anthology, and that the collectors, 
 after the Babylonian exile, considering that the 
 scroll on which they were written did not form a 
 volume proportionate to the size of the three other 
 prophetic scrolls, containing Ezekiel, Jeremiah, 
 and the minor prophets, annexed to the Isaian 
 collection all other oracles at hand whose authors 
 were not known to the editors. In this supposition 
 of the non-identity of date and authorship, most 
 learned men, and lately also Hitzig and Ewald, 
 followed Eichhorn. Gesenius, on the contrary, 
 maintained, in his introduction to Isaiah, that all 
 the non-Isaian prophecies extant in that book 
 originated from one author and were of the 
 same date. Umbreit and Koster on the main 
 point follow Gesenius, considering chapters xl. to 
 lxvi. to be a continuous whole, written by a 
 pseudo-Isaiah who lived about the termination of 
 the Babylonian exile. In reference to other por- 
 tions of the book of Isaiah the authenticity of 
 which has been questioned, Umbreit expresses 
 himself doubtingly, and Koster assigns them to 
 Isaiah. Gesenius declines to answer the question, 
 how it happened that these portions were ascribed 
 to Isaiah, but Hitzig felt that an answer to it 
 might be expected. He accordingly attempts to 
 explain why such additions were made to Isaiah 
 and not to any of the other prophetical books, 
 by the extraordinary veneration in which Isaiah 
 was held. He says that the great authority of 
 Isaia.h occasioned important and distinguished 
 prophecies to be placed in. connection with 
 his name. But he himself soon after destroys 
 the force of this assertion by observing, that the 
 great authority of Isaiah was especially owing to 
 those prophecies which were falsely ascribed to 
 him. A considerable degree of suspicion must, 
 however, attach to the boasted certainty of such 
 critical investigations, if we notice how widely 
 these learned men differ in defining what is of 
 Isaian origin and what is not, although they are 
 all linked together by the same fundamental 
 tendency and interest. There are very few por- 
 tions in the whole collection whose authenticity 
 has not been called in question by some one or other 
 of the various impugners. Almost every part has 
 been attacked either by Dcederlein, or by Eichhorn 
 (who, especially in a later work entitled Die 
 Hebraischen Propheten , Gottingen, 1816 to 1819, 
 goes farther than all the others), or by Justi (who, 
 among the earlier adversaries of the integral 
 authenticity of Isaiah, uses, in his Vermischte 
 Sc hi if ten (vols. i. and ii.), the most comprehensive 
 and, apparently, the best grounded arguments), 
 or by Paulus, Rosenmuller, Bauer, Bertholdt, 
 De W ette, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, or 
 others. The only portions left to Isaiah are 
 chaps, i. 3-9, xvii., xx., xxviii., xxxi., and 
 xxxiii. All the other chapters are defended 
 by some and rejected by others; they are also 
 referred to widely different dates. In tire 
 most modern criticism, however, we observe 
 an inclination again to extend the sphere of 
 Isaian authenticity as much as the dogmatic 
 principle and system of the critics will allow. 
 Modern criticism is inclined to admit the genuine- 
 ness of chaps, i. to xxiii., with the only excep- 
 tion of the two prophecies against Babylon in 
 chaps, xiii. and xiv., and in chap. xxi. 1-10. 
 Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii. are allowed to be Isaian by 
 Ewald, Umbreit, and others. 
 
 Divines, who were not linked to these critics by 
 the same dogmatical interest, undertook to defend 
 the integrity of Isaiah, as Ilensler, Jesaias neu 
 ubersetzt, 1788; Piper, Integritas Jesaiee, 17,93; 
 Beckhaus, TJeber die Integritat der Prophetischen 
 SchHften , 1796 ; Jahn, in his Enleitung , wlio 
 was the most able among the earlier advocates ; 
 Dereser, in his Bcarbeitung des Jesaias iv. I ; 
 Greve, Vaticinia Jesaiee, Amsterdam, 1810. All 
 these works have at present only an historical 
 value, because they have been surpassed by two 
 recent monograph ies. The first is by Jo. Ulr. 
 Moeller, De Authentia Oraculorum Jesaiee , ch. 
 xl.-lxvi., Copenhagen, 1825. Although this work 
 professedly defends only the latter portion of 
 the book of Isaiah, there occur in it many argu- 
 ments applicable also to the first portion. The 
 standard work on this subject is that of Kleiner*, 
 De Aechtheit des Jesaias , vol. i., Berlin, 1829. 
 It is, however, very diffuse, and contains too 
 many hypotheses. The comprehensive work of 
 Schleier, Wurdigung der Einwurfe gegen die A l - 
 testamentlichen Weissagungen im Jesaias . chap, 
 xiii. and xiv., of course refers more especial j y to 
 these chapters, but indirectly refers also to all the 
 other portions whose authenticity has been at- 
 tacked. Since the objections against the various 
 parts of Isaiah are all of the same character, it is 
 very inconsistent in Koster, in his work Die Pro- 
 pheten des alien Testamentes, to defend, in page 
 102, the genuineness of chaps, xiii., xiv., and 
 xxi.; but, nevertheless, in pages 117 and 297, 
 to ascribe chaps, xl.-lxvi. to a pseudo-Isaiah. 
 
 After this survey of the present state of the 
 inquiry, we proceed to furnish, first, the external 
 arguments for the integral authenticity of Isaiah. 
 
 1. The most ancient testimony in favour of 
 Isaiah’s being the author of all the portions of the 
 collection which bears his name, is contained in the 
 heading of the whole (i. 1), ‘ The vision of Isaiah 
 the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah 
 and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, 
 Ahaz, Hezekiab, kings of Judah.’ It is here 
 clearly stated that Isaiah was the author of the 
 following prophecies, uttered during the reign of 
 four successive kings. This inscription is of 
 great importance, even if it originated not from 
 Isaiah, but from a later compiler. If we adopt 
 the latest date at which this compilation could 
 have been made, we must fix it at the time of its 
 reception into the canon in the days of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah. Consequently the compiler could 
 not be separated by many years from the pseudo- 
 Isaiah who is said to have prophesied just before 
 Babylon was conquered, or who, according to 
 most critics, wrote even after the fall of Babylon. 
 It is not credible that a compiler living so near 
 the times of the author, should have erroneously 
 ascribed these prophecies to Isaiah, who lived so 
 much earlier, especially if we bear in mind that 
 this so-called pseudo-Isaiah must have been a 
 very remarkable person in an age so devoid of the 
 prophetic spirit as that in which he is said to have 
 lived. 
 
 It is still less credible that a pseudo-Isaiah 
 should himself have fraudulently ascribed his 
 prophecies to Isaiah. None. of the adversaries of the 
 authenticity of the book make such an assertion. 
 
 If the compiler lived before the exile, the in- 
 scription appears to be of still greater importance. 
 That the collection was made so early is very 
 
99 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 likely, from the circumstance that Jeremiah and 
 other prophets apparently made use of the pro- 
 phecies of Isaiah. This fact indicates that the 
 prophecies of Isaiah early excited a lively in- 
 terest, and that the compiler must have lived at a 
 period earlier than that which is ascribed to the 
 pseudo-Isaiah himself. From all this we infer 
 that the compiler lived before the exile. The 
 adversaries themselves felt the weight of this argu- 
 ment. They, therefore, attempted to remove it 
 by various hypotheses, which received a semblance 
 of probability from the circumstance that even 
 the considerate Yitringa had called in question 
 the authenticity of the heading. Vitringa con- 
 jectured that this heading belonged originally to 
 the first chapter alone. He further conjectured 
 that it originally contained only the words, pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah , the son of Amoz, which he saio 
 concerning Judah and Jerusalem. The follow- 
 ing words, he says, were added by the compiler, 
 who enlarged the particular inscription of the first 
 chapter to a general one of the whole collection. 
 According to Vitringa the inscription does not 
 suit (lie whole book, the contents of which are 
 not confined to Judah and Jerusalem alone. This 
 had been felt even by Kimchi, who, anticipating 
 the objection, observes, queecunque contra gentes 
 profert, ea omnia propter Judam dicit. What- 
 soever Isaiah utters against the nations, he says 
 on account of Judah. Judah and Jerusalem are 
 the chief subject, and, in a certain sense, the only 
 subject of prophecy. There is no prophecy con- 
 cerning other nations without a bearing upon the 
 covenant - people. If this bearing should be 
 wanting in any portion of prophecy, that portion 
 would be a piece of divination and soothsaying. 
 No prophet against foreign nations prophesied con- 
 cerning them with the view to spread his predictions 
 among them, because the mission of all prophets is 
 to Israel. The predictions against foreign nations 
 are intended to preserve the covenant-people from 
 despair, and to strengthen their faith in the omni- 
 potence and justice of their God. These predictions 
 are intended to annihilate the reliance upon poli- 
 tical combinations and human confederacies. 
 They are intended to lead Israel to the question, 
 
 ‘ If they do these things in the green tree, what shall 
 be done in the dry ?’ If this is the punishment of 
 those who are less intimately allied with God, 
 what shall then become of us to whom He nas 
 more clearly revealed Himself? But they are 
 also intended to indicate the future conversion of 
 the heathen, and to open to the view of the faithful 
 the future glory of the kingdom of God, and its 
 final victory over the kingdoms of this world ; and 
 thus to extirpate all narrow-minded nationality. 
 God shall be revealed not only as Jehovah but also 
 as Elohim. His relation to Israel is misunder- 
 stood, if that relation is exclusively kept in view 
 without any regard to the universe. Therefore 
 the whole collection is justly entitled Prophecies 
 concerning Judah and Jerusalem. No matter 
 whether this inscription originated from Isaiah 
 nimself or from an ancient compiler. That the 
 word pin means not merely a vision, but also a 
 collection of visions and prophecies, may be 
 learned from 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, and Nah. i. 1. 
 It means a collection of prophecies and vision 
 united like a picture in an historical frame 
 (comp. Jer. xiv. 14), although it may also denote 
 une separate prophecy, as in Obadiah, verse 1. 
 
 jlTH has no plural (comp. Hitzig’s Commentary 
 on ch. i. 1 ; Ewald, Propheten , i. p. 59). 
 
 The inscription in ch. i. 1 has a general bear* 
 ing upon the whole collection. Then follows the 
 first portion, which contains, as it were, the genera] 
 prophetic programme. Thereupon follows a series 
 of prophecies directly bearing upon Judah and 
 Jerusalem, commencing again with a particular 
 heading (ii. 1). To this succeeds a series of pro- 
 hecies indirectly bearing upon Judah and 
 erusalem, but directly upon foreign nations. 
 The first of this series has again its own heading 
 (xiii. 1). 
 
 Geseniug, advancing in the direction to which 
 Vitringa had pointed, although he grants the 
 integral authenticity of ch. i. 1, nevertheless 
 maintains that this heading belonged originally 
 only to chs. i.-xii., in which were contained 
 genuine prophecies of Isaiah. To this collection, 
 he asserts, were afterwards subjoined the antho- 
 logies contained in the following chapters, and 
 the heading was then misunderstood as applying 
 to the whole volume. This opinion is more in- 
 consistent than that of Vitringa, since there occur 
 in the first twelve chapters two prophecies against 
 foreign nations ; one against the Assyrians, in 
 cl), x. and another against Ephraim, in ch. ix. 
 
 Vitringa, Gesenius, and their followers, are also 
 refuted by the parallel passage in the heading of 
 Amos, ‘ The words of Amos, which he saw con- 
 cerning Israel.’ The prophecies of Amos in 
 general are here said to be concerning Israel, 
 although there are, as in Isaiah, several against 
 foreign nations, a series of which stands even at 
 the commencement of the book. To this we may 
 add the similarity of the headings of other pro- 
 phetical books. For instance, the commencement 
 of Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah. 
 
 Ewald spoils the argument, of Vitringa still 
 more than Gesenius, by extending the original" 
 collection to ch. xxiii., and thus introducing 
 within the cycle headed by the inscription, whose 
 genuineness he grants, most of the predictions 
 against foreign nations. Whoever subjoined the 
 subsequent portions to the so-called original col- 
 lection, did i.t only because he perceived that 
 these portions could be brought under the general 
 heading. He could only have been induced to 
 make the so-called additions, because he per- 
 ceived that the heading applied to the whole : con- 
 sequently neither Gesenius nor Ewald rid them- 
 selves of the troublesome authority of ch. i. 1 ; 
 the words of which have the more weight, since 
 all critics ascribe to the headings of the prophetical 
 books a far greater authority than to the head- 
 ings of the Psalms, and agree in saying that 
 nothing but the most stringent arguments snould 
 induce us to reject the statements contained in 
 these prophetical headings. 
 
 2. It cannot be proved that there ever existed 
 any so-called prophetic anthology as has been 
 supposed to exist in the book of Isaiah. We find 
 nothing analogous in the whole range of prophetic 
 literature. It is generally granted that the col- 
 lections bearing the names of Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel contain only productions of those authors 
 whose name they bear. In the book of the minor 
 prophets, the property of each is strictly distin- 
 guished from the rest by headings. The authen- 
 ticity of only the second portion of Zechariah has 
 been attacked ; and this with very feeble argu- 
 
ISAIAII. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 39 
 
 ments, which have been refuted. De Wette him- 
 self has, in the latest editions of his Introduction , 
 confessed that on this point he is vanquished. 
 
 But even if it could be proved that the pro- 
 phecies of Zechariah belonged to two different 
 authors, namely, as Bertlioldt and Gesenius sup- 
 pose, to the two Zechariahs, each of whom hap- 
 pened to be the son of a Berechiah, this identity 
 of names might be considered an inducement for 
 uniting the productions of the two authors in one 
 collection : still this case would not be analogous 
 to what is asserted to be the fact in Isaiah. In 
 Isaiah, it is alleged not only that a series of 
 chapters belonging to a different author were sub- 
 joined, commencing about chap, xxxiv., but it 
 is affirmed that, even in the first thirty-three chap- 
 ters, the genuine and spurious portions are inter- 
 mixed. Before we admit that the compilers 
 proceeded here in a manner so unreasonable, and 
 so contrary to their usual custom, we must ex- 
 pect some cogent proof to be adduced. Gesenius 
 declares that he would not attempt to touch this 
 problem. This is as much as to admit the vali- 
 dity of our objection. Eichhorn supposes that the 
 spurious additions were made because the scroll 
 otherwise would not have been filled up. But 
 this fug a vacui , this abhorrence of a vacuum, 
 does not explain the intermixture of the spurious 
 with the genuine. It does not explain why the 
 additions were not all subjoined at the end of the 
 genuine portions. Doederlein creates for himself 
 a second Isaiah, son of Amoz, living at the con- 
 clusion of the exile. But even this fiction does 
 not explain why the property of these two pro- 
 phets was intermixed in spite of their being sepa- 
 rated from each other by two centuries, and so 
 k jermixed that it is now difficult to say which 
 . dongs to which. Augusti supposes that the 
 spurious pieces were added to the genuine on ac- 
 count of their being written entirely in the spirit 
 and style of Isaiah. But in this he seems to 
 contradict himself, since he bases his attack 
 against their authenticity upon the asserlion that 
 they differed from Isaiah in spirit and manner. 
 The style of Isaiah was certainly not the style of 
 the age in which the pseudo-Isaiah is said to have 
 lived. Justi supposes that the prediction con- 
 cerning the Babylonian exile, in chap, xxxix., led 
 to the addition of the whole of the second portion. 
 But this hypothesis is improbable and without 
 analogy, and it does not explain the intermix- 
 ture of the genuine with the spurious in the 
 first portion. 
 
 How untenable all these hypotheses are may be 
 readily perceived from the fact that each of them 
 remained the almost exclusive property of its 
 author, and that each following savant felt him- 
 self prompted to discover a new hypothesis, until 
 Gesenius endeavoured to stop them by cutting 
 the Gordian knot. Hitzig, however, again at- 
 tempted to unloose it, but, as we have already 
 seen, unsuccessfully. Ewald maintains that the 
 compiler never intended that chaps, xl.-lxvi. 
 should belong to Isaiah, and that the last twenty- 
 six chapters had been subjoined merely in order 
 to preserve them the better. But it is untrue 
 that the first portion is unconnected with these 
 chapters. The first portion terminates with the 
 prediction of the Babylonian exile, and the se- 
 cond commences with the annunciation of a 
 future redemption from this captivity. Chaps. 
 
 xl.-lxvi. have no heading of their own ; which 
 proves that the compiler annexed them as Isaion, 
 and intended them to be read as such. The so- 
 called spurious portions in the first part of Isaiah 
 were, according to the opinion of Ewald (p. 62), 
 intermixed with the genuine, because the com- 
 piler really supposed them to belong to Isaiah. 
 Thus Ewald admits that the intermixed pieces 
 have the testimony of the compiler in favour of 
 their authenticity. To deny that this testimony 
 extends also to the second part, is an arbitrary 
 assumption. Now, if this testimony is granted, 
 we are content. With it we gain this much, that 
 the attacked portions have the presumption of 
 genuineness in their favour, and that, therefore, 
 very substantial reasons are required for denying 
 their Isaian origin. This is all that we want. 
 
 3. According to the opinion of several critics, 
 all the spurious portions of Isaiah belong to one 
 and the same author. But it so happens that, the 
 portion which is most emphatically declared to 
 be spurious, namely, chaps, xiii. and xiv., bear 
 an inscription which expressly ascribes them to 
 Isaiah. Now, as the internal arguments against 
 the authenticity of all the portions which are 
 said to be spurious, are nearly identical, if the 
 opposition to chaps, xiii. and xiv. is given up, it 
 cannot with consistency be maintained against 
 the other portions. This argument serves also as 
 an answer to those who ascribe the portions which 
 they consider spurious to several authors. The 
 contents of these portions are similar. They 
 contain predictions of the fall of Babylon, and of 
 the redemption of Israel from captivity. What- 
 ever proves the genuineness of one of these por- 
 tions, indirectly proves the others also to be 
 genuine. 
 
 4. According to Josephus (Antiq. xi. c. 1, 
 § 1, 2) Cyrus was induced by the prophecies of 
 Isaiah respecting him to allow the return of the 
 Jews, and to aid them in rebuilding the temple. 
 The credibility of Josephus, who in regard to 
 facts of ancient history is not always to be relied 
 upon, is here supported by two circumstances. 
 First, the favour shown by Cyrus to the Jews, 
 which remains inexplicable except by the fact 
 mentioned, in combination with the influence of 
 Daniel. In modern times, the favour of Cyrus 
 to the Jews has been called a prudential measure ; 
 but it does not appear what he could either hope 
 or fear from a people so enfeebled as the Jew3 
 were at that period. It has been added that 
 Cyrus was favourable to the Jews on account of 
 the similarity between the Persian and the Jewish 
 religion ; but there is no historical proof that 
 the Persians, on any other occasion, favoured the 
 Jews on account of their religion. The favours 
 shown to Nehemiah on behalf of Israel were only 
 personal favours, owing to his position at the 
 Persian court. We allow that all this would be 
 insufficient to prove the correctness of the above 
 statement in Josephus, but it must render us in- 
 clined to admit its truth. 
 
 The second argument is much stronger : it is, 
 that the statement of Josephus is supported by 
 the edict of Cyrus (Ezra i.). This edict pre-sup- 
 poses the fact related by Josephus, so that Jahn 
 calls the passage in Josephus a commentary on the 
 first chapter of Ezra, in which we read that Cyrus 
 announces in his edict, that he was commanded 
 by Jehovah to build him a temple in Jerusalem, 
 
40 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 and that he received all the conquered kingdoms 
 of the earth as a gift from Jehovah. This can- 
 not refer to any other predictions of the prophet, 
 hut only to what are called the spurious portions 
 of Isaiah, in which the Lord grants to Cyrus all 
 his future conquests, and appoints him to be the 
 restorer of his temple (comp. xli. 2-4 ; xliv. 24- 
 28; xlv. 1-13; xlvi. 11; xlviii. 13-15). The 
 edict adopts almost the words of these passages 
 (comp, the synopsis in the above-mentioned work 
 of Kleinert, p. 142). In reply to this, our adver- 
 saries assert that Cyrus was deceived by pseudo- 
 prophecies forged in the name of Isaiah ; but if 
 Cyrus could be deceived in so clumsy a manner, 
 he was not the man that history represents him ; 
 and to have committed forgery is so contrary to 
 what was to be expected from the author of chaps, 
 xl.-lxvi., that even the feelings of our opponents 
 revolt at the supposition that the pseudo-Isaiah 
 should have forged vaticinia post eventum in the 
 name of the prophets. Had these prophecies 
 been written, as it is alleged, only in sight of the 
 conquest of Babylon, Cyrus would have been 
 deceived before the eyes of the author, and this 
 could not have been effected without collusion on 
 the part of the author. This collusion would be 
 undeniable, since the author again and again 
 repeats that he was proclaiming unheard-of facts, 
 which were beyond all human calculation. 
 
 5. In the books of the prophets who lived after 
 Isaiah, and before the period of the so-called 
 pseudo-Isaiah, we find imitations of those pro- 
 phecies w'hich have been ascribed to the latter. 
 Since Gesenius has demonstrated that all the por- 
 tions which have been considered spurious are to 
 be ascribed to only one author, it can be shown 
 that they were all in existence before the time 
 assigned to the pseudo-Isaiah, although we can 
 produce the imitations of only some of these por- 
 tions. But even those opponents who ascribe 
 these portions to different authors must grant that 
 their objections are invalidated, if it can be shown 
 that later prophets have referred to these portions, 
 because the arguments employed against them 
 closely resemble each other : consequently these 
 prophecies stand and fall together. The verbal 
 coincidence between Jeremiah and the so-called 
 pseudo-Isaiah is in this respect most important. 
 Jeremiah frequently makes use of the earlier 
 prophets, and he refers equally, and in the same 
 manner, to the portions of Isaiah whose genuine- 
 ness has been questioned, as to those which are 
 deemed authentic (comp. Kiiper, Jeremias libro- 
 rum sacrorum interpres atque vindex, pp. 132- 
 155). The most striking is the coincidence of Jere- 
 miah 1. 51, with the predictions against Babylon in 
 Isaiah. Jeremiah here gives to God the appella- 
 tion t5>np, the Holy One of Israel , 
 
 which frequently occurs in Isaiah, especially in 
 the portions whose authenticity is questioned, but 
 is found only three times in the other books of the 
 
 Old Testament. Isaiah uses the appellation 
 Wnp with peculiar predilection, because it 
 points out the omnipotent covenant-fidelity of the 
 Lord ; which was to be considered, especially as 
 guarantees the truth of the contents of those 
 prophecies which are attacked by our opponents. 
 This circumstance is so striking that Von Coelln 
 and De Wette, on this account, and in contradic- 
 tion to every argument, declare even the xnrespond- 
 
 ing chapter of Jeremiah to be spurious. Tins it 
 certainly a desperate stroke, because the chapter 
 is otherwise written in the very characteristic 
 style of that prophet. This desperatiou, how- 
 ever, gives us the advantage afforded by an in- 
 voluntary testimony in favour of those portion! 
 of Isaiah which have been attacked. The words 
 of Isaiah, in ch. li. 15, ‘I am the Lord thy God 
 who moves the sea that its waves roar,’ are re- 
 peated in Jer. xxxi. 35. The image of the cup 
 of fury in Isa. li. 17, is in Jer. xxv. 15-29, trans- 
 formed into a symbolic act, according to his 
 custom of embodying the imagery of earlier pro- 
 phets, and especially that of Isaiah. In order to 
 prove that other prophets also made a similar use 
 of Isaiah, we refer to Zephaniah ii. 15, where we 
 find Isaiah’s address to Babylon applied tr 
 Nineveh, ‘ Therefore hear now this, thou that art 
 given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that 
 sayest in thine heart I am, and none else beside 
 me,’ &c. Zephaniah, living towards the termina- 
 tion of prophetism, has, like Jeremiah, a depend- 
 ent character, and has here even repeated the 
 characteristic and difficult word tDDK- Kiiper 
 (p. 138) has clearly demonstrated that the passage 
 cannot be original in Zephaniah. The words of 
 Isaiah (lii. 7), ‘ How beautiful upon the mountains 
 are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, 
 that publisheth peace,’ are repeated by Nahum 
 in ch. i. 15 (ii. 1); and what he adds, ‘the 
 wicked shall no more pass through thee,’ agrees 
 remarkably with Isa. lii. 1, ‘ for henceforth shall 
 no more come into thee the uncircumcised and 
 the unclean.’ Nahum iii. 7 contains an allu- 
 sion to Isa. li. 19. Beside these references to the 
 portions of Isaiah which are said to be spurious, 
 we find others "to the portions which are deemed 
 genuine (compare, for instance, Nahum i. 13, 
 with Isa. x. 27). 
 
 G. Again, the most ancient production of Jew- 
 ish literature after the completion of the canon, 
 furnishes proof of the integral authenticity of 
 Isaiah. The book of Jesus Sirach, commonly 
 called Ecclesiasticus, was written as early as the 
 third century before Christ, as Hug has clearly 
 demonstrated, in opposition to those who place it 
 in the second century before Christ. In Eccle- 
 siasticus xlviii. 22-25, Isaiah is thus praised : 
 
 ‘ For Hezekiah had done the thing that pleased 
 the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David 
 his father, as Isaiah the prophet, who was great 
 and faithful in his vision, had commanded him. 
 In his time the sun went backward, and he 
 lengthened the king’s life. He saw by an ex- 
 cellent spirit what should come to pass at tin* 
 last, and he comforted them fiat mourned in 
 Sion. He showed what, should come to pass for 
 ever, and secret things or ever they came.’ 
 
 This commendation especially refers, as even 
 Gesenius grants, to the disputed portions of the 
 prophet, in which we find predictions* of the most 
 distant futurity. The comfort for Zion is found 
 more particularly in the second part of Isaiah, 
 which begins with the wwds ‘ Comfort ye, comfort 
 ye, my people.’ The author of this second part him- 
 self says (xlviii. 3), ‘ I have declared the former 
 things from the beginning ; and they went forth oul 
 of my mouth, and I showed them.’ Thus we per- 
 ceive that Jesus Sirach, the learned scribe, con 
 fluently attributes the debated passages to Isaiah 
 in such a manner as plainly indicates that then 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 41 
 
 was no doubt in his days- respecting the integral 
 authenticity of that book, which has the testimony 
 of historical tradition in its favour. Jesus Siracli 
 declares his intention (Ecclus. xliv.-l.) to praise 
 the most celebrated men of his nation. The 
 whole tenor of these chapters shows that he does 
 not confine himself to celebrated authors. We 
 therefore say that the praise which he bestows 
 upon Isaiah is not intended for the book personi- 
 fied, but for the person of the prophet. If Jesus 
 Siracli had entertained doubts respecting the 
 genuineness of those prophecies on which, in par- 
 ticular, he bases his praise, he could nqt have 
 so lauded the prophet. 
 
 In the Jewish synagogue the integral authen- 
 ticity of Isaiah has always been recognised. 
 This general recognition cannot be accounted foi 
 except by the power of tradition based upon 
 truth ; and it is supported as well by the New 
 Testament, in which Isaiah is quoted as the 
 author of the whole collection which bears his 
 name, as also by the express testimony of Jo- 
 sephus, especially in his Antiquities (x. 2. 2, 
 and xi. 1. 1). After such confirmation it would 
 be superfluous to mention the Talmudists. 
 
 7. According to the hypothesis of our oppo- 
 nents, the author or authors of the spurious por- 
 tions wrote at the end of the Babylonian exile. 
 They confess that these portions belong to the 
 finest productions of prophetism. Now it is very 
 remarkable that in the far from scanty historical 
 accounts of this period, considering all circum- 
 stances, no mention is made of any prophet to 
 whom we could well ascribe these prophecies. 
 This is the more remarkable, because at that 
 period prophetism was on the wane, and the few 
 prophets who still existed excited on that account 
 the greater attention. What Ewald (p. 57) 
 writes concerning the time about the conclusion 
 of the Babylonian exile, is quite unhistorieal. 
 He says, ‘ In this highly excited period of liberty 
 regained, and of a national church re-established, 
 there were rapidly produced a great number of 
 prophecies, circulated in a thousand pamphlets, 
 many of which were of great poetical beauty.’ 
 What Ewald states about a new flood of prophetic 
 writings which then poured forth, is likewise un- 
 historieal. History shows that during the exile 
 prophetism was on the wane. What we read in 
 the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel proves that 
 these prophets were isolated ; and from the book 
 of Ezra we learn what was the spiritual condition 
 of the new colony. If we compare with their 
 predecessors the prophets who then prophesied, 
 Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, we cannot say 
 much about a revival of the prophetic spirit to- 
 wards the conclusion of the exile. Everything 
 concurs to show that the efficiency of prophetism 
 was drawing towards its end. The later the pro- 
 phets are, the more do they lean upon the earlier 
 prophets ; so that we are enabled to trace the 
 gradual transition of prophetism into the learning 
 of scribes. Prophetism dug, as it were, its own 
 grave. The authority which it demands for its 
 earlier productions necessarily caused that the 
 later were dependent upon the earlier , end the 
 more this became the case during the progress of 
 time, the more limited became the field for new 
 productions. It is not only unhistorieal, but, 
 according to the condition of the later productions 
 of propheev, quite impossible, that about the con- 
 
 clusion of the exile there should have sprung up 
 a fresh prophetic literature of great extent. In 
 this period we hear only the echo of prophecy. 
 That one of the later prophets of whom we posses* 
 most, namely Zechariah, leans entirely upon Jere- 
 miah and Ezekiel, as upon his latest predecessors. 
 There is not a vestige of an intervening prophetic 
 literature. The feebleness of our opponents is 
 manifested by their being obliged to have recourse 
 to such unhistorieal fictions in order to defend 
 their opinions. 
 
 Thus we have seen that we possess a series of 
 external arguments in favour of the integral au- 
 thenticity of Isaiah. Each of these arguments is 
 of importance, and, in their combination, they have 
 a weight which could only be counterbalanced 
 by insurmountable difficulties in the contents of 
 these prophecies. We now proceed to show that 
 there are no such difficulties, and that the internal 
 arguments unite with the external in' demonstrating 
 the authenticity of Isaiah as a whole. 
 
 1. The portions of Isaiah* which have been de- 
 clared by our opponents to be spurious are, as we 
 have already said, almost entirely such as con- 
 tain prophecies of an especially definite character. 
 It is this very definiteness which is brought for- 
 ward as the chief argument against their genuine- 
 ness. Those of our adversaries who go farthest 
 assert in downright terms that predictions in the 
 stricter sense, such, namely, as are more than a 
 vague foreboding, are impossible. The more 
 considerate of our opponents express this argu- 
 ment in milder terms, saying, that it was against 
 the usage of the Hebrew prophets to prophesy with 
 so much individuality, or to give to their prophe- 
 cies so individual a bearing. They say that these 
 prophecies were never anything more than general 
 prophetic descriptions, and that, consequently, 
 where we find a definite reference to historical 
 facts quite beyond the horizon of a human being 
 like Isaiah, we are enabled by analogy to declare 
 those portions of the work in which they occur 
 to be spurious. 
 
 Although this assertion is pronounced with 
 great assurance, it is sufficiently refuted by an 
 impartial examination of the prophetic writings. 
 Our opponents have attempted to prove the spuri- 
 ousness of whatever is in contradiction with this 
 assertion, as, for instance, the book of Daniel; but 
 there still remain a number of prophecies an- 
 nouncing future events with great definiteness. 
 Micab, for example (iv. 8-10), announces the 
 Babylonian exile, and the deliverance from that 
 exile, one hundred and fifty years before its ac- 
 complishment, and before the commencement 
 of any hostilities between Babylon and Judah, 
 and even before Babylon was an independent 
 state. All the prophets, commencing with the 
 earliest, predict the coming destruction of their 
 city and temple, and the exile of the people. All 
 the prophets whose predictions refer to the Assy- 
 rian invasion, coincide in asserting that the 
 Assyrians would not be instrumental in realising 
 these predictions ; that Judah should be delivered 
 from those enemies, from whom to be delivered 
 seemed impossible ; and this not by Egyptian aid, 
 which seemed to be the least unlikely, but by an 
 immediate intervention of the Lord ; and, on the 
 contrary, all the prophets whose predictions refer 
 to the successors of the Assyrians, the Chaldees 
 unanimously announce that these were to fulfil th« 
 
13 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ancient prediction, and exhort to resignation to 
 this inevitable fate. These are facts quite beyond 
 human calculation. At the period when the 
 Chaldaean empire had reached the summit of its 
 power, Jeremiah not only predicts in general 
 terms its fall, and the destruction of its chief city, 
 but also details particular circumstances con- 
 nected therewith ; for instance, the conquest of 
 the town by the Medes and their allies ; the en- 
 trance which the enemy effected through the dry 
 bed of the Euphrates, during a night of general 
 revelry and intoxication ; the return of the 
 Israelites after tire reduction of the town ; the 
 utter destruction and desolation of this city, 
 which took place, although not at once, yet cer- 
 tainly in consequence of the first conquest, so 
 tlrat its site can scarcely be shown with certainty. 
 In general, all those proud ornaments of the 
 ancient world, whose destruction the prophets pre- 
 dicted — Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Memphis, the 
 chief cities of the Moabites and Ammonites, and 
 many others — have perished, and the nations to 
 whom the prophets threatened annihilation — 
 the Ammonites, Moabites, Philistines, and Idu- 
 maeans — have entirely disappeared from the stage 
 of history. There is not a single city nor a single 
 people, the fate of which has been at variance with 
 prophecy. All this is not a casual coincidence. 
 The ruins of all these cities, every vestige of the 
 former existence of those once flourishing nations, 
 are loud-speaking witnesses, testifying to the fu- 
 tility of the opinion which raises into a fact the 
 subjective wish that prophecy might not exist. 
 Zechariah clearly describes the conquests of Alex- 
 ander (ix. 8). He foretells that, the Persian empire, 
 which he specifies by the symbolic name Hadrach, 
 shall be ruined ; that Damascus and Hamath 
 shall be conquered ; that the bulwarks of the 
 mighty Tyre shall be smitten in the sea, and 
 that the city shall be burned ; that Gaza shall 
 lose its king, and that Ashdod shall be peopled 
 with the lowest rabble ; and that Jerusalem shall 
 be spared during all these troubles. These prophe- 
 cies were fulfilled during the expedit ion of Alex- 
 ander (comp. Jahn's Einleitung, vol. i. p. 84, sq. ; 
 vol. ii. p. 349, sq.). Eichhorn despaired of being 
 able to explain the exact correspondence of the 
 fulfilment with the predictions ; he, therefore, in 
 his work, Die Hebruisckcn Propheten, endeavours 
 to prove that these prophecies were veiled historical 
 descriptions. He has recourse to the most violent 
 operations in order to support this hypothesis ; 
 which proves how fully he recognised the agree- 
 ment of the prophecies with their fulfilment, and 
 that the prophecies are more than general poetical 
 descriptions. The Messianic predictions prove 
 that the prophecies were more than veiled histo- 
 rical descriptions. There is scarcely any fact in 
 Gospel history, from the birth of our Saviour at 
 Bethlehem down to his death, which is unpre- 
 iicted by a prophetical passage. 
 
 Eichhorn ’s hypothesis is also amply refuted by 
 the unquestioned portion of Isaiah. How can 
 it be explained that Isaiah confidently predicts 
 the destruction of the empire of Israel by the As- 
 syrians, and the preservation of the empire of 
 Judah from these enemies, and that he with cer- 
 tainty knew beforehand that no help would be 
 afforded to J udah from Egypt, that the Assyrians 
 would advance to the gates of Jerusalem, and 
 iisre be destroyed only by the judgment of the 
 
 Lord ? No human combinations can lead to suck 
 results. Savonarola, for instance, was ■ a pious 
 man, and an acute observer ; but when he fancied 
 himself to be a prophet, and ventured to predict 
 events which should come to pass, he was im- 
 mediately refuted by facts (comp. Biographic 
 Savonarola's , von Rudelbach). 
 
 If we had nothing of prophetic literature, be- 
 side the portions of Isaiah which have been at- 
 tacked, they alone would afford an ample refuta 
 tion of our opponents, because they contain, in 
 chapter liii., the most remarkable of Old Testa- 
 ment prophecies, predicting the passion, death, 
 and glory of our Saviour. If it can be proved 
 that this one prophecy necessarily refers to Christ, 
 we can no longer feel tempted to reject other pro- 
 phecies of Isaiah, on account of their referring too 
 explicitly to some event, like that of the Babylo- 
 nian exile. As soon as only one genuine pro- 
 phecy has been proved, the whole argument of 
 our opponents falls to the ground. This argu- 
 ment is also opposed by the authority of Christ 
 and his apostles ; and whoever will consistently 
 maintain this opinion must reject the authority 
 of Christ. The prophets are described in the New 
 Testament not as acute politicians, or as poets 
 full of a foreboding genius, but as messengers of 
 God raised by His Spirit above the intellectual 
 sphere of mere man. Christ repeatedly mentions 
 that the events of his own life were also destined 
 to realise the fulfilment of prophecy, saying, 4 this 
 must come to pass in order that the Scripture may 
 be fulfilled.’ And after his resurrection, he inter- 
 prets to his disciples the prophecies concerning him- 
 self. Peter, speaking of the prophets, says, in his 
 First Epistle (i. 11), 4 Searching what, or what 
 manner of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in 
 them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the 
 sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should 
 follow and, in his Second Epistle (i. 21), 4 For 
 the prophecy came not in old time by the will of 
 man ; but holy men of God spake as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost ’ — virb wevpaTOs aylov 
 <pep6/u.ei/oi. 
 
 Since we have shown that there are in the Holy 
 Scriptures definite prophecies, the d priori argu- 
 ment of our opponents, who pretend that prophecy 
 is useless, loses its significance. Even if we could 
 not understand the purpose of prophecy, the in- 
 quiry respecting its reality should nevertheless l>e 
 independent of such a priori reasoning, since the 
 cause of our not understanding it might be in 
 ourselves. We frequently find, after we have been 
 raised to a higher position, the causes of facts 
 which at an earlier period we could not compre- 
 hend. A later age frequently understands what 
 was hidden to the preceding. However, the pur- 
 pose of definite predictions is not hidden to those 
 who recognise the reality of the divine scheme for 
 human salvation. 
 
 There is one truth in the opinion tff our oppo- 
 nents. The predictions of the future by the pro- 
 phets are always on a general basis, by which 
 they are characteristically distinguished from 
 soothsaying. Real prophecy is based upon the 
 idea of God. The acts of God are based upon 
 his essence, and have therefore the character of 
 necessity. The most elevated prerogative of the 
 prophets is that they have possessed themselves of 
 his idea, that they have penetrated into his es- 
 sence, that they have become conscious of the 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAII. 
 
 4a 
 
 eternal laws by which the world is governed. 
 For instance, if they demonstrate that sin is the 
 perdition of man, that where the carcase is, the 
 eagles will be assembled, the most important 
 point in this prediction 13 not the how but the 
 what which first by them was clearly communi- 
 cated to the people of God, and of which the 
 lively remembrance is by them kept up. But 
 if the prophets had merely kept to the that, and 
 had never spoken about the how, or if, like Savo- 
 narola, they had erroneously described this how, 
 they would be unfit effectually to teach the that 
 to those people who have not yet acquired an inde- 
 pendent idea of God. According to human weak- 
 ness, the knowledge of the form is requisite in order 
 to fertilize the knowledge of the essence, especially 
 in a mission to a people among whom formality 
 so much predominated as among the people of 
 the Old Covenant. The position of the prophets 
 depends upon these circumstances. They had 
 not, like the priests, an external warrant. There- 
 fore Moses (Deut. xviii.) directed them to produce 
 true prophecies as their warrant. According to 
 verse 22, the true and the false prophet are dis- 
 tinguished by the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of 
 prophecy. This criterion is destroyed by the 
 modern opinion respecting prophetism. Without 
 this warrant, the principal point of prophetical 
 preaching, the doctrine of the Messiah, could not 
 be brought to the knowledge of the people, as 
 being of primary importance. Without this ful- 
 filment the prophets had no answer to those who 
 declared that the hopes raised by them were fan- 
 tastic and fanatical. 
 
 It is true that, according to what we have stated, 
 the necessity of prophecy arises only from the 
 weakness of man. Miracles also are necessary ofily 
 on account of this weakness. Prophecy is necessary 
 only under certain conditions; but these conditions 
 were fully extant during the period of the ancient 
 Covenant. During the New Covenant human 
 weakness is supported by other and more powerful 
 means, which were wanting during the time of the 
 Old Covenant ; especially by the operation of 
 the Spirit of Christ upon the hearts of the faithful ; 
 which operation is by far more powerful than that 
 of the Spirit of God during the Old Covenant ; 
 consequently, definite predictions can be dispensed 
 with, especially since the faithful of the New 
 Testament derive benefit also from the prophecies 
 granted to the people of the Old Testament. 
 
 The predictions of futurity in the Old Testa- 
 ment have also a considerable bearing upon the 
 contemporaries of the prophet. Consequently, 
 they stand not so isolated and unconnected as 
 our opponents assert. The Chaldaeans, for in- 
 stance, who are said to threaten destruction to 
 Israel, were, in the days of Isaiah, already on the 
 stage of history ; and their juvenile power, if com- 
 pared with the decline of the Assyrians, might 
 lead to the conjecture that they would some time 
 or other supplant the Assyrians in dominion over 
 Asia. Babylon, certainly, was as yet under Assy- 
 rian government ; but it was still during the life- 
 time of the prophet that this city tried to shake oft' 
 their yoke. This attempt was unsuccessful, but 
 the conditions under which it might succeed at a 
 future period were already in existence. The future 
 exaltation of this city might be foreseen from 
 history, and its future fall from theology. In a 
 pagan nation success is always the forerunner of 
 
 pride, and at! its consequences. And, according 
 to the eternal laws by which God governs the 
 world, an overbearing spirit is the certain fore- 
 runner of destruction. The future liberation of 
 Israel might also be theologically foreseen ; and 
 we cannot look upon this prediction as so abrupt 
 as a prediction of the deliverance of other nations 
 would have been, and as, for instance, a false pre- 
 diction of the deliverance of Moab would have 
 appeared. Even the Pentateuch emphatically in- 
 forms us that the covenant-people cannot be given 
 up to final perdition, and that mercy is always 
 concealed behind the judgments which befall 
 them. 
 
 2. Attempts have been made to demonstrate 
 the spuriousness of several portions from the cir- 
 cumstance that the author takes his position not 
 in the period of Isaiah, but in much later times, 
 namely, those of the exile. It has been said, 
 ‘ Let it be granted that the prophet had a know- 
 ledgeof futurity : in that case we cannot suppose that 
 he would predict it otherwise than as future, and 
 he cannot proclaim it as present.’ The prophets, 
 however, did not prophesy in a state of calculat- 
 ing reflection, but virb 7 ryev/xaros aylov (pGpojJ.ei'oi, 
 ‘ borne along by the Holy Ghost.’ The objects offer- 
 ed themselves to their spiritual vision. On that 
 account they are frequently called seers, to whom 
 futurity appears as present. Even Hebrew gram- 
 mar has long ago recognised this fact in the terms 
 prceterita prophetica. These prophetical prseter 
 tenses indicate a time ideally past, in contra-dis- 
 tinction to the time which is really past. Every 
 chapter of Isaiah furnishes examples of this 
 grammatical fact. Even in the first there is con- 
 tained a remarkable instance of it. Interpreters 
 frequently went astray, because they misunder- 
 stood the nature of prophecy, and took the prce- 
 terita prophetica as real praeterites ; consequently, 
 they could only by some inconsistency escape 
 from Eichhorn’s opinion, that the prophecies were 
 veiled historical descriptions. The prophets have 
 futurity always before their eyes. Prophetism, 
 therefore, is subject to the laws of poetry more 
 than to those of history (compare the ingenious 
 remarks on the connection of poetry and pro- 
 phetism in the work of Steinbeck, Der Dichter 
 ein Seher, Leipzig, 1836). Prophetism places 
 us in medias res, or rather the prophet is 
 placed in medias res. The Spirit of God ele- 
 vates him above the terra Jirma of common 
 reality, and of common perception. The pro- 
 phet beholds as connected, things externally 
 separated, if they are linked together by their in- 
 ternal character. The prophet beholds what is 
 distant as near, if its hidden basis, although con- 
 cealed to the eyes of flesh, already exists. This 
 was, for instance, the case with Israel’s captivity 
 and deliverance. Neither happened by chance. 
 Both events proceeded from the justice and mercy 
 of God, a living knowledge of which necessarily 
 produced the beholding knowledge of the same. 
 The prophet views things iu the light of that 
 God who calls the things that are not as though 
 they were, and to whom the future is present. 
 
 3. What the prophet says about what is present 
 to him (namely, about that which appears to him 
 in the form of the present time), is correctly and 
 minutely detailed ; and what he describes as 
 future, are ideal and animated hopes which far 
 exceed terrene reality iJence our opponents 
 
44 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 attempt to prove that the present time in those 
 portions which they reject, is not ideal but real ; 
 and that the author was actually an eye-witness of 
 the exile, because, they say, if the prophet merely 
 placed himself in the period of the exile, then this 
 present time would be ideal, and in that case there 
 could be no difference between this ideally present 
 time and the more distant future. But we question 
 this fact most decidedly. The descriptions of the 
 person of Messiah in the second part of Isaiah are 
 far more circumstantial than the descriptions of 
 the person of Cyrus. Of Cyrus these prophecies 
 furnish a very incomplete description. Whoever 
 does not fill up from history what is wanting, ob- 
 tains a very imperfect idea of Cyrus. But there 
 is sufficient information to show the relation 
 between history and prophecy ; and nothing more 
 was required than that the essence of prophecy 
 should be clear. The form might remain obscure 
 until it was cleared up by its historical fulfilment. 
 The Messiah, on the contrary, is accurately de- 
 picted, especially in ch. liii., so that there is 
 scarcely wanting any essential trait. It is quite 
 natural that there should be greater clearness and 
 definiteness here, because the anti-type of redemp- 
 tion stands in a far nearer relation to the ideal than 
 is the case with Cyrus, so that form and essence 
 less diverge. 
 
 The assertion that the animated hopes, ex- 
 pressed in the second part of Isaiah, had been very 
 imperfectly fulfilled, proceeds from the erroneous 
 supposition that these hopes were to be entirely 
 fulfilled in the times immediately following the 
 exile. But if we must grant that these prophecies 
 refer both to the deliverance from captivity, and 
 to the time of the Messiah in its whole extent, 
 from the lowliness of Christ to the glorious com- 
 pletion of his kingdom, then the fulfilment is 
 clearly placed before our eyes ; and we may 
 expect that whatever is yet unfulfilled, will, in 
 due time, find its accomplishment. In this hope 
 we are supported by the New Testament, and still 
 more by the nature of the matter in question. 
 If the prophecies of Isaiah were nothing but arbi- 
 trary predictions on his own external authority, 
 without any internal warrant, one might speak 
 here of an evasion of the difficulty ; but as the 
 matter stands, this objection proves only that those 
 who make it are incapable of comprehending 
 the idea which pervades the whole representation. 
 The entire salvation which the Lord has destined 
 to his people has been placed before the spiritual 
 eye of the prophet. His prediction is not entirely 
 fulfilled in history, so that we could say we have 
 now done with it, but every isolated fulfilment 
 is again a prediction de facto, supporting our hope 
 of the final accomplishment of the whole word of 
 prophecy. 
 
 4. Our opponents think that they have proved 
 that a portion of Isaiah is not genuine, if they 
 can show that there occur a few Aramaic words 
 and forms of speech, which they endeavour to ex- 
 plain from the style prevalent in a period later 
 than Isaiah. 
 
 That this argument is very feeble even our 
 opponents have granted in instances where it can 
 be adduced with by far greater stringency than in 
 the questioned portions of Isaiah. This appears 
 especially from the example of the Song of Solo- 
 mon, in which there occur a considerable number 
 of Aramaic words and expressions, said to belong 
 
 to the later Hebrew style. Bertholdl. Umbreit 
 and others, base upon this their argument, that 
 the Song of Solomon was written after the Baby- 
 lonian exile. They even maintain that it could 
 not have been written before that period. On the 
 contrary, the two most recent commentators. 
 Ewald and Doepke, say most decidedly that the 
 Song of Solomon, in spite of its Aramaisms, was 
 written in the days of Solomon. 
 
 Hirzel, in his work De Chaldaismi Biblici 
 origine , Leipsic, 1830, has contributed consider- 
 ably to the formation of a correct estimate of this 
 argument. He has proved that in all the books 
 of the Old Testament, even in the most ancient, 
 there occur a few Chaldaisms. This may be 
 explained by the fact that the patriarchs were 
 surrounded by a population whose language was 
 Chaldee. Such Chaldaisms are especially found 
 in poetical language in which unusual expressions 
 are preferred. Consequently, not a few isolated 
 Chaldaisms, but only their decided prevalence, 
 or a Chaldee tincture of the whole style, can prove 
 that a book has been written after the exile. No- 
 body can assert that this is the case in those 
 portions of Isaiah whose authenticity has been 
 questioned. Even our opponents grant that the 
 Chaldaisms in this portion are not numerous. 
 After what have erroneously been called Chal- 
 daisms are subtracted, we are led to a striking 
 result, namely, that the unquestionable Chal- 
 daisms are more numerous in the portions of 
 Isaiah of which the genuineness is granted, than 
 in the portions which have been called spurious. 
 Hirzel, an entirely unsuspected witness, mentions 
 in his work De Chaldaismo, p. 9, that there are 
 found only four real Chaldaisms in the whole of 
 Isaiah ; and that these all occur in the portions 
 which are declared genuine; namely, in vii. 14 
 (where, however, if the grammatical form is 
 rightly understood, we need not admit a Chal- 
 daism) ; xxix. 1 ; xviii. 7 ; xxi. 12. 
 
 5. The circumstance that the diction in the 
 attacked portions of Isaiah belongs to the first, 
 and not to the second period of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, must vender us strongly inclined to admit 
 their authenticity. It has been said that these 
 portions were written during, and even after, the 
 Babylonian exile, when the ancient Hebrew lan- 
 guage fell into disuse, and the vanquished people 
 began to adopt the language of their conquerors, 
 and that thus many Chaldaisms penetrated into 
 the works of authors who wrote in ancient He- 
 brew. Since this is not the case in the attacked 
 portions of Isaiah, granting the assertions of our 
 opponents to be correct, we should be compelled 
 to suppose that their author or authors had inten- 
 tionally abstained from the language of their 
 times, and purposely imitated the purer diction of 
 former ages. That this is not quite impossible 
 we learn from the prophecies of Haggai, Malachi, 
 and especially from those of Zechariah, which are 
 nearly as free from Chaldaisms as the writings 
 before the exile. But it is improbable, in this 
 case, because the pseudo-Isaiah is stated to have 
 been in a position very different from that of the 
 prophets just mentioned, who belonged to the 
 newly returned colony. The pseudo-Isaiah has 
 been placed in a position similar to that of the 
 strongly Chaldaizing Ezekiel and Daniel; and 
 even more unfavourably for the attainment of 
 purity of diction, because he had not, like these 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 43 
 
 puphets, spent his youth in Palestine, but is said 
 to have grown up in a country in which the 
 Aramaean language was spoken ; consequently, 
 it would have been more difficult for him to 
 write pure Hebrew than for Ezekiel and Daniel. 
 In addition to this it ought to be mentioned that 
 an artificial abstinence from the language of their 
 times occurs only in those prophets who entirely 
 lean upon an earlier prophetic literature ; but 
 that union of purity in diction with independence, 
 which is manifest in the attacked portions of 
 Isaiah, is nowhere else to be found. 
 
 The force of this argument is ’still more in- 
 creased when we observe that the pretended pseudo- 
 Isaiah has, in other respects, the characteristics 
 jf the authors before the exile; namely, their 
 clearness of perception, and their freshness and 
 beauty of description. This belongs to him, even 
 according to the opinion of all opponents. These 
 excellences are not quite without example among 
 the writers after the exile, but they occur in none 
 of them in the same degree ; not even in Zechariah, 
 who, besides, ought not to be compared with the 
 pseudo-Isaiah, because he does not manifest the 
 same independence, but leans entirely upon, the 
 earlier prophets. To these characteristics of the 
 writers before the exile belongs also the scarcity 
 of visions and symbolic actions, and what is con- 
 nected therewith (because it proceeds likewise 
 from the government df the imagination), the 
 naturalness and correctness of poetical images. 
 What Umbreit says concerning the undisputedly 
 genuine portions of Isaiah fully applies also to 
 toe disputed portions : ‘ Our prophet is more an 
 orator than a symbolic seer. He has subjected 
 the external imagery to the internal government 
 of the word. The few symbols which he exhibits 
 are simple and easy to be understood. In the pro* 
 phets during and after the exile visions and sym- 
 bolic actions prevail, and their images frequently 
 bear a grotesque Babylonian impress. Only those 
 authors, after the exile, have not this character, 
 whose style, like that of Haggai and Malachi, 
 does not rise much above prose. A combination 
 of vivacity, originality, and vigour, with natural- 
 ness, simplicity, and correctness, ?s not found in 
 any prophet during and after the exile.’ Nothing 
 but very strong arguments could induce us to as- 
 cribe to a later period prophecies which rank in 
 language and style with the literary monuments of 
 the earlier period. In all the attacked portions 
 of Isaiah independence and originality are mani- 
 fest in such a degree, as to make them haimonize 
 not only with the prophets before the exile in 
 general, but especially with the earliest cycle of 
 these prophets. If these portions were spurious, 
 they would form a perfectly isolated exception, 
 which we cannot admit, since, as we have before 
 shown, the leaning of the later prophets upon the 
 earlier rests upon a deep-seated cause arising from 
 the very nature of prophetism. A prophet form- 
 ing such an exception would stand, as it were, 
 without the cycle of the prophets. We cannot 
 imagine such an exception. 
 
 6. A certain difference of style between the 
 portions called genuine and those called spurious 
 does not prove what our opponents assert. Such 
 a difference may arise from various causes in the 
 productions of one and the same author. It is fre- 
 quently occasioned by a difference of the subject- 
 10 alter, and by a difference of mood arising there- 
 
 from ; for instance, in the prophecies of Jeremiah 
 against foreign nations, the style is more elevated 
 and elastic than in the home-prophecies. How 
 little this difference of style can prove, we may 
 learn by comparing with each other the prophecies 
 which our opponents call genuine ; for instance, 
 ch. ix. 7-x. 4. The authenticity of this pro- 
 phecy is not subject to any doubt, although it. has 
 not that, swing which we find in many prophecies 
 of the first part. The language has as much ease 
 as that in the second part, with which this piece 
 has several repetitions in common. The difference 
 of style in the prophecies against foreign nations 
 (which predictions are particularly distinguished 
 by sublimity), from that in chapters i.-xii., which 
 are now generally ascribed to Isaiah, appeared 
 to Bertholdt a sufficient ground for assigning the 
 former to another author. But in spite of this 
 difference of style it is, at present, again generally 
 admitted that they belong to one and the same 
 author. It consequently appears that our op- 
 ponents deem the difference of style alone not a 
 sufficient argument for proving a difference of 
 authorship ; but only such a difference as does 
 not arise from a difference of subjects and of 
 moods, especially if this difference occurs in an 
 author whose mind is so richly endowed as that 
 of Isaiah, in whose works the form of the style ia 
 produced directly by the subject. Ewald cor- 
 rectly observes (p. 173), ‘We cannot state that 
 Isaiah had a peculiar colouring of style. He is 
 neither the especially lyrical, nor the especially 
 elegiacal, nor the especially oratorical, nor the 
 especially admonitory prophet, as, perhaps, Joel, 
 Hosea, or Micah, in whom a particular colouring 
 more predominates. Isaiah is capable of adapting 
 his style to the most different subject, and in this 
 consists his greatness and his most distinguished 
 excellence.’ 
 
 The chief fault of our opponents is, that they 
 judge without distinction of persons ; and here 
 distinction of persons would be proper. They mea- 
 sure the productions of Isaiah with the same mea- 
 sure tkat is adapted to the productions of less- 
 gifted prophets. Jeremiah, for example, does not 
 change his tone according to the difference of 
 subject so much that it could be mistaken by an 
 experienced Hebraist. Of Isaiah, above all, we 
 might say what Fichte wrote in a letter to a 
 friend in Konrgsberg : ‘ Strictly speaking, I have 
 no style, because 1 have all styles 1 (Fichtes’ 
 I.eben von seinem Sohnc , tb. i, p. 196). If 
 we ask how the difference ot sty le depends upon 
 the difference of subject, the answer must be very 
 favourable to Isaiah, in whose book the style does 
 not so much differ according to the so-called 
 genuineness or spuriousness, as rather according 
 to the subjects of the first and second parts. The 
 peculiarities of the second part arise from the 
 subjects treated therein ; and from the feelings to 
 which these subjects give rise. Here the prophet 
 addresses not so much the multitude who live 
 around him, as the future people of the Lord, 
 purified by his judgments, who are about to 
 spring from the e/cAoyt), that is, the small number 
 of the elect who were contemporaries of Isaiah. 
 Here he does not speak to a mixed congregation, 
 but to a congregation of brethren whom he com- 
 forts. The commencement, ‘ Comfort ye, comfort 
 ye, my people,’ is the theme of tne whole. Hence 
 arise the gentleness and tenderness of style, and 
 
46 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 the frequent repetitions. Comforting love has 
 many words. Hence the addition of many epi- 
 thets to the name of God, which are so many 
 shields by which the strokes of despair are warded 
 off, and so many bulwarks against the attacks of 
 the visible world which was driving to despair. 
 The sublimity, abruptness, and thunders of the 
 first part find no place here, where the object of 
 Isaiah is not to terrify and to shake stout-hearted 
 sinners, hut rather to bring glad tidings to the 
 meek ; not to quench the smoking flax, nor to 
 break the bruised reed. But wherever there is a 
 similarity of hearers and of subject, there we meet 
 also a remarkable similarity of style, in both the 
 first and second part ; as, for example, in the 
 description of the times of Messiah, and of the 
 punishments, in which (lvi.-lix.) the prophet has 
 the whole nation before his eyes, and in which 
 he addresses the careless sinners by whom he is 
 surrounded. 
 
 We attach no importance to the collections of 
 isolated words and expressions which some critics 
 have gleaned from the disputed parts of Isaiah, 
 and which are not found in other portions that 
 are deemed genuine. We might here well apply 
 what Kruger wrote on a similar question in pro- 
 fane history (Z)e authentia et hitegritate Anab. 
 Xenophontis, Halle, 1 824, p. 27) : Hoc argic- 
 mentandi genus perqunm lubricurn est. Si quid 
 numerus valeret, urgeri posset , quod in his libris 
 amplius quadraginta vocabulci leguntur , quce in 
 reliquis Xenophontis operibus frustra qucerantur. 
 Si quis propter vocabula alibi ab hoc scriptore vel 
 alia potestate, velqtrorsus non usurp ath, Anabasin 
 ab eo profectam neget, hac ratione admissa quod- 
 vis aliud ejus opus injuria ei tribui , ostendi 
 potest ; that is, ‘ This is a very slippery mode of 
 reasoning. If number were of importance, it 
 might be urged that in these books occur more 
 than forty words for which one searches in vain 
 in the other works of Xenophon. But if it 
 should be denied on account of those words 
 winch this author has either employed in a dif- 
 ferent sense, or has not made use of at all, that 
 the Anabasis was written by him, it could, by the 
 same reasoning, be shown that every other work 
 was falsely attributed to him.’ 
 
 7. We find a number of characteristic peculi- 
 arities of style which occur both in what is ac- 
 counted genuine and what is styled spurious in 
 Isaiah, and which indicate the identity of the 
 author. Certain very peculiar idioms occur 
 again and again in all parts of the book. Two of 
 them are particularly striking. The appellation 
 of God, ‘ the Holy One of Israel,’ occurs with 
 equal frequency in what has been ascribed to 
 Isaiah and in what has been attributed to a pseudo- 
 Isaiah; it is found besides in two passages in 
 which Isaiah imitates Jeremiah, and only three 
 times in the whole of the remainder of the Old 
 Testament. Another peculiar idiom is that ‘ to 
 be called ’ stands constantly for ‘ to be.’ These 
 are phenomena of language which even our oppo- 
 nents do not consider casual ; but they say that the 
 later poet imitated Isaiah, or that they originated 
 from the hand of a uniformising editor, who took 
 an active part in modelling the whole. But 
 there cannot be shown any motive for such inter- 
 ference ; and we find nothing analogous to it in 
 the whole of the Old Testament. Such a sup- 
 position cuts away the linguistic ground from 
 
 under the feet of higher criticism, and deprives it 
 of all power of demonstration. In this manner 
 every linguistic phenomenon may easily be re- 
 moved, when it is contrary to preconceived opi- 
 nions. But everything in Isaiah appears so 
 natural, bears so much the impress of originality, 
 is so free from every vestige of patch-work, that no 
 one can conscientiously maintain this hypothesis. 
 
 We have still to consider the other conjecture 
 of our opponents. If we had before us a prophet 
 strongly leaning, like Jeremiah and Zechariah, 
 upon preceding prophets, that conjecture might 
 be deemed admissible, in case there were other 
 arguments affording a probability for denying 
 that Isaiah was the author of these portions — a 
 supposition which can here have no place. But 
 here we have a prophet whose independence and 
 originality are acknowledged even by our op- 
 ponents. In him we cannot think of imitation, 
 especially if we consider his peculiarities in 
 connection with the other peculiar character- 
 istics of Isaiah, and of what has been said to 
 belong to a pseudo-Isaiah ; w r e refer here to the 
 above-mentioned works of Mcelle and of Kleinert 
 (p. 231, sq.). In both portions of Isaiah there 
 occur a number of words which are scarcely to 
 be found in other places ; also a frequent repe- 
 tition of the same word in the parallel members 
 of a verse. This repetition very seldom occurs 
 in other writers (compare the examples collected 
 by Kleinert, p. 239). Other writers usually 
 employ synonymes in the parallel members of 
 verses. It further belongs to the characteristics 
 of Isaiah to employ words in extraordinary ac- 
 ceptations ; for instance, JHT is used contemptu- 
 ously for brood ; DlK, for rabble; for a 
 
 shoot. Isaiah also employs extraordinary con- 
 structions, and has the peculiar custom of ex- 
 plaining his figurative expressions by directly 
 subjoining the prosaical equivalent. This custom 
 has induced many interpreters to suppose that 
 explanatory glosses have been inserted in Isaiah. 
 Another peculiarity of Isaiah is that he inter- 
 sperses his prophetic orations with hymns ; that 
 he seldom relates visions, strictly so-called, and 
 seldom performs symbolic actions ; and that he 
 employs figurative expressions quite peculiar to 
 himself, as, for example, pasted-up eyes , for spiri- 
 tual darkness ; morning-red , for approaching hap- 
 piness ; the remnant of olive-trees , vineyards , and 
 orchards , for the remnant of the people which have 
 been spared during the judgments of God ; re- 
 jected tendrils or branches , for enemies which 
 have been slain. 
 
 In addition to this we find an almost verbal 
 harmony between entire passages ; for instance, 
 the Messianic description commencing xi. 6, 
 compared with lxv. 25. 
 
 IV. The origin of the present Collection , and 
 its arrangement. — No definite account respecting 
 the method pursued in collecting into books the 
 utterances of the Prophets has been handed down 
 to us. Concerning Isaiah, as well as the rest, these 
 accounts are wanting. We do not even know 
 whether he collected his prophecies himself. But 
 we have no decisive argument against this opinion. 
 The argument of Kleinert, in his above-mentioned 
 work (p. 112), is of slight importance. He says, 
 If Isaiah himself had collected his prophecies, 
 there would not be wanting some which are net 
 to be found in the existing book. T© this we 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAII. 
 
 47 
 
 reply, that it can by no means be proved with 
 any degree of probability that a single prophecy 
 of Isaiah has been lost, the preservation of which 
 would have been of importance to posterity, and 
 which Isaiah himself would have deemed it neces- 
 sary to preserve. Kleinert appeals to the fact, 
 that there is no prophecy in our collection which 
 can with certainty be ascribed to the days of 
 Jptham ; and he thinks it incredible that the pro- 
 phet, soon after having been consecrated to his 
 office, should have passed full sixteen years with- 
 out any revelation from God. This, certainly, is 
 unlikely ; but it is by no means unlikely that 
 during this time he uttered no prophecy which he 
 thought proper to preserve. Nay, it appears very 
 probable, if we compare the rather general cha- 
 racter of chapters i.-v., the contents of which 
 would apply to the days of Jotham also, since 
 during his reign no considerable changes took 
 place ; consequently the prophetic utterances 
 moved in the same sphere with those preserved to 
 us from the reign of Uzziah. Hence it was na- 
 tural that Isaiah should confine himself to the 
 communication of some important prophetic ad- 
 dresses, which might as well represent the days 
 of Jotham as those of the preceding reign. We 
 must not too closely identify the utterances of the 
 prophets with their writings. Many prophets have 
 spoken much and written nothing. The minor 
 prophets were generally content to write down the 
 quintessence alone of their numerous utterances. 
 J eremiah likewise, of his numerous addresses under 
 Josiah, gives us only what was most essential. 
 
 The critics who suppose that the present book 
 of Isaiah was collected a considerable time after 
 the death of the prophet, and perhaps after the 
 exile, lay especial stress upon the assertion that 
 the historical section in the 26th and following 
 chapters was transcribed from 2 Kings xviii.-xx. 
 This supposition, however, is perfectly unfounded. 
 
 According to Ewald (p. 39), the hand of a later 
 compiler betrays itself in the headings. Ewald 
 has not, however, adduced any argument suffi- 
 cient to prove that Isaiah was not the author of 
 these headings, the enigmatic character of which 
 seems more to befit the author himself than a 
 compiler. The only semblance of an argument 
 is that the heading ‘ Oracle (better translated 
 burden ) concerning Damascus’ (xvii. 1), does not 
 agree with the prophecy that follows, which refers 
 rather to Samaria. But we should consider that 
 the headings of prophecies against foreign nations 
 are always expressed as concisely as possible, and 
 that it was incompatible with the usual brevity 
 more fully to describe the subject of this prophecy. 
 We should further consider that this prophecy re- 
 fers to the connection of Damascus with Samaria, 
 in which alliance Damascus was, according to 
 chap, vii ., the prevailing power, with which 
 Ephraim stood and fell. If all this is taken into 
 account, the above heading will be found to agree 
 with the prophecy. According to the Talmudists, 
 the book of Isaiah was collected by the men of 
 Hezekiah. But this assertion rests merely upon 
 Prov. xxv. 1, where the men of Hezekiah are said 
 to have compiled the Proverbs. The Talmudists 
 do not sufficiently distinguish between what, might 
 be and what is. They habitually state bare possi- 
 bilities as historical facts. 
 
 To us it seems impossible that Isaiah left it 
 to others to collect his prophecies into a volume, 
 
 because we know that he was the author of histo- 
 rical works ; and it is not likely that a man 
 accustomed to literary occupation would have 
 left to others to do what he could do much better 
 himself. 
 
 Hitzig has of late recognised Isaiah as the col- 
 lector and arranger of his own prophecies. But 
 he supposes that a number of pieces were inserted 
 at a later period. The chronological arrangement 
 of these prophecies is a strong argument in favour 
 of the opinion that Isaiah himself formed them 
 into a volume. There is no deviation from this 
 arrangement, except in a few instances where pro- 
 phecies of similar contents are placed together ; 
 but there is no interruption which might appear 
 attributable to either accident or ignorance. There 
 is not a single piece in this collection which can 
 satisfactorily be shown to belong to another place. 
 All the portions, the date of which can be ascer- 
 tained either by external or internal reasons, stand 
 in the right place. This is generally granted with 
 respect to the first twelve chapters, although many 
 persons erroneously maintain that ch. vi. should 
 stand at the beginning. 
 
 Chaps, i.-v. belong to the later years of Uzziah ; 
 chap. vi. to the year of his death. What follows 
 next, up to chap. x. 4, belongs to the reign of 
 Ahaz. Chaps, x.-xii. is the first portion apper- 
 taining to the reign of Hezekiah. Then follows 
 a series of prophecies against foreign nations, in 
 which, according to the opinions of many, the chro- 
 nological arrangement has been departed from, and, 
 instead of it, an arrangement according to con- 
 tents has been adopted. But this is not the case. 
 The predictions against foreign nations are also in 
 their right chronological place. They all belong 
 to the reign of Hezekiah, and are placed together 
 because, according to their dates, they belong to the 
 same period. In the days of Hezekiah the nations 
 of Western Asia, dwelling on the banks of the Eu- 
 phrates and Tigris, more and more resembled a 
 threatening tempest. That the prophecies against 
 foreign nations belong to this period is indicated by 
 the home-prophecy in ch. xxii., which stands among 
 the foreign prophecies. The assertion that the first 
 twelve chapters are a collection of home-pro- 
 phecies is likewise refuted by the fact that there 
 occur in these chapters two foreign prophecies. 
 The prophetic gift of Isaiah was more fully un- 
 folded in sight of the Assyrian invasion under the 
 reign of Hezekiah. Isaiah, in a series of visions, 
 describes what Assyria would do, as a chastising rod 
 in the hand of the Lord, and what the successors of 
 the Assyrians, the Chaldees, would perform, accord- 
 ing to the decree of God, in order to realise divine 
 justice on earth, as well among Israel as among the 
 heathen. The prophet shows that mercy is hidden 
 behind the clouds of wrath. There is no argument 
 to prove that the great prophetic picture in chaps, 
 xxiv.-xxvii. was not depicted under Hezekiah. 
 Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii. manifestly belong to the 
 same reign, but somewhat later than the time in 
 which chaps, x., xi., and xii. were written. They 
 were composed about the time when the result ol 
 the war against the Assyrians was decided. With 
 the termination of this war terminated also the 
 public life of Isaiah, who added an historical 
 section in chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix., in order to faci- 
 litate the right understanding of the prophecies 
 uttered by him during the most fertile period of his 
 prophetic ministry. Then follows the conclusion 
 

 ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 of his work on earth. The second part, which 
 contains his prophetic legacy, is addressed to the 
 small congregation of the faithful strictly so 
 called. This part is analogous to the last 
 speeches of Moses in the fields of Moab, and to 
 the last speeches of Christ in the circle of his 
 disciples, related by John. Thus we have every- 
 where order, and such an order as could scarcely 
 have proceeded from any one but the author. 
 
 V. Contents , Character , and Authority of the 
 Book of Isaiah . — It was not the vocation of the 
 prophets to change anything in the religious con- 
 stitution of Moses, which had been introduced by 
 divine authority ; and they were not called upon 
 to substitute anything new in its place. They 
 had only to point out the new covenant to be 
 introduced by the Redeemer, and to prepare the 
 minds of men for the reception of it. They 
 themselves in all their doings were subject to the 
 law of Moses. They were destined to be extra- 
 ordinary ambassadors of God, whose reign in Is- 
 rael was not a mere name, not a mere siiadow of 
 earthly royalty, but rather its substance and 
 essence. They were to maintain the government 
 of God, by punishing all, both high and low, who 
 manifested contempt of the Lawgiver by offending 
 against his laws. It was especially their vocation to 
 counteract the very ancient delusion, according to 
 which an external observance of rites was deemed 
 sufficient to satisfy God. This opinion is contrary 
 to many passages of the law itself, which admonish 
 men to circumcise the heart, and describe the sum 
 of the entire law to consist in loving God with the 
 whole heart; which make salvation to depend 
 upon being internally turned towards God, and 
 which condemn not only the evil deed, but also 
 the wicked desire. The law had, however, at the 
 first assumed a form corresponding to the wants 
 of the Israelites, and in accordance with the sym- 
 bolical spirit of antiquity. But when this form, 
 which was destined to be the living organ of the 
 Spirit, was changed into a corpse by those who 
 were themselves spiritually dead, it offered a point 
 of coalescence for the et v or of those who contented 
 ihemselves with external observances. 
 
 The prophets had also to oppose the delusion of 
 those who looked upon the election of the people 
 of God as a preservative against the divine judg- 
 ments ; who supposed that their descent from the 
 patriarchs, with whom God had made a covenant, 
 was an equivalent for the sanctification which 
 they wanted. Even Moses had strongly opposed 
 this delusion ; for instance, in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. 
 xxxii. David also, in the Psalms, as in xv. and 
 xxiv., endeavours to counteract this error, which 
 again and again sprang up. It was the vocation 
 of the prophets to insist upon genuine piety, and to 
 show that a true attachment to the Lord necessarily 
 manifests itself by obedience to his precepts ; that 
 this obedience would lead to happiness, and dis- 
 obedience to misfortune and distress. The pro- 
 phets were appointed to comfort the faint-hearted, 
 by announcing to them the succour of God, and 
 to bring glad tidings to the faithful, in order to 
 strengthen their fidelity. They were commissioned 
 to invite Ibe rebellious to return, by pointing out 
 to them future salvation, and by teaching them 
 that without conversion they could not be par- 
 takers of salvation ; and in order that their admo- 
 nitions and rebukes, their consolations and awaken- 
 ings, might gain more attention, it was granted 
 
 to them to behold futurity, and lo foresee fJu 
 blessings and judgments which would ultimately 
 find their full accomplishment in the days of 
 Messiah. The Hebrew appellation nebiim is by 
 far more expressive than the Greek Trpocpirrrjs, 
 which denotes only a part of their office, and 
 which lias given rise to many misunderstandings. 
 The word (from the root fcOb which occurs in 
 Arabic in the signification of to inform , to explain, 
 to speak ) means, according to the usual significa- 
 tion of the form a person into -whom God 
 
 has spoken ; that is, a person who communicates 
 to the people what God has given to him. The 
 Hebrew word indicates divine inspiration. What 
 is most essential in the prophets is their speaking 
 eV TTvevjxa.n ; consequently they were as much 
 in tneir vocation when they rebuked and admo- 
 nished as when they predicted future events. The 
 correctness of our explanation may he seen in the 
 definition contained in Deut. xviii. 18, where 
 the Lord says, ‘ I will raise them up a prophet 
 from among their bretnren like unto thee, and will 
 put my words in his mouth ; and he shall speak 
 unto them all that I shall command him.* 
 
 The prophet here mentioned is an ideal person. 
 It is prophe%m itself personified. It is a charac- 
 teristic mark that God gives his word into the 
 mouth of the prophet, by means of which he is 
 placed on an equality w r ith the priest, who is like- 
 wise a bearer of the word of God. The prophet is 
 at the same time distinguished from the priest, 
 who receives the word of God from the Scriptures, 
 while the prophet receives it without an inter- 
 vening medium. The internal communications 
 of God to the prophets are given to them only as 
 being messengers to his people. By this circum- 
 stance the prophets are distinguished from rnystief 
 and theosophers, who lay claim to divine commu- 
 nications especially for themselves. Prophetisnr 
 has an entirely practical and truly ecclesiastical 
 character, remote from all idle contemplativeness, 
 all fantastic trances, and all anchoret.ism. 
 
 In this description of the prophetical calling 
 there is also contained a statement of the contents 
 of the prophecies of Isaiah. lie refers expressly 
 in many places to the basis of the ancient cove- 
 nant, that is, to the law of Moses ; for instance, 
 in viii. 16, 20, and xxx. 9, 10. In many other 
 passages his utterance rests on the same basis, 
 although he does not expressly state it. All his 
 utterances are interwoven with references to tlie 
 law. It is of importance to examine at least one 
 chapter closely, in order to understand how pro- 
 phecies are related to the law. Let us take as 
 an example the first. The beginning ‘ Hear, 
 O heavens, and give ear O earth,’ is taken from 
 Deut. xxxii. Thus the prophet points out that 
 his prophecies are a commentary upoft the M.*gna 
 Charta of prophetism contained in the book? of 
 Moses. During the prosperous condition of the 
 state under Uzziah and Jotham, luxury and im- 
 morality had sprung up. The impiety of Ahaz 
 had exercised the worst influence upon the whols 
 people. Great part of the nation had forsaken 
 the religion of their fathers and embraced gross 
 idolatry ; and a great number of those who wor- 
 shipped God externally had forsaken Him in 
 their hearts. The divine judgments were ap- 
 proaching. The rising power of Assyria was 
 appointed to be the instrument of divine justice. 
 
IS MAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 4ft 
 
 Among trip people cfGod internal demoralisation 
 was always the forerunner of outward calamity. 
 This position of affairs demanded an energetic 
 intervention of prophetism. Without prophetism 
 the e/cA.07/1, the number of the elect, would have 
 jecn constantly decreasing, and even the judg- 
 ments of the Lord, if prophetism had not fur- 
 nished their interpretation, would have been mere 
 facts, which would have missed their aim, and, 
 in many instances, might have had an effect 
 opposite to that which was intended, because 
 punishment which is not recognised to be punish- 
 ment, necessarily leads away from God. The pro- 
 phet attacks the distress of his nation, not at the 
 surface, but. at the root, by rebuking the prevail- 
 ing corruption. Pride and arrogance appear to 
 him to be the chief roots of all sins. 
 
 He inculcates again and again not to rely upon 
 the creature, but upon the Creator, from whom 
 all temporal and spiritual help proceeds ; that in 
 order to atta'n salvation, we should despair of our 
 own and all human power, and rely upon God. 
 He opposes those who expected help through 
 foreign alliances with powerful neighbouring na- 
 tions against foreign enemies of the state. 
 
 The people of God have only one enemy, and 
 one ally, that is, God. It is foolish to seek for 
 aid on earth against the power of heaven, and to 
 fear man if God is our friend. The panacea 
 against all distress and danger is true conversion. 
 The politics of the prophets consist only in point- 
 ing out this remedy. The prophet connects with 
 his rebuke and with his admonition, his threaten- 
 ings of divine judgment upon the stiff-necked. 
 These judgments are to be executed by the inva- 
 sion of the Syrians, the oppression of the Assyrians, 
 the Babylonian exile, and by the great final 
 separation in the times of the Messiah. The idea 
 which is the basis of all these threatenings, is pro- 
 nounced even in the Pentateuch (Lev. x. 3), 
 4 I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, 
 and before all the people I will be glorified and 
 also in the words of Amos (iii. 2), 4 You only 
 nave I known of all the families of the earth ; 
 therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.-’ 
 That is, if the people do not voluntarily glorify 
 God, He glorifies Himself against them. Partly 
 in order to recal the rebellious to obedience, 
 partly to comfort the faithful, the prophet opens a 
 prospect of those blessings which the faithful por- 
 tion of the covenant-people shall inherit. In 
 almost all prophetic utterances, we find in regular 
 succession three elements— rebuke, threatening, 
 and promise. The prophecies concerning the de- 
 struction of powerful neighbouring states, partly 
 belong, as we have shown, to the promises, be- 
 cause they are intended to prevent despair, which, 
 as well as false security, is a most dangerous 
 hindrance to conversion. 
 
 In the direct promises of deliverance the pur- 
 pose to comfort is still more evident. This de- 
 liverance refers either to burdens which pressed 
 upon the people in the days of the prophet, or to 
 burdens to come, which were already announced 
 by the prophet; such, for instance, were the op- 
 pressions of the Syrians, the Assyrians, and finally, 
 of the Chaidaeans. 
 
 The proclamation ot‘ the Messiah is the inex* 
 haustible source of consolation among the pro- 
 phets. In Isaiah this consolation is so clear that 
 
 ViU. II. c 
 
 some fathers of the church were inclined to style 
 him rather evangelist than prophet. Ewald 
 pointedly describes (p. 169) the human basis of 
 Messianic expectations in general, and of those of 
 Isaiah in particular: — 4 lie who experienced in his 
 own royal soul what infinite power could be 
 granted to an individual spirit in order to influ- 
 ence and animate many, be who daily observed 
 in Jerusalem the external vestiges of a spirit 
 like that of David, could not imagine that the 
 future new congregation of the Lord should ori- 
 ginate from a mind belonging to another race 
 than that of David, and that it should be main- 
 tained and supported by any other ruler than a 
 divine ruler. Indeed every spiritual revival must 
 proceed from the clearness and firmness of an ele- 
 vated mind ; and this especially applies to that 
 most sublime revival for which ancient Israel 
 longed and strove. This longing attained to 
 clearness, and was preserved from losing itself in 
 indefiniteness, by the certainty that such an ele- 
 vated mind was to be expected.’ 
 
 Isaiah, however, was not the first who attained 
 to a knowledge of the personality of Messiah. 
 Isaiah’s vocation was to render the knowledge of 
 this personality clearer and more definite, and 
 to render it more efficacious upon the souls of the 
 elect by giving it a greater individuality. The 
 person of the Redeemer is mentioned even in Gen. 
 xlix. 10, 4 The sceptre shall not depart from 
 Judah, nor a lawgiver from between bis feet, until 
 Shiloh ( the tranquilliser') come ; and unto Him 
 shall the gathering of the people be’ (i. e. Him 
 shall the nations obey). The personality of 
 Messiah occurs also in several psalms which were 
 written before the times of Isaiah; for instance, in 
 the 2nd and II 0th, by David; in the 45th, by 
 the sons of Korah ; in the 72nd, by Solomon. 
 Isaiah has especially developed the perception of 
 the prophetic and the priestly office of the Re- 
 deemer, while in the earlier annunciations of the 
 Messiah the royal office is more prominent ; al- 
 though in Psalm cx. the priestly office also is 
 pointed out. Of the two states of Christ, Isaiah 
 has expressly described that of the exinanition of 
 the suffering Christ, while, before him, his. state of 
 glory vas made more prominent. In the Psalms 
 the inseparable connection between justice and 
 suffering, from which the doctrine, of a suffering 
 Messiah necessarily results, is not expressly ap- 
 plied to the Messiah. We must not say that 
 Isaiah first perceived that the Messiah was to 
 suffer, but we must grant that this knowledge was 
 in him more vivid than in any earlier writer ; and 
 that this knowledge was first shown by Isaiah to 
 be an integral portion of Old Testament doctrine. 
 
 The following are the outlines of Messianic 
 prophecies in the book of Isaiah : — A scion or 
 David, springing from his- family, after it has 
 fallen into a very low estate, but being also 
 of divine nature, shall,, at first in lowliness, 
 but as a prophet filled with the spirit of God, 
 proclaim the divine doctrine, devel ope the law- 
 in truth, and render it the animating, principle 
 of national life; he shall, as high priest, by his 
 vicarious suffering and his death, remove the 
 guilt of his nation, and that of other nations, 
 and finally rule as a mighty king, not only over 
 the covenant-people,, but over all nations of the 
 earth who will subject themselves to his peaceful 
 
ISAIAH. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 SO 
 
 iceptre, not ty violent compulsion, but induced 
 by love and gratitude. He will make both the 
 moral and the physical consequences of sin to 
 cease ; the whole earth shall be tilled with the 
 knowledge of the Lord, and all enmity, hatred, 
 and destruction shall be removed even from the 
 brute creation. This is tlie survey of the Messianic 
 preaching by Isaiah, of which he constantly 
 renders prominent those portions which were most 
 calculated to impress the people under the then 
 existing circumstances. The first part of Isaiah 
 is directed to the whole people, consequently the 
 glory of the Messiah is here dwelt upon. The 
 fear lest the kingdom of God should be over- 
 whelmed by the power of heathen nations, is re- 
 moved by pointing out the glorious king to come, 
 who would elevate the now despised and appa- 
 rently mean kingdom of God above all the king- 
 doms of this world. In the second part, which is 
 more particularly addressed to the e/cA. 07 ^, the 
 elect , than to the whole nation, the prophet ex- 
 hibits the Messiah more as a divine teacher and 
 bigh-priest. Tiie prophet here preaches righteous- 
 ness through the blood of the servant of God, who 
 will support the weakness of sinners and take 
 upon Himself their sorrows. 
 
 We may show, by an example in chap. xix. 18- 
 25, that the views of futurity which were granted 
 to Isaiah were great and comprehensive, and that 
 the Spirit of God raised him above all narrow- 
 minded nationality. It is there stated that a time 
 should come when all the heathen, subdued by the 
 judgments of the Lord, should be converted to him, 
 and being placed on an equality with Israel, with 
 equal laws, would equally partake of the kingdom 
 of God, and form a brotherly alliance for his wor- 
 ship. Not the whole mass of Israel is destined, 
 according to Isaiah, to future salvation, but only 
 the small number of the converted. This truth 
 he enounces most definitely in the sketch of his 
 prophecies contained in chapter vi. 
 
 Isaiah describes with equal vivacity the divine 
 justice which punishes the sins of the nation with 
 inexorable severity. Holy, holy, holy, is the 
 Lord of Sabaoth, is the key-note of his prophe- 
 cies. He describes also the divine mercy and co- 
 venant-fidelity, by which there is always preserved 
 a remnant among the people : to them punish- 
 ment itself is a means of salvation, so that life 
 everywhere proceeds from death, and the congre- 
 gation itself is led to full victory and glory. 
 
 Isaiah saw the moral and religious degradation 
 of his people, and also its external distress, both 
 then present and to come (chap. vi.). But this 
 did not break his courage ; he confidently ex- 
 pected a better futurity, and raised himself in God 
 above all that, is visible. Isaiah is not afraid when 
 the wdiole nation and its king tremble. Of this 
 we see a remarkable instance in chapter vii., and 
 another in the time of the Assyrian invasion under 
 Hezekiah, during which the courage of his faith 
 rendered him the saviour of the commonwealth, 
 and the originator of that great religious revival 
 which followed the preservation of the state. The 
 faith of the king and of the people wa 3 roused by 
 that of Isaiah. 
 
 Isaiah stands pre-eminent above all other pro- 
 phets, as well in the contents and spirit of his 
 predictions, as also in their form and style. Sim- 
 plicity, clearness, sublimity, and freshness, are 
 
 the never-failing characters of his prophecies 
 Even Eichhorn mentions, among the first merili 
 of Isaiah, the concinnity of his expressions, the 
 beautiful outline of his images, and the fine exe- 
 cution of his speeches. In reference to richness 
 of imagery he stands between Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel. Symbolic actions, which frequently 
 occur in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, seldom occur in 
 Isaiah. The same is the case with visions, strictly 
 so called, of which there is only one, namely, 
 that in chapter vi.; and even it is distinguished 
 by its simplicity and clearness above that of the 
 later prophets. But one characteristic of Isaiah 
 is, that he likes to give signs—that is, a fact then 
 present, or near at hand — as a pledge for the more 
 distant futurity ; and that he thus supports the 
 feebleness of man (comp. vii. 20 ; xxxvii. 30; 
 xxxviii. 7, sqq.). The instances in chapters vii. 
 and xxxviii. show how much lie was convinced 
 of his vocation, and in what intimacy lie lived 
 with the Lord, by whose assistance alone he 
 could effect what lie offers to do in the one 
 passage, and what he grants in the other. The 
 spiritual riches of the prophet are seen in the va- 
 riety of bis style, which always befits the subject.. 
 When lie rebukes and threatens, it is like a storm, 
 and, when he comforts, his language is as tender 
 and mild as (to use his own words) that of a 
 mother comforting her son. With regard to style, 
 Isaiah is comprehensive, and the other prophets 
 divide his riches. 
 
 Isaiah enjoyed an authority proportionate to 
 his gifts. We learn, from history how great this 
 authority was during liis life, especially under 
 the reign of Hezekiah. Several of his most defi- 
 nite prophecies were fulfilled while lie was yet 
 alive ; for instance, the overthrow of the king- 
 doms of Syria and Israel ; the invasion of the 
 Assyrians, and the divine deliverance from it; 
 the prolongation of life granted to Hezekiah ; and 
 several predictions against foreign nations. Isaiah 
 is honourably mentioned in the historical books. 
 The later prophets, especially Nahum, Habakkuk, 
 Zepbaniah, Jeremiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and 
 Malaclii, clearly prove that bis book was dili- 
 gently read, and that his prophecies were atten- 
 tively studied. 
 
 The authority of the prophet greatly increased 
 after the fulfilment of his prophecies by the Baby- 
 lonian exile, the victories of Cyrus, and the de- 
 liverance of the covenant-people. Even Cyrus 
 (according to the above-mentioned account in Jo- 
 sephus, Antiq. xi. 1. § I, 2) was induced to set the 
 Jews at liberty by the prophecies of Isaiah concern- 
 ing himself. This prediction of Isaiah made so 
 deep an impression upon him that he probably took 
 from it the name by which he is generally known 
 in history. Jesus Siraeh (xlviii. 22-25) bestows 
 splendid praise upon Isaiah, and both Philo and 
 Josephus speak of him with great veneration. He 
 attained the highest degree of authority after the 
 times of the New Testament had proved the most 
 important part of his prophecies, namely, the Mes- 
 sianic, to be divine. Christ and the apostles quote 
 no prophecies so frequently as those of Isaiah, in 
 order to prove that lie who had appeared was one 
 and the same with Him who had been promised. 
 The fathers of the church abound in praises 0 / 
 Isaiah.— E. W. II. 
 
 ISHBI, or ISHBI-BENOB. [Giants.] 
 
ISH-BOSHETH. 
 
 ISIIMAEL. 
 
 B1 
 
 ISH-BOSIIETH (ngh.Uh «, man of shame ; 
 Sept. ’UfioarOi), a son of king Saul, and the enly 
 one who survived him. In I Chron. viii. 33, and 
 
 ix. 39, this name is given as Eshbaal. 
 
 Baal was the name of an idol, accounted abomi- 
 nable by the Hebrews, and which scrupulous per- 
 sons avoided pronouncing, using the word bosheth, 
 ‘ shame ’ or ( vanity,’ instead. This explains why 
 the name Eshbaal is substituted for Ish-bosheth, 
 Jerubbaal for Jerubbesheth (comp. Judg. viii. 35 
 with 2 Sam. xi. 21), and Merib-baal for Mephi- 
 bosheth (comp. 2 Sam. iv. 4 with 1 Chron. viii. 34 
 and ix. 40"). Ish-bosheth was not present in the 
 disastrous battle at Gilboa, in which his father and 
 brothers perished; and, too feeble of himself to 
 seize the sceptre which had fallen from the hands 
 of Saul, he owed the crown entirely to his uncle 
 Abner, who conducted him to Mahanaim, be- 
 yond the Jordan, where he was recognised as 
 king by ten of the twelve tribes. He reigned 
 seven, or, as some will have it, two years — -If a 
 power so uncertain as his can be called a reign. 
 Even the semblance of authority which he pos- 
 sessed he owed to the will and influence of Ab- 
 ner, who himself kept the real substance in his 
 own hands. A sharp quarrel between them led at 
 hist to the ruin of Ish-bosheth. Although accus- 
 tomed to tremble before Abner, even his meek 
 temper was roused to resentment by the disco- 
 very that Abner bad invaded the haram of his 
 late father Saul, which was in a peculiar manner 
 sacred under his care as a son and a king. By 
 this act Abner exposed the king to public con- 
 tempt; if it did not indeed leave himself open to 
 the suspicion of intending to advance a claim to 
 the crown on his own behalf. Abner highly re- 
 sented the rebuke of Ish-bosheth, and from that time 
 contemplated uniting all the tribes under the 
 sceptre of David. Ish-bosheth, however, reverted to 
 his ordinary timidity of character. At the first de- 
 mand of David, he restored to him his sister Michal, 
 who had been given in marriage to the son of Jesse 
 by Saul, and had afterwards been taken from him 
 and bestowed upon another. It is, perhaps, right 
 to attribute this act to his weakness ; although, as 
 David allows that he was a righteous man, it may 
 have been owing to his sense of justice. On the 
 death of Abner Ish-bosheth lost all heart and 
 hope, and perished miserably, being murdered in 
 his own palace, while he took his mid-day sleep, 
 by two of his officers, Baanah and Rechab. They 
 sped with his head to David, expecting a great 
 reward for their deed ; but the monarch — as both 
 right feeling and good policy required — testified 
 the utmost horror and concern. He slew the 
 murderers, and placed the head of Ish-bosheth 
 with due respect in the sepulchre of Abner : b.c. 
 1048 (2 Sam. ii. 8-11 ; iii. 6-39; iv.). There 
 is a serious difficulty in the chronology of this 
 reign. In 2 Sam. ii. 10 Ish-bosheth is said to have 
 feigned two years ; which some understand as the 
 whole amount of his reign. And as David 
 reigned seven and a half years over Judah before 
 he became king of all Israel upon the death of 
 Ish-bosheth, it is conceived by the Jewish chro- 
 taologer ( Seder Olam Rabba , p. 37), as well as by 
 Kimchi and others, that there was a vacancy of 
 five years in the throne of Israel. It is not, 
 However, agreed by those who entertain this opi- 
 
 nion, whether this vacancy took place before cr 
 after the reign of Ish-bosheth. Some think it was 
 before, it being then a matter of dispute whether 
 he or Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, should ba 
 made king; but others hold that after his death, 
 five years elapsed before David was generally 
 recognised as king of all Israel. If the reign of 
 Ish-bosheth be limited to two years, the latter is 
 doubtless the best way of accounting for the other 
 five, since no ground of delay in the accession of 
 Ish-bosheth is suggested in Scripture itself ; for the 
 claim of Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, 
 which some have produced, being that of a 
 lame boy five years old, whose father never 
 reigned, against a king’s son forty years of age, 
 would have been deemed of little weight in 
 Israel. Besides, our notions of Abner do not 
 allow us to suppose that under him the question 
 of the succession could have remained five years 
 in abeyance. But. it is the more usual, and 
 perhaps the better course, to settle this question 
 by supposing that the reigns of David over Judah, 
 and of Ish-bosheth over Israel, were nearly con- 
 temporaneous, and that the two years are men- 
 tioned as those from which to date the commence- 
 ment of the ensuing events — namely, the wars be- 
 tween the house of Saul and that of David. 
 
 1. ISHMAEL God hears , Sept. , 
 
 TcTjucdjA), Abraham’s eldest son, born to him by 
 Hagar; the circumstances of whose birth, early 
 history, and final expulsion from his father’s tents, 
 are related in the articles Abraham, Hagar. 
 [See also Isaac, Inheritance]. He afterwards 
 made the desert into which lie had been cast 
 his abode, and by attaching himself to, and ac- 
 quiring influence over, the native tribes, rose to 
 great authority and influence. It would seem to 
 have been the original intention of his mother 
 to have returned to Egypt, to which country 
 she belonged ; but this being prevented, she 
 was content to obtain for her son wives from 
 thence. Although their lots were cast apart, it 
 does not appear that any serious alienation existed 
 between Ishmael and Isaac ; for we read that they 
 both joined in the sepulchral rites of their father 
 Abraham (Gen. xxv. 9). This fact has not been 
 noticed as it deserves. It is full of suggestive 
 matter. As funerals in the East take place almost 
 immediately after death, it is evident that Ish- 
 mael must have been called from the desert to 
 the death-bed o,f his father; which implies that 
 relations of kindness and respect had been kept up, 
 although the brevity of the sacred narrative pre- 
 vents any special notice of this circumstance. 
 Ishmael had, probably, long before received an 
 endowment from his father’s property, similar to 
 that which had been bestowed upon the sons of 
 Keturah (Gen. xxv. 6). Nothing more is re- 
 corded of him than that he died at the age of 137 
 years, and was the father of twelve sons, who gave 
 their names to as many tribes (Gen. xvii. 20 ; 
 xxvii. 9). He had also two daughters, one of 
 whom became the wife of Esau. 
 
 It has been shown, in the article Arabia, that 
 Ishmael has no claim to the honour, which i* 
 usually assigned to him, of being the founder of 
 the Arabian nation. That nation existed before 
 he was born. He merely joined it, and adopted 
 its habits of life and character; and the tribe* 
 
ISHMAEL. 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 *2 
 
 which sprung fi^n him formed, eventually an 
 important section of the tribes of which it was 
 composed. The celebrated prophecy which de- 
 scribes the habits of life which he, and in him 
 his descendants, would follow, is, therefore, to 
 be regarded not as describing habits which he 
 would first establish, but such as he would 
 adopt. The description is contained in the 
 address of the angel to Hagar, when, before 
 the birth of Ishmael, she fled from the tents of 
 Abraham: — ‘Behold, thou art with child, and 
 shalt bear a son, and slialt call his name Ishmael 
 ( God hears), because the Lord hath heard thine 
 affliction. And he shall be a wild man : his 
 hand shall be against every man, and every 
 man’s hand against, him, and lie shall dwell in 
 the presence of all his brethren’ (Gen. xvi. 11, 
 12). This means, in short, that he and his 
 descendants should lead the life of the Bedouins 
 of the Arabian deserts; and how graphically 
 this description portrays their habits, may be 
 seen in the article Arabia, in the notes on these 
 verses in the ‘ Pictorial Bible,’ and in the works 
 of Niebuhr, Burckhardt, Lane, &c. ; and, more 
 particularly, in the Arabian romance of Antar, 
 which presents the most perfect picture of real 
 Bedouin manners now in existence. The last 
 clause, ‘ He shall dwell in the presence of all his 
 brethren,’ is pointedly alluded to in the brief 
 notice of his death, which states that ‘ he died 
 in the presence of all his brethren’ (Gen. xxv. 18). 
 Of this expression various explanations have been 
 given, but the plainest is the most probable : 
 which is, that Ishmael and the tribes springing 
 from him should always be located near the 
 kindred tribes descended from Abraham. And 
 this was a promise of benefit in that age of mi- 
 gration, when Abraham himself had come from 
 beyond ths Euphrates, and was a stranger and 
 sojourner in the land of Canaan. There was thus, 
 in fact, a relation of some importance between 
 this promise and the promise of the heritage of 
 Canaan to another branch of Abraham's off- 
 spring. It had seemingly some such force as 
 this — The heritage of Canaan is, indeed, des- 
 tined for another son of Abraham ; but still the 
 lot of Ishmael, and of those that spring from him, 
 shall never be cast far apart from that of his 
 brethren. This view is confirmed by the circum- 
 stance, that the Israelites did, in fact, occupy the 
 country bordering on that in which the various 
 tribes descended from Abraham or Terali had 
 settled — the Israelites, Edomite^, Midianites, Mo- 
 abites, Ammonites, &c. Most interpreters find in 
 this passage, a promise that the descendants of 
 Ishmael should never be subdued. But we are 
 unable to discover this in the text ; and, more- 
 over, such has not been the fact, whether we 
 regard the Ishmael ites apart from the other 
 Arabians, or consider the promise made to Ish- 
 mael as applicable to the whole Arabian family. 
 The Arabian tribes are in a state of subjection at 
 this moment ; and the great Wa'nabee confederacy 
 among them, which not many years ago filled 
 Western Asia with alarm, is now no longer 
 heard of. 
 
 2. ISHMAEL, a prince of the royal line of 
 Judah, who found refuge among the Ammonites 
 from the ruin whi^h involved his family and 
 nation. After the Chaldteans had departed he 
 
 returned, and treacherously slew the too-confidiiif 
 Ge^aliah, who had been made governor of the 
 miserable remnant left in the land [Gedai.iahJ. 
 Much more slaughter followed this, and Ishmael, 
 with many people of consideration as captive^, 
 hastened to return to the Ammonites. But he 
 was overtaken near the pool of Gibeon by Joha- 
 nan, a friend of Gedaliali, and was compelled to 
 abandon his prey and escape for his life, with 
 only eight attendants, to Baalis, king of the Am- 
 monites, with whom he appears to .have had a 
 secret understanding in these tiansactions : b.c. 
 58S (Jer. xli.). 
 
 ISLE, ISLAND ('fc$ ; Sept. yrj<ros, Vulg 
 Ursula'). The Hebrew word is invariably trans- 
 lated, either by the former or by the latter of these 
 English words, which, having the same meaning 
 will be considered as one. It occurs in the three 
 following senses. First, that of dry land in opposi- 
 tion to water ; as ‘ I will make the rivers islands’ 
 (Isa. xlii. 15). In Isa. xx. 6, the Isle of Ashdod 
 means the country, arid is so rendered in the 
 margin. In Isa. xxiii. 2, 6, ‘the isle ’means the 
 country of Tyre, and in Ezek. xxvii. 6, 7, that of 
 Chittim and Elisha. (See also Job xxii. 30). 
 Secondly ; it is v sed both in Hebrew and Eng- 
 lish, according to its geographical meaning, for a 
 country surrounded by water, as in Jer. xlvii. 4, 
 
 ‘ the isle (margin) of Caphtor,’ which is probably 
 that of Cyprus. ‘ The isles of the sea ’ (Esfh. x. 
 1) are evidently put in opposition to ‘ the land,’ 
 or continent. In Ps. xcvii. 1, ‘ the multitude of 
 the isles’ seem distinguished from the earth or 
 continents, and are evidently added to complete 
 the description of the whole world. Thirdly ; 
 the word is used hy the Hebrews to designate all 
 those countries divided from them by the sea. In 
 Isa. xi. 1 1, after an enumeration of countries lying 
 on their own continent, the words, ‘ and the islands 
 of the sea,’ are added in order to comprehend 
 those situate beyond the ocean. The following 
 are additional instances of this usage of the word, 
 which is of very frequent occurrence (Isa. xlii 
 10; lix. 18; Ixvi. 19; Jer. xxv. 22; Ezek. xxvii 
 3, 15; Zeph. ii. 11). It is observed by Sir I 
 Newten (on Daniel , p. 276), ‘ By the earth the 
 Jews understood the great continent of all Asia 
 and Africa, to which they had access by land 
 and hy the isles of the sea they understood th< 
 places to which they sailed by sea, particular!} 
 all Europe.’ — J. F. D. 
 
 ISRAEL Sept. ’Iopc^A) is tin 
 
 sacred and divinely bestowed name of the pa- 
 triarch Jacob, and is explained to mean, 1 A 
 prince with God,’ from mt^, principatum tenuil 
 Winer ( Heb . Lexicon) interprets it pugnator Dei 
 from another meaning of the same root. A1 
 though, as applied to Jacob personally, it is a» 
 honourable or poetical appellation, it is the com 
 mon prose name of his descendants; while, oi 
 the contrary, the title Jacob is given to them onlj 
 in poetry. In the latter di visit n of Isaiah (aftei 
 the 39th chapter), many instances occur of tht 
 two names used side by side, to subserve tht 
 parallelism of Hebrew poetry, as in ch. xl. 27 ; 
 xli. 8, 14, 20, 21 ; xlii. 24 ; xliii. 1, 22, 28, &c. ; 
 so, indeed, in xiv. 1. The modem Jews, at least 
 in the East, are fond of being named Israeli in 
 preference to Yahudi, as more honourable. 
 
' 
 
 'i 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 53 
 
 1 he separation of the Hebrew nation into two 
 partu, of which one was to embrace ten ofjhe 
 tribes, and be distinctively named Israel, had its 
 origin in the early power and ambition of the 
 tribe of Ephraim. The rivalry of Ephraim and 
 Judah began a most from the first conquest of the 
 and ; nor is it unsignificant, that as Caleb be- 
 longed to the tribe of Judah, so did Joshua to 
 that of Ephraim. From the very beginning 
 Judah learned to act by itself ; but the central 
 position of Ephraim, with its fruitful and ample 
 soil, and the long- continued authority of Joshua, 
 must have taught most of the tribes west of the J or- 
 dan to look up to Ephraim as their head ; and a 
 still mor* important superiority was conferred on 
 the same tribe by the fixed dwelling of the ark at 
 Shiloh for so many generations (Josh, xviii. &c.). 
 Judah could boast of Hebron, Macpelah, Beth- 
 lehem, names of traditional sanctity ; yet so could 
 Ephraim point to Shechem, the ancient abode of 
 Jacob; and while Judah, being on the frontier, 
 was more exposed to the attack of the powerful 
 Philistines, Ephraim had to fear only those 
 Canaanites from within who were not subdued or 
 conciliated. The haughty behaviour of the 
 Ephraimites towards Gideon, a man of Manasseh 
 (Judg. viii. 1), sufficiently indicates the preten- 
 sions they made. Still fiercer language towards 
 Jephthah the Gileadite (Jud. xii. 1) was retorted 
 by less gentleness than Gideon had shown; and 
 a bloody civil war was the result, in which their 
 pride met with a severe punishment. This may 
 in part explain their quiet submission, not only 
 to the priestly rule of Eli and his sons, who had 
 their centre of authority at Shiloh, but to Samuel, 
 whose administration issued from three towns of 
 Benjamin. Of course his prophetical character 
 and personal excellence eminently contributed to 
 this result; and it may seem that Ephraim, as 
 well as all Israel besides, became habituated to 
 the predominance of Benjamin, so that no serious 
 resistance was made to the supremacy of Saul. 
 At his death a new schism took place through 
 their jealousy of Judah ; yet, in a few years’ 
 time, by the splendour of David’s victories, and 
 afterwards by Solomon’s peaceful power, a per- 
 manent national union might seem to have been 
 effected. But the laws of inheritance in Israel, 
 excellent as they were for preventing permanent 
 alienation of landed property, and the degradation 
 of the Hebrew poor into praedial slaves, neces- 
 sarily impeded the perfect fusion of the tribes, 
 by discouraging intermarriage, and hindering the 
 union of distant estates in the same hands. Hence, 
 when the sway of Solomon began to be felt as a 
 tyranny, the old jealousies of the tribes revived, 
 and Jeroboam, an Ephraimite (1 Kings xi. 26), 
 being suspected of treason, fled to Shishak, king 
 of Egypt. The death of Solomon was followed 
 by a defection of ten of the tribes, which esta- 
 blished the separation of Israel from Judah 
 (b.c. 975). 
 
 This was the most important event which had 
 befallen the Hebrew nation since their conquest 
 of Canaan. The chief territory and population 
 were now with Jeroboam, but the religious sanc- 
 tion, the legitimate descent, lay with the rival 
 monarch. From the political danger of allowing 
 the ten tribes to go up to the sanctuary of Jeru- 
 salem, the princes of Israel , as it were in self- 
 lefence, set up a sanctuary of their own ; and the 
 
 intimacy of Jeroboam with the king of Egypt 
 may have determined his preference for the form 
 of idolatry (the calves) which he established at 
 Dan and Bethel. In whatever else his successors 
 differed, they one and all agreed in upholding 
 this worship, which, once established, appeared 
 essential to their national unity. Nevertheless it 
 is generally understood to have been a worship of 
 Jehovah, though under unlawful and degrading 
 forms. Worse by far was the worship of Baal, 
 which came in under one monarch only, Ahab, 
 and was destroyed after his son was slain, by 
 Jehu. A secondary result of the revolution was 
 the ejection of the tribe of Levi from their lands 
 aud cities in Israel ; at least, such as remained 
 were spiritually degraded by the compliances re- 
 quired, and could no longer offer any resistance 
 to the kingly power by aid of their sacred cha- 
 racter. When the priestly tribe had thus lost 
 independence, it lost also the power to assist the 
 crown. The succession of Jeroboam’s family 
 was hallowed by no religious blessing; and when 
 his son was murdered, no Jehoiada was found to 
 rally his supporters and ultimately avenge his 
 cause. The example of successful usurpation 
 was so often followed by the captains of the 
 armies, that the kings in Israel present to us an 
 irregular series of dynasties, with several short 
 and tumultuous reigns. This was one cause of 
 disorder and weakness to Israel, and hindered it 
 from swallowing up Judah : another was found 
 in the relations of Israel towards foreign powers, 
 which will presently be dwelt upon. 
 
 We must first attend to the chronology; in 
 discussing which Israel and Judah must be taken 
 together. It lies on the face of the narrative that 
 the years of reign assigned are generally only 
 broken years: thus Nadab is said to have come 
 to the throne in the second and to have been 
 slain in the third year of Asa, and yet to have 
 reigned two years (l Kings xv. 25, 28); conse- 
 quently every reign is liable to a deduction not 
 exceeding eleven months. Instances will also 
 appear in which reigns are rmcferrated by a frac- 
 tion of a year : it is doubtful whether this is 
 another sort of phraseology, or is an error properly 
 so called. Some have further maintained (as Mr. 
 Gresvvell) that the reigns of kings were counted, 
 at least occasionally, from the beginning of the 
 Jewish year. To illustrate the effect of this: sup- 
 pose a king of England, to come to the throne in 
 September, an event which happened in the fol- 
 lowing March might be assigned to the seco-nd 
 year of his reign, though he would not have com- 
 pleted even a single year. The great objections to 
 applying this principle are, 1. that we have no proof 
 that it was actually used ; 2. that it introduces 
 great vagueness, since we do not once know at 
 what season of the year any king began his reign; 
 3. that it solves none of the greater difficulties en- 
 countered, and that it is not worth while appealing 
 to it for the smaller ones. Even if applied, the 
 total effect of it on the chronology is almost inap- 
 preciable, for the limits of possible error remain 
 perhaps exactly as without it. The once favourite 
 system, of imagining a king to rule conjointly 
 with his father, when it is not intimated in the 
 Scripture, is now deservedly exploded by all the 
 ablest chronologers. 
 
 The following table contains the materials for 
 chronology furnished in the Scriptures : — 
 
54 
 
 ISRAEL 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 
 Years 
 
 v , i 
 
 i ear of pre- 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 Years 
 
 Year of pre- 
 
 Aecssaion of a king of Judah. 
 
 of 
 
 ceding king 
 
 Accession of a king of Israel. 
 
 of 
 
 ceding king 
 
 Reign. 
 
 of Israel. 
 
 
 
 
 Reign. 
 
 of Judah. 
 
 Rehoboam 
 
 *17 
 
 
 
 Jeroboam . 
 
 . 
 
 9 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 Abijah * 
 
 3 
 
 18th 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Asa 
 
 41 
 
 20th 
 
 Nadab . . 
 
 • 
 
 
 2 
 
 2nd 
 
 
 
 
 Baasha . . 
 
 
 , , 
 
 21 
 
 3rd 
 
 
 
 
 Elah . . . 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 26th 
 
 
 
 
 Zimri . . 
 
 
 
 7 days 
 
 27th 
 
 
 
 
 Omri , . . 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 *(31 st) 
 
 
 
 
 Ahab . • . 
 
 
 
 *22 
 
 38 th 
 
 Jehoshaphat 
 
 *25 
 
 4th 
 
 Ahaziah . . 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 17th 
 
 
 
 
 Jehoram . • 
 
 
 , 
 
 12 
 
 18 th 
 
 Jehoram 
 
 8 
 
 5th 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ahaziah 
 
 1 
 
 12th 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Queen Athaliah] . • 
 
 Jehoash 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 Jehu . • 
 
 
 
 *28 
 
 — 
 
 40 
 
 7th 
 
 Jehoahaz . 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 23rd 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jehoash . 
 
 # 
 
 
 16 
 
 *37tii 
 
 Amazia’n ..... 
 
 29 
 
 2nd 
 
 Jeroboam II. 
 
 
 • • 
 
 |41 
 
 15th 
 
 Uzziah 
 
 *52 
 
 f27th 
 
 Zachariah . 
 
 
 
 38th 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 Shallum • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 ft 
 
 39th 
 
 
 
 
 Menahem 
 
 
 , # 
 
 *10 
 
 39th 
 
 
 
 
 Pekahiah 
 
 
 . # 
 
 2 
 
 50th 
 
 
 
 
 Pekah . . 
 
 . 
 
 # • 
 
 |20 
 
 52nd 
 
 Jotham .••••• 
 
 16 
 
 2nd 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ahaz ...... 
 
 16 
 
 17 th 
 
 Hoshea 
 
 
 • 
 
 © 
 
 12th 
 
 Hezekiah ..... 
 
 29 
 
 *3rd 
 
 Samaria taken 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 — 
 
 6th 
 
 Some of these data are inconsistent with others, 
 and it is important to decide which of them need 
 correction. Of course (other things being equal), 
 those changes are to be preferred which least dis- 
 turb the system as a whole. But it is well to 
 distinguish between the numbers marked with 
 an asterisk (*) and those to which an obelus (f) 
 is added. The former are wrong only by a unit 
 or two, and therefore perhaps can be resolved by 
 interpretation : the latter are quite untenable. 
 These must be separately remarked upon. 
 
 I. — 1. Rehoboam is said to have reigned 17 
 years; yet Abijah succeeded him in the 18th 
 year of Jeroboam. We must then explain 17 to 
 mean 17 and a fraction, which is contrary to the 
 usual Hebrew method. 2. Ahab seems to have 
 reigned less than 21 years, since Jehoshaphat 
 succeeded in his 4th year, and Ahaziah followed 
 in Jehoshaphat’s 17th year. It is better to alter 
 22 to 21 than 4th to 5th, or 17th to 18th; for if 
 4th were changed to 5th, Asa’s reign would be- 
 come (more than) 42, not 41 years : if 17th were 
 made 18th, the accession of Jehoram in the 18th 
 year must be further disturbed. 3. The length 
 of Jehoshaphat’s reign involves a difficulty at 
 first sight : since Jehoram of Israel came to the 
 throne in his 18th year, and in Jehoram’s 5th the 
 other Jehoram followed, Jehoshaphat appears to 
 have reigned less than 18 -f- 5 years. It is true 
 that his son was installed in power during his life 
 (2 Kings xviii. 16); but in the opinion of Mr. 
 Clinton and others the son’s reign could not be 
 •eckoned from that event, but from the father’s 
 
 death. If tins be true, 25 must be altered to 2r 
 or 22, as by far the simplest remedy. Nevertlu. 
 Ies3 Mr. Clinton’s opinion ie here by no mean.\ 
 self-evident. If Jehoram received not merely 
 actual power, as Jotham did, who was regent fo. 
 his father (2 Kings xv. 5), but a ceremonial in- 
 stallation, it is credible thi*t his reign should have 
 been dated from this event, although Jehoshaphat's 
 reign would still be estimated from its commence- 
 ment to his death. We may then neglect the 
 25 as insignificant to the chronology, regarding 
 Jehoram in any case to have commenced his 
 reign in the 22nd or 23rd of his father. [After 
 these remarks a very simple process determines 
 that from Jeroboam to Jehu includes more than 
 88 and less than 92 years. Thus — 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Mnths. 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Mnths. 
 
 Jeroboam . 
 
 . 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Abijah 
 
 . 18 
 
 1 
 
 or 
 
 18 
 
 0 
 
 Asa 
 
 . 20 
 
 2 
 
 
 20 
 
 11 
 
 Jehoshaphat . 
 
 . 60 
 
 3 
 
 
 61 
 
 10 
 
 Jehoram of Israel 
 
 . 77 
 
 4 
 
 
 79 
 
 9 
 
 Jehu . 
 
 . 88 
 
 5 
 
 
 91 
 
 8 
 
 Hence no decisive 
 
 result 
 
 is attainable from the 
 
 data.] 
 
 But further : 4. Jehu’s reign exceeded 28 
 years, since Jehoash succeeded in his 7th year, 
 and Jehoahaz in Jehoash’s 23rd. We must in- 
 terpret 28 to mean 28 and a fraction, as in Reho- 
 boam s case. 5. Jehoash of Judah reigned less 
 than 39 full years if his namesake of Israel began 
 to reign in his 37th year, and in the 2nd year of 
 
ISRAEL. 
 
 ISRAEL 
 
 G& 
 
 Che litter Arnaziah succeeded. The Sept, lias 
 39 instead of 37 ‘in some copies,’ says Mr. Clin- 
 ton (the Vatican Sept, agrees with the received 
 text, and so does Josephus) ; and though this is 
 probably a mere correction, it seems to be light, 
 siuce it is requisite to make good the 17 years of 
 reign for Jehoahaz. 6. Uzziah reigned more 
 than 52 full years, since Pekah came to the 
 throne in his 52nd and Jotliam in Pekah’s 2nd 
 year. Once more, then, 52 means 52 and a frac- 
 tion. 7. Menahem, for a like reason, reigned 
 not 1U years current, but 10 years and some 
 months, since he succeeded in Uzziah’s 39th, and 
 Pekahiah followed in Uzziah’s 50th. In all the 
 cases where a whole number is thus used with 
 the omission of a fraction, a cautious chronqloger 
 ought perhaps to add days less than a month, if 
 that is enough to satisfy the other conditions. 
 8. Ahaz reigned not 16 years current, but less 
 than 15 full years, if Hoshea succeeded in his 
 1 2th and Hezekiah in Hoshea ’s 3rd year ; but 
 which of the three numbers concerned is to be re- 
 garded as faulty is extremely doubtful. Winer 
 and Clinton both make Hezekiah ascend the 
 throne in the fourth year of Hoshea; but it 
 would serve equally well to alter ‘ 12th of Ahaz’ 
 into 13th or 14th. 
 
 II. — Some greater deviations must now be no- 
 ticed. 1. The accession of Omri is placed in the 
 31st year of Asa; but this must clearly be reck- 
 oned from his residence in Samaria (1 Kings 
 xvi. 23). Even this is inconsistent with the 
 statement that he reigned ‘ six years in Tirzah ;’ 
 for in the 31st of Asa five full years were not 
 completed. 2. A great error, and not a mere 
 numerical one, is found in 2 Kings i. 17, which 
 makes Jehoram king of Israel come to the throne 
 in the second year of his namesake of Judah, 
 whom he really preceded by four full years (viii. 
 16). 3. Uzziah cannot have succeeded in the 
 
 27th year of Jeroboam II., otherwise his father’s 
 reign would be more than 14+26 year’s. The 
 number 27 is variously corrected to 14, 16, and 
 17. 4. The 41 years’ reign of Jeroboam II. can- 
 not be correct. Interpreters in general choose to 
 imagine an interregnum of i l years between 
 Jeroboam and his son, which is contrary to the 
 plain meaning of the text, ar*l intrinsically im- 
 probable after an eminently prosperous reign. A 
 well-known and able writer even dilates on the 
 ‘ 11 y r ears of anarchy and civil strife’ as a proved 
 fact of great moment in the history ! But to in- 
 vent facts of this sort in deference to a mere num- 
 ber, where so many numbers are not trustworthy, 
 and with violence to the narrative, is highly ob- 
 jectionable. 5. Similar remarks apply to the 
 interregnum invented after the death of Pekah. 
 Of his murderer it is written (2 Kings xv. 30), 
 
 ‘ he slew him and reigned in his stead ;’ which 
 certainly does not hint at an anarchy of nine 
 years between. If Hoshea could not immediately 
 force himself into the vacant throne, he was not 
 likely to survive Iris daring deed for so many 
 years, and then effect his purpose. The date, 
 however, in that verse is quite untenable. It 
 places the murder in the 20th year of Jotham ; 
 but Jotham reigned only 16 years, and Pekah 
 survived him (xvi. 5). The date in another text 
 (xv. 27), which assigns to Pekah 20 years of 
 reign, must also be rejected, in preference to tam- 
 L'e.’ing with the historical facts. 
 
 Counting downwards from Jehoash of Israel, 
 and representing fractional parts of years by 
 Greek letters : — 
 
 Jehoash of Israel 
 Arnaziah . 
 Jeroboam . 
 
 Uzziah 
 
 Zachariah . . 
 
 . 0 
 
 . 1+ « . 
 
 . 15 +• a + fi 
 
 . 29 + a + 7 
 • 66 + a + 7 + S 
 
 It is hence easy to see that Jeroboam reigned 
 more than 50 full years, and certainly less than 
 52 : it is probable then that the 41 years assigned 
 to him ought to be 51. Assuming this, it will 
 follow that Uzziah followed Jeroboam by less 
 than 14 full years ; so that ‘ the 27th,’ in 2 Kings 
 xv. 1, will need to be corrected ‘ the 14th.’ It 
 cannot be made greater than 15th, consistently 
 with the other date, even if Jeroboam’s reign be 
 prolonged into a 52nd or 53rd year, by throwing 
 it as early as possible, and that of Zachariah as late 
 as possible. 
 
 Pekah will have reigned more than 27 and 
 less than 29 full years, if we correct the date of 
 Hezekiah ’s accession, with Winer and Clinton, as 
 above noticed. If, on the contrary, we alter the 
 accession of Hoshea to the 13th or 14th year of 
 Ahaz, Pekah’s reign exceeds 28, but is less than 
 31 years. If we suppose 30 more likely to have 
 been corrupted into 20, than 28 or 29, we may 
 choose this alternative. 
 
 So much being premised, it readily appears 
 that from Jehu to Uzziah is more than 73 years, 
 and less than 76 ; thus : — 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Mnths. 
 
 
 Years. Mnths. 
 
 Jehu . . 
 
 . . 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Jehoash 
 
 . . 6 
 
 1 
 
 or 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 Arnaziah . 
 
 . . 45 
 
 2 
 
 
 46 
 
 10 
 
 Uzziah 
 
 . . 73 
 
 3 
 
 75 
 
 9 
 
 and that from 
 
 Uzziah to the capture of Samaria 
 
 is more than 88 
 
 , and less than 9 1 
 
 years : — 
 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Mnths. 
 
 
 Years. Mnths. 
 
 Uzziah 
 
 . . 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Jotham 
 
 . . 52 
 
 2 
 
 or 
 
 52 
 
 11 
 
 Ahaz . 
 
 . . 67 
 
 3 
 
 
 68 
 
 10 
 
 Hezekiah . 
 
 . . 82 
 
 4 
 
 
 83 
 
 9 
 
 Samaria taken 
 
 . 88 
 
 5 
 
 *5 
 
 90 
 
 8 
 
 From Jehu to the capture of Samaria then is 
 more than 161 years, and less than 167 : finally, 
 the whole period of the Israel itish monarchy lies 
 between the limits of 249 and 259 years. Since 
 positive truth is here unattainable, it does not 
 appear worth while to disturb (as a whole) any 
 received chronological system : it is enough to 
 mark (when possible) the limits of error. The 
 date of the capture of Samaria now most re- 
 ceived is b.c. 721 ; yet this is arrived at through 
 the reigns of the early Persian kings, and without 
 any very satisfactory check upon error. 
 
 The following scheme of chronology agrees 
 with Winer in its total range, but has minor 
 changes by a single unit in some of the kings 
 
 Rehoboam . 
 Abijah . 
 Asa * 
 
 B.C. 
 
 975 Jeroboanr . 'k 
 957 I 
 
 955 f 
 
 954 Nadab. j 
 952 Baaslia > 
 929 Elah. { 
 928 Zimri, Omri 
 
56 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 R.C. 
 
 
 017 
 
 Ahab. 
 
 Jenosnapnat 
 
 . 914 
 
 
 
 89 7 
 
 Ahamli, j 
 
 
 896 
 
 Jehoram. J 
 
 J ehoram . . 
 
 . 889 
 
 
 Ahaziah 
 
 . 885 
 
 
 Queen Athaliah 
 
 . 884 
 
 Jehu. > 
 
 
 Jehoash 
 
 . S78 
 
 
 
 
 855 
 
 Jehoahaz. 
 
 
 
 840 
 
 Jehoash. 
 
 
 Amaziah . 
 
 . 838 
 
 
 
 
 821 
 
 Jeroboam II. 
 
 
 Uzziah . . . 
 
 . 809 
 
 
 
 
 772 
 
 Zachariah. 
 
 
 
 771 
 
 Shallum, Menanem. 
 
 
 760 
 
 Pekahiah. 
 
 
 758 
 
 Pekah. 
 
 Jotham 
 
 . 757 
 
 
 Ahaz . . 
 
 . 711 
 
 
 
 729 
 
 Hoshea. 
 
 Hezekiah . 
 
 . 726 
 
 
 
 721 
 
 Samaria captured. 
 
 The dynasties in Israel are denoted by brackets. 
 
 Leaving the subject of chronology, vve pass to the 
 substance of the history. 
 
 Jeroboam originally fixed on Shechem as the 
 centre of his monarchy, and fortified it ; moved 
 perhaps not only by its natural suitability, but 
 by the remembrances of Jacob which clove to it, 
 and by the auspicious fact that here first Israel 
 had decided for him against Rehoboam. But the 
 natural delightfulness of Tirzah (Cant. vi. 4) 
 led him, perhaps late in his reign, to erect a 
 palace there (1 Kings xiv. 17). After the murder 
 of Jeroboam's son, Baaslia seems to have intended 
 to fix his capital at Hamah , as a convenient 
 place for annoying the king of Judah, whom he 
 looked on as his only dangerous enemy ; but 
 when forced to renounce this plan (xv. 17, 21), 
 he acquiesced in Tirzah, which continued to be 
 the chief city of Israel, until Omri, who, since the 
 palace at Tirzah had been burned during the civil 
 war (1 Kings xvi. 18), built Samaria, with the 
 ambition not uncommon in the founder of a new 
 dynasty (xvi. 21). Samaria continued to the end 
 of the monarchy to be the centre of administration ; 
 and its strength appears to have justified Omri’s 
 choice. For details, see Samaria ; also Tirzah 
 and Sheciiem. 
 
 There is reason to believe that Jeroboam carried 
 back with him into Israel the good will, if not the 
 substantial assistance, of Shishak ; and this will ac- 
 count for his escaping the storm from Egypt which 
 swept over Rehoboam in his fifth year. During 
 that first period Israel was far from quiet within. 
 Although the ten tribes collectively had decided 
 in favour of Jeroboam, great numbers of indivi- 
 duals remained attached to the family of David 
 and to the worship at Jerusalem, and in the three 
 first years of Rehoboam migrated into Judah 
 (2 Chron. xi. 16, 17). Perhaps it was not until 
 this process commenced, that Jeroboam was worked 
 up to the desperate measure of erecting rival 
 sanctuaries with visible idols (1 Kings xii. 27): 
 a measure which met the usual ill-success of pro- 
 fane state-craft, and aggravated the evil which he 
 beared. It set him at war with the whole order of 
 priests and J.evites, whose expulsion or subjuga- 
 
 tion, we may be certain, was not effected withoui 
 convulsing his whole kingdom, and so occupying 
 him as to free Rehoboam from any real danger, 
 although no peace was made. The king of Judah 
 improved the time by immense efforts in fortifying 
 his territory (2 Chron. xi. 5-1 L); and, although 
 Shishak soon after carried oft’ the most valuable 
 spoil, no great or definite impression could be 
 made by Jeroboam. Israel having so far taken 
 the place of heathen nations, and being, already 
 perhaps even in alliance with Egypt, at an early 
 period — w r e know not how soon — sought and 
 obtained the friendship of the kings of Damascus. 
 A sense of the great advantage derivable from 
 such a union seems to have led Ahab afterwards 
 to behave with mildness and conciliation toward? 
 Benhadad, at a time when it could have been 
 least expected (1 Kings xx. 31-34). From that 
 transaction we learn that Benhadad I. had made 
 in Damascus ‘streets for Omri,’ and Omri for 
 Benhadad in Samaria. This, no doubt, implied 
 that ‘ a quarter ’ was assigned for Syrian mer- 
 chants in Samaria, which was probably fortified 
 like the ‘ camp of the Tyrians ’ in Memphis, or 
 the English factory at Calcutta; and in it, of 
 course, Syrian worship would be tolerated. 
 Against such intercourse the prophets, as might be 
 expected, entered their protest (ver. 35-13) ; but it 
 was in many ways too profitable to be renounced. 
 In the reign of Baasha, Asa king of Judah, sen- 
 sible of the dangerous advantage gained by his 
 rival through the friendship of the Syrians, deter- 
 mined to buy them off at any price [see also 
 under Judah] ; and by sacrificing ‘ the treasures 
 of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the 
 kings house’ (xv. 18), induced Benhadad I. to 
 break his league with Baasha and to ravage all 
 the northern district of Israel. This drew off the 
 Israel it ish monarch, and enabled Asa to destroy 
 the fortifications of Ramah, which- would have 
 stopped the course of his trade (xv. 17), perhaps 
 that with the sea-coast and with Tyre. Such was 
 the beginning of the war between Israel and 
 Syria , on which the safety of Judah at that time 
 depended. Cordial union was not again restored 
 between the two northern states until the days of 
 Ilezin king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Rema- 
 liah, when Damascus must have already felt the 
 rising power of Nineveh. The renewed alliance 
 instantly proved so disastrous to Judah, which 
 was reduced to extremest straits (Isa. vii. 2; 
 2 Kings xv. 37 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 5, 6), as may 
 seem to justify at least the 'policy of Asa's pro- 
 ceeding. Although it was impossible for a pro- 
 phet to approve of it (2 Chron. xvi. 7), we may 
 only so much the moi-e infer that Judah was 
 already brought into most pressing difficulties, 
 and that the general course of the war, in spite of 
 occasional reverses, was decidedly and increas- 
 ingly favourable to Israel. 
 
 The wars of Syria and Israel were carried on 
 chiefly under three reigns, those of Benhadad II.. 
 Hazael, and Benhadad III., the two first, monarchs 
 being generally prosperous, especially Hazael, the 
 last being as decidedly unsuccessful. Although 
 these results may have depended in part on per- 
 sonal qualities, there is high probability that the 
 feebleness displayed by the Syrians against Jehoash 
 and his son Jeroboam was occasioned by the 
 pressure of the advancing empire of Nineveh 
 To make this clear, a small table of synchronism* 
 
ISRAEL. 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 m 
 
 B.C. 
 
 SYRIA. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Assyria. 
 
 090? 
 
 Rezon. 
 
 1050 
 
 Nineveh unable to resist the king oi 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 Zobah, and quite unheard of in 
 
 9S0? 
 
 Hizion. 
 
 
 Palestine. 
 
 9G0 ? 
 
 j 
 
 Tabrimon. 
 
 
 
 940 
 
 J 
 
 Benhadad I. 
 
 910 
 
 Nineveh still unable to interfere with 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 the"*Syrians, but perhaps beginning 
 
 910? 
 
 Benhadad II. 
 
 
 to rise into empire by the conquest 
 
 885 
 
 Hazael. 
 
 I | 
 
 
 of Media and Babylon. 
 
 845 
 
 1 
 
 Benhadad III. 
 
 850 
 
 Assyria undoubtedly coming forward 
 
 
 
 
 into great power. 
 
 800? 
 
 [Damascus taken by Jeroboam II.] 
 
 800 
 
 Assyria probably in possession of 
 
 
 
 
 Northern Syria. 
 
 758 
 
 Rezin. 
 
 765? 
 
 The king of Assyria marches for the 
 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 first time into Israel. 
 
 ^presenting the two heathen powers may be ser- 
 riceable. The dates are only approximate. 
 
 Asa adhered, through the whole of his long 
 reign, to the policy of encouraging hostility be- 
 tween the two northern kingdoms ; and the first 
 Benhadad had such a career of success that his 
 son found himself in a condition to hope for an 
 entire conquest of Israel. His formidable inva- 
 sions wrought an entire change in the mind of 
 Jehoshaphat (1 Kings xxii. 44), who saw that if 
 Israel was swallowed up by Syria there would be 
 no safety for Judah. We may conjecture that 
 this consideration determined him to unite the 
 two royal families ; for no common cause would 
 have induced so religious a king to select for his 
 son's, wife Athaliah the daughter of Jezebel. The 
 age of Ahaziah, who was sprung from this mar- 
 riage, forces us to place it as early as b.c. 912, 
 which is the third year of Jehoshaphat and sixth 
 of Ahab. Late in his reign Jehoshaphat threw 
 himself most cordially (1 Kings xxii. 4) into the 
 defence of Ahab, and by so doing probably saved 
 Israel from a foreign .yoke. Another mark of the 
 low state into which both kingdoms were falling, 
 is, that after Ahab's death the Moabites refused 
 their usual tribute to Israel, and (as far as can be 
 made out from tire ambiguous words of 2 Kings 
 iii. 27) the united force of the two kingdoms 
 failed of doing more than irritate them. Soon 
 after, in the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, 
 the Edomites followed the example, and esta- 
 blished their independence. This event possibly 
 engaged the whole force of Judith, and hindered 
 it from succouring Samaria during the cruel siege 
 which it sustained from Benhadad II., in the 
 reign of Jehoram son of Ahab. The declining 
 years and health of the king of Syria gave a short 
 respite to Israel ; but, in b.c. 885, Hazael, by de- 
 feating the united Hebrew armies, commenced 
 the career of conquest and harassing invasion by 
 which he ‘ made Israel like the dust by threshing.’ 
 Even under Jehu he subdued the trans-Jordanic 
 tribes (2 Kings x. 32). Afterwards, since he 
 took the town of Gath (2 Kings xii. 17) and pre- 
 pare! to attack Jerusalem — an attack which 
 Jehoash king of Judah averted only by strictly 
 following Asa’s precedent — it is manifest that all 
 the passes and chief for 4 * of the country west of 
 
 the Jordan must have been in his hand. Indeed, 
 as he is said ‘ to have left to Jehoahaz only fifty 
 horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen, 1 
 it would seem that Israel wae strictly a conquered 
 province, in which Hazael dictated (as the Eng 
 lish to the native rajahs of India) what military 
 force should be kept up. From tins thraldom 
 Israel was delivered by some unexplained agency. 
 We are told merely that ‘Jehovah gave to Israel 
 a saviour, so that they went out from under the 
 hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel 
 dwelt in their tents as beforetime, ’ 2 Kings xiii. 5. 
 It is allowable to conjecture that the (apparently 
 unknown) deliverer was the Assyrian monarchy, 
 which, assaulting Hazael towards the end of the 
 reign of Jehoahaz, entirely diew away the Syrian 
 armies. That it was some urgent, powerful, and 
 continued pressure, considering the great strength 
 which the empire of Damascus had attained, 
 seems clear from the sudden weakness of Syria 
 through the reigns of Jehoash and Jeroboam II., 
 the former of whom thrice defeated Benhadad III. 
 and ‘ recovered the cities of Israel the latter not 
 only regained the full territory of the ten tribes, 
 but made himself master (for a time at least) of 
 Damascus and Hamath. How entirely the 
 friendship of Israel and Judah had been caused 
 and cemented by their common fear of Syria, is 
 proved by the fact that no sooner is the power of 
 Damascus broken than new war breaks out be- 
 tween the two kingdoms, which ended in the 
 p.’urder of Jerusalem by Jehoash, who also broke 
 down its walls and carried off hostages; after 
 which there is no more alliance between Judah 
 and Israel. The empire of Damascus seems to 
 have been entirely dissolved under the son of 
 Hazael, and no mention is made of its kings for 
 eighty years or more. When Pekah, son of Rema- 
 liah, reigned in Samaria, Rezin, as king of Da- 
 mascus, made a last but ineffectual effort for its 
 independence. 
 
 The same Assyrian power which had doubtless 
 so seriously shaken, and perhaps temporarily over- 
 turned, the kingdom of Damascus, was soon to be 
 felt by Israel. Menahem was invaded by Pul 
 (the first sovereign of Nineveh whose name we 
 know), and was made tributary. His successor, 
 Tiglath-pileser, in the reign of Pekah, son of 
 
68 
 
 ISRAEL. 
 
 ISSACHAR. 
 
 Remaliah, carried captive tire eastern and northern 
 tribes of Israel (i. e. perhaps all their chief men 
 as hostages?), and soon after slew Rezin, the ally 
 of Pekah, and subdued Damascus. The following 
 emperor, Shalmanezer, besieged and captured Sa- 
 maria, and terminated the kingdom of Israel, 
 B.c. 721. 
 
 This branch of the Hebrew monarchy suffered 
 far greater and more rapid reverses than the other. 
 From the accession of Jeroboam to the middle of 
 Baasha's reign it probably increased in power ; it 
 then waned with the growth of the Damascene 
 empire ; it struggled hard against it under Ahab 
 and Jehoram, but sank lower and lower ; it was 
 dismembered under Jehu, and made subject 
 under Jehoahaz. From b.c. 910 to b.c 850 is, 
 as nearly as can be ascertained, the period of de- 
 pression ; and from b.c. 914 to b.c. 830 that of 
 friendship or alliance with Judah. But after 
 (about) b.c. 850 Syria began to decline, and 
 Israel soon shot out rapidly ; so that Joash and 
 his son Jeroboam appear, of all Hebrew monarchs, 
 to come next to David and Solomon. How long 
 this burst of prosperity lasted does not distinctly 
 appear; but it would seem that entire dominion 
 over the ten tribes was held until Pekah received 
 the first blow from the Assyrian conqueror. 
 
 Besides that which was a source of weakness to 
 Israel from the beginning, viz. the schism of the 
 crown with the whole ecclesiastical body, other 
 causes may be discerned which made the ten 
 tribes less powerful, in comparison with the two, 
 than might have been expected. The marriage 
 of Ahab to Jezebel brought with it no political 
 advantages at all commensurate with the direct 
 moral mischief, to say nothing of the spiritual 
 evil; and the reaction against the worship of 
 Baal was a most ruinous atonemenc tor the sin. 
 To suppress the monstrous iniquity, the prophets 
 let loose the remorseless Jehu, who, not satisfied 
 with the blood of Ahab's wife, grandson, and 
 seventy sons, murdered first the king of Judah 
 himself, and next forty-two youthful and innocent 
 princes of his house ; while, strange to tell, the 
 daughter of Jezebel gained by his deed the throne 
 of Judah, and perpetrated a new massacre. The 
 horror of such crimes must have fallen heavily on 
 Jehu, and have caused a wide-spread disaffection 
 among his own subjects. Add to this, that the 
 Phoenicians must have deeply resented his pro- 
 ceedings; so that we get a very sufficient clue to 
 the prostration of Israel under the foot of Hazael 
 during the reign of Jehu and his son. 
 
 Another and more abiding cause of political 
 debility in the ten tribes was found in the imper- 
 fect consolidation of the inhabitants into a single 
 nation. Since those who lived east of the Jordan 
 retained, to a great extent at least, their pastoral 
 habits, their union with the rest could never have 
 been very firm ; and when a king was neither 
 strong independently of them, nor had good 
 hereditary pretensions, they were not likely to 
 contribute much to his power. After their con- 
 quest of the Hagarenes and the depression of the 
 Moabites and Ammonites by David, they had 
 free room to spread eastward ; and many of their 
 clr’ef men may have become wealthy in flocks 
 an herds (like Machir the soti of Ammiel, of 
 Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite, 2 Sam. 
 xvii. 27), over whom the authority of the Israel- 
 Uisb crown, would aaturr.lly be precarious; while 
 
 west of the Jordan the agrarian law of Mu set 
 made it difficult or impossible for a landed no- 
 bility to form itself, which could be formidable 
 to the royal authority. That the Arab spit it ol 
 freedom was rooted in the eastern tribes, may 
 perhaps be inferred from the case of the Re* 
 chabites, who "Would neither live in houses noi 
 plant vines; undoubtedly, like some of the Nil* 
 bathecans, lest by becoming settled and agricul- 
 tural they should be enslaved. Yet the .need of 
 imposing this law on his descendants would not 
 have been felt by Jonadab, had not an opposite 
 tendency been rising, — that of agricultural settle- 
 ment. 
 
 On another point our information is defective, 
 viz. what proportion of the inhabitants of the land 
 consisted of foreign slaves, or subject, and degraded 
 castes [Soi.omon]. Such as belonged to tribes 
 who practised circumcision [Circumcision] 
 would with less difficulty become incorporated 
 with the Israelites; but the Philistines who were 
 intermixed with Israel, by resisting this ordi- 
 nance, must have continued heterogeneous. Ic 
 1 Kings xv. 27 ; xvi. 15, we find the town ov 
 Gibbethon in the hand of the Philistines during 
 the reigns of Nadab, Baasha, and Zimri: nor is i< 
 stated that they were finally expelled. Gibbethor 
 being a Levitical town, it might be conjectured 
 that it had been occupied by the Philistines whci 
 the Levites emigrated into Judah ; but the possi 
 bilities here are many. 
 
 Although the priests and Levites nearly dis 
 appeared out of Israel, prophets were perhaps even 
 more numerous and active there than in Judah , 
 and Abijah, whose prediction first endangered 
 Jeroboam (1 Kings xi. 29-10), lived in honour at 
 Shiloh to his dying day (xiv. 2). Obadiah alone 
 saved one hundred prophets of Jehovah from the 
 rage of Jezebel (xviii. 13). Possibly their extra- 
 social character freed them from the restraint 
 imposed on priests and Levites; and while they 
 felt less bound to the formal rites of the Law, the 
 kings of Israel were also less jealous of them. In 
 fact, just as a great cathedral in Christendom 
 tends to elevate the priestly above the prophetical 
 functions, so, it. is possible, did the proximity of 
 Jerusalem ; and the prophet may have moved 
 most freely where he came least into contact with 
 the priest. That most inauspicious event — the 
 rupture of Israel with Judah — may thus have been 
 overruled for the highest blessing of the world, 
 by a fuller development of the prophetical spirit. 
 
 F. W. N 
 
 1. ISSACHAR 03 Sept. 'l<T<rd X a P ), a 
 son of Jacob and Leah, born b.c. 1719, who gave 
 name to one of the tribes of Israel (Gen. xxx. 18 ; 
 Num. xxvi. 25). 
 
 2. The tribe called after Issacbar. Jacob, on 
 his death-bed, speaking metaphorically of the 
 character and destinies of his sons, or rather ol 
 the tribes which should spring from them, said, 
 ‘ Issachar is a strong ass couching down between 
 two burdens’ (Gen. xlix. 11, 15). Remembering 
 the character of the ass in eastern countries, we 
 may be sure that this comparison was not intended 
 in disparagement. The ass is anything but 
 stupid ; and the proverbial obstinacy which it 
 sometimes exhibits in our own country, is rathe: 
 the result of ill-treatment than a natural cliarac* 
 teristic of the animal. Its true attributes art 
 
1THAMAR. 
 
 ITUR/EA. 
 
 59 
 
 patience, gentleness, great capability of endurance, 
 laborious exertion, and a meek submission to au- 
 thority. Issachar, therefore, the progenitor of a 
 race singularly docile, and distinguished for 
 their patient industry, is exhibited under the 
 similitude of the meekest and most laborious of 
 quadrupeds. The descriptive character goes on : 
 — ‘And he saw that rest was good, and the land 
 that it was pleasant, and he bowed his shoulder 
 te bear, and became a servant unto tribute ;' 
 which probably does not imply that reproach 
 upon Issachar, as addicted to ignominious ease, 
 which some commentators find in it. It seems 
 simply to mean that finding itself in possession of 
 a most fertile portion of Palestine, the tribe de- 
 voted itself to the labours of agriculture, taking 
 little interest in the public affairs of the nation. 
 Accordingly Josephus says that the heritage of 
 the tribe ( was fruitful to admiration, abounding 
 in pastures and nurseries of all kinds, so that it 
 would' make any man in love with husbandry’ 
 (Antiq. v. 1. 22). But although a decided pre- 
 ference of agricultural over commercial or mili- 
 tary pursuits is here indicated, there seems no 
 reason to conclude, a3 some gather from the last 
 clause, that the tribe would be willing to purchase 
 exemption from war by the payment of a heavy 
 tribute. The words do not necessarily imply 
 this ; and there is no evidence that the tribe ever 
 declined any military service to which it was 
 called. On the contrary, it is specially com- 
 mended by Deborah for the promptitude with 
 which it presented itself in the war with Jabin 
 (Judg. v. 15); and in the days of David honour- 
 able testimony is borne to its character (1 Chron. 
 xii. 32). In this passage the ‘ children of Issa- 
 c'har’ are described as ‘ men that had understand- 
 ing of the times, to know what Israel ought to 
 do which, compared with Esther i. 1 3, has 
 been supposed to mean that they were skilled in 
 the various practical applications of astronomy. 
 But what need there was of astronomy on the 
 occasion of calling David to the thrtfne of Israel 
 after the death of Abher and Ishbosheth, is not 
 very easy to discover. It more probably means 
 that they were men held in esteem for their pru- 
 dence and wisdom, and who knew that the time 
 was come when it was no longer safe to delay 
 calling David to the throne of all Israel. On 
 quitting Egypt the tribe of Issachar numbered 
 54,000 adult males, which gave it the fifth nume- 
 rical rank among the twelve tribes, Judah, Simeon, 
 Zebulun, and Dan being alone above it. In the 
 wilderness it increased nearly 10,000, and then 
 ranked as the third of the tribes, Judah and Dan 
 only being more numerous (Num. i. xxvi.). The 
 territory of the tribe comprehended the whole of the 
 plain of Esdraelon and fhe neighbouring districts 
 —-the granary of Palestine. It was bounded on 
 the east by the Jordan, on the west and south by 
 Manasseh, and on the north by Asher and Zebu- 
 lun. It contained the towns of Megiddo, 
 Taanach, Shunem, Jezreel, and Bethshan, with 
 the villages of Endor, Aphek, and Ibleam, all 
 historical names : the mountains of Tabor and 
 Gilboa, and the valley of Jezreel, were in the 
 territory of this tribe, and the course of the river 
 Kishon lay through it. 
 
 ITHAMAR pfclVK, palm-island, ; Sept. 
 
 Xtfd/wtp), fourth son of Aaron. He was conse- 
 
 crated to the priesthood along with his brotner* 
 (Exod. vi. 23; Num. iii. 2, 3). Nothing is in- 
 dividually recorded of him, except that the pro- 
 perty of the tabernacle was placed under his 
 charge (Exod. xxxviii. 21), and that he superin- 
 tended all matters connected with its removal by 
 the Levitical sections of Gershon and Merari 
 (Num. iv. 28). The sacred utensils and their 
 removal were entrusted to his elder brother Ele- 
 azar. Ithamar, with his descendants, occupied 
 the position of common priests till the high- 
 priesthood passed into his family in the person ot 
 Eli, under circumstances of which we are igno- 
 rant. Abiathar, whom Solomon deposed, was 
 the last high-priest of that line; and the ponti- 
 ficate then reverted to the elder line of Eleazar in 
 the person of Zadok (1 Kings ii. 27). 
 
 ITURAEA (’ Irovpaia ), a district in the north- 
 east of Palestine, forming the tetrarchy of Philip, 
 The name is supposed to have originated with 
 ‘VUS' 1 Itar, or Jetur, one of Ishmael's sons (l 
 Chron. i. 31). In 1 Chron. v. 19 this name is 
 given as that of a tribe or nation with which 
 Reuben (beyond the Jordan) warred ; and from its 
 being joined with the names of other of ishmael's 
 sons it is evident that a tribe descended from his 
 son Jetur is intimated. In the latter text the 
 Sept, takes this view, and for ‘ with the Hagarites, 
 with Jetur, and Nephish, and Nodab,’ reads, 
 ‘ with the Hagarites, and Iturseans, and Nephi- 
 sseans and Nadabseans’ — per a Tav'AyapTjvcioi/, ncd 
 Arovpaicov, Kal N acjncraloov, Kal NaSajSaiW. The 
 old name seems to be still preserved in that of 
 Jedur, which the same region, or a part of it, now 
 bears. We may thus take the district to have 
 been occupied by Ishmael’s son, whose descend- 
 ants were dispossessed or subdued by the Amo* 
 rites, under whom it is supposed to have formed 
 part of the kingdom of Bashan, and subsequently 
 to have belonged to that half tribe of Manasseh 
 which had its possessions east of the Jordan. 
 From 1 Chron. v. 19, it appears that the sons of 
 Jetur, whether under tribute to the Amorites, as 
 some suppose, and forming "part of the kingdom 
 of Bashan, or not, were in actual occupation of 
 the country, and were dispossessed by the tribes 
 beyond the Jordan ; which is a sufficient answer to 
 those who allege that Itursea lay too far to the 
 north-east to have belonged to Manasseh. Dur- 
 ing the Exile this and other border countries were 
 taken possession of by various tribes, whom, al- 
 though they are called after the original names, 
 as occupants of the countries which had received 
 those names, we are not bound to regard as de- 
 scendants of the original possessors. These new 
 Itur cleans were eventually subdued by King Aris- 
 tobulus (b.c. 100) ; by whom they were con- 
 strained to embrace the Jewish religion, and were 
 at the same time incorporated with the state (Jo- 
 seph. Antiq. xiii. 11. 3). Nevertheless the 
 Iturseans were still recognizable as a distinct 
 people in the time of Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 23). A3 
 already intimated, Herod the Great, in dividing 
 his dominions among his sons, bequeathed Itursea 
 to Philip, as part of a tetrarchy composed, accord- 
 ing to Luke, of Trachonitis and Itursea; and as 
 Josephus (Antiq. xvii. 8. 8) mentions his territory 
 as composed of Auranitis, Trachonitis, and Bata- 
 naea, it would appear as if the Evangelist regard- 
 ed Auranitis and Paneas as comprehended under 
 Itursea. The name is indeed so loosely applied 
 
50 
 
 IVORY. 
 
 IYAR. 
 
 by ancient writers that it is difficult to fix its 
 boundaries with precision. Perhaps it may suf- 
 fice for general purposes to describe it as a district 
 of indeterminate extent., traversed by aline drawn 
 from the Lake of Tiberias to Damascus; and by 
 different writers, and under different circumstances, 
 mentioned with extensions in various directions, 
 beyond the proper limits of the name. The present 
 Jedur probably comprehends the whole or greater 
 part of the proper Ituraa. This is described by 
 Burckhardt (Syria, p. 286) as 4 lying south of 
 Jebelkessoue, east of Jebel es-Sheik (Mount Her- 
 mon), and west of the Hadj road.’ He adds, that 
 it now contains only twenty inhabited villages. 
 By the help of these lights we may discover that 
 Ituraea was a plain country, about thirty miles 
 long from north to south, and twenty-four from 
 east to west, having on the north Abilene and 
 the Damascene district; on the south Auranitis 
 and part of Uashan ; on the east the stony region 
 of Trachonitis ; and on the west the hill country of 
 Bashan. 
 
 IVORY shenhabbim ; Chald. 
 
 shin diphel ; Syr. gremphila ; Sept. oSoVres 
 itecpdvTLi/oi. New Test. kXscpavTivos ; 1 Kings 
 x. 22; 2 Chron. ix. 21 ; Rev. xviii. 12). ‘ Ele- 
 
 phant's tooth,’ or simply ‘elephant,’ is a common 
 name for ivory, not only in the Oriental lan- 
 guages and in Greek, but also in the Western 
 tongues ; although in all of them teeth of other spe- 
 cies may be included. There can be no doubt, for 
 example, that the harder and more accessible ivory 
 obtained from the hippopotamus, was known in 
 Egypt, at least as early as that obtained from the 
 
 according to the Chaldee Paraphrase, Jacob's lied 
 was made of this substance (Gen. xlix. 33); 
 we find king Solomon importing it from Tar. 
 shish (1 Kings x. 22) ; and if Psalm xlv. 8 was 
 written before his reign, ivory was extensively 
 used in the furniture of royal residences at a 
 still earlier period. The same fact is corroborated 
 by Homer, whotaiotices this article of luxury in the 
 splendid palace of Menelaus, when Greece had not 
 yet formed that connection with Egypt and the 
 East which the Hebrew people, from tl/eir geo- 
 graphical position, naturally cultivated. As an 
 instance of the superabundant possession and bar- 
 barian use of elephants’ teeth, may be mentioned 
 the octagonal ivory hunting-tower built by Akbar, 
 about twenty-four miles west of Agra : it is still 
 standing, and bristles with 128 enormous tusks 
 disposed in ascending lines, sixteen on each face. 
 Mr. Roberts, remarking on the words of Amos (vi. 
 4), they ‘ that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch 
 themselves upon their couches,’ refers the last 
 word, in conformity with the Tamul version, to 
 swinging cots, often mentioned in the early tales of 
 India, and still plentifully used by the wealthy. 
 But it does not appear that they were known 
 in Western Asia, or that figures of them occur 
 on Egyptian bas-reliefs. It is more likely that 
 ‘ palkies’ (those luxurious travelling litters) are 
 meant, which were borne on men’s shoulders, 
 whilst the person within was stretched at ease. 
 They were in common use even among the Ro- 
 mans; for Cicero fell into his assassins’ hands 
 while he was attempting to escape in one of them 
 towards Naples. The tusks of African elephants 
 are generally much longer than those of the 
 Asiatic ; and it may be observed in this place, 
 that the ancients, as well as the moderns, are mis- 
 taken when they assert elephants’ tusks to be a 
 kind of horns. They are genuine teeth, com- 
 bining in themselves, and occupying, in the upper 
 jaw, the whole mass of secretions which in other 
 animals form the upper incisor and laniary teeth. 
 They are useful for defence and offence, and for 
 holding down green brandies, or rooting up water- 
 plants ; but still they are not absolutely necessary, 
 since there is a variety of elephant in the Indian 
 forests entirely destitute of tusks, and the females 
 in most of the races are either without them, or 
 have them very small ; not turned downwards, 
 as Bochart states, but rather straight, as correctly 
 described by Pliny [Elephant j. — C. H. S. 
 
 elephant. We have seen what appeared to be an 
 ivory sword-handle of Egyptian workmanship, 
 which was declared by dentists to be derived from 
 the river-horse, and of tire same texture as that 
 which they now manufacture into false teetli to sup- 
 ply decayed teeth in the human mouth. This kind 
 of ivory does not split, and therefore was anciently 
 most useful for military instruments. Elephants’ 
 teeth were largely imported as merchandise, and 
 also brought as tribute into Egypt. The processions 
 of human figures bearing presents, &c., still extant 
 on the walls of palaces and tombs, attest by the 
 black crisp-haired bearers of huge teeth, that some 
 of these came from Ethiopia or Central Africa; 
 and by white men similarly laden, who also bring 
 an Asaiatic elephant and a white bear, that others 
 came from the East. Phoenician traders had ivory 
 in such abundance that the chief seats of their 
 galleys were ii laid with it. In the Scriptures, 
 
 IYAR ; ’lap, Josephus, Antiq. viii. 3. 1 
 the Macedonian 'Apr* pier ios) is the late name o. 
 that month which was the second of the sacred, 
 and the seventh of the civil year of the Jews, anil 
 which began with the new moon of May. The 
 few memorable days in it are the 10th, as a fast 
 for the death of Eli; the 14th, as the second or 
 lesser Passover, for those whom uncleanness or 
 absence prevented from celebrating the feast in 
 Nisan (Num. ix. 11); the 23rd, as a feast insti- 
 tuted by Simon the Maccabee in memory of his 
 taking the citadel Acra in Jerusalem (1 Macc. 
 xiii. 51, 52) ; the 28th, as a fast for the death of 
 Samuel. 
 
 Gesenius derives Iyar from the Hebrew root 
 *Y)&$, to shine ; but Benfey and Stem, following 
 out their theory of the source from which tin* 
 Jews obtained such femes, deduce it from the 
 assumed Zend representative of the Persian bahar, 
 
JABAL. 
 
 JACOB. 
 
 61 
 
 spring’ (Monalsnamen, p. 134). The name 
 Ivar does not occur in the Old Testament, this 
 month being always described as the second 
 month, except in four places in which it is called 
 Ziv (1 Kings v. 1, 37; Dan. ii. 31; iv. 33). 
 Ziv, which is written If and Vt, is not considered 
 to be a proper name, but an appellative. It 
 is derived from *1 PIT, and is a curtailed form for 
 1'ftt, ‘ zehlv,’ bright, an appropriate epithet of the 
 month of flowers. — J. N. 
 
 J. 
 
 JABAL (PI), a stream; Sept. ‘I (ofifa), a de- 
 scendant of Cain, son of Lamech and Adah, who 
 is described in Gen. iv. 20, as ‘the father of such 
 as dwell in tents, and have cattle,’ This obviously 
 means that Jabal was the first who adopted that 
 nomade life which is still followed by numerous 
 Arabian and Tartar tribes in Asia. Abel had long 
 before been a keeper of sheep; but Jabal in- 
 vented such portable habitations (formed, doubt- 
 less, of skins) as enabled a pastoral people to re- 
 move their dwellings with them from one place to 
 another, when they led their flocks to new pastures. 
 
 JABBOK (pi) ; Sept, 'la&dotc), one of the 
 streams which traverse the country east of the 
 Jordan, and which, after a course nearly from 
 east to west, falls into that river about thirty miles 
 below the lake of Tiberias. It seems to rise in 
 the Hauran mountains, and its whole course may 
 he computed at sixty-five miles. It is mentioned 
 in Scripture as the boundary which separated the 
 kingdom of Sihon, king of the Amorites, from 
 that of Og, king of Bashan (Josh. xii. 1-6); and 
 it appears afterwards to have been the boundary 
 tat'ween the tribe of Reuben and the half-tribe 
 of Manasseh. The earliest notice of it occurs in 
 Gen. xxxii. 22. 
 
 The Jabbok now bears the name of Zerka. In 
 its passage westward across the plains, it more 
 than once passes under gx-ourtd ; and in summer 
 the upper portion of its channel becomes dry. 
 But on entering the more hilly country imme- 
 iiately east of the Jordan, it receives tribute from 
 several springs, which maintain it as a perennial 
 stream, although very low in summer. From this 
 it appears that not only its volume, but the length 
 of its course, is much smaller in summer than in 
 winter. On approaching the Jordan it flows 
 through a deep ravine, the steep banks being over- 
 grown with the solanum furiosum, which attains 
 a considerable size. But the ravine is not so well 
 wooded as the immediate neighbourhood. The 
 water is pleasant, and the bed being rocky the 
 stream runs clear (Burckhardt’s Syria, p. 347 ; 
 Irby and Mangles, Travels , p. 3 1 9 ; Buckingham, 
 Palestine , ii. 109; Lindsay, ii. 123). 
 
 JABESH (BO) and E”3) ; Sept. T a JSe7, and 
 ‘la&is), or Jauesh-Gii.rad, a town beyond the 
 Jordan, in the land of Gilead. 
 
 Jabesh belonged to the half-tribe of Manasseh, 
 and was sacked by the Israelites for refusing 
 to join in the war against Benjamin (Judg. xxi. 
 8). It is chiefly memorable for the siege it sus- 
 tained from Nahash, king of the Ammonites, 
 ths raising of which formed the first exploit of 
 
 the newly-elected king, Saul, and procured hit 
 confirmation in the sovereignty. The inhabitants 
 had agreed to surrender, and to have their right 
 eyes put. out (to incapacitate them from military 
 service), but were allowed seven days to ratify 
 the treaty. In the meantime Saul collected a 
 large army, and came to their relief (1 Sam. xi.) 
 This service was gratefully remembered by the 
 Jabeshites; and, about forty years after, when 
 the dead bodies of Saul and his sons were gib- 
 beted on the walls of Bethshan, on the other side 
 of the river, they made a forced march by night, 
 took away the bodies, and gave them honourable 
 burial ( 1 Sam. xxxi.). 
 
 Jabesh still existed as a town in the time of 
 Eusebius, who places it, six miles from Pella 
 towards Gerasa ; but the knowledge of the site ia 
 now lost, unless we accept the conclusion ot 
 Mr. Buckingham, who thinks it may be found 
 in a place called Jebaz or Jejaz, marked by ruins 
 upon a hill, in a spot not far from which, accord- 
 ing to the above indications, Jabesh must have 
 been situated ( Travels , ii. 130 134). 
 
 1. JAB1N (I'll), discerner; Sept. Ta^tV) 
 king of Hazor, and one of the most powerful of all 
 the princes who reigned in Canaan when it was 
 invaded by the Israelites. His dominion seems to 
 have extended over all the north pait of the coun- 
 try ; and after the ruin of the league formed against 
 the Hebrews in the south by Adoriizedek, king 
 of Jerusalem, he assembled his tributaries near the 
 waters of Merom (the lake Huleh), and called all 
 the people to arms. This coalition was destroyed, 
 as the one in the south had been, and Jabin 
 himself perished in the sack of Hazor, his capital, 
 B.c. 1450. This prince was the last powerful 
 enemy with whom Joshua combated, and his over- 
 throw seems to have been regarded as the crown- 
 ing act in the conquest of the Promised Land 
 (Josh. xi. 1—14). 
 
 2. JABIN, king of Hazor, and probably de- 
 scended from the preceding. It appears that during 
 one of the servitudes of the Israelites, proba,blv when 
 they lay under the yoke of Cushan or Eglon, the 
 kingdom of Hazor was reconstructed. The narra- 
 tive gives to this second Jabin even the title of ‘ king 
 of Canaan ;’ and ibis, with the possession of SOU 
 iron-armed war-chariots, implies unusual power 
 and extent of dominion. The iniquities of the 
 Israelites having lost them the Divine protection, 
 Jabin gained the mastery over them ; and, stimu- 
 lated by the remembrance of ancient wrongs, 
 oppressed them heavily for twenty years. From 
 this thraldom they were relieved by the great vic- 
 tory won by Bar ak in the plain of Esdraelon, over 
 the hosts of Jabin, commanded by Srsera, one of 
 the most renowned generals of those times, b.c. 
 1285. The well-compacted power of the king of 
 Hazor was not yet, however, entirely broken. 
 The war was still prolonged for a, time, but ended 
 in the entire ruin of Jabin, and t! re subjugation 
 of his territories by the Israelites (Judg. iv.). 
 
 This is the Jabin whose name occurs in Ps. 
 Ixxxiii. 10. 
 
 JACK IN AND BOAZ, the names of two 
 brazen pillars in the porch of Solomon's tempi* 
 [Tempj,e]. 
 
 JACINTH. [Leshem.] 
 
 JACOB (UDJJ) ; Sept. 3 lan(&j3) was the second 
 son of Isaac by his wife Rebekab. Her can- 
 
S2 
 
 JACOB. 
 
 JACOB. 
 
 ceiving is stated to have been supernatural. Led 
 by peculiar feelings she went to inquire of the 
 Lord, and was informed that, she was indeed with 
 child, that her offspring should be the founders of 
 two nations, and that the elder should serve the 
 younger: circumstances which ought to be 
 
 borne in mind when a judgment is pronounced 
 on her conduct in aiding Jacob to secure the pri- 
 vileges of birth to the exclusion of his elder bro- 
 ther Esau — conduct which these facts, connected 
 with the birth of the boys, may well have in- 
 fluenced. Some have indeed denied the facts, 
 and taken from them the colouring they bear in 
 the Bible ; and such persons may easily be led on 
 to pronounce a severe and indiscriminate sentence 
 ot condemnation on Rebekah ; but those who pro- 
 fess to receive and to respect the Biblical records 
 are unjustifiable, if they view any part of them, or 
 any event which they record, in any other light 
 than that which the Bible supplies, in any other 
 position than that which the Bible presents. It is 
 as a whole that each separate character should be 
 contemplated — under the entire assemblage of 
 those circumstances which the Bible narrates. 
 If we first maim an historical person we may very 
 readily misrepresent him. 
 
 As the boys grew, Jacob appeared to partake 
 of the gentle, quiet, and retiring character of his 
 father, and was accordingly led to prefer the 
 tranquil safety and pleasing occupations of a 
 shepherd's life to the bold and daring enterprises 
 of the hunter, for which Esau had an irresistible 
 predilection. Jacob, therefore, passed his days in 
 or near the paternal tent, simple and unpretending 
 in his manner of life, and finding in the flocks 
 and herds which he kept, images and emotions 
 which both filled and satisfied his heart. His 
 domestic habits and affections seem to have co- 
 operated with the remarkable events that attended 
 his birth, in winning for him the peculiar regard 
 and undisguised preference of his mother, who 
 probably in this merely yielded to impressions 
 which she could scarcely account for, much less 
 define, and who had not even a faint conception 
 of the magnitude of influence to which her pre- 
 dilection was likely to rise, and the sad conse- 
 quences to which it could hardly fail to lead. 
 
 That selfishness and a prudence which ap- 
 ' proached to cunning had a seat in the heart of the 
 youth Jacob, appears but too plain in his deal- 
 ing with Esau, when he exacted from a famishing 
 brother so large a price for a mess of pottage, as 
 the surrender of his birthright. Nor does the 
 simple narrative of the Bible afford grounds by 
 which this act can be well extenuated. Esau 
 asks for food, alleging as his reason, ‘for I am 
 faint.’ Jacob, unlike both a youth and a brother, 
 answers, ‘ Sell me this day thy birthright.’ What 
 could Esau do P ‘ Behold,’ he replies, ‘ I am 
 at the point to die, and what profit (if by retain- 
 ing my birthright I lose my life) shall this birth- 
 right dome?’ Determined to have a safe bar- 
 gain, the prudent Jacob, before he gave the needed 
 refreshment, adds, ‘ Swear to me this day.’ The 
 oath was given, the food eaten, and Esau * went 
 his xoay,' leaving a home where he had received 
 so sorry a welcome. 
 
 The leaning which his mother had in favour of 
 Jacob would naturally be augmented by the con- 
 duct of Esau in marrying, doubtless contrary to 
 ais parents’ wishes, .wo Hittite women, who are 
 
 recorded to have been a grief of mind unto Isaac 
 and to Rebekah. 
 
 Circumstances thus prepared the way for pro- 
 curing the transfer of the birthright, when Isaac 
 being now old, proceeded to take steps to pro- 
 nounce the irrevocable blessing which acted with 
 all the force of a modern testamentary bequest. 
 This blessing, then, it was essential that Jacob 
 should receive in preference to Esau. Here 
 Rebekah appears the chief agent; Jacob is a 
 mere instrument in her hands. Isaac- directs 
 Esau to procure him some venison. This Re- 
 bekah hears, and urges her reluctant favourite to 
 personate his elder brother. Jacob suggests diffi- 
 culties : they are met by Rebekah, who is ready 
 to incur any personal danger so that her object be 
 gained. ‘ My father, peradventure, will feel me, 
 and I shall seem to him as a deceiver, and I shall 
 bring a curse upon me and not a blessing. His 
 mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my 
 son, only obey my voice.’ Her voice is obeyed, 
 the venison is brought, Jacob is equipped for the 
 deceit ; he helps out his fraud by direct false- 
 hood, and the old man, whose senses are now fail- 
 ing, is at last with difficulty deceived. It caniiot 
 be denied that this is a most reprehensible transac- 
 tion, and presents a truly painful picture ; in which 
 a mother conspires with one son in order to cheat 
 her aged husband, with a view to deprive another 
 son of his rightful inheritance. Justification is 
 here impossible ; but it should not be forgotten in 
 the estimate we form that there was a promise in 
 favour of Jacob, that Jacob’s qualities had en- 
 deared him to his mother, and that the prospect 
 to her was dark and threatening which arose when 
 she saw the neglected Esau at the head of the 
 house, and his hateful wives assuming command 
 over herself. 
 
 Punishment in this world always follows close 
 upon the heels of transgression. Fear seized the 
 guilty Jacob, who is sent by his father, at the 
 suggestion of Rebekah, to the original seat of the 
 family, in order that he might find a wife among 
 his cousins, the daughters of his mother's brother, 
 Laban the Syrian. Before he is dismissed Jacob 
 again receives his father’s blessing, the object ob- 
 viously being to keep alive in the young man's 
 mind the great promise given to Abraham, and 
 thus to transmit that influence which, under the 
 aid of divine providence, was to end in placing the 
 family in possession of the land of Palestine, and 
 in so doing to make it ‘ a multitude of people.’ The 
 language, however, employed by the aged father 
 suggests the idea, that the religious light which 
 had been kindled in the mind of Abraham had 
 lost somewhat of its fulness, if not of its clearness 
 also ; since ‘ the blessing of Abraham,’ which had 
 originally embraced all nations, is now restricted 
 to the descendants of this one patriarchal family. 
 And so it appears, from the language which Jacob 
 employs (Gen. xxviii. 16) in relation to the dream 
 that he had when he tarried all night upon a 
 certain plain on his journey eastward, that his 
 idea of the Deity was little more than that of a 
 local god — ‘ Surely the Lord is in this place, and 
 I knew it not.' Nor does the language which lie 
 immediately after employs show that his ideas of 
 the relations between God and man were of an 
 exalted and refined nature : — ‘ If God will be with 
 me, and will keep me in the way that I go, and 
 will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on. 
 
JACOB. 
 
 JACOB. 
 
 6? 
 
 «o tha I come again to my father’s house in 
 peace, then shall the Lord he my God.’ The 
 vision therefore with which Jacob was favoured 
 was not without occasion, nor could the terms in 
 which he was addressed by the Lord, fail to en- 
 large and correct his conceptions, and make his 
 religion at once more comprehensive and more 
 influential. 
 
 Jacob, on coming into the land of the people of 
 the East, accidentally met with Rachel, Laban’s 
 daughter, to whom, with true eastern simplicity 
 and politeness, he showed such courtesy as the 
 duties of pastoral life suggest and admit. And 
 here his gentle and affectionate nature displays 
 itself under the influence of the bonds of kindred 
 and the fair form of youth : — ‘Jacob kissed Rachel, 
 and lifted up his voice and wept.’ 
 
 After he had been with his uncle the space of a 
 month, Laban inquires of him what reward he ex- 
 pects for his services. He asks for the ‘ beautiful 
 and well-favoured Rachel.’ His request is granted 
 on condition of a seven years’ service- -a long 
 period truly, but to Jacob ‘ they seemed hut a 
 few days for the love he had to her.’ When the 
 time was expired, the crafty Laban availed him- 
 self of the customs of the country, in order to sub- 
 stitute his elder and ‘ tender-eyed’ daughter Leah. 
 In the morning Jacob found bow he had been 
 beguiled ; but Laban excused himself, saying, ‘ It 
 must not be done in our country, to give the 
 younger before the first-born.’ Another seven 
 years’ service gains for Jacob the beloved Rachel. 
 Leah, however, has the compensatory privilege of 
 being the mother of the first-born — Reuben; three 
 other sons successively follow, namely, Simeon, 
 Levi, and Judah, sons of Leah. This fruitful- 
 ness was a painful subject of reflection to the barren 
 Rachel, who employed language on this occasion 
 that called forth a reply from her husband which 
 shows that, mild as was the character of Jacob, it. 
 was by no means wanting in force and energy 
 (Gen. xxx. 2). An arrangement, however, took 
 place, by which Rachel had children by means 
 of her maid, Bilhah, of whom Dan and Naphtali 
 were born. Two other sons — Gad and Asher — 
 were born to Jacob of Leah’s maid, Zilpali. Leah 
 herself bare two more sons, namely, Issachar and 
 Zebulun; she also, bare a daughter, Dinah. At 
 length Rachel herself bare a son, and she called 
 his name Joseph. 
 
 Most faithfully, and with great success, had 
 Jacob served his uncle for fourteen years, when 
 lie became desirous of returning to his parents. 
 At the urgent request of Laban, however, he is 
 induced to remain. The language employed 
 upon this occasion (Gen. xxx. 25, sq.) shows that 
 Jacob’s character had gained considerably during 
 his service both in strength and comprehensive- 
 ness ; but the means which he employed in order 
 to make his bargain with his uncle work so as to 
 enrich himself, prove too clearly that his moral 
 feelings had not undergone an equal improve- 
 ment, and that the original taint of prudence, and 
 the sad lessons of his mother in deceit, had pro- 
 duced some of their natural fruit in his bosom. 
 Those who may wish to inquire into the nature 
 ind efficacy of the means which Jacob employed, 
 may, in addition to the original narrative, con- 
 sult Michaelis and Rosenmiiller on the subject, 
 as well a3 the following: — Hieron. Qucest.in Gen.; 
 V*iin. Hist. Nat. vii. 10; Oppi an, Cyneg. i. 330, sq. ; 
 
 Hastfeer, fiber Schafzucht; Bochart, Hitx-oz. i. 019 
 Winer, ITandwort ., gives a parallel passage from 
 /Elian ( IHst . Anim. viii. 21). 
 
 The prosperity of Jacob displeased and grieved 
 Laban, so that a separation seemed desirable 
 His wives are ready to accompany him. Accord- 
 ingly he set out, with his family and his property, 
 
 ‘ to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan. 
 It was not till the third, day that Laban learned 
 that Jacob had fled, when he immediately set out 
 in pursuit of his nephew, and after seven days’ 
 journey overtook him in Mount Gilead. Laban, 
 however, is divinely warned not to hinder Jacob's 
 return. Reproach and recrimination ensued. 
 Even a charge of theft is put forward by Laban 
 — ‘Wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?’ In 
 truth, Rachel had carried off certain images 
 which were the objects of worship. Ignorant of 
 this misdeed, Jacob boldly called for a search, 
 adding, ‘ With whomsoever thou findest thy gods 
 let him not live.’ A crafty woman’s cleverness 
 eluded the keen eye of Laban. Rachel, by an 
 appeal which one of her sex alone could make, 
 deceived her father. Tlius one sin begets another ; 
 superstition prompts to theft, and theft necessitates 
 deceit. 
 
 Whatever opinion may be formed of the tera- 
 phim which Rachel stole, and which Laban was 
 so anxious to discover, and whatever kind or de- 
 gree of worship may in reality have been paid to 
 them, their existence in the family suffices of 
 itself to show how imperfectly instructed regard- 
 ing the Creator were at this time those who were 
 among the least ignorant on divine things. 
 
 Laban’s conduct on this occasion called forth 
 a reply from Jacob, from which it appears that 
 his service had been most severe, and which also 
 proves that however this severe service might have 
 encouraged a certain servility, it had not pre- 
 vented the development in Jacob’s soul of a high 
 and energetic spirit, which when roused could 
 assert its rights and give utterance to sentiments 
 both just, striking, and forcible, and in the most 
 poetical phraseology. 
 
 Peace, however, being restored, Laban, on the 
 ensuing morning, took a friendly, if not an affec- 
 tionate farewell of his daughters and their sons, 
 and returned home. Meanwhile Jacob, going on 
 his way, had to pass near the land of Seir, in 
 which Esau dwelt. Remembering his own con- 
 duct and his brother’s threat, he was seized with 
 fear, and sent messengers before in order to pro- 
 pitiate Esau, who, however, had no evil design 
 against him ; but, when he ‘ saw Jacob, ran to 
 meet him and embraced him, and fell on his 
 neck and kissed him, and they wept’ — the one 
 tears of joyful recognition, the other of gladness 
 at unexpected escape. 
 
 The passage in which this meeting is recorded 
 is very striking and picturesque. In moral qua- 
 lities it exhibits Jacob the inferior of his generous, 
 high-minded, and forgiving brother; for Jacob’s 
 bearing, whatever deduction may be made for 
 Oriental politeness, is crouching and servile. In- 
 dependently of the compellation, ‘ my lord,’ which 
 he repeatedly uses in addressing Esau, what can 
 be said of the following terms : — ‘I have seen thy 
 face as though I had seen the face of God, and 
 thou wast pleased with me’ (Gen. xxxiii. 10). 
 
 It was immediately preceding this interview 
 that Jacob passed the night in wrestling with ‘ a 
 
61 
 
 JACOB. 
 
 JACOB. 
 
 man,’ who is afterwards recognised as God, and 
 who at length overcame Jacob by touching the 
 hollow of his thigh. Ilis name also was on this 
 event changed by the mysterious antagonist into 
 Israel, 4 for as a prince hast thou power with God 
 and with men, and hast prevailed ’ (Gen. xxxii. 
 28). It is added that on this account his de- 
 scendants abstained from eating the thigh of 
 slaughtered animals. 
 
 This passage is one which we are not sure 
 that we understand. The narrator did not, we 
 think, intend it for the account of a dream. A 
 literal interpretation would seem difficult, for this 
 would make the Omnipotent vanquish one of his 
 own creatures, not without a long struggle, and 
 at last only by a sort of art or stratagem. At 
 the same time it must be said that the only way 
 to expound the narrative is to divest ourselves of 
 our own modern associations, and endeavour to 
 contemplate it from the position in which its author 
 stood. Still the question recurs — what was the 
 fact which he has set forth in these terms? (see De 
 Wette, Krit. d. Is. Gesch. p. 132; Ewald’s Israel- 
 iten , i. 405 ; Rosenmiiller’s Scholia , in loc.) The 
 design (says Wellbeloved, in loc.) ‘ was to en- 
 courage Jacob, returning to his native land, and 
 fearful of his brother's resentment, and to confirm 
 his faith in the existence and providence of God. 
 And who will venture to say that in that early 
 oeriod any other equally efficacious means could 
 {rave been employed ?' Compare the language 
 already quoted (ver. 28). A very obvious end 
 pursued throughout the history of Jacob, was the 
 development of his religious convictions, and the 
 event in question, no less than the altars he 
 erected and the dreams he had, may have ma- 
 teiially conduced to so important a result. 
 
 Having, by the misconduct of Ilamor the 
 Hivite and the hardy valour of his sons, been 
 involved in danger from the natives of Shechem 
 in Canaan, Jacob is divinely directed, and under 
 the divine protection proceeds to Bethel, where 
 ne is to ‘ make an altar unto God that appeared 
 unto thee when thou lleddest from the face of 
 Esau thy brother.’ Obedient to the divine com- 
 mand, Ire first purities bis family from ‘ strange 
 gods,’ which he lrid under ‘ the oak which is by 
 Shechem;’ after which God appeared to him 
 aaain with the important declaration, ‘ I am God 
 Almighty,’ and renewed the Abrahamic covenant. 
 While journeying from Beth-el to Ephrath, his 
 beloved Rachel lost her life in giving birth to her 
 second son, Benjamin. At length Jacob came 
 to his father Isaac at Mamre, the family residence, 
 in time to pay the last attentions to the aged pa- 
 triarch. Not long after this bereavement Jacob 
 was robbed of his beloved soir Joseph through the 
 jealousy and bad faith of his brothers. This loss 
 is the occasion of showing us how strong were 
 Jacob's paternal feelings; for on seeing what ap- 
 peared to be proofs that 4 some evil beast had 
 devoured Joseph,’ the old man 4 rent his clothes, 
 and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned 
 for his son many days, and refused to be com- 
 forted.' — 4 I will go down into the grave unto my 
 sou mourning’ (Gen. xxxvii. 33). 
 
 A widely extended famine induced Jacob to 
 send his sons down into Egypt, where he had 
 heard there was corn, without knowing by whose 
 instrumentality. The patriarch, however, re- 
 tained his youngest son Benjamin, ‘ lest mischief 
 
 should 6efall him,’ as it had befallen Joseph. 
 The young men returned with the needed sup* 
 plies of corn. They related, however, that they 
 had been taken for spies, and that there was 
 but one way in which they could disprove the 
 charge, namely, by carrying down Benjamin to 
 ‘ the lord of the land.’ This Jacob vehemently 
 refused : — ‘ Me have ye bereaved ; Joseph is not. 
 and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin : 
 my son shall not go down with you; if mischief 
 befall him, then shall ye bring down my grey 
 hairs with sorrow to the grave’ (Gen. xlii. 36). 
 The pressure of the famine, however, at length 
 forced Jacob to allow Benjamin to accompany 
 his brothers on a second visit to Egypt ; whence in 
 due time they brought back to their father the 
 pleasing •intelligence, ‘Joseph is yet alive, and 
 he is governor over all the land of Egypt.’ How 
 naturally is the effect of this on Jacob told — ‘ and 
 Jacob's heart fainted, for he believed them not.' 
 When, however, they had gone into particulars, 
 he added, ‘ Enough, Joseph my son is yet alive ; 
 I will go and see him before I die.’ Touches of 
 nature like this suffice to show the reality of the 
 history before us, anti since they are not unfre- 
 quent in the book of Genesis, they will of them- 
 selves avail to sustain its credibility against, all 
 that the enemy can do. Each competent and un- 
 prejudiced judge, on reading these gems of truth, 
 may well exclaim, ‘ This is history, not mytho- 
 logy ; reality, not fiction.’ The passage, too, 
 with others lecently cited, strongly proves how 
 much the character of the patriarch hail improved. 
 In the entire of the latter part of Jacob’s life, he 
 seems to have gradually parted with many less 
 desirable qualities, and to have become at once 
 more truthful, more energetic, more earnest, affec 
 tionate, and, in the largest sense of the word, 
 religious. 
 
 Encouraged ‘ in the visions of the night,’ Jacob 
 goes down to Egypt. 4 And Joseph made ready 
 his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, 
 to Goshen, and presented himself unto him; and 
 he fell on bis neck, and wept on his neck a good 
 while. And Israel said unto Joseph, Now let me 
 die, since I have seen thy face, because thou art 
 yet alive’ (Gen. xlvi. 29). Joseph proceeded V 
 conduct his father into the presence of the Egyptian 
 monarch, when the man of God, with that self 
 consciousness and dignity which religion gives, 
 instead of offering slavish adulation, 4 blessed 
 Pharaoh.’ Struck with the patriarch’s venerable 
 air, the king asked, 4 How old art thou? ’ What 
 composure and elevation is there in the ^ply, 
 4 The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an 
 hundred and thirty years; few and evil have tli8 
 days of the years of my life been, and have not 
 attained unto the days of the years of the life of 
 my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage : and 
 Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from before 
 Pharaoh’ (Gen. xlvii. 8-10). This fine passage has 
 been travestied after his own manner by Voltaire 
 ( Diction . Philosoph.) : 4 That which the good man 
 Jacob replied to Joseph must forcibly strike those 
 who can read. How old are you ? said the king. 
 I am a hundred and thirty years of age, answered 
 the old man, and I have not yet had one happy 
 day injhis short pilgrimage:'- — ‘A proof this,’ 
 says Niemeyer fCharak. der Bib el, ii. 196), 4 how 
 faithfully Voltaire, who is always complaining of 
 the quotations of others, cites the Bible ; so th^ 
 
JAEL 
 
 JAIR. 
 
 one may almost conclude that lie himself must 
 not be ranked among those who can read' 
 
 Jacob, with his sons, now entered into posses- 
 sioxr of some of the best land of Egypt, where 
 they carried on their pastoral occupations, and 
 enjoyed a very large share of earthly prosperity. 
 l<e aged patriarch, aiter being strangely tossed 
 about on a very rough ocean, found at last a 
 tranquil harbour, where all the best affections of 
 his nature were gently exercised and largely un- 
 folded. After a lapse of time Joseph, being in- 
 formed that his father was sick, went to him, when 
 ‘ Israel strengthened himself, and sat up in his 
 bed.’ He acquainted Joseph with the divine pro- 
 mise of the land of Canaan which yet remained 
 to be fulfilled, and took Joseph’s sons, Ephraim 
 and Manasseh, in place of Reuben and Simeon, 
 whom he had lost. How impressive is his bene- 
 diction in Joseph's family ! ‘ And Israel said unto 
 Joseph, I had not thought to see thy face : and, 
 o, God hath showed me also thy seed’ (Gen. 
 xlviii. 11). ‘ God, before whom my fathers 
 
 Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed 
 me all my life long unto this day, the angel 
 which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads: 
 and let my name be named on them, and the 
 name of my fathers ; and let them grow into a 
 multitude in the midst of the earth ’ (ver. 15, 
 16). ‘ And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold I die ; 
 but God will be with you and bring you again 
 unto the land of your fathers’ (ver. 21). Then 
 having convened his sons, the venerable patriarch 
 pronounced on them also a blessing, which is full 
 of the loftiest thought, expressed in the most poeti- 
 cal diction, and adorned by the most vividly de- 
 scriptive and engaging imagery, showing how 
 deeply religious his character had become, how 
 freshly it retained its fervour to the last, and how 
 greatly it had increased in strength, elevation, and 
 dignity : — ‘ And when Jacob had made an end of 
 commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into 
 tiie feed and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered 
 unto his reople’ (Gen. xlix. 33). — J. R. B. 
 
 JAEL fyl ivild goat; Sept. ’IcdjA), wife of 
 Hebei, the Kenite. When Sisera, the general of 
 Jabin, had been defeated, he alighted from his 
 chariot, hoping to escape best on foot from tiie 
 hot pursuit of the victorious Israelites. On reach- 
 ing the tents of the nomade chief, he remembered 
 that there was peace between his sovereign and 
 the house of Heber ; and, therefore, applied for the 
 hospitality and protection to which he was thus 
 entitled. This request was very cordially granted 
 by the wife of the absent, chief, who received the 
 vanquished warrior into the inner part of the tent, 
 where he could not be discovered by strangers 
 without such an intrusion as eastern customs 
 would not warrant. She also brought him 
 milk to drink, when he asked only water ; ami 
 then covered him from view, that he might enjoy 
 repose the more securely. As he slept, a horrid 
 thought occurred to Jael, which she hastened too 
 promptly to execute. She took one of the tent 
 nails, and with a mallet, at one fell blow, drove it 
 through the temples of the sleeping Sisera. Soon 
 after, Barak and his people arrived in pursuit, 
 and were shown the lifeless body of the man they 
 sought This deed drew much attention to Jael, 
 and preserved the camp from molestation by the 
 victors ; and there is no disputing that her act 
 
 is mentioned with great praise in the friumnnal 
 song wherein Deborah and Burak celebrate*! the 
 deliverance of Israel (Judg. v. 24). 
 
 It does not seem difficult to understand the 
 object of Jael in tms painful transaction. Her 
 motives seem to have been entirely prudential, 
 and, .on prudential grounds, the very circumstance 
 which renders her act the more odious — the peace 
 subsisting between the nomade chief and the king 
 of Hazor — must, to her, have seemed to make it 
 the more expedient.. She saw that the Israelites 
 had now the upper hand, and was aware that, as 
 being in alliance with the oppressors of Israel, the 
 camp might expect very rough treatment from 
 the pursuing force ; which would he greatly ag- 
 gravated if Sisera were found sheltered within 
 it. This calamity she sought to avert, and to 
 place the house of Heber in a favourable posi- 
 tion with the victorious party. She probably 
 justified .the act to herself, by the consideration 
 that a? Sisera would certainly be taken and 
 slain, she might as well make a benefit out of his 
 inevitable doom, as incur utter ruin in the at- 
 tempt to protect him. We have been grieved t» 
 see the act vindicated as authorized by the 
 usages of ancient warfare, of rode times, and of 
 ferocious manners. There was not warfare, but 
 peace between the house of Heber and the prince 
 of Hazor; and, for the rest, we will venture to 
 affirm that there dues not now, and never did 
 exist, in any country, a set of usages under which 
 the act of Jael would be deemed light. 
 
 ' It is much easier to explain the conduct of 
 Jael than to account for the praise which it 
 receives in the triumphal ode of Deborah and 
 Barak. But, the following remarks will go far 
 to remove the difficulty : — There is no doubt 
 that Sisera would have been put to death, if he 
 had been taken alive by the Israelites. The war 
 usages of the time warranted such treatment, and 
 there are numerous examples of it. They had,, 
 therefore, no regard to her private motives,, or to 
 the particular relations between Heber and Jabin, 
 but beheld her only as tke instrument of accom**' 
 plishing what was usually regarded as the final: 
 and crowning act of a great victory. And the 
 unusual circumstance that, this act was performed, 
 by a woman’s hand, was, according to the notions, 
 of the time, so great a humiliation, that it could 
 hardly fail to he dwelt upon, in contrasting the 
 result with the proud confidence of victory which, 
 had at the outset been entertained (Josh. iv. 5). 
 
 1. JAIR (TN), enlightener;. Sept. Ta/p), sou 
 of Segub, of the tribe of Manasseh by his mother, 
 and of Judah by his father. He appears to have 
 distinguished himself in an expedition against 
 the kingdom of Bashan, the time of which is 
 disputed, but may probably be referred to the last 
 year of the life of Moses, n.c. 1451. It seems to 
 have formed part of the operations connected with 
 the conquest of the country east of the Jordan. 
 He settled in the part of Argob bordering on, 
 Gilead, where we find twenty-three villages named 
 collectively Havoth-jair, or ‘ Jair's villages’ 
 (Num. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 14 ; Josh. xiii. 30;, 
 1 Chron. ii. 22). 
 
 2. JAIR, eighth judge of Israel, of Gilead, in, 
 in Manasseh, beyond the Jordan ; and therefore, 
 probably descended from the preceding, with whom, 
 indeed, he is sometimes confounded. He ruled 
 
60 
 
 JAIRUS. 
 
 JAME**. 
 
 twenty-two years, and his opulence is indicated 
 in a manner characteristic of the age in which he 
 lived. ‘He had thirty sons, that rode on thirty 
 ass-colts, and they had thirty cities, which are 
 called Havoth-jair, in the land of Gilead.’ A 
 young ass was the most valuable beast for riding 
 then known to the Hebrews ; and that Jair had so 
 many of them, and was able to assign a village 
 to every one of his thirty sons, is very striking 
 evidence of his wealth. The twenty-three vil- 
 lages of the more ancient Jair were probably 
 among the thirty which this Jair possessed (Judg. 
 z. 3). b.c. 1210. 
 
 JAIRUS (’Iaetpos), a ruler of the synagogue at 
 Capernaum, whose daughter Jesus restored to life 
 
 <(Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41). 
 
 JAMBRES AND JANNES Clapfyrjs teal 
 *layy?is ), two of the Egyptian magicians who 
 
 attempted by their enchantments (D'l3^5, occulta 
 artes, Geseniusl to counteract the influence on 
 Pharaoh’s mind of the miracles wrought by 
 Moses. Their names occur nowhere in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, and only once in the New Testament 
 (2 Tim. iii. 8). The Apostle Paid became ac- 
 quainted with them, most probably, from an 
 aEcient Jewish tradition, or, as Theodoret ex- 
 presses it, ‘from the unwritten teaching of the 
 
 . Jews’ (rrjs ayoacpov rwv 'lovbalwv SiSacrnaAias). 
 They are found frequently in the Talmudical 
 and Rabbinical writings, but with some variations. 
 Thus, for Jannes we meet with D13!', D'3', 
 X3rfi', '3IYl', '3X1'. Of these, the three last are 
 forms of the Hebrew }3m\ which has led to the 
 
 • supposition that ’I awns is a contracted form of 
 
 • the Greek 'luduvps. Some critics consider that 
 
 ■ these names were of Egyptian origin, and, in that 
 
 case, the Jewish writers must have been misled by 
 a similarity of sound to adopt the forms above- 
 
 • mentioned. For Jambres we find X“OD, '"IDE), 
 D'T30\ D!"QD1', and in the Shalsheleth Hakka- 
 bala the two names are given 1X'D1"ODXl '3X1', 
 i. e. Johannes and Ambroskis ! The Tar- 
 gum of Jonathan inserts them in Exod. vii. 11. 
 The same writer also gives as a reason for Pha- 
 raoh’s edict for the destruction of the Israelitish 
 male children, that ‘ this monarch had a dream 
 in which the land of Egypt appeared in one scale 
 and a lamb in another; that on awakening he 
 sought for its interpretation from his wise men; 
 whereupon Jannes and Jambres (D'"QQ'l D'3') 
 said — ‘ A son is to be bom in the congregation of 
 Israel who will desolate the whole land of Egypt.’ 
 Several of the Jewish writers speak of Jannes and 
 Jambres as the two sons of Balaam, and assert 
 that they were the youths ('*1)13, servants , Anth. 
 Vers.) who went with him to the king of Moab 
 (Num. xxii. 22). The Pythagorean philosopher 
 Numenius mentions these persons in a passage 
 preserved by Eusebius ( Prccp . Evang. ix. 8), and 
 by Origen (c. Cels. iv. p. 198, ed. Spencer) ; also 
 Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxx. 1). There was an ancient 
 apocryphal writing entitled Jannes and Mambrcs, 
 which is referred to by Origen (in Matt. Com- 
 ment. §117; Opera , v. 29), and by Ambrosiaster, 
 ar Hilary the Deacon : it was condemned by Pope 
 Gelasius (Wetstenii Nov. Test. Grace, ii. 362; 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. Rahb. col. 945 ; Lightfoot’s 
 Sermon on Jannes and Jambres ; Works, vii. 
 09 ; Erubhin,or Miscellanies , ch. xxiv. ; Works, 
 
 \ r . 33; Lardner’s Credibility , nt. II. cfe. ob 
 IVor/cs. vii. 381.) — J. E. R. 
 
 JAMES, 'ldtcwfios. Two, if not three persorv 
 of this name are mentioned in the New Testa 
 ment. 
 
 1. James, the son of Zcbedee (’ldnwfios 6 roS 
 Ze/3 eSa(ov), and brother of the evangelist John. 
 Their occupation was that of fishermen, probably 
 at Bethsaida, in partnership with Simon Peter 
 (Luke v. 10). On comparing the account given 
 in Matt. iv. 21, Mark i. 19, with that iu'Jbhn i., 
 it would appear that James and John had been 
 acquainted with our Lord, and had received him 
 as the Messiah, some time before he called them 
 to attend upon him statedly — a call with which 
 they immediately complied. Their mother’s 
 name was Salome. We find James, John, and 
 Peter associated on several interesting occasions 
 in the Saviour's life. They alone were present 
 at the Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1 ; Mark ix. 
 2; Luke ix. 28); at the restoration to life of 
 Jairus's daughter (Mark v. 42 ; Luke viii. 51) ; 
 and in the garden of Gethsemane during the 
 agony (Mark xiv. 33; Matt. xxvi. 37; Luke 
 xxi. 37). With Andrew they listened in private 
 to our Lord's discourse on the fall of Jerusalem 
 (Mark xiii. 3). James and his brother appear to 
 have indulged in false notions of the kingdom of 
 the Messiah, and were led by ambitious views to 
 join in the request made to Jesus by their mother 
 (Matt. xx. 20-23 ; Mark x. 35). From Luke 
 ix. 52, we may infer .that their temperament was 
 warm and impetuous. On account, probably, of 
 their boldness and energy in discharging their 
 Apostleship, they received from their Lord the 
 appellation of Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder 
 (For the various explanations of this title given by 
 the fathers see Suiceri Thcs. Eccles.. s. v. BpGvrrj, 
 and Liicke’s Commentar, Bonn, 1840; Einlei - 
 tuhg, c. i. § 2, p. 17). James was the first martyr 
 among the Apostles. Clement of Alexandria, in 
 a fragment preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. i. 
 9), reports that the officer who conducted James 
 to the tribunal was so influenced by the bold de- 
 claration of his faith as to embrace the Gospel and 
 avow himself also a Christian ; in consequence of 
 which he was beheaded at the same time. 
 
 2. James, the son of Alphacus (’Ia/cco/Sos 6 rov 
 ’AA (palov), one of the twelve Apostles (Mark iii. 
 18; Matt. x. 3; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13). His 
 mother’s name was Mary (Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark 
 xv. 40) • in the latter passage he is called James 
 the Less (6 puepos, the Little), either as being 
 younger than James the son of Alphseus, or on 
 account of his low stature (Mark xvi. 1 ; Luke 
 xxiv. 10). 
 
 3. James, the brother of the Lord (6 abeXcpbs 
 rov K vplov; Gal. i. 19). Whether this James is 
 identical with the son of Alphseus, is a question 
 which Dr. Neander pronounces to be the most 
 difficult in the Apostolic history, and which cannot 
 yet be considered as decided. We read in Matt, 
 xiii. 55, ‘ Is not his mother called Mary, and his 
 brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, ar.d 
 Judas’?’ and in Mark vi. 3, ‘ Is not ‘his the car- 
 penter, the son of Mary, and brotht r of James 
 and Joses, and of Juda and Simon ? and are not 
 his sisters here with us?’ Those critics who sup- 
 pose the terms of affinity in these and paratlo ? 
 passages to be used in the laxer sense of near rela- 
 tions, have remarked that in Mark xv. 40, mcn'ioj? 
 
JAMES. 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 07 
 
 .8 made of ‘ Mary, the mothp- of Jame3 the less 
 and of Joses;’ and hat in JMn xix. 25, it is said, 
 •there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and 
 his mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, 
 and Mary Magdalene they therefore infer that 
 the wile of Cleophas is the same as the sister of the 
 mother of Jesus, and, consequently, that James 
 (supposing Cleophas and Alphaeus to be the same 
 name, the former according to the Hebrew, the latter 
 according to the Greek orthography) was a first 
 cousin of our Lord, and, on that account, termed 
 nis brother , and that the other individuals called 
 the brethren of Jesus stood in the same relation. 
 It is also urged that in the Acts, after the death 
 of James the son of Zebedes, we read only of one 
 James ; and, moreover, that it is improbable that 
 our Lord would have committed his mother to the 
 care of the beloved disciple, had there been sons 
 of Joseph living, whether the offspring of Mary 
 or of a former marriage. Against this view it 
 has been alleged that in several early Christian 
 writers James, the brother of the Lord, is distin- 
 guished from the son of Alphaeus ; that the iden- 
 tity of the names Alphaeus and Cleophas is some- 
 what uncertain ; and that it is doubtful whether 
 the words ‘his mother’s sister,’ in John xix. 21, 
 are to be considered in apposition with those imme- 
 diately following — ‘ Mary, the wife of Cleophas,’ 
 or intended to designate a different individual ; 
 since it is highly improbable that two sisters should 
 have had the same name. Wieseler ( Studien 
 und Kritiken , 1 840, iii. 648) maintains that not 
 three, but four persons are mentioned in this pas- 
 sage, and that since in Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark 
 xv. 40, besides Mary of Magdala, and Mary, the 
 mother of James and Joses, Salome also (or the 
 mother of the sons of Zebedee) is named as pre- 
 sent at the Crucifixion, __ it follows that, she must 
 have been the sister of our Lord’s mother. This 
 would obviate the difficulty arising from the 
 sameness of the names of the two sisters, and 
 would set aside the proof that James, the 
 Lord's brother, was the son of Alphaeus. But 
 even allowing that the sons of Alphaeus were 
 related to our Lord, the narrative in the Evange- 
 lists and the Acts presents some reasons for sus- 
 pecting that they were not the persons described 
 as ‘the brethren of Jesus.’ 1. The brethren of 
 Jesus are associated with his mother in a manner 
 that strongly indicates their standing in the filial 
 relation to her (Matt. xii. 46 ; Mark iii. 31 ; 
 Luke viii. 19 ; Matt. xiii. 58, where ‘ sisters ’ are 
 also mentioned ; they appear constantly together 
 as forming one family, John ii. 12). ‘ After this 
 
 he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, 
 and his brethren, and his disciples ’ (Kuinoel, 
 Comment, in Matt. xii. 46). 2. It is explicitly 
 
 stated, that at a period posterior to the appoint- 
 ment of the twelve Apostles, among whom we find 
 ‘ the son of Alphaeus,’ ‘ neither did his brethren be- 
 lieve on him’ (John vii. 5 ; LUcke’s Commentary. 
 Attempts, indeed, have been made by Grotius and 
 Lardner to dilute the force of this language, as if 
 It meant merely that their faith was imperfect or 
 wavering — ‘ that they did not believe as they 
 should ;’ but the language of Jesus is decisive : — 
 ‘ My time is not yet come, but your time is always 
 ready; the world cannot hate you, but me ithateth’ 
 (compare this with John xv. 18, 19 : ‘ If the world 
 hate you,’ &c.). This appears to overthrow the 
 argument lor the identity of the brethren of Jesus 
 
 with the sons of Alphaeus, drawn fit m the same- 
 ness of the names; for as to the supposition that 
 what is affirmed in John’s Gospel might apply to 
 only some of his brethren, it is evident that, ad- 
 mitting the identity, only one brother of Jes n 
 would be left out of the ‘ company of the Apostles.’ 
 3. Luke's language in Acts i. 13, 14, is op- 
 posed to the identity in question ; for, after enume- 
 rating the Apostles, among whom, as usual, is 
 ‘James, the son of Alphaeus,’ he adds, ‘ they all 
 continued with one accord in prayer and suppli- 
 cation with the women, and Mary, the mother of 
 Jesus, and with his brethren .’ From this pas- 
 sage, however, we learn that, by this time, his 
 brethren had received him as the Messiah. Thai 
 alter the death of the son of Zebedee we find only 
 one James mentioned, may easily be accounted 
 for on the ground that probably only one, ‘ the 
 brother of the Lord,’ remained at Jerusalem ; and, 
 under such circumstances, the silence of the his- 
 torian respecting the son of Alphaeus is not more 
 strange than respecting several of the other Apostles, 
 whose names never occur after the catalogue in 
 ch. i. 13. Paul’s language in Gal. i. 19, has been 
 adduced to prove the identity of the Lord's bro- 
 ther with the son of Alphaeus, by its ranking him 
 among the Apostles, but Neander and Winer have 
 shown that it is by no means decisive. (Winer’s 
 Grammatih, 4th ed. p. 517 ; Neander’s History 
 of the Planting , &c. vol. ii. p. 5, Eng. transl.). If 
 we examine the early Christian writers, we shall 
 meet with a variety of opinions on this subject. 
 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 1) says that James, the 
 first bishop of Jerusalem, brother of the Lord, son 
 of Joseph, the husband of Mary, was surnamed 
 the Just by the ancients, on account of his 
 eminent virtue. He uses similar language in 
 his Evangelical Demonstration (iii. 5). In his 
 commentary on Isaiah he reckons fourteen Apo- 
 stles ; namely, the twelve, Paul, and James, the 
 brother of our Lord. A similar enumeration is 
 made in the ‘ Apostolic Constitutions ’ (vi. 14). 
 Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Theophylact speak 
 of James, the Lord's brother, as being the same 
 as the son of Cleopas. They suppose that Jo- 
 seph and Cleopas w r ere brothers, and that the 
 latter dying without issue, Joseph married his 
 widow for his first wife, according to the Jewish 
 custom, and that James and his brethren were the 
 offspring of this marriage (Lardner’s Credibility , 
 pt,. ii. ch. 118, Works, iv. 54S ; ch. i. 163, 
 Works, v. 160 ; History of Heretics, c. xi. $ 11, 
 Works, viii. 527 ; Supplement to the Credibility , 
 ch. 17, Works , vi. 188). A passage from Jose- 
 phus is quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 
 23), in which James, the brother of ‘ him who is 
 called Christ,’ is mentioned; but in the opinion of 
 Dr. Lardner and other eminent critics this clause 
 is an interpolation (Lardner’s Jewish Testi- 
 monies, ch. iv. ; Works , vi. 496). According to 
 Hegesippus (a converted Jew of the second cen- 
 tury), James, the brother of the Lord, undertook 
 the government of the church along with the 
 Apostles (pera t uv airoGToKwv). He describes 
 him as leading a life of ascetic strictness, and as 
 held in the highest veneration by the Jews. But 
 in the account he gives of his martyrdom some 
 circumstances are highly improbable. In the 
 Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, h® 
 is said to have been precipitated from a pinnaci® 
 of the temple, and then assaulted with stone#* 
 
OS JAMES, EPISTLE OF. 
 
 and at last dispatched by a blow on the bead with 
 a fuller's pole (Lardner's Supplement , ch. xvi., 
 W 'orks, vi. p. 174; Neander, History of the 
 Planting, &c. vol. ii. pp. 9, 22, Eng’, transl.). 
 Dr. Nieineyer enumerates not less than five per- 
 sons of this name, by distinguishing the son of 
 Alphaeus from James the less, and assuming that 
 tire James last mentioned in Acts i. 13 was not 
 the brother, but the father of J udas ( Charahteristik 
 der Bibel. Halle, 1 830, i. 399).— J. E R. 
 
 TAMES, EPISTLE OF [Antii-egomena]. 
 Tnis is called by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 23) 
 the first of the Catholic Epistles. As the writer 
 simply styles himself James , a sei'vant of God 
 and of the Lord Jesus Christ, doubts have 
 existed, both in ancient and modern times, re- 
 specting the true 
 
 Author of this Epistle. — It has been ascribed to 
 no less than four different, persons, viz. James, the 
 son of Zebedee; James, the son of Alphaeus (who 
 were both of the number of the twelve apostles); 
 James, our Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19); and to an 
 anonymous author who assumed the name of 
 James in order to procure authority to a supposi- 
 titious writing. 
 
 The chief authority for ascribing this epistle to 
 James the son of Zebedee, is the inscription to the 
 Syriac manuscript, published by Widmandstadt, 
 wherein it is termed ‘ the earliest, writing in the 
 New Testament,’ and to an Arabic MS. cited by 
 Cornelius a Lapide. Isidore of Seville, and other 
 Spanish writers interested in maintaining that 
 ■James travelled into Spain (Calmet’s Comment- 
 ary), assert that James the son of Zebedee visit- 
 ed in person the ‘ twelve tribes scattered’ through 
 that as well as other countries, and afterwards 
 addressed to them this epistle. The Mozarabic 
 liturgy also supports the same view, and the old 
 Italic, published by Martianay, contains the 
 inscription Explicit Epistola Jacobi fil. Zebedcei. 
 Hut this opinion has obtained very few suffrages ; 
 for, as Calmet has observed ( Pref. to his Com- 
 mentary), it is not credible that so great progress 
 had been made among the dispersed Jews before 
 the martyrdom of James, which took place at 
 Jerusalem about a d. 42 ; and if the author, as 
 has lieen commonly supposed, alludes to St. Paul’s 
 Epistles to the Romans (a.d. 58) and Galatians 
 (a.d. 55), it would be a manifest anachronism to 
 ascribe this epistle to the son of Zebedee. 
 
 The claim to the authorship of the epistle, 
 therefore, rests between James ‘ the Lord's brother,’ 
 and James the son of Alphaeus. In the preceding 
 article the difficult question, whether these names 
 do not, in fact, refer to the same person, has been 
 examined : it suffices, in this place, to state that 
 no writer who regards James ‘ the Lord’s brother’ 
 as distinct from James the son of Alphaeus, has 
 held the latter to be the author of the epistle : and 
 therefore, if no claim he advanced for the son of 
 Zebedee, James ‘ the brother of the Lord ’ remains 
 the only person whom the name at the head of 
 this epistle could be intended to designate. 
 
 Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. ii. 
 23), acquaints us that James, the brother of Jesus, 
 who obtained the surname of the Just, governed 
 the church of Jerusalem along with, or after the 
 apostles (pera tuv aivo<n6\(av). Eusebius (l. c.) 
 relates that he was the first who held the episco- 
 pate of Jerusalem (Jerome says for thirty years); 
 ftzzd both he and Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. 1) give 
 
 JAMES, EPISTLE OF. 
 
 an uccount of his lr^tyrdom. To him, therefore, 
 is the authorship of an epistle addressed to the 
 Jewish Christians with good reason ascrilred. 
 
 The other opinion, which considers the epistle 
 as pseudepigraphal, we shall consider in treating 
 of its 
 
 Authenticity and Canonical Authority. — Euse- 
 bius ( ut supra) observes that. ‘James the brother 
 of Jesus, who is called Christ, is said to have 
 written the first of the Catholic epistles ; hut it 
 is to be observed, that it is considered spurious 
 ( vodeverai ). Not many of the ancients have men- 
 tioned it, nor that called the Epistle of Jude. , . . 
 Nevertheless, we know that these, with the rest, 
 are publicly read in most of the churches.’ To the 
 same effect St. Jerome : — ‘ St. James, surnamed 
 the Just, who is called the Lord’s brother, is the 
 author of only one epistle, one of the seven called 
 Catholic, which, however, is said to have been 
 published by some other who assumed his name, 
 although in the progress of time it gradually 
 acquired authority.’ Dr. Lardner is of opinion 
 that this statement of St. Jerome is a mere repet i- 
 tion of that of Eusebius. It was also rejected in 
 the fourth century by Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
 and in the sixth by Cosmas Iudicopleusles [An- 
 tii.egomena]. It is, however, cited by Clemens 
 Romanus in his first or genuine Epistle to the 
 Corinthians (ch. x., comp, with James ii. 21, 23 ; 
 and ch. xi., comp, with James ii. 25, and Heb. 
 xi. 31). It seems to be alluded to in the Shep- 
 herd of Hennas, ‘ Resist the devil, and he will 
 be confounded and flee from you.’ It is also 
 generally believed to be referred to by Irenaeus 
 ( Hcer . iv. 1G, 2), ‘ Abraham believed God, and 
 it was,’ &c. Origen cites it in his Comment, 
 on John i. xix. iv. 306, calling it, however, the 
 reputed epistle of James [Antii.egomena,]. We 
 have the authority of Cassiodorus for the fact 
 that Clemens Alexandrians commented on this 
 epistle; and it is not only expressly cited by 
 Ephrem Svrus (Opp. Grcec. iii. 51, ‘ James the 
 brother of our Lord says “ weep and howl,” ’ to- 
 gether with other references), but it forms part o! 
 the ancient Syriac version, a work of the second 
 century, and which contains no other of the Anti • 
 legomena, except the Epistle to the Hebrews. Bu‘ 
 though ‘ not quoted expressly by any of the Latin 
 fathers before the fourth century’ (Hug’s Intro- 
 duction), it was, soon after the time of the Council 
 of Nice, received both in the eastern and western 
 churches without any marks of doubt, and was 
 admitted into the canon along with the other 
 Scriptures by the Councilsof Hippo and Carthage. 
 Nor (with the above exceptions) does there appear 
 to have been a voice raised against it since that 
 period until the era of the Reformation, when the 
 ancient doubts were revived by Erasmus (who 
 maintains that the author was not an apostle, 
 Annot. in N. T), Cardinal Cajetan (Comment, 
 in 7 Canonic. Epist., 1532), and Luther. Cajetan 
 observes that ‘ the salutation is unlike that of any 
 other of the apostolical salutations, containing 
 tiothing of God, of grace, or peace, but sending 
 greetings after the profane manner, from which, 
 and his not naming himself an apostle, the author 
 is rendered uncertain.’ We have already re- 
 ferred to Luther’s opinion [Antii.egomena], 
 who is generally accused of calling this an epistle 
 of straw. The following are his words : — ‘Thi* 
 epistl* in comparison with the writings of John. 
 
JAMES, EPISTLE OF. 
 
 Paul, and Peter, is a right strawy epistle (cine 
 rechte stroherne epistel), being destitute of an 
 evangelic character’ ( Free. •/. to N. T.). And 
 again ( Prcef to James and John), — ‘ This epistle, 
 although rejected by the ancients, I notwithstand- 
 ing praise and esteem, as it teaches no doctrines 
 of men, and strenuously urges the law of God. 
 But, to give my opinion frankly, though without 
 jrejudice to any other person, I do net hold it to 
 )e the writing of an apostle — and these are my 
 reasons; first, it directly opposes St. Paul and 
 other Scriptures in ascribing justification to 
 works, saying that Abraham was justified by 
 works, whereas St. Paul teaches that Abraham 
 was justified by faith without works; .... but 
 this James does nothing but. urge on to the law 
 and its works, and writes so confusedly and un- 
 connected! y that, it appears to me like as if some 
 good pious man got hold of a number of say- 
 ings from the apostles’ followers, and thus flung 
 them on paper; or it is probably written by 
 some one after the apostle’s preaching.’ The 
 eenturiators of Magdeburg follow the same train 
 of thought. ‘ In addition to the argument de- 
 rived from the testimony of antiquity, there 
 are other and by no means obscure indications 
 from which it may be collected that the authors 
 of these epistles (James and Jude) were not 
 apostles. The Epistle of James differs not 
 slightly from the analogy of doctrine, in ascribing 
 justification not to faith alone, but to works, and 
 calls the law “a law of liberty,’’ whereas the law 
 « generates to bondage.” .... Nor is it unlikely 
 that it was written by some disciple of the apo- 
 stles at the close of this (.the first) century, or even 
 later’ (Cent. i. 1. 2. c. 4 col. 51). The same sen- 
 timents are followed by Cbeunits, Brentius. and 
 others among the Lutherans, and among the Greeks 
 by Cyril Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople in 
 the seventeenth century (Lettres Anecdotes de Cy- 
 rille Lucar , Amst. 1718. Letter vii. p. 85). 
 
 As Luther was the first who separated the ca- 
 nonical from the deutero-canonical or apocryphal 
 books in the Old Testament [Deuteuo-canon- 
 icaj,], he also desired to make a similar dis- 
 tinction in the New [Antij.egomena ; Hagio- 
 okapha] ; but the only variation which lie actu- 
 ally adopted consisted in his placing the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews between the Epistles of John and 
 James [Jude]. 
 
 The Calvinists, who never questioned the au- 
 thority of this epistle, followed the arrangement 
 of the Council of Laodicea, in which the Epistle 
 of James ranks as the first of the Catholic 
 epistles; while the Council of Trent followed the 
 order of the Council of Carthage and of the apos- 
 tolical canons, viz., four Gospels, Acts, fourteen 
 epistles of Paul (viz., Romans, 1 and 2 Coiin- 
 thians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colos- 
 siatis, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 
 Titus, Philemon, Hebrews), 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 
 2, and 3 John, James, Jude, Apocalypse. The 
 Lutherans themselves soon acquiesced in the deci- 
 sions of the universal church in regard to the 
 canon of the New Testament, until the contro- 
 versy, which had long slept, was again revived 
 in Germany in modern times (De Wefte, Einlei - 
 tuny). De Wette maintains that although this 
 epistle was anterior to the Clementine, it could 
 not have been written so early as the time of 
 James, principally because the egree of tran- 
 
 JAMES, EPISTLE OF. 69 
 
 quillity and comfort which appears to have bee* 
 enjoyed by those to whom the epistle was ad- 
 dressed, seems to him to be inconsistent with the 
 state cf persecution which the Christians were 
 subject to during the lifetime of St. James. He 
 conceives it to have been written by some one 
 who assumed the name of James in order to give 
 authority to his arguments against Paul's doc- 
 trine of justification. Dr. Kern also, in his 
 Essay on the Origin of the Epistle of St. James 
 (in the Tubingen Zeitschrift fur Theoloyie, 
 1835), took the same view, which, however,' he 
 has lately abandoned in his Commentary. But 
 no one in modern times has combated this opi- 
 nion with greater success than Neander ( History 
 of the First Planting of the Christian Churc h, 
 vol. ii.). Neander (whose reasonings will not 
 admit of abridgment) maintains that there is no 
 discrepancy whatever between St. Paul and St. 
 James ; that it was riot even the design of the 
 latter to oppose any misapprehension respecting 
 St. Paul’s doctrine, but that they each addressed 
 different classes of people from different standing 
 points, using the same familiar examples. 
 
 ‘ Paul,’ he says, ‘ was obliged to point out to 
 those who placed their dependence on the justify- 
 ing power of the works of the law, the futility of 
 such works in reference to justification, and to 
 demonstrate that justification and sanctification 
 could proceed only from the faith of the gospel : 
 James, on the other hand, found it necessary to 
 declare to those who imagined that they could be 
 justified in God's sight by faith in the Jewish 
 sense .... that this was completely valueless if 
 their course of life were not conformed to it.’ 
 And in another place he observes that James 
 ‘ received the new spirit under the old forma, 
 similarly to many Catholics who have attained 
 to free evangelical convictions, and yet have not 
 been able to disengage themselves from the old 
 ecclesiastical forms ; or, like Luther, when he had 
 already attained a knowledge of justification by 
 faith, but before he was aware of the consequences 
 flowing from it. as opposed to the prevalent doc 
 trines of the church.’ 
 
 Age of the Epistle. — By those who consider 
 James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem, to have 
 been the author of this epistle, it is generally be- 
 lieved to have been written shortly beibre his 
 martyrdom, which took place a.d. 62, six years 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem, whose im- 
 pending fate is alluded to in chap. v. Neandei 
 fixes its date at a time preceding the separate 
 formation of Gentile Christian churches, before 
 the relation of Gentiles and Jews to one another 
 in the Christian Church had been brought under 
 discussion, in the period of the first spread of 
 Christianity in Syria, Cilicia, and the adjacent 
 regions. It is addressed to Jewish Christians, 
 tiie descendants of the twelve tribes; but the fact 
 of its being written in Greek exhibits the author’s 
 desire to make it generally available to Christians. 
 
 Contents and Character of the Epistle. — ‘This 
 epistle commences witli consolations addressed 
 to the faithful converts, with exhortations to 
 patience, humility, and practical piety (cb. i. 
 1-27). Undue respect to persons is then con- 
 demned, and love enjoined (ch. ii.). Erroneous 
 ideas on justification are corrected (ii. 13-26). 
 the temerity of new teachers is repressed (iii. 12); 
 an unbridled tongue is inveighed against, and 
 
to 
 
 JAPHETH. 
 
 J ASHER. 
 
 oeavenly wislom contrasted witn a spirit of 
 covetousness (13-18). Swearing is prohibited 
 (v. 12). The efficacy of prayer is proved by ex- 
 amples, and the unction of the sick by the Pres- 
 byters, together with prayer and mutual confession, 
 are enjoined as instruments of recovery and of 
 forgiveness of sins (v. 14-18). The approaching 
 advent of the Lord is foretold (v. 7). 
 
 The style of this epistle is close and sententious, 
 and is characterized by Calmet as consisting of 
 ‘ expressions thrown together without connection, 
 and adorned by poetical similitudes.’ It has, 
 however, been illustrated by no one with greater 
 felicity than by the late learned and pious 
 Bishop of Limerick, who has adduced many 
 examples from James of poetical parallelism — 
 which was the principal characteristic of Hebrew 
 poetry. In reference to one of these passages (iii. 
 1-12) the bishop observes that ‘its topics are so 
 various, and, at first sight, so unconnected, not to 
 say incongruous, that it may be thought a rash 
 undertaking to explore the writer's train of thought, 
 and to investigate the probable source and the 
 orderly progress of his ideas — an evidence at 
 once most brilliant and satisfactory that the easy 
 flow of a great mind, when concentrated on a 
 great object, will be found at least as logically 
 just as it. may be poetically beautiful.’ ‘His 
 general manner,’ he observes, ‘ combines the plain- 
 est and most practical good sense with the most 
 vivid and poetical conception ; the imagery 
 various and luxuriant ; the sentiments chastened 
 and sober ; his images, in truth, are so many 
 analogical arguments, and if, at the first view, we 
 are disposed to recreate ourselves with the poet, 
 we soon feel that we must exert our hardier 
 powers to keep pace with the logician ’ (Jebb's 
 Sacred Literature'). Seiler designates the style 
 of this epistle as ‘sometimes sublime and prophe- 
 tical, nervous, and full of imagery’ ( Biblical 
 Hermeneutics, § 315; Wright's translation, p. 
 548). Wetstein (note to ch. iv. 5) conceives 
 the author to have been familiar with the book of 
 Wisdom. In ch. i. 17 and iv. 4 the following 
 perfect hexixmeters have been noticed — 
 
 Tlacra Socris ayadi] leal ttuv dcvprjpa re\€iov 
 and 
 
 Moi^ol nat fxoLxa^lSes ovk otScere on <pi\ia. 
 
 Trie eloquence and persuasiveness of St. James’s 
 Epistle, as an ethical composition, are such as 
 must command universal admiration. — W. W. 
 
 JAPHETH (nn^ ; Sept. ’Id£ed), a son of 
 Noah. In Gen. v. 32 he is mentioned third in 
 order • but some think, from Gen. x. 21 (comp, 
 ix. 24), that he was the eldest of Noah's sons, 
 begotten one hundred years before the flood 
 (Michael. Spicil. ii. 66). In Gen. x. 2, sq. 
 he is called the progenitor of the extensive tribes 
 in the west (of Europe) and north (of Asia), pf 
 the Armenians, Medes, Greeks, Thracians, &c. 
 De Wette ( Kritik , p. 72) justly repudiates the 
 opinion of the Targumim , both Jonath. and 
 Hieros., who make Japheth the progenitor of the 
 African tribes also. The Arabian traditions 
 (DHerbelot, Bibl. Orient.) rank Japheth among 
 the prophets, and enumerate eleven of his sons, 
 the progenitors of as many Asiatic nations, viz. 
 Gin or Dshin (Ciiinese), Seklab (Slavonians), 
 Manshuge, Gomari, Tuik (Turks), Khalage, 
 Khczar, Ros (Russians), Sussan, Gaz, and Torage. 
 
 In these traditions he is therefore s.mply called 
 
 progenitor of the Turks and Barbarians 
 
 
 
 To the seven sons of Japheth, 
 
 mentioned in Gen. x. 2 and 1 Chron. i. 5, the 
 Sept, and Eusebius add an eighth, Elisha , though 
 not found in the text. Some (Buttmann, Bochart, 
 and Hasse) identify Japheth with the ’IcnTe-ros oi 
 Greek fable, thedepository of many ethnograplncal 
 traditions; while others, again, connect, him wit! 
 Hereus, mentioned in the ancient historian San- 
 choniathon.- — E. M. 
 
 JARHA ; Sept. ’Io>x^A), the Egyptian 
 
 slave of a Hebrew named Sheshan, who married 
 the daughter of his master, and was, of course, 
 made free. As Sheshan had no sons, his posterity 
 is traced through this connection (1 Chron. ii. 
 31-41), which is the only one of the kind men- 
 tioned in Scripture. Jarha was doubtless a pro- 
 selyte, and the anecdote seems to belong to the 
 period of the sojourn in Egypt, although it is not 
 easy to see how an Egyptian could there be slave 
 to an Israelite. 
 
 J ASHER, BOOK OF (Tf»5 IKS), a work 
 no longer extant, but cited in Josh. x. 13, and 
 2 Sam. i. 18. In the former it is thus intro- 
 duced: ‘And the sun stood still, and the moon 
 stayed, until the people had avenged themselves 
 upon their enemies. Is not this written in trie 
 book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the 
 midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about 
 a whole day,’ &c. And in the passage referred to 
 in 2 Sam. i. it stands thus : ver. 17. ‘ And David 
 lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over 
 Jonathan his son :’ ver. 18. ‘(Also he bade them 
 teach the children of Judah [the use of] the bow : 
 behold it is written in the book of Jasher).’ After 
 which follows the lamentation of David. As the 
 word Jasher signifies just or upright , by which 
 word it is rendered in the margin of our Bibles, 
 this book has been generally considered to have 
 been so entitled as containing a history of just 
 men. Bishop Lowth, however (Prcelect. pp. 306, 
 307), conceives, from the poetical character of 
 the two passages cited from it, that it was most 
 probably a collection of national songs written at 
 various times, and that it derived its name from 
 jashar , ‘ he sang,’ as Exod. xv. 1, az Jashir 
 Mosheh , ‘ then sang Moses,’ &c. ; or from the 
 circumstance of its having commenced with 
 the word Az Jashar, as the different books 
 of the Bible derived the names which they bore 
 among the Jews from the initial word. It is, at 
 the same time, by no means an improbable con- 
 jecture, that the book was so called from the 
 name of its author. Josephus (. Antiq . v. 1. 17) 
 speaks of the book of Jasher as one of the ‘ books 
 laid up in the temple.’ 
 
 De Wette ( Einleitung , § 169) endeavours to 
 deduce an argument in favour of the late compo- 
 sition of the book of Joshua from the circum- 
 stances of its citing a work (viz. the book of 
 Jasher) which ‘ points to the time of David, inas- 
 much as his lamentation over Saul and Jonathan 
 is contained in it.’ But it has been supposed by 
 others (although the American translator of De 
 Wette’s Introduction looks upon tins as quite im- 
 probable) that the book may, as a collection ol 
 poems, have received accessions at. various ferions. 
 
J ASHER. 
 
 JASIIER. 
 
 75 
 
 and, nevertheless, been still quoted l>y its original 
 name. I)r. Palfrey, who adopts this view of the 
 book of Jaslier in his Lectures , still refers the 
 composition of Joshua to the time of Saul. 
 Among the fathers, Theodoret (see Carpzov’s 
 Introd. p. 150) flunks the whole book of Joshua 
 to be an extract from the book of Jasher, and 
 that the author, ‘ fearing that his assertion of the 
 standing still of the sun would not he credited,’ 
 therefore referred to the book itself as his authority 
 for the account of the miracle ( Qucest . xiv. in 
 Josh , t. i. part i. p. 20:?); whence, lie adds, 
 it is plain that some other person of a later date 
 wrote this, taking the occasion from another 
 book. Jerome is of opinion (in Ezek. xviii. p. 
 819) that the book of Jasher is no other than the 
 hook of Genesis, which is also the opinion of some 
 Jewish authors. Others suppose it to include the 
 Pentateuch (see Calmet's Comment, in loc.). 
 Mr. Horne ( Introd . vol. i.) asserts that ‘ some 
 understand by the book of Jasher the book of 
 Judges, as mention is therein made of the stand- 
 ing still of the sun.' [?] From the passage above 
 referred to, 2 Sam. i. 18 — ‘ Also he bade them 
 teach the children of Israel [the use of] the bow’ 
 — it has been supposed by some (see Dr. Adam 
 Clarke's Comment, in loc., and Home's Introd. 
 vol. i.) that the book of Jasher contained a treatise 
 on archery ; but it has betn observed (see Par- 
 ker's translation of De Wette’s Introd. vol. i. p. 
 301) that, according to the ancient mode of cita- 
 tion, which consisted in referring to some parti- 
 cular word in ihe document, ‘ the bow,’ which 
 the children of Israel were to be taught, indicated 
 the poetical passage from the book of Jasher in 
 which the ‘ bow of Jonathan ’ is mentioned 
 (2 Sam. i. 22) De Wette's translator supposes 
 that our English translators of the Bible were, 
 perhaps, ignorant of thi.s manner of reference, and 
 he instances this as a ‘ ludicrous instance.’ 
 
 The Book of Jasher is also the title of two 
 Rabbinical works, one of which was written by 
 Rabbi Tham in the thirteenth century, and 
 printed at Cracow in 1617. It is a treatise on 
 Jewish laws. The other was printed in 1625, and 
 contains (see Batolocci’s Bibliotheca Rabbinica, 
 and Horne’s Introd. vol. ii., Bibliogr. App.) some 
 curious but many fabulous narrations ; among 
 other things, that it was discovered at the destruc- 
 tion of the temple in possession of an old man, 
 who was found shut up in some place of conceal- 
 ment, and who had a great number of Hebrew 
 books. It was brought to Spain, preserved at 
 Seville, and published at Naples. 
 
 In the year 1751 there was published in Lon- 
 don, by a type-founder of Bristol named Jacob 
 Hive, a book entitled ‘ The Book of Jasher , with 
 Testimonies and Notes explanatory of the Text : 
 to which is prefixed Various Readings : trans- 
 lated into English from the Hebrew by Alcuin 
 of Britain, who went a pilgrimage into the Holy 
 Land.’ This book was noticed in the Monthly 
 Review for December 1751, which describes it as 
 a palpable piece of contrivance, intended to 
 Impose upon the credulous and ignorant, to sap 
 the credit of the books of Moses, and to blacken 
 the character of Moses himself.’ The reviewer 
 adds that ‘ the Book tf Jasher appears to have 
 been constructed in part from the apocryphal 
 writings of the Rabbins ; in part from a cento of 
 
 various scraps stolen from the Pentateuch ; and 
 in the remainder from the crazy imaginings of 
 the author ’ (Ilive). Prefixed to this work is a 
 narrative professing to be from the pen of Alcuin 
 himself, giving a detailed account of his discovery 
 of the Hebrew book of Jasher, in the city of Gazna 
 in Persia, during a pilgrimage which he made 
 from Bristol to the Holy Land, and of his trans- 
 lation of the same into English. This clumsy 
 forgery in modern English, which appeared with 
 the chapters of the thirteenth century, and the 
 numerical versicular divisions of the sixteenth, 
 having been exposed at the t me of its appearanc.f, 
 and sunk into well-merited oblivion, was again 
 revived in 1827, when it was reprinted at Bristol, 
 and published in London as a new. discovery of 
 the Book of Jasher. A prospectus of a second 
 edition of this reprint was issued in 1833 by the 
 editor, who herein styles himself the Rev. C. R. 
 Bond. Both Hive’s and Bond’s edition contain 
 the following pretended testimony to the value of 
 the work from the celebrated Wicklifle; — ‘I 
 have read the book of Jasher twice over, and I 
 much approve of it, as a piece of great antiquity 
 and curiosity, but 1 cannot assent that it should 
 be*made a part of the canon of Scripture.’ They 
 also contain a statement, from the pen of Alcuin, 
 to the effect that he (Alcuin, not Jasher, as Mr. 
 Horne supposes) gave the book before his death to 
 a clergyman in Yorkshire (see Horne’s Introd. 
 vol. ii., Bibliogr. Apjn). It is further asserted 
 by the new editor that the book was discovered in 
 1721, in the north of England; and that again, 
 after the year 1750, it passed through various 
 hands, until, in 1829, the manuscript came into 
 his possession. The fiaud was now again ex- 
 posed in the Dublin Christian Examiner for 
 1831, wherein, among other curious letters re 
 lating to the pretended Book of Jasher , is a 
 communication from the ‘ vicar of Donagh ’ in 
 Ireland, who states that he had been kimsell 
 favoured, in 1806, with the sight of a copy of this 
 ‘ curious piece of antiquity, which was in the 
 possession of the Rev. R. Alexander, D.D., who 
 then resided at New Ross in Ireland. Dr. Alex- 
 ander, it appears, had made his transcript from 
 ‘ a rare copy,' which he supposed to have been 
 unique, then in possession of a Welsh clergyman, 
 but refused the same favour to the * vicar of 
 Donagh.’ The original woik was published at 
 2s., and the unacknowledged reprint was sold 
 by the editor for £1. per copy. From a review 
 of this work, inserted in the British Critic for 
 January, 1834, it appears that several copies of 
 this impudent and stupid fabrication were pur- 
 chased by the ‘ simple, the charitable, the good 
 nat.ured, or the careless.’ This fraudulent literary 
 hoax has obtained a notoriety far beyond its merits 
 in consequence of the able critiques to which it gave 
 rise, and of an elaborate lefutation from the j>en 
 of Mr. Horne ( Introd . vol. ii. ut supra). It seems 
 to have been republished in New Yoik in 1840. 
 
 The chief interest connected with the Scriptural 
 book of Jasher arises from the circumstance that 
 it is referred to as the authority lor the standing 
 still of the sun and moon. There are few pas- 
 sages in Biblical literature the explanation ol 
 which has more exercised the skill of com men 
 tators than this celebrated one. We shall her* 
 give a brief account of the most generally re- 
 ceived interpretations. 
 
n 
 
 JASHOBEAM. 
 
 JEBUSITES. 
 
 The lirst is that which maintains that the account 
 of the miracle is to he literally understood. Ac- 
 cording to this interpretation, which is the most 
 ancient, the sun itself, which was then believed 
 to have revolved round the earth, stayed his 
 course for a day. Those who take this view 
 argue that the theory of the diurnal motion of 
 the earth , which has been the generally received 
 one since the time of Galileo and Copernicus, 
 is inconsistent with the Scripture narrative. Not- 
 withstanding the general reception of the Coperni- 
 can system of the universe, this view continued to 
 be held by many divines, Protestant as well as 
 Roman Catholic, and was strenuously maintained 
 by Buddeus (Hist. Eccles. V. T. Halle, 1715, 
 1744, p. 828, sq.) and others in the last century. 
 
 But in more recent times the miracle has been 
 explained so as to make it accord with the now 
 received opinion respecting the earth’s motion, 
 and the Scripture narrative supposed to contain 
 rather an optical and popular, than a literal 
 account of what took place on this occasion. So 
 that it was in reality the earth, and not the sun, 
 which stood still at the command of Joshua. 
 
 Another opinion is that first, suggested by Spi- 
 noza (Tract. Theology Politic, c. ii. p. 22, and 
 v.. vi.), and afterwards maintained by Le Clerc 
 {Comment, in loc.), that the miracle was pro- 
 duced by refraction only, causing the sun to appear 
 above the horizon after its setting, or by some 
 
 her atmospherical phenomena, which produced 
 sufficient light to enable Joshua to pursue and 
 discomfit his enemies. 
 
 The last opinion we shall mention is that of the 
 learned Jew Maimonides (More Nevo. ii. c. 53), 
 viz. that Joshua only asked of the Almighty to grant 
 that he might defeat his enemies before the going 
 down of the sun, and that God heard his prayer, 
 inasmuch as before the close of day the five kings 
 with their armies were cut in pieces. This opi- 
 nion is favoured by Vatablus, in the marginal 
 note to this passage (see Robert Stephens’ edition 
 of the Bible, fol. 1557), ‘ Lord, permit that the 
 light of the sun and moon fail us not before our 
 enemies are defeated.’ Grotius, while he admitted 
 that there was no difficulty in the Almighty’s 
 arresting the course of the sun, or making it re- 
 appear by refraction, approved of the explanation 
 of Maimonides, which has been since that period 
 adopted by many divines, including Jahn, among 
 the Roman Catholics (who explains the whole as 
 a sublime poetical trope, lntrod. p. ii. § 30), and 
 among orthodox Protestants, by a writer in the 
 Berlin Evangelische Kirch enzeitung , Nov. 1832, 
 supposed to be the editor, Professor Ilengstenberg. 
 Robinson's Biblical Repository, 1833, vol. iii. 
 p. 791, sqq.) See Seiler's Biblical Hermeneutics , 
 English Translator’s note, pp. 175, 176. — W. W. 
 
 JASHOBEAM (DyilK^ ; Sept. ’leaefiaSa), son 
 of Hachmoni, one of David’s worthies, and the 
 first named in the two lists which are given of 
 them (2 Sam. xxiii 8; 1 Chron. xi. 11). One of 
 these texts is held to have suffered through the neg- 
 ligence of copyists, and as Jashobeam is not his- 
 torically known, commentators have been much 
 embarrassed in comparing them. The former 
 attributes to him the defeat of 800, the latter 
 of 300 Philistines ; and the question has been 
 whether there is a mistake of figures in one of 
 these accounts, or w he the: two different exploits are 
 
 recorded. Further difficulties will appear h» 
 comparing the two texts. We have assumed 
 Jashobeam to be intended in both ; but this is 
 open to question. In Chronicles we read, ‘ Jasno- 
 beam, the Hachmonne, chief of the captains: ha 
 lifted up his spear against 300 men, slain by hirn 
 atone time;’ but in Samuel [margin], ‘ Joseb- 
 basebeth the Tachmonite, chief among the three, 
 Auino, of Ezni, who lifted up his spear against 800 
 men whom he slew.’ That Jashobeam the JHach- 
 monite, and Joseb-besheth the Tachmonite, are the 
 same person is clear ; but may not Adi no of 
 Ezni, whose name forms the immediate antece- 
 dent of the exploit, which, as related here, con 
 stitutes the sole discrepancy between the two texts, 
 be another person? Many so explain it, and thus 
 obtain a solution of the difficulty. But a further 
 comparison of the two verses will again suggest 
 that tlie whole of the last cited must belong to 
 Jashobeam ; for not only is the pa.allel incomplete, 
 if we take the last clause from him and assign it 
 to another, but in doing this we leave the ‘ chief 
 among the captains’ without an exploit, in a list 
 which records some feat of every hero. We in- 
 cline, therefore, to the opinion of those who sup- 
 pose that Jashobeam, or Joseb-besebeth, was the 
 title as chief, Adiuo the proper name, and Hach- 
 monite the patronymic of the same person; and 
 the discrepancy which thus remains, we account 
 for, not. on the supposition of different exploits, 
 but of one of those corruptions of numbers of which 
 several will lie found in comparing the books of 
 Chronicles with those of Samuel and Kings. 
 
 The exploit of breaking through the host of the 
 Philistines to procure* David a di aught of water 
 from the well of Bethlehem, is ascribed to the 
 three chief heroes, and therefore to Jashobeam, who 
 was the first of the three (2 Sam. xxiii. 13-17; 
 
 1 Chron. xi. 15-19). 
 
 A Jashobeam is named among the Korhites who 
 came to David at Ziklag (1 Chron. xii. 6); but 
 this could scarcely have been the same with the 
 preceding. 
 
 We also find a Jashobeam who commanded 
 24,000, and did duty in David's court in the 
 month Nisan (1 Chron. xxvii. 2). He was the 
 son of Zabdiel ; if, therefore, he was the same 
 as the first Jashobeam, his patronymic of ‘ the 
 Hachmonite ’ must be referred to his race rather 
 than to his immediate father. This seems likely. 
 
 JASON (’idcoov), a kinsman of St. Paul, and 
 his host at Thessaionica, where the Jews forced 
 his house in order to seize the Apostle. Not find- 
 ing the apostle, they dragged Jason himself and 
 some other converts before the magistrates, who re- 
 leased them with an admonition (a.d. 53). Jason 
 appears to have accompanied the Apostle to C> 
 linth (Acts xvii. 5-9; Rom. xvi. 21). 
 
 JASPER. [Yashpeh.] 
 
 JAVAN, the fourth son of Japhet. The in- 
 terest connected with his name arises from his 
 being the supposed progenitor of the original set- 
 tlers in Greece and its isles [Nations, Disper- 
 sion op]. 
 
 JAVELIN. [Arms] 
 
 JEBUSITES (*p«J ; Sept. ’Uflovoaioi'), on a 
 of the most powerful of the nations of Canaan, 
 who settled about. Mount Moriah, where they 
 built Jerusalem, and called it Jebus, after tl.« 
 name of their founder (1 Chron. xi. 4). Although 
 
JEDUTHUN. 
 
 JEHOIACIIIN. 
 
 73 
 
 they were defeated vith much slaughter, and 
 Adonizedek, their king, slain by Joshua (Josh, x.), 
 they were not wholly subdued, but vveie able to 
 retain their city till after his death (*Judg. i. 8), 
 and were not entirely dispossessed of it till the 
 time of David (2 Sam. v.). By that time the in- 
 veteracy of the enmity between the Hebrews and 
 such of the original inhabitants as remained in 
 the land had much abated, and the rights of pri- 
 vate property were respected by the conquerors. 
 This we discover from the fact that the site on 
 which the Temple afterwards stood belonged to a 
 Jebusite, named Araunah, from whom it was pur- 
 chased by king David, who declined to accept 
 it as a free gift from the owner (2 Sam. xxiv.). 
 This is the last we hear of the Jebusites. 
 
 JEDUTHUN (j-m-IT, praise-giver; Sept. 
 ’IS iOovv), a Levite of Merari’s family, and one of 
 the four great masters of the templemusie ( 1 Chron. 
 xvi. 41, 42). This name is also put for his de- 
 scendants, who occur later as singers and players 
 on instruments (2 Chron. xxxv. 15 ; Neh. xi. 17). 
 In the latter signification it occurs in the super- 
 scriptions to Ps. xxxix., lxii., Ixxvii. ; but A ben 
 Ezra supposes it to denote here — the requiring of 
 a song, and Jarchi, of a musical instrument. 
 
 1. JEHOAHAZ (TnKin\ God-sustained; 
 Sept. ’Io>axaO> son of J« liu > king <)f Israel, who 
 succeeded his father in b c. 856, and reigned 
 seventeen years. As he followed the evil courses 
 of the house of Jeroboam, the Syrians under Hazael 
 and Benhadad were suffered to prevail over him ; 
 so that, at length, he had only left of all his forces 
 fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and 10,000 loot. 
 Overwhelmed by his calamities, Jehoahaz at 
 length acknowledged the authorit y of Jehovah over 
 Israel, and humbled himself before him; in con- 
 sideration of which a deliverer was raised up for 
 Israel in the person of Joash, this king's son, who 
 was enabled to expel the Syrians and re-establish 
 die affairs of the kingdom (2 Kings xiii. 1-9, 25). 
 
 2. JEHOAHAZ, otherwise called Shallum, 
 seventeenth king of Judah, son of Josiah, whose 
 reign began and ended in the year b.c. 608. 
 After his father had been slain in resisting the 
 progress of Pcaraoh Necho, Jehoahaz, who was 
 then twenty-three years of age, was raised to 
 the throne by the people, and received at Jeru- 
 salem the regal anointing, which seems to have 
 been usually omitted in times of order and 
 of regular succession. He found the land full 
 of trouble, but free from idolatry. Instead, 
 however, of following the excellent example of 
 ais father, Jehoahaz fell into the accustomed 
 crimes of his predecessors ; and under the encou- 
 ragements which his example or indifference 
 offered, the idols soon re-appeared. It, seems 
 strange that in a time so short, and which must 
 have been much occupied in arranging plans for 
 resisting or pacifying the Egyptian king, he 
 should have been able to deserve the stigma which 
 the sacred record has left upon his name. But 
 there is no limit except in the greatness of the divine 
 power to ti e activity of evil dispositions. The 
 sway of Jehoahaz was terminated in three months, 
 when Pharaoh Necho, on his victorious return 
 from the Euphrates, thinking it politic to reject a 
 king not nominated by himself, removed him 
 from the throne, and set thereon Ins brother Jehoia- 
 
 kim. This reign was the shortest in the kingdom 
 of Judah, although in that of Israel there were 
 several shorter. The deposed king was at first 
 taken as a prisoner to Kiblali in Syria; hut was 
 eventually carried to Egypt, where he died (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 30-35; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1-4; 1 Chron. iii. 
 15; Jer. xxii. 10 12). 
 
 The anointing of this king has drawn attention 
 to the defect of his title as the reason for the addi- 
 tion of that solemn ceremony. It appears from 
 1 Chron. iii. 15 that Josiah had four sons, of 
 whom Johanan is expressly said to have been ‘ the 
 first-born. 1 But he seems to have died before his 
 father, as we nowhere find his name historically 
 mentioned, while those of the other brothers are 
 familiar to us. If, therefore, he died childless, 
 and Jehoahaz were the next son, his claim would 
 have been good. But he was not the next son. 
 His name, as Shallum, occurs last, of the four in 
 1 Chron. iii. 15; and from the historical notices 
 in 2 Kings xxiii. and 1 Chron. xxxvi. we as- 
 certain that when Josiah died the ages of the 
 three surviving sons were, Eliakim (Jehoiakirn) 
 twenty-five years, Jehoahaz (Shallum) twenty- 
 three years, Mattaniah (Zedekiah) ten years; 
 consequently Jehoahaz was preferred by the 
 popular favour above his elder brother Jehoiakirn, 
 and the anointing, therefore, was doubtless intended 
 to give to his imperfect, claim the weight of that 
 solemn ceremony. It was also probably suspected 
 that, as actually took place, the Egyptian king 
 would seek to annul a popular election unsanc- 
 tioned by himself; but as the Egyptians anointed 
 their own kings, and attached much importance 
 to the ceremony, the possibility that he would 
 hesitate more to remove an anointed than an un- 
 anointed king might afford a further reason for 
 the anointing of Jehoahaz [Anointing]. 
 
 Jehoahaz is supposed to be the person who is 
 designated under the emblem of a young lion 
 carried in chains to Egypt (Ezek. xix. 3, 4). 
 JEIIOASH. [Joash.] 
 
 JEIIOIACHIN (i'SW, God-appointed; 
 Sept. T aiax^Oi by contraction Jeconiah and Co- 
 ni aii, nineteenth king of Judah, and son of Je- 
 hoiakim. When his father was slain, b.c. 599, 
 the King of Babylon allowed him, as the rightful 
 heir, to succeed. He was then eighteen years of 
 age according to 2 Kings xxiv. 8; but only eight 
 according to 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. Many attempts 
 have been made to reconcile these dates, the most 
 usual solution being that he had reigned ten years 
 in conjunction with his father, so that he was 
 eight when he began his joint reign, but eighteen 
 when he began to reign alone. There are, how- 
 ever, difficulties in this view, which, perhaps, 
 leave it the safest course to conclude that ‘ eight’ 
 in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, is a corruption of the text, 
 such as might easily occur from the relation of 
 the numbers eight and eighteen. 
 
 Jehoiachin followed the evil courses which had 
 already hi ought so much disaster upon the royal 
 house of David, and upon the people under its 
 sway. He seems to have very speedily indicated 
 a political bias adverse to the interests of the 
 Chaldaean empire; for in three months after his 
 accession we find the generals of Nebuchadnezzar 
 again laying siege to Jerusalem, according to tin? 
 predictions of Jeremiah (xxii. 18 — xxiv. 30). Con- 
 vinced of the futility of resistance, Jehoiachin 
 
74 
 
 JEHOIADA. 
 
 JE HOI AKIM. 
 
 w*nt out and surrendered as soon as Nebuchad- 
 nezzar arrived in person before the city. He was 
 sent away as a captive to Babylon, with his 
 mother, his generals, and his troops, together with 
 the artificers and other inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
 to the numb-i- of ten thousai d. Few were left but 
 the poorer so - ;of people and the unskilled labourers, 
 few, indeed, wiiose presence could be useful in 
 Babylon or dangerous in Palestine. Neither did 
 the Babyionian king neglect to remove the trea- 
 sures which could yet be gleaned from the palace 
 or the temple ; and he now made spoil of those 
 sacred vessels of gold which had been spared 
 on former occasions. These were cut up for 
 present use of the metal or for more convenient 
 transport ; whereas those formerly taken had been 
 sent to Babylon entire, and there laid up as 
 trophies of victory. Thus ended an unhappy 
 reign of three months and ten days. If the 
 Chaldaean king had then put an end to the show of 
 a monarchy and annexed the country to his own 
 dominions, the event would probably have been 
 less unhappy for the nation. But still adhering 
 to his former policy, he placed on the throne 
 Mattaniah, the only surviving son of Josiah, 
 whose name he changed to Zedekiah (2 Kings 
 xxiv. 1-16; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 10 ; Jer. xxix. 2; 
 xxxvii. 1). 
 
 Jehoiachin remained in prison at Babylon 
 during the lifetime of Nebuchadnezzar; but 
 when that prince died, his son, Kvil-merodach, 
 not only released him, but gave him an honour- 
 able seat at his own table, with precedence over 
 all the other dethroned kings who were kept at 
 Babylon, and an allowance for the support of his 
 rank (2 Kings xxv. 27-1*0 ; Jer. lii. 31-34). To 
 what he owed this favour we are not told ; but the 
 Jewish commentators allege that Evil-merodach 
 had himself been put into prison by his father 
 during the last year of his reign, and had there 
 contracted an intimate friendship with the de- 
 posed king of Judah. 
 
 The name of Jechoniah re-appears to fix the 
 epoch of several of the prophecies of Ezekiel 
 (Ezek. i. 2), and of the deportation which ter- 
 minated his reign (Esth. ii. vi). In the genealogy 
 of Christ (Matt. i. 11) he is named as the ‘son 
 of Josias’ his uncle. 
 
 JEHOIADA (^Tirr, God -known; Sept. 
 TitfSae), high-priest in the times of Ahaziah and 
 Athaliah. He is only known from the part which 
 ne took in recovering the throne of Judah for the 
 young Joash, who had been saved by his wife 
 Jehosbehah from the massacre by which Athaliah 
 sought to exterminate the royal line of David. 
 The particulars of this transaction are related 
 under other heads [Athai.iah ; JoashJ. Je- 
 boiada manifested much decision and forecast on 
 this occasion ; and he used for good the great 
 power which devolved upon him during the mi- 
 nority of the young king, and the influence which 
 he continued to enjoy as long as he lived. The 
 value of this influence is shown by the misconduct 
 and the disorders of the kingdom after his death. 
 He died in n.c. 831, at. the age of 130, and his 
 remains were honoured with a place in the sepul- 
 chre of .lie kings at Jerusalem (2 Kings xi. 12; 
 2 Chron. xxiii. xxiv.). 
 
 JEHOIAKIM God-established; Sept. 
 
 l&ciKtfi'j, originally EEIAK1M, second son of 
 
 Josiah, and eighteenth king of Judah. On th* 
 death of his father the people raised to the throne 
 his younger brother Jehoahaz; but three months 
 after, when the Egyptian king returned from the 
 Euphrates, he removed Jehoahaz, and gave the 
 crown to the rightful heir, Eliakim, whose name he 
 changed to Jehoiakim. This change of name often 
 took place in similar circumstances; and the 
 altered name was in fact the badge of a tributary 
 prince. Jehoiakim began to reign in n.c. 608, and 
 reigned eleven years. He of course occupied the 
 position of a vassal of the Egyptian empire, and it 
 that capacity had to lay upon the people heavy 
 imposts to pay the appointed tribute, in addition 
 to t he ordinary expenses of government. But, as 
 if this were not enough, it would seem from va- 
 rious passages in Jeremiah (Jer. xxii. 13, &c.' 
 that Jehoiakim aggravated the public charges, 
 and consequently the public calamities, by a de- 
 gree of luxury and magnificence in his establish- 
 ments and structures very ill-suited to. the con- 
 dition of his kingdom and the position which 
 he occupied. Hence much extortion and wrong- 
 doing, much privation and deceit; and when we 
 add to this a general forgetfulness of God and 
 proneness to idolatry, we have the outlines of that 
 picture which the prophet Jeremiah has drawn in 
 the most sombre hues. 
 
 However heavy may have been the Egyptian 
 yoke, Jehoiakim was destined to pass under one 
 heavier still. In his time the empire of Western 
 Asia was disputed between the kings of Egypt 
 and Babylon; and the kingdom of Judah, 
 pressed between these mighty rivals, and neces- 
 sarily either the tributary or very feeble enemy 
 of the one or the other, could not but sutler nearly 
 equally, whichever proved the conqueror. The 
 kings of Judah were therefore placed in a posi- 
 tion of peculiar difficulty, out of which they could 
 only escape witli safety by the exercise of great 
 discretion, and through the special mercies of 
 the God of Israel, who had by his high covenant 
 engaged to protect, them so long as they walked 
 uprightly. This they did not, and were in con- 
 sequence abandoned to their doom. 
 
 In the third year of his reign Jehoiakim, being 
 besieged in Jerusalem, was forced to submit to 
 Nebuchadnezzar, and was by his order laden 
 with chains, with the intention of sending him 
 captive to Babylon (1 Chron. xxxvi. 6); but 
 eventually the conqueror changed his mind and 
 restored the crown to him. Many persons, i|^v- 
 ever, of high family, and some even of the royal 
 blood, were sent away to Babylon. Among 
 these was Daniel, then a mere youth. A large 
 proportion of the treasures and sacred vessels of 
 the temple were also taken away and deposited 
 in the idol-temple at Babylon (Dan. i. 1, 2). 
 The year following the Egyptians were defeated 
 upon the Euphrates (Jer. xlvi. 2), and Jehoiakim, 
 when he saw the remains of the defeated army 
 pass by his territory, could not but perceive how 
 vain had been that reliance upon Egypt against 
 which he had been constantly cautioned by Jere- 
 miah (Jer. xxxi. 1 ; xlv. 1). In the same year 
 the prophet caused a collection of his prophecies 
 to be written out by his faithful Baruch, and to be 
 read publicly by him in the court of the temple. 
 This coming to the knowledge of the king, 
 he sent for it and had it read before him. Bui 
 he heard not much of the bitter denunciations 
 
JEHORAM. 
 
 JEHOSHAPH AT. 
 
 
 Trith which’ it was charged, before he took the roll 
 from the reader, and after cutting it in pieces 
 threw it into the brasier which, it being winter, 
 was burning before him in the ball. The coun- 
 sel of God against him, however, stood sure ; a 
 fresh roll was written, with the addition of a 
 further and most awful denunciation against the 
 king, occasioned by this foolish and sacrilegious 
 act. ‘ He shall have none to sit upon the throne 
 of David : and his dead body shall be cast out 
 in the day to the beat and in the night to the 
 frost’ (Jer. xxxvi.). All this, however, appears 
 to have made little impression upon Jehoiakim, 
 who still walked in his old paths. 
 
 The condition of the kingdom as tributary to 
 the Chaldseans probably differed little from that 
 in which it stood as tributary to the Egyptians, 
 except that its resources were more exhausted by 
 the course of time, and that its gold went tb the 
 east instead of the south. But at length, alter 
 three years of subjection, Jehoiakim, finding the 
 king of Babylon fully engaged elsewhere, and 
 deluded by the Egyptian party in his court, ven- 
 tured to withhold his tribute, and thereby to 
 throw off’ the Chaldaean yoke. This step, taken 
 contrary to the earnest remonstrances of Jeremiah, 
 was the ruin of Jehoiakim. It might seem suc- 
 cessful for a little, from the Chaldseans not then 
 having leisure to attend to the affairs of this 
 quarter. In due time, however, the land was 
 invaded by their armies, accompanied by a vast 
 number of auxiliaries from the neighbouring 
 countries, the Edomites, Moabites, and others, 
 who were for the most part actuated by a fierce 
 hatred against the Jewish name and nation. The 
 events of the war are not related. Jerusalem was 
 taken, or rather surrendered on terms, which 
 Josephus alleges were little heeded by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar. It is certain that Jehoiakim was 
 slain, but whether in one of the actions, or, as 
 Josephus says, after the surrender, we cannot de- 
 termine. His body remained exposed and unla- 
 mented without the city, under the circumstances 
 foretold by the prophet — ‘ They shall not lament 
 for him, saying, Ah, my brother ! or, Ah, sister ! 
 They shall not. lament for him, saying, Ah, lord ! 
 or, Ah, his glory ! He shall be buried with the 
 • burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the 
 gates of Jerusalem’ (Jer. xxii. IS, 19 ; 1 Chron. 
 hi. 15; 2 Kings xxiii. 34-37; xxiv. 1-7; 
 
 2 Chron. xxxvi. 4-8). 
 
 It jvas not the object of Nebuchadnezzar to 
 destr®/ altogether a power which, as tributary to 
 him, fonned a serviceable outpost towards Egypt, 
 which seems to have been the great final object 
 of all his designs in this quarter. He therefore 
 still maintained the throne of Judah, and placed 
 on it Jehoiachin, the son of the late king. He, 
 however, sent away another body, a second corps 
 cf the nobles and chief persons of the nation, 
 three thousand in number, among whom was 
 fe&ekicl, afterwards called to prophesy in the land 
 ci' his exile. 
 
 JEHONADAB. [Jonadab.] 
 
 JEHORAM (Dnirv, God-exalted; Sept. ’I&>- 
 eldest son and successor of Jehoshaphat, 
 and fifth king of Judah, who began to reign (se- 
 parately) in B.c. 889, at the age of thirty-five 
 years, and reigned five years. It, is indeed said 
 in the general account that he began to reign 
 
 at the age of thirty-two, and that be reigned eight 
 years; but the conclusions deducible from the 
 fact that his reign began in the seventh year of 
 Joram, king of Israel, show that the reign thus 
 stated dates back three years into the reign of hi3 
 father, who from this is seen to have associated his 
 eldest son with him in the later years of his reign. 
 
 Jel.oram profited little by this association. He 
 had unhappily been married to Attialiah, the 
 daughter of Ahab and Jezebel ; and her influence 
 seems to have neutralized all the good he might 
 have derived from the example of his father. 
 One of the first acts of his reign was to put his 
 brothers to death and seize the valuable appanages 
 which their father had in his lifetime bestowed 
 upon them. After this we are not surprised to 
 find him giving way to the gross idolatries of 
 that new and strange kind — the Phoenician — 
 which had been brought into Israel by Jezebel, 
 and into Judah by her daughter Athaliah. For 
 these atrocities the Lord let forth his anger 
 against Jelioram and his kingdom. The Edom- 
 ites revolted, and, according to old prophecies 
 (Gen. xxvii. 40), shook off the yoke of Judah. 
 The Philistines on one side, and the Arabians and 
 Cushites on the other, also grew bold against a 
 king forsaken of God, and in repeated invasions 
 spoiled the land of all its substance ; they even 
 ravaged the royal palaces, and took away the 
 wives and children of the king, leaving him only 
 one son, Ahaziah. Nor was this all; Jehoram 
 was in his last days afflicted with a frightful 
 disease in his bowels, which, from the terms 
 employed in describing it, appears to have been 
 malignant dysentery in its most shocking and 
 tormenting form. After a disgraceful reign, and 
 a most painful death, public opinion inflicted 
 the posthumous dishonour of refusing him a place 
 in the sepulchre of the kings. Jehoram was by 
 far the most impious and cruel tyrant that had 
 as yet occupied the throne of Judah, though he 
 was rivalled or surpassed by some of his suc- 
 sessors (2 Kings viii. 16-24; 2 Chron. xxi.). 
 
 2. JEHORAM, King of Israel [JohamJ. 
 JEHOSHAPHAT (ttBBnnj, God-judged ; 
 Sept. ’lwo'CKpdi/'), fourteenth king of Judah, and 
 son of Asa, whom he succeeded in *b. c. 914, 
 at the age of thirty-five, and reigned twenty- 
 five years. He commenced his reign by forti- 
 fying his kingdom against Israel; and having tlm, 
 secured himself against surprise from the quarte 
 which gave most disturbance to him, lie proceeded 
 to purge the land from the idolatries and idola- 
 trous monuments by which it was still tainted 
 Even the high places and groves, which former well- 
 disposed kings had suffered to remain, were by the 
 zeal of Jehoshaphat in a great measure destroy^!. 
 The chiefs, with priests and Levites, proceeded 
 from town to town, with the book of the law in 
 their hands, instructing the people, and calling 
 back their wandering affections to ihe leligion ol 
 their fathers. This was a beautiful and interest- 
 ing circumstance in the operations of the young 
 king. Other good princes had been content to 
 smite down the outward show of idolatry by 
 force of hand ; but Jehoshaphat saw that this was 
 not. of itself s ifficient, anti that the basis of a 
 solid reformation must be laid by providing fer 
 tiie better instruction of the people in their reli- 
 gious duties and privileges. 
 
76 
 
 J EH OSH A P H AT. 
 
 JEHOSHAPHAT. 
 
 Jehoshaphat was too well instructed in the 
 great principles of the theocracy not to know that 
 his faithful conduct had entitled him to expect 
 the divine protection. Of that protection he 
 eoon had manifest proofs. At home he enjoyed 
 peace and abundance, and abroad security 
 and honour. His treasuries were tilled with the 
 ‘ presents ' which the blessing of God upon the 
 people, ‘ in their basket, and their store,’ enabled 
 then- to bring. His renown extended into the 
 neighbouring nations, and the Philistines, as well 
 as the adjoining Arabian tribes, paid him rich 
 tributes in silver and in cattle. He was thus 
 enabled to put all his towns in good condition, 
 to erect fortresses, to organize a powerful army, 
 and to raise his kingdom to a degree of import- 
 ance and splendour which it had not enjoyed 
 since the revolt of the ten tribes. 
 
 The weak and impious Ahab at. that time oc- 
 cupied the throne of Israel ; and Jehoshaphat, 
 having nothing to fear from his power, sought, or 
 at least did n.>t repel, an alliance with him. 
 This is alleged to have been the grand mistake 
 of his reign ; and that it was such is proved by 
 the consequences. Ahab might be benefited by 
 the connection, but under no circumstance could 
 it be of service to Jehoshaphat or his kingdom, and 
 it might, as it actually did, involve him in much 
 disgrace and disaster, and bring bloodshed and 
 trouble into bis house. H is fault seems to have 
 been the result, of that easiness of temper and 
 overflowing amiability of disposition, which the 
 careful student may trace in his character; and 
 which, although very engaging attributes in pri- 
 vate life, are not always among the safest or most 
 valuable qualities which a king in his public 
 capacity might possess. 
 
 After a few years we find Jehoshaphat on a visit 
 to Ahab, in Samaria, being the first time any of the 
 kings of Israel and Judah had met in peace. He 
 here experienced a reception worthy of his great- 
 ness; but Ahab failed not to take advantage of the 
 occasion, and so worked upon the weak points of 
 his character as to prevail upon him to take aims 
 with him against the Syrians, with whom, hitherto, 
 the kingdom of Judah never had had any war or oc- 
 casion of quarrel. However, Jehoshaphat was not 
 so far infatuated as to proceed to the war without 
 consulting God, who, according to the principles of 
 the theocratic government, was the final arbiter of 
 war and peace. The false prophets of Ahab poured 
 forth ample promises of success, and one of them, 
 named Zedekiah, resorting to material symbols, 
 made him horns of iron, saying, ‘Thus saith the 
 Lord, with these shalt thou smite the Syrians till 
 they be consumed.’ Still Jehoshaphat was not 
 satisfied ; and the answer to his further inquiries 
 extorted from him a rebuke of the reluctance 
 which Ahab manifested to call Micab, ‘the pro- 
 phet of the Lord.’ The fearless words of this 
 prophet did not make the impression upon the 
 king of Judah which might have been expected ; 
 or, probabiy, he then felt himself too deeply bound 
 in honour to recede. He went to the fatal battle 
 of Ramoth-Giiead. and there nearly became the 
 victim of a plan whch Ahab had laid for his own 
 safety at the expense of his too-confiding ally. He 
 persuaded Jehoshaphat to appear as king, while lie 
 taimself went disguised to the battle. This brought 
 lire heat of the contest around him, as the Syrians 
 took him for Ahab; and if they had not in time 
 
 discovered their mistake, he would certainly hart 
 been slain. Ahab was killed, and the hatthi 
 lost [Ahab] ; but Jehoshaphat escaped, and r* 
 turned to Jerusalem. 
 
 On his return from this imprudent expe-* ‘ 
 he was met by the just reproaches of the propit^ 
 Jehu. The best atonement he could make for 
 this error was by the course he actually took, 
 lie resumed his labours in the further extirpation 
 of idolatry, in the instruction of the people, and 
 the improvement of his realm. life now made 
 a tour of his kingdom in person, that he might 
 see the ordinances of God duly established, and 
 witness the due execution of his intentions respect- 
 ing the instruction of the people in the divine 
 law. This tour enabled him to discern many 
 defects in the local administration of justice, 
 which he then applied himself to remedy. lie 
 appointed magistrates in every city, for the de- 
 termination of causes civil and ecclesiastical ; and 
 the nature of the abuses to which the administra- 
 tion of justice was in those days exposed, may lie 
 gathered from his excellent charge to them 
 ‘ Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not fo 
 man, but for the Lord, who is with you in tlu 
 judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the 
 Lord be upon you; take heed and do it.: for 
 there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor 
 respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.’ Then he 
 established a supreme council of justice at Jeru- 
 salem, composed of priests, Levites, and ‘ the 
 chiefs of the fathers;’ to which difficult cases 
 were referred, and appeals brought from the pro- 
 vincial tribunals. This tribunal also was in- 
 ducted by a weighty but short charge from the 
 king, whose conduct in this and other matters 
 places him at the very head of the monarchs who 
 reigned over Judah as a separate kingdom. 
 
 The activity of Jehoshaphat’s mind was then 
 turned towards the revival of that maritime com- 
 merce which had been established by Solomon, 
 The land of Edom and the ports of the Elauitic 
 Gulf were still under the power of Judah; and 
 in them the king prepared a fleet for the voyage 
 to Ophir. Unhappily, however, he yielded to the 
 wish of the king of Israel, and allowed him to 
 lake part in the enterprise. For this the expe- 
 dition was doomed of God, and the vessels were 
 wrecked almost as soon as they quitted port- 
 instructed by Eliezer, the prophet, as to the cause 
 of this disaster, Jehoshaphat equipped a new fleet, 
 and having this time declined the co-operation 
 of the king of Israel, the voyage prospered* The 
 trade was not, however, prosecuted with any zeal, 
 and was soon abandoned [Commurce], 
 
 In accounting for the disposition of Jeliosh:i- 
 phat to contract alliances with the king of Israel, 
 we are to remember that there existed a powerful 
 tie between the two courts in the marriage of 
 Jehosliaphat’s eldest son with Atbaliah, the 
 daughter of Ahab; and, when we advert to the 
 part in public affairs which that princess after- 
 wards took, it may well be conceived that even 
 thus early she possessed an influence lor evil in 
 the court of Judah. 
 
 After the death of Ahazlah, king of Israel, 
 Joram, his successor, persuaded Jehoshaphat to 
 join him in an expedition against Moab. Thin 
 alliance was, however, on political grounds, mor« 
 excusable than the two former, as trie Moabite*, 
 who were under tribute to Israel, might draw inte 
 
JEHOSHAPHAT. 
 
 therr cause the Edomites, who were tributary to 
 Judah. Besides, Moab could be invaded with 
 most advantage from the south, round by the end 
 of the Dead Sea; and the king of Israel could 
 not gain access to them in that quarter but by 
 inarching through the territories of Jehoshaphat. 
 The latter not. only joined Joram with bis own 
 army, but required his tributary, the king of 
 Edom, to bring his forces into the Held. During 
 seven days" march through the wilderness of Edom, 
 the army suffered much from want of water; and 
 by the time the allies came in sight of the army 
 of Moab, they were ready to perish from thirst. 
 In this emergency the pious Jehoshaphat thought, 
 as usual, of consulting the Lord ; and hearing 
 that the prophet Elisha was in the cam}), the 
 three kings proceeded to his tent. For the sake 
 of Jehoshaphat, and for his sake only, deliverance 
 was promised ; and it came during the ensuing 
 night, in the shape of an abundant supply of 
 water, which rolled down the exhausted vvadys, 
 and tilled the pools and hollow grounds. After- 
 wards Jehoshaphat took his full part in the ope- 
 rations of the campaign, till the armies were 
 induced to withdraw in horror, by witnessing the 
 dreadful act. of Mesha, king of Moab, in offering 
 up his eldest son in sacrifice upon the wall of the 
 town in which he was shut up. 
 
 This war kindled another much more dangerous 
 to Jehoshaphat. The Moabites, being highly ex- 
 asperated at the part he had taken against them, 
 turned all their wrath upon him. Tiiey induced 
 their kindred, the Ammonites, to join them, ob- 
 tained auxiliaries from the Syrians, and even drew 
 over the Edomites ; so that the strength of all the 
 neighbouring nations may be said to have been 
 united for this great enterprise. The allied forces 
 entered the land of Judah and encamped at En- 
 gedi, near the western border of the Dead Sea. In 
 this extremity Jehoshaphat felt that all his defence 
 lay with God. A solemn fast was held, and the 
 people repaired from the towns to Jerusalem to 
 Beek help of the Lord. In the presence of the 
 assembled multitude the king, in the court of the 
 temple, offered up a fervent prayer to God, con- 
 cluding with — ‘ O our God, wilt, them not judge 
 them, for we have no might against this great 
 company that cometh against us, neither know 
 we what, to do ; but our eyes are upon thee.’ 
 He ceased ; and in the midst of the silence 
 which ensued, a voice was raised pronouncing 
 deliverance in the name of the Lord, and telling 
 theffrto go out on the morrow to the cliff's over- 
 looking the camp of the enemy, and see them 
 all overthrown without a blow from them. The 
 voice was that of Jahaziel, one of the Levites. 
 His words came to pass. The allies quarrelled 
 among themselves and destroyed each other ; so 
 that when the Judaliit.es came the next day they 
 found their dreaded enemies all dead, and nothing 
 was left for them but to take the rich spoils of the 
 slain. This done, they returned with triumphal 
 songs to Jerusalem. This great event was recog- 
 nised even by the neighbouring nations as the act 
 cf God ; and so strong was the impression which 
 it made upon them, that the remainder of the 
 good king's reign was altogether undisturbed. 
 His death, however, took place not very long 
 after this, at the age of sixty, after having reigned 
 twerity-fve years, b.c. 898. He left the king- 
 dom i*o « nrosnerous condition to his eldest son 
 
 JEHU. 77 
 
 Jehoram, whom he had in the last years of his 
 life associated with him in the government. 
 
 ‘Jehoshaphat, who sought the Lord with all his 
 heart, was the character given to this king by 
 Jehu, when, on that account, he gave to his 
 grandsire an honourable grave (2 Chron. xxii. 9). 
 Anil this, in tact, was the sum and substance of 
 his character. The Hebrew annals offer the ex- 
 ample of no king who more carefully squared 
 all his conduct by the principles of the theocracy. 
 He kept the lord always before his eyes, anfl 
 was in all things obedient; to bis will when made 
 known to him by the prophets. Few of the kings 
 of Juffah manifested so much zeal for the real 
 welfare of his people, or took measures so judi- 
 cious to promote it. His good talents, the bene- 
 volence of Ins disposition, and bis generally sound 
 judgment are shown not. only in the great mea- 
 sures of domestic policy which distinguished his 
 reign, hut by the manner in which they were 
 executed. No trace can he found in him of that 
 pride which dishonoured some and ruined others 
 of the kings who preceded and followed him. 
 Most of his errors arose from that dangerous fa- 
 cility of temper which sometimes led him to act 
 against the di< tates of his naturally sound judg- 
 ment, or prevented that judgment from being 
 fairly exercised. The kingdom of Judah was 
 never happier or more prosperous than under his 
 reign; and this, perhaps, is the highest praise 
 that can be given to any king. 
 
 JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF, the name 
 now given to the valley which hounds Jerusalem 
 on the east, arid separates it from the Mount of 
 Olives [Jerusalem]. 
 
 In Joel iii. 2, 12, we read, ‘the Lord will 
 gather all nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat, 
 and plead with them there.’ Many interpreters, 
 Jewish and Christian, conclude fiom this that 
 the last judgment is to take place in the above- 
 mentioned valley. But. there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that the valley then bore any such name; 
 and more discreet interpreters understand the text 
 to denote a valley in which some great victory 
 was to be won, most probably by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, which should utterly discomfit the ancient 
 enemies of Israel, and resemble the victory which 
 Jehoshaphat obtained over the Ammonites, Moab- 
 ites, and Edomites (2 Chron. xx. 22-26). Others 
 translate the name Jehoshaphat into God's judg- 
 ment, and thus read, ‘ the valley of God’s judg- 
 ment,’ which is doubtless symbolical, like ‘ the 
 valley of decision,’ i. e. of punishment, in the same 
 chapter. 
 
 JEHOSHEBA, daughter of Jehoram, sister 
 of Ahaziah, and aunt of Joash, kings of Judah. 
 The last of these owed his life to her, and his 
 crown to her husband, the high-priest Jehoiada 
 [Jeiioiada], 
 
 JEHOVAH (niPP), or rather perhaps Jahveh 
 accord ng to the reading suggested by 
 Ewald, Havernick, and others — the name bv 
 which God was pleased to make himself knowr 
 under the covenant, to the ancient Hebrey 
 (Exod. vi. 2, 3). The import of this name lra«. 
 been considered under the head God. 
 
 JEHU (fcOrP, God is ; Sept. ’loo ; Cod. Alex- 
 ’EitjoC), tenth king of Israel, and founder of ita 
 
78 
 
 JEHU. 
 
 JEHU. 
 
 fourth dynasty, who began to reign in b.c. 884, 
 and reigned twenty-eight years. 
 
 Jehu held a command in the Israelite army 
 posted at Ramoth Gilead to hold in check the 
 Syrians, who of late years had made strenuous 
 efforts to extend their frontier to the Jordan, and 
 had possessed themselves of much of the territory 
 of the Israelites east of that river. The contest 
 w f as in fact still carried on which had begun 
 many years before in the reign of Ahab, the 
 present king's father, who had lost his life in 
 battle before this very Ramoth Gilead. Ahaziah, 
 king of Judah, had taken part with Joram, king 
 of Israel, in this war ; and as the latter had 
 been severely mounded in a recent action, and 
 aad gone to Jezreel to be healed of his wounds, 
 Ahaziah had also gone thither on a visit of sym- 
 pathy to him. 
 
 In this state of affairs a council of war was 
 neld among the military commanders in camp, 
 when very unexpectedly one of the disciples of the 
 prophets, known for such by his garb, appeared 
 at the door of the tent, and called forth Jehu, de- 
 claring that he had a message to deliver to him. 
 He had been sent by Elisha the prophet, in dis- 
 charge of a duty which long before had been 
 confided by the Lord to Elijah (1 Kings xix. 16), 
 and from him had devolved on his successor. 
 When they were alone the young man drew forth 
 a horn of oil and poured it upon Jehu’s head, with 
 the words, ‘ Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I 
 have anointed thee king over the people of the 
 Lord, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite 
 the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge 
 the blood of my servants the prophets, and the 
 blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand 
 of Jezebel' (2 Kings ix. 7, 8 ). Surprising as 
 this message must have been, and awful the duty 
 which it imposed, Jehu was fully equal to the 
 task and the occasion. He returned to the coun- 
 cil, probably with an altered air, for he was asked 
 what had been the communication of the young 
 prophet to him. He told them plainly ; and 
 they were obviously ripe for defection from the 
 house of Ahab, for they were all delighted at 
 the news, and taking him in triumph to ‘ the top 
 of the stairs,’ they spread their mantles beneath 
 his feet, and proclaimed him king by sound of 
 trunqjet in the presence of all the troops. 
 
 Jehu was not a man to lose any advantage 
 through remissness. He immediately entered his 
 ,hariot, in order that his presence at Jezreel should 
 be the first announcement which Joram could 
 receive of this revolution. 
 
 As soon as the advance of Jehu and his party 
 was seen in the distance by the watchmen upon 
 the palace-tower in Jezreel, two messengers were 
 successively sent forth to meet him, and were 
 commanded by Jehu to follow in his rear. But 
 when the watchman reported that he could now 
 recognise the furious driving of Jehu, Joram 
 went forth himself to meet him, and was accom- 
 panied by the king of Judah. They met in the 
 field of Naboth, so fatal to the house of Ahab. 
 The king saluted him with ‘Is it peace, Jehu?’ 
 and received the answer, ‘ What peace, so long 
 as the whoredoms ( idolatries) of thy mother Jezebel 
 and her witchcrafts are so many’s’ This com- 
 pletely opened tbe eyes of Joram, who exclaimed 
 to the king of Judah, ‘There is treachery, O 
 * bajiah !’ and turned to dee. But Jehu felt no 
 
 infirmity of purpose, and knew that the slightest 
 wavering might be fatal to him. He therefor® 
 drew a bow with his full strength and sent forth 
 an arrow which passed through the king’s heart. 
 Jehu caused the body to be thrown back into the 
 field of Naboth, out of which he had passed in his 
 attempt at flight, and grimly remarked to Bidkar 
 his captain, 4 Remember how that, when I and 
 thou rode together after Ahab his father, the Lord 
 laid this burden upon him.’ The king of Judah 
 contrived to escape, but not. without 3 . wound, of 
 which he afterwards died at Megiddo [Ahaziah]. 
 Jehu then entered the city, whither the news of 
 this transaction had already preceded him. As 
 he passed under the walls of the palace Jezebel 
 herself, studiously arrayed for effect, apr-eared at 
 one of the windows, and saluted him with 
 question such as might have shaken a man o. 
 weaker nerves, ‘ Had Zimri peace, who slew his 
 master?’ But Jehu was unmoved, and instead 
 of answering her, called out, ‘ Who is on my side, 
 who?’ when several eunuchs made their appear- 
 ance at the window, to whom he cried, ‘ Throw 
 her down!’ and immediately this proud and 
 guilty woman lay a blood-stained corpse in the 
 road, and was trodden under foot by the horses 
 [JidZEBEi,]. Jehu then went in and took pos- 
 session of the palace. 
 
 He was now master of Jezreel, which was, next 
 to Samaria, the chief town of the kingdom ; but 
 he could not feel secure while the capital itsel^ 
 was in the hands of the royal family, and o. 
 those who might be supposed to feel strong at- 
 tachment to the house of Ahab. The force of 
 the blow which he had struck was, however, fel : 
 even in Samaria. When therefore he wrote to 
 the persons in authority there the somewhat 
 ironical hut designedly intimidating counsel, to 
 set up one of the young princes in Samaria as 
 king and fight out the matter which lay between 
 them, they sent a very submissive answer, giving 
 in their adhesion, and professing their readiness to 
 obey in all things his commands. A second letter 
 from Jehu tested this profession in a truly horrid 
 and exceedingly Oriental manner, requiring them 
 to appear before him on the morrow, bringing 
 with them the heads of all the royal princes in 
 Samaria. A fallen house meets with little pity in 
 the East ; and when the new king left his palac« 
 the next morning, he found seventy human heads 
 piled up in two heaps at his gate. There, in the 
 sight of these heaps, Jehu took occasion to explain 
 his conduct, declaring that he must be regarded 
 as the appointed minister of the divine decrees, 
 pronounced long since against the house of Ahab 
 bji the prophets, not one of whose words should 
 fall to the ground. He then continued his pro- 
 scriptions by exterminating in Jezreel not only all 
 in whose veins the blood of the condemned race 
 flowed, but also — by a considerable stretch of his 
 commission — those officers, ministers, and crea- 
 tures of the late government, who, if suffered to 
 live, would most likely be disturbers of his own 
 reign. He then proceeded to Samaria.’ So rapid 
 had been these proceedings that he met some of 
 the nephews of the king of Judah, who were going 
 to join their uncle at Jezreel, and had as yet heard 
 nothing of the revolution which had taken place. 
 These also perished under Jehu's now fully, 
 awakened thirst for blood, to the number vf forty- 
 two persons. 
 
JEHU. 
 
 JKfHTIIAH. 
 
 79 
 
 On fiie way he took up inro his chariot the 
 pious Jehouadab the Rechabite, whose austere 
 virtue and respected character would, as he felt, 
 go fur to hallow his proceedings in the eyes of 
 the multitude. At Samaria he continued the 
 extirpation of the persons more intimately con- 
 nected with the late government. This, far from 
 being in any way singular, is a common circum- 
 stance in eastern revolutions. But the great 
 object of Jehu was to exterminate the ministers 
 and more devoted adherents of Baal, who had 
 been much encouraged by Jezebel. There was 
 even a temple to this idol in Samaria; and Jehu, 
 never scrupulous about, the means of reaching 
 objects which he believed to be good, laid a snare 
 by which he hoped to cut off the main body of 
 Baal’s ministers at one blow. He professed to 
 be a more zealous servant of Baal than Ahab 
 had been, anti proclaimed a great festival in his 
 honour, at which none but his true servants were 
 *o be present. The prophets, priests, and officers 
 of Baal assembled from all parts for this great 
 sacrifice, and sacerdotal vestments were given to 
 them, that none of Jehovah's worshippers might 
 be taken for them. When the temple was full, 
 soldiers were posted so that, none might escape ; 
 and so soon as the sacrifice had been offered, the 
 word was given by the king, the soldiers entered 
 the temple, and put all the worshippers to the 
 sword. The temple itself was then demolished, 
 the images overthrown, and the site turned into a 
 common jakes. 
 
 Notwithstanding this zeal of Jehu in extermi- 
 nating the grosser idolatries which had gfown up 
 under his immediate predecessors, he was not 
 prepared to subvert the policy which had led 
 Jeroboam and his successors to maintain the 
 schismatic establishment of the golden calves in 
 Dan and Beth-el. The grounds of this policy are 
 explained in the article Jeroboam, a reference 
 to which will show the grounds of Jehu’s hesita- 
 tion in this matter. This was, however, a crime 
 in him — the worship rendered to the golden calves 
 being plainly contrary to the law; a x - r should 
 have felt that He who had app^i^f 'u him to the 
 throne would have maintained turn in it, notwith- 
 standing the apparent dangers which might seem 
 likely to ensue from permitting his subjects to 
 repair at the great festivals to the metropolis of 
 the rival kingdom, which was the centre of the 
 theocratical worship and of sacerdotal service. 
 Here Jehu fell short : and this very policy, ap- 
 parently so prudent and far-sighted, by which he 
 hoped to secure the stability and independence of 
 ais kingdom, was that on account of which the 
 !erm of rule granted to his dynasty was shortened. 
 For this, it was foretold that his dynasty should 
 extend only to four generations ; and for this, the 
 divine aid was withheld from him in his wars 
 with the Syrians under Hazael on the eastern 
 frontier. Hence the war was disastrous to him, 
 and the Syrians were able to maintain themselves 
 in the possession of a great part of his territories 
 beyond the Jordan. He died in b.c. 856, and 
 was buried in Samaria, leaving the throne to his 
 non Jehoanaz. 
 
 There is nothing difficult to understand in the 
 eharacter of Jehu. He was one of those decisive, 
 terrible, and ambitious, yet prudent, calculating, 
 passionless men, whom God from time to time 
 ui t-j change the fate of empires and execute 
 
 his judgments on the earth. He boasted of his zeal 
 — ‘ come and see my zeal for the Lord ’ — but at tue 
 bottom it was zeal for Jehu. His zeal was great 
 so long as it led to acts which squared with his own 
 interests, but it cooled marvellously when required 
 to take a direction in his judgment less favourable 
 to them. Even his zeal in extirpating the idolatry 
 of Baal is .not free from suspicion. The altar of 
 Baal was that, which Ahab had associated with 
 his throne, and in overturning the latter he could 
 not prudently let. the former stand, surrounded as 
 it was by attached adherents of the house which 
 he had extirpated (2 Kings ix.-x.). 
 
 2. JEIIU, son of Hanani, a prophet, who was 
 sent to pronounce upon Baasha, king of Israel, 
 and his house, the same awful doom which had 
 been already executed upon the house of Jeroboam 
 (1 Kings xvi. 1-7)- The same prophet was, many 
 years after, commissioned to reprove Jehoshaphat 
 for his dangerous connection with the house of 
 Ahab (2 Chron. xix. 2). 
 
 JEPHTHAII (nrtQ?, opener ; Sept. *le<£0de), 
 ninth judge of Israel, of the tribe of Manasseh. 
 He was the son of a person named Gilead by a 
 concubine. After the death of his father he was 
 expelled from his home by the envy of his 
 brothers, who refused him any share of the 
 heritage, and he withdrew to the land of Tob, 
 beyond the frontier of the Hebrew territories. It 
 is clear that he had before this distinguished 
 himself by his daring charae^ and skill in 
 arms ; for no sooner was his withdraw ment. known 
 than a great number of men of desperate fortunes 
 repaired to him, and he became their chief. His 
 position was now very similar to that of David 
 when he withdrew from the court of Saul. To 
 maintain the people who had thus linked their 
 fortunes with his, there was no other resource than 
 that sort of brigandage which is accounted ho- 
 nourable in theEast, so long as it is exercised 
 against public mr private enemies, and is not 
 marked by needless cruelty or outrage. Even 
 our different climate and manners afford some 
 parallel in the Robin Hoods of former days ; in 
 the border forays, when England and Scotland 
 were ostensibly at peace; and — in principle, 
 however great the formal difference — in the au- 
 thorized and popular piracies of Drake, Raleigh, 
 and the other naval heroes of the Elizabethan 
 era. So Jephthah confined his aggressions to the 
 borders of the small neighbouring nations, who 
 were in some sort regarded as the natural enemies 
 of Israel, even when there was no actual war be- 
 tween them. 
 
 Jephthah led thia kind of life for some years, 
 during which his dashing exploits and successful 
 enterprises procured him a higher military reputa- 
 tion than any other man of his time enjoyed. The 
 qualities required to ensure success in such opera- 
 tions were little different from those required in 
 actual warfare, as warfare was conducted in the 
 East before fire-arms came into general use; and 
 hence the reputation which might be thus ac- 
 quired was more truly military than is easily 
 conceivable by modern and occidental readers. 
 
 After the death of Jair the Israelites gradually 
 fell into their favourite idolatries, and were 
 punished by subjection to the Philistines on the 
 west of the Jordan, and to the Ammonites on fh« 
 east of tha f river. The oppression which they 
 
*0 
 
 JEPHTHAH. 
 
 JEPHTHAH. 
 
 sustained for eighteen years became at length so 
 heavy that they recovered their senses and re- 
 turned to the God of their fathers with humilia- 
 tion and tears ; and lie was appeased, and promised 
 them deliverance from their affliction (u.c. 1143). 
 
 The tribes beyond the Jordan having resolved 
 to oppose the Ammonites, Jephthah seems to 
 occur to every one as i he most fitting leader. A 
 deputation was accordingly sent to invite him to 
 take the command. After some demur, on ac- 
 count of the treatment, he had formerly received, 
 he consented. The rude hero commenced his 
 operations with a degree of diplomatic considera- 
 tion and dignity for which we are not prepared. 
 The Ammonites being assembled in force for one 
 of those ravaging incursions by which they had re- 
 peatedly desolated the land, he sent to their cam]) 
 a formal complaint of the invasion, and a demand 
 of the ground of their proceeding. This is highly 
 interesting, because it .shows that even in that 
 age a cause for war was judged necessary — no 
 one being supposed to war without provocation ; 
 and in this case Jephthah demanded what cause 
 the Ammonites alleged to justify their aggressive 
 operations. Their answer was, that the land of 
 die Israelites beyond the Jordan was theirs. It 
 had originally belonged to them, from whom it 
 nad been taken by the Amorites, who had been 
 dispossessed by the Israelites : and on this ground 
 tfiey claimed the restitution of these lands. 
 Jephthah's reply laid down the just principle 
 which has been followed out in the practice of 
 civilized nations, and is maintained by all the 
 great writers on the law of nations. The land 
 belonged to the Israelites by right of conquest 
 from the actual possessors; and they could not 
 he expected to recognise any antecedent claim of 
 former possessors, for whom they had not acted, 
 who had rendered them no assistance, and who had 
 themselves displayed hostility against, the Israel- 
 ites. -It was not to he expected that they would 
 conquer the country from the pwerful kings who 
 had it in possession, for t lie mere purpose of re- 
 storing it to the ancient occupants* of whom they 
 had no favourable knowledge, and of whose pre- 
 vious claims they were scarcely cognizant. But 
 the Ammonites re -asserted their former views, and 
 on this issue they took the field. 
 
 When Jephthah set forth against the Ammon- 
 ites he solemnly vowed to the Lord, ‘ If thou 
 shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon 
 into my hands, then it shall he, that whatsoever 
 cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, 
 when I return in peace from the children of Am- 
 mon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will ofl'er 
 it. up for a burnt offering. 1 He was victorious. 
 The Ammonites sustained a terrible overthrow. 
 He did return in peace to his house in Mizpeh. 
 As he drew nigh his house, the one that, came 
 forth to meet him was his own daughter, his only 
 child, in whom his heart was bound up. Slie, 
 with her fair companions, came to greet, the tri- 
 umphant hero ‘with timbrels and with dances.’ 
 But he no sooner saw her than he rent his robes, 
 and cried, 4 Alas, my daughter ! thou hast brought 
 me very low ; . . . for I have opened my mouth 
 unto the Lord, and cannot go back.’ Nor did 
 she ask it. She replied, ‘Mv father, if thou hast 
 opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me ac- 
 cording to that which has proceeded out of thy 
 mouth ; forasmuch as the Lord hath token ven- 
 
 geance for thee of thine enemies, the children 
 Ammon.’ But after a pause she added, ‘ Lev 
 this thing be done for me : let me alone two 
 months, that 1 may go up and down upon the 
 mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my 
 fellows/ Her father of course assented ; and 
 when the time expired she returned, and, we are 
 told, * he did with her according to his vow.’ It 
 is then added that it became k a custom in Israel, 
 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament 
 the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite three days 
 in the year/ 
 
 The victory over the Ammonites was followed 
 hy a quarrel with the proud and powerful 
 Ephraimites on the west, of the Jordan. This 
 tribe was displeased at. having had no share irj 
 the glory of the recent victory, and a large body of 
 men belonging to it, who had crossed the river to 
 share in the action, used very high and threatening 
 language when they found their services were not 
 required. Jephthah, finding his remonstrances 
 had no effect, re-assembled some of his disbanded 
 troops and gave the Ephraimites battle, when they 
 were defeated with much loss. The ^victors 
 seized t lie fords of the Jordan, and when any one 
 came to pass over, they made him pronounce the 
 word Shibboleth [an ear of corn], but. if he could 
 not give the aspiration, and pronounced the word 
 as Sibboleth, they knew him for an Ephraimite, 
 and slew him on the spot. This is a remarkable 
 instance of the dialectical differences, answering 
 to the varieties in our provincialisms, which had 
 already sprung up among lire tribes, and of which 
 other instances occur in Scripture. 
 
 Jephthah judged Israel six years, during which 
 we have reason to conclude that the exercise of 
 his authority was almost if not altogether con- 
 fined to the country east of the Jordan. 
 
 Volumes have been written on the subject of 
 ‘Jephthah’s rash vow;’ the question being 
 whether, in doing to his daughter ‘ according to 
 his vow,’ lie really did offer her in sacrifice or not. 
 The negative has been stoutly maintained by 
 many able pens, from a natural anxiety to clear 
 the character of one of the heroes in Israel from 
 so dark a stain. But the more the plain rules of 
 common sense have been exercised in our view of 
 biblical transactions; and the better we have suc- 
 ceeded in realizing a distinct idea of the times in 
 which Jephthah lived and of the position which he 
 occupied, the less reluctance there has been tc 
 admit the interpretation which the first view of 
 the passage suggests to every reader, which is, that 
 lie really did offer her in sacrifice. The expla- 
 nation which denies this maintains that she was 
 rather doomed to perpetual celibacy ; and this, as 
 it appears to us, on the strength of phrases which, ta 
 one who really understands the character of the 
 Hebrew people and their language, suggest no- 
 thing more than that it was considered a lament- 
 able thing for any daughter of Israel to die 
 childless. To live unmarried was required by no 
 law, custom, or devotement among the Jews : no 
 one had a light to impose so odious a condition 
 on another, nor is any such condition implied or 
 expressed in the vow which Jephthah uttered. To 
 get rid of a difficulty which has no place in the text, 
 but arises from our reluctance to receive that, texjf 
 in its obvious meaning — we invent a new thing in 
 Israel, a thing never heard of among the Hebrew* 
 in ancient or modem times, and more entirely 
 
JEPHTHAH. 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 01 
 
 $ppcs*?d to their peculiar notions than any thing 
 which the wit of man ever devised — such as that 
 a damsel should he consecrated to perpetual vir- 
 ginity in consequence of a vow of her father, 
 which vow itself says nothing of the kind. If 
 people allow themselves to be influenced in their 
 interpretations of Scripture by dislike to take the 
 words in their obvious meaning, we might at 
 least expect that the explanations they would 
 have us receive should be in accordance with the 
 notions of the Hebrew people, instead of being en- 
 tirely and obviously opposed to them. The Jewish 
 commentators themselves generally admit that 
 Jephthah really sacrificed his daughter; and even 
 go so far as to allege that the change in the pon- 
 tifical dynasty from the house of Eleazar to that of 
 Ithamar was caused by the high-pi^st of the time 
 having suffered this transaction to Take place. 
 
 It is very true that human sacrifices were for- 
 bidden by the law. But in the rude and un- 
 settled age in which the judges lived, when the 
 Israelites had adopted a vast number of errone- 
 ous notions and practices from their heathen 
 neighbours, many things were done, even by 
 good men, which the law forbade quite as posi- 
 tively as human sacrifice. Such, for instance, 
 was the setting up of the altar by Gideon at his 
 native Ophrah, in direct but undesigned opposi- 
 tion to one of the most stringent enactments of the 
 Mosaical code. 
 
 It is certain that human sacrifice was deemed 
 meritorious and propitiatory by the neighbouring 
 nations [Sacrifice] ; and, considering the manner 
 of life the hero had led, the recent idolatries in 
 whir h the people had been plunged, and the 
 peculiarly vague notions of the tribes beyond the 
 Jordan, it is highly probable that he contemplated 
 from the first a human sacrifice, as the most costly 
 offering to God known to him. It is difficult to con- 
 ceive that he could expect any other creature than 
 a human being to come forth out of the door of 
 his home to meet him on his return. His house 
 was surely not a place for flocks and herds, nor 
 could any animal be expected to come forth, 4 to 
 meet him, 1 i. e. with the purpose of meeting him,, 
 on his return. W e think it likely that he even con- 
 templated the possibility that his daughter might 
 be the person to come forth, and that he took merit 
 to himself for not expressly withholding even his 
 only child from the operation of a vow which he 
 deemed likely to promote the success of his arms. 
 H is affliction when his daughter actually came 
 forth is quite compatible with this notion ; and 
 the depth of that affliction is scarcely reconcil- 
 able with any other alternative than the actual 
 sacrifice. 
 
 If we again look at the text, Jephthah vows 
 that whatsoever came forth from the door of his 
 house to meet him 4 shall surely be the Lord's, 
 and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,’ which, 
 in fact, was the regular way of making a thing 
 wholly the Lord’s. Afterwards we are told that 
 ‘ lie did with her according to his vow,’ that is, 
 according to the plain meaning of plain words, 
 offered her for a burnt-offering. Then follows the 
 intimation that the daughters of Israel lamented 
 her four days every year. People lament the dead, 
 not the living. The whole story is consistent and 
 intelligible, while the sacrifice is understood to 
 have actually taken place ; but becomes per- 
 plexed and difficult as soon as we begin *o turn 
 
 V CXL. II. rr 
 
 aside from this obvious meaning in search of re- 
 condite explanations. 
 
 The circumstances of this immolation we can 
 never know. It probably took place at some one 
 of the altars beyond the Jordan. That it took, 
 place at the altar of the tabernacle, and that the 
 high-priest was the sacrificer, as painters usually 
 represent the scene, and even as some Jewish 
 writers believe, is outrageously contrary to all tho 
 probabilities of the case. 
 
 Professor Bash, in his elaborate note on the text, 
 maintains with us that a human sacrifice was 
 all along contemplated. But he suggests that, 
 during the two months, Jephthah might have ob- 
 tained better information respecting the nature 
 of vows, by which he would have learned that his 
 daughter could not be legally offered, but might 
 be redeemed at a valuation (Lev. xxvii. 2-12). 
 This is possible, and is much more likely than the 
 popular alternative of perpetual celibacy ; but we 
 have serious doubts whether even this meets the 
 conclusion that ‘ he did with her according to his 
 vow. 1 Besides, in this case, where was the ground 
 for the annual 4 lamentations 1 of the daughters of 
 Israel, or even for the 4 celebrations’ which some 
 understand the word to mean ? See the Notes 
 of the Pictorial Bible and Bush’s Notes on 
 Judges ; comp. Calmet’s Dissertation sur le 
 Fceu de Jephte, in Comment. Litter at, tom. ii. ; , 
 Dresde, Votum Jephthcc ex Antiq. Judaica illuslr. 
 1778 ; Randolf, Erkldr. d. Gelubdes Jephtha , in 
 Eichhorn’s Repertorium,\ iii. 13; Lightfool’siTar- 
 mony, under Judges xi„, Erubhin , cap. xvi., Ser- 
 mon on Judges xi. 39; Bp. Russell’s Connection 
 of Sacred and Profane History, i. 479-492. 
 
 JEREMIAH (-irPPT. and SW]*, raised xvp 
 or appointed by God ; Sept. 'Iepe/xias) was the 
 son of Hilkiah, a priest of Anathoth, in the land 
 of Benjamin [Anathoth]. Many have sup 
 posed that his father was the high-priest of ‘the 
 same name (2 Kings xxii. 8), who found the 
 book of the law in the eighteenth year of Josiah 
 (Umbreit, Praktischer Commcntar uber den 
 Jeremia , p. x. ; see Carpzov, Jntrod. part iii. p. 
 130). This, however, seems improbable on several 
 grounds : — first, there is nothing in the writings of 
 Jeremiah to lead us to think that his father was 
 more than an ordinary priest ( 4 Hilkiah [one] of 
 the priests, 1 Jer. i. 1) ; — again, the name Hilkiah 
 was common amongst the Jews (see 2 Kings xviii. 
 13 ; 1 Chron. vi. 45, xxvi. 11; Neh. viii. 4 ; 
 Jer. xxix. 3); — and lastly, his residence at Ana- 
 thoth is evidence that he belonged to the line of 
 Abiathar (1 Kings ii. 26-35), who was deposed 
 from the high-priest’s office by Solomon: after 
 which time the office appears to have remained in 
 the line of Zadok. Jeremiah was very young, 
 when the word of the Lord first came to him 
 (ch. i. 6). This event took place in the 
 thirteenth year of Josiah (b.c. 629), whilst the 
 youthful prophet still lived at Anathoth. It would, 
 seem that he remained in his native city several 
 years, but at length, in order to escape the perse- 
 cution of his fellow townsmen (ch. xi. 21), and 
 even of his own family (ch. xii. 6), as well as 
 to have a wider field for his exertions, he left 
 Anathoth and took up his residence at Jerusalem. 
 The finding of the book of the law, five years 
 after the commencement of his predictions, must 
 have produced a powerful influence on tne mind 
 
62 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 of Jeremian, and king Josiah ao doubt fo nd 
 him a powerful ally in carrying it to effect the- 
 reformation of religious worship (2 Kings xxiii. 
 1-25). During the reign of this monarch, we 
 may readily believe that Jeremiah would be in no 
 way molested in his work ; and that from the 
 time of his quitting Anathoth to tne eighteenth 
 year of his ministry, he probably uttered bis 
 warnings without interruption, though with 
 little success (see ch. xi.). Indeed, the refor- 
 mation itself was nothing more than the forcible 
 repression of idolatrous and heathen rites, and the 
 re-establishment of the external service of God, by 
 the command of the king. No sooner, therefore, 
 was the influence of the court on behalf of the 
 ‘rue religion withdrawn, than it was evident that 
 no real improvement had taken place in the 
 minds of the people. Jeremiah, who hitherto was 
 at least protected by the influence of the pious 
 king Josiah, soon became the object of attack, as 
 he must doubtless bave long been the object of 
 dislike, to those whose interests were identified 
 with the corruptions of religion. We hear nothing 
 of the prophet during the three months which 
 constituted the short reign ofJehoahaz; but ‘ in 
 the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim ’ the 
 prophet was interrupted in his ministry by ‘ the 
 priests and the prophets,’ who with the populace 
 brought him before the civil authorities, urging 
 that capital punishment should be inflicted on 
 him for his threatenings of evil on the city unless 
 the people amended their ways (ch. xxvi). The 
 prince ^em to have been in some degree aware 
 of the results which the general corruption was 
 bringing on the state, and if they did not them- 
 selves yield to the exhortations of the prophet, 
 they acknowledged that he spoke in the name of 
 the Lord, and were quite averse from so openly 
 renouncing His authority as to put His messenger 
 to death. It appears, however, that it was rather 
 owing to the personal influence of one or two, 
 especially Ahikam, than to any general feeling 
 favourable to Jeremiah, that his life was preserved ; 
 and it would seem that he was then either placed 
 under restraint, or else was in so much danger 
 from the animosity of his adversaries as to make it 
 prudent for him not to appear in public. In the 
 •fourth year of Jehoiakim (b.c. 606) he was com- 
 manded to write the predictions which had been 
 given through him, and to read them to the people. 
 From the cause, probably, which we have inti- 
 mated above, he' was, as lie says, ‘shut up,’ and 
 could not himself go into the house of the Lord 
 (ch. xxxvi. 5). He therefore deputed Baruch to 
 write the predictions after him, and to read them 
 •publicly on the fast-day. These threatenings 
 being thus anew made public, Baruch was sum- 
 moned before the princes to give an account of 
 the manner in which the roll containing them 
 had come into his possession. The princes, who, 
 without strength of principle to oppose the wicked- 
 ness of the king, had sufficient respect for religion, 
 as well as sagacity enough to discern the importance 
 of listening to the voice of God’s prophet, advised 
 both Baruch and Jeremiah to conceal themselves, 
 whilst they endeavoured to influence the mind of 
 the king by reading the roll to him. The result 
 ghowed that their precautions were not needless. 
 The bold self-will and reckless daring of the 
 monarch refused to listen to any advice, even 
 though coming with the professed sanction of the 
 
 Most High. Having read th.ee o: fx.r leaves ‘ L>a 
 cut the roll with tne penknife and cast it into the 
 6/e that was on the hearth, until all tne roll was 
 consumed, ’ and gave immediate orders for the 
 o .prehension of Jeremiah and Baruch, who, hcw- 
 ever, were both preserved from the vindictive 
 monarch. Of the history of Jeremiah during the 
 eight or nine remaining years of the reign of 
 Jehoiakim we have no certain account. At the 
 command of God he procured another roll, in 
 w" ich he wrote all that was in the roll de- 
 strf/ed by the king, ‘ and added besides unto 
 them many like words’ (ch. xxxvi. 32). In 
 the *hort reign of his- successor Jehoiachin or 
 Jecoiiiah, we find him still uttering his voice 
 of warning (see ch. xiii. 18; comp. 2 Kings 
 xxiv 12, and oh. xxii. 24-30), though without 
 effect. It was probably either during this reign, 
 or a f tne commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, 
 that l n was put in confinement by Pashur, the 
 ‘ chief governor of the house of the Lord.’ He 
 seems, .however, soon to have been liberated, as we 
 find thui ‘ they had not put him into prison’ when 
 the artiv of Nebuchadnezzar commenced the 
 siege <i Jerusalem. The Chaldaeans drew off 
 their r.my for a time, on the report of help 
 coming from Egypt to the besieged city ; and 
 now feel. ng the danger to be imminent, and yet 
 a ray of hope brightening their prospects, the king 
 entreated Jeremiah to pray to the Lord for them. 
 The hopo* of the king were not responded to in 
 the mes?' fc ge which Jeremiah received from God. 
 He was assured that the Egyptian army should 
 return to their own land, that the Chaldaeans 
 should come again, and that they should take the 
 city and burn it with fire (ch. xxxvii. 7, 8). The 
 princes, apparently irritated by a message so con- 
 trary to their wishes, made the departure of Jere- 
 miah from tne city, during the short respite, the 
 pretext fo; accusing him of deserting to the 
 Chaldaeans, *uid he was forthwith cast into prison. 
 The king seems to have been throughout inclined 
 to favour the prophet, and sought to know from 
 him the wor' T of the Lord ; but he was wholly 
 under the influence of the princes, and dared not 
 communica'ewithhim except in secret(ch.xxxviii. 
 14,28); much less could he follow advice so 
 obnoxious to meir views as that which the prophet 
 gave. Jeren therefore, more from the hos- 
 tility of the prances than the inclination of the 
 king, was stiL in confinement when the city was 
 taken. Nebuc-nadnezzar formed a more just esti- 
 mate of his cnaracter and of the value of his 
 counsels, and gave a special charge to his captain 
 Nebuzar-adan, only to provide for him but to 
 follow his advice' ch. xxxix.12). He was accord- 
 ingly taken fr^m the prison and allowed free 
 choice either to go to Baby lop, where doubtless he 
 would have beer V’d in honour in the royal 
 court, or to re with his own people. Wk 
 need scarcely be crU» that he who had devoted 
 more than forty { unrequited service to the 
 
 welfare of his j. country, should choose 
 
 to remain with the •» c -p..^ant of tv.5 people rather 
 than seek the prec^' V fame which might await 
 him at the court of V King ot Babylon- Ac- 
 cordingly he weir V, Mizpah with GeJaliah, 
 whom the Babylonian monarch ha i appointed 
 governor of Judaea; and after his murder, sought 
 to persuade Johanan, who was then the recognised 
 leader of tne people, tc remain in the land, assur- 
 
JEREMIAH. 
 
 ;■ ifcg binj and the people, by a message from God 
 [ in answer to their inquiries, that if they did so 
 j the Lord would build them up, but if they went 
 to Egypt the evils which they sought to escape 
 j should come upon them there (ch. xlii.). The 
 people refused to attend to the divine message, and 
 | under the command of Johanan went into Egypt, 
 talcing Jeremiah and Baruch along with them 
 | (ell. xliii.6). In Egypt the prophet still sought to 
 turn the people to the Lord, from whom they had 
 so long and so deeply revolted (ch. xliv.) ; but his 
 writings give us no subsequent information re- 
 I specting his personal history. Ancient traditions 
 j assert that he spent the remainder of his life in 
 i 1 Egypt. According to the pseudo-Epiphanius he 
 was stoned by the people at Taphnse (eV Tdcpvats), 
 
 | the same as 'j'ahpanhes, where the Jews were set- 
 tled (J)e Vitis Prophet, t. ii. p. 239, quoted by 
 Fabncius, Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. t. i. p. 
 1110). It is said that his bones were removed by 
 Alexander the Great to Alexandria (Carpzov, 
 
 I Introd. part iii. p. 138, where other traditions re- 
 ; specting him will be found). 
 
 Jeremiah was contemporary with Zephaniah, 
 Hahalckuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel. None of 
 ! these, however, are in any remarkable way 
 
 | connected with him, except Ezekiel. The 
 
 writings and character of these two eminent 
 prophets furnish many very interesting points 
 both of comparison and contrast. Both, during 
 a long series of years, were labouring at the 
 | same time and for the same object. The re- 
 I presentations of both, far separated as they were 
 j from each other, are in substance singularly ac- 
 ! cordant ; yet there is at the same time a marked 
 [ (Inference in their modes of statement, and a still 
 | more striking diversity jn the character and 
 natural disposition of the two. No one who com- 
 | pares them can fail to perceive that the mind of 
 Jeremiah was of a softer and more delicate tex- 
 ture than that of his illustrious contemporary. 
 His whole history convinces us that he was by 
 | nature mild and retiring (Ewald, Propheten des 
 I Alt. Bund. p. 2), highly susceptible and sensitive, 
 especially to sorrowful emotions, and rather in- 
 i cl ined, as we should imagine, to shrink from danger 
 ! than to brave it. Yet, with this acute perception 
 i of injury, and natural repugnance from being 
 ‘ a man of strife,’ he never in the least degree 
 ! shrinks from publicity ; nor is he at all intimidated 
 by reproach or insult, or even b»y actual punish- 
 ment and threatened death, when he has the 
 I message of God to deliver. Kings and priests, 
 j princes and people are opposed with the most 
 resolute determination, and threatened, if they 
 disobey, in the most emphatic terms. When he 
 is alone, we hear him lamenting the hard lot 
 which compelled him to sustain a character so 
 alien to his natural temper ; but no sooner does 
 the divine call summon him to bear testimony for 
 God and against the evils which surrounded him, 
 than he forgets his fears and complaints, and 
 stands forth in the might of the Lord. He is, in 
 truth, as remarkable an instance, though in a dif- 
 ferent way, of the overpowering influence of the 
 divine energy, as Ezekiel. The oue presents the 
 spectacle of the power of divine inspiration acting 
 on a mind naturally of the firmest texture, and 
 at once subduing to itself every element of the 
 soul ; whilst the other furnishes an example, 
 not Hss memorable, of moral courage sustained 
 
 JEREMIAH. 83 
 
 by the Barr.e divine inspiration against the con- 
 stantly opposing influence of a love of retirement 
 and strong susceptibility to impressions of out- 
 ward evil. Ezekiel views the conduct of hi* 
 countrymen as opposed to righteousness and 
 truth, Jeremiah thinks of it rather as productive 
 of evil and misery to themselves — Ezekiel’s indig- 
 nation is roused at the sins of his people, Jere- 
 miah’s pity is excited by the consequences of 
 their sins — the former takes an objective, the lat- 
 ter a subjective view of the evils by which both 
 were surrounded. 
 
 The style of Jeremiah corresponds with this 
 view of the character of his mind ; though not 
 deficient in power, it is peculiarly marked by 
 pathos. He delights in the expression of the 
 fender emotions, and employs all the resources of 
 his imagination to excite corresponding feelings 
 in his readers. He has an irresistible sympathy 
 with the miserable, which finds utterance in the 
 most touching descriptions of their condition. 
 He seizes with wonderful tact those circum- 
 stances which point out the objects of his pity 
 as the objects of sympathy, and founds his ex- 
 postulations on the miseries which are thus exhi- 
 bited. His book of Lamentations is an astonishing 
 exhibition of his power to accumulate images of 
 sorrow. The whole series of elegies has but one 
 object — the expression of soi*row for the forlorn 
 condition of his country ; and yet he presents 
 this to us in so many lights, alludes to it by so 
 many figures, that not only are his mournful 
 strains not felt to be tedious reiterations, but the 
 reader is captivated by the plaintive melancholy 
 which pervades the whole. ‘ Nullum, opincr,’ 
 says Lowth (De Sacra Poesi Heb., ed. Mi- 
 chaelis, p. 458) ‘ aliud extat poema ubi intra tarn 
 breve spatium tanta, tarn felix, tam lecta, tam 
 illustrk; adjunctorum atque imaginum varietas 
 eluceat. Quid tam elegans et poeticum, ac urbs 
 ilia florentissima pridem et inter gentes princeps, 
 nunc sola sedens, aflflicta, vidua ; deserta ab 
 amicis, prodita a necessariis ; frustra tendens 
 
 mauus, nee inveniens qui earn consoletur 
 
 Verum omries locos elegantes proferre, id sane esset 
 totum poerna exscribere.’ The style of Jeremiah 
 is marked by the peculiarities which belong to 
 the later Hebrew, and by the introduction of 
 Aramaic forms (Eichhorn, Einleitung, vol. iii. 
 p. 122; Gesenius, Geschichte der Heb. Spracke, 
 p. 35). It was, we imagine, on this account 
 that Jerome complained of a certain rusticity in 
 Jeremiah’s style. Lowth, however, says he can 
 discover no traces of it, and regards Jeremiah as 
 nearly equal in sublimity in many parts to 
 Isaiah (De Sacra Poesi Heb., p. 426). 
 
 The genuineness and canonicity of the writings 
 of Jeremiah in general are established both by the 
 testimony of ancient writers, and by quotations 
 ajid references which occur in the New Testa- 
 ment. Thus the son of Sirach refers to him as 
 a prophet consecrated from the womb, and quotes 
 from Jer. i. 10, the commission with which he 
 was intrusted (‘ auros iv p^rpa riyiaadg rrpo- 
 <pT)T7)S eKpi&vv Hal KaKovv KoX airoWveiv, uaavra's 
 olKobopeiv na\ KaTacporeveiv' Ecclus. xlix. 7). In 
 2 Macc. ii. 1-8, there is a tradition respecting his 
 hiding the tabernacle and the ark in a rock, in 
 which he is called ’Jepepias 6 TrpocpTjTrjs. Philo 
 speaks of him as irpoipriT^s, pvargs, lepocpayr?;^ 
 and calls a passage which he quote* from Jer 
 
JEREMIAH. 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 Si 
 
 iti. 4, an oracle, xp 3 * * * 7 ) (T ^ v (Eichhorn, Einleitung, 
 vol. i. p. 95). Josephus refers to him by name 
 as the prophet who predicted the evils which were 
 coming on the city, and speaks of him as the 
 author of Lamentations (jaeAos QpgvqTLKiv') which 
 are still existing (Antiq., lib. x. 5. 1). His 
 writings are included in the list of canonical 
 books given by Mel i to, Origen (whose words are 
 remarkable, *1 epepias ervv 6 pivots Kal rfj In-to-roAp 
 
 lid), Jerome, and the Talmud (Eichhorn, Ein- 
 leitung, vol. in. p. 184). In the New Testament 
 Jeremiah is referred to by name in Matt ii. 17, 
 where a passage is quoted from Jer. xxxi. 15, 
 and in Matt. xvi. 14 ; in Heb. viii. 8-12, a pas- 
 sage is quoted from Jer. xxxi. 31-31. There is 
 one other place in which the name of Jeremiah 
 occurs, Matt, xxvii. 9, which has occasioned con- 
 siderable difficulty, because the passage there 
 quoted is not found in the extant writings of 
 the prophet. Jerome affirms that he found the 
 exact passage in a Hebrew apocryphal book (Fa- 
 oricius, Cod. Pseudep. i. 1103); but there is no 
 proof that that book was in existence before the 
 time of Christ. It is probable that the passage 
 intended by Matthew is Zech. xi. 12, 13, which 
 in part corresponds with the quotation he gives, 
 and that the name is a gloss which has found its 
 way into the text (see Olshausen, Commentar iiber 
 N’T., vol. ii. p. 493). 
 
 Much difficulty has arisen in reference to the 
 writings of Jeremiah from the apparent disorder in 
 which they stand in our present copies, and from 
 the many disagreements between the Hebrew text 
 and that found in the Septuagint version ; and 
 many conjectures have been hazarded respecting 
 the occasion of this disorder. The following are 
 the principal diversities between the two texts • 
 1. The prophecies against foreign nations, which 
 in the Hebrew occupy chs. xlvi.-li. at the close 
 of the book, are in the Greek placed after ch. xxv. 
 14, forming chs. xxvi.-xxxi. ; the remainder of 
 ch. xxv. of the Heb. is ch. xxxii. of the Sept. The 
 following chapters proceed in the same order in 
 both chs. xliv. and xlv. of the Heb. forming ch. Ii. 
 of the Sept.; and the historical appendix, ch. 1’i. 
 is placed at the close in both. 2. The prophecies 
 against the heathen nations stand in a different 
 order in the two editions, as is shown in the fol- 
 lowing table : — 
 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Egypt. 
 
 Elam. 
 
 Philistines. 
 
 Egypt. 
 
 Moab. 
 
 Babylon. 
 
 Ammon. 
 
 Philistines. 
 
 Edom. 
 
 Edom. 
 
 Damascus. 
 
 Ammon. 
 
 Kedar. 
 
 Kedar. 
 
 Elam. 
 
 Damascus. 
 
 Babylon. 
 
 Moab. 
 
 3. Various passages which exist in the Hebrew 
 
 nre not found in the Greek copies ( e . g. ch. xxvii. 
 19-22; xxxiii. 14-26; xxxix. 4-14; xlviii. 45- 
 
 47), Besides these discrepancies, there are numerous 
 
 omissions and frequent variations of single words 
 and phrases (Movers, De utriusque Vaticmiorum 
 Jeremies recensionis indole et origine , pp. 8-32). 
 
 To explain these diversities recourse has been had 
 to the hypothesis of a double recension, an hypo- 
 thesis which, with various modifications, is held 
 by most modern critics (Movers, ut supra; De 
 
 Wette, Lchrbuch der Hist.-Crit. Einleitung in 
 A. T., p. 303 ; Ewald, Propheten des Alt. Bund. 
 vol. ii. p. 23). 
 
 The genuineness of some portions of the book 
 has been of late disputed by German critics. 
 Movers, whose views have been adopted by De 
 Wette and Hitzig, attributes ch. x. 1-16, and 
 chs. xxx., xxxi., and xxxiii. to the author of the 
 concluding portion of the book of Isaiah. His 
 fundamental argument against the last-named 
 portion is, that the prophet Zechariah (ch. viii. 
 7, 8) quotes from Jer. xxxi. 7, 8, 33, and in 
 ver. 9 speaks of the author as one who lived ‘ in the 
 day that the foundation of the house of the Lord 
 of hosts was laid.’ He must, therefore, have been 
 contemporary with Zechariah himself. This view 
 obliges him, of course, to consider ch. xxx. 1, 
 with which he joins the three following verses, as 
 a later addition. By an elaborate comparison of 
 the peculiarities of style he endeavours to show 
 that the author of these chapters was the so-called 
 pseudo-Isaiah. He acknowledges, however, that 
 there are many expressions peculiar to Jeremiah, 
 and supposes that it was in consequence of these 
 that the prediction w r as placed among his writings. 
 These similarities he accounts for by assuming 
 that the later unknown prophet accommodated 
 the writings of the earlier to his own use. Every 
 one will see how slight is the external ground on 
 which Movers' argument rests ; for there is nothing 
 in ver. 7, 8, of Zechariah to prove that it is intended 
 to be a quotation from any written prophecy, 
 much less from this portion of Jeremiah. The 
 quotation, if it be such, is made up by joining 
 together phrases of frequent recurrence in the 
 prophets picked out from amongst many others. 
 Then, again, the mention of prophets is evidence 
 that Zechariah was not referring to the writings 
 of one individual ; and, lastly, the necessity of re- 
 jecting the exordium, without any positive ground 
 for suspecting its integrity, is a strong argument 
 against the position of Movers. Hitzig ( Jeremia , 
 p. 230) is induced, by the force of these considera- 
 tions, to give up the external evidence on which 
 Movers had relied. The internal evidence arising 
 from the examination of particular words ami 
 phrases — a species of proof which, when standing 
 alone, is always to be received with great caution 
 — is rendered of still less weight by the evidence 
 of an opposite kind, the existence of which Movers 
 himself acknowledges, ‘ quumque indicia usus 
 loquendi tantummodo Jeremiae peculiaris haud 
 raro inveniantur’ (p. 42). And this evidence 
 becomes absolutely nothing, if the authenticity of 
 the latter portion of Isaiah is maintained ;** for it 
 is quite likely that prophecies of Jeremiah would, 
 when relating to the same subjects, bear marks of 
 similarity to those of his illustrious predecessor. 
 We may mention also that Ewald, who is by no 
 means accustomed to acquiesce in received opi- 
 nions as such, agrees that the chapters in question, 
 as well as the other passage mentioned ch. x. 
 1-16, are the work of Jeremiah. The authenticity 
 of this latter portion is denied solely on internal 
 grounds, and the remarks we have already made 
 will, in substance, apply also to these verses. I» 
 
 * For a proof of its authenticity, see Hengsten- 
 
 berg’s Christologie , vol. i. c. 2, pp. 168-206, 
 translated in the Am. Biblical Repository , vol. i. 
 pp. 700-733 ; see also the article Isaiah. 
 
JEREMIAH. 
 
 JERICHO. 
 
 Kerns, howeveiv not improbable that the Chaldee 
 of ver. 11 is a gbss which has crept into the text — 
 both because it is (apparently without reason) in 
 another language, and because it seems to inter- 
 rupt the progress of thought. The predictions 
 against Babylon in chs. 1. and li. are objected to 
 by Movers, De Wette, and others, on the ground 
 that they contain many interpolations. Ewald 
 attributes them to some unknown prophet who 
 imitated the style of Jeremiah. Their authen- 
 ticity is maintained by Hitzig (p. 391), and by 
 Umbreit (pp. 290-293), to whom we must refer for 
 an answer to the objections made against them. 
 The last chapter is generally regarded as an 
 appendix added by some later author. It is almost 
 verbally the same as the account in 2 Kings xxiv. 
 18; xxv. 30, and it carries the history down to 
 a later period pi#bably than that of the death 
 of Jeremiah : that it is not his work seems to be 
 indicated in the last verse of ch. li. 
 
 It is impossible, within the limits assigned to 
 this article, even to notice all the attempts which 
 have been made to account for the apparent dis- 
 order of Jeremiah’s prophecies. Blayney speaks 
 of their present disposition as a ‘preposterous 
 jumbling together of the prophecies of the reigns 
 of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah,’ and concludes that 
 * the original order has, most probably, by some 
 accident or other been disturbed’ (Notes, p. 3). 
 Eichhorn says that no other explanation can be 
 given than that the prophet wrote his oracles on 
 single rolls, larger or smaller as they came to his 
 hand, and that, as he was desirous to give his coun- 
 trymen a copy of them when they went into cap- 
 tivity, he dictated them to an amanuensis from 
 the separate rolls without attending to the order of 
 time, and then preserved the rolls in the same 
 order ( Einl . iii. 134). Later critics have attempted 
 in different ways to trace some plan in the present 
 arrangement. Thus Movers supposes the whole 
 collection to have consisted of six books — the 
 longest being that written by Baruch (Jer. xxxvi. 
 2, 32), which was taken by the collector as his 
 foundation, into which he inserted the other books 
 in such places as seemed, on a very slight glance 
 at their contents, to be suitable. All such theo- 
 ries, however, proceed on the presumption that the 
 present arrangement is the work of a compiler, 
 which, therefore, we are at liberty to alter at 
 pleasure ; and though they offer boundless scope 
 for ingenuity in suggesting a better arrangement, 
 they serve us very little in respect to the explana- 
 tion of the book itself. Ewald adopts another 
 principle, which, if it be found valid, cannot fail to 
 throw much light on the connection and meaning 
 of the predictions. He maintains that the book, 
 in its present form, is, from ch. i. to ch. xlix,, 
 substantially the same as it came from the hand 
 of the prophet, or his amanuensis, and seeks to 
 discover in the present arrangement some plan 
 according to which it is disposed. He finds that 
 various portions are prefaced by the same formula, 
 ' The word which came to Jeremiah from the 
 Lord’ (vii. 1; xi. 1; xviii. 1; xxi. 1; xxv. 1; 
 xxx. 1 ; xxxii. 1 ; xxxiv. 1, 8 ; xxxv. 1 ; xl. 1 ; 
 xliv. 1), or by the very similar expression, ‘ The 
 word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah 1 (xiv. 
 1 ; xlvi. 1 ; xlvii. 1 ; xlix. 34). The notices of 
 time distinctly mark some other divisions which 
 are more or less historical (xxvi. 1 ; xxvii. 1 ; 
 xxxvi. 1 ; xxxvii. 1). Two other portions are 
 
 53 
 
 in themselves sufficiently distinct without such 
 indication (xxix. 1 ; xlv. 1), whilst the general 
 introduction to the book serves for the section 
 contained in ch. i. There are left two sec- 
 tions (ch. ii., iii.), the former of which has only 
 die shorter introduction, which generally de- 
 signates the commencement of a strophe; while 
 the latter, as it now stands, seems to be imperfect, 
 having as an introduction merely the word ‘say- 
 ing.’ Thus the book is divided into twenty-three 
 separate and independent sections, which, in the 
 poetical parts, are again divided into strophes of 
 from seven to nine verses, frequently distinguished 
 by such a phrase as ‘ The Lord said also unto 
 me.’ These separate sections are arranged by 
 Ewald so as to form five distinct books : — I. The 
 introduction, ch. i. ; — II. Reproofs of the sins of the 
 Jews, ch. ii.-xxiv., consisting of seven sections, viz. 
 1. ch. ii., 2. ch. iii.-vi., 3. vii.-x, 4. ch. xi.-xiii., 
 5. ch. xiv.-xvii. 18, 6. ch. xvii. 19 :!! -xx., 7. ch. 
 xxi. -xxiv. ; — III. A general review of all nations, 
 the heathen as well as the people of Israel, con- 
 sisting of two sections, 1. ch. xlvi.-xlix. (which 
 he thinks have been transposed), 2. ch. xxv., and 
 an historical appendix of three sections, 1. ch. 
 xxvi., 2. ch. xxvii., and 3. ch. xxviii. xxix. ; — 
 IV. Two sections picturing the hopes of brighter 
 times, 1. ch. xxx. xxxi., and 2. ch. xxxii. xxxiii., 
 to which, as in the last book, is added an his- 
 torical appendix in three sections, 1. ch. xxxiv. 
 1-7, 2. ch. xxxiv. 8-22, 3. ch. xxxv.', — V. The 
 conclusion, in two sections, 1. ch. xxxvi., 2. ch. 
 xlv. All this, he supposes, was arranged in 
 Palestine, during the short interval of rest between 
 the taking of the city and the departure of Jere- 
 miah with the remnant of the Jews, to Egypt. 
 In Egypt, after some interval, Jeremiah added 
 three sections, viz. ch. xxxvii. -xxxix., xl.-xliii. 
 and xliv. At the same time, probably, he added 
 ch. xlvi. 13-26 to the previous prophecy respecting 
 Egypt, and, perhaps, made some additions to 
 other parts previously written. We do not pro- 
 fess to agree with Ewald in all the details of this 
 arrangement, but we certainly prefer the principle 
 he adopts to that of any former critic. We may 
 add that Umbreit ( [Praktischer Comm. iib. d. Je- 
 remia , p. xxvii.) states, that he has found himself 
 more nearly in agreement with Ewald, as to 
 arrangement, than with any one else. 
 
 The principal predictions relating to the Mes- 
 siah are found in ch. xxiii. 1-8; xxx. 31-40; 
 xxxiii. 14-26 (Hengstenberg’s Christologie , vol. 
 iii. pp. 495-619). 
 
 Besides the commentaries which have been re- 
 ferred to in the course of the article, we may add 
 Venema, Commentarius ad Librum Jeremies „• 
 Dahler, Jeremie ; Schnurrer, Observationes ad 
 Vaticin. Jerem ., in Velthusen’s Commentations 
 Theolog., vol. iii. ; Spohn, Jeremias Vdtes e Vers. 
 Alex, emend, ; Rosenmiiller, Scholia in V. T., 
 part viii. — F. W. G. 
 
 JERICHO (1IW. and ; Sept. T ep iX a ; 
 
 Josephus, T epixovs), a town in the plain of the 
 same name, not far from the river Jordan, at 
 the point where it enters the Dead Sea. It lay 
 before the Israelites when they crossed the river, 
 on first entering the Promised Land ; and the 
 
 * Ewald supposes that the proper place of the 
 introductory formula to ch. xviii. 1, is ch. xvii. 19, 
 
JERICHO. 
 
 JERICHO. 
 
 account which the spies who were sent by them 
 into the city received from their hostess Rahab, 
 tended much to encourage their subsequent 
 operations, as it showed that the inhabitants 
 of the country were greatly alarmed at their 
 advance, and the signal miracles which had 
 marked their course from the Nile to the Jordan. 
 The strange manner in which Jericho itself was 
 taken must have strengthened this impression in 
 the country, and appears, indeed, to have been 
 designed for that effect. The town was utterly 
 destroyed by the Israelites, who pronounced an 
 awful curse upon whoever should rebuild it ; and 
 all the inhabitants were put to the sword, except 
 Rahab and her family (Josh. ii. vi.). In these 
 accounts Jericho is repeatedly called ‘ the city of 
 palm-trees ;’ which shows that the hot and dry 
 plain, so similar to the land of Egypt, was noted 
 
 beyond other parts of Palestine for the tree which 
 abounds in that country , but which was and ii 
 less common in the land of Canaan than general 
 readers and painters suppose. It has now almost 
 disappeared even from the plain of Jericho, al- 
 though specimens remain in the plain of the 
 Mediterranean coast. 
 
 Notwithstanding the curse, Jericho was soon 
 rebuilt [Hiei.], and became a school of the pro- 
 phets (Judg. iii. 13; 1 Kings xvi. 34; 2 Kings 
 ii. 4, 5). Its inhabitants returned after the exile, ) 
 and it was eventually fortified by the Syrian 
 general Bacchides (Ezra ii. 34 ; Neh. iii. 2 ; l 
 Macc. ix. 50). Pompey marched from Scytho* • 
 polis, along the valley of the Jordan, to Jericho., 
 and thence to Jerusalem ; and Strabo speaks of 
 the castles Thrax and Taurus, in or near Jericho, .> 
 as having been destroyed by l^m (Joseph. Antiq. 
 
 362. [Jericho.] 
 
 xiv. 4. 1 ; Strabo, xvi. 2. 40). Herod the Great, 
 in the beginning of his career, captured and 
 sacked Jericho, but afterwards strengthened and 
 adorned it, when he had redeemed its revenues 
 from Cleopatra, on whom the plain had been be- 
 stowed by Antony (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 4. 1, 2). 
 He appears to have often resided here, probably 
 in winter : he built over the city a fortress 
 called Cypros, between which and the former 
 palace he erected other palaces, and called 
 them by the names of his friends (Joseph. Antiq. 
 
 xvi. 5. 2; De Bell. Jud. i. 21. 4, 9). Here also 
 was a hippodrome or circus, in which the same 
 tyrant, when lying at Jericho on his death-bed, 
 caused the nobles of the land to be shut up, for 
 massacre after his death. He died here ; but his 
 bloody intention was not executed (Joseph. Antiq. 
 
 xvii. 6. 5 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 33. 6-8). The palace 
 at this place was afterwards rebuilt more magni- 
 ficently by Archelaus {Antiq. xvii. 31). By this 
 
 it will be seen that the Jericho which existed in , 
 the time of our Saviour was a great and important 
 city — probably more so than it had ever been ;< 
 since its foundation. It was once visited by him, ' 
 when he lodged wi,th Zaccheus, and healed the > 
 blind man (Luke xviii. 35-43; xix. 1-7 ; Matt, 
 xx. 29-34 ; Mark x. 46-52). Jericho was after- • 
 wards made the head of one of the toparchies, 
 and was visited by Vespasian before he left the 
 country, who stationed there the tenth legion in 
 garrison (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 5 ; iv. 8. 1 ; 
 v. 2. 3). Eusebius and Jerome describe Jericho 
 as having been destroyed during the siege of 
 Jerusalem, on account of the perfidy of the in- 
 habitants, but add that it was afterwards re- 
 built ; but, as Josephus is silent respecting this 
 event, Dr. Robinson regards it as doubtful. That 
 the town continued to exist as a place of import- 
 ance, appears from the names of five bishops ol 
 Jericho which have been collected {Orient Christ 
 
JERICHO. 
 
 JERICHO. 
 
 81 
 
 iii. 654). The emperor Justinian built here a 
 Xenodochium, apparently for pilgrims, and also 
 a church, dedicated to the Virgin ; and the mo- 
 pastery of St. John, near the Jordan, was already 
 ;n existence (Procop. De JEdific. Justiniani, v. 9). 
 The town, however, appears to have been over- 
 thrown during the Mohammedan conquest ; for 
 Adamnanus, at the close of the seventh century, 
 describes the site as without human habitations, 
 and covered with corn and vines. The celebrated 
 palm-groves still existed. In the next century a 
 church is mentioned ; and in the ninth century 
 several monasteries appear. About the same 
 time the plain of Jericho is again noticed for its 
 fertility and peculiar products ; and it appears 
 to have been brought under cultivation by the 
 Saracens, for the sake of the sugar and other pro- 
 ducts' for which the soil and climate were more 
 suitable than any other in Palestine. Ruins 
 of extensive aqueducts, with pointed Saracenic 
 arches, remain in evidence of the elaborate irri- 
 gation and culture of this fine plain — which is 
 nothing without water, and everything with it — at 
 a period long subsequent to the occupation of the 
 country by the Jews. It is to this age that we 
 may probably refer the origin of the castle and 
 village, which have since been regarded as repre- 
 senting Jericho. The place has been mentioned 
 by travellers and pilgrims down to the present 
 time as a poof hamlet consisting of a few houses. 
 In the fifteenth century the square castle or tower 
 began to pass among pilgrims as ihe house of 
 Zaccheus, a title which it bears to the present 
 day. 
 
 The village thus identified with Jericho now 
 bears the name of Rihah, and is situated about 
 the middle of the plain, six miles west from the 
 Jordan, in N. lat. 31° o7 ; , and E. long. 35° 33'. 
 Dr. Olin describes the present village as ‘ the 
 meanest and foulest of Palestine.’ It may per- 
 haps contain forty dwellings, formed of small 
 loose stones. The walls, which threaten to tumble 
 lown at a touch, are covered with flat roofs, com- 
 posed of reed or straw plastered over with mud. 
 Around most of these dwellings a little yard is 
 inclosed with dry thorn-bushes. The village 
 r.as a similar bulwark, which, insufficient as it 
 appears to offer resistance to an invader, is quite 
 effectual against the marauding Bedouins, with 
 their bare feet and legs, or any other enemy in 
 too great haste to burn it. The most important 
 object is the castle or tower already mentioned, 
 which Dr. Robinson supposes to have been con- 
 structed to protect the cultivation of the plain 
 under the Saracens. It is thirty or forty feet 
 square, and about the same height, and is now 
 in a dilapidated condition. The pilgrims, as we 
 have seen, regard it as the house of Zaccheus ; 
 and they also point to a solitary palm-tree , the 
 only survivor of the groves which once gave the 
 town one of its distinguishing names, as the iden- 
 tical sycamore which was climbed by the same 
 personage to view the Saviour as he passed. 
 
 Rihah may contain about two hundred in- 
 habitants, who have a sickly aspect, and are 
 reckoned vicious and indolent. They keep a few 
 cattle and sheep, and till a little land for grain 
 as well as for gardens. A small degree of in- 
 dustry and skill bestowed on this prolific soil, 
 favoured as if is with abundant water for irri- 
 gation, wouW amply reward the labour. But 
 
 this is wanting ; and everything bears the mark 
 of abject, and, which is unusual in the East, of 
 squalid poverty. There are some fine fig-trees 
 near the village, and some vines in the gardens 
 But the most distinguishing feature of the whole 
 plain is a noble grove of trees which borders tlw 
 village on the west, and stretches away north 
 ward to the distance of two miles or more. 
 
 This grove owes its existence to the waters of 
 one of the fountains, the careful distribution of 
 which over the plain by canals and aqueducts 
 did once, and might still, cover it with abund- 
 ance. One of these fountains is called by the 
 natives Ain es-Sultan, but by pilgrims the 
 Fountain of Elias, being supposed to be the 
 same whose bitter waters were cured by that 
 prophet. Dr. Robinson thinks there is reason 
 for this conclusion. It lies almost two miles 
 N.W. from the village. It bursts forth at the 
 foot of a high double mound, situated a mile or 
 more in front of the mountain Quarantana. It 
 is a large and beautiful fountain of sweet and 
 pleasant water. The principal stream runs to- 
 wards the village, and the rest of the water finds 
 its way at random in various streams down the 
 plain. Beyond the fountain rises up the bold 
 perpendicular face of the mountain Quarantana 
 (Kuruntul), from the foot of which a line of low 
 hills runs out N.N.E. in front of the mountains, 
 and forms the ascent to a narrow tract of table- 
 land along their base. On this tract, at the foot 
 of the mountains, about two and a half miles 
 N.N.W. from the Ain es-Sultan, is the still larger 
 fountain of Duk, the waters of which aTe brought 
 along the base of Quarantana in a canal to the 
 top of the declivity at the back of Ain es-Sultan, 
 whence they were formerly distributed to several 
 mills, and scattered over the upper part of the 
 plain (Robinson’s Bib. Researches , ii. 284, 285). 
 
 Under the mountains on the western confine 
 of the plain, about two miles west of Rihah, and 
 just where the road from Jerusalem comes down 
 into the plain, are considerable ruins, extending 
 both on the north and south side of the road. 
 There is nothing massive or imposing in these 
 remains, although they doubtless mark the site 
 of an important ancient town. The stones are 
 small and. unwrought, and have the appearance 
 of being merely the refuse, which was left as 
 worthless by those who bore away the more valu- 
 able materials to be employed in the erection of 
 new buildings. Mr. Buckingham was the first 
 to suspect that these were the ruins of the ancient 
 Jericho. He shows that the situation agrees bet- 
 ter with the ancient intimations than does that 
 of the modern village, near which no trace of 
 ancient ruins can be found ( Travels in Pales- 
 tine , p. 293). Since this idea was started the 
 matter has been examined by other travellers ; 
 and the conclusion seems to be that Rihah is 
 certainly not the ancient Jericho, and that there 
 is no site of ancient ruins on the plain which so 
 well answers to the intimations as that now de- 
 scribed; although even here some drawback to a 
 satisfactory conclusion is felt, in the absence of 
 any traces of those great buildings which be- 
 longed to the Jericho of king Herod. We should 
 like to examine this matter more in detail than 
 would be satisfactory to any but an antiquarian 
 reader; but shall be content to introduce the 
 concise and clear view of the question which has 
 
JERICHO. 
 
 JEROBOAM. 
 
 88 
 
 been given b / Dr. Olin in his very useful Tra- 
 wls in the East. ‘ Travellers concur in calling this 
 wretched place (Rihah) Jericho, though I am not 
 aware that any reason exists for believing that it 
 occupies the site of the ancient city of that name. 
 Here are no ruins to indicate the former presence 
 cf a considerable town ; nothing but the tower to 
 induce a suspicion that anything much better 
 than the present filthy village ever existed upon 
 the spot. The situation does not agree with that 
 of the ancient city, which, according to Josephus, 
 was close to the mountain, and nearer, by several 
 miles, to Jerusalem. The ruins already described, 
 at the foot of the mountain, where the Jerusalem 
 road enters the plain, not improbably mark the 
 site of ancient Jericho. Their distance from the 
 Jordan and from Jerusalem agrees well with that 
 of the Jericho of the age of Josephus, which he 
 states to have been sixty furlongs from the river, 
 and one hundred and fifty from the capital. 
 This site also satisfies his description in being 
 situated “ in the plain, while a naked and barren 
 mountain hangs over it.” The exact position 
 of the ancient city is not definitely stated in the 
 Bible, though it is always spoken of as at a con- 
 siderable distance from the Jordan. The position 
 at the foot of the mountain was in accordance 
 with the customs of that early age, and of Pa- 
 lestine especially, where nearly all the cities of 
 which mention is made in its early history occu- 
 pied strong positions, either embracing or adjacent 
 to a mountain elevation, on which a citadel was 
 erected for defence. The language of Josephus 
 seems, indeed, to imply that Jericho, in his day, 
 did not occupy the same ground as the city de- 
 stroyed by Joshua, and that the description quoted 
 above refers to the later city. He says, in de- 
 scribing the fountain healed by Elisha, that it 
 arises near the old city, which Joshua, the son 
 of Nun, took language which must, perhaps, 
 be understood to imply that the later town occu- 
 pied a different site. It was highly probable, 
 after the terrible malediction pronounced against 
 those who should rebuild the accursed place, that 
 some change should be made in the location, 
 though not so great, as to lose the peculiar advan- 
 tages of the ancient site. Kiel, the Bethelite, as 
 we know, braved the prophetic curse, and rebuilt 
 the city upon its old foundations ; but the same 
 cause might still operate, and with additional 
 effect, after his punishment, to induce jnore pious 
 or scrupulous men to prefer a place less obnoxious 
 to the divine displeasure. Both sites, that near 
 the fountain and the one upon the Jerusalem 
 road, give evidence of having been anciently 
 covered with buildings. They were probably 
 occupied successively, or both may have been 
 embraced at once within the compass of a large 
 city and its suburbs. In order to render the 
 several notices of Jericho contained in the Bible 
 consistent with each other, and with the descrip- 
 tion in Joseohus, it seems necessary to suppose 
 more than one change of situation. Joshua 
 “ burned the chy with fire, and all that was 
 therein,” and said, “ Cursed be the man before the 
 Lord that riseth up and buildeth this city Je- 
 richo : he shall lav the foundation thereof in his 
 first-born, and in his youngest son shall he set up 
 the gates thereof.” It was about 520 years after 
 this, in the impious reign of Ahab, that Hiel re- 
 built the city, and suffered the fearful penalty 
 
 that had been denounced against B'-.ch an act at 
 daring impiety. “He laid the foundation thereof i» 
 Abiram his first-born, and set up the gates thereof 
 in his youngest son Segub, according to the word 
 of the Lord which he spake by Joshua, the son of 
 Nun” (1 Kings xvi. 31). Previous to this, how- 
 ever, and almost immediately after the death ol 
 Joshua, reference is made to the city of palm- 
 trees, which was captured by Eglon, king of 
 Moab (Judg. iii. 13), and it was nearly 100 
 years before the rebuilding by Hiel that David’s 
 ambassadors, who had been so grievously insulted 
 by the king of Ammon, were directed “ to tarry at 
 Jericho until their beards were grown” (2 Sam. x. 
 
 5). We are to infer, from these several state- 
 ments, that Jericho was rebuilt soon after its de- 
 struction by Joshua, but not upon its ancient 
 foundations — a change by which the penalty was 
 avoided. The malediction had probably fallen 
 into oblivion, or, if remembered, was likely to be 
 treated with contempt in the infidel and idola- 
 trous age when Hiel restored the original city. 
 
 It was, according to the common chronology, 
 about thirty years subsequent to this restoration 
 that Elisha healed the fountain from which the 
 city derived its supply of water. It is probable that 
 the accursed site had been again abandoned, upon 
 the catastrophe that followed the impious attempt 
 of Hiel, for the existing city seems to have been 
 at some distance from “ the spring of the waters,” 
 which produced sterility and disease (2 Kings ii. 
 
 21). It may have occupied, at the era ol 
 Elisha's miracle, the same site as it did when 
 visited by our Saviour, and described by J v- 
 sephus.’ 
 
 JEROBOAM (pViy . ; Sept. T e/w /3o<f,u), son 
 of Nebat, and first king of Israel, who became 
 king b.c. 975, and reigned 22 years. 
 
 He was of the tribe of Ephraim, the son 
 of a widow named Zeruiah, when he was no- 
 ticed by Solomon as a clever and active young 
 man, and was appointed one of the superin- 
 tendents of the works which that magnificent king ! 
 was carrying on at Jerusalem. This appointment, 
 the reward of his merits, might have satisfied his 
 ambition had not the declaration of the prophet 
 Ahijah given him higher hopes. When informed 
 that, by the divine appointment, he was to become 
 king over the ten tribes about to be rent from the 
 house of David, he was not content to wait pa- 
 tiently for the death of Solomon, but began to 
 form plots and conspiracies, the discovery or 
 which constrained him to flee to Egypt to escape 
 condign punishment. The king of that country 
 was but too ready to encourage one whose success- 
 must necessarily weaken the kingdom which nad 
 become great and formidable under David aiie 
 Solomon, and which had already pushed its iV->p- 
 tier to the Red Sea (1 Kings xi. 20-40). 
 
 When Solomon died, the ten tribes sent to call 
 Jeroboam from Egypt; and he appears to nave 
 headed the deputation which came before the sou 
 of Solomon with a demand of new securit ies for the 
 rights which the measures of the late king had com- 
 promised. It may somewhat excuse the harsh an- 
 swer of Rehoboam, that the demand was urged by 
 a body of men headed by one whose pretensions 
 were so well known and so odious to me house of 
 David. It cannot be denied, that in making theii 
 applications tnus offensively, they struck the firs: 
 
JEROBOAM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 8ft 
 
 blow ; although it is possible that they, in the 
 first instance, intended to use the presence of Jero- 
 boam for no other purpose than to frighten the 
 king into compliance. The imprudent answer of 
 Rehoboam rendered a revolution inevitable, and 
 Jeroboam was then called to reign over the ten 
 tribes, by the style of ‘ King of Israel’ (1 Kings 
 xii. 1-20). 
 
 The general course of his conduct on the throne 
 nas already been indicated in the article Israel, 
 and need not be repeated in this place. The 
 leading object of his policy was to widen the 
 breach between the two kingdoms, and to rend 
 asunder those common interests among all the 
 descendants of Jacob, which it was one great 
 object of the law to combine and interlace. To 
 this end he scrupled not to sacrifice the most 
 sacred and inviolable interests and obligations of 
 the covenant people, by forbidding his subjects to 
 resort to the one temple and altar of Jehovah at 
 Jerusalem, and by establishing shrines at Dan and 
 Beth-el — the extremities of his kingdom — where 
 ‘ golden calves’ were set up as the symbols of 
 Jehovah, to which the people were enjoined to 
 resort and bring their offerings. The pontifi- 
 cate of the new establishment he united to his 
 crown, in imitation of the Egyptian kings. He 
 was officiating in that capacity at Beth-el, offering 
 incense, when a prophet appeared, and in the 
 name of the Lord announced a coming time, as 
 yet far off, in which a king of the house of David, 
 Josiah by name, should burn upon that unholy 
 altar the bones of its ministers. He was then 
 preparing to verify, by a commissioned prodigy, 
 i he truth of the oracle he had delivered, when the 
 King attempted to arrest him, but \yas smitten 
 with palsy in the arm he stretched forth. At the 
 same moment the threatened prodigy took place, 
 (he altar was rent asunder, and the ashes strewed 
 ihr around. This measure had, however, no 
 abiding effect. The policy on which he acted 
 lay too deep in what he deemed the vital interests 
 of his separate kingdom, to be even thus aban- 
 doned : and the force of the considerations which 
 determined his conduct may in part be appre- 
 ciated from the fact that no subsequent king of 
 Israel, however well disposed in other respects, 
 ever ventured to lay a finger on this schismatical 
 establishment. Hence ‘ the sin of Jeroboam the 
 son of Nebat, wherewith he sinned and made 
 Israel to sin,’ became a standing phrase in de- 
 scribing that iniquity from which no king of 
 Israel departed (1 Kings xii. 25-33 ; xiii.). 
 
 The contumacy of Jeroboam eventually brought 
 upon him the doom which he probably dreaded 
 beyond all others — the speedy extinction of the 
 dynasty which he had taken so much pains and 
 incurred so much guilt to establish on firm 
 foundations. His son Abijah being sick, he sent 
 his wife disguised to consult the prophet Ahijah, 
 who had predicted that he should be king of 
 Israel. The prophet, although he had become 
 blind with age, knew the queen, and saluted her 
 with — 4 Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam, for I 
 am sent to thee with heavy tidings.’ These were 
 not merely that the son should die — for that was 
 intended in mercy to one who alone, of all the 
 house of Jeroboam, had remained faithful to his 
 God, and was the only one who should obtain 
 an honoured grave — but that his race should 
 be violently and utterly extinguished : e I will 
 
 take away the remnant of the house of Jtroboam 
 as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone ’ 
 (1 Kings xiv. 1-18). 
 
 The son died so soon as the mother crossed the 
 threshold on her return ; and as the death of 
 Jeroboam himself is the next event recorded, it 
 would seem that he did not long survive his son. 
 He died in b.c. 951 (1 Kings xiv. 20). 
 
 Jeroboam was perhaps a less remarkable man 
 than the circumstance of his being the founder of 
 a new kingdom might lead us to expect. The 
 tribes would have revolted without him ; and he 
 was chosen king merely because he had been 
 pointed out by previous circumstances. His 
 government exhibits but one idea — that of raising 
 a barrier against the re-union of the tribes. Of 
 this idea he was the slave and victim ; and 
 although the barrier which he raised was effectual 
 for its purpose, it only served to show the weak- 
 ness of the man who could deem needful the pro- 
 tection for his separate interests which such a 
 barrier offered. 
 
 2. JEROBOAM, thirteenth king of Israel, son 
 of Joash, whom, in b.c. 824, he succeeded on the 
 throne, and reigned forty-one years. He followed 
 the example of the first Jeroboam in keeping up 
 the idolatry of the golden calves. Nevertheless 
 the Lord had pity upon Israel, the time of its 
 ruin was not yet come, and this reign was long 
 and flourishing. Jeroboam brought to a success- 
 ful result the wars which his father had under- 
 taken, and was always victorious over the Syrians. 
 He even took their chief cities of Damascus and 
 Hamath, which had formerly been subject to the 
 scept.ie of David, and restored to the realm of 
 Israel the ancient eastern limits from Lebanon to 
 the Dead Sea. He died in b.c. 783 (2 Kings 
 xiii. 15 ; xiv. 16, 23-29). 
 
 The Scriptural account of this reign is too short 
 to enable us to judge of the character of a prince 
 under whom the kingdom of Israel seems to have 
 leached a degree of prosperity which it had never 
 before enjoyed, and was not able long to preserve. 
 JERUB-BAAL. [Gideon.] 
 
 JERUSALEM habitation of peace, 
 
 Sept. '\epovaa\yp. ; Vulg. Iiierosolyma ; Arab. 
 El Ends'), the Jewish capital of Palestine. It is 
 mentioned very early in Scripture, being usually 
 supposed to be the Salem of which Melchizedek 
 was king. Such was the opinion of the Jews 
 themselves: for Josephus, who calls Melchizedek 
 king of Solyma, observes that this name was after- 
 wards changed into Iiierosolyma. All the fathers 
 of the church, Jerome excepted, agree with Jose- 
 phus, and understand Jerusalem and Salem to 
 indicate the same place. The Psalmist also says 
 (lxxvi. 2) : 4 In Salem is his tabernacle, and his 
 dwelling-place in Sion.’ 
 
 The mountain of the land of Moriah, which 
 Abraham (Gen. xxii. 2) reached on the third day 
 from Beersheba, there to offer Isaac, is, according 
 to Josephus (Antiq. i. 13. 2), the mountain on 
 which Solomon afterwards built the temple (2 
 Cliron. iii. 1). 
 
 The name Jerusalem first occurs in Josh. x. 1, 
 where Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, is men- 
 tioned as having entered into an alliance with 
 other kings against Joshua, by whom they were 
 all overcome (comp. Josh. xii. 10). 
 
 In drawing the northern border of Judah, we find 
 
so 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 Jerusalem again mentioned (Josh. xv. 8 ; comp. 
 Josh, xviii. 16). This border ran through the 
 valley of Ben Hinnom ; the country on the south 
 of it, as Bethlehem, belonged to Judah ; but the 
 mountain of Zion, forming the northern wall of 
 the valley, and occupied by the Jebusites, apper- 
 tained to Benjamin. Among the cities of Benja- 
 min, therefore, is also mentioned (Josh, xviii. 28) 
 ‘ Jebus, which is Jerusalem 1 (comp. Judg. xix. 10 ; 
 1 Chron. xi. 4). 
 
 After the death of Joshua, when there remained 
 for the children of Israel much to conquer in 
 Canaan, the Lord directed Judah to fight against 
 the Canaanites ; and they took Jerusalem, smote 
 it with the edge of the sword, and set it on fire 
 (Judg. i. 1-8). After that, the Judahites and 
 the Benjamites dwelt with the Jebusites at Jeru- 
 salem ; for it is recorded (Josh. xv. 63) that the 
 
 children of Judah could not drive out the >ebu- 
 sites inhabiting Jerusalem ; and we are farther 
 informed (Judg. i. 21) that the children of Benja 
 min did not expel them from Jerusalem. Probably 
 the Jebusites were removed by Judah only from 
 the lower city, but kept possession of the moun- 
 tain of Zion, which David conquered at a later 
 period. Jerusalem is not again mentioned till 
 the time of Saul, when it is stated (1 Sam. xvii. 
 54) that David took the head of Goliath and 
 brought it to Jerusalem. After David, who had 
 previously reigned over Judah alone in Hebron, 
 was called to rule over all Israel, he led his 
 forces against the Jebusites, and conquered the 
 castle of Zion, which Joab first scaled (1 Sam. 
 v. 5-9; 1 Chron. xii. 4-8). He then fixed hir 
 abode on this mountain, and called it ‘ the citj 
 of David.’ Thither he carried the ark of thecov* 
 
 *r.vvs 
 
 363. [Jerusalem.] 
 
 nant ; and there he built unto the Lord an altar 
 in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on 
 the place where the angel stood who threatened 
 Jerusalem with pestilence (2 Sam. xxiv. 15-25). 
 But David could not build a house unto the 
 name of the Lord his God for the wars which 
 were about him on every side (2 Sam. vii. 13; 
 1 Kings v. 3-5). Still the Lord announced to 
 him, through the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. vii 
 10), ‘ I will appoint a place for my people 
 Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell 
 in a place of their own and move no more.’ From 
 this it would seem that even David had, then at 
 least, no assurance that Jerusalem in particular 
 was to be the place which had so often been spoken 
 of as that which God would choose for the central 
 seat of the theocratical monarchy, and which it 
 became after Solomon's temple had been built. 
 
 The reasons which led David to fix upon Jeru- 
 salem as the metropolis of his kingdom have been 
 alluded to elsewhere [Isiiaeu ; Judah]; being, 
 
 chiefly, that it was in his own tribe of Judah, In 
 which his influence was the strongest, while it 
 was the nearest to the other tribes of any site ha 
 could have chosen in Judah. The peculiar 
 strength also of the situation, enclosed on three 
 sides by a natural trench of valleys, could not be 
 without weight. Its great strength, according to 
 the military notions of that age, is shown by the 
 length of time the Jebusites were able to keep 
 possession of it against the force of all Israel. 
 David was doubtless the best, judge of his own 
 interests in this matter; but if those interests had 
 not come into play, and if he had only considered 
 the best situation for a metropolis of the whole 
 kingdom, it is doubtful whether a more centrical 
 situation with respect to all the tribes would not 
 have been far preferable, especially as the law re- 
 quired all the adult males of Israel to repair three 
 times in the year to the place of the Divine pre- 
 sence. Indeed, the burdensome character of this 
 obligation to the more distant tribes, seems to have 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 0) 
 
 oeen one of the excuses for the revolt of the ten 
 ‘jibes ; as it certainly was for the establishment of 
 schismatic altars in Dan and Betli-el (1 Kings xii. 
 28). Many travellers have suggested that Samaria, 
 which afterwards became the metropolis of the 
 separated kingdom, was far preferable to Jerusalem 
 for the site of a capital city : and its centrical 
 situation would also have been in its favour as a 
 metropolis for all the tribes. But as the choice of 
 David was subsequently confirmed by the Divine 
 appointment, which made Mount Moriah the site 
 of the temple, we are bound to consider the choice 
 as having been providentially ordered with refer- 
 ence to the contingencies that afterwards arose, 
 by which Jerusalem was made the capital ot the 
 separate kingdom of Judah, for which it was well 
 adapted. 
 
 The promise made to David received its accom- 
 plishment when Solomon built his temple upon 
 Mount Moriah. By him and his father Jerusalem 
 had been made the imperial residence of the king 
 of all Israel : and the temple, often called * the 
 house of Jehovah,’ constituted it at the same time 
 the residence of the King of kings, the supreme 
 head of the theocratical state, whose vicegerents 
 the human kings were taught to regard them- 
 selves. It now belonged, even less than a town 
 of the Levites, to a particular tribe : it was the 
 centre Of all civil and religious affairs, the very 
 place of which Moses spoke, Deut. xii. 5 : ‘ The 
 place which the Lord your God shall choose out 
 of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto 
 his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou 
 shalt come ’ (comp. ix. 6 ; xiii. 14 ; xiv. 23 ; xvi. 
 11-16 ; Ps. cxxii.). 
 
 Jerusalem was not, indeed, politically im- 
 portant : it was not the capital of a powerful 
 empire directing the affairs of other states, but it 
 stood high in the bright prospects foretold by 
 David when declaring his faith in the coming of 
 a Messiah (Ps. ii. 6; 1. 2; lxxxvii. ; cii. 16-22; 
 cx. 2). In . all these passages the name Zion is 
 used, which, although properly applied to the 
 southernmost part of the site of Jerusalem, is often 
 in Scripture put. poetically for Jerusalem gene- 
 rally, and sometimes for Mount Moriah and its 
 temple. 
 
 The importance and splendour of Jerusalem 
 were considerably lessened after the death of Solo- 
 mon ; under whose son, Rehoboam, ten of the 
 tribes rebelled, Judah and Benjamin only re- 
 maining in their allegiance. Jerusalem was then 
 only the capital of the very small state of Judah. 
 And when Jeroboam instituted the worship of 
 golden calves in Beth-el and Dan, the ten tribes 
 went no longer up to Jerusalem to worship and 
 sacrifice in the house of the Lord (1 Kings xii. 
 26-30). 
 
 After this time the history of Jerusalem is con- 
 tinued in the history of Judah, for which the 
 second book of the Kings and of the Chronicles 
 are the principal sources of information. 
 
 After the time of Solomon, the kingdom of 
 Judah was almost alternately ruled by good 
 kings, ‘ who did that which was right in the sight 
 of the Lord,’ and by such as were idolatrous and 
 evil disposed ; and the leign of the same king 
 often varied, and was by turns good or evil. The 
 condition of the kingdom, and of Jerusalem in 
 particular as its metropolis, was very much 
 affected by these mutations. Under good kings 
 
 the city flourished, and under bad kings it 
 suffered greatly. Under Rehoboam (b.c. 973) 
 it was conquered by Shishak, king of Egypt, 
 who pillaged the treasures of the temple (2 
 Chron. xii. 9). Under Amaziah it was taken 
 by Jehoash, king of Israel, who broke down 400 
 cubits of the wall of the city, and took all the 
 gold and silver, and all the vessels that were 
 found in the temple (2 Kings xiv. 13, 14) 
 Uzziah, son of Amaziah, who at first reigned well 
 built towers in Jerusalem at the corner-gate, at 
 the valley-gate, and at the turning of the wall, 
 and fortified them (2 Chron. xvi. 9). His son, 
 Jotham, built the high gate of the temple, and 
 reared up many other structures (2 Chron. xvii. 
 3, 4). Hezekiah (b.c. 728) added to the other 
 honours of his reign that of an improver of Jeru- 
 salem. His most eminent work in that cha- 
 racter was the stopping of the upper course of 
 Gihon, and bringing its waters by a subterraneous 
 aqueduct to the west side of the city (2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 30). This work is inferred, from 2 Kings 
 xx., to have been of great importance to Jeru- 
 salem, as it cut off a supply of water from any 
 besieging enemy, and bestowed it upon the inha- 
 bitants of the city. Hezekiah's son, Manasseh, 
 in his later and best years, built a strong and 
 very high wall on the west-side of Jerusalem 
 (2 Chron, xxxiii. 14). The works in the city 
 connected with the names of the succeeding kings 
 of Judah were, so far as recorded, confined to the 
 defilement of the house of the Lord by bad kings, 
 and its purgation by good kings, till about 100 
 years after Manasseh, when, for the abounding 
 iniquities of the nation, the city and temple were 
 abandoned to destruction. Alter a siege of three 
 years, Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who razed its walls, and destroyed its temple and 
 palaces with fire (2 Kings xxv. ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. ; 
 Jer. xxxix.). Thus w-as Jerusalem smitten with 
 the calamity which Moses had prophesied would 
 befal it, if the people would not keep the com- 
 mandments of the Lord, but broke bis covenant 
 (Lev. xxvi. 14 ; Deut. xxviii.). 
 
 The ten tribes forming the kingdom of Israel 
 had been already upwards of 130 years trans- 
 ported to Assyria, when Judah also was exiled to 
 Babylon. The castle of David, the temple of 
 Solomon, and the entire city, lay in ruins, and 
 to all appearance there was an end of the 
 people as well as of the holy city, which the 
 Lord had chosen to himself. But God, before 
 whom a thousand years are as one day, gave to 
 the afflicted people a glimpse beyond the present 
 calamity and retributive judgment, into a dis- 
 tant futurity. The same prophets who foretold 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, also announced the 
 consolations of a coming time. 
 
 Moses had long before predicted that if in the 
 land of their captivity they repented of their evil, 
 they should be brought back again to the land 
 out of which they had been cast (Deut. xxx. 
 1-5; comp. 1 Kings viii. 46-53; Neh. i. 8, 9). 
 The Lord also, through Isaiah, condescended to 
 point out the agency through which the restora- 
 tion of the holy city was to be accomplished, 
 and even named long before his birth the very 
 person, Cyrus, under whose ordeis this was 
 to be effected. ‘ Thus saith the Lord of Cy- 
 rus : He is my shepherd and shall perform all 
 mv pleasure, even taying to Jerusalem, Thou 
 
92 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 shalt he built ; and to the temple, Thy founda- 
 tion shall be laid ’ (Isa. xliv. 28 ; comp. Jer. iii. 
 2, 7, 8; xxiii. 3 ; xxxi. 10; xxxii. 36, 37). 
 
 Among the remarkably precise indications 
 should be mentioned that in which Jeremiah 
 (xxv. 9-12) limits the duration of Judah's cap- 
 tivity to 70 years. 
 
 These encouragements were continued through 
 the prophets, who themselves shared the captivity. 
 Of this number was Daniel, who thus prayed : 4 O 
 Lord, let thine anger be turned away from thy city 
 Jerusalem, thy holy mountain : because for our 
 sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jeru- 
 salem and thy people are become a reproach to 
 all that are about us. O Lord, hear, forgive ; 
 defer not, for thine own sake, for thy city and thy 
 people are called by thy name’ (Dan. ix. 16. 19). 
 While the prophet was yet speaking it was re- 
 vealed to him, that the streets and the walls of 
 Jerusalem should be built again, even in trou- 
 blous times (ver. 25). 
 
 Daniel lived to see the reign of Cyrus, king of 
 Persia (Dan. x. i.), and the fulfilment of his 
 prayer. It was in the year b.c. 536, ‘ in the first 
 year of Cyrus,’ that, in accomplishment of the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the 
 spirit of this prince, who made a proclamation 
 throughout all his kingdom, expressed in these 
 remarkable words : ‘The Lord God of heaven hath 
 given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he 
 has charged me to build him a house at Jeru- 
 salem , xohich is in Judah. Who is there among 
 you of all his people? his God be with him, and 
 let him go up to Jerusalem, and build the house 
 of the Lord God of Israel 1 (Ezra i. 2, 3). This 
 important call was answered by a considerable 
 number of persons, particularly priests and Le- 
 vites ; and the many who declined to quit their 
 nouses and possessions in Babylonia, committed 
 valuable gifts to the hands of their more zealous 
 brethren. Cyrus also caused the sacred vessels 
 of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar had 
 taken from the temple to be restored to Shesh- 
 bazzar, the prince of Judah, who took them to 
 Jerusalem, followed by 42,360 people, beside their 
 servants, of whom there were 7337’ (Ezra i. 5-11). 
 
 On their arrival at Jerusalem they contributed 
 according to their ability to rebuild the temple;' 
 Jeshua, the priest, and Zerubbabel, reared up an 
 altar to offer burnt-offerings thereon ; and when in 
 the following year the foundation was laid of the 
 new house of God, ‘ the people shouted for joy, 
 but many of the Levites who had seen the first 
 temple, wept with a loud voice’ (Ezra iii. 2, 12). 
 When the Samaritans expressed a wisli to share 
 ^ in the pious labour, Zerubbabel declined the 
 offer ; and in revenge the Samaritans sent a de- 
 putation to king Artaxerxes of Persia, carrying 
 a nresentment in which Jerusalem was described 
 as a rebellious city of old time, which, if re- 
 built, and its walls set up again, would not pay 
 toll, tribute, and custom, and would thus enda- 
 mage the public revenue. The deputation suc- 
 ceeded, and Artaxerxes ordered that the building 
 of the temple should cease. The interruption thus 
 caused lasted to the second year of the reign of 
 Darius (Ezra iv. 24), when Zerubbabel and 
 Jeshua, supported by the prophets Haggai and 
 Zechariah, again resumed the work, and would 
 not cease though cautioned by the Persian go- 
 vernor of Judaea. On the matter coming before 
 
 Darius Hystaspis, and the Jews reminding hiifc 
 of the permission given by Cyrus, he decided in 
 their favour, and also ordered that the expanse* 
 of the work should be defrayed out of the public 
 revenue (Ezra vi. 8). In the sixth year of the 
 reign of Darius the temple was finished, when 
 they kept the Feast of Dedication with great joy, 
 and next celebrated the Passover (Ezra vi. 15, 16, 
 19). Afterwards, in the seventh year of the se- 
 cond Artaxerxes, Ezra, a descendant of Aaron, 
 came up to Jerusalem, accompanied by a large 
 number of Jews who had remained in Babylon. 
 He was highly patronised by the king, who not 
 only made him a large present in gold and silver, 
 but published a decree enjoining all treasurers 
 of Judaea speedily to do whatever Ezra should 
 require of them ; allowing him to collect money 
 throughout the whole province of Babylon for 
 the wants of the temple at Jerusalem ; and also 
 giving him full power to appoint magistrates in 
 his country to judge the people (Ezra vii. viii.) 
 At a later period, in the twentieth year of king 
 Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, who was his cupbearer, 
 obtained permission to proceed to Jerusalem, and 
 to complete the rebuilding of the city and its wall, 
 which lie happily accomplished, despite of all the 
 opposition which he received from the enemies ol 
 Israel (Neh. i. ii. iv. vi.). The city was then ca- 
 pacious and large, but the people in it were few, 
 and many houses lay still in ruins (Neh. vii. 4). 
 At Jerusalem dwelt the rulers of the people and 
 ‘ certain of the children of Judah and of the 
 children of Benjamin but it was now deter- 
 mined that the rest of the people should cast lots 
 to bring one of ten to the capital (Neh. xi. 1-4). 
 All strangers, Samaritans, Ammonites, Moabites, 
 &c., were removed, to keep the chosen people 
 from pollution; ministers were appointed to the 
 temple, and the service was performed according 
 to the law of Moses (Ezra x. ; Neh. viii., x., xii., 
 xi i i .). Of the Jerusalem thus by such great and 
 long-continued exertions restored, very splendid 
 prophecies were uttered by those prophets who 
 liourished after the exile : the general purport of 
 which was to describe the temple and city as 
 destined to be glorified far beyond the former, 
 by the advent of the long and eagerly expected 
 Messiah, 1 the desire of all nations ’ (Zech. ix. 9 ; 
 xii. 10; xiii. 3; Hagg. ii. 6, 7; Mai. iii. 11). 
 
 Thus far the Old Testament has been our 
 guide in the notices of Jerusalem. For what fol- 
 lows, down to its destruction fry the Romans, we 
 must draw chiefly upon Josephus, and the b^oks 
 of the Maccabees. The difficulty here, as before, 4 
 is to separate what properly belongs to Jerusalem 
 from that which belongs to the country at large. 
 For as Jerusalem was invariably affected by 
 whatever movement took place in the country of 
 which it was the capital, its history might be 
 made, and often has been made, the history of 
 Palestine. 
 
 It is said by Josephus (Antiq. xi. 8), that when 
 the dominion of this part of the world passed from 
 the Persians to the Greeks, Alexander the Great 
 advanced against Jerusalem to punish it for the 
 fidelity to the Persians which it had manifested 
 while he was engaged in the siege of Tyre 
 His hostile purposes, however, were averted by 
 the appearance of the high-priest Jaddua at the 
 head of a train of priests in their sacred vestments 
 Alexander recognised in him the figure which ia 
 
 m 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 i dream had encouraged him to undertake the 
 sonquest of Asia. He therefore treated him with 
 respect and reverence, spared the city against 
 which his wrath had been kindled, and granted 
 to the Jews high and important privileges. The 
 historian adds that the high-priest failed not to 
 ipprise the conqueror of those prophecies in Da- 
 niel by which his successes had been predicted. 
 The whole of this story is, however, liable to sus- 
 picion, from the absence of any notice of the cir- 
 cumstance in the histories of this campaign which 
 we possess. 
 
 After the death of Alexander at Babylon 
 (b.c. 324), Ptolemy surprised Jerusalem on the 
 Sabbath day, when the Jews would not fight, plun- 
 dered the city, and carried away a great number 
 of the inhabitants to Egypt, where, however, from 
 the estimation in which the Jews of this period 
 were held as citizens, important privileges were 
 bestowed upon them (Joseph. Antiq. xii. 1). In 
 the contests wnich afterwards followed for the 
 possession of Syria (including Palestine), Jeru- 
 salem does not appear to have been directly in- 
 jured, and was even spared when Ptolemy gave 
 up Samaria, Acco, Joppa, and Gaza to pillage. 
 The contest was ended by the treaty in b.c. 302, 
 which annexed the whole of Palestine, together 
 with Arabia Petraea and Coele-Syria, to Egypt. 
 Under easy subjection to the Ptolemies the Jews 
 remained in much tranquillity for more than a 
 hundred years, in which the principal incident, as 
 regards Jerusalem itself, was the visit which was 
 paid to it, in b.c. 245, by Ptolemy Euergetes, on 
 liis return from his victories in the East. He 
 offered many sacrifices, and made magnificent 
 presents to the temple. In the wars between 
 Antiochus the Great and the kings of Egypt, 
 from b c. 221 to 197, Judaea could not fail to 
 suffer severely; but we are not acquainted with 
 any incident in which Jerusalem was principally 
 concerned, till the alleged visit of Ptolemy Phi- 
 lopator in b.c. 211. He offered sacrifices, and 
 gave rich gifts to the temple, but venturing to 
 enter the sanctuary, in spite of the remonstrances 
 of the high-priest, he was seized with a super- 
 natural dread, and fled in terror from the place. 
 It i? said that on his return to Egypt he vented 
 his rage on the Jews of Alexandria in a very bar- 
 barous manner [Alexandria]. But the whole 
 aGcy of nis visit and its results rests upon the 
 sole authority of the third book of Maccabees 
 (chaps, i. and ii.), and is therefore not entitled to 
 implicit credit. Towards the end of this war the 
 Jews seemed to favour the cause of Antiochus ; 
 and after ne had subdued the neighbouring coun- 
 try, they voluntarily tendered their submission, 
 and rendered their assistance in expelling the 
 Egyptian garrison from Mount Zion. For this 
 conduct tney were rewarded by many important 
 privileges by Antiochus. He issued decrees di- 
 recting, among other things, that the outworks of 
 the temple should be completed, and that all the 
 materials for needful repairs should be exempted 
 from taxes. The peculiar sanctity of the temple 
 was also to De respected. No foreigner was to pass 
 the sacreu walls; and the city itself was to be 
 orotectea from pollution : it being strictly for- 
 oidden trm the flesh or skins of any beasts which 
 the Jews accounted unclean should be brought 
 into it (Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3. 3). These were very 
 aberal concessions to what the king himself must 
 
 JERUSALEM. 93 
 
 have regarded as the prejudices of the Jewiaa 
 people. 
 
 Under their new masters the Jews enjoyed for a 
 time nearly a3 much tranquillity as under the 
 generally benign and liberal government of the 
 Ptolemies. But in b.c. 17G, Seleucus Philopator, 
 hearing that great treasures were hoarded up in the 
 temple, and being distressed for money to carry on 
 his wars, sent his treasurer, Ileliodorus, to bring 
 away these treasures. But this personage is reported 
 to have been so frightened. and stricken by an ap- 
 parition that he relinquished the attempt ; and Se- 
 leucus left the Jews in the undisturbed enjoyment 
 of their rights (2 Macc. iii. 4-40 ; Joseph. Antiq. 
 xii. 3. 3). His brother and successor, Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, however, was of another mind. He took 
 up the design of reducing them to a conformity 
 of manners and religion with other nations ; or, 
 in other words, of abolishing those distinctive 
 features which made the Jews a peculiar people, 
 socially separated from all others. This design 
 was odious to the great body of the people, al- 
 though there were many among the higher classes 
 who regarded it with favour. Of this way of 
 thinking was Menelaus, whom Antiochus had 
 made high-priest, and who was expelled by' the 
 orthodox Jews with ignominy, in b.c. 169, when 
 they heard the joyful news that Antiochus had 
 been slain in Egypt. The rumour proved un 
 true, and Antiochus on his return punished them 
 by plundering and profaning the temple. Worse 
 evils befel them two years after : for Antiochus, 
 out of humour at being compelled by the Ro- 
 mans to abandon his designs upon Egypt, sent 
 his chief collector of tribute, Apollonius, with a 
 detachment of 22,000 men, to vent, his rage on 
 Jerusalem. This person plundered the city, and 
 razed its walls, with the stones of which he built a 
 citadel that commanded the temple mount. A 
 statue of Jupiter was set up in the temple ; the 
 peculiar observances of the Jewish law were abo- 
 lished ; and a persecution was commenced against 
 all who adhered to these observances, and refused 
 to sacrifice to idols. Jerusalem was deserted by 
 priests and people, and the daily sacrifice at the 
 altar was entirely discontinued (1 Macc. i. 29- 
 40; 2 Macc. v. 24-26; Joseph. An iq. xii. 
 5. 4). 
 
 This led to the celebrated revolt of the Mac- 
 cabees, who, after an arduous and sanguinary 
 struggle, obtained possession of Jerusalem (b.c. 
 163), and repaired and purified the temple, which 
 was then dilapidated and deserted. New utensils 
 were provided for the sacred services : Ihe old 
 altar, which had been polluted by heathen abo- 
 minations, was taken away, and a new one erected. 
 The sacrifices were then recommenced, exactly 
 three years after the temple had been dedicated to 
 Jupiter Olympius. The castle, however, remained 
 in the hands of the Syrians, and long proved a sore 
 annoyance to the Jews, although Judas Maccabaeus 
 surrounded the temple with a high and strong wall, 
 furnished with towers, in which soldiers were sta- 
 tioned to protect the worshippers from the Syrian 
 garrison (1 Macc. i. 36, 37 ; Joseph. Antiq. vii. 7). 
 Eventually the annoyance grew so intolerable 
 that Judas laid siege to the cas/le. This attempt 
 brought a powerful army into the country under 
 the command of the regent Lysias, who, however, 
 being constrained to turn his arms elsewhere, 
 made peace with the Jews ; but when he was ad* 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 81 
 
 initted into the city, and observed the strength of 
 the place, he threw down the walls, in violation of 
 the treaty (1 Macc. vi. 48-05). In the ensuing 
 war witii Bacchides, the general of Demetrius 
 Soter, in which Judas was slain, the Syrians 
 strengthened their citadel, and placed in it 
 the sons of the principal Jewish families as 
 hostages (1 Macc. ix. 52, 53; Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 
 1. 3). The year after (b.c. 159) the temporising 
 high-priest Alcimus directed the wall which sepa- 
 rated the court of Israel from that of the Gen- 
 tiles to be cast down, to afford the latter free 
 access to the temple : but he was seized with palsy 
 as soon as the work commenced, and died in great 
 agony (1 Macc. ix. 51-57). When, a few years 
 after, Demetrius and Alexander Balas sought to 
 outbid each other for the support of Jonathan, the 
 hostages in the castle were released ; and subse- 
 quently all the Syrian garrisons in Judaea were 
 evacuated, excepting those of Jerusalem and 
 Bethzur, which were chiefly occupied by apostate 
 Jews, who were afraid to leave their places of 
 refuge. Jonathan then rebuilt the walls of Jeru- 
 salem, and repaired the buildings of the city, 
 besides erecting a palace for his own residence 
 (1 Macc. x. 2-4; Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 2. 1). The 
 particular history of Jerusalem for several years 
 following is little more than an account of the 
 efforts of the Maccabaean princes to obtain pos- 
 session of the castle, and of the Syrian kings to 
 retain it in their hands. At length, in b.c. 142, 
 the garrison was forced to surrender by Simon, 
 who demolished it altogether, that it might 
 not again be used against the Jews by their 
 enemies. Simon then strengthened the fortifica- 
 tions of the mountain on which the temple stood, 
 and built there a palace for himself (1 Macc. xiii. 
 43-52; Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 6. 6). This building 
 was afterwards turned into a regular fortress by 
 John Hyrcanus, and was ever after the resi- 
 dence of the Maccabaean princes (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xv. 11 . 4). It is called by Josephus ‘the castle 
 of Baris,’ in his history of the Jews; till it was 
 strengthened and enlarged by Herod the Great, 
 who called it the castle of Antonia, under which 
 name it makes a conspicuous figure in the Jewish 
 wars with the Romans. 
 
 Of Jerusalem itself we find nothing of conse- 
 quence, till it was taken by Pompey in the summer 
 of b.c. 63, and on the very day observed by the Jews 
 as one of lamentation and fasting, in commemora- 
 tion of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. Twelve thousand Jews were massacred in 
 the temple courts, including many priests, who 
 died at the very altar rather than suspend the 
 sacred rites (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 1-4). On this 
 occasion Pompey, attended by his generals, went 
 into the temple and viewed the sanctuary ; but lie 
 left untouched all its treasures and sacred things, 
 while the walls of the city itself were demolished. 
 From this time the Jews are to be considered as 
 under the dominion of the Romans (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xiv. 4. 5). The treasures which Pompey had 
 spared were seized a few years after (b.c. 51) by 
 Crassus. In the year b.c. 43, the walls of the 
 city, which Pompey had demolished, were rebuilt 
 by Antipater, the father of that Herod the Great 
 under whom Jerusalem was destined to assume 
 the new and more magnificent aspect which it 
 bore in the time of Christ, and which constituted 
 the Jerusalem which Josephus describes. This 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 Jerusalem — the Jerusalem as improved by the 
 magnificent tastes and profuse expenditure of 
 Herod — was probably as different from the Jeru- 
 salem before his time as the London of 1844 ia 
 from the London of 1800. And perhaps the dif- 
 ference was even greater, for our great fanes still 
 exist ; whereas the temple, which always formed 
 the great architectural glory of Jerusalem, was 
 taken down and rebuilt by Herod the Great, 
 with a magnificence exceeding that of Solo- 
 mon’s (Mark xiii. 1 ; John ii. 20 ; see Temper). 
 It was in the courts of the temple as thus rebuilt, 
 and in the streets of the city as thus improved, 
 that the Saviour of men walked up and down. 
 Here he taught, here he wrought miracles, here 
 he suffered; and this was the temple whose 
 ‘ goodly stones * the apostle admired (Mark 
 xiii. 1), and of which he foretold that ere the 
 existing generation had passed away not one stone 
 should be left upon another. Nor was the city 
 in this state admired by Jews only. Pliny calk 
 it ‘ longe clarissimam urbium orientis, non Ju- 
 daeae modo’ (Hist. Nat. v. 16). 
 
 Jerusalem seems to have been raised to this 
 greatness, as if to enhance the misery of its over- 
 throw. So soon as the Jews had set the seal to 
 their formal rejection of Christ, by putting him 
 to death, and invoking the responsibility of his 
 blood upon the heads of themselves and of their 
 children (Matt, xxvii. 25), its doom went forth. 
 After having been the scene of horrors without 
 example, it was, in a.d. 70, abandoned to the 
 Romans, who razed the city and temple to the 
 ground, leaving only three of the towers and a 
 part of the western wall to show how strong a place 
 the Roman arms had overthrown. Since then the. 
 holy city has lain at the mercy of the Gentiles, 
 and will so remain 4 until the times of the Gen- 
 tiles are fulfilled.’ 
 
 Modern History. — The destruction of Jeru- 
 salem by the Romans did not cause the site to be 
 utterly forsaken. Titus left there in garrison the 
 whole of the tenth legion, besides several squad- 
 rons of cavalry and cohorts of foot. For these 
 troops, and for those who ministered to their wants, 
 there must have been dwellings ; and there is no 
 reason to suppose that such Jews or Christians as 
 appeared to have taken no part in the war were 
 forbidden to make their abode among the ruins, 
 and building them up so far as their necessities 
 might require. But nothing like a restoration ot 
 the city could have arisen from this, as it was not 
 likely that any but poor people, who found an 
 interest in supplying the wants of the garrison, 
 were likely to resort to the ruins under such cir- 
 cumstances. However, we learn from Jerome that 
 for fifty years after its destruction, until the time 
 of Adrian, there still existed remnants of the city. 
 But during all this period there is no mention o f 
 it in history. 
 
 Up to a.d. 131 the Jews remained tolerahiv 
 quiet, although apparently waiting any favour- 
 able opportunity of shaking off the Roman yoke. 
 The then emperor, Adrian, seems to have been 
 aware of this state of feeling, and, among other 
 measures of precaution, ordered Jerusalem to be 
 rebuilt as a fortified place wherewith to keep \n 
 check the whole Jewish population. The works 
 had made some progress, when the Jews, unable 
 to endure the idea that their holy city should be 
 occupied by foreigners, and that strange gocu 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 »hould be set up within it, broke out into open 
 rebellion under the notorious Barchochebas, who 
 claimed to be the Messiah. His success was at 
 list very great ; but he was crushed before the 
 tremendous power of the Romans, so soon as it 
 could be brought to bear upon him ; and a war 
 scarcely inferior in horror to that under Vespasian 
 and Titus was, like it, brought to a close by the 
 capture of Jerusalem, of which the Jews had ob- 
 ained possession. This was in a.d. 135, from which 
 period the final dispersion of the Jews has been 
 often dated. The Romans then finished the city 
 ■according to their first intention. It was made a 
 Roman colony, inhabited wholly by foreigners, 
 he Jews being forbidden to approach it on pain 
 'f death : a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was 
 erected on Mount. Moriah, and the old name of 
 Jerusalem was sought to be supplanted by that 
 cf MWa. Capitolina, conferred upon it in honour 
 of the emperor, j^Elius Adrianus, and Jupiter Ca- 
 oitolinus. By this name was the city kno,wn till 
 die time of Constantine, when that of Jerusalem 
 *gain became current, although JEl ia was still its 
 uublic designation, and remained such so late as 
 a.d. 536, when it appears in the acts of a synod 
 leld there. This name even passed to the Mo- 
 hammedans, by whom it was long retained ; and 
 t was not till after they recovered the city from the 
 Crusaders that it became generally known among 
 hem by the name of El-Khuds — the holy — which 
 d still bears. 
 
 From the rebuilding by Adrian the history of 
 Jerusalem is almost a blank till the time of Com 
 stantine, when its history, as a place of extreme 
 solicitude and interest to the Christian church, 
 oroperly begins. Pilgrimages to the Holy City now 
 became common and popular. Such a pilgrimage 
 was undertaken in a.d. 326 by the emperor’s mo- 
 ther Helena, then in the 80th year of her age, who 
 rmilt churches on the alleged site of the nativity 
 at Bethlehem, and of the resurrection on the Mount 
 of Olives. This example may probably have 
 excited her son to the discovery of the site of the 
 aoly sepulchre, and to the erection of a church 
 thereofi. He removed the temple of Venus, with 
 which, in studied insult, the site had been en- 
 cumbered. The holy sepulchre was then puri- 
 fied, and a magnificent church was, by hi3 order, 
 tmilt over and around the sacred spot. This 
 temple was completed and dedicated with great 
 solemnity in a.d. 333. There is no doubt that the 
 spot thus singled out is the same which has ever 
 mnce been regarded as the place in which Christ 
 was entombed ; but the correctness of the identifi- 
 cation then made has been of late years much 
 disputed, on grounds which have been examined 
 »n the article Goi.gotha. The very cross on 
 which our Lord suffered was also, in the course of 
 mese explorations, believed to have been disco- 
 vered, under the circumstances which have already 
 ,>een described [Cross]. 
 
 By Constantine the edict, excluding*the Jews 
 h’om the city of their fathers* sepulchres, was so 
 <ar repealed that they were allowed to enter it 
 .. nee a-year to wail over the desolation of c the 
 -•oly and beautiful house,’ in which their fathers 
 worshipped God. When the nephew of Constan- 
 une, the Emperor Julian, abandoned Christianity 
 •or the old Paganism, he qpdeavoured, as a mat- 
 er of policy, to conciliate the Jews. He allowed 
 t.em free access to the city, and permitted them 
 
 95 
 
 to rebuild their temple. They accordingly began 
 to lay the foundations in a.d. 362 ; but the speedy 
 death of the emperor probably occasioned that 
 abandonment of the attempt, which contemporary 
 writers ascribe to supernatural hindrances. The 
 edicts seem then to have been renewed whicli 
 excluded the Jews from the city, except on the 
 day of annual wailing. 
 
 In the following centuries the roads to Zion 
 were thronged with pilgrims from all parts of 
 Christendom, and the land abounded in monas- 
 teries, occupied by persons who wished to lead a 
 religious life amid the scenes which had been 
 sanctified by the Saviour’s presence. After much 
 struggle of conflicting dignities Jerusalem was, in 
 a.d. 451, declared a patriarchate by the council 
 of Chalcedon. In the next century it found a 
 second Constantine in Justinian, who ascended 
 the throne a.d. 527. He repaired and. enriched 
 the former structures, and built upon Mount 
 Moriah a magnificent church to the Virgin, as a 
 memorial of the persecution of Jesus in the temple. 
 He also founded ten or eleven convents in and 
 about Jerusalem and Jericho, and established an 
 hospital for pilgrims in each of those cities. 
 
 But these prosperous days were soon to end. 
 The Persians, who had long harassed the empire 
 of the East, penetrated into Syria in a.d. 614, 
 and after defeating the forces of the Emperor 
 Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm. Many thou- 
 sands of the inhabitants were slain, and much of 
 the city, including the finest churches — that of 
 the holy sepulchre among them — was destroyed. 
 When the conquerors withdrew they took away 
 the principal inhabitants, the patriarch, and the 
 true cross ; but when, the year after, peace was 
 concluded, these were restored, and the Emperor 
 Heraclius entered Jerusalem in solemn state, 
 bearing the cross upon bis shoulders. 
 
 The damage occasioned by the Persians was 
 speedily repaired. But Arabia soon furnished a 
 more formidable enemy in the Khalif Omar, 
 whose troops appeared before the city in a.d. 636, 
 Arabia, Syria, and Egypt having already been 
 brought under the Moslem yoke. After a long 
 siege the austere khalif himself came to the camp, 
 and the city was at length surrendered to him in 
 a.d. 637. The conqueror of mighty kings en- 
 tered the holy city in his garment of camel’s hair, 
 and conducted himself with much discretion and 
 generous forbearance. By his orders the magni- 
 ficent mosque which still bears his name was built 
 upon Mount Moriah, upon the site of the Jewish 
 temple. 
 
 Jerusalem remained in possession of the Ara- 
 bians, and was occasionally visited by Christian 
 pilgrims from Europe till towards the year 1000, 
 when a general belief that the second coming 
 of the Saviour was near at hand, drew pilgrims 
 in unwonted crowds to the Holy Land, and cre- 
 ated an impulse for pilgrimages thither, which 
 ceased not to act after the first exciting cause had 
 been forgotten. The Moslem government, in order 
 to deri ve some profit from this enthusiasm, imposed 
 the tribute of a piece of gold as the price of 
 entrance into the holy city. The sight, by such 
 large numbers, of the holy place in the hands 
 of infidels, the exaction of tribute, and the in- 
 sults to which the pilgrims, often of the higfiest 
 rank, were exposed from the Moslem rabble, ex- 
 cited an extraordinary ferment in Europe, and lf<d 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 to those remarkable expeditions for recovering the 
 Holy Sepulchre from the Mohammedans, which, 
 under the name of the Crusades, will always fill 
 a most important and curious chapter in the his- 
 tory of the world. 
 
 The dominion over Palestine had passed in 
 a.d. 960 from the khalifs of Bagdad to the Fate- 
 mite khalifs of Egypt, who, in their turn, were 
 dispossessed in a.d. 1073 by the Turkmans, who 
 had usurped the powers of the eastern khalifat. 
 The severities exercised by these more fierce and 
 uncivilized Moslems upon both the native Chris- 
 tians anil the European pilgrims supplied the 
 immediate impulse to the first eastern expedition. 
 But by the time the crusaders, under Godfrey of 
 Bouillon, appeared before Jerusalem, on the 17th 
 of June, 1099, the Egyptian khalifs had recovered 
 possession of Palestine and driven the Turkmans 
 beyond the Euphrates. 
 
 After a siege of forty days, the holy city was 
 taken by storm on the 15th day of July; and a 
 dreadful massacre of the Moslem inhabitants fol- 
 lowed, without distinction of age or sex. As sbon 
 as order was restored, and the city cleared of the 
 dead, a regular government was established by 
 the election of Godfrey as king of Jerusalem. 
 One of the first cares of the new monarch was to 
 dedicate anew to the Lord the place where His 
 Presence had once abode ; and the mosque of 
 Omar became a Christian cathedral, which the 
 historians of the time distinguish as ‘ the temple 
 of the Lord ’ ( Templum Domini ). The Christians 
 kept possession of Jerusalem eighty-eight years. 
 During this long period they appear to have 
 erected several churches and many convents. Of 
 the latter few, if any, traces remain ; and of the 
 former, save one or two ruins, the church of the 
 holy, sepulchre, which they rebuilt, is the only 
 memorial which attests the existence of the 
 Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. In a.d. 1187 
 the holy city was wrested from the hands of 
 the Christians by the Sultan Saladin, and the 
 order of things was then reversed. The cross 
 was removed with ignominy from the sacred 
 dome, the holy places were purified from Chris- 
 tian stain with rose-water brought from Damascus, 
 and the call to prayer by the muezzin once more 
 sounded over the city. From that time to the 
 present day the holy city has remained, with 
 slight interruption, in the hands of the Moslems. 
 On the threatened siege by Richard of England in 
 1192, Saladin took great pains in strengthening its 
 defences. New walls and bulwarks were erected, 
 and deep trenches cut, and in six months the 
 town was stronger than it ever had been, and the 
 works had the firmness and solidity of a rock. 
 But in a.d. 1219, the Sultan Melek el Moaddin 
 of Damascus, who then had possession of Jeru- 
 salem, ordered all the walls and towers to be 
 demolished, except the citadel and the enclosure 
 of the mosque, lest the Franks should again be- 
 come masters of the city and find it a place of 
 strength. In this defenceless state Jerusalem con- 
 tinued till it was delivered over to the Christians 
 in consequence of a treaty with the emperor 
 Frederick II., in a.d. j 229, with the understand- 
 ing that the walls should not be rebuilt. Yet ten 
 years later (a.d. 1239 j the barons and knights of 
 Jerusalem began to build the walls anew, and to 
 erect a strong lorn-ess or. the west of the city. 
 But the works were i 'derrupted by the emir 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 David of Kerek, who seized the city, strangled 
 the Christian inhabitants, and cast down the 
 newly erected walls and fortress. Four years 
 after, however (a.d. 1243), Jerusalem was again 
 made over to the Christians without any restric- 
 tion, and the works appear to have been restored 
 and completed ; for tnev are mentioned as exist- 
 ing when the city was stormed by the wild Kha- 
 rismian hordes in the following year ; shortly after [ 
 which the city reverted for the last time into the 
 hands of its Mohammedan masters, who have kept 
 it to the present day. 
 
 From this time Jerusalem appears to have sunk 
 very much in political and military importance ; 
 and it is scarcely named in the history of the 
 Memluk sultans who reigned over Egypt and the 
 greater part of Syria in the fourteenth and fif- 
 teenth centuries. At length, with the rest of 
 Syria and Egypt, it passed under the sway of the 
 Turkish sultan Selim I., who paid a hasty visit 
 to the holy city from Damascus after his return 
 from Egypt. From that time Jerusalem has 
 formed a part of the Ottoman empire, and during 
 this period has been subject to few vicissitudes : 
 its history is accordingly barren of incident. 
 Tiie present walls of the city were erected by 
 Suleiman the Magnificent, the successor of Se- 
 lim, in a.d. 1542, as is attested by an inscription 
 over the Jaffa gate. So lately as a.d. 1808, the 
 church of the holy sepulchre was partially con- 
 sumed by fire; but the damage was repaired with 
 great labour and expense by September, 1810, 
 and the traveller now finds in this imposing fa- 
 bric no traces of the recent calamity. 
 
 In a.d. 1832, Jerusalem became subject to 
 Mohammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt, (lie holy 
 city opening its gates to him without a siege 
 During the great insurrection in the districts of 
 Jerusalem and Nabulus, in 1834, the insurgents 
 seized upon Jerusalem, and held possession of it 
 for a time ; but by the vigorous operations of thi 
 government order was soon restored, and the citj 
 reverted quietly to its allegiance on the approach 
 of Ibrahim Pasha with his troops. In 1841 
 Mohammed Ali was deprived of all his Syriau 
 possessions by European interference, and Jeru- 
 salem was again subjected to the Turkish govern- 
 ment., under which it now remains. It is not, 
 perhaps, the happier for the change. The only 
 subsequent event of interest has been the esta- 
 blishment of a Protestant bishopric at Jerusalem 
 by the English and Prussian governments, and 
 the erection upon Mount Zion of a church, cal- 
 culated to bold 500 persons, for the celebration 
 of divine worship according to the ritual of the 
 English church. For the history of Jerusalem see 
 History von Jerusalem , Strasbourg, 1518 ; Spald- 
 ing, Ges'ch. d. Christl. Konigsreichs Jerusalem,, 
 Beilin, 1803; Deyling, /Elite Capitolinee Origg. 
 et Historia, Lips. 1743; Poujoulat, Histoire de 
 Jerusalem , Brux. 1842; Raumer’s Palastina ; 
 Robinsorts Bib. Researches in Palestine. 
 
 Before proceeding to inquire into the ancient 
 state of the city, and to describe its present con- 
 dition, it will be well to furnish the reader with a 
 general description of the site, that he may be en- 
 abled to follow the details with the more precision., 
 For this purpose we shall avail ourselves of the 
 able sketch given by Professor Robinson in his 
 Researches (i. 380-383). 
 
 G*;t> ii-AL T opography. — ‘Jerusalem lies nea* 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 •1 
 
 the avmmif of a broad mountain-ridge. This rid&e, 
 or mountainous tract, extends, without interrup- 
 tion, from the plain of Esdraelon lo a line drawn 
 between the south end of the Dead Sea and the 
 south-east, corner of the Mediterranean ; or, more 
 properl y, perhaps, it may tie regarded as extend- 
 ing as far south as to Jenel Araif in the Desert, 
 where it sinks down at once to the level of the 
 gueat western plateau. This tract, which is every- 
 where not less than from 20 to 25 geographical 
 miles in breadth, is, in fact, high uneven table- 
 land. It everywhere forms the precipitous west- 
 ern wall of the great valley of the Jordan and the 
 Dead Sea; while towards the west it sinks down 
 by an oil-set, into a range of tower hills, which lie 
 between it and the great plain along the coast of 
 the Mediterranean. The surface of this upper 
 region is everywhere rocky, uneven, and moun- 
 tainous ; and is, moreover, cut up by deep valleys 
 which run east or west on either side towards the 
 Jordan or the Mediterranean. The line of division, 
 or water-shed, between the waters of these valleys 
 — a term which here applies almost, exclusively 
 to the waters of the rainy season — follows for the 
 most part ihe height, of land along the ridge ; yet 
 not so but that, the heads of the valleys, which 
 run off’ in different directions, often interlap for 
 a considerable distance. Thus, for example, a 
 valley which descends to the Jordan, often has 
 its head a mile or two westward of the commence- 
 ment of other valleys which run to the western 
 sea. 
 
 From the great plain of Esdraelon onwards 
 towards the south, the mountainous country rises 
 gradually, forming the tract anciently known as 
 the mountains of Ephraim and Judah; until, in 
 the vicinity of Hebron, it attains an elevation of 
 nearly 3000 Paris feet above the level of the Me- 
 diterranean Sea. Further north, on a line drawn 
 from the north end of the Dead Sea towards the 
 true west, the ridge has an elevation of only about 
 2500 Paris feet; and here, close upon the water- 
 shed, lies the city of Jerusalem. Its mean geo- 
 graphical position is in lat. 31° 46' 43" N., and 
 long. 35° 1 3' E. from Greenwich. 
 
 Six or seven miles N. and N.W. of the city is 
 spread out the open plain or basin round about 
 el-Jib (Gibeon), extending also towards el-Bireh 
 (Beerolh) ; the waters of which (low off at its S.E. 
 part through the deep valley here called by the 
 Arabs Wady Beit Hanina ; but to which the 
 monks and travellers have usually given the name 
 of the £ Valiev cf Turpentine,’ or of the Terebinth, 
 on the mistaken supposition that it is the ancient 
 Valley of Elali. This great valley passes along in 
 a S.W. direction, an hour or more west of Jerusa- 
 lem ; and finally opens out from the mountains 
 into the western plain, at the distance of six or 
 eight hours S.W. from the city, under the name 
 of Wady es Surar. The traveller, on his way 
 from Ramleh to Jerusalem, descends into and 
 crosses this deep valley at the village of Kulonieh 
 on its western side, an hour and a half from the 
 latter city. On again reaching the high ground 
 on its eastern side, he enters upon an open tract 
 eloping gradually downwards towards the east ; 
 and sees before him, at the distance of about two 
 miles, the walls and domes of the holy city, and 
 beyond them the higher ridge or summit of the 
 Mount of Olives. The traveler now descends 
 gradually towards t ie city alor.ig a broad swell 
 
 VOL. II. c 
 
 of.ground, having at some distance on his left tl<« 
 shallow northern part of the valley of J ehoshaphat ; 
 close at hand on his right the basin which form* 
 the beginning of the Valley of Ilinnom. Fur- 
 ther down both these valleys become deep, narrow, 
 and precipitous; that, of Ilinnom bends south and 
 again east nearly at right angles, and unites 
 with the other, which then continues its course 
 to the Dead Sea. Upon the broad and elevated 
 promontory within the fork of these two valleys 
 lies the holy city. All around are higher hills; 
 on the east the Mount, of Olives; on the south 
 the Hill of Evil Counsel, so called, rising directly 
 from the Vale of Hinnom ; on the. west the ground 
 rises gently, as above described, to the borders of 
 the great Wady ; while on the north, a bend of 
 the ridge, connected with the Mount of Olives, 
 bounds the prospect at the distance of more than 
 a mile. Towards the S.W. the view is somewhat 
 more open ; for here lies the plain of Rephaim, 
 commencing just at the southern brink of the 
 valley of Hinnom, and stretching off S. W., where 
 it runs to the western sea. In the N.W. too, the 
 eye reaches up along the upper part of the valley 
 of Jehosi.aphat ; and from many points can dis- 
 cern the mosque of Nt by Samwii, situated on a 
 lofty ridge beyond the great Wady, at the distance 
 of two hours. 
 
 The surface of the elevated promontory itself, 
 on which the city stands, slopes somewhat steeply 
 towards the east, terminating on the brink of the 
 valley of Jelioshaphat. From the northern past* 
 near the present Damascus gate, a depression oc 
 shallow wady runs in a southern direction,, hav- 
 ing on the west the ancient hills of Akra and 
 Zion, and on the east the lower ones of Bezetha 
 and Moriah. Between the hills of Akra and 
 Zion another depression or shallow wady (still 
 easy to he traced) comes down from near the Jaffa 
 gate, and joins the former. It then continues 
 obliquely down the slope, but with a deeper 
 bed, in a southern direction, quite to the pool of 
 Siloarn and the valley of Jelioshaphat. This, 
 is the ancient Tyropoeon. West of its lower part 
 Zion rises loftily, lying mostly without the modem 
 city ; while on the east of the Tyropceon and the 
 valley first mentioned, lie Bezetha, Moriah, and; 
 Ophel, the last a long and comparatively narrow 
 ridge, also outside of the modern city, and termi- 
 nating in a rocky point over the pool of Siloam. 
 These three last hills may strictly be taken as 
 only parts of one and the same ridge. The 
 breadth of the whole site of Jerusalem, from the 
 brow of the valley of Hinnom, near the Jaffa gate* 
 to the brink of the valley of Jelioshaphat, is about 
 1020 yards, or nearly half a geographical mile; 
 of which distance 318 yards are occupied by the 
 area of the great mosque el-Haram esh-Sherif, 
 North of the Jaffa gate the city wall sweeps 
 round more to the west, and increases the breadth, 
 of the city in .that part. 
 
 The country around Jerusalem is all of lime- 
 stone formation, and not particularly fertile. The 
 rocks everywhere come out above the surface, 
 which in many parts is also thickly strewed with 
 loose stones; and the aspect of the wnole region 
 is barren and dreary ; yet the olive thrives here 
 abundantly, and fields of grain are seen in the 
 valleys and level places, hut they are less pro 
 ductive than in the region of Hebron and Nabur 
 lus. Neither vineyards nor lig-tnes flourish on 
 
P8 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 tue nigh ground around the city, though the latter 
 are found in the gardens below Siloam, and very 
 frequently in the vicinity of Bethlehem. 
 
 Ancient Jerusalem — Every reader of Seri p- 
 tuse feels a natural anxiety to form some notion 
 of the appearance and condition of Jerusalem, as 
 it existed in tne time of Jesus, or rather as it 
 stood before its destruction by the Romans. There 
 are unusual difficulties in the way of satisfying 
 this desire, although it need not be left altogether 
 ungratified. The principal sources of these diffi- 
 culties have been indicated bv different travellers, 
 and by none more forcibly than by Richardson 
 { Travels , ii. 251). ‘It is a tantalizing circum- 
 stance, however, for the traveller who wishes to re- 
 cognise in his walks the site of particular buildings, 
 •or the scenes of memorable events, that, the greater 
 part of the objects mentioned in (he description, 
 Loth of the inspired and of the Jewish historian, 
 are entirely razed from their foundation, without 
 leaving a single trace or name behind to point out 
 •where they stood. Not an ancient tower, or gate, 
 or wall, or hardly even a stone remains. The 
 foundations are not only broken up, but every 
 fragment of which they were composed is swept 
 away, and the spectator looks upon the bare rock 
 with hardly a sprinkling of earth to point out her 
 gardens of pleasure, or groves of idolatrous devo- 
 tion. A few gardens still remain on the sloping 
 •base of Mount Zion, watered from the pool of 
 Siloam : the gardens of Gethsemane are still in a 
 •sort of ruined cultivation ; the fences are broken 
 •down and the olive-trees decaying, as if the hand 
 which dressed and fed them were withdrawn : the 
 Mount of Olives still retains a languishing 
 verdure, and nourishes a few of those trees from 
 •which it derives its name; hut all round about 
 Jerusalem the general aspect is blighted and 
 barren : the grass is withered : the hare rock looks 
 through the scanty sward, and the grain itself, 
 like the starving progeny of famine, seems in 
 doubt whether to come to maturity or die in the 
 ear. Jerusalem has heard the voice of David and 
 Bolomon, of prophets and apostles; and He who 
 spake as man never spake has taught in her syna- 
 gogues and in her streets. Before her legislators, 
 her poets, and her apostles, those of all other coun- 
 tries became dumb, and cast down their crowns, 
 as unworthy to stand in their presence. Once she 
 was very rich in every blessing, victorious over all 
 her enemies, and resting in peace, with every man 
 sitting under his own vine, and under his own 
 rfig-tree, with none to disturb or to make him afraid. 
 .Jerusalem was the brightest of all the cities of the 
 east, and fortified above all other towns ; so strong 
 that the Roman conqueror thereof, and the 
 master of the whole world besides, exclaimed, on 
 entering the city of David, and looking up at the 
 towers which the Jews had abandoned, “ Surely, 
 we have had God for our assistance in the war : for 
 what could human hands or human machines do 
 against these towers? It is no other than God 
 who has expefied the Jews from their fortifications.” 
 It is impossible for the Christian traveller to look 
 upon Jerusalem with the same feelings with which 
 he would set himself to contemplate the ruins of 
 Thebes, of Athens, or of Rome, or of any other 
 city which the world ever saw. There is in all 
 the doings of the Jews, their virtues and their 
 vices, their wisdom and their lolly, a height and a 
 depth, a breadth and a length that angels cannot 
 
 fathom ; their whole history is a history of mira- 
 cles ; the precepts of their sacred hook are the most 
 profound, and the best adapted to every station in 
 which man can lie placed : they moderate him in 
 prosperity, sustain him in adversity, guide him in 
 health, console him in sickness, support him at 
 the close of life, travel on with him through 
 death, live with him throughout endless ages of 
 eternity, and Jerusalem lends its name to the 
 eternal mansions of the blessed in heaVeri which 
 man is admitted to enjoy through the atonement 
 of Christ Jesus, who was horn of a descendant of 
 Judah.’ 
 
 If writers who have actually visited Jerusalem 
 have encountered such difficulties, to those wIki 
 never saw the place it must he still more diffi- 
 cult, if not. impossible, to arrive at definite con- 
 clusions respecting the ancient city. It is certain 
 that our knowledge of its ancient state must pro- 
 ceed upon an accurate knowledge of its presen' 
 condition. But if we compare the accounts of 
 different travellers, and the plans which many of 
 them have laid down, the irreconcilable differences 
 between them produce a discouraging convic- 
 tion of the insufficiency of the basis thus offered 
 for the foundation of any fixed conclusions. And 
 even if there were agreement in the accounts of 
 the superficies, something more than this would be 
 required — something more than ever perhaps will 
 he realized while the site continues to be trodden 
 under foot by the Gentiles. Much was done by 
 Dr. Robinson and others during the period of the 
 rule of the Pasha of Egypt, in which greater 
 facilities were offered for exploration than are 
 likely to he soon again obtained. But a far more 
 minute and searching examination of the site 
 than was even then realized is necessary for the 
 purposes of antiquarian comparison. For instance, 
 the surface is in many parts covered to a vast, depth, 
 and the character and properties of particular spots 
 are necessarily much altered, by the accumulated 
 rubbish of ages. Some notion of this may he 
 formed from the fact that in seeking a foundation 
 for the Protestant church on Mount Zion, super- 
 incumbent rubbish to the depth of fifty feet was 
 dug through before reaching the solid rock (Olin, 
 ii. 254). It would therefore appear that not only 
 a very minute survey, but numerous excavations, 
 would he necessary to the ends of a really satis- 
 factory investigation. 
 
 To the obscurity originating in these causes may 
 he added that which arises from the many ambi- 
 guities in the description left by Josephus, the 
 only one which we possess, and which must 
 form the ground- work of most of our notices 
 respecting the ancient city. There are indeed 
 some manifest errors in his account, which the 
 critical reader is able to detect without having the 
 means to rectify. 
 
 In describing Jerusalem as it stood just before its 
 destruction by the Romans, Josephus states that the 
 city was buiit upon two hills, between which lay 
 the valley Tyropoeon (Cheesemonger's Valley), to 
 which the buildings on both hills came down. 
 This valley extended to the fountain of Siloam. 
 The hill on which the upper town stood was much 
 higher than the other, and straighter in its extent. 
 On account of its fortifications, David called it 
 the Fortress or Castle ; but in the time of Josephus 
 it was known by the name of the Upper Market. 
 The other hill, on which was situaled the lower 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 09 
 
 (own, was called Akra. It was in the form of a 
 horees.ioo or crescent. Opposite to Akra was a 
 third, and naturally lower hill (Moriah), on 
 which the temple was built; and between this 
 and Akra was originally a broad valley, which 
 the inhabitants of Jerusalem filled up in the time 
 of Simon Maccabaeus for the purpose of connect- 
 ing the town with the temple. At the same lime 
 they lowered the hill Akra, so as to make the 
 temple rise above it. Both the hills on which the 
 upper and lower towns stood were externally sur- 
 rounded by deep valleys, and here there was 
 no approach because of the precipices on every 
 side. 
 
 The single wall which enclosed that part of the 
 city skirted by precipitous valleys, began at the 
 tower of Hippicus. On the west it extended 
 (southward) to a place called Bethso, and the 
 gate of the Essenes ; thence it kept along on the 
 south to a point over against Siloam ; and thence 
 on the east was carried along by Solomon’s Pool 
 and Ophla (Ophel), till it terminated at the 
 eastern portico of the temple. Of the triple 
 walls, we are told that the first and oldest of these 
 began at the tower of Hippicus, on the northern 
 part, and extending (along the northern brow of 
 Zion) to the Xystus, afterwards terminated at the 
 western portico of the temple. The second wall 
 began at the gate of Gennath (apparently near 
 Hippicus), and encircling only the northern part 
 of the city, extended to the castle of Antonia at 
 the north-west corner of the area of the temple. 
 The third wall was built by Agrippa at a later 
 period : it also had its beginning at the tower of 
 Hippicus, ran northward as far as the tower Pse- 
 phinos; and thence sweeping round towards the 
 n. >ith-ea'st by east, it turned afterwards towards 
 the south, and was joined to the ancient wall a.t 
 or in the valley of the Kidron. This wall 
 enclosed the hill Bezetha. 
 
 From other passages we learn that the Xystus, 
 named in the above descriptions, was an open 
 place in the extreme part of the upper city, where 
 the people sometimes assembled, and that a bridge 
 connected it with the temple (De Bell. Jud. ii. 
 16. 3; vi. 6. 2; vi. 8. 1 ; comp. Antiq. xiv. 4. 2). 
 Further, we are informed that on the western side 
 of the temple area were four gates; one leading 
 over the valley to the royal palace (on Zion) 
 adjacent to the Xystus, probably by the bridge 
 just mentioned ; two conducting to the suburb 
 (or new city) on the north ; and the remaining one 
 leading to ‘ the other city,’ first by steps down 
 into the intervening valley, and then by an ascent 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11.5; xx. 8. 11). By this 
 ‘other city ’ can be meant only the lower city or 
 Akra. The hill Bezetha, which was last enclosed, 
 lay quite near on the north of the temple (Joseph. 
 De Bell. Jud. v. 5. 8). From the account of the 
 operations of the Romans under Titus, it may 
 also be collected that the interior and most 
 ancient of the three walls on the north lay 
 between Akra and the upper city, forming the 
 defence of the latter in this part. It was, doubt- 
 less, the same wall which ran along the northern 
 brow of Zion. 
 
 It would be only going over this statement in 
 other words to explain the results which it offers; 
 and there is the less need of doing so, as they only 
 serve to suppivt the conclusions which have long 
 been regarded is established. Dr. Robinson., in 
 
 comparing the information derived from Josephus 
 with his own more detailed account, declares that 
 the main features depicted by the Jewish historian 
 may still be recognised. ‘ True,’ he says. ‘ the 
 valley of ihe Tyropoeon, and that between Akra 
 and Moriah, have been greatly filled up with the 
 rubbish accumulated from the repeated desolations 
 of nearly eighteen centuries. Yet they are still 
 distinctly to be traced : the hills of Zion, Akra, 
 Moriah, and Bezetha, are not to be mistaken ; 
 while the deep valleys of the Kidron, and of 
 Hinnom, and the Mount of Olives, are permanent 
 natural features, too prominent and gigantic in- 
 deed to be forgotten, or to undergo any perceptible 
 change’ ( Bibl . Researches, i. 414). 
 
 The details embraced in this general notice 
 must be more particularly examined in connec- 
 tion with modern observations; for it is to be 
 remembered that the chief or only value of these 
 observations consists in the light which they throw 
 on the ancient condition and history of the site. 
 
 The Wali.s. — Some questions of much in- 
 terest are connected with the attempt to deter- 
 mine the course and extent of the ancient walls 
 of Jerusalem. These questions chiefly relate to 
 the site of the crucifixion of our Lord, and of the 
 sepulchre in which he was laid. If the site at 
 present indicated be the right one, then certainly 
 there bos been much alteration ; for it is consider- 
 ably within the modem walls, although we knew 
 that our Lord suffered and was entombed without 
 the gate. This part of the subject has, however, 
 been examined in the article Golgotha; and 
 the conclusion there maintained on the point oi 
 chief interest connected with the walls, limits 
 the inquiry t6 which the present notice must be 
 directed. 
 
 The first, or most ancient wall, appears to have 
 enclosed the whole of Mount Zion. The greater 
 part of it, therefore, must have formed the exterior 
 and sole wall on the south, overlooking the deep 
 valleys below Mount Zion ; and the northern par* 
 evidently passed from the tower of Hippicus or 
 the west side, along the northern brow of Zion, 
 and across the valley, to the western side of the 
 temple area. It probably nearly coincided with 
 the ancient wall which existed before the time ol 
 David, and which enabled the Jebusites to main- 
 tain themselves in possession of the upper city, 
 long after the lower city had been in the hands of 
 the Israelites. Mount Zion is now unwalled, and 
 is excluded from., the modern city. Some traces 
 of this wall were visible in the time of Benjamin 
 of Tudela, who says that the stones of the foun- 
 dation were then taken away for building ( Itiner . 
 ed. Ashe*-. i. 73). No trace of it can now be per- 
 ceived, but by digging through the rubbish, the 
 foundations might perhaps be discovered. 
 
 The account given by Josephus, of the second 
 wall, is very short and unsatisfactory. This is 
 the more to be regretted, as on the course taken by 
 the eastern part of that wall rests the question, 
 whether that which is now shown as the site of 
 Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre was anciently 
 beyond the wall or not. The difficulties of this 
 question are very great, the historical evidence 
 being just as strongly in favour of the present site 
 as the topographical evidence is against it. It 
 cannot be denied that the breadth of the city, in a 
 site limited by nature, and where, therefore, every 
 foot of ground was precious, would be greatly and 
 
JERUSALEiM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 1<K> 
 
 inconveniently narrowed by drawing th,e line so 
 a* to place the present holy sepulchre beyond the 
 walls. But on the other .hand it must, be ad- 
 mitted that the phrase ‘ beyond the walls' is often 
 interpreted with a larger meaning than necessary. 
 When applied to executions, gibbetings, or any 
 purpose not allowable within the walls, we have 
 always understood, from the analogous usages in 
 all walled towns, that it denotes the slope or any 
 oilier practicable space immediately wider the 
 wall, and so near to it that a slight advance of 
 the wall would include the site. The fastening 
 of the bodies of Saul and his sons to the wall of 
 Beth-shan may illustrate this view of the case, 
 which tends in some degree to lessen the difficulty 
 of the question. For our present purpose it is suf- 
 ficient to indicate the evident fact that this second 
 wall enclosed the whole of the lower city, or Akra, 
 excepting that part of the eastern side of it which 
 fronted the Temple area on Mount Moriah, and 
 the southern side, towards the valley which sepa- 
 rated the lower from the upper city. In short, it 
 was a continuation of the external wall, so far 
 as necessary, on the west and north, and on so 
 much of the exist as was not already protected by 
 the strong wall of the Temple area. The precise 
 course of this wall might perluips be determined 
 by excavations. It is indeed our strong convic- 
 tion that one good excavation along one of the two 
 sheets which intersect the Via Dolorosa would 
 go far to settle for ever the only question of real 
 interest connected with the subject. It is likely 
 that the foundations of the old wall still exist; 
 and if it lay at any point within the present wall, 
 those foundations must pass under this street, and 
 an excavation of not greater extent than those 
 which are made every day in London for sewerage, 
 would bring them to light, and show whether the 
 alleged site of Calvary lay within or without the 
 wall. 
 
 Although these were the only walls that ex- 
 isted in the time of our Saviour, we are not to 
 infer that the habitable city was confined within 
 their limits. On the contrary, it was because the 
 city had extended northward far beyond the 
 second wall that a third was built to cover the 
 defenceless suburb : and there is no reason to 
 doubt that this unprotected suburb, called Be- 
 r.etha, existed in the time of Christ. This wall 
 is described as having also begun at the tower of 
 Ilippicus: it ran northward as far as to the tower 
 Psephinos, then passed down opposite the sepul- 
 clu-e of Helena (queen of Adiabene), and being 
 carried along through the royal sepulchres, turned 
 at the coiner tower by the Fullers’ monument, 
 and ended by making a junction with the ancient 
 wall at the valley of the Kidron. It was begun 
 ten or twelve years after our Lord’s crucifixion 
 by the elder Ilerod Agiippa, who desisted from 
 completing it for fear of offending the Emperor 
 Claudius. But the design was afterwards taken 
 up and completed hv the Jews themselves, al- 
 though on a scale of less strength and magnifi- 
 cence. Dr. Robinson thinks that he discovered 
 some traces of this wall, which are described in 
 his great work ( Bibl . Researches , i. 4C6), and are 
 indicated in our plan of Jerusalem. 
 
 The same writer thinks that the wall of the 
 new city, ti e /Elia of Adrian, nearly coincided 
 with that of the present Jerusalem : and the por- 
 tion of Mount Zion which riow lies outside, 
 
 would seem then also to have been excluded , 
 for Eusebius and Cyrill, in the fourth century, 
 speak of the denunciation of the prophet being 
 fulfilled, and describes Zion as ‘a ploughed field’ 
 (Mich. iii. 2). 
 
 We know from Josephus that the circumference 
 of the ancient city was 33 stadia, equivalent to 
 nearly three and a half geographical miles. The 
 circumference of the present walls does not ex- 
 ceed two and a half geographical miles ;• but the 
 extent of Mount Zion, now without the walls, and 
 the tract on the north formerly enclosed, or partly 
 so, by the third wall, sufficiently account foi 
 the difference. 
 
 The history of the modern walls has already 
 been given in the sketch of the modern history of 
 the city. The present walls have a solid and 
 formidable appearance, especially when cursorily 
 observed from without ; anil they are strengthened, 
 or rather ornamented, with towers and battlements 
 after the Saracenic style. They are built of lime- 
 stone, the stones being not commonly more than a 
 foot or fifteen inches square. The height varies 
 with the various elevations of the ground. The 
 lower parts are probably about twenty-live feet 
 high, while in more exposed localities, where the 
 ravines contribute less to the security of the city, 
 they have an elevation of sixty or seventy feet. 
 
 Gates. Much uncertainty exists respecting 
 the ancient gates of Jerusalem. Many gates are 
 named in Scripture; and it has been objected that 
 they are more in number than a town of the size 
 of Jerusalem cuuld require — especially as they 
 all occur within the extent embraced by the first 
 and second walls, the third not thert existing. 
 It has, therefore, been suggested as move than 
 probable that some of these gates were within the 
 city, in the walls which separated the town from 
 the temple, and the upper town from the lower, 
 in which gates certainly existed. On the other 
 hand, considering the circumstances under which 
 the wall was rebuilt in the time of Nehemiah, it is 
 difficult to suppose that more than the outer wall 
 was then constructed, and certainly it was in the 
 wall then built that the ten or twelve gates men- 
 tioned by Nehemiah occur. But these may be 
 considerably reduced by supposing that two or 
 more of the names mentioned were applied to the 
 same gate. If this view of the matter be taken, 
 no better distribution of these gates can be given 
 than that suggested by Ruumer. 
 
 a. On the north side. 
 
 1. The Old Gate, probably at the north-east 
 corner (Neh. iii. 6 ; xii. 39). 
 
 2. The Gate of Ephraim or Benjamin (Jer. 
 xxxviii. 7 ; xxxvii. 13; Neh. xii. 9; 2 Chron. 
 xxv. 23). This gate doubtless derived its names 
 from its leading to the territory of Ephraim and 
 Benjamin ; and Dr. Robinson supposes it may 
 possibly be represented by some traces of ruina 
 which he found on the site of the present gale of 
 Damascus. 
 
 3. The Corner-gate , 300 cubits from the 
 former, and apparently at the north-west corner 
 (2 Chron. xxv. 9; 2 Kings xiv. 13; Zech. xiv. 
 10). Probably the Gate of the Furnaces is the 
 same (Neh. iii. 2 ; xii. 38). 
 
 u. On the west side. 
 
 4. The Valley-gate , over against the Dragon- 
 fountain of Gihon (Neh. ii. 13; iii. 13 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxxvi. 9). It was probably about the north-we*t 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 101 
 
 comer of Zion, where there appears to have been 
 ftlvays a gate, and Dr. Robinson supposes it to 
 be the same with the Gennadi of Josephus. 
 
 c. On the south side. 
 
 5. The Dung-gate, perhaps the same as Jo- 
 sephus’s Gate of the Essenes (Neh. ii. 13 ; xii. 31). 
 It was 1000 cubits from the valley-gate (Neh. 
 iii. 14), and the dragon-well was between them 
 (Neh. ii. 13). This gate is probably also iden- 
 tical with ‘the gate between two walls’ (2 Kings 
 xxv, 1 ; Jer. xxxix. 4 ; Lam. ii. 7). 
 
 6. The Gate of the Fountain, to the south- 
 east (Neh. ii. 14; iii. 15); the gate of the foun- 
 tain near the king's pool (Neh. ii. 14); the gate 
 of the fountain near ‘ the pool of Siloali by the 
 king's garden' (Neh. iii. 15). The same gate is pro- 
 bably denoted in all these instances, and the pools 
 seem to have been also the same. It is also pos- 
 sible that this fountain-gate was the same other- 
 wise distinguished as the brick-gate (or potter's 
 gate), leading to the valley of IJinnom (Jer. xix. 
 2, where the Auth. Ver. has ‘east-gate’). 
 
 i). On the east side. 
 
 7. The Water-gate (Neh. iii. 26). 
 
 8. The Prison-gate, otherwise the Horse-gate , 
 near the temple (Neh. iii. 28; xii. 39, 40). 
 
 9. The Sheep gate, probably near the sheep- 
 pool (Neh. iii. 1-32; xii. 29). 
 
 10. The Fish-gate was quite at the north-east 
 (Neh. iii. 3; xii. 39; Zeph. i. 10; 2 Chron. 
 xxxiii. 14). 
 
 It will be observed that in two of the cases the 
 distances of the gates from each other are men- 
 tioned. Thus the corner gate (3) was only 300 
 cubits from the gate of Ephraim (2), and the 
 dung-gate (5) was 1U00 cubits from t he valley- 
 gate (4). This suggests that the gates were really 
 nearer to each other than the objections already 
 stated would assume, and the 4 hundred-gated 
 Thebes’ may be recollected as warranting a doubt 
 whether the ancient Orientals had the same ob- 
 jection to gates which are now entertained. At 
 all events, if the circumference of the wall of 
 Jerusalem, before the third wall was added, be 
 assumed to have been two miles and a half, or equal 
 to the present wall, then this extent would have 
 allowed ten gates at the highest named distance 
 of 1000 cubits apait, and more than thrice that 
 number at the lowest named distance of 300 
 cubits. 
 
 In the middle ages there appear to have been 
 two gates on each side of the city, making eight 
 dii all; and this number, being only two short 
 of those assigned in the above estimate to the 
 ancient Jerusalem, seems to vindicate that esti- 
 mate from the objections which have been urged 
 against it. 
 
 On the west side were two gates, of which the 
 principal was the Porta David, Gate of David, 
 often mentioned by the writers on the Crusades. 
 It was called by the Arabs Bah el-Mihrab , and 
 corresponds to the present J aff'a gate, or Bah el - 
 Khulil The other was the gate of the Fuller’s 
 Field ( Porta Villce Fullonis \ , so called from Isa. 
 vii. 3. This seems to be th* same which others 
 call Porta Judiciaria , and which is described as 
 being in the wall over against the church of the 
 holy sepulchre, leading to Silo (Neby Samwil) 
 anti Gibeon. This seems to be that which the 
 Arabian writers call Serb. There is no trace of 
 it in the preaen* wall. 
 
 On the north there were also two gates ; and 
 nil the middle-age writers speak of the principa. 
 of them as the gate of St. Stephen, from the notion 
 that the death of the protomartyr took place neai 
 it. This was also called the gate of Ephraim, in 
 reference to its probable ancient name. Arabic 
 writers called it Bab ’ Amud el-Ghurab, of which 
 the present name, Bab el- Amud, is only a con- 
 traction. The present gate of St. Stephen i3 on 
 the east of the city, and the scene of the martyr- 
 dom is now placed near it ; but there is no 
 account of the change. Further east was the 
 gate of Benjamin ( Porta Benjaminis ), corre- 
 sponding apparently to what is now called the 
 gate of Herod. 
 
 On the east there seem to have been at least 
 two gates. The northernmost is described by 
 Adamnanus as a small portal leading down to the 
 valley of Jehoshaphat. It was called the gate of 
 Jehoshaphat, from the valley to which it led. It 
 seems to be represented by the present gate of St. 
 Stephen. The Arabian writers call it Bab cl- 
 Usbat, Gate of the tribes, being another form of 
 the modern Arabic name Bab es-Svbat. The 
 present gate of St. Stephen has four lions sculp- 
 tured over it on the outside, which, as well as the 
 architecture, show that it existed before the pre- 
 sent walls. Dr. Robinson suggests that the 
 original ‘small portal ’ was rebuilt on a larger 
 scale by the Franks, when they built up the walls 
 of the city, either in a.b. 1178 or 1239. The 
 other gate is the famous Golden Gate ( Porta 
 
 aurea ) in the eastern wall of the temple area. It ia 
 now called by the Arabs Bab ed-Dahariyeh, but 
 formerly Bab er-Rahmeh, ‘Gate of Mercy.’ The 
 name Golden Gate appears to have come from a 
 supposed connection with one of the ancient gates 
 of the temple, which are said to have been co- 
 vered with gold ; but this name cannot be traced 
 back, beyond the historians of the Crusades. 
 This gate is, from its architecture, obviously of 
 Roman origin, and is conjectured to have be- 
 longed to the enclosure of the temple of Jupiter 
 which was built by Adrian upon Mount Moriao. 
 The exterior is now walled up ; but being double, 
 the interior forms within the area a recess, which is 
 used for prayer by the Moslem worshipper. Dif- 
 ferent reasons are given for the closing of this gate. 
 It was probably because it was found inconvenient 
 that a gate to the mosque should be open in the 
 exterior wall. Although not walled up, it. was 
 kept closed even when the Crusaders were in pos- 
 session of the city, find only opened once a yea* 
 on Palm Sunday, in celebration of our Lord’s sup» 
 posed- triumphal entry through it to the tempi*. 
 
102 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 On the soutli side were also two gates. The 
 easternmost is now called by .the Franks the 
 Dung-gate, and by the natives Bab el-Mugharibeh. 
 The earliest mention of this gate is by Brocard, 
 about a.d. 1283, who regards it. as the ancient 
 Water-gate. Further west, between the eastern 
 brow of Zion and the gate of David, the Cru- 
 saders found a gate which they call the Gate of 
 Zion, corresponding ti one which now bears the 
 same name. 
 
 It thus appears that before the rebuilding of 
 the walls of Jerusale n by the Turks in the six- 
 teenth century, the principal gates of the ci f y 
 were much the same as at the present day. But 
 of the seven gates mentioned as still existing, 
 three, the Dung Gate, the Golden Gate, and lie- 
 rod s Gate, are closed. Thus there are only four 
 gates now in use, one on each side of tire town, 
 all of which have been enumerated. St. Stephen's, 
 on the east, leads to the Mount of Olives, Bethany, 
 and Jericho. From the nature of the ground, 
 taken in connection with the situation of the 
 temple, a little south, there must always have been 
 a great thoroughfare here. Zion Gate, on the south 
 side of the city, connects the populous quarter 
 around the Armenian convent with that part of 
 Mount Zion which is outside the walls, and which 
 is much resorted to as being the great field of 
 Christian burial, as well as for its traditionary 
 sanctity as the site of David's tomh, the house of 
 Caiaphas, house of Mary, &c. The Jaffa Gate, 
 on the west, is the termination of the important 
 routes from Jaffa, Bethlehem, and Hebron. The 
 formation of the ground suggests this as one of 
 the great thoroughfares of the ancient city, which 
 could here be approached from the quarters just 
 indicated much more conveniently than at any 
 other point. The Damascus Gate, on the north, 
 is also planted in a vale, which in every age of 
 Jerusalem must have been a great public way, and 
 the easiest approach from Sariftuia and Galilee. 
 
 Towehs. — The towers of Jerusalem are often 
 mentioned in Scripture and in Josephus. There 
 is, indeed, no general account of them ; but some 
 of the principal are described, and we may rea- 
 sonably infer that the others resembled them, more 
 or less, in form and arrangement. Most of the 
 towers mentioned by Josephus were erected by 
 Herod the Great, and were, consequently, stand- 
 ing in the time of Christ. It was on these, there- 
 fore, that his eyes often rested when he approached 
 Jerusalem, or viewed its walls and towers from 
 the Mount of Olives. Of all these towers, the 
 most important is that of Ilippicus, which Jose- 
 phus, as we have alieady seen, assumed as the 
 starting-point in his description of all the walls of 
 the city. Herod gave to it the name of a friend 
 who was slain in battle. It was a quadrangular 
 structure, twenty-five cubits on each side, and 
 built up entirely solid to the height of thirty cubita. 
 Above this solid part was a cistern twenty cubits; 
 and then, for twenty-five cubits more, were cham- 
 bers of various kinds, with a breastwork of two 
 cubits, and battlements of three cubits upon the 
 top. The altitude of the whole tower was conse- 
 quently eighty cubits. The stones of which it 
 was built were very large, twenty cubits long by 
 ten broad and five high, and (probably in the 
 upper part) were of white marble. Dr. Robinson 
 oas shown that this tower should be sought at the 
 Qorth- we-t corner of the upper city, or Mount Zien. 
 
 This part, a little to the south of the Jaffa Gate, it 
 now occupied by the citadel. It is an irregular 
 assemblage of square towers, surrounded on the 
 inner side towards the city by a low wall, and 
 having on the outer or west side a deep fosse. The 
 towers which rise from the brink of the fosse are 
 protected on that side by a low sloping bulwark 
 or buttress, which rises from the bottom of the 
 trench at an angle of forty-five degrees. This 
 part hears evident marks of antiquity, and Dr. 
 Robinson is inclined to ascribe these massive out- 
 works to the time of the rebuilding and fortifying 
 of the city by Adrian. This fortress is described 
 by the middle age historians as tne tower or citadel 
 of David. Within it, as the traveller enters the 
 city by the Jaffa Gate, the north-eastern tower 
 attracts his notice as bearing evident marks of 
 higher antiquity than any of the others. The 
 upper pari is, indeed, modern, but the lower pait 
 is built of larger stones, bevelled at the edges, and 
 apparently still occupying their original places. 
 This tower has been singled out by the Franks, 
 and bears among them the name of the Tower of 
 David, while they sometimes give to the whole 
 fortress the name of the Castle of David. Taking 
 all the circumstances into account, Dr. Robinson 
 thinks that the antique lower portion of this tower 
 is in all probability a remnant of the tower of 
 Hippicus, which, as Josephus states, was left 
 standing by Titus when lie destroyed the city. 
 This discoveiy, however, is not new: the identity 
 having been advocated by Raumer and others be- 
 fore J>r. Robinson travelled. 
 
 Josephus describes two other towers — those of 
 Phasaelus and Mariamne, both built by Herod, 
 one of them being named after a friend, and the 
 other after his favourite wife. They stood not far 
 from Hippicus, upon the first or most. ancient wall, 
 which ran from the latter tower eastward, along 
 the northern brow of Zion. Connected with these 
 towers and Hippicus was the royal castle or 
 palace of the first Herod, which was enclosed by 
 this wall on the north, and on the other sides by a 
 wall thirty cubits high. The whole was furnished 
 with great strength and regal splendour, and fur- 
 nished with halls, and galleries, and cisterns, and 
 apartments without number (Joseph. De Bell. 
 Jud. v. 4. 3, 4 ; v. 4. 4). These were the three 
 mighty towers which Titus left standing as mo- 
 numents of the strength of the place which had 
 yielded to his arms. But nothing now remains 
 save the above-mentioned supposed remnant of the 
 tower of Hippicus. 
 
 A fourth tower, called Psephinos, is mentioned 
 by Josephus ( De Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2, 3). It stood 
 at. the north-west corner of the third or exterior 
 wall of the city. It did not, consequently, exist 
 in the time of Christ, seeing that the wall itself 
 was built by Herod Agrippa, to whom also the 
 tower may be ascribed. It was of an octagonal 
 form, seventy cubits high, and from it could be 
 seen Aiabia towards the rising sun, and the inhe- 
 ritance of the Hebrews quite to the sea. This 
 shows that it must have stood upon the high swell 
 ,jf ground which extends up north-north-west from 
 the north-west corner of the present city. In this 
 quarter there are ancient substructions, apparently 
 of towers and other fortifications, and although 
 none of them may be actually those of Psephinos, 
 Dr. Robinson conceives that the tower stoi d seme- 
 where in this vicinity. 
 
JERUSALEM 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 The abor e are the only towers whi. h the his- 
 torian particularly mentions. But. in describing 
 the outer or third wall of Agrippa, he states that 
 it had battlements of two cubits, and turrets of 
 three cubits more : and as the wall was twenty 
 subits high, this would make the turrets of the 
 weight of twenty-five cubits or nearly thirty-eight 
 feet. Many loftier and more substantial towers 
 than these were erected on each of the walls at 
 regulated distances, and furnished with every re- 
 quisite for convenience or defence. Of those on the 
 third or outer wall are enumerated ninety; on the 
 middle or second wall, forty; and on the inner 
 or ancient wall, sixty. 
 
 Public Buildings. — The temple was in all 
 ages the great glory and principal public build- 
 ing of Jerusalem, as the heathen temple, church, or 
 mosque, successively occupying the same site, has 
 been ever since the Jewish temple was destroyed. 
 That temple is reserved for a separate article 
 [Temple], and there are few other public edifices 
 which require a particular description. Those most 
 connected with Scripture history are the palace of 
 Herod and the tower of Antonia. The former has 
 already been noticed. In the time of Christ it was 
 t lie residence of the Roman procurators while in 
 Jerusalem ; and as such provincial residences 
 were called by the Romans Pretoria, this was 
 the praetorium or judgment-hall of Pilate (Matt, 
 xxvii. 27 ; Mark xv. 16; John xviii. 28). In 
 front of the palace was the tribunal or ‘judgment- 
 seat,’ where the procurator sat to hear and deter- 
 mine the causes; and where Pilate was seated when 
 our Lord was brought before him. It was a raised 
 pavement of mosaic work (AidSarpurou), called 
 in the Hebrew Gabbatha, or ‘ an elevated place’ 
 [Judgment-Hall]. 
 
 The tower or castle of Antonia stood on a steep 
 rock adjoining the north-west coiner of the temple. 
 It has already been mentioned, (p. 94) that it 
 originated under the Maccabees, who resided in 
 it. The name of Baris B apvs or BapeiV), 
 
 which it obtained, was originally thePersian name 
 of a royal palace ; but which, according to Je- 
 rome ( Epist . ad Princip . ii. 669), was afterwards 
 adopted in Palestine, and applied to all the large 
 quadrangular dwellings built with turrets and 
 walls. As improved by Herod, who gave it the 
 name of Antonia after bis patron Mark Antony, 
 this fortress had all the extent and appearance of 
 a palace, being divided into apartments of every 
 kind, with ga’leries and baths, and also broad 
 halls or barracks for soldiers; so that, as having 
 every thing necessary within itself, it seemed a 
 city, while in its magnificence it was a palace. 
 At each of the four corners was a tower, one of 
 which was seventy cubits high, and overlooked the 
 whole temple with its couiis. The fortress com- 
 municated with the cloisters of the temple by 
 secret passages, through which the soldiers could 
 enter and quell any tumults, which were always 
 apprehended at the time of the great festivals. It 
 was to a guard of these soldiers that Pilate re- 
 ferred the Jews as a c watch ’ for the sepulchre 
 of Christ. This tower was also ‘the castle’ into 
 which St. Pat 1 was carried when the Jews rose 
 against him i i the temple, and were about to 
 kill him ; and where he gave his able and niainy 
 account of his conversion and conduct (Acts xxi. 
 27-40 ; xx ii ). This tower was, in fact, the citadel 
 »f Jerusalem. 
 
 10.1 
 
 Waters of Jerusalem. — In his account of 
 the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, Strabo says 
 that the town was well provided with water within 
 the walls, but that there was none in the en- 
 virons ( Geog . xvi. 2, 40). Probably the Roman 
 troops then suffered from want of water, as did 
 other armies which laid siege to Jerusalem. In 
 the narratives of all such sieges we never read of 
 the besieged suffering from thirst, although driven 
 to the most dreadful extremities and resources by 
 hunger, while the besiegers are frequently de- 
 scribed as suffering greatly from want of water, 
 and as being obliged to fetcn it from a great dis- 
 tance. The agonits of thirst sustained by the 
 first crusaders in their siege of Jerusalem will be 
 remembered by most readers from the vivid pic- 
 ture drawn by Tasso, if not from 1 lie account fur- 
 nished by William of Tyre. Yet when the town 
 was taken plenty of water was found within it. 
 This is a very singular circumstance, and is 
 perhaps only in part explained by reference to the 
 system of preserving water in cisterns, as at this 
 day, in Jerusalem. 
 
 Solomon's aqueduct near Bethlehem to Jem 
 salem could have been no dependence, as its 
 waters might easily have been cut off by the be- 
 siegers. All the wells also are now outside the 
 town; and no interior fountain is mentioned save 
 that of Hezekiah, which is scarcely tit for drink- 
 ing. At the siege by Titus the well of Siloam 
 may have been in possession of the Jews, i. e. 
 within the walls; but at the siege by the Cru- 
 saders it was certainly held by the besieging 
 Franks; and yet the latter perished from thiisf, 
 while the besieged had ‘ ingentes copias aquae.* 
 We cannot here go through the evidence which 
 by combination and comparison might throw some 
 light on this remarkable question. There is, how- 
 ever, good ground to conclude that from very an- 
 cient times there has been under the temple an 
 unfailing source of water, derived by secret and 
 subterraneous channels from springs to the west of 
 the town, and communicating by other subterra- 
 neous passages with the pool of Siloam and the 
 fountain of the Virgin in the east of the town, 
 whether they were within or without the walls of 
 the town. 
 
 The existence of a perennial source of water 
 below the temple has always been admitted. 
 Tacitus knew of it (Hist. v. 12); and Aristeas, in 
 describing the ancient temple, informs us that ‘ the 
 supply of water was unfailing, inasmuch as there 
 was an abundant natural fountain flowing in the 
 interior, and reservoirs of admirable construction 
 under ground, extending live stadia round the 
 temple, with pipes and conduits unknown to all 
 except those to whom the service was entrusted, 
 by which the water was brought to various parts 
 of the temple and again conducted off.’ The 
 Moslems also have constantly affiimed the exist- 
 ence of this fountain or cistern. But. a reserve has 
 always been kept up as to the means by which it is 
 supplied. This reserve seems to have been main- 
 tained by the successive occupants of Jerusalem 
 as a point of civic honour ; and this fact alone 
 intimates that there was danger to the town in its 
 becoming known, and points to the fact that the 
 supply came from without, the city by secret 
 channels, which it was of importance not to dis- 
 close. Yet we are plainly told in the Bible that 
 Hezekiah ‘ stopped the upper water-course of Gihcm* 
 
104 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 and brought it down to the west side of the city 
 of David’ (1 Kings i. 33. 3R) : from 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 30, it seems that all the neighbouring foun- 
 tains were thus * stopped’ or covered, and the 
 hrook which they had formed diverted by subter- 
 raneous channels into the town, for the express 
 purpose of preventing besiegers from finding the 
 4 much water’ which previously existed outside the 
 walls (comp, also Ecclus. xlviii. 17). Perhaps, 
 likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (xlvii. 1-12) alludes 
 to this secret fountain under the temple when he 
 speaks of waters issuing from the threshold of thv 
 temple towards the east, and flowing down to- 
 wards the desert as an abundant and beautiful 
 stream. This figure may be drawn from the 
 waters of the inner source under the temple, being 
 at the time of overflow discharged by the outlets 
 at Siloam, into the Kidron, which takes the east- 
 ward course thus described. 
 
 There are certainly wells, nr rather shafts, in 
 and near the temple area, which are alleged to 
 derive their waters through a passage of masonry 
 four or five feet high, from a chamber or reservoir 
 cut in the solid rock under the grand mosque, in 
 which the water is said to rise from the rock into 
 a basin at the bottom The existence of this re- 
 servoir and source of water is affirmed by all 
 Moslems, and coincides with the preceding inti- 
 mations, but it must be left for future explorers 
 to clear up all the obscurities in which the matter 
 is involved. 
 
 The ordinary means taken by the inhabitants to 
 secure a supply of water have been described 
 under the article Cistern ; and the reader 
 may be referred for interesting details to Rau- 
 mer's Paliistina. pp. 329 333; Robinson’s Re- 
 searches, i. 479-516; and Olin's Travels, ii. 
 168-181. 
 
 Modern Jerusalem. — In proceeding to fur- 
 nish a description of the present Jerusalem, we 
 shall, for the most part, place ourselves under the 
 guidance of Dr. Olin, whose account is not only 
 the most recent, but is by far the most complete 
 and satisfactory which lias of late years been pro- 
 duced. 
 
 The general view of the city from the Mount 
 of Olives is mentioned more or less by all tra- 
 vellers as that from which they derive their 
 most distinct and abiding impression of Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 The summit of the Mount of Olives is about 
 half a mile east from the city, which it completely 
 overlooks, every considerable edifice and almost 
 every bouse being visible. The city seen from 
 this point appears to be a regular inclined plain, 
 sloping gently and uniformly from west to east, 
 or towards the observer, and indented by a slight 
 depression or shallow vale, running nearly through 
 the centre, in the same direction. The south-east 
 corner of the quadrangle — fur that may be as- 
 sumed as the figure formed by the rocks — that 
 which is nearest to the observer, is occupied by 
 ihe mosque of Omar and its extensive and beau- 
 tiful grounds. This is Mount Moriah, the site 
 of Solomon's temple, md the ground embraced in 
 the sacred enclosure, which conforms to that of 
 the ancient temple, occupies about an eighth of the 
 whole modern cify. It is covered with green 
 ivtard and planted sparingly with olive, cypress, 
 and other trees, and it is certainly the most lovely 
 feature of the town, whether we have reference to 
 
 the splendid structures or the beautiful laws 
 spread out around them. 
 
 The south-west quarter, embracing that part o! 
 Mount Zion which is within the modern town, is 
 to a great extent occupied by the Armenian con- 
 vent, an enormous edifice, which is the only con- 
 spicuous object in this neighbourhood. The 
 north-west is largely occupied by the Latin con- 
 vent, another very extensive establishment. About 
 midway between these two convents is the. castle 
 or citadel, close to the Bethlehem gatej already 
 mentioned. The north-east quarter of Jerusalem 
 is but. partially built up. and it has more the aspect 
 of a rambling agricultural village than that of a 
 crowded city. The vacant spots here are green 
 with gardens and olive-trees. There is another 
 large vacant tract along the southern wall, and 
 west of the Haram, also covered with verdure. 
 Near the centre of the city also appear two or 
 three green spots, which are small gardens. The 
 church of the Holy Sepulchre is the only conspi- 
 cuous edifice in this vicinity, and its domes are 
 striking objects. There are no buildings which, 
 either from their size or beauty, are likely to en- 
 gage the attention. Eight or ten minarets mark 
 the position of so many mosques in different, pails 
 of the town, but they are only noticed because ot 
 their elevation above the surrounding edifices. 
 Upon the same principle the eye rests for a mo- 
 ment upon a great number of low domes, which 
 form the roofs of the principal dwellings, and 
 relieve the heavy uniibimily of the flat plastered 
 roofs which cover the greater mass of more humble 
 habitations. Many ruinous piles and a thousand 
 disgusting objects are concealed or disguised by 
 the distance. Many inequalities of surface, which 
 exist to so great an extent that there is not a level 
 street, of any length in Jerusalem, are also un- 
 perceived. 
 
 From the same commanding point, of view a 
 few olive and fig-trees are seen in the lower part 
 of the valley of Jehoshapliat, and scattered over 
 the side of Olivet from its base to the summit. 
 They are sprinkled yet more sparingly on ihe 
 southern side of the city on Mounts Zion and 
 Ophel. North of Jerusalem the olive plantations 
 appear more numerous as well as thriving, and 
 thus offer a grateful contrast to the sun-burnt fields 
 and bare rocks which predominate in this land- 
 scape. The region west of the city appears to be 
 destitute of trees. Fields of stunted wheat, yellow 
 with the drought rather than while for the harvest, 
 are seen on all sides of the town. 
 
 Jerusalem, as seen from Mount Olivet, is a 
 plain inclining gently and equably to the East. 
 Once epter its gates, however, and il is found to be 
 full of inequalities. The passenger is always as- 
 cending or descending. There are no level streets, 
 and little skill or labour lias been employed to re- 
 move or diminish the inequalities which nature or 
 time has produced. Houses are built upon moun- 
 tains of rubbish, which are probably twenty, thirty, 
 or fifty feet above the natural level, and the streets 
 are constructed with the same disregard to conve- 
 nience, with this difference, that some slight atten- 
 tion is paid to the possibility of carrying off surplus 
 water. The latter are, without exception, nar- 
 row, seldom exceeding eight or ten feet, in breadth. 
 The houses often meet, ami in some instances a 
 building occupies both sides of the street, which 
 runs ’judex a succession of archea barely high 
 
JERUSALEM. 
 
 enough to permit an equestrian to pass under 
 them. A canopy of old mats or of plank is sus- 
 pended over the principal streets when not arched. 
 This custom had its origin, no doubt, in the heat 
 of the climate, which is very intense in summer, 
 anti it gives a gloomy aspect to all the most 
 thronged anaL lively parts of the city. These 
 covered wayWtne often pervaded by currents of 
 air when a perfect calm prevails in oilier places. 
 The principal streets of Jerusalem run nearly at 
 right angles to each other. Very few if any of 
 them bear names among the native population. 
 They are badly paved, being merely laid irre- 
 gularly with raised stones, with a deep square 
 channel, for beasts of burden, in the middle; but 
 the steepness of the ground contributes to keep 
 them cleaner than in most Oriental cities. 
 
 The houses of Jerusalem are substantially built 
 of the limestone of which the whole of this part of 
 Palestine is composed : not usually hewn, but 
 broken into regular forms, and making a solid 
 wall of very respectable appearance. For the 
 most part there are no windows next to the street, 
 and the few which exist for the purposes of light 
 or ventilation are completely masked by case- 
 ments and lattice-work. The apartments re- 
 ceive their light from the open courts within. The 
 ground plot is usually surrounded l>y a high enclo- 
 sure, commonly forming ihe walls of the house 
 only, but sometimes embracing a small garden 
 and some vaeant ground. The rain-water 
 which falls upon the pavement is carefully con- 
 ducted, by means of gutters, into cisterns, where 
 it is preserved for domestic uses. The people of 
 Jerusalem rely chieily upon these reservoirs for 
 their supply of litis indispensable article. Every 
 house lias its cistern, and the larger habitations 
 are provided with a considerable number of them, 
 which occupy the ground-story or cells fumed 
 for the purpose below it.. Stone is employed in 
 building for all the purposes to which it. can pos- 
 sibly be applied, and Jerusalem is hardly move 
 exposed to accidents by tire than a quarry or sub- 
 terranean cavern. The floors, stairs, &c. are of 
 stone, and the ceiling is usually formed by a coat 
 of plaster laid upon the stones, which at the same 
 time form the roof and the vaulted top of the 
 room. Doors, sashes, and a few other appurte- 
 nances, are all that can usually he afforded of a 
 material so expensive as wood. The little timber 
 which is used is muslly brought from Mount 
 Lebanon, as in the time of Solomon. A rough, 
 crooked stick of the fig-tree, or some gnarled, 
 twisted planks made of the olive — the growth of 
 Palestine — are occasionally seen. In other respects 
 the description in the article House will afford 
 a sufficient notion of those in Jerusalem. A large 
 number of houses in Jerusalem are in a dilapi- 
 dated and ruinous state. Nobody seems to make 
 repairs so long as his dwelling does not absolutely 
 •efuse him shelter and safety. If one room tum- 
 bles about his ears he removes into another, and 
 permits rubbish and vermin to accumulate as they 
 will in the deserted halls. Tottering staircases 
 are propped to prevent their fall ; and when the 
 edifice becomes untenable, the ^ccupant seeks 
 another a little less ruinous, leaving the wreck to 
 a smaller or more wretched family, or, more 
 probably, to a goatherd and his flock. Habi- 
 tations which have a very respectable appearance 
 13 seen from the street, are of ?n found, upon 
 
 JERUSALEM. 103 
 
 entering them, to be little belter than heajs of 
 ruins. 
 
 Nothing of this would be suspected from 
 the general appearance of the city us seen from 
 the various commanding points without the 
 walls, nor from anything that, meets the eye 
 in the streets. Few towns in the East olfer a 
 more imposing spectacle to the view of the ap- 
 proaching stranger. He is struck with the height 
 and massiveness of the walls, which are kept in 
 perfect repair, and naturally produce a favourable 
 opinion of the wealth and comfort which they are 
 designed to protect. Upon entering the gates, he 
 is apt, after all that has been published about the 
 solitude that reigns in the streets, to be surprised 
 at meeting large numbers of people in the chief 
 thoroughfares, almost, without exception decently 
 clad. A longer and more intimate acquaintance 
 with Jerusalem, however, does not fail to correct 
 this too favourable impression, and demonstrate 
 the existence and general prevalence of the poverty 
 and even wretchedness which must result in every 
 country from oppression, from the absence of trade, 
 and the utter stagnation of all branches of indus- 
 try. Considerable activity is displayed in the 
 bazaars, which are supplied scantily, like those of 
 other Eastern towns, with provisions, tobacco, 
 coarse cottons, and other articles of prime neces- 
 sity. A considerable business is still done in beads, 
 crosses, and other sacred trinkets, which are pur- 
 chased to a vast amount by the pilgrims who 
 annually throng the holy city. The support 
 and even the existence of the considerable popu- 
 lation of Jerusalem depend upon this transient 
 patronage — a circumstance to which a great part 
 of the prevailing poverty and degradation is justly 
 ascribed. The worthless articles employed in this 
 pitiful trade are, almost, without exception, brought 
 from other places, especially Hebron and Beth- 
 lehem — the former celebrated for its baubles of 
 glass, the latter chiefly fur rosaries, crucifixes, and 
 other toys made of mother-of-pearl, olive-wood, 
 black stones from the Dead Sea, &c. These are 
 eagerly bought up by the ignorant pilgrims, sprin- 
 kled with holy water by the priests, or consecrated 
 by some other religious mummery, and carried 
 ofl' in triumph and worn as ornaments to charm 
 away disease and misfortune, and probably to Ire 
 buried with the deluded enthusiast in his coffin, 
 as a sure passport to eternal blessedness. With 
 the departure of the swarms of pilgrims, however, 
 even this poor semblance of active industry and 
 prosperity deserts the city. With the exception 
 of some establishments for soap-making, a tannery, 
 and a very few weavers of coarse cottons, there 
 do not appear to be any manufacturers properly 
 bedonging to the place. Agriculture is almost 
 equally wretched, and can only give employment 
 to a few hundred people. The masses really seem 
 to be without any regular employment. A con- 
 siderable number, especially of the Jews, profess- 
 edly live on charity. Many Christian pilgrims 
 annually find their way hither on similar resources, 
 and the approaches to the holy places are thronged 
 with beggars, who in piteous tones demand alms in 
 the name of Christ and the Blessed Virgin. The 
 general condition of the population is that of abject 
 poverty. A few Turkish officials, ecclesiastical, 
 civil, and military ; some remains of the old Mo- 
 hammedan aristocracy — once powerful and rich, 
 but now much impoverished and nearly extinct; 
 
106 
 
 JERL'SAl EM. 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 gether with a few tradesmen in easy circumstances, 
 form almost the only exceptions to the prevailing 
 indigence. There is not a single broker among 
 the whole population, and not t he smallest sum 
 can be obtained on the best bills of exchange short 
 of Jafla or Beirout. 
 
 Inhabitants. — The number of the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem has been variously estimated by 
 different travellers, some making it as high as 
 30,000, others as low as 12,000. An average of 
 these estimates would make it somewhere between 
 12,000 and 15,000; but the Egyptian system of 
 taxation and of military conscription in Syria 
 has lately furnished more accurate data than had 
 previously been obtainable, aud on these Dr. Ro- 
 binson estimates the population at not more tnan 
 11,500, distributed thus — 
 
 Mohammedans . . . 4,500 
 
 Jews .... 3,000 
 
 Christians . . . 3,500 
 
 11,000 
 
 If to this be added something for possible omis- 
 sions, and the inmales of the convents, the stand- 
 ing population, exclusive of the garrison, cannot 
 well exceed 1 1,51)0. The Mosiems, it will be 
 seen, exceed in number the Jews or Christians 
 respectively, but are much fewer than these two 
 bodies united. To all these classes Jerusalem is 
 holy; and is the only city in the world which 
 peoples of such different origin, races, language, 
 and religions agree to regard with nearly equal 
 veneration. 
 
 The language most generally spoken among 
 them is the Arabic. Schools are rare, and con- 
 sequently facility in reading is not often met 
 with. The general condition of the inhabitants 
 has already been indicated. 
 
 The Turkish governor of the town holds the 
 rank of Pasha, but is responsible to the Pasha of 
 Beirout. The government is somewhat milder 
 than before the period of the Egyptian dominion; 
 but it is said that the Jewish and Christian in- 
 habitants at least have ample cause to regret the 
 change of masters, and the American mission- 
 aries lament that change without reserve (Am. 
 Bib. Repos, for 1843). Yet the Moslems reve- 
 rence the same spots which the Jews and Chris- 
 tians account holy, the holy sepulchre only 
 excepted ; and this exception arises from their 
 disbelief that Christ was crucified, or buried, or 
 rose again. Formerly there were in Palestine 
 monks of the Benedictine and Augustine orders, 
 and of those of St. Basil and St. Anthony ; but 
 since 1304 there have been none but Franciscans, 
 who have charge of the Latin convent and the 
 holy places. They resided on Mount Zion till 
 a.d. 1561, when the T**vks allowed them the mo- 
 nastery of St. Salvador, which they now occupy. 
 They had formerly a handsome revenue out of all 
 Roman Catholic countries, but these sources have 
 fallen off since the French revolution, and the esta- 
 blishment is said to be poor and deeply in debt. 
 Tiie expenses arise from the duty imposed upon 
 the convent of entertaining pilgiims; and the cost 
 of maintaining the twenty convents belonging 1o 
 the establishment of the Terra Santa is estimated 
 at 40,000 Spanish dollars a year. Formerly it 
 wa3 much higher, in consequence of the heavy 
 exacti ms of the Turkish government. Burck- 
 kardt 6ays that the brotherhood paid annually 
 
 J2,000/. to the Pasha of Damascus. But the 
 Egyptian government relieved them from these 
 heavy charges, and imposed instead a regular tax 
 on the property possessed. For the buildings and 
 lands in and around Jerusalem the annual tax was 
 fixed at 7000 piastres, or 350 Spanish dollars. It 
 is probable that the restored Tui kish government 
 has not yet, in this respect, recurilfc to its old 
 oppressions. The convent contain*, fifty monks, 
 half Italians and half Spaniards. In it resides 
 the Intmdant or the Principal of all the convents, 
 with the rank of abbot, and the title of Guardian 
 of Mount Zion and Custos of the Holy Land. 
 He is always an Italian, and has charge of all 
 the spiritual affairs of the Roman Catholics in the 
 Holy Land. There is also a president or vicar, 
 who takes the place of the guardian in case of 
 absence or death : he was formerly a Frenchman, 
 but is now either an Italian or Spaniard. The 
 procurator, who manages their temporal affairs, is 
 always a Spaniard. A council, called Discre- 
 torium, composed of these officials and three 
 other monks, has the general management of both 
 spiritual and temporal matters. Much of the 
 attention of the order is occupied, and much of 
 its expense incurred, in entertaining pilgrims and 
 in the distribution of alms. The native Roman 
 Catholics live around the convent, on which they 
 are wholly dependant. They are native Arabs, 
 and are said to he descended from converts in 
 the times of the Crusades. 
 
 There is a Greek patriarch of Jerusalem, but 
 he usually resides at Constantinople, and is re 
 presented in the holy city by one or more vicars 
 who are bishops residing in the great convent 
 near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. At pre- 
 sent the vicars are the bishops of Lydda, Naza 
 reth, and Kerek (Petra), assisted by the other 
 bishops resident in tiie convent. In addition to 
 thirteen monasteries in Jerusalem, they possess 
 the convent, of the Holy Cross near Jerusalem, 
 that of St. Helena between Jerusalem and Beth- 
 lehem, and that, of St. John, between Jerusalem 
 and. the Dead Sea. All the monks of the con- 
 vents are foreigners. The Christians of the Greet 
 rite who are not monks are all native Arabs 
 with their native priests, who are allowed to per 
 form the church services in their mother tongue — 
 the Arabic. 
 
 The Armenians in Jerusalem have a patriarch, 
 with three convents and lUO monks. They hav« 
 also convents at Bethlehem, Ramleh, and Jaffa 
 Few of the Armenians are natives : they an 
 mostly merchants, and among the wealthiest 
 inhabitants of the place ; and their convent in 
 Jerusalem is deemed the richest in the Levant 
 Their church of St. James upon Mount Zion it 
 very showy in its decorations, but void of taste. 
 The Coptic Christians at Jerusalem are only 
 some monks residing in the convent of Es-Sultan, 
 on ihe north side of the pool of Hezekiah. There 
 is also a convent of the Abyssinians, and one be- 
 longing to the Jacobite Syrians. 
 
 The estimate of the number of the Jews in 
 Jerusalem at 3000 is given by Dr. Robinson on 
 the authority of Mr. Nicolayson, the resident 
 missionary to the Jews ; yet in the following year 
 (1839) the Scottish deputation set them down at 
 six or seven thousand on the same authority. On 
 referring this difficulty to the Rev. R. S. Her- 
 schell (lately returned from Jerusalem), he con* 
 
JESHUA. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 107 
 
 firms the lower estimate of the number of Jews, 
 but is inclined to reckon the entire population at 
 15,000. They inhabit a distinct quarter of the 
 town between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, 
 This is the worst and dirtiest part of the holy city, 
 and that in which the plague never fails to make 
 its first appearance. Few of the Jerusalem Jews 
 are natives; and most of them come from foreign 
 parts to die in the city of their fathers’ sepulchres. 
 The greater proportion of them are from different 
 parts of the Levant, and appear to be mostly of 
 Spanish and Polish origin. Few are from Ger- 
 many, or understand the German language. 
 They are for the most part wretchedly poor, and 
 depend in a great degree for their subsistence 
 upon the contributions of their brethren in dif- 
 ferent countries. These contributions have of 
 late years been smaller than usual ; and when 
 they arrive are the occasion of much heartburning 
 and strife. The Scottish Deputation ( Narrative , 
 p. 148) say, * They are always quarrelling, and 
 frequently apply to the consul to settle their dis- 
 putes. The expectation of support from the 
 annual European contributions leads many of 
 fhem to live in idleness. Hence there are in 
 Jerusalem 500 acknowledged paupers, anti 500 
 more who receive charity in a quiet way. Many 
 are so poor that, if not relieved, they would not 
 stand out the winter season. A few are shop- 
 keepers, and a few more hawkers, and a very few 
 are operatives. None of them are agriculturists — - 
 not a single Jew cultivates the soil of his fathers.’ 
 Reisner, Iemsalem-- Vetustissima Descripta , 
 Francof. 1563 ; Olshausen, Zur Topographie d. 
 alten Jerusalem , Kiel, 1833 ; Adrichomius, Jeru- 
 salem sicut Christi tempore floruit , Colon. 1593 ; 
 Chrysanthi (Beat. Patr. Iiierosoiymorum) His- 
 toria et Descriptio Terrce Sanctce, Urbisque 
 Sanctce Hierusalem, Yenet. 1728 (this work is in 
 Greek) ; D'Anville, Dissert, sur VEtendue de 
 V Ancienne Jerusalem, Paris, 1747: the articles 
 on Jerusalem in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclo- 
 pedic ; in Raumer's Paliistina ; in Winer’s Real- 
 wort erbuch ; in Eugene Roger’s La Terre Saihcte , 
 ou Descript. Topographique tres-particuhere des 
 Sainctes Lieux, et de la Terre de Promission, 
 Paris, 1646 ; and in Dr. Robinson’s Bibl. Re- 
 searches in Palestine; with the additions since 
 published in the Biblical Repository and Biblio- 
 theca Sacra : also, the notices of Jerusalem in vari- 
 ous books of travels, particularly those of Coto- 
 vieus, Zuallart, Radzivil, Morison, Nau, Sandys, 
 Doubdan, D'Arvieux, Maundrell, Pococke, Nie- 
 buhr, Clarke, Turner, Buckingham, Richardson, 
 Richter, Jollitfe, Jowett, Prokesch, Schclz, Monro, 
 Hardy, Stephens, Paxton, Schubert, Olin, Stent, 
 Formby, and the Scottish Deputation. Less im- 
 portant notices may be found in other books of 
 travels; and the Journals of Missionaries, printed 
 in the Missionary Register , American Missionary 
 Herald , and Jewish Expositor, have occasionally 
 contained interesting notices of the Holy City. 
 
 JESHUA, or Joshua, son of Jozedech, and 
 high-priest of the Jews when they returned, under 
 Zerubbabel, from the Babylonian exile (b.c. 
 536). He was, doubtless, born during the exile. 
 His presence and exhortations greatly promoted 
 the rebuilding of the city and temple. The altar 
 of the latter being first, erected, enabled him to 
 sanctify their labour by the religious ceremonies 
 and offerings whir i the law required. Jeshua 
 
 joined with Zerubbabel in opposing the machi- 
 nations of the Samaritans (Ezra iv. 3) ; and he 
 was not found wanting in zeal when the works, 
 after having been interrupted, were resumed in 
 the second year of Darius Ilvstaspis (Ezra v. 2 ; 
 Ilagg. i. 12). Several of the prophet Ilaggai's 
 utterances are addressed to Jeshua (Iiagg. i. 1 ; 
 ii. 2), and bis name occurs in two of the sym- 
 bolical prophecies of Zecha 'ah (i ii. 1-10; vi. 
 11-15). In the first of these passages Jeshua, as 
 pontiff, represents the Jewisl people covered at 
 first with the garb of slaves, and afterwards with 
 the new and glorious vestures of deliverance. In 
 the second he wears for a moment crowns of 
 silver and gold, as symbols of the sacerdotal and 
 regal crowns of Israel, which were to be united 
 on the head of the Messiah. 
 
 JESHURUN (|W) ; Sept, yyairypivos ; 
 Vulg. dilectus in Deut., rectissimus in Isaiah), 
 a name poetically applied to Israel in Deut. 
 xxxii. 15; xxxiii. 5, 26; Isa. xliv. 2. It has 
 been very variously understood, but it is gene- 
 rally agreed to be a poetical diminutive expies- 
 sive of affection. The root is to 
 
 be straight, right, upright, righteous. In this 
 character, as entirely upright (for the termination 
 is intensitive), Jehovah recognises his people in 
 consideration of their covenant relation to him, 
 whereby, while they observed the terms of that 
 covenant, they stood legally righteous before 
 him and clean in his sight. It is in this sense 
 that the ancient kings are said to have done 
 “lK”n, ‘ that which was right ’ in the eyes of 
 Jehovah. 
 
 JESSE firm ; Sept. ’Utraal), a de- 
 
 scendant of Obed, the son of Boaz and Ruth. 
 He was the father of eight sons : from the youngest 
 of whom, David, is reflected all the distinction 
 which belongs to the name. He seems to have 
 been a person of some note" and substance at 
 Bethlehem, his propeity being chiefly in sheep. 
 It would seem from 1 Sam. xvi. 10, that he 
 must have been aware of the high destinies which 
 awaited his son ; but it is doubtful if he ever 
 lived to see them real zed. The last historical 
 mention of Jesse is in relation to the asylum which 
 David procured for him with the king of Moab 
 (1 Sam. xxii. 3). 
 
 JESUS CHRIST ('lyoovs Xpien-Js, Irj(rovs 6 
 XpiarSs), the ordinary designation of the incarnate 
 Son of God, and Saviour of mankind. This 
 double designation is not, like Simon Peter, John 
 Mark, Joses Barnabas, composed of a name and 
 a surname, but, like John the Baptist, Simon 
 Magus, Bar-Jesus Elymas, of a proper name, and 
 an official title. Jesus was our Lord's proper 
 name, just as Peter, James, and John were the 
 proper names of three of his disciples. The name 
 seems not to have been an uncommon one among 
 the Jews. The apocryphal book EcclesiasticUs is 
 attributed to Jesus the son of Sirach ; and, in the 
 New Testament, we read of Jesus, the father ol 
 Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii. 6), and of ‘ Jesus, 
 which is called Justus of the circumcision’ (Col 
 iv. 11), one of Paul’s ‘ felloe-workers unto the 
 kingdom of God which had lieen a comfort to 
 him.’ To distinguish our Lord from others bear- 
 ing the name, he was termed Jesus of Nazareth 
 (John xviii. 7, &c.), ’I17 <rovs 0 N afapalos, and 
 Jesus the sor of Joseph (John vi. 42, &c.). 
 
JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 »58 
 
 Some of the fathers, from their ignorance of the 
 Hebrew language, have given a Greek etymology 
 co the name. They derive it from the noun 
 taais, healing. Thus Eusebius, 'Irjcrous urogd^ero 
 
 WRO tXTOV T 4]S TCOU dvdpCOir'iUCtiV if/uxav ld(T6(jOS T6 
 Kal Reocnrelas x a P LV T V tt dpobov els ggcis err oieiro 
 (Demonst. Evang. lib. iv.) ; and Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem,’ ItjctoVs KaXeirai (pepcavv/j.(as, e/c r r,s accrrjpiui- 
 5eos laaews ex°* v T5 V Trpoagyopiav ( Catech. 
 Ilium, x.).* 
 
 There can be no doubt t. at Jesus is the Greek 
 form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne 
 by two illustrious individuals in former periods 
 of the Jewish history, — the successor of Moses and 
 introducer of Israel into the promised land (Exod. 
 xxiv. 13), and the high-priest who, along with 
 Zerubbahel (Zech. iii. 1), took so active a part in 
 the re-establishment of the civil and religious 
 polity of the Jews on their return from the Baby- 
 lonish captivity. Its original and full form is 
 Jehoshua (Num. xiii. 10). By contraction it 
 became Joshua, or Jeshua ; and when transferred 
 into Greek, by taking the termiuation charac- 
 teristic of that language, it assumed the form Jesus. 
 It is thus the names of the illustrious individuals 
 •eferred to are uniformly written in the Sept. ; 
 and the first of them is twice mentioned in the 
 New Testament hy^this name (Acts vii. 45; Heb. 
 iv. S). 
 
 The conferring of this name on our Lord was 
 not the result of accident, or of the ordinary 
 course of things, there being ‘ none of his kindred,’ 
 so far as we can trace from the two genealogies, 
 
 ‘ called by that name’ (Luke i. 6‘1). It was the 
 consequence of a twofold miraculous interposition. 
 The angel who announced to his virgin mother 
 that she was to he ‘ the most honoured of women,’ 
 in giving birth to the Son of God and the Saviour 
 of men, intimated also to her the name by which 
 the holy child was to he called : ‘ Thou sha.lt 
 call his name Jesus’ (Luke i. 31). And it was 
 probably the same heavenly messenger who ap- 
 peared to Joseph, and. to remove his suspicions 
 and quiet Ins fears, said to hirn. ‘ That which is 
 conceived in thy wife Mary is of the Holy Ghost, 
 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt 
 call his name Jesus’ (Matt. i. 20, 21). The pious 
 pair were ’not disobedient to the heavenly vision.’ 
 
 ‘ When eight days were accomplished for the cir- 
 cumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, 
 which was so named of the angel before he was 
 conceived in the worn!)’ (Luke ii. 21). 
 
 The name Jesus, like most of Jewish proper 
 names, was significant; and, as might well he 
 expected, when we consider who imposed it, its 
 meaning is at once important and appropriate. 
 The precise import of the word has been a subject 
 of doubt and debate among interpreters. As. to 
 its general meaning there is all but an unanimous 
 concurrence It was intended to denote that he 
 who bore it was to be a Deliverer or Saviour. 
 This, whatever more, is indicated in the original 
 wovd ; and the reason given by the angel for the 
 imposition of this name on the Virgin's son was 
 
 * Some of the Patristic etymologies are really 
 very odd. II acr^a is traced to 7r d<rx&> ; A evirrjs is 
 derived from die Latin levis ; and Aid/3o\os from 
 ivo and because he who bears that name 
 
 •wallows man at two tites, first the soul, and th?n 
 
 the body. 
 
 ‘because he shall save his people from their sins 
 (Matt. i. 21). But while some interpreters hold 
 that it is just a part of the verb signifying to save 
 in the form Hiphil, slightly modified, and that i< 
 signifies ‘ lie shall save,’ others hold that it is a 
 compound word formed by the addition of twe 
 letters of the incommunicable name of the divinity, 
 mn\ to that verb, and that it is equivalent t« 
 ‘ The Salvation of the Lord,’ or ‘ The Lord tin 
 Saviour.’ It is not a matter of vital importance 
 The following circumstances seem to gsve'proba 
 bility to the latter opinion It does not appeal 
 likely that Moses would have changed the name 
 of his destined successor from Oshea, which signi- 
 fies ‘saviour,’ into Jehoshua (Num. xiii. 1(5), if the 
 latter signified merely lie shall save ; whereas, if 
 the word be a compound term, embodying in if. the 
 name Jehovah, we see an adequate reason for the 
 change. In the first chapter of the Gospel by 
 Matthew (Matt. i. 22, 23), the most natural in- 
 terpretation of the words (though they admit o 
 another exegesis) seems to imply that the predic- 
 tion of Isaiah, that the Virgin’s son should be 
 called Immanuel, was fulfilled in the imposition 
 of the name Jesus on the Son of Mary. This 
 would be the case only on the supposition that 
 Immanuel and Jesus are equivalent terms, a sup- 
 position which cannot he sustained unless Jesus 
 can be fairly rendered ‘Jehovah will save,’ or 
 ‘ Jehovah the Saviour.’ In that case, Jesus and 
 Immanuel — God with us, i.e. on our side — express 
 the same ideas. 
 
 It. is right, however, to remark, that the merely 
 bearing such a name as either Immanuel or Jesus, 
 even by divine appointment, is not of itself evi- 
 dence of the divinity of him who bears it. The 
 Hebrews were in the habit of giving names, both 
 to persons and places, which were intended not to 
 describe their distinctive properties, but to express 
 some important general truth. Jacob called an 
 altar built by him El-Elohe-Israel (Gen. xxxiii. 
 20), ‘God the God of Israel.’ i. e. God is the God 
 of Israel. Moses called an altar he built Jehovah 
 Nissi (Exod. xvii. 15), ‘Jehovah my banner,’ i. e. 
 Jehovah is my banner. The name Jehoshua, 
 as home by him who brought the people of the 
 Lord into the heritage of the Gentiles, means no 
 more tliyi (hat by him Jehovah would deliver his 
 people. In many of the proper names in the Old 
 Testament, the name El, or Jehovah, forms a part. 
 Yet when, as in the case before us, he who bears 
 such a name, by express divine appointment, is 
 shown ‘ by many infallible proofs ’ to be indeed 
 an incarnation of divinity, we cannot but perceive 
 a peculiar propriety in this divine appointment, 
 and find in it, if not a new argument, a corro- 
 boration of the host of arguments which lead us 
 to the conclusion that He who ‘ according to 
 the flesh ’ was the Son of David, ‘ according to 
 the Spirit of Holiness’ was ‘ the Son of God,’ 
 
 * God over all, blessed for ever ’ (Rom. i. 3, 4 ; 
 ix. 5). 
 
 The above are the only 'probable etymologies of 
 the word. Others, however, have been suggested, 
 and supported with considerable learning and in- 
 genuity. The Valentinians, according to Irenaeus 
 (lib. ii. c. 41), were in the habit of writing the name 
 and explained it as meaning ‘ Him who pos- 
 sesses heaven and earth,’ making each letter, 
 according to the cabbalistic art called 'rotar-ikon, 
 expressive of' a word or clause ; thus, for niiV, 
 
JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 .09 
 
 & for and 1 for jHfiO, ‘ Jehovah of heaven 
 
 Mid earth.’ 
 
 The learned hut fanciful Osiander insists that 
 Jesu3 is not the Greek form of Joshua, but the 
 ineffable i ame, the Shem-hamphorash, rendered 
 utterable ty t he insertion of the letter L2. The 
 reader who wishes to see the arguments by which 
 ne suppovis this wild hypothesis may consult, his 
 Hannqnia Evangelica , lib. i. c 6, Basil, 1561. 
 And a sa f islactory reply may be found in Chem- 
 nitius’ dissertation, De nomine Jesu, in Thes. Theol. 
 Philol. tom. ii. p. 62, Amst. 1702; and in Ca- 
 ninii Disquis. in loc. aliq. N. T. c. i. ; apud 
 Crit. Sae. tom. ix. 
 
 Castalio maintains an equally whimsical notion 
 as to the etymology of the word, deriving it. from 
 niil' and as if it were equivalent to Jehova- 
 homo, God-man. 
 
 The ‘ name of Jesus ’ (Phil. ii. 10) is not Ihe 
 name Jesus, but ‘ the name above every name,’ 
 ovujj. 0 . rb vn ep irav uvoga, ver. 9. ; i. e. the supreme 
 dignity and authority with which the Father has 
 invested Jesus Christ, as the reward of his disin- 
 terested exertions in the cause of the divine glory 
 and human happiness ; and the bowing iv ra > 
 6v6/xan T/ja rov is obviously not an external mark 
 of homage when the name Jesus is pronounced, 
 but the inward sense of awe and submission to 
 him who is raised to a station so exalted. 
 
 Christ ; Gr. Xpicrris ; Heb. This is 
 
 not, strictly speaking, a proper name, but an 
 official title. Jesus Christ, or rather, as it. gene- 
 rally ought to be rendered, Jesus the Christ, is a 
 mode of expression of the same kind as John the 
 Baptist, or Baptiser. In consequence of not ad- 
 vetting to this, the force and even the meaning of 
 many passages of Scripture are misapprehended. 
 When it is stated that Paul asserted, ‘This Jesus 
 whom I preach unto you is Christ' (Acts xvii. 3), 
 5 rt ouros icrnu 6 Xpurrbs ’bjcous, ike., that he ‘ testi- 
 fied to the Jews that Jesus was Christ’ (Acts xviii. 
 5), the meaning is, that he proclaimed and proved 
 that Jesus was the Christ, r bv Xpicrrhu 'lyaovv, or 
 Messiah — Ihe rightful owner of a title descriptive 
 of a high official station which had been the sub- 
 ject of ancient prediction. When Jesus himself 
 says that ‘ it is life eternal to know the only true 
 God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent ’ (John 
 xvii. 3), he represents the knowledge of himself 
 as the Christ, the Messiah, as at once necessary 
 and sufficient to make men truly and permanently 
 happy. When he says, ‘ What think ye of Christ ?’ 
 irepl rod Xpicrrov : ‘ whose son is he?’ (Matt. xxii. 
 42), he does not mean, What think ye of me, 
 or of my descent? but, What think ye of the 
 Christ — She Messiah — and especially of his pa- 
 ternity. There can be no doubt that the word, 
 though originally an appellative, and intended to 
 bring before, the mind a particular official cha- 
 racter possessed by him to whom it is applied, 
 came at last, like many other terms of the same 
 kind, to be often used very much as a proper 
 name, to distinguish our Lord from other persons 
 bearing the name Jesus. This is a sense, however, 
 ©f comparatively rare occurrence in the New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 Proceeding, then, on the principle that Christ 
 is an appellative, let us inquire into its origin 
 and signification as applied to our Lord. Christ 
 is the English form of a Greek word, Xparris, 
 coi responding in meaning to the Hebrew word 
 
 Messiah, and the English word Anointed. The 
 Christ is just Equivalent, to the Anointed One. 
 The important question, however, remains behind, 
 What is meant when the Si viour is represented 
 as the Anointed One? To reply to this question 
 satisfactorily, it will be necessary to go somewhat 
 into detail. 
 
 Unction, from a very early age, seems to have 
 been the emblem of consecration, or setting apart 
 to a particular, and especially to a religious, pur- 
 pose. Thus Jacob is said to have anointed the 
 pillar of stone, which he erected and set apart as 
 a monument of his supernatural dream at Beth-el 
 (Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxi. 13; xxxv. 14). Under 
 the Old Testament economy high-priests and 
 kings were regularly set apart to their offices, both 
 of which were, strictly speaking, sacred ones, by 
 the ceremony of anointing, and the prophets were 
 occasionally designated by the same rite. This 
 rite seems to have been intended as a public 
 intimation of a divine appointment to office. Thus 
 Saul is termed ‘the Lords anointed’ (1 Sam. 
 xxiv. 6); David, ‘the anointed of the God of 
 Israel’ (2 Sam. xxiii. 1); and Zedekiah, ‘the 
 anointed of the Lord ’ (Lam. iv. 20). The high- 
 priest is called ‘the anointed priest’ (Lev. iv. 3). 
 
 From the origin and design of the rite, it is m** 
 wonderful that the term should have, in a secon- 
 daiy and analogical sense, been applied to persons 
 set apart by God for important purposes, though 
 not actually anointed. Thus Cyrus, the King of 
 Persia, is termed ‘the Lord's anointed ’ (Isa. xlv. 
 1); the Hebrew patriarchs, when sojourning in 
 Canaan, are termed ‘ God’s anointed ones ’ (Ps. 
 cv. 15) ; and the Israelitish people receive the same 
 appellation from the prophet Habakkuk (Hab. iii. 
 13). It is probably with reference, to this use of 
 the expression that Moses is said by the writer of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, to have ‘counted the 
 rep-roach of Christ ’ (Heb. xi. 26), roil Xpnrrov 
 (A aov), the same class who in the parallel clause 
 are termed the ‘people of God,’ ‘greater riches than 
 the treasures of Egypt.’ 
 
 In the prophetic Scriptures we find this appel- 
 lation given to an illustrious personage, who, 
 under various designations, is so often spoken of 
 as destined to appear in a distant age as a great 
 deliverer. The royal prophet David seems to have 
 been the first who spoke of the great deliverer 
 under this appellation. He represents the heathen 
 (the Gentile nations) raging, and the people (the 
 Jewish people) imagining a vain thing, ‘ against 
 Jehovah, and against his anointed' (Ps. ii. 2). 
 He says, ‘Now know I that the Lord saveth his 
 anointed ’ (Ps. xx. 6). ‘ Thou hast loved righte- 
 
 ousness and hated iniquity ’ says he, addressing 
 himself to ‘ Him who was to come,’ ‘ therefore 
 God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the 
 oil of gladness above thy fellows’ (Ps. xlv. 7) 
 In all the passages in which the great deliverer is 
 spoken of as ‘ the anointed one, - by David, he is 
 plainly viewed as sustaining the character of a 
 king. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah also uses the appellation, 
 * the anointed one,’ with reference to the promised 
 deliverer, but, when he does so, he speaks of him as 
 a prophet or great teacher. He introduces him a a 
 saying, ‘ The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, 
 because the Lord God hath anointed me to preach 
 good tidings unto the meek ; he hath sent me to 
 bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to 
 
110 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 tlie captives, and the opening of the prison to them 
 w ho are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of 
 the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God, 
 to comfort all that mourn,’ &c. (Isa. lxi. 1, &e.). 
 
 Daniel is the only other of the prophets who 
 uses the appellation ‘ the anointed one’ in refer- 
 ence to the great deliverer, and he plainly repre- 
 sents him as not only a prince, but also a high- % 
 priest, an expialor of guilt. ‘Seventy weeks are 
 determined upon thy people and upon thy holy 
 city, to punish the transgression, and to make an 
 end of sins, and to make reconciliation for ini- 
 quity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, 
 and to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to 
 anoentf the most holy. Know therefore and under- 
 stand that from the going forth of the command- 
 ment to restore Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince 
 shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks ; 
 the city shall be built again, and the wall, even 
 in troublous times ; and after threescore and two 
 weeks shall Messiah be cut oll^ but not for him- 
 self' (Dan. ix. 24-26). 
 
 During the period which elapsed from the close 
 of the prophetic canon till the birth of Jesus, no 
 appellation of the expected deliverer seems to have 
 been so common as the Messiah or Anointed One, 
 and this is still the name which the unbelieving 
 Jews ordinarily employ when speaking of him 
 whom they still look for to avenge their wrongs 
 and restore them to more than their former honours. 
 
 Messiah, Christ, Anointed, is, then, a term 
 equivalent to consecrated, sacred, set apart ; and 
 as th.e record of divine revelation is called, by 
 way of eminence, The Bible, or book, so is the 
 Great Deliverer called The Messiah, or Anointed 
 One, much in the same way as lie is termed The 
 Man, The Son of Man. 
 
 The import of this designation as given to Jesus 
 of Nazareth may now readily he apprehended. — 
 (1.) When he is termed the Christ it is plainly 
 indicated that He is the great deliverer promised 
 under that appc.ilc.tion, and many others in the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, and that all that is 
 said of this deliverer under this or any other ap- 
 pellation is hue of Him. No attentive reader of 
 the Old Testament can help noticing that in every 
 part of the prophecies there is ever and anon pre- 
 sented to our view an illustrious personage destined 
 X) appear at some future distant period, and, how- 
 ever varied may be the figurative representations 
 given of him, no reasonable doubt can be enter- 
 tained as to the identity of the individual. It is 
 juite obvious that the Messiah is the same person 
 is ‘ the seed of the woman ’ who was to ‘ bruise the 
 lead of the serpent - (Gen. iii. 15;*, ‘the seed of 
 Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were 
 io be blessed ’ (Gen. xxii. 18) ; the great ‘ prophet 
 to be raised up like unto Moses,’ whom all were to 
 be required to hear and ohey (Deut. xviii. 15); 
 the ‘ priest after the order of Melchizedek ;’ ‘ the 
 rod out of the stem of Jesse, which should stand 
 for an ensign of the people to which the Gentiles 
 should seek’ (Isa. xi. 1, 10); the virgin’s son 
 whose name was to be Immanuel (Isa. vii. 14); 
 
 • the branch of Jehovah ’ (Isa. iv. 2) ; ‘ the Angel 
 of the Covenant ’ (Mai. iii. 1) ; ‘ the Lord of the 
 Temple,’ &c. &c. (ib.). When we say, then, that 
 Jesus is the Christ, we in effect say, ‘ This is He 
 of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did 
 write ’ (John i. 45) ; and all that they say ot Him 
 iii true of Jesus. 
 
 Now what is the sum of the prophetic testimcny 
 respecting him ? It is this — that lie should teleng 
 to the very highest order of being, the incommuni- 
 cable name Jehovah being represented as right 
 fully belonging to him ; that ‘ his goings forth have 
 been from old, from everlasting’ (Mic. v. 2); 
 that his appropriate appellations should be 1 Won- 
 derful, Counsellor, the Mighty God ’ (Isa. ix. 6) ; 
 that he should assume human nature, and become 
 ‘ a child born ’ of the Israelitish nation of the tribe 
 of Judah (Gen. xlix. 10). of the family cf David 
 (Isa. xi. 1) ; that the object of his appearance 
 should be the salvation of mankind, both Jews 
 and Gentiles (Isa. xlix. 6); that lie should be 
 ‘ despised and rejected ’ of Ids countrymen ; that 
 he should be ‘ cut offj but not- for himself;’ Led 
 he should be ‘ wounded for men's transgressions, 
 bruised for their iniquities, and undergo the chas- 
 tisement of their peace;’ that ‘ by his stripes men 
 should be healed ;' that ‘ the Lord should lay on 
 him the iniquity ’ of men ; that ‘ exaction should 
 be made and he should answer it,;’ that he should 
 ‘ make his soul an offering for sin ;’ that after 
 these sufferings he should be ‘exalted and extolled 
 and made very high ;’ that he should * see of the 
 travail of his soul and be satisfied, and by his 
 knowledge justify many’ (Isa. liii. passim) ; that 
 Jehovah should say to him, ‘ Sit at my right hand 
 until I make thine enemies thy footstool ’ (Ps. cx. 
 1) ; that he should be brought near to the Ancient 
 of Days, and that to him should he given ‘ domi- 
 nion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, 
 and nations, and languages should serve him — an 
 everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, 
 — a kingdom that shall not be destroyed ’ (Dan. 
 vii. 13, 14). All this is implied in saying Jesus 
 is the Christ. In the plainer language of the New 
 Testament ‘ Jesus is the Christ ’ is equivalent to 
 Jesus is ‘ God manifest in flesh ’ (l Tim. iii. 16), 
 — the Son of God, who, in human nature, by his 
 obedience, and sufferings, and death in the room 
 of the guilty, has obtained salvation for them, 
 and all power in heaven and earth for himself, 
 that he may give eternal life to all coming to the 
 Father through him. 
 
 (2.) While the statement * Jesus is the Christ ’ is 
 thus materially equivalent to t!.e statement ‘all 
 that, is said of the Great Deliverer in the Old 
 Testament Scriptures is true of Him,’ it brings 
 more directly before our mind those truths respect- 
 ing him which the appellation ‘ the Anointed 
 One ’ naturally suggests. He is a prophet, a 
 priest, and a king. He is the great revealer of 
 divine truth ; the only expiator of human guilt, 
 and reconciler of man to God ; the supreme and 
 sole legitimate ruler over the understandings, 
 consciences, and affections of men. In his per- 
 son, and work, and word, by his spirit and provi- 
 dence, he unfolds the truth with respect to the 
 divine character and will, and so conveys it into 
 the mind as to make it the effectual means of 
 conforming man's will to God’s will, man’s cha- 
 racter to God’s character. He has by his spotless, 
 all-perfect obedience, amid the severest sufferings, 
 
 ‘ obedience unto death even the death of the cross, 
 so illustrated the excellence of the divine law and 
 the wickedness and danger of violating it, as to 
 make it a righteous thing in ‘ the just God ’ tc 
 ‘justify the ungodly,’ thus propitiating the 
 offended majesty of heaven ; while the manifesta- 
 tion of the divine love in aj pointing and accepting 
 
JESiJS CHRIST. 
 
 JEW. 
 
 ni 
 
 {his atonement, when apprehended by the mind 
 under the influence of the Holy Spirit, becomes 
 the effectual means of reconciling man to God 
 and to his law, ‘ transforming him by tlxj renew- 
 ing of his mind.’ And now, possessed of ‘all 
 power in heaven and earth,’ ‘ all power over all 
 flesh,’ ‘ He is Lord of All.’ All external events 
 and all spiritual influences are equally under his 
 control, and as a king he exerts his .authority in 
 carrying into full effect the great purposes which 
 his revelations as a prophet, and his great atoning 
 sacrifice as a high-priest, were intended to accom- 
 plish. 
 
 (3.) But the full import of the appellation the 
 Christ is not yet brought out. It indicates that 
 He to whom it belongs is the anointed prophet, 
 priest, and king— not that he was anointed by 
 material oil, but that be was divinely appointed , 
 qualified, commissioned, and accredited to be the 
 Saviour of men. These are the ideas which the 
 term anointed seems specially intended to con- 
 vey. Jesus was divinely appointed to the offices 
 he filled. He did not ultroneouslv assume them, 
 ‘ he was called of God as was Aaion ’ (Heb. v. 4), 
 * Behold mine Elect, in whom my soul de- 
 lighteth.’ He was divinely qualified : ‘ God gave 
 to him the Spirit not by measure.’ ‘The Spirit 
 of the Lord was upon him, the spirit of wisdom 
 and understanding, the spirit of counsel and 
 might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of 
 the Lord, and they made him of quick under- 
 standing in the fear of the Lord, so that he does 
 not judge after the sight of his eyes, nor reprove 
 after the hearing of his ears, but he smites the 
 earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the 
 breath of his lips he slays the wicked ; and right- 
 eousness is the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness 
 the girdle of his reins ’ (Isa. xi. 2-4). He was 
 divmely commissioned: ‘ The Father sent him.’ 
 Jehovah said to him, ‘Thou art my servant, in 
 thee will I be glorified. It is a light thing that 
 thou shouldst be my servant, to raise up the tribes 
 of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel ; I 
 will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that 
 thou mayst be my salvation to the ends of the 
 earth’ (Isa. xlix. 6). ‘Behold,* says Jehovah, 
 ‘ I have given Him for a witness to the people — a 
 leader and commander to the people.’ He is 
 divinely accredited : ‘ Jesus of Nazareth,’ says the 
 Apostle Peter, was ‘a man approved of God 
 among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs 
 which God did by him in the midst of you ’ 
 (Acts ii. 22). ‘The Father who hath sent me,’ 
 says Jesus himself, ‘bath borne witness of me’ 
 (John v. 37). This he did again and again by a 
 voice from heaven, as well as by the miracles 
 which he performed by that divine power which 
 was equally his and his Father’s. Such is the 
 import of the appellation Christ. 
 
 If these observations are clearly apprehended 
 there will be little difficulty in giving a satisfac- 
 tory answer to the question which has sometimes 
 been proposed — when did Jesus become Christ? 
 when was he anointed of God? We have seen 
 that, the expression is a figurative or analogical one, 
 and therefore we need not wonder that its references 
 are various. The appointment of the Saviour, 
 like all the other divine purposes, was, of course, 
 from eternity. ‘ He was set up from everlasting ’ 
 (Prov. viii. 513); he ‘ was lore-ordained before the 
 foundation of the world.’ (1 Pet. i. 20). His qua 
 
 lifications, such of (hem as were conferred, were 
 bestowed in, or during bis incarnation, when ‘ God 
 anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with 
 power ’ (Acts x. 38). Ilis commission may b« 
 considered as given him when called to enter on 
 the functions of his office. lie himself, after 
 quoting, in the synagogue of Nazareth, in the com- 
 mencement of his ministry, the passage from the 
 prophecies of Isaiah in which his unction to the 
 prophetical office is predicted, declared ‘ This day 
 is rtiis Scripture fulfilled in your ears.’ And in 
 his resurrection and ascension, God, as the reward 
 of his loving righteousness and hating iniquity, 
 ‘ anointed him with the oil of gladness above his 
 fellows ’ (Ps. xlv. 7), i. e. conferred on him a 
 regal power, fruitful in blessings to himself and 
 others, far superior to that which any king had 
 ever possessed, making him, as the Apostle Peter 
 expresses it, ‘ both Lord, and Christ ’ (Acts ii. 3G). 
 As to his being accredited, every miraculous event 
 performed in reference to him or by him may be 
 viewed as included in this species of anointing — 
 especially the visible descent of the Spirit on him 
 in his baptism. 
 
 These statements, with regard to the import 
 of the appellation ‘the Christ,’ show us how we 
 are to understand the statement of the Apostle 
 John, ‘ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
 Christ is born of God ’ (1 John v. 1), i. e. is ‘a 
 child of God,’ ‘ born again,’ ‘ a new creature and 
 the similar declaration of the Apostle Paul, ‘No 
 man can say that Jesus is the Lord,’ i. e. (he 
 Christ, the Messiah, ‘ but by the Holy Ghost ’ 
 (1 Cor. xii. 3). It. is plain that the proposition, 
 ‘ Jesus is the Christ,’ when understood in (he lati- 
 tude of meaning which we have shown belongs to 
 it, contains a complete summary of the truth 
 respecting the divine method of salvation. To 
 believe that, principle rightly understood is to be- 
 lieve the Gospel — the saving truth, by the faith of 
 which a man is, and by the faith of which only a 
 man can be, brought into the relation or formed 
 to the character of a child of God; and though a 
 man may, without divine influence, be brought to 
 acknowledge that ‘Jesus is the Lord,’ ‘Messiah 
 the Prince,’ and even firmly to believe that these 
 words embody a truth, yet no man can be brought 
 really to believe and cordially to acknowledge the 
 truth contained in these words, as we have at- 
 tempted to unfold it, without a peculiar divine 
 influence. That Jesus is 6 i\6wv, 6 Xpiards, is the 
 testimony of God, the faith of which constitutes a 
 Christian, rb eV, the one thing to which the Spirit, 
 the water and the blood, unite in bearing witness 
 (1 John v. 6, 8, 9).— J. B. 
 
 JESUS, surnamed Justus. [Justus.] 
 JETHRO. [Hobau.] 
 
 JEW ('*TirP Jehudi ; Sept. ’IoaScuos), a name 
 formed from that of the patriarch Judah, and 
 applied in its first use to one belonging to the 
 tribe or country of Judah, or rather perhaps to a 
 subject of the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 
 xvi. 6 ; xxv. 5). During the Captivity the term 
 seems to have been extended to all the people of 
 the Hebrew language and country, without dis- 
 tinction (Esth. iii. 6, 9; Dan. iii. 8, 12); and 
 this loose application of the name was preserved 
 after the restoration to Palestine, when it came to 
 denote not only every descendant of Abraham in 
 the largest possible sense, but even proselytes who 
 
JEZEBEL. 
 
 JKZRGSL 
 
 :i2 
 
 aad 11 c Wood-relation to the Hebrews (Acts ii. 5 ; 
 comp. 10). See the - articles Hebkkw Lan- 
 guage; Israel ; Judah. 
 
 JEZEBEL 7iot- inhabited , comp. Isa- 
 
 bella; Sept. ’le^ajSeX), daughter of Ethbaal, king 
 of Tyre and Sidon, and consort of Ahab, king of 
 Israel (b.c. 918). This unsuitable alliance 
 proved most disastrous to the kingdom of Israel ; 
 for Jezebel induced her weak husband not only to 
 connive at her introducing the worship of her 
 native idols, but eventually to become himself a 
 worshipper of them, and to use all the means in his 
 power to establish them in the room of the God of 
 ’srael. This was a great enormity. The worship 
 .f the golden calves which previously existed was, 
 nowever mistakenly, intended in honour of Jehovah ; 
 hut this was an open alienation from him, and a 
 turning aside to foreign and strange gods, which, 
 indeed, were no gods. Most of the particulars of this 
 bad but apparently highly-gifted woman's conduct 
 have been related in the notices of Ahab and 
 Elijah. From the course of her proceedings it 
 would appear that she grew to hate the Jewish 
 system of law and religion, on account of what 
 must have seemed to her its intolerance and its 
 anti-social tendencies. She hence sought to put it 
 down by all the means she could command ; and 
 the imbecility of her husband seems to have made 
 all the powers of the state subservient to her 
 designs. The manner in winch she acquired 
 and used her power over Ahab is strikingly 
 shown in the matter of Naboth, which, peihaps, 
 ‘-more than all the other affairs in which she was 
 engaged, brings out. her true character, and dis- 
 plays the nature of her influence. When she found 
 him puling, like a spoiled child, on account of 
 the refusal of Naboth (o gratify him by selling 
 him his patrimonial vineyard for a ‘ garden of 
 herbs/ she teaches him to look to her, to rely 
 upon her for the accomplishment of his wishes ; 
 and for the sake of this impression, more perhaps 
 than from savageness of temper, she scrupled not 
 at murder under the abused forms of law and 
 religion. She had the reward of her unscru- 
 pulous decisiveness of character in the triumph 
 of her policy in Israel, where, at last, there were but 
 7060 people who bad not bowed the knee to Baal, 
 nor kissed their hand to his image. Nor was 
 her success confined to Israel, for through Atha- 
 liah — a daughter after her own heart — who was 
 married to the son and successor of Jehoshaphat, 
 the same policy prevailed for a time in Judah, 
 after Jezebel herself had perished and the house 
 of Ahab had met its doom. It seems that after 
 the death of her husband, Jezebel maintained con- 
 siderable ascendancy over her son Joram ; and 
 hei measures and misconduct formed the principal 
 charge which Jehu cast in the teeth of that un- 
 happy monarch, before lie sent forth the arrow 
 which slew him. The last effort of Jezebel was 
 to intimidate Jehu as he passed the palace, by 
 warning him of the eventual rewards of even 
 successful treason. It is eminently characteristic 
 of the woman, that even in this terrible moment, 
 when she knew that her son was slain, and must 
 have felt that her power had depaited, she dis- 
 played herself not with rent veil and dishevelled 
 hair, ‘ but tired her head and painted her eyes ’ 
 before she looked out at the window. The eunuchs, 
 at a word from Jehu, having cast her down, she 
 
 met her death beneath the wall [Jehu] ; and 
 when afterwards the new monarch bethought hirn 
 that, as ‘ a kings daughter,’ her corpse should not 
 be treated with disrespect, nothing was found of 
 her but the palms of her hands and the soles of 
 her feet. The dogs had eaten all the rest. b.c. 
 881 (1 Kings xvi. 31; xviii. 4, 13, 19; xxL 
 5-25 ; 2 Kings ix. 7, 22, 30-37). 
 
 JEZREEL (^XJTIP 5 Sept. Ie( oaeX), a. town 
 in the tribe of Issachar (Josh. xix. 18), where the 
 kings ot Israel had a palace, and where the court 
 often resided, although Samaria was the metro- 
 polis of the kingdom. It is most frequently men- 
 tioned in the history of the house of Ahab. Here 
 was the vineyard of Naboth, which Ahab coveted 
 to enlarge the palace-grounds (1 Kings xviii. 45, 
 46; xxi.), and here Jehu executed bis dread- 
 ful commission against the house of Ahab, when 
 Jezebel, Joram, and all who were connected with 
 that wretched dynasty perished (2 Kings ix. 14- 
 37; x. 1-11). These horrid scenes appear to 
 have given the khigs of Israel a distaste to this 
 residence, as it is not again mentioned in their 
 history. It is, however, named by Hosea (i. 4 , 
 comp. i. 11 ; ii. 22); and in Judith (i. 8; iv. 3; 
 vii. 3) it occurs under the name of Esdraelon. 
 In the days of Eusebius and Jerome it was still 
 a large village, called Esdraela ( Onotnast . s. v. 
 
 ‘ Jezrael ’) ; and in the same age it again occurs 
 as Stradela (Itin. Ilieros. p. 586). Nothing 
 more is heard of it till the time of the crusades, 
 when it was called by the Franks Parvurn Ge- 
 rinum, and by the Arabs Zerin ; and it is de- 
 scribed as commanding a wide prospect — on the 
 east to the mountains of Gilead, and on the west 
 to Mount. Carmel (Will. Tyr. xxii. 26). But. 
 this line of identification seems to have been 
 afterwards lost sight of, and Jezreel came to be 
 identified with Jenin, Indeed, the village of 
 Zerin ceased to l>e mentioned by travellers till 
 Turner, Buckingham, and others after them again 
 brought it into notice ; and it is still more lately 
 that tjie ider.tific ition of Zerin and Jezreel has 
 been restored (Raumer, Paliist. p. 155 ; Schubert, 
 iii. 164; Elliot, ii. 379; Robinson, iii. 164). 
 
 If any further proof of the fact were necessary, 
 the identity of the names Jezreel and Zerin, or 
 Jerin, might be adduced. This does not at first 
 sight, appear ; but the first, feeble letter of the 
 Hebrew being dropped, and the last syllable el 
 becoming in, as is not unusual in Arabic (as 
 Beitm for Bethel), the two words arc seen to have 
 been originally the same. 
 
 Zerin is seated on the brow of a rocky and very 
 steep descent into the great and fertile valley of 
 Jezreel, which runs down between the mountains 
 of G'.boa and Hermori. Lying comparatively 
 high, it commands a wide and noble view, ex- 
 tending down the broad valley on the east tc 
 Beisan (Bethshean), and on the west, quite across 
 the great plain to the mountains of Carmel. It 
 is described by Dr. Robinson ( Researches , iii. 
 163) as a most magnificent site for a city, which, 
 being itself a conspicuous object in every part, 
 would naturally give its name to the whole region. 
 In the valley directly under Zerin, is a consi- 
 derable fountain, and another still larger some- 
 what further to the east, under the northern side of 
 Gilhoa, called Ain Jalud. There carq therefore, 
 be little question that as in Zer’r; we have Jezreel, 
 
JOAB. 
 
 JOAB. 
 
 co in flie valley and the fountain we have the 
 ‘valley of Jezreel,’ and the fountain of Jezreel, 
 of Sciipture. 
 
 Zerm has at present little more than twenty 
 mnnble dwellings, mostly in ruins, and with few 
 inhabitants. 
 
 JOAB (3NV, God-fathered ; Sept. 5 Icod£), one 
 of the three sons of Zeruiah, the sister of David, 
 and ‘(*iptainof the host ’ (generalissimo) of the 
 srnny during nearly the whole of David’s reign. 
 
 He first appears associated with his two bro- 
 thers, Atpshai and Asahel, in the command of 
 David's troops against Abner, who had set up the 
 claims of a son of Saul in opposition to those of 
 David, who then reigned in Hebron. The armies 
 having met at the pool of Gibeon, a general action 
 was brought on, in which Abner was worsted. Li 
 his flight lie had the misfortune to kill Joab’s bro- 
 ther, the swift-footed Asahel, by whom he was pur- 
 sueu (2 Sam. ii. 13-32). The consequences of 
 this deed have been explained elsewhere [Abner; 
 Asahei/I. Joab smothered for a time his x’esent- 
 m/fiit against the shed dvr of his brother’s blood; 
 but being whetted by the natural rivalry of posi- 
 tion between him and Abner, he afterwards made 
 it the instrument of his policy by treacherously, 
 in the act of friendly communication, slaying 
 Aimer, at the very time when the services of the 
 latter to David, to whom he had then turned, 
 had rendered him a most dangerous rival to him 
 in power and influence (2 Sam. iii. 22-27). 
 That Abner had at first suspected that Joab 
 would take the position of blood-avenger [Bi.ood- 
 Reyenge] is clear, from the apprehension which 
 he expressed (2 Sam. ii. 22); but that he thought 
 that joab had, under all the circumstances, aban- 
 doned tl lis position, is shown by the unsuspecting 
 readiness with which he went aside with him 
 (2 Sam. iii. 26, 27); and that Joab placed his 
 murderous act on the footing of vengeance for his 
 brother’s blood, is plainly stated in 2 Sam. iii. 30 ; 
 by which it also appears that the other brother, 
 Abishai, shared in some way in the deed and its 
 •esponsibilities. At the same time, as Abner 
 was perfectly justified in slaying Asahel to save 
 (lis own life, it is very doubtful if Joab would 
 ever have asserted his right of blood-revenge, if 
 Abner had not appeared likely to endanger his 
 influence with David. The king, much as he 
 reprobated the act, knew that it had a sort of ex- 
 cise in the old customs of blood-revenge, and he 
 stood habitually too much in awe of his impetu- 
 ous and able nephew to bring him to punishment, 
 ar even to displace him from his command. ‘ I 
 im this day weak, he said, ‘though anointed 
 ving, and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, be too 
 laid for me \(2 Sam iii. 39). 
 
 Desirous probably of making some atonement 
 beftre David and the public for this atrocity, in 
 a way which at the same time was most likely to 
 prove effectual — namely, by some daring exploit, 
 he was the first to mount to the assault at the 
 storming of the fortress on Mount Zion, which had 
 remained so long in the hands of the Jebusites. 
 By this service he acquired the chief command 
 oi the army of all Israel, of which David was by 
 this time king (2 Sam. v. 6-10). 
 
 1 1 is not necessary to trace the subsequent acts 
 of Joal , seeing that they are in fact the public 
 Acts of the king he served. And he served him 
 
 TOI.. II. 
 
 HI 
 
 faithfully ; foi although he knew his power over 
 David, and often treated him with little cere- 
 mony, there can be no doubt lhat he was most 
 truly devoted to his interests, and sometimes ren- 
 dered him good service even against his own will, 
 as in the affair at Mahanaim (2 Sam. xix. 5-8). 
 But Joab bad no principles apart from what he 
 deemed his duty to the king and the people, and 
 was quite as ready to serve his master’s vices as 
 his virtues, so long as they did not interfere 
 with his own interests, or tended to promote them 
 by enabling him to make himself useful to the 
 king. His ready apprehension of the king’s 
 meaning in the matter of Uriah, and the facility 
 with which he made himself the instrument of the 
 murder, and of the hypocrisy by which it was 
 covered, are proofs of this, and form as deep a 
 stain upon his character as his own murders (2 
 Sam. xi. 14-25). As Joab was on good terms 
 with Absalom, and had taken pains to bring 
 about a reconciliation between him and his father, 
 we may set the higher value upon his firm adhe- 
 sion to David when Absalom revolted, and upon 
 his stern sense of duty to the king — from whom 
 he expected no thanks, — displayed in putting an 
 end to the war by the slaughter of his favourite 
 son, when all others shrunk from the responsibility 
 of doing the king a service against his own will 
 (2 Sam., xviii. 1-14). In like manner, when 
 David unhappily resolved to number the people, 
 Joab discerned the evil and remonstrated against 
 it ; and although he did not venture to disobey, 
 he performed the duty tardily and reluctantly, to 
 afford the king an opportunity of reconsidering the 
 matter, and took no pains to conceal how odious 
 the measure was to him (2 Sam. xxiv. 1-4). 
 David was certainly ungrateful for the service? 
 of Joab, when, in order to conciliate the powerfu 
 party which had supported Absalom, he offered 
 the command of the host to Amasa, who hai 
 commanded the army of Absalom (2 Sam. xix 
 13). But the inefficiency of the new commander, 
 in the emergency which the revolt of Bichri's son 
 produced, arising perhaps from the reluctance of 
 the troops to follow their new leader, gave Joab an 
 opportunity of displaying his superior resources ; 
 and also of removing his rival by a murder very 
 similar to, and in some respects less excusable 
 and more foul than that of Abner [Amasa], 
 Besides, Amasa was his own cousin, being the 
 son of his mother’s sister (2 Sam. xx. 1-13). 
 
 When David lay on his death-bed, and a de- 
 monstration was made in favour of the succession 
 of the eldest surviving son, Adonijah, whose inte- 
 rests bad. been compromised by the preference of 
 the young Solomon, Joab joined the party of the 
 natural heir. It would be unjust to regard this 
 as a defection from David. It was nothing more 
 or less than a demonstration in favour of the na- 
 tural heir, which, if not then made, could not be 
 made at all. But an act which would have been 
 justifiable, had the preference of Solomon been a 
 mere caprice of the old king, became criminal as 
 an act of contumacy to the Divine king, the real 
 head of the government, who had called the house 
 of David to the throne, and had the sole right of 
 determining which of its members should reign. 
 When the prompt measures taken under the 
 direction of the king rendered this demonstration 
 abortive (1 Kings i. 7), Joab withdrew into private 
 life till some time after the death of David, when 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
114 
 
 JOANNA. 
 
 JOASH. 
 
 the fate of Adonijah, and of Abiathar — whose life 
 was only spared in consequence of his sacerdotal 
 character— warned Joab that he had little mercy to 
 expect from the new king. He fled for refuge to 
 the altar ; but when Solomon heard this, he sent 
 Benaiah to put him to death; and, as he refused 
 to come forth, gave orders that he should be slain 
 even at the altar. Thus died one of the most 
 accomplished warriors and unscrupulous men 
 that Israel ever produced. His corpse was re- 
 moved to his domain in the wilderness of Judah, 
 and buried there, b.c. 1015 (1 Kings ii. 5, 28-34). 
 
 JOANNA (’Icodvi/a), wife of Chuza, the 
 steward of Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. 
 She was one of those women who followed Christ, 
 and ministered to the wants of him and his 
 disciples out of their abundance. They had all 
 been cured of grievous diseases by the Saviour, or 
 had received material benefits from him ; and the 
 customs of the country allowed them to testify 
 in this way their gratitude and devotedness with- 
 out reproach. It is usually supposed that Joanna 
 was at this time a widow (Luke viii. 3 ; 
 xxiv. 10). 
 
 J. JOASH (KW!', God-qivw; Sept. ’Io>ay), 
 a contraction of Jehoash (S^NIIT), son of 
 Ahaziah and eighth king of Judah, who began to 
 reign in b.c. 878, at the age of seven, and reigned 
 fo *y-one years. 
 
 Jeash, when an infant, was secretly saved by 
 his aunt Jehoshebah, who was married to the high- 
 priest Jehoiada, from the general massacre of the 
 fam’!y by Athaliah, who bad usurped the throne 
 [Athaliah ; Jehoiada]. By the high-priest 
 and his wife the child was privily brought up in 
 the chambers connected with the temple till he 
 had attained his eighth year, when Jehoiada 
 deemed that the state of affairs required him to 
 produce the youthful heir of the throne to the 
 people, and claim for him the crown which his 
 grandmother had 60 unrighteously usurped. 
 Finding the influential persons whom he consulted 
 favourable to the design, everything was secretly, 
 but admirably, arranged for producing Joash, and 
 investing him with the regalia, in such a manner 
 tliat Athaliah could have no suspicion of the 
 event till it actually occurred. On the day ap- 
 pointed, the sole surviving scion of David’s illus 
 trious house appeared in the place of the kings, 
 by a particular pillar in the temple-court, and 
 was crowned and anointed with the usual cere- 
 monies. The high-wrought enthusiasm of the 
 spectators. then found vent in clapping of hands 
 and exulting shouts of ‘Long live the king!’ 
 The joyful uproar was heard even in the palace, 
 and brought Athaliah to the temple, from which, 
 at a word from Jehoiada, she was led to her 
 death. 
 
 Joash behaved well during his non-age, and so 
 long after as he remained under the influence of 
 the high-priest. But when he died the king seems 
 to have felt himself relieved from a yoke ; and to 
 manifest his freedom, began to take the contrary 
 course lo that which he had followed while under 
 pupilage. Gradually the persons who had pos- 
 sessed influence formerly, when the house of 
 David was contaminated by its alliance with 
 tne house of Ahab, insinuated themselves into his 
 councils, and ere long the worship of Jehovah and 
 tLe observances of he law were neglected, and the 
 
 land was defiled with idolatries and idolatroui 
 usages. The prophets then uttered their warnings, 
 but were not heard; and the infatuated king had 
 the atrocious ingratitude to put to death Zeehariab, 
 the son and successor of his benefactor Jehoiada. 
 For these deeds Joash was made an example of the 
 divine judgments. He saw his realm devastated 
 by the Syrians under Hazael ; his armies were 
 cut in pieces by an enemy of inferior numbers ; 
 and he was even besieged in Jerusalem, and only 
 preserved his capital and his crown by giving up 
 the treasures of the temple. Besides this, a pain- 
 ful malady embittered all his latter days, and at 
 length he became so odious that his own servants 
 conspired against him, and slew him on his 
 bed. They are said to have done this to avenge 
 the blood of Zeehariah, who at his death had 
 cried, ‘ The Lord look upon it and require it 
 and it is hence probable that public opinion 
 ascribed all the calamities of his life and reign to 
 that infamous deed.' Joash was buried in the 
 city of David ; but a place in the sepulchre of 
 the kings was denied to his remains (2 Kings xi. ; 
 xii. ; 2 Chron. xxiv.), 
 
 2. JOASH, son and successor of Jehoahaz on 
 the throne of Israel, of which he was the twelfth 
 king. He began to reign in b.c 810, and reigned 
 sixteen incomplete years. He followed the ex- 
 ample of his predecessors in the policy of keeping 
 up the worship of the golden calves; but, apart 
 from this, he bears a fair character, and bad in- 
 tervals, at least, of sincere piety and true devo- 
 tion to the God of his fathers. Indeed, custom 
 and long habit had so established the views of 
 political expediency on which the schismatieal 
 establishments at Dan and Bethel were founded, 
 that at length the reprehension which regularly 
 recurs in the record of each king's reign, seems 
 rather to apply to it as a mark of the continuance 
 of a public crime, than as indicative of the cha- 
 racter or disposition of the reigning prince, 
 wl.ich is to be sought in the more detailed 
 accounts of his own conduct. These accounts 
 are favourable with respect to Joash. He held 
 the prophet Elisha in high honour, looking up to 
 him as a father. When he heard of his last ill- 
 ness he repaired to the bed-side of the dying pro- 
 phet, and was favoured with promises of victories 
 over the Syrians, by whom his dominions were 
 then harassed. These promises were accomplished 
 after the prophet’s death. In three signal and 
 successive victories Joash overcame the Syrians, 
 and retook from them the towns which Hazael had 
 rent from Israel. 
 
 These advantages rendered the kingdom of 
 Israel more potent than that of Judah. He, how- 
 ever, sought no quarrel with that kingdom ; but 
 when he received a defiance from Amaziah, king 
 of Judah, he answered with becoming spirit ir* 
 a parable, which by its images caPs to mind 
 that of Jotham [Parables] : the cosj! disdain of 
 the answer must have been, and in fact was, ex- 
 ceedingly galling to Amaziah. * The thistle that 
 was in Lei anon sent to the cedar that was in 
 Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to mv son to 
 wife ; and there came by a wild beast that was 
 in Lebanon and trod down the thistle.’ Tin’s was 
 admirable; nor was the application less so: 
 ‘Thou hast, i: deed, smitten Edom, and thine 
 heart hath lifted thee up : glory of this, and tarry 
 at nome; for why shouldest thou meddle to toy 
 
JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 hurt, that thou shouhlest fall, even thou and 
 Judah with thee.’ In the war, or rather action, 
 which followed, Joash was victorious. Having 
 defeated Amaziah at Beth-shemesh, in Judah, he 
 advanced to Jerusalem, broke down the wall to 
 ♦lie extent of 400 cubits, and carried away the 
 treasures both of the temple and tint palace, 
 together with hostages for the future good be- 
 haviour of the crest-fallen Amaziah. Joash himself 
 did not long survive this victory; he died in 
 peace, and was buried in Samaria (2 Kings xiii. 
 0-2o; xiv. 1-17). 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. We shall consider, 
 first, the contents of this book ; secondly, its ob- 
 ject ; thirdly, its composition ; and, lastly, the 
 country, descent, and age of its author. 
 
 I. Contents. In the land of Uz, belonging to 
 the northern part of Arabia Deserta, lived an 
 honest, pious man, called Job. For his sincere 
 and perfect devotedness, God had amply blessed 
 aim with worldly property and children; but on 
 Satan obtaining leave to tempt him , he suddenly 
 lost the fortune of his life. Ultimately he is 
 smitten with a severe and painful disease ; but 
 though his wife moves him to forsake God, he 
 dill continues true and stanch to the Lord. 
 Three friends, Elipnaz, Bildad, and Zophar, hear 
 if his calamities, and come to console him. His 
 listressed state excites their heartfelt compassion ; 
 >ut the view winch they take of its origin pre- 
 rents them from at once assisting him, and they 
 emain silent, though they are sensible that by so 
 loing they further wound his feelings. Seven 
 lays thus pass, until Job, suspecting the cause of 
 their conduct, becomes discomposed and breaks 
 silence. His first observations are based on the 
 assertion - -not, indeed, broadly expressed — that 
 God ac's harshly and arbitrarily in inflicting 
 :al amity on men. This causes a discussion between 
 li rn and his friends, which is divided into three 
 main parts, each with subdivisions, and embraces 
 the speeches of the three friends of Job, and his 
 answers : the last part, however, consists of only 
 two subdivisions, the third friend, Zophar, having 
 nothing to rejoin. By this silence the author of 
 the book generally designates the defeat of Job’s 
 friends, who are defending a common cause. 
 Taking a general view of the argument which 
 they urge against him, they may be considered as 
 asserting the following positions : — 
 
 1. No man being free from sin, we need not 
 
 wonder that we are liable to calamities, for which 
 we must account by a reference, not to God, but 
 to ourselves. From the misery of the distressed, 
 others are enabled to infer their guilt; and they 
 must take this view in order to vindicate divine 
 justice. .. 
 
 2. The distress o* a man proves not only that 
 he has sinned, but shows also the degree and mea- 
 sure of his sin ; and thus, from the extent of cala- 
 mity sustained, may be inferred the extent of sins 
 committed ; and from this the measure of impend- 
 ing misfortune. 
 
 3. A distressed man may recover his former 
 happiness, and even attain to greater fortune than 
 he ever enjoyed before, if lie takes a warning from 
 his afflictions, repents of his sins, reforms his life, 
 and raises himself to a higher degree of moral rec- 
 titude. Impatience and irreverent expostulation 
 with God serve but to prolong and increase puuish- 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 115 
 
 ment ; for, by accusing God of injustice, a fresh sin 
 is added to former transgressions. 
 
 4. Though the wicked man is capable of pro- 
 sperity, still it is never lasting. The most awful 
 retribution soon overtakes him ; and his transient 
 felicity must itself be considered as punishment, 
 since it renders him heedless, and makes him feel 
 misfortune more keenly. 
 
 In opposition to them, Job maintains : — 
 
 1. The most upright man may be highly unfor 
 tunate — more so than the inevitable faults and 
 shortcomings of human nature would seem to 
 imply. There is a savage cruelty, deserving the 
 severities of the divine resentment, in inferring the 
 guilt of a man from his distresses. In distributing 
 good and evil, God regards neither mei'it nor guilt, 
 but acts according to His sovereign pleasure. His 
 omnipotence is apparent in every part of the 
 creation ; but His justice cannot be seen in the 
 government of the world ; the afflictions of the 
 righteous, as well as the prosperity of the wicked, 
 are evidence against it. There are innumerable 
 cases, and Job considers his own to be one of them, 
 in which a sufferer has a right to justify himself 
 before God, and to repine at His decrees. Of this 
 supposed right Job freely avails himself, and main- 
 tains it against his friends. 
 
 2. In a state of composure and calmer reflec- 
 tion, Job retracts, chiefly in his concluding speech, 
 all his former rather extravagant assertions, and 
 says that, although God generally afflicts the 
 wicked and blesses the righteous, still there are ex- 
 ceptions to this rule, single cases in which the piui.s 
 undergo severe trials ; the inference, therefore, of a 
 roan’s guilt from his misfortunes is by no means 
 warranted. For the exceptions established by ex- 
 perience prove that God does not always distribute 
 prosperity and adversity after this rule; but that he 
 sometimes acts on a different principle, or as an ab- 
 solutelord, according to his mere will and pleasure. 
 
 3. Humbly to adore God is our duty, even, 
 when we are subject to calamities not at all 
 deserved ; but we should abstain from harshly 
 judging of those who, when distressed, send forth 
 complaints against God. 
 
 Both parties not only explain their principles 
 generally, but apply them to the case which had 
 caused the discussion. At first the friends of Job 
 only hint, but in the course of the discussion, they 
 broadly assert, that his very great afflictions must 
 have been caused by equally great sins ; and they 
 tax him with crimes of which they suspect him to 
 have been guilty. They also admonish him to con- 
 fess and repent of the guilt of which, by the divine 
 punishments inflicted on him, he stood already 
 convicted. If he should follow 4his counsel, they 
 promise him a return of prosperity; but if he 
 proved refractory, they threaten him with divine 
 punishments even more severe. Job, on the con- 
 trary, represents himself, venial frailties excepted, 
 as altogether upright and innocent, thinks himself 
 unjustly dealt with by God, and reproaches his 
 friends with heaping on him unfounded crimina- 
 tions, with a view of ingratiating themselves with 
 the Almighty, who, however, would visit with 
 condign punishment such busy, meddling, offi- 
 cious vindicators of the divine government. 
 
 The interest of the narrative is kept up with 
 considerable skill, by progressively rising and 
 highly passionate language. At first, Job’s friends 
 charge him, and he defends himself, in mild 
 
1 1G 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 # 
 
 terms ; but gradually they are all betrayed into 
 warmth of temper, which goes on increasing u^til 
 the friends have nothing more to object, and Job 
 remains in possession of the Held. The discussiou 
 then seems to be at an end, when a fresh dis- 
 putant, Elihu, appears. Trusting in his just cause, 
 Job had proudly opposed God, with whom he 
 expostulated, and whom he charged with injus- 
 tice, when the sense of his calamities should have 
 led him to acknowledge the sinfulness of human 
 nature, and humbly to submit to the divine dis- 
 pensations. Making every allowance for his pain- 
 ful situation, and putting the mildest construction 
 on his expressions, he is still substantially wrong, 
 and could not therefore be suffered to remain the 
 vanquisher m this high argument. He had silenced 
 his friends, but the general issue remained to be 
 settled. Elihu had waited till Job and his friends 
 bad spoken, because the} were older than he ; but 
 when he saw that the three visitors ceased to answer, 
 he offers himself to reason with Job, and shows that 
 God is just in his ways. He does this, 
 
 1. From the nature of inflictions. — He begins 
 by urging that Job was very wrong in boasting of 
 his integrity, and making it appear that rewards 
 were due to him from God. How righteous soever 
 he was, he still had no claim to reward ; on the 
 contrary, all men are sinners in God’s eyes ; and 
 nobody can complain that he suffers unjustly, 
 for the very greatest sufferings equal not his 
 immense guilt. Then Elihu explains a leading 
 point on which he differs from the friends of Job : 
 he asserts that from greater sufferings inflicted on 
 a person it was not to be inferred that he had sinned 
 more than others afflicted with a less amount of 
 calamity. Calamities were, indeed, under all cir- 
 cumstances, punishments for sins committed, but 
 at the same time they were correctives also; and 
 therefore they might be inflicted on the compara- 
 tively most righteous in preference to others. For 
 lie who was most loved by God, was also most in 
 danger of forgetting the sinfulness inherent in all 
 men, and, consequently, also in himself: the rather 
 because sin would in him less strongly manifest 
 itself. If the object of afflictions was attained, 
 and the distressed acknowledged his sinfulness, he 
 would humble himself before God, who would 
 bless him with greater happiness than he ever be- 
 fore enjoyed. But he who took not this view, and 
 did not amend his ways, would be ruined, and the 
 blame would rest wholly with himself. Conse- 
 quently, if Job made the best of his misfortune, God 
 would render him most happy ; but if he continued 
 refractory, punishment would follow his offences. 
 According to this view, the truly righteous cannot 
 be always miserable ; and their calamities, which 
 God not only from His justice, as the friends of Job 
 stated, but also from His love, inflicts temporarily 
 on them, are only the means employed to raise them 
 to higher moral rectitude and worldly happiness. 
 The end shows the distinction between the perverse 
 sinner, and the righteous man subject to sinfulness. 
 
 2. From a clear conception of the nature of 
 God. — ‘ How darest thou,’ says Elihu, ‘ instead of 
 humbling thyself before God, defy Him, and offer 
 to reason with Him ? The whole creation shows 
 forth His majesty, and evinces His justice. For a 
 man to stand up against Him and to assert that 
 he suffers innocently, is the greatest anthropomor- 
 phism, because it goes to deny the Divine majesty, 
 evident in all the facts of the created world, and 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 including God’s justice. His nature being one and 
 indivisible, it cannot on one side exhibit infinite 
 perfection, and on the other imperfection : each 
 example, then, of God’s grandeur in the creation 
 of the world is evidence against the rash accusers 
 of God’s justice. Thus it appears that, from the 
 outset, there must have been a mistake in thy 
 calculation, and thou must the rather acknow- 
 ledge the correctness of my solution of the ques- 
 tion. God must be just — this is certain from the 
 outset; and how His justice is not impaired by 
 calamities inflicted on the righteous and on thy- 
 self, I have already explained.’ 
 
 Job had, in a stirring manner, several times, chal- 
 lenged God to decide the contest. Elihu suspects 
 the approach of the Lord, when, towards the end 
 of his speech, a violent thunder-storm arises, and 
 God answers Job out of the whirlwind, showing 
 how foolishly the latter had acted in offering to 
 reason with Him, when His works proved his in- 
 finite Majesty, and, consequently, His absolute 
 justice. Job now submits to God. and humbly 
 repents of his offence. Hereupon &od addresses 
 Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, declaring unto them 
 His displeasure at their unmerciful dealing with 
 their friend, the consequences of which could only 
 be avoided by Job offering a propitiatory sacw- 
 fice. This is done, and the Lord grants unto Job 
 ample compensation for his sufferings. 
 
 II. Design of the book. We here assume 
 the integrity of the book of Job, or that it has been 
 preserved in its genuine, unadulterated state ; and 
 we may do so the rather, because those who would 
 eliminate single portions, must still allow the 
 difficulty of showing in the remainder a fixed plan 
 and leading idea, which again argues against them. 
 Moreover, by determining the design of the book 
 the best foundation is laid for proving its integrity. 
 All agree that the object of the book is the solution 
 of the question, how the afflictions of the righteous 
 and the prosperity of the wicked can be consistent 
 with God’s justice. But it should be observed 
 that the direct problem exclusively refers to the 
 first point, the second being only incidentally 
 discussed on occasion of the leading theme. If 
 this is overlooked., the author would appear to 
 have solved only one half of his problem : the case 
 from which the whole discussion proceeds, has 
 reference merely to the leading problem. There 
 is another fundamental error which has led nearly 
 all modern interpreters to a mistaken idea of 
 the design of this book. Pareau (De J.mmor - 
 talitatis not. in libro Jobi, Deventer, 1807, 
 p. 207) is the only one who saw the error ad- 
 verted to, and partially combated it with success. 
 They assume that the problem could be satis- 
 factorily solved only when the doctrines of im- 
 mortality and retribution had been first established, 
 which had not been done by the author of the 
 book of Job : a perfect solution of the question 
 was therefore not to be expected from him. Some 
 assert that his solution is erroneous, since retri- 
 bution, to be expected in a future world, is 
 transferred by him to this life ; others say that he 
 cut the knot which he could not unloose, and has 
 been satisfied to ask for implicit submission and 
 devotedness, showing at the same time that every 
 attempt at a solution must lead to dangerous 
 positions : blind resignation, therefore, war the 
 short meaning of the lengthened discussion, 
 
 On nearer examination, however, it appears that 
 
JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 the doctrine of retribution after death is not of itself 
 alone calculated to lead to a solution of the pro- 
 blem. In contemplating the lives of the righteous, 
 who were perfectly embued with this doctrine, it 
 will appear that they also, str lggled with doubts ; 
 that a satisfactory solution of the question is to 
 be derived only from the fundamental doctrine 
 on which the faith in retribution rests; and that 
 this faith is shaken where it has not the necessary 
 basis. The belief in a final judgment is firm and 
 rational only when it rests on the belief in God’s 
 continued providential government of the world, 
 and in his acting as sovereign Lord in all the 
 events of human life. If God is holy and just, 
 He must also have the will to manifest these 
 qualities in our present life by His bearing towards 
 those who represent His image on earth, as well 
 as towards those who renounce it. If He is om- 
 nipotent, nothing can in this life prevent Him 
 from exhibiting His justice; but if this is not 
 manifested, and if no reason can be given for 
 which He at times defers His judgments, the 
 belief in retribution after death would be flimsy 
 and shallow. Woe to him who expects in a future 
 world to be supplied with everything he missed 
 here, and with redress for all injuries sustained ! 
 He deceives himself. His God was, during his 
 life on earth, inactive, shutting Himself up in 
 heaven : is he sure that his God will hereafter be 
 better disposed or more able to protect him ? As 
 His essence remains the same, and the nature of 
 sin and virtue is unchanged, how should He 
 then in a future life punish the former and reward 
 the latter, if He .does not do so in this life ! Tem- 
 porary injustice is still injustice, and destroys 
 the idea of a holy and just God. A God who has 
 something to redress is no God at all. Lucian, 
 the satirist, composed a dialogue entitled Zeus 
 'EAe7x<fytej'os, with the view of subverting the 
 belief in Divine Providence; in which he justly 
 finds fault with that God, who allows the wicked 
 to lead a happy and pleasant life in order that, at 
 a distant time, they may be tortured according to 
 their deserts, and who, on the contrary, exposes 
 the righteous to infinite misery, that in remote 
 futurity they may receive the reward of their vir- 
 tue. Some men of sense among the heathens dis- 
 played deep penetration on this subject. Claudian, 
 in the commencement of his poem against the 
 wicked Rufinus, hints that doubts had been often 
 entertained of Divine Providence, but that they had 
 been now removed by the downfall of Rufinus : — 
 
 ‘ Abstulit hunc tandem Rufini poena tumultum 
 Absolvitque deos. Jam non ad culmina rerum 
 Injustos crevisse queror. Tolluntur in altum 
 Ut lapsu graviore ruant.’ 
 
 This worldly retribution leads him to a firm belief 
 in that after death. He represents Rufinus de- 
 scended to the nether world, doing penance and 
 enduring the keenest pains. See the rich collection 
 by Barth (in his Notes to Claudian , 1078, s.s.) 
 of those passages in the works of heathen writers 
 in which doubts of future retribution are raised 
 on the ground of disbelief in present requitals. 
 Scripture knows nothing of a God whose power 
 aimits of increase, or who is active only in the life 
 o come : its God is always full of strength and 
 igour, constantly engaged in action. God’s just 
 retribution in this world is extolled throughout the 
 Old Testament. Tne notion of return accommo- 
 dated to actions, is its substance and centre. It 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 117 
 
 is partii alarly urged in the Pentateuch, and it is 
 only when it had been deeply rooted in the public 
 mind, and the belief in future requital had ac- 
 quired a firm and solid basis, that the latter 
 doctrine, which in the books of Moses is but 
 dimly hinted at, is clearly and explicitly pro- 
 mulgated. The New Testament holds out to the 
 righteous promises of a future life, as well as of the 
 present; and our Saviour himself, in setting forth 
 the rewards of those who, for His sake, forsook 
 everything, begins with this life (Matt. xix. 29). 
 A nearer examination of the benedictions contained 
 in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, v.), shows tha: 
 none of them exclusively refer to future blessings 
 the judgment of the wicked is in His view pro- 
 ceeding without interruption, and therefore His 
 examples of the distribution of Divine justice in 
 this world, are mingled with those of requital in a 
 future order of things. The Galileans, whose 
 blood Pilate had mingled with their own sacri- 
 fices (Luke xiii. 1), were in Christ's opinion not 
 accidentally killed ; and he threatens those who 
 would not repent, that they should in like manner 
 perish. That sickness is to be considered as a 
 punishment for sin, we are clearly taught (John v. 
 14 ; Luke v. 20, 24) : in the former passage it is 
 threatened as punishment for sins committed ; in 
 the latter it is healed in consequence of punish- 
 ment remitted. Nay, every patient restored by 
 Christ, who acted pot as a superior kind of Hip- 
 pocrates, but as the Saviour of men, is by that very 
 act declared to be a sinner. The passage in John ix. 
 2, 3, which is often appealed to, in proof that our 
 Lord did not consider sickness as a punishment 
 for sin, does not prove this, but only opposes the 
 Jewish position — founded on the mistaken doe- 
 trine of retribution— that all severe sicknesses and 
 infirmities were consequences of crimes. But 
 what is, from this point of view, the solution ot 
 the problem regarding the sufferings of the righte- 
 ous ? It rests on two positions. 
 
 1. Calamity is the only way that leads to 
 the kingdom of God. Even the comparatively 
 righteous are not without sin, which can be eradi- 
 cated only by afflictions. Via crucis est via 
 salutis. He who repents will attain to a clearer 
 insight into the otherwise obscure ways of God. 
 The afflictions of the pious issue at once from 
 God’s justice and love. To him who entertains 
 a proper sense of the sinfulness of man, no ca- 
 lamity appears so great as not to be deserved as a 
 punishment, or useful as a corrective. 
 
 2. Calamity, as the veiled grace of God, is 
 with the pious never alone, but manifest proofs of 
 Div ne favour accompany or follow it*. Though 
 sunk in misery, they still are happier than the 
 wicked, and when it has attained its object, it is 
 terminated by the Lord. The nature of acts of 
 grace differs according to the qualify of those 
 on whom they are conferred. The consolations 
 offered in the Old Testament are, agreeably to the 
 weaker judgment of its professors, derived clmfly 
 from external ciicumstances ; while in the New 
 Testament they are mainly spiritual, without, 
 however, excluding the leading external helps. 
 This difference is not essential, nor is any other, 
 the restitutio in integrum being in the Old Testa- 
 ment principally confined to this life, while in the 
 New Testament the eye is directed beyond the 
 limits of this world. 
 
 It i £ this exclusively correct solution of the 
 
118 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 problem which occurs in the book of Job. All 
 interpreters allow that it is set forth in Elihu’s 
 speeches, and, from the following observations, it 
 will appear that they contain the opinion of the 
 author : — 1. The solution cannot be looked for in 
 Job’s speeches ; for God proves himself gracious 
 towards him only after he has repented and 
 humbled himself. The author of the book says 
 (i. 22 ; ii. 10 ; comp. iii. 1) that Job had charged 
 God foolishly, and sinned with his lips ; and the 
 ■n-purov xf/eOSos, the materia peccans , in his 
 speeches, is clearly pointed out to be, that ‘ he 
 was righteous in his own eyes, and justified him- 
 self rather than God’ (xxxii. 1, 2). To gather from 
 Job’s speeches a consistent view of the subject, 
 and a satisfactory solution of the question mooted, 
 is impossible also on account of the many contra- 
 dictions in them ; as, for instance, when he says 
 at one time, that God's justice never appears in 
 the government of the world, and at another, 
 that it generally does appear, but that there are 
 evident exceptions to the general rule, not liable 
 to objections. Sound principles are mixed up 
 by him with wrong ones ; his views want sifting, 
 and the correct ideas must be completed, which, 
 even in his^concluding address, is not done by him- 
 self, nor is it performed by his three friends. Job 
 continues to be embarrassed for the solution, and 
 ne is only certain of this, that the solution of his 
 friends cannot be satisfactory. Job erred chiefly 
 in not acknowledging the sin inherent in him; 
 notwithstanding his integrity and sincere piety, 
 which prevented him from apprehending the ob- 
 ject of the calamity inflicted on him, led him to 
 consider God’s punishments as arbitrary, and 
 made him despair of the return of better days. 
 The greatness of his sufferings was in some mea- 
 sure the cause of his misconception, by exciting 
 his feelings, and preventing him from calmly con- 
 sidering his case. He was in the state of a man 
 tempted, and deserving God’s indulgence. He had 
 received considerable provocation from his friends, 
 and often endeavoured to soften his harsh asser- 
 tions; which, particularly in ch. xxvii., leads him 
 into such contradictions, as must have occurred 
 in the life of the tempted ; he is loud in acknow- 
 ledging the wisdom of God (ch. xxviii.), and raises 
 himself at times to cheering hopes (comp. ch. 
 xix.). But this can only excuse, not justify him, 
 and therefore it is in the highest degree honourable 
 to him, that he remains silent, when in Elihu’s 
 speeches the correct solution of the question is 
 given, and that he ultimately acknowledges his 
 fundamental error of doing justice to himself only. 
 
 2. The solution of the question mooted can- 
 not be contained in the speeches of Job's friends. 
 Their demeanour is reproved by God, and repre- 
 sented as a great sin, so much so, indeed, that to 
 obtain pardon for them Job was directed to offer a 
 propitiatory sacrifice. Their error proceeded from 
 a crude notion of sin in its external appearance; 
 and, inferring its existence from calamity, they 
 were thus led to condemn the afflicted Job as 
 guilty of heinous crimes (ch. xxxii.). The moral 
 use of sufferings was unknown to them; which 
 evidently proved that they themselves were not 
 vet purged and cleared from guilt. If they had 
 been sensible of the nature of man, if they had 
 understood themselves , they would, on seeing the 
 misery of Job, have exclaimed, ‘God be merciful 
 to us sinners ! ’ There is, indeed, an important 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 correct j inciple in their speeches, whose centre il 
 forms, so much so, that they mostly err only iii the 
 application of the general truth, it consists in the 
 perception of. the invariable connection between 
 sin and misery, which is indelibly engrafted on 
 the heart of man, and to which many ancient 
 authors allude. The saying, male parta male 
 dilabuntur , is to be found in every language. 
 The problem of the book is then solved hy pro- 
 perly uniting the correct positions of the speeches 
 both of Job and his friends, by maintaining his 
 comparative innocence, and by tracing the errors 
 of both parties to a common source, the want of a 
 sound insight into the nature of sin. Job con- 
 siders himself righteous, and not deserving of such 
 inflictions, because he had not committed any 
 heinous crime ; and his friends fancy they must 
 assume that lie was highly criminal, in order to 
 justify his misery. 
 
 3. The solution of the question at issue is not 
 exclusively given in the addresses of God , which 
 contain only the basis of the solution, not the 
 solution itself. In setting forth his majesty, and 
 in showing that imputing to him injustice is repug- 
 nant to a correct conception of his nature, these 
 addresses establish that there must be a solution 
 which does not impair divine justice. This is not, 
 indeed, the solution itself, but everything is thus 
 prepared for the solution. We apprehend that. God 
 must be just, but it remains further to be shown 
 how he can be just, and still the righteous be 
 miserable. 
 
 Unless, then, we are disposed to question the 
 general result, we are, by the arrangements of the 
 book, led to the speeches of Elihu as containing 
 the solution of the problem, which the author, 
 moreover, has indicated with sufficient clearness 
 by making the commencement and end of the 
 narrative agree perfectly with those speeches. The 
 leading principle in Elihu’s statement is, that 
 calamity in the shape of trial was inflicted even 
 on the comparatively best men, but that God al- 
 lowed a favourable turn to take place as soon as it 
 had attained its object. Now this is the key to 
 the events of Job’s life. Though a pious and 
 righteous man, he is tried by severe afflictions. 
 He knows not for what purpose he is smitten, 
 and his calamity continues ; but when he learm 
 it from the addresses of Elihu and God, and 
 humbles himself, he is relieved from the burden 
 which oppresses him, and ample prosperity atones 
 for the afflictions he has sustained. Add to this, 
 that the remaining portion of Elihu’s speeches, 
 in which he points to God’s infinite majesty as 
 including his justice, is continued in the ad- 
 dresses of God ; that Elihu foretells God’s ap- 
 pearance ; that he is not punished by God as are 
 the friends of Job; in fine, that Job by his very 
 silence acknowledges the problem to have been 
 solved by Elihu; and his silence is the more sig- 
 nificant because Elihu had urged him to defend 
 himself (xxxiii. 32), and because Job had re- 
 peatedly declared he would ‘ hold his peace,’ if 
 it was shown to him wherein he had erred (vi. 
 24, 25 ; xix. 4). This view of the book of Job 
 has among modern authors been supported chiefly 
 by StUudlin ( Beitriige zur Religions mid Sitten- 
 lehre, vol. ii. p. 133) and Stickel ( Das Buck 
 Hiob, Leipzig, 1842), though in both it is mixed 
 up with much erroneous mat.tey ; and it is further 
 confirmed by the whole Old Testament giving 
 
JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 ? le same answer to the question mooted which 
 t.je speeches of Eliliu offer : in its concentrated 
 form it. is presented in Ps. xxxvii. xlix. lxxiii. 
 
 From these considerations it appears, that those 
 interpreters who, with Bernstein, De Wette, and 
 Umhreit, assume that the book of Job was of a 
 sceptical nature, and intended to dispute the doc- 
 trine of retribution as laid down in the other books 
 of the Old Testament, have entirely misunderstood 
 it. The doctrine of divine retribution is here not 
 disputed, but strengthened, as the case under con- 
 sideration required that it should be. The object 
 of the book would also be too much narrowed, if 
 it was restricted to proving that the doctrine of 
 retribution, as expounded by the friends of Elihu, 
 was erroneous. The speeches of Elihu evidently 
 oppose the discourses of Job in stronger terms 
 than those of his friends. The object of the book 
 is rather to explain generally the nature and ten- 
 dency of afflictions, and thereby to contribute 
 towards the attainment of their design, to console 
 the mind, and to cheer the drooping spirits. It is 
 difficult for men to understand that their suffer- 
 ings, however great, are still under that degree 
 which they deserve. To consider afflictions as 
 proofs of divine favour, we must first learn to 
 bring them into unison with divine justice. Upon 
 the doctrine of retribution after death our author 
 does not enter ; but that he knew it, may be in- 
 ferred from several passages with great probability; 
 as, for instance, ch. xiv. 14, ‘ if a man die shall he 
 live again? All the days of my appointed time 
 will I wait, till my change come.’ The if here 
 shows that the writer had been before engaged in 
 considering the subject of life after death ; and 
 when such is the case, a pious mind will neces- 
 sarily indulge the hope, or will, at least, have an 
 obscure presentiment of immortality. The truth, 
 also, of God’s unbounded gi'ace, on which the 
 doctrine of immortality is based, will be found 
 clearly laid down in ch. xix.. Still the author 
 does not recur to this hope for the purjxose of 
 solving his problem ; he would not ground it on 
 something in itself wanting support and a founda- 
 tion, namely, that which is presented in this book. 
 The doctrine of future retribution, if not sus- 
 tained by the belief in retribution during this 
 life, is truly a castle in the air. The author 
 did not intend in his discussion to exceed the 
 limits of what God had clearly revealed , and 
 this was in his time confined to the vague 
 notion of life continued after death, but not con- 
 nected with rewards and punishments. Explicitly 
 expressed, then, we have here only the doctrine of 
 a Sheol (see the collection of passages, p. 123 sqq. 
 t'f Pareau's work above quoted), which, indeed, is 
 not erroneous in itself, but which still keeps the 
 background veiled. 
 
 Having thus established the design of the book 
 of Job, it remains to consider the view taken by 
 Ewald. He justly rejects the common, super- 
 ficial view of its design, which has recently been 
 revived and defended by Hirzel (see his Com - 
 mentar, Leipzig, 1839), and which represents the 
 author as intending to show that man cannot ap- 
 prehend the plans of God, and does best to submit 
 in ignorance without repining at afflictions. The 
 author would thus be rendered liable to the charge 
 of having cut. the knot which he could not loose. 
 When this view was first, set up, the solution ol one 
 of the most important religious problems was very 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 119 
 
 unsettled, and the public mind generally remained 
 in suspense; in accordance with which state of 
 feeling this opinion is framed relating to the design 
 of the book of Job. The alleged theme occurs in 
 no passage, not even incidentally. The writers in 
 question chiefly base it on the discourses of God ; 
 and so, latterly, does Stickel, who, although ac- 
 knowledging that the solution of the problem was 
 afforded by Elihu, still thinks that in the sentiments 
 uttered by God the sufferer was ultimately referred 
 to human short-sightedness and directed to be silent, 
 the author of the book distrusting the correctness 
 of his solution, and intending at all events to vin- 
 dicate God’s justice. Thus they entirely misun- 
 derstand the main point in the discourses of God, 
 which set forth his infinite majesty with a view, 
 not of censuring Job’s inquisitiveness and of tax- 
 ing him with indiscretion, but of showing that it 
 was foolish to divest God of justice, which is 
 inseparable from his essence. His searching is 
 not itself blamed, but only the manner of it. 
 Nowhere in the whole book is simple resignation 
 crudely enjoined, and nowhere does Job say that, 
 he submits to such an injunction. The prologue 
 represents his sufferings as trials, and the epilogue 
 declares that the end had proved this ; conse- 
 quently the author was competent to give a 
 theodicee with reference to the calamity of Job, 
 and if such is the case he cannot have intended 
 simply to recommend resignation. The biblical 
 writers, when engaged on this problem, know how 
 to justify God with reference to the afflictions of 
 the righteous, and have no intention of evading 
 the difficulty when they recommend resignation 
 (see the Psalms quoted above, and, in the New 
 Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. xii.X 
 The view of the book of Job alluded to would 
 isolate it, and take it out of its natural connection. 
 Thus far, then, we agree with Ewald, but we cannot 
 approve of his own view of the design of the book of 
 Job. According to his system, ‘ calamity is never 
 a punishment for sins committed, but always a 
 mere phantom, an imaginary show, above which 
 we must raise ourselves by the consciousness of 
 the eternal nature of the human mind, to which, 
 by external prosperity, nothing can be added, and 
 from which, by external misfortune, nothing can be 
 taken away. It was (says Ewald) the merit of the 
 book of Job to have prepared these sounder views 1 
 of worldly evil and of the immortality of mind, 
 transmitting them as fruitful buds to posterity.’ 
 Now from the outset we may be sure that this 
 view is not. to be found in our book. Credit has 
 always been given to Scripture for knowing how 
 to console the distressed — which Ewald’s system 
 must fail to do. Let it be offered to those who 
 are afflicted with severe and painful illness, and 
 it will prove abortive. Fictitious sufferings may 
 be soothed in this manner, real pains certainly 
 not. Consciousness of the eternal nature of our 
 mind is wanted to do all, but how is it possible 
 when the mind itself is depressed ? Tula to the 
 Psalms : do we find in them shadowed out thig 
 cold consolation — the doctrine of the Stoics, which 
 has been always considered to be opposed to that of 
 Scripture? Read especially Psalms xxxvii.. xli., 
 ancl lxxiii., which profess to treat our problem : take, 
 in the New Testament, the passage in Heb. xii. 6, 
 and you will find afflictions considered at once 
 as punishments inflicted by divine justice, and 
 as means which God s love employs to Lead us to 
 
120 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 higher happiness. 4 Whom the Lord loveth he 
 chasteneth, and scourgeth every one whom he 
 receiveth.’ If suffering and happiness are as 
 nothing, and have no reality, why promises our Sa- 
 viour rewards to his followers, and why threatens 
 he the wicked with punishment (Matt. xix. 16- 
 30) ? Why blesses he the meek, 4 for they shall 
 inherit the earth ’ (Matt. v. 5) ? Why says he, 
 ‘ seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righte- 
 ousness, and all these things shall be added unto 
 you’ (Matt. vi. 33) ? If righteousness already pos- 
 sesses everything and lacks nothing, why says Sr. 
 Paul, to righteousness are held out the promise both 
 of this life and of the life to come? Being thus im- 
 pressed against Ewald’s view, from the Scriptures 
 themselves, we also find, on closer inspection, that 
 it does not apply to the book of Job. To make it 
 appear that it does, he excludes the speeches of 
 Elihu — which seems rather suspicious ; but what 
 he objects against them is of little importance, 
 and has been proved by Stickel to be erroneous. 
 Taking, however, what remains of the book, it is 
 evident that the epilogue is decidedly contrary to 
 Ewald’s view. Why is it that Job receives the 
 double of all that he had lost, when, judged by 
 Ewald’s principles, he had lost nothing ? If in 
 any place, it is in the epilogue that the leading 
 idea of the author must appear; and here we 
 have not speeches, whose drift might admit of 
 doubt, but acts, divine acts, the solution of the 
 question by facts. Equally irreconcilable is 
 Ewald’s view with the prologue. The opening 
 scene is in heaven ; Satan appears before God, 
 and obtains leave to tempt Job. This enables 
 the reader from the outset to see clearer into the 
 case under consideration than did Job and his 
 friends, who judged only according to what 
 passed on earth. He suspects from the outset 
 what will be the end of the narrative. If it is 
 by way of temptation only that Job is subjected 
 to misery, this cannot be lasting ; but if it can- 
 not and must not be lasting, it must be also more 
 than an imaginary phantom — it must be reality. 
 We might easily show further that the view 
 referred to is also incompatible with the speeches 
 of Job, who never renounces happiness ; he is always 
 either disconsolate and complains, or expresses 
 cheering hopes of a return of better days; he 
 either despairs of God's justice, or expects him to 
 prove it at least partially by his rehabilitation. 
 We might likewise, with little trouble, prove that 
 the view of Ewald is not in accordance with the 
 speeches of God, who does not address Job in 
 exhortations to the effect, 4 Be insensible of thy 
 calamity;’ but, ‘Humble thyself before me; ac- 
 knowledge in thy severe sufferings my justice 
 and my love, and thy own sinfulness, and procure 
 release by repentance.’ But what we have stated 
 on this head may be deemed sufficient. 
 
 III. Character ok the composition ok the 
 Book. — On this aubject there are three different 
 opinions : — 1. Some contend that the book con- 
 tains an entirely true history. 2. Others assert 
 that it is founded on a true history, which has 
 been recast, modified, and enlarged by the author. 
 3. The third opinion is, that, the book contains a 
 narrative entirely imaginary, and constructed by 
 the author to teach a great moral truth. 
 
 The first view, taken by numerous ancient in- 
 terpreters, is now abandoned by nearly all inter- 
 preters. It seems, however, to have been adopted 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 by Josephus, for he places Job in the list of the hi* 
 torical books; and it was prevalent with all 'he 
 fathers of the church. In its support four reason* 
 are adduced, of which the third and fourth are 
 quite untenable ; the first and second are out- 
 weighed by other considerations, which render it 
 impossible to consider the book of Job as an 
 entirely true history, but which may be used 
 in defence of the second view alluded to. It is 
 said, 1. That Job is (Ezek. xiv. 14-20) mentioned 
 as a public character, together with Noah and 
 Daniel, and represented as an example of piety. 
 
 2. In the Epistle of James (v. 11), patience in 
 sufferings is recommended by a reference to Job. 
 
 3. In the Greek translation of the Septuagint a 
 notice is appended to Gen. xxxvi. 33, which states 
 that Job was the King Jobab of Edom. This 
 statement is too late to be relied on, and originates 
 in an etymological combination ; and that it must 
 be erroneous is to a certain extent evident from the 
 contents of the book, in which Job is not. repre- 
 sented as a king. 4. Job’s tomb continues to be 
 shown to Oriental tourists. Now the fact, of a 
 Job having lived somewhere would not of itself 
 prove that the hero of our narrative was that per- 
 son, and that this book contained a purely histo- 
 rical account. Moreover, his tomb is shown not 
 in one place, but in six, and, along with it, the 
 dunghill on which Job is reported to have sat! 
 
 Against this view it must be remarked gene- 
 rally, that, the whole work is arranged on a well- 
 considered plan, proving the author's power of 
 independent invention ; that the speeches are, in 
 their general structure and in their details, so ela- 
 borate, that they could not have been brought out 
 in the ordinary course of a conversation or dis- 
 putation ; that it would be unnatural to suppose 
 Job in his distressed state to have delivered such 
 speeches, finished with the utmost care ; and that 
 they exhibit uniformity in their design, fulness, 
 propriety, and colouring, though the author, with 
 considerable skill, represents each speaker whom 
 he introduces arguing according to his character. 
 Moreover, in the prologue and epilogue, as well 
 as in the arrangement of the speeches, the figures 
 3 and 7 constantly occur, with the decimal num- 
 ber formed by their addition. The transactions 
 between God and Satan in the prologue absolutely 
 require that we should distinguish between the 
 subject matter forming the foundation of the work, 
 and its enlargement; which can be only done when 
 a poetical principle is acknowledged in its com- 
 position. God's speaking out of the clouds would 
 be a miracle, without an object corresponding to 
 its magnitude, and having a merely personal refer- 
 ence, while all the other miracles of the Old Tes- 
 tament. are in connection witli the theocratical 
 government, and occur in the midst and for the 
 benefit of the people of God. This argument, 
 which might be further extended without much 
 difficulty, proves the first view above stated of the 
 book of Job to be erroneous, and is meant to support 
 the second ; but it dues not bear on the third, which 
 contends that the narrative is an entire fiction, with- 
 out any admixture of real facts. The latter opinion 
 is, indeed, already stated in the Talmud, which 
 says that Job never existed ; and in modem times 
 it has been defended chiefly by Bernstein ; but is 
 contrary to the practice which anciently prevailed, 
 when writers rarely invented the subject of a nar- 
 rative and rather took the materials furnished by 
 
121 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 rradivion, digesting, enlarging, and modifying 
 tnem, so as to make tliem harmonize with the 
 leading theme. Taking the second view, we must 
 still abstain from undertaking to determine what 
 the poet derived from tradition and wllat. he added 
 himself, since we know not how far tradition had 
 already embellished the original fact. The separa- 
 tion of the historical groundwork from the poetical 
 embellishments could only succeed, if the same 
 history had been, although in a poetical dress, 
 •transmitted to us by several narf ators. Would any 
 person, if he was not assisted by other authorities, 
 undertake to determine what is history, and what 
 is fiction, in an historical romance of Walter Scott, 
 or in an historical drama of Shakspeare or Schil- 
 ler ? Ewald, indeed, had the courage to under- 
 take vindicating for history certain parts of our 
 narrative, but his efforts were abortive, as we shall 
 presently show. It will appear, indeed, that exactly 
 those particulars which Ewald considers historical 
 may possibly have been invented, though we do 
 not contend that they really were so, which would 
 be equally presumptuous. He asserts, 1. That ‘the 
 name Job is not invented by the author of our 
 book.’ This would have some semblance of truth, 
 if the name had no meaning connecting it with 
 the contents of the narrative. But Job means in 
 Hebrew ‘ the assailed,’ and may be traced in the 
 
 form of -nb, born , or intoxicated , from 
 
 to attack ; whence also the enemy , and 
 
 enmity , are derived. Ewald observes, in- 
 deed, that the import of the word is not very ap- 
 parent, and is not easily discoverable ; but when 
 it strikes us at once, must it not have much more 
 readily occurred to Hebrew readers ? The sense in 
 which the hero of the book is called * the assailed,’ 
 appears at once in the prologue, where Satan ob- 
 tains leave to tempt him. 2. ‘ The names of the 
 friends of Job are historical.’ As to the name 
 Eliphaz, it occurs in Gen. xxxvi. 4, 10, 12' and 
 seems to be taken from thence. Adopting names 
 in this manner amounts to inventing them. 3. ‘ It 
 is a fact that Job lived in the land of Uz, which, 
 in Hebrew history, is distinguished, neither in itself 
 nor its inhabitants, and it is difficult to under- 
 stand why the author selected this country, if he 
 was not led to it by history.’ We shall see below 
 that the plan of the author required him f o lay the 
 scene without Palestine, but still in its immediate 
 neighbourhood ; which led him to Uz, a country 
 already mentioned in Genesis. This observa- 
 tion applies also to the place of abode of Job’s 
 friends, which could not be Canaan, but must be 
 in its vicinity ; wherefore the country named in 
 the book is assigned to them. 4. 1 The sickness 
 of Job is an historical fact; be was afflicted with 
 elephantiasis, and it" is inconceivable why the 
 author chose this disease, which is of rare occur- 
 rence, if he had not drawn this particular fact 
 from real history.’ Now the reason of this se- 
 lection was, that elephantiasis is a most awful 
 disease, and that the author probably knew none 
 more so ; and persons labouring under elephan- 
 tiasis were generally considered as smitten by God 
 (Dent, xxiv. 8, 9) [Job's Disease]. 
 
 These are all the particulars which Ewald 
 points out as historical, and from our examina- 
 tion of them it will be clear, that we must confine 
 ourselves to contending for an historical foundation 
 of the book, but must not undertake tc determintf 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 the exact nature of the groundwork : we infer the 
 character of the composition from analogy, but 
 cannot prove it from the book itself. That its 
 historical framework was poetically enlarged by 
 the author, has been already observed by Luther 
 (see his Tischreden, or Table Talk , p. 318). As 
 for the rest, the subtility displayed in explaining 
 opposite views, the carefully drawn characters of 
 the persons introduced, and their animated dis- 
 courses, lead us to suppose that the question at 
 issue had previously been the subject of various 
 discussions in presence of the autho r who, perhaps, 
 took part in them. Thus there would be an histo- 
 rical foundation, not only for the facts related in 
 the boo<c, but to a certain extent also for the 
 speeches. 
 
 IV. Descent, country, and age of the 
 author.' — Opinions differed in ancient times as 
 to the nation to which the author belonged ; some 
 considering him to have been an Arab, others an 
 Israelite ; but the latter supposition is undoubtedly 
 preferable. For, 1st, we find in our book many 
 ideas of genuine Israelite growth : the creation of 
 the world is described, in accordance with the 
 prevailing notions of the Israelites, as the imme- 
 diate effect of divine omnipotence ; man is formed 
 of clay ; the spirit of man is God’s breath ; God em- 
 ploys the angels for the performance of his orders ; 
 Satan, the enemy of the chosen children of God, is 
 his instrument for tempting them ; men are weak 
 and sinful ; nobody is pure in the sight of God ; 
 moral corruption is propagated. There is pro- 
 mulgated to men the law of God, 'which they must 
 not infringe, and the transgressions of which are 
 visited on offenders with punishments. Moreover, 
 the nether world, or Sheol, is depicted in hues en- 
 tirely Hebrew. To these particulars might, with- 
 out much trouble, be added many more ; but the 
 deep-searching inquirer will particularly weigh, 
 2ndly, the fact, that the book displays a strength 
 and fervour of religious faith, such as could only 
 be expected within the domain of revelation. 
 Monotheism, if the assertions of ancient Arabian 
 authors may be trusted, prevailed, indeed, for a 
 long period among the Arabs ; and it held its 
 ground at least among a portion of the nation till 
 the age off Mohammed, who obtained for it a 
 complete triumph over polytheism, which was 
 spreading from Syria. Still the god of the Arabs 
 was, as those of the heathens generally were, 
 a retired god, dwelling far apart, while the 
 people of the Old Covenant enjoyed the privilege 
 of a vital communion with God ; and the warmth 
 with which our author enters into this view, in- 
 controvertibly proves that he was an Israelite. 
 3dly. As regards the language of our book, several 
 ancient writers asserted that it was originally writ- 
 ten in the Aramaean or Arabic tongue, and after- 
 wards translated into Hebrew by Moses, David, 
 Solomon, or some unknown writer. Of this opi- 
 nion was the author of the Appendix in the Sep- 
 tuagint, and the compiler of the tract on Job 
 added to the works of Origen and Jerome : in 
 modern times it has been chiefly defended by 
 Spanheim, in his IJistoria Jobi. But for a trans- 
 lation there is too much propriety and precision 
 in the use of words and phrases ; the sentences are 
 too compact, and free from redundant expressions 
 and members ; and too much care is bestowed on 
 their harmony and easy flow. The parallelism 
 also is too accurate and perfect for a tramlatioo, 
 
122 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 and the whole breathes a freshness that couK re 
 expected from an original work only. 
 
 Sensible of the weight of this argument oti ers, 
 as Eiehhorn, took a medium course, and assumed 
 that the author was a Hebrew, though he did 
 not live among his countrymen, but in Arabia. 
 ‘ The earlier Hebrew history,’ they say, ‘ is un- 
 known to the author, who is ignorant of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob. In portraying nature, also, 
 he proves himself always familiar with Arabia, 
 while he is silent respecting the characteristics of 
 Palestine. With Egypt he must have been well 
 acquainted ; which can be accounted for better 
 by supposing him to have lived in Arabia than 
 in Palestine.’ These reasons are, however, not 
 cogent. The cause why the author did not enter 
 into the history of the Hebrews, and the nature of 
 Palestine, appears from his design. In deciding 
 the question at issue he waves the instruction 
 given by divine revelation, and undertakes to 
 perform the task by appealing only to religious 
 consciousness and experience. On the plan of 
 the author of Ecclesiastes, he treats the question 
 as one of natural theology, in order that, the 
 human mind might arrive at its solution spon- 
 taneously, and be more deeply impressed. He 
 would not, by referring to a few passages of Scrip- 
 ture, overturn errors which might afterwards 
 spring up again ; but they should be exposed and 
 demolished separately, and the truth then be found 
 by uniting the correct ingredients of opposite 
 views. In following this plan the author in- 
 tended to support Scripture : in a similar manner 
 Pascal, in his Pensees, explains the nature ot 
 man first from experience only, and next from 
 Scripture. This plan is indicated by the scene 
 being laid not in Palestine, but among a people 
 quite unconnected with its inhabitants; at the 
 same time he will not go farther than his object 
 required, and he therefore chooses the immediate 
 neighbourhood of Palestine. Thus the placing 
 of the scene in a foreign country is not histoiical, 
 but proceeds from the free choice of the author. 
 The scene being laid in a foreign country, the 
 portraying of life and nature must of course 
 agree with that country, and not with Palestine (see 
 ch. xl. 23). It may no doubt be said, that the re- 
 markable vigour and sprightliness of the author's 
 descriptions of the scenery and people, justify us 
 in assuming that he was actually acquainted with 
 them ; but this cannot be asserted as quite cer- 
 tain, since it wouldimpairthehigh idea entertained 
 of the powers of poetry. The correctness of this 
 view is eminently strengthened by the manner in 
 which the author designedly uses the names of God. 
 The Old Testament distinguishes between Elohim, 
 the abstract God, the Deity, on the one hand, and 
 Jehovah, the concreteGod, with whom thelsraelites 
 had made a covenant, on the other (Gen. vi. 3, 4). 
 Now the latter name occurs in Job generally, where 
 the author himself appears, not only in the pro- 
 logue and epilogue, but in the short sentences in- 
 troducing the speakers, as in xxxviii. 1 ; xl. 1, 3, 6. 
 In the body of the work, however, we have only 
 the names Elohim, Eloah, and similar terms, with 
 the exception of xii. 9, where Jehovah occurs. 
 Tnis very passage argues against those who, from 
 the distinct names of God, would infer that the 
 prologue and epilogue are not genuine. Eich- 
 born (see Einleitung , § 644, a.) assumes that the 
 author had, bv his particular use of the names of 
 
 JuB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 God, intended to represent himself as younger thaw 
 the other interlocutors ; but the notion of the name 
 Jehovah having come later into general use. is con* 
 trary to history, and we must then arrive at this re- 
 sult, that tlip author by his selection of the names of 
 God, which he lends to the interlocutors, intended 
 to express his design of waving all theocratic 
 principles. The few passages in which he seems 
 to abandon this design, namely, in addition to 
 that quoted, ch. i. 21, where Job, in speaking of 
 God, uses the name Jehovah, make it appear even 
 clearer. By thus forgetting himself, he betrays 
 the fact that his general use of the names of God. 
 proceeds from designedly forsaking the usage of 
 the language. The context, moreover, of the 
 two passages in which he seems to forget him- 
 self and uses the name Jehovah, proves that 
 this change is judiciously made, the deep and 
 awful sense of liis subject prompting him to an 
 elevated, solemn style, to which the name Eloah 
 was not suitable. And if there is design in the 
 selection of the names of God, why not also in the 
 selection of the country in which the scene is laid? 
 This may be assumed the rather, because history 
 says nothing of Israelites having permanently 
 taken up their residence in the land of Uz, and be- 
 cause other circumstances already detailed oblige 
 us to admit that the author was not only an 
 Israelite by descent, but lived also in the midst 
 of his people, and enjoyed the advantage of a 
 religious communion with them. It should als<t 
 be remembered, that the author, without directly 
 mentiovjing the Pentateuch, frequently alludes t® 
 portions of it, as in ch. iii. 4, to Gen. i. 3; in 
 ch. iv. 10, and xxxiii. 6, to Moses’ account o I 
 the creation of man ; in ch. v. 14, to Deut. xxxii. 
 32; in ch. xxiv. 11, to Deut. xxv. 4. That the 
 name of Eliphaz the Temanite, one of the three 
 iri^uus Oi jo Kjy seems also to have been taken from 
 the Pentateuch, was mentioned above. In addi- 
 tion to these allusions there are several more to 
 other books of the Old Testament, as the Psalms 
 and Proverbs — which proves that the author must 
 not be severed from the Israelite communion. 
 From what we have stated against the hypothesis 
 that our book was composed in Arabia, a judg- 
 ment may be formed of the opinion of Hitzig and 
 Hirzel, who assume that it was written in Egypt ; 
 the sole foundation for which is, that the author 
 shows himself perfectly acquainted with that coun- 
 try, which proves him to have been along observer 
 of it. Most particulars adduced in support of this 
 view cannot stand a close examination. Thus it 
 is a mistake to suppose that, the description of the 
 working of mines in ch. xxviii. must necessarily 
 have reference to Egypt : Phoenicia, Arabia, and 
 Edom afforded much better materials. That tha 
 author must have known the Egyptian mausolea 
 rests on an erroneous interpretation of ch. iii. 14, 
 which may also be said of the assertion tn&t ch. 
 xxix. 18 refers to the Egyptian mythus of the 
 Phoenix. Casting aside these arbitrarily assumed 
 Egyptian references, we have only the following: 
 — Our author knows the Egyptian vessels of bul 
 rushes, ix. 26; the Nile-grass, viii. 12; the 
 Nile-horse (Behemoth), and the crocodile (Levia- 
 than), xi. 15, xli. 1. Now, as these things belong 
 to the more prominent peculiarities of a neigh- 
 bouring country, they must have been known to 
 every educated Israelite : the vessels of bulrushes 
 are mentioned also in Isa. xviii. 2. Neither are 
 
123 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 we disposed to adopt the compromising view of 
 Stickel. who assumes that the author wrote his 
 book in the Israelite territory, indeed, but close to 
 the frontier, in the for south-east of Palestine. 
 That the author had there the materials for his 
 descriptions, comparisons, and imagery, set better 
 before his eyes, than anywhere else, is true; for there 
 he had an opportunity of observing mines, caravans, 
 drying up of brooks, &c. But this is not sufficient 
 proof of the author having lived permanently 
 in that remote part of Palestine, and of having 
 there written his book : he was not a mere copyist 
 of nature, but a poet of considerable eminence, 
 endowed with the power of vividly representing 
 things absent from him. That he lived and wrote 
 in the midst of his nation, is proved by all ana- 
 logy and by the general character of the book. 
 It looks not like a writing composed in some 
 remote corner of the world, where the question at 
 issue could not have been so fully discussed, nor 
 have created such a deep interest. Jerusalem was 
 the metropolis of the Jews in a sense quite dif- 
 ferent from that which belongs to any other capi- 
 tal : it was, by order of God, the religious centre 
 of the nation, where all general and leading mea- 
 sures of the nation originated, and to which all 
 pretending to distinction and superiority resorted. 
 
 Proceeding to the inquiry as to the age of 
 the author of this book, we meet with three opi- 
 nions : — 1. That he lived before Moses, or was, at 
 least, his contemporary. 2. That he lived in the 
 time of Solomon, or in the centuries next follow- 
 ing. 3. That he lived shortly before, or during, or 
 even after the Babylonian exile. The view of 
 those who assert the book to have been written long 
 aftei the Babylonian exile, can be supported, as 
 Hirzel justly observes, neither by the nature of its 
 language nor by reasons derived from its historical 
 groundwork, and is therefore now generally re- 
 jected; but, apart from this opinion, there is, in 
 those remaining, a difference as to the date of no 
 less than 1000 years. 
 
 We must, first, declare ourselves decidedly 
 against the view of those who — as Le Clerc among 
 earlier interpreters; and among recent expositors, 
 Bernstein, Gesenius, Umbreit, and De Wette — 
 place our book in the time of the Chaldaean exile. 
 They were led to this conclusion by tlieir precon- 
 ceived opinion that the doctrine of Satan, who is 
 introduced in the prologue, was of Chaldaean 
 origin ; which has also induced others, while con- 
 tending for a higher antiquity of the book, to pro- 
 nounce the prologue, at least the scene in ch. i. 
 6-12, to be spurious ; or losing sight of the poetical 
 character of the prologue as well as of the speeches, 
 to assert that the Satau of this book was different 
 from the Satan of later times ; or finally, to assume 
 with Stickel, that the author had lived in a place 
 where he could be impressed with Babylonian 
 opinions before they had spread among the great 
 body of his nation. But the assertion, that the 
 doctrine of Satan originated among the Jews 
 during the Babylonian exile, and was derived 
 generally from Babylonian suggestions, has been 
 shown by several interpreters to be erroneous, and 
 very recently, by Hengstenberg ( JEgypten und die 
 Bucher Mosis, p. 164, sq.). This opinion was, how- 
 ever, suited to and supported by those who, headed 
 oy Bernstein, asserted that Job was a symbolic per- 
 sonage — a personification of the Jews suffering in 
 the Exile — and who thus gave to our book a *. ati onal 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 reference and meaning; in like manner as some had 
 before introduced a preposterous system of inter 
 preting psalms containing personal lamentations, 
 by converting them into national lamentations, and 
 applying to them the principle of symbolization. 
 Now, in the book of Job there is certainly no tiace 
 of national reference; and it would be absurd to 
 assume an allegory running through an entire 
 work, and still nowhere manifesting its presence. 
 It is said by other interpreters, that, in the times 
 of trouble, during the Babylonian exile, first 
 originated the disheartening view of human life, 
 and that then the problem of our book first en- 
 grossed the public mind ; by which observation 
 they, by way of compromise, refer its composition 
 to that, period, without contending for a symbolic 
 exposition. But the sense of misery and of the 
 nothingness of human life, is found among all 
 nations, ancient and modern, cultivated and un- 
 cultivated : Noah, Jacob, Moses, complain, and 
 as old as suffering must be the question of the 
 seeming disparity in the distribution of good and 
 evil, and how this disparity can be reconciled with 
 God's justice. It is frequently under considera- 
 tion in the Psalms. 
 
 Against those who refer the composition of Job 
 to the time of the Babylonian exile, militate, 
 first, the references to it in the Old Testament, 
 which prove that it was before this period a gene- 
 rally known writing. Thus, in Ezek. xiv. 14-20, 
 are mentioned ‘ three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, 1 
 as examples of righteousness. Mr. Bernstein, in 
 deed, in defending his hypothesis, rejects this 
 passage as spurious, but it bears every mark of 
 genuineness. Further, in Jeremiah xx. 14, we 
 find evidently imitated Job’s cursing of the day 
 of his birth (ch. iii.). Not only the sentiments 
 but the words are often the same ; and that this 
 coincidence is not accidental, or that the author 
 did not imitate Jeremiah, appears from the life 
 rary character of each. Jeremiah shows him- 
 self throughout dependent on ancient writings, 
 whereas our author is quite original and inde- 
 pendent, as proved by Kiiper (see Jeremias iibro 
 rum sacrorum interpres atque vindex, p. 164, 
 sq.). There are also in the Lamentations of Jere- 
 miah, many passages clearly alluding to out 
 book, which must have eminently suited his taste 
 and interested him (comp. xvi. 13 with Lam. ii. 
 16; and xix. 8, with Lam. iii. 7, 9). In Isaiah 
 the peculiar use of &OV (xl. 2) refers us to 
 Job i. (comp. x. 17; xiv. 14); and the double 
 received from God s hand alludes to the end of 
 the history of Job, who is there considered as typi- 
 fying the future fate of the church. Isaiah lxi. 7. 
 ‘ In their land they shall have the double,’ al- 
 ludes to the same point ; ch. li. 9 depends on Job 
 xxvi. 13 ; and ch. xix. 5, almost literally agrees 
 with Job xiv. 1 1 (see Kiiper, p. 166). Another 
 example of words borrowed from Job occurs in 
 Psalm cvii. 42, where the second part of the verse 
 agrees literally with Job v. 16. 2. A most de 
 
 cisive reason against assigning the composition d 
 Job to the period qf the Exile is derived from the 
 language; since it is free from those Chaldaisms 
 which occur in the books written about that time, 
 Eichhorn justly observes, ‘ Let. him who is fit for 
 such researches, only read, first, a writing, tainted 
 with Aramaeisms, and next the book of Job : they 
 will be found diverging as east and west. There 
 is no exam; le of an independent, original work, 
 
124 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 composed in pure language, after the Exile. Ze- 
 chariah indeed, though writing after the Exile, 
 has few Chaldaisms ; but a closer inspection 
 shows that this case is not. analogous to that, of our 
 book. The comparative purity of Zechariah's lan- 
 guage can be accounted for by his constant occu- 
 pation with the sacred writings of the period before 
 the Exile, on which he proves himself entirely 
 dependent. 3. Equally conclusive is the poetical 
 character of the book. The Exile might produce a 
 soft, moving poem, but could not give birth to such 
 a rich, compact, animated, and warm composition 
 as ours, breathing youthful freshness throughout. 
 Ewald, in acknowledging this, says justly, ‘ The 
 high skill displayed in this bock cannot be well 
 expected from later centuries, when poetry had 
 by degrees generally declined, and particularly 
 in the higher art required by large compositions ; 
 and language so concise and expressive as that of 
 our author, is not found in writings of later times.’ 
 To the view which places the age of the book 
 of Job in the time of the Babylonian exile, is 
 most opposed that which assigns the composition 
 of it to a period prior to Moses. In support 
 of this latter view, only two arguments having a 
 semblance of force can be adduced, and they 
 will not bear the test of strict inquiry. It is said, 
 1. ‘ There is in the book of Job no direct reference 
 to the Mosaic legislation ; and its descriptions 
 and other statements are suited to the period 
 of the patriarchs ; as, for instance, the great au- 
 thority held by old men, the high age of Job, and 
 fathers offering sacrifices for their families — which 
 leads to the supposition that when our book was 
 written no sacerdotal order yet existed.’ These 
 points, however, are quite intelligible, if the design 
 of the book, as stated above, is kept in view. 
 The author intended not to rest the decision 
 of the question at issue on particular passages 
 of Scripture, but on religious consciousness and 
 experience. This at once explains why he 
 places the scene without Palestine, why he places 
 it in the patriarchal age, and why he avoids the 
 use of the name Jehovah ; of these three items 
 the first sufficiently accounts for no reference 
 being made to the Mosaic legislation. It is 
 indeed said, that for an author of a later 
 period, who undertook to portray earlier times, 
 it would hardly have been possible to perform his 
 task, without occasionally forgetting his roll. But 
 it is not easy to determine what, in such a case, 
 is possible. What might be expected from our 
 author in this respect may be inferred from his 
 skill in the intentional use of the names of God 
 — from the steadiness with which, among foreign 
 scenery, he proceeds to develop his subject — from 
 the able disposition of the speeches, and the 
 nicely drawing of the characters of the interlocu- 
 tors, who are always represented speaking and act- 
 ing in conformity witn the part assigned to them. 
 In the proper execution of his work he may 
 have been assisted by witnessing abroad the pa- 
 triarchal life of nomades, which, in its essential fea- 
 tures, is always the same. This supposition is ren- 
 dered in some degree probable, from the descrip- 
 tions of Arabia being exactly agreeable to its natural 
 condition, and being even more specific than 
 those of Egypt, though Hirzel is pleased to 
 select the latter country, in determining ( where 
 the author of our book lived and composed it. 
 % * The language of the book of Job seems 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 strongly to support the opinion of its having 
 been written before Moses.’ It has been often 
 said, that no writing of the Old Testament may 
 be more frequently illustrated from the Arabic 
 than this book. Jerome observes ( Prafiat . in 
 Dan.), ‘ Jobum cum Arabica lingua plurimam 
 habere societatem ;’ and Schultens proved this so 
 inconti overt ibly that Gesenius was rather too late 
 in denying the fact (see his Geschichte der He- 
 brdischen Sprache, p. 33). Now, from tjiig 
 character of its language we might be induced 
 to infer, that the work was written in the re- 
 motest times, when the separation of the dialects 
 had only begun, but had not yet been completed. 
 This inference would, however, be safe only if 
 the book were written in prose. It is solely from 
 works of this class, that the general usage of the 
 language prevailing at the time of the author 
 can be seen. On the contrary, the selection of 
 obsolete and rare words and forms, with the 
 Hebrews, was a peculiar feature of the poetical 
 style, and served to distinguish it from the usual, 
 habitual way of writing. This peculiarity belongs 
 to our book more than to any other ; which may 
 be explained from its elevated character and 
 general plan ; it rises above commonplace ideas 
 more than any other Hebrew writing, and the 
 plan of the author made it incumbent on him to 
 impress on the language, as much as possible, an 
 antique and foreign character. 
 
 The most complete statement of the reasons in 
 support of the opinion that the book of Job was 
 written after the age of Moses, may be found in 
 Richter's essay, De JEtate Jobi definienda, re- 
 printed in llosenm tiller's edition of Lowth’s Free * 
 lectiones De Poesi Sacra Hebrceoram : in which 
 he maintains that it was written in the age of 
 Solomon. Most of these reasons, indeed, are either 
 not conclusive at all, or not quite cogent. Thus 
 it is an arbitrary assumption, proved by modern 
 researches to be erroneous, that the art of writing 
 was unknown previous to the age of Moses. The 
 assertion too 0 that the marks of cultivation and 
 refinement observable in our book belonged to a 
 later age, rests on no historical ground. Further, 
 it cannot be said, that for such an early time 
 the language is too smooth and neat, since 
 in no Semitic dialect is it possible to trace a 
 progressive improvement. The evident corre- 
 spondence also between our book and the Proverbs 
 and Psalms is not a point proving with resistless 
 force that they were all written at the same time. 
 It is, indeed, sometimes of such a kind, that, the 
 authors of the Proverbs and Psalms cannot be 
 exactly said to have copied our book ; but it 
 may be accounted for by their all belonging to 
 the same class of writings, by the very great uni- 
 formity and accordance of religious conceptions 
 and sentiments expressed in the Old Testament, 
 and by the stability of its religious character. 
 
 Still the argument derived from the correspond- 
 ence between our book and the Psalms is not devoid 
 of force; for the accordance of ideas, sentiments, 
 and colouring in them is such that the circum 
 stances referred to cannot be considered as com- 
 pletely accounting for it. There are passages in 
 which the author of our book clearly alludes to 
 the Psalms and Picverbs. A striking example 
 of this kind occurs in Ps. xxxix. 13. All the 
 words of this - verse, which, as they conclude tht 
 psalm, may have been deeply impressed on tfca 
 
JCH HE BED. 
 
 JOB, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 public i lind, arc again found in various passages 
 of the book of Job, whose author must have been 
 acquainted with that psalm (comp. ch. vii. 19; 
 xiv. 6 ; X. 20, 21 ; vii. 8, 21, in the Hebrew Bible). 
 The whole psalm is a text-book for the speeches 
 of Job. The argument, also, derived from the 
 skilful plan of our book and its able exposition, 
 must be allowed its weight in deciding that its 
 composition is not to be assigned to an age 
 prior to Moses ; though we must not forget that 
 what to us appears to be art, because it is 
 done according to established rules, may also 
 be the product of a creative genius. But a 
 conclusive argument against assigning so early a 
 date to the composition of our book is its reflecting 
 and inquiring character. A didactic poem could 
 never have been written in the time of the patri- 
 archs ; but our book presents a strong contrast to 
 those immature conceptions and those statements 
 which strike the senses but do not appeal to reason, 
 which are of so frequent occurrence in Genesis. 
 The notion which our author entertains of God, of 
 his omnipotence and omnipresence, is undoubt- 
 edly more refined than that presented in the 
 books of Moses. In addition to this it should be 
 observed, that from many indications the problem 
 treated in our book was at the time of its com- 
 position frequently discussed and variously solved. 
 We have observed, indeed, above, that it is as old 
 as the cause which originated it ; but it must be 
 allowed that the Mosaic revelation, with its lead- 
 ing doctrine concerning retribution, was calcu- 
 lated to direct the attention more forcibly towards 
 it than had been previously the case, and thus to 
 induce God, through an instrument appointed by 
 him, to promulgate the true solution. There are, 
 moreover, indirect allusions to the Pentateuch, as 
 stated above. 
 
 Summing up the whole of our investigations, 
 we take it to be a settled point that the book of 
 Job does not belong to the time of the Baby- 
 lonian exile ; and it is nearly^ equally certain 
 that it was not composed prior to the time of 
 Moses. Could it then have been written in some 
 age preceding Samuel and David ? It is only 
 with them that a new period of sacred literature 
 | began ; and our book is related to products of that 
 I period, or enlarges on them. But it cannot have 
 been composed later than Isaiah, who alludes to 
 it. Thus we come to this general determination 
 of the age of our book, that it was written, not 
 before Samuel and David, but not later than the 
 era of Isaiah. With this result we must rest 
 satisfied, unless we would go beyond the indica- 
 tions presented. The intermediate period offers 
 no ground on which we can safely fix the compo- 
 sition of the book of Job. There remains then un- 
 certainty, but it does not concern an important 
 point of religion. The significancy of our book 
 for the church rests on the evidence of our Lord 
 and his apostles in support of the inspiration of 
 the whole collection of the Old Testament, and 
 on the "confirmation which this external evidence 
 has at all times received, and continues to receive, 
 from the internal testimony, among the true be- 
 lievers of all ages. — E. W. H. 
 
 (There is perhaps no single book of Scripture of 
 which so many versions and commentaries have 
 been published as on that of Job, or respecting 
 which a greater number of treatises and disserta- 
 tions have been written. The following are only 
 
 JCH HE BED. 123 
 
 the principal examples : — Mercer, Comment, in 
 Jobum , 1573 ; Drusius, Nova Versio et Scholia 
 in Jobum , 1630 ; Abbott’s Paraphrase of the 
 Book of Job , 1640 ; Spanheim, Ilistoria Jobi 
 1672; Schmid, Comment, in Librum Jobi , 1670 
 Caryl's Exposition of the Book of Job , 1669 
 Leigh's Annotations on Job , 1656 ; Wesley, Dis- 
 sertatt. in Jobum , 1736; Costard, Observations 
 on the Book of Job , 1742; Schultens, Liber 
 Jobi, 1737 ; Chappelow’s Commentary on Job, 
 1752 ; Heath’s Essay on the Book of Job , 1756 ; 
 Scott’s Book of Job in English Verse, 1773 ; 
 Reiske, Conjectures in Jobum , 1779; Dathe in 
 Jobum, 1789; Garden’s Improved Version of 
 the Book of Job, 1796; Eichhorn, Das Bitch 
 Hiob , 1800 ; Gaab, Das Buch Hiob, 1809 ; Eliza 
 Smith’s Book of Job, 1810; Good’s Book of Job, 
 1812; Bridel, Le Livre de Job , 1818; Umbreit, 
 Das Buch Hiob, 1824 (translated in the Bibl. 
 Cabinet, vols. xvi., xix.) ; Fry’s New Transla- 
 tion and Exposition, 1827 ; Lange, Das Buch 
 Hiob, 1831 ; Knobel, De Carminis Jobi, 1835; 
 Ewald, Das Buch Hiob erkldrt, 1836 ; Fackens, 
 Comment, de Jobeide, 1836; Lee’s Book of Job, 
 1837 ; Wemvss, Job and his Times, 1839.] 
 
 JOB'S DISEASE. The opinion that the 
 malady under which Job suffered was elephan- 
 tiasis, or black leprosy, is so ancient, that it is 
 found, according to Origen’s Hexapla , in the 
 rendering which one of the Greek versions has 
 made of ch. ii. 7. It was also entertained by 
 Abulfeda {Hist. Anteisl. p. 26) ; and, in modern 
 times, by the best scholars generally. The pas- 
 sages which are considered to indicate this disease 
 are found in the description of his skin burning 
 from head to foot, so that he took a potsherd to 
 scrape himself (ii. 7, 8) ; in its being covered 
 with putrefaction and crusts of earth, and being 
 at one time stiff and hard, #hile at another it 
 cracked and discharged fluid (vii. 5) ; in the 
 offensive breath which drove away the kindness of 
 attendants (xix. 17) ; in the restless nights, whicn 
 were either sleepless or scared with frightful dreams 
 (vii. 13, 14; xxx. 17); in general emaciation 
 (xvi. 8); and in so intense a loathing of the 
 burden of life, that strangling and death were 
 preferable to it (vii. 15). 
 
 In this picture of Job’s sufferings, the state of 
 the skin is not so distinctly described as to 
 enable us to identify the disease with elepnan- 
 tiasis in a rigorous sense. The difficulty is also 
 increased by the fact that shechin is generally 
 rendered ‘ boils.’ But that word, according to its 
 radical sense, only means burning, inflammation 
 — a hot sense of pain, which, although it attends 
 boils and abscesses, is common to other cutaneous 
 iiritations. Moreover, the fact that Job scraped 
 himself with a potsherd is irreconcilable with the 
 notion that his body was covered with boils or 
 open sores, but agrees very well with the thickened 
 state of the skin which characterizes this disease. 
 
 In this, as in most other Biblical diseases, there 
 is too little distinct description of symptoms to 
 enable us to determine the precise malady in- 
 tended. But the general character of the com- 
 plaint under which Job suffered, bears a greater 
 resemblance to elephantiasis than to any other 
 disease [Leprosy], — W. A. N. 
 
 JOCHEBED 0?D'V>, God- glorified ; Sept 
 Ta>xa/3e5), wife of Amram and mother of Mi iam, 
 
126 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 Moses and Aaron. In Exod. vi. 20, Jochebed is 
 expressly declared to have been the sister of Am- 
 ram's father, and consequently the aunt of her hus- 
 band. As marriage between persons thus related 
 was afterwards forbidden by the law (Lev. xviii. 
 12), various attempts have "been made to show 
 that the relationship was more distant than the 
 text in its literal meaning indicates. We see no 
 necessity for this. The mere mention of the 
 relationship implies that there was something 
 remarkable in the case ; but if we show that 
 nothing is remarkable, we do away the occasion 
 for the relationship being at all noticed. The 
 fact seems to be, that where this marriage was 
 contracted, there was no law forbidding such 
 alliances, but they must in any case have been 
 unusual, although not forbidden; and this, with 
 the writer’s knowledge that they were subse- 
 quently interdicted, sufficiently accounts for this 
 one being so pointedly mentioned. The candour 
 of the historian in declaring himself to be sprung 
 from a marriage, afterwards forbidden by the law, 
 delivered through himself, deserves especial notice. 
 
 JOEL (W ; Sept . ’Ico^A ; Gesenius, Cut Je- 
 hova est Deus, i. e. cultor Jehovce), one of the 
 twelve minor prophets, the son of Pethuel. Of 
 his birth-place nothing is known with certainty; 
 the pseudo-Epiphanius affirms that he was a native 
 of Betha, in the tribe of Reuben (De Vit. Propk. 
 c. 14). From the local allusions in his prophecy, 
 we may infer that he discharged his office in the 
 kingdom of Judah. But the references to the 
 temple, its priests and sacrifices, are rather slender 
 grounds for conjecturing that he belonged to the 
 sacerdotal order. Various opinions have been held 
 respecting the period in which he lived. It ap- 
 pears most probable that he was contemporary 
 with Amos and IsaiJh, and delivered his predic- 
 tions in the reign of Uzziah, between 800 and 780 
 b.c. This is the opinion maintained by Abarbanel, 
 Vitringa, Rosenmiiiler, De Wette, Holzhausen, 
 and others. Credner and Winer place him in the 
 timeofJoash; Bertholdt, in that of Hezekiah ; 
 Cramer and Eckevniaun, in Josiah’s reign ; Jahn 
 in Manasseh’s ; and Schroder still later. 
 
 This prophet opens his commission by an- 
 nouncing an extraordinary plague of locusts, 
 accompanied with extreme drought, which he de- 
 picts in a strain of animated and sublime poetry 
 under the image of an invading army. The 
 fidelity of his highly-wrought description is corro- 
 borated and illustrated by the testimonies of 
 §haw, Volney, Forbes, and other eminent, tra- 
 vellers, who have been eye-witnesses of the ra- 
 vages committed by this most terrible of the insect 
 tribe. Their accounts tend strongly, we think, to 
 free the literal interpretation from the charge of 
 being ‘ the greatest exaggeration.’ It is also to 
 de observed that lacusts are named by Moses as 
 instruments of the divine justice (Deut. xxviii. 
 38, 39), and by Solomon in his prayer at the 
 dedication of the temple (1 Kings viii. 37). In 
 the second chapter, the formidable aspect of the 
 locusts — their rapid progress — their sweeping de- 
 vastation — the awful murmur of their countless 
 throngs — their instinctive marshalling — the irre- 
 sistible perseverance with which they make their 
 way over every obstacle and through every aper- 
 ture — are delineated with the utmost graphic 
 force. Dr. Ilengstenberg calls in question the 
 
 mention of their flight, but, as it appears to us^ 
 without adequate reason. He considers the ex- 
 pression * before them,’ in ch. ii., as equivalent to 
 ‘before they rise:’ but in the third verse the same 
 
 word (V33^) occurs twice, evidently in the sense 
 of ‘ in the presence of,’ ‘ in their front.' The emi- 
 nent critic just named lays great stress on the 
 alleged omission of" this particular, which he con- 
 siders inexplicable, unless on the supposition that 
 the reality presented nothing corresponding to it. 
 But whether this characteristic be alluded to or 
 not, the argument for or against the literal inter- 
 pretation will not be materially affected. Other 
 particulars are mentioned which literally can 
 apply only to locusts, and which, on the suppo- 
 sition that the language is allegorical, are expli- 
 cable only as being accessory traits for filling up 
 the picture (Davison’s Sacred Hermeneutics , p. 
 310). The figurative interpretation has, it must 
 be allowed, the support of antiquity. It was 
 adopted by the Chaldee paraphrast, Ephrem the 
 Syrian (a.d. 350), and the Jews in the time of 
 Jerome (a.d. 400). Ephrem supposes that by the 
 four different denominations of the locusts were 
 intended Tiglath-pileser, Shalmanaser, Sennache- 
 rib, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews, in the time 
 of Jerome, understood by the first term the Assy- 
 rians and Chaldeans ; by the second, the Medes 
 and Persians ; by the third, Alexander the Great 
 and nis successors ; and by the fourth, the Romans. 
 By others, however, the prophecy was interpreted 
 literally ; and Jerome himself appears to have 
 fluctuated between the two opinions, though more 
 inclined to the allegorical view. Grotius applies 
 the description to the invasions by Pul and Shal- 
 maneser. Holzhausen attempts to unite both 
 modes of interpretation, and applies the language 
 literally to the locusts,, and metaphorically to the 
 Assyrians. It is singular, however, that, if a 
 hostile invasion be intended, not the least hint is 
 given of personal jnjury sustained by the inha- 
 bitants ; the immediate effects are confined en- 
 tirely to the vegetable productions and the cattle. 
 Dr. Hengstenberg, while strongly averse from the 
 literal sense, is not disposed to limit the meta- 
 phorical meaning to any one event or class of 
 invaders. ‘ The enemy,’ he remarks, ‘ are de- 
 signated only as north countries. From the north, 
 however, from Syria, all the principal invasions of 
 Palestine proceeded. We have therefore no rea- 
 son to think exclusively of any one of them. Nor 
 ought we to limit the prophecy to the people of 
 the old covenant. Throughout all centuries there 
 is but one church of God existing in unbroken 
 connection. That this church, during the first 
 period of its existence, was concentrated in a land 
 into which hostile irruptions were made from the 
 north was purely accidental. To make this cir- 
 cumstance the boundary-stone of the fulfilment 
 of prophecy were just as absurd as if one were 
 to assert that the threatening of Amos, “ by the 
 swt rd shall all sinners of my people die,” has not 
 been fulfilled in those who perished after another 
 manner’ (Christology , Keith's transl. iii. 104). 
 
 The prophet, after describing the approaching 
 judgments, calls on his countrymen to repent, 
 assuring them of the divine placability and readi- 
 ness to forgive (ii. 12-17). He foretels the re- 
 storation of the land to its former fertility, and 
 declares that Jehovah would still be their God 
 
JOHAN AN. 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 127 
 
 (ii. 18-26). He then announces the spiritual 
 ;Iessings which would be poured forth in the 
 Messianic age (iii. 1-5, Heb. text ; ii. 28-32, 
 Auth. Vers.). This remarkable prediction is 
 applied by the Apostle Peter to the events that 
 transpired on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 
 16-21). In the last chapter (iv. Heb. text ; iii. 
 Auth. Vers.), the divine vengeance is denounced 
 against the enemies and oppressors of the chosen 
 people, of whom the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and 
 Edomites are especially named. A minute exa- 
 mination of these predictions would exceed our 
 limits; we must refer the reader for further in- 
 formation to the works named at the close of this 
 article. 
 
 The style of Joel, it has been remarked, unites 
 the strength of Micah with the tenderness of Jere- 
 miah. In vividness of description he rivals Nahum, 
 and in sublimity and majesty is scarcely inferior 
 to Isaiah and Habakkuk. ‘ Imprimis est elegans, 
 clarus, fusus, fluensque ; valde etiam sublimis 
 accr, fervidus ’ (Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Hebr. 
 Preel. xxi.). 
 
 The canonicity of this book has never been 
 called in question. 
 
 A Paraphrase and Critical Commentary on 
 the Prophecy of Joel, by Samuel Chandler, 4to. 
 London, 1745 ; Die Weissagung des Propheten 
 Joel, i'bersetzt und crklart , von F. A. Holzhau- 
 sen, Gottingen, 1829; Characteristik der Bibel, 
 von Dr. A. H. Niemeyer, Halle, 1831, vol. v. 
 pp. 295-302 ; Dr. Ilengstenberg’s Christology of 
 the Old Testament, 8$c., transl. by Dr. R. Keith, 
 Washington, 1839, vol. iii. pp. 100-141. 
 
 The following works are also mentioned by 
 De Wette in his Lehrbuch, &c., Berlin, 1840, 
 p. 324 :—Joel Explicatus, in quo Textus Ebr. 
 per paraph. Chald. masoram magn. et parv. 
 perque trium prcestantiss. Rabb. R. Sal. Jarchi, 
 R. Aben-Esrcs, et R. Dav. Kimchi Comm., necnon 
 per notas philol. illustratur , §c., auct. Joh. Leus- 
 den, Ultraj. 1657 ; Interpret. Joelis in Turretini 
 Tract, de S. Script. Interpret., ed. a G. A. Teller, 
 pp, 307-343 ; G. T. Baumgartens Ausleg. el. 
 Proplx. Joel , Hal. 1756 ; C. F. Cramer, Scyth. 
 Denkmaler in Palcestina, Kiel, 1777, s. 143-245; 
 C. P. Conz, Diss. de Charactere Poet. Joelis , <$,<?., 
 Tub. 1783; Joel Lat. versus et notis philol. 
 illustratus, ab A. Scanborg, in sex Dissert., Upsal, 
 1806 ; Ueberss. m. Erklt.. von Eckermann, 1786 ; 
 Justi, 1792; Credner, 1831.— J. E. R. 
 
 JOHAN AN (|3m\ God -bestowed ; Sept. 
 lesvav), one of the officers who came and recog- 
 nised Gedaliah as governor of Judaea after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, and who appears to have 
 been the chief in authority and influence among 
 them. He penetrated the designs of Ishmael 
 against the governor, whom he endeavoured, with- 
 out success, to put upon his guard. When Ish- 
 mael had accomplished his design by the murder 
 of Gedaliah, and was carrying away the principal 
 persons at the seat of government as captives to 
 the Ammonites, Johanan pursued him, and re- 
 leased them. Being fearful, however, that the 
 Chald seans might misunderstand the affair, and 
 make him and those who were with him respon- 
 sible for it, he resolved to withdraw for safety 
 into Egypt, with the principal persons of the rem- 
 nant left in the land. Jeremiah remonstrated 
 against this decision ; but Johanan would not be 
 
 moved, and even constrained the prophet himself 
 to go witli them. They proceeded to Taphanes, but 
 nothing further is recorded of Johanan. u.c. 588 (2 
 Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xl. 8-16,; xli.; xlii.; xliii.). 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST (Gr. ’IchWtjs 6 flan- 
 rto'T'tjs, or simply ’Icodi >vr)s, when the reference is 
 clear, as in Matt. iii. 4; iv. 12; Lat. Joannes, 
 Tacit. Ilist.v. 12; Hebrew denoting ‘grace’ 
 or ‘favour’). In the church John commonly 
 bears the honourable title of ‘ forerunner of the 
 Lord’ — antecursor et praeparator viarum Domini 
 (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 33) ; in Greek-, irp6dpo/jLos, 
 TvpoaLyyeXos K vpiov. The accounts of him which 
 the gospels present are fragmentary and imper 
 feet : they involve, too, some difficulties which 
 the learned have found it hard to remove ; yet 
 enough is given to show that he was a man of a 
 lofty character, and that the relation in which he 
 stood to Christianity was one of great importance. 
 
 His parents were Zacharias and Elisabeth, the 
 latter ‘a cousin of Mary,’ the mother of Jesus, 
 whose senior John was by a period of six months 
 (Luke i.). The exact spot where John was born 
 is not delermined. The rabbins fix on Hebron, 
 in the hill-countrv of Judaea; Paulus, Kuinoel, 
 and Meyer, after Reland, are in favour of Jutta, 
 
 ‘ a city of Judah.’ According to the account con- 
 tained in ihe first chapter of Luke, his father, 
 while engaged in burning incense, was visited by 
 the angel Gabriel, who informed him that in com- 
 pliance with his prayers his wife should bear a son, 
 whose name he should call John— in allusion to 
 the grace thus accorded. A description of the 
 manner of his son's life is given, which in effect 
 states that he was to be a Nazarite, abstaining 
 from bodily indulgences, was to receive special 
 favour and aid of God, was to prove a great reli- 
 gious and social reformer, and so prepare the way 
 for the long-expected Messiah. Zacharias is slow 
 to believe these tidings and seeks some token in 
 evidence of their truth. Accordingly a sign is 
 given which acts also as a punishment of his want 
 of faith — his tongue is sealed till the prediction 
 is fulfilled by the event. Six months after Eli- 
 sabeth had conceived she received a visit from 
 Mary, the future mother of Jesus. On being 
 saluted by her relation, Elisabeth felt her babe 
 leap in her womb, and, being filled with the holy 
 spirit, she broke forth into a poetic congratulation 
 to Mary, as the destined mother of her Lord. At 
 length Elisabeth brought forth a son, whom the 
 relatives were disposed to name Zacharias, after 
 his father — but Elisabeth was in some way led to 
 wish that, he should be called John. The matter 
 was referred to the father, who signified in writing 
 that his name was to be John. This agreement 
 with Elisabeth caused all to marvel. Zacharias 
 now had his tongue loosed, and he first employed 
 his restored power in praising God, These sin- 
 gular events caused universal surprise, and led 
 people to expect that the child would prove a 
 distinguished man. 
 
 The parents of John were not only of a priestly 
 order, but righteous and devout. Their influence, 
 in consequence, in the training of their son, would 
 be not only benign but suitable to the holy office 
 which he was designed to fill. More than this — 
 the special, aids of God’s Spirit were with him 
 (Luke i. 66). How thoroughly Zacharias was 
 penetrated with his parental responsibility and the 
 
128 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 future dignity of his son, appears from the 1 divine 
 song ’ to which he gives utterance ; the following 
 words deserve notice— ‘And thou, child, slia.lt be 
 called the prophet of the Highest ; for thou shalt 
 go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways ; 
 to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by 
 the remission of their sins, through the tender 
 mercy of our God, whereby the day-spring from on 
 high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit 
 in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our 
 feet in the way of peace.’ As a consequence of 
 me lofty influences under which he was nurtured, 
 the child waxed strong in spirit. The sacred 
 writer adds that ‘ he was in the deserts till the 
 day of his showing unto Israel ’ (Luke i. 80). 
 The apocryphal Protev. Jac. ch. xxii. states that 
 nis mother, in order to rescue her son from the 
 murder of the children at Bethlehem, which Herod 
 commanded, fled with him into the desert. She 
 found no place of refuge ; the mountain opened 
 at her request, and gave the needed shelter in its 
 bosom. Zacharias, being questioned by Herod 
 as to where his sou was to be found, and refusing 
 to answer, was slain by the tyrant. At a later 
 period Elisabeth died, when angels took the youth 
 under their care (Fabricius, Cod. Apocryph. p. 
 117, sq. ; comp. Kuhn, Leben Jesu, i. 163, re- 
 mark 4). 
 
 In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius, 
 John made his public appearance, exhibiting the 
 austerity, the costume, and the manner of life of 
 the ancient Jewish prophets (Luke iii. ; Matt. iv.). 
 His raiment was camel's hair; he wore a plain 
 leathern girdle about his loins; his food was what 
 the desert spontaneously offered — locusts and wild 
 honey from the rock. Desert though the place is 
 designated, the country where he began his mis- 
 sion — the wild mountainous tract of Juda — lying 
 between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, along 
 which it stretches, was not entirely destitute of 
 means for supporting human existence (Matt. iii. 
 1-12; Mark i. 1-8; Luke iii. 1-20; John x. 28; 
 Justin Marty-, Dial, cum Tryph. c. 88). Jo- 
 sephus, in his Life (ii. 2), gives an account of 
 one of his instructors, Banus, which throws light 
 on John’s condition in the desert : — ‘he lived in 
 the desert, and had no other food than what grew 
 of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold 
 water frequently, both by night and by day. I 
 imitated him in these things, and continued with 
 him three years.’ 
 
 The burden of John’s preaching bore no slight 
 resemblance to the old prophetic exhortations, 
 whose last echo had now died away for centuries. 
 He called upon the Jewish people to repent 
 (f xeravoeiTe ), to change their minds, their dispo- 
 sitions and affections, and thus prepared the way 
 for the great doctrine promulgated by his Lord, 
 of the necessity of a spiritual regeneration. That 
 th-e change which John had in view was by no 
 means of so great or so elevated a kind as that 
 which Jesus required, is very probable; but the 
 particulars into which he enters when he proceeds 
 to address classes or individuals (Matt. iii. 7, sq. ; 
 Luke iii. 7, sq.), serve fully to show that the re- 
 novation at which he aimed was not merely of a 
 material or organic, but chiefly of a moral nature. 
 In a very emphatic manner did he warn the eccle- 
 siastical and philosophical authorities of the land 
 of the necessity under which they lay of an entire 
 change of view, of aim, and of desire; declaring 
 
 in explicit and awful terms! that their pride ot 
 nationality would avail ilium nothing against the 
 coming wrathful visitation, and that they were 
 utterly mistaken in the notion that Divine Provi- 
 dence had any need of them for completing its 
 own wise purposes (Luke iii. 8, 9). The first 
 reason assigned by John for entering on his most 
 weighty and perilous office was announced iri 
 these words — ‘ the kingdom of heaven is at hand ’ 
 Ifr'tvas his great work to prepare the mjnd of ln« 
 nation, so that when Jesus himself came they 
 might be a people made ready for the Lord. 
 What was the exact, idea which John intended 
 to convey by the term ‘ kingdom of heaven ’ it 
 is not easy, at least in the space before us, to de- 
 termine with satisfaction. We feel ourselves, 
 however, justified in protesting against the prac- 
 tice of those who take the vulgar Jewish notion, 
 and ascribe it to John, while some go so far as 
 to deny that our Lord himself, at the first, pos- 
 sessed any other. The reference which we have 
 made to John's addreses to his auditors suffices to 
 show that there was an ample and predominant 
 moral element in his conception of this kingdom; 
 while, if he entertained the vulgar notion of the 
 Messiah, why his urgency in behalf of peravoia — 
 an entire, internal change? Besides, dues tlie 
 fact need enforcement, that all superior minds — 
 especially those that are enlightened by the Divine 
 Spirit — have both correcter and nobler views than 
 the bulk of their contemporaries, and that it is the 
 power which, under God’s aid, these views give 
 them, that sustains them in their duty and makes 
 their efforts successful ? If John really came in 
 the spirit and power of Elias — if he reproduced 
 the old ardour and quickening foresight of the 
 prophets, he must have gone far beyond the vulgar 
 conception of the kingdom of God. And indeed 
 the whole tenor of his teaching seems to our 
 mind intended and fitted to refine, exalt, and ex- 
 pand the ordinary Jewish mind and so to prepare 
 the way for the perfect day of Christ. 
 
 Had we space to develope the moral character 
 of John, we could show that this fine, stern, high- 
 minded teacher possessed many eminent qualities; 
 but his personal and official modesty in keeping, 
 in all circumstances, in the lower rank assigned 
 him by God, must not pass without special men- 
 tion. The doctrine and manner of life of John 
 appear to have roused the entire of the south 
 of Palestine, and people flocked from all parts to 
 the spot where, on the banks of the Jordan, lie bap- 
 tized thousands unto repentance. Such, indeed, 
 was the fame which he had gained, that ‘ people 
 were in expectation, and all men mused in their 
 hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not’ 
 (Luke iii. 15). Had he chosen, John might 
 without doubt have assumed to himself the higher 
 office, and risen to great worldly power. But. he 
 was faithful to his trust, and never failed to de- 
 clare in the fullest and clearest manner, that he 
 was not the Christ but merely his harbinger, and 
 that the sole work he had to do was to usher in 
 the day-spring from on high. 
 
 The more than prophetic fame of the Baptist 
 reached the ears of Jesus in his Nazarene dwell- 
 ing, far distant from the locality of John (Matt, 
 ii. 9, 11). The nature of the report — namely, that 
 his divinely-predicted forerunner had appeared in 
 Judaea— showed our Loi d that the time was now 
 come for his being made manifest to ^gracl. 
 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 tfordingly he corues to the place where John is (o 
 be baptised cf him, in order that thus he might 
 fulfil all that was required under the dispensation 
 which was about to disappear (Matt. iii. 14). 
 John's sense of inferiority inclines him to ask 
 rather than to give baptism in the case of Jesus, 
 who, however, wills to has'e it so, and is accord- 
 ingly baptized of John. Immediately on the 
 termination of this symbolical act, a divine at- 
 testation is given from the opened vault of heaven, 
 declaring Jesus to be in truth the long looked-for 
 Messiah — ‘ This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
 am well pleased ’ (Matt. iii. 17). The events 
 which are found recorded in John i. Id, sq. seem 
 to have happened after the baptism of Jesua by 
 John. This appears to us to be implied in the 
 past character of the narrative. John is obviously 
 speaking of something over and gone : for in- 
 stance, ‘This is he of whom I said' (not I say), 
 ‘ after me comelh a man,’ &c. ; John's testimony 
 bad already been borne when he gave his reply to 
 the Sanhedrim. It was therefore prior to his bap- 
 tism that John * knew him not' — knew not his 
 person, though, of course, he knew that the Mes- 
 siah was on the point of coming ; and though 
 John and Jesus were relatives, yet, considering 
 the distance at which they dwelt from each other, 
 and the habits of retirement and solitude in 
 which both indulged, there is no difficulty what- 
 ever in the statement. But it may be asked, if 
 John was ignorant, of the person of Jesus, how he 
 could acknowledge his superiority, as he does 
 when he intimates that it was more meet he 
 should receive than give baptism. This difficulty 
 has excited much attention. The reader may 
 with advantage consult the very learned and, for 
 the most part, impartial commentary of Liicke, on 
 the passage. Our view is this: the relation in 
 which John and Jesus stood to each other must 
 have been well known to both. When, therefore, 
 Jesus came to John, he would naturally declare 
 himself to be the intended Messiah. Such a de- 
 claration — thus pointing out the person — would, 
 of course, conciliate belief in John’s mind, and 
 might naturally prompt the self-abasing language 
 which he employs when requested by Jesus to 
 give him baptism. No other fact than such an 
 assertion would communicate to John's mind 
 could justify the language which the Baptist uses, 
 since, as the forerunner of the Messiah, he was 
 second to him only. Still the divinely-promised 
 evidence remained to be given — ‘upon whom 
 thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remain- 
 ing on him, the same is he which baptizeth with 
 the Holy Ghost’ (John i. 33). That evidence 
 was at length vouchsafed after the baptism, and 
 then the divine and human testimony concurred 
 in giving raich satisfaction to John’s mind as he 
 had been led of God to expect, and which the im- 
 portant interests at stake seemed to demand. 
 
 In the testimony which John bears to Jesus, as 
 recorded by the Evangelist John, Winer, in his 
 Bealwbrterbuch, finds some difficulty, and thinks 
 that there is a variation, in fact a contrariety, be- 
 tween the view which John presents of the person 
 and work of our Lord and that which the other 
 evangelists afford — a view, indeed, of which the 
 Baptist could have known nothing, but which 
 came from the Gnosticizing colours of John's 
 mind. We again refer the reader to Liioke's valu- 
 able Y/ork. But what lias already been remarked 
 
 m 
 
 will have shown that Winer and others are in error 
 in the supposition which lies at the bottom of these 
 alleged difficulties and variations — namely, that 
 John the Baptist had no idea of the kingdom of 
 God, higher or more far-reaching than that which 
 was prevalent in the common mind of Judaea. It 
 is in the words ‘Benold the Lamb of God, which 
 taketh away the sin of the world’ (John i. 29,36), 
 that the difficulty is thought to be found. What, 
 it is asked, could John the Baptist, have known at 
 this assumed function — the remission of sins'? 
 Liicke has, we think, satisfactorily shown that such 
 a function did enter into the prophetic idea of the 
 Messiah (Isa. liii.), or at least into that concep- 
 tion of him which the authoritative expounders of 
 religious truth had drawn from the peculiar lan- 
 guage of prophecy. And this is unquestionably 
 certain, that ‘ the remission of our sins, through 
 the tender mercy of our God’ (Luke i. 77), did 
 form a part of the conception of the coming Mes- 
 siah which Zacharias, John’s father, entertained 
 and expressed immediately on the birth of his 
 son ; while in the account given by the syn- 
 optical evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke), 
 to the effect that John preached ‘ the baptism 
 of repentance, for the remission of sins ’ (Luke 
 iii. 3), adding that the Christ would ‘ baptize 
 with the Holy Ghost , and with jire' (Luke iii. 
 16), may surely be found the essence of the 
 idea conveyed by the words ‘ Behold the Lamb 
 of God,’ &c. 
 
 The relation which subsisted between John and 
 Jesus, after the emphatic testimony above recorded, 
 had been borne, we have not the materials to de- 
 scribe with full certainty. 
 
 It seems but natural to think, when their hitherto 
 relative position is taken into account, that John 
 would forthwith lay down his office of harbinger, 
 which, now that the Sun of Righteousness himself 
 had appeared, was entirely fulfilled and terminated. 
 Such a step he does not appear to have taken. On 
 the contrary, the language of Scripture seems to im- 
 ply that the Baptist church continued side by side 
 with the Messianic (Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19; 
 Matt. ix. 14 ; Luke xi. 1 ; John xiv. 25), and re- 
 mained long after John's execution (Acts xix. 3). 
 Indeed, a sect which bears the name of ‘ John’s dis- 
 ciples,’ exists to the present day in the East, whose 
 sacred books are said to be pervaded by a Gnostic 
 leaven. They are hostile alike to Judaism and 
 Christianity, and their John and Jesus are alto- 
 gether different from the characters bearing these 
 names in our evangelists. Still, though it has been 
 generally assumed that John did not lay down 
 ' his office, we are not satisfied that the New Tes- 
 tament establishes this alleged fact. John may 
 have ceased to execute his own peculiar work, as 
 the forerunner, but may justifiably have conti- 
 nued to bear his most important testimony to the 
 Messiahship, of Christ; or he may even have alto- 
 gether given up the duties of active life some time, 
 at least, before his death ; and yet his disciples, 
 both before and after that event, may have main- 
 tained their individuality as a religious commu- 
 nion. Nor will the student of the N ew Testament 
 and of ecclesiastical history, who knows how 
 grossly a teacher far greater than John, was, both 
 during his life and after his crucifixion, misun- 
 derstood and misrepresented, think it. impossible 
 that some misconception or some sinister motive 
 may have had weight in preventing the Baptist 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 130 JOHN THE BAPTIST. 
 
 church from dissolving and passing into that of 
 Christ. 
 
 It was, not improbably, witn a view to remove 
 some error of this kind that John sent the embassy 
 of his disciples to Jesus which is recorded in Matt, 
 xi. 3; Luke vii. 19. The spiritual course which 
 the teachings of Jesus were more and more taking, 
 and the apparent failure, or at least uneasy post- 
 ponement of the promised kingdom in the popular 
 sense, especially the fact that their esteemed mas- 
 ter lay in prison, and was in imminent danger of 
 losing his life, may well have led John's disciples 
 to doubt if Jesus were in truth the expected Mes- 
 siah. Appearances, to them, were purely adverse. 
 What step so fit on the part of their master, as 
 that lie should send them to Jesus himself? No 
 intimation is found in the record that John re- 
 quired evidence to give him satisfaction ; and all 
 the language that is used is proper and pertinent 
 if we suppose that the doubt lay only in the minds 
 of his disciples. That the terms employed ad- 
 mit the interpretation that John was not without 
 some misgivings (Luke vii. 23 ; Matt. xi. 6), we 
 are free to allow. And if any doubt had grown 
 up in the Baptist's mind it was most probably 
 owing to the defective spirituality of his views; 
 for even of him Jesus has declared, ‘ he that is 
 least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than lie’ 
 (Matt. xi. 11). Were this the case it would of 
 itself account not only for the embassy sent by 
 John to Jesus, but also for the continuance and 
 perpetuation of John's separate influence as the 
 founder of a sect. 
 
 The manner of John’s death is too well known 
 to require to be detailed here (Matt. iv. 12; xiv. 
 3; Luke iii. 19; Mark vi. 17; Joseph. Antiq. 
 xviii. 5. 2). He reproved a tyrant for a heinous 
 crime, and received his reward in decapitation. 
 Josephus, however, assigns a somewhat different 
 cause for this execution from that given in the 
 gospels. The passage bears forcible evidence to 
 the general truth of the evangelical narrative re- 
 specting John, and therefore we transcribe it : — • 
 ‘ Now some of the Jews thought that the destruc- 
 tion of Herod’s army came from God, and that 
 very justly, as a punishment of what he did 
 . against John that was called the Baptist ; for 
 , Herod slew him, although he was a good man, 
 and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both 
 .as to righteousness one towards another and piety 
 towards God, and so to come to baptism. Now 
 when others came in crowds about him — for they 
 were greatly moved by hearing his words — 
 .Herod, who feared lest the great influence John 
 had over the people might put it into his power 
 and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they 
 seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), 
 thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent 
 vauy mischief he might cause, and not bring him- 
 self into difficulties by sparing a man who might 
 make him repent of it when it should be too late. 
 Accordingly be was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s 
 suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I before 
 mentioned, and was there put to death.’ 
 
 There is no contrariety between this account and 
 dhat which is given in the New Testament. Both 
 ■may be true : John was condemned in the 
 mind of Herod on political grounds, as endan- 
 gering his position, and executed on private arid 
 ostensible grounds, in order to gratify a mali- 
 cious but powerful woman. The Scriptural 
 
 reason was but the pretext for carrying into effect 
 the determinations of Herod’s cabinet. That the 
 fear of Herod was not without some ground may 
 be seen in the popularity which John had gained 
 (Mark xi. 32; Lardner, Works, vi. 483). 
 
 The castle of Machaerus, where John was im- 
 prisoned and beheaded, was a fortress lying on 
 the southern extremity of Peraea, at the top of 
 the lake Asphaltites, between the dominions of 
 Herod and Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, and 
 at the time of our history appears to have Jbelbnged 
 to the former (Lardner, vi. 483). According to 
 the Scripture account, the daughter of Herodias 
 obtained the Baptist’s head at an entertainment, 
 without delay. How could this be, when Ma- 
 chserus lay at a distance from Jerusalem ? The 
 feast seems to have been made at Machaerus, 
 which, besides being a stronghold, was also a 
 palace, built by Herod the Great, and Herod 
 himself was now on his route towards the terri- 
 tories of Aretas, with whom he was at war. 
 Bishop Marsh ( Lecture xxvi.) remarks, that the 
 soldiers who, in Luke iii. 14, are said to have 
 come to John while baptizing in the Jordan, are 
 designated by a term {(TTparevd^voi, not <rrpa- 
 Ttwrat) which denotes persons actually engaged 
 in war, not meiely soldiers. In the same way, 
 in Mark vi. 27, the officer sent to bring John’s 
 head bears a military title — crireKovXdTwp. These 
 minute indications are quite accordant with the 
 fact that Herod was then making war on Aretas, 
 as appears from Josephus {Antiq. xviii. 5. 1), and 
 afford a very strong evidence of the credibility of 
 the sacred narratives, by showing that the authors 
 described what was actually proceeding before 
 their own eyes. We also see a reason why He- 
 rodias was present on this occasion, since she was 
 Herod’s paramour, and had, ‘like another Helen,’ 
 led to the war. 
 
 John the Baptist is mentioned in the Koran, 
 with much honour, under the name of Jahja 
 (see Hettinger, Historia Oriental is, pp. 144-149, 
 Tiguri, 1660). 
 
 The literature connected with the subject of 
 this article, to be found in foreign writers, is 
 very rich. Besides the works already named, the 
 following may be consulted : Hase ( Leben Jesu, 
 3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1840, p. 8.0), who, together with 
 Walch ( Bibliotheca Theologica, iii. 402), gives 
 the chief authorities; Witsii Exerc. de Joanne 
 Bapt. in his Miscell. Sacra, ii. 367 ; J. G. E 
 Leopold, Johannes der Tixnfer, Hannov. 1825; 
 Usteri, Nachrichten von Johannes dem Tiiufer 
 in the Studien and Kritiken , 1829, part iii. p. 
 439 ; L. von Rohden, Johannes der Tiiufer, 
 Liibeck, 1838 ; Neander, Das Leben Jesu, Hamb. 
 1837, p. 49. Tiie ecclesiastical traditions touch- 
 ing John may be found in the Acta Sanctorum , iv. 
 687-846 ; and, in a compendious form, in Tille- 
 mont, Memoires, i. 82-108, 482-505. — J. R. B. 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE. I. The circum- 
 stances of his life, and his character. — He 
 was 'the son of Zebedee, a fisherman, and of 
 Salome. It is probable that he was born at 
 Bethsaida, on the lake of Galilee. His parents 
 appear to have been m easy circumstances; at 
 least, we find that Zebedee employed hired ser- 
 vants (Mark i. 20), and that Salome was 
 among the number of those women who contri- 
 buted to the maintenance of Jesus (Matt, xrvii. 
 56). We also find that John received Maty mti 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 131 
 
 kis house after the death of Jesus. Since this 
 house seems to have been situated at Jerusalem 
 (-dir’ rrjs u>pas, John xix. 27), it would 
 
 appear that he was the owner of two houses. 
 John’s acquaintance, also, with the high-priest 
 (xviii. 15) seems to indicate that he lived at 
 Jerusalem, and belonged to the wealthier class. 
 We may suppose that from a tender age he 
 nourished religious feelings, since Salome, who 
 evinced so much love for Jesus, probably fostered 
 at an earlier period those hopes of a Messiah 
 which she expresses in Matt. xx. 20 ; and we find 
 that he entered into communion with the Baptist 
 from pure motives. The occupation, also, of a 
 fisherman was adapted to promote holy medita- 
 tions, since it would frequently lead him to pass 
 whole nights in stillness upon the water, amid a 
 charming country similar to the environs of the 
 lake of Locarno. On the banks of the Jordan the 
 Baptist directed John to Jesus, and he immedi- 
 ately became the Lord's disciple and accom- 
 panied him on his return to Galilee. Having 
 arrived there, he at first resumed his trade, but was 
 afterwards called to remain permanently with the 
 Redeemer (Luke v. 5-10). Jesus was particu- 
 larly attached to John (John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26 ; 
 xx. 2 ; xxi. 7), who was one of the three who were 
 distinguished above the other apostles (Matt, 
 xvii. 1 ; xxvi. 37 ; Mark v. 37). After the as- 
 cension, John abode at Jerusalem, where Paul met 
 him on his third journey, about the year 52 (Gal. 
 
 ii. 3-9). Since he had undertaken the care of 
 the mother of Jesus we cannot well suppose that 
 he left Jerusalem before Mary’s death ; and, in- 
 deed, we find that about the year 58, when Paul 
 was at Ephesus, John was not yet living there. 
 If we consider the great importance of Ephesus 
 among the various churches of Asia Minor, and 
 the dangers arising from false teachers, who were 
 prevalent there as early as the days of Paul (Acts 
 xx. 29), it will appear likely that John was sent 
 to Ephesus after Paul had left that scene, about 
 the year 65. During the time of his activity 
 in Asia Minor he was exiled by the Roman em- 
 peror to Patmos, one of the Sporadic isles in the 
 .Egean Sea, where, according to Revelations 
 i. 9, he wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus ( Adv . 
 Hcer. v. 30) and, following him, Eusebius 
 (ITist. Eccles. iii. 18) state that John beheld the 
 visions of the Apocalypse about the close of the 
 reign of Domitian. If this statement can be 
 depended upon, the exile to Patmos also took 
 place under Domitian, who died a.d. 96. Ter- 
 tullian ( Prcescr . adv. Hcer. c. 30) relates that in 
 the reign of Domitian John was forcibly conveyed 
 to Rome, where he was thrown into a cask of oil ; 
 that he was miraculously released, and then brought 
 to Patmos. But since none of the ancient writers 
 besides the rather undiscriminating Tertullian, 
 relate this circumstance, and since this mode of 
 capital punishment was unheard of at Rome, we 
 ought not to lay much stress upon it (compare 
 Mosheim, Dissertationes ad Historiam Eccle- 
 siasticam, i. p. 497, sq.). It is, however, likely 
 that John was called to suffer for his faith, since 
 Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writing about 
 a d. 200, calls him /xdprvs (Euseb. Hist. Eccles . 
 v. 24). According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 
 
 iii. 20, 235, he returned from exile during the 
 reign of Nerva. The three epistles of John, as 
 &1 ik> the affecting account concerning his fidelity 
 
 as a spiritual pastor, given by Clemens Alezan- 
 drinus (Quis Dives Salvus? c. 52), testify that 
 he was the pastor of a large diocese. John’s 
 second epistle, verse 12, and third epistle, verse 
 14, indicate that he made journeys of pastoral 
 visitation. John died at Ephesus past the age 
 of ninety, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. 
 According to Jerome, he was a hundred years old, 
 and according to Suidas, a hundred and twenty. 
 
 If we endeavour to picture to ourselves an 
 image of John as drawn from his Gospel and his 
 Epistles, aided by a few traits of his life preserved 
 by the fathers,* he appears to have been of a wise, 
 affectionate, and rattier feminine character. 
 
 It seems that originally this softness of disposi- 
 tion would sometimes blaze up in wrath, as femi- 
 nine characters in general feel themselves as 
 strongly repelled as attracted. An instance of 
 his wrath we find in Luke ix. 54, sq. We trace 
 also a degree of selfishness in Mark ix. 38 ; x. 35. 
 Hence it appears that love, humility, and mild- 
 ness were in John the works of transforming grace. 
 At a later period his writings indicate not only 
 mildness, but also a strict moral earnestness (1 
 John i. 6 ; iii. 9, 20 ; v. 16 ; 2 John 10, 11). 
 
 II. The Gospel of John. — Its authenticity and 
 credibility. — During the eighteenth century and 
 the first ten years of the nineteenth, the Gospel 
 of John was attacked, but with feeble arguments, 
 by some English Deists and by four German 
 theologians. Bretschneider attempted a stronger 
 attack in his book entitled Probabilia de Evan- 
 gelii et Epistolarum Johannis origine et indole , 
 1820. According to him, the Gospel was written 
 during the first half of the second century, for 
 the purpose of spreading the metaphysical doctrine 
 of the divinity of Christ. Although this attack 
 was very learned, it met with but little approba- 
 tion. The same arguments were, however, resumed 
 and sharpened by Strauss, who, although in the 
 third edition of The Life of Jesus he manifested 
 an inclination to give up his doubts, yet reso- 
 lutely returned to them in the fourth edition, 
 principally, as he himself confesses, because 
 ‘ without them one could not escape from believing 
 the miracles of Christ.’ Strauss attacked the 
 authenticity of the Gospel of John principally 
 with arguments deduced from the subject-matter 
 of the book itself, while Lutzelberger opposed it 
 on historical grounds (Die kirchliche Tradition 
 iiber den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften , 
 1840). Schwegler published a treatise on the 
 writings of John, which is inserted in Der Monta- 
 nismus und die Christliche Kirchc des zioeiten 
 Jahrhunderts , 1841, and in which he endeavours 
 to prove from the facts of ecclesiastical hist ory, that 
 the Gospel of John was written in Asia Minor 
 about the year of Christ 170 by one of the followers 
 of the elder Apolliriaris, and that it was ascribed 
 
 * Jerome (Comm, ad Gal. iii. p. 314, mart.) 
 relates that when John had attained a great age he 
 was so feeble that he could not walk to the as- 
 semblies of the church ; he, therefore, caused him- 
 self to be carried in by young men. He was no 
 longer able to say much, but he constantly re- 
 peated the words, ‘ Little children, love one another.’ 
 On being asked why he constantly repeated this 
 one saying, he replied, ‘ Because it is the com- 
 mand of the Lord ; and enough is done if tbi« i? 
 doue.’ 
 
132 JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 to the apostle in order to influence the converts 
 from Judaism. If we attached much importance 
 to the arguments employed by those who deny 
 the authenticity of John’s Gospel, we should here 
 explicitly point out how these arguments may 
 be refuted ; but since we deem them unimportant, 
 and since, even in Germany, the opponents of its 
 authenticity have not met with much sympathy, 
 we refrain from discussion. It may suflice to 
 observe that during the lapse of ages up to the 
 conclusion of the eighteenth century, no one ever 
 expressed a doubt respecting the genuineness of 
 John’s Gospel, except the small sect of the iiAoyoi, 
 whose scepticism, however, was not based upon 
 historical, but merely upon dogmatical grounds. 
 
 The credibility of the Gospel of St. John is 
 open to attack on account of its differing so much, 
 as well in substance as in form, from the three first 
 Gospels, and on account of its apparent contradic- 
 tion of them. Among the apparent contradictions 
 may be mentioned the statements, that Christ was 
 crucified on the same day on which the Passover 
 was to be eaten (John xviii. 28), while according 
 to the other Gospels Jesus ate the Passover with 
 his disciples ; and that Jesus, before he went to 
 Gethsemane, offered up a prayer full of sublimity 
 and confidence (xvii.), while according to the 
 other Gospels he endured in Gethsemane a very 
 heavy internal conflict, respecting which John is 
 silent. But the most striking difference is that 
 of the speeches. This difference is, perhaps, still 
 more apparent in the form than in the substance 
 of them. 
 
 The History and the Speeches. — We will first 
 consider the difference of the Contents. This 
 difference may be accounted for by supposing that 
 John intended to relate and complete the history of 
 the Lord according to his own view of it. We are 
 led to this supposition from the following circum- 
 stances : that, with the exception of the history of 
 his passion and his resurrection, there are only two 
 sections in which John coincides with the synoptic 
 gospels (vi. 1-21 ; xii. 1) ; that he altogether 
 omits such important facts as the baptism of 
 Jesus by John, the history of his temptation and 
 transfiguration, the institution of the Lord's 
 supper, and the internal conflict at Gethsemane ; 
 and that chapters i. 32, iii. 24, xi. 2, indicate 
 that he presupposed his readers to be already ac- 
 quainted with the Gospel history. He confined 
 himself to such communications as were wanting 
 in the others, especially with regard to the speeches 
 of Jesus. The historical section in ch. vi. lie com- 
 municated because it is connected with the sub- 
 sequent speeches of Jesus ; and ch. xii. 1, be- 
 cause it was of importance for him to relate the 
 history of Judas, so that each event should clearly 
 be understood to be the result of a preceding fact. 
 The history of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection, 
 being a prominent part, could not be omitted, 
 although, in the account of these also, John differs 
 in his statements from the writers of the other Gos- 
 pels. Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 
 vi. 14) relates, as he says, upon the statement 
 of old Presbyters, that John wrote his Gospel 
 at the request of his friends, in order to place 
 by the side of the (roopa tikcc evayyeAia, bodily 
 gospels , his Tvvzvfj.cn itcbv evayyeAiov, spiritual 
 gospel. The same account is confirmed by a 
 Latin fragment of the second century preserved 
 by Muratori, which bears that the aged apostle was 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 solicited by his co-disciples to commit his Go«]«J 
 to writing. 
 
 Now with regard to the difference of Form. In 
 the Gospel of John, Jesus seldom speaks in gnomes, 
 sentences, and parables, but generally in longer 
 speeches, the parts of which are not closely con- 
 nected, containing frequent repetitions, and the 
 linguistic characteristics of which strongly re- 
 semble those of his epistles. l)e Wette con- 
 siders John to be the author of this Gospel, but 
 has, nevertheless, given up the authenticity of a 
 considerable portion of the speeches, and main- 
 tains that the Evangelist at a later period, on 
 account of an overflow of his subjectivity, gave 
 his own thoughts as those of the Redeemer. This 
 question does not admit of a brief solution ; there- 
 fore, consult a full discussion of the subject in 
 Tholuck’s Glaubw'urdigkeit der evangelischen 
 Geschichte , 2nd edit. p. 314, sq. We here direct 
 attention only to the following particulars. The 
 gentle and feminine character of the disciple 
 allows us to suppose that, to a certain degree, he 
 adopted as his own the expressions of the Re- 
 deemer, and, consequently, that many terms in 
 which the Epistles agree with the Gospel did not 
 originate with the disciple, but with Christ him- 
 self. We find an example of the manner in 
 which the disciple adopted the expressions of his 
 Master in John xii. 43, compared with v. 41-44. 
 We do not deny that the formation of sentences 
 and expressions is considerably influenced by the 
 peculiar character of the disciple, but with regard 
 to the particular contents of the speeches, we 
 see no reason why we should doubt their au- 
 thenticity. Strauss himself makes a concession 
 from which much results, namely, that the most 
 characteristic speeches in John are those in which 
 occur the antitheses of aap£ and 7 vvevpa, fcsh and 
 spirit , (poos and ck6tos , light and dark?iess, £wf) 
 and davaros, life and death , &voo and /cdrcv, above 
 and beloio; and also the mystical expressions of 
 tzpros rrjs bread of life , vdcop £ 00 v, living 
 
 water. These terms are even by Strauss (vol. i. 
 p. 176) considered to be parts of the original 
 speeches of Christ, and he asserts that the evan- 
 gelist only developed them in thS style of the 
 Alexandrian writers. 
 
 It. must be granted that the peculiarities of 
 John’s Gospel more especially consist in the four 
 following doctrines. 
 
 1 . That of the mystical relation of the Son to 
 the Father. 
 
 2. That of the mystical relation of the Redeemer 
 to believers. 
 
 3. The announcement of the Holy Ghost as 
 the Comforter. 
 
 4. The peculiar importance ascribed to Love. 
 
 Although there can be shown in the writings of 
 
 the other evangelists some isolated dicta of the 
 Lord, which seem to bear the impress of John, it 
 can also be shown that they contain thoughts not 
 originating with that disciple, but with the Lord 
 himself. Matthew (xi. 27) speaks of the relation 
 of the Son to the Father so entirely in the style 
 of John that persons not sufficiently versed in ; 
 Holy Writ are apt to search for this passage in 
 the Gospel of John. The mystical union of the 
 Son with believers is expressed in Matt, xxviii. 20. 
 The promise of the effusion of the Holy Ghost in 
 order to perfect the disciples is foun 1 in Luks 
 xxiv. 49. The doctrine of Paul with respect U» 
 
JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 love, in l Cor. xiii., entirely resembles wnat, ac- 
 cording V o John, Christ taught on the same subject. 
 Paul here deserves our particular attention, in 
 the writings of Paul are found Christian truths 
 which have their points of coalescence only in 
 John, viz., that Christ is E ikiou tov &eov rod 
 aopdrov, the image of the invisible Gocl, by whom 
 all things are created (Col. i. 15, 16). Paul 
 considers the Spirit of God in the church, the 
 spiritual Christ , as Jesus himself does (John xiv. 
 16), frequently using the words eTvat eV Xpiarcp. 
 
 That the speeches of Christ have been faithfully 
 reported may be seen by a comparison of the 
 speeches of the Baptist in the Gospel of John. 
 The Baptist’s speeches bear an entirely Old Test- 
 ament character : they are full of gnomes, allu- 
 sions to the Old Testament, and sententious 
 expressions (John iii. 27-30 ; i. 26-36). 
 
 b. The purport and plan of the Gospel of 
 John. — We have already given our own opinion 
 on this subject. Most of the earlier critics 
 considered the Gospel of John to have had a 
 polemico-dogmatical purport. According to Ire- 
 naeus ( Adv . Hcer. iii. 12), John wrote with the 
 intention of combating the errors of Cerinthus 
 the Gnostic. Grotius, Herder, and others sup- 
 pose that the polemics of the evangelist were 
 directed against the Zabii, or disciples of John the 
 Baptist. Michaelis, Storr, and Hug assert that 
 they were directed against both the Zabii and the 
 Gnostics. It is not improbable that the evan- 
 gelist had in view, both in his Prologus and also 
 in cb. xix. 34, 35, some heretical opinions of 
 those times, but it cannot be maintained that this 
 is the case throughout the whole of the Gospel. 
 He himself states (xx. 31) that his work had a 
 more general object. 
 
 One of the peculiarities of John is that, in 
 speaking of the adversaries of Jesus, he always 
 calls them ot 'lovddioi. This observation has, in 
 modern times, given rise to a peculiar opinion 
 concerning the plan of John’s Gospel ; namely, 
 that the evangelist has, from the very beginning of 
 the Gospel, the following theme before his eyes : — 
 the eternal combat between divine light 
 
 AND THE CORRUPTION OK MANKIND, EXEM- 
 PLIFIED BY THE MUTUAL OPPOSITION SUB- 
 SISTING BETWEEN THE HOSTILE JEWISH PARTY 
 AND THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SON OF God, 
 WHICH COMBAT TERMINATES IN THE VICTORY 
 OF LIGHT. 
 
 The Prologus of the Gospel of John expresses 
 this theme in speaking of the opposition of the 
 world to the incarnate Logos. This theme is 
 here expressed in the same manner as the lead- 
 ing idea of a musical composition is expressed 
 in the overture. As the leading idea of the 
 whole epistle to the Romans is contained in ch. i. 
 17, so the theme of the Gospel of John is con- 
 tained in ch. i. 11-13. The Gospel is divided 
 into two principal sections. The first extends to 
 ch. xii. It comprehends the public functions of 
 Jesus, and terminates with a brief summary (ver. 
 44-50). The second section contains the history 
 of the Passion and of the Resurrection. The 
 -eader is prepared for this section by ch. xii. 23- 
 32. The leading idea of this speech is, that 
 Destruction is necessary, because without it there 
 can be no Resurrection. 
 
 With ch. xiii. begins the history of our Lord’s 
 Passion. In the third verse the apostle directs at- 
 
 JOIIN THE APOSTLE. 133 
 
 tention to the fact that the suffering would finally 
 lead to glory. 
 
 I’d the first section is described how ihe oppo- 
 sition of tne influential men among the Jews was 
 gradually increased until the decisive fact of tlys 
 resurrection of Lazarus led to a public outburst 
 of their hatred. This description terminates with 
 the official decree of Caiaphas (xi: 49, 50). 
 
 c. The place , time, and language in which 
 John’s Gospel was written. — The Fathers supposed 
 that the Gospel of John was written at Ephesus. 
 The author of a synopsis annexed to the works of 
 Athanasius makes an observation which deserves 
 to be noticed on account of the assurance with 
 which it is advanced. It is, that John wrote the 
 Gospel which bears his name in Patmos, but that 
 it was edited by the same Gaius whom Paul in 
 the epistle to the Romans calls 6 £4vos pov, mine 
 host (Athanasii Opera, vol. ii. p. 155, Venet.). One 
 jmight be inclined to explain by this circumstance 
 the postscript contained in John xxi. 24, 25. 
 
 There is some internal evidence in favour of the 
 statement that this Gospel was written at Ephesus 
 — namely, that the author sometimes alludes to 
 the tenets of Hellenistic theosophy, and that he 
 has in view readers who do not live in Palestine 
 (John ii. 6, 13 ; iv. 9 ; v. 1, 2). .In addition to 
 this must be mentioned the command of the 
 Hellenistic Greek evinced by the writer. It is, 
 however, not unlikely that John acquired his 
 knowledge of Greek in his native country. The 
 researches of Dr. Paulus, Hug, and Credner, have 
 rendered it highly probable that the knowledge 
 of Greek was then widely spread in Palestine, 
 Even James, the brother of our Lord, although he 
 never left his native country, writes in his epistle 
 tolerably good Greek. 
 
 The language of John's Gospel is not very 
 periodic, but moves uniformly on between the 
 particles 54 and ovy. For instance, in chapter 
 xix. the particle ovv occurs at the commencement 
 of verses 20, 21, 23, 24 twice, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 
 40, 42. Quite as frequent is the simple connec- 
 tion by the conjunction nal (iii. 14; v. 27; viii. 
 21, 49; xvii. 11). This defect of style may, 
 however, be explained by the mental charac- 
 teristics of the disciple. John's mind was defi- 
 cient in the dialectic element; he wanted the 
 logical acuteness of Paul. Even where he reports 
 the speeches of Christ, we often find a want of 
 precision in his representation. The simplicity 
 of John's character is also evinced by the repe- 
 tition of certain leading thoughts, reproduced in 
 the same words both in the Gospel and in the 
 Epistles ; such as paprvpia, testimony ; 5o£a, 
 glory ; truth ; <j bus, light ; ck6tos, dark- 
 
 ness ; (cor) aldvios, eternal life; peyeiv, to abide. 
 Although the language of the Gospels and of the 
 Epistles is not so excellent as Eusebius asserts, we 
 find only such impurities as belong to the Alex- 
 andrine Greek in general. For instance, the 
 barbarism c'yyooKay in xvii. 7 ; and according to 
 the codex ad., also ecopaKav in verse 6; and 
 according to some manuscripts instead 
 
 of e?xov ; and in xvi. 20, 22, xap'fio'opai, instead 
 of x a pH- 
 
 d. The interpreters of the Gospel of John . 
 — Among the ancient commentators upon Jrhn’g 
 Gospel, Chrysostom deserves the first place. The 
 turn compilers, Theophylact, who died a.d. 1107, 
 and Euthymius Zigabenus, who died after a.d. 
 
134 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 JOHN THE APOSTLE. 
 
 1118, are also worthy of notice. Among the Ro- 
 man Catholic interpreters, Maldonatus, who died 
 hi 1583, is distinguished by originality and ac- 
 curacy. Calvin is distinguished above the other 
 Reformers for the originality and ease of his in- 
 terpretation, but his commentary on the Epistles 
 is more carefully worked out than that on the 
 Gospel. Beza is characterized' by philological 
 and critical learning. The most complete con> 
 mentary on the Gospel of John is ihat of Lampe, 
 Commentarius Exegetico-Analyticus in Evange- 
 liurn Johannis , Amstelodami, 1637, 3 vols. 4to. 
 Tiie style of this commentary is tasteless and 
 stiff, but in learning the author has not been sur- 
 passed by any other interpreter. Liicke (3rd ed. 
 1840) is the most comprehensive of the modern 
 commentators. Shorter commentaries have been 
 written by Tholuck* (5th ed.), by Olshausen (3rd 
 ed. 1832), and by De Wette (2nd ed. 1839). 
 
 As introductions to the study of the writings 
 of John, we may mention Frommann’s Johan- 
 neischer Lehrbegriff, 1831, and Neander’s Abriss 
 der Johanneischen Lehre in his Geschichte der 
 Pfianzung der Christlicken Kirche (3rd ed. 1841, 
 p. 757, sq.). 
 
 III. The Epistles of John. — For the authen- 
 ticity of the first epistle very ancient testimony 
 may be adduced. Papias, the disciple of John, 
 quotes some passages from it. Polycarp, also, 
 another disciple of John, quotes a passage from 
 this epistle ( ad Philipp ., c. 7). So, also, Irenaeus 
 ( Adv . Hcer. iii. 16 ; v. 8). 
 
 The author of the first epistle describes him- 
 self, at its commencement, as an eye-witness of 
 the life of our Lord. The style and language 
 manifestly harmonize with those of the author of 
 the Gospel of John. The polemics, also, which 
 in ch. ii. 18-26, are directed against the Docetic 
 Gnostics, in ch. iv. 1-3, agree with the sphere of 
 action in Asia Minor in which the Evangelist 
 John was placed. We may, therefore, suppose 
 that the epistle was written to Christian congrega- 
 tions in Asia Minor, which were placed under 
 the spiritual care of the apostle. It is generally 
 admitted that ch. i. 2 refers to the Gospel. If 
 this is correct, the apostle wrote this epistle at 
 a very advanced age, after he had written his 
 gospel. The epistle breathes love and devotion, 
 but also zeal for moral strictness (iii. 6-8; v. 16). 
 There is a remarkable absence of logical con- 
 nection in the form of separate expressions, and 
 in the transitions from one thought to another. 
 Some writers have been inclined to find a reason 
 for this in the advanced age of the writer. Old 
 age may, perhaps, have contributed to this charac- 
 teristic, but it is chiefly attributable to the mental 
 peculiarity of the apostle. 
 
 Eusebius places the second and third epistles 
 of John among the avTiKcyogiva (Hist. Eccles. 
 iii. 25). These two epistles were originally 
 wanting in the ancient Syriac translation. From 
 their nature, it may easily be explained how it 
 happened that they were less generally known in 
 ancient Christian congregations, and that the 
 fathers do not quote them so often as other parts 
 of Scripture, since they are very short, and treat of 
 private affairs. The private nature of their con- 
 
 * Of this admirable commentary there exists 
 an English translation in the United States, of 
 which two editions have been published. — Ed. 
 
 tents removes also the suspicion that they could 
 have been forged, since it would be difficult to 
 discover any purpose which could have led to 
 such a forgery. The passage in the second epistle, 
 verse 1 1, which might seem to have some doctrinal 
 importance, is several times quoted by the fathers , 
 for instance, by Irenaeus (Adv. Hcer. i. 16. 3). Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus, who, according to Eusebyis 
 and Photius, wrote a commentary on all the 
 seven Catholic epistles, mentions several genuine 
 epistles of John. Origen speaks doubtingly about 
 the authenticity of the second and third epistles, 
 and states that they were not generally admitted 
 to be genuine. 
 
 The second epistle is addressed to a lady, 
 called K vpia, which name frequently occurs in 
 ancient writers as that of a woman (comp. Liicke's 
 Commentar, p. 351). 
 
 The third epistle is addressed to Gaius, a 
 person otherwise unknown. It is remarkable 
 that the writer of this epistle calls himself 
 6 irpea^uTepos. If this means the same as pre- 
 sident , as in 1 Pet. v. 1, it is surprising that 
 John should make use of this official designation 
 in a private letter, and. not in the first epistle, 
 which is addressed to the congregation. If 
 7r pecr^vTepos is here used in the signification of 
 old man, as Paul calls himself in the Epistle to 
 Philemon, verse 9, one is surprised that John 
 should not have chosen the clearer expression, 6 
 yepwv or 6 7rpecr/3uT7js. Some writers have been 
 inclined to ascribe these letters to the presbyter 
 John, who is sometimes spoken of in the ancient 
 church, and to whom even the Apocalypse has 
 been attributed; but if the presbyter John wrote 
 these epistles, John’s Gospel also must be ascribed 
 to the same person, of whom otherwise so little 
 is known. This, however, is inadmissible. The 
 omission of the title, at the commencement of the 
 first epistle^ cannot be received as proof thau 
 irpecrfivTcpos, in the second and third epistles, is 
 not to be taken as an official designation ; since, 
 in the first epistle, there is no inscription at all, 
 which in itself is a rather startling circumstance. 
 We may suppose that the term TrpeafSvTepos 
 expressed in the epistles of John a degree of 
 friendliness, and was chosen on account of the 
 advanced age of the writer. The apostle Paul, 
 also, in his friendly letter to Philemon, abstains 
 from the title Apostle. The circumstances and 
 events in the church, to which the second epistle 
 alludes, coincide with those which are otherwise 
 known to have happened in John's congregation. 
 Here, also, are allusions to the dangers arising 
 from the Gnostic heresy. The adjnonition, in 
 verse 10, not to receive such heretics as Christian 
 brethren, agrees with the ancient tradition, that 
 John made haste to quit a public bath after Ce- 
 rinthus the Gnostic entered it, declaring he was 
 afraid the building would fall down. 
 
 Rickli’s Johannis erster Brief erkldrt und an - 
 gewendet mit historischem vorbericht und er~ 
 klarenden Anmerkungen (Lucerne, 1828) ; and 
 Liicke's Atislegung (2nd ed. 1836), will assist in 
 interpreting the first Epistle of John. — A. T. 
 
 [In the English language there are several 
 works on separate portions of St. John’s Gospel ; 
 but the only one on the whole of it is in the Rev. 
 Dr. Shepherd's Notes on the Gospels and Epistles 
 of St. John, 4to. 1796; and the only separate 
 work on the Epistles is Hawkins’ Commentary 
 
JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 m the ft pis ties of St. John, 1808. A translation 
 of Lucke’s Commentary on the Epistles of St. 
 John exists in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. xv.J 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. In the canon of 
 the New Testament, as at present received in the 
 universal church, there are three Epistles ascribed 
 to the Apostle St. John, although none of them 
 bears his name. The first of these ranks among 
 the homolog oumena, respecting which no doubts 
 ever existed ; the two latter form part of the 
 antilegomena , or controverted books. All three 
 are included in the catholic Epistles [Episti.es]. 
 
 The First Epistle was known to Papias, bishop 
 of Hieropolis in the second century, who was 
 contemporary with the followers of the Apostles, 
 and who, as we are informed by Eusebius (Hist. 
 Eccles. iii. 39). ‘ made use of testimonies from the 
 First Epistle of St. John.’ Polycarp also, in his 
 Epistle to the Philippians (ch. vii.), a work which, 
 as Liicke justly observes, cannot be proved to be 
 either spurious or interpolated, has the following 
 remarkable passage, which seems evidently to 
 refer to 1 John iv. 3 : 1 Every one who does not 
 confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is 
 antichrist.’ Irenseus also, the disciple of Poly- 
 carp, is stated by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v. 8), 
 to have extracted many testimonies from it (comp. 
 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 15. 5, 8, with 1 John ii. 
 18 ; iv. 1, 3 ; v. 1). Clement of Alexandria also 
 (Stromata, ii. 389) observes that John in his 
 larger Epistle uses the words, £ If any man see 
 his brother sin a sin,’ Sic. (1 John v. 16). Ter- 
 tullian expressly cites John as the author of the 
 passage, ‘ Which w6 have heard,’ &c. (1 John i. 1); 
 and Orig-en (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25) observes, 
 
 ‘ He [John] has also left us an Epistle containing 
 a very few orlxoi : it may be also a second and 
 third are from him, but not all agree that they are 
 genuine ; but both together do not contain a hun- 
 dred (Ttixoi ;’ and Eusebius himself observes (iii. 
 25) that ‘ John’s First Epistle is universally ac- 
 knowledged by those of the present day and by 
 the ancients ’ (see also iii. 26). There is no an- 
 cient catalogue which does not include the First 
 Epistle, and it forms a part of all the ancient 
 versions, including the Syriac, a work of the 
 second century. In fact the only persons who 
 appear not to have recognised this Epistle are 
 the ancient heretics, the Alogi and the Marcion- 
 ites, the latter of whom were acquainted with 
 none of the writings of St. John, and the former 
 rejected them all, ascribing them to Cerinthus, 
 not upon critical, but purely arbitrary and dog- 
 matical grounds. 
 
 Complete, however, as is the external evidence 
 in favour of the genuineness of John’s First 
 Epistle, the internal is no less conclusive. This 
 is manifest from its exact resemblance in sub- 
 stance, phraseology, and sentiment to the Gospel 
 of St. John, leaving no doubt that both these 
 compositions proceeded at least from one and 
 the same author [John, Gospee of]. Indeed, 
 this harmony of the two compositions has been 
 acknowledged by critics of every school, while 
 the allusions are so natural and incidental as 
 to preclude the idea of the Enistle being the 
 production of a more modern imitator of the 
 style of St. John (Eichhorn’s Introduction). De 
 \yette (Introduction) furnishes a host of pas- 
 sages from the Gospel and Epistle, which will 
 enable the reader to perceive at a glance that 
 
 L3J 
 
 both of these compositions proceed from the same 
 author, inasmuch as both bear ‘ the most certain 
 stamp of relationship, as we'll in diction as in 
 the form of their contents; both exercise the same 
 spell on the mind of the reader.’ A few German 
 theologians in our own times (Lange, Schriften 
 des Joh. iii. 4, sq. ; Cludius, Uransichten des 
 Christenth. p. 52, sq. ; Bretschneider, Probdbilia, 
 p. 166, sq.) have been the first critics to throw 
 doubts on the genuineness of any of John’s writings, 
 but they have rnet with complete refutations from 
 the pens of Bertholdt (vi.), Harmsen (Authent. 
 de Schr. d. Evangel . Johan), and Liicke (Com- 
 mentary on the Epistles of St. John, in Bib. Cab. 
 vol. xv.). The only serious objections to the 
 Epistles are those of Bretschneider, who has 
 equally attacked the genuineness of the Gospel. 
 He maintains that the doctrine concerning the 
 logos, and the anti-docetic tendency of St. John's 
 First Epistle, betray an author of the second cen- 
 tury, whom he assumes to be John the Presbyter. 
 But it is beyond all question, says Liicke (l. c.), 
 that the logos doctrine of St. John, substantially, 
 although not fully developed, existed in the Jewish 
 theological notions respecting the Son of God ; and 
 that we find it distinctly expressed, although in 
 different words, in the Pauline representation of 
 Christ’s exalted dignity (Coloss. i. comp, with 
 Heb. 1) ; that the rudiments of it appear in the 
 literature of the Jews, canonical and apocryphal, 
 Chaldaic and Alexandrian ; that in the time 'of 
 Christ it was considerably developed in the 
 writings of Philo, and still more strongly in the 
 fathers of the second century, who were so far 
 from retaining the simple, Hebraizing, and ca- 
 nonical mode of expression peculiar to John, that 
 in them it had assumed a gnostically erudite 
 form, although essentially identical. St. John 
 intends by the Word (logos) to express the divine 
 nature of Christ, but the patristic logology at- 
 tempts to determine the relation between the logos 
 and the invisible God on one side, and the world 
 on the other. The earliest fathers, as Justin 
 Martyr and Tatian, while they make use of John’s 
 phraseology, further support, their doctrines by 
 ecclesiastical tradition, which, as Liicke observes, 
 must have its root in doctrines which were known 
 in the first century. But from Theophilus of 
 Antioch downwards, the fathers, mentioning John 
 by name, expressly connect their elucidations 
 with the canonical foundation in the Gospel of 
 St. John, without the granting of which the lan- 
 guage of Justin would be inexplicable (Olshausen, 
 On the Genuineness of the Four Gospels, p. 306, 
 sq.). Accordingly, adds Liicke, on this side, the 
 authenticity of the Gospel and Epistle remains 
 unassailable. 
 
 On similar grounds may be refuted Bretschnei- 
 der’s arguments, derived from the anti-docetic cha- 
 racter of John's Epistle. It is true, docetism, or 
 the idealistic philosophy, was not fully developed 
 before the second century ; but its germ existed 
 before the time of Christ, as has been shown 
 by Mosheim, Walch, and Niemeyer. Traces of 
 Jewish theology and Oriental theosophy having 
 been applied to the Christian doctrine in the 
 apostolic age, are to be found in the Epistles 
 of St. Paul, and it would be unaccountable to 
 suppose that the fully developed docetism should 
 have first made its appearance in the Epistles of 
 Irenaeus and Polycarp. We have the authority 
 
136 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 of the former of these for the fact, that Cerinthus 
 taught the docetic heresy in the lifetime of St. John, 
 in the simple form in which it seems to be at- 
 tacked in 1 John iv. 1-3 ; ii. 22 ; 2 John 7. 
 
 These attacks of modern writers are said to 
 nave been made rather by way of experiment than 
 with any serious view of undermining the genuine- 
 ness of John’s writings ; and Liicke concludes his 
 masterly reply to Bretschneider in these words : 
 
 ' We honour and respect the unprejudiced divine, 
 whose modest doubts will ever have the merit 
 of having promoted once more the scientific ap- 
 preciation and established certainty respecting 
 the genuineness and canonical dignity of such a 
 noble portion of the apostolical literature * ( Intro- 
 duction to Comment.). 
 
 Time and place of writing the First Epistle . — 
 On this head nothing certain can be determined. 
 It has been conjectured by many interpreters, 
 ancient and modern, that it was written at the 
 same place as the Gospel. The more ancient 
 tradition places the writing of the Gospel at 
 Ephesus, and a less authentic report refers it to 
 the island of Patmos. Hug ( Introduction ) infers, 
 from the absence of writing materials (3 John 13), 
 that all John’s Epistles were composed at Pat- 
 mos ! The most probable opinion is that it was 
 written somewhere in Asia Minor, in which was 
 the ordinary residence of the Apostle (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccl. iii. 23), perhaps, according to the 
 tradition of the Greek church, at Ephesus ; but 
 for this we have no historical warrant (Liicke’s 
 Commentary). 
 
 It is equally difficult to determine the time 
 of the writing of this Epistle, although it was 
 most probably posterior to the Gospel, which 
 seems to be referred to in 1 John i. 4. Some are 
 of opinion that the Epistle was an envelope or 
 accompaniment to the Gospel,’ and that they 
 were consequently written nearly simultaneously 
 (Hug’s Introd.). As, however, the period when 
 the Gospel was written, according to the evidence 
 of tradition and criticism, ‘ fluctuates between 
 the sixth and ninth decennium of the first cen- 
 tury ’ (LUcke’s Comment.), we are at a loss 
 for data oft which to found any probable hypo- 
 thesis respecting the exact time of the writing of 
 the Epistle ; but that it was posterior to the Gospel 
 is further rendered probable from the fact that it 
 is formed on such a view of the person of Jesus 
 as is found only in St. John’s Gospel, and that it 
 abounds in allusions to the speeches of Jesus, as 
 there recorded. Liicke concludes, from its re- 
 sembling the Gospel in its apologetical and po- 
 lemical allusions, that it indicates such a state 
 of the Christian community as proves that it 
 must be posterior even to the last Epistles of St. 
 Paul, and consequently that the ancient church 
 was justified in classing it among the Catholic 
 Epistles, which all bear this chronological cha- 
 racter. 
 
 It has been argued by several, from ch. ii. 18 
 (eVxaT77 lapa icrrlv), that the Epistle was written 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem ; while others, 
 founding their conjecture on the same passage, 
 maintain the very reverse. Among the former 
 are to be found the names of Hammond, Grotius, 
 Calovius, Lange, and Haenlein ; and among the 
 latter those of Baron i us, Basnage, Mill, and Le 
 Cl ere. 
 
 Equally unsatisfactory is the argument, in re- 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 spect to the time when this Epistle was written, 
 derived from its supposed senile tone [John] ) 
 for, although the style is somewhat, more tauto- 
 logical than the Gospel, this can be accounted' 
 for by its epistolary character, without ascribing 
 it to the effects of senile forgetfulness. In fact 
 this character is altogether denied by some of the 
 ablest critics. 
 
 It is equally difficult to determine who were 
 the persons to whom the Epistle was addressed. 
 Jn ancient Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures 
 it frequently bears the subscription ‘ ad Par - 
 thos.' This title is also given to it by St. Au- 
 gustine ; but there is no authority for supposing 
 that. John ever went on a mission to the Par- 
 thians. Various conjectures, more or less happy, 
 have been made to account for this inscription. 
 Whiston ( Comment . on the Three Cath. Epist.) 
 supposes that the true superscription was irphs 
 irapQevovs, to the virgins (the uncorrupted), and 
 that irapQevovs gave rise to the Latin reading, 
 Parthos. This conjecture has been improved 
 by Hug ( Introd.), who observes that the second 
 Epistle, addressed to the ‘ elect lady,’ is called 
 by some of the ancients, including Clem. Alex. 
 (Frag. ed. Potter, p. 1011), ‘Epist.. ad Vir- 
 gines,’ -jrpbs 7 rapOtrovs ; that this phrase, in an 
 abridged form, ‘ 7 rpbs iraodovs,' occurred as a 
 colophon to the Second Epistle, and that this 
 colophon sometimes appearing as a superscription 
 to the Second Epistle, to which it seemed unsuit- 
 able, it was transferred as a colophon to the First. 
 Wegscheider ingeniously conjectures that ‘ ad 
 Parthos ’ was a mistake for ‘ad Sparsos,’ and ob- 
 serves that in one ancient MS. (which, however, 
 he unfortunately does not particularize), it is both 
 superscribed and subscribed 7 r pbs robs diacrirapoa- 
 pevovs, ‘ to the dispersed.’ This conjecture is 
 further favoured by the corruption ‘ ad Sparlos,’ 
 which appears in a Latin Bible in the Geneva 
 Library, of the eleventh century. Scholz observes 
 that ‘ ad Sparsos ' occurs in a great number of 
 MSS. Various, indeed, have been the hypotheses 
 regarding the persons to whom this Epistle was 
 written, but it is by no means improbable, from 
 the absence of Old Testament references, that it 
 was addressed to Gentile converts, of which there 
 were several congregations in Asia Minor, where 
 John exercised his apostolic and episcopal func- 
 tions. If we are to understand the term catholic, 
 as applied to this Epistle, in the sense of circular, 
 we may naturally infer, from the absence of the 
 epistolary form, that this was an encyclical let-ter 
 addressed to several of John’s congregations, and 
 in all probability lo the churches of the Ajro- 
 calypse [Epistles]. 
 
 Object' and design. — The main object and de- 
 sign of this Epistle has been generally perceived 
 to consist in the refutation of certain errors and 
 heresies in the churches subject to St. John’s 
 episcopate. But opinions are divided as to who 
 the teachers of these heresies were, whether Jews, 
 Ebionites, Gnostics, Docetae, Cerinthus and his 
 followers, or finally the disciples of John the 
 Baptist. This polemical object appears, how 
 ever, to form but a secondary part of the design 
 of John, his main object being rather to enforce 
 the necessity of progressive sanctification, ge- 
 nuine brotherly love, and the renunciation of the 
 ■world. The design of the Epistle is didactic 
 rather than polemical; and the Apostle shows 
 
137 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 <hat the great aim of the Christian is to over- 
 come the world: in • corroboration of which he 
 appeals to the threefold testimony in its favour, 
 showing that those who receive the witness of man 
 should still more receive the witness of God (1 
 John v. 8, 9). The problem of the Christian life 
 is thus by faith and love to overcome the infidel 
 and antichristian world, whether Jewish or pagan, 
 which is using both violence and stratagem to 
 destroy the Christian faith. The Ebionites, or 
 Judaizing Christians, recognized only the human 
 nature of Christ, and in their rigid monotheism 
 could not lift up their minds to the divinity of 
 the heavenly logos manifested in Christ; while 
 Cerinthus denied his humanity, reducing it to a 
 mere docctism or appearance. Against both these 
 errors the polemical portion of the Epistle seems 
 to be addressed. 
 
 Another portion of this Epistle seems directed 
 against a certain class of antinomian Christians, 
 who perverted Christian liberty into antichristian 
 licentiousness and libertinism, and decided what 
 was sinful or otherwise, not according to the posi- 
 tive law of God, but by their own internal feel- 
 ings — thus confounding light and darkness, God 
 and the world. This vital error was rather to be 
 found among the heathen than the Jewish Chris- 
 tians, and was probably founded on a perversion 
 of St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. 
 
 Allusion has already been made to the supposed 
 senile and incoherent character of the epistle. 
 Llicke, who in his Commentary has given a 
 copious analysis of its contents, rejects this sup- 
 position. Its grace and cordiality, adds this able 
 and discriminating writer, its depth and simpli- 
 city ; in spite of this'simplieity, so much freshness ; 
 in spite of obscurity in particulars., so great per- 
 spicuity in the whole; in spite of apparent dis- 
 order and abruptness, so much of internal order 
 and connection ; in spite of explicitness in the 
 prevailing ideas, so much of slight allusions and 
 touches on truths that have been expressed ; and 
 then, above all, this elevated and pure light and 
 love-image of Christianity — all this has, from 
 the earliest ages, had such an enchanting effect 
 on all nobler minds, as to make this epistle a 
 favourite book, especially with those who more 
 particularly take up Christianity as a religion 
 of love, a religion of the heart — who seek no 
 light without warmth, no faith and no know- 
 ledge without love and deed, and who endeavour 
 to render the communion with the Redeemer 
 effective in the love of their brother. See Augus- 
 tine, Tractat. x. in Ep. Johannis ad Parthos. 
 Luther’s Zwiefache Ausleg. ed. Walch. vol. ix. 
 Bullinger, In Epist. Joan . cum brevi et catholica 
 Exposit. Episcopius, Lectt. Sacr. Whiston’s 
 Commentary on the 3 Cath. Epist. of St. John. 
 Morius, Pnelect. Exiget. Lange, Die Schriften 
 des John. Liicke Commentary and Biblical 
 Cabinet (ut supra.) 
 
 There has been no subject connected with 
 Biblical literature which has attracted more at- 
 tention than this epistle, in consequence of the 
 controversies which have existed since the com- 
 mencement of the sixteenth century, respecting 
 the once contested but now rejected passage in 
 1 John v. 7, 8. Of its literary history we shall 
 cere present our readers with a brief sketch. 
 
 In all the first printed Bibles, which were those 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 of the Latin Vulgate, as amended by Jerome, 
 the clause appeared in the following form : — ‘ Kt 
 spijitus est qui testification quoniam Chrislus est 
 veritas. Quoniam ties sunt qui testimonium 
 dant [in carlo, Pater, Verbum, et Spi lit us Sanctus, 
 et hi ties unum sunt ; et ties sunt qui testimonium 
 dant in terra.] spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres 
 unum sunt’ (Ed. Princeps, 1462) (And it is 
 the Spirit that beareth witness, because Christ is 
 truth. For there are three which bear witness [in 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 Spirit, and these three are one; and there are 
 three which bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and 
 the Water, and the Blood, ana these three are 
 one). Such was also the form of the clause 
 in the great majority of manuscripts of the Vul- 
 gate. It may therefore be considered as the 
 generally received form at that period. But when 
 the first edition of the Greek Testament appeared, 
 which was that of Erasmus, published at Basle 
 in 1516, the part of the clause which we have 
 placed within brackets (that referring to the three 
 heavenly witnesses) was wanting! and the clause 
 appeared in the following seemingly mutilated 
 form : — Kal rb irvtvpd tan rb paprvpovv, on t o 
 7r v e v p a ioriv 7] aA-ftOtia' on rpds daw o; pap- 
 rvpovvrts, rb ivvtvpa, /cal rb vScop, /cal rb aipa, 
 /cal cl rpds eis rb tv daw. ‘ And it is lire 
 Spirit which beareth witness, because the Spirit 
 is. truth. For there are three which bear witness, 
 the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, anil 
 these three agree in one.’ Hence arose the li- 
 terary controversy respecting the genuineness of 
 the clause, which has continued with more or 
 less of asperity to our own times. Erasmus was 
 attacked by Stunica, one of the editors of the 
 Complutensian Polyglott, of which the New 
 Testament in Greek and Latin had been printed 
 in 1714 (and consequently before the appearance 
 of Erasmus's edition), although not published until 
 1522. Erasmus replied to Stunica by observing 
 that he had faithfully followed the Greek manu- 
 scripts from which he had edited his text ; but pro- 
 fessed his readiness to insert the clause in another 
 edition, provided but a single Greek manuscript 
 was found to contain it. Such a manuscript was 
 found in England ; upon which Erasmus, although 
 entertaining strong suspicions respecting this ma- 
 nuscript, yet, faithful to his word, inserted the 
 clause in his third edition, which was published 
 in 1522, as follows Kal rb irvtvpa tan rb 
 paprvpovv, on rb rrvtvpd iarw yj b.XyOtia' on 
 rpds daw ol paprvpovvrts iv tm ovpavw, irar^p, 
 Aoyos, Kal irvtvpa ay lov, Kal ovroi ol rptis tv dot' 
 Kal rpds tlalv ol paprvpovvrts iv rrj yfj, irvtvpa, 
 Kal v8a>p, Kal cupa, Kal ol rptis ds rb tv daw. El 
 TTjv paprvpiav , k. t. A. ‘ And it is the Spirit which 
 beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For 
 there are three which bear witness in heaven, 
 Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, and these three 
 are one ; and there are three which bear witness 
 in earth, Spirit, and Water, and Blood, and these 
 three agree in one.’ 
 
 Indeed, the absence of the article from the six 
 nouns in the disputed passage in this pretended 
 manuscript is of itself sufficient to excite sus- 
 picions of, if not completely to overthrow, its 
 genuineness. What has become of the manu- 
 script is not known ; but it is generally believed 
 to have been the same with that now possessed by 
 the library of Trinity College, Dublin, called the 
 
1 3S JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 Codex Montfoi tianus , or Dublinensis, in which 
 the disputed clause thus appears : — Kal rb irvevpa 
 4ari rb paprvpovv, oti 6 Xpiarbs eanv a\i)dsia. 
 r On rpeis elaiv oi paprvpovvres ev rep oi/pav<£, ira- 
 r}/p, \6yos, Kal irvevpa ayiov, Kal ovroi ol rpeis 
 eV elatv. Kal rpeis elan/ ol paprvpovvres ev rfj yrj, 
 vvevpa, vScop, Kal alpa. El rijv, k.t. A. ‘And it 
 is the Spirit that beareth witness, because Christ is 
 truth. For there are three which bear witness in 
 heaven, Father, W ord, and Holy Spirit, and these 
 three are one; and there are three which bear wit- 
 ness in earth, Spirit, Water, and Blood. It’ we 
 receive, &c.’ (without the final clause .) The 
 Dublin manuscript thus differs from the text of 
 Erasmus’s third edition in its remarkable omis- 
 sion of the final clause, as well as in its omission 
 of Kal before 88 cop, while it differs still more from 
 the text of the supposed Codex Britannicus , as 
 described by Erasmus himself, when he observes 
 ( Annot . p. 697, ed. 4) : — ‘ Veruntamen, ne quid 
 di3simulem, repertus est apud Anglos Grsecus 
 codex unus, in quo habetur quod in Vulgatis 
 deest; scriptum est enim in hunc modum — • 
 on rpeis elaiv ol paprvpovvres ev rep ovpavtp , 
 irari]p, \6yos, Kal irvevpa, Kal ovroi ol rpeis ev 
 elaiv Kal rpeis elaiv paprvpovvres ev rrj yrj, 
 r-vevpa, vSwp. Kal alpa e 1 s * rfyv paprvpiav rcbv 
 dvQpdnrcov, K.r.X. ‘And that I may not dis- 
 semble, there has been discovered one manuscript 
 in England, in which the clause is found which 
 is wanting in the vulgar text of the Greek manu- 
 scripts; for it is thus written: “For there are 
 three which bear witness in heaven, Father, Word, 
 and Spirit, and these three are one ; and there 
 are three bearing witness on earth, Spirit, Water, 
 and Blood, into * the testimony of men,’’ ’ &c. ; 
 while on another occasion he observes that ‘ the 
 British MS. had ovroi oi rpeis (these three), while 
 the Spanish edition had only Kal oi rpeis (and the 
 three), which was also the case in the Spirit, 
 Water, and Blood ; that the British had ev iiai 
 (are one), the Spanish els rb ev elaiv (agree in 
 one), and finally that the British added to the 
 earthly witnesses Kal ol rpeis els rb ev elai (and 
 the three agree in one), which was not here 
 added in the Spanish edition.’ The Dublin 
 manuscript is generally ascribed to the fifteenth 
 or sixteenth century, and cannot possibly be 
 older than the thirteenth, inasmuch as it con- 
 tains the Latin chapters, which belong to this 
 century. It is also the only Greek manuscript 
 which follows the Vulgate in reading Xpiar6s for 
 irvevpa in the 6th, and &pev for iapev in the 20th 
 verse of this chapter. It reads, however, 0e6s, 
 where the Vulgate reads quod (1 Tim. iii. 16); 
 which shows that it is not a servile imitation of 
 that version, as some have supposed. The clause 
 has been also found, although in a form still more 
 corrupt, in a manuscript in the Vatican (Cod. 
 Ottobon. 298), of the fifteenth century, first col- 
 lated by Dr. Scholz, of Bonn, as follows : — "On 
 rpeis elaiv ol paprvpovvres airb rod ovpavov, irarrjp, 
 \6yos , Kal irvevpa ayiov , Kal ol rpeis els rb ev elaiv 
 Kal rpeis elaiv ol paprvpovvres air b rrjs yrjs, rb 
 irvevpa, Kal rb vScop, ical rb aipa. El rgv paprvpiav , 
 «f.r. A. ‘For there are three which bear witness 
 from heaven, Father, W ord, and Holy Spirit, and 
 Hie three agree in one ; and there are three which 
 
 * This is probably a misprint. 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF 
 
 bear witness from earth, the Spirit, and the Water 
 and the Blood. If we receive, &c.’ The Latir 
 Vulgate, which is annexed, also omits tt b fina. 
 clause of the 8th verse in this copy. 
 
 Tne above is the amount of Greek manuscript 
 authority for this celebrated clause ; for althougn 
 all the libraries in existence have been examined, 
 no other copy has been found which contains a 
 vestige of it.* Nor has it been once cited by a 
 single Greek father, although abundant opportu- 
 nities presented tnemselves for introducing it, 
 which they could not have failed to avail them- 
 selves of, had it existed in their copies; but they 
 have invariably cited the passage as it has been 
 preserved in all the ancient manuscripts. It 
 found its way, however, into the received text 
 of the Greek Testament, having been copied from 
 Erasmus's third, fourth, and fifth editions (1522, 
 1527, and 1535), with more or less of variation, 
 into all Stephens's editions, from the third or folio 
 edition of which it was adopted by Beza in all 
 his editions, the first of which was published in 
 1565, and again by Elzevir, in his edition of 
 1624, to which his anonymous editor gave the 
 name of Textus undique receptus. The follow- 
 ing is the form which it finally assumed im these 
 editions: — "On rpeis elaiv oi paprvpovvres it 
 rw ovpavcp , 6 irar^p, 6 A 6yos. Kal rb ayiov irvevua’ 
 Kal ovroi ol rpeis ev elai’ 8. Kal rpeis elatv ol pap- 
 rvpovvres ev rrj yrj, rb irvevpa, Kal rb vScop, ical rb 
 afua* /cal ol rpeis els rb ev elaiv. ‘ For there 
 are three which bear witness in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these 
 three are one : and there are three which beai 
 witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and 
 the Blood, and the three agree in one.’ 
 
 The earliest Greek form in which the disputed 
 clause is found is contained in the Latin transla- 
 tion of the Acts of the Council of Lateran, held 
 in 1215, viz. : — "On rpeis elaiv ol paprvpovvres 
 ev ovpavcp , 6 i rarrjp, hbyos, Kal irvevpa ayiov' Kal 
 r ovr o i ol rpeis ev elatv, icaQibs Se irpoarlOgas 
 
 * * * * KaOcbs ev rial KcoBrj^iv evpianerat, 
 
 ‘ For there are three which bear witness in heaven, 
 the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, and these 
 three are one; and it is immediately added 
 
 * * * * as it is found in some copies.’ The 
 omitted passages, represented by the asterisks, are 
 thus supplied in the original : — Statimque sub- 
 jungitur, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant hi 
 terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; et tres unum sunt ; 
 sicut in codicibus quibusdam invenitur. ‘And it 
 is immediately added, and there are three which 
 bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the Water, and 
 the Blood ; and these three are one, as is found 
 in some copies ;’ meaning that the final clause, 
 et hi tres unum sunt (and these three are one), 
 is found in some copies of the Latin Vulgate. 
 
 The first Greek writer who absolutely cites any 
 part of it is Manuel Calecas, a Dominican monk 
 of the fourteenth century, who has the words — 
 rpeis elaiv ol paprvpovvres , 6 irarrjp, 6 A 6yos, Kal 
 rb irvevpa rb ayiov. ‘ There are three which bear 
 witness, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 
 * There are above one hundred and eighty 
 Greek manuscripts of this Epistle, known to exist 
 in various libraries, written between the fifth and 
 fifteenth centuries, riot one of which contains a 
 vestige of the disputed clause. 
 
JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 Spirit;’ and in (lie next century it is thus cited 
 by Joseph Bryennius, a Greek monk : — Kal rb 
 rvevfid ian paprvpovv , Utl 6 X p i a r 6 s ianv r] 
 a\-{]0(ia. lln rpds daiv ol paprvpovvres iv rep 
 ovpavcp, 6 Trar^p, & \6yos, Kal rb Trvevpa r b ay 10 V 
 Kal ovroi oi rpeis ev (in. Kal rpds deny ol pap- 
 r vpovvres i v rrj yrj, t£> Trvevpa, rb vdcop, ical rb 
 aTjua. ‘ And it is the Spirit whicli beareth witness, 
 because Christ is truth. For there are three which 
 bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, 
 and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one ; 
 and there are three which bear witness on earth, 
 the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.’ 
 
 It will have been observed that these writers all 
 omit the final clause of the 8th verse, contrary to 
 the authority of all the Greek manuscripts, and 
 in this they were followed by the Complutensian 
 editors, whose form of the verse we have not before 
 noticed, as it does not appear whether they had any 
 manuscript authority whatever for the clause, 
 which, however, they inserted in their splendid 
 Polyglott edition, begun in 1502, finished in 
 1517, but not published until 1522, wherein it 
 appears in the following form : — Kal rb irvevpd 
 iern rb paprvpovv, on rb tvv e v pd ear iv rj aAr]- 
 6eia. on rpds (laiv ol paprvpovvres, iv rep ovpavcp , 
 b irar^p, Kal b A oyos, Kal rb ayiov it vevpa' Kal o l 
 rpeis els rb ev eiai. Kal rpeis elaiv ol paprv- 
 povvres eirl rrj s y r/s, rb irvev/m, Kal rb vS&op, Kal 
 rb aipa. E l rr\v paprvplav, k. r. A. 4 And it is the 
 Spirit which beareth witness, because the Spirit 
 is truth. For there are three which bear witness 
 in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the 
 Holy Spirit, and the three agree in one (as in 
 Cod. Ottob.) ; and there are three which hear 
 witness on earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and 
 the Blood. If we receive, &c.’ These editors 
 have thus also omitted the final clause of the 8th 
 verse, as well in the Greek as in their edition of 
 the Latin Vulgate. For this latter omission they 
 had the authority of several modern manuscripts 
 of the Vulgate, and of the Council of Laterau, to 
 which they add in a note that of Thomas Aqui- 
 nas, who had charged the Arians with having 
 forged this .final clause, which had been inter- 
 preted by the Abbot Joachim to have implied a 
 unity of love and consent only, and not of essence. 
 
 This final clause of the 8th verse, however, exists 
 in all manuscripts of the Vulgate written before 
 the thirteenth century, and in the printed editions 
 published by authority of the Roman See since the 
 Council of Trent, which have hi ties unum sunt. 
 
 The clause of the three heavenly witnesses is 
 ; also absent from all existing manuscripts of the 
 Latin Vulgate, written between the eighth and 
 tenth centuries, anterior to which date there is no 
 manuscript of this version now in existence, con- 
 taining the Catholic Epistles. Nor has any writer 
 of the western church cited the passage before 
 Cassiodorus at the close of the sixth century, 
 although even the fact of his having done so is 
 ioubted by Porson (ut infra'). There is, indeed, 
 a preface to the canonical Epistles, bearing the 
 name of St. Jerome, in which the omission of this 
 clause is ascribed to 4 false translators but this, 
 as we shall hereafter see, is a forgery. The clause 
 is also wanting in all the manuscripts of the 
 Syriac, Armenian, and other ancient versions. 
 
 From the circumstance, however, of the clause 
 In question hav^ig been cited by two north-west 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 130 
 
 African writers of the fifth century — Vigilius, 
 Bishop of Tbapsus (the supposed author of the 
 Athanasiau Creed), and Victor Vitensis, the his- 
 torian of the Vandal persecution — it lias been fairly 
 presumed that it existed in their time in some of 
 the African copies of the old Latin version, from 
 whence, or from the citations of these writers, it 
 may have found its way into the later manuscripts 
 of the Vulgate. It is thus cited by Victor, as 
 contained in the Confession of Faith drawn up 
 by Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage : — Ties sunt qui 
 testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, 
 et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. 4 There 
 are three which furnish testimony in heaven, trie 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these 
 three are one.’ Vigilius, however, cites it in so 
 many various ways, that little reliance can be 
 placed on his authority ; he transposes the clauses 
 thus: — 4 Johannes Evangelista ad Parthos : tres 
 sunt qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua, 
 sanguis, et caro, et tres in nobis sunt, et tres sunt 
 qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, 
 et Spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt ’ (John the Evan- 
 gelist to the Parthians : There are three which 
 furnish testimony in earth, the Water, the Blood, 
 and the Flesh, and the three are in us ; and there 
 are three which offer testimony in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three 
 are one). Contra Varimadum. And again, 4 Tres 
 sunt qui testimonium dicunt in ccelo, Pater, et 
 Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Christo Jesu unum 
 sunt ’ (There are three which speak testimony in 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and 
 the three are one in Christ Jesus). After this it is 
 cited by St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Rusopa, in the 
 beginning of the sixth century, but omitted in the 
 same century by Facundus, Bishop of Hermione 
 from which it is at least evident that the copies in 
 that age and country varied. But, at a much 
 earlier period, the whole clause is thus cited by 
 St. Augustine of Hippo : — Tres sunt testes , Spi- 
 ritus, aqua, et sanguis , et tres unum sunt. 4 There 
 are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the Water, 
 and the Blood, and these three are one .’ Ter- 
 tullian and Cyprian have been supposed, indeed, 
 to have referred to the clause, but the proof of 
 this depends on the proof of the previous fact, 
 whether the clause existed or not in their copies. 
 The citation of Cyprian, 4 Qui ties unum sunt’ 
 (which three are one), and of Tertullian, 4 et hi 
 tres unum sunt ’ (and these three are one), belong 
 equally to the eighth as well as the seventh verse ; 
 and there is nothing surprising in these fathers 
 mystically applying the spirit, the water, and the 
 blood, to signify the three persons of the Trinity, 
 as was evidently done by Augustine at a later 
 period ( Cont . Maximin. iii. 22; and by Euche- 
 lius, in the 5th century). 
 
 It has been maintained that, although no an- 
 cient Greek manuscripts now extant contain the 
 clause, it must have existed in some of those 
 which were used by the original editors, especially 
 Robert Stephens. In his beautiful folio edition 
 (1550) Stephens cites seven Greek manuscripts in 
 the Catholic Epistles, of which he had three from 
 the King’s library. When any words are 
 omitted in any of his manuscripts he places in 
 his text an obelus before the first word, and a 
 small semicircle or crotchet after the last. In the 
 passage in question the obelus is pilaced Defore 
 iv rep ovpavcp , and the crotchet immediately after 
 
1 40 JUHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 these words ; from which it has been inferred that 
 these words only, and not the whole passage, were 
 absent from his seven MSS. Subsequent in- 
 quiries, however, undertaken by Lucas Brugensis, 
 Father Simon, and the late Bishop Marsh, seem 
 to leave no doubt that the crotchet was inserted in 
 the wrong place; for pot one of the manuscripts 
 now in the King’s library contains the passage ; 
 and one of Stephens’s manuscripts, now in the 
 university of Cambridge, is equally without it. 
 Archdeacon Travis, indeed, denies the identity 
 of this manuscript ; but Bishop Marsh ( Letters to 
 Travis') shows that the probability of their iden- 
 tity is as two nonillions to a unity. Bishop 
 Marsh's Letters to Travis have been in other 
 respects truly designated as ‘amass of recondite 
 and useful biblical erudition.’ We have men- 
 tioned this circumstance in order that the reader 
 may fully understand the assertion of Mr. Gibbon, 
 which we shall presently refer to : * The three 
 witnesses have been established in our Greek 
 Testament, by the prudence of Erasmus, the 
 honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors, the 
 typographical fraud or error of Robert Stephens, in 
 the placing of a crotchet, or the deliberate fraud 
 or strange misapprehension of Theodore Beza.’ 
 
 The following are some of the principal literary 
 controversies to which this famous clause has 
 given rise, of which a more complete account will 
 be found in Mr. Charles Butler's Horce Biblicce. 
 The earliest was the dispute between Erasmus 
 and Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, and be- 
 tween Erasmus and Stunica, one of the Complu- 
 tensian editors. Erasmus was the first to suspect 
 the genuineness of the preface to the Canonical 
 Epistles above referred to, which ascribes the 
 omission of the clause to false translators or 
 transcribers. The genuineness of this preface, 
 which led Sir Isaac Newton to charge St. Jerome 
 with being the fabricator of the disputed clause 
 (whereas it is certain that that learned Father 
 was totally unacquainted with its existence) of 
 the text, is now given up. It is considered in 
 the Benedictine edition of Jerome's works to be 
 a forgery of the 9th century (Burigni, Vie d'E- 
 rasme, Paris, 1757, i. 372-381 ; ii. 163-175; 
 Crit. Sac. vii. 1229). 
 
 It was afterwards attacked by Sandius the 
 Arian ( Nucleus Hist. Ecclesiast. Cosmopoli 1669 ; 
 and Interpret. Paradox, in Johan.'). It was de- 
 fended by Selden ( De Synedricis Ebrceor.) and 
 ably attacked by the Roman Catholic Father 
 Simon (Hist. Critique du Texte, 1680, &c. &c.). 
 It was defended again by Martin (pastor of the Re- 
 formed church in Utrecht, 1717), who was replied 
 to by Thomas Emlvn, the celebrated and much 
 persecuted English Presbyterian (A full Inquiry , 
 &c. 1715-1720), and by Caesar de Missy, French 
 preacher in the Savoy. There are other able 
 treatises on the same side by Dr. Benson, Sir Isaac 
 Newton, and the learned printer Mr. Bowyer ; 
 and in its favour by Smith (1690), Kettner, 
 Galamy (1722), as well as by Bossuet (16 — ), 
 and by Cal met (1720) in France, and Sender 
 in Geimany (1751). In Germany it was also 
 attacked by Schmidt (Hist. Antiqua , 1774), and 
 Michaelis, in his Introduction; but found an able 
 defender in the excellent Bengel (Gnomon, 1773), 
 who conceived that the passage contained a divine 
 internal evidence, but at the same time maintained 
 that its genuineness depended on the transposition 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 of the two verses so as to make the earthly witness*** 
 precede the heavenly, according to the citation 
 (supra) of Vigilius of Thapsus. (See Christian 
 • Remembrancer , vol. iv. p. 43, note.) 
 
 The third and most important stage of tne 
 controversy may be said to commence with the 
 note of Gibbon, above referred to, and which was 
 attacked by Archdeacon Travis in three letters, 
 1784-1786. This publication gave rise to the 
 most celebrated work which had yet appeared on 
 the subject, Professor Porson’s Letters (1788): 
 ‘ an eternal monument of his uncommon erudition, 
 sagacity, and tact ’ (Horce Biblicce). Mr. ^Butler 
 concludes his enumeration with the Obsei'vations 
 of Dr. Adam Clarke on the text of the heavenly 
 witnesses (1805). 
 
 Our space will not allow us to enter into detail 
 in regard to the principal publications which have 
 appeared on the subject since this period. We 
 shall only refer to a lew of the principal. Gries- 
 bach's Diatribe , at the close of the second volume 
 of his celebrated critical edition of the Greek Tes- 
 tament (1806), contains a complete and masterly 
 view of the evidence on both sides; but as this 
 eminent critic had completely rejected the passage 
 from the text, he met with an indefatigable adver- 
 sary in this country in the late Bishop Burgess. 
 See his Vindication (1821), and Introduction 
 (1833). The writings of this prelate drew down 
 many learned replies, but his most able and suc- 
 cessful opponent was Dr. Turton, Regius Professor 
 at Cambridge, and now Dean of Westminster 
 (see especially Dean Turton’s Vindication of the 
 Literary Character of Professor Porson from 
 the Animadversions of the Right Rev. Thomas 
 Burgess , D.D., ^c., published under the name of 
 Crito-Cantabrigiensis, 1827). A temperate vindi- 
 cation of the genuineness of the passage had been 
 published by the late Bishop Middleton (1808), 
 in his work on the Greek article, which was also 
 replied to by Dr. Turton (ut supra). The Memoir 
 of the Controversy respecting the Heavenly Wit- 
 nesses (1830), by the Rev. W. Orme, contains 
 interesting critical notices of the principal writers 
 on both sides of this much agitated question. 
 
 In the year 1834, Dr. Wiseman renewed tire 
 controversy in favour of the clause, in Two Letters 
 in the Catholic Magazine , vol. ii. and iii., reprinted 
 at Rome, 1835. Dr. Wiseman's principal argu- 
 ments are founded on the citations in African 
 writers. He supposes that there were two ancient 
 recensions of the Vulgate, the Italian, from which, 
 as well as from the Greek MSS., the clause had been 
 lost at an early period, and the African. He sup- 
 poses that this recension contained the clause which 
 existed in the Greek MSS. from which it was made, 
 and that these were of greater antiquity than any 
 we can now inspect. He further maintains, after 
 Eichhorn, that, as the Greek language was suffi- 
 ciently known in Italy to preclude the necessity 
 of an early translation of the Latin in that 
 country, Africa was most probably the birth- 
 place of the primary Latin translation, and that 
 consequently the African recension of this version 
 is far superior in authority to the Italian. He 
 therefore draws the inference that ‘ the existence 
 of an African recension containing the verse gives 
 us a right to consider as quotations passages of 
 African writers (such as those of Cyprian and 
 Tertullian) which in the works of Italian author* 
 might be considered doubtful. 1 ® As, however 
 
JOHN EPISTLES OF. 
 
 JOKTHEEL. 
 
 141 
 
 
 Augustine's acknowledged writings all evince Ins 
 ignorance of the existence of this passage, Dr. 
 Wiseman supposes that Augustine ordinarily- 
 made use of tiie Italian recension, which did not 
 contain it. However he adduces the authority 
 of a manuscript of the Speculum of Augustine 
 preserved at Rome, in the monastery of the Holy 
 Cross of Jerusalem, to prove that Augustine occa- 
 sionally used the African recension, and that he 
 has cited the identical passage as follows : — 
 
 Item Johannis in ^Epistola Item illic Ties 
 
 sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, 
 Yerbum et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres. unum 
 sunt (cap. ii. fol. 19, De Distinct. Personarum). 
 Dr. Wiseman supposes this manuscript, which is 
 mentioned by Blanchini, to have been written in 
 the seventh century. It has not, however, been 
 proved to be a genuine work of Augustine. (See 
 Wright's Appendix to his Translation of Seiler's 
 Hermeneutics , which contains some account of 
 the state of the controversy respecting this clause 
 to the year 1 835 ; also Horne's Introduction , 8th 
 edition, vol. ii. pt. ii.p. 185, vol. iv. p. 448-471). 
 
 The most remarkable circumstance connected 
 with the literary history of the clause, since this 
 period, properly belongs to the history of editions 
 of the New Testament. The clause appears in the 
 principal printed editions of the New Testament 
 before the time of Griesbach. These were the 
 editions of Mill (1707), Bengel (1734), and 
 Wetstein (1751); the two former of whom held 
 it to be genuine. Since the time of Griesbach it 
 has been generally omitted in all critical editions, 
 and especially in that of the learned Roman 
 Catholic Professor Scholz, of Bonn (1836), who, 
 though following a different system of recensions 
 from that of Griesbach, has altogether rejected the 
 passage from the text as decidedly spurious, and 
 as opposed to the authority of all authentic Greek 
 MSS., of all ancient MSS., of the Latin Vulgate, 
 and of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental Fathers. 
 The venerable Bishop Burgess replied to Scholz 
 three weeks before nis death, in 1836. 
 
 Various have been the opinions respecting the 
 internal evidence for and against the genuineness 
 of the passage. The advocates of the clause 
 have generally maintained that the context re- 
 quires its insertion, while its adversaries maintain 
 that the whole force of the argument is destroyed 
 by it. Liicke, one of the ablest modern com- 
 mentators on St. John's writings, maintains that 
 internal evidence alone Would be sufficient to 
 reject the passage, inasmuch (besides other rea- 
 sons) as St. John never uses 5 irar-fip and 6 \6yos 
 as correlates, but ordinarily, like St. Paul, and 
 every other writer of the New Testament, asso- 
 ciates 6 vlos with 6 7 rarrjp (ii. 22, 23; iv. 14; 
 v. 9, 11, 20, &c.), and always refers the Aoyos 
 in Christ to 6 0e6s, and not to b Tvaryp. He 
 unites with those crilics who look upon the re- 
 jected passage as an allegorical gloss, which found 
 its way into the Latin text, where it has, ‘ever 
 since the fourth century, firmly maintained its 
 place as a welcome and protective passage,’ &c. 
 He adds, however, that exegetical conscience will, 
 in our age, forbid the most orthodox to apply this 
 massage, even if it were genuine, for such a pur- 
 **>se, as kv elvai has quite a different sense from 
 that which is required bv the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. Here Liicke fully coincides with the 
 t»te Bishop Middleton ( Greek Article). Liicke’s 
 
 conclusion is a strong one. ‘ Either these words 
 are genuine, and the Epistle, in this case, a pro- 
 duction of the third or fourth century, or the 
 Epistle is a genuine work of St. John's, and then 
 these words spurious.’ 
 
 The latest attempt to vindicate the genuineness 
 of the passage is that of M. Gaussen of Geneva, in 
 his Theopneustia (1839). But his reasonings are 
 founded on a palpable error — the interpolation of 
 the words iu rrj yrj (in the earth ) in the eighth 
 verse, which he absolutely cites upon the authority 
 of Griesbach’s text, where they do not exist! 
 The corresponding words in terrd are, indeed, 
 found in the present text of some MSS. of the 
 Vulgate, and of some ancient writers, although 
 wanting in the seventh verse. 
 
 Luther uniformly rejected this clause from all 
 his translations. It is absent from his last edi- 
 tion (1516), published after his death, and was 
 first inserted in the Frankfort edition of 1574, but 
 again omitted in 1583, and in subsequent edi- 
 tions. Since the beginning of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, with the exception of the Wittemberg edition 
 of 1607, its insertion has been general. This 
 was, however, in opposition to Luther’s injunction. 
 
 It is inserted in all the early English printed 
 versions, commencing with Coverdale’s in 1536, 
 but is generally printed either in brackets or in 
 smaller letters. It was, however, printed in the 
 editions of 1536, 1552, and in the Geneva Bible 
 (1557), without any marks of doubt. It found 
 its way perhaps from Beza's Greek Testament 
 into the then authorized English version. The fol- 
 lowing is probably the oldest form extant, in 
 which they appear in the English language, in a 
 translation from the Vulgate earlier than the time 
 of Wieliff : — 1 For three ben that geven witness- 
 ing in heven, the Fadir, the Word or Sone; and 
 the Holy Ghoost, and these three ben oon ; and 
 three ben that geven witnessing in erthe, the 
 Spirit, Water, and Blood, and these three ben 
 oon’ [Scriptures, Holy]. — W. W. 
 
 JOHN, EPISTLES, II. and III. [Antier 
 gomena, see John]. 
 
 JOh^ MARK. [Mark.] 
 
 JOHN HYRCANUS. [Maccabees.] 
 
 JOIADA (JTFi\ contraction of Jehoiada, 
 which see), a high-priest of the Jews, successor to 
 Eliashib, or Joashib, vrho lived under Nebemiab, 
 about b.c. 434 (Neh. xiii. 28). 
 
 JOKSHAN (j^jp), fowler; Sept. se- 
 
 cond son of Abraham and Keturah, whose sons 
 Sheba and Dedan appear to have been the 
 ancestors of the Sabaeans and Dedanites, wl»o 
 peopled a part of Arabia Felix (Gen. xxv. 2, 3) 
 [Arabia]. 
 
 JOKTAN small; Sept. Te/crc^), one 
 
 of the sons of Eber, a descendant from Shem 
 (Gen. x. 25, 26), and the supposed progenitor of 
 many tribes in Southern Arabia. Tire Arabians 
 call him Kahtan, and recognise him as one of 
 the principal founders of their nation. See 
 Schultens, Hist. Imperii Joctandin. in Arabia 
 Felice; Pocock, Spec. Hist. Arab. pp. 3, 38; 
 Boch&rt’s Phaleg. iii. 15 [Arabia]. 
 
 JOKTHEEL (b^nfpl, God-subdued; Sept. 
 Te0o7jA). 1 . A name given by King Azariah to tne 
 city Sela, or Petra, the capital of Arabia Petma, 
 
142 
 
 JONADAB. 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 when lie took it from the Edomites (2 Kings 
 xiv. 7) [Petra]. 2. There was also a city of 
 this name in the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 38). 
 
 JONADAB (3*131*, contraction of 3*131?!*, 
 God-impelled; Sept, 1. A nephew 
 
 of David, a crafty person, whose counsel suggested 
 to his cousin Amnon the means by which he 
 accomplished his abominable design upon his 
 half-sister Tamar (2 Sam. xiii. 4, 5). 
 
 2. A son or descendant of Rechab, the pro- 
 genitor of those nomadic Rechabites, who held 
 themselves bound by a vow to abstain from 
 wine, and never to relinquish the nomadic life. 
 The principle on which the tribe acted may be 
 ^considered elsewhere [Rechabites]. Jonadab 
 .was at tlie head of this tribe at the time when 
 Jehu received his commission to exterminate the 
 house of Ahab, and is supposed to have added to 
 it3 ancient austerities the inhibition of wine. 
 He was held in great respect among the Israelites 
 generally: and Jehu, alive to the importance of 
 obtaining the countenance and sanction of such .a 
 man to his proceedings, took him up in his 
 chariot, when on his road to Samaria to complete 
 the work he had begun at Jezreel. The terms of 
 •the colloquy which took place on this occasion 
 are rather remarkable. Perceiving Jonadab, he 
 saluted him, and called out, ‘ Is thine heart right, 
 as my heart is with thy heart ?’ Jonadab answered, 
 
 * It is.’ Then said Jehu, ‘ If it be, give me thine 
 hand.’ And he gave him his hand, and was taken 
 up into the chariot, Jehu inviting him to ‘Come 
 and see my zeal for the Lord’ (2 Kings x. 15-17 ; 
 Jer. xxxv. 6-10). It would seem that the Rechab- 
 ites were a branch of the Kenites, over another 
 branch of whom Heber was chief in the time of 
 Deborah and Barak (.Judg. iv. 11, 17): and as it 
 is expressly said that Jonadab went out to meet 
 Jehu, it seems probable that the people of Samaria, 
 alarmed at the menacing letter which they had 
 received from Jehu, had induced Jonadab to go 
 to meet and appease him on the road. His vene- 
 rated character, his rank as the head of a tribe, 
 and his neutral position, well qualified him for 
 this mission ; and it was quite as much^the in- 
 terest of Jonadab to conciliate the new dynasty, 
 in whose founder he beheld the minister of the 
 divine decrees, as it was that of Jehu to obtain 
 his concurrence and support in proceedings which 
 he could not but know weie likely to render him 
 odious to the people. 
 
 JONAH (H3 7* ; Sept. Tcovas), the fifth in order 
 of the minor prophets. No era is assigned to him 
 in the book of his prophecy, yet there is liftle douht 
 of his being the same person who is spoken of in 
 2 Kings xiv. 25. The Jewish doctors, with their 
 usual puerility, have supposed him to be the son of 
 the widow of Sarepta : ‘ Now by this I know,’ said 
 she to Elijah, ‘ that thou art a man of God, and 
 that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth ’ 
 (1 Kings xvii. 24). The restored child was 
 thenceforward named Tl£DX - j3, a title which was 
 to preserve the memory of his miraculous resus- 
 citation (Hieron. Prcefat. in Jonani). His birth- 
 place was Gath-hepher, in the tribe of Zebulon. 
 Jonah flourished in or before the reign of Jero- 
 boam II., and predicted the successful conquests, 
 enlarged territory, and brief prosperity of the 
 Israelitish kingdom under that monarch’s sway. 
 The oracle itself is not extant, though Hitzig has, 
 
 by a novel process of criticism, amused nimself 
 with a fancied discovery of it in chaps, xv. and xvi, 
 of Isaiah. Ilitzig, Des Propji. Jon. Orakel. ueber 
 Moab Kritisch-vindicrit, %c., Heidelberg, 1831. 
 
 The book of Jonah contains an account of the 
 prophet's commission to denounce Nineveh, and 
 of his refusal to undertake the embassy — of the 
 method he employed to escape the unwelcome 
 task [Tarshish], and the miraculous means 
 which God used to curb his self-willed. spirit, and 
 subdue his petulant and querulous disposition. 
 The third and fourth chapters briefly detail 
 Jonah’s fulfilment of the divine command, and 
 present us with another exemplification of his 
 refractory temper. His attempt to flee from the 
 presence of the Lord must have sprung from a 
 partial insanity, produced by the excitement of 
 distracting motives in an irascible and melan- 
 choly heart. The temerity and folly of the fugi- 
 tive could scarcely be credited, if they had not 
 been equalled by future outbreaks of a similar 
 peevish and morbid infatuation. The mind of 
 Jonah was dark and moody, not unlike a lake 
 which mirrors in the waters the gloomy thunder- 
 clouds which overshadow it, and flash over its 
 sullen waves a momentary gleam. 
 
 The history of Jonah is certainly striking and 
 extraordinary. Its characteristic prodigy does not 
 resemble the other miraculous phenomena re- 
 corded in Scripture ; yet we must believe in its 
 literal occurrence, as the Bible affords no indi- 
 cation of being a mythus, allegory, or parable. 
 On the other hand, our Saviour’s pointed and 
 peculiar allusion to it is a presumption of its 
 reality (Matt. xii. 40). The opinion of the earlier 
 Jews (Tobit xiv. 4 ; Joseph. Antiq. ix. 10. 2) is also 
 in favour of the literal ity of the adventure. It re- 
 quires less faith to credit this simple excerpt from 
 Jonah’s biography, than to believe the numerous 
 hypotheses that have been invented to deprive it 
 of its supernatural character, the great majority 
 of them being clumsy and far-fetched, doing vio- 
 lence to the language, and despite to the spirit of 
 revelation ; distinguished, too, by tedious adjust- 
 ments, laborious combinations, historical conjec- 
 ture, and critical jugglery. In vindication of the 
 reality of this striking narrative, it may be argued 
 that the allusions of Christ to Old Testament events 
 on similar occasions are to actual occurrences 
 (John iii. 14; vi. 48); that the purpose which 
 God had in view justified his miraculous interpo- 
 sition ; that this miracle must have had a salutary- 
 effect both on the minds of the Ninevites and on 
 the people of Israel. Neither is the character of 
 Jona’h improbable. Many reasons might induce 
 him to avoid the discharge of his prophetic duty — . 
 fear of being thought a false prophet, scorn of a 
 foreign and hostile race, desire for their utter de- 
 struction, a false dignity which might reckon it 
 beneath his prerogative to officiate among uncir- 
 cumcised idolaters (Verschuir, Ojmsc. p. 73, &c. 5 
 Alber, Institut. Hermen. Vet. Test. iii. 399, 
 407 ; Jahn, Introduction to the Old Testament , 
 translated by S. Turner, pp. 372, 373, trans- 
 lator’s notes ; Budleus, Hist. Eccles. V. T. ii. 589, 
 sqq. ; Laberenz, De Vera. lib. Jonce Interp. 
 Fulda, 1836). Some, who cannot altogether reject 
 the reality of the narrative, suppose it to have had 
 a historical basis, though its present form be fan- 
 ciful or mythical. Such an opinion ic the evident 
 result of a mental struggle between receiving it m 
 
JONAH. 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 143 
 
 a real transaction or regarding it as wholly a fic- 
 tion (Goldhorn, Excurs. z. B. Jon. p. 28 ; Fried- 
 rischsen, Krit. Ueberblick der Ausichten B. Jon. 
 p. 219). Grimm, in his Uebersetz, p. 61, regards 
 it as a dream produced in that sleep which loll 
 upon Jonah as he lay on the sides of the ship. 
 The opinion of the famous Herman von der Hordt, 
 in ns Jonas in luce , &c. a full abstract of which 
 is given by Rosenmiiller (Prole gom. in Jonam. 
 p. 19), was, that the boolc is a historical allegory, 
 descriptive of the fate of Manasseh, and Josiah his 
 grandson, kings of Judah. The fancy of this 
 eccentric author has found ample gratification. 
 Tarshish, according to him, represents the kingdom 
 of Lydia ; the ship, the Jewish republic, whose 
 captain was Zadok the high-priest ;* while the cast- 
 ing of Jonah into the sea symbolized the temporary 
 captivity of Manasseh in Babylon. We cannot 
 say, with Rosenmuller, that this theory deserves 
 even the praise of ingenious fiction. 
 
 Others regard this book as an allegory, such as 
 Bertholdtand Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Winer 
 —an allegory based upon the Phoenician Mythus 
 of Hercules and the Sea-monster. Less, in his 
 tract, Von llistorischen Styl der Urwelt, sup- 
 posed that all difficulty might be removed by 
 imagining that Jonah, when thrown into the sea, 
 was# taken up by a ship having a large fish for a 
 figure-head — a theory somewhat more pleasing 
 than the rancid hypothesis of Anton, who fancied 
 that the prophet took refuge in the interior of a 
 dead whale, floating near the spot where' he was 
 cast overboard (Rosen. Prolegom. in Jon. p. 328). 
 Not unlike the opinion of Less is that, of Charles 
 Taylor, in his Fragments affixed to Calmet’s Dic- 
 tionary, No. cxlv., that HI signifies a life-pre- 
 server, a notion which, as his manner is, he endea- 
 vours to support by mythological metamorphoses 
 founded on the form and names of the famous 
 fish-god of Philistia. De Wette regards the story 
 as not a true history, yet not a mere fiction ; its 
 materials being derived from popular legends, and 
 wrought up with the design of making a dida-ctic 
 work. But many regard it as a mere fiction 
 with a moral design — the grotesque coinage of a 
 Hebrew imagination. This opinion, variously 
 modified, seems to be that of Semler, Michaelis, 
 Herder, Stiiudlin, Eichhorn, Augusti, Meyer, 
 Fareau, and Maurer. 
 
 The plain, literal import of the narrative, being 
 set aside with misapplied ingenuity, the supposed 
 design of it has been very variously interpreted. 
 Michaelis (Vbersetz d. N. T. part xi. p. 101) and 
 Sender (Apparat. ad Lib. Vet. Test. Interpret. 
 p. 271) supposed the purpose of the narrative to 
 l»e the injustice of that arrogance and hatred 
 cherished by the Jews towards other nations. 
 Eichhorn (Einleit. § 577), and Jahn (Introduct. 
 6 127) think the design was to teach the Jews 
 that other people with less privileges excelled them 
 in pious obedience. Kegel (Bebel d. A. und 
 N. Test. vol. vii. p. 129, sqq.) argues that this 
 episode was meant to solace and excite the pro- 
 phets under the discharge of difficult and danger- 
 ous duties; while Paulus ( Memorabilia , vi. 32, 
 sqq.) maintains that the object of the author of 
 Jonah is to impress the fact that God remits pu- 
 nishment on repentance and reformation. Similar 
 14 thy idea of Kimchi and Pareau (Interpretation 
 of Old Testament , Biblical Cabinet, No. xxv. 
 p. 263). Krahmer think? that the theme of the 
 
 writer is the Jewish colony in its relation to the 
 Samaritans (Des B. Jon. Krit. untersucht, p. 65). 
 Maurer (Comment, in Proph. Min.) adheres to 
 the opinion which lies upon the surface, that it 
 inculcates the sin of not obeying God, even ill pro- 
 nouncing severe threa tenings on a heathen people; 
 and lastly, Koester (Die Proplieten des A. und 
 N. Test , Leipz. 1839) favours the malignant in- 
 sinuation that its chief end was to save the credit 
 of the prophets among the people, though their 
 predictions against foreign nations might not be 
 fulfilled, as Nineveh was preserved after being 
 menaced and doomed. 
 
 These hypotheses are all vague and baseless, 
 and do not merit a special refutation. Endea- 
 vouring to free us from one difficulty they plunge* 
 ns into others yet more intricate and perplexing. 
 Much profane wit has been expended on the mira- 
 culous means of Jonah’s deliverance, very unne- 
 cessarily and very absurdly; it is simply said, 
 
 ‘ The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow 
 up Jonah.’ Now the species of marine ‘animal is 
 not defined, and the Greek icrjTos is often used to 
 specify, not the genus whale, but any large fish 
 or sea-monster. All objections to its being a 
 whale which lodged Jonah in its stomach from 
 its straitness of throat, or rareness of haunt in the 
 Mediterranean, are thus removed. Hesychius 
 explains Krjxos as GaXdacrios ixGvs TrappeyeOps. 
 Eustathius explains its correspondent adjective 
 Kprcbecrcrar by peyaXpv, in the Homeric line 
 (Iliad, ii. 581)— 
 
 ol 5’ elxov Ko'iXpu Acucebalpova Kpreoecrcrav. 
 Diodorus Siculus speaks of terrestrial monsters as 
 npradp (£>a, and describes a huge fish as tcpra* 
 a.Tria t Tov r b peyeGos. The Scripture thus speaks 
 only of an enormous fish, which under God’s direc- 
 tion swallowed the prophet, and does not point ou* 
 the species to which the voracious prowler be 
 longed. There is little ground for the supposition 
 of Bishop Jebb, that the asylum of Jonah was not 
 in the stomach of a whale, but in a cavity of its 
 throat, which, according to naturalists, is a very 
 capacious receptacle, sufficiently large, as Captain 
 Scoresby asserts, to contain a merchant ship's 
 jolly-boat full of men (Bishop Jebb, Sacred Lite- 
 rature , p. 178). Since the days of Bochart it has 
 been a common opinion that the fish was of the 
 shark species, Lamia cards carcharias, or ‘ sea- 
 dog’ (Bochart, Op. iii. 72; Calmet’s Dissertation 
 sur Jon.). Entire human bodies have been found 
 in some fishes of this kind. The stomach, too, has 
 no influence on any living substance admitted 
 into it. Granting all these facts as proof of what 
 is termed the economy of miracles, still must we 
 say, in reference to the supernatural preservation 
 of Jonah, Is anything too hard for the Lord? 
 
 Though we cannot accede to the system of Gale, 
 Huet, Bryant, Faber, and Taylor, in tracing all 
 pagan fiction, legend, and mythology to scripture 
 facts and events, yet we are inclined to believe 
 that in the miraculous incident of the book of 
 Jonah to be found the origin of the various fables 
 of Arion and the Dolphin (Herodot. i. 24), and 
 the wild adventure of Hercules which is referred 
 to in Lycophron (Cassandra, v. 33) : — 
 
 Tpiecrirepov Xeovros ov ttotg yvddois 
 
 T| o'itoovos ppdXaxf/e Kapxapcs Kxnav. 
 
 Oft that three-sighted lien whom of old 
 
 Triton’s fierce dog with furious jaws devoured. 
 
144 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 JONATHAN. 
 
 Gy rill as Alex., In his Comment, in Jon., notices 
 this similitude between the incident of Jonah and 
 the fabled enterprise of the son of Alcmena. 
 Compare, too, Theophylact (Opp. tom. iv. p. 
 169). On what portion of the coast Jonah was 
 set down in safety we are not informed. The 
 opinions held as to the peculiar spot by Rabbins 
 and other Thaumaturgic expositors need not to be 
 repeated. The prophet proceeded, on receiving 
 a second commission, to fulfil it. The fearful 
 menace had the desired effect. The city humbled 
 itself before God, and a respite was vouchsafed. 
 The king (Pul, according to Usher) and his 
 people fasted, and their penitence was accepted. 
 The spirit of Jonah was chafed that the doom he 
 had uttered was not executed. He retired to a 
 station out of the city whence he might witness 
 the threatened catastrophe. Under the shadow of 
 a gourd prepared by God he reclined, while Je- 
 hovah taught him by the growth and speedy death 
 of this plant, and his attachment to it, a sublime 
 lesson of patient and forgiving generosity. No 
 objection against the credibility of this l*ook can 
 be brought from the described size and population 
 of the Assyrian metropolis (Pictorial Bible, sub 
 locA The gourd, jl'p'p, was probably the 
 liicinns , whose name Kiki is yet preserved in 
 some of the tongues of the East. The Sept, ren- 
 ders it koXokvvQt]. Jerome translates it hedera, but 
 against his better judgment and for fear of giving 
 offence to the critics of his age, as he quietly adds 
 in justification of his less preferable rendering, 
 ‘sed timuimus grammaticos.’ The book of Jonah 
 is a simple narrative with rhe exception of the 
 waver or thanksgiving in chap. ii. Its style 
 Sul mode of nuirration are uniform. There 
 are no traces of compilation, as Nactigall 
 supposed; neither is the prayer, as De Wette 
 (Einleit. o 237) imagines, improperly borrowed 
 from some other sources. That prayer contains, 
 indeed, not only imagery peculiar to itself, but 
 also sucli imagery as at once was suggested to the 
 mind of a pious Hebrew preserved in circum- 
 stances of extreme jeopardy. On this principle 
 we account for the similarity of some portions of 
 its phraseology to Ps. lix., xlii., &c. The lan- 
 guage in both places had been hallowed by fre- 
 quent usage, and had become the consecrated 
 idiom of a distressed and succoured Israelite. 
 Perhaps the prayer of Jonah might be uttered by 
 him, not during his mysterious imprisonment, but 
 after it. May not H inn 'yDD be rendered ‘ on 
 account of,’ a common signification of the particle 
 D (Gesen. Lex. sub voc.) 1 or rather may not D 
 have what Nordheimer calls its primary significa- 
 tion, viz., that of ‘ distance from a place or per- 
 son?' Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out, 
 i. e. when out, of the fish’s belly (compare Job 
 xix. 26 ; xi. 15). Ihe hymn seems to have been 
 composed after his deliverance, and the reason 
 why his deliverance is noted after the hymn is 
 recorded may be to show the occasion of its com- 
 position. ‘The lord had spoken unto the fish, 
 and it had vomited Jonah on the dry land.’ 
 There was little reason either for dating the com- 
 position of this book later than the age of Jonah, 
 or for supposing it the production of another than 
 the prophet himself. The Chaldaeisms which 
 Jahn and others find may be accounted for by the 
 nearness of the canton of Zebulon, to which 
 ronan belonged, to the northern territory, whence 
 
 by national intercourse Aramaic poeuliaritie* 
 might be insensibly borrowed. Gesenius and 
 Bertholdt place it before the exile; Jahn ami 
 Koester after it. Rosenmuller supposes the author 
 may have been a contemporary of Jeremiah; 
 Hitzig postpones it to the period of the Maccabees. 
 Apocryphal prophecies ascribed to Jonah may be 
 found in the pseudo-Epiphanius (De Vitis Proph. 
 c. 16), and the Chronic. Paschale, p. 149. Various 
 spots have been pointed out as the pla^c of his 
 sepulchre, such as Mosul in the East, and Gath- 
 hepher in Palestine; while the so-called Epi- 
 phaaius speaks of his retreating to Tyre and being 
 buried there in the tomb of Cenezaeus, judge of 
 Israel. 
 
 Among the numerous commentators on Jonah 
 may be noticed J. Gerhard \,Annot. in Proph. 
 Am. et Jon. & c. Frag. 1692; Lessing, Observat. 
 in Vatic. Jon. 1782; Grimm, Der Proph. Jiona* 
 af. Neue Ubersetz , 1798; Forbiger, Prolusio , &c. 
 1827 ; Krahmer. Das B. Jon. Hist. Krit. unter- 
 sucht, Cassel, 1839. — J. E. 
 
 1. JONATHAN *(jnri\ God-given; comp. 
 Theodoros; Sept. T wvdQav), a Levite descended 
 from Gershom, the son of Moses (Judg. xviii. 
 30). It is, indeed, said* in our common copies, 
 that the Gershom from whom this Jonathan 
 sprang was ‘ the son of Mauasseh;’ but it is on 
 very good grounds supposed that in the name 
 Moses (H^D), the single letter n (J) has been 
 interpolated, changing it into Manasseh (H&OO), 
 in order to save the character of the great law- 
 giver from the stain of having an idolater among 
 his immediate descendants. The singular name 
 Gershom, and the date of the transaction, go 
 far to establish this view. Accordingly, the Vul- 
 gate, and some copies of the Septuagint, actually 
 exhibit the name of Moses instead of Manasseh. 
 The interpolation, however, has been very timidly 
 executed. The letter D was originally placed 
 above the line of the other letters (as it now ap- 
 pears in the printed Hebrew Bibles), as if rather 
 to suggest than to make an alteration; hut in 
 process of time the letter sunk down into the body 
 of the word. The Hebrew writers themselves 
 admit the fact of the interpolation, and allege the- 
 intention to veil the disgrace of Moses, by sug- 
 gesting a figurative descent from Manasseh. The 
 history of this Jonathan is involved in the nar- 
 rative which occupies Judges xvii., xviii.; and 
 is one of the two accounts which foim a sort of 
 appendix to that. book. The events themselves 
 appear to have occurred soon after the death of 
 Joshua, and of the elders who outlived him, when 
 the government was in a most unsettled state. 
 Its proper place, in the chronological order, would 
 have been between the second and third chapter* 
 of the hook. 
 
 Jonathan, who was resident at Bethlehem, lived 
 at a time when the dues of the sanctuary did not 
 afford a livelihood to the numerous Levites who 
 had a claim upon them ; and belonged to a tribe 
 destitute of the landed possessions which gave to 
 all others a sufficient maintenuace. He, there- 
 fore, went forth to seek his fortune. In Mount 
 Ephraim he came to ‘a house of gods,’ which 
 had been established by one Micab, who wanted 
 nothing but a priest to ma'ke his establishment 
 complete [Micah]. This person made Jonathan 
 what was manifestly considered the handsoma 
 
JONATHAN. 
 
 JOPPA. 
 
 (45 
 
 offer of engaging him as his priest, for his vic- 
 tuals, a yearly suit of clothes, and ten shekels 
 (twenty-five shillings) a year in money. Here he 
 lived for some time, till the Danite spies, who 
 weie sent, fey their tribe to explore the north, 
 passed this way and formed his acquaintance. 
 When, not long after, the body of armed Danites 
 passed the same way when going to settle near the 
 sources of the Jordan, the spies mentioned Micah’s 
 establishment to them ; on which they went and 
 took away not only ‘ the ephod, the teraphim, 
 and the graven image,’ but. the priest also, that 
 they might set up the same worship in the place 
 of "which they were going to take possession. 
 Mi call vainly protested against this robbery ; but 
 Jonathan himself was glad at the improvement in 
 his prospects, and from that time, even down to 
 the captivity, he and his descendants continued 
 to he priests* of the Danites in the town of Laisn, 
 the name of which they changed to Dan. 
 
 There is not any reason to suppose that this 
 establishment, whether in the hands of Micah or of 
 the Danites, involved an apostacy from Jehovah. 
 It appears rather to have been an attempt to 
 localize or domesticate His presence, under those 
 symbols and forms of service which were common 
 among the neighbouring nations, but were for- 
 bidden to the Hebrews. The offence here was 
 two-fold, — the establishment of a sacred ritual 
 different from the only one which the law' recog- 
 nised, and the worship by symbols, naturally 
 leading to idolatry, with the ministration of one 
 who could not legally be a priest, but only a 
 Levite, and under circumstances in whicli no 
 Aarouic priest could legally have officiated. It 
 is more than likely that this establishment was 
 eventually merged in that of the golden calf, 
 which Jeroboam set up in this place, his choice of 
 which may very possibly have been determined by 
 its being already in possession of ‘ a house of gods.’ 
 
 2. JONATHAN, eldest son of Saul, king of 
 Israel, and consequently heir apparent of the 
 throne which David was destined to occupy (1 
 Sam. xiv. 9; 1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 39). The 
 war with the Philistines, which occupied the early 
 part of his father’s reign, afforded Jonathan more 
 than one opportunity of displaying the chivalrous 
 valour and the princely qualities with which he 
 was endowed. His exploit in surprising the- Phi- 
 listine garrison at Michmash, attended only by 
 his armour-bearer, is one of the most daring 
 which history or even romance records (1 Sam. 
 xiv. 1-14). His father came to follow up this 
 victory, and in the ensuing pursuit of the con- 
 founded Philistines, Jonathan, spent with fatigue 
 and hunger, vef res tied himself with some wild 
 honey which he found in a wood through which 
 he passed. He knew not that his father had 
 rashly vowed to put. to death any one who 
 touched a morsel of food before night. When 
 the fact transpired, Saul felt, himself bound to 
 execute his vow even upon his gallant son ; but 
 the people, with whom the young prince was a 
 great favourite, interposed, saying, ‘Shall Jonathan 
 ilie, who hath wrought this great salvation in 
 Israel ? God forbid ! As the Lord livetb, there 
 thal'l i ot one hair of his head fall to the ground; 
 or hath wrought with God this day’ (1 Sam. 
 i ' . 16 - 52 ). 
 
 Jealousy and every mean or low feeling were 
 dangers to the generous heart of Jtnathan. 
 
 VOU IL. 11 
 
 Valiant and accomplished himself, none knew 
 better how to acknowledge valour and accom- 
 plishment in others. The act of David in meeting 
 the challenge of Goliath, and in overcoming that 
 huge barbarian, entirely won his heart ; and from 
 that, day forward the son of Jesse found no one 
 who loved him so tenderly, who admired his high 
 gifts with so much enthusiasm, or who risked, so 
 much to preserve him from harm, as the very 
 prince whom lie was destined to. exclude from a 
 throne. Jonathan knew well what was to happen, 
 and he submitted cheerfully to the appointment 
 which gave the throne of his father to the young 
 shepherd of Bethlehem. In the intensity of his love 
 and confidence he shrank not. to think of David as 
 his destined king and master ; and his dreams of 
 the future pictured nothing brighter than the day 
 in which David should reign over Israel, and he 
 be one with him in friendship, and next to him in 
 place and council — not because he was covetous 
 even of this degree of honour, but because ‘ next 
 to David ’ was the place where he wished always 
 to be, and where he desired to rest. 
 
 When Saul began to hate David rshis in- 
 tended successor, he was highly displeased at the 
 friendship which had arisen between him and 
 his son. This exposed Jonathan to much con- 
 tumely, and even to danger of life; for, once at 
 least, the king’s passion against him on this 
 account rose so high that he cast a javelin at 
 him ‘ to smite him to the wall.’ 
 
 This unequivocal act taught Jonathan that the 
 court of Saul was no safe place for David. He 
 told him so, and they parted with many tear&>. 
 David then set forth upon those wandering., 
 among strangers and in solitary places, which, 
 lasted all the time of Saul. The friends met only 
 once more. Saul was in pursuit of David when, 
 he was in the wilderness of Zipli ; and Jonathan , 
 could not forbear coming to him secretly in. the 
 wood to give him comfort and encouragement: 
 (1 Sam. xxiii. 16 18). Nothing more is related, 
 of Jonathan till both he and his father. lost their 
 lives in the fatal battle of Gilboa, combating 
 against the enemies of their country. 
 
 There is, perhaps, nothing in Hebrew poetry 
 more beautiful and touching than the lamentation 
 of David for the loss of his friend-— nothing more 
 complete as a whole, or more full of fine images- 
 and tender thoughts. The concluding strophe 
 may be quoted by way of specimen : — 
 
 ‘ O Jonathan, slain on thy own mountains ! 
 
 1 am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan : 
 Very dear hast thou been to me : 
 
 Thy love to me was wonderful. 
 
 Surpassing the love of women ! 
 
 How are the mighty fallen, 
 
 And the weapons of war perished !* 
 
 JOPPA (’Id7r7r?2; in Hebrew Japho, ; 
 which name is still preserved in the Arabic 
 Yaffa, or Jaffa), a sea-port town and haven on 
 the coast of Palestine, situated on ap eminence, , 
 in a sandy soil, about forty miles N.W. of Jeru- 
 salem, and nine miles VV.N.W. from Ramleh. 
 It was a very ancient town. An existence, prior- 
 to the Deluge is claimed for it (Pomp. Mela, i. 
 14 ; Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 13). Rabbinical writers., 
 derive its name from Japbet, while the Classical 
 geographers refer it to lope, daughter of .Avdua,, 
 and affirm tha,t it, was on this shore that Aud«fc : . 
 
40 
 
 /OPPA. 
 
 JOPPA. 
 
 
 meda. was rescued by Perseus from the sea- 
 monstei (Strabo, xvi. 2, 28; PI in. Hist. Nat. 
 v. 14; Jerome, In Jon. i.). These and other 
 fables connected with the place, suffice to show 
 the great antiquity of the town. But this 
 evidence is not needed, as the place existed when 
 the Israelites invaded the land of Canaan, and is 
 mentioned as lying on the border of the tribe of 
 Dan (Josh. xix. 40). Joppa was the only port 
 assessed by the Israelites till Herod formed the 
 larbour at Caesarea ; and hence it was here 
 that the timber from Lebanon destined for both 
 the first and second temples was landed (1 Kings 
 v. 9 ; 2 Chron. ii. 16; Ezra iii. 7). It was the 
 place to which Jonah went, in expectation of 
 finding a ship bound on some distant voyage, and 
 where he found one going to Tarshish (Jonah i. 
 3). Joppa belonged to the powers which were 
 .'Successively dominant on this shore; and it does 
 
 not. again appear in Jewish history till the time of 
 Judas Maccabaeus, when the inhabitants having, 
 contrary to the faith of treaties, thrown 200 Jews 
 into the sea, the hero, to avenge them, surprised 
 the haven by night, and set the shipping on fire 
 (2 Macc. xii. 3-7). The town itself was a few 
 years after taken by Jonathan (1 Macc. x. 74-76) ; 
 but was not long retained, as we find it again 
 taken by Simon (xii. 34), and mentioned as 
 an acquisition of especial importance, •which he 
 strongly fortified (xiv. 5; xv 28). Joppa was 
 annexed by Pompev to the Roman government 
 of Syria, together with several other towns on the 
 coast of which the Jews bad obtained possession 
 (Joseph Antiq. xiv. 4. 4). It is mentioned in 
 the New Testament only in connection with the 
 visit of the Apostle Peter, who here raised Tabitha 
 from the dead, and lodged in the outskirts of 
 the town with Simon, the tanner, when favoured 
 
 SS4. [Joppa.] 
 
 1 with the vision which taught him to * call no 
 man common or unclean ’ (Acts ix. 36-39 ; x. 5, 
 18; xi. 5). During the Jewish war Joppa was 
 taken by surprise by Cestius, when it was plun- 
 dered and burnt, and 8409 of the inhabitants 
 were put to the sword (Joseph. De Bell. Juxl. ii. 
 18. 10). Its ruins afterwards became the refuge 
 of a great number of persons who had escaped 
 from the destruction of other cities by Vespa- 
 sian, and who took to piracy for a subsistence. 
 Hence the Romans again marched against the 
 place, when the inhabitants tied to their boats, 
 but were driven (jack by a storm and destroyed. 
 The city was *hen utterly demolished ( T>e Bell. 
 Jud. iii. 9). Joppa was the seat of a bishopric 
 in the time of Constantine the Great, as well as 
 when taken by the Arabians under Omar in a.d. 
 636. There was a bishop of Joppa in the 
 council held at Jeruss’em in a.d. 536. During 
 
 the crusades Joppa was besieged a.. I taken by 
 Baldwin I. ; and was recovered by the Moslems 
 under Saladin in a.d. 1186. From the first cru- 
 sade down to our own day, Joppa has been the 
 landing-place of pilgrims going to Jerusalem, and 
 is hence mentioned in almost all the innumerable 
 itineraries and books of travels in the Holy Land 
 which have appeared in different languages. 
 There is still here an hospital for pilgrims, depen- 
 dent on the convent of St. Salvador in Jerusalem, 
 and occupied by Spanish monks. In 1797 the 
 place was taken by storm by the French army 
 under Napoleon, and was sacked without mercy ; 
 when the Turkish prisoners, to the number of 500 
 or 600, were carried to the neighbouring sand-hills 
 and put to death by his order. 
 
 Josephus describes the natural unfitness of 
 Jaffa for a haven in terms very similar to those 
 which modem travellers employ (De Bell. Jzui 
 
 
JORAM. 
 
 JORAM. 
 
 141 
 
 tii. 9. 3). The fact is, the port is so dangerous, 
 from exposure to the open sea, that the surf often 
 rolls in with the utmost violence, and even so 
 lately as 1842 a lieu .enant and some sailors were 
 lost in pulling to ‘.he shore from an English 
 steamer that lay in the harbour (Stent's Egypt 
 and the Holy Land , ii. 28). But however bad, 
 it was the only port, which existed within reach of 
 the important district which lay behind it inland : 
 and the miserable state of the ancient roads, or 
 rather perhaps the absence of any roads, made a 
 near harbour, however incommodious, of more 
 immediate consequence than a good one at a 
 greater distance. 
 
 The town is approached on the land side 
 through rich. and extensive gardens and orchards, 
 and is very picturesquely situated upon an emi- 
 nence or p.omontory, which is crowned by a castle. 
 It chiefly facts the north ; and the buildings ap- 
 pear, from the steepness of the site, as if standing 
 upon one another. The most prominent features 
 of the architecture from without are the flattened 
 domes by which most of the buildings are sur- 
 mounted, and the appearance of arched vaults. 
 But the aspect of the whole is mean and gloomy, 
 and inside the place has all the appearance of a 
 poor though large village. There are no public 
 buildings to engage the eye, and the houses are 
 mean and comfortless. No ancient ruins have 
 been observed, nor are any to be expected in a 
 place so often destroyed in war. From the steep- 
 ness of the site many of the streets are connected 
 by flights of steps, and the one that runs along 
 the sea-wall is the most clean and regular of the 
 whole. There are three mosques in Joppa, and 
 Latin, Greek, and Armenian convents. The 
 former is that in which European pilgrims and 
 travellers usually lodge. The town still enjoys a 
 considerable trade with the neighbouring coasts. 
 Its chief manufacture is soap, which is largely 
 consumed in the baihs of Cairo and Damascus ; 
 and its excellent fruits are exported in large 
 quantities, especially water-melons, which are 
 very extensively cultivated here and in other 
 parts of the plain of Sharon. The inhabitants 
 are said not to exceed 4000, of whom one-fourth 
 are reckoned to be Christians. A British consul 
 is now resident in the place. (Raumer's Paliis- 
 tina; Volney, i. 136, sq. ; Chateaubriand, ii. 103 ; 
 Clarke, iv. 438, sq. ; Buckingham, i. 227, sq. ; 
 Richter, p. 12: Richardson, ii. 16; Skinner, i. 
 175-184; Robinson, i. 18; Stent, ii. 27). 
 
 JORAM (DTI 1 ’ ; Sept. ’I copay., a contraction of 
 Jehouam), ninth king of Israel, son of Ahab, 
 and successor to his elder brother Ahaziah, who 
 died childless. He began to reign n.c. 896, and 
 reigned twelve years (2 Kings i. 17 ; iii. 1). 
 Joram adhered to the sinful policy of Jeroboam 
 in the matter of the golden calves ; but, although 
 his mother Jezebel was still alive, ne discontinued 
 the dark idolatries of Baal which she had intro- 
 duced and maintained at such high cost of guilt 
 and blood to the nation. 
 
 The Moabites had been tributary to the crown 
 sf Israel since the separation of the two king- 
 doms. But king Mesha deemed the defeat and 
 death of Ahab so heavy a blow to the power of 
 Israel that he might safely assert his indepen- 
 dence. He accordingly did so, by withholding 
 his tribute of* 160,000 lambs and 100,000 rams, 
 
 with the wool.’ The short reign of Ahaziah had 
 afforded no opportunity for any operations against 
 the revolters ; but the new king hastened to re- 
 duce them again under the yoke they had cast 
 oft*. The good king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, was 
 too easily induced to take a part in the war. 
 He perhaps feared that the example of Moab, 
 if allowed to be successful, might seduce into a 
 similar course his own tributary, the king of 
 Edom, whom he now summoned to join in this 
 expedition. The deliverance of the allies from 
 perishing for lack of watei, and the signal ever- 
 throw of the Moabites at the word of Elisha, have 
 been already described under Elisha and Jeho- 
 shaphat. 
 
 After this a more redoubtable enemy, Benba- 
 dad, king of Syria, occupied for a long time the 
 attention and strength of the king. In the sacred 
 records the more striking events of this war seem 
 to be recorded for the sake of showing forth the 
 great acts of Elisha, and they have therefore 
 been related under his name. It suffices here to 
 indicate that they consisted in the Syrian king 
 being constrained to terminate one campaign in 
 consequence of al 1 his plans being made known 
 by the prophet to the king of Israel (2 Kings vi. 
 1-23) ; and in the deliverance of Samaria, ac- 
 cording to the prediction of the prophet, from a 
 horrible famine, caused by the city being besieged 
 by the Syrians (2 Kings vi. 24-33 ; vii.), An 
 interval of the war also afforded occasion for the 
 remarkable cure of Naaman, the Syrian leper, 
 by the same prophet (2 Kings v.) [NaamanJ. 
 These events serve to manifest the uncertain 
 character of Joram, and the too strong influence 
 of instant circumstances upon his faith and con- 
 duct. So in his conduct to Elisha, we And him 
 at one time obedient to the prophet, and full of 
 respectful admiration of his office and character ; 
 and at another time devoting his head to destruc- 
 tion, sending messengers to put him to death, and 
 then starting himself after them — probably to 
 prevent his own orders from being executed 
 (2 Kings vii. 31-33). 
 
 After the death of Benhadad, Joram found a 
 new and active enemy in his murderer and suc- 
 cessor, Hazael. During the illness of Benhadad, 
 the king of Israel seems to have employed him- 
 self in strengthening his eastern frontier against the 
 Syrians, and in fortifying Ramoth-Gilead, which 
 had fallen into his hands, and which his father 
 had perished in the attempt to recover from the 
 Syrians. This strong fortress thenceforth became 
 the head-quarters of the operations beyond the 
 river. Hazael was scarcely settled on the throne 
 before he took arms, and marched against Ramoth, 
 in the environs of which the Israelites sustained a 
 defeat, and the king was wounded. He returned 
 to Jezreel to be healed of his wounds, leaving the 
 army in the charge of Jehu, one of his ablest and 
 most active generals. It was in this interval that 
 Jehu was anointed king of Israel by the messenger 
 of Elisha, and immediately proceeded to Jezreel 
 to fulfil his commission to exterminate the house 
 of Ahab. The king, who went forth from the city 
 to meet him when the watchman on the tower of 
 Jezreel announced his approach, was slain unde* 
 the circumstances described in the article Jehu;' 
 and Ahaziah, the king of Judah, who was at Jea- 
 reel on a visit to his sick cousin, shared bis fate 
 (b.c. 884). With Joram ended the dynasty 00 
 
US 
 
 JORDAN. 
 
 JOSEPH. 
 
 Aliab, which reigned forty- four years in Israel 
 (2 Kings viii. 25-29 ; ix. 1-20). 
 
 JORDAN, the principal liver of Palestine. 
 (Palestine.] 
 
 JOSEPH (P]DV ; Sept. ’I wafo), son of Jacob 
 and Rachel, born under peculiar circumstances, 
 as may be seen in Gen. xxx. 22 ; on which ac- 
 count, and because he was the son of his old age 
 (xxxvii. 3), he was beloved by his father more 
 than were the rest of his children, though Ben- 
 jamin, as being also a son of Jacob’s favourite wife, 
 Rachel, was in a peculiar manner dear to the 
 patriarch. The partiality evinced towards Joseph 
 by his father excited jealousy on the part of his 
 brethren, the rather that they were born of different 
 mothers (xxxvii. 2). Joseph had reached his 
 seventeenth year, having hitherto been engaged in 
 boyish sports, or aiding in pastoral duties, when 
 some conduct on the part of 4 the sons of Bilhah 
 and the sons of Zilpali, his father’s wives,' seems 
 to have been such as in the opinion of Joseph to 
 require the special attention of Jacob, to whom, 
 accordingly, he communicated the facts. This 
 regard to virtue, and this manifestation of filial 
 fidelity, greatly increased his brothers’ dislike, 
 who henceforth ‘ hated him, and could not speak 
 peaceably unto him ’ (xxxvii. 4). Their aver- 
 sion, however, was carried to the highest pitch 
 when Joseph acquainted them with two dreams 
 that he had had, to the effect — the first, that while 
 he and they were binding sheaves, his sheaf arose 
 and stood erect, while theirs stood round and did 
 obeisance to his ; the second, that ‘ the sun and 
 the moon and the eleven stars paid him homage.’ 
 These dreams appeared to indicate that Joseph 
 would acquire pre-eminence in the family, if not 
 sovereignty ; and while even his father rebuked 
 him, his brothers were filled with envy. Jacob, 
 however, was not aware of the depth of their ill 
 will; so that on one occasion, having a desire to 
 hear intelligence of his sons, who were pasturing 
 their flocks at a distance, he did not hesitate to 
 make Joseph his messenger for that purpose. His 
 appearing in view of his brothers was the signal 
 for their malice to gain head. They began to 
 devise means for his immediate destruction, which 
 they would unhesitatingly have effected, but for 
 his half-brother, Reuben, who, as the eldest sou, 
 might well be the party to interfere on behalf of 
 Joseph. A compromise was entered into, in 
 virtue of which the youth was stripped of the 
 distinguishing vestments which he owed to his 
 father's affection, and cast into a pit. Having 
 performed this evil deed, and while they were 
 taking refreshment, the brothers beheld a caravan 
 of Arabian merchants, who were bearing the spices 
 and aromatic gums of India down to the well- 
 known and much-frequented mart, Egypt. Judah 
 on this feels a bitter emotion arise in his mind, 
 and proposes that, instead of allowing Joseph to 
 perish, they should sell him to the merchants, 
 whose trade obviously from this embraced human 
 beings as well as spicery. Accordingly the un- 
 happy young man was sold for a slave, to be con- 
 veyed by his masters into Egypt. While on his 
 way thither, Reuben returned to the pit, intending 
 to rescue his brother, and convey him safely back 
 to their father. Joseph was gone. On which 
 Reuben went to the wicked young men, who, not 
 content with selling a brother into slavery, deter- 
 
 mined to punish their father for his partiality 
 towards the unoffending sufferer. With this view 
 they dipped Joseph's party-coloured garment in 
 the blood of a kid and sent it to Jacob, in order 
 to make him believe that his favourite child had 
 been torn to pieces by some wild beast. The 
 trick succeeded, and Jacob was grieved beyonc" 
 measure. 
 
 Meanwhile the merchants sold Joseph to Pof.i- 
 plmr, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the 
 royal guard, who was a native of thd country. 
 It is by no means easy to determine who at this 
 time was the Pharaoh, or ruling monarch, though, 
 what is for more important, the condition of the 
 country, and therein the progress of civilization, 
 are in certain general and important features 
 made clear in the course of the narration. Ac- 
 cording to Syncellus, however, the general opinion 
 in his day was that the sovereign’s name who 
 ruled Egypt at the time of the deportation of 
 Joseph was Aphopbis. 
 
 In Potiphar s house Joseph enjoyed the highest 
 confidence and the largest prosperity. A higher 
 power watched over him ; and whatever he under- 
 took succeeded, till at. length his master gave 
 every thing into his hands. The Hebrew race 
 have always been remarkable for personal beauty, 
 of which Joseph seems to have had an unusual 
 share. This fact explains, if it cannot palliate, 
 the conduct of Potiphar ’s wife, who tried every 
 means to bring the uncontaminated and pure- 
 minded youth to fulfil her unchaste desires. Foiled 
 in her evil wishes, she resolved to punish Joseph, 
 who thus a second time innocently brings on him- 
 self the vengeance of the ill-disposed. Charged 
 with the very crime to which he had in vain been 
 tempted, he is, with a fickleness characteristic of 
 Oriental lords, at once cast into the state prison. 
 
 The narrative, which is obviously constructed 
 in order to show the workings of divine Providence, 
 and may not impossibly have received some shape 
 or hue from the predominant, idea, states, however, 
 that Joseph was not left without soecial aid, in 
 consequence of which he gained favour with the 
 keeper of the prison to such an extent that every 
 thing was put under his direction. If the sudden- 
 ness and magnitude of this and other changes in 
 the lot of Joseph should surprise anyone, the feel- 
 ing will be mainly owing to his want of acquaint- 
 ance with the manners and customs of the East, 
 where vicissitudes not less marked and sudden 
 than are those presented in our present history are 
 not uncommon; for those who come into the 
 charmed circle of an Eastern court, especially if 
 they are persons of great energy of character, are 
 subject to the most wonderful alternations of for- 
 tune, the slave of to-day being the vizier of to- 
 morrow. 
 
 Among the many advantages secured to pos- 
 terity by this interesting and admirable narrative 
 regarding the patriarch Joseph, is an intimate ac- 
 quaintance (so far as it goes) with the state, at the 
 time to which it refers, of civilization in Egypt. 
 In the part at which we are now arrived we read 
 of ‘ the chief of the butlers ’ and ‘ the chief of the 
 bakers ;’ officers who vouch, by the duties which 
 they had to discharge, for the advanced and com- 
 plex condition of society in which their services 
 were required and supplied. How true and trust- 
 worthy, too, the Biblical narrative is, may be 
 learned by an implication which is here offered. 
 
JOSEPH. 
 
 JOSEPH. 
 
 149 
 
 The head-butler had a dream in which he saw a 
 fine. On the authority of Herodotus and others, 
 it was long denied that the vine grew in Egypt ; 
 and if so, the imagery of the butler’s dream would 
 hardly have been appropriate Wilkinson, however, 
 has shown beyond a question that vines did grow 
 in Egypt, and thus not only removed a doubt, 
 but given a positive confirmation of the sacred 
 record (Manners of the Anc. Egypt, ii. 152). 
 
 The two regal officers just mentioned had, while 
 in prison with Joseph, each one a dream, which 
 Joseph interpreted correctly. The butler, whose 
 fate was auspicious, promised the young Hebrew 
 to employ his influence to procure his restoration 
 to the free air of day ; but when again in the 
 enjoyment of his 4 butlership,’ ‘lie forgat’ Jo- 
 seph (xl.). Pharaoh himself, however, had two 
 dreams, which found in Joseph a successful ex- 
 pounder ; for the butler remembered the skill of 
 ris prison-companion, and advised his royal mas- 
 ter to put it to the test in his own case. Pharaoh's 
 dream, as interpreted by Joseph, foreboded the 
 approach of a seven years’ famine ; to abate the 
 evils of which Joseph recommended that some 
 ‘ discreet and wise ' man should be chosen and 
 6et in full power over the land of Egypt. The 
 monarch was alarmed, and called a council of 
 his advisers. The wisdom of Joseph was recog- 
 nised as of divine origin and supereminent value; 
 and the king and his ministers (whence it. appears 
 that the Egyptian monarchy - at Memphis — was 
 not despotic, but constitutional) resolved that 
 Joseph should be made (to borrow a term from 
 Rome) Dictator in the approaching time of need. 
 
 1 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as 
 God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so 
 discreet and wise as thou art. Thou shalt be over 
 my house, and according unto thy word shall all 
 my people be ruled : only in the throne will I he 
 greater than thou. See, I have set thee over all 
 the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took oft’ his 
 ring and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed 
 him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain 
 about his neck ; and he made him to ride in the 
 second chariot which he had ; and they cried be- 
 fore him, Bow the knee. And Pharaoh said unto 
 Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no 
 man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of 
 Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name 
 Zaphnath-paaneah (‘saviour of the woild comp. 
 Jablonsky, Qpasc. i. 207, sq.) ; and he gave him 
 to wife Asenath, the daughter of Poti-pherah, 
 priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the 
 land of Egypt ’ v xli. 39, sq.). It has been sup- 
 posed that Joseph was' taken into the priestly order, 
 and thus ennobled. The Biblical narrative does 
 not support this opinion, though it leaves it with- 
 out a doubt that in reality, if not in form as well, 
 tho highest trust and the proudest honours of the 
 state were conferred on one so recently a Hebrew 
 slave. 
 
 Seven years of abundance afforded Joseph op- 
 portunity to carry into effect such plans as secured 
 an ample provision against the seven years of need. 
 Toe famine came, but it found a prepared people. 
 The visitation did not depend on any mere local 
 causes, for 4 the famine was over all the face of 
 the earth , * and all countries came into Egypt to 
 Joseph to buy corn’ (ver. 56. 57). Among these 
 customers appeared ten brethren, sous of the 
 Hebrew Jacob. They had of necessity to appear 
 
 before Joseph, whose licence for the purchase of com 
 was indispensable. Joseph had probably expected 
 to see them, and he sewms to have formed a deli- 
 berate plan of action. His conduct has brought 
 on him the always ready charges of those who 
 would rather impeach than study the Bible, and 
 even friends of that sacred book have hardly in 
 this case done Joseph full justice (Niemevcr, 
 Charakt. ii. 366 ; Heuser, Diss. non inhumaniter 
 sed prudentissime Josephum cum fratribus fe- 
 cisse , Hal. 1773). Joseph’s main object appears 
 to have been to make his brothers feel and recog- 
 nise their guilt in their conduct towards him. For 
 this purpose suffering, then as well as now, was 
 indispensable. Accordingly Joseph feigned not to 
 know his brothers, charged them with being spies, 
 threatened them with imprisonment, and allowed 
 them to return home to fetch their younger bro- 
 ther, as a proof of their veracity, only on condition 
 that one of them should remain behind in chains, 
 with a prospect of death before him should not 
 their words be verified. Then it was, and not be- 
 fore, that 4 they said one to another, We are verily 
 guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the 
 anguish of his soul and would not hear ; therefore 
 is this distress come upon us. And Reuben said, 
 Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against 
 the child, and ye would not hear? therefore, be- 
 hold, also his blood is required ’ (xlii. 21). On 
 which, after weeping bitterly, he by common 
 agreement bound his brother Simeon, and left him 
 in custody. How deeply concerned Joseph was 
 for his family, how true and affectionate a heart 
 he had, may be learned from the words which 
 escape from the brothers in their entreaty that 
 Jacob would allow Benjamin to go into Egypt, 
 as required by Joseph : 4 The man asked us 
 straitly of our state and of our kindred, saying, 
 Is your father yet alive? have ye another brother?’ 
 (xliii. 7). At length Jacob consents to Benjamin’s 
 going in company with his brothers : 4 And God 
 Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he 
 may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. 
 If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved 7 
 (ver. 14j. Thus provided, with a present consist- 
 ing of balm, honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and 
 almonds, and with double money in their hands 
 (double, in order that they might repay the sum 
 which Joseph had caused to be put into each 
 man's sack at their departure, if, as Jacob sup- 
 posed, 4 it was an oversight ’), they went again 
 down to Egypt and stood before Joseph (xliii. 
 15); and there, too, stood Benjamin, Joseph’s 
 beloved brother. The required pledge of truth- 
 fulness was given. If it is asked why such a 
 pledge was demanded, since the giving of it 
 caused pain to Jacob, the answer may be thus : 
 Joseph knew not how to demean himself towards 
 his family until he ascertained its actual condition. 
 That knowledge he could hardly be certain he 
 had gained from the mere words of men who had 
 spared his life only to sell himself iido slavery. 
 How had these wicked men behaved towards his 
 venerable father? His beloved brother Benjamin, 
 was he safe? or had he suffered from their jealousy 
 and malice the worse fate with which he himself 
 had been threatened ? Nothing but the sight of 
 Benjamin could answer these questions, and re- 
 solve these doubts. 
 
 Benjamin had come, and immediately a na- 
 tural change took place in Joseph’s conduct *. tits 
 
150 
 
 oOSEPII. 
 
 JOSEPH. 
 
 brother began to claim his rights in Joseph’s 
 bosom. Jacob was safe, and Benjamin was safe. 
 Joseph's heart melted at the sight of Benjamin : 
 * And he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these 
 men home, ind slay and make ready, for these men 
 shall dine .vith me at noon’ (xliii. 16). But. guilt 
 is always the ready parent of fear. Accordingly 
 the brothers expected nothing but being reduced 
 to slavery. When taken to their own brother's 
 house, they imagined they were being entrapped. 
 A colloquy ensued between them and Joseph's 
 steward, whence it appeared that the money put 
 into their sacks, to which they now attributed their 
 peril, was in truth a present from Joseph, designed, 
 after his own brotherly manner, to aid his family 
 in their actual necessities. The steward said, 
 ‘ Peace be to you, fear not : your God and the God 
 of your father hath given you the treasure in your 
 sacks. 1 had your< money’ (ver. 23). 
 
 Noon came, and with it Joseph, whose first 
 question regarded liome : ‘ He asked them of their 
 welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man 
 of whom ye spake? is lie yet alive? And he lifted 
 up his eyes and saw his brother Benjamin, his 
 mother's son, and said, Is this your younger bro- 
 ther? And he said, God be gracious unto thee, 
 my son !’ ‘ And Joseph made haste, for his 
 
 bowels did yearn upon his brother, and he sought 
 where to weep, and he entered into his chamber 
 and wept there.’ Does this look like harshness? 
 
 The connection brings into view an Egyptian 
 custom, which is of more than ordinary import- 
 ance, in consequence of its being adopted in the 
 Jewish polity ; ‘ And they set on (food) for him 
 by himself (Joseph), and for them by themselves 
 (the brethren), and for the Egyptians which did 
 eat with them, by themselves : because the Egyp- 
 tians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for 
 that is an abomination with the Egyptians’ (ver. 
 32). This passage is also interesting, as proving 
 that Joseph hail not, in his princely grandeur, 
 become ashamed of his origin, nor consented to 
 receive adoption into a strange nation : he was 
 still a Hebrew, waiting, like Moses after him, for 
 the proper season to use his power for the good of 
 bis own people. 
 
 Other customs appear in this interesting nar- 
 rative : ‘ And they (the brothers) sat before him 
 (Joseph), the first-born according to his birthright , 
 and the youngest according to his youth.’ 4 And 
 he sent messes (delicacies) unto them from before 
 him ; but Benjamin’s mess was five times so much 
 as any of theirs ’ (ver. 32, 33). Fear had now 
 given place to wonder, and wonder at length issued 
 in joy and mirth (comp. ver. 18, 33, 34). Thus 
 ended the second act in the drama. Another now 
 opens. 
 
 Joseph, apparently with a view to ascertain how 
 fcir his brethren were faithful to their father, hit 
 upon a plan which would in its issue serve to 
 show whether they would make any, and what, 
 sacrifice, in order to fulfil their solemn promise 
 of restoring Benjamin in safety to Jacob. Ac- 
 cordingly he orders not only that every man's 
 money (as before) should be put in his sack’s 
 mouth, but also that his ‘silver cup, in which my 
 lord drinketh, and whereby lie divineth,’ should 
 be put in the sack’s mouth of the youngest. The 
 brethren leave, but are soon overtaken by Joseph's 
 steward, who charges them with having surrepti- 
 tiously carried off this costly and highly-valued 
 
 vessel. They on heir part vehemently repel fka 
 accusation, adding, ‘ with whomsoever of thy ser- 
 vants it be found, both let him die, and we also 
 will be my lord’s bondmen.’ A search is made, 
 and the cup is found in Benjamin's sack. Accord 
 ingly they return to the city. And now comes 
 the hour of trial : Would they purchase their own ‘ 
 liberation by surrendering Benjamin? After a 
 most touching interview, in which they prove 
 themselves worthy and faithful, Joseph declares 1 
 himself unable any longer to withstand the appeal 5j 
 of natural affection. On this occasion Judah, j 
 who is the spokesman, shows the deepest regard i 
 to his aged father's feelings, and entreats for the 
 liberation of Benjamin even at the price of his . 
 own liberty. In the whole of "literature we know j 
 of nothing more simple, natural, true, and irn- i 
 pressive; nor, while passages of this kind stand 'I 
 in the Pentateuch, can we even understand what 1 
 is meant by terming that collection of writings 1 
 ‘ the Hebrew national epic,’ or regarding it as an 1 
 aggregation of historical legends. If here we have j 
 not history, we can in no case be sure that history 4 
 is before us (xliv.). 
 
 Most natural and impressive is the scene also ] 
 which ensues, in which Joseph, after informing I 
 his brethren who he was, and inquiring, first of 
 all, ‘ Is my father alive?’ expresses feelings free ft 
 from the slightest taint of revenge, and even shows j 
 how, under Divine Providence, the conduct of his 1 
 brothers had issued in good — 4 God sent me before A 
 you to preserve a posterity in the earth, and to | 
 save your lives by a great deliverance.' Five < 
 years had yet to ensue in which 4 there would 
 be neither earing nor harvest and therefore the j 
 brethren were directed to return home and bring i 
 Jacob down to Egypt with all speed. ‘ And he 1 
 fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept ; i 
 and Benjamin wept upon his neck. Moreover, | 
 he kissed all his brethren and wept upon them ; s 
 and after that his brethren talked with him ’ 1 
 (xl v. 14, 15). 
 
 The news of these striking events was carried to 
 Pharaoh, who being pleased at Joseph's conduct, 1 
 gave di lections that Jacob and his family should ) 
 come forthwith into Egypt — ‘ I will give you the i 
 good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the * 
 fat of the land ; regard not your stuff, for the i 
 good of all the land is yours.’ The brethren de- I 
 parted, being well provided for — ‘ And to his 
 father Joseph sent ten asses laden with the good ^ 
 things of Egypt, and ten she asses laden with | 
 corn and bread and meat for his father by the 
 wav.’ 
 
 The intelligence which they bore to their 
 father was of su%h a nature that ‘ Jacob’s heart 9 
 fainted, for he believed them not.’ When, how- M 
 ever, he had recovered from the thus naturally j 
 told effects of his surprise, the venerable patriarch "3 
 said, ‘Enough; Joseph my son is yet. alive: 9 
 I will go and see him before I die’ (xlv. 26, 28). S 
 
 Accordingly Jacob and his family, to the num- I 
 ber of threescore and ten souls, go down to Egypt, j 
 and by the express efforts of Joseph, are allowed .j 
 to settle in the district of Goshen, where Joseph 
 met his father: ‘ And he fell on his neck, an d , 
 
 wept on his neck a good while.’ There Joseph 1 
 ‘ nourished his father and his brethren, and all 
 his father’s household, with bread, acivrding t« 
 their families ' (xlvii. 12). 
 
 Meanwhile the predicted famine was paupei- 
 
JOSEPH. 
 
 JOSEPH, 
 
 15! 
 
 wing Egypt. The inhabitants found then - money 
 exhausted, and their cattle and substance all gone, 
 being parted with in order to purchase food from 
 the public granaries, until at length they had 
 nothing to give in return for sustenance but them- 
 selves. ‘ Buy us 1 — they then imploringly said 
 to Joseph — ‘and our land for bread, and we and 
 our laud will be slaves unto Pharaoh.’ •' And 
 Joseph bought all the land of Egypt lor Pharaoh, 
 so the land became Pharaoh’s.' The people too, 
 
 ‘ Joseph removed to cities from one end of the 
 borders of the land to the other end.’ Religion, 
 however, was too strong to submit to these politi- 
 cal and social changes, and so the priests still 
 retained their land, being supplied with provi- 
 sions out of tin; common store gratuitously. The 
 land, which was previously the people’s own, was 
 now let to them on a tenancy, at the rent of one- 
 fifth of the pn Juce : the laud of the priests being 
 exempted. 
 
 This is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, 
 social revolution recorded in history. Under the 
 pressure of famine an entire nation is reduced 
 from freedom to dependance ; while the popula- 
 tion, which had been apparently limited to certain 
 districts, was distributed alT over the land on 
 different spots. 
 
 At this distant period it may not be easy to 
 understand and explain the entire conduct ob- 
 served by Joseph in this crisis of tiie nation's fate; 
 but we must protest against the application to it 
 of measures of judgment which aie derived from 
 modern notions, and the pure and lofty morality 
 of the Gospel. If a great change was suddenly 
 effected in the social condition of the people, we 
 are not hastily to conclude that the change was 
 for the worse, especially considering that a very 
 long and grievous famine had afflicted so fertile 
 a land as Egypt under the previously existing 
 social condition. And if an opportunity was 
 taken to increase the royal power over the nation, 
 it cannot be denied that the nation was saved 
 from impending destruction by the foresight, wis- 
 dom, and benevolence of the Hebiew vizier. 
 
 Joseph bad now to pass through the mournful 
 scenes which attend on the death and burial of a 
 father. Having had Jacob embalmed, and seen 
 the rites of mourning fully observed, the faith- 
 ful and affectionate son — leave being obtained of 
 the monarch — proceeded into the land of Canaan, 
 in order, agreeably to a promise which the pa- 
 triarch had; exacted, to lay t he old man's bones 
 with those of his fathers, in ‘ the field of Ephron the 
 Hittite.’ Having performed with long and bitter 
 mourning Jacob's funeral rites, Joseph returned 
 into Egypt. The last recorded act of his life forms 
 a most, becoming close. After the death of their 
 father, his brethren, unable, like all guilty people, 
 to forget their criminality, and characteristically 
 finding it difficult to think that Joseph had really 
 forgiven them, grew afraid now they were in his 
 power, that lie would take an opportunity of in- 
 flicting some punishment on them. They ac- 
 cordingly go into his presence, and in imploring 
 terms and an abject, manner, entreat his for- 
 giveness. ‘ Fear not ’ — this is his noble reply — 
 ‘ I will nourish you and your little ones.’ 
 
 Joseph lived an hundred and ten years, kind 
 and gentle in his affections to the last ; for we are 
 told, ‘ The children of Machir, the son of Ma- 
 aasseh, were brought up upon Joseph’s knees’ 
 
 (1. 25). And so having obtained a promise from 
 his brethren, that when the time came, as h« 
 assured them it would come, that God should 
 visit them, and ‘ living them unto the land which 
 he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,’ 
 they would carry up his hones out of Egypt, 
 Joseph at length ‘died, and they embalmed him, 
 and he was put in a coffin’ (1. 26). This pro- 
 mise was religiously fulfilled. Ilis descendants, 
 after carrying the corpse about with them in their 
 wanderings, at length put it in its final resting- 
 place in Sliecliem, in a parcel of ground that 
 Jacob bought of the sons of Iiamor, which became 
 the inheritance of the children of Joseph (Josh, 
 xxiv. 32). 
 
 By his Egyptian wife Asenath, daughter of the 
 high priest of Heliopolis, Joseph had two sons, 
 Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. xli. 50, sq.), whom 
 Jacob adopted (Geu. xlviii. 5), and who accord- 
 ingly took their place among the heads of the 
 twelve tribes of Israel. Among other authorities 
 the following may he consulted: — Wolfenb. 
 Fragment ; Less, Geschichte der Rel. i. 267; 
 J. T. Jacobi, Siimmtl. Schrift . 3 till. ; Hess, 
 Gesch. der Patriarch . ii. 324 ; Niemeyer, 
 Charukt. ii. 340 ; A llg . Welthist. ii. 322 ; 
 Heeren, Ideen, ii. 551. — J. R. B. 
 
 JOSEPH, ‘ the husband of Mary, of whom 
 was born Jesus, who is called Christ’ (Matt. i. 
 16). By Matthew he is said to have been the 
 son of Jacob, whose lineage is traced by the same 
 writer through David up to Abraharn. Luke re- 
 presents him as being the son of Heli, and traces 
 his origin up to Adam. This is not the place to 
 attempt to reconcile these two accounts, as it 
 would lead to discussion and detail, for which we 
 have not space ; hut it may he mentioned that 
 Luke appears to have had some specific object 
 i,n view, since he introduces his genealogical line 
 with words of peculiar import : — ‘ Jesus being (as 
 was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the 
 son of Heli' (Luke iii 23 ) — ws ivogl^ro, ‘as 
 was supposed,’ in other terms, as accounted by 
 law, as enrolled in the family registers ; for Joseph 
 being the husband of Mary, became thereby, in 
 law ( v6/jlos ), the father of Jesus. And as being the 
 legal father of Jesus, he might have his origin 
 traced in the line of Mary's family, as well as in 
 that of his own. 
 
 The statements of Holy Writ in regard to 
 Joseph are few and simple. According to a 
 custom among the Jews, traces of which are still 
 found, such as hand-fasting among the Scotch, 
 and betrothing among t lie Geimans, Joseph had 
 pledged his faith to Mary ; hut. before the mar- 
 riage was consummated she proved to he with 
 child. Grieved at this, Joseph was disposed to 
 break off the connection; hut, not wishing to make 
 a public example of one whom he loved, he con- 
 templated a private disruption of their bond. 
 From this step, however, he is deterred by a 
 heavenly messenger, who assures him that Mary 
 has conceived under a divine influence. ‘ And 
 she shall bring forth a son, and thou sha.lt call his 
 name Jesus; for he shall save his people from 
 their sins’ (Matt. i. IP, sq. ; Luke i. 27). To 
 this account various objections have been taken ; 
 but most of them are drawn from the ground 
 of a narrow, short-sighted, and half-informed ra- 
 tionalism, which judges everything by its own 
 small standard, and either denies niracle* alto* 
 
152 
 
 JOSEPH. 
 
 JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA. 
 
 gelher, or admits only such miracles as find 
 favour in its sight; attempting not to learn what 
 Christianity is, nor what was suitable and proper 
 in the days of Christ, but to construct a Chris- 
 tianity of its own, and then to impose the new 
 creation on the writers of the Gospel, and the pri- 
 mitive church. 
 
 Joseph wa3 by trade a carpenter, in which 
 business he probably educated Jesus. In Matt, 
 xiii. 55, we read, ‘ Is not this the son of the car- 
 penter? ’ and in Mark vi. 3, ‘ Is not this the car- 
 penter, the son of Mary ? ’ The term employed, 
 reKTiov, is of a general character (from revxw, ‘ I 
 form ’), and may be fitly rendered by the English 
 word ‘artificer’ or ‘ artizan,' signifying anyone 
 that labours in the fabrication ( faber in Latin) 
 of articles of ordinary use, whatever the material 
 may be out of which they are made. Accord- 
 ingly, sometimes it denotes a smith as well as a 
 carpenter or joiner, and in the Septuagint the addi- 
 tional term ‘ iron * (aiSypov) or ‘ wood ’ (£v\cev) 
 is employed, in order to denote its specific appli- 
 cation. If some doubt may exist whether ‘car- 
 penter ’ is the necessary rendering of the word 
 when applied to Joseph, yet there is no impro- 
 priety in that rendering, for not seldom the word, 
 when used without any explanatory addition, has 
 that signification. Schleusner (in voc .) asserts 
 that the universal testimony of the ancient, church 
 represents our Lord as being a carpenter's son. 
 This is, indeed, the statement of Justin Martyr 
 (Dial, cum Try phone, § 8S), for he explains the 
 term tcktiov, which he applies to Jesus, by saying 
 that he made &porpa kcu £uy a, ploughs and yokes ; 
 but Origen, in replying to Celsus, who indulged 
 in jokes against the bumble employment of our 
 Lord, expressly denied that Jesus was so termed 
 in the Gospels (see the passage cited in Otho’s 
 Justin Martyr, tom. ii. p. 3(K>, Jeuae, 1813)— -a 
 declaration which suggests the idea that the copies 
 which Origen read differed from our own; while 
 Hilarius, on Matthew (quoted in Simon’s Die- 
 tionnaire de la Bible, i. (591), asserts, in terms 
 which cannot be mist iken, that Jesus was a smith 
 (ferrum igne vincentis, massamque formantis , 
 etc.). Of the same opinion was the venerable 
 Rede ; while others have held that our Lord was 
 a mason, and Cardinal Cajetan, that he was a 
 goldsmith. 
 
 The last notion probably had its origin in those 
 false associations of more modern times which 
 disparage hand-labour. Among the ancient Jews 
 all handicrafts were held in so much honour, that 
 they were learned and pursued by the first men of 
 the nation. 
 
 Jewish tradition (Ilieros. Schaph. c. 14) names 
 the father of Jesus 3Q, Phenedira, and repre- 
 sents him (Orig. c. Cels. i. 32) as a rough soldier, 
 who became the father of Jesus, after Mary was 
 betrothed to Joseph. Another form of the legend 
 sets him forth (Toled Jeschu, p. 3, ed. Wagenseil ; 
 Epiphan. Hcer. 78. 7) under the name of Pan- 
 dira, Christian tradition makes Joseph an old 
 man when first espoused to Mary (Epiphan. Hser. 
 78. 7), being no less than eighty years of age, and 
 father of four sons and two daughters. Theophy- 
 lact, on Matt. xiii. 55, says that Jesus Christ, had 
 brothers and sisters, all children of Joseph, whom 
 lie had by his sister-in-law, wife of his brother 
 Cleophas, who having died without issue, Joseph 
 pas obliged by law to marry his widow. Of f )e 
 
 sons, James, the brother of the Lord, was, h« 
 states, the first bishop of Jerusalem. Eusebio*- 
 (Hist. Eccles. ii 1) agrees in substance with 
 Theophylact; so also does Epiphanius, adding 
 that Joseph was fourscore years old when he 
 married Mary. Jerome, from whom it appear* 
 that the alleged mother's name was Escha, op- 
 poses this tradition, and is of opinion that whal 
 are termed the brothers of Jesus were really hii 
 cousins. The painters of Christian antiquity con- 
 spire with the writers in representing Joseph as an 
 old man at the period of the birth of our Lord — 
 an evidence which is not. to be lightly rejected, 
 though the precise age meutioned.may be but an 
 approximation to fact. 
 
 Another account (Niceph. ii.-^) gives the name 
 of Salome as that of Joseph's first wife, who was 
 related to the family of John the Baptist. 
 
 It is not easy to determine when Joseph died. 
 That event may have taken place before Jesus 
 entered on Lis public ministry. This has been 
 argued from the fact, that his mother only ap- 
 peared at the feast at Cana in Galilee. Tiie 
 premises, however, hardly bear out the inference. 
 With more force of argument, it has been alleged 
 (Simon, Diet, de la Bible) that Joseph must 
 have been dead before the crucifixion of Jesus, 
 else he would in all probability have appeared 
 with Mary at the cross. Certainly the absence 
 of Joseph from the public life of Christ, and the 
 absence of reference to him in the discourses and 
 history, while ‘ Mary * and ‘ His brethren ’ not 
 unfrequently appear, afford evidence not only of 
 Joseph's death, but of the inferior part which, as the 
 legal father only of our Lord, Joseph might have 
 been expected to sustain. So far as our scanty ma- 
 terials enable us to form an opinion, Joseph appears 
 to have been a good, kind, simple-minded man, who, 
 while he afforded aid in protecting and sustaining 
 the family, would leave Mary unrestrained to 
 use all the impressive and formative influence of 
 her gentle, affectionate, pious, and thoughlful 
 soul. Those who may wish to pursue this subject 
 in its details, we refer to the following works : — 
 J. 1'. Meyer, Num Jos. tempore Nativ. C. 
 fuerit sencx decrepitus ; Hist. Joseph, fabri 
 lignar., Arab. ed. G. Wallin, a Latin translation 
 of which may lie found in Fabricii Pseudepigr. i. 
 309. The traditions respecting Joseph are collected 
 in Act. Sanct. iii. p. 4, sq, ; there is a Life of 
 Joseph written in Italian by Affaitati. — J. R. B. 
 
 JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA. The name 
 Aviraathea denotes probably the place where 
 Jos ph was born, not that where he resided. We 
 make this remark because Michaelis (Begriibniss- 
 und auferstehungs gescli. Christi , p. 44, trans 
 lated into English) states it as his opinion that 
 it was unlikely that Joseph possessed a burial- 
 place in or near Jerusalem, since tjiat city was 
 not his ordinary abode So easy is it to be led 
 away by modern associations in interpreting the 
 Scripture, that even a man of Michaelis’ learn- 
 ing could allow Germany to overpower Palestine, 
 and modern days to give their colouring to an- 
 cient ones, and thus hold that ‘ of Arimalhea ’ 
 must of necessity denote the residence and not 
 the birth-place of Joseph ; whereas a little reflec- 
 tion might have taught him that in a measure ic 
 his own times, and fully so in the days of on/ 
 Lord, such a form of speech indicated rather a 
 man’s birth-place than his customary abode. 
 
JOSEPH called BARS A A AS. 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 153 
 
 Arimatliea lay in the territory of Benjamin, 
 on the mountain range of Ephraim, at no great 
 distance south of Jerusalem (Josh, xviii. 25 ; 
 Judg. iv. 5), not far from Gibeah (Judg. xix. 13 ; 
 Isa. x. 29 ; IIos. v. R). . 
 
 Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus — ( an 
 honourable counseller (fiouKevriis), who waited 
 for the kingdom of God ’ (Mark xv„43), and who, 
 on learning the death of our Lord, ‘ came and went 
 in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of 
 Jesus.’ Pilate having learned from the centurion, 
 who commanded at the execution, that ‘ Jesus 
 was actually dead,' gave the l>ody to Joseph, who 
 took it down and wrapped his deceased Lord 
 in tine linen which lit* had purchased for the pur- 
 pose ; after which he laid the corpse in a sepul- 
 chre which was hewn out. of a rock, and rolled a 
 stone unto the door of the sepulchre (Mark xv. 
 43, sq.). From the parallel passages in Matthew 
 (xxvii. 58, sq.), Luke (xxiii. 50, seq.), and John 
 (xix. 38, seq.), it appears that the body was pre- 
 viously embalmed at the cost of another secret 
 disciple, Nicodemus, and that the sepulchre was 
 new, ‘ wherein never man before was laid also 
 that it lay in a garden, and was the property of 
 Joseph himself. This garden was ‘ in the place 
 where Jesus was crucified.’ Luke describes the 
 character of Joseph as ‘ a good man and a just,’ 
 adding that ‘he had not consented to the counsel 
 and deed of them,' i. e. of the Jewish authorities. 
 From this remark it is clear that. Joseph was a 
 member of the Sanhedrim : a conclusion which is 
 corroborated by the epithet ‘counsellor,’ applied to 
 him by both Luke and Mark. Whether or not 
 Joseph was a priest, as Lightfoot (//or. Heb. p. 
 669) thought, there is not evidence to determine. 
 Various opinions as to his social condition may 
 be found in Thiess (Krit. Comment, ii. 119). 
 Tradition represents Joseph as having been one of 
 the Seventy, and as having first preached the 
 Gospel in our own country (Ittig, Diss. de Pat. 
 Apostol. § 13; Assemani Bibliuth. Orient, iii. 
 1. 319, sq.). For an attempt to fix the precise 
 spot where Jesus died and was buried, see the 
 article Golgotha. — J. R. B. 
 
 JOSEPH called BARSABAS was one of 
 the two persons whom the primitive church, im- 
 mediately after the resurrection of Christ, nomi- 
 nated, praying that the Holy Spirit would show 
 which of them should enter the apostolic band 
 in place of the wt etched Judas. On the lots 
 being cast, it proved that not Joseph, but Mat- 
 thias, was chosen. 
 
 Joseph bore the honourable surname of Justus, 
 which was not improbably given him on account 
 of his well-known probity. He was one of those 
 who had ‘ com pan i. d with the Apostles all the 
 time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst 
 them, beginning from the baptism of John,’ until 
 the ascension (Acts i. 15, sq.). Tradition also 
 accounted him one of the Seventy (Euseb. Hist. 
 Eccles. i. 12). The same historian relates (iii. 
 39), on the authority of Papias, that Joseph the 
 J ust ‘ drank deadly poison, anil by the grace of 
 God sustained no harm ’ It has been main- 
 tained that he is the same as Joses surnamed 
 Barnabas, mentioned in Acts iv. 36 ; but the 
 manner in which the latter is characterized seems 
 to point to a different person (Heinrichs, On 
 Acts i. 23; Ulimann, in the Theolog. Stud, und 
 Kritik , i. 377).-- J. R. B. 
 
 1. JOSES (Taxnjs), son of Mary and Cleop&a, 
 and brother of James the Less, of Simon and of 
 Jude, and, consequently, one of those who are 
 called the ‘ brethren' of our Lord (Matt. xiii. 55 j 
 xxvii. 56; Mark vi. 3; xv. 40, 47). [James; 
 Jude], He was the only one of these brethren 
 who was not an apostle — a circumstance which has 
 given occasion to some unsatisfactory conjecture 
 It is perhaps more remarkable that three of them 
 were apostles than that the fourth was not.. 
 
 2. JOSES [Barnabas]. 
 
 JOSHUA. The name V.^,- or 
 
 VI £2), is rendered by Josephus, the Septuagint, 
 and the New Testament, ’ liqcrovs . In the same 
 manner is spelt the name of the author of tiie 
 apocryphal book Eccle-uast icus. This is the 
 name of four persons in the Old Testament, and 
 means whose salvation is Jehovah (compare the 
 German name Gotthilf). The moot distinguished 
 of the four persons, so called, who occur in the 
 Old Testament, is Joshua the son of Nun, of the 
 tribe of Ephraim, the assistant and successor of 
 Moses. His name was originally J7£/hn, salva- 
 tion (Num. xiii. 8) ; and it seems that the subse- 
 quent alteration of it by Moses (Num. xiii. 16) 
 was significant, and proceeded on the same prin- 
 ciple as that of Abram into Abraham (Gen. 
 xvii. 5), and of Sarai into Sarah (Gen. xvii. 15). 
 
 According to the Tsemach David , Joshua was 
 born in Egypt, in the year of the Jewish era 
 2406 (b.c. 1 1 >37). In the Bible he is first men- 
 tioned as being the victorious commander of 
 the Israelites in their battle against the Amalek- 
 ites at Rephidim (Exod. xvii. 8-16). He dis- 
 tinguished himself by his courage and intel- 
 ligence during and after the exploration of the 
 laud of Canaan, on which occasion he repre- * 
 sented his tribe, which was that of Ephraim 
 (Num. xiii., xiv.). Moses, with the divine sanc- 
 tion, appointed him to command the Israelites, 
 even during his own lifetime (Num. xxvii. 18-23 ; 
 Deut. iii. 28; xxxi. 23). After the death of 
 Moses he led the Israelites over the Jordan, forti- 
 fied a camp at Gilgal (Josh. ix. 6; x. 6-43). 
 conquered the southern and middle portions of 
 Canaan (vi.-x.), and also some of the northern 
 districts (ix.). But the hostile nations, although 
 subdued, were not entirely driven out and de- 
 stroyed (xiii.; xxiii. 13; Jndg. i. 27-35). In 
 the seventh year after entering the land, it was 
 distributed among the various tribes, which then 
 commenced individually to complete the con- 
 quest by separate warfare (xv. 13, sq. ; xvi. 
 10; xvii. 12, sq.). Joshua died 110 years old 
 (b.c. 1427), and was buried at Timnath-serah 
 (Josh, xx iv..), on Mount Ephraim. According to 
 the Archaologia or Antiquities of Josephus (v. 1. 
 29), Joshua commanded the Jews twenty-five 
 years, but, according to other Jewish chronologers, 
 twenty-seven years. The Tsemach David , on the 
 years of the Jewish era 2489 and 2496, remarks : — 
 
 ‘ It is written in the Sedei' Olam that Joshua 
 judged Israel twenty-five years, commencing 
 from the year 2488, immediately from the death 
 of Moses, to the year 2516. This, however, would 
 not be known to us but for cabbalistic tradi- 
 tion, but in some degree also by reasoning,’ &c. 
 Hottinger ( Smegma , p. 469), says : — ‘According 
 to the Midrash , Rahab was ten years old when 
 the Israelites left Egypt; she played the whow 
 
154 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 OSHUA. 
 
 during the forlv years in which the Israelites 
 were in the desert. She became the wife of 
 Joshua, and eight prophets descended from her, 
 viz. Jeremiah, Mahasia, Hanamael, Shallum, 
 •Baruch, Ezekiel. Some say also that Huhiah 
 the prophetess was her descendant.' Some clno- 
 nologers have endeavoured to reduce the rule 
 r.f Joshua to seventeen, and others to twenty-one 
 years. 
 
 There occur some vestiges of the deeds of 
 Joshua in other historians besides those of the 
 Bible. Procopius mentions a Phoenician inscrip- 
 tion near the city of Tingis in Mauritania, the 
 sense of which in Greek was: — ‘ Hyu.e7s iapeu ol 
 t^vyoi’Tts cbri> irpoacoTrov ’lpirou rod A rjcrrov vioO 
 Kavg — ‘ We are those who tied before the face of 
 Joshua the robber, the son of Nun ’ ( De Bell. 
 Vandal, ii. 10). Stiidas (sub voce Xaradr ) : — 
 rjucls ia/iev Xavavcuoi ovs iSicvgev 5 Irjcrovs 6 
 Kparris — ‘ We are the Canaanites whom Joshua 
 the robber persecuted.' Compare Fabricii Codex 
 Pseudepigraphus Vcteris Testamenti , i. 889, sq., 
 and the doubts respecting this statement in Dale, 
 De Origine et Progressn Idolatries , p. 749, sq 
 
 A letter of Shaubech, "plK*. king of Armenia 
 Minor, in the Samaritan book of Joshua (ch. 
 
 xxvi.), styles Joshua lupus 
 
 percussor, ‘ the murderous wolf;’ or, according 
 to another reading in the book Juchasin (p. 154, 
 t\ 1), and in the Shalsheleth Rakkabbalah (p. 90), 
 rVQ-iy 2NT, lupus vespertiuus, 1 the evening 
 wolf* (comp. Hab. i. 8; Hotfinger, Historia 
 Orientalis. Tiguri, 1651, p. 40, sq. ; B udder. 
 Hist. Eccles. ]). 964, sq.'. A comparison of 
 Hercules, according to the Phoenician and Greek 
 mythology, with Joshua has been attempted by 
 Hercklitz ( Quod Hercules idem sit ac Josua, 
 Lipsia?, 1706, 4to.) 
 
 The book of Joshua is so called from the per- 
 sonage who occupies the principal place in the nar- 
 ration of events contained therein, and may be 
 considered as a continuation of the Pentateuch. It 
 commences with the word VP1, which may be ren- 
 dered thereupon it happened. Books beginning 
 with what l)r. Samuel Lee calls the illative vau , 
 are to be regarded as continuations of earlier 
 works. The Pentateuch, and especially Deute- 
 ronomy, are lepeatedlv referred to in the book of 
 Joshua, the narration of which begins with the 
 death of Moses and extends to the death of 
 Joshua, embracing a chronological period of some- 
 what less than thirty years. The subject of the 
 book is thus briefly stated in ch. i. 5, 6 : ‘ There 
 shall not any man be able to stand before thee 
 all the days of thy life. As I was with Moses, 
 so I will be with thee : I will not fail thee, nor 
 forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage ; 
 for unto this people shalt thou divide for an 
 inheritance the land which I svvare unto their 
 fathers to give them. 1 In these two verses is also 
 indicated the division of the book into two princi- 
 pal portions, with reference to the conquest and the 
 distribution of the land of Canaan. The conquest 
 is narrated in the first twelve, and the distribution 
 in the following ten chapters. In the last two 
 chapters are subjoined the events subsequent to 
 the distribution up to the death of Joshua. The 
 history of the conquest of Canaan is a series of 
 miracles, than which none more remarkable are 
 recorded in any part of sacred history. The 
 
 passage into the Promised Land, as well as tha" 
 out of Egypt, was through water. Jericho was 
 taken not by might, but by the falling of the walls 
 on the blast of the trumpets of seven priests ; and 
 in the war against Gibeon the day was prolonged 
 to afford time for the completion of the victory'. 
 
 It. is generally granted that the first twelve 
 chapters form a continuous whole: although the 
 author in ch. x. 13, refers to another work, he not 
 merely transcribes but intimately coirrhiYies the 
 quotation with the tenor of his narration. It is 
 certain that, there sometimes occur episodes which 
 seem to interrupt the chronological connection, as 
 for instance 1 he portion intervening between chs. 
 i., ii., and iii. 1. Especially it has been asserted 
 that the whole of the second chapter is an episode 
 interposed between chapters i. and iii.; but it 
 belongs to the nature of detailed historical works 
 to contain such episodes. It would not be diffi- 
 cult to select analogous instances from profane 
 works which are considered to lie finished models 
 of historiography. Even in writers who have 
 most carefully digested their materials, such as 
 Thucydides, Tacitus, Gibbon, Hume, Robertson, 
 and others, we meet occasionally with such epi- 
 sodes; and it may be truly said that, from the 
 nature of history in general, occasional digres- 
 sions must occur; consequently it is an indica- 
 tion of thoughtless assertion when those which are 
 found in rhe book of Joshua are declared to prove 
 a variety of authorship, if anything is meant be- 
 yond the truism, that no historical writer ori- 
 ginates, but only communicates, historical truth. 
 
 We return to our subject, and assert that if the 
 facts contained in the second chapter were to be 
 related at all, they stand very properly between 
 those of the first and third chapters, and that it 
 would be difficult to find for them a more fitting 
 place. 
 
 The whole tenor of the first twelve chapters 
 bespeaks an eye-witness who bore some part in 
 the transactions. Compare the expression 
 we passed over , in ch. v. 1, where the kri has 
 D“Qy. Sept, biafiaiveiv avrovs. Vulg. transirent. 
 The Chaldee pat aph rase in the Targum of Jona- 
 than has also until rimy passed over, 
 
 and so the Syi iac and Arabic. On account of this 
 kri and the various ancient tenderings, which 
 substitute the third for the first person, we must 
 not lay too much stress on the usual reading, 
 although we deem it correct, corresponding as it 
 
 does to 1^, to us, in the sixth verse. But we 
 rely less on such isolated expressions than on the 
 circumstantial vividness of the narrative, which 
 clearly indicates that the writer was an eye- 
 witness. This feature is so striking that Van 
 Herweden, who, in his Disputatio de libro Josuce, 
 sive de diversis ex quibus constat Josuce liber 
 monumentis, deque estate qua eoruin vixerunt 
 auctores, Groningaj, 1826, has endeavoured to 
 dissect the book of Joshua into ten different 
 monumenta , or original documents, nevertheless, 
 in page 123, says, in reference to Josh. vi. 25:— 
 alterutrum esse verum oportet : aut impostor haec 
 scripsit, aequalem se esse rerum gestarum prae se 
 ferens, quern tarneri non esset, aut revera 
 scuipsit ^equai.is — ‘ This was written eithet 
 by an impostor who falsely pretended that he 
 was a contemporary of the events r?lated, or a 
 contemporary really wrote it.’ 
 
JOSHUA. 
 
 JOSHUA, 
 
 155 
 
 The authority ascribed to the book of Joshua 
 by the Apostles, compels us to embrace the latter 
 burn of this dilemma. Therefore we maintain 
 that the first twelve chapters were written by a 
 contemporary of the events recorded, and most 
 probably by Joshua himself, towards the close of 
 fiis life. The statement that, the monuments which 
 he erected were extant to this day, indicates that 
 he did not promulgate the book immediately after 
 the events narrated (comp. iv. 9; vii. 20; viii. 
 28, 29 ; x. 27). The book could not have been 
 written very long after the time of Joshua, be- 
 cause we find that Raliab was still alive when it 
 was composed (vi. 29). The section from chapter 
 xiii. to xxii. inclusive, which contains an account 
 of the distribution of the land, seems to he 
 based upon written documents, in which the pro- 
 perty was accurately described. That this was 
 the case is likely not merely on account of the 
 peculiar nature of the diplomatic contents by 
 which this ‘Doomsday Book’ is distinguished 
 from the preceding part of Joshua, but also on 
 account of* the statement in chapter xviii. 4, where 
 Joshua says to the children of Israel, ‘ Give out 
 from among you three men from each tribe : and 
 I will send them, and they shall lise, and go 
 through the land, and describe it (nni&$ t Dn!P')) 
 according to the inheritance of them ; and ihey 
 shall come, again to trie.’ Compare verse 6, 
 
 ‘ Ye therefore shall describe the land (13j"l2n 
 fM&n nX) into seven parts.’ Compare also 
 verses 8 and 9, ‘ And the men arose and went 
 away; and Joshua charged them that went to 
 describe the land, saying, Go, and walk through 
 the land, and describe it, and come again to me, 
 that I may here cast lots for you before the Lord 
 in Shiloh. And the men went and passed through 
 the land, and described it by cities into seven 
 parts in a book, and came again to Joshua to the 
 host at Shiloh.’ It seems that the author of this 
 lection, following the ‘ Doomsday Book ’ com- 
 piled by the body, to which each tribe sent three 
 representatives, furnished a more accurate de- 
 scription than was contained in the book com- 
 piled Under Joshua’s direction. It may thus be 
 explained how, when the various towns mentioned 
 are summed up, they seem to he more than the 
 towns introduced into the lists of the possessions of 
 the separate tribes, and vice versa. This circum- 
 stance cannot be explained by supposing a corrup- 
 tion of the Hebrew t,ext, since the text in the book 
 of* Joshua is particularly correct. However Judah 
 had more towns than are mentioned in chapter xv. 
 Zabulon had more towns than are mentioned in 
 chapter xix. 15. Naphtali had more towns than 
 are mentioned in xix. 35-39. This discrepancy 
 arose not merely from new towns springing up, 
 hut also from the fact, that it was unnecessary 
 to specify in the ‘ Doomsday Book ’ all the inferior 
 localities of the various tribes, especially since 
 the constant, addition subjoined to the names of 
 the more important towns (jiTHVni, literally and 
 their inclosures, usually translated and their 
 villages) obviates all quibbles. 
 
 Although there is a degree of uniformity in the 
 commencement and close of the descriptions of 
 the various tribes, there is a considerable differ- 
 ence in the contents. There is no little variety 
 in the arrangement and ordei of the notices con- 
 ceniing each tribe. The boundaries are stated 
 sometimes with greater, sometimes with less pre- 
 
 cision; and in the description of the tribe of 
 Issachar (xix. 17-23), they are omitted altogether. 
 Such discrepancies in the mode of* description 
 will he found particularly striking on comparing 
 chapters xiii. and xiv. with xviii. and xix. Hence 
 we infer that the original documents from which 
 these chapters were compiled differed considerably 
 in form, and that the compiler did not feel au- 
 thorized, in his manifest endeavour after unifor- 
 mity, to introduce any changes in the contents. 
 
 The li*st of towns granted to the Levites in 
 Josh. xxi. differs from that in 1 Cluon. vi. 39-66 
 so much that we must suppose the latter to con- 
 tain abstracts from a source different from that 
 in the hook of Joshua. That a change of cir- 
 cumstances might demand changes in such lists 
 becomes evident, if we consider the fate of indi- 
 vidual cities. For instance, Ziklag was given to 
 the tribe of Simeon (Josh. xix. 5) ; nevertheless we 
 read in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, that Aohish gave Ziklag 
 to David, and therefore "Ziklag pertainetli to the 
 kings of* Judah unto this day.' The town of Nob 
 does not occur in the list of* Levitical towns in the 
 book of Joshua, but in the days of Saul it is styled 
 TS, city of the priests. AH this abund- 
 antly proves that there took place changes in 
 regard to particular places which requiied corre- 
 sponding changes in the lists written at various 
 periods. 
 
 Since the book of Joshua contains also a de- 
 scription of the territories of Reuben, Gad, and 
 the half tribe of Manasseh, situated on the left 
 bank of the Jordan, which tribes entered into pos- 
 session before the death of Moses, the Pentateuch 
 itself may be considered as one of t he sources 
 from which the second part of* 1 he book of Joshua 
 has been compiled. That the author of the book 
 of Joshua derived part of his information from the 
 Pentateuch is evident, if* we compare Dent, xviii. 
 1, 2, and Num. xviii. 20. with Josh. xiii. 14, 33 ; 
 xiv. 4. Even the unusual form is repealed 
 in Joshua. Compare also Num. xxxi. 8, with 
 Josh. xiii. 21 and 22. 
 
 The author of the book of Joshua frequently 
 repeats the statements of the Pentateuch in a 
 more detailed form, and mentions the changes 
 which had taken place since the Pentateuch was 
 written. Compare Num. xxxiv. 13 and 14, 
 with Josh. xiii. 7, sq. ; Num. xxxii. 37, with 
 Josh. xiii. 17, sq ; Num. xxxv. with Josh. xxi. 
 
 There is also considerable similarity between 
 the following passages in the books of Joshua and 
 Judges : — Josh. xiii. 4, Judg. iii. 3; Josh. xv. 
 13, sq., Judg. i. 10,20; Josh. xv. 15-19. Judg. 
 i. 11-15; Josh. xv. 62, Judg. i. 21 ; Josh. xvi. 
 10, Judg. i. 29; Josh. xvii. 12, Judg. i. 27; 
 Josh. xix. 47, Judg. xviii. The book of Joshua 
 Seems to explain the text of the hook of Judges by 
 brief* notices; as. for instance, the names Shesha, 
 Achiman, and Talmai (Josh. xv. 14), by pJjJH 'JID 
 and Hlr' 1 (comp. Judg. i. 13), and makes 
 
 use of more regular grammatical foims, such as 
 and nvnnn, instead of the more unusual 
 forms in the hook of Judges, arid HTinD. 
 
 For these and other equal iv inconclusive reasons, 
 even Havernick asserts that the second part of the 
 book of Josluia was written after the book of 
 Judges. Havernick particularly urges that the fact- 
 mentioned in f osh. xix. 47. happened according 
 Judges xviii. 2, after the dea u of Jos ma, and 
 
156 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 that the private expeditions of separate tribes 
 against the inhabitants of the land of Canaan 
 commenced, according the express statement of 
 the book of Judges, only after the death of Joshua. 
 These assertions of Hlivernick are not sufficiently 
 supported by the sacred text. We certainly learn 
 from the book of Judges that the private expedi- 
 tions against the Canaanites were especially fre- 
 quent subsequently to the death of Joshua, but it 
 is nowhere slated that no such expedition hap- 
 pened before the death of Joshua. On the con- 
 trary, we read in Josh. xvii. 15, that Joshua 
 replied to the children of Joseph, who complained 
 that their territory was not proportionate to their 
 numbers, ‘ Get thee up to the wood-country, and 
 cut down fur thyself there in the land of the 
 Perizzites and the giants.’ 
 
 The whole position ol‘ the, tribes would render 
 it likely that such expeditions were as frequent 
 as the hostile incursions of the Dutch boors at the 
 Cape of Good Hope are into the territories of the 
 Bushmen, Hottentots, and CaftYes ; which incur- 
 sions, if they do not lead to permanent, possession, 
 are frequently repeated under similar circum- 
 stances. If we take this into consideration it must 
 anpear very doubtful, whether the facts men- 
 tioned in Josh. xix. 47, and Judg. xviii. 2, are 
 one and the same ; and even if they are admitted 
 to be so, the priority of the hook of Judges does 
 not necessarily follow. 
 
 The discourses of Caleb, Joshua, and Phinehas, 
 recorded in Josh. xiii. 1-6; xiv. 6-15; xvii. 
 14; xviii. 22, are not contained in the above- 
 mentioned sources, and are either derived from 
 written documents, or are the condensations of a 
 witness present at their delivery. 
 
 It seems to have been the intention of the author 
 of chapters xiii.-xxii. to furnish authentic records 
 concerning the arrangements made by Joshua 
 after the conquest, of Canaan. Since we do not 
 find in the subsequent history that the tribes, after 
 the death of Joshua, disagreed among themselves 
 about the ownership of the land, it would appear 
 that the object of the hook of Joshua, as a ‘ Dooms- 
 day Book,’ was fully attained. The circumstance 
 that the book of Joshua contains many Cariaan- 
 itish names of places to which the Hebrew names 
 are added, seems also to indicate that the second 
 part originated in an early age, when neither the 
 Canaanitish name was entirely forgotten, nor the 
 Hebrew name fully introduced; so that it was 
 exjiedient to mention both. 
 
 In the last two chapters occur two orations of 
 Joshua, in which he bids farewell to the people 
 whom he had commanded. In chapter xxiv. 26, 
 we read, ‘ And Joshua wrote these words in 
 the hook of the law of God.’ The expression, 
 these words, seems to refer only to his last ad- 
 dress, and the subsequent resolution of the people 
 to follow his example. We are here, however, 
 expressly informed that Joshua did write this 
 much ; and consequently, we deem it the more 
 likely that he also committed to writing the other 
 memorable events connected with his career, such 
 as the conquest and the distribution of the land. 
 
 Viewing all the circumstances together, we 
 consider it highly probable that the whole hook of 
 Joshua was composed by himself up to the twenty- 
 eighth verse of the last chapter ; to which a 
 friendly hand subjoined some brief notices, con- 
 tained in verse* 29-33, concerning the death, age, 
 
 and burial of Joshua ; the continuance of his in 
 fluence upon the people; the interment, in 
 Shechem, of the bones of Joseph, which the chil 
 dren of Israel had brought from Egypt ; and the 
 death and huiial of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, 
 whom his son Phinehas interred in his allotment 
 on Mount Ephraim. We wish, however, to imi- 
 tate the modesty of Hermann YYitsius, who, in 
 the second edition of his Miscellanea Sacra (p. 
 209), thus sums up the argument, on this'head : — 
 ‘ It seems to me that the argumentation of Huet 
 has not the weight, of a real demonstration, who, 
 from the words just quoted — “Joshua wrote all 
 these words in the hook of the law of the Lord ” — 
 makes the following inference : — “ This certainly 
 proves that Joshua, like Moses, wrote an account 
 of Ins own doings, and that he subjoined his hook 
 to the Mosaical law, which is still its place.” 
 But I say that every attentive reader will easily 
 perceive that in Josh. xxiv. 26 there is not men- 
 tioned the whole history of Joshua, but only the 
 solemn renewal of the covenant, and that it. is by 
 no means stated there that another volume should 
 be subjoined to the volume of the law, but only 
 that the lepetition of the covenant, was inscribed 
 in the volume of the law. But the opposite argu- 
 ments also are mostly such as might easily lie 
 refuted. Therefore 1 beg leave to withhold my 
 decision.’ 
 
 The authority of the book of Joshua mainly 
 rests upon the manner in which it is treated in 
 other parts of the Bible. 
 
 Besides the above allusions in the hook of 
 Judges, we find Joshua referred to in l Kings xvi, 
 34: — ‘In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build 
 Jericho : he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram, 
 his first-born, and set. up the gates thereof in his 
 youngest, son Segub, according to the word of the 
 Lord, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.’ 
 (Comp. Josh. vi. 26.) The second and third verses 
 of Psalm xliv. contain a brief summary of the 
 whole book of Joshua: — ‘Thou didst drive out 
 the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them : 
 thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out.. 
 For they got not the land in possession by their 
 own sword, neither did their own arm save them : 
 hut thy right hand and thine arm, and the light 
 of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour 
 unto them.’ (Compare Psalm lxviii. 12-14 ; 
 lxxviii. 54, 55; cxiv. 3 and 5, which refer to the 
 hook of Joshua.) Also, Hah. iii. 11 : ‘The sun and 
 moon stood still in their habitation,’ &c. Heb. 
 xiii. 5: ‘For he hath said, I will never leave 
 thee, nor forsake thee.’ (Compare Josh. i. 5.) 
 Heb. xi. 31 : ‘By faith the harlot Rahab perished 
 not with them that believed not, when she had 
 received the spies with peace;’ and James ii. 25 : 
 ‘ Likewise also was not Raliab the harlot jus- 
 tified by works, when she had received the mes- 
 sengers, and had sent them out another way V 
 (Compare Josh. ii. and vi. 22-25.) Acts vii. 45 : 
 ‘Which (the tabernacle) also our fathers lha; 
 came after brought in with Jesus into the pos- 
 session of the Gentiles, whom God drave out 
 before the face of our fathers.’ (Compare Josh. iii. 
 14.) Heb. xi. 30 : ‘ By faith the walls of Jericho 
 fell down, after they were compassed about seven 
 days.’ (Compare Josh. vi. 17-23.) Heb. iv. 8: 
 ‘ For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest> 
 then would he not afterwards have spoken u 
 another day.’ 
 
JOSHUA. 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 The value ascribed to the book of Joshua 
 will be variously estimated according to the theo- 
 logical and philosophical System of the .divines 
 who have ventured, and who venture, to express 
 their opinion on this subject. It is evident that 
 writers who proceed on the supposition that nothing 
 miraculous ever has happened, must, in consis- 
 tency, declare the contents of the book of Joshua 
 to be fabulous, mythical, unhistorical, and even 
 immoral and wicked; while those divines who 
 are convinced that miracles are possible, and 
 have actually happened, find no difficulty in ad- 
 mitting the authority ascribed to the book of 
 Joshua in the New Testament, where it. is repeat- 
 edly quoted. The chief stumbling-block «has 
 been the quotation from the book of Jasher re- 
 specting the standing still of the sun and moon 
 at the command of Joshua: but this subject has 
 been already considered in the article Jasher. 
 
 The inquiry respecting the author of the book 
 of Joshua, led Carpzov to a result which he thus 
 expresses in his Introduction, p. 155 : ‘ It is likely 
 that Joshua himself committed to writing most of 
 the contents of this book, although it cannot be 
 said that he composed the whole book ; and it 
 cannot be made out clearly whether Samuel, or 
 some other pious person, composed the whole 
 book, or oidy augmented and completed it by 
 adding the events which happened after the death 
 of Joshua.’ 
 
 Our investigations have led us to a more definite 
 result; namely, that the book was written before 
 the death of Rahab (vi. 26), but not immediately 
 after the erection of monuments by Joshua, be- 
 cause it is said that they exist until this day — 
 an observation which indicates that they had been 
 standing for some time. As, however, various 
 opinions concerning the author, and concerning 
 the so-called apparent contradictions of the book 
 of Joshua, have occupied the attention of biblical 
 scholars, so much so as to become themselves sub- 
 jects of history, it is becoming that we furnish our 
 readers with a brief survey of these rather incon- 
 clusive lucubrations. 
 
 It has been urged especially that the conquest 
 of the whole country is ascribed to Joshua in 
 some passages of this book, while in others, and 
 in the book of Judges, it is stated that some 
 portions were still to be subdued. To this we 
 reply that Joshua conquered the whole country, 
 so far as to render it possible for individual tribes 
 and families gradually to complete its occupa- 
 tion by private warfare. We read in x. 40, 
 
 ‘ Joshua smote aP the country Of the hills, and of 
 the south ; and in xi. 16 , 1 Joshua took all that land, 
 the hills, and all the south country.’ It is urged 
 tL»t these passages strikingly contradict, xiii. 4, 
 wl.^re it is read, ‘ Thoi e remaineth yet very much 
 land to be possessed from the south, all the land 
 of tlw Canaanites unto Meavah, that beside the 
 Sidonuns,’ &c. Here it has been overlooked, that 
 the sov.th country beside (Vis Sidonians differs 
 from the southern regions of Palestine. 
 
 In a similar manner the distribution of the 
 country ascribed to Joshua, has been said to be 
 contradicted by subsequent distributions in the 
 book of Judges; but we reply that the later dis- 
 tribution in detail is perfectly consistent with an 
 earlier general distribution. 
 
 When the destruction of all the Canaanites is 
 ascribed to Joshua, it is meant that none could 
 
 157 
 
 stand in battle before him, and that, he destroyed 
 those whom he overcame. Bui. this is not contra- 
 dicted by the fact that some Canaanites kept out 
 of the way, having taken refuge in their fastnesses, 
 and that these gathered strength again after the 
 days of Joshua. It lias also been urged that. 
 Jericho and Ai, which Joshua destroyed, were at 
 a later period inhabited again ; but this argu- 
 ment seems to have no weight, and therefore re- 
 quires no answer, the purpose of Joshua being 
 fulfilled by the demolition of their fortifications. 
 It is also doubtful whether the new cities stood 
 on the sites which the old ones occupied [Je- 
 richo]. 
 
 The quotation from the book of Jasher (Josh. x. 
 13) is said to be contrail icted by 2 Sam. i. 18, 
 where it appears that this book was written in the 
 days of David. But this is by no means clear 
 from the passage referred to; and even if it. were 
 so, it would seem that the book of Jasher was an 
 anthologia, augmented in the days of David. 
 Others have based upon this quotation the infer- 
 ence that the book of Joshua was written after 
 the times of David. De Wette, in his Einleitung 
 (Berlin, 1S33, p. 219), asserts that the book of 
 Joshua was written after the Babylonian captivity. 
 
 The mention of the book of Jasher has given 
 rise to some spurious compilations under that 
 name, as well in Hebrew as in English. See 
 the article Jasher. 
 
 The Samaritans, who for dogmatical purposes 
 endeavoured to depreciate the authority of 'per- 
 sons mentioned in the hitter books of the Old 
 Testament, such as Eli, Samuel, Zerubbabel, and 
 others, bad no such interest to attack the person 
 of Joshua. Eulogius, according to Photii 
 Codex , p. 230, states : Tu>r ’Sa/xapeirur rb irXrjSos 
 ot fxev ’ lgaovu rbv Ncod) id6£a£ov elvai Trepl ov 
 M avarjs elire, ivpotyrjT'pv rj/u v avacrT7)<TGi K vpios, 
 etc. — ‘ The Samaritan multitude believes that 
 Joshua, the son of Nun, is the person concerning 
 whom Moses said, “ The Lord will raise us up a 
 prophet, ’’ ’ &c. (Compare Lampe, Comment . in 
 Evangelium Johannis , vol. i. p. 748.) The Sama- 
 ritans even endeavoured to exalt the memory ol 
 Joshua by making him the nucleus of many strange 
 legends which they embodied into their Arabic 
 book of Joshua, a work which seems to have been 
 compiled in the middle ages, and is quoted by 
 the Rabbinical chroniclers of that period, Sepher 
 Juchasin, R. Samuel, Sclmllam (f. 15D, Selial- 
 scheleth ( Nakabbalah , p. 96), Hettinger ( His- 
 toric Orientalis , p. 40, sq.), Zunz (Gottesdienst- 
 liche Gebraische der Juden , p. 140). Reland 
 supposed that this book was written at an earlier 
 period, and augmented in the middle ages ; but 
 it is more likely that the whole is a late compi- 
 lation. (Compare Johannis Henrici Hottingeri 
 Historic Orientalis , p. 40, sq. ; and Hottingeri 
 Smegma , p. 468.) 
 
 The so-called book of Joshua of the Samaritans 
 consists of compilations from the Pentateuch, 
 our book of Joshua, the books of Judges, and o( 
 Samuel, intermixed with many Jewish legends. 
 Its compiler pretends that it is translated from 
 the Hebrew into Arabic, but it was probably 
 originally written in Arabic, and manifestly after 
 the promulgation of the Koran, ^which exercised a 
 perceptible influence upon it. Compare Reland 
 De Samaritanis , Dissertationes Miscellanea, ii, 
 pp. 12 and 68. The author of this compilation 
 
JOSHUA. 
 
 153 
 
 endeavours (o prove that the Samaritans are 
 Israelites, ai d he claims for them the celebrity 
 of the Jews. He attempts to turn the traditions 
 of Jewish history in .favour of the Samaritans. By 
 nis account Joshua built the temple on Mount 
 Gerizim, and there established public worship ; 
 the schism between Jews and Samaritans com- 
 menced under Eli, who, as well as Samuel, was 
 an apostate and sorcerer ; after^the return from 
 the Babylonian exile, the Samaritan form of 
 worship was declared to be the legitimate form ; 
 Zerubbabel and his sacred books, which were cor- 
 rupted, were authoritatively rejected ; Alexander 
 the Great expressed his veneration, not for the 
 Jews, but for the Samaritans ; these were op- 
 pressed under the Emperor Adrian, but again 
 obtained permission to worship publicly on Mount 
 Gerizim. The whole book consists of a mixture 
 of biblical history and legends, the manifest aim 
 being to falsify facts for dogmatical .purposes. 
 This book terminates with the history of the 
 Jewish war under Adrian. The only known 
 copy of this book is that of Jos. Scaliger, which 
 is now in the library at Leyden. Although the' 
 language is Arabic, it is written in Samaritan 
 characters. Even the Samaritans themselves 
 seem to have lost it. Huntington, in his Epis- 
 iolre, London, 1701. p. 43, mentions that lie could 
 not find it at Nabulus, nor have subsequent in- 
 quiries led to its discovery there. 
 
 Besides this adulterated version of the history 
 of Joshua, there exists still another in the Sama- 
 ritan chronicles of Abul Phetach. See Acta 
 Eruditorum Lips., anni 1691, p. 167 ; Schnur- 
 rer's Samar itanischer Brief wechsel, in Eich- 
 horn’s Repertorium. ix. 51; a specimen by 
 Schnurrer, in Paulus’s Neuem Rcpertorium , i. 
 117, sq. 
 
 For further information see, besides the Intro- 
 ductions of EiAlihorri, l)e Wetfe, and Ilavernick, 
 the following works : Josuee Historia illustrata 
 ab Andr. Masio, Antverpiae, 1571, fbl. ; Sebas- 
 tiani Schmidt Pradcctiones in viii. priora capita 
 libri Josucp ; Johann is Clerici Commentarius in 
 Josuam \ Johannis Drusii Annotationes in loca 
 difficiliora Josux ; A. J. Osiandri Commentarius 
 in Josuam , Tubingae, 16S1 ; Jacobi Bonfrerii 
 Commentarius in Josuam , Judices, et Ruth , 
 Paris, 1631, fol. ; Nic. Serarii Commentarius in 
 libros Josua Judicum , Ruth, Regum , et Para- 
 lipomenoi ^ Mog. 16u9, x. 2 vols. fol. ; Exege- 
 tisches Ilandbuch des Alien Testamentes ; Erstes 
 und drittes Stiick; Paulus Bliche, In das Buch 
 Josua, in his Theologisch-exegetisches Conserva- 
 tor ium, ii. 119, sq. ; T. J. V. D. Maurer, Com- 
 mentar iiber das Buch Josua, Stuttgart, 1831 ; 
 Rosenmiiller in Josuam, Lipsia?, 1833; George 
 Bush, Notes on Joshua and Judges, New York, 
 1838. 
 
 The other persons of this name in the Bible are : 
 
 Joshua, a Beth-shemite (1 Sam. vi. 14, 18), an 
 Israelite, the owner of the field into which the cart 
 came which bore the ark on its return from the 
 land of the Philistines. 
 
 Joshua (2 Kings xxiii. 8), the governor of the 
 city of Jerusalem at the commencement of the 
 reign of Josiah. 
 
 Joshua, the son of Josedec (Hagg. i. 1, 12, 14 ; 
 Zech. iii. 1 , 3, 9 ; vi. 1 1), a high-priest in the time 
 of Haggai and Ze-chariah [Jeshua]. 
 
 JOSIAII. 
 
 JOSIAH God-healed ; Sept, ‘lualas^ 
 
 seventeenth king of Xudah, and son of Ainon. 
 whom he succeeded on the throne in b.c. 698, ai 
 the early age of eight years, and reigned thirty* 
 one years. 
 
 As Josiah thus early ascended the throne, we 
 may the more admire the good qualities which 
 he manifested, seeing, as Coquerel remarks, 
 ‘ qu'il est difficile de recevoir une bonne educa- 
 tion sur le tione’ ( Biographie Sacree , p. 305). 
 Avoiding the example of his immediate prede- 
 cessors, he ‘ did that which was right in the sight 
 of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David 
 his father, and turned not aside to the right hand 
 or #o the left’ (2 Kings xxii. 1, 2; 2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 1, 2). So early as the sixteenth year of 
 his age he began to manifest that enmity to idol- 
 atry in all its forms which distinguished his 
 character and reign ; and he was not quite twenty 
 years old when he proclaimed open war against 
 it, although more or less favoured by many men 
 of rank and influence in the court and kingdom. 
 He then commenced a thorough purification of 
 the land from all taint of idolatry, by going 
 about and superintending in person the operations 
 of the men who were employed in breaking down 
 idolatrous altars and images, and cutting down 
 the groves which had been consecrated to idol- 
 worship. His detestation of idolatry could not 
 have been more strongly expressed than by ran- 
 sacking the sepulchres of the idolatrous priests of 
 former days, and consuming their bones upon 
 the idol altars before they were overturned. Yet 
 this operation, although unexampled in Jewish 
 history, was foretold 326 years before Josiah 
 was born, by the prophet who was commissioned 
 to denounce to Jeroboam the future punishment 
 of his sin. He even named Josiah as the person 
 by whom this act was to be performed ; and said 
 that it should be performed in Beth-el, which was 
 then a part of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 
 xiii. 2). All this seemed much beyond the range 
 of human probabilities. But it was performed 
 to the letter ; for Josiah did not confine his pro- 
 ceedings to his own kingdom, but went over a 
 considerable part of the neighbouring kingdom 
 of Israel, which then lay comparatively desolate, 
 with the same object in view ; and at Beth-el, in 
 particular, executed all that the prophet had fore- 
 told (2 Kings xxiii. 1-19; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3-7, 
 32). In these proceedings Josial: seems to have been 
 actuated by an absolute hatred of idolatry, such 
 as no other king since David had manifested, and 
 which David had scarcely occasion to manifest in 
 the same degree. 
 
 In the eighteenth year of his reign and the 
 twenty-sixth of his age, when the land had been 
 thoroughly purified from idolatry and all that be- 
 longed to it, Josiah proceeded to repair .and 
 beautify the temple of the Lord. In the course 
 of this pious labour, the high-priest Hilkiah dis- 
 covered in the sanctuary a volume, which proved 
 to contain the books of Moses, and which, from the 
 terms employed, seems to have been considered 
 the original of the law as written by Moses. On 
 this point there has been much anxious discussion 
 and some rash assertion. Some writers of the 
 German school allege that there is no external 
 evidence — that is, evidence beside the law itself— 
 that the book of the law existed till it was thus 
 produced by Hilkiah. This assertion it is the lean 
 
JOSIAH. 
 
 JUBILEE. 
 
 159 
 
 accessary to ai-swer here, as it. is duly noticed in 
 the art. Pentateuch. But it, may be observed 
 that it is founded very much on the fact that the 
 king was greatly astonished when some parts of 
 the law were read to him. It is indeed perfectly 
 manifest that he had previously been entirely 
 ignorant of much that lie then heard ; and he 
 rent his clothes in consternation when he found 
 that, with the best intentions to serve the Lord, he 
 and all his people had been living in the neglect 
 of duties which the law declared to be of vital 
 importance. It is certainly difficult to account 
 for this ignorance. Some suppose that all the 
 copies of the law had perished, and that the king 
 had never seen one. But this is very unlikely; 
 but however scarce complete copies may have 
 been, the pious king was likely to have been the 
 possessor of one. The probability seems to be 
 that the passages read were those awful denun- 
 ciations against disobedience with which the book 
 of Deuteronomy concludes, and which from some 
 cause or other the king had never before read, or 
 which had never before produced on his mind the 
 same strong conviction of the imminent dangers 
 under which the nation lay, as now when read to 
 him from a volume invested with a character so 
 venerable, and brought with such interesting cir- 
 cumstances under his notice. 
 
 The king in his alarm sent to Huldah ‘ the 
 prophetess,’ for her counsel in this emergency 
 [Hui.dah] : her answer assured him that, although 
 the dread penalties threatened by the law had 
 been incurred and would be inflicted, he should 
 be gathered in peace to his fathers before the days 
 of punishment and sorrow came. 
 
 It was perhaps riot without some hope of avert- 
 ing this doom that the king immediately called 
 the people together at Jerusalem, and engaged 
 them in a solemn renewal of the ancient covenant 
 with God. When this had been done, the Pass- 
 over was celebrated with careful attention to the 
 directions given in the law, and on a scale of 
 unexampled magnificence. But all was too late; 
 the hour of mercy had passed; for ‘the Lord 
 turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, 
 wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah ’ 
 (2 Kings xxii. 3-20; xxiii. 21-27; 2 Qwiron. 
 xxxiv. 8-33; xxxv. 1-19). 
 
 That removal from the world which had been 
 promised to Josiali as a blessing, was not long 
 delayed, and was brought about in a way which 
 lie had probably not expected. His kingdom was 
 tributary to the Chaldaean empire ; and when 
 Pharaoh-necho, king of Egypt, sought a passage 
 through his territories, on an expedition against 
 the Chaldseans, Josiali, with a very high sense of 
 the obligations which his vassalage imposed, 
 refused to allow the march of the Egyptian army 
 through his dominions, and "prepared to resist the 
 "attempt by force of arms. Necho was very un- 
 willing to engage in hostilities with Josiali : the 
 appearance of the Hebrew army at Megiddo, 
 however, brought on a battle, in which the king 
 of Judah was so desperately wounded by arrows 
 that his attendants removed him from the war- 
 chariot, and placed him in another, in which he 
 was taken to Jerusalem, where he died. No king 
 that, reigned in Israel was ever more deeply la- 
 mented by all his subjects tnan Josiali : and we 
 are told that the prophet composed on the occa- 
 sion an elegiac ode, which was long preserved 
 
 among the people, but which is not now in 
 existence (2 Kings xxiii. 29-37 ; 2 Cliron. xxxv. 
 20-27) 
 
 1. JOTHAM (Qni\ God is upright ; Sept. 
 5 ludOu/j .), the youngest of Gideon’s seventy legiti- 
 mate sons ; and the only one who escaped when 
 the rest, were massacred by the order of A oimelech. 
 When the fratricide was made king by the people 
 of Sliechem, the young Jotlnirn was so daring as 
 to make his appearance on Mount Gerizim for the 
 purpose of lifting up a protesting voice, and of 
 giving vent to his feelings. This he did in a 
 beautiful parable, wherein the trees are represented 
 as making choice of a king, and bestowing on the 
 bramble the honour which the cedar, the olive, 
 and the vine would not. accept. The obvious a}>- 
 plicafion, which indeed Jotliam failed not himself 
 to point out, must have been highly exasperating 
 to Abimelech and his friends ; but the speaker 
 tied, as soon as lie had delivered his parable, to 
 the town of Beer, and remained there out of his 
 brother’s reach, AVe hear no more of him ; but 
 three years after, if then living, be saw the ac- 
 complishment of the malediction he had pro- 
 nounced (Jiulg. ix. 5-21). 
 
 2. JOTHAM, tenth king of Judah, and son of 
 Uzziah, whom he succeeded in b.c. 758, at the age 
 of twenty-five: he reigned sixteen years. His 
 father having during his last years been excluded 
 by leprosy from pubic life [LIzziah], the govern- 
 ment was administered by his son. Jotliam pro- 
 fited by the experience which the reign of his father, 
 and of the kings who preceded him. afforded, and 
 he ruled in the fear of God, although he was 
 unable to correct all the corrupt practices into 
 which the people had fallen. His sincere inten- 
 tions were rewarded with a prosperous reign. He 
 was successful in his wars. The Ammonites, 
 who had ‘given gifts’ as a sort of tribute to 
 Uzziah, but had ceised to do so after his leprosy 
 had incapacitated him from governing, were con- 
 strained by Jotliam to pay for three years a heavy 
 tribute in silver, wheat, and barley (2 Chron. 
 xxvi. 8 ; xxvii. 5, 6). Many important public 
 works were also undertaken and accomplished 
 by Jotliam. The principal gate of the temple was 
 rebuilt by him on a more magnificent scale ; the 
 quarter of Ophel, in Jerusalem, was strengthened 
 by new fortifications ; various towns were built 
 or rebuilt in the mountains of Judah ; and castles 
 and towers of defence were erected in the wilder- 
 ness. Jotliam died greatly lamented by his 
 people, and was buried in the sepulchre of the 
 kings (2 Kings xv. 38 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 3-9). 
 
 JUBAL pn-V', jubilum, i. e. music ; Sept. 
 ’Iau/JaA), one of Cain's descendants, son of 
 Lamech and Adah. He is described as the in- 
 ventor of the 1133 hinnor , and the 33 lj? ugab, 
 rendered in our version ‘ the harp and the organ,’ 
 but perhaps more properly ‘ the lyre and mouth- 
 organ,’ or Pandean pipe (Gen. iv. 21) [Music]. 
 
 JUBILEE (^nVn or merely ?3P, as in 
 Lev. xxv. 28; Sept., eros rrjs a^eVews, or simply 
 &<pe(Tis ; Vulg. Annus Jubilei, or Jubileus), ac- 
 cording to some a period of fifty years, according 
 to others, of forty-nine years, the termination of 
 which led to certain great changes in the con- 
 dition of the Hebrews, all of which seem to have 
 been designed and fitted to bring about from tiew 
 
160 
 
 JUBILEE. 
 
 JUBILEE. 
 
 to time a restoration of the original social state 
 instituted by Moses, and so to sustain in its unim- 
 paired integrity the constitution of which he was 
 the author. We remark at the commencement, 
 that notwithstanding the many great names which 
 favour the shorter period — namely, forty-nine 
 years — we consider that the language of Scripture 
 is very clear in behalf of the longer one : an opinion 
 for which it would be easy to marshal at least as 
 many and as great authorities as for the other. 
 Many of these authorities may be found mentioned 
 in the most recent tractate with which we are ac- 
 quainted on the subject, that of J. T. Krauold, I)e 
 Anno Hebreeo Jubilceo , Gutting, p. 23. In the 
 same piece the reader may tind a pretty full dis- 
 cussion respecting the derivation and import of 
 the term Jubilee (p. 18 sq.) ; of which it may 
 suffice here to say that, while difference of opinion 
 prevails as to its exact signification — and hence 
 appears the propriety of the course taken by King 
 James’s translators in retaining the original word 
 itself — the root-idea of the word seems to be con- 
 nected with two external acts— flowing (Gen. vi. 
 17) and sounding (Gen. iv. 21), which are ob- 
 viously one and the same in different aspects ; 
 for sound is but the flow of breath or wind, as a 
 stream is the flow of water. From this idea of 
 pouring forth came the particular meaning of the 
 term Jubilee, as employed in relation to the year 
 so called, which was announced and introduced 
 by the blast of a trumpet, the signal fur the dis- 
 solution of certain existing arrangements, and a 
 general system of restitution : whence is seen the 
 propriety of .that translation of the Hebrew which 
 the Seventy give, eros acpecrews, 4 year of release’ 
 or ‘restoration.’ And as the restitutions which 
 then took place were occasions of joy to thousands, 
 so the term Jubilee came to imply a period of 
 general gladness. 
 
 Intimately connected with the Jubilee was 
 another singular Mosaic institution, namely, the 
 Sabbatical year. On this account we shall speak 
 briefly of the latter, as preparatory to a right 
 understanding of the former. 
 
 While yet wandering in the wilderness, and 
 therefore, before they had entered 4 the land of 
 promise,’ the children of Israel received from 
 the lips of their great legislator the following 
 law — ‘six years thou shalt sow thy land, and 
 shalt gather in the fruits thereof: but the 
 
 seventh year thou shalt let it rest ; that thine 
 ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of 
 thy handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed ’ 
 (Exod. xxiii. 10 sq.). This injunction is re- 
 peated in Lev. xxv. 1-7, where it stands as 
 proceeding immediately from the Lord. The 
 land is to keep ‘ a sabbath for the Lord.’ It is 
 added — ‘ that which groweth of its own accord of 
 thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the 
 grapes of thy vine undressed. And the sabbath 
 of the land shall be meat for you ; for thee, and 
 for thy servant, and for thy cattle.’ Then in im- 
 mediate sequence follows the law relating to the 
 Jubilee (Lev. xxi. 8). ‘And thou shalt nura- 
 oer seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times 
 seven years, forty and nine years ; then shalt thou 
 cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound in the 
 tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of 
 atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound 
 tlnoughout all your land. And ye shall hallow 
 the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout 
 
 all the land unto all the inhabitants tliereof; and 
 ye shall return every man unto his possession and 
 unto his family. A Jubilee shall that fiftieth 
 year be unto you. Ye shall not sow, neither reap 
 that which groweth of itself in it, nor gainer the 
 grapes of thy vine undressed ; for it is the Jubilee ; 
 it shall be holy unto you ; ye shall eat the increase 
 thereof out of the field. And if thou sell ought 
 unto thy neighbour or buyest ought, according to 
 the number of years after t he Jubilee thou shalt 
 buy, and according to the fewness of years (to the 
 ensuing Jubilee) thou shalt diminish the price of 
 it, for according to the number of the fruits (of 
 harvests) doth he sell. And the land shall yield 
 her fruits, and ye shall eat your till and dwell 
 therein in safety. I will command my blessing 
 upon you in the sixth year (‘tn six years ’ con- 
 jectures Michaelis, Comment, vol. i. p. 290), and 
 it shall bring forth fruit for three years. And ye 
 shall sow the eighth year and eat of old fruit 
 until the ninth year. The land shall not be sold 
 for ever, for the land is mine: in all the land of 
 your possession ye shall grant a redemption for 
 the land’ (Lev. xxv. 8-21). Land might be re- 
 deemed by a kinsman or by the party who sold it; 
 but in the Jubilee year it must return to its 
 original proprietor. Dwelling-houses within u 
 walled city might be redeemed within the first 
 year; if not redeemed within the space of a ful. 
 year they became the freehold of the purchaser. 
 The houses of villages were to he counted as the 
 fields of the country. The cities and houses of 
 the Levites were redeemable at any time, and 
 could never be held longer than the ensuing 
 Jubilee: the field of the suburbs of their cities 
 might not be sold (vers. 25-38). Israelites who 
 were hired semints (Israel it ish bond - servants were 
 not allowed) might serve till the year of Jubilee, 
 when they returned to their possessions. A He- 
 brew sold as a slave to a foreigner resident in 
 Palestine was redeemable by himself or relatives 
 at any time, by making payment according to the 
 number of years to elapse before the next Jubilee ; 
 but at the Jubilee such bondsman was, under all 
 circumstances, to be set at liberty (vers. 39-55). 
 The only exception to this system of general re- 
 stitution was in the case of property set apart and 
 devoted to the Divine service — 4 Every devoted 
 thing is most holy unto the Lord ; none devoted 
 shall he redeemed ’ (Lev. xxvii. 28-29). 
 
 With these scriptural details the account given 
 by Josephus (. Antiq . iii. 12. 3) substantially 
 agrees. The latter, however, states that in the 
 year of Jubilee ‘debtors are freed from their 
 debts.’ And in regard to the restitution of land, 
 he says, ‘when the Jubilee is come, which name 
 denotes liberty, he that sold the land and he that 
 bought it meet together, and make an estimate on 
 one hand of the fruits gathered, and on the other 
 of the expenses laid out upon it. If the fruits 
 gathered come to more than the expenses laid out, 
 he who sold it takes the land again; hut if the 
 expenses prove more than the fruits, the present 
 possessor receives of the former owner the differ- 
 ence, and leaves the land to him ; and if the fruits 
 received and the expenses laid out prove equal, 
 the present possessor relinquishes it to the former 
 owner.’ 
 
 Our object in making this quotation is not 
 merely to afford an illustration of the way in 
 which the law of release was worked, but to show 
 
JUBILEE. 
 
 JUBILEE. 
 
 191 
 
 that the Jewish historian speaks of the law as a 
 reality, as a present reality, as something in 
 actual operation : the importance of which evi- 
 dence will presently appear. 
 
 The time required by the Sabbatical year and 
 by the Jubilee to be rescued from tire labours of 
 the field, was very considerable. Strictly inter- 
 preted the language we have cited would take out 
 of the ordinary course of things every sixth, 
 seventh, and eighth year, during each successive 
 septenary, till the circle of fifty years was in each 
 period completed. Nay more, the old store, pro- 
 duced in the sixth year, was to last until the ninth 
 year, for the sixth year was to bring forth fruits 
 for three years. 
 
 The reader has now before him the whole of 
 this extraordinary piece of legislation, which, 
 viewed in all its bearings — in its effects on human 
 labour, on character, on religious institutions and 
 observances, as well as on the general condition 
 of society, no less than on the productiveness of 
 the land, and the means of sustenance to its 
 inhabitants — is wholly unparalleled by any event 
 in the history of the world. But are we therefore 
 to disbelieve and reject it. ? The admission that 
 these laws were not only given but executed, is of 
 course an acknowledgment of the divinity of the 
 Mosaic institutions : an acknowledgment which 
 involves the further recognition of miracle — 
 indeed of a continually revolving cycle of mi- 
 racles. Such a recognition, however, is opposed to 
 what some theologians, with a strange perversion 
 of the name, have regarded as a first principle in 
 their system, namely, that miracles are inadmis- 
 sible, either as being impossible or improbable. 
 Accordingly, since the existence of the law is un- 
 questionable, its execution has been denied. 
 
 We at once admit that the Scriptures do not 
 afford strictly historical data by which we are 
 enabled to prove that the law was carried into 
 effect in the earlier periods of the Jewish state. 
 But how rash to deduce a positive conclusion 
 from a mere negation ! In order that such an 
 inference should possess any weight, it is necessary 
 to show that the sacred history was designed and 
 fitted to give a complete detail of all that con- 
 cerned the Hebrew nation, and specially to ex- 
 hibit in actual operation the laws given by Mos-es. 
 No such aim have the Scriptures in view, no such 
 office do they execute ; nor are we sure that 
 their credibility would be at all enhanced, did 
 they appear framed for any such unlikely, not to 
 say suspicious, purpose. 
 
 There are some p r »sumptions in favour of the 
 reality Af the lews under consideration. The re- 
 curring periods of seven years are in keeping with 
 the institution of the seventh day as a Sabbath 
 for man and beast. The aim in both is similar — • 
 needful repose. The leading idea involved in the 
 Jubilee — namely, restitution — also harmonizes 
 with the fundamental principles of the Mosaic 
 system. The land was God’s, and was entrusted 
 for use to the chosen people in such a way that 
 every individual had his portion. A power of per- 
 petual alienation would have been a virtual denial 
 of God’s sovereign rights, while the law of Jubilee 
 was one continued recognition of them. The 
 conception is purely theocratical in its whole 
 character and tendencies. The theocracy was of 
 such a nature as to disallow all subordinate 
 •thrones, principalities, and powers;’ and conse- 
 voa.. ii. ^2 
 
 quently, to demand entire equality on the part 
 of the people. But the power of perpetual aliena- 
 tion in regard to land would have soon given rise 
 to the greatest inequalities of social condition, pre- 
 senting what modern states have, alas ! exhibited 
 but too much of — splendid affluence on one side 
 and sordid pauperism on the other. But these 
 laws tended to preserve the original level which 
 had a divine origin ; for they would prevent vast 
 accumulations, restrain cupidity, preclude do- 
 mestic tyranny, and constantly remind rich and 
 poor of their essential equality in themselves, 
 in the state, and before God. A passage in 
 Deuteronomy (xv. 4), when rightly understood, as 
 in the marginal translation — ‘ to the end that there 
 be no poor among you ’ — seems expressly to de- 
 clare that the aim in view, at least, of the Sabba- 
 tical release, was to prevent ‘the rise of any great 
 inequality of social condition, and thus to pre- 
 serve unimpaired the essential character of the 
 theocracy. Equally benevolent in its aim and 
 tendency does this institution thus appear, show- 
 ing how thoroughly the great Hebrew legislator 
 cared and provided for individuals, instead of 
 favouring classes. Beginning with a narrow cycle 
 of seven days, he went on to a wider one of as 
 many years, embracing at last seven times seven 
 annual revolutions, seeking in all his arrange- 
 ments rest for man and beast, and, by a happy 
 personification, rest even for the brute earth ; and 
 in the rest which he required for human beings, 
 providing for that more needful rest of mind 
 which the sharp competitions and eager rivalries 
 of modern society deny to ten thousand times ten 
 thousand. As being of a benign character and 
 tendency, the law of the Sabbatical and Jubilee 
 year is in accordance with the general spirit of 
 the Mosaic legislation, and appears not unworthy 
 of its divine origin. 
 
 Warburlon adduced this law (Divine Legation 
 of Moses) in order to show that Moses was in 
 truth sent and sustained by God, since nothing 
 but a divine power could have given the neces- 
 sary supplies of food in the sixth year. That, 
 there is some force in this argument no unpreju- 
 diced person can well deny : how much surprised) 
 then will the reader be, after perusing the forego- 
 ing remarks, to find Michaelis ( Comment . i. 389*. 
 note) speaking thus:- — ‘ This proof would in plain, 
 English amount to this : this law is so extremely 
 absurd, that he who gave it must necessarily have 
 been sent from God, because none but God is 
 capable of counteracting the destructive effectsrof 
 such a law.’ 
 
 To our mind, we remark in continuation of 
 these presumptive evidences, there is something 
 noble, as well as self-relying in the annunciation 
 of these laws in the desert, ere yet the land was 
 gained, as a part of a general system of religious 
 and social polity, before a horde rather than a 
 nation, a people thirsting for a tranquil settlement, 
 and therefore hostile to any mere illusions, and 
 likely to visit on their author's head such fond 
 notions as, according to Michaelis, these com- 
 mands appeared. And why, if the attempt was 
 unreal or unsupported, why this legislation for 
 future times? Why, unless Moses was supported 
 by a consciousness of a divine guidance, this risk 
 of provoking either the ridicule or the disgust gi 
 his wandering tribes ? In truth, however, Motui 
 in these laws lays the foundation, while yet iit 
 
182 
 
 JUBILEE. 
 
 JUBILEE. 
 
 the wilderness, of institutions which were in full 
 harmony with the entire system which lie said 
 he had received of God. 
 
 But these laws either emanated from Moses, or 
 they did not. If they did not, they arose after 
 the settlement in Canaan, and are of such a na- 
 ture as to convict their fabricator of imposture, if, 
 indeed, any one could have been found so daring 
 as to bring forth laws implying institutions which 
 did not exist, and which under ordinary cir- 
 cumstances could not find permanence, even if 
 they could ever be carried into operation at all. 
 But if these laws emanated from Moses, is it 
 credible that he would have given utterance to 
 commands which convict themselves of impos- 
 sibility? or caused the rise of institutions, which, 
 if unsupported of heaven, must come to a speedy 
 termination, and in so doing act to his own dis- 
 credit as a professed divine messenger? There is 
 a species of self-confidence, there is a moral 
 daring which of itself vindicates its divine origin : 
 the case before us seems to be an instance. 
 
 Nor can we see that the law is either ‘ absurd ’ 
 cr ‘ pernicious ’ (Michaelis, xit supra). That for 
 its successful execution special divine aid was 
 needful, we by no means deny ; but the Mosaic 
 polity was in its origin, and in its very nature, 
 special, and, ‘ according to the Scriptures,’ received 
 special aid of God. 
 
 So far as the system of restitution is concerned, 
 we see nothing but what the power of law and 
 the authority of religion were capable of bringing 
 about. But could the land sustain the people ? 
 Whv not? Palestine had a most fertile soil. 
 Every man having land, would be a husband- 
 man, and therefore every part would be carefully 
 tilled. And as his sustenance and that of his 
 family would, in the case of each proprietor, 
 depend, not only on his industry but his fore- 
 thought, on making provision not for a contingent 
 but a certain want ; so every head of a house 
 would labour wisely and well, and husband with 
 due care for the year of rest: thus, while making 
 provision for his bodily wants, rising in a proper 
 self-respect, and cultivating many important 
 moral qualities. Besides, a year of rest was a 
 great tiling to work for ; which would sharpen, all 
 a man’s faculties and quicken his hands ; and 
 when at length the wished for time arrived, 
 the excellence of character which the system 
 fostered would save the licence from abuse, if not 
 turn it to most important intellectual and re- 
 ligious purposes. We shall be much deceived in 
 our estimate of the moral and social effects of the 
 Jubilee, if we judge from what is probable in 
 regard to the overworked, uninstructed, and irre- 
 ligious thousands which crowd our modern cities or 
 cover our fields. On the possibility of the land’s 
 affording sufficient food, we find the following 
 important passage in Palfrey’s ‘ Lectures on the 
 Jewish Scriptures ,’ Boston, 1841, vol. i. p. 303 : 
 I find no difficulty arising from any inadequacy 
 of the produce of six years to afford sustenance to 
 the people for seven. To say that this was in- 
 tended would merely be to say that the design 
 was that the consumption of each year should 
 only amount on an average to six-sevenths of 
 its produce. In such an arrangement it can- 
 not be thought that there was any thing imprac- 
 ticable. There are states of tfo’s Union which 
 export yearly more than half their produce, 
 
 and subsist substantially on the remainder^ 
 their imports consisting mostly of luxuries. 
 Again, in England nearly three quarters of the 
 families are engaged in commerce, manufactures, 
 professions, and unproductive pursuits; but in 
 J udaea every man was a producer of food, with 
 the advantage of a fine climate and a rich soil.’ 
 The remainder is worth consulting. 
 
 It may be of some importance to remark that 
 those who believe that these laws were good, and 
 were also executed, are not therefore required to 
 maintain that the regular and intended series of 
 things was never interrupted. The promises of 
 God are in all cases conditioned on human obedi- 
 ence. This condition is expressly laid down in 
 the case before us (Lev. xxv. 18, 36, 38). At the 
 same time, the silence of the sacred history before 
 the captivity looks as if the law in question was so 
 uninterruptedly, regularly, and as a matter of 
 course, observed from Jubilee to Jubilee, that no 
 occasion transpired for remark. In history, as in 
 every day life, more is said of the exceptional 
 than the periodical and the ordinary. 
 
 The tenor of these observations will probably 
 lead the reader to consider it a somewhat sur- 
 prising assertion, that these laws were not executed 
 before the Babylonish exile ; yet such is the state- 
 ment of Winer ( Real-io'drterb . s. v. ‘ Jubeljahr’) 
 and De Wette ( Lehrh . der Archiiol. p. 158). Some 
 passages of Scripture are referred to, which are 
 thought to imply the truth of this position, as 
 1 Kings xxi. 2; Isa. v. 8; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 ; 
 Lev. xxvi. 34. Our space does not allow us to 
 go into a critical examination of these texts, but 
 we may say, that having carefully considered 
 their import and bearing, we cannot find in them 
 the alleged implication. 
 
 For the opposite view, there is, in agreement 
 with the general tenor of this article, some posi- 
 tive evidence which must be briefly indicated. 
 The Roman historian Tacitus bears witness to 
 the observance of the Sabbatical year at least, in 
 the following terms: — ‘Septimo die otium pla- 
 cuisse ferunt, quod is finem laborum tulerit ; dein 
 blandiente inertia, septimum quoque annum ig- 
 naviae datum :’ ‘ They give the seventh day to ease 
 because it put an end to labours ; moreover, 
 through the allurements of idleness, the seventh 
 year also is given to inactivity’ (Tac. Hist. v. 4). 
 Of course this is an enemy’s version, but the 
 evidence is distinct, pointed, and unquestionable. 
 We find another strong evidence furnished by 
 Josephus ( Antiq . xiv. 10. 6), where, giving cer- 
 tain decrees of Julius Caesar in the terms in which 
 they were issued, he records these words : — 
 ‘ Caesar hath ordained that the Jews pay a tribute 
 yearly excepting the seventh , which they call the 
 Sabbatical year , because thereon they neither 
 receive the fruits of their trees, nor do they sow their 
 land further on he says : ‘ every year, the seventh 
 year excepted, which they call the Sabbatic year, 
 whereon they neither plough nor receive the pro- 
 duct of their trees.’ Another testimony is found 
 in 1 Macc. vi. 49 : ‘ for they came out of the 
 city (Bethura), because they had no victuals there 
 to endure the siege, it being a year of rest to 
 the land.' In Ezekiel a passage occurs,- where 
 beyond a question the year of Jubilee is intended 
 (xlvi. 17) : ‘ if he give a gift of his inheritance to 
 one of his servants, then it shall be his to the year 
 of liberty .’ But there is a passage in Isaiah (lxi 
 
JUD/32A. 
 
 JUDAEA. 
 
 1, 2) which appears to us to furnish remarkable 
 and sat,isfa< toi y evidence that the Jubilee itself 
 was observed before the captivity : — ‘ The spirit of 
 the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath 
 anointed me to preach good tidings unto the 
 meek, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and 
 the opening of the prison to them that are bound, 
 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord .’ 
 
 The words of Isaiah we consider very strong. 
 It is admitted that they allude to the year of 
 Jubilee (Kranold De Anno Jubilceo, p. 80) — but 
 then they are poetry, not history. Why, what a 
 purblind objection is this ! The clear implications 
 of poetry are the best and truest history, for they 
 are an appeal to what is generally known and 
 recognised in the public mind. There would 
 have been no pertinency in the words of Isaiah, 
 had not the Jubilee been a thing of which the 
 world around him had actual experience ; just 
 as the force and import of the words do not 
 appear to the mind of a modern reader, until he 
 is acquainted with the Mosaic laws, and the 
 Jewish observances on the point. 
 
 If, however, the essential element of this system 
 of law, namely the Sabbatical year, was, as we 
 have seen, an established institution in the days of 
 Tacitus, Josephus, the Maccabees, Ezekiel, and 
 Isaiah, we think the fair and legitimate inference 
 is in favour of those laws having been long pre- 
 viously observed, probably from the early periods 
 of the Hebrew republic. Their existence in a 
 declining state of the commonwealth cannot 
 be explained without seeking their origin nearer 
 the fountain-head of those pure, living waters, 
 which, with the force of all primitive enthusiasm, 
 easily effected great social wonders, especially 
 when divinely guided and divinely sustained. — 
 9 J. R. B. 
 
 JUDAEA, the southernmost of the three divi- 
 sions of the Holy Land. It denoted the kingdom 
 of Judah as distinguished from that of Israel. 
 But after the captivity, as most of the exiles who 
 returned belonged to the kingdom of Judah, the 
 name Judaea (Judah) was applied generally to 
 the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan (Hag. 
 i. 1, 14 ; ii. 2). Under the Romans, in the time 
 of Christ, Palestine was divided into Judaea, Ga- 
 lilee, and Samaria (John iv. 4, 5; Acts ix. 31), 
 the last including the whole of the southern 
 part west of the Jordan. But this division was 
 only observed as a political and local distinction, 
 for the sake of indicating the part of the country, 
 just as we use the name of a county (Matt. ii. 
 1,5; iii. 1; iv. 25 ; Luke i. 65); but when the 
 whole of Palestine was to be indicated in a 
 general way, the term Judaea was still employed. 
 Thus persons in Galilee and elsewhere spoke of 
 going to Judaea (John vii. 3 ; xi. 7), to distin- 
 guish the part of Palestine to which they were 
 proceeding ; but when persons in Rome and other 
 places spoke of Judaea (Acts xxviii. 21), they 
 used the word as a general denomination for the 
 country of the Jews, or Palestine. Indeed, the 
 name seems to have had a more extensive appli- 
 cation than even to Palestine west of the Jordan. 
 It denoted all the dominions of Herod the Great, 
 who was called king of Judaea; and much of 
 these lay beyond the river. After the death of 
 Herod, however, the Judaea to which his son 
 Archelaus succeeded was only the southern pro- 
 vince so called (Matt. ii. 22) ; which afterwards 
 
 became a Roman province dependent on Syria 
 and governed by procurators, and this was its con- 
 dition during our Lord’s ministry. It was after- 
 wards for a time partly under the dominion of 
 Herod Agrippa the elder (Acts xii. 1-19), but 
 on his death it reverted to its former condition 
 under the Romans. 
 
 It is only Judaea, in the provincial sense, that 
 requires our present notice, the country at large 
 being described in the article Palestine. In 
 this sense, however, it was much more extensive 
 than the domain of the tribe of Judah, even more 
 so than the kingdom of the same name. There 
 are no materials for describing its limits with 
 precision ; but it included the ancient territories 
 of Judah, Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, and part of 
 Ephraim. It is, however, not correct to describe 
 Idumaea as not anciently belonging to Judah. 
 The Idumaea of later times, or that which be- 
 longed to Judaea, was the southern part of the 
 ancient Judah, into which the Idumaeans had 
 intruded during the exile, and the annexation of 
 which to Judaea only restored what had anciently 
 belonged to it. 
 
 In the rabbinical writings Judaea, as a division 
 of Palestine, is frequently called ‘ the south,’ or 
 ‘ the south country,’ to distinguish it from Galilee, 
 which was called ‘ the north’ (Lightfoot, Chorog. 
 Cent. xii.). The distinction of the tribe of Judah 
 into ‘ the Mountain,’ ‘ the Plain,’ and ‘ the Vale,’ 
 which we meet with in the Old Testament (Num. 
 xiii. 30), was preserved under the more extended 
 denomination of Judaea. The Mountain , or hill 
 country of Judaea (Josh. xxi. 11 ; Luke i. 39), 
 was that ‘ broad back of mountains,’ as Lightfoot 
 calls it ( Chorog . Cent, xi.), which fills the centre 
 of the country from Hebron northward to beyond 
 Jerusalem. The Plain was the low country 
 towards the sea-coast, and seems to have included 
 not only the broad plain which extends between 
 the sea and the hill country, but the lower parts 
 of the hilly region itself in that direction. Thus 
 the rabbins allege that from Bethoron to the sea is 
 one region ( T. Pieros. Sheviith, ix. 2). The Vale 
 is defined by the rabbins as extending from En- 
 gedi to Jericho (Lightfoot, Panergon , § 2) ; from 
 which, and other indications, it seems to have 
 included such parts of the Ghor, or great plain of 
 the Jordan, as lay within the territory of Judaea. 
 This appropriation of the terms is far preferable to 
 that of some writers, such as Lightfoot, who sup- 
 pose ‘ the Plain ’ to be the broad plain of the 
 Jordan, and ‘the Valley’ to be the lower valley 
 of the same river. That which is called the 
 Wilderness of Judcea , was the wild and in- 
 hospitable region lying eastward of Jerusalem, in 
 the direction of the Jordan and Dead Sea (Isa. 
 xl. 3; Matt. iii. 1 ; Luke i. 80 ; iii. 2-4). We 
 may have some notion of the extent northward 
 which Judaea had obtained, from Josephus calling 
 Jerusalem the centre of the country (De Bell. 
 Jud. iii. 3. 5) ; which is remarkable, seeing that 
 Jerusalem was originally in the northernmost 
 border of the tribe of Judah. In fact, he describes 
 the breadth of the country as extending from the 
 Jordan to Joppa, which shows that this city was 
 in Judaea. How much further to the north the 
 boundary lay, we cannot know with precision, as 
 we are unacquainted with the site of Annath, 
 otherwise Borceros, which he says lay on the 
 boundary line between Judaea and Samaria. The 
 
164 
 
 JUD^A. 
 
 JUDAH. 
 
 tners fact that Josephus makes Jerusalem the 
 centre of fne land seems to prove that the pro- 
 vince did not extend so far to the south as the 
 ancient kingdom of the same name. As the 
 southern boundary of Judaea was also that of the 
 whole country, the questions connected with it 
 belong to the article Palestine ; and it is only 
 necessary to remark that Josephus places the 
 southern boundary of the Judaea of the time of 
 Christ at a village called Jardan, on the confines 
 of Arabia Petraea. No place of this name has 
 been found ; and the indication is very indistinct, 
 from the fact that all the country which lay be- 
 yond the Idumaea of those times was then called 
 Arabia. In fixing this boundary, Josephus re- 
 gards Idumaea as part of Judaea, for he imme- 
 diately after reckons that as one of the eleven 
 districts into which Judaea was divided. Most 
 of these districts were denominated, like our 
 counties, from the chief towns. They were, 
 
 I. Jerusalem; 2. Gophna ; 3. Acrabatta; 4. 
 Thumna; 5. Lydda; 6. Emmaus ; 7. Pella; 
 8. Idumaea ; 9. Engaddi ; 10. Herodium ; and 
 
 II. Jericho. 
 
 Judaea is, as the above intimations would sug- 
 gest, a country full of hills and valleys. The 
 hills are generally separated from one another by 
 valleys and torrents, and are, for the most part, 
 of moderate height, uneven, and seldom of any 
 regular figure. The rock of which they are com- 
 posed is easily converted into soil, which being 
 arrested by the terraces when washed down 
 by the rains, renders the hills cultivable in a 
 series of long, narrow gardens, formed by these 
 terraces from the base upwards. In this manne$ 
 the hills were in ancient times cultivated most 
 industriously, and enriched and beautified with 
 the fig-tree, the olive-tree, and the vine ; ar.d it is 
 thus that the scanty cultivation which still sub- 
 sists is now carried on. But when the inhabitants 
 were rooted out, and the culture neglected, the 
 terraces fell to decay, and the soil which had 
 been collected in them was washed down into the 
 valleys, leaving only the arid rock, naked and 
 desolate. This is the general character of the 
 scenery ; but in some parts the hills are beauti- 
 fully wooded, and in others the application of 
 the ancient mode of cultivation still suggests to 
 the traveller how rich the country once was and 
 might be again, and how beautiful the prospects 
 which it offered. As, however, much of this was 
 the result of cultivation, the country was probably 
 anciently, as at present, naturally less fertile than 
 either Samaria or Galilee. The present difference 
 is very pointedly remarked by different travellers ; 
 and Lord Lindsay plainly declares that ‘ all 
 Judaea, except the hills of Hebron and the vales 
 immediately about Jerusalem, is barren and de- 
 solate. But the prospect brightens as soon as you 
 quit it, and Samaria and Galilee still smile like 
 the land of promise.’ But there is a season — after 
 the spring-rains, and before the summer heat lias 
 absorbed all the moisture left by them — when 
 even the desert is clothed with verdure ; and at 
 that season the valleys of Judaea present a refresh- 
 ingly green appearance. This vernal season, how- 
 ever, is of short duration, and by the beginning of 
 May the grass upon the mountains, and every 
 vestige of vegetation upon the lower grounds, have 
 ia general completely disappeared (see Pictorial 
 History of Palestine ; Introduct. pp. 39, 40, 119, 
 
 120 ; Nau, p. 439 ; Roger, p. 182; Mariti, ii. 362 
 Lindsay, ii. 70 ; S’.ephens, ii. 249 ; Elliot, p. 408, 
 409 ; Olin, ii. 323 j. 
 
 JUDAH (iTTllT, celebrated ; Sept. ’IovSas), 
 fourth son of Jacob and Leah (b.c. 1755). The 
 narrative in Genesis brings this patriarch more 
 before the reader, and makes known more of his 
 history and character, than it does in the case of 
 any other of the twelve sons of Jacob, -with the 
 single exception of Joseph. It is indeed chiefly 
 in connection with Joseph that the facts respecting 
 Judah transpire ; and as they have already been 
 given in the articles Jacob and Joseph, it is 
 only necessary to indicate them shortly in this 
 place. It was Judah’s advice that the brethren 
 followed when they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, 
 instead of taking his life. By the light of his 
 subsequent actions we can see that his conduct 
 on this occasion arose from a generous impulse, 
 although the form of the question he put to them 
 has been sometimes held to suggest an interested 
 motive : — ‘ What profit is it if we slay our brother 
 and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him,’ 
 &c. (Gen. xxxvii. 26, 27). 
 
 Not long after this Judah withdrew from the 
 paternal tents, and went to reside at Adullam, 
 in the country which afterwards bore his name. 
 Here he married a woman of Canaan, called 
 Shuah, and bad by her three sons, Er, Onan, and 
 Shelah. When the eldest of these sons became 
 of fit age, he was n4R-ried to a woman named 
 Tamar, but soon after died. Ashe died childless, 
 the patriarchal law, afterwards adopted into the 
 Mosaic code (Deut. xxv. 6), required him to 
 bestow upon the widow his second son. This he 
 did : but as Onan also soon died childless, Judah 
 became reluctant to bestow his only surviving 
 son upon this woman, and put her off with the 
 excuse that he was not yet of sufficient age. 
 Tamar accordingly remained in her father’s house 
 at Adullam. She had the usual passion of 
 Eastern women for offspring, and could not endure 
 the stigma of having been twice married without 
 bearing children, while the law precluded her 
 from contracting any alliance but lhat which 
 Judah withheld her from completing. 
 
 Meanwhile Judah’s wife died, and after the 
 time of mourning had expired, he went, accom- 
 panied by his friend Hirah, to attend the shearing 
 of his sheep at Timnath in the same neighbour- 
 hood. These circumstances suggested to Tamar 
 the strange thought of connecting herself with ■ 
 Judah himself, under the guise of a loose woman. , 
 Having waylaid him on the road to Timnath, 
 she succeeded in her object, and when the conse- \ 
 quences began to be manifest in the person of j 
 Tamar, Judah was highly enraged at her crime, j 
 and, exercising the powers which belonged to him 
 as the head of the family she had dishonoured, j 
 he commanded her to be brought forth, and com- J 
 mitted to the flames as an adulteress. But when 
 she appeared, she produced the ring, the brace- 
 let, and the staff, which he had left in pledge 
 with her; and put him to confusion by declaring I 
 that they belonged to the father of her coming 
 offspring. Judah acknowledged them to be his, 
 and confessed that he had been wrong in with 
 holding Shelah from her. The result of this pain- 
 ful affair was the birth of two sons, Zerah and 
 Pharez, from whom, with Shelah, the tribe of 
 
JUDAH, TRIBE OF. 
 
 Judah descended. Pharez was the ancestor of 
 the line from which David, the kings of Judah, 
 and Jesus came (Gen. xxxviii. ; xlvi. 12; 1 
 Chron. ii. 3-5; Matt. i. 8; Luke iii. 33). 
 
 These circumstances seem to have disgusted 
 Judah with his residence in towns; for we find 
 him ever afterwards at his father’s tents. His 
 experience of life, and the strength of his cha- 
 racter, appear to have given him much influence 
 with Jacob; and it was chiefly from confidence 
 in him that the aged father at length consented 
 to allow Benjamin to go down to Egypt. That 
 this confidence was not misplaced has already 
 been shown [Joseph] ; and there is not in the 
 whole range of literature a finer piece of true 
 natural eloquence than that in which Judah offers 
 aimself to remain as a bond-slave in the place of 
 Benjamin, for whose safe return he had made 
 himself responsible to his father. The strong emo- 
 tions which it raised in Joseph disabled him from 
 keeping up longer the disguise he had hitherto 
 maintained, and there are few who have read it 
 without being, like him, moved even to tears. 
 
 We hear nothing more of Judah till he re- 
 ceived, along with his brothers, the final blessing 
 of his father, which was conveyed in lofty lan- 
 guage, glancing far into futurity, and strongly 
 indicative of the high destinies which awaited the 
 tribe that was to descend from him. 
 
 2. JUDAH, TRIBE OF. This tribe sprang 
 from Judah, the son of Jacob. When the Israelites 
 quitted Egypt, it already exhibited the elements 
 of its future distinction in a larger population 
 than any of the other tribes possessed. It num- 
 bered 74,000 adult males, being nearly 12,000 
 more than Dan, the next in point of numbers, and 
 
 34.100 more than Ephraim, which in the end con- 
 tested with it the superiority among the tribes. 
 During the sojourn in the wilderness, Judah 
 neither gained, like some tribes, nor lost like others. 
 Its numbers had increased to 76,500, being 
 
 12.100 more than Issachar, which had become 
 next to it in population (Num. i. 25). In the 
 first distribution of lands, the tribe of Judah re- 
 ceived the southernmost part of Palestine, to the 
 extent of fujly one-third of the whole country to 
 be distributed among the nine and a half tribes 
 for which provision was to be made. This over- 
 sight was discovered and rectified at the time of 
 the second distribution, which was founded on 
 an actual survey of the country, when Simeon 
 and Dan received allotments out of the territory 
 which had before been wholly assigned to Judah 
 (Josh. xix. 9). That which remained was still 
 very large, and more proportioned to the future 
 greatness than the actual wants of the tribe. We 
 now also know, through the researches of recent 
 travellers, that the extent of good land belonging 
 to this tribe, southward, was much greater than had 
 usually been supposed, much of that which had 
 been laid down in maps as mere desert, being actu- 
 ally composed of excellent pasture land, and in 
 part of arable soil, still exhibiting some traces of 
 ancient cultivation. When Judah became a 
 kingdom, the original extent of territory assigned 
 to the tribe was more than restored or compen- 
 sated, for it must have included the domains of 
 Simeon, and we know that Benjamin was in- 
 cluded in it. 
 
 The history of the Judges contains fewer facts 
 respecting this important tribe -van might be ex- 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 185 
 
 pected. It seems however lo have been usually 
 considered that the birthright which Reuben for- 
 feited had passed to Judah under the blessing of 
 Jacob; and a sanction was given to this impression 
 when, after the death of Joshua, the divine oracle 
 nominated Judah to take precedence of the other 
 tribes in the war against the Canaanites (Judg. 
 i. 2). It does not appear that any tribe was dis- 
 posed to dispute the superior claim of Judah on 
 its own account, except Ephraim, although in 
 doing this Ephraim had the support, of other 
 tribes. Ephraim appears to have rested its claims 
 to the leadership of the tribes upon the ground 
 that the house of Joseph, whose interest it repre- 
 sented, had received the birthright, or double por- 
 tion of the eldest, by the adoption of the two sons 
 of Joseph, who became the founders of two tribes 
 in Israel. The existence of the sacerdotal esta- 
 blishment at Shiloh, in Ephraim, was doubtless 
 also alleged by the tribe as a ground of superiority 
 over Judah. When, therefore, Judah assumed 
 the sceptre in the person of David, and when the 
 sacerdotal establishment was removed to Jeru- 
 salem, Ephraim could not brook the eclipse it had 
 sustained, and took the first opportunity of erect- 
 ing a separate throne, and forming separate esta- 
 blishments for worship and sacrifice. Perhaps the 
 separation of the kingdoms may thus be traced to 
 the rivalry of Judah and Ephraim. After that 
 separation the rivalry was between the two king- 
 doms ; but it was still popularly considered as 
 representing the ancient rivalry of these great 
 tribes ; for the prophet, in foretelling the repose of 
 a coming time, describes it by saying, ( The envy 
 also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries 
 of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not. envy 
 Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim’ (Isa. 
 xiii. 12). 
 
 3. JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. When the ter- 
 ritory of all the rest of Israel, except Judah and 
 Benjamin, was lost to the kingdom of Rehoboam, 
 a special single name was needed to denote that 
 which remained to him ; and almost of necessity 
 the word Judah received an extended meaning, ac- 
 cording to which it comprised not Benjamin only, 
 but the priests and Levites, who were ejected in 
 great numbers from Israel, and rallied round the 
 house of David. At a still later time, when the 
 nationality of the ten tribes had been dissolved, 
 and every practical distinction between the ten 
 and the two had vanished during the captivity, 
 the scattered body had no visible head, except in 
 Jerusalem, which had been re-occupied by a por- 
 tion of Judah’s exiles. In consequence the name 
 Judah (or Jew ) attached itself to the entire 
 nation from about the epoch of the restoration. 
 But in this article Judah is understood of the 
 people over which David’s successors reigned, from 
 llehoboam to Zedekiah. Under the article Israei. 
 the chronology of the two kingdoms has been dis- 
 cussed, which, however, was not carried below the 
 capture of Samaria. In the lower part of the list 
 we lose the check which tne double line of kings 
 afforded ; but for the same reason the problem is 
 simpler. The only difficulty encountered here 
 rises out of the ages assigned to some of the kings 
 of Judah. For this reason, in the following list, 
 all their ages are inserted, so far as they are 
 recorded. It has been thought sufficient to add 
 Winer’s chronology to the dates as given abors 
 in the article Israel. 
 
160 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 Accession of 
 
 Years 
 
 of 
 
 Reign. 
 
 Age. 
 
 B. C. 
 
 Father’s 
 Age at 
 Son’s 
 Birth. 
 
 Rehoboam 
 
 17 
 
 41 
 
 975 
 
 
 
 Abijah 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 957 
 
 *22 
 
 Asa .... 
 
 41 
 
 — 
 
 955 
 
 *22 
 
 Jehoshaphat . 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 914 
 
 *22 
 
 [Jehoram installed] 
 Jehoram alone 
 
 8 
 
 32 
 
 (35) 
 
 889 
 
 25 
 
 Ahaziah . 
 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 885 
 
 17 
 
 [Queen Athaliah] 
 
 7 
 
 — 
 
 884 
 
 — 
 
 Jehoash 
 
 39? 
 
 7 
 
 878 
 
 22 
 
 Amaziah . • 
 
 29 
 
 25 
 
 838 
 
 22 
 
 Uzziah . 
 
 53? 
 
 16 
 
 809 
 
 38 
 
 Jotham 
 
 16 
 
 25 
 
 757 
 
 43 
 
 Ahaz .... 
 
 16 
 
 20 
 
 741 
 
 22 
 
 Hezekiah . v . 
 
 29 
 
 25 
 
 726 
 
 10 
 
 Manasseh . 
 
 55 
 
 12 
 
 696 
 
 42 
 
 Amon .... 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 641 
 
 45 
 
 Josiah .... 
 
 31 
 
 8 
 
 639 
 
 16 
 
 Jehoahaz . 
 
 i 
 
 4 
 
 23 
 
 609 
 
 15 
 
 Jehoiakim, his bro- 
 ther .... 
 
 11 
 
 25? 
 
 609 
 
 13? 
 
 Jehoiachin 
 
 i 
 
 18 
 
 598 
 
 18 
 
 Zedekiah, his fa- 
 ther’s brother . 
 
 ll 
 
 21 
 
 598 
 
 28 
 
 Zedekiah is deposed 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 588 
 
 — 
 
 The ages of Abijah and Asa at their accession 
 not being given, the three first numbers in the last 
 column are averages only, Rehoboam having been 
 bom 66 or 67 years before Jehoshaphat. It is 
 clearly impossible that Ahaz should have been 
 only 10 years older than his son Hezekiah. To 
 lessen the absurdity, Mr. Clinton follows the 
 reading of the Sept, in 2 Chron. xxviii. 1, which 
 makes Ahaz 25 years of age at his accession. 
 But in 2 Kings xvi. 2, the Sept, has 20, so that 
 no weight can be laid on its reading in the other 
 
 { passage. Besides, this is inadequate to untie the 
 mot ; for it still remains that Jotham was a 
 grandfather by the male line at the age of 31 
 (indeed, a year earlier in Mr. Clinton’s scheme, 
 who places the accession of Jotham in b.c. 756) ; 
 nor is it probable that three kings in succession 
 ascended the throne at the age of 25 years. If 
 arbitrary change must be used, the most effectual 
 would be to lower the age of Hezekiah at his 
 accession by 10 years; but no certainty on these 
 matters can be effected. A similar difficulty 
 occurs with Jehoiakim, whose father Josiah is 
 made to have been but 13 years older than he. 
 Since, however, it is probable that Jehoahaz was 
 older than Jehoiakim, perhaps the number 25, 
 wnich expresses Jehoiakim’s age at his accession, 
 is corrupt. 
 
 From Rehoboam to Jehoiachin are 16 genera- 
 tions and 400 years, between the births of the first 
 and last ; which gives an average of 25 years to a 
 generation. This is rather short for the direct line 
 of descent, especially when we consider that, where 
 polygamy is practised, the eldest son is by no meajis 
 so certain, when alive, to succeed to the throne as 
 with us. In fact, from the ages of their fathers 
 we may probably infer that Amon, Manasseh, 
 Jotham, and Uzziah, were younger sons, as Aha- 
 ziah is said to have been (2 Chron. xxii. 1). The 
 three last generations of the series together occupy 
 but i6-J-13-f-18 = 47 years; so that Amon, had 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 he lived, would have been a great-grand fati.er (t> 
 the male line ) at the age of 47 ; a thing so un- 
 paralleled as to lead to the suspicion that the 
 later chronology, where we lose the double series 
 of kings, is less to be depended on. There is an 
 apparent difficulty also as to Ahaziah, found in 
 2 Chron. xxii. 1, 2. That he was ‘ 42 years old’ 
 at his accession is an obvious error for 22 
 (2 Kings viii. 26) : that he should have been the 
 youngest of many sons, and yet only‘l7 years 
 younger than his father, is to be explained by his 
 father already having many wives ; but still it is 
 remarkable. 
 
 Where polygamy prevails, the extermination of 
 a royal house by the enmity of brothers is notori- 
 ously to be dreaded, in spite of the number of pos- 
 terity which single monarchs can sometimes count. 
 That the house of David encountered this danger 
 is not expressly mentioned in the Kings. Two 
 massacres are therein found ; one of ‘ the brethren 
 of Ahaziah,’ ‘ forty-two men,’ the sons of Jehoram, 
 by the hypocritical zeal of Jehu; and, almost 
 simultaneously, ‘ all the seed-royal’ (the sons of 
 Ahaziah?) by Queen Athaliah (2 Kings x. 13, 
 14 ; xi. 1). Only an infant son of Ahaziah (all 
 in fact must have been of tender age) was saved 
 from this slaughter, who, 44 years afterwards, was 
 assassinated by his own people (2 Kings xii. 20), 
 as was his son Amaziah (xiv. 19), and at a later 
 period Amon (xxi. 23) ; but no massacre of the 
 royal family accompanied either of these murders. 
 In the Chronicles (2 Chron. xxi. 4) we read that 
 Jehoram slew all his brethren, the sons of Jeho- 
 shaphat, from jealousy of the power with which 
 their father had invested them ; and Jehoram ’s 
 own sons are said to have been all slain, but one, 
 by the Philistines and Arabians ; so that Ahaziah 
 had no brethren left l'or Jehu to slay; but 
 ‘ brethren ’ must be taken with some latitude to 
 mean ‘ brothers’ sons’ (2 Chron. xxi. 4, 17 ; xxii. 
 1, 8). It must, however, be confessed that this 
 is irreconcilable with the chronology ; for at this 
 time the age of Jehoram, their supposed grand- 
 father (had he been alive), would have been 38 
 years ; so that the eldest of these ‘ forty-two men ’ 
 could barely have been 6 years old. Some error, 
 therefore, must be admitted in the narrative of 
 the Chronicler concerning Jehoram and his son ; 
 and, in fact, this is not the only point in which it 
 is inconsistent with that in the Kings. Jehoram 
 is said to have received a letter from Elijah the 
 prophet (2 Chron. xxi. 12) at a time when lie had 
 already ascended into heaven, according to the 
 Kings : also, in 2 Kings viii. 24, he is stated to 
 have been buried ‘ with his fathers,’ which is 
 directly contradicted by 2 Chron. xxi. 20. To 
 finish the subject of chronology it may be ob- 
 served : (1.) It is remarkable that Jehoshabeath, 
 the daughter of Ahaziah, should have been wife 
 of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chron. xxii. 11). For 
 as Jehoiada lived to the age of 130 (xxiv. 15), 
 and died many years before Jeboash, the priest 
 must have been some 70 years older than his 
 wife. (2.) The date ‘ 36 years,’ in 2 Chron. 
 xvi. 1, is certainly wrong, since Baasha died in 
 the twenty-sixth year of Asa. The number 16 
 instead of 36 would agree sufficiently well with 
 the history ; but we cannot with propriety so cor- 
 rect the text, because of the date 35 in the last 
 verse of the preceding chapter; not to mention 
 that the narrative in the Chronicles represents tbs 
 
JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 declension of the pious Asa as being only towards 
 the end of Ins reign (xv. 17). Clinton overlooks 
 this, and wishes (‘ with many commentators ’) to 
 interpret ‘ the thirty-sixth year of the reign of 
 Asa ’ to mean ‘ the thirty-sixth year of the divided 
 monarchy ;’ but this is not interpretation at all. 
 
 When the kingdom of Solomon became rent 
 with intestine war, it might have been foreseen 
 that the Edomites, Moabites, and other surround- 
 ing nations would at once refuse their accustomed 
 tribute, and become again practically inde- 
 pendent; and some irregular invasion of these 
 tribes might have been dreaded. It was a mark 
 of conscious weakness, and not a result of strength, 
 that llehoboam fortified 15 cities (2 Chron. xi. 
 5 11), in which his people might find defence 
 against the irregular armies of his roving neigh- 
 bours. But a more formidable enemy came in, 
 Shishak king of Egypt, against whom the for- 
 tresses were of no avail (xii. 4), and to whom 
 Jerusalem was forced to open its gates ; and, from 
 the despoiling of his treasures, Rehoboam pro- 
 babl y sustained a still greater shock in its moral 
 effect on the Moabites and Edomites, than in the 
 direct loss : nor is it easy to conceive that he any 
 longer retained the commerce of the Red Sea, or 
 any very lucrative trade. Judged of by the 
 number of soldiers recounted in the Chronicles, 
 the strength of the early kings of Judah must have 
 been not only great, but rapidly increasing. The 
 following are the armies there given : — 
 
 Rehoboam gathered 180,000 chosen men (2 
 Chron. xi. 1). (Shishak attacked him with 
 
 60.000 horse, 1200 chariots, besides infantry.) 
 Abijah set in array 400,000 valiant men (xiii. 
 3, 17), and slew 500,000 of Jeroboam’s 800,000 
 in one battle. Asa had 300,000 heavy armed, 
 ind 280,000 light armed men (xiv. 8). (Zerah 
 nvaded him with 1,000,000 men and 300 cha- 
 iots.) Jehoshaphat kept up : — 
 
 300.000 under Adnah, 
 
 280.000 under Jehonahan, 
 
 200.000 under Amasiah. 
 
 200.000 (light armed) under Eliadah, 
 
 180.000 under Jehozabad (xvii. 14-19), 
 
 Total . 1,160,000 for field service. 
 
 ‘ These waited on the king besides the garrisons 
 ‘ in the fenced cities.’ 
 
 After Jehoshaphat followed the calamitous 
 affinity with the house of Ahab, and the mas- 
 sacres of both families. Under Jehoiada the 
 priest., and Jehoash his pupil, no martial efforts 
 were made ; but Amaziah son of Jehoash, after 
 hiring 100,000 Israelites to no purpose, made 
 war on the Edomites, slew 10,000, and threw 
 
 10.000 more down from the top of their rock 
 (xxv. 5, 6, 11, 12). His own force in Judah, 
 from 20 years old and upwards, was numbered 
 at only 300,000 choice men, able to handle spear 
 and shield. His son Uzziah had 2600 military 
 offices, and 307,500 men of war (xxvi. 12, 13). 
 Ahaz lost, in a single battle with Pekah, 120,000 
 valiant men (xxviii. 6), after the severe slaughter 
 ne had received from Rezin king of Syria ; after 
 which no further military strength is ascribed to 
 the kings of Judah. As to all these numbers the 
 Vatican Sept, agrees with the received Hebrew 
 text. 
 
 These figures have caused no small perplexity, 
 and have suggested to some the need of conjec- 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 167 
 
 tural emendation. But if they have been cor- 
 rupted, it is by system, and on purpose; for them 
 is far too great uniformity in them to be the resuli 
 of accident. It perhaps deserves remark, that in 
 the book of Kings no numbers of such startling 
 magnitude are found. The army ascribed to 
 Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 21) is, indeed, as in 
 Chronicles, 180,000 men : but if we explain it of 
 those able to fight, the number, though certainly 
 large, may be dealt with historically. See the 
 article on Population. 
 
 As the most important external relations of 
 Israel were with Damascus, so were ’ those of 
 Judah with Edom and Egypt. Some revolution 
 in the state of Egypt appears to have followed the 
 reign of Shishak. Apparently the country must 
 have fallen under the power of an Ethiopian 
 dynasty; for the name of the Lubim, who ac- 
 companied Zerah in his attack ofi Asa, is gene- 
 rally regarded as proving that Zerah was from 
 Sennaar, the ancient Meroe. But as this inva- 
 sion was signally repulsed, the attempt was not 
 repeated; and Judah enjoyed entire tranquillity 
 from that quarter until the invasion of Pharaoh- 
 necho. In fact it may seem that this success 
 assisted the reaction, favourable to the power of 
 Judah, which was already begun, in conse- 
 quence of a change in the policy of Damascus. 
 Whether Abijah had been in league with the 
 father of Benhadad I. (as is generally inferred 
 from 1 Kings xv. 19) may be doubted ; for the 
 address cannot be rendered, ‘ Let there be a 
 league between me and thee, as there teas between 
 my father and thine;’ and it possibly is only a 
 hyperbolical phrase of friendship for, ‘ Let us be 
 in close alliance ; let us count our fathers to have 
 been allies.’ However this may Asa bought, 
 by a costly sacrifice, the serviceable aid of the 
 Damascene king. Israel was soon distressed, and 
 Judah became once more formidable to her south- 
 ern neighbours. ' Jehoshaphat appears to have re- 
 asserted the Jewish authority over the Edomites 
 without w-ar, and to have set his own viceroy over 
 them (1 Kings xxii. 47). Intending to resume 
 the distant commerce which had been so profitable 
 to Solomon, he built ships suitable for long* voy- 
 ages (‘ ships o/Tarshish’ as they are rightly called 
 in 1 Kings xxii. 48 — a phrase wliich the Chronicler 
 has misunderstood, and translated into ‘ ships to 
 go to Tarshish,’ 2 Chron. xx. 36) ; but not hav- 
 ing the advantage of Tyrian sailors, as Solomon 
 had, he lost the vessels by violent weather before 
 they had sailed. Upon this, Ahaziah, king of 
 Judah, offered the service of his own mariners, pro- 
 bably from the tribe of Asher and others accus- 
 tomed to the Mediterranean ; but Jehoshaphat 
 was too discouraged to accept his offer, and the 
 experiment was never renewed by any Hebrew 
 king. The Edomites, who paid only a forced 
 allegiance, soon after revolted from Jehoram, and 
 elected their own king (2 Kings viii. 20, 22). At 
 a later time they were severely defeated by Ama- 
 ziah (2 Kings xiv. 7), whose son, Uzziah, fortified 
 the tow^* of Elath, intending, probably, to resume 
 maritime enterprise; but it remained a barren 
 possession, and was finally taken from them by 
 Rezin, in the reign of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 6). 
 The Philistines, in these times, seem to have fallen 
 from their former greatness, their league having 
 been so long dissolved. The most remarkable even! 
 in which they are concerned is the assault on J©. 
 
168 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 rusalem, in the reign of Jelioram (2 Chron. xxi. 
 16, 17). 
 
 It is strikingly indicative of the stormy scenes 
 through which the line of David passed, that the 
 treasures of the king and of the Temple were so 
 often plundered or barga ned away. First, under 
 Rehoboam, all the hoards of Solomon, consecrated 
 and common alike, were carried off by Shishak 
 (1 Kings xiv. 26). Two generations later, Asa 
 emptied out to Benhadad all that had since accu- 
 mulated ‘ in the house of Jehovah or in the king’s 
 house.’ A third time, when Hazael had taken 
 Gath, and was preparing to march on Jerusalem, 
 Jehoash, king of Judah, turned him away by 
 sending to him all ‘ that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, 
 Ahaziah and Jehoash himself had dedicated, and 
 all the gold that was found in the treasures of the 
 house of Jehovah and in the king’s house’ (2 
 Kings xii. 18). In the very next reign Jehoash, 
 king of Israel, defeated and captured Amaziah, 
 took Jerusalem*, broke down the walls, carried off 
 hostages, and plundered the gold and silver depo- 
 sited in the temple and in the royal palace (2 Kings 
 xiv. 11-14). A fifth sacrifice of the sacred and of 
 the royal treasure was made by Ahaz to Tiglath- 
 pileser (2 Kings xvi. 8). The act was repeated 
 by his son Hezekiah to Sennacherib, who had de- 
 manded ‘300 talents of silver and 30 talents of 
 gold.’ It is added, ‘ Hezekiah cut off* the gold 
 which he had overlaid, from the doors of the temple 
 and from the pillars’ (2 Kings xviii. 14-16). In 
 the days of Josiah, as in those of Jehoash, the 
 temple appears to have been greatly out of repair 
 (xii. and xxii.) ; and when Pharaoh-necho, hav- 
 ing slain Josiah, had reduced Judah to submission, 
 the utmost tribute that could be exacted was 100 
 talents of silver and one talent of gold. Even 
 this sum was obtained by direct taxation, and no 
 allusion is made to any treasure at all, either in 
 the temple or in the king’s house. It is the more 
 extraordinary to find expressions used when Ne- 
 buchadnezzar took the city, which at first sight 
 imply that Solomon’s far-famed stores were still 
 untouched. ‘Nebuchadnezzar carried out all 
 the treasures of the house of Jehovah and of the 
 king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of 
 gold which Solomon had made in the temple of 
 Jehovah’ (2 Kings xxiv. 13). They must evi- 
 dently have been few in number, for in 1 Kings 
 xiv. 26, ‘ all ’ must, at least, mean ‘ nearly all 
 * Shishak took away the treasures of the house of 
 Jehovah, and of the king's house ; he even took 
 away all.' Yet the vessels of gold and silver taken 
 away by Nebuchadnezzar and restored by Cyrus 
 are reckoned 5400 in number (E^ra i. 11). 
 
 The severest shock which the house of David 
 received was the double massacre which it endured 
 from Jehu and from Athaliah. After a long mi- 
 nority, a youthful king, the sole surviving male 
 descendant of his great-grandfather, and reared 
 under the paternal rule of the priest Jehoiada, to 
 whom he was indebted not only for his throne but 
 even for his recognition as a son of Ahaziah, was 
 not in a situation to uphold the royal authority. 
 That Jehoash conceived the priests to have abused 
 the power which they had gained, sufficiently 
 appears in 2 Kings xii., where he complains that 
 they had for twenty-three years appropriated the 
 money, which they ought to have spent on the 
 repairs of the temple. Jehoiada gave way ; but 
 we see here the beginning of a feud (hitherto un- 
 
 JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. 
 
 known in the house of David) between the crow* 
 and the priestly order; which, after Jehoiada’i 
 death, led to the murder of his son Zachariah. 
 Tiie massacre of the priests of Baal, and of Atha- 
 liah, grand-daughter of a king of Sidon, mu»t 
 also have destroyed cordiality between the Phoe- 
 nicians and the kingdom of Judah ; and when 
 the victorious Hazael had subjugated all Israel 
 and showed himself near Jerusalem, Jehoash 
 could look for no help from without, and had neither 
 the faith of Hezekiah nor a prophet like Isaiah to 
 support him. The assassination of Jehoash in his 
 bed by ‘ his own servants’ is described in the Chro- 
 nicles as a revenge taken upon him by the priestly 
 party for his murder of ‘ the sons’ of Jehoiada ; 
 and the same fate, from the same influence, fell 
 upon his son Amaziah, if we may so interpret the 
 words in 2 Chron. xxv. 27 : ‘ From the time that 
 Amaziah turned away from following Jehovah 
 they made a conspiracy against him,’ &c. Thus 
 the house of David appeared to be committing 
 itself, like that of Saul, to permanent enmity 
 with the priests. The wisdom of Uzziah, during 
 a long reign, averted this collision, though a 
 symptom of it returned towards its close. No 
 further mischief from this cause followed, until 
 the reign of his grandson, the weak and unfor- 
 tunate Ahaz : after which the power of the king- 
 dom rapidly mouldered away. On the whole i f 
 would appear that, from Jehoiada downward, the 
 authority of the priests was growing stronger, and 
 that of the crown weaker ; for the king could not 
 rule successfully, except by submitting to (what 
 we might call) ‘ the constitutional check’ of the 
 priests; and although it is reasonable to believe 
 that the priests became less simple-minded, more 
 worldly, and less religious, as their order ad- 
 vanced in authority (whence the keen rebukes of 
 them by the prophets), it is not the less certain 
 that it was desirable for Judah, both in a temporal 
 and a spiritual sense, to have the despotic power 
 of the king subjected to a strong priestly pressure. 
 
 The struggle of the crown against this control 
 was perhaps the most immediate cause of the ruin 
 of Judah. Ahaz was probably less guided by 
 policy than by superstition, or by architectural 
 taste, in erecting his Damascene altar (2 Kings 
 xvi. 10-18). But the far more outrageous pro- 
 ceedings of Manasseh seem to have been a sys- 
 tematic attempt to extirpate the national religion 
 because of its supporting the priestly power; and 
 the ‘ innocent blood very much,’ which he is stig- 
 matized for shedding (2 Kings xxi. 16), was 
 undoubtedly a sanguinary attack on the party 
 opposed to his impious and despotic innovations. 
 The storm which he had raised did not burst in 
 his lifetime ; but, two years after, it fell on the 
 head of his son Amon ; and the disorganization of 
 the kingdom which his madness had wrought is 
 commemorated as the cause of the Babylonish 
 captivity (2 Kings xxiii. 26 ; xxiv. 3, 4). It is 
 also credible that the long- continued despotism 
 had greatly lessened patriotic spirit ; and that 
 the Jewish people of the declining kingdom were 
 less brave against foreign invaders than against 
 kindred and neighbour tribes or civil opponents. 
 Faction had become very fierce within Jerusalem 
 itself (Ezek. xxii.), and civil bloodshed was com 
 mon. Wealth, where it existed, was generally a 
 source of corruption, by introducing foreign 
 luxury, tastes, manners, superstitions, imnos- 
 
JUDAS. 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT. 
 
 169 
 
 
 rsuity, or idolatry, and when consecrated to 
 pious pur] toses, as by Hezekiah and Josiah, pro- 
 duced little more than a formal and exterior re- 
 ligion. 
 
 Thoroughly to understand the political working 
 of the monarchy, we ought to know, 1. What con- 
 trol the king exercised over ecclesiastical appoint- 
 ments; 2. How the Levites were supported when 
 ejected from Israel; 3. What proportion of them 
 acted as judges, lawyers, and scribes, and how 
 far they were independent of the king. The na- 
 ture of the case and the precedent of David may 
 satisfy us that the king appointed the high- 
 priest at his own pleasure out of the Aavonites ; 
 but (as Henry II. of England and hundreds of 
 monarchs besides have found) ecclesiastics once 
 in office often disappoint the hopes of their patron, 
 and to eject them again is a most dangerous 
 exertion of the prerogative. The Jewish king 
 would naturally avoid following the law of de- 
 scent, in order to preserve his right of election 
 unimpaired ; and it may he suspected that the 
 line of Zadok was rather kept in the background 
 by royal jealousy. Hilkiah belonged to that 
 line ; and if any inference can be drawn from 
 his genealogy, as given in 1 Chron. vi. 8-15, it 
 is, that none of his ancestors between the reigns 
 of Solomon and Josiah held the high-priesthood. 
 Even Azariah, who is named in 2 Chron. xxxi. 
 10 as of the line of Zadok, is not found among 
 Hilkiah’s progenitors. Jehoiada, the celebrated 
 priest, and Urijah, who was so complaisant to the 
 innovating Ahaz (2 Kings xvi.), were of a dif- 
 ferent family. It would seem that too many 
 iiigh-priests gained a reputation for subservience 
 t iiir it often happens in history that the eccle- 
 siastical heads are more subservient to royalty 
 man me mass of their order) ; so that, after Hil- 
 kiah, the race of Zadok became celebrated for 
 uprightness, in invidious contrast to the rest of the 
 priests ; and even the Levites were regarded as 
 more zealous than the generality of the Aaronites 
 (2 Chrcn. xxix. 34). Hence in Ezekiel and other 
 late wi iters the phrase ‘ the priests the sons of 
 Zadok, or even c the priests the Levites,’ is a more 
 honourable title than £ the priests the sons of 
 Aaron.' Hilkiah’s name seems to mark the era 
 at which (by a reaction after the atrocities of 
 Manasseh and Amon) the purer priestly senti- 
 ment obtained its triumph over the crown. But 
 the victory came too late. Society was corrupt 
 and convulsed within, and the two great powers 
 of Egypt and Babylon menaced it from without. 
 True lovers of their God and of their country, 
 
 ! like Jeremiah, saw that it was a time rather for 
 
 ! weeping than for action ; and that the faithful 
 
 must resign themselves to the bitter lot which the 
 sins of their nation had earned. — F. W. N. 
 
 JUDAS is merely the Greek form of the 
 Hebrew name Judah. The Septuagint, however, 
 represents Judah by ’louSa, Juda, which we find 
 also in Luke iii. 26, 30 r as the name of two of 
 the ancestors of Christ not otherwise known. The 
 persons named Judas were the following : — 
 
 1. JUDAS MACCABEUS. [Maccabees.] 
 
 2. JUDAS ISCARIOT. The object of this 
 
 article is not to elucidate all the circumstances 
 recorded respecting this person, but simply to 
 investigate his motives in delivering up Jesus to 
 the chief-priests. The evangelists relate his pro- 
 ceedings, but give no opinion. The subject is 
 
 consequently open to inquiry. Our conclusion* 
 must be guided by the facts of the case, and the 
 known feelings and principles of human nature. 
 Some hypothesis is necessarily formed by every 
 reader. That one of our Lord's immediate fol- 
 lowers and delegates, the treasurer of his house- 
 hold, who was admitted to his most secret coun- 
 sels, and to the observation of his most private 
 character, should at that particular juncture 
 wait upon the Jewish rulers, and engage, for a 
 pecuniary recompense, to lead their officers to his 
 retiring-place, and, after time for reflection, 
 should actually fulfil his engagement, and thus 
 become the means of bringing his Master to the 
 cross, is a fact too nearly connected with the 
 honour of Christianity to allow us to remain un- 
 concerned as to his motives. Even the credibility 
 of this part of the narrative depends upon our 
 being able to form a rational conception of them. 
 There is no reason to doubt his sanity. We can 
 neither ascribe his conduct to the mere love of 
 evil, nor can we entertain the idea that it resulted 
 from an arbitrary decree or impulse of the Al- 
 mighty. His conduct might have been foreseen 
 (Acts i. 16), but surely it was not commanded. 
 Even supposing him to have been perfectly obdu- 
 rate, and judicially abandoned to fall by his own 
 wickedness, we must still seek the proximate 
 cause of his ruin in his own intelligible motives. 
 But his well known confession and remorse 
 clearly prove that he was not wholly obdurate. 
 Had he been so, he would have persisted in his con- 
 duct, or have attempted to calumniate Jesus and 
 his disciples ; or, perhaps, under the auspices of 
 the chief-priests, have headed a most powerful op- 
 position to Christianity. The only conceivable 
 motives for the conduct of Judas are, a sense of 
 duty in bringing his Master to justice, resent- 
 ment^ avarice, dissatisfaction with the procedure 
 of Jesus, and a consequent scheme for the accom- 
 plishment of his own views. With regard to the 
 first of these motives, if Judas had been actuated 
 by a sense of duty in bringing his Master to justice 
 f®r anything censurable in his intentions, words, 
 or actions, he would certainly have alleged some 
 charge against him in his first interview with the 
 chief-priests, and they would have brought him 
 forward as a witness against Jesus, especially 
 when they were at so great a loss for evidence ; or 
 they would have reminded him of his accusations 
 when he appealed to them after our Lord’s con- 
 demnation, saying, ‘ I have sinned in that I have 
 betrayed innocent blood’ — a confession which 
 amounts to an avowal that he had never seen 
 anything to blame in his Master, but everything 
 to approve. Moreover, the knowledge of the 
 slightest fault in Jesus would have served, at 
 least for the present, to tranquillize his own feel- 
 ings, and prevent his immediate despair. The 
 chief-priests would also most certainly have al- 
 leged any charge he had made against Jesus, 
 as a justification of their conduct, when they 
 afterw'ards endeavoured to prevent his apostles 
 from preaching in his name (Acts iv. 15-23 ; 
 v. 27, 28-40). The setond motive supposed, 
 namely, that of resentment, is rather more plau- 
 sible. Jesus had certainly rebuked him for 
 blaming the woman who had anointed him in the 
 house of Simon the leper, at Bethany (comp. 
 Matt. xxvi. 8-17; John xii. 4, 5); and Mat- 
 thew’s narrative seems to connect his going to the 
 
170 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT. 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT. 
 
 chief-priests with that rebuke (ver. 14). ‘ Then 
 
 one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went 
 unto the chief-priests but closer inspection will 
 convince the reader that those words are more 
 properly connected with ver. 3. Besides, the re- 
 buke was general, ‘ Why trouble ye the woman V 
 Nor was it nearly so harsh as that received by 
 Peter, ‘ Get thee behind me, Satan’ (Matt. xvi. 
 23), and certainly not so public (Mark viii. 32, 
 33). Even if Judas had felt ever so much re- 
 sentment, it could scarcely have been his sole 
 motive ; and as nearly two days elapsed between 
 his contract with the chief-priests and its comple- 
 tion, it would have subsided during the interval, 
 and have yielded to that covetousness which we 
 have every reason to believe was his ruling passion. 
 St.John expressly declares that Judas ‘was a thief, 
 and had the bag, and bare (that is, conveyed away 
 from it, stole, ifi<x<rra^v) what was put therein ’ 
 (xii. 6; comp. xx. 15, in the original, and see 
 a similar use of the word in Joseph, p. 402. 39, ed. 
 Uuds.). This rebuke, or rather certain circum- 
 stances attending it, might have determined him 
 to act as he did, but is insufficient, of itself, to 
 account entirely for his conduct, by wjpch he en- 
 dangered all his expectations of worldly advance- 
 ment from Jesus, at the very moment when they 
 seemed upon the verge of being fulfilled. It is, 
 indeed, a most important feature in the case, that 
 the hopes entertained by Judas, and all the apos- 
 ..es, from their Master’s expected elevation, as 
 the Messiah, to the throne of Judaea, and, as they 
 believed, to the empire of the whole world, were 
 never more stedfast than at the time when he 
 covenanted with the chief-priests to deliver him 
 into their hands. Nor does the theory of mere 
 resentment agree with the terms of censure in 
 which the conduct and character of Judas are 
 spoken of by our Lord and the evangelists. Since, 
 then, this supposition is insufficient, we may 
 consider another motive to which his conduct is 
 more commonly ascribed, namely, covetousness. 
 But if by covetousness be meant the eager de- 
 sire to obtain ‘ the thirty pieces of silver,’ with 
 which the chief-priests ‘ covenanted with him’ 
 (Matt. xxvi. 15), it presents scarcely a less in- 
 adequate motive. Can it be conceived that 
 Judas would deliberately forego the prospect of 
 immense wealth from his Master, by delivering 
 him up for about four pounds ten shillings of our 
 money, upon the highest computation, and not 
 more than double in value, a sum which he 
 might easily have purloined from the bag? Is it 
 likely that he would have made such a sacrifice 
 for any further sum, however large, which we 
 may suppose ‘ they ‘promised him’ (Markxiv. 11), 
 and of which the thirty pieces of silver might 
 have been the mere earnest (Luke xxii. 5) ? Had 
 covetousness been his motive, he would have ulti- 
 mately applied to the chief-priests, not to bring 
 again the thirty pieces of silver with the confession, 
 ‘ I have sinned in that I have betrayed the inno- 
 cent blood* (Matt, xxvii. 4), but to demand the 
 completion of their agreement with him. We are 
 now at liberty to consider the only remaining 
 motive for the conduct of Judas, namely, dissatis- 
 faction with the procedure of his Master, and a con- 
 sequent schemefor the furtherance of his own views. 
 It seems to us likely, that the impatience of Judas 
 for the accomplishment of his worldly views, which 
 we conceive to have ever actuated him in fob 
 
 lowing Jesus, could no longer be restrained, and 
 that our Lord’s observations at Bethany served 
 to mature a stratagem he had meditated long 
 before. He had no doubt been greatly disap- 
 pointed at seeing his Master avoid being made a 
 king, after feeding the five thousand in Galilee. 
 Many a favourable crisis had he seemed to lose, 
 or had not dared to embrace, and now while at 
 Bethany he talks of his burial (John xii. 7) ; and 
 though none of his apostles, so firm were their 
 worldly expectations from their Master, could 
 clearly understand such ‘ sayings’ (Luke xviii. 
 34) ; yet they had been made ‘ exceeding sorry’ 
 by them (Matt. xvii. 23). At the same time 
 Judas had long been convinced by the miracles 
 he had seen his Master perform that he was the 
 Messiah (John vii. 31). He had even heard 
 him accept this title from his apostles in private 
 (Matt. xvi. 16). He had promised them that 
 when he should ‘ sit upon the throne of his glory, 
 they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel’ (Matt. xix. 28). Yet 
 now, when everything seemed most favourable to 
 the assumption of empire, he hesitates and de- 
 sponds. In his daily public conferences, tot 
 with the chief-priests and pharisees, he appears 
 to offend them by his reproofs, rather than to 
 conciliate their favour. Within a few days, the 
 people, who had lately given him a triumphal 
 entry into the city, having kept the passover, 
 would be dispersed to their homes, and Judas and 
 his fellow apostles be, perhaps, required to attend 
 their Master on another tedious expedition through 
 the coqntry. Hence it seems most probable that 
 Judas resolved upon the plan of delivering up 
 his Master to the Jewish authorities, when lie 
 would be compelled, in self-defence, to prove his 
 claims, by giving them the sign from heaven they 
 had so often demanded ; they would, he believed, 
 elect him in due form as the King Messiah, and 
 thus enable him to reward his followers. He 
 did, indeed, receive from Jesus many alarming 
 admonitions against, his design; but the plainest 
 warnings are lost upon a mind totally absorbed 
 by a purpose, and agitated by many violent 
 passions. The worst he would permit himself to 
 expect, was a temporary displeasure for placing 
 his Master in this dilemma ; butashe mostfikely 
 believed, judging from himself, that Jesus anti- 
 cipated worldly aggrandizement, he might cal- 
 culate upon his forgiveness when the emergency 
 should have been triumphantly surmounted. Not 
 was this calculation wholly unreasonable. Many 
 an ambitious man would gladly be spared the 
 responsibility of grasping at an empire, which he 
 would willingly find forced upon him. Sextus 
 Pompey is recorded to have rebuked his servant 
 Menas, who offered to put him in possession of 
 the empire by the treacherous seizure of the tri- 
 umvirs, for not having, unknown to him, per- 
 formed the service, which, when proposed to him, 
 he felt bound in honour to reject (Suet. Octav A 
 In Shaksneare’s version of his language — 
 
 ‘ Ah, this thou shouldst have done, 
 
 And not have spoke on’t 
 
 Being done unknown 
 
 I should have found it afterwards well done. 
 
 Ant. and Cleop. 
 
 Judas could not douht his master’s ability to 
 extricate himself from his enemies by miracle. 
 He had known him do so more than once (Luke 
 
JUDAS. 
 
 JUDE. 
 
 171 
 
 iv. SO; John viii. 59; x. 39). Hence his direc- 
 tions to the officers to ‘ hold him fast,’ when he was 
 apprehended (Matt. xxvi. 48). With other Jews 
 he believed the Messiah would never die (John 
 xii. 34); accordingly, we regard his pecuniary 
 stipulation with the priests as a mere artful cover 
 to his deeper and more comprehensive design ; 
 and so that he served their purpose in causing the 
 apprehension of Jesus, they would little care to 
 scrutinize his motive. All they felt was being 
 ‘ glad’ at his proposal (Mark xiv. 11), and the 
 plan appeared to hold good up to the very mo- 
 ment of our Lord’s condemnation ; for after his ap- 
 prehension his miraculous powe^seemed unabated, 
 from his healing Malchus. Judas heard him 
 declare that he could even then ‘ ask, and his father 
 would give him twelve legions of angels ’ for his 
 rescue. But when Judas, who awaited the issue 
 of the trial with such different expectations, saw 
 that though Jesus had avowed himself to be the 
 Messiah, he had not convinced the Sanhedrim ; 
 and, instead of extricating himself from their 
 power by miracle, had submitted to be ‘ con- 
 demned, buffeted, and spit upon ’ by his judges 
 and accusers; then it should seem he awoke 
 to a full view of all the consequences of his 
 conduct. The prophecies of the Old Testa- 
 ment, ‘ that Christ should suffer,’ and of Jesus, 
 concerning his own rejection and death, flashed 
 on his mind in their true sense and full force, 
 and he found himself the wretched instrument of 
 their fulfilment. He made a last desperate effort 
 to stay proceedings. He presented himself to the 
 chief-priests, offered to return the money, con- 
 fessed that he had sinned in that he had betrayed 
 the innocent blood, and upon receiving their 
 heartless answer was wrought into a phrenzy of 
 lespair, during which he committed suicide. 
 There is much significancy in these words of 
 Matt, xxvii. 3, ‘Then Judas, when he sato he was 
 condemned,' not expiring on the cross, ‘ repented 
 himself,’ &c. If such be the true hypothesis of his 
 conduct, then, however culpable it may have been, 
 as originating in the most inordinate covetous- 
 ness, impatience of the procedure of Providence, 
 crooked policy, or any other bad quality, he is 
 certainly absolved from the direct intention of 
 procuring his Master’s death. ‘ The difference,’ 
 says Archbishop Wbately, ‘ between Iscariot and 
 his fellow apostles was, that though they all had 
 the same expectations and conjectures, he dared 
 to act on his conjectures, departing from the plain 
 course of his known duty to follow the calcula- 
 tions of his worldly wisdom, and the schemes of 
 his worldly ambition.’ The reader is directed to 
 the Primate’s admirable Discourse on the Trea- 
 son of Judas Iscariot, and Notes, annexed to 
 Essays on some of the Dangers to Christian 
 Faith, Lond. 1839; Whitby on Matt, xxvii. 3, 
 for the opinions of Theophylact, and some of the 
 Fathers; Bishop Bull’s Sermons, ii. and iii., On 
 some Important Points, vol. i., Lond. 1713; 
 Hales’s New Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. 
 b. ii. pp. 877, 878 ; Macknight’s Harmony of 
 the Gospels, vol. ii. pp. 427-30, Lond. 1822 ; 
 Rosenmiiller. Kuinoel, in loc. — J. F. D. 
 
 3. JUDAS, or JUDE, surnamed Barsabas, 
 a Christian teacher sent from Jerusalem to An- 
 tioch along with Paul and Barnabas (Acts xv. 
 22 , 27, 32). He is supposed to have been one of 
 the seventy disciples, and brother of Joseph, also 
 
 surnamed Barsabas (son of Sabas), who was 
 proposed, with Matthias, to fill up the place of 
 the traitor Judas (Acts i. 23). Judas and Silas 
 (who was also of the party) are mentioned to- 
 gether as ‘ prophets ’ and ‘ chief men among the 
 brethren.’ 
 
 4. JUDAS. [Jude.] 
 
 5. JUDAS, a Jew of Damascus with whom 
 Paul lodged (Acts ix. 11). 
 
 6. JUDAS, surnamed the Galilaean (5 TaAi- 
 Actios, Acts v. 37), so called also by Josephus 
 (Antiq. xviii. 1. 6 ; xx. 5. 2; De Bell. Jud. ii. 
 8. 1), and likewise ‘ the Gaulonite’ (6 ravXovlrys ; 
 Antiq. xviii. 1. 1). In company with one Sadoc 
 he attempted to raise a sedition among the Jews, 
 but was destroyed by Cyrenius (Quirinus), then 
 proconsul of Syria and Judsea. 
 
 JUDE, or JUDAS (T ovdas). There wero 
 
 two of this name among the twelve Apostles— 
 Judas, called also Lebbseus and Thaddaeus 
 (Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18, which see), and Judas 
 Iscariot. Judas is the name of one of our Lord’s 
 brethren, but it is not agreed whether our Lord’s 
 brother is the same with the Apostle of this name 
 [James]. Luke (Gospel, vi. 16; Acts i. 13.) 
 calls him 'IouSas ’laicc&fiov, which in the English 
 Authorized Version is translated* Judas, the brother 
 of James.’ The ellipsis, however, between ’IovSas 
 and ’laic&fiov is supplied by the old Syriac trans- 
 lator (who was unacquainted with the epistle of 
 Jude, the writer of which calls himself TouSos 
 ctSeA <pbs ’laKwfiov) with the word son, and not bro- 
 ther. Among our Lord’s brethren are named James, 
 Joses, and Judas (Matt xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). 
 If, with Helvidius among the ancients (see Jerome, 
 Contra Helvidium), and Kuinoel, Neander, and 
 a few other modern commentators, we were to 
 consider our Lord’s brethren to be children of Jo- 
 seph and the Blessed Virgin (an hypothesis which 
 Kuinoel acknowledges to be incapable of proof 
 from Scripture), we should be under the necessity 
 of supposing that there was a James,, a Joses, and 
 a Judas, who were uterine brothers of our Lord, 
 together with the Apostles James and Judas, who 
 were children of Mary, the sister or cousin of the 
 Virgin (see Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.). If, 
 however, the hypothesis of their being children of 
 the Blessed Virgin be rejected, an hypothesis in- 
 consistent with tlie ancient and universal tradition 
 of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin, a tra- 
 dition the truth of which is received even by Dr 
 Lardner (Hist, of the Apostles ), there remains for 
 us only a choice between the two opinions, that our 
 Lord’s brethren were children of Joseph by a for- 
 mer wife (Eschaor Salome, according to an Apo- 
 cryphal tradition), which was the sentiment of the 
 majority of the fathers (still received in the Oriental 
 church), and that adopted in the Western 
 church, and first broached by St. Jerome (Cont. 
 Helvid.'), that the brethren of our Lord were his 
 cousins, as being children of Mary, the wife of 
 Cleophas, who must therefore be considered as the 
 same with Alphseus [see JamesJ. If we consider 
 James, the brother of our Lord, to be a different 
 person from James the son of A] phams, and not 
 one of the twelve, Jude, the brother of James, 
 must consequently be placed in the same cate- 
 gory [James] ; but if they are one and the same, 
 Jude must be considered as the person who is 
 numbered with our Lord's Apostles. We are not 
 informed a3 to the time of the vocation of tba 
 
172 JUDE, EPISTLE OF. 
 
 Apostle Jucle to that, dignity. Indeed, the only 
 circumstance relating to him which is recorded 
 in the Gospels consists in the question put by 
 aim to our Lord (John xiv. 22). ‘ Judas saith 
 
 unto him (not Iscariot), Lord, how is it that 
 thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto 
 the world V Nor have we any account given of 
 his proceedings after our Lord’s resurrection, for 
 the traditionary notices which have been preserved 
 of him rest on no very certain foundation. It has 
 been asserted that he was sent to Edessa, to 
 Abgarus, king of Osro'ene (Jerome, Annot. in 
 Matt.), and that he preached in Syria, Arabia, 
 Mesopotamia, and Persia ; in which latter country 
 he suffered, martyrdom (Lardner’s Hist, of the 
 Apostles). Jude the Apostle is commemorated 
 in the Western church, together with the Apostle 
 Simon (the name, also, of one of our Lord’s 
 brethren) on the 8th of October. There is an 
 interesting account preserved by Hegesippus (Eu- 
 sebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 20) concerning some of 
 Jude's posterity : ‘ When Domitian,’ he observes, 
 ‘ inquired after David’s posterity, some grandsons 
 of Jude, called the Lord’s brother, were brought 
 into his presence. Being asked concerning their 
 possessions and mode of life, they assured him 
 that they had thirty-nine acres of land, the value 
 of which was nine thousand denarii, out of which 
 they paid him taxes, and maintained themselves 
 by the labour of their hands. The truth of this was 
 confirmed by the hardness of their hands. Being 
 asked concerning Christ and the nature of his king- 
 dom, they replied that it was not a kingdom of this 
 world, but of a heavenly and angelic nature; 
 that it would be manifested at the end of the 
 world, when he would come in glory to judge 
 the living and the dead, and render to every man 
 according to his works. Having observed their 
 humble condition and their harmless principles, 
 he dismissed them with contempt, after which 
 they ruled the churches, both as witnesses and 
 relatives of the Lord.’ 
 
 St. Luke (Acts xv. 22, 27-33) speaks of Judas, 
 the son of Barsabas, in company with Silas, both 
 of whom he styles ‘ prophets,’ and ‘ chief men 
 among the brethren.’ Schott supposes that Bar- 
 sabas means the son of Sabas, or Zabas, which 
 he looks upon as an abridged form for Zebedee, 
 and concludes that the Judas here mentioned 
 was a brother of the elder James and of John. 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF [Antilegomena], 
 is placed by Eusebius among the controverted 
 books (Hist. Eccles., vii. 25), having been rejected 
 by many of the ancients. ‘Jude, the brother of 
 James,’ says Jerome, ‘ has left us a short epistle, 
 which is one of the seven called Catholic, and 
 because it cites a testimony from the apocryphal 
 book of Enoch it is rejected by most. It has, 
 however, obtained such authority by antiquity 
 and use that it is now reckoned among the Holy 
 Scriptures.’ It is cited by Clemens Alexandrinus 
 (Strom, iii. 431), by Origen (Com. in Matt., 
 &c. &c.), and by Tejrtullian (De Habit. Fcem). It. 
 is also included among the books of the New 
 Testament in the ancient catalogue discovered by 
 Muratori, a work of the second century. It is 
 found in the catalogues of the Councils of Lao- 
 dicea, Hippo, and Carthage, and in the Apos- 
 tolical canons, but is wanting in the Peshito, or 
 ancient Syriac version. It is, however, cited as 
 rtf authority by Ephrem. In modern times its 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF. 
 
 apostolic source at least, if not its canonicity, 
 was called in question by Luther (Wawhised 
 vol. xiv. 150), Grotius, Bolten, Dahl, Berger, 
 and Michaelis, but it is acknowledged by most to 
 be genuine. Indeed, the doubts thrown upon its 
 genuineness arose, as we have already seen, from 
 the fact of the writer having cited two apocryphal 
 books (Enoch and the Assumption of Moses). In 
 reference to this subject Tertullian has a long 
 statement, in which, from the fact that' ‘’Enoch 
 had some value as an authority with the apostle 
 Jude,' he is disposed to uphold the authenticity 
 of the book of Enoch. As, however, that book, 
 which is still extant, is universally reckoned a 
 spurious production, the circumstance of Jude's 
 having employed a citation from it is one of the 
 most difficult and embarrassing in sacred criti- 
 cism, especially as Jude expressly calls Enoch the 
 ‘ seventh from Adam’ (ver. 1 4). That the ancients 
 were acquainted with the Prophecy of Enoch is 
 evident from the testimony of several of the 
 fathers, and from the copious fragments of it pre- 
 served by Syncellus in his Chronography (Fa- 
 bricii Cod. Pseud.), which were discovered by 
 George Scaliger. None of these, however, con- 
 tain ihe passage in Jude 14. 
 
 It was not until the eighth century that the 
 book of Enoch sunk into oblivion. Since the 
 commencement of the seventeenth century, how- 
 ever, it had been supposed that this long-lost book 
 was still extant in an Ethiopic version in Abys- 
 sinia, and this fact was fully established by 
 Bruce, who first brought it into Europe [Enoch]. 
 This work contains the words of the prophecy 
 cited by Jude ; but whether Jude cited it. from 
 the book of Enoch, or from a Jewish tradition, is 
 a point still in debate. The decision of this 
 question is inseparably connected with that of 
 the age of the present book of Enoch, a point on 
 winch critics are not quite agreed. Dr. Lau- 
 rence (its learned translator) attributes the book 
 of Enoch to an early period of the reign of Herod j 
 the Great, to which time Hoffmann (Das Buc/i | 
 Henoch) also assigns it ; while Liicke and others, 
 who have subsequently investigated the subject, 
 place it in the second half of the first century, 
 and after the destruction of Jerusalem (see Liicke, 
 Ver such einer vollstdndigen Einleitung in die 
 Offenbarung Johannis). It was a well known 
 book at the time of the writing of the Testament 
 of the Twelve Patriarchs at tire close of the first 
 or commencement of the second century* [Rb- 
 vei.ations., Spurious]. 
 
 The writer of the epistle is also supposed to 
 have cited an apocryphal work (in ver. 9), where 
 he speaks of the dispute of the archangel Michael 
 with the Devil respecting the body of Moses. 
 Origen found this very relation in a Jewish 
 Greek book called the Assumption of Moses 
 ('AydAr/xl/is Mwcrews), and was so persuaded that ^ 
 this was the book which Jude had cited, that he 
 quoted the work itself as of authority (Marsh's 
 Michaelis, vol. vi. p. 379). The work is also 
 cited by CEcumenius (vol. ii. p. 629), where the 
 passage actually refers to the dispute of Michael 
 the archangel and the devil respecting the body 
 
 * A writer in the Christian Observer (voL 
 xxx.) attempts to prove the book of Enoch a work 
 which could not have been written earlier than 
 the middle of the second century. 
 
JUDGES. 
 
 173 
 
 JUDE, EPISTLE OF. 
 
 ef Moaes. There is a work still extant in He- 
 brew, entitled Phetirah Moshe, or ‘ The death of 
 Moses of this two editions have been published, 
 one at Constantinople in 1518, and the other at 
 Venice in 1544 and 1605. De la Rue and other 
 critics have supposed that this is the same work 
 which was known to Origen. But Michael is has 
 shown that the present work is so unlike the 
 former (besides containing quotations from the 
 Talmud also, and even from Aben Ezra), that, 
 although it contains similar relations, it is un- 
 questionably a modern production. 
 
 Others, embarrassed by the circumstance of 
 Jude’s citing an apocryphal book, not merely for 
 illustration, as St. Paul cites Aratus, Menander, 
 and Epimenides, but as of authority (as when he 
 cites Enoch, the seventh from Adam ), have en- 
 deavoured to give a mystical explanation to 
 Jude’s assertion respecting the dispute about the 
 body of Moses. Among these are Vitringa and 
 Dr. Lardner. They think that by the body of 
 Moses is meant the Jewish nation, and that Jude 
 alludes to the vision in Zech. iii. 1 ; and Vitringa 
 even proposes to alter the ‘ body of Moses’ into 
 the ‘ body of Joshua .’ For the details of this in- 
 genious explanation we must refer the reader to 
 Lardner 's Hist, of the Apostles. 
 
 Author , age, 8$c. — Notwithstanding these diffi- 
 culties, this epistle was treated by the ancients 
 with the highest respect, and regarded as the 
 genuine work of an inspired writer. Although 
 Origen on one occasion speaks doubtfully, calling 
 it the ‘ reputed epistle of Jude,’ yet on another 
 occasion, and in the same work (Com. in Matt.), 
 he says, ‘ Jude wrote an epistle, of few lines in- 
 deed, but full of the powerful words of heavenly 
 grace, who at the beginning says, “ Jude, the ser- 
 vant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.” ’ The 
 same writer (Com. in Rom. and De Princip. iii. 
 ‘2, i. 138) calls it the writing of Jude the Apostle. 
 The moderns are, however, divided in opinion 
 between Jude the apostle and Jude the Lord’s 
 brother, if indeed they be different persons : Hug 
 and De Wette ascribe it to the latter. The author 
 simply calls himself Jude, the brother of James, 
 and a servant of Jesus Christ. This form of ex- 
 pression has given rise to various conjectures. 
 Hug supposes that he intimates thereby a nearer 
 degree of relationship than that of an apostle. 
 This accords also with the sentiment of Clemens 
 Alexandrinus (A dumb. ; Opp. ii. p. 1007, ed. 
 Venet.): £ Jude, who wrote the Catholic epistle, 
 one of the sons of Joseph, a pious man, although 
 he well knew his relationship to Jesus, yet did 
 not call himself his brother, but said, Jude, the 
 servant of Jesus Christ (as the Lord), and the 
 brother of James.’ At the same time it must be 
 acknowledged that the circumstance of his not 
 naming himself an apostle is not of itself neces- 
 sarily sufficient to militate against his being the 
 apostle of that name, inasmuch as St. Paul does 
 not upon all occasions (as in Philippians, Thessa- 
 lonians, and Philemon) use this title. From his 
 calling himself the brother of James, rather than 
 the brother of the Lord, Michaelis deduces that 
 he was the son of Joseph by a former wife, and 
 not a full brother of our Lord’s, as Herder 
 contends [James, Jude] From the great coin- 
 cidence both in sentiment and subject which exists 
 between our epistle and the second of St. Peter, 
 it has been thought by many critics that one 
 
 of these writers had seen the other’s work ; but 
 we shall reserve the discussion as to which was 
 the earlier writing until we come to treat of 
 St. Peter’s Epistle. Dr. Lardner supposes that 
 Jude's Epistle was written between the years 64 
 and 66, Beausobre and L’Enfant between 70 and 
 75 (from which Dodwell and Cave do not mate- 
 rially differ), and Dr. Mill fixes it to the year 90 . 
 If Jude has quoted the apocryphal book of 
 Enoch, as seems to be agreed upon by most mo- 
 dern critics, and if this book was written, as 
 Liicke thinks, after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 the age of our epistle best accords with the date 
 assigned to it by Mill. 
 
 It is difficult to decide who the persons were to 
 whom this epistle was addressed, some supposing 
 that it was written to converted Jews, others to 
 all Christians without distinction. Many of the 
 arguments seem best adapted to convince the 
 Jewish Christians, as appeals are so strikingly 
 made to their sacred books and traditions. 
 
 The design of this epistle is to warn the Chris- 
 tians against the false teachers who had insinuated 
 themselves among them and disseminated dan- 
 gerous tenets of insubordination and licentious- 
 ness. The author reminds them, by the example 
 of Sodom and Gomorrah, that God had punished 
 the rebellious Jews ; and that even the disobedient, 
 angels had shared the same fate. The false teachers 
 to whom he alludes ‘ speak evil of dignities,’ 
 while the archangel Michael did not even revile 
 Satan. He compares them to Balaam and Korah, 
 to clouds without water, and to raging waves. 
 Enoch, he says, foretold their wickedness ; at the 
 same time he consoles believers, and exhorts them 
 to persevere in faith and love. The epistle is 
 remarkable for the vehemence, fervour, and energy 
 of its composition and style. — W. W. 
 
 JUDGES. This name is applied to fifteen per- 
 sons who at intervals presided over the affairs of the 
 Israelites during the 450 years which elapsed from 
 the death of Joshua to the accession of Saul. The 
 term Judges, used in the English Bibles, does not 
 exactly represent the original shophetim , 
 
 i. e. ‘ rulers of the people,’ from which is 
 
 not synonymous with judicare , but signifies 
 
 in its general acceptation, causam alicujus agere , 
 tueri ( see Bertholdt, Theolog. Litt. Blatt. vii.l, sq. ; 
 comp. Gesenius s.v. ££)£*). The station and office 
 of these shophetim are involved in great obscurity, 
 partly from the want of clear intimations in the 
 history in which their exploits and government are 
 recorded, and partly from the absence of parallels 
 in the history of other nations, by which our 
 notions might be assisted. In fact the government 
 of the judges forms the most singular part of the 
 Hebrew institutions, and that which appears most 
 difficult, to comprehend. The kings, the priests, the 
 generals, the heads of tribes — all these offer some 
 points of comparison with the same functionaries 
 in other nations; but the judges stand alone in 
 the history of the world : and when we think that 
 we have found officers resembling them in other 
 nations, the comparison soon breaks down in some 
 point of importance, and we still find that no- 
 thing remains but to collect and arrange the con- 
 cise intimations of the sacred text, and draw our 
 conclusions from the facts which it records. 
 
 The splendid administrations of Moses and of 
 Joshua so fill the mind of the reader of Scrip* 
 
174 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 ture, toat after their death a sense of vacancy is 
 experienced, and we wonder how it happens that 
 no successor to them was appointed, and how the 
 machinery of the government was to be carried 
 on without some similar leaders. But when we 
 come to examine the matter more closely, we 
 perceive that the offices filled by Moses and 
 Joshua, whose presence was so essential for the 
 time and the occasion, were not at all involved in 
 the general machinery of the Hebrew government. 
 These persons formed no part of the system : they 
 were specially appointed for particular services, 
 for the performance of which they were invested 
 with extraordinary powers; but when their mis- 
 sion was accomplished, society reverted to its 
 permanent institutions and its established forms 
 of government. It is, therefore, in the working 
 of these institutions, after the functions of the 
 legislator and the military leader had ceased, that 
 we must look for the circumstances that gave rise 
 to the extraordinary leaders which engage our 
 present attention. Now we shall find that, apart 
 from such offices as those of Moses and Joshua, a 
 very excellent provision existed for the govern- 
 ment of the chosen people, both as regarded the 
 interests of the nation generally, as well as of the 
 several tribes. 
 
 To this latter branch of the government it is 
 important to draw particular attention, because, as 
 it existed before the law, and is assumed through- 
 out as the basis of the theocratical constitution, 
 we hear but little of it in the books of Moses, and 
 are apt to lose sight of it altogether. This part of 
 the subject belongs, however, to the art. Tkibe ; 
 and it suffices to mention in this place that every 
 tribe had its own hereditary chief or ‘prince,’ who 
 presided over its affairs, administered justice in 
 all ordinary cases, and led the troops in time of 
 war. Ilis station resembled that of the Arabian 
 emirs, or rather, perhaps, of the khans of the Tartar 
 tribes inhabiting Persia and the countries further 
 east. He was assisted in these important duties 
 by the subordinate officers, the chiefs of families, 
 who formed his council in such matters of policy 
 as affected their particular district, supported his 
 decisions in civil or criminal inquiries, and com- 
 manded under him in the field of battle (Num. 
 xxvi. xxvii. ; Josh. vii. 16-18). This was, in fact, 
 the old patriarchal government, to which the 
 Hebrews were greatly attached. It seems to have 
 been sufficient for all the purposes of the separate 
 government of the tribes : but, as we find in simi- 
 lar cases, it was deficient in force of cohesion 
 among the tribes, or in forming them into a com- 
 pacted nation. In fact, it was an institution suited 
 to the wants of men who live dispersed in loosely 
 connected tribes, and not to the wants and exi- 
 gencies of a nation. It was in principle segre- 
 gative, not aggregative ; and although there are 
 traces of united agreement through a congress 
 of delegates, or rather of national chiefs and 
 elders of the tribes, this was an inefficient in- 
 strument of general government, seeing that it was 
 only applicable or applied to great occasions, and 
 could have no bearing on the numerous questions 
 of an administrative nature which arise from 
 day to day in every state, and which there should 
 somewhere exist the fewer to arrange and deter- 
 mine. This defect of the general government it 
 was one of the objects of the theocratical institu- 
 tions to remedy. 
 
 Jehovah had taken upon himself the function 
 of king of the chosen people, and he dwelt among 
 them in his palace-tabemacle. Here he was 
 always ready, through his priest, to counsel them 
 in matters of general interest, as well as in tnose 
 having reference only to particular tribes; and 
 to his court they were all required by the law to 
 repair three times every year. Here, then, was 
 the principle of a general administration, calcu- 
 lated and designed to unite the tribes into a nation, 
 by giving them a common government in .all tho 
 higher and more general branches of adminis- 
 tration, and a common centre of interest for all 
 the political and ecclesiastical relations of the 
 community. 
 
 It was on this footing that the law destined the 
 government of the Hebrews to proceed, after the 
 peculiar functions of the legislator and the con- 
 queror had been fulfilled. 
 
 The fact is, however, that, through the per- 
 versity of the people, this settlement of the general 'i 
 government on theocratical principles was not 
 carried out in its proper form and extent; and it 
 is in this neglect we are to seek the necessity for 
 those officers called Judges, who were from time 
 to time raised up to correct some of the evils 
 which resulted from it. It is very evident, from j 
 the whole history of the judges, that after the ] 
 death of Joshua the Israelites threw themselves : 
 back upon the segregative principles of their go- 1 
 vemment by tribes, and all but utterly neglected, j 
 and for long periods did utterly neglect, the rules 
 and usages on which the general government, was 
 established. There was, in fact, no human power 
 adequate to enforce them. They were good in 
 themselves, they were gracious, they conferred j 
 high privileges ; but they were enforced by no 
 sufficient authority. No one was amenable to 
 any tribunal for neglecting the annual feasts, or for 
 not referring the direction of public affairs to the 
 Divine King. Omissions on these points involved 
 the absence of the divine protection and blessing, J 
 and were left to be punished by their consequences. 1 
 The man who obeyed in this and other things, was * 
 blessed ; the man who did not, was not blessed ; 
 and general obedience was rewarded with national | 
 blessing, and general disobedience with national 
 punishment. The enormities and transgressions 
 into which the people fell in consequence of such 
 neglect, which left them an easy prey to idolatrous 
 influences, are fully recorded in the book of 
 Judges. The people could not grasp the idea of 
 a Divine and Invisible King : they could not bring i 
 themselves to recur to him in all those cases in , 
 which the judgment of a human king would have 
 determined the course of action, or in which his 
 arm would have worked for their deliverance.. . 
 Therefore it was that God allowed them judges, 
 in the persons of faithful men, who acted for the 
 most part a^ agents of the divine will, regents for 
 the Invisible King ; and who, holding their com- 
 mission directly from him, or with his sanction, 
 would be more inclined to act as dependent vas- 
 sals of Jehovah than kings, who, as members of 
 royal dynasties, would come to reign with notions 
 of independent rights and royal privileges, which 
 would draw away their attention from their true 
 place in the theocracy. In this greater depend- 
 ence of the judges upon the Divine King we see 
 the secret of their institution. The Israelites were 
 disposed to rest upon their separate interests as 
 
JUDGES. 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 175 
 
 hibes ; and having thus allowed the standing 
 general government to remain inoperative through 
 disuse, they would in cases of emergency have 
 been disposed ‘ to make themselves a king like the 
 nations, 1 had their attention not been directed to 
 the appointment of officers whose authority could 
 rest on no tangible right apart from character and 
 services ; which, with the temporary nature of their 
 power, rendered their functions more accordant, 
 with the principles of the theocracy than those of 
 any other public officers could be. And it is pro- 
 bably in this adaptation to the peculiar circum- 
 stances of the Hebrew theocracy that we shall 
 discover the reason of our inability to find afiv 
 similar office among other nations. In being thus 
 peculiar it resembled the Dictatorship among the 
 Romans ; to which office indeed that of the judges 
 has been compared ; and perhaps this parallel is 
 the nearest that can be found. But there is this 
 great difference, that the dictator laid down his 
 power as soon as the crisis which had called for its 
 exercise had passed away, and in no case could 
 this unwonted supremacy be retained beyond a 
 limited time (Liv. ix. 34) ; but the Hebrew judge 
 remained invested with his high authority during 
 the whole period of his life ; and is therefore 
 usually described by the sacred historian as pre- 
 siding to the end of his days over the tribes of 
 Israel, amid the peace and security which his 
 military skill and counsels had, under the divine 
 blessing, restored to the land. 
 
 Having thus traced the origin of the office to 
 the circumstances of the times and the condition 
 of the people, it only remains to inquire into the 
 nature of the office itself, and the powers and pri- 
 vileges which were connected with it. This is 
 by no means an easy task, as the nature of the 
 record enables us to perceive better what they were 
 not than what they were, what they could not than 
 what they could accomplish. 
 
 It is usual to consider them as commencing 
 their career with military exploits to deliver Israel 
 from foreign oppression ; but this is by no means 
 invariably the case. Eli and Samuel were not 
 military men ; Deborah judged Israel before she 
 planned the war against Jabin ; and of Jair, 
 Ibzan, El on, and Abdon, it is at least uncertain 
 whether they ever held any military command. 
 The command of the army can therefore be 
 scarcelyconsidered thedistinguishing characteristic 
 of these men, or military exploits the necessary 
 introduction to the office. In many cases it is 
 true that military achievements were the means 
 by which they elevated themselves to the rank of 
 judges ; but in general the appointment may be 
 said to have varied with the exigencies of the 
 times, and with the particular circumstances 
 which in times of trouble would draw the public 
 attention to persons who appeared suited by their 
 gifts or influence to advise in matters of general 
 concernment, to decide in questions arising be- 
 tween tribe and tribe, to administer public affairs, 
 and to appear as their recognised head in their 
 intercourse with their neighbours and oppressors. 
 As we find that many of these judges arose during 
 fcimes of oppression, it seems to us that this last 
 circumstance, which has never been taken into 
 account, must have had a remarkable influence 
 in the appointment of the judge. Foreigners 
 could not be expected to enter into the pecu- 
 liarities of the Hebrew constitution, and would 
 
 expect to receive the proposals, remonstrances, or 
 complaints of the people through some person re- 
 presenting the whole nation, or that part of it to 
 which their intercourse applied. The law pro- 
 vided no such officer except in the high-priest; 
 but as the Hebrews themselves did not recognise 
 the true operation of their theocracy, much less 
 were strangers likely to do so. On the officer 
 they appointed to represent the body of the people, 
 under circumstances which compelled them to 
 deal with foreigners mightier than themselves, 
 would naturally devolve the command of the 
 army in war, and the administration of justice 
 in peace. This last was among ancient nations, 
 as it is still in the East, regarded as the first and 
 most important duty of a ruler, and the interfer- 
 ence of the judges was probably confined to the 
 cases arising between different tribes, for which the 
 ordinary magistrates would find it difficult to 
 secure due authority to their decisions. 
 
 In nearly all the instances recorded the appoint- 
 ment seems to have been by the free unsolicited 
 choice of the people. The election of Jephthah, 
 who was nominated as the fittest man for the exist- 
 ing emergency, probably resembled that which was 
 usually followed on such occasions; and pro- 
 bably, as in his case, the judge, in accepting the 
 office, took care to make such stipulations as he 
 deemed necessary* The only cases of direct divine 
 apointment are those of Gideon and Samson, and 
 the last stood in the peculiar position of having 
 been from before his birth ordained ‘ to begin to 
 deliver Israel.’ Deborah was called to deliver 
 Israel, but was already a judge. Samuel was 
 called by the Lord to be a prophet, but not a 
 judge, which ensued from the high gifts which 
 the people recognised as dwelling in him ; and as 
 to Eli, the office of judge seems to have devolved 
 naturally, or rather ex-officio, upon him ; and 
 his case seems to be the only one in which the 
 high-priest appears- in the character which the 
 theocratical institutions designed for him. 
 
 The following clear summary of their duties 
 and privileges is from Jahn ( Biblisches Archdo- 
 logie , th. ii. bd. 1, sect. 22 ; Stowe's translation, 
 ii. 86) : — ‘ The office of judges or regents was 
 held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither 
 could they appoint their successors. Their au- 
 thority was limited by the law alone ; and in 
 doubtful cases they were directed to consult the 
 Divine King through the priest by Urim and 
 Thummim (Num. xxvii. 21). They were not 
 obliged in common cases to ask advice of the 
 ordinary rulers ; it was sufficient if these did not 
 remonstrate against the measures of the judge. 
 In important emergencies, however, they con- 
 voked a general assembly of the rulers, over 
 which they presided and exerted a powerful in- 
 fluence. They could issue orders, but not enact 
 laws ; they could neither levy taxes nor appoint 
 officers, except perhaps in the army. Their au- 
 thority extended only over those tribes by whom 
 they had been elected or acknowledged ; for it 
 is clear that several of the judges presided over 
 separate tribes. There was no income attached 
 to their office, nor was there any income appro- 
 priated to them, unless it might be a larger 
 share in the spoils, and those presents which 
 were made them as testimonials of respect 
 (Judg. viii. 24). They bore no external marks 
 of dignity, and maintained no retinue of corn 
 
176 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 tiers, though some of them were very opulent. 
 They were not only simple in ;heir manners, 
 moderate in their desires, and free from avarice 
 and ambition, but noble and magnanimous men, 
 who felt that whatever they did for their country 
 was above all reward, and could not be recom- 
 pensed ; who desired merely to promote the public 
 good, and who chose rather to deserve well of their 
 country than to be enriched by its wealth. This 
 exalted patriotism, like everything else connected 
 with politics in the theocratical state of the He- 
 brews, was partly of a religious character, and 
 those regents always conducted themselves as the 
 officers of God ; in all their enterprises they relied 
 upon Him, and their only care was, that their 
 countrymen should acknowledge the authority of 
 Jehovah, their invisible king (Judg. viii. 22, sq. ; 
 comp. Heb. xi.). Still they were not without 
 faults, neither are they so represented by their 
 historians; they relate, on the contrary, with the 
 utmost frankness, the great sins of which some 
 of them were guilty. They were not merely de- 
 liverers of the state from a foreign yoke, but 
 destroyers of idolatry, foes of pagan vices, pro- 
 moters of the knowledge of God, of religion, and 
 of morality ; restorers of theocracy in the minds 
 of the Hebrews, and powerful instruments of 
 Divine Providence in the promotion of the great 
 design of preserving the Hebrew constitution, 
 and, by that means, of rescuing the true religion 
 from destruction.’ 
 
 The same writer, in the ensuing section, gives a 
 clear view of the general condition of the Hebrews 
 in the time of the judges. ‘ By comparing the 
 periods during which the Hebrews were oppressed 
 by their enemies, with those in which they were 
 independent and governed by their own constitu- 
 tion, it is apparent that the nation in general ex- 
 perienced much more prosperity than adversity in 
 the time of the judges. Their dominion con- 
 tinued four hundred and fifty years ; but the whole 
 time of foreign oppression amounts only to one 
 hundred and eleven years, scarcely a fourth part 
 of that period. Even during these one hundred 
 and eleven years, the whole nation was seldom 
 under the yoke at the same time, but for the most 
 part separate tribes only were held in servitude ; 
 nor were their oppressions always very severe'; and 
 all the calamities terminated in the- advantage 
 and glory of the people, so soon as they abolished 
 idolatry and returned to their King, Jehovah. 
 Neither was the nation in such a state of anarchy 
 at this time as had been generally supposed. 
 There were regular judicial tribunals at which 
 justice could be obtained ; and when there was 
 no supreme regent, the public welfare was pro- 
 vided for by the ordinary rulers’ (Ruth iv. 1-11 ; 
 Judg. viii. 22; x. 17, IS; xi. 1-11; l Sam. iv. 
 1 ; vii. 1-2). 
 
 ‘ These times would certainly not be considered 
 so turbulent and barbarous, much less would they 
 be taken, contrary to the clearest evidence and to 
 the analogy of all history, for a heroic age, if they 
 were viewed without the prejudices of a precon- 
 ceived hypothesis. It must never be forgotten that 
 the book of Judges is by no means a complete 
 history. This no impartial inquirer can ever deny. 
 It is, in a manner, a mere register of diseases, 
 from which, however, we have no right to conclude 
 that there were no healthy men, much less that 
 there were no healthy seasons ; since the book 
 
 itself, for the most part, mentions only a few tril<ei 
 in which the epidemic prevailed, and notices long 
 periods during which it had universally ceased. 
 Whatever may be the result of more accurate in- 
 vestigation, it remains undeniable that the condi- 
 tion of the Hebrews during this period perfectly 
 corresponds throughout to the sanctions of the law ; 
 and they were always prosperous when they com- 
 plied with the conditions on which prosperity was 
 promised them ; it remains undeniable that the 
 government of God was clearly manifested, not 
 only to the Hebrews, but to their heathen neigh- 
 bours ; that the fulfilling of the promises and 
 threatenings of the law were so many sensible 
 proofs of the universal dominion of the Divine 
 King of the Hebrews ; and, consequently, that all 
 the various fortunes of that nation were so many 
 means of preserving the knowledge of God on the 
 earth. The Hebrews had no sufficient reason to 
 desire a change in their constitution; all required 
 was, that they should observe the conditions on 
 which national prosperity was promised them.’ 
 
 The chronology of the period in which the 
 judges ruled is beset with great and perhaps in- 
 superable difficulties. There are intervals of time 
 the extent of which is not specified; as, for 
 instance, that from Joshua’s death to the yoke of 
 Cushan Rishathaim (ii. 8) ; that of the rule of 
 Shamgar (iii. 31); that between Gideon's death 
 and Abimelech’s accession (viii. 31, 32); and 
 that of Israel’s renewal of idolatry previous to 
 their oppression by the An. monites (x. 6, 7). 
 Sometimes round numbers seem to have been 
 given, as forty years for the rule of Othniel, forty 
 years for that of Gideon, and forty years also for 
 the duration of the oppression by the Philistines. 
 Twenty years are given for the subjection lo 
 Jabin, and twenty years for the government, of 
 Samson; yet the latter never completely con- 
 quered the Philistines, who, on tiie contrary, 
 succeeded in capturing him. Some judges, who 
 are commonly considered to hpve been successive, 
 were in all probability contemporaneous, and 
 ruled over different districts. Under these cir- 
 cumstances, it is impossible to fix the date of each 
 particular event in the book of Judges; but 
 attempts have been made to settle its general 
 chronology, of which we must in this place men- 
 tion the most successful. 
 
 The whole period of the judges, from Joshua to 
 Eli, is usually estimated at 299 years, in order to 
 meet the 480 years which (1 Kings vi. 1) are 
 said to have elapsed from the departure of the 
 Israelites from Egypt to the foundation of the 
 temple by Solomon. But St. Paul says (Acts 
 xiii. 20), ‘God gave unto the people of Israe* 
 judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel, 
 the prophet.’ Again, if the number of years spe- 
 cified by the author of our book, in stating fact9, 
 is summed up, we have 410 years, exclusive of 
 those years not specified for certain intervals of 
 time above mentioned. In order to reduce these 
 410 years and upwards to 299, events and reigns 
 must, in computing their years of duration, either 
 be entirely passed over, or, in a most arbitrary 
 way, included in other periods preceding or sub 
 sequent. This has been done by Archbishop Usher, 
 whose peculiarly faulty system has been adopted 
 in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures. He 
 excludes the repeated intervals during which the 
 Hebrews were in subjection to their enemies, and 
 
JUDGES 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 reckons on! y the years of peace and rest which were 
 assigned to the successive judges. For example, 
 he passes over the eight years of servitude in- 
 flicted upon the Hebrews by Cushan-rishathaim, 
 and, without any interruption, connects the peace 
 obtained by the victories of Othniel with that 
 which had been conferred on the land by the 
 government of Joshua ; and although the sacred 
 historian relates in the plainest terms possible that 
 the children of Israel served the king of Mesopo- 
 tamia eight years, and were afterwards delivered 
 by Othniel, who gave the land rest forty years, 
 the archbishop maintains that the forty years now 
 mentioned began, not after the successes of this 
 judge, but immediately after the demise of Joshua. 
 Nothing certainly can be more obvious than that 
 in this case the years of tranquillity and the years 
 of oppression ought to be reckoned separately. 
 Again, we are informed by the sacred writer, that 
 after the death of Ehud the children of '■ srael 
 were under the oppression of Jabin king of Hazor 
 for twenty years, and that afterwards, when their 
 deliverance was effected by Deborah and Barak, 
 the land had rest forty years. Nothing can be 
 clearer than this ; yet Usher’s system leads him 
 to include the twenty years of oppression in the 
 forty of peace, making both but forty years. All 
 this arises from the obligation which Usher un- 
 fortunately conceived himself under of following 
 the scheme adopted by the Masoretic Jews, who, 
 as Dr. Hales remarks, have by a curious inven- 
 tion included the four first servitudes in the years 
 of the judges who put an end to them, contrary 
 to the express declarations of Scripture, which 
 represents the administrations of the judges, not as 
 synchronising with the servitudes, but as succeed- 
 ing them. The Rabbins were indeed forced to 
 allow the fifth servitude to have been distinct 
 from the administration of Jephthah, because it 
 was too long to be included in that administra- 
 tion ; but they deducted a year from the Scrip- 
 ture account of the servitude, making it only six 
 instead of seven years. They sank entirely the 
 sixth servitude of forty years under the Philistines, 
 because it was too long to be contained in Sam 
 son's administration ; and, to crown all, they 
 reduced Saul’s reign of forty years to two years 
 only. 
 
 The necessity for all these tortuous operations 
 nas arisen from a desire to produce a conformity 
 with the date in 1 Kings vi. 1, which, as already 
 cited, gives a period of only 480 years from the 
 Exode to the foundation of Solomon’s temple. 
 As this date is incompatible with the sum of the 
 different numbers given in the book of Judges, 
 and as it differs from the computation of Josephus 
 and of all the ancient writers on the subject, 
 whether Jewish or Christian, it is not unsatis- 
 factory to find grounds which leave this text 
 open to much doubt, and suspicion. We cannot 
 here enter into any lengthened proof ; but that 
 the text did not exist in the Hebrew and Greek 
 copies of the Scripture till nearly three cen- 
 turies after Christ, is evident from the absence 
 of all reference to it in the works of the learned 
 men who composed histories of the Jews from 
 the materials supplied to them in the sacred 
 books. This may be shown by reference to va- 
 rious authors, who, if the number specified in it 
 had existed, could not fail to have adduced it. 
 L> particular, it is certain that it did not exist in 
 
 VOL. XX. 13 
 
 1T7 
 
 the Hebrew or Greek Bibles in the days of Jo- 
 sephus ; for lie alludes to the verse in which it is 
 contained without making the slightest observa- 
 tion in regard to it, although the period which he, 
 at the same time, states as having elapsed between 
 the exode and the foundation of the temple, is 
 directly at variance with it to the extent of not 
 less than 112 years ( Antiq . viii. 3). If the num- 
 ber ‘ 480 years’ had then existed in the text, he 
 could not, while referring to the passage where it 
 is now inserted, have dared to state a number so 
 very different. Then we have the testimony oi 
 St. Paul (Acts xiii. 20), who makes the rule ot 
 ‘ the judges until Samuel’ extend over 450 years, 
 which, wifh the addition of ascertained num 
 hers, raises the amount for the whole period to 
 592 years. This evidence seems so conclusive 
 that it is scarcely necessary to add any other; 
 but it may be mentioned, that Origen, in his 
 Commentary on St. John, cites 1 Kings vi. 1, 
 and even mentions the year of Solomon's reign, 
 and the month in which he began to build the 
 temple, without the slightest notice of the number 
 of years (as now stated in the text) which inter- 
 vened between that event and the exode. It has 
 consequently been inferred, with good reason, that 
 in a.d. 230, when Origen wrote, the interpolation 
 of the date in question had not yet taken place. 
 Eusebius, however, in his Chronicon , written 
 about a.d. 325, doe3 use the date as the basis of 
 a chronological hypothesis ; whence it is inferred 
 that the date was inserted about the beginning of 
 the fourth century, and probably under the direc- 
 tion of the Masoretic doctors of Tiberias. It is 
 also to be remarked that Eusebius, in the Prcep. 
 Evangelica, a work written some years after the 
 Chronicon, and in all his other works, uses the 
 more common and ancient system of dates. 
 
 It may also be remarked that even the ancient 
 versions, as they at present exist, do not agree in 
 the number. The present eopies of the Septuagint, 
 for instance, have 440, not 480 years ; on which 
 and other grounds some scholars, who have hesi- 
 tated to regard the text as an interlopation, have 
 deemed themselves authorized to alter it to 592 
 years insteail of 480, producing in this way the 
 same result which would be obtained if the text 
 had -no existence. This, xc has been already 
 remarked, , is the number given by Josephus 
 (Antiq. viii. 3. 1), and is in agreement with the 
 statement, of St. Paul. The computation of the 
 Jews in China has also been produced in support 
 of it (see Isaac Voss, Dissert, de LXX. Intei'p. 
 eorumque trnnslatione et chronologia. Hagaa 
 Comit. 1664.4; Michaelis, Orientalische Bib- 
 liothek, v. 81). There would then be for the 
 period from Moses's death to Saul’s accession 
 468 years, and the whole period of the judges 
 from the death of Joshua to that, of Samuel might 
 be estimated at. 450 years, agreeably to Acts xiii. 
 20. If we add to these 450 years forty years for 
 the march in the desert, eighty-four years for the 
 reign of Saul, David, and Solomon, until fho 
 fouixdation of the temple, the amount would, be 
 574 years. For the time when Joshua acted as 
 an independent chieftain, eighteen years may be 
 counted, which added to 574 would make up the 
 above number of 592 years (comp. Michaelis, 
 Orientalische Bibliothek, v. 228, whose arrange- 
 ment of years differs in some points from the 
 above). It must, however, be observed that tin 
 
178 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 number of 450 years represents only tlie sum 
 total of all chronologically specified facts of our 
 book down to the death of Eli, and does not in- 
 clude the intervals of time of which the years are 
 not given. The statement of Josephus above re- 
 ferred to rests only on his own individual computa- 
 tion, and is contrary to another statement of the 
 same author ( Antiq . xx. 10 ; Cont. Apion. ii. 2). 
 
 The latest attempt towards settling the chro- 
 nology of the Judges is that, of Dr. Keil, in 
 his work D'wptsche Beitrage zu den Theolo- 
 gischen Wissenschaften, or, ‘ Contributions to- 
 wards the furtherance of the theological sciences,’ 
 by professors of the university of Dorpat. He 
 supports the number of 480 years in l Kings 
 vi. 1, and from the invasion of Cushan-rishathaim 
 to Jair (Judg. iii.-x.) retains the chronological 
 statements of our book for events which he con- 
 siders successive. But the period of the domina- 
 tion of the Philistines over the (western) Israelites 
 until the death of Saul, a space of seventy-nine 
 years, he considers contemporaneous with the time 
 of oppression and deliverance of the eastern and 
 
 northern tribes, for which (Judg. x. 12) are reck- 
 oned forty years. He next estimates the period 
 from the distribution of the land under Joshua to 
 the invasion by the king of Mesopotamia at ten 
 years, and (he period from the time when the 
 Philistines were conquered until the death oi 
 Saul at thirty-nine years, thus making up the 
 above number of 480 years. In this attempt at 
 settling the chronology of the book of Judges 
 Dr. Kiel evinces great ingenuity and .learning; 
 but it appears that his computations rest on his- 
 torical and chronological assumptions which can 
 never Jje fully established. In order satisfactorily 
 to settle the chronology we lack sufficient data, 
 and the task has therefore been abandoned by the 
 ablest modern critics, as Eichhorn, De Wette, and 
 others. Nothing beyond general views is attain- 
 able on this subject. 
 
 Having explained this matter, it only remains 
 to arrange the different systems of the chronology 
 of this period so as to exhibit them in one view 
 to the eye of the reader. It has been deemed 
 light, for the better apprehension of the differences, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 % 
 
 n 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 Hales. 
 
 Jackson. 
 
 Russel 
 
 •a. 
 
 4 
 
 p. 
 
 0 
 
 a> 
 
 £ 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 w 
 
 Usher. 
 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Years. 
 
 H.C. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 Yrs. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Years. 
 
 DO. 
 
 Exode to death of Moses . 
 
 40 
 
 1648 
 
 40 
 
 1593 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 1491 
 
 Joshua (and the) ... 1 
 
 Elders ...... / 
 
 26 
 
 1608 j 
 
 
 • • 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 »'• 
 
 1451 
 
 First Division of Lands . 
 
 # # 
 
 1602 > 
 
 27 
 
 1553 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Second Division of Lands 
 
 * * 
 
 1596 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 4 m. 
 
 1444 
 
 Anarchy or Interregnum . 
 
 10 
 
 1582) 
 
 . . 
 
 . . 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 1413 
 
 I. Servitude, Mesopotam. . 
 
 8 
 
 1572 
 
 8 
 
 1526 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 8 ! 
 
 40 
 
 1. Othniel 
 
 40 
 
 1561 
 
 40 
 
 1518 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 } 
 
 1105 
 
 11. Servitude, Moabit. , . 
 
 18 
 
 1524 
 
 18 
 
 1478 
 
 . . 
 
 # , 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 ] 
 
 1343 
 
 2. Ehud (and) ... 1 
 
 80 
 
 1506 
 
 80 
 
 1460 
 
 80 
 
 (80 
 1 1 
 
 80 
 
 1 
 
 80 
 
 > 80 
 
 1323 
 
 3. Shamgar . . . . J 
 
 
 
 omitted. 
 
 J 
 
 
 III. Servitude, Canaanit. . 
 
 20 
 
 1426 
 
 20 
 
 1380 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 ) 
 
 40 
 
 1285 
 
 4. Deborah and Barak , 
 
 40 
 
 1406 
 
 40 
 
 1360 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 j 
 
 1265 
 
 IV. Servitude, Midian. 
 
 7 
 
 1368 
 
 7 
 
 1320 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 l 
 
 40 
 
 1252 
 
 5. Gideon 
 
 40 
 
 1359 
 
 40 
 
 1313 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 / 
 
 1245 
 
 0. Abimelech ..... 
 
 3 
 
 1319 
 
 3 
 
 1273 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 9 2 m. 
 
 1236 
 
 7. Tola 
 
 23 
 
 1316 
 
 22 
 
 1270 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 23 ) 
 
 48 
 
 1232 
 
 8. Jair 
 
 22 
 
 1293 
 
 22 
 
 1248 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 22 / 
 
 1210 
 
 V. Servitude, Ammon. . 
 
 18 
 
 1271 
 
 18 
 
 1226 
 
 IS 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 18 l 
 
 0 
 
 1206 
 
 9. Jephthah 
 
 6 
 
 1253 
 
 6 
 
 1208 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 61 
 
 U 
 
 1188 
 
 10. Ibzan 
 
 7 
 
 1247 
 
 7 
 
 1202 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 ) 
 
 
 1182 
 
 11. Elon 
 
 10 
 
 1240 
 
 10 
 
 1195 
 
 10 1 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 1 
 
 25 
 
 1175 
 
 1 2. Abdon 
 
 8 
 
 1230 
 
 8 
 
 1185 
 
 8j 
 
 8 
 
 8 j 
 
 
 1165 
 
 VI. Servitude, Philist. 20 1 
 •13. Samson . . . 20 J 
 
 40 
 
 1222 
 
 40 
 
 1177 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 40 1 
 20 1 
 
 40 
 
 
 Interregnum 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 f 
 
 
 14. Eli 30) 
 
 Samuel called as a prophet 10 J 
 
 40 
 
 1182 
 
 20* 
 
 1137 
 
 20 f 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 40 J 
 
 
 1157 
 
 VII. Servitude or Anarchy 
 
 20 
 
 1142 
 
 20 
 
 1117 
 
 204 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15. Samuel ..... 
 
 12 
 
 1122 
 
 20 
 
 1097 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 , , 
 
 , , 
 
 21 
 
 1116 
 
 Samuel and Saul . . 18 ) 
 
 40 
 
 1110 
 
 J •' 
 
 , . 
 
 40 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 Saul 22 J 
 
 1 20 
 
 1077 
 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 1095 
 
 David 
 
 40 
 
 1070 
 
 40 
 
 1057 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 ) 
 
 43 
 
 1055 
 
 Solomon to Found, of the Temple 
 
 3 
 
 1030 
 
 3 
 
 1017 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3/ 
 
 1014 
 
 Exode to F. of Temple . . 
 
 621 
 
 1027 
 
 579 
 
 1014 
 
 5914 
 
 592 
 
 612 
 
 600 
 
 4781 
 
 1012 
 
 * Samson and Eli are supposed to have been f Besides the 20 years under the sixth servi- 
 Judges simultaneously during 20 years of this tude. 
 
JUDGES, BOOK OF. 
 
 to make the table embrace the whole period from 
 the exode to the building of Solomon’s temple. 
 The headings are taken from Hales, simply be- 
 cause, from being the most copious, they afford 
 a framework within which all the explanations 
 may be inserted. 
 
 The authorities for this table are : Josephus, 
 Antiquities, v. 1*10 ; Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch 
 (a.d. 330), Epist. ad Autolycum , iii. ; Euse- 
 bius (a.d. 330), Prceparatio Evangelica, x. 14 ; 
 Usher (1650), Chronologia Sacra, p. 71 ; Jackson, 
 (1752), Chronological Antiquities , p. 145; Hales, 
 (1811), Analysis of Chronology , i. 101 ; Russell 
 (1827), Connection of Sacred and Profane His- 
 tory, i. 147. In the last work the full tables, 
 with others, are given ; and we have here com- 
 bined them for the sake of comparison. Other 
 authorities on the subject of this article are : 
 Herzfeld, Chronologia Judicum, Berol. 1836; 
 Moldenhauer, Gedanken iiber die Zeitrechnung 
 im Buch der Richter, p. 15, sq. ; Ditmar, Ge- 
 schichte der Israelitcn, p. 91 ; Hug, in the 
 Freiburger Zeitschrift, i. p. 129, sq. ; Carpzov, 
 Introduct. V. T., i. 169; Simon, Hist. Crit. de 
 V. Test.’, Jahn, Bibl. Archaolog., ii. 1. 85; De 
 Wette, Lehrbuch, p. 30. 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF, the third in the list of 
 the historical compositions of the Old Testament. 
 It consists of two divisions, the first comprising 
 chaps, i-xvii. ; the second, being an appendix, 
 chaps, xvii.-xxi. 
 
 I. Pi.an ok the Book. — T hat the author, in 
 composing this work, had a certain design in view, 
 is evident from ch. ii. 11-23, where he states the 
 leading features of his narrative. He introduces 
 it by relating (ch. i.) the extent to which the wars 
 against the Canaanites were continued after the 
 death of Joshua, and what tribes had spared them 
 in consideration of a tribute imposed ; also by al- 
 luding (ch. ii. 1-10) to the benefits which Jehovah 
 had conferred on them, and the distinguished pro- 
 tection with which he had honoured them. Next 
 he states his leading object, namely, to prove that 
 the calamities to which the Hebrews had been 
 exposed since the death of Joshua were owing to 
 their apostacy from Jehovah, and to their idolatry. 
 ‘ They forsook the Lord, and served Baal and 
 Ashtaroth’ (ch. ii. 13) ; for which crimes they were 
 deservedly punished and greatly distressed (ch. ii. 
 15). N evertheless, when they repented and obeyed 
 again the commandments of the Lord, he delivered 
 them out of the hand of their enemies by the 
 Shophetim whom he raised up, and made them 
 prosper (ch. ii. 16*23). To illustrate this theme, 
 the author collected several fragments of the 
 Hebrew history during the period between Joshua 
 and Eli. Some episodes occur ; but in arguing his 
 subject he never loses sight of his leading theme, to 
 which, on the contrary, he frequently recurs while 
 stating facts, and shows how it applied to them ; 
 the moral evidently being, that the only way to 
 happiness was to shun idolatry and obey the com- 
 mandments of the Lord. The design of the author 
 was not to give a connected and complete history 
 of the Hebrews in the period between Joshua and 
 the kings ; for if he had intended a plan of that 
 kind, he would also have described the state of 
 the domestic affairs and of the government in the 
 •everal tribes, the relation in which they stood to 
 each other, and the extent of power exercised by 
 % judge ; he would have further staled the num* 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF. 179 
 
 her of tribes over whom a judge ruled, and the 
 number of years during which the tribes were not 
 oppressed by their heathen neighbours, but enjoyed 
 rest and peace. The appendix, containing two 
 narratives, further illustrates the lawlessness and 
 anarchy prevailing in Israel after Joshua’s death. 
 In the first narrative (chaps, xvii.-xviii.), a rather 
 wealthy man, Micah, dwelling in Mount Ephraim, 
 is introduced. He had * a house of gods,’ and 
 molten and graven images in it, which he wor- 
 shipped. After having, at an annual salary, 
 engaged an itinerant Levite to act as his priest and 
 to settle in his family, the Danites, not having as 
 yet an inheritance to dwell in, turn in thither, 
 seize the images, and take the priest along with 
 them. They then establish idolatry at Leshem, 
 or Laish, in Coele-Syria, which they conquered, 
 smiting the quiet and secure inhabitants with the 
 edge of the sword. The second narrative (chaps, 
 xix.-xxi.) first gives an account of the brutal and 
 criminal outrage committed by the Benjamitos of 
 Sibeah against the family of a Levite dwelling, in 
 the age immediately subsequent to Joshua’s death, 
 on the side of Mount Ephraim ; and next relates 
 its consequence, a bloody civil war, in which all 
 the tribes joined against the tribe of Benjamin 
 and nearly destroyed it. The appendix then does 
 not continue the history of the first sixteen chap- 
 ters, and may have an author different from him 
 who composed the first division of the book, to 
 which inquiry we now turn. 
 
 II. Author. — If the first and second divisions 
 had been by the same author, the chronological 
 indications would also have been the same. Now 
 the author of the second division always describes 
 the period of which he speaks thus : ‘ In those days 
 there was no king in Israel, but every man did 
 that which was right in his own eyes’ (ch. xvii. 6 : 
 xviii. 1 ; xix. 1 ; xxi. 25) ; but this expression never 
 once occurs in the first division. If one author had 
 composed both divisions, instead of this chrono- 
 logical formula, we should rather have expected, 
 ‘ In the days of the Shophetim,’ ‘ At a time when 
 there was no Shophet,’ &c., which would be con- 
 sonant with the tenor of the first sixteen chapters. 
 The style also in the two divisions is different, 
 and it will be shown that the appendix was writ- 
 ten much later than the first part. All modem 
 critics, then, agree in this, that the author of the 
 first sixteen chapters of our book is different from 
 him who composed the appendix (see L. Bertholdt, 
 Historisch-Kritiscke Einleitung in die sdmmt- 
 lichen Schriften des A. und N. T., p. 876 ; 
 Eichhorn’s Einleitung in das A. T., iii. § 457). 
 The authorship of the first sixteen chapters has 
 been assigned to Joshua, Samuel, and Ezra. 
 That they were not written by Joshua appears 
 from the difference of the method of relating sub- 
 jects, as well as from the difference of the style. 
 In the book of Joshua there is a continual refer- 
 ence to the law of Moses, which is much less fre- 
 quent in the book of Judges ; and in Joshua, again, 
 there are no such inferences from history as are 
 common in Judges (ch. iii. 1,4; viii. 27 ; ix. 56). 
 The style of the book of Joshua is neater than that 
 of Judges ; the narration is more clear, and the 
 arrangement is better (comp. ch. i. 10, 1 1, 20, with 
 Josh. xiv. 6-15, and xv. 13-19 ; also ch. ii. 7-10, 
 with Josh. xxiv. 29-31). That the book of Judges 
 was composed by Samuel is an invention of the 
 Talmudists, unsupported by any evidence ; not 
 
180 JUDGES, BOOK OF. 
 
 will the opinion that it was written by Ezra be en- 
 tertained by any who attentively peruses the origi- 
 nal. For it has a phraseology of its own, and cer- 
 tain favourite ideas, to which it constantly reverts, 
 but of which there is not a trace in Ezra. If Ezra 
 had intended to continue the history of the Hebrews 
 from Joshua down to Eli in a sejxirate work, he 
 would not have given a selection of incidents to 
 prove a particular theme, but a complete history. 
 The orthography of the book of Ezra, with many 
 phrases characteristic of his age, do not appear in 
 the book of Judges. The prefix 6? occurs, indeed 
 (ch. v. 7 ; vi. 17 ; vii. 12 ; viii. 26) ; but this cannot 
 be referred to in proof that the language i3 of the 
 time of Ezra, for it belonged to the dialect of North 
 Palestine, as Ewald and others have proved. HD, 
 instead of is found also in Deut. xxiii. 3. 
 
 Forms like ver. 14, and HD', ver. 2S, j*HD, 
 
 ver.10, nUJ7, ver. .11, resemble Chaldaisms, but may 
 l>e accounted for by the poetical style of the song of 
 Deborah. The forms 'J1K (ch. xvii. 2), and 
 (ch. xix. 1), belonging to a late age of the Hebrew 
 language, may be considered as changes intro- 
 duced by copyists (see Ottmar, in Henke s Ma~ 
 gazin , vol. iv. ; W. M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch 
 der Einleitung in die Bibel, Berlin, 1833-39, 
 2 vols. 8vo.). 
 
 But though we cannot determine the author- 
 ship of the book of Judges, still its age may 
 be determined from internal evidence. The first 
 sixteen chapters must have been written under 
 Saul, whom the Israelites made their king in the 
 hope of improving their condition. Phrases used 
 in the period of the Judges may be traced in them, 
 and the author must consequently have lived 
 near the time when they were yet current. He 
 says that in his time 4 the Jebusites dwelt with the 
 children of Benjamin in Jerusalem ’ (ch. i. 21) : 
 now this was the case only before David, who 
 conquered the town and drove out the Jebusite 3 . 
 Consequently, the author of the first division of 
 the book of Judges must have lived and written 
 before David, and under king Saul. If he had lived 
 under David, he would have mentioned the cap- 
 ture of Jerusalem by that monarch, as the nature 
 of his subject did not allow him to pass it over in 
 silence. The omission, moreover, of the history, 
 not only of Samuel but also of Eli, indicates an 
 author who, living in an age very near that of Eli, 
 considered his history as generally known, because 
 so recent. The exact time when the appendix was 
 added to the book of Judges cannot indeed be 
 determined, but its author certainly lived in an 
 age much later than that of the recorded events. 
 In his time the period of the events which he 
 relates had been long forgotten: which may 
 be inferred from the frequent chronological for- 
 mula, 4 in those days there was no king in Israel ’ 
 (ch. xvii. 6) ; and certain particulars of his 
 narrative could no longer be ascertained, which 
 caused him to omit the name of the Levite 
 whose history is given in ch. xix. In his time 
 also the house of God was no longer in Shiloh 
 (ch. xviii. 31); and it will be recollected that 
 it was David who brought the ark to Jerusalem. 
 The author knew also that the posterity of Jona- 
 than were priests of the graven image in Dan, or 
 Laish, 4 until the day of the captivity of the land ’ 
 
 pNH nta DP Ttf (ch. xviii. 30> This 
 latter circumstance proves, as already observed 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF. 
 
 by Le Clerc and others, that the appendix wet 
 not published until after the Babylonian cap* 
 tivity, or at least until after that of Israel by 
 Shalmaneser and Esar-haddon. It cannot be un- 
 derstood of the domination of the Philistines over 
 the Israelites, which would very improperly be 
 
 called f‘"lNn JYl^U, this expression always im- 
 plying the deportation of the inhabitants of a 
 country. The circumstance that the quthor, in 
 mentioning Shiloh, adds, 4 which is ‘in the land 
 of Canaan ’ (ch. xxi. 12), and that the topogra- 
 phical description of the site of Shiloh is given 
 (ch. xxi. 19), has led some interpreters to assert 
 that the author of the appendix must have been 
 a foreigner, as to an Israelite such remarks would 
 have appeared trivial (see Briefe einiger Hoi' 
 lundischen Gottesgelehrten uber It. Simon’s 
 kritische Geschichte des A. T., edited by Le 
 Clerc at Zurich, p. 490). The inference is cer- 
 tainly specious, but to judge of it duly we must 
 look at the context. The first passage runs thus : 
 4 And they fouftd among the inhabitants ot 
 Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins that 
 had known no man, and they brought them unto 
 the camp to Shiloh , which is in the land of 
 Canaan .’ The second passage is : 4 There is a 
 feast of the Lord in Shiloh yearly, in a place 
 which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east 
 side of the highway that goes up from Bethel to 
 Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.’ It ap- 
 pears that in the first passage Shiloh is opposed to 
 Jabesh in Gilead, a town without the land of 
 Canaan, and that this led the author to add to 
 Shiloh that it was in Canaan. The second 
 passage describes not the site of Shiloh, but of a 
 place in its neighbourhood, where an annual 
 feast was celebrated, when the daughters of Shiloh 
 came out to dance, to sing, and to play on in- 
 struments of music. The author thus enabled 
 his readers, and all those who had never been at 
 Shiloh, to form a distinct idea of the festival, and 
 to find its scene without the employment of a 
 guide ; his topographical observation was cal- 
 culated to raise the interest of his narrative, and 
 was consequently very proper and judicious. It 
 cannot, there ore, authorize us to infer that he was 
 a foreigner. 
 
 III. Character or the Book. — Parts of the 
 work are undoubtedly taken from ancient records 
 and genealogies, others from traditions and oral 
 information. From ancient authentic documents 
 are probably copied the song of Deborah (ch. v.), 
 the beautiful parable of Jotham (ch. ix. 8-15), and 
 the beginning of Samson’s epinician, or triumphal 
 poem (ch. xv. 16). In their genealogies the 
 Hebrews usually inserted also some historical 
 accounts, and from this source may have been 
 derived the narrative of the circumstances that 
 preceded the conception of Samson, which were 
 given as the parents related them to others (ch. 
 xiii.). These genealogies were sometimes further 
 illustrated by tradition, and several incidents in 
 the history of Samson appear to have been derived 
 from this kind of information. But on many 
 points tradition offered nothing, or the author 
 rejected its information as not genuine, and un- 
 worthy of belief. Thus it is that of Tola, Jair, 
 Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, the author gives only the 
 number of years tl tat they governed and the 
 number of their chile ren, but relates none of thew 
 
JUDGES, BOOK OF. 
 
 transactions (ch. x. 1-5 ; xii. 8, 9, 11, 13). In some 
 insi ances the very words of the ancient documents 
 which the author used seem to have been pre- 
 served ; and this proves the care with which he 
 composed. Thus in the first division of our 
 book, but nowhere else, rich and powerful men 
 are described as men riding on ass-colts 
 
 (ch. x. 4 ; xii. 14, &c.). It is remark- 
 able that this phrase occurs also in the song of 
 Deborah, which is supposed to have been written 
 out in her time (ch. v. 9, 10): ‘My heart is 
 towards the governors of Israel, that offered them- 
 selves willingly among the people. Speak ye 
 that ride on white asses , ye that sit in judgment.’ 
 In the appendix also of this book, but nowhere 
 else, a priest has the honorary title of father given 
 him (ch. xvii. 10; xviii. 19). But though the 
 author sometimes retained the words of his sources, 
 still the whole of the composition is written in a 
 particular style, distinguishing it from all other 
 books of the Old Testament. The idea of the 
 Israelites being overcome by their enemies, he 
 expresses often in this way : ‘ The anger of the 
 Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them 
 into the hands of their enemies,’ Din' P]K TITI 
 
 pn'3'iK Tn d-wi (ch. ii. ].4; iii. 8; 
 
 iv. 2 ; x. 7). A courageous and valiant warrior 
 is described as a person upon whom rests the 
 
 spirit of Jehovah, mil' ITH TUT), or as a 
 person whom the spirit of Jehovah clothed, iTH 
 
 pjna na mrp (ch. vi. 34 ; ix. 29; xiv. 
 
 6, 19 ; xv. 14, &c.). 
 
 IV. Authority of the Book. — It was pub- 
 lished at a time when the events related were 
 generally known, and when the veiacity of the 
 author could be ascertained by a reference to the 
 original documents. Several of its narratives are 
 confirmed by the books of Samuel (comp. Judg. 
 iv. 2; vi. 14 ; xi., with 1 Sam. xii. 9-12 : Judg. 
 ix. 53 with 2 Sam. xi. 21). The Psalms not 
 only allude to the book of Judges (comp. Ps. 
 Ixxxiii. 11, with Judg. vii. 25), but copy from it 
 entire verses (comp. Ps. lxviii. 8, 9 ; xcvii. 5 ; 
 with Judg. v. 4, 5). Philo and Josephus knew 
 the book, and made use of it in their own 
 compositions. The New Testament alludes to 
 it in several places (comp. Matt. ii. 13-23 
 with Judg. xiii. 5; xvi. 17; Acts xiii. 20; 
 Heb. xi. 32). This external evidence in support 
 of the authority of the book of Judges is corro- 
 borated by many internal proofs of its authen- 
 ticity. All its narratives are in character with 
 the age to which they belong, and agree with the 
 natural order of things. We find here that shortly 
 after the death of Joshua the Hebrew nation had, 
 by several victories, gained courage and become 
 valorous (ch. i. and xix.) ; but that it afterwards 
 turned to agriculture, preferred a quiet life, and 
 allowed the Canaanites to reside in its territory 
 vn consideration of a tribi ite imposed on them, 
 when he original plan was that they should be 
 expelled. This changed their character entirely : 
 they became effeminate and indolent — a result 
 which we find in the case of all nations who, 
 from a nomadic and warlike life, turn to agri- 
 culture. The intercourse with their heathen 
 neighbours frequently led the uncultivated He- 
 brews to idolatry ; and this, again, further pre- 
 pared tbem for servitude. They were conse- 
 
 JUDGF.S, BOOK OF. 18! 
 
 quently overpowered and oppressed by their 
 heathen neighbours. The first subjugation, in- 
 deed, by a king of Mesopotamia, they endured 
 but eight years ; but the second, more severe, by 
 Eglon, lasted longer : it was the natural conse- 
 quence of the public spirit having gradually 
 more and more declined, arid of Eglon having 
 removed his residence to Jericho with a view of 
 closely watching all their movements (Joseph. 
 Antiq. v. 5). When Ehud sounded the trumpet 
 of revolt, the whole nation no longer rose in amis, 
 but only the inhabitants of Mount Ephraim (ch. 
 iii. 27) ; and when Barak called to arms against 
 Sisera, many tribes remained quietly with their 
 herds (ch. v. 14, 15, 26, 28). Of the 30,000 mer 
 who offered to follow Gideon, he could make use 
 of no move than 300, this small number only 
 being, as it would seem, filled with true patriotism 
 and courage. Thus the people had sunk gradually, 
 and deserved for forty years to bear the yoke of (lie 
 Philistines, to whom they had the meanness to 
 deliver Samson, who, however, loosed the cords 
 with which he was tied, and killed a large number 
 of them (ch. xv.). It is impossible to consider 
 such an historical work, which perfectly agrees 
 with the natural course of things, as a fiction : at 
 that early period of authorship, no writer could 
 have, from fancy, depicted the character of the 
 Hebrews so conformably with nature and esta- 
 blished facts. All in this book breathes the spirit of 
 the ancient world. Martial law we rind in it, as 
 could not but be expected, hard and wild. The 
 conquered people are subjected to rough treat- 
 ment, as is the case in the wars of all uncivilized 
 people; the inhabitants of cities are destroyed 
 wholesale (ch. viii. 16, 17 ; xx.). Hospitality 
 and the protection of strangers received as guests 
 is considered the highest virtue : a father will 
 rather resign his daughter than allow violence to 
 be done to a stranger who stops in his house for 
 the night (ch. xix. ; comp. Gen. xix.). 
 
 In the state of oppression in which the Hebrews 
 often found themselves during the period from 
 Joshua to Eli, it was to be expected that men, 
 filled with heroism, should now and then rise up 
 and call the people to arms in order to deliver 
 them from their enemies. Such valiant men are 
 introduced by our author, and he extols them, 
 indeed, highly ; but on the other hand he is not 
 silent respecting their faults, as may be seen in 
 the instances of Ehud, whom he reports to have 
 murdered a king to recover liberty for his country 
 (ch. iii. 16, sq.) ; of Gideon, who is recorded to 
 have punished the inhabitants of Succoth and 
 Penuel cruelly, for having refused bread to his 
 weary troops (ch. viii. 16, 17) ; and of Jephthah, 
 who vows a vow that if he sliould return home 
 as a conqueror of the Ammonites, he would offer 
 as a burnt-offering whatever should first come out 
 of the door of his house to meet him : in conse- 
 quence of this inconsiderate vow, his only daughter 
 is sacrificed by a savage father, who thus become* 
 a gross offender against the Mosaic law, which 
 expressly forbids human immolations (ch. xi. 34), 
 This cannot be a fiction ; it is no panegyric on 
 Israel to describe them in the manner the author 
 has done. And this frank, impartial tone pervades 
 the whole work. It begins with displaying the 
 Israelites as a refractory and obstinate people, 
 and the appendix ends with the statement of a 
 crime committed by the Benjamites, which had the 
 
192 
 
 JUDGMENT-HALL. 
 
 JUDGES, BOOK OF. 
 
 most disastrous consequences. At the same time 
 due praise is bestowed on acts of generosity and 
 j istice, and valiant feats are carefully recorded. 
 
 But are not the exploits of its heroes exag- 
 gerated in our book, like those of Sesostris, Semi- 
 ramis, and Hercules ? Their deeds are, no doubt, 
 often splendid ; but they do not surpass belief, 
 provided we do not add to the narrative anything 
 which the original text does not sanction, nor give 
 to particular words and phrases a meaning which 
 does not belong to them. Thus, when we read 
 that ‘ Shamgar sleic of the Philistines 600 men’ 
 (ch. iii. 31), it would have been more correct if 
 the Hebrew had been rendered by ‘put to 
 flight;’ and it should be further recollected, that 
 Shamgar is not stated to have been alone and 
 unassisted in repelling the enemy : he did it, no 
 doubt, supported by those brave men whose 
 leader he was. It frequently happens that to 
 the leader is attributed what has been performed 
 by his followers. We find (1 Sam. xiii. 3) that 
 Jonathan repulsed the Philistines, and no one 
 doubts that it wa3 done by the 1000 men men- 
 tioned in the beginning of the chapter. We read 
 also (1 Sam. xviii. 7) that ‘Saul has slain his 
 thousands, and David his ten thousands,’ but of 
 course with the assistance of troops ; and many 
 more passages of the Old Testament are to be in- 
 terpreted on the same principle, as 1 Sam. xviii. 
 27 ; 2 Sam. viii. 2. Nor can it offend when, in 
 the passage quoted above, it is said that Shamgar 
 repelled the Philistines with an ox-goad ; for this 
 was exactly the weapon which an uncultivated 
 Oriental warrior, who had been brought up to 
 husbandry, would choose in preference to other 
 instruments of olTence. From the description 
 which travellers give of it, it appears to have been 
 well suited to such a purpose [Agriculture]. 
 It is, however, chiefly the prodigious strength of 
 Samson which to very many readers seems exag- 
 gerated, and surpassing all belief. He is, e. g. y 
 reported to have, unarmed, slain a lion. ( ch. 
 xiv. 5, 6) ; to have caught 300 jackals (D vJ71K>), 
 l>ound their tails to one another, put a firebrand 
 between two tails, and let them go into the stand- 
 ing com of the Philistines, which was thus burnt 
 up (ch. xv. 4, 5, 8) ; to have broken, with perfect 
 ease, the new cords with which his arms were 
 bound, &c. (ch. xv. 14 ; xvi. 7-9, 1 1). Now, there 
 is in these and other recorded feats of Samson no- 
 thing which ought to create difficulty, for history 
 affords many instances of men of extraordinary 
 strength, of whom Goliath among the Philistines 
 is not the least remarkable ; and for others we re- 
 f“r to T. Ludolf, Historia JEthiopiee, i. 10 ; to the 
 Acta Dei per Francos , i. 75, 314; and to Schil- 
 linger, Missionsbericht , iv. 79. Lions were also 
 slain by other persons unarmed, as by David 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 36) and Benaiah (2 Sam. xxiii. 
 20). The explanation of Samson’s other great 
 exploits will be found under his name [Samson]. 
 It will be easy to show that, when properly under- 
 stood, they do not necessarily exceed the limits of 
 human power. Extraordinary indeed they were ; 
 but they are not alleged by the Scripture itself to 
 have been supernatural. Those, however, who do 
 hold them to have been supernatural cannot reason- 
 ably take exception to them on the ground of their 
 extraordinary character. A cautious reader may, 
 perhaps, resolve on abstaining entirely from giving 
 his views of Samson’s feats ; but, at all events, 
 
 he will not presume to say that they exceed 
 human power, and are fabulous. He may say 
 that they do not necessarily exceed human power, 
 and are therefore neither supernatural on the one 
 hand, nor fabulous on the other; or if he believes 
 them above human power, he must admit that 
 they are supernatural, and will have no right to 
 conclude that they are fabulous. Considering 
 the very remote period at which our book was 
 written — considering also the manner of viewing 
 and describing events and persons which pre- 
 vailed with the ancient Hebrews, and which very 
 much differs from that of our age — taking, more- 
 over, into account the brevity of the narratives, 
 which consist of historical fragments, we may 
 well wonder that there do not occur in it more 
 difficulties, and that not more doubts have been 
 raised as to its historical authority (see Herder, 
 Geist der Ilebriiischen Poesie, ii. 250, 59; Eich- 
 horn, Repertorium der Biblischen und Morgen - 
 liindischen Litteratur , vii. 78). — J. v. H. 
 
 JUDGMENT- HALL. llpatTcopiov occurs 
 Matt, xxvii. 27 ; Mark xv. 16 ; John xviii. 28, 
 33; xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; Phil. i. 13; in all 
 which places the Vulgate has prcetorhim. The 
 English version, however, uses prsetorium but 
 once only, and then unavoidably, Mark xv. 16, 
 ‘ The hall called Praetorium.’ In all the other 
 instances it gives an explanation of the word 
 rather than a translation : thus, Matt, xxvii. 27, 
 ‘ the common-hall ;’ margin, ‘ or governor’s house 
 John xviii. 28, 33, ‘ the judgment-hall ;’ margin, 
 ‘ or Pilate's house :’ Philipp, i. 13, ‘ the palace ;’ 
 margin, ‘ or Caesar’s court.* The object of the 
 translators, probably, was to make their version 
 intelligible to the mere English reader, and to 
 exhibit the various senses in which they consi- 
 dered the word to be used in the several passages. 
 It is plainly one of the many Latin words to be 
 found in the New Testament [Latinisms], being 
 the word prcetorium in a Greek dress, a deri- 
 vative from prcetor; which latter, from prceeo , ‘ tc 
 go before,’ was originally applied by the Romans 
 to a military officer — the general. But because tli6 
 Romans subdued many countries and reduced 
 them to provinces, and governed them afterwards 
 at first by the generals who had subdued them, 
 or by some other military commanders, the word 
 praetor came ultimately to be used for any civil 
 governor of a pi-ovince, whether he had been en- 
 gaged in war or not; and who acted in the 
 capacity of Chief Justice, having a council asso- 
 ciated with him (Acts xxv. 12). Accordingly 
 the word praetorium, also, which originally sig- 
 nified the general’s tent in a camp, came at 
 length to be applied to the residence of the civil 
 governor in provinces and cities (Cic. Verr. ii. 
 v. 12) ; and being properly an adjective, as is also 
 its Greek representative, it was used to signify 
 whatever appertained to the praetor or governor ; 
 for instance, his residence, either the whole or any 
 part of it, as his dwelling-house, or the place 
 where he administered justice, or even the large 
 enclosed court at the entrance to the praetorian 
 residence (Bynaeus, De Morte Jes. Christ, ii. 407, 
 Amst. 1696). 
 
 These observations serve to elucidate the several 
 uses of the word in the New Testament, which 
 have, however, much exercised the ingenuity and 
 research of many eminent scholars, as may be 
 seen upon referring to Pitisci Lex. An tig Roma* 
 
JUDGMENT-HALL. 
 
 JUDITH. 
 
 183 
 
 «. v. 1 PraeJOrium. 1 Upon comparing the instances 
 in which the evangelists mention the praetorium, 
 it will be seen, first, that it was the residence of 
 Pilate ; for that which John relates in ch. xviii. 
 28, ‘ Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas into the 
 praetorium,’ & c., is most certainly the same incident 
 which Luke relates in ch. xxiii. 1, * And the whole 
 multitude arose and led him to Pilate,’ &c. A 
 collation of the subsequent verses in each passage 
 will place this point beyond doubt. Nonnus 
 says, that leaving the house of Caiaphas, they 
 took Jesus els bo gov gyepdvos, ‘ to the governor’s 
 house.’ This residence of Pilate seems to have 
 been the magnificent palace built by Herod, 
 situated iu the north part of the upper city, west 
 r<f the temple (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 9. 3), and over- 
 looking the temple (xx. 8. 11). The reasons for 
 this opinion are, that the Roman procurators, 
 whose ordinary residence was at Caesarea (Acts 
 xxiii. 23, &c. ; xxv. 1, &c.), took up their resi- 
 dence in this palace when they visited Jerusalem, 
 their tribunal being erected in the open court or 
 area before it. Thus Josephus states that Florus 
 took up his quarters at the palace (ev rots fiacn- 
 \etois av\l(eTCu ) ; and on the next day he had 
 his tribunal set up before it, and sat upon it ( De 
 Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 8). Philo expressly says that 
 the palace, which had hitherto been Herod’s, was 
 now called ttjv obciav rcav eTnrpdTrcov , ‘ the house of 
 the praetors’ ( Legat . ad Caium,\). 1033, ed. Franc.). 
 Secondly, the word is applied in the New Testa- 
 ment, by synecdoche, to a particular part of the 
 praetorian residence. Thus, Matt, xxvii. 27, and 
 Mark xv. 16, ‘ And the soldiers led Jesus away 
 into the hall called Praetorium, and gathered 
 unto them the whole band, and they clothed him 
 with purple,’ &c. ; where the word rather refers to 
 the court or area in front of the praetorium, or 
 some other court where the procurator’s guards 
 were stationed. In John xix. 9, the word seems 
 applied, when all the circumstances are consi- 
 dered, to Pilate’s private examination room. In 
 like manner, when Felix ‘ commanded Paul to be 
 kept in Herod’s praetorium ’ (Acts xxiii. 25), the 
 words apply not only to the whole palace ori- 
 ginally built at Caesarea by Herod, and now most 
 likely inhabited by the praetor, but also to the 
 keep or donjon , a prison for confining offenders, 
 Such as existed in our ancient royal palaces and 
 grand baronial castles. Thirdly, in the remain- 
 ing instance of the word, Phil. i. 3, ‘ So that my 
 bonds in Christ are manifest in all the praetorium,’ 
 *’ palace,’ it is, in the opinion of the best commen- 
 tators, used by hypallage to signify the praetorian 
 camp at Rome, a select body of troops constituted 
 by Augustus to guard his person and to have 
 charge of the city, the ‘cohortes praetorianae' (Suet. 
 Tib. 37; Claud. 10; Ner. 8; Tacitus, Annul. 
 xii. 69); so that the words of the apostle really 
 mean, ‘ My bonds in Christ are manifest to all 
 the praetorians, and by their means to the public 
 at large ’ (Bloomfield’s Recensio Synopt ., in loc.). 
 The praefectof this camp was the aTparoireddpxvs 
 to whose charge Paul was committed (Acts 
 xxviii. 26), as the younger Agrippa was once 
 imprisoned by this officer at the express command 
 of the Emperor Tiberius (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 
 6. 6; Olshausen, Topogr. des alt Jerusalem , 
 § iii. 9 ; Perizonius, De Origins et Significations 
 et usu vocum Prcetoris et Prcetorii, Frank. 1690 ; 
 Perixonius, Disquisitio cum Ulrico Huber o , 
 
 Lugdun. Bat. 1696 ; Shorzius, De Prcctorio 
 Pilati in Exercit. Phil. Hag. Com. 1774; Zor- 
 nius, Opuscula Sacra, ii. 699 ; Winer, Bibl. Real- 
 Worterbuch, art. ‘ Richthaus’). — J. F. D. 
 
 JUDITH (’Iovdld; or'IovSfjd, Judeth, as in the 
 English version, and in Origen) [Apocrypha], 
 the name of one of the apocryphal or deutero* 
 canonical books of the Old Testament, is placed 
 in manuscripts of the Alexandrine version between 
 the books of Tobit and Esther. In its external 
 form this book bears the character of the record 
 of an historical event, describing the complete 
 defeat of the Assyrians by the Jews through the 
 prowess of a woman. 
 
 The following is a sketch of the narrative : — 
 Nebuchadnezzar, or, as he is called in the Greek, 
 Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, having, 
 in the twelfth year of his reign, conquered and 
 taken Arphaxad, by whom his territory had been 
 invaded, formed the design of subduing the people 
 of Asia to the westward of Nineveh his capital, 
 who had declined to aid him against Arphaxad. 
 With this view he sent his general, Holofernes, at 
 the head of a powerful army, and soon made him- 
 self master of Mesopotamia, Syria, Libya, Cilicia, 
 and Idumaea. The inhabitants of the sea-coast 
 made a voluntary submission; which, however, 
 did not prevent their territories from being laid 
 waste, their sacred groves burned, and their idols 
 destroyed, in order that divine honours should be 
 paid only to Nebuchadnezzar. Holofernes, having 
 finally encamped in the plain of Esdraelon (ch. i. 
 3), remained inactive for a whole month — or two, 
 according to the Latin version. But the Jews, 
 who had not long returned from captivity, and 
 who had just restored their temple and its worship 
 prepared for war under the direction of their high- 
 priest Joacim, or Eliakim, and the senate. The 
 high-priest addressed letters to the inhabitants of 
 Bethulia (Gr. Berv\ ova) and Betomestham, near 
 Esdraelon (ch. iv. 6), charging them to guard the 
 passes of the mountains. The Jews at the same 
 time kept a fast, and called upon God for protec- 
 tion against their enemies. Holofernes, astonished 
 at their audacity and preparations, inquired of the 
 Moabites and Ammonites who these people were. 
 Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, informed 
 him of the history of the Jews, adding, that if 
 they offended their God he would deliver them 
 into the hands of their enemies, but that otherwise 
 they would be invincible. Holofernes, however, 
 prepares to lay siege to Bethulia, and commences 
 operations by taking the mountain passes, and in- 
 tercepting the water, in order to compel the inhabit- 
 ants to surrender. Ozias, the governor of the city, 
 holds out as long as possible ; but at the end of 
 thirty-four days’ siege, the inhabitants are reduced 
 to that degree of distress from drought, that they 
 are determined to surrender unless relieved within 
 five days. Meantime Judith, a rich and beautiful 
 woman, the widow of Manasseh, forms the patriotic 
 design of delivering the city and the nalion. 
 "With this view she entreats the governor and 
 elders to give up all idea of surrender, and to 
 permit the gates of the city to be opened for her. 
 Arrayed in rich attire, she proceeds to the camp 
 of Holofernes, attended only by her maid, bearing 
 a bag of provisions. She is admitted into th«* 
 presence of Holofernes, and informs him that 
 the Jews could not be overcome so long as they 
 remained faithful to God, but that they haa now 
 
JUDITH. 
 
 JUDITH. 
 
 I Si 
 
 ■inned against Him in converting to their own 
 use the tithes, which were sacred to the priests 
 alone ; and that she had fled from the city to 
 escape the impending and inevitable destruction 
 which awaited it. She obtains leave to remain 
 in the camp, with the liberty of retiring by night 
 for the purpose of prayer, and promises that at 
 the proper moment she will herself be the guide 
 of Holofernes to the very walls of Jerusalem. 
 Judith is favourably entertained ; Holofernes is 
 smitten with her charms, gives her a magnificent 
 entertainment, at which, having drunk too freely, 
 he is shut up with her alone in the tent. Taking 
 advantage of her opportunity, while he is sunk in 
 sleep, she seizes his falchion and strikes off his 
 head. Giving it to her maid, who was outside 
 the tent door, she leaves the camp as usual, under 
 jjretence of devotion, and returns to Bethulia, dis- 
 playing tiie head of Holofernes. The Israelites, 
 next morning, fall on the Assyrians, who, panic- 
 struck at the loss of their general, are soon dis- 
 comfited, leaving an immense spoil in the hands 
 of their enemies. The whole concludes with the 
 triumphal song of Judith, who accompanies all 
 the people to Jerusalem to give thanks to the 
 Lord. After this she returns to her native city 
 Bethulia, gives freedom to her maid, and dies at 
 the advanced age of 105 years. The Jews enjoying 
 a profound and happy peace, a yearly festival 
 (according to the Vulgate) is instituted in 
 honour of the victory. 
 
 The difficulties, historical, chronological, and 
 geographical, comprised in the narrative of Judith 
 are* so numerous and serious as to be held by 
 many divines altogether insuperable. Events, 
 times, and manners are said to lie confounded, and 
 the chronology of the times before and those after 
 the exile, of the Persian and Assyrian, and even 
 of the Maccabaean period, confusedly and unac- 
 countably blended. 
 
 The first and greatest difficulty is to fix the 
 period when the alleged events took place. Those 
 who place them before the exile are divided in 
 opinion between the time of Manasses and that or 
 Zedekiah. Among those who refer the history to 
 the time of Manasseh are Cal met {Commentary ) , 
 Prideaux ( Connection ), Montfaucon, who places 
 the scene in the latter part of his reign {Hist. 
 Ver. Judith.), and Bellarmine {De Verbo Dei). 
 These writers consider Nebuchadnezzar to be the 
 same with Saosduchin. See also Lud. Capell 
 (Comm. Crit.), and Huet {Dem. Evangel.). 
 
 As the events in Judith are positively asserted to 
 have taken place after the captivity (ch. iv. 3 ; v. 
 1 8, 19 in the Greek ; ch. v. 22, 23 in the Vulgate), 
 the commentators who adopt the view just referred 
 to assume that it is only some temporary and 
 transient captivity (as that of Manasseh) which 
 is here meant. Calmet is not disconcerted by 
 supposing that Judith might in this case be sixtv- 
 three or sixty years old, ‘ being then what we call 
 a fine woman, and having an engaging air and 
 person,’ ‘ likely,’ adds Du Pin, f to charm an old 
 general.’ Jahn, however, maintains that it would 
 be altogether inconsistent with historical truth 
 to assert that the Jews had no idols in the reign 
 of Manasseh (ch. viii. 18). 
 
 The reign of Zedekiah has been held by others 
 as the era of Judith : and Genebrard is of opinion 
 that the Nebuchadnezzar of Judith is Nebuchad- 
 nezzar the Great [Nebuchadnezzar]. Jahn 
 
 conceives that the author of Judith confounds 
 Nebuchadnezzar with Nereglissor, who, in pre* 
 paring his expedition against the Medes, invited 
 the Lydians, Phrygians, Carians, Cappadocians, 
 Cilicians, Paphlagonians, and other neighbouring 
 nations to the war, when, however, he was himself 
 overcome and slain by Cyrus ( Bibl . Archceol. 
 part ii. tom. i. § 47, p. 216). 
 
 Those who consider the events recorded in Judith 
 to have taken place after the captivity, find equal 
 difficulty in fixing the era. The most ancient 
 tradition of the Jews (preserved by Eusebius in 
 his Chrotiicon) considers Cambyses as the Nebu- 
 chadnezzar of Judith. Julius Africanus, who is 
 followed by the Roman Catholic Professor Alber, of 
 Pesth, ascribes the history to the time of Xerxes, 
 others to that of Darius Hystaspis (Whiston, 
 Hist, of the Old Test.), or of Artaxerxes Ochu3 
 (Sulpitius Severus, Hist. Sac. ii. 12). Jahn {In- 
 trod.) maintains that there was no time after the 
 exile when it was possible for these events to have 
 taken place, for he observes that the Jews were 
 subject to the Persians for 207 years, after which 
 they were subject to Alexander the Great, then to 
 the Ptolemies, and to the kings of Syria, until they 
 obtained their independence. The only time to 
 which they could possibly be referred is that of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, but this supposition is in- 
 consistent with the tact that the Jews had but 
 recently returned from captivity, and restored the 
 worship of God in the Temple. The geographical 
 difficulties are equally embarrassing. 
 
 While some have endeavoured to account for 
 these difficulties by imputing them to the errors 
 of transcribers, others have supposed that the book 
 of Judith could not possibly have been intended 
 by its author to be a purely historical narrative. 
 Grotius conceived it to be an allegory, the design 
 of which was to encourage the Jews in their 
 hopes of deliverance from the Syrians, when the 
 Temple was polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 Judith, he says, represents the Jewish nation ; 
 Bethulia, the Temple; the sword issuing from 
 them, the prayers of the saints ; Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, the devil ; and Holofernes (KTU 
 the Officer of the Serpent), Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 who wishes to overcome the beautiful but wi- 
 dowed Judaea. The prayers of the saints were 
 heard, and he was punished by God. Eliakim, 
 the name of the high-priest, signifies that God will 
 arise. Among the Roman Catholics this notion 
 of an allegory is favoured by Jahn, who main- 
 tains that the difficulties are otherwise insuperable. 
 De Wette, however, considers that the fact of Ho- 
 lofernes being an historical name (together with 
 other reasons), militates against the notion of an 
 allegory, as maintained by Grotius. The name 
 Holofernes is found in Appian (In Syriac, c. 47), 
 and in Polybius (x. 11). The latter historian 
 states that Holofernes, having conquered Cappa- 
 docia, lost it by endeavouring to change the 
 customs of the country, and to introduce the 
 drunken rites of Bacchus; and Casaubon (ad 
 Athen.) conjectures that this was the Holofernes 
 of Judith. From its termination the name is sup- 
 posed to be of Persian extraction, as Tissaphemes 
 Artaphernes, Bargaphernes, &c. 
 
 Luther first conceived the idea that the book 
 of Judith was a patriotic romance, a drama or 
 sacred poem, written bv some pious man, with the 
 
JUDITH. 
 
 JUDITH. 
 
 185 
 
 intention of showing that God was accustomed to 
 assist the Israelites who had faith in his promises. 
 This view was subsequently adopted by utiddeus 
 (Hist. Ecclcs. V. 7’., ii. 611, sq.), Sender, and 
 Bertholdt. ‘ Judith,’ says Luther, ‘ is a beautiful 
 composition ; it is good, sound, and worthy of 
 being read with attention by Christians. Its con- 
 tents ought to be read as the work of a sacred 
 poet, or of a prophet animated by the Holy Spirit, 
 who instructs by the characters whom he intro- 
 duces on the stage to speak in his name’ ( Pref ’ to 
 Judith). And again, ‘ If the action of Judith 
 could be justified by proof drawn from incontest- 
 able historical documents, it would doubtless 
 merit to be received into the number of sacred 
 books as an excellent work.’ 
 
 Date of the composition , and author. — The 
 authorship of the book is as uncertain as its date. 
 It is not named either by Philo or Josephus ; nor 
 have we any indication whatever by which to 
 form a conjecture respecting its author. But it 
 has been supposed by some that it could not have 
 been written by a contemporary, from the cir- 
 cumstance of the family of Achior being men- 
 tioned as still in existence, and of the Festival of 
 Judith being still celebrated. If this festival 
 ever took place, it must have been of temporary 
 duration, for, as Calmet observes, no record of it 
 can be traced since the exile. Professor Alber of 
 Pesth, however, maintains that it is still recorded 
 in the Jewish calendars. Jahn, after Grotius, 
 refers the date of the book to the Maccabsean 
 period, and derives an argument for its late com- 
 position from the fact of the Feast of the New 
 Moon being mentioned (ch. viii. 6, compared 
 with Mark xv. 42). De Wette ( Einleitung ) con- 
 ceives that the whole composition bespeaks an 
 author who was a native of Palestine, who could 
 not have lived beyond the end of the first cen- 
 tury of the Christian era (the date assigned to 
 it by Eichhorn), inasmuch as it is then cited 
 by Clement of Rome; but that the probability 
 is that it was much earlier written. Movers, 
 a Roman Catholic Professor at Bonn, a man of 
 great penetration in similar investigations re- 
 specting the canonical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, endeavours to fix the date of its composition 
 in the year b.c. 104. ‘ The author,’ he observes, 
 
 ‘ who has transferred the geographical relations 
 of his own time to a former period,* makes 
 the Jewish territory commence at Scythopolis 
 (ch. iii. 10), and makes Bethulia, against 
 which Holofernes directed his attack, the first 
 Jewish city at the entrance into Judaea (iv. 7), 
 
 * The Rev. Charles Forster (Geography of 
 Arabia , 1844) observes (i. 185), ‘ that in the 
 book of Judith the race of Ishmael is noticed 
 by their patronymic as extending to the southern 
 confines of Syria and Cilicia. Holofernes, moving 
 south from Cilicia, spoiled all the children of 
 Rasses and the children of Ishmael which were 
 towards the wilderness, at the south of the land 
 of the Chillians. The same verse,’ he adds 
 (Judith ii. 23), ‘ makes mention of “ Phud and 
 Lud ” as inhabitants of the hill country, or 
 Upper Cilicia, and thereby corrects the geography 
 Of Bochart and Wells, who not only carry these 
 iwo nations into Africa, but confine them exclu- 
 sively to that continent. The march of Holo- 
 fernes is wholly inconsistent v* vh this notion,’ 
 
 reckoning the territory intervening tatwecn this 
 and Samaria as tributary to the Jewish high- 
 priest. This state of affairs continued from the 
 time of John Hyrcanus to Pompey’s invasion of 
 Judaea. Hyrcanus had seized upqn Samaria, and 
 wrested Scythopolis, with the surrounding territory, 
 from Kpicrates, the general of Ptolemy Lathurus 
 (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10. 3), b.c. 110, according 
 to Usher. But Samaria and Scythopolis, with 
 other acquisitions of the Maccabees, were lost for 
 ever to the Jewish nation, when Pompey, b.c. 
 48, reduced Judaea to its ancient limits. The 
 sea-coast (ch. iii. 1), independent of the Jews, 
 continued, since the last years of the reign of 
 Alexander Jannaeus, to be a Jewish possession ; 
 but Carmel, which (ch. i. 8) was inhabited by the 
 Gentiles, was still independent in the beginning 
 of his reign, and he first seized it after the war 
 with Ptolemy Lathurus (xiii. 15. 4). It is to 
 this war that Movers considers the book of Judith 
 to refer, and he supposes it to have been written 
 after the unfortunate battle at Asochis in Galilee 
 (or rather Asophen on the Jordan) (Movers, Ueber 
 die Ursprache der Deuterokan. Bucher, in the 
 Bonner Zeitschrift, xiii. 35, sq.). De Wette 
 conceives that this hypothesis is opposed by 
 the following geographical combinations : — 1. 
 Galilee belonged to the Asmonseans, the proof of 
 which, indeed, is by no means certain, while 
 the following indications thereof present them- 
 selves : — (a) Asochis seems to have belonged to 
 Alexander Jannaeus, as it received Ptolemy 
 Lathurus (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 12. 4, comp, with 
 xv. 4). (b) Hyrcanus had his son Alexander Jan- 
 naeus hroughtup in Galilee (xiii. 12. 1). (e) Anti- 
 gonus returned from Galilee (De Bell. Jud. i. 3. 3). 
 
 (d) Aristobulus seized upon Ituraea (Antiq. xiii. 
 11. 3), which presupposes the possession of Galilee. 
 
 (e) Even after the limits of Galilee were circum- 
 
 scribed by Pompey, it still belonged to the Jewish 
 high-priest (De Bell. Jud. i. 10. 4). 2. Idumaea 
 belonged to the Jewish state, but the sons of Esau 
 came to Holofernes (vii. 8. 18). 3. If the author 
 
 had the war with Ptolemy Lathurus in view, the 
 irruption of Holofernes would rather correspond 
 with the movements of the Cyprian army, which 
 proceeded from Asochis to Sepphoris, and thence 
 to Asophen (Einleitung, § 307). 
 
 Language of Judith. — The original language 
 is uncertain. Eichhorn and Jahn (Introduction) 
 and Seiler (Biblical Hermeneutics), with whom 
 is Bertholdt, conceive it to have been Greek. 
 Calmet states on the authority of Origen (Ep. ad 
 African.), that the Jews had the book of Judith 
 in Hebrew in his time. Origen’s words, however, 
 are, ‘ They make no use of Tobit, nor of Judith, 
 nor have they them even in the Apocrypha in 
 Hebrew, as we have learned from themselves.’ 
 Jerome (Pref. to Judith) states that it is written 
 in Chaldee, from which he translated it, with the 
 aid of an interpreter, giving rather the sense than 
 the words. He also complains of numbers 
 of incorrect copies of Judith in the Latin 
 translation, which he had expurgated, retaining 
 only what was in the Chaldee. Many of the 
 errors of Jerome’s translaLcri can be corrected by 
 the Greek ; as, for instance, airargs, ‘of deceit’ 
 (ch. xi. 5), was mistaken for aydirys, and translated 
 caritatis ; uXavaovrai was mistaken for Kavcrovrai , 
 and translated urentur, &c. &o. The Chaldee text, 
 from which Jerome translates, and which varies 
 
JUDITH. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 m 
 
 eonsiderably from the Greek, betrays, according 
 to De Wette, many and undoubted marks of a 
 Hebrew original. It is impossible, however, to 
 gay whether this was best represented by the 
 Greek or by the Chaldee. Jerome probably 
 nimself, or his interpreter, took many liberties 
 with the original, with which he states that he 
 was but imperfectly acquainted. 
 
 The Syriac version seems evidently taken from 
 'he Greek, and the more correct manner in which 
 the names of cities are given, as well as other 
 variations, have been supposed to attest the ex- 
 istence of more correct Greek copies than those 
 .which we now possess, as no book in the Septua- 
 gint has so few Greek particles as the book of 
 Judith. 
 
 Gesenius, and especially Movers, have been 
 very successful in their efforts to correct the 
 present geographical errors by the supposition of a 
 Hebrew original. Betani (ch. i. 9) the latter 
 conceives to be Beth-anoth (Josh, xv), and the two 
 seas (ch. i. 12), the two arms of the Nile. For 
 XaAAalwv he reads ^aAScuW, and considers Rasses 
 to be an oversight for Tarshish. Movers, observes 
 J)e Wette, explains the historical inaccuracies 
 and anachronisms, by a free poetical use of his- 
 tory after the manner of Shakspeare. Movers 
 may therefore be included among those writers 
 who have followed Luther in considering Judith 
 an historical romance. Seiler ( Biblical Herme- 
 neutics ) conceives it to be a fiction, founded on 
 fact, written by a Palestinian Jew. 
 
 The old Latin ante-hieronymian version (from 
 the Greek) is still extant, and the many discre- 
 pancies between it and Jerome’s version, confirm the 
 tact of the great and faulty variety in the copies, 
 of which that father complains. The text of this 
 version is by some supposed to have been mixed 
 with that of Jerome, and the variations between 
 the Vulgate and the Greek are numerous and 
 considerable. 
 
 Authority of Judith in the Cfihrch. — Although 
 the book of Judith never formed part of the 
 Jewish canon [Deutero-canonicai.], and finds 
 no place in the ancient catalogues, its authority 
 in tire Christian church has been very great. It 
 is thus referred to by Clemens Romanus, the 
 companion of the Apostles, in his first (or genuine) 
 epistle to the Corinthians : — ‘The blessed Judith, 
 when the city was besieged, asked leave of the 
 elders to go to the camp of the foreigners, and 
 fearless of danger in her patriotism, she proceeded, 
 and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands 
 of a woman. In like manner, Esther,’ &c. &c. 
 Jerome observes that ‘ Ruth, Esther, and Judith 
 had the honor of giving their names to sacred 
 books’ (Ad Principiam). Among the Hebrews, he 
 observes, 4 it is reckoned among the Hagiographa 
 (or Apocrypha) whose authority is not proper for 
 confirming controverted matters,’ but he adds, 
 ‘ since the council of Nicaea is read ( legitur ) 
 to have reckoned Judith among the sacred Scrip- 
 tures, I have agreed to your request (to translate 
 it). . . . Receive Judith as an example of chas- 
 tity. . . . He who was the rewarder of her chastity 
 gave her such virtue as to enable her to over- 
 come him who was invincible.’ It is spoken of 
 by Origen as received by the church (Horn. xix. 
 in Gen. & i. iii. in Johan.'), and is cited by Ter- 
 tullian (De Monoyamia), Ambrose (lib. iii. De 
 OJfic.), and Chrysostom (Homil.). 
 
 Indeed, no question as to Judith’s being an hi** 
 torical personage appears to have been raised before 
 the era of the Reformation, and this question i» 
 still unsettled. 4 Even,’ says Calmet (ut supra), 4 if 
 by the force of our adversaries’ reasons we should 
 be compelled to acknowledge that the book con- 
 tains but a parable, or a fiction written for the 
 encouragement of the Jews in their affliction, and 
 to give them a model of virtue in the person of 
 Judith, we do not perceive what advantage they 
 would derive against us, and against the authen- 
 ticity of the book. Would it be on that account 
 the less divine, less inspired, less worthy of the Holy 
 Spirit? The fathers who have cited it, the coun- 
 cils which have received it into the canon, tire 
 church which authorizes it and receives it, — would 
 they be on this account in error? and would re- 
 ligion suffer the least injury ? Does not the Old 
 Testament, as well as the New, abound in pa- 
 rables, so circumstantially detailed as to present 
 the appearance of real histories, &c. ?’ (Pref. to 
 Comm.) And as to the action of Judith, the same 
 able commentator observes: 4 We cannot approve 
 in all respects, either the prayer or the action of 
 Judith; we commend her good intentions, and 
 think that the uprightness of her design and her 
 ignorance abate much of the crime. . . . Yet will 
 not this suffice entirely to excuse her; a lie told 
 with so much solemnity, and carried on through 
 her whole conversation with Holofernes, is still in- 
 defensible. The employing her beauty and her 
 little winning arts to inflame his passion, and 
 thereby exposing her person to a rude attack, is a 
 step likewise not. to be justified.’ 
 
 The book of Judith is supposed by some to be 
 referred to by St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 9, 10, comp, 
 with Judith \ iii. 24,25). Judith, with the other 
 deuterocanonical books, has been at all times read 
 in the church, and lessons are taken from it in 
 the Church of England in course. — W. W. 
 
 JULIA (TouAia, a name common among the 
 Romans), a Christian woman of Rome, to whom 
 St. Paul sent his salutations (Rom. xvi. 15) ; 
 she is named with Philologus, and is supposed to 
 have been his wife or sister. 
 
 JULIUS (T ov\ios), the centurion who had the 
 charge of conducting Paul a?s a prisoner to Rome, 
 and who treated him with much consideration 
 and kindness on the way (Acts xxvii. 1, 3). 
 
 JUNIAS (T ovvlas), a person who is joined 
 with Andronicus in Rom. xvi. 7 : 4 Salute An- 
 dronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow- 
 prisoners, who are of note among the apostles. 1 
 They were, doubtless, Jewish Christians. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION Justification may be de- 
 fined, in its theological sense, as the non-imputation 
 of sin, and the imputation of righteousness. That 
 there is a reciprocation between Christ and be- 
 lievers, i. e. in the imputation of their sins unto 
 Him, and of His righteousness unto them; and 
 that this forms the ground of the sinner's justifi- 
 cation and acceptance with God, it will be the 
 object of the following remarks to demonstrate. 
 
 The vicarious nature of the Redeemer’s suffer- 
 ings was set forth under the Mosaic dispensation 
 by very significant types, one of the most ex- 
 pressive of which was the offering of the scape- 
 goat : 4 And Aaron shall lay his hands upon tb« 
 head of the live goat, and confess over him all 
 the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all 
 their transgressions in all their sins, putting thee* 
 
JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 1ST 
 
 on the head of the goat, and the goat shall bear 
 upon him all their iniquities ’ (Lev. xvi. 21, 22). 
 Abarbinel, in the introduction to his commentary 
 on Leviticus ( De Viet. p. 301), represents this cere- 
 mony as a symbolical translation of the sins of 
 the offender upon the head of the sacrifice, and as 
 a way by which the evil due to his transgression 
 was to be deprecated. 
 
 Nachmaindes also, commenting on Lev. i., 
 observes, respecting (he burnt-offerings and sacri- 
 fices for sin : ‘ It was right the offerer’s own blood 
 should be shed, and his body burnt, but that the 
 Creator, in His mercy, hath accepted this victim 
 from him as a vicarious substitute and atonement, 
 that its blood should be poured out instead of his 
 blood, and its life stand in place of his life.’ 
 
 We are informed by Herodotus (ii. 39) that 
 the practice of imprecating on the head of the 
 victim the evils which the sacrificer wished to 
 avert from himself was usual also amongst the hea- 
 then. The Egyptians, he adds, would not taste 
 the head of any animal, but flung it into the river 
 as an abomination. 
 
 If this type foreshadowed the vicarious nature 
 of the sufferings and death of Christ — and who 
 with the inspired comment of the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews before him can doubt 
 this? — we may with confidence appeal also to 
 the voice of prophecy, and the expositions of 
 apostles, for the further illustration and enforce- 
 ment of the same truth. The 53rd chapter of Isaiah 
 is so full upon this point, that Bishop Louth says, 
 
 ‘ This chapter declares the circumstances of our 
 Saviour’s sufferings so exactly, that it seems 
 rather a history of His passion than a prophecy.’ 
 In verses 5 and 6 we are told that God ‘ laid upon 
 Him the iniquities of us all, that by His stripes 
 we might be healed’ — that our sin was laid on 
 Him, and He bare it (ver. 11). St. Paid, re- 
 echoing the same truth, says, ‘ He was made sin 
 for us who knew no sin, that w'e might be made 
 the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. v. 21). 
 This is the reciprocation spoken of above. Again, 
 in Rom. viii. 3, 4, the apostle informs us that 
 God sent His owr Son in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh, and for sir condemned sin in the flesh, that 
 the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in 
 us; that sin was made His, and he bore its 
 penalty ; His righteousness is forensically trans- 
 ferred to the believer, and he becomes a happy 
 participator of its benefits. This, then, is the 
 change in relation to God from which the soul 
 of a convinced sinner can find peace. Before we 
 notice the objections which have been, and still 
 are, urged against this view of the question, we 
 may inquire how far it is confirmed by the earliest 
 and most eminently pious fathers of the Christian 
 church. 
 
 Amongst these fathers none could have been 
 better acquainted with the mind of St. Paul than 
 the venerable Clement of Rome, inasmuch as he 
 is honourably recorded by the apostle as one of 
 his fellow-labourers in the Gospel whose names 
 are written in the book of life (Philipp, iv. 3). 
 Nothing can be more explicit than this writer is 
 on the point of forensic justifying righteousness , 
 and of intrinsic sanctifying righteousness (see 
 Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth, i. sec. 32, 33). 
 Chrysostom’s commentary on 2 Cox’, (ch. v. Horn. 
 ii.) is also x ery expressive on this subject : ‘ What 
 word, what speech is this, what mind can com- 
 
 prehend or speak it? for he saith, He made Him 
 who was righteous to be made a sinner, that He 
 might make sinners righteous ; nor yet doth He 
 say so neither, but that which is far more sublime 
 and excellent. For He speaks not of an inclina- 
 tion or affection, but expresseth the quality itself. 
 For He says not, He made Him a sinner, but sin, 
 that we might be made not merely righteous, but 
 righteousness, and that the righteousness of God, 
 when we are justified not by works (for if we 
 should, there must be no spot found in them), but 
 by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out.’ 
 
 Again, Justin Martyr (Epist. ad Diognet .) 
 speaks to the same purpose : ‘ He gave His son a 
 ransom for us ; the holy for transgressors ; the 
 innocent for the guilty ; the just for the unjust ; 
 the incorruptible for the corrupt; the immortal for 
 mortals. For what else could hide or cover our 
 sins but His righteousness ? In whom else could 
 we wicked and ungodly ones be justified, or 
 esteemed righteous, but in the Son of God alone ? 
 O sweet permutation or change ! O unsearchable 
 work, or curious operation ! O blessed beneficence, 
 exceeding all expectation ! That the iniquity of 
 many should be hid in one Just One, and the 
 righteousness of one should justify many traxis- 
 gressors !’ 
 
 So Gregory Nyssen ( Or at. II. in Cant.) de- 
 serves notice : ‘He hath transferred to Himself 
 the filth of my sins, and communicated unto me 
 His purity, and made me partaker of His beauty !’ 
 
 Augustine also speaks to the same effect : ‘He 
 was sin that we might be righteousness, not our 
 own, but the righteousness of Gud, not in ourselves, 
 but in Him’ ( Enchirid . ad Laurent, c. 41). 
 
 As our limits will not admit of more quotations 
 from those who are usually designated ‘ the 
 fathers of the church,’ we must refer the reader 
 to Suicer's Thesaurus , tom. i. p. 900. 
 
 In accordance with the above expressed views 
 of the fathers on the important doctrine of justifi- 
 cation, is that which is taken by the church of 
 England. Articles eleventh, twelfth, and thir- 
 teenth run thus : — 
 
 ‘ We are accounted righteous before God, only 
 for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 
 by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. 
 Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a 
 most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, 
 as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Jus- 
 tification.’ 
 
 ‘ Albeit that good works, which are the fruits 
 of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put 
 away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s 
 judgment ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable 
 to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily 
 of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them 
 a lively faith may be as evidently known as a 
 tree discerned by the fruit.’ 
 
 ‘Works done before the grace of Christ, and 
 the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to 
 God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in 
 Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to 
 receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) de- 
 serve grace of congruity : yea, rather, for that 
 they are not done as God hath willed and com- 
 manded them to be done, we doubt not but they 
 have the nature of sin.’ 
 
 The homily referred to in the eleventh article, 
 under the title of the Homily of Justification, i? 
 styled in the first book of Homilies itself, 1 A 
 
188 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind, by only 
 Christ our Saviour, from sin and ieath everlasting.’ 
 In this sermon the reader will find strikingly set 
 forth the inseparable connection there is between 
 justification and sanctification , the one the cause, 
 tire other the effect. 
 
 It was this doctrine of justification which con- 
 stituted the great ground of controversy between 
 the reformers and the church of Rome (see Luther 
 to Geo. Spenlein, Epist. Ann. 1516, tom. i.). That 
 tire reader may be able to see in a contrasted form 
 the essential differences upon this head between 
 the two churches, we subjoin what the Tridentine 
 fathers have stated. In sess. vi. c. xvi.p. 54, they 
 announce the views of their church on justifica- 
 tion in the following language : — 
 
 ‘ Jesus Christ, as the head into the members, and 
 as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes 
 His virtue to flow into the justified. This virtue 
 always precedes, accompanies, and follows their 
 good works ; so that without it such good works 
 could in nowise be acceptable to God, and bear 
 the character of meritoriousness. Hence we must 
 believe, that to the justified themselves nothing 
 more is wanting which needs to prevent us from 
 thinking both that they have satisfied the divine 
 law, according to the state of this life, by those 
 works which are performed in God ; and also 
 that, in their own time, provided they depart in 
 grace, they truly merit the attainment of eternal 
 life. Thus neither our own proper righteousness 
 is so determined to be our own, as if it were from 
 ourselves ; nor is the righteousness of God either 
 unknown or rejected. For that which is called 
 our righteousness, because through its being in- 
 herent in us we are justified, that same is the 
 righteousness of God, because it is infused into 
 us by God through the merit of Christ. Far, 
 however, be it from a Christian man that he 
 should either trust or glory in himself, and not 
 in the Lord ; whose goodness to all is so great, 
 that what are truly His gifts He willeth to be 
 estimated as their merits.’ 
 
 Such, so far as. the justification and accept- 
 ance of man before God are concerned, rs the 
 doctrinal scheme of the church of Rome ; and 
 nothing can be more foreign than it is from the 
 system set forth by the church of England. In 
 the view of the latter, justification signifies making 
 just in trial and judgment, as sanctification is 
 making holy ; but not making just by infusion of 
 grace and holiness into a person, according to the 
 view of the former, thus confounding justification 
 and sanctification together. On the Protestant 
 principle justification is not a real change of a 
 sinner in himself, though a real change is an- 
 nexed to it ; but only a relative change in refer- 
 ence to God's judgment. Thus we find the word 
 used in Rom. iii. 23, 24, 25, 26. In fine, the 
 doctrine of Justification by Faith may be ex- 
 pressed in Scriptural language thus : ‘ All have 
 ginned and come short of the glory of God ; every 
 mouth must be stopped, and all the world become 
 guilty before God ; therefore, by the deeds of 
 the law there shall no flesh living be justified in 
 His sight. But we are justified freely by His 
 race through the redemption which is in Christ 
 esus, whom God hath set forth as a propitiation 
 through faith in His blood, to declare His right- 
 eousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
 through the forbearance of God. Where is boast- 
 
 ing, then? It is excluded. By what law? of 
 works ? Nay : but by the law of faith. Therefore 
 we conclude that a man is justified by faith with- 
 out the deeds of the law.’ For a full exposition 
 of the differences between the two churches, see 
 Mohler’s Symbolik , translated from the German 
 by Robertson. 
 
 We now come to notice the objections which 
 may be urged against this view of justification. 
 
 1. It does not consist, say some, with the truth 
 and holiness of God, that the innocent should 
 suffer for the guilty. We answer, that it is no 
 injustice, or cruelty, for an innocent person to 
 sutler for the guilty, as Christ did, provided there 
 be these conditions : — 
 
 1. That the person suffering be of the same 
 nature with those for whom he suffers. 
 
 2. That he suffers of his own free will. 
 
 3. That he be able to sustain all that shall be 
 laid upon him. 
 
 4. That a greater amount of glory redound tp 
 the divine attributes than if he had not so suffered. 
 Now the Scriptures assure us that all these con- 
 ditions were realized in the incarnate Saviour. 
 
 Bishop Butler ( Analogy , ch. v.) has a striking 
 answer to this objection. He shows that in the 
 daily course of God’s natural providence the 
 innocent do often and constantly suffer for the 
 guilty ; and then argues that the Christian ap- 
 pointment against which this objection is taken, 
 is not only of the same kind, but is even less open 
 to exception, ‘ because, under the former, we are 
 in many cases commanded, and even neces- 
 sitated, whether we will or no, to suffer for the 
 faults of others; whereas the sufferings of Christ 
 were voluntary. The world’s being under the 
 righteous government of God does, indeed, imply 
 that, finally, and upon the whole, every one shall 
 receive according to his personal deserts ; and the 
 general doctrine of the whole Scripture is, that 
 this shall be the completion of the divine govern- 
 ment. But during the progress, and for aught 
 we know, even in order to the completion of this 
 moral scheme, vicarious punishments may be fit, 
 and absolutely necessary. Men, by their follies, 
 run themselves into extreme distress — into diffi- 
 culties which would be absolutely fatal to them, 
 were it not for the interposition and assistance of 
 others. God commands by the law of nature 
 that we afford them this assistance, in many 
 cases where we cannot do it without very great 
 pains, and labour, and sufferings to ourselves 
 And we see in what variety of ways one person’s 
 sufferings contribute to the relief of another, and 
 how, or by what particular means, this comes to 
 pass, or follows from the constitution or laws ot 
 nature which come under our notice, and, being 
 familiarised with it, men are not shocked with it. 
 So that the reason of their insisting upon objec- 
 tions of the foregoing kind against the satisfaction 
 of Christ, is either that they do not consider God’s 
 settled and uniform appointments as His appoint- 
 ments at all, or else, they forget that vicarious 
 punishment is a providential appointment of 
 every day’s experience ; and then, from their 
 being unacquainted with the more general laws 
 of nature or divine government over the world, 
 and not seeing how the sufferings of Christ coult? 
 contribute to the redemption of it unless by arbi- 
 trary and tyrannical will, they conclude hi* 
 sufferings could not contribute to it any other 
 
JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 KABBALAH. 
 
 189 
 
 way. .And. yet, what has been often alleged in 
 justification of this doctrine, even from the ap- 
 parent natural tendency of this method of our 
 redemption — its tendencies to vindicate the au- 
 thority of God’s laws and deter his creatures from 
 sin, — this has never yet been answered, and is, I 
 think, plainly unanswerable.’ 
 
 2. Again it is objected, if we are justified on 
 receiving Christ by faith as the Lord our right- 
 eousness, and if this be the sole ground of salva- 
 tion propounded by St. Paul, there is then a pal- 
 pable discrepancy between him and St. James; for 
 the former states, that a man is justified by faith 
 without the deeds of the law (Rom. iii. 8 ; Gal. 
 ii. 16); while the latter says, ‘ a man is justified 
 by works and not by faith only’ (James ii. 24). 
 That there is a difficulty l\ere there can be no 
 question, and that it led Eusebius and Jerome, 
 together with Luther and Erasmus, to question 
 the authority of St. James’s Epistle, is notorious 
 to every reader of ecclesiastical history. The 
 church of Rome builds her system of man being 
 justified by reason of inherent righteousness, on 
 the assumption that when St. Paul says ‘ by the 
 deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified,’ he 
 means the ceremonial and not the moral law. 
 In this way she would establish her own system 
 of human merit, and harmonise the two apostles. 
 But it is quite clear to the impartial reader of 
 the Epistle to the Romans, that the scope of St. 
 Paul's argument must include both the moral 
 and the ceremonial law; for he proves both Jew 
 and Gentile guilty before God, and this with the 
 view of establishing the righteousness of faith in 
 the imputed merits of Christ as the only ground 
 of a sinner’s salvation. Leaving, then, this so- 
 phistical reconcilement, we come to that which our 
 Protestant divines propose. This is of a two-fold 
 character, viz., first, by distinguishing the double 
 sense o f justification, which may be taken either 
 for the absolution of a sinner in God's judgment, 
 or for the declaration of his righteousness before 
 men. This distinction is found in Scripture, in 
 which the word justify is used in both accepta- 
 tions. Thus St. Paul speaks of justification in 
 faro Dei ; St. James speaks of it in for o hominis. 
 A man is justified by faith without works, saith 
 the one ; a man is justified by works, and not by 
 faith only, declares the other. That this is the 
 true solution of the difficulty appears from the 
 fact that the two apostles draw their apparently 
 opposite conclusions from the same example of 
 Abraham (Rom. iv. 9-23; comp. James ii. 
 21-24). 
 
 ‘ If Abraham were justified by works, he hath 
 whereof to glory, but not before God. For what 
 saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and 
 it. was imputed unto him for righteousness’ (Rom. 
 iv. 2, 3). Thus speaks St. Paul ; yet St. James 
 argues in manner following : ‘ Was not Abraham 
 our father justified by works when he had offered 
 Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest thou how 
 faith wrought with his works; and from works 
 faith was perfected? And the Scripture was ful- 
 filled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it 
 was counted unto him for righteousness. Ye see 
 then how from works a man is justified, and not 
 from faith only.’ 
 
 Another mode of reconciling the apostles is by 
 regardin % faith in the double sense in which it is 
 often found in Scripture. St. Paul, when he 
 
 affirms that we are justified by faith only, speaks 
 of that faith which is true and living, working 
 by love. St. James, when he denies that a man 
 is justified by faith only, disputes against that 
 faith which is false and unproductive; wheL 
 the true Christian, speaking to the hypocritical 
 boaster of his faith, asks, ‘Show me thy faith 
 without thy works, and I will show thee my faith 
 by my works.’ 
 
 3. One objection more may be urged against 
 this fundamental doctrine, that sinners are justified 
 by the free grace of God through the imputed 
 righteousness of the Redeemer, namely, that it 
 weakens the obligations to holiness of life. This 
 objection the apostle himself anticipates when he 
 asks, ‘ What shall we say then ? shall we continue 
 in sin that grace may abound?’ To which he 
 answers by rejecting the consequence with the 
 utmost abhorrence, and in the strongest manner 
 affirming it to be without any foundation. ‘ How 
 shall we,’ he continues, ‘ that are dead to sin, live 
 any longer therein?’ (Rom. vi. 1-2). He who ex- 
 pects justification by the imputed righteousness of 
 Christ, has the clearest and strongest convictions 
 of the obligation of the law of God, and of its ex- 
 tent and purity. He sees in the vicarious sufferings 
 of his Saviour the awful nature of sin and the in- 
 finite love of God ; and this love of God, being t hus 
 manifested, constrains him to deny ungodliness 
 and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, 
 and godly in this world. In a word, he loves 
 much because he feels that God hath forgiven 
 him much, because the love of God is shed 
 abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is 
 given unto him. What a practical illustration 
 have we of this in the life of the great apostle of 
 the Gentiles himself? (See further on this subject 
 the several treatises on Justification by Hooker; 
 Winterspoon, vol. i. ; Anthony Burgess, Loud. 
 1655; Win. Pemble, Oxon. 1629; Faber, Lend. 
 1839 ; Walter Marshall, Lond. 1692).— J. W. D 
 
 1. JUSTUS (Tow-ros), surnamed Barsabas 
 [Joseph.] 
 
 2. JUSTUS, a Christian at Corinth, with whom 
 Paul lodged (Acts xviii. 7). 
 
 3. JUSTUS, called also JESUS, a believing 
 Jew, who was with Paul at Rome when he wrote 
 to the Colossians (Col. iv. 11). The apostle 
 names him and Marcus as being at that time his 
 only fellow-labourers. 
 
 K. 
 
 KABBALAH (n^Sj?, from ^5i?> to receive). 
 This word is an abstract, and means reception , 
 a doctrine received by oral transmission ; so that 
 with mere reference to its etymological significa- 
 tion, it is the correlate of miDD, tradition. The 
 term Kabbalah is employed in the Jewish writings 
 to denote several traditional doctrines: as, for 
 example, that which constituted the creed of tlie 
 patriarchal age before the giving of the law ; that 
 unwritten ritual interpretation which the Jews 
 believe was revealed by God to Moses on the 
 mount, and which was at length committed to 
 writing and formed the Mishnah. Besides being 
 applied to these and other similar traditions, it 
 has also been used in, comparatively speaking, 
 modem times, to denote a singular mystical mod* 
 
190 
 
 KABBALAH. 
 
 KABBALAH. 
 
 of interpreting the Old Testament, in which sense 
 only it forms the subject of the present article. 
 
 This Kabbalah is an art of eliciting mysteries 
 from the words and letters of the Old Testament 
 by means of some subtle devices of interpretation, 
 or it is an abstruse theosophical and metaphysical 
 doctrine containing the traditional arcana of the 
 remotest times. Itjs of two kinds, practical’ 1 ' 
 and speculative (JVKtJJD and n'M'JJ). The spe- 
 culative Kabbalah, to which we confine ourselves, 
 is again subdivided into the artificial and inar- 
 tificial, which correspond to the terms of our 
 definition. 
 
 The artificial Kabbalah, which is so called 
 because it is a system of interpretation the appli- 
 cation of which is bound by certain rules, is 
 divided info three species. The first, Gematria 
 from the Greek yewperpla, but used in 
 a wider sense), is the arithmetical mode of interpre- 
 tation, in which the letters of a word are regarded 
 with reference to their value as numeral signs, 
 and a word is explained by another whose united 
 letters produce the same sum. For example, the 
 
 word Shiloh (n'TO Gen. xl ix. 10), the letters of 
 which amount, when considered as numerals, to 
 35S, is explained to be Messiah (ITtTO), because 
 they are both numerically equivalent, and the 
 three Targums have actually so rendered it. The 
 second species, Temurah (ITYlDn, penmitation'), 
 is the mode by which one word is transformed 
 into another different one by the transposition or 
 systematic interchange of their letters ; as when 
 
 my angel (Exod. xxiii. 23), is made into 
 
 Michael. The kinds of commutation 
 described in the article Atbach also belong to 
 this species. The third species, Notarikon 
 (jlp'Htb'n, from the Latin notare ), is that in 
 which some or all of the letters of a word are con- 
 sidered to be signs denoting other words of which 
 they are the initials, and is of two kinds. In the 
 one, either the initial or the final letter of two or 
 more words occurring together in the Old Testa- 
 ment are combined to form one new word, as 
 when 'UTO, Maccabee, is made out of “pDD 'O 
 
 HUT (Exod. xv. 11); or when the divine 
 
 name JYirV is extracted from HD W TO ^ 
 (Exod. iii. 13). In the other, the several letters 
 of one word are taken in their series to be the 
 initials of several other words, as when D*7X is 
 explained by HTO, DT, ‘lSDX, dust, blood , gall. 
 
 The inartificial or dogmatical Kabbalah con- 
 sists solely of a traditional doctrine on things 
 divine and metaphysical, propounded in a sym- 
 bolical form. It treats principally of the mys- 
 teries of the doctrine of emanation, of angels 
 and spirits, of the four Kabbalistical worlds, and 
 of the ten Sephiroth or so-called Kabbalistic 
 tree. It is a system made up of elements 
 which are also found in the Magian doctrine 
 of emanation, in the Pythagorean theory of 
 
 * It may suffice for our present purpose merely 
 to notice the existence of the practical Kabbalah, 
 which differs little from magic. He who is 
 curious in such things will find one of the fullest 
 details of the portentous miracles which are said 
 to have been effected by its agency in Edzard’s 
 edition of the second chapter of the tract Abodah 
 Zarah , p. 346, sq. 
 
 numbers, in the philosophy of the later Platonists, 
 and in the tenets of the Gnostics; but these doc- 
 trines are here stated with enigmatical obscurity, 
 and without the coherence and development of a 
 single and entire scheme. Its general tenor may 
 be conceived from the eminent prerogatives which 
 it assigns to the law, and from the consequent 
 latitude of interpretation. Thus, it is argued in 
 the book of Sohar : ‘ Alas for the man who thinks 
 that the law contains nothing but what appears 
 on its surface; for, if that were true, there would 
 be men in our day who could excel it. But the 
 law assumed a body ; for if angels are obliged, 
 when they descend to this world, to assume a body 
 in order that they may subsist in the world, and 
 it be able to receive them, how much more neces- 
 sary was it that the law, which created them and 
 which was the instrument by which the world was 
 created, should be invested with a body in order 
 that it might be adapted to the comprehension of 
 man ? That body is a history, in which if any 
 man think there is not a soul, let him have no 
 part in the life to come.’ Manasseh-ben-Israel , 
 .who makes this citation from the book of Sohar, 
 enforces this view with many arguments ( Con- 
 ciliator , Amstelod. 1633, p. 169). 
 
 The ten Sephiroth have been represented in 
 three different forms, all of which may be seen in 
 H. More s Opera Philos, i. 423 ; and one of 
 which, although not the most usual one, has 
 been already given in the article God. The 
 Sephiroth have been the theme of endless discus- 
 sion ; and it has even been disputed whether they 
 are designed to express theological, philosophical, 
 or physical mysteries. The Jews themselves 
 generally regard them as the sum and substance 
 of Kabbalistical theology, as indicating the 
 emanating grades and order of efflux according 
 to which the nature and manifested operation of 
 the Supreme Being may be comprehended. 
 Several Christian scholars have discerned in them 
 the mysteries of their own faith, the trinity, and 
 the incarnation of the Messiah.* In this they 
 have received some sanction by the fact noticed 
 by Wolf, that most learned Jewish converts en- 
 deavour to demonstrate the truth of Christianity 
 out of the doctrines of the Kabbalah ( Biblioth . 
 Hebr. i. 360). The majority of all parties 
 appear to concur in considering the first three 
 Sephiroth to belong to the essence of God, and the 
 last seven to denote his attributes, or modes of ex- 
 istence. The following treatises on this subject 
 
 * It is worth while to adduce the words of 
 Count G. Pico della Miraridola, as cited in Hot- 
 tinger’s Thesaurus Philologicus, p. 439 : ‘ Hos 
 ego libros non mediocri impensa mihi cum com- 
 parassem, summa diligentia, indefessis laboribus 
 cum perlegissem, vidi in illis (testis est Dens) 
 religionem non tarn Mosaicam, quam Christianam. 
 Ibi Trinitatis mysterium, ibiVerbi incarnatio, ibi 
 Messiae divinitas, ibi de peccato originali, de 
 illius per Christum expiatione, de ccelesti Hisru- 
 salem, de casu daemonum, de ordinibus ange- 
 lorum, de purgatoriis, de inferorum poenis : eadem 
 legi, quae apud Paulum et Dionysium, apud 
 Hieronymum et Augustinum quotidie legimui 
 .... In plenum, nulla est ferme de re nobis cum 
 Hebraeis controversia, de qua ex libris Cabbali* 
 tarum ita redargui convincique non possint, ut n« 
 augulus quidem reliquus sit, in quem se condant • 
 
KABBALAH. 
 
 KADESH. 
 
 191 
 
 are among the most remarkable : a dissertation by 
 Rkenferd, De Stylo Apocalypseos Cabbalistico , 
 in Danz’s Nov. Test, ex Talmude i/lust. p. 1090, 
 in which he endeavours to point out many extra- 
 ordinary coincidences between the theosophy of 
 the Kabbalah and the book of Revelation (which 
 may be compared with an essay of similar ten- 
 dency in Eichhorn’s Bibl. Biblioth. iii. 191); 
 and a dissertation by Vitringa, De Sephiroth 
 Kabbalistarum , in his Observat. Sacr. i. 120, in 
 which he first showed how the Sephiroth accorded 
 with the human form. 
 
 The origin of the Kabbalah is involved in great 
 obscurity. The Jews ascribe it to Adam, or to 
 Abraham, or to Moses, or to Ezra ; the last being 
 apparently countenanced by 2 Esdras xiv. 20-48. 
 The opinions of Christian writers are as variously 
 divided; and the Kabbalah is such a complex 
 whole, and has been aggregated together at such 
 distant periods, that no general judgment can 
 apply to it. Their opinions need only be noticed 
 in their extremes. Thus, on the one hand, Rhen- 
 ferd and others maintain that the Jewish church 
 possessed, in its inartificial Kabbalah, an ancient 
 unwritten traditional doctrine, by which they 
 were instructed that the types and symbols of the 
 Mosaic dispensation were (to use Luther’s words) 
 but the manger and the swaddling-clothes in 
 which the Messiah lay — of which genuine doc- 
 trine, however, they nevertheless believe our pre- 
 sent Kabbalah to contain only fragments amidst 
 a mass of Gentile additions. On the other hand, 
 Eichhorn accounls for the origin of that important 
 part of this Kabbalah, the system of allegorical 
 interpretation (by which their occult doctrine was 
 either generated, or, if not, at least brought into 
 harmony with the law), by supposing that the 
 Jews adopted it immediately from the Greeks. 
 According to him, when the Jews were brought 
 into contact with the enlightened speculations of 
 the Greek philosophers, they felt that their law (as 
 they had hitherto interpreted it) was so far behind 
 the wisdom of the Gentiles, that — both to vindi- 
 cate its honour in the eyes of the scoffing heathen, 
 as well as to reconcile their newly adopted philo- 
 sophical convictions with their ancient creed — 
 they borrowed from the Greek allegorizers of 
 Homer the same art of interpretation, and applied 
 it to conjure away the unacceptable sense or the 
 letter, or to extort another sense which harmonized 
 with the philosophy of the age (Bibl. Biblioth. v. 
 237, sq.). 
 
 Both these opinions, however, coincide at a cer- 
 tain point, in assuming that the Jews did adopt 
 the doctrines of Gentile philosophy ; and a wide 
 field is open for conjectures as to the particular 
 Bources from which the several elements of the 
 Kabbalah have been derived. Thus, whether the 
 Persian religion, in which the doctrine of ema- 
 nation is so prominent (the zeruane akerene , or 
 infinite time , being the FpD j'K of the Sephiroth), 
 Bupplied that theory to the Jews during the Baby- 
 lonian captivity ; or whether it was borrowed 
 from any other scheme containing that doctrine, 
 down as late as the origin of Gnosticism ; or even 
 whether, as H. More asserts, the Kabbalah itself 
 is the primitive fountain from which the Gentiles 
 have themselves drawn — these, and the many 
 such questions which could be raised about the 
 origin of the other Kabbalistic doctrines, can 
 only receive a probable solution. 
 
 However these matters may be decided, the dal* 
 of the most important works in which the doctrm* 
 of the Kabbalah is contained may be brought to a 
 nearer certainty. Of these the book Jezirah 
 (STW, creation ), which is the oldest of them, 
 and which is attributed to the patriarch Abraham, 
 cannot be credibly ascribed to any earlier author 
 than the Rabbi Akibah, who lived in the first 
 century of our era; but the cautious Wolf thinks 
 that it is prudent not to insist on any earlier or 
 more precise date for it than that it was written 
 before the completion of the Talmud, as it is 
 cited in the treatise Sanhedrin. It has often been 
 printed; as by Rittangel, a converted Jew, with 
 a Latin version and notes, Amsterd. 1642, 4to. ; 
 and, more recently, with a German version, notes, 
 and a glossary, by J. F. von Meyer, Leipz. 1830, 
 4to. The obscure book of Sonar (“iiTlT, splen- 
 dour ), which has been called the Bible of the Kab- 
 balists, is ascribed to Simeon ben Jochai, who 
 was a pupil of R. Akibah ; but the earliest men- 
 tion of its existence occurs in the year 1290 ; and 
 the anachronisms of its style, and of the facta 
 referred to, together with the circumstance that it 
 speaks of the vowel-points and other Masoretic 
 inventions, which are clearly posterior to the 
 Talmud, justify J. Morinus (although too often 
 extravagant in his wilful attempts to depreciate 
 the antiquity of the later Jewish writings) in as- 
 serting that the author could not have lived much 
 before the year 1000 of the Christian era ( Exerci - 
 tationes Biblicce , pp. 358-369). The best edition 
 of the book of Sohar is that by Baron C. von 
 Rosenroth, with Jewish commentaries, Sulzbach, 
 1684, fol., to which his rare Cabbala Denudata , 
 1677-1684, 4to., forms an ample introduction. 
 
 Wolf has given an extended account of the 
 Kabbalah, and of the numerous manuscripts and 
 printed Jewish works in which its principles are 
 contained, as well as abundant references to 
 Christian authors who have treated of it ( Biblioth. 
 Hebr. ii. 1191, sq.). The work of P. Beer ( Ge - 
 schichte der Lelxren aller Secten der Juden, und 
 der Cabbala, Briinn, 1822, 2 vols. Svo.), which is 
 mentioned with approbation, has not been avail- 
 able for this article. — J. N. 
 
 KADESH ( KHi? ; Sept. KaSfc), or Kadesh- 
 barnea, a site on the south-eastern border of the 
 Promised Land towards Edom, of much interest 
 as being the point at which the Israelites twice 
 encamped with the intention of entering Pales- 
 tine, and from which they were twice sent back ; 
 the first time in pursuance of their sentence to 
 wander forty years in the wilderness, and the 
 second time from the refusal of the king of Edom 
 to permit a passage through his territories. It 
 was from Kadesh that the spies entered Palestine 
 by ascendi-ng the mountains ; and the murmuring 
 Israelites afterwards attempting to do the same 
 were driven back by the Amalekites and Ca- 
 naanites, and afterwards apparently by the king 
 of Arad, as far as Hormah, then called Zephath 
 (Num. xiii. 17 ; xiv. 40-45 ; xxi. 1-3 ; Dent, 
 i. 41-44 ; comp. Judg. i. 7). There was also at 
 Kadesh a fountain (En-mishpat) mentioned long 
 before the exode of the Israelites (Gen. xiv. 7) ; 
 and the miraculous supply of water took place 
 only on the second visit, which implies that at 
 the first there was no lack of this necessary 
 article. After this Moses sent messengers to the 
 
192 
 
 KADESII. 
 
 KADESIi. 
 
 king of Edom, informing liim that they were in 
 Kadesh, a city in the uttermost part of his border, 
 and asking leave to pass through his country,, so as 
 to continue their course round Moab, and approach 
 Palestine from the East. This Edom refused, and 
 the Israelites accordingly marched to Mount Hor, 
 where Aaron died ; and then along the Arabah 
 (desert of Zin) to the Red Sea (Num. xx. 14-29). 
 The name of Kadesh again occurs in describing 
 the southern quarter of Judah, the line defining 
 which is drawn ‘ from the shore of the Salt Sea, 
 from the bay that looked southward ; and it went 
 out to the south side of Akrabbim, and passed 
 along to Zin, and ascended up on the south side 
 to Kadesh- barnea’ (Josh. xv. 1-3; comp. Num. 
 xxxiv. 3, 4). 
 
 From these intimations the map-makers, who 
 found it difficult to reconcile them with the 
 place usually assigned to Kadesh (in the desert 
 about midway between the Mediterranean and 
 Dead Sea), were in the habit of placing a 
 second Kadesh nearer the Dead Sea and the 
 Wady Arabah. It was left for the editor of the 
 Pictorial Bible to show (Note on Num. xx. 1) 
 that one Kadesh would sufficiently answer all the 
 conditions required, by being placed more to the 
 south, nearer to Mount Hor, on the west border 
 of the Wady Arabah, than this second Kadesh. 
 The gist of the argument lies in the following 
 passage: — ‘We conclude that there is but one 
 Kadesh mentioned in Scripture, and that the diffi- 
 culties which have seemed to require that there 
 should be a second or even a third place of the 
 name, may be easily and effectually obviated by 
 altering the position commonly assigned to 
 Kadesh-barnea, that is, the Kadesh from which 
 the spies were sent in the fifteenth chapter, and 
 from which the wanderings commenced. We 
 are at perfect liberty to make this alteration, be- 
 cause nothing whatever is distinctly known of 
 such a place, and its position has been entirely 
 fixed upon conjectural probabilities. But being 
 once fixed, it has generally been received and 
 reasoned upon as a truth, and it has been thought 
 better to create another Kadesh to meet the diffi- 
 culties which this location occasioned, than to 
 disturb old maps and old topographical doctrines. 
 Kadesh is usually placed within or close upon the 
 southern frontier of Palestine, about midway be- 
 tween the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. 
 This location would seem in itself improbable 
 without strong counter-reasons in its favour. For 
 we do not find that a hostile people, when not 
 prepared for immediate action, confront them- 
 selves directly with their enemies, but encamp at 
 some considerable distance and send scouts and 
 spies to reconnoitre the country ; nor is it by any 
 means likely that they would remain so long at 
 Kadesh as they seem to have done at their first visit, 
 If they had been in the very face of their enemies, 
 as must have been the case in the assigned posi- 
 tion. We should, therefore, on this ground alone, 
 be inclined to place Kadesh more to the south or 
 south-east than this. Besides, if this were Kadesh, 
 now could Kadesh be on the borders of Edom, 
 seeing that the Edomites did not, till many cen- 
 turies later, occupy the country to the south of 
 Canaan, and weie at this time confined to the 
 region of Se i r ? Moreover, from a Kadesh so far 
 to the north they were not likely to send to the 
 king of Edom without moving down towards the 
 
 place where they hoped to obtain permission to 
 cross Mount Seir, particularly as by so moving 
 they would at the same time be making jro- 
 gress towards the point which the refusal of 
 the Edomites would oblige them to pass, and 
 which they actually did pass. Therefore, the 
 stay of the host at Kadesh, waiting for the king’s 
 answer, seems to imply that Kadesh was so near 
 as not to make it worth while to move, till they 
 knew the result of their application to him, 
 Further, we read in ch. xxxiii., xxxvi., after an 
 enumeration of distances of manifestly no great 
 length, that in the present instance (the second) 
 the move to Kadesh was Eziongeber, at the head 
 of the Gulf of Akabah, the distance bet ween which 
 and the Kadesh of the maps is about 120 miles ; 
 and this is the consideration which has chiefly 
 influenced those who have determined that there 
 must have been two places of the name. And we 
 must confess that while thinking over the other 
 reasons which have been stated we were, for a 
 time, inclined to consider them as leading to that 
 conclusion, and that tire second Kadesh must 
 have been very near Mount Hor. And this im- 
 pression ( as to Kadesh being near Mount Hor) 
 was confirmed when, happening to find tliat 
 Eusebius describes the tomb of Miriam (who died 
 at Kadesh), being still in his time shown at 
 Kadesh, near Petra , the capital of Arabia 
 Petrcea , we perceived it important to ascertain 
 where this author fixed Petra, since one account 
 places this city more to the north than another ; 
 and we found that he places Petra near Mount 
 Hor, on which Aaron died and was buried ; and 
 consequently the Kadesh of Num. xx. 1, where 
 Miriam died and was buried, must, in the view 
 of Eusebius, have been at no very great distance 
 from Mount Hor.’ 
 
 Other arguments are adduced to show that 
 if there were two Kadeshes, the one of the 
 second journey must have been in the rx>- 
 siiion indicated, and that one in this positu/.. 
 would answer all the demands of Scripture. 
 According to these views Kad.esh was laid down 
 in the map (in the Illuminated Atlas ) prepared 
 under the writer’s direction, in the same line, and 
 not far from the place which lias since been 
 assigned to it from actual observation by Dr. 
 Robinson. This concurrence of different lines ot 
 research in the same result is curious and valu- 
 able, and the position of Kadesh will be regarded 
 as now scarcely open to dispute. It was clear 
 that the discovery of the fountain in the northern 
 part of the great valley would go far to fix the 
 question. Robinson accordingly discovered a 
 fountain called Ain el-Weibeb, which is even at 
 this day the most frequented watering-place in 
 all the Arabah, and he was struck by the entire 
 adaptedness of the site to the Scriptural account 
 of the proceedings of the Israelites on their second 
 arrival at Kadesh. ‘ Over against us lay the 
 land of Edom ; we were in its uttermost border ; 
 and the great Wady el-Ghuweir afforded a direct 
 and easy passage through the mountains to the 
 table-land above, which was directly before us ; 
 while further in the south Mount Hor formed a 
 prominent and striking object, at the distance oi 
 two good days’ journey for such a host’ {Bio. 
 Researches , ii. 538). Further on (p. 610) he 
 adds : ‘ There the Israelites w'ould have Mount 
 Hor in the S.S.E. towering directly before tfietr 
 
KADMONITES. 
 
 KALI. 
 
 193 
 
 .... in the N.W. rises the mountain by which 
 they attempted to ascend to Palestine, with the 
 pass still called Sufah (Zephath) ; while further 
 north we find also Tell Arad, marking the site of 
 the ancient Arad. To all this comes then the 
 vicinity of the southern bay of the Dead Sea,, the 
 line of cliffs or offset separating the Ghor from 
 the Arabah, answering to the ascent of Akrabbim ; 
 and the desert of Zin, with the place of the same 
 name between Akrabbim and Kadesh, not im- 
 probably at the water of Hash, in the Arabah. 
 In this way all becomes easy and natural, and 
 the Scriptural account, is entirely accordant with 
 the character of the country.’ 
 
 KADMONITES ; Sept. K eS/mvouoi), 
 
 one of the nations of Canaan, which is supposed 
 to have dwelt in the north-east part of Palestine, 
 under Mount Hermon, at the time that Abraham 
 sojourned in the land (Gen. xv. 19). As the 
 name is derived from Dip kedem , which means 
 ‘ east,’ it is supposed by Dr. Wells and others to 
 denote ‘ an eastern people,’ and that they were 
 situated to the east of the Jordan, or rather that it 
 was a term applied collectively, like ‘ Easterns,’ or 
 ‘ Orientals,’ to all the people living in the coun- 
 tries beyond that river. To this opinion we in- 
 cline, as the Kadmonites are not elsewhere men- 
 tioned as a distinct nation ; and the subsequent 
 discontinuance of the term, in the assigned ac- 
 ceptation, may be easily accounted for, by the 
 nations beyond the river having afterwards be- 
 come more distinctly known, so as to be men- 
 tioned by their several distinctive names. The 
 reader may see much ingenious trifling respecting 
 this name in Bochart ( Canaan , i. 19); the sub- 
 stance of which is, that Cadmus, the founder of 
 Thebes, in Boeotia, was originally a Kadmonite, 
 and that the name of his wife Hermione, was 
 derived from Mount Hermon. 
 
 KALI (^p, N'^p). This word occurs in 
 several passages of the Old Testament, in all of 
 which, in the Authorized Version, it is translated 
 parched corn. The correctness of this translation 
 has not, however, been assented to by all commen- 
 tators. Thus, as Celsius ( Hierobot . ii. 231) says, 
 
 ‘ Syrus interpres, Onkelos, et Jonathan Ebraea 
 voce utuntur, Lev. xxiii. 14; 1 Sam. xvii. 17; 
 xxv. 18; 2 Sam. xvii. 28.’ Arias Montanus 
 and others, he adds, render kali by the word 
 tostum, considering it to be derived from il^p, 
 which in the Hebrew signifies torrere, ‘ to toast’ 
 
 or ‘parch.’ So in the Arabic kali signifies 
 
 anything cooked in a frying-pan, and is applied 
 to the common Indian dish which by Euro- 
 peans is called currie or curry. kalee , and 
 
 U! kalla signify one that fries, or a cook. 
 From the same root is supposed to be derived 
 the word kali or al'kali , now so familiarly known 
 as alkali, which is obtained from the ashes of 
 burnt vegetables. But as, in the various passages 
 of Scripture where it occurs, kali is without any 
 adjunct, different opinions have been entertained 
 respecting the substance which is to be understood 
 as having been toasted or parched. By some it is 
 supposed to have been corn in general ; by others, 
 only wheat. Some Hebrew writers maintain that 
 
 von. ii. 44 
 
 flour or meal, and others, that, parched meal , is 
 intended, as in the passage of Ruth ii. 14, where 
 the Septuagint translates kali by &\(pirov, and tne 
 Vulgate by polenta. A difficulty, however, occurs 
 in the case of 2 Sam. xvii. 28, where the word 
 occurs twice in the same verse. We are told that 
 Shobi and others, on David’s arrival at Mahanaim, 
 in the further limit of the tribe of Gad, ‘ brought 
 beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, 
 and barley, and flour, and parched corn (kali,, 
 and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse (kali, 
 and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of 
 kine, for David and for the people that were with 
 him to eat.’ This is a striking representation of 
 what may be seen every day in ihe East : when 
 a traveller arrives at a village, the common light 
 beds of the country are brought him, as well as 
 earthen pots, with food of different kinds. The 
 meaning of the above passage is explained by the 
 statement of Hebrew writers, that there are two 
 kinds of kali — one made of parched corn , the 
 other of parched pulse ; or, according to R. Sa- 
 lomon, ex Avoda Zarah , fol. xxxviii. 2, as quoted 
 by Celsius (ii. 233), ‘ Dicunt Rabbini nostri, 
 duas diversas species kali debere hie intelligi. 
 Nam duplicis generis schetitam adduxerat Bar- 
 sillai Davidi ; unum e tritico, et alterum e len- 
 tibus, sicut (in textu ) dicitur : farinam et kali: 
 et haeo f'lit e tritico. Fabas, et lentes, et kali: 
 haec fuit e speciebus leguminum, quae arefecerant 
 in fornace, utpote viridia et dulcia. Postea mo- 
 lebant ea, et faciebant ex illis cibum, quam 
 vocabant IVntSV 
 
 There is no doubt that in the East a little 
 meal, either parched or not, mixed with a little 
 water, often constitutes the dinner of the natives, 
 especially of those engaged in laborious occu- 
 pations, as boatmen while dragging their vessels 
 up rivers, and unable to make any long delay. 
 Another principal preparation, much and con- 
 stantly in use in Western Asia, is burgoul , that is, 
 corn first, boiled, then bruised in the mill to take 
 the husk off", and afterwards dried or parched 
 in the sun. In this state it is preserved for use, 
 and employed for the same purposes as rice. The 
 meal of parched corn is also much used, particu- 
 larly* by travellers, who mix it with honey, butter, 
 and spices, and so eat it; or else mix it with 
 water only, and drink it as a draught, the refri- 
 gerating and satisfying qualities of which they 
 justly extol ( Pictorial Bible , ii. p. 537). Parched 
 grain is also, no doubt, very common. Thus, 
 in the bazaars of India not only may rice be ob- 
 tained in a parched state, but also the seeds of the 
 Nymph cea, and of the Nelumbsium Speciosum, or 
 bean of Pythagoras, and most abundantly the 
 pulse called gram by the English, on whica 
 their cattle are chiefly fed. This is the Cicer 
 Arietinum of botanists, or chick-pea, which is 
 common even in Egypt and the south of Europe, 
 and may be obtained everywhere in India in a 
 parched state, under the name of chebenne. We 
 know not whether it be the same pulse that is 
 mentioned in the article Dove’s Dung, a sort of 
 pulse or pea, which appears to have been very 
 common in Judaea. Belon ( Observat . ii. 53) 
 informs us that large quantities of it are parched 
 and dried, and stored in magazines at Cairo and 
 Damascus. It is much used during journeys, 
 and particularly by the great pilgrim caravsn 
 to Mecca. 
 
194 
 
 KANEH. 
 
 KANEH, 
 
 Considering all these points, it does not appear 
 to us by any means certain that kali is correctly 
 translated ‘ parched corn,’ in all the passages of 
 Scripture. Thus, in Lev. xxiii. 14: ‘Ye shall 
 eat neither bread, nor parched corn (kali), nor 
 green ears, until. . . So in Ruth ii. 14, ‘ And 
 he (Boaz) reached her parched corn (kali), and 
 she did eat.’ 1 Sam. xvii. 17: ‘ Take now for 
 thy brethren an ephah of parched corn .’ And 
 again, xxv. 18, where five measures of parched 
 com are mentioned. Bochart says ( Hieroz . part 
 ii. lib. i. c. 7) ‘kali ab Hieronymo redditur 
 frixum cicer ;’ and to show that it was the prac- 
 tice among the ancients to parch the cicer, he 
 quotes Plautus ( Bacch . iv. 5. 7) : ‘ Tam frictum 
 ego ilium reddam, quam frictum est. cicer ;’ also 
 Horace (De Arte Poetica, l. 249) and others : and 
 shows from the writings of the Rabbins, that kali 
 was also applied to some kind of pulse. ‘ Kali 
 sunt leguminum species, quae adhuc recentia 
 in furno exsiccantur, et semper manent dulcia 
 et commoluntur, et fit ex iis cibus quern vocant 
 sethith ’ (R. Selomo). The name kali seems, 
 moreover, to have been widely spread through 
 Asiatic countries. Thus in Shakspeare’s Hin- 
 
 dee Dictionary , i kalae , from the Sanscrit 
 
 sfrSJZI 
 
 translated pulse — leguminous 
 
 seeds in general. The present writer found it 
 applied in the Himalayas to the common field- 
 pea, and has thus mentioned it elsewhere : * l Pisum 
 arvense. Cultivated in the Himalayas, also in 
 the plains of north-west India, found wild in the 
 Kbadie of the Jumna, near Delhi ; the corra 
 vnuttur of the natives, called Kullae in the hills’ 
 (Must; of Himalayan Botany , p. 200). Hence 
 we are disposed to consider the pea, or the chick- 
 pea, as more correct than parched corn in some 
 of the above passages of Scripture. — J. F. R. 
 
 KANEH (ITJ|7) occurs in several places of 
 the Old Testament, in all of which, in the 
 Authorized Version, it is translated reed; as in 
 
 1 Kings xiv. 15 ; 2 Kings xviii. 21 ; Job xl. 21 ; 
 Isa. xix. G ; xxxv. 7 ; xxxvi. 6 ; xlii. 3 ; Ezek. 
 xxix. 6. The Hebrew Kaneh would seem to be 
 the original of the Greek Kavva, the Latin canna, 
 and the modern canna, canne , cane, &c., signi- 
 fying a ‘ reed ’ or ‘ cane,’ also a fence or mat 
 made of reeds or rushes : the Latin word also 
 denotes the sugar-cane, a pipe, &c. Hence the 
 term appears to have been used in a general sense 
 in ancient as well as in modern times. Thus we 
 find in Hakluyt, * Then they pricke him (the 
 elephant) with sharp canes ;’ Milton (Par. Lost. 
 iii. 439) describes the Tatars as driving — 
 
 ‘ With sails and wind their cany waggons light ;’ 
 Grainger also, when referring to the Indians, as de- 
 scribed. by Lucan, says ‘ That sucke sweete liquor 
 from their sugar-canes.’ In later times the term 
 cane has been applied more particularly to the 
 stems of the Calamus Rotang, and other specie* 
 of rattan canes, which we have good grounds for 
 believing were unknown to the ancients, notwith- 
 stand ng the opinion of Sprengel (Hist. Rei Herb. 
 i. 171), ‘ Ctesias duo genera, Ka.Xay.ov facit., mavem 
 ■ tine medulla et feminam eo praeditam, hanc sine 
 dubio Calamum Rotang , illam Bambusam rios- 
 tram. Repetit ea Plinius (xvi. 36).’ 
 
 The Greek word Kakayos appears to have been 
 
 considered the proper equivalent for the Hebrew 
 Kaneh , being the term used by St. Matthew xii. 
 20), when quoting the words of Isaiah (xlii. 3), 
 ‘ A bruised reed (Kaneh) shall he not oreak.’ 
 The Greek word Latinized is well known in the 
 forms of calamus and culmus. Both see.n to 
 
 have been derived from the Arabic kalm, 
 
 signifying a * reed ’ or ‘ pen,’ and forming nu- 
 merous compounds, with the latter signification, 
 in the languages of the East. It also denotes 
 a weaver’s reed, and even cuttings of trees for 
 planting or grafting. Or they may all be derived 
 
 from the Sanscrit kalm, having the 
 
 same signification. The German halm, and the 
 English haulm, usually applied to the straw or 
 stems of grasses, would seem to have the same 
 origin. The Greek Kakayos. and the Latin 
 calamus, were used with as wide a signification 
 as the Oriental kalm, and denoted a reed, the 
 stalk or stem of corn, or anything made there- 
 from, as a pen. an arrow, a reed-pipe. KoA ayos 
 is also applied to any plant which is neithei 
 shrub, bush (vkrj), nor tree (SevSpou) (vid. Liddell 
 and Scott's Greek Lex.). So calamus means any 
 twig, sprig, or scion. Thus Pliny (xvi. 14. 24), 
 ‘ ipsique in eo medullae calamum imprimebant ;’ 
 and in India we every day hear the expression 
 ‘ kalm lugana,’ i. e. ‘ to apply’ or ‘fix’ a graft. 
 Pliny (xxiv. 14. 75), speaking of the Rubus, or 
 bramble, says, ‘ Rarioribus calamis innocentiori- 
 busque, sub arborum umbra nascens.’ 
 
 Such references to the meaning of these words 
 in different languages, may appear to have little 
 relation to our present subject ; but Kakayos 
 occurs very frequently in fhe New Testament, 
 and apparently with the same latitude of mean- 
 ing : thus, in the sense of a reed or culm of a 
 grass, Matt. xi. 7 ; Luke vii. 24, ‘ A reed shaken 
 by the wind ;’ of a pen, in 3 John 13, ‘ But 1 
 will not with pen (Kakayos) and ink write unto 
 thee;’ Matt, xxvii. 29, ‘Put a reed’ in his 
 right hand;’ ver. 30, ‘ took the reed and smot< 
 him on the head;’ and in Mark xv. 19, it ma; 
 mean a reed or twig of any kind. So also ii 
 Matt, xxvii. 48, and Mark xv. 36, where P ii 
 said that they filled a sponge with vinegar, arr 
 put it on a reed, while in the parallel , 
 
 John xix. 29, it is said that they filled a * 
 
 with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop , and pi c 
 it to his mourti. From which it is pro'/pbte that 
 the term Kakayos was applied by both tbs Evan- 
 gelists to the stem of the plant named hyssop, 
 whatever this may have been, in like manner as 
 Pliny applied the term Calamus to the stem of a 
 bramble. 
 
 In most of the passages of the Old Testament 
 the word Kaneh seems to be applied strictly to 
 reeds of different kinds growing in water, that is, 
 to the hollow stems or culms of grasses, which are 
 usually weak, easily shaken about by wind or 
 by water, fragile, and breaking into sharp-poinfed 
 splinters. Thus in 1 Kings xiv. 15, ‘Asa reed 
 is shaken in the water;’ Job xl. 21, ‘ He lieth in 
 the covert of the reed (Kaneh)', Isa. xix. 6, 
 ‘ And they shall turn the rivers far away ; and 
 the reeds and flags shall wither.’ Also in oh, 
 xxxv. 7 ; while in 2 K'ugs xviii. 21 : Isa 
 xxxvi. 6 ; and Ezek. xxix. 7, there is reference 
 to the weak and fragile nature of the reed, * La, 
 
KAN Eli. 
 
 KANEH BOSEM. 
 
 195 
 
 Ihou trus*est in the staff of this broken reed, on 
 Egypt, whereon if a man lean, it will go into 
 
 bin hand, and pierce it.’ 
 
 In order to determine what particular kinds 
 of reed-like plants are intended in these several 
 passages, the preferable mode is probably first to 
 ascertain the plants to which the above names 
 were applied by the Greeks and Romans, and 
 particularly those which are indigenous in Syria 
 and Egypt. Dioscorides describes the different 
 kinds m his chapter irspl KaXagov (i. 1 14). 1. Ka- 
 Xagos 6 vaards, or the Arundo far eta, of which 
 arrows are made (Arundo arenariaf). 2. The 
 female, of which reed pipes were made (A. Do- 
 nax?). 3. Hollow, with frequent knots, fitted 
 for writing, probably a species of Saccharum. 
 
 4. Thick and hollow, growing in rivers, which is 
 called donax , and also Cypria (Arundo Donax). 
 
 5. Phragmites (Arundo Phragmites ), slender, 
 light-coloured, and well-known. 6. The reed 
 called Phleos (Arundo ampelodesmos Cyrillii). 
 (Flora Neapol. t. xii.). These are all described 
 {l. c.) immediately before the Papyrus, while 
 tdXagos dfioDfj.aTi.K6s is described in a different 
 part of the book, namely, in ch. 17, along with 
 apices and perfumes. The Arabs describe the 
 
 different kinds of reed under the head of 
 
 Kuso, or Kussub, of which they give Kalamus, 
 as the synonymous Greek term. Under the head 
 of Kussub, both the Bamboo and the Arundo are 
 included as varieties, while Kusb-al-Sukr is the 
 sugar-cane, or Saccharum officinarum , and 
 Kusb-el- Zurireh appears to be the Calamus aro- 
 
 maticus (Kaneh-bosem). All these were, ho 
 doubt, partially known to the ancients. Pliny 
 mentions what must have been the Bamboo, as to 
 be seen of a large size in temples. 
 
 From the context of the several passages of 
 Scripture in which Ranch is mentioned, it is 
 evident that it was a plant growing in water ; 
 and we have seen from the meaning of the word 
 in other languages that it must have been applied 
 to one of the true reeds; as for instance, Arundo 
 JEgyptiaca (perhaps only a variety of A. Donax'), 
 mentioned by M. Bove as growing on the banks 
 of the Nile; or it may have been the Arundo 
 isiaca of Delile, which is closely allied to A. 
 Phragmites, the Canna and Canne of the south 
 of Europe, which has been already mentioned 
 under Agmon. 
 
 In the New Testament KaXagcs seems to be 
 applied chiefly to plants growing in dry and 
 even barren situations, as in Luke vii. 24 ; ‘What 
 went ye into the wilderness to see? a reed shaken 
 by the wind?’ To such passages, some of the 
 species of reed-like grasses, with slender stems and 
 light flocculent inflorescence, formerly referred to 
 Sacchdrum, but now separated as distinct genera, 
 are well suited ; as, for instance, Imperata cylin- 
 drica (Arundo epigeios, Forsk.), the hulfeh of 
 the Arabs ; which is found in such situations, as 
 by Desfontaines in the north of Africa, by Delile 
 in Lower Egypt, by Forskal near Cairo and Ro- 
 setta. Bove mentions that near Mount. Sinai, 
 
 ‘ Dans les deserfs qui environnent ces montagnes, 
 j’ai trouve plusieurs Saccharum,’ &c. In India, 
 the natives employ the culm of different species 
 of this genus for making their reed-pens and 
 arrows. 
 
 Hence, as has already been suggested by Rosen- 
 miiller, the noun Kaneh ought to be restricted 
 to reeds, or reed-like grasses, while Agmon may 
 indicate the more slender and delicate grasses or 
 sedges growing in wet situations, but which are 
 still tough enough to be made into ropes. — J. F. R. 
 
 KANEH BOSEM (Dtp njp, ‘reed of fra- 
 grance’), and Kaneh Hattob (HtSH cala- 
 mus bonus, ‘ good’ or ‘ fragrant reed’), appear 
 to have reference to the same substance. It is 
 mentioned under the name of kaneh bosem in 
 Exod. xxx. 23, and under that of kaneh hattob 
 in Jer. vi. 20. It is probably intended also by 
 kaneh (‘ reed ’) simply in Cant. iv. 14 ; Isa. xliii. 
 24; and Ezek. xxvii. 17; as it is enumerated 
 with other fragrant and aromatic substances. 
 Kaneh, as we have seen in the preceding article, 
 is probably the original of canna , KaXagos being 
 the Greek equivalent for both. Of all these the 
 primary signification seems to have been the 
 hollow stems of grasses. They were applied 
 afterwards to things made of such stems. From 
 the passages in which this sweet cane or calamus 
 is mentioned we learn that it was fragrant and 
 reed-like, and that, it was brought from a far 
 country (Jer. vi. 20 ; Ezek. xxvii. 19) : Dan also 
 and Javan going to and fro carried bright iron, 
 cassia, and calamus to the markets of Tyre. 
 
 If we recur to the method which we have 
 adopted in other cases, of examining rhe writings 
 of ancient heathen authors, to ascertain if they 
 describe anything like the substances noticed in 
 the sacred writings, we shall experience no diffi- 
 culty in identifying the ‘ sweet cane, or reed, from 
 
196 
 
 KANEH BOSEM. 
 
 KANEH BOSEM. 
 
 a far country.’ For though the common reeds are 
 described by Dioscorides, in book i. c. 114, we 
 find in a very different part of the same book, 
 namely, in c. 17, a uaka/xos apcoyariKSs, described 
 among the aromata , immediately after SxoIVos. 
 
 367. t Andropogon calamus aromaticus.] 
 
 It is stated to be a produce of India, of a tawny 
 colour, much jointed, breaking into splinters, 
 and having the hollow stem filled with pith, like 
 the web of a spider; also that it is mixed with 
 ointments and fumigations on account of its 
 odour. Hippocrates was acquainted with appa- 
 rently the same substance, which he calls Kaka- 
 ixos evaid-qs and axoiros evoa/nos, also nakayos 
 arxoTvos : though it is impossible to say that the 
 c rxoivos of Dioscorides, or schoenanthus, is not 
 intended by some of these names. Theophrastus 
 describes both the calamus and schoenus as 
 natives of Syria, or more precisely, of a valley 
 between Mount Lebanon and a small mountain, 
 where there is a plain and a lake, in parts of 
 which there is a marsh, where they are produced, 
 the smell being perceived by any one entering 
 the place. This account is virtually followed by 
 Pliny, though he also mentions the sweet ca- 
 lamus as a produce of Arabia. A writer in the 
 Gardener s Chronicle (ii. 756) has adduced a 
 passage from Polybius (v. 46), as elucidating the 
 foregoing statement of Theophrastus : 1 From 
 Laodicea Antiochus marched with all his army, 
 and having passed the desert., entered a close and 
 narrow valley, which lies between the Libanus 
 and Anti-Libanus, and is called the Vale of 
 Marsyas. The narrowest part of the valley is 
 s covered by a lake with marshy ground, from 
 
 whence are gathered aromatic reeds , Jy i 
 yvpetpiKbs Kelperai Kakajuos .’ A British office; 
 who had an opportunity of examining this lo- 
 cality writes thus from Beyrout, 6th Feb. 1842 . 
 ‘ Further down, about twenty miles, the vale of 
 Marsyas, or the vale of Baalbec, becomes much 
 narrower, and about four miles south of Zachli 
 the ground is now very marshy, and intersected 
 with endless ditches to draw off* the water. Here 
 formerly there might have been a large lake. 
 This is the narrowest part of the valley, and is 
 covered with reeds, but whether aromatic or not 
 I cannot say.’ Among the ancient authorities 
 Strabo ought not to be omitted. He mentions 
 that the calamus grows in the country of the 
 Sabaei (xvi. 4) ; but speaking of Coele-Syria 
 and its mountains, Libanus and Anti-Libanus, 
 he says (xvi. 2), ‘ It is intersected by rivers, 
 irrigating a rich country, abounding in all things. 
 It also contains a lake, which produces the 
 aromatic rush (axoTros) and reed (Kakayos). 
 There are also marshes. The lake is called 
 Gennesaritis. The balsam also grows here.’ But 
 how little dependence is to be placed upon the 
 statements of those who do not pay special at- 
 tention to the localities of plant*, might be made 
 evident by quotations from several modern au- 
 thors, who often mistake the last place of export 
 for the native country of a plant, and sometimes 
 even place in the Old World plants which are only 
 found in America. Rauwolff even, who was so good 
 and intelligent an observer, on leaving Mount 
 Libanus, says, ‘ I was also informed of others, 
 viz. of the costus Syriacus, which they still know 
 by the name of chaste and is found about An- 
 tiochia ; and not far off from thence is also found 
 the nux vomica , as some esteem them, by the in- 
 habitants called cutsckula , which, together with a 
 great many other famous ones, I might have ob- 
 tained, if I could have had a true, faithful, and 
 experienced guide.’ It is hardly necessary to say 
 that no guide would have availed him ; because 
 both the substances he mentions are articles of 
 Indian commerce, about which there can be 
 no mistake, as he has given us their Asiatic, 
 in addition to their scientific names; for chast is 
 no doubt the hoot or koost of the Arabs, which 
 has been traced within the last few years to the 
 mountains which surround Cashmere, while the 
 nux vomica is the produce of strychnes nux 
 vomica , a native of the south of India, and there 
 called koochla. A portion of the confusion 
 respecting the native country of these Indian 
 drugs, must be ascribed partly to the undue 
 extension of the name Syria in ancient times, 
 and partly to many Indian drugs making their 
 way into Europe by the route of the caravans, or 
 by the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates, across 
 Syria, to the shores of the Mediterranean. 
 
 That there may be some moderately sweet- 
 scented grass, or rush-like plant, such as the 
 Acomis Cttlamus of botanists (long used as a sub- 
 stitute for the true calamus'), in the flat country 
 between Libanus and Anti-Libanus, is quite pos- 
 sible ; but we have no proof of the fact. Burck* 
 hardt, in that situation, could find only ordi- 
 nary rushes and reeds. Though Theophrastus, 
 Polybius, and Strabo mention this locality as 
 that producing the calamus, yet Strabo, Dio- 
 dorus Siculus and others, even including Pliny, 
 give Arabia, or the country of tre Sabaean% 
 
KANEH BOSEM. 
 
 KARCOM. 
 
 197 
 
 as that which produced the aromatic reed; while 
 Dioscorides, the only author who writes ex- 
 pressly of the drugs known to the ancients, men- 
 tions it being the produce of India. Bochart 
 argues against India being the sole country pro- 
 ducing calamus, because he supposes that it could 
 not have been open to commerce in those early 
 times : ‘ Tamen solum in India crevisse non 
 concesserim, cum Mosis aevo Judaeis jam fuerit 
 notus, ejusque adeo mentio fiat, Exod. xxx. 23. 
 Indiam enim Judasis, aut vicinis gentibus, jam 
 turn fuisse apertam, mihi non fit verisimile 1 
 ( Hieroz . pars ii. lib. v. c. 6). Dr. Vincent, on the 
 contrary ( Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, ii. 365), 
 says, ‘ So far as a private opinion is of weight, I 
 am fully persuaded that this line of communica- 
 tioi. with the East is the oldest in the world — 
 older than Moses or Abraham.’ Indeed it is now 
 generally acknowledged that India and Egypt 
 must have had commercial intercourse during the 
 flourishing state of the kingdom of the Pharaohs. 
 For in this way only can we account for numerous 
 Indian products being mentioned in the Bible, 
 and for their being known to the early Greek 
 writers. Many of these substances are treated of 
 under their respective heads in this work. 
 
 The author of the present article, in his Essay 
 on the Antiquity of Hindoo Medicine , p. 33, 
 remarks, ‘ With this (that is, the true Spikenard 
 or Nard) has often been confounded another 
 far-famed aromatic of Eastern climes, that is, the 
 true calamus aromaticus , ndha/xos apw/iariKbs of 
 Dioscorides, said by him to grow in India. This 
 he describes immediately after cr^oti/os, trans- 
 lated juncus odoratus, a produce of Africa and 
 Arabia, and generally acknowledged by botanists 
 to be the andropogon schcenanthus, or lemon-grass, 
 a native both of Arabia and India, perhaps also 
 of Africa. The calamus aromaticus immediately 
 following this, stated to be also a native of India, 
 and among other uses being mixed with ointments 
 on account of its odour, appears to me to have 
 been a plant allied to the former. There is no 
 plant which more closely coincides with every 
 thing that is required, that is, correspondence in 
 description, analogy to trxoij/os, the possession of 
 remarkable fragrance and stimulant properties, 
 being costly, and the produce of a far country, 
 than the plant which yields the fragrant grass- 
 oil of Namur {Calcutta Med. Trans, vol. i. p. 367). 
 This oil has been already described by Mr.Hatchett 
 (On the Spikenard of the Ancients ), who refers it 
 to andropogon Roaraucusa. It is derived, how- 
 ever, as appears by specimens in my possession, 
 from a different plant; to which, believing it to 
 be a new species, I have given the name of an- 
 dropogon. calamus aromaticus” (p. 31). ‘ This 
 
 species is found in Central India, extends north 
 as far as Delhi, and south to between the God- 
 avery and Nagpore, where, according to Dr. Mal- 
 eolmson, it is called spear-grass. The specimens 
 which Mr. H. obtained from Mr. Swinton, I have 
 nai an opportunity of examining : they are iden- 
 tical with my own from the same part of India ’ 
 (Royle, Illust. Himal. Bot. p. 425). 
 
 As this plant is a true grass, it has necessarily 
 reed-like stems (the avpiyyia of Dioscorides). 
 They are remarkable for their agreeable odour: so 
 are the leaves when bruised, and also the delight- 
 fully fragrant oil distilled from them. Hence it 
 appeals more fully entitled to the commendations 
 
 which the calamus aromaticus or sweet -cane 
 has received, than any other plant that has been 
 described, even the attar of roses hardly excepted. 
 That a grass similar to the fragrant andropogon, 
 or at least one growing in the same kind of soil and 
 climate, was employed by the ancients, we have 
 evidence in the fact of the Phoenicians who ac- 
 companied Alexander in his march across the 
 arid country of Gedrosia having recognised and 
 loaded their cattle with it, as one of the perfumes 
 of commerce. It is in a similar country, that is, 
 the arid plains of Central India, that the above 
 andropogon calamus aromaticus is found, and 
 where the fragrant essential oil is distilled from 
 its leaves, culms, and roots (Essay on Hindoo 
 Medicine , p. 142). 
 
 If we compare the foregoing statement with the 
 different passages of Scripture, we shall find that 
 this fragrant grass answers to all that is required. 
 Thus in Exod. xxx. 23, the fragrant reed, along 
 with the principal, spices, such as myrrh, sweet 
 cinnamon, and cassia, is directed to be made into 
 an oil of holy ointment. So the calamus aro- 
 maticus may be found mentioned as an ingredient 
 in numerous fragrant oils and ointments, from the 
 time of Theophrastus to that of the Arabs. Its 
 essential oil is now sold in the shops, but under 
 the erroneous name of oil of spikenard, which 
 is a very different substance [Nard]. In Cant, 
 iv. 14 it is mentioned along with spikenard, 
 saffron, cinnamon, trees of frankincense, myrrh, 
 and aloes. Again, its value is indicated in Isa. 
 (xliii. 24) ‘ thou hast bought me no sweet cane 
 with money and that it was obtained from a dis- 
 tant land is indicated in Jer. vi. 20, ‘ to what pur- 
 pose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and 
 the sweet cane from a far country?’ — while the 
 route of the commerce is pointed out in Ezek. 
 xxvii. 19, ‘ Dan also and Javan going to and fro 
 occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and 
 calamus were in thy market.’ To the Scripture 
 notices, then, as well as to the description of 
 Dioscorides, the tall grass which yields the fra- 
 grant grass- oil of Central India answers in every 
 respect : the author of this article consequently 
 named and figuied it as the Kaneh bosem in his 
 Illustr. & of Himal. Botany , p. 425, t. 97.— 
 
 J. F. R. 
 
 KARCOM (D3"}5 5 Sept, upouos) occurs only 
 once in the Old Testament, viz. in Cant. iv. 14, 
 where it is mentioned along with several fragrant 
 and stimulant substances, such as spikenard, cala- 
 mus, and cinnamon, trees of frankincense, myrrh, 
 and aloes (ahalim) ; we may, therefore, suppose 
 that it was some substance possessed of similar 
 properties. The 1 name, however, is so similar 
 
 to the Persian V karkam , and both to the 
 
 Greek Kpouos, that we have no difficulty in trac- 
 ing the Hebrew karcom to the modern crocus or 
 saffron ; but, in fact, the most ancient Greek 
 translators of the Old Testament considered 
 Kp6tcos as the synonyme for karcom. It is also 
 probable that all three names had one common 
 origin, saffron having from the earliest times 
 been cultivated in Asiatic countries, as it still is 
 in Persia and Cashmere. Crocus is mentioned 
 by Homer, Hippocrates, and Theophrastus. Dios- 
 curi des describes the different kinds cf it, and 
 Pliny states that the benches of the public theatres 
 
198 
 
 KARCOM. 
 
 KARPAS. 
 
 were strewed with saffron : indeed ‘ the ancients 
 frequently made use of this flower in perfumes. 
 Not only saloons, theatres, and places which were 
 to be tilled with a pleasant fragrance were strewed 
 with this substance, but all sorts of vinous tinc- 
 tures retaining the scent were made of it. and 
 this costly perfume was poured into small foun- 
 tains, which diffused the odour which was so 
 highly esteemed. Even fruit and confitures placed 
 before guests and the ornaments of the rooms 
 were spread over with it. It was used for the 
 same purposes as the modern pot-pourri ’ (Rosen- 
 miiller, Bibl. Bot. p. 138). In the present day 
 a very high price is given in India for saffron 
 imported from Cashmere ; native dishes are often 
 coloured and flavoured with it, and it is in high 
 esteem as a stimulant medicine. The common 
 name, saffron, is no doubt derived from the 
 
 Arabic zafran , as are the corresponding 
 
 terms in most of the languages of Europe. 
 
 Nothing, therefore, was more likely than that 
 saffron should be associated with the foregoing 
 fragrant substances in the passage of Canticles, 
 as it still continues to be esteemed by Asiatic 
 nations, and, as we have seen, to be cultivated 
 by them. Kassel quist also, in reference to this 
 Biblical plant, describes the ground between 
 Smyrna and Magnesia as in some places covered 
 with saffron, and Rauwolf mentions gardens and 
 fields of crocus in the neighbourhood of Aleppo, 
 and particularizes a fragrant variety in Syria. 
 
 The name saffron , as usually applied, does 
 not denote the whole plant, nor even the whole 
 flower of crocus sativus, but only the stigmas, 
 with part of the style, which, being plucked out, 
 are carefully dried. These, when prepared, are 
 dry, narrow, thread-like, and twisted together, of 
 an orange-yellow colour, having a peculiar aro- 
 matic and penetrating odour, with a bitterish and 
 somewhat aromatic taste, tinging the mouth and 
 saliva of a yellow colour. Sometimes the stigmas 
 are prepared by being submitted to pressure, and 
 thus made into what is called cake saffron, a 
 form in which it is still imported from Persia 
 into India. Hay saffron is obtained in this country 
 
 chiefly from France and Spain, though it ia also 
 sometimes prepared from the native crocus culti- 
 vated for this purpose. Saffron was formerly 
 highly esteemed as a stimulant medicine, and 
 still enjoys high repute in Eastern countries, both 
 as a medicine and as a condiment. — J. F. R. 
 
 KARPAS (DD~)5) occurs in the boon of 
 Esther (i. 6), in the description of the hangings 
 ‘ in the court of the garden of the king’s palace,’ 
 at the time of the great feast given in the city 
 Shushan, or Susan, by Ahasuerus, who ‘ reigned 
 from India even unto Ethiopia.’ We nre told that 
 there were white, green ( karpas ), and blue hang- 
 ings fastened with cords of fine linen and purple 
 to silver rings and pillars of marble. Karpas 
 is translated green in our version, on the autho- 
 rity, it is said, ‘ of the Chaldee paraphrase,’ 
 where it is'interpreted leek-green. Rosenmuller 
 and others derive the Hebrew word from the 
 
 Arabic kurufs , which signifies ‘ garden- 
 
 parsley,’ opium petroselinum, as if it alluded to 
 the green colour of this plant ; at the same time 
 arguing that as ‘ the word karpas is placed be- 
 tween two other words which undoubtedly denote 
 colours, viz., the white and the purple-blue , it 
 probably also does the same.’ But if two of the 
 words denote colours, it would appear a good rea- 
 son why the third should refer to the substance 
 which was coloured. This, there is little doubt, 
 is what was intended. If we consider that the 
 Occurrences related took place at the Persian 
 court at a time when it held sway even unto 
 India, and that the account is by some supposed 
 to have been originally written in the ancient 
 language of Persia, we may suppose that some 
 foreign words may have been introduced to in- 
 dicate even an already well-known substance x 
 but more especially so if the substance itself was 
 then first made known to the Hebrews. 
 
 The Hebrew karpas is very similar to the 
 Sanscrit karpasum, karpasa , or karpase, signi- 
 fying the cotton-plant. Celsius ( [Hierobot . i. 
 159) states that the Arabs and Persians have 
 karphas and kirbas as names for cotton. These 
 must no doubt be derived from the Sanscrit, while 
 the word kapas is now applied throughout India 
 to cotton witli the seed, and may even be seen in 
 English prices-current. Kdp7ra<ros occurs in the 
 Periplus of Arrian, who states that the region 
 about the Gulf of Barygaze, in India, was pro- 
 ductive ot carpasus, and of the fine Indian mus- 
 lins made of it. The word is no doubt derived 
 from the Sanscrit karpasa, and though it has been 
 translated fine muslin by Dr. Vincent, it may 
 mean cotton cloths, or calico in general. Mr. 
 Yates, in his recently published and valuable 
 work, Textriniim Antiquorum , states that the 
 earliest notice of this Oriental name in any 
 classical author which he has met with, is the line 
 ‘ Carbasina, molochina, ampelina ’ of Caecilius 
 Statius, who died b.c. 169. Mr. Yates infers that as 
 this poet translated from the Greek, so the Greeks 
 must have made use of muslins or calicoes, &c., 
 which were brought from India as early as 200 
 years b.c. See his work, as well as that of Cel- 
 sius, for numerous quotations from classical 
 authors, where carbasus occurs ; proving that not 
 only the word, but the substance which it in- 
 dicated, was known to the ancients subsequent 
 
KEDAR. 
 
 KEN1TES. 
 
 199 
 
 10 this period. It might, indeed must, have been 
 known long before to t lie Persians, as constant 
 communication took ulace by caravans between 
 the north of India and Persia, as has been clearly 
 shown by Heeren. Cotton was known to Ctesias, 
 who lived so long at the Persian court. 
 
 Nothing can he more suitable than cotton, 
 white and blue, in the above passage of Esther, 
 as the writer of this article long since (1837) re- 
 marked in a note in his Essay on the Antiquity 
 of Hindoo Medicine , p. 145 : ‘ Hanging curtains 
 made with calico, usually in stripes of different 
 colours and padded with cotton, called purdahs, 
 are employed throughout India as a substitute for 
 doors.’ They may Ire seen used for the very pur- 
 poses mentioned in the text in the court of the 
 King of Delhi’s palace, where, on a paved 
 mosaic terrace, rows of slender pillars support a 
 light roof, from which hang by rings immense 
 padded and striped curtains, which may be rolled 
 up or removed at pleasure. These either increase 
 light or ventilation, and form, in fact, a kind of 
 movable wall to the building, which is used as 
 one of the halls of audience. This kind of 
 structure was probably introduced by the Persian 
 conquerors of India, and therefore may serve to 
 explain the object of the colonnade in front of 
 the palace in the ruins of Persepolis ["Cotton]. 
 
 w J. F. R. 
 
 KEDAR (Tig, black; Sept. KrjSap), a son 
 of Ishmael, and the name of the tribe of which 
 he was the founder. The name is sometimes 
 used in Scripture as that of the Bedouins gene- 
 rally, probably because this tribe was the nearest 
 to them, and was best acquainted with them 
 (Cant. i. 5; Isa. xxi. 16, 17; lx. 7). A great 
 body of speculation founded upon the mean- 
 ing of the word, namely, ‘ black,’ may be dis- 
 missed as wholly useless. The Kedarenes were so 
 called from Kedar, and not because they lived 
 in ‘ black ’ tents, or because they were ‘ blackened’ 
 by the hot sun of Southern Arabia ; neither of 
 which ' circumstances could, even if true, have 
 been foreseen at the time that Kedar received 
 his name. 
 
 KEDEMOTH (nb^jj ; Sept. Ba^ycid), a 
 city in the tribe of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 18), near 
 the river Arnon, which gave its name to the wil- 
 derness of Kedemoth, on the borders of that river, 
 from whence Moses sent messengers of peace to 
 Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut. ii. 26), the southern 
 frontier of whose kingdom, and the boundary 
 between the kingdom of the Ammonites and the 
 Moabites, was the Arnon. 
 
 KEDESH (KHj? ; Sept. K abrjs). There were 
 two cities of this name, one in the tribe of Judah 
 (Josh. xv. 23), and the other in the tribe of 
 Naphtali (xix. 37). This last was the more con- 
 siderable of the two: it was a Levitical city, 
 and one of the six cities of refuge. As the Kedesh, 
 whose king was slain by Joshua, is mentioned 
 among the cities of the north (xii. 22), if was 
 doubtless the Kedesh of Naphtali, of which also 
 Barak was a native (Judg. iv. 6). 
 
 KEDRON. [Kidron. 
 
 KEILAH ; Sept. Kei’Aa), a city of 
 
 the tribe of Judah (Josh xv. 44), about twenty 
 miles south-west from Jerusalem. When this 
 
 city was besieged by the Philistines, David was 
 commissioned by God to relieve it; notwith- 
 standing which, if he had not made his escape, 
 the ungrateful inhabitants would have delivered 
 him into the hands of Saul (1 Sam. xxiii. 1-13). 
 Keilah was a considerable city in the time of 
 Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 17, 18), and existed in the 
 days of Eusebius and Jerome, who place it eight 
 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis on the road to 
 Hebron. 
 
 KEMUEL assembly of God;. Sept. 
 
 Ka/j.ovf]?C), third son of Abraham’s brother Nahor, 
 and father of six sons, the first of whom is 
 named Aram, and the last Bethuel (Gen. xxii. 
 21, 23). All these are unknown, except the last, 
 who was the father of Laban and Rebekah (Gen. 
 xxiv. 15). Aram is manifestly no other than a 
 proper name which Kemuel gave to his first- 
 born ; but as it is also the Hebrew name of Syria, 
 some commentators have most strangely conceived 
 that the Syrians were descended from him. This 
 is truly surprising, seeing that Syria was already 
 peopled ere he was born, and that Laban (Gen. 
 xxviii. 5) and Jacob (Deut. xxvi. 5) are both 
 called ‘ Syrians,’ although neither of them was 
 descended from Kemuel’s son Aram. The mis- , 
 conception originated with the Septuagint, which 
 too often undertakes to translate proper names, 
 and in this case renders 'HX, ‘ father of 
 
 Aram,’ by tt arepa v, ‘ father of the Syrians.’ 
 
 KENAZ (TJ(P., hunting ; Sept. Kev4Q. 1. A 
 descendant of Esau; also a place or tract of 
 country in Arabia Petraea, named after him 
 (Gen. xxx vi. 11, 15, 42). 
 
 2. The younger brother of Caleb, and father 
 of Othniel, who married Caleb’s daughter (Josh, 
 xv. 17 ; Judg. i. 13 ; 1 Chron. iv. 13). 
 
 3. A grandson of Caleb (1 Chron. iv. 15). 
 
 KENITES (Wg; Sept. K ivaioi), a tribe of 
 Midianities dwelling among the Amalekites 
 (1 Sam. xv. 6; comp, Num. xxiv. 20, 21), or 
 occupying in semi-nomadic life the same region 
 with the latter people in Arabia Petraea. When 
 Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites, the 
 Kenites, who had joined them, perhaps upon com- 
 pulsion, were ordered to depart from them that 
 they might not share their fate ; and the reason 
 assigned was, that they ‘ shewed kindness to the 
 children of Israel when they came out of Egypt.’ 
 This kindness is supposed to have been that 
 which Jethro and his family showed to Moses, 
 as well as to the Israelites themselves, in conse- 
 quence of which the whole tribe appears to have 
 been treated with consideration, while the family 
 of Jethro itself accompanied the Israelites into 
 Palestine, where they continued to lead a nomade 
 life, occupying there a position similar to that 
 of the Tartar tribes in Persia at the nresent day. 
 To this family belonged Heber, the husband of 
 that Jael who slew Sisera, and who is hence called 
 ‘ Heber the Kenite’ (Judg. iv. 11). At a later 
 age other families of Kenites are mentioned as 
 resident in Palestine, among whom were the 
 Rechabites (1 Chron. ii. 55; Jer. xxxv. 2); but 
 it is not clear whether these were subdivisions of 
 the increasing descendants of Jethro, as seems 
 most likely, or families which availed themselves 
 of the friendly dispositions of the Israelites towards 
 the tribe to settle in the country. It aonears 
 
200 
 
 KENIZZITES. 
 
 KETZACH. 
 
 that, whatever was the general condition of the 
 Midianites, the tribe of the Kenites possessed a 
 knowledge of the true God in the time of Jethro 
 [Hobab] ; and that those families which settled in 
 Palestine did not afterwards lose that knowledge, 
 but increased it, is clear from the passages which 
 have been cited [Midianites ; Rechabites]. 
 
 KEN1ZZ1TES Sept. KeveCcuoi), a 
 
 Canaanitish tribe, mentioned in Gen. xv. 19, along 
 with others, over which it was promised that 
 the seed of Abraham should have dominion. The 
 notion that they sprung from Kenaz, the grandson 
 of Edom, and had their dwelling somewhere in 
 Idumaea, cannot be entertained, seeing that the 
 tribe is named long before Kenaz had existence. 
 The Kenizzites of Num. xxxii. 12; Josh. xiv. 6, 
 appear, however, to be a different race, the origin 
 of which may without improbability be ascribed 
 to Kenaz. The Kenizzites are not named among 
 the nations whom the Israelites eventually sub- 
 dued ; whence it may be supposed that they had 
 by that time merged into some of the other na- 
 tions which Israel overcame. 
 
 KETURAH (rn-lBi?, incense ; Sept. Xer- 
 ovpa ), the second wife, or, as she is called in 1 
 Chron. i. 32, the concubine of Abraham, by whom 
 he had six sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, 
 Ishbak, and Shuah, whom he lived to see grow 
 to man’s estate, and whom he established ‘ in 
 die East country,’ that they might not interfere 
 with Isaac (Gen. xxv. 1-6). As Abraham was 
 100 years old when Isaac was who was 
 
 given to him by the special bounty of Providence 
 when ‘ he was as good as dead’ (Heb. xi. 12), 
 as he was 140 years old when Sarah died ; and 
 as he himself died at the age of 175 years, — it has 
 seemed improbable that these six sons should have 
 been born to Abraham by one woman after he 
 was 140 years old, and that lie should have seen 
 them all grow up to adult age, and have sent 
 them forth to form independent settlements in 
 that last and feeble period of his life. If Isaac 
 was born to him out of the course of nature when 
 he was 100 years old, how could six sons be 
 born to him in the course of nature after he was 
 140? It has therefore been suggested by good 
 commentators, that as Keturah is called Abra- 
 ham’s ‘ concubine’ in Chronicles, and as she and 
 Hagar are probably indicated as his ‘ concubines’ 
 in Gen. xxv. 6, Keturah had in fact been taken 
 by Abraham as his secondary or concubine-wife 
 before the death of Sarah, although the historian 
 relates the incident after that event, that his lead- 
 ing narrative might not be interrupted. Accord- 
 ing to the standard of morality then acknowledged, 
 Abraham might quite as properly have taken 
 Keturah before as after Sarah’s death ; nor can 
 any reason why he should not have done so, or 
 why he should have waited till then, be con- 
 ceived. This explanation obviates many diffi- 
 culties, and does not itself contain any. 
 
 KETZACH (nV(2 ; Sept. peXavdiov), also 
 written Kezach and Ketsah, occurs only in Isa. 
 xxviii. 25, 27, and is translated fitches , that is, 
 vetches , in the Authorized Version. It is no 
 doubt from the difficulty of proving the precise 
 meaning of ketzach , that different plants have 
 been assigned as its representative. But if we refer 
 to the context, we learn some particulars which 
 
 at least restrict it to a certain group, namely, t« 
 such as are cultivated. Thus, ver. 25, ‘ When 
 he (the ploughman) hath made plain the face 
 thereof, doth he not cast abroad the fitches 
 (ketzach) V And again, ver. 27, ‘ For the fitches 
 are not threshed with a threshing instrument, 
 neither is a cart-wheel turned about upon the 
 cummin; but fitches are beaten out with a staff, 
 and the cummin with a rod.’ From which we 
 learn that the grain called ketzach was easily 
 separated from its capsule, and therefore beater, 
 out with a stick. 
 
 Although ketzach , in Chaldee kizcha, is a’- 
 ways acknowledged to denote some seed, y.-t 
 interpreters have had great difficulty in deter- 
 mining the particular kind intended, some trans- 
 lating it peas, others, as Luther and the English 
 Version, vetches , but without any proof. Meiho- 
 mius considers it to be the white poppy, and others, 
 a black seed. This last interpretation has the most 
 numerous, as well as the oldest, authorities in its 
 support. Of these a few are in favour of the 
 black poppy-seed, but the majority, of a black 
 seed common in Egypt, &c. (Celsius, Ilierobot. 
 ii. 70). The Sept, translates it ixs\avQiov, the 
 Vulg. git, and Tremellius melanthium , while 
 the Arabic has shoonez. All these mean the 
 same thing, namely, a very black-coloured and 
 aromatic seed, still cultivated and in daily 
 employment as a condiment in the East. Thus 
 Pliny (xx. 17. 71), ‘ Gith ex Graecis, alii 
 melanthion, alii melanspermon vocant. Opti- 
 mum, quam excitatissimi odoris ft quam niger- 
 rimum.’ By Dioscorides (iii. 93), or the ancient 
 author who is suppose d to have added the syno- 
 nymes, we are informed that p.e\w6ioy was alsc 
 called the ‘ wild black poppy,’ that the seed 
 was black, acrid, and aromatic, in d that it was 
 
KETZIOTH. 
 
 KETZIOTH. 
 
 20 
 
 added to bread or cakes, ^-rrep/ia peXau, 8pi/j.v, 
 evcodcs, kot aTrXaa a 6 p.erov elsixprovs. Pliny also 
 says, ‘ Melanthii, vel melanspermi semen gratis- 
 sime panes condit.’ Melantliium is universally 
 recognised by botanists to be the Nigella. Thus 
 Bauhin Pinax, 4 Nigella, a nigro sexninis colore 
 
 communiter dicta fxe\avQiov est.’ The 
 
 shoonez, of the Arabs is, moreover, the same plant 
 or seed, which is usually called ‘ black cumin.’ 
 So one kind of cumin is said by Dioscorides 
 to have seeds like those of melanthion or nigella. 
 It was commonly cultivated in Egypt, and 
 P. Alpinus mentions it as 4 Suneg ^Egyptiis.’ 
 The Arabs, besides shoonez, also call it hub-al- 
 souda, and the Persians seah dana, both words 
 signifying black seed. One species, named 
 A. Indica by Dr. Roxburgh, is called kalajeera 
 in India, that is, black zeera or cumin, of the 
 family of Ranunculaceae. * Nigella sativa is 
 alone cultivated in India, as in most eastern 
 countries, and continues in the present day, as in 
 the most ancient times, to he used both as a con- 
 diment and as a medicine’ ( Illust . Himal. Bot ., 
 p. 46). If we consider that this appears to have 
 been always one of the cultivated grains of the 
 East, and compare the character of nigella with 
 the passages in which ketzach is mentioned, we 
 shall find that the former is applicable to them 
 all. Indeed, Rabbi Obadias de Bartenora states, 
 that the barbarous or vulgar name of the kezach, 
 was nielle, that is, nigella. The various species 
 of nigella are herbaceous (several of them being 
 indigenous in Europe, others cultivated in most 
 parts of Asia), with their leaves deeply cut and 
 linear, their flowers terminal, most of them having 
 under the calyx leafy involucres which often 
 half surround the flower. The fruit is composed 
 of five or six capsules, which are compressed, ob- 
 long, pointed, sometimes said to be hornlike, 
 united below, and divided into several cells, and 
 enclosing numerous, angular, scabrous, black- 
 coloured seeds. From the nature of the capsules, 
 it is evident, that when they are ripe, the seeds 
 might easily be shaken out by moderate blows of 
 a stick, as is related to have been the case with 
 the ketzacli of the text. — J. F. R. 
 
 KETZIOTH (ril^Vi?) is translated Cassia in 
 the Authorized Version, and is said to be derived 
 from yVp, to cut off: it therefore denotes ‘ pieces 
 cut off,’ or 4 fragments,’ and hence is applicable to 
 cassia. But many of these derivations have often 
 been traced out in ignorance of the names and 
 properties of the various substances known to the 
 nations of antiquity. Cassia is mentioned in 
 three places (Exod. xxx. 24; Ezek. xxvii. 19; 
 and in Ps. xlv. 8), in conjunction with myrrh, 
 cinnamon, sweet calamus, and ahalim, or eagle- 
 ivood. All these are aromatic substances, and, 
 with the exception of myrrh, which is obtained 
 from Africa, are products of India and its islands. 
 It is probable, therefore, that ketzioth is of a 
 similar nature, and obtained from the same 
 countries. Both cinnamon [Kinnamon] and 
 cassia [Kiddah] were no doubt known to the 
 ancients, and this is one step of the investigation ; 
 but to prove that the Hebrew words are correctly 
 translated is another, which must be proceeded 
 with before we can infer that the kiddah of 
 Exod. xxx. 24 and Ezek. xxvii. 19, and the 
 
 ketzioth of Ps. xlv. 8, both signify the same 
 thing. This has not been the opinion of several 
 translators and commentators ; the first having 
 been variously rendered iris, stacte, costus , ginger, 
 canna, fistula, amber, ketziah, and cassia, while 
 ketzioth , or ketziah, has been rendered cassia, 
 acacia, amber, ginger, and aloes. The Arabic 
 translator has considered it synonymous with the 
 Arabic name salicha , which is no doubt applied 
 to cassia. 
 
 Mr. Harmer has already remarked that, little 
 copious as the Hebrew language is, there are 
 in it no fewer than four different words, at least, 
 which have been rendered ‘ linen,’ or 4 fine linen,’ 
 by our translators. This would hardly have been 
 the case had there not been different kinds of linen. 
 The same thing may be said of cassia, for which 
 we have seen that there are two distinct words 
 in the Hebrew — Kiddah , which will be treated 
 of in a separate article, and Ketzioth , to which 
 it is now our object to direct attention. It 
 occurs only once, in Ps. xlv. 8 : ‘ All thy gar- 
 ments smell of myrrh, and aloes (ahalim), and 
 cassia (ketzioth).' It has been observed with 
 reference to this passage that 4 The garments ot 
 princes are often imbued with costly perfumes, 
 those of the high-priests were anointed with holy 
 ointment.’ We have seen above that ketzioth has 
 been variously translated, but no one seems to 
 have noticed the resemblance of this word to the 
 kooth and koost of the Arabs, of which Kooshta 
 is said by their authors to be the Syriac name, 
 and from which there is little doubt that the 
 k6(ttos of the Greeks, and costus of the Latins, 
 are derived. 
 
 4 Costum molle date, et blande mihi turis 
 odores, 
 
 Ure puer costum Assyrium redolentibus aris.’ 
 
 KScttos is enumerated by Theophrastus (Hist. 
 PI. ix. 7.) among the fragrant substances em- 
 ployed in making ointment. Three kinds of 
 it are described by Dioscorides, among his 
 Aromata (i. 15), of which the Arabian is said to 
 be the best, the Indian to hold the second place, 
 and the .Syrian the third. Pliny mentions only 
 two kinds (xv. 12), 4 Radix et folium Indis est 
 maximo pretio. Radix costi gustu fervens, odore 
 eximio, frutice alias inutili. Primo statim in- 
 troitu amnis Indi in Patale insula, duo sunt ejus 
 genera — nigrum, et quod melius, candicans.’ 
 The Persian writers on Materia Medica in use in 
 India, in giving the above synonymes, evidently 
 refer to two of the three kinds of Costus described 
 by Dioscorides, one being called Koost Ilindee , 
 and the other Koost Arabee. The writer of this 
 article obtained both these kinds in the bazaars of 
 India, and found, moreover, that the hoot or koost 
 of the natives was often, by European merchants, 
 called Indian orris, i. e. Iris root, the odour of 
 which it somewhat resembles. Subsequently he 
 ascertained that this article was known in Cal- 
 cutta as Puchuh , the name under which it is 
 exported to China. The identity of the sub- 
 stance indicated by these various names was 
 long ago ascertained, though not then known to the 
 present writer. Thus Garcias ab Horto, 4 Esr 
 ergo Costus d ictus Arabibus Cost aut Cast: — 
 
 4 In Malacca, ubi ejus plurimus est usus, Pucho . 
 et inde vehitur in Sinarum legionem.’ Having 
 obtained the koost in the north-western provinces 
 of India, the writer traced it afterwards as one 
 
302 
 
 KIEEROTH. 
 
 KIDRON. 
 
 of the sabstances brought across the Indus from 
 Lahore ( Illust . Himal. Bot. p. 360). When 
 Dr. Falconer proceeded on his journey to Cash- 
 mere, he was requested to make inquiries respect- 
 ing this substance, and he discovered that it was 
 exported from that: valley in large quantities into 
 the Punjab ; whence it finds its way to Bombay 
 (as in the time of Pliny to Patala) and Calcutta, 
 for export to China, where it is highly valued as 
 one of the ingredients in the incense which the 
 Chinese burn in their temples and private houses. 
 Finding the plant to belong to a new genus, he 
 named it Aucklandia, in compliment to the 
 Governor-General of India, and tiie species 
 Aucklandia Costus (Linn. Trans, xix. 23). 
 Considering, therefore, that costus was one of the 
 articles of ancient commerce and is mentioned by 
 Theophrastus as employed in the composition of 
 perfumed unguents, and considering the similarity 
 of the Syriac kooshta, and the Arabic kccst, to the 
 ketzioth of Scripture, and from their correspond- 
 ence in properties and uses, the latter appears 
 more likely to be the costus of the ancients, 
 than cassia , for which there is another name 
 [Kiddah].— J. F. R. 
 
 KIBEROTH- H ATTAVAH, an encampment 
 of the Israelites in the wilderness [Wandering]. 
 
 KIDDAH (ITlj?), as well as Ketzioth, i 3 
 rendered Cassia in our Authorized Version ; but 
 translators do not uniformly coincide in, though 
 the great majority are in favour of, this interpreta- 
 tion. It is well known that the Greeks were ac- 
 quainted with several varieties of cassia ; and as 
 one of these was called kitto, Kirrdo (Dioscor. i. 12), 
 this has been thought to be the same word as the 
 
 Hebrew mp, from Tip, in Arabic Jo, to split , 
 
 hew, or tear anything lengthwise , as must be 
 done in separating cassia bark from the tree. 
 But it does not follow that this is a correct inter- 
 pretation of the origin of the name of an Eastern 
 product. The word occurs first in Exod. xxx. 
 24, where cassia ( kiddah ) is mentioned in con- 
 nection with olive oil, pure myrrh, sweet cinna- 
 mon, and sweet calamus ; secondly, in Ezek. 
 xxviii. 19, where Dan and Javan are described 
 as bringing bright iron, cassia (kiddah), and 
 calamus to the markets of Tyre. There is no 
 reason why the substance now called cassia 
 might not have been imported from the shores 
 of India into Egypt and Palestine. Consi- 
 derable confusion has, however, been created 
 by the same name having been applied by bota- 
 nists to a genus containing the plants yielding 
 senna, and to others, as the cassia fistula , which 
 have nothing to do with the original cassia. 
 Cassia-buds, again, though no doubt produced by 
 a plant belonging to the same, or to some genus 
 allied to that producing cinnamon and cassia, 
 were probably not known in commerce at so 
 early a period as the two latter substances. There 
 is some difficulty also in determining what the 
 ancient cassia was. The author of this article, 
 in his Antiquity of Hindoo Medicine , p. 84, has 
 already remarked, ‘ The cassia of the ancients it 
 is not easy to determine ; that of commerce, Mr. 
 Marshall says, consists of only the inferior kinds 
 of cinnamon. Some consider cassia to be distin- 
 guished from cinnamon by the outer cellular 
 covering of the bark being scraped off the latter, 
 
 but allowed to remain on the forme/. This is, 
 however, the characteristic of the (Cochii Chinese) 
 cinnamomum aromaticum , as we are informed 
 by Mr. Crawford (Embassy to Siam, p 470) that 
 it is not cured, like that of Ceylon, by freeing it 
 from the epidermis.’ There is, certainly, no doubt 
 that some cassia is produced on the coast o i 
 Malabar. The name also would appear to be of 
 Eastern origin, as kasse koronde is one kind of 
 cinnamon, as mentioned by Burmann in his Flora 
 Zeylonica ; but it will be preferable to treat of 
 the whole subject in connection with cinnamon 
 [Kinnamon]. — J. F. R. 
 
 KIDRON (flTlp, the turbid : Sept. KtSpuy), 
 the brook or winter torrent which flows through 
 the valley of Jehoshaphat (as it is now called)^ 
 on the east side of Jerusalem. ‘ The brook Kidron' 
 is the only name by which ‘ the valley ’ itself is 
 known in Scripture ; for it is by no means certain, 
 nor even probable, that the name ‘ valley of Je- 
 hoshaphat’ in Joel (iii. 12) was intended to apply 
 to this valley. The word rendered * brook’ (2 Sam. 
 xv. 23; 1 Kings ii. 37, &c.), is Wu nachal, 
 which may be taken as equivalent to the Arabic 
 Wady , meaning a stream and its bed or valley, 
 or properly the valley of a stream, even when the 
 stream is dry. The Septuagint, Josephus, and 
 the Evangelists (John xviii. 1), designate it 
 pappos, a storm brook, or winter torrent. 
 
 The brook Kidron derives all its importance 
 from its vicinity to the holy city, being nothing 
 more than the dry bed of a winter torrent, bearing 
 marks of being occasionally swept over by a large 
 volume of water. No stream flows through it, 
 except during the heavy rains of winter, when 
 the waters descend into it from the neighbouring 
 hills. But even in winter there is no constant 
 flow, and the resident missionaries assured Dr. 
 Robinson that they had not during several years 
 seen a stream running through the valley. The 
 ravine in which the stream is collected takes its 
 origin above a mile to the north-east of the city. 
 This ravine deepens as it proceeds, and forms an 
 angle opposite the temple. It then takes a south- 
 east direction, and, passing between the village of 
 Siloam and the city, runs off in the direction of 
 the Dead Sea, through a singularly wild gorge, the 
 course of which few travellers have traced (Pic- 
 torial Palestine, Introd. p. cxciv.). it. is in this 
 ravine that the celebrated monastery of Santa 
 Saba is situated. Mr. Madden, who went through 
 the valley to the Dead Sea, thus speaks of the 
 character which it assumes as it approaches 
 the monastery : — ‘ After traversing for the last 
 hour a wild ravine, formed by two rugged perpen- 
 dicular mountains, the sides of which contained 
 innumerable caverns, which once formed a sort 
 of troglodyte city, in which the early Christians 
 resided, the sight of the convent in this desolate 
 place was like a glimpse of paradise.’ On leav- 
 ing the convent the next day he says that he 
 ‘ marched through the bed of the Kidron, along 
 the horrible ravine which he entered the day be- 
 fore ;’ but he gives no account of its outlet into the 
 Dead Sea. This defect is supplied by Dr. Ro- 
 binson (Biblical Researches, ii. 249), who, on 
 passing along the western borders of the lake, 
 came ‘ to the deep and almost impassable ravine 
 of the Kidron, running down by Mar Saba, and 
 thence called Wady-er-Rahib, '* Monk’s Valley;*’ 
 
KIKAYON, 
 
 KIKAYON. 
 
 203 
 
 Suit here also bearing the name of Wady en-Nar, 
 
 « Fire Valley.” At this place it was running 
 E.S.E., in a deep narrow channel, between per- 
 pendicular walls of rock, as if worn away by the 
 rushing waters between these desolate chalky 
 hi 1 Is. There was, however, no water in it now ; 
 nor had there apparently been any for a long time.’ 
 
 KIKAYON occurs only in Jonah iv., 
 
 where it is several times mentioned, as in ver. 6, 7, 
 9, 10. It is translated gourd in our Authorized 
 Version, probably from the KoXonivQr) of the 
 Septuagint, often rendered cucurbita. In the 
 margin of the English Bible, Palm-Christ is 
 given. In the Vulgate kikayon is translated 
 hedeva , ‘ ivy.’ Neither the gourd nor ivy is con- 
 sidered by modern writers to indicate the plant 
 intended; which is remarkable for having given 
 rise to some fierce controversies in the 'early ages of 
 the Church. The difficulties here, however, do not 
 appear to be so great as in many other instances. 
 But before considering these, it is desirable to 
 ascertain what are the characteristics of the plant 
 as required by the text. We are told, ‘ The Lord 
 God prepared a gourd (kikayon), and made it 
 to come over Jonah, that it might be a shadow 
 over his head,’ &c. (ver. 6). ‘ But God prepared 
 a worm when the morning rose the next day, 
 and it smote the gourd that it withered ’ (ver. 7). 
 And in ver. 10 it is said of the gourd that it 
 ‘ came up in a night, and perished in a night.’ 
 Hence it appears that the growth of the kikayon 
 was miraculous, but that it was probably a plant 
 •f tire country, being named specifically ; also 
 tiiat it was capable of affording shade, and might 
 be easily destroyed. There does not appear any- 
 thing in this account to warrant us in considering 
 it to be the ivy, which is a plant of slow growth, 
 cannot support itself, and is, moreover, not likely 
 to be found in the hot and arid country of an- 
 cient Nineveh, though we have ourselves found 
 it in more southern latitudes, but only in the 
 temperate climate of the Himalayan Mountains. 
 The ivy was adduced probably only from the 
 resemblance of its Greek name, KicraSs, to kika- 
 yon. That the kikayon was thought to be a 
 gourd seems to have arisen from the kiki of the 
 
 Egyptians being the kherwa, of the Arabs, 
 
 often incorrectly written keroa , that is, with- 
 out the aspirate, which makes it very similar 
 
 to kura, when written in Roman characters ; 
 
 which last in the East is applied to the gourd or 
 pumpkin (Avicenna, c. 622), and is probably the 
 Lagcnaria vulgaris. Many modern authors mis- 
 take the one for the other. To this plant, no doubt, 
 the following passages refer, ‘ The Christians and 
 Jews of Mosul (Nineveh) say it was not the keroa 
 whose shadow refreshed Jonah, but a sort of gourd, 
 el-kera , which has very large leaves, very large 
 fruit, and lasts but about four months’ (Niebuhr, 
 Arabia, as quoted by Dr. Harris). So Volney : 
 ‘ Whoever has travelled to Cairo or Rosetta knows 
 that the species of gourd called kerra will, in 
 twenty-four hours, send out shoots near four inches 
 ’ong’ ( Trav. i. 71). 
 
 The Hebrew name kikayon is so similar to 
 ne kiki of Dioscorides, that it was early thought 
 io indicate the same plant. Dioscorides (iv. 
 164 , weol k(k€<os) states that the kiki, or croton , 
 
 is called wild sesamum by some 4 Ricini 
 aulem nomen accepit a similitudine quae eet 
 illius semini cum rieino animali. Arbuscula 
 est parvae ficus altitudine, foliis platani, trun- 
 cis ramisque cavis in calami modum, semine 
 in uvis asperis. Ex eo oleum kikinum expri- 
 mitur, cibis quidem inepturn ; sed alias et ad 
 lucernas et emplastra utile.’ Thus giving in a 
 few words a graphic description of Iiicinus com - 
 munis, or castor-oil j^ant, of which the seeds have 
 some resemblance to the insect commonly called 
 tick in English, and which is found on dogs and 
 
 other animals. It has also been called Penia- 
 dactylus and Palma Christi, from the palmate 
 division of its leaves. It was known at much 
 earlier times, as Hippocrates employed it in 
 medicine ; and Herodotus mentions it by the 
 name of aiWiKvirpiov (ii. 94) when speaking of 
 Egypt : — ‘ The inhabitants of the marshy grounds 
 make use of an oil which they term kiki, ex- 
 pressed from the Sillicyprian plant.’ That it 
 has been known there from the earliest times is 
 evident from Caillaud having found castor-oil 
 seeds in some very ancient sarcophagi. That the 
 
 Arabs considered their kherwa to be the 
 
 same plant, is evident from Avicenna on this 
 article, or khirwaa of the translation of Plempius 
 (p. 301) ‘ Plantum hac scribit Dioscorides, 
 
 quidam crotona appellant, hoc est ricinum, a 
 similitudine quae est illius semini cum rieino 
 animali.’ So Serapion (iii. c. 79): — ‘ Cherva 
 sive kerua, sicuti ejus oleum, oleum kichas .’ 
 This oil was not only employed by the Greeks, 
 but also by the Jews, being the p'p kik- 
 oil of the Talmudists, prepared from the seeds ol 
 the ricinus (Rosenm filler, p. 127). ‘ Oleum (kik) 
 est quod exit ex granis.’ Lady (Walcott states that 
 the modem Jews of London use this oil, by the 
 name of oil of kik, for their Sabbath lamps, it 
 
204 
 
 K1MOSH. 
 
 KING. 
 
 
 being one of the five kinds of oil which their tra- 
 ditions allow them to employ. 
 
 Having ascertained that the kiki of the Greeks 
 is what is now called Ricinus communis , we shall 
 find that its characters correspond with everything 
 that is required, except the rapidity of growth, 
 which must be granted was miraculous. Dr. 
 Harris indeed states that the passage means, ‘ Son 
 of tire night it was, and as a son of the night it 
 died and that, therefore, we are not compelled 
 to believe that it grew in a single night, but 
 rather, by a strong Oriental figure, that it was of 
 rapid growth. This, (here is no doubt, it is 
 highly susceptible of in warm countries where 
 there is some moisture. It attains a considerable 
 size in one season ; and though in Europe it is 
 only known as a herb, in India it frequently may 
 be seen, especially at the margins of fields, the 
 size of a tree. So at Busra Niebuhr saw an 
 el-keroa which had the form and appearance of a 
 tree. The stems are erect, round, and hollow ; 
 the leaves broad, palmate, 5 to 8 or 10 lobed, 
 peltate, supported on long foot-stalks. The flowers 
 in terminal panicles ; the lower, male ; the upper, 
 female. Capsule tricoccous, covered with spines. 
 The seeds are oblong, oval, externally of a greyish 
 colour, but mottled with darker-coloured spols 
 and stripes. From the erect habit, and the breadth 
 of its foliage, this plant throws an ample shade, 
 especially when young. From the softness and 
 little substance of its stem, it may easily be de- 
 stroyed by insects, which Rumphius describes as 
 sometimes being the case. It would then neces- 
 sarily dry up rapidly. As it is well suited to the 
 country, and to the purpose indicated in the text, 
 and as its name kiki is so similar to kikayon , 
 it is doubtless the plant which the sacred penman 
 had in view. — J. F. R. 
 
 KIMOSH and KIMSHON and 
 
 occur, the first in Isa. xxxiv. 13, and 
 Hos. ix. 6, and the second in Prov. xxiv. 31, where 
 it is mentioned along with charul, which we be- 
 lieve to indicate charlock. The field of the sloth- 
 ful is there described as being grown over with 
 thorns ( charullim ), ‘and nettles ( kimshon ) had 
 covered the face thereof.’ In Isaiah it is said, 
 
 ‘ And thorns ( choach ) shall come up in the 
 palaces, nettles ( kimosh ) and brambles in the 
 fortresses thereof.’ Hos. ix. 6, ‘The pleasant 
 places for their silver, nettles ( kimosh ) shall pos- 
 sess them ; thorns ( choach ) shall be in their 
 tabernacles.’ 
 
 Though different interpretations have been given 
 of this word, as thorns, thistles, wild chamomile, 
 &c., the greatest number of authors have united 
 ir adopting nettles, chiefly in consequence of the 
 authority of Jewish writers. Thus, Rosenmuller 
 says, Rabbi Tanchum, on Hos. ix. 6, explains ki- 
 mosh by the common nettle, in Pococke’s 
 
 Comment, on Hosea. So R. Ben Melech, as quoted 
 and translated by Celsius ( [Hierobot . ii. p. 207) ‘ ex 
 antiquioribus Ebraeis, ad Proverb, xxiii. 13, species 
 est spinarum , et dicitur vulgo Urtica.’ Nettles 
 no doubt spring up rapidly in deserted as in in- 
 habited places, in fields, ditches, and road sides, 
 but most frequently where there is some moisture 
 in the soil or climate. Though they are found 
 in tropical situations, as well as in temperate 
 cl'mes, yet the springing up of nettles in deserted 
 
 places is rather an European than an Oriental 
 idea. Though kimosh has not yet been proved 
 to indicate the nettle, this plant has been received 
 by the rabbins, and is as well suited to the pass- 
 ages in which it occurs as any other which has 
 hitherto been suggested. — J. F. R. 
 
 KING, a title applied in the Scriptures to 
 men (Luke xxii. 25 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; 1 Pet. ii. 
 13-17), to God (1 Tim. i. 17; vi. 15, 16), and to 
 Christ (Matt, xxvii. 11; Luke xix. 38; John i. 
 49; vi. 15; xviii. 32-37) — to men, as invested 
 with regal authority by their fellows; to God, as 
 the sole proper sovereign and ruler of the universe ; 
 and to Christ, as the Messiah, the Son of God, 
 the King of the Jews, the sole Head and Governoi 
 of his church. The kingdom of Christ, in Luke 
 i. 32, 33, is declared to be without end ; whereas, 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 28, we are taught that it will have a 
 period, when God shall be all in all. The con- 
 tradiction is only in form and appearance. The 
 kingdom of the Messiah, considered as a media- 
 torial instrumentality lor effecting the salvation 
 of the world, will, ol* course, terminate when the 
 purposes for which it was established shall have 
 been accomplished ; while the reign of the Son of 
 God, associated with his Father in the empire of 
 the world, will last as long as that empire itself, 
 and never cease, so long as the effects endure 
 which the redemption of the world shall produce 
 alike in its remotest as in its nearer consequences. 
 
 Regal authority was altogether alien to the in- 
 stitutions of Moses in their original and unadul- 
 terated form. Their fundamental idea was tha: 
 Jehovah was the sole king of the nation (1 Sam. 
 viii. 7) : to use the emphatic words in Isa. xxxiii. 
 22, ‘ The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our law- 
 giver, the Lord is our king.’ This important fact, 
 however, does not rest on the evidence of single 
 texts, but is implied in the entire Pentateuch, not 
 to say the whole of the Old Testament. The 
 Scriptural statements or implications are as fol- 
 lows : — God is the creator of the world ; he saved a 
 remnant from the flood ; towards the descendants 
 of Noah he manifested his special favour ; to Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob, he promised a land flowing 
 with milk and honey ; in the fulness of time he 
 accomplished, by apparently the most unlikely 
 and untoward means, the oath which he more 
 than once sware to the fathers of Israel ; so that 
 eventually, having furnished his people with a 
 complete code of laws, he put them in posses- 
 sion of the promised territory, assuming the 
 government, and setting forth sanctions alike of 
 ample good and terrible ill, in order to keep the 
 people loyal to himself as to the only Creator and 
 God of the universe, and specially as their supreme 
 sovereign. 
 
 We consider it as a sign of that self-confidence 
 and moral enterprise which are produced in great 
 men by a consciousness of being what they pro- 
 fess, that Moses ventured, with his half-civilized 
 hordes, on the bold experiment of founding a 
 society without a king, and that in the solicitude 
 which he must have felt for the success of his 
 great undertaking, he forewent the advantages 
 which a regal government would have afforded 
 Nor is such an attempt a little singular and novel 
 at a period and in a part of the world in which 
 royalty was not only general, but held in the 
 greatest respect, and sometimes rose to the very 
 height of pure despotism. Its novelty is an e* i 
 
KING. 
 
 dleii^e of the divine original to whicli Moses 
 referred all his polity. Equally honourable is the 
 conduct of Moses in denying to his lower nature 
 the gratifications which a crown would have 
 imparted — we say denying himself, because it is 
 beyond a question that the man who rescued the 
 Jews from bondage and conducted them to the 
 land of Canaan, might, had he chosen, have kept 
 the dominion in his own hands, and transmitted 
 a crown to his posterity. If Washington, at this 
 late period of human history, after the accumu- 
 lating experience of above three thousand years, 
 has added its sanctions to the great law of dis- 
 interested benevolence, is held deserving of high 
 honour for having preferred to found a republic 
 rather than attempt to build up a throne, surely 
 very unequal justice is done to Moses, if, as is too 
 generally the case, we pass in neglect the extra- 
 ordinary fact that, with supreme power in his 
 hands, and, to all appearance, scarcely any hin- 
 drance to the assumption of regal splendour, the 
 great Hebrew patriot and legislator was content 
 to die within sight of the land of promise, a 
 simple, unrewarded, unhonoured individual, con- 
 tent to do God’s work regardless of self. It is 
 equally obvious that this self-denial on the part 
 of Moses, this omission to create any human 
 kingship, is in entire accordance with the import, 
 aim, and spirit of the Mosaic institutions, as 
 being divine in their origin, and designed to 
 accomplish a special work of Providence for man ; 
 and, therefore, affords, by its consistency with the 
 very essence of the system of which it forms a 
 part, a very forcible argument in favour of the 
 divine legation of Moses. 
 
 That great man, however, well knew what 
 were the elements with which he had to deal in 
 framing institutions for the rescued Israelites. 
 Slaves they had been, and the spirit of slavery 
 was not yet- wholly eradicated from their souls. 
 They had, too, witnessed in Egypt the more than 
 ordinary pomp and splendour which environ a 
 throne, dazzling the eyes and captivating the 
 heart of the uncultured. Not improbably the 
 prosperity and abundance which they had seen in 
 Egypt, and in which they had been, in a measure, 
 allowed to partake, might have been ascribed by 
 them to the regal form of the Egyptian govern- 
 ment. Moses may well, therefore, have appre- 
 hended a not very remote departure from the fun- 
 damental type of his institutions. Accordingly 
 he makes a special provision for this contingency 
 (Dent. xvii. 14), and labours, by anticipation, to 
 guard against the abuses of royal power. Should 
 a king be demanded by the people, then he was 
 to be a native Israelite ; he was not to be drawn 
 away by the love of show, especially by a desire 
 for that regal display in which horses have always 
 borne so large a part, to send down to Egypt, still 
 less to cause the people to return to that land ; 
 he was to avoid the corrupting influence of a large 
 harem, so common among Eastern monarchs; 
 he was to abstain from amassing silver and gold ; 
 ne was to have a copy of the law made ex- 
 pressly for his own study — a study which he was 
 never to intermit till the end of his days; so 
 that his heart might not be lifted up above his 
 brethren, that he might not be turned aside from 
 the living God, but observing the divine statutes, 
 «tnd thus acknowledging himself to be no more 
 than the vicegerent of heaven, he might enjoy 
 
 KING. ioa 
 
 nappiness, and transmit his authority to his de- 
 scendants. 
 
 This passage has, indeed, been pronounced to 
 stand apart from any connection in the Penta- 
 teuch, and to betray a much later hand than that 
 of Moses. If our view is correct, it has a very 
 obvious connection, and proceeds from the He- 
 brew legislator himself. Nor can it, we think, 
 be denied that the reason is by no means an un- 
 likely nor insufficient one, by which we have 
 supposed Moses to have been prompted in pro- 
 mulgating the provisional and contingent arrange- 
 ments which are found in the passage under 
 consideration. Most emphatically is the act of 
 taking a king ascribed by Moses to the people 
 themselves, whom he represents as being influenced 
 by considerations not dissimilar to those which 
 we have assigned : ‘ When thou,’ &c., ‘and shalt 
 say, 1 icill set a king over me, like as all the na- 
 tions that are about me.' Winer, however, from 
 whom ( JReal-toorterb .) we have taken this objec- 
 tion, argues in opposition to Staudlin (Bertholdt’s 
 Theol. Joxirn., iii. 259, 361, sq.), that if Moses 
 had anticipated a demand for a king, he would 
 have made provision for such a demand at an 
 earlier period — a remark which rests on no evi- 
 dence of verisimilitude whatever, the opposite of 
 the supposed course being just as probable. Be- 
 sides, it may be affirmed, without, the possibility 
 of receiving any contradiction but that of mere 
 assertion, that he made the provision as soon as he 
 foresaw the probable need. Less solid, if possible, 
 is Winer’s other argument, namely, that in the 
 passage (1 Sam. viii.) in which are recorded the 
 people's demand of a king and the prophet Sa- 
 muel’s reply, no trace is found of a reference to 
 the alleged Mosaic law on the point. A reference 
 in form Winer could scarcely expect, a reference 
 in substance we see very clearly. We have not 
 room to go into particulars ; but recommend th 
 reader carefully to compare the two passages. 
 
 The Jewish polity, then, was a sort of sacerdotal 
 republic — we say sacerdotal, because of the great 
 influence which, from the first, the priestly order 
 enjoyed, having no human head, but being under 
 the special supervision, protection, and guidance 
 of the Almighty. The nature of the consequences, 
 however, of that divine influence avowedly de- 
 pended on the degree of obedience and the general 
 faithfulness of the nation. The good, therefore, 
 of such a superintendence in its immediate results 
 was not necessary, but contingent. The removal 
 of Moses and of Joshua by death soon left the 
 people to the natural results of their own condi- 
 tion and character. Anarchy ensued. Noble 
 minds, indeed, and stout hearts appeared in those 
 who were termed Judges; but the state of the 
 country was not so satisfactory as to prevent an 
 unenlightened people, having low and gross affec- 
 tions, from preferring the glare of a crown and 
 the apparent protection of a sceptre, to the invi- 
 sible and, therefore, mostly unrecognised arm of 
 omnipotence. A king accordingly is requested. 
 The misconduct of Samuel’s sons, who had been 
 made judges, was the immediate occasion of the 
 demand being put forth. The request came with 
 authority, for it emanated from all the elders of 
 Israel, who, after holding a formal conference, 
 proceeded to Samuel, in order to make him ac- 
 quainted with their wish. Samuel was displeased ; 
 but, having sought in prayer to learn the divine 
 
206 
 
 KING. 
 
 KING. 
 
 will, he is instructed to yield to the demand on a 
 ground which we should not assuredly have found 
 stated, had the book in which it appears have 
 been tampered with or fabricated for any courtly 
 purposes or any personal ends, whether by Samuel 
 himself, or by David, or any of his successors — 
 4 for they have not rejected ihee (Samuel), but 
 they have rejected me, that I should not reign 
 over them ’ (ver. 7, see also ver. 8). Samuel is, 
 moreover, directed to ‘ protest solemnly unto them, 
 and show them the manner of the king that shall 
 reign over them.’ Faithfully does the prophet de- 
 pict the evils which a monarchy would inflict on 
 the people. In vain : they said, ‘ Nay, but we 
 will have a king over us. 1 Accordingly, Saul 
 the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was, by 
 divine direction, selected, and privately anointed 
 by Samuel ‘ to be captain over God's inheritance:’ 
 thus he was to hold only a delegated and subor- 
 dinate authority. Under the guidance of Samuel, 
 Saul is subsequently chosen by lot from among 
 the assembled tribes ; and though his personal 
 appearance had no influence in the choice, yet 
 when he was plainly pointed out to be the indivi- 
 dual designed for the sceptre, Samuel called 
 attention to those qualities which in less civilized 
 nations have a preponderating influence, and are 
 never without effect, at least, in supporting ‘the 
 divinity which doth hedge a king ‘ See ye him 
 whom (he Lord hath chosen, that there is none 
 like him among all the people, 1 for he was 
 higher than any of the people from his shoulders 
 and upward ; ‘ and all the people shouted, God 
 save the king. 1 
 
 Emanating as the royal power did from the 
 demand of the people and the permission of a 
 prophet, it was not likely to be unlimited in its 
 extent or arbitrary in its exercise. The govern- 
 ment of God, indeed, remained, being rather con- 
 cealed and complicated than disowned, much less 
 superseded. The king ruled not in his own 
 right, nor in virtue of the choice of the people, but 
 by concession from on high, and partly as the 
 servant and partly as the representative of the 
 theocracy. How insecure, indeed, was the tenure 
 of the kingly power, how restricted it was in its 
 authority, appears clear from the comparative 
 facility with which the crown was transferred 
 from Saul to David ; and the part which the pro- 
 phet Samuel took in effecting that transference 
 points out the quarter where lay the power which 
 limited, if it did not primarily, at least, control 
 the royal authority. It must, however, be added, 
 that if religion narrowed this authority, it also 
 invested it with a sacredness which could emanate 
 from no other source. Liable as the Israelite 
 kings were to interference on the part of priest 
 and prophet, they were, by the same divine power, 
 shielded from the unholy hands of the profane 
 vulgar; and it was at once impiety and rebellion 
 tc do injury to ‘ the Lord's anointed 1 (Ps. ii. 6, 7, 
 sq.). Instances are not wanting to corroborate 
 and extend these general observations. When 
 Saul was in an extremity before (he Philistines 
 (1 Sam. xxviii.), he resorted to the usual methods 
 of obtaining counsel : £ Saul inquired of the Lord, 
 the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, 
 nor by Urim, ncr by prophets. 1 So David, when 
 in need of advice in war (1 Sam. xxx. 7), resorted 
 to Abiathar the priest, who, by means of the 
 ephod, inquired of the Lord, and thereupon urge \ 
 
 the king to take a certain course, which proved 
 successful (see also 2 Sam. ii. 1). Sometime* 
 indeed, as appears from 1 Sam. xxviii., it was a 
 prophet who acted the part of prime minister, or 
 chief counsellor, to the king, and who, as bearing 
 that sacred character, must have possessed very 
 weighty influence in the royal divan (l Kings 
 xxii. 7, sq.). We must not, however,' expect to 
 find any definite and permanent distribution of 
 power, any legal determination of the royal pre- 
 rogatives as discriminated from the divine autho- 
 rity ; circumstances, as they prompted certain 
 deeds, restricted or enlarged the sphere of the mo- 
 narch's action. Thus, in 1 Sam. xi. 4, sq., we 
 find Saul, in an emergency, assuming, without 
 consultation or deliberation, the power of demand- 
 ing something like a levy en masse , and of pro- 
 claiming instant war. With the king lay the 
 administration of justice in the last resort (2 Sam. 
 xv. 2; 1 Kings iii. 16, sq.). He also possessed 
 the power of life and death (2 Sam. xiv.). Tc 
 provide for and superintend the public worship 
 was at once his duty and his highest honour 
 (1 Kings viii. ; 2 Kings xii. 4 ; xviii. 4 ; xxiii. 1). 
 One reason why the people requested a king was 
 that they might have a recognised leader in wai 
 (1 Sam. viii. 20). The Mosaic law offered a 
 powerful hindrance to royal despotism (l Sam. 
 x. 25). The people also, by means of their elders, 
 formed an express compact, by which they stipu- 
 lated for their rights (1 K’ngs xii. 4), and were 
 from time to time appealed to, generally in cases 
 of ‘ great pith and moment 1 (1 Chron. xxix. 1 ; 
 2 Kings xi. 17 ; Joseph., De Bell. Jud. ii. 1. 2). 
 Nor did the people fail to interpose their will, 
 where they thought it necessary, in opposition to 
 that of the monarch (1 Sam. xiv. 45). The part 
 which Nathan took against David shows how 
 effective, as well as bold, was the check exerted 
 by the prophets ; indeed, most of the prophetic 
 history is the history of the noblest, opposition ever 
 made to the vices alike of royalty, priesthood, 
 and people. If needful, the prophet hesitated not 
 to demand an audience of the king, nor was he 
 dazzled or deterred by royal power and pomp 
 (1 Kings xx. 22, 38 ; 2 Kings i. 15). As, how- 
 ever, the monarch held the sword, the instrument 
 of death was sometimes made to prevail over 
 every restraining influence (1 Sam. xxii. 17). 
 
 After the transfer of the crown from Saul to 
 David, the royal power was annexed to the house 
 of the latter, passing from father to son, with pre- 
 ference to the eldest born, though he might be a 
 minor. Jehoash was seven years old when he 
 began to reign (2 Kings xi. 21), This rule wa* 
 not, however, rigidly observed, for instances are 
 not wanting in which nomination of a younger son 
 gave him a preferable title to the crown (1 Kings 
 i. 17; 2 Cjiron. xi. 21): the people, too, and 
 even foreign powers, at a later period, interrupted 
 the regular transmission of royal authority (2 
 Kings xxi. 24; xxiii. 24, 30; xxiv. 17). The 
 ceremony of anointing, which was observed at 
 least in the case of Saul, David, and Solo- 
 mon (1 Sam. ix. 14; x. 1 ; xv. 1; xvi. 12 ; 
 2 Sam. ii. 4 ; v. I ; 1 Kings i. 34 ; xxxix. 5), 
 and m which the prophet or high-priest who per- 
 formeu the rite acted as the representative of the 
 theocracy and the expounder of the will of heaven, 
 must have given to the spiritual power very con- 
 siderable influence; and both in this particular 
 
KING. 
 
 KING. 
 
 201 
 
 *nd in the very nature of the observance directs 
 the mind to Egypt, where the same custom pre- 
 vailed, and where tlitj power of the priestly caste 
 was immense (Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians , 
 v. 279). Indeed, the ceremony seems to have 
 been essential to constitute a legitimate monarch 
 (2 Kings xi. 12; xxiii. 30); and thus the autho- 
 rities of the Jewish church held in their hands, 
 and had subject to theii will, a most important 
 power, which they could use either for their own 
 purposes or the common good. In consequence 
 of the general observance of this ceremony, the 
 term 4 anointed,’ ‘ the Lord’s anointed ’ (1 Sam. 
 ii. 10; xvi. 6; xxiv. 6; 2 Sam. xix. 21; Ps. 
 ii. 2 ; Lam. iv. 20), came to be employed in 
 rhetorical and poetical diction as equivalent in 
 meaning to the designation king. We have seen 
 in the case of Saul that personal and even ex- 
 ternal qualities had their influence in procuring 
 ready obedience to a sovereign ; and further evi- 
 dence to the same effect may be found in Ps. xlv. 
 3; Ezek. xxviii. 12 : such qualities would natu- 
 rally excite the enthusiasm of the people, who 
 appear to have manifested their approval by accla- 
 mations (1 Sam. x. 24 ; 1 Kings i. 25 ; 2 Kings 
 ix. 13; xi. 13; 2 Chron. xxiii. 11 ; see also Jo- 
 seph. I)e Bell. Jud ., i. 33. 9). Jubilant music 
 formed a part of the popular rejoicings (1 Kings 
 i. 40) ; thank-offerings were made (1 Kings i. 25) ; 
 the new sovereign rode in solemn procession on the 
 royal mule of his predecessor (1 Kings i. 38), and 
 took possession of the royal harem — an act which 
 seems to have been scarcely less essential than 
 other observances which appear to us to wear a 
 higher character (1 Kings ii. 13, 22; 2 Sam. xvi. 
 22). A numerous harem, indeed, was among the 
 most highly estimated of the royal luxuries (2 Sam. 
 v. 1 3 ; 1 Kings xi. 1 ; xx. 3). It was under the 
 supervision and control of eunuchs, and passed 
 from one monarch to another as a part of the 
 crown property (2 Sam. xii. 8). The law (Deut. 
 xvii. 17), foreseeing evils such as that by which 
 Solomon, in his later years, was turned away from 
 his fidelity to God, had strictly forbidden many 
 wives ; but Eastern passions and usages were too 
 strong for a mere written prohibition, and a cor- 
 rupted religion became a pander to royal lust, 
 interpreting the divine command as sanctioning 
 eighteen as the minimum of wives and concubines. 
 In the original distribution of the land no share, 
 of course, was reserved for a merely possible 
 monarch ; yet the kings were not without several 
 sources of income. In the earlier periods of the 
 monarchy the simple manners which prevailed 
 would render copious revenues unnecessary ; and 
 a throne which was the result of a spontaneous 
 demand on the part of the people, would easily 
 find support in free will offerings, especially in 
 a part of the world where the great are never 
 approached without a present. There seems also 
 reason to conclude that the amount of the con- 
 tributions made by the people for the sustenance 
 of the monarch depended, in a measure, on the 
 degree of popularity which, in any particular 
 case, he enjoyed, or the degree of service which 
 he obviously rendered to the state (1 Sam. x. 27 ; 
 xvi. 20 ; 2 Sam. viii. 11 ; 1 Kings x. 1 1, 25, sq.). 
 That presents of small value and humble nature 
 were not despised or thought unfit for the accept- 
 ance of royalty, may be learnt from that which 
 Jesse sent to Saul (1 Sam. xvi. 20), 4 an ass, with 
 
 bread and a bottle of wine, and a kid.’ Th# 
 indirect detail 4 of the substance which was kinf 
 David’s,’ found in 1 Chron. xxvii. 25, sq. (comp. 
 
 1 Sam. viii. 14 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 10, sq.), show* 
 at how early a period the Israelitish throne w*u 
 in possession of very large property, both per- 
 sonal and real. The royal treasury was re- 
 plenished by confiscation, as in the case of Naboth 
 (1 Kings xxi. 16; comp. Ezek. xlvi. 16, sq. ; 
 
 2 Sam. xvi. 4). Nor were taxes unknown. 
 Samuel had predicted (1 Sam. viii. 15), ‘ He 
 will take the tenth of your seed and of your vine- 
 yards,’ &c. ; and so in other passages (1 Kings 
 v. 13 ; ix. 21) we find that levies both of men 
 and money were made for the monarch’s pur- 
 poses ; and, in cases of special need, these exac- 
 tions were large and rigorously levied (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 35), as when Jehoiakim 4 taxed the land to 
 give the money according to the commandment 
 of Pharaoh ; he exacted the silver and the gold ol 
 the people of the land, of every one according to 
 his taxation.’ So long, however, as the native 
 vigour of a young monarchy made victory easy 
 and frequent, large revenues came to the king 
 from the spoils of war (2 Sam. viii. 2, sq.). Com- 
 merce also supplied abundant resources (1 Kings 
 x. 15). In the. 14th verse of the chapter last 
 referred to, it is said that 4 the weight of gold that 
 came to Solomon in one year was six hundred 
 three score and six talents of gold.’ In the same 
 connection we find particulars which give a high 
 idea of Solomon’s oprdenceand splendour : 4 Two 
 hundred targets of beaten gold, each of six hun- 
 dred shekels; three hundred shields of beaten 
 gold, of three pounds of gold each ; a great throne 
 of ivory, overlaid with the best gold ; drinking- 
 vessels of gold : silver was accounted nothing of 
 in Solomon’s days.’ A navy is also spoken of, 
 which was at sea with the navy of Hiram, king of 
 Tyre : this navy came once in every three years, 
 bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and pea- 
 cocks. 4 So king Solomon exceeded all the kings 
 of the earth for riches.’ 
 
 According to Oriental custom, much ceremony 
 and outward show of respect were observed. Those 
 who were intended to be received with special 
 honour were placed on the king’s right hand 
 (1 Kings ii. 19). The most profound homage 
 was paid to the monarch, which was required not 
 merely by common usage, but by the voice of 
 religious wisdom (Prov. xxiv. 21) — a requirement 
 which was not unnatural in regard to an office 
 that was accounted of divine origin, and to have 
 a sort of vice-divine authority. Those who pre- 
 sented themselves before the royal presence fell 
 with their face towards the ground till their fore- 
 head touched it (1 Sam. xxv. 23 ; 2 Sam. ix. 
 6 ; xix. 18), thus worshipping or doing obeisance 
 to the monarch, a ceremony from which even the 
 royal spouse was not exempted (1 Kings i. 16). 
 A kiss was among the established tokens of rever- 
 ence (1 Sam. x. 1 ; Ps. ii. 12), as were also hyper- 
 bolical wishes of good (Dan. ii. 4 ; iii. 9). Serious 
 offences against the king were punished with death 
 (1 Kings xxi. 10). 
 
 Deriving their power originally from the wishes 
 of the people, and being one of the same race, the 
 Hebrew kings were naturally less despotic than 
 other Oriental sovereigns, mingled more with theii 
 subjects, and were by no means difficult of access 
 (2 Sam. xix. 8 ; I Kings xx. 39 ; Jer. xxxviii. 7 ; 
 
208 KINGS, BOOKS OF. 
 
 1 Kings iii. 16; 2 Kings vi. 26; viii. 3). After 
 death the monarchs were interred in the royal 
 cemetery in Jerusalem : ‘ So David slept with his 
 fathers, and was buried in the city of David ’ 
 (1 Kings ii. 10; xi. 43; xiv. 31). But bad 
 kings were excluded ‘ from the sepulchres of the 
 kings of Israel ’ (2 Chron. xxviii. 27). In 
 1 Kings iv. will be found an enumeration of the 
 high officers of state under the reign of Solomon 
 (see also 1 Kings x. 5 ; xii. 18; xviii. 3 ; 2 Kings 
 viii. 16; x. 22; xviii. 18; xix. 2; 1 Chron. xxvii. 
 25; Isa. xxii. 15; Jer. Iii. 25). The misdeeds 
 of the Jewish crown, and the boldness with which 
 they were reproved, may be seen exemplified in 
 Jer. xxii. : ‘ Thus saith the Lord, Execute judg- 
 ment and righteousness, and do no wrong ; do no 
 violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the 
 widow ; neither shed innocent blood. But if ye 
 will not hear these words, this house shall become 
 a desolation,’ &c. Reference on the subject here 
 *reated of may be made to Schickard, Jus f?e- 
 gium Hebrceor. Tubing. 1621 ; Carpzov, Appar. 
 Grit. p. 52; Michaelis, Mos. Recht , i. 298; 
 Othon. Lex. Rabbin, p. 575. — J. R. B. 
 
 KINGS, BOOKS OF. The two books of 
 Kings formed anciently but one book in the 
 Jewish Scriptures. The present division, follow- 
 ing the Septuagint and Latin versions, has been 
 common in the Hebrew Bibles since the Venetian 
 editions of Bomberg. That the book was origin- 
 ally an unbroken treatise is affirmed by Origen 
 and Jerome, Melito of Sardis, and Josephus, 
 (Origen, apud Euseb. Pracp. Evang. vi. 25, 
 BacriXeiuv rpirr], TeraprTj, ev evi OvappeXex 
 Aaj8i5; Hieronym. Prolog. Gal.; Joseph. Cont. 
 Apion. i. 8). Great, stress cannot always be laid 
 on the Jewish forms of the sacred books, as they 
 were arranged so as to correspond with the letters 
 of the Hebrew alphabet. The old Jewish name 
 was borrowed, as usual, from the commencing 
 
 words of the book, YH Grecized as in the 
 
 above quotation from Eusebius. The Septuagint 
 and Vulgate now number them as the third and 
 fourth books of Kings, reckoning the two books of 
 Samuel the first and second. Their present title, 
 
 BcunAeiW, Regum, in the opinion of 
 Havernick, has respect more to the formal than 
 essential character of the composition ( Einleitung , 
 <5 168); yet under such forms of government as 
 those of Judah and Israel the royal person and 
 name are intimately associated with all national 
 6.cts and movements, legal decisions, warlike 
 preparations, domestic legislation, and foreign 
 policy. The reign of an Oriental prince is iden- 
 tified with the history of his nation during the 
 period of his sovereignty. More especially in the 
 theocratic constitution of the Jewish realm the 
 character of the monarch was an important ele- 
 ment of national history, and, of necessity, it had 
 considerable influence on the fate and fortunes of 
 the people. 
 
 The books of Kings contain the brief annals of 
 a long period, from the accession of Solomon till 
 the dissolution of the commonwealth. The first 
 chapters describe the reign of Solomon over the 
 united kingdom, and the revolt under Rehoboam. 
 The history of the rival states is next narrated in 
 parallel sections till the period of Israel's down- 
 fa. 1 . i ui» the invasion of Shalmanezer. Then the 
 remaining years of the principality of Judah are 
 
 KINGS, BOOKS OF. 
 
 recorded till the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar an J 
 the commencement of the Babylonish captivity. 
 In the article Israel, the period comprised has 
 been exhibited under the name and reign of the 
 kings who are mentioned in these books, and 
 there also, and in the article Judah, the chro- 
 nology of the books has been sufficiently con- 
 sidered. 
 
 There are some peculiarities in this succinct 
 history worthy of attention. It is very brief, but 
 very suggestive. It is not a biography of the 
 sovereigns, nor a mere record of political occur- 
 rences, nor yet an ecclesiastical register. King, 
 church, and state are all comprised in their 
 sacred relations. It is a theocratic history, a 
 retrospective survey of the kingdoms as existing 
 under a theocratic government. The character 
 of the sovereign is tested by his fidelity to the 
 religious obligations of his office, and this decision 
 in reference to his conduct is generally added to 
 the notice of his accession. The new king's 
 religious character is generally portrayed by its 
 similarity or opposition to the way of David, of his 
 father, or of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, ‘ who made 
 Israel to sin.’ Ecclesiastical affairs are noticed 
 with a similar purpose, and in contrast with past 
 or prevalent apostacy, especially as manifested in 
 the popular superstitions, whose shrines were on 
 the ‘high places.’ Political or national incidents 
 are introduced in general for the sake of illus- 
 trating the influence of religion on civic pros- 
 perity ; of showing how the theocracy maintained 
 a vigilant and vengeful guardianship over its 
 rights and privileges — adherence to its principles 
 securing peace and plenty, disobedience to them 
 bringing along with it sudden and severe retribu- 
 tion. The books of Kings are a verification of 
 the Mosaic warnings, and the author of them has 
 kept this steadily in view. He has given a brief 
 history of his people, arranged under the various 
 political chiefs in such a manner as to show that 
 the government was essentially theocratic, that its 
 spirit, as developed in the Mosaic writings, was 
 never extinct, however modified or inactive it 
 might sometimes appear. 
 
 Thus the books of Kings appear in a religious 
 costume, quite different from the form they would 
 have assumed either as a political or ecclesias- 
 tical narrative. In the one case legisle five enact- 
 ments, royal edicts, popular movements, would 
 have occupied a prominent place ; in the other, 
 sacerdotal arrangements, Levitical service, music 
 and pageantry, would have filled the leading 
 sections of the treatise. In either view the points 
 adduced would have had a restricted reference to 
 the palace or the temple, the sovereign or the 
 pontiff, the court or the priesthood, the throne or 
 the altar, the tribute or tithes, the nation on its 
 farms, or the tribes in the courts of the sacred 
 edifice. But the theocracy conjoined both the 
 political and religious elements, and the inspired 
 annalist unites them as essential to his design 
 The agency of divinity is constantly recognised, 
 the hand of Jehovah is continually acknowledged. 
 The chief organ of theocratic influence enjoys 
 peculiar prominence. We refer to the incessant 
 agency of the prophets, their great power and 
 peculiar modes of action as detailed by the com- 
 poser of the books of Kings. They interfered 
 with the succession, and their instrumentality 
 was apparent in the schism. They roused tlw 
 
KINGS, BOOKS OF. 
 
 People, and they braved the sovereign. The 
 balance of power was in their hands ; the regal 
 dignity seemed to be sometimes at their disposal. 
 In times of emergency they dispensed with usual 
 modes of procedure, and assumed an authority 
 with which no subject in an ordinary state can 
 safely be intrusted, executing the law with a sum- 
 mary promptness which rendered opposition im- 
 possible, or at. least unavailing. They felt their 
 divine commission, and that they were the cus- 
 todiers of the rights’ of Jehovah. At the same time 
 they protected the interests of the nation, and, 
 could we divest the term of its association with 
 unprincipled turbulence and sedition, we would, 
 like Winer, style them the demagogues of Israel 
 (Winer, Realwort. art. Prophet ). The divine 
 prerogative was to them a vested right, guarded 
 with a sacred jealousy from royal usurpation or 
 popular invasion ; and the interests of the people 
 were as religiously protected against, encroach- 
 ments, too easily made under a form of govern- 
 ment which had not the safeguard of popular 
 representation or aristocratic privilege. The 
 priesthood was in many instances, though there 
 are some illustrious exceptions, merely the crea- 
 ture of the crown, and therefore it became the 
 prophetenthum to assert, its dignity and stand 
 forth in the majestic insignia of an embassy bom 
 heaven. 
 
 The truth of these sentiments, as to the method, 
 design, and composition of the books of Kings, is 
 confirmed by ample evidence. 
 
 1. Large space is occupied wilh the building 
 of the temple — the palace of the Divine Protector 
 — his throne in it being above the mercy-seat and 
 between the cherubim (ch. v.-viii.). Care is 
 taken to record the miraculous phenomenon of 
 the descent of the Schekinah (ch. viii. 10). The 
 prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the house 
 is full of theocratic views and aspirations. 
 
 2. Reference is often made to the Mosaic Law 
 with its provisions; and allusions to the earlier 
 history of the people frequently occur (l Kings 
 ii. 3 ; iii. 14 ; vi. II, 12; viii. 58, &c. ; 2 Kings 
 x. 31 ; xiv. 6; xvii. 13, 15, 37; xviii. 4-6 ; xxi. 
 1-8). Allusions to the Mosaic code are found 
 more frequently toward the end of the second 
 book, when the kingdom was drawing near its 
 termination, as if to account for its decay and 
 approaching fate. 
 
 3. Phrases expressive of Divine interference 
 me frequently introduced (1 Kings xi. 31 ; xii. 
 15; xii : . 1, 2, 9; and xx. 13, &c.). 
 
 4. Prophetic interposition is a very prominent 
 theme of record. It fills the vivid foreground of 
 the historical picture. Nathan was occupied in 
 the succession of Solomon (1 Kings i. 45) ; Ahijah 
 was concerned in the revolt (xi. 29-40). She- 
 maiah disbanded the troops which Rehoboam had 
 mustered (xii. 21). Ahijah predicted the ruin 
 of Jeroboam, whose elevation he had promoted 
 (xiv. 7). Jehu, the prophet, doomed the house of 
 Baasha (xvi. 1). The reign of Ahab and Ahaziah 
 is marked by the bold, rapid, mysterious move- 
 ments of Elijah. Under Ahab occurs the predic- 
 tion of Micaiah (xxii. 8). The actions and oracles 
 of Elisha form the marvellous topics of narration 
 under several reigns. The agency of Isaiah is 
 also recognised (2 Kings xix. 20; xx. 16). Be- 
 sides 1 Kings xiii. presents another instance of 
 prophetic operation ; and in xx. 35, the oracle of 
 
 touix. ta- 
 
 kings, BOOKS OF. 20S 
 
 an unknown prophet is also rehearsed. Huldah, 
 the prophetess, was an important personage under 
 the government, of Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 14). 
 Care is also taken to report the fulfilment of strik 
 ing prophecies, in the usual phrase, ‘according to 
 the word of the Lord' (T Kings xii 15 ; xv. 29 ; 
 xvi. 12; 2 Kings xxiii. 15- 18 ; ix. 36 ; xxiv. 2). 
 So, too, the Old Syriac version prefixes, ‘Here 
 follows the book of the kings who flourished among 
 the ancient people ; and in this is also exhibited 
 the history of the prophets who flourished during 
 their times. 1 
 
 5. Theocratic influence is recognised both in 
 the deposition and succession of kings (l Kings 
 xiii. 33 ; xv. 4, 5, 29, 30; 2 Kings xi. 17, &c.). 
 Compare on the whole of this view Haveruick, 
 Einleit. § 168 ; Jahn, Introduct. § 46 ; Gesenius, 
 Ueber Jes. vol. i. p. 934. It is thus apparent that 
 the object of the author of the Books of Kings was, 
 to describe the history of the kingdoms, especially 
 in connection with the theocratic element. T’ is 
 design accounts for what l)e Welte ( Einleit . 
 
 6 185) characteristically terms tier strife prophe- 
 tische pragmatismus, and for the frequent myths 
 which this writer finds in these books. 
 
 The authorship and age of this historical treatise 
 may admit of several suppositions. Whatever 
 were the original sources, the books are evidently 
 the composition of one writer. The style is 
 generally uniform throughout. The same forms 
 of expression are used to denote the same 
 thing, e. g. the male sex (1 Kings xiv. 10, &c.) 
 the death of a king (1 Kings xi. 43, &c.) ; modes, 
 of allusion to the law (1 Kings xi. i3); fidelity 
 to Jehovah (1 Kings viii. 63, &c. ; De Wette, 
 Einleit. § 184, a : Hiivernick, Einleit. § 171)., 
 Similar idioms are ever recurring, so as to produce 
 a uniformity of style (Monotonie der Darstelhmg , 
 Hiivernick, l. c.). The sources whence this historic 
 information has been derived have been variously 
 named. That annals contemporary with the 
 events which they describe were written in the 
 early period of the Jewish state, may be at once 
 admitted. Eichhorn supposes that the sources of 
 ‘ Kings 1 were private historical works- (Einleit. 
 § 482). De Wette, from the legends related in 
 them, cannot believe them to be official docu- 
 ments. Bertboldt, Hiivernick, and Movers hold 
 that the books are extracts from the public annals 
 (comp. Haveruick, § 169). The inspired historio- 
 grapher refers his readers to these sources of evi- 
 dence in such frequent phrases as '*731 "IIVV‘ the 
 rest of the acts.’ Such a reference is made espe- 
 cially to the sources, when other royal acts than 
 those narrated in the 1 looks of Kings are glanced 
 at. These sources are styled the book* of the 
 Chronicles of the kings of Judah, or Israel. Si- 
 milar phraseology is used in Esther x. 2; vi. 1, 
 to denote the official annals of the Persian empire. 
 Public documents are spoken of in the same way 
 (Neh. xii. 23). There is little reason to suppose 
 that the book referred to in this last passage is 
 that styled Chronicles in our copy of the Scrip- 
 tures (Movers, Chronik, § 234). So we infer that 
 the ‘ Book of the Chronicles of the Kings, 1 so often, 
 alluded to, was an authentic document, public 
 and official. Once indeed mention is made of a 
 work entitled ‘ The Book of the Acts of Solo- 
 mon 1 
 
 That the prophets themselves were employed* 
 in recording contemporanepus events, is evident 
 
210 
 
 KINNAMON. 
 
 KINGS, BOOKS OF. 
 
 from 2 Chron. xx. 31 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 29. In 
 the course of the narrative we meet with many 
 instances of description, having the freshness and 
 form of nature, and which are apparently direct 
 quotations from some journal, written by one who 
 testified what he had seen (1 Kings xx. 10; 
 2 Kings xii. 15 ; xiv. 8). Thus the credibility 
 of the history contained in these books rests upon 
 a sure foundation. What, neologists style their 
 mythical character or colouring furnishes to 
 every believer in the reality of the theocratic 
 government established by Moses, continued evi- 
 dence that the Jews were God's peculiar people — 
 that Jehovah was their sovereign (Havernick, 
 § 170 ; Hengstenberg, Beitr. ii. 169). 
 
 As to what has been termed the anti-Israelitish 
 -spirit of the work (Bertholdt, Einleit. p. 919), we 
 do not perceive it. Truth required that the king- 
 dom of Israel should be described in its real 
 character. Idol-worship was connected with its 
 foundation; moscholatry was a state provision; 
 •fidelity obliged the annalist to state that all its 
 kings patronized the institutions of Bethel and 
 Dan, while eight, at least, of the Jewish sove- 
 reigns adhered to the true religion, and that the 
 ■majority of its kings perished in insurrection, 
 while those of Judah, in general, were exempted 
 t from seditious tumults and assassination. 
 
 Now, the compiler - from these old documents 
 — he who shaped them into the form they have 
 in our present books of Kings — must have lived 
 ■ in a late age. The Second Book of Kings con- 
 cludes with an account of the liberation of 
 Jehoiachin, king of Judah, from prison in Ba- 
 > fcylon — an event which, according to Jahn, 
 happened in the twenty-sixth, or according to 
 Prideaux, in the twenty-eighth year after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem Jahn and Hllvernick 
 place the composition of ‘ Kings' in t he reign 
 of Evil-merodach ; and l)e Wette, towards the 
 
 - end of the Captivity. Instances of later phra- 
 . seology occurring in the hooks of Kings are 
 
 given by De Wette (§ 115. 6). Jewish tradition 
 makes Jeremiah the author ( Baba-bathra , fol. 
 15. 1). Calmet ascribes the authorship to Ezra. 
 The former opinion, adopted by Grotius, and 
 
 - lately revindicated by Havernick, certainly ap- 
 pears the more probable. There is considerable 
 linguistic affinity between the books of Kings 
 and the prophecy of Jeremiah. 
 
 Kings. Jeremiah. 
 
 2 K. xvii. 13 . • vii. 13. 
 
 1X.-X.8 . . xxii. 8. 
 
 2 K. xxiv.-xxv. . . lii. 
 
 1 K. xi. 4 ; viii. 25; xxxiii. 17; xiii. 13; 
 
 ix. 5. xvii. 25. 
 
 2 K. xxi. 12 . . xix. 3. 
 
 In the absence of certain evidence this opinion 
 • may be deemed the most likely, and is a more 
 simple theory than that of Movers, who supposes 
 that Jeremiah compiled a more ancient production 
 — a book of Kings — the source of our present trea- 
 tise. It explains the close similarity of the books 
 of Kings and Jeremiah in spirit, style, and ten- 
 dency, more easily and more satisfactorily than the 
 supposition of De Wette, or any other conjecture 
 of like nature. Objections against this opinion, 
 Aom the hasty way in which J ere mi all has de- 
 scribed his own times, admit of an easy solution. 
 Contemporaries were familiar w» a his life and 
 
 times, while his own prophecy contains the de- 
 sired information. Another objection, that Jere- 
 miah could not have lived longer than Evil- 
 merodach, is noticed and refuted by HUvemick 
 ( Leber Daniel, p. 14). The age of the Jewish 
 tradition as to the authorship of the books of 
 Kings, may be inferred from the fact that they 
 are placed among the D'N'DL 
 
 In reference to apparent contradictions or 
 anachronisms, it must be borne in mind that the 
 text of these books is not in a very pure state, 
 and that in nothing do copyists blunder more 
 than in the transcription of numerals. [Cnuo- 
 nicj.es.] As to points of real or alleged contra- 
 diction, see Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics , 
 p. 516. It has been sometimes thought that the 
 books of Samuel were the production of the 
 same redactor who composed the books of Kings. 
 Both compositions form a history almost conti- 
 nuous, though 2 Sam. xvi.-xxiv. is evidently an 
 appendix. That i here should be many points of 
 similarity in two works of history on kindred 
 themes, and having a similar purpose in view, 
 sui - prises no one. The close philological affinity 
 on which Stahelin insists so much (see Tholuck’s 
 Literar. Anzeig, 1S38, p. 526). may thus be 
 easily accounted for; yet there are also points of 
 dissimilarity. The language of ‘Samuel’ has 
 few maiks of later usage; the style has more 
 traces of an early age about it. The books of 
 Samuel have not the compactness and symmetry 
 of the books of Kings. The greater portion of 
 them seems to he an original work, rather than a 
 compilation. 
 
 Toe age of the hooks of Kinjrs may be inter- 
 mediate between the early work of Samuel and 
 the later treatise of Chronicles. 
 
 The ‘ Introductions ’ referred to in the course of 
 this article may he consulted. Modern commen- 
 tators upon ‘ Kings’ are scarce, and there are not 
 many old ones : Seb. Leonhard! 'TirofjLvqixara, 
 in Libb. Beg. Erf. 1606, Lips. 1610-14; Seb. 
 Schmidii Annot. in Libb. Reg. Strasb. 1687 ; and 
 the various authors in the Critici Sacri. — J. E. 
 
 KINNAMON (|1D3[7), translated ‘cinnamon,* 
 occurs i»i tlireq places of Scripture; first, about 
 1600 years before the Christian era, in Exod. 
 xxx. 23, where it is enumerated as one of the 
 ingredients employed in the preparation of the 
 holy anointing o-:l : ‘Take thou also unto thee 
 powerful spices, myrrh, and of sweet cinnamon 
 ( kinnamon besem) half as much (i. e. 250 
 shekels), together with sweet calamus and cassia.’ 
 It is next mentioned in Prov. vii. 17, ‘ I have per- 
 fumed my bed with myrrh, aloes ( ahalim ), and 
 cinnamon.' And again in Cant. iv. 14, ‘Spike- 
 nard and saffron ; calamus and cinnamon , with 
 all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes (aha- 
 lim), with all the chief spices. While in Rev. 
 xxiii. 13, among the merchandise of Babylon, we 
 have ‘ cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and 
 frankincense.’ 
 
 In the earliest notice, it is called kinnamon 
 besem, or ‘ sweet cinnamon.’ Dr. Vincent is in- 
 clined to consider khennali besem and khinna • 
 mon besem as derived from the same root. 
 
 Many writers have doubted whether the kin- 
 namon of the Hebrews is the same article that 
 we now call cinnamon. Celsius quotes R. Ben 
 Melech (ad Cant. iii. 14) and Saadius (Kxod 
 
KINNAMON. 
 
 KINNAMON. 
 
 txx.) as considering it to be the Lign Aloe, or 
 Agalhchum. Otters have doubted whether our 
 cinnamon was at all known to the ancients. But 
 the same thing has been said of almost every 
 other drug which is noticed by them. Jf* we were 
 to put faith in all these doubts, we should be left 
 without, any substances possessed of sufficiently 
 remarkable properties to have been articles of 
 ancient commerce. The word Kivvaixccgou occurs 
 in many of the Greek authors, as Herodotus, Hip- 
 pocrates, Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Galen, &c. 
 The first, of these, writing 400 years before the 
 Christian era, describes Arabia as the last inhabited 
 country towards the south, and as the only region 
 of the earth which produces frankincense, myrrh, 
 cinnamon, cassia, and ledanum. Of cinnamon he 
 says, ‘ which we, as instructed by the Phoenicians, 
 call KivvdgiofAuv.'’ He states, moreover, that the 
 Arabians were unacquainted with the particular 
 spot in which it was produced, but that some 
 asserted it grew in the region where Bacchus was 
 educated. From all this we can only infer that it 
 was the production of a distant country, probably 
 India, and that it was obtained by the route of the 
 Red Sea. Theophrastus (ix. 5) gives a fuller but 
 still fabulous account of its pioduction, and it is 
 not until the time of Dioscorides, Galen, and the 
 Periplus of the Erythraean sea, that we get more 
 definite information. Galen says that cassia and 
 cinnamon are so much alike that it is not an 
 easy matter to distinguish the one from the other. 
 This is a difficulty that still continues to be ex- 
 perienced. Dioscorides (i. 12) says that cas- 
 sia grows in Arabia, and that there are several 
 kinds of it; and of cinnamon he states also 
 (i. 13) that there are several species, named 
 from the different places where it is procured. 
 But the best sort is that which is like the cassia 
 of Mosylon, and is itself called Mosyllitic, or as 
 Pliny says, ‘ Portus Mosyllites quo cinuamo- 
 mum devehitur' (vi. 29). Mr. Cooley, however, 
 hi his edition of Larcher’s Notes to Herodotus , ad- 
 duces from Bruce’s Travels (vol. vii. p. 329), ‘ the 
 bastard kind of cinnamon, called by the Italians 
 canella, which, notwithstanding what Bellonius 
 says, and before him Pliny, grows plentifully 
 among the incense and myrrh at Cape Guardafui, 
 the Mosylon promontorium and prorliontorvum 
 aromaticum , and here only the distinction obtains 
 of mountain cassia and that which grows on the 
 plain.’ Notwithstanding this, it would require 
 the testimony of a careful and well-qualified bota- 
 nist to prove that the cinnamon plant grows in 
 Africa as well as in Ceylon. Several kinds are 
 described by Dioscorides, and no fewer than ten 
 kinds in the Periplus of Arrian (vid. Vincent, 
 Periplus, ii. p. 711), and among these the 
 2n\ripoTepd, from the Greek OKXrjpSs, ‘ hard,’ 
 which he translates ‘ xylocassia,’ or ‘ wood cin- 
 namon,’ and states to be ‘ a term which occurs 
 frequently, and perhaps distinguishes thfe cassia 
 lignea (wood cinnamon) from the cassia fistula 
 ( cannella , or pipe cinnamon).’ It is curious that 
 the Persians and Arabians denominate cinnamon, 
 for which they give akimona as the Greek name, 
 dar-seeni, evidently derived from the Hindoo 
 dar-cheenee, or Chinese wood, as if it had, like 
 the cinnamon of the Greeks, been originally only 
 tl e small branches and twigs, and not the separated 
 lark, as in modern cinnamon and cassia. It 
 lias been \sked * whether the foreign element ( kiv ) 
 
 311 
 
 in the Greek name Kiwdfxa>iiov , does not point to 
 the Chinese origin of the production so named!* 
 But the Cingalese cacyn-nama (dulce lignum) 
 and the Malayan kairnanis are more probable 
 derivations. 
 
 Cinnamon of the best quality is imported in 
 the present day from Ceylon, and also from the 
 Malabar coast, in consequence of the cinnamon 
 plant ( Cinnamomum Zeylanicum ) having been 
 introduced there from Ceylon. An inferior kind 
 is also exported from the peninsula of India, the 
 produce of other species of cinnamomum , accord- 
 ing to Dr. Wight. From these countries the cin- 
 namon and cassia of the ancients must most 
 likely have been obtained, though both are also 
 produced in the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, 
 in China, and in Cochinchina. Cinnamon is im- 
 ported in bales and chests — the bundles weighing 
 about 1 lb. each. The pieces consist of com- 
 pound quills, are about three feet long, slender, 
 and inclose within them several smaller quills. 
 These are thin, smooth, of a brownish colour, of a 
 warm, sweetish, and agreeable taste, and fragrant 
 odour; but several kinds are known in modern 
 markets, as they were in ancient times 
 
 In Ceylon cinnamon is carefully Qultivated, 
 the best cinnamon gardens being on the south- 
 western coast, where the soil is light and sandy, 
 and the atmosphere moist from the prevalent 
 southern winds. The plants begin to yield cin- 
 namon when about six or seven years old, after 
 which the shoots may be cut every three or four 
 years. The best kinds of cinnamon are obtained 
 from twigs and shoots ; less than half, or more 
 than two or three inches in diameter, are not 
 peeled. ‘ The peeling is effected by making two 
 opposite, or when the branch is thick, three or 
 four longitudinal incisions, and then elevating the 
 bark by introducing the peeling knife beneath it. 
 In twenty-four hours the epidermis and greenish 
 pulpy matter are carefully scraped off. In a 
 few hours the smaller quills are introduced into 
 the larger ones, and in this way congeries of quills 
 are formed, often measuring forty inches in length. 
 The bark is then dried in the sun, and afterwards 
 made info bundles, with pieces of split bamboo 
 twigs’ (Percival's Account of Ceylon). Besides 
 cinnamon, an oil of cinnamon is obtained in 
 Ceylon, by macerating the coarser pieces of the 
 bark, after being reduced to a coarse powder, in sea- 
 water, for two days, when bolh are submitted to 
 distillation. A fatty substance is also obtained by 
 
kippod. 
 
 SI 3 KINNAMON. 
 
 bruising and boiling the riper fruit, when an 
 oily body tloats on the surface, which on cooling 
 concretes into a dirty whitish, rather hard, fatty 
 matter. Some camphor may be procured from 
 the roots. Respecting the former, it. yields a 
 striking confirmation of the minute knowledge 
 which *he ancients had of some products of 
 India. Thus, as we have elsewhere mentioned 
 ( Essay on Antiquity of Hindoo Medicine, p. 
 105), Theophrastus (ix. 7) along with cinnamon 
 and cassia, describes two kinds ot comacum , one a 
 fruit, and the other employed for mixin-g with the 
 most precious ointments. Bodaeus a Stapel 
 (p. 1009) says, ‘ Quale fuerithoc comacum, quod 
 unguentis addebatur, me ignorare fateor. These 
 6eem to me to be substances of which we have 
 only in recent times acquired any correct know- 
 ledge, namely, the fruit of the cinnamon plant, 
 and the fatty oil extracted from it, of which there 
 are specimens in the (King s) College Museum ot 
 Materia Medica (Essay, p. 106). 
 
 Cassia bark, as we have seen, was distinguished 
 with difficulty from cinnamon by the ancients. 
 In the present day it is often sold for cinnamon; 
 indeed, unless a purchaser specify true cinna- 
 mon, he will probably be supplied with nothing 
 but cassia. It is made up into similar bundles with 
 cinnamon, has the same general appearance, smell, 
 and taste ; but its substance is thicker and coarser, 
 its colour darker, its flavour much less sweet and 
 fine than that of Ceylon cinnamon, while it is more 
 pungent, and is followed by a hitter taste; it is 
 also less closely quilled, and breaks shorter than 
 genuine cinnamon. Dr. Pereira, whose descrip- 
 tion we have adopted, has ascertained that cassia 
 is imported into the London market from Bombay 
 (the produce of the Malabar coast), and also from 
 the Mauritius, Calcutta, Batavia, Singapore, the 
 Philippine Islands, and Canton. Mr. Reeves 
 (Trans. Med. Bot. Soc. 1828, p. 26) says, ‘ Vast 
 quai’.tities both of cassia seeds (buds) and cassia 
 ngnea are annually brought to Canton from the 
 province of Kwangse, whose principal city 
 ( Kwtihin, literally ‘ cassia forest’) derives its name 
 from tne forests of cassia around it. The Chinese 
 themselves use a much thicker bark, unfit for the 
 European market.’ The Malabar cassia lignea 
 thicker an 1 coarser that that of China. I rom 
 
 the various sources, independently <f the different 
 qualities, it is evident, as in the case ot cinnamon, 
 that the ancients might have been, as no doubt 
 they were, acquainted with several varieties of 
 cassia. These, we have no doubt, are yielded by 
 more than one species. Mr. Marshall, from in- 
 formation obtained while tie was stall-surgeon in 
 Ceylon, maintained that cassia, or at least a part 
 of it, was the coarser hark of fhe true cinnamon. 
 
 Dr. Wight has ascertained that more than one 
 species yields the cassia of Malabar, often called 
 cinnamon. The Chinese cassia is supposed to be 
 produced by the cinnamomum aromaticum of 
 Nees von Esenbeck, the cinnamomum cassia of 
 Blume, which Dr. Christison ascertained is culti 
 vated in our hot- houses, and confounded with the 
 true cinnamon. It. was first imported, we believe, 
 by the Messrs. Loddiges from China. Besides 
 cassia bark, there is also a cassia oil, and cassia 
 buds, supposed to be produced by the same tree. 
 There can be no reasonable doubt, as cinnamon 
 and cassi,a were known to the Greeks, that they 
 must have been known to the Hebrews also, as 
 the commerce with India can be proved to have 
 been much more ancient than is generally .sup- 
 posed 1 Kidd.vh]. - J. F. R. 
 
 KIPPOD (liSp). This name occurs but 
 three times in Scripture (Isa. xiv. 23 ; xxxiv. 11 ; 
 and Zeph. ii. 14), and has been variously inter- 
 preted— owl, osprey, tortoise, porcupine, otter, 
 and in the Arabic, bustard. Bochart, Shaw, 
 Lowth, and other great authorities, have supported 
 the opinion that it refers to the porcupine. The 
 main stress of their argument seems to depend 
 upon the component parts of the original word, 
 of which the first syllable is said to be derived 
 from mp kana, ‘spine;’ in confirmation of 
 which Bochart, with his wonted learning, cites 
 the Chaldee, Hebrew, Arabic, anti Ethiopian 
 names of the porcupine and hedgehog, which 
 apparently confirm his opinion ; but although 
 derivations, when they are supported by apparent 
 identity of meaning in other kindred languages, 
 may satisfy the judgment oi mere philologists, 
 something more will be demanded by naturalists, 
 who, looking for more positive indications than 
 apparent synonyma and inferential derivation, 
 have recourse mainly to the context, lor the real ; 
 conditions, which must determine the meaning of ■ 
 disputed terms. Now, in Isa. xiv. 23, ‘ I will 
 make it a possession for the kippod (bittern), and , 
 pools of water,’ &c., the words are plain and < 
 natural. Marshes and pools are not the habi- , 
 tation of hedgehogs, for they shun water. In Isa, 
 xxxiv. 11, it is said, ‘The cormorant (Sterna ; 
 caspia) and the kippod (bittern) shall possess it, 
 the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it,. &c. > 
 that is, in the ruins of Idumeea. Here, again, the 
 version is plain, and a hedgehog most surely would 
 be out. of place. Zeph. ii. 14, ‘ Botli the coi- 
 morarit ( Sterna caspia) and the kippod (bittern) 
 shall lodge in the upper lintels of it; and their 
 voice shall sing in the windows,’ &c. Surely here 
 kippod cannot mean the hedgehog, a nocturnal, 
 grovelling, worm-eating animal, entirely or nearly 
 mute, and incapable of climbing up walls ; one | 
 that does not haunt ruins, but earthy banks in i 
 wooded regions, and that is absolutely solitaiy in 
 its habits. We thus see that the arguments respect- 
 ing kippod, supplied by kephud, or kephod foi 
 we find these various readings— are all mere spec* , 
 
KIR. 
 
 KIR-MOAB. 
 
 latnns, producing at best only negative results. 
 Those drawn from indications of manners, such 
 as the several texts contain, are, on the contrary, 
 positive, and leave no doubt that the animal 
 meant is not a hedgehog, nor even a mammal, 
 but a bird. Hence, though we admit the assumed 
 root of the denomination, still it must bear an 
 interpretation which is applicable to one of the 
 feathered tribes, probably to certain wading species, 
 which have, cliielly on the neck, long pointed 
 feathers, more or less speckled. The Arabian 
 bustard, Otis houbara , might be selected, if it 
 were not that bustards keep always in dry 
 deserts and uplands, and that they never roost, 
 their feet not admitting of perching, but rest 
 oti the ground. We think the term most ap- 
 plicable to the heron tribes, whose beaks are 
 formidable spikes that often kill hawks; a fact 
 well known to Eastern hunters. Of these, Nycti - 
 corax Europceus , or common night heron, with its 
 pencil of white feathers in the crest, is ac species, 
 not uncommon in the marshes of Western Asia; 
 and of several species of bittern, Arde.a (botaurus ) 
 stellaris has pointed long feathers on the neck 
 and breast, fieckled with black, and a strong 
 pointed bill. After the breeding-season it mi- 
 grates and passes the winter in the south, fre- 
 quenting' the marshes and rivers of Asia and 
 Europe, where it then roosts high above ground, 
 uttering a curious note before and alter its even- 
 ing llight, very distinct from the booming sound 
 produced by it in the breeding-season, and while 
 it remains in the marshes. Though not building, 
 like the stork, on the tops of houses, it resorts, 
 like the heron, to ruined structures, and we have 
 been informed that it has been seen on the sum- 
 mit of Tank Kesra at Ctesiphon. — C. H. S. 
 
 KIR (Tj? ; Sept. K vpios), a people and 
 country subject to the Assyrian empire, to which 
 the conquered Damascenes were transplanted 
 (2 Kings xvi. 9; Isa. xxii. 6; Amos i. 5), and 
 whither also the Aramaeans in the east of Syria 
 once wandered (Amos ix. 7). This is supposed 
 by Major Rennel to be the same country which 
 still bears the name of .Kurdistan or ifotmlistan 
 ( Geog . of Herodot. 391). There are, however, 
 objections to this view, which do not apply so 
 strongly to the notion of Rosenmiiller and others, 
 that it was a tract on the river Cyrus, or rattier 
 Kuros (K upos and Kvfipos), in Zend Koro, which 
 rises in the mountains between the Euxine and 
 Caspian Seas, and runs into the latter after being 
 joined by the Araxes. Gwrjistan, or Grusia 
 (Grusiaria), commonly called Georgia, seems 
 also to have derived its name from this river Kur, 
 which flows through it. 
 
 K1R-HARESH; Kir- Hareseth ; Kir- 
 Hekes. [Kir-Moab.] 
 
 KIRJATH. This word means town or city , 
 and is much used in the formation of names of 
 places, like our own town. The following are the 
 principal places distinguished by this term : — 
 
 1. K1RJATHAIM (D.rP*)p, double town; 
 Sept. KipLaOa'./j.), one of the most ancient towns 
 #n the country east of the Jordan, as it was pos- 
 sessed by the gigantic Emim (Gen. xiv. 5), who 
 were expelled by the Moabites (Deut. ii. 9, 10), 
 who in their turn were dispossessed by the Amo- 
 rites, from whom it was taken by the Israelites. 
 Kirjathaim was ther. assigned to Reuben (Num. 
 
 213 
 
 xxxii. 37; Josh. xiii. 19). But during the 
 Assyrian exile, the Moabites again took posses- 
 sion of this and other towns (Jer. xlviii. 1-23; 
 Ezek. xxv. 9). Eusebius places it about half 
 an hour west of the ruins of Medeba. Burckhardt 
 found other ruins, called El Te.ym, which he 
 conjectures to have been Kiria thaim, the last 
 syllable of the name being retained. This is 
 somewhat doubtful, as the K apiaba. (K upidda) of 
 Eusebius is placed ten miles west of Medeba, 
 whereas El Teym is but two miles. There was 
 another place of this name in the tribe of Naph- 
 tali (1 Cliron. vi. 76). 
 
 2. KIRJATH- ARBA, the ancient name of 
 Kebron, but. still in use in the time of Nehemiah 
 (vi. 26) [Hebron]. 
 
 3. KIRJATH-BAAL (city of Baal). This 
 city is more usually called Kirjath-jearim. 
 
 4. KIRJATH II UZOTH (city of streets), a 
 town in Moab (Num. xxii. 39). 
 
 5. KIRJATH-JEAR1M (Dn JP city 
 
 of forests ; Sept. KapiaOiaply), one of the towns 
 tf the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17). It was to 
 this place that the ark was brought from Beth- 
 shemesh, after it had been removed from the 
 land of the Pi^istines, and where it remained 
 till removed to Jerusalem by David (1 Sam. 
 vii. ; 1 Chron. xiii.). This was one of tha 
 ancient sites which were again inhabited after 
 the exile (Ezra ii. 25; Neh. vii. 29). Euse- 
 bius and Jerome speak of it as being in their 
 day a village nine or ten miles from Diospolis 
 (Lydda), on the road to Jerusalem. Dr. Robin- 
 son thinks it possible that the ancient Kirjath- 
 jearim may be recognised in the present Kuryet- 
 el-Enab. The first part of the name (Kirjath, 
 Kurvet, signifying city) is the same in both, and 
 is most, probably ancient, being found in Arabic 
 proper names only in Syria and Palestine, and 
 not very frequently even there. The only change 
 has been, that the ancient 4 city of forests’ has, 
 in modern times, become the ‘ city of grapes.’ The 
 site is also about three hours, or nine Roman 
 miles from Lydda, on the road to Jerusalem, and 
 not very remote fiom Giheon, from which Kirjath- 
 jearim could not well have been distant. So close 
 a correspondence of name and position seems to 
 warrant the conclusion of Dr. Robinson in favour 
 of Kuryet-el-Enab. This place is that which 
 ecclesiastical tradition has identified with the 
 Anathoth of Jeremiah, which Dr. Robinson refers 
 to Anata [Anathoth]. It is now a poor vil- 
 lage, its principal buildings being an old convent 
 of the Minorites, and a Latin church. The 
 latter is now deserted, but not in ruins, and is 
 said to be one of the largest and most solidly 
 constructed churches in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 
 109 ; 334-337 1 ). 
 
 6. KIRJATH-SANNAH (city of palms ; 
 Josh. xv. 49), otherwise Kirjath-sephkr (city 
 of the book ), a city of the tribe of Judah, called 
 also Debir, which see (Josh. xv. 15, 16 ; Judg. 
 i. 11, 12). 
 
 KIR-MOAB (n^lEn'i?, ( the ivall , strong- 
 hold , or citadel of Moab; Sept, r b ret^os rijj 
 Mwa£iVt5os; Isa. xv. 1); called also Kir-hare- 
 seth and Kiu-heres (nD“iri”*l'p and D"UVT£\ 
 brick-fortress ; Isa. xvi. 7, 1 1 ; Jer. xlviii. 31), a 
 fortified city in the territory of Moab. Joram king 
 of Israel took the city, and destroyed it, except the 
 
114 
 
 KISH. 
 
 KISHON. 
 
 walls; but it appears from t, he passages here cited 
 that it must _iave been rebuilt before tire time of 
 ■Isaiah. In his prophecy (xv. 1), the Chaldee 
 paraphrast has put HX'l^TX'D'D kerraka Moab , 
 ‘castle of Moab;’ and the former of these words, 
 pronounced in Arabic karak, kerek , or krak, is 
 the name it bears in 2 Macc. xii. 17, Xapa/ca : in 
 Steph.Byzant. it is called XapaK/xcu^a, in Abull'eda 
 (Tab. Syr. p. 89). and in the historians of the 
 Crusades. Abulfeda describes Karak as a small 
 town, with a castle on a high hill, and remarks 
 that it is so strong that one must deny himself 
 even the wish to take it by force. In the time of 
 the Crusades, and when in possession of the Franks, 
 it was invested by Saladin ; but after lying before 
 it a month he was compelled to raise the siege 
 (Bohaeddim, Vita Saladin. p. 55). The first person 
 who visited the place in modern times was Seet- 
 ten, who says, ‘ Near to Karak the wide plain 
 terminates which extends from Rabbah, and is 
 broken only by low and detached hills, and the 
 country now becomes mountainous. Karak, for- 
 merly a city and bishop’s see, lies on the top of 
 the hill near the end of a deep valley, and is sur- 
 rounded on all sides with lofty mountains. The 
 hill is very steep, and in many places the sides 
 are quite perpendicular. The walls round the 
 town are for the most part destroyed, and Karak 
 can at present boast of little more than being a 
 small country town. The castle, which is unin- 
 habited, and in a state of great decay, was formerly 
 one of the strongest in these countries. The inha- 
 bitants of the town consist of Mohammedans and 
 Greek Christians. The present bishop of Karak 
 resides at Jerusalem. From this place one enjoys, 
 by looking down the Wady Karak, a fine view of 
 part of the Dead Sea, and even Jerusalem may be 
 distinctly seen in clear weather. The hill on which 
 Karak lies is composed of limestone and brittle 
 marl, with many beds of blue, black, and grey 
 flints. In the neighbouring rocks there are a num- 
 ber of curious grottoes ; in those which are under 
 ground wheat is sometimes preserved for a period 
 of ten years’ (Zach’s Monatliche Correspond. 
 xviii. 434). A fuller account of the place is given 
 by Burckhardt ( Travels in Syria, pp. 379-387), 
 by whom it was next visited ; and another descrip- 
 tion is furnished by Irby and Mangles (Travels, 
 pp. 361-370). From their account it would seem 
 that the caverns noticed by Seetzen were probably 
 the sepulchres of the ancient, town. We also learn 
 that the Christians of Karak (which they and 
 Burckhardt call Kerek), are nearly as numerous 
 as the Turks, and boast of being stronger and 
 braver. They were, however, on good terms with 
 die Turks, and appeared to enjoy equal freedom 
 with them. 
 
 KISH, son of Ner, and father of King Saul 
 (1 Sam. ix. 1). 
 
 KISHON ; Sept. Kktuv), a river which, 
 
 after traversing the plain of Acre, enters the 
 bay of the same name at its south-east corner. 
 It is celebrated in Scripture for the overthrow of 
 the host of Sisera in its overflowing stream (Judg. 
 iv. 13 ; v. 21). It has been usual to trace the 
 source of this river to Mount Tabor ; but Dr. Shaw 
 affirms that in travelling along the south-eastern 
 brow of Mount Carmel, he had an opportunity of 
 seeing the sources of the liver Kishon, three or four 
 of which lie within less than a furlong of each 
 
 other, and are called Ras el Kishon, or the bead 
 of the Kishon. These alone, without the lessei 
 contributions near the sea, discharge watei enough 
 to form a river half as large as the Isis. During 
 the rainy season all the waters which fall upon 
 the eastern side of Carmel, or upon the rising 
 grounds to the southward, empty themselves into 
 it in a number of torrents, at which time it over- 
 flows its banks, acquires a wonderful rapidity, and 
 carries all before it. It was doubtless in such a 
 season that the host of Sisera was swept away, in 
 attempting to ford it.. But such inundations are 
 only occasional, and of short duration, as is indeed 
 implied in the destruction in its waters of the fu- 
 gitives, who doubtless expected to pass it. safely. 
 
 The course of the stream, as estimated from the 
 sources thus indicated, is not more than seven 
 miles. It runs very briskly till within half a 
 league of the sea ; but when not augmented by 
 rains, it never falls into the sea in a full stream, 
 but. insensibly percolates through a bank of sand, 
 which the north winds have thrown up at its mouth. 
 It was in this state that Shaw himself found it in 
 the month of April, 1722, when it was crossed by 
 him. 
 
 Notwithstanding Shaw’s contradiction, the as- 
 sertion that the Kishon derives its source from 
 Mount Tabor has been repeated by modern tra- 
 vellers as confidently as by their ancient prede- 
 cessors. Buckingham's statement, being made 
 with reference to the view from Mount Tabor itself, 
 deserves attention. He says that near the foot o< 
 the mountain on the south-west are ‘ the springs ot 
 the Ain-es-Sherrar, which send a perceptible stream 
 through the centre of the plain of Esdraelon, and 
 form the brook Kishon of antiquity.’ Further on, 
 the same traveller, on reaching the hills which 
 divide the plain of Esdraelon from that of Acre, 
 saw the pass through wh the river makes its way 
 from the one plain to the other ( Travels in Palest. 
 i. 168, 177). We have had opportunities of seeing 
 much of streams similarly constituted; and it 
 does not seem to us diflicult to reconcile the seem- 
 ingly conflicting statements with reference to the 
 Kishon. On further inquiry, and more extensive 
 comparison of observations made at different times 
 of the year, it will probably be found that the 
 remoter source of the river is really in Mount 
 Tabor ; but that the supply from this source is cut 
 off in early summer, when it ceases to be main- 
 tained by rains or contributory torrents ; whereas 
 the copious supply from the nearer springs at Ras 
 el Kishon, with other springs lower down, keep it 
 up from that point, as a perennial stream, even 
 during the drought of summer. Thus during 
 one part of the year the source of the river 
 may appear to be in Mount Tabor, while 
 during another part the source of the diminished 
 stream is at. Ras el Kishon. In this view of the 
 case we should expect that travellers crossing the 
 plain in or shortly after the season of rain, would 
 have encountered the temporary stream from 
 Mount Tabor before the point where it meels the 
 perennial stream! from Carmel. The fact is, 
 however, that the route has been little travelled in 
 that season ; but the required evidence is by no 
 means wanting. Mariti (ii. 112) mentions the case 
 of the English dragoman who was drowned, and 
 his horse with him, in the attempt to cross such a 
 stream in February, 1761. During the battle of 
 Mount Tabor, between the French and Arabs, 
 
KISHUIM. 
 
 KISS. 
 
 April 10, 1799, many of the latter were drowned 
 in their attempt to cross a stream, coming from 
 Deburieh, which then inundated the plain (Buvck- 
 hardf, Syria, p. 339). Monro, who crossed the 
 river early m April (in its lower or perennial part), 
 in order to ascend Mount Carmel, describes it as 
 traversing the plain of Esdraelon : which he could 
 not have done if he had not seen a stream flowing 
 in that' direction uniting with the river below 
 Mount Carmel. The river, where he crossed it, 
 in a boat, was then thirty yards wide. Afterwards, 
 in crossing an arm of it, in t he plain from Solam to 
 Nazareth, he incidentally furnishes ground for his 
 former view by stating that, he crossed ‘a consi- 
 derable brook, and afterwards some others, which 
 flow into a small lake on the northern side of the 
 plain, and eventually contribute to swell the 
 Kishon’ ( Ramble . i. 55, 2$1). Dr. Robinson 
 says that this account corresponds with channels 
 that he observed (Hibl. Researches, iii. 230). 
 Prokesch also, in April, 1$29, when travelling 
 directly from Ramleh to Nazareth, entered the 
 plain of Esdraelon at or near Lejjun, where he 
 came upon the Kishon, flowing in a deep bed 
 through marshy ground ; and after wandering 
 about for some time to find his way through the 
 morass, he was at last set right by an Arab, who 
 pointed out the proper ford ( Reise ins II. Land , 
 p. 129). 
 
 The Scriptural account of the overthrow of 
 Sisera's host manifestly shows that the stream 
 crossed the plain, and must have been of consider- 
 able size. The above arguments, to show that it did 
 bo, and still does so, notwithstanding Dr. Shaw's 
 account, were, in substance, given several years 
 ago in the Pictorial History of Palestine (Introd. 
 p. cxci.) ; and the writer has had the satisfaction 
 of seeing his view since confirmed by Dr. Robin- 
 son, who adds that ‘ not improbably, in ancient 
 times, when the country was perhaps more wooded, 
 there may have been permanent streams through- 
 out the whole plain. 
 
 The transaction of the prophet Elijah, who, after 
 his sacrifice on Carmel, commanded the priests of 
 Baal to be slain at die river Kishon (1 Kings 
 xviii. 40), requires no explanation, seeing that it 
 took place at die perennial lower stream. This 
 also explains, what has sometimes been asked, 
 whence, in that time of drought, the water was 
 obtained with which the prophet inundated his 
 altar and sacrifice. 
 
 KISHUIM (D'S&’p) is translated cucumbers 
 in our Audi. Vers., and the correctness of this 
 rendering has been almost universally admitted. 
 It first occurs in Num. xi. 5, in the verse already 
 quoted in Abattachi m, where the Israelites, when 
 ip the desert, express their longings for the melons 
 and the kishuim or cucumbers of Egypt. Reduced 
 from the plural form, the word kisha is so similar 
 
 to the Arabic hissa, that there can be very 
 
 li f tle doubt of their botli meaning the same thing. 
 Celsius gives keta, hati, and kusaia, as different 
 pronunciations of the same word in different Ori- 
 ental languages. It does not follow that these 
 names always indicate exactly the same species ; 
 sKce in the different countries they would probably 
 be appled to the kinds of cucumber most com- 
 mon, or pei haps to those which were most esteemed 
 in particulai Realities. Thus in Egypt the name 
 
 313 
 
 kati appears to he applied to the species which is 
 called Cucumis chate by botanists, and ‘queen of 
 cucumbers ’ by Hasselquist, who describes it as the 
 most, highly esteemed -of all those cultivated iu 
 Egypt [Abattachim]. In India the name kissa 
 
 is applied by the Mohammedans to the Ctictt' 
 mis utilissimus , or the common kukree of tbs 
 natives ; while in Persia and Syria the same name 
 would probably be applied only to the common 
 cucumber, or Cucumis sativus , as the two preced- 
 ing species are not likely to be much known in 
 either country. All travellers in the East notice 
 the extensive cultivation and consumption of cu- 
 cumbers and other herbs of the same tribe, espe- 
 cially where there is any moisture of soil, or the 
 possibility of irrigation. Thus even in the driest 
 parts, the neighbourhood of a well is often occu- 
 pied by a field of cucurbitaceous plants, generally 
 w ith a man or boy set. to guard it from plunder, 
 perched up on a temporary scaffold ing, with a 
 slight protection from the sun, where he may 
 himself be safe from the attacks of the more 
 powerful wild animals. That such plants appear 
 to have been similarly cultivated among the He- 
 brews is evident from Isa. i. 8, ‘ The daughter of 
 Zion is left like a cottage in a vineyard, like a 
 lodge in a garden of cucumbers as well as from 
 Baruch vi. 70, ‘ As a scarecrow in a garden of 
 cucumbers keepeth nothing, so are their gods of 
 wood’ [Abattachim]. — J. F. R. 
 
 KISS. Originally the act of kissing had a 
 symbolical character, and, though this import may 
 now be lost sight of, yet it must be recognised 
 the moment we attempt to understand or explain 
 its s ; gnification. Acts speak no less, sometime* 
 far more forcibly, than words. In the early period 
 
116 
 
 KISS. 
 
 KISSOS 
 
 of society, when the foundation was liid of most 
 even of our Western customs, action constituted a 
 large portion of what we may term human lan- 
 guage, or the means of intercommunication be- 
 tween man and man; because then words were 
 less numerous, books unknown, the entire ma- 
 chinery of speaking, being in its rudimental and 
 elementary state, less developed and called into 
 play ; to say nothing of that peculiarity of the 
 Oriental character (if, indeed, it be not a cha- 
 racteristic of all nations in primitive ages) which 
 inclined men to general taciturnity, with occa- 
 sional outhreaks of fervid, abrupt, or copious 
 eloquence. In this language of action, a kiss, 
 inasmuch as it was a bringing into contact of 
 parts of the body of two persons, was naturally 
 the expression and the symbol of affection, re- 
 gard, respect, and reverence; and if any deeper 
 source of its origin were sought for, it would, 
 doubtless, be found in the fondling and caresses 
 with which the mother expresses her tenderness 
 for her babe. That the custom is of very early 
 date appears from Gen. xxix. 13, where we 
 read — ‘ When Laban heard the tidings of Jacob, 
 his sister’s son, he ran to meet him, and embraced 
 him and kissed him, and brought him to his 
 house the practice was even then established 
 and recognised as a matter of course. In Gen. 
 xxvii. 26, 27, a kiss is a sign ofila flection between 
 a parent and child. It was also, as with some 
 modern nations, a tonen of friendship and regard 
 hestowed when friends or relations met or sepa- 
 rated (Tobit vii. 6; x. 12; Luke vii. 15; xv. 
 20; Acts xx. 37; Matt. xxvi. 48; 2 Sam. xx. 
 9). The church of Ephesus wept sore at Paul's 
 departure, and fell on his neck and kissed him. 
 When Orpah quitted Naomi and Ruth (Ruth i. 
 14), after the three had lifted tip their voice and 
 wept, she ‘ kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth 
 clave unto her.’ It was usual lo kiss the mouth 
 (Gen. xxxiii. 4 ; Exod. iv. 27 ; xviii. 7 ; 1 Sam. xx. 
 41 ; Prov. xxiv. 26) or the beard, which was then 
 taken hold of by the hand (2 Sam. xx. 9). Kiss- 
 ing ofthe feet was an expression of lowly and tender 
 regard (Luke vii. 38). Kissing of the hand of 
 another appears to be a modern practice : the pas- 
 sage of Job xxxi. 27, ‘ Or my mouth hath kissed 
 my hand,’ is not in point, and refers to idolatrous 
 usages, namely, the adoration of the heavenly 
 bodies. It was the custom to throw kisses towards 
 the images ofthe gods, and towards the sun and 
 moon (i Kings xix. 18; Hosea xiii. 2; Miuuc. 
 Felix, ii. 5; Tac. Hist. iii. 24. 3: Lucian. De 
 Salt. c. 17 ; PI in. Hist. Nat. xxvii i. 5). The kiss- 
 ing of princes was a token of homage (Ps. ii. 12; 
 1 Sam. x. 1 ; Xenoph .Cyrop. vii. 5. 32). Xenophon 
 says ( Agesil . v. 4) that it was a national cus- 
 tom with the Persians to kiss whomsoever they 
 honoured ; and a curious passage to this effect may 
 be found in the Cyropoedia (i. 4. 27). Kissing the 
 feet of princes was a token of subjection and 
 obedience; which was sometimes carried so far 
 that the print of the foot received the kiss, so as to 
 give the impression that the very dust had become 
 sacred by the roval tread, or that the subject was 
 not worthy to salute even the prince’s foot, but 
 was content to kiss the earth itself near or on 
 which he trod (Isa. xlix. 23 ; Micah vii. 17 ; Ps. 
 lxxii. 9; Dion Cass. lix. 27 ; Seneca, De Bene/. 
 ii. 12). The Rabbins, in the meddlesome, scru- 
 pulous, and falsely delicate spirit which animated 
 
 much of wnat they wrote, die not permit more 
 than three kinds of kisses, the kiss of reverence 
 of reception, and of dismissal (Breseliith ltabba 
 on Gen. xxix. 11). 
 
 The peculiar tendency of the Christian religion 
 to encourage honour towards all men, as men, to 
 foster and develop the softer affections, and, in the 
 trying condition of the early church, to make its 
 members intimately known one to another, and 
 unite them in the closest bonds, led to the observ- 
 ance of kissing as an accompaniment of that social 
 worship which took its origin in the very cradle 
 of our religion. Hence the exhortation — ‘ Salute 
 each other with a holy kiss’ (Rom. xvi. 16; see 
 also 1 Cor. xvi. 26; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 
 26 ; in 1 Pet. v. 1 1, it is termed ‘ a kiss of 
 charity ). The observance was continued in later 
 days, and lias not yet wholly disap peared, though 
 the peculiar circumstances have vanished which 
 gave propriety atid emphasis to such an expres- 
 sion of brotherly love and Christian friendship. 
 
 On the subject of this article consult Planner, 
 De Osculis Christianor. Veter. ; M. Ksmpius, 
 De Osculis , Francof 16°0 ; Jac. Ilenenschmidius, 
 Osculogia , Vitcb. 1630; P. Muller. De Osculo 
 Sancto, 1674; Boherg, De Osculis Hebr — J. R. B. 
 
 KiSSOS (Gr. Kurcrds), i ivy,’ is mentioned only 
 once, and that in the Apocrypha (2 Macc. vi.7), 
 where the Temple is described as being desecrated 
 by the Gentiles, and the Jews forced to depart 
 from the laws of their fathers: ‘ And when the 
 least of Bacchus was kept, the Jews were com- 
 pelled to go in procession to Bacchus, carrying 
 
 ivy.’ The term kicto-os or icittos seems to have 
 been applied by the Greeks in a general sense, ac 
 to have included many plants, and among them, 
 some climbers, as the convolvulus , besides the 
 
KOHATH. 
 
 KOPHER. 
 
 217 
 
 common ivy. which was especially dedicated to 
 Bacchus, and which was distinguished by the 
 name of ‘ Hedera poedca, Diotivsia aut Bac- 
 chica, quod ex ea poetarum coronae eonsuerentur.’ 
 It is well known that in the Dionysia, or festivals 
 in honour of Dionysus, and in the processions 
 called Oiacroi , with which they were celebrated, 
 women also took part, in the disguise of Bacchae, 
 Naiades, Nymphae, &c., adorned with garlauds of 
 ivy, &c. : thus Ovid (Fasti, iii. 766) : — 
 
 Cum hedera cincta est? hedera est gratissima 
 Baccho 
 
 Bacchus is generally thought to have been 
 educated in India, and the Indian Baghes has 
 been supposed to be the original of the name. The 
 fact of B&ghes being a compound of two words 
 signifying tiger and master or lord, would appear 
 to confirm the identity, since Bacchus is usually 
 repiesenfed as drawn in his chariot by a tiger 
 and a lion, and tigers, & c., are described as follow- 
 ing him in his Indian journey. As the ivy, how- 
 ever, is not a plant of India, it might be objected 
 to its being characteristic of an Indian god. But 
 in the mountains which bound India to the north, 
 both the ivy and tire vine may be found, and the 
 Greeks were acquainted with the fact that Mount 
 Mero is the only part of India where ivy was pro- 
 duced. Indeed, Alexander and his companions 
 are said to have crowned themselves with ivy in 
 honour of Bacchus. The ivy, Hedera Helix , 
 being a native of most parts of Europe, is too well 
 known to require special notice. — J. F. R. 
 KITE. [Gi.edb.] 
 
 KNEAD 1NG-TROUGHS. [Bread.] 
 
 KOHATH (H.ng, assembly ; Sept. Kaad), son 
 of Levi, and father of Amram, Izhar, Hebron, 
 and Uzziel (Gen. xlvi. 11). The descendants of 
 Kohath formed one of the three great divisions of 
 the Levitical tribe. This division contained the 
 priestly family which was descended from Aaron, 
 the son of Amram. In the service of the taber- 
 nacle, as settled in the wilderness, the Kohathites 
 had the distinguished charge of bearing the ark and 
 the sacred vessels ' v Exod. vi. 16; Num. iv. 4-6). 
 
 KOPHER, or Copiier (~l£D), occurs twice 
 in the Song of Solomon, and is in both places 
 translated camphire in the Authorized Version. 
 Thus (i. 14), ‘ My beloved is unto me as a 
 cluster o (camphire ( kupher ) in the vineyards of 
 En-gedi and in iv. 13, * Thy plants are an 
 orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits, 
 camphire (kopher), with spikenard.’ It. has been 
 supposed to indicate a bunch of grapes ( Botrus 
 kopher ), also camphor. The word camphire is 
 the old mode of spelling camphor , but this sub- 
 stance does not appear to have been known to 
 ancient commerce ; at least we cannot adduce any 
 proof that it was so. The woid Kopher is cer- 
 tainly very like Kafoor, the Eastern name for 
 camphor , but it also closely resembles the Greek 
 Kvvpos, or Kupros , usually written Cypros. In- 
 deed, as has been observed, it is the same word, 
 with the Greek pronunciation and termination. 
 The Kvirpos of the Greeks is, no doubt, the Law- 
 sonia inermis of Irotanists, and is described by 
 Dioscorides (i. 125) and by Pliny (xii. 24) : — 
 ‘ Cypros in Aigypto est arbor ziziphi (piece, 
 Dioscor.) foliis, semine coriandri, floie candido, 
 ttdorato. Coquitur hoc in oRo, premiturque postea, 
 
 quod cyprinum (Kbnpirov, Dioscoi i 65) vocatur 
 Optimum habetur e Canope, in ripis Nili nat.um : 
 secundum Ascalone Juda**: tertium Cypro in- 
 sula, odoris suavitate praecipuum.’ Sir T. Browne 
 and others have inferred that 1 he Kinrpos of the 
 Greeks was the kopher of the Hebrews. Marifi 
 remarks, that ‘ the shrub known in the Hebrew 
 language by the name of kopher is common in 
 the island of Cyprus, and thence had its Latin 
 name also, that ‘ the Botrus Cypri has been 
 supposed to be a kind of rare and exquisite 
 grapes, transplanted from Cyprus to Engaddi ; but 
 the Botrus is known to the natives of Cyprus as 
 an odoriferous shrub called henna , or alkanna.' 
 So R. Ben Melek ( ad Cant. i. 14), as quoted 
 and translated by Celsius (i. 223) : — ‘ Botrus 
 Copher id ipsum est , (juod Arabes vocant Al- 
 Hinna* Upon this Celsius remarks : — ‘ Hsec in 
 Talmude ssepius memoratur, quod in Judaea cres- 
 ceret, et Judaeorum legibus subjecta esset.’ If 
 we refer to the works of the Aral is, we find both 
 in Serapion and Avicenna, reference from their 
 Hinna to the description by Dioscorides and Galen, 
 of Kupros or Cypros. This identity is now uni- 
 versally acknowledged : the Kupros , therefore, 
 must have been Lawsonia inennis , as the Hinna 
 of the Arabs is well known to be. If we exa- 
 mine the works of Oriental travellers and natu- 
 ralists, we shall find that this plant is universally 
 esteemed in Eastern countries, and appears to 
 have been so from the earliest hmes, both on 
 account of the fragrance of its flowers, and the 
 colouring properties of its leaves. 
 
 Thus Rauwolff, when at Tripoli ( Travels , 
 iv.), ‘ found there another tree, not unlike unto 
 our privet, by the Arabians called Alcana , or 
 Henna , and by the Grecians, in their vulgar 
 tongue, Schenna, which they have from Egypt, 
 where, but above all in Cayre. they grow in 
 abundance. The Turks and Moors nurse these 
 up with great care and diligence, because of theii 
 sweet-smelling dowers. They also, as I am in- 
 
219 
 
 KORAH. 
 
 KORAII. 
 
 formed, kejp their leaves all winter, which leaves 
 they powder and mix with the juice of citrons, 
 and stain therewith against great holidays the 
 hair and nails of their childien of a red 
 colour, which colour may perhaps be seen with 
 us on the manes and tails of Turkish horses.’ 
 So Belon (ii. 74), when leaving Cairo ‘for Jeru- 
 salem, says : — ‘ Nous trouvasmes un petit arbris- 
 seau nomme Henne ou Alcanna, qu’ils taillent et 
 cultivent diligemment, et font d'iceluy des beaux 
 petits bois taillis. II est de grand revenu en 
 Egypte, car ils deseichent ses feuilles pour mettre 
 en poudre, a f.iire tie la teinture pour teindre en 
 jaune ; les femmes de tous les pays de Turqnie 
 out coustume de teindre les mains, les pietis, et 
 partie des cheveux en couleur jaune ou rouge ; et. 
 les hommes se teignent les ongles en rouge avec la 
 susdicte poudre’ ( Observ . p. 301). This custom 
 of dyeing the nails and the palms of the hands 
 and soles of the feet, of an iron-rust colour, with 
 henna, exists throughout, the East, from the 
 Mediterranean to the Ganges, as well as in 
 Northern Africa. In some parts the practice is 
 not confined to women and children, but. is also 
 followed by men, especially in Persia. In 
 dyeing the beard, the hair is turned to red by 
 this application, which is then changed to black by 
 a preparation of indigo. In dyeing the hair of 
 children, and the tails and manes of horses and 
 asses, the process is allowed to stop at the red 
 colour which the henna produces. In reference 
 to this universal practice of the East, Dr. Harris 
 observes that ‘ the expression in Deut. xxi. 12, 
 pare her nails,” may perhaps rather mean “ adorn 
 her nails, ’’ and imply the antiquity of this prac- 
 tice. This is a universal custom in Egypt, and 
 not to conform to it would be considered indecent. 
 It seems to have been practised by the ancient 
 Egyptians, for the nails of the mummies are 
 most commonly of a reddish hue.’ Seeing, then, 
 that the henna is so universally admired in the 
 East, both on account of the fragrance of its 
 flowers and the dye yielded by its leaves, and as 
 there is no doubt that it is the nvirpos of the Greeks, 
 and as this word is so similar to the kwpher of the 
 Hebrews, there is every probability of this last 
 being the henna of the Arabs, Lawsonia alba of 
 botanists. — J. F. R. 
 
 KORAH (nip, ice ; Sept. K ope), a Levite, 
 son of Izhar, the brother of Am ram, the father 
 of Moses and Aaron, who were therefore cousins 
 to Korah (Exod. vi. 21). From this near relation- 
 ship we may, with tolerable certainty, conjecture, 
 that the source of the disco- tent which led to the 
 steps afterwards taken by this unhappy man, lay 
 in his jealousy that the high honours and privi- 
 leges of the priesthood, to which he, who re- 
 mained a simple Levite, might, apart from the 
 divine appointment, seem to have had as good a 
 claim, should have been exclusively appropriated 
 to the family of Aaron. When to this was added 
 the civil authority of Moses, the whole power over 
 the nation would seem to him to have been en- 
 grossed by his cousins, the sons of Amram. Un- 
 der the influence of these feelings he organized a 
 conspiracy, for the purpose of redressing what 
 appeared to him the evil and injustice of this 
 arrangement. Dathan, Abiram, and On, the chief 
 persons who joined him, were of the tribe of 
 Hpuben; hut he was also supporfed by many 
 
 more from other tribes, making up the number of 
 250, men of name, rank, and influence, all who 
 may be regarded as representing the families of 
 which they were the heads. The private object 
 of Korah was apparently his own aggrandize- 
 ment, but his ostensible object, was the general 
 good of the people; and it is perhaps from want 
 of attention to this distinction that the transaction 
 has not been well understood. The design seems 
 to have been made acceptable to a large body of 
 the nation, on the ground that the first-born of 
 Israel had been deprived of their sacerdotal birth- 
 right in favour of the Levites, while the Levites 
 themselves announced that the priesthood had 
 been conferred by Moses (as they considered) on 
 his own brother’s family, in preference to those 
 who had equal claims ; and it is easy to con- 
 ceive that the Reubenites may have considered 
 the opportunity a favourable one for the recovery 
 of their birthright. — the double portion and civil 
 pre eminence — which had been foifeited by them 
 and given to Joseph. These are the explanations 
 of Aben-Ezra, and seem as reasonable as any 
 which have been offered. 
 
 The leading conspirators having organized 
 their plans, repaired in a body to Moses and 
 Aaron, boldly charged them with their usurpa- 
 tions, and requiied them to lay down their ill- 
 gotten power. Moses no sooner heard this than 
 he fell on his face, confounded at. the enormity of 
 so outrageous a revolt, against a system framed so 
 carefully for the benefit; of the nation. He left 
 the matter in the Lord’s hands, and desired them 
 to come cu the morrow, provided with censers for 
 incense, that the Lord himself, by some manifest 
 token, might, make known his will in this great 
 matter. As this order was particularly addressed 
 to the rebellious Levites, the Reubenites left the 
 place, and when afterwards called back by Moses, 
 returned a very insolent refusal, charging him 
 with having brought them out of the land of Egypt 
 under false pretences, ‘to kill them in the wil- 
 derness.’ 
 
 The next day Korah and his company appeared 
 before the tabernacle, attended by a multitude 
 of people cut of 1 he general body of the tribes. 
 Then the Shekinah, or symbol of the divine pre- 
 sence, which abode between the cherubim, ad 
 vanced to the entrance of the sacred fabric, and 
 a voice therefrom commanded Moses and Aaron to 
 stand apart, lest they should share in the destruction 
 which awaited the whole congregation. On hear- 
 ing these awful words the brothers fell on their 
 faces, and. by strong intercession, moved the Lord 
 to confine his wrath to the leaders in the rebellion, 
 and spare their unhappy dupes. The latter were 
 then ordered to separate themselves from their 
 leaders and from the tents in which they dwelt. 
 The terrible menace involved in this direction 
 had its weight, and the command was obeyed ; 
 and after Moses had appealed to what was to 
 happen as a proof of the authority by which he 
 acted, the earth opened, and received and closed 
 over the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. 
 The Reubenite conspiiators were in their tents, and 
 perished in them ; and at the same instant Korah 
 and his 250, who were offering incense at the door 
 of the tabernacle, were destroyed by a fire which 
 ‘ came out from the Lord that is, most probably, 
 in this case, from out of the cloud in which hii 
 presence dwelt. The censers which they had used 
 
K.USSEMETII 
 
 KUSSKMETII. 
 
 219 
 
 were afterwards made into plates, to form an outer 
 covering to the altar, and thus became a standing 
 monument, of this awful transaction (Num. xvi.). 
 On, although named in the first instance along 
 with Dathan and Abiram, does not further appear 
 either in the rebellion or its punishment. It is 
 hence supposed that he repented in time : and 
 Abendana and other Rabbinical writers allege 
 that his wife prevailed upon him to abandon the 
 Cause. 
 
 It might be supposed from the Scripture narra- 
 tive that the entire families of the conspirators 
 perished in the destruction of their tents. Doubt- 
 less all who were in the tents perished ; but as the 
 descendants ofKorah afterwards became eminent 
 in the Levitieal service, it is clear that his sons 
 were spared. They were probably living in sepa- 
 rate tents, orwere among those who sundered them- 
 selves from the conspirators at the command of 
 Moses. There is no reason to suppose that the 
 sons of Korah were children when their father 
 perished. The Korahites were appointed by 
 David to the office of guarding the doors of the 
 temple, and of singing praises. They, in fact, 
 occupied a distinguished place in the choral 
 service of the temple, and several of the Psalms 
 (xlii. xliv. xlix. lxxxiv. lxxxv. lxxxvii. lxxxviii.) 
 are inscribed to them. Hem an, the master of song 
 under David, was of this family, and his genea- 
 logy is traced through Korah up to Levi (1 Chron. 
 vi. 31-38.) 
 
 KOTZ. [Tiiorn.] 
 
 KR1NGN. [Lii.y.] 
 
 KUSSEMETH (n£|>3) occurs in three 
 places of Scripture. In the Authorized Version 
 it is translated rye in Exod. ix. 32 ; Isa. xxviii. 
 25, and Jitches in Ezek. iv. 9; but its true mean- 
 ing still remains uncertain. It was one of the cul- 
 tivated grains both of Egypt and of Syria, and one 
 of those employed as an article of diet. It was 
 also sown along with wheat, or, at least, its crop 
 was in the same state of forwardness ; for we learn 
 from Exod. ix. 32, that in the seventh plague the 
 hail-storm smote the barley which was in the ear, 
 and the flax which was boiled ; but that tire 
 wheat and the kussemeth were not smitten, for 
 they were not grown up. Respecting the wheat 
 and the barley, we know that they are often 
 town and come to maturity in different months. 
 Thus Forskal says, ‘ Hordeum cum mense 
 Februario maturatur, triticum ad fiuem Martii 
 persistit’ ( Flora TEgypt., p. 43). The events 
 above referred to probably took place in February 
 (vid. Piet. Bible). That kussemeth was culti- 
 vated in Palestine we learn from Isa. xxviii. 25, 
 where it is mentioned along with ketzah (nigella) 
 and cumin, wheat, and barley ; and sown, ac- 
 cording to some translators, ‘ on the extreme 
 border of the fields,’ as a kind of fence for other 
 kinds of corn. This is quite an Oriental practice, 
 and may be seen in the case of flax and other 
 grains in India, at the present day. The rye is 
 a grain of cold climates, and is not cultivated 
 even in the south of Europe. Korte declares 
 ( Travels , p. lf>8) that, no rye grows in Egypt; 
 and Shaw states (p. 351) that rye is little known 
 iri Barbaiy and Egypt (Rosenmuller, p. 76). 
 That the kussemeth was employed for making 
 bread by the Hebrews we know from Ezek. iv. 
 9, where the prophet is directed to ‘ take wheat, 
 
 and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, 
 and kussemeth, and put them in a vessel, and 
 make bread thereof.’ 
 
 Though it is very unlikely that kussemeth can 
 mean rye, it is not easy to say what cultivated grain 
 it denotes. The principal kinds of grain, it is to 
 be observed, are mentioned in the same passages 
 with the kussemeth. Celsius has, as usual, with 
 great labour and learning, collected together the 
 different translations which have, been given of 
 this difficult word. In the Arabic translation of 
 Exod. ix. 32, it is rendered julban : ‘ cicercula, non 
 circula, ut perperam legitur in versione Latina.’ 
 By other Arabian writers it is considered to mean 
 peas, and also beans. Many translate it vicia, or 
 vetches, as in the Authorized Version of Exod. ix. 
 32; for according to Maimonides (ad Tr. Shahb. 
 xx. 3), carschinin is a kind of legume, which in 
 the Arabic is called kirsana, but in the sacred 
 language kussemeth. Both julban and kirsana 
 mean species of pulse, but it is not easy to ascer- 
 tain the specific kinds. The majority, however, 
 instead of a legume, consider kussemeth to indi- 
 cate one of the cereal grains, as the rye ( sccale ), 
 or the oat (avena), neither of which is it likely to 
 have been. These have probably been selected 
 because commentators usually adduce such grains 
 as they themselves are acquainted with, or have 
 heard of as commonly cultivated. Celsius, how- 
 ever, informs us that in the Syriac and Chaldee 
 versions kusseaneth is translated kunta ; far in 
 the Latin Vulgate; far adoreum , Guisio, Tract. 
 Peak, viii. 5, and Tract. Chilaim, i. 1 ; £ea in 
 the Septu&gint, Isa. xxviii. Aquila, Symmachus, 
 and others render it speita. So Ben Melech, 
 on Exod. ix., and Ezekiel iv., says ‘ kyssemeth, 
 vulgo speita ,' anil the Septuagint has vpa. 
 Upon which Celsius remarks: ‘all these — thatis, 
 kunta, far, ador, £ea, speita, and ohvpa — are 
 one and the same thing.’ This he proves satis- 
 
220 
 
 LA AN AH. 
 
 LAANAH. 
 
 factorily hv quotations from tlie ancient authors 
 (l. c. ii. 100). ])r. Harris states that the word 
 
 kussemeth seems to be derived from casam, ‘ to 
 have long lia.ii s and that hernie a bearded grain 
 must be intended; which con firms the probability 
 of spelt being t! e true meaning. 
 
 Dioscoriiles has stated (ii. Ill), that there are 
 two kinds of Zeia, one simple, and the other 
 called dir.vccos. JSprengel concludes that this is, 
 without doubt, the Triticum Spelta of botanists; 
 that the olyrci was a variety which Host has called 
 Triticum Zea ; and also that, the simple kind is 
 the Triticum monococcon That, these grains were 
 cultivated in Egypt and Syria, and that they 
 were esteemed as food in those countries, may 
 also be satisfactorily proved. Thus Herodotus 
 states that the Egyptians employ ulyra, which 
 others call zea , as an article of diet. Pliny (Hist. 
 Nat. xviii. 8) mentions it as found both in Egypt 
 and in Syria : ‘.Egypto an tern ac Syriae, Cili- 
 ciaeque et Asiae, ac Giaeciae peculiares, zea. olyra, 
 tiphe.’ So in more modern times : • In .Egvpto 
 zeam abunde nasci relert Dapperus descriptione 
 Asiae p. loO. Et Monachos circa Jordanem, 
 pane d\vp'iTri vesci, scribit. Johannes Phocas de 
 Locis Syr. et Palae^tinae ]). 34’ (Cels. 1. c. 100). 
 That it was highly esteemed by ihe ancients is 
 evident from Dioscoriiles describing it. as more 
 nourishing than harlev, and grateful in taste. 
 Pliny also (xviii. 11) says: ‘Ex zea pulcrius, 
 quam ex tritico lit granum ;’ and Salmasio : ‘ quod 
 lautior panis ex zea quam ex tritico fieret.’ The 
 goodness of this grain is also implied from the 
 name of semen having been especially applied to 
 it (C. Bauhin, Pinox , p. 22). 
 
 Triticum Spelta , or Spelt, is in many respects 
 so closely allied to the common wheats as to 
 have been thought by some old authors to have 
 been the original stock of the cultivated kinds; 
 but for this there is no foundation, as the kind culti- 
 vated for ages in Europe does not differ from speci- 
 8 mens collected in a wild state. These were found by 
 a French botanist, Michaux, in Persia, on a moun- 
 tain four days’ journey to the north of Hamadan. 
 It is cultivated in many parts of Germany, in 
 Switzerland, in the south of France, and in Italy. 
 It is commonly sown in spring, and collected in 
 July and August. Though some circumstances 
 seem to point to this species as the kussemeth of 
 Scripture, the subject is still susceptible of further 
 investigation, anil can only he finally determined 
 by first ascertaining the modern agriculture of 
 eastern countries, and comparing it witli the 
 ancient accounts of the agriculture of Syria and 
 
 Egypt. — J. F. 11. 
 
 L. 
 
 LAANAH (H3yb), translated t cormwood, 
 occurs in several passages of Scripture, in most 
 of which it is employed in a figurative sense. 
 Thus, in Deut. xxix. 18, ‘ Lest there be among 
 you a root that beareth gall and wormwood ,’ is 
 applied to such Israelites as should worship fo- 
 reign gods. Prov. v. 4, ‘ But her end is hitter as 
 wormwood.’ Jer. ix. 15, * Behold I will feed 
 diem, even this people, with wormwood, and give 
 them gall to drink. So in Jer. xxiii. 13, and in 
 Lam. iii. 15 and 19, ‘Remember mine affliction 
 and my misery, the wormwood and gall,’ where 
 
 it is applied to public and private calamities i 
 and in Amos v. 7, it is said of unrighteous judges, 
 ‘ Ye who turn judgment to wormwood so in 
 verse 12, but here t lie word laanah is translated 
 hemlock. That laanah was a plant of an extreme 
 degree of bitterness, is evident from the various 
 passages in which it occurs; and it has hence, a» 
 Celsius observes, been adopted to indicate both 
 the sins and the punishments of men. Some 
 translators, as the Septuagint, substitute the pro- 
 per terms which they conceive the plant to 
 denote as avaynr), bHvvi), iriKpia , and S° 
 
 the Arab translator uses words signifying do- 
 lores, adversa, calamitates , aniaritudo. The 
 Hebrew word laanah is supposed by Lexico- 
 graphers to have been originally derived from 
 
 the same root as the Arabic cr* 1 laan , ‘ he was ac- 
 cursed;’ from which comes the Arabic laana , 
 
 signifying ‘ execration ' or ‘ malediction and as 
 the Hebrews accounted bitter plants as pernicious 
 and poisonous, so they typified what was dis- 
 agreeable or calamitous by a bitter plant. Thus, 
 as Celsius remarks, Talmud ical writers, in speak- 
 ing of the blessings and maledictions of Moses, 
 say, ‘ Illae mel, liae absinthium erant.’ The 
 Chaldee, and other Oriental translations, as the 
 Syriac and Arabic, in Prov. v. 4; Lam. iii. 19, 
 with the Rabbins, translate laanah by words 
 signifying wormwood. This is adopted in the 
 Vulgate, as well as in the English translation. 
 In Revelations viii. 11, we have the Gieek word 
 Hif/wOos employed ; ‘ And the name of the star 
 is called wormwood, and the third part of the 
 waters became wormwood (a\ptvOus), and many 
 men died of the waters, because they were bitter.’ 
 Some other plants have been adduced, as the 
 colocynth and the oleander, but without, anything 
 to support them ; while different kinds of arte- 
 misia, and of wormwood, are proverbial for their 
 bitterness, and often used in a figurative sense 
 by ancient authors : — 
 
 ‘ Parce, precor, lacerare tnum, nec amara paternis 
 Admiscere velis, ceu melli absinthia, verbis.’ 
 Paulin. Ep. ad Ausonium. 
 Celsius has no doubt that a species of artemisia, 
 or wormwood, is intended : ‘ Hanc plantam ama- 
 ram in Judaea et Arabia copiose nascentem, et 
 interpretum auctoritate egregie suflultam, ipsam 
 esse Ebraeorum pro indubitato habemus.’ 
 
 That species of artemisia are common in Syria 
 and Palestine is well known, as all travellers 
 mention their abundance in particular situations ; 
 hut as many of them resemble each other very 
 closely in properties, it is more difficult to deter- 
 mine what particular species is meant. It is pro- 
 bable, indeed, that, the name is used in a generic 
 rather than a specific sense. The species found in 
 Syria have already been mentioned under Ab- 
 sinthium. The species most celebrated in 
 Arabian works on Materia Medica is that called 
 
 sheeh, which is conspicuous for its bitter- 
 ness, and for being fatal to worms; hence it has 
 been commonly employed as an anthelm.ntic even 
 to our own times. This seems to be the same species 
 which was found by Rauwolff in Palestine, and 
 which he says the Arabs call scheha. It is his 
 ‘ Absinthium Sautouicum, scheha Arabum, unde 
 semen lumbricorum colligitur ;’ the Absinthium 
 
LABAN. 
 
 LABOUR. 
 
 221 
 
 Sanionicum Judairum of Caspar Bauhin, in his 
 Pmax, now Artemisia Judaica ; though it is pro- 
 bable two or three species yield the Semoni San- 
 tonicum , or wormwood of commerce, which, 
 instead of see 1, consists of the tops of the plants, 
 and in which the peduncles, calyx {lowers, and 
 young seeds are intermixed. Artemisia Mari- 
 tima and Judaica are two of the plants which 
 yield it. — J. F. R. 
 
 LABAN, son of Betlmel, and grandson of 
 Nahor, brother of Rebekah, and lather of Jacob’s 
 two wives, Leah and Rachel. 
 
 LABOUR is that steady and constant effort of 
 the bodily frame which man undertakes for his 
 own benefit, and, in particular, in order to procure 
 the means of subsistence. This is the primary 
 import of the term labour, whence are derived 
 its applications to the exertions and produc- 
 tions of the mind, and even to the affections, the 
 passions, and their consequences. In Gen. iii. 
 19, labour is set forth as a part of the primeval 
 curse, ‘ In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat 
 bread;’ and doubtless there is a view of labour 
 which exhibits it in reality as a heavy, sometimes 
 a crushing burden. But labour is by no means 
 exclusively An evil, nor is its prosecution a dis- 
 honour. These impressions, false though they 
 are, have wrought a vast and complicated amount 
 of harm to mail, especially to the industrious 
 classes, causing these classes, that is, the great 
 majority of our fellow-creatures, to be regarded, 
 and consequently to be treated, even in Christian 
 lands, as a pariah caste, as hereditary ‘ hewers 
 of wood and drawers of water,’ doomed by 
 Providence, if not primarily by the Creator 
 himself, to a low and degrading yoke, and ut- 
 terly incapable of entertaining lofty sentiments, 
 or rising to a higher position ; to be restrained 
 therefore in every manifestation of impatience, 
 lest they should temporarily gain the upper hand, 
 and lay waste the fair fields of civilization ; and 
 to be kept under for the safety of society, if not 
 for their own safety, by social burdens and the 
 depressing influences of disregard and contempt. 
 A better feeling, however, regarding labour and 
 labourers, is beginning to prevail : these notions, 
 which breathe the very spirit of slavery whence 
 they are borrowed, are in word disowned, while 
 they are gradually losing their hold on the heart, 
 and their influence on the life. Individuals 
 rising from time to time from the lowest levels 
 of social life to take, occupy, and adorn its loftiest 
 posts, have irresistibly shown that there is no de- 
 pression in society which the favours of God may 
 not reach. Especially has a wider and more 
 humane spirit begun to prevail since men have 
 learnt more accurately to know, and more power- 
 fully to feel, the genius and spirit of the Gospel, 
 whose originator was a carpenter's son, and whose 
 heralds were Galilean fishermen. Reason and 
 experience, too, in this as in all cases, have come 
 to confirm divinely revealed truth, tending for- 
 cibly to show that labour, if under certain cir- 
 cumstances it has a curse to inflict, has also many 
 priceless blessings to bestow. 
 
 The origin of the view of labour which the 
 passage in Genesis (iii. 19) presents, may be found, 
 as has been intimated, in certain unquestionable 
 fa;ts which have not yet passed out of the sphere 
 of reality. That labour involves pain and effort 
 to naan appears from an index of his feelings. 
 
 than which none can be more certain ; for labour 
 is often used as synonymous with end trance, 
 trial, and grief (Gen. xxxv. 1 G) ; so Virgil 
 (AZn. i. 597) 
 
 ‘ O sola in fund 03 Trojse miserata la bores.’ 
 
 These not unnatural convictions anti feelings 
 were in the primitive state of society corroborated 
 by peculiar, and to some extent local, influences. 
 Under an eastern sky hard labour is an almost 
 intolerable as well as crushing burden, to which, 
 when required, hardly any but slaves will submit. 
 And the high-spirited, free, and unrestrained child 
 of the desert, as well as the more tranquil, gentle, 
 but not less free shepherd of the plains, may well, 
 in the primeval ages, have regarded with aversion 
 and stigmatised with opprobrium the hard, and 
 comparatively constant, toils of the tillers of the 
 ground. 
 
 However, what is even a penalty in one stage of 
 human development and in one part of the world, 
 may, in the progress of Divine Providence, be con- 
 verted into a real and lasting blessing — a blessing 
 never to be forfeited unless by folly and sin. 
 Certainly the rewards of labour may accumu- 
 late so plenfeously around human beings under 
 certain conditions, that they may come to have 
 their minds more frequently struck, and so more 
 deeply impressed, by the advantages than by the 
 evils and inconveniences of labour. Constituted 
 as the frame of man is, labour is beneficial, if not 
 necessary, to the unfolding of his physical powers, 
 and when well apportioned to the variable degrees 
 of growing strength, powerfully conduces, with 
 internal impulses, to carry the body to its state of 
 highest, vigour and beauty, imparting meanwhile 
 a sense of deep and pure animal enjoyment, and 
 making food as grateful as it is nutritious, the 
 final immediate result of which is found in sound 
 slumbers and healthful feelings : ‘the sleep of a 
 labouring man is sweet’ (Eccl. v. 12). A fine 
 passage, which confirms these views, and serves to 
 show that Scripture in process of time regarded 
 labour otherwise than as a curse, may be found in 
 Ps. ciii. 23, 21, sq., in which both labour and its 
 fruits are placed among the proofs of the divine 
 wisdom and bounty. 
 
 Labour, however, like every other divine ap- 
 pointment, may be perverted by misuse into an 
 evil. Excessive labour is a curse. Labour apart 
 from certain conditions, whose observance is 
 essential to our physical well-being, entails last- 
 ing miseries. Labour which is both severe, long, 
 broken only by brief intervals, whether of riot or 
 of sin, is an infliction as hard as it is unjust— an 
 evil which no man has a right to impose on him- 
 self, and which still less can society lie justified 
 in compelling or leading any one to endure. 
 
 If, however, excessive labour is a crushing load, 
 the absence of labour is a not less intolerable bur- 
 den. Of all conditions in society, theirs is per- 
 haps the most pitiab! e who, possessing some degree 
 of mental culture, and being of refined and per- 
 haps morbid sensibilities, suffer under the irre- 
 mediable calamity of having nothing to do; no 
 regular pursuit, that is, no need of the labour of 
 either head or hands for the sustenance of the 
 body or the upholding of their social state ; who 
 rise in the morning not knowing to what to apply 
 their flagging capabilities, and retire to rest at 
 night wearied and jaded, but not solaced bv the 
 consciousness of having gained or done some good. 
 
LABOUR. 
 
 LAMECH. 
 
 »2‘J 
 
 Tliese two extremes — too much labour, anil too 
 little or no labour — are among the greatest of the 
 social ills under which English society is at pre- 
 sent suffering. They are ills which have grown 
 rapidly, which are growing, and which show no 
 signs of immediate diminution. They are under- 
 mining the foundations of religion, which is in 
 self-defence required to raise its mighty voice 
 against them. A successful effort towards the 
 equalization of labour would be a signal blessing 
 not less to the* rich than to the poor; and is called 
 for as much by the divine spirit of Christianity as 
 it. is by considerations drawn from the interests of 
 individuals and the welfare of society. 
 
 If enough had not already been said to establish 
 this position, we could refer to the institution at 
 a very early stage of the world's history of the 
 Sabbath, by which one-seventh of man's brief life 
 was rescued from labour, and appropriated to rest 
 of body and to that improvement of the mind 
 which tends to strengthen, invigorate, and sustain 
 the entire man. To the same effect, was the divine 
 appointment of those numerous holidays under 
 the Mosaic dispensation; and we are by no 
 means sure but that the genius of the Gospel was, 
 in this particular at least, better understood and 
 more fully honoured in those days and under 
 those forms of Christian faith which saved for the 
 refreshment and recreation of the labourer many 
 days during the course of the year, than it is now, 
 when we appear to have solved the unhappy 
 problem which asks, What is the extreme of toil 
 that the human frame can bear, without regaid to 
 vigorous sensations or length of days? 
 
 In regard to the different species of labour in 
 which human beings have been engaged, the 
 Hebrews, like other primitive nations, appear to 
 have been herdsmen before they were agricul- 
 turists (Gen. iv. 2, 12, 17, 22); and the practice 
 of keeping Hocks and herds continued in high 
 esteem and constant observance as a regular 
 employment and asocial condition (Judg. i. 16; 
 iv. 11; Jer. 85; Luke ii. 8). The culture of 
 the soil came in course of t ime, introducing the 
 discovery and exercise of the practical arts of 
 life, which eventually led to those refinements, 
 both as to processes and to applications, which 
 precede, if they do not create the fine arts (Gen. 
 iv. ; xxvi. 12; xxxiii. 19). Agriculture, indeed, 
 became the chief employment of the Hebrew 
 race after their settlement in Canaan, lay at the 
 very basis of the constitution, both civil and re- 
 ligious, which Moses gave them, was held in 
 great honour, and was carried on by the high as 
 as well as the humble in position (Judg. vi. 11 ; 
 
 1 Sam. xi. 5; 1 Kings xix. 19). No small care 
 was bestowed on the cultur e of the vine, which grew 
 •luxuriously on the hills of Palestine (Is. v. 2, 5 ; 
 Matt. xxi. 33 ; Num. xiii. 24). The vintage was 
 a season of jubilee (Judg. ix. 27; Jer. xxv. 30; 
 Is. xvi. 10). The hills of Palestine were also 
 adorned with well cultured olive-gardens, which 
 produced fruit useful for food, for anointing, and for 
 medicine (Is. xvii. 6 ; xxiv. 13: Dent. xxiv. 2.0 ; 
 Ezek. xxvii. 17 ; 1 Kings iv. 25 ; Hos. xiv. 6, 7). 
 Attention was also given to the culture of the fig- 
 tree (2 Kings xxi. 7 ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 28), as 
 well as of the date-palm (Lev. xxiii. 40; Judg. 
 i. 16; iv. 5; xx. 33; Dent, xxxiv. 3), and also 
 of balsam (Gen. xliii. 11 ; Ezek. xxvii. 17 ; 
 txxvii. 25; Jer. via. 22). For the rise and 
 
 progress of various kinds of hand labour among 
 the people of Israel, see Handicraft. — J. R. B. 
 
 LACHISH (&^'?^ ; Sept. A axis), a city in the 
 south of Judah, in the plain between Adoraim 
 and Azekah (Josh. x. 3, 5, 31 ; xv. 39.) It wai 
 rebuilt and fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi 
 9), and seems after that time to have .been re- 
 garded as one of the strongest fortresses of the 
 kingdom of Judah, having for a time braved the 
 assaults ot the Assyrian army under Sennacherib 
 (2 Kings xv i ii. 17 ; xix. 8 ;' 2 Chron. xxxii. 9).. 
 Eusebius and Jerome place it seven Roman 
 miles from Eleulheropolis towards toe south. 
 There has not been any more recent notice cf 
 the place, and no modern vestige of the name 
 or site has been discovered. 
 
 LAISH. [Dan.] 
 
 LAKES. [Palestine.] 
 
 LAMECH ; Sept. Ad/iey), son of 
 
 Methusael, and father of Jabal, Jubal, Tubal- 
 cain, and Naamah (Gen. iv. 18, 24, &c.). He 
 is recorded to have taken two wives, Adah and 
 Zillah ; and there appears no reason why the fact 
 should have been mentioned, unless to point him 
 out as the author of the evil practice of polygamy. 
 The manner in which the sons of Lamech distin- 
 guished themselves as the inventors of useful arts, 
 is mentioned under their several names. The 
 most remarkable circumstance in connection with 
 Lamech is the poetical address which he is very 
 abruptly introduced as making to his wives. This 
 is not only remarkable in itself, but is the first and 
 most ancient piece of poetry in the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures ; and, indeed, the only example of Antedi- 
 luvian poetry extant : — 
 
 ‘ Adah anil Zillah, hear my voice ! 
 
 Wives of Lamech, receive my speech! 
 
 If I slew a man to my wounding, 
 
 And a young man — to my hurt : 
 
 If Cain was avenged seven times, 
 
 Then Lamech — seventy times seven." 
 
 This exhibits the parallelism and other charac- 
 teristics of Hebrew poetry, the development of 
 which belongs to another article [Poetry], It 
 has- all the appearance of an extract from an old 
 poem, which we may suppose to have been handed 
 down by tradition to the time of Moses. It is 
 very difficult to discover to what it refers, and the 
 best explanation can be nothing more than a con- 
 jecture. The Jewish tradition, or rather fiction, 
 is given by most commentators, and is too absurd 
 to be worth relating. The speech, so far as we 
 can make it out, would seem to be, as Bishop 
 Lowth explains ( Prcelect . iv. 91), an apology foT 
 committing homicide, in his own defence, upon 
 some man who had violently assaulted him, 
 and, as it would seem, struck and wounded him ; 
 and he opposes a homicide of this nature to the 
 wilful and inexcusable fratricide of Cain. Under 
 this view Lamech would appear to have intended 
 to comfort his wives by the assurance that he was 
 really exposed to no danger from this act, and that 
 any attempt upon his life on the part of the 
 friends of the deceased would not fail t i bring down 
 upon them the severest vengeance (comp. Datke 
 and Rosenmiiller, hi loc. ; see also Turner’s Notes 
 on Genesis, p. 209). Another view, adopted by 
 Shuck ford in his Connection , supposes that the 
 descendants of Cain had lived for a long time in 
 
LAMECH. 
 
 LAMENTATIONS. 
 
 223 
 
 fear of vengeance for the death of Abel from the 
 familj of Adam ; and that Larnech, in order to 
 persuade, his wives of the groundlessness of such 
 fears, used the argument in (lie text, i.e. if any 
 one who might slay Cain, the murderer of his 
 brother, was threatened with sevenfold vengeance, 
 surely they must expect a far sorer punishment 
 who should presume to kill any of us on the same 
 account.’ This explanation, however, is less 
 satisfactory than the other; for although both 
 may be equally conjectural, this requires us to 
 assume a greater number of circumstances. 
 
 2 LAMECH, son of Methuselah, and father 
 of Noah (Gen. v. 28-31). * 
 
 LAMENTATIONS. This book is called by 
 the Hebrews ‘ how from the first word of 
 
 the book ; but sometimes they call it 
 tears, or k lamentation,’ in allusion to the 
 mournful character of the work, of which one 
 would conceive, says Bishop Lovvth, ‘ that every 
 letter was written with a tear, every word the 
 sound of a broken heart.’ From this, or rather 
 from the translation of it in the Septuagint 
 ( Qprjvoi ), conies our title of Lamentations. 
 
 The ascription of the Lamentations in the title 
 is of no authority in itself, but its correctness has 
 never been doubted. The style and manner of 
 the book are those of Jeremiah, and the circum- 
 stances alluded to, those by which he is known to 
 have been surrounded. This reference of the 
 Lamentations to Jeremiah occurs in the intro- 
 ductory verse which is found in the Septuagint : — 
 Kal iyevero pera rb al xpaXcaTiadrivai Tbv’laparjA, 
 real 'lepovcraAfyju. iprjpwO’fjvai, itcaQiaev 'lepepias 
 KXalcav, Kai idp-fivri<re rbv Opr^vov rovrov eirl 
 ’Upova-aA-fi/x, nal elne. ‘ And it came to pass, 
 after Israel had been carried away captive, and 
 Jerusalem was become desolate, that Jeremiah 
 sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation 
 over Jerusalem, and said.’ This has been copied 
 into the Arabic and Vulgate versions; but as it 
 does not exist in the Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac, 
 it was regarded by Jerome as spurious, and is 
 not admitted into his version. 
 
 It is disputed whether or not this verse existed 
 in the Hebrew copies from which the translation 
 of the Seventy was made. We are certainly not 
 bound by its authority if disposed to question the 
 conclusion which it supports. But it at least 
 shows the opinion which prevailed as to the 
 author, and the occasion of the book, at the time 
 the translation was made. That opinion, as 
 regards the author, has been admitted without 
 dispute; but there has been less unanimity re- 
 specting the subject-matter of the Lamentations. 
 
 Funeral lamentations, composed by Jeremiah 
 upon the death of king Josiah, are mentioned in 
 2 Cl iron, xxxv* 25, and are there said to have 
 been perpetuated by an ordinance in Israel. 
 That the Lamentations thus mentioned are those 
 which we now possess, has been the opinion of 
 many scholars of great eminence. Josephus 
 clearly takes this view (. Antiq . x. 5. 1), as do 
 Jerome ( Comment . in Zech. iii. 11), Theodoret, 
 and others of the fathers ; and in more modern 
 times, Archbishop Usher (De LXX. Interpret .), 
 Michaelis (Note on Lowth's Sac Poet. Hebr. 
 Prajlect. xxii.), who afterwards changed his opi- 
 oion, Datne ( Proph . Major, ed. 1), and others. 
 Oe Wette (Einleit. § 273) is clearly of opinion 
 
 that the passage in 2 Chronicles refers to the 
 existing hook of Lamentations, and that the 
 author considered the death of Josiah as its prin- 
 cipal subject. This daring writer uses so little 
 ceremony with the author of the book of Chro- 
 nicles on other occasions, that his own opinion 
 is not to he inferred from this admission; and 
 we are not surprised to find from what follows, 
 that he feels at liberty to take a different view 
 from the one which he believes the writer of Chro- 
 nicles to have entertained. 
 
 The received opinion, namely, that in accord- 
 ance with the argument prefixed to the book in the 
 Septuagint, is now all but universally acquiesced 
 in. It is adopted by nearly all commentators, 
 who, as they proceed through the book, find that 
 they cannot follow out the details on any other 
 supposition. Indeed, but for the reference sug- 
 gested by the passage in Chronicles, no one would 
 have been likely to imagine that such expressions 
 as are found in chap. i. 1.2. 3, 7, could point to 
 any other circumstances than those which attended 
 and followed the destruction of Jerusalem by the 
 Babylonians. Besides, the prophet throughout 
 speaks of the city and temple of Jerusalem as 
 ruined, profaned, and desolated: which certainly 
 was not the case in the time of Josiah, or at his 
 death. We may, under this view, regard the two 
 first chapters as occupied chiefly with the circum- 
 stances of the siege, and those immediately fol- 
 lowing that event. In the third the prophet 
 deplores the calamities and persecutions to which 
 he had himself been exposed : the fourth refers to 
 the ruin and desolation of the city, and the un- 
 happy lot of Zedekiah; and the fifth and last 
 seems to be a sort of prayer in the name, or on 
 behalf of, the Jews in their dispersion and cap- 
 tivity. As Jeremiah himself was eventually 
 compelled to withdraw into Egypt much against 
 his will (Jer. xliii. 6), it has been suggested that 
 the last chapter was possibly written there. Pa- 
 reau refers chap. i. to Jer, xxxvii. 5, sqq. ; chap, 
 iii. to Jer. xxxviii. 2, sqq.; chap. iv. to Jer. 
 xxxix. 1, sqq.. and 2 Kings xxv. 1, sqq.; chap, 
 ii. to the destruction of the city and temple; 
 chap. v. is admitted to he the latest, and to refer 
 to the time after that event. Evvald says that 
 the situation is the same throlighout, and only 
 the time different. In chaps, i. and ii. we find 
 sorrow without consolation ; in chap. iii. conso- 
 lation for the poet himself; in chap. iv. the 
 lamentation is renewed with greater violence; 
 but soon the whole people, as if urged by their 
 own spontaneous impulse, fall to weeping and 
 hoping’ (Die Poctisclien Bucher). De Wette 
 describes the Lamentations somewhat curtly, as 
 ‘ five songs relating to the destruction of the city 
 of Jerusalem and its temple (chaps, i. ii. iv. v.), 
 and to the unhappy lot of the poet himself (iii.). 
 The historical relation of the whole cannot be 
 doubted ; but yet there seems a gradual ascent in 
 describing the condition of the city ’ ( Einleit . 
 § 273). 
 
 Dr. Blayney, regarding both the date and 
 occasion of the Lamentations as established by 
 the internal evidence, adds, ‘ Nor can we admire 
 too much the flow of that full and graceful pa- 
 thetic eloquence, in which the author pours out 
 the effusions of a patriotic heart, and piously 
 weeps over the ruins of his venerable country 
 ( Jeremiah , p. 370). ‘ Never,’ says an uriquev 
 
LAMP. 
 
 LAMP. 
 
 %2i 
 
 tionable judge of these matters, * was there a 
 more rich ami elegant variety of beautiful images 
 and adjuncts, arranged together within so small 
 a compass, nor more happily chosen and applied 
 (Lowth, De Sacra Poesi itebr. Praeleot. xxii.). 
 
 Jarchi, and some other Jewish commentators, 
 fancy that the book; which, alter being pub- 
 licly read by Baruch, was cut to pieces by king 
 Jehoiachiu. and cast into the fire (Jer. xxxvi. 4, 5), 
 was composed of chaps, i. ii. iv. of the Lamenta- 
 tions, to which chap. v. was afterwards added. 
 But this notion does not. require confutation, as 
 there is not a shadow of probability in its favour. 
 
 In the ancient copies this book is supposed to 
 have occupied the place which is now assigned 
 to it, after Jeremiah. Indeed, from the manner 
 in which Josephus reckons up the books of the 
 Old Testament ( Contra Apion. i. $), it has been 
 supposed that Jeremiah and it originally formed 
 but one book (Piideaux, Connection , i. 332). 
 In the Bible now used by the Jews, however, the 
 book of Lamentations stands in the Hagiographa, 
 and among the live Megilloth, or books of Ruth, 
 Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song. They 
 believe that it. was not written by the gift of 
 •rophecy, but by the spirit of God (between 
 which they make a distinction), and give this 
 as a reason for not placing it among the prophets. 
 »t is read in their synagogues on the ninth of 
 ne month Ab, which is a fast for the destruction 
 *f the holy city. 
 
 LAMP (TS^, whence, jierhaps, Gr. \apirds, 
 *fie p being introduced in place of the Hebrew 
 Q, Lat. lampas , and our lamp). Lamps are very 
 often mentioned in Scripture; but there is 
 nothing to give any notion of their form. Al- 
 most the only fact we can gather is, that vegetable 
 «ls were burnt in them, and especially, if not 
 exclusively, olive-oil. This, of the finest quav 
 .tty, was the oil used in the seven lamps of the 
 Tabernacle (Exod. xxvii. 20). It is somewhat, 
 /emarkable, that while the golden candlestick, 
 or rather candelabrum, is so minutely described, 
 Hot a word is said of ihe shape, or even the ma- 
 terial, of the lamps (Exod. xxv. 37). This was, 
 >ernaps, because they were to be of the common 
 
 forms, already familiarly known to the Hebrews, 
 wad the same probably which were used in Egypt. 
 
 which they hard just quitted. Ti.ey were in this 
 instance doubtless of gold, although metal is 
 scarcely the best substance for a lamp, ^lie 
 golden candlestick may also suggest, that lamps 
 in ordinary use were placed on stands, and where 
 more than one was required, on stands with two 
 or more brandies. The modern Orientals, who 
 are satisfied with very little light in their rooms, 
 use stands of brass or wood, on which to raise the 
 lamps to a sufficient, height above the lloor on 
 which they sit. Such stands are shaped not un- 
 like a tall candlestick, spreading out at the top. 
 Sometimes the lamps are placed on brackets 
 against, the wall, made for the purpose, and often 
 upon stools. Doubtless the same contrivances 
 were employed by the Hebrews. 
 
 From the fact that lamps were carried in the 
 pitchers of Gideon's soldiers, from which, at the 
 end of the march, they were taken out, and borne 
 in the hand (Judg. vii. 16, 2u), we may with 
 certainty infer that they were not, like many of 
 the classical lamps, entirely open at top, but so 
 shaped that the oil could not easily be spilled. 
 
 This was remarkably the case in the Egyptian 
 specimens, and is not rare in the classical. Gi- 
 deon’s lamps must also have had handles; but 
 that the Hebrew lamps were always furnished 
 with handles we are not. bound to infer: in Egypt 
 we find lamps both with and without handles. 
 
 Although the lamp-oils of the Hebrews were 
 exclusively vegetable, it is probable that animal 
 fat was used, as it is at present, by the Western 
 Asiatics, by being placed in a kind of lamp, and 
 burnt by means of a wick inserted in it. This 
 we have often witnessed in districts where oil- 
 yielding plants are not. common. 
 
 Cotton wicks are now used throughout Asia; 
 but the Hebrews, like the Egyptians, probably 
 employed the outer and coarser fibre of flax 
 (Pliny, IHst. Nat. xix. 1); and perhaps linen 
 yarn, if the Rabbins are correct, in alleging that 
 the linen dresses of the priests were unravelled 
 when old, to furnish wicks for the sacred lamps 
 [Candlestick]. 
 
 It seems that the Hebrews, like the modern 
 Orientals, were accustomed to burn lamps over 
 night in their chambers ; and this practice maj 
 appear to give point to the expression of ‘ outer 
 darkness,’ which repeatedly occurs in the Net 
 
LAMPS. 
 
 LAMPS. 324 
 
 Testament (Matt. viii. 12 ; xxii. 13) : the force is 
 greater, however, when the contrast implied in the 
 term outer is viewed with reference to the effect 
 produced by sudden expulsion into the darkness 
 of night from a chamber highly illuminated for 
 an enter tainment. This custom of burning lamps 
 at night, with the effect produced by their going 
 out or being extinguished, supplies various figures 
 to the sacred writers (2 Sam. xxi. 17 ; Prov. xiii. 
 9 ; xx. 20). And, on the other hand, the keeping 
 up of a lamp's light is used as a symbol of en- 
 during and unbroken succession (1 Kings xi. 36 ; 
 xv. 4; Ps. cxxxii. 17). 
 
 It appears from Matt. xxv. 1, that the Jews used 
 tamps and torches in their marriage-ceremonies, 
 or rather when the bridegroom came to conduct 
 home the bride by night. This is still the custom 
 in those parts of the East where, on account of 
 the heat of the day, the bridal procession takes 
 place in the night time. The connection of lamps 
 and torches with marriage-ceremonies often appears 
 also in the classical poets (Homer, Iliad , vi. 
 492; Eurip. Phceniss. 346; Medea, 1027; Virg. 
 Eclog. viii. 29); and indeed Hymen, the god of 
 marriage, was figured as bearing a torch. The same 
 connection, it may be observed, is still preserved in 
 Western Asia, even where it is no longer usual to 
 bring home the bride by night. During two, or three, 
 or more nights preceding the wedding, the street 
 or quarter in which the bridegroom lives is illu- 
 minated with chandeliers and lanterns, or with lan- 
 terns and small lamps suspended from cords drawn 
 across from the bridegroom’s and several other 
 
 vol. n. IQ 
 
 ned and green, are attached to other cords (Lane’a 
 Mod. Egypt, i. 201). A modern lantern much used 
 on these occasions, with lamps hung about it and 
 suspended from it, is represented in the preceding 
 cut (No. 379). The lamps used separately on such 
 occasions are represented in the following cut (No. 
 380). Figs. 1, 3, and 5, show very distinctly the 
 
 shape of these lamps, with the conical receptacle 
 of wood which serves to protect the flame from 
 the wind. Lamps of this kind are sometimes 
 hung over doors. The shape in fig. 3 is also that 
 of a much-used in-door lamp. It is a small 
 vessel of glass, having a small tube at the bottom, 
 in which is stuck a wick formed of cotton twisted 
 round a piece of straw : some water is poured in 
 first, and then the oil. Lamps very nearly of 
 this shape appear on the Egyp f ian monuments, 
 and they seem also to be of glass (Wilkinson’s 
 Ancient Egyptians , iii. 101 ; v. 376). If ilia 
 Egyptians had lamps of glass, there is no reasor 
 why the Jews also might not have had them, espe- 
 cially as this material is more proper for lamps in- 
 tended to be hung up, and therefore to cast their 
 light down from above. The Jews certainly used 
 lamps in other festivals besides those of marriage. 
 The Roman satirist (Persius, Sat. v. 179) ex- 
 pressly describes them as making illuminations at 
 their festivals by lamps hung up and arranged in 
 an orderly manner; and theScriptural intimations, 
 so far as they go, agree with this description. If this 
 custom had not been so general in the ancient and 
 modern East, it might have been supposed that the 
 Jews adopted it from the Egyptians, who, accord- 
 ing to Herodotus (ii. 62), had a ‘ Feast of Lamps,’ 
 which was celebrated at Sais, and, indeed, 
 throughout the country at a certain season of the 
 year. The description which the historian gives 
 of the lamps employed on this occasion, strictly 
 applies to those in modern use already described, 
 and the concurrence of both these sources of illus- 
 tration strengthens the probable analogy of Jewish 
 usage. He speaks of them as * small vases filled 
 with salt and olive-oil, in which the wick floated, 
 and burnt during the whole night.’ It does not 
 indeed appear of what materials these vases were 
 made ; but we may reasonably suppose them to 
 have been of glass. 
 
 The later Jews had even something like this 
 feast among themselves. A ‘ Feast, of Lamps’ was 
 held every year on the twenty-fifth of the month 
 Chisleu. It was founded by Judas Macca- 
 baeus in celebration of the restoration of the 
 temple worship (Joseph. Antiq. xii. 7. 7), and 
 nas ever since been observed try the lighting up 
 of lamps or candles on that day in al 1 riie coun- 
 tries of their dispersion (Maimon. T jsh. Ilashl * 
 
226 
 
 LANTERN 
 
 LAODICEA. 
 
 nah, fol. 8). Other Orientals have at this day a 
 similar feast, of which the ‘ Feast of Lanterns' 
 among the Chinese is, perhaps, the best known 
 (Davis’s Chinese , p. 13S). 
 
 LANGUAGE. [Tongues, Confusi®n of.] 
 
 LANTERN ( <pav6s ). This word occurs only 
 in John xviii. 3, where the party of men which 
 went out of Jerusalem to apprehend Jesus in the 
 garden of Gethsemane is described as being pro- 
 vided ‘with lanterns and torches. 1 In the article 
 Lamp it has been shown that the Jewish lantern, 
 or, if we may so call it, lamp-frame, was similar 
 to that now in use among the Orientals. Another 
 of the same kind is represented in the annexed 
 engraving (No. 381, fig. 1). 
 
 As the streets of Eastern towns are not lighted 
 at night, and never were so, lanterns are used to 
 an extent not known among us. Such, doubtless, 
 was also formerly the case; and it is therefore 
 
 remarkable that the only trace of a lantern which 
 the Egyptian monuments offer, is that contained 
 in the present engraving (No. 382). In this case 
 it seems to be borne by he night-watch, or civic 
 
 guard, and is shaped like those in common um 
 among ourselves. A similar lantern is at this 
 day used in Persia, and perhaps does i.ot ma- 
 terially differ from those mentioned in Scripture. 
 More common at present, in Western Asia is a 
 large folding lantern of waxed cloth strained over 
 rings of wire, with a top and bottom of tinned 
 copper (No. 381, figs. 2, 3). It is usually about 
 two feet long by nine inches in diameter, and is 
 carried by servants before their masters, who often 
 pay visits to their friends at or alter supper -time. 
 In many Eastern towns the municipal law for- 
 bids any one to be in the streets after nightfall 
 without a lantern. 
 
 LAODICEA (AaoSficeta). There were four 
 places of this name, which it may be well to dis- 
 tinguish, in order to prevent them from being con- 
 founded with one another. The first was in the 
 western part of Phrygia, on the borders of Lydia ; 
 the second, in the eastern part of the same country, 
 denominated Laodicea Combusta ; the third, on 
 the coast of Syria, called Laodicea ad Mare, and 
 serving as the port of Aleppo ; and the fourth, in 
 the same country, called Laodicea ad Libanum, 
 from its proximity to that mountain. The third 
 of these, that on the coast of Syria, was destroyed 
 by the great earthquake of Aleppo in August, 
 1822, and at the time of that event was supposed 
 by many to be the Laodicea of Scripture, al- 
 though in fact not less than four hundred miles 
 from it. But the first named, lying on the confines 
 of Phrygia and Lydia, about forty miles east of 
 Ephesus, is the only Laodicea mentioned in 
 Scripture, and is that one of the ‘ seven churches 
 in Asia 1 to which St. John was commissioned to 
 deliver the awful warning contained in Rev. iii. 
 14-19. The fulfilment of this warning is to be 
 sought, as we take it, in the history of the Chris- 
 tian church which existed in that city, and nol 
 in the stone and mortar of the city itself; for it is 
 not the city, but ‘the church of the Laodiceans,* 
 which is denounced. It is true that the city is 
 utterly ruined ; but this is the case with innu- 
 merable other towns in Asia Minor. It is the 
 precise reference to the seven churches as such, 
 without any other reference to the cities than as 
 giving them a name, which imparts a marked dis- 
 tinction to the Apocalyptic prophecies. But this 
 has been little heeded by writers on the subject, 
 who somewhat unaccountably seek, in the actual 
 and material condition of these cities, the accom- 
 plishment of spiritual warnings and denunciations. 
 At the present day, would an authorized denun- 
 ciation of ‘ the church in London, 1 as in danger 1 
 of being cast forth for its lukewarmness, be un- 
 derstood to imply that London itself was destined 
 to become a heap of ruins, with its bridges broken 
 down, and its palaces and temples overthrown? 
 
 Laodicea was the capital of Greater Phrygia, 
 and a very considerable city at the time it was 
 named in Scripture (Strabo, p. 578) ; but the 
 frequency of earthquakes, to which this district 
 has always been liable, demolished, some ages 
 after, great part of the city, destroyed many of 
 the inhabitants, and eventually obliged the re- 
 mainder to abandon the spot altogether. Smiih, 
 in his Journey to the Seven Churches (1671), was 
 the first to describe the site of Laodicea. He was 
 followed by Chandler and Pococke ; and the lo- 
 cality has, within the present century, been visited 
 by Mr. Hartley, Mr. Arundel!, and Col. Leake. 
 
LAPWING. 
 
 LAPWING. 
 
 227 
 
 Ls/xlicaa is now a deserted place, called by the 
 Turks Eski-hissar (Old Castle), a Turkish word 
 equivalent to Paleo-kastrOj which the Greeks so 
 frequently apply to aucient sites. From its ruins, 
 Laodicea seems to have been situated upon six or 
 seven hills, taking up a large extent of ground. 
 To the north and north-east runs the river Lycus, 
 about a mile and a half distant ; but nearer it 
 is watered by two small streams, the Asopus and 
 Caprus, the one to the west, and the other to the 
 south-east, both passing into the Lycus, which 
 last flows into the Maeander (Smith, p. 85). 
 
 Laodicea preserves great remains of its import- 
 ance as the residence of the Roman governors of 
 Asia under the emperors; namely, a stadium, in 
 
 uncommon preservation, three theatres, one cf 
 which is 450 feet in diameter, and the ruins of 
 several other buildings (Antiq. of Ionia, pt. ii. 
 p. 32 ; Chandler’s Asia Minor, c. 67). Col. Leake 
 says: ‘There are few ancient sites more likely 
 than Laodicea to preserve many curious remains 
 of antiquity beneath the surface of the soil ; its 
 opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was 
 subject, rendering it probable that valuable works 
 of art were often there buried beneath the ruins 
 of the public and private edifices (Cicero, Epnst. 
 ad Amic. ii. 17; iii. 5; v. 20; Tacit. Annal. 
 xiv. 27). And a similar remark, though in a 
 lesser degree, perhaps, will apply to the other 
 cities of the vale of the Maeander, as well as to 
 
 383. [Laodicea.] 
 
 some of those situated to the north of Mount 
 Tmolus ; for Strabo (pp. 579, 628, 630) informs 
 us that Philadelphia, Sardis, and Magnesia of 
 Sipylus, were, not less than Laodicea and the 
 cities of the Maeander as far as Apameia at the 
 sources of that river, subject to the same dreadful 
 calamity’ (Geography of Asia Minor , p. 253). 
 
 LAPWING, in our version, is used for 
 riB'D-n duhiphath, a word which, occurring 
 only in Lev. xi. 19, and Deut. jciv. 18, affords 
 no internal or collateral evidence to establish 
 the propriety of the translation. It has been 
 surmised to mean ‘ double-crest which is suf- 
 ficiently correct when applied to the hoopoe ; 
 but. less so when applied to the lapwing, or the 
 cock of tlie woods, Tetrao Urogallus ; for which 
 bird Bochart produces a more direct etymology ; 
 and he might have appealed to the fact, that the 
 Attagan visits Syria in winter, exclusive of at 
 least two species of Pterocles, or sand-grouse, 
 which probably remain all the year. But these 
 names were anciently, as well as in modern 
 times, so often confounded, that the Greek writers 
 even used the term Gallinacea to denote the hoo- 
 
 poe; for Hesychius explains eiroij/ in ASscnyim 
 by the Greek appellations of ‘ moor-cock’ and 
 ‘ mountain-cock ’ (see Bochart, in voce Duki - 
 phath) ; and in modern languages similar mis- 
 takes respecting this bird are abundant. The 
 Septuagint and Vulgate agree with the Arabian 
 interpreters in translating the Hebrew nS'lD'H by 
 €7 ro\f/, and upapa; and as the Syrian name li 
 kikuphah, and the Egyptian kukuphah, both 
 apparently of the same origin as duhiphath, the 1 
 propriety of substituting hoopoe for lapwing m 
 our version appears sufficiently established. 
 
 The hoopoe is not uncommon in Palestine at 
 this day, and was from remote ages a bird of 
 mystery. The summit of the augural rod is said 
 to have been carved in the form of an hoopoe’s 
 head ; and one of the kind is still used by India** 
 gosseins, and even Armenian bishops, attention 
 being no doubt drawn to the bird by its pecu- 
 liarly arranged black and white bars upon a de- 
 licate vinous fawn-colour, and further embellished 
 with a beautiful fan-shaped crest of the same 
 colour, tipped with white and black. Its appel» 
 lations in all languages appear to be either imita- 
 tions of the bird’s voice, or indications of its filthy 
 
LATIN ISMS. 
 
 LATINISMS. 
 
 *28 
 
 habits ; which, however, modern ornithologists 
 deny, or do not notice. In Egypt these birds are 
 
 numerous ; forming, probably, two species, the one 
 permanently resident about human habitations, 
 the other migratory, and the same that visits 
 Europe. The latter wades in the mud when the 
 Nile has subsided, and seeks for worms and in- 
 sects ; and the former is known to rear its young 
 so much immersed in the shards and fragments of 
 beetles, & c. as to cause a disagreeable smell 
 about its nest, which is always in holes or in 
 hollow trees. Though an unclean bird in the 
 Hebrew law, the common migratory hoopoe is 
 eaten in Egypt, and sometimes also in Italy; 
 but the stationary species is considered inedible. 
 It is unnecessary to give further description of a 
 bird so well known as the hoopoe, which, though 
 not common, is nevertheless an annual visitant 
 of England, arriving soon after the cuckoo. — 
 
 C. H. S. 
 
 LATINISMS. This word, which properly 
 signifies idioms or phraseology peculiar to the 
 Latin tongue, is extended by Biblical critics so as 
 to include also the Latin words occurring in the 
 Greek Testament. It is but reasonable to expect 
 the existence of Latinisms in the language of 
 every country subdued by the Romans. The in- 
 troduction of their civil and military officers, of 
 settlers, and merchants, would naturally be fol- 
 lowed by an infusion of Roman terms, &c., into 
 the language of their new subjects' There would 
 be many new tilings made known to some of them, 
 for which they could find no corresponding word 
 in their own tongues. The circumstance that the 
 proceedings in courts of law were, in every part of 
 the Roman empire, conducted in the Latin lan- 
 guage, would necessarily cause the introduction 
 of many Roman words into the department of 
 law, as might be amply illustrated from the pre- 
 sent state of the juridical language in every coun- 
 try once subject to the Romans, and among others, 
 our own. Valerius Maximus (ii. 2. 2), indeed, 
 records the tenacity of the ancient Romans for 
 their language in their intercourse with the Greeks, 
 ami their strenuous endeavours to propagate it 
 through all their dominions. The Latinisms in 
 the New Testament are of three kinds, consisting 
 (1) of Latin words Th Greek letters; (2) of Latin 
 senses of Greek words ; and (3) of those forms of 
 speech wnich are more properly called Latinisms. 
 The following may suffice as examples of each 
 of these : First, Latin words in Greek characters : 
 icrcrdpioy, ‘ farthing,’ from the Latin assarius 
 (Matt. x. 2 9^. This word is used likewise by 
 
 Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Athe- 
 naeus, as may be seen in Wetstein, in loc. llnvaos, 
 cetisus (Matt. xvii. 25): KevTvplov, centurio (Mark 
 xv. 39), &c. : Aeyetov, legio, ‘ legion’ (Matt, xxvi 
 53). Polybius (b.c. 150) has also adopted the 
 Roman military terms (vi. 17) 1616. 'S.irtKov- 
 Aarajp, speculator , ‘ a spy,’ from specular, ‘ to 
 look about or, as Wahl and Schleusner think, 
 from spiculum , the weapon carried by the specu- 
 lator. The word describes the emperor’s life- 
 guards, who, among other duties, punished the con- 
 demned ; hence ‘ an executioner ’ (Mark vi. 27), 
 margin, ‘ one of his guard ;’ (comp. Tacitus, Hist. 
 i. 25 ; Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 33. 7 ; Seneca, 
 De Ira , i. 16). Ma/ceAAov, from macellum , ‘ a mar- 
 ket-place for llesh* (1 Cor. x. 25). As Corinth 
 was now a Roman colony, it is only consistent to 
 find that the inhabitants had adopted this name 
 for their public market, and that Paul, writing to 
 them, should employ it. MiAtov (Matt. v. 41). 
 This word is also used by Polybius (xxxiv. 11.8) 
 and Strabo (v. p. 332). Secondly, Latin senses 
 of Greek words : as Kapirds (Rom. xv. 28), ‘ fruit,’ 
 where it seems to be used in the sense of emolu - 
 mentum, ‘ gain upon money lent,’ &c. : eiraivos, 
 ‘praise,’ in the juridical sense of elogium, a tes- 
 timonial either of honour or reproach (1 Cor. iv. 
 5). Thirdly, those forms of speech which are pro- 
 perly called Latinisms : as jiovAiipevos rip vx^V 
 rb iKavbv -iroiriacu , ‘ willing to content the people' 
 (Mark xv. 15), which corresponds to the phrase 
 satisfacere alicui: AajSeiV r b hcavbv nrapd, ‘ to take 
 security of,’ satis accipere ab (Acts xvii. 9^) : 8b- 
 epyacriav, ‘ give diligence,’ da operam (Luxe xii 
 58) ; the phrase remittei'e ad alium judieem iv 
 retained in Luke xxiii. 15 : erv bxpei, ‘ see thou to 
 that,’ tu videris (Matt, xxvii. 4) (Aricler, Ilerme- 
 neut. Biblica,\ ieunae, 1813, p. 99; Michaelis 
 Introduction to the New Testament, by Marsh. 
 Cambridge, 1793, vol. i. part i. p. 163, sqq.). 
 The importance of the Latinisms in the Greek 
 Testament, consists in this, that, as we have partly 
 shown (and the proof might be much extended) 
 they are to be found in the best Greek writers of the 
 same era. Their occurrence, therefore, in the New 
 Testament adds one thread more to that compli- 
 cation of probabilities with which the Christian 
 history is attended. Had the Greek Testament 
 been free from them, the objection, though recon- 
 dite, would have been strong. At the same time 
 the subject is intricate, and admits of much dis- 
 cussion. Dr. Marsh disputes some of the instances 
 adduced by Michaelis ( ut supra, p. 431, sqq.). 
 Dresigius even contends that there are no Latin- 
 isms in the New Testament. ( De Latinismis, 
 Leipsig, 1726; and see his Vindicia- Disscrta- 
 tionis de Latinismis ). Even Aricler allows that 
 some instances adduced by him may have a 
 purely Greek origin. Truth, as usual, lies in the 
 middle, and there are, no doubt, many irre- 
 fragable instances of Latinisms, which will amply 
 repay the attention of the student (see Georgii 
 Ilierocrit. de Latinismis Novi Test. Witteberg, 
 1733; Kypke, Observ. Sacr. ii. 219, Wratis. 
 1755; Pritii Introductio in Lect. Nov. Test., 
 p. 207. sqq. Leips. 1722. Winer refers also to 
 Wernsdorf, De Christo Latine loquente, p. 19; 
 Jahn's Archiv. ii. iv. ; Olearius, De Stylo Nov. 
 Test. p. 368, sqq.; .Tnchofer, Sacrte Latinitatu 
 llistoria, Prag. 1742; s eeBibl. Real- Worterbue\ 
 art. Rower , Romisches , &c.\ — J F. D. 
 
LAVER. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 229 
 
 LAVER pY'? and TO ; Sept. \ovr P 6v), a 
 basin to contain the water used by the priests in 
 their ablutions during their sacred ministrations. 
 There was one of brass (fabricated out of 
 the metal mirrors which the women brought 
 from Egypt, Exod. xxxviii. 8). It had a ‘foot’ 
 or base, which, from the manner in which 1 the 
 Iaver and its foot’ are mentioned, must have 
 been a conspicuous feature, and was perhaps se- 
 parable from the basin itself for the purpose of 
 removal. We are not informed of the size or 
 shape of this laver; but it appears to have been 
 large. It stood between the altar of burnt- 
 offerings and. the door of. the tabernacle (Exod. 
 xxx. 18-21 ; xl. 30-32). The water of this laver 
 seems to have served the double purpose of 
 washing the parts of the sacrifices, and the hands 
 and feet of the priests. But in the temple of Solo- 
 mon, when the number of both priests and victims 
 had greatly increased, ten lavers were used for 
 the sacrifices, and the molten sea for the personal 
 ablutions of the priests (2 Chron. iv. 6). These 
 lavers are more minutely described than that of 
 the tabernacle. So far as can be made out from 
 the description, they consisted of a square base 
 or stand mounted upon rollers or wheels, and 
 adorned with figures of palm-trees, cherubim, 
 lions, and oxen. The stand doubtless formed a 
 hollow basin for receiving the water which fell 
 from the laver itself, and which appears to have 
 been drawn from it by means of cocks (1 Kings 
 vii. 27-39). The form of the lavers is not men- 
 tioned ; but it is stated that each of them con- 
 tained forty baths, or, according to the usual 
 computation, about 300 English gallons. From 
 the manner in which the bases of the lavers are 
 described, it is evident that they were regarded 
 as admirable works of art; but it is difficult to 
 follow out the details which are given. This is 
 evinced by the great discrepancy in the different 
 figures, drawn from the descriptions which are 
 given by Lamy, Calmet, and Villalpandus. 
 
 In the second temple there appears to have 
 been only one laver. Of its size or shape we 
 have no information, but it was probably like 
 those of Solomon's temple. 
 
 LAW (TTTlPl ; Gr. v6yos ) means a rule of con- 
 duct enforced by an authority superior to that of the 
 moral beings to whom it is given. The word law 
 is sometimes also employed in order to express 
 iiot only the moral connection between free agents 
 of an inferior and others of a superior power, but 
 also in order to express the nexus causalis, the 
 connection between cause and effect in inanimate 
 nature. However, the expression law of nature , 
 lex % atxirce, is improper and figurative. The 
 term law implies, in its strict sense, spontaneity , 
 or the power of deciding between right and wrong, 
 and of choosing between good and evil, as well 
 on the part of the lawgiver, as on the part of those 
 who have to regulate their conduct according to 
 his dictates. It frequently signifies not merely 
 
 on individual rule of conduct, as H^iyn mitt, 
 the law of burnt offering ; mWn min (Lev. 
 xii. 2), the law concerning the conduct of 
 wamen after childbirth ; jmiOH min, the 
 law concerning the conduct :f persons afflicted 
 with leprosy (Lev. xiv. 2); n“On mm, the 
 description of a building to ;e erected by an 
 
 architect : — but it signifies also a whole body of 
 legislation ; as min (1 Kings ii. 3 : 
 
 2 Kings xxiii. 25; Ezra iii. 2), the laxo given 
 by Moses, which, in reference to its divine origin, 
 is called m min, the law of Jehovah (Ps. 
 xix. 8; xxxvii. 31; Isa. v. 21; xxx. 9). In 
 the latter sense it is called, by way of eminence, 
 minn, THE law (Deut. i. 5; iv. 8, 44; xvii. 
 18, 19; xxvii. 3, 8). If not the substance of 
 legislation, but rather the external written code 
 in which it is contained i3 meant, the following 
 terms are employed : min “1SD (2 Kings 
 
 xiv. 6 ; Isa. viii! 31 ; xxiii. 6); HliT min “HDD 
 
 or min TDD (.Tosh. xxiv. 26). 
 
 In a wider sense the word v6yos, ‘ law,’ is em- 
 ployed in order to express any guiding or direct- 
 ing power, originating from the nature of any- 
 thing existing. The apostolic use of the word 
 has been well expressed by Claudius Guilliaud 
 in his work, In Omnes Paruli Epistolas Col - 
 latio , p. 21. Law is a certain power restraining 
 from some, and impelling to other things oi 
 actions. Whatever has such a power, and exer- 
 cises any sway over man, may be called law, in 
 a metaphorical sense. Thus the Apostle (Rom. 
 vii. 23) calls the right impulses and the sanctified 
 will of the mind, voyos rov voos, the law of the 
 mind; and the perverse desire to sin which is 
 inherent in our members, vhyos iv rois yeXeax, 
 the laxo in the xnembers. In the same manner 
 he calls that power of faith which certainly 
 governs the whole man, since the actions of every 
 man are swayed by his convictions, v6yos tvic- 
 recvs, the laxo of faith. So, the power and 
 value ascribed to ceremonies, or rather to all 
 outward acts, he designates voyos ruv ivroXuv, 
 the law of px'ecepts. 
 
 Similar expressions are, v6yos rrjs ayaprias, 
 the law of sin (Rom. vii. 23) ; viyos t ov tvvzv- 
 yar os, the law of the Spirit (viii. 2) ; v6yos 
 SiKaioavvys, the law of righteousness (ix. 31) ; 
 v6yos rov &vb pos, the authority of the husband 
 over his wife (vii. 2); voyos iXevOepias (James 
 i. 25; ii. 12), the holy impulse created by the 
 sense of spiritual liberty. 
 
 If, however, the word v6yos alone is used, it is al- 
 most invariably equivalent. to 6 vSyosMwaicL's: and 
 of iv t£ voytp are the subjects of the Mosaical 
 theocracy, viz., the Jews, who practise the aveL- 
 yvcacris too voyov, the reading of the laxo (Acts 
 xiii. 15), are Z^Aorrcd rov v6yov (xxi. 20), rripeiv 
 (xv. 5, 24), or <pv\d(T(reiv , tt oieiv (Rom. ii. 14), 
 Trpacro-eiv (ii. 25), rbv v6yov (Acts xxi. 24), 
 zealots for the observance and performance of 
 the laxo , although they debate often irepl ft rrj- 
 ydrccv rov v6yov avroiiv, about mere legal quib- 
 bles ; so that, as mere hearers, they cannot expect 
 the blessings promised to the doers of the law. 
 
 D'DETOl D'pn im’D nny, yaprbpta, bitiat- 
 
 ihyara, ivroXoi, icplyara , Kplaeis, Trpocrrdyyara, 
 are the various precepts contained in the law, 
 min, v6yos. 
 
 The law is especially embodied in the last 
 four books of the Pentateuch. In Exodus, Le- 
 viticus, and Numbers, there is perceptible some 
 arrangement of the various precepts, although 
 they are not brought into a system. In Deuter- 
 onomy the law or legislation contained in the 
 three preceding books is repeated with slight 
 modifications. The whole legislation has for its 
 
LAW. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 130 
 
 manifest object, to found a theocratical hierarchy. 
 We here use the word hierarchy without mean- 
 ing to express that the Mosaical legislation was 
 like some later hierarchies falsely so-called, in 
 which it was attempted to carry into effect 
 selfish and wicked plans, by passing them oil’ 
 as being of divine appointment. In the Mosaical 
 hierarchy the aim is manifest, viz. to make that 
 which is really holy (t b lepov') prevail ; while in 
 the false hierarchies of later times the profanest 
 selfishness has been rendered practicable by giv- 
 ing to its manifestations an appearance of holi- 
 ness calculated to deceive the multitude. 
 
 In the Mosaical legislation the priests certainly 
 exercise a considerable authority as external 
 ministers of holiness; but we find nothing to be 
 compared with the sale of indulgences in*the 
 Romish church. There occur, certainly, instances 
 of gross misdemeanour on the part of the priests, 
 as, for instance, in the case of the sons of Eli ; 
 but proceedings originating in the covetousness 
 of the priests were never authorized or sanctioned 
 by the law. In the Mosaical legislation almost, 
 the whole amount of taxation was paid in the 
 form of tithe, which was employed in maintaining 
 the priests and Levites as the hierarchical office- 
 bearers of government, in supporting the poor, 
 and in providing those things which were used in 
 sacrifices and sacrificial feasts. 
 
 The taxation by tithe, exclusive of almost all 
 other taxes, is certainly the most lenient and most 
 considerate which has ever anywhere been adopted 
 or proposed. It precludes the ]>ossibility of at- 
 tempting to extort from the people contributions 
 beyond their power, and it renders the taxation of 
 each individual proportionate to Ills possessions ; 
 and even this exceedingly mild taxation was 
 apparently left to the conscience of each person. 
 This we infer from there never occurring in the 
 Bible the slightest vestige either of persons having 
 been sued or goods distrained for tithes, and only 
 an indication of curses resting upon the neglect 
 of paying them. Tithes were the law of the land, 
 and nevertheless they were not recovered by law, 
 during the period of the Tabernacle and of the 
 first Temple. It is only during the period of the 
 second Temple, when a general demoralization 
 had taken place, that tithes were fanned and sold, 
 and levied by violent proceedings, in which re- 
 fractory persons were slain for resisting the levy. 
 But no recommendation or example of such pro- 
 ceedings occurs in the Bible. This seems to indi- 
 cate that the propriety of paying these lenient and 
 beneficial taxes was generally felt ; so much so, 
 that there were few, or perhaps no defaulters, and 
 that it was considered inexpedient on the part of 
 the recipients to harass the needy. 
 
 Besides the tithes there was a small poll-tax, 
 amounting to half a shekel for each adult male. 
 This tax was paid for the maintenance of the 
 sanctuary. In addition to this, the first-fruits and 
 the first-born of men and cattle augmented the 
 revenue. The first-born of men and of unclean 
 beasts were to be redeemed by money. To this 
 may be added some fines paid in the shape of sin- 
 offerings, and also the vows and free-will offerings. 
 
 The Mosaical legislation is the further develop- 
 ment of the covenant between Jehovah and Abra- 
 ham. It is a politico-religious institution given 
 to a nation of freeholders. The fundamental 
 laws of this constitution are, I. Jehovah alone is 
 
 God, and the invisible King of the nation (comp 
 Josephus, Contra Apionem, ii. 16). 
 
 II. The nation is the peculiar property of 
 Jehovah, its King; and it is therefore bound to 
 avoid all uncleanness, as well moral as phy- 
 sical defilement, which must result from inter- 
 mixture with foreign nations who are not sub- 
 jects of the theocracy. A confederacy with these 
 nations is accordingly forbidden (Exotl. xxiii. 32, 
 and xxxiv. 12). 
 
 III. The whole territory of the state was to be so 
 distributed that each family should have a freehold, 
 which was intended to remain permanently the in- 
 heritance of this family, and which, even if sold, was 
 to return at stated periods to Its original owners. 
 Since the whole population consisted of families 
 of freeholders, there were, strictly speaking, neither 
 citizens, nor a profane or lay-nobility, nor lords 
 temporal. We do not overlook the fact that there 
 were persons called heads, elders, princes, dukes, 
 or leaders among the Israelites ; that is, persons 
 who by their intelligence, character, wealth, and 
 other circumstances, were leading men among 
 them, and from whom even the seventy judges 
 were chosen, who assisted Moses in administering 
 justice to the nation. But. we have no proof 
 that there was a nobility enjoying similar pre- 
 rogatives like those which are connected with 
 birth iu several countries of Europe, sometimes in 
 spite of mental and moral disqualifications. We 
 do not find that, according to the Mosaical con- 
 stitution, there were hereditary peers temporal. 
 Even the inhabitants of towns were freeholders, 
 and their exercise of trades seems to have been 
 combined with, or subordinate to, agricultural 
 pursuits. The only nobility was that of the tribe 
 of Levi, and all the lords were lords spiritual, 
 the descendants of Aaron. The priests and 
 Levites were ministers of public worship, that 
 is, ministers of Jehovah the King ; and as such, 
 ministers of state, by whose instrumentality the 
 legislative as well as the judicial power was 
 exercised. The poor were mercifully considered, 
 but beggars are never mentioned. Hence it 
 appears that as, on the one hand, there was no lay 
 nobility, so, on the oilier, there was no mendicity. 
 
 Such is a rapid sketch of the Mosaical consti- 
 tution, which, however, was certainly consider- 
 ably modified after its original perfection had 
 been sacrificed to the popular clamour for a 
 visible king. 
 
 Owing to the rebellious spirit of the Israelites, 
 the salutary injunctions of their law were so fre- 
 quently transgressed, that it could not procure 
 for them that degree of prosperity which it wai 
 calculated to produce among a nation of faithfu. 
 observers; but it is evident that the Mosaical 
 legislation, if truly observed, was more fitted to 
 promote universal happiness and tranquillity 
 than any other constitution, either ancient or 
 modern. It has been deemed a defect that there 
 were no laws against infanticide ; but it may well 
 be observed, as a proof of national prosperity, that 
 there are no historical traces of this crime; and 
 it would certainly have been preposterous to give 
 laws against a crime which did not occur, especi- 
 ally as the general law against murder, ‘Thou 
 shalt not kill,’ was applicable to this species also. 
 The words of Josephus {Contra Apionem, ii. 24), 
 Kal yvvai^Lv airuTreu prjr apfiXovv rb ernapiv, 
 prjre 8 lacpdelpeiy' aWa rjy (payeiij, Tcxrorfavi 
 
LAW. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 ki> tf?] rivx^y a(pavi£ovcra Kal yevos iXarrovaa, 
 can only mean that the crime was against the 
 spirit of the Mosaical law. An express verbal 
 prohibition of this kind is not extant. There 
 occur also no laws and regulations about wills 
 and testamentary dispositions, although there are 
 sufficient historical facts to prove that the next of 
 kin was considered the lawful heir, that primo- 
 geniture was deemed of the highest importance, 
 aud that if there were no male descendants, fe- 
 males inherited the freehold property. We learn 
 from the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews (ix. 16, 
 17), that the Jews disposed of property by wills; 
 but it seems that in the times of Moses, and for 
 6ome period after him, all Israelites died intes- 
 tate. However, the word $La6r)Kr], as used in 
 Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, 
 Galatians, Ephesians, and repeatedly in the 
 Hebrews, implies rather a disposition, arrange- 
 ment, agreement between parties, than a will in 
 the legal acceptation of the term. 
 
 There are no laws concerning guardians, and 
 none against luxurious living. The inefficiency 
 of sumptuary laws is now generally recognised, 
 although renowned legislators in ancient times, 
 and in the middle ages, displayed on this subject 
 their wisdom falsely so called. Neither are there 
 any laws against suicide. Hence we infer that 
 suicide was rare, as we may well suppose in a 
 nation of small freeholders, and that the ineffi- 
 ciency of such laws was understood. 
 
 The Mosaical legislation recognises the human 
 dignity of women and of slaves, and particularly 
 enjoins not to slander the deaf nor mislead the 
 blind. 
 
 The laws of Moses against crimes are severe, 
 but rtot cruel. The agony of the death of cri- 
 minals was never artificially protracted, as in 
 some instances was usual in various countries 
 of Europe, even in the present century ; nor was 
 torture employed in order to compel criminals to 
 confess their crimes, as was done in the kingdom 
 of Hanover as late as 1817, under the reign of 
 George III., and where the law of torture is per- 
 haps not yet abolished. Forty was the maximum 
 number of stripes to be inflicted. This maxi- 
 mum was adopted for the reason expressly stated, 
 that the appearance of the person punished should 
 not become horrible, or, as J. D. Michael is ren- 
 ders it, burnt, which expresses the appearance of 
 a person unmercifully beaten ; while, in this 
 Christian country, in 'the present year, a guilty 
 soldier was sentenced to suffer 120 stripes. 
 
 Moses expressly enjoined not to reap the corners 
 of fields, in consideration of the poor, of persons 
 of broken fortunes, and even of the beasts of 
 the field. 
 
 Punishments were inflicted, in order specially 
 to express the sacred indignation of the Divine 
 Lawgiver against wilful transgression of his 
 commandments, and not for any purposes of hu- 
 man vengeance, or for the sake of frightening 
 other criminals. 
 
 In lawsuits very much was left to the discre- 
 tion: of the judges, whose position greatly re- 
 sembled that of a permament jury, who had not 
 merely to decide whether a person was guilty, 
 but who frequently had also to award the amount 
 of punishment to be inflicted. 
 
 In some instances the people at large were 
 appealed to, in order to inflict summary punish- 
 
 231 
 
 merit by stoning the criminal to death. Thii 
 was in fact the most usual mode of execution. 
 Other modes of execution, also, such as burning, 
 were always public, and conducted with the co- 
 operation of the people. Like every human 
 proceeding, this was liable to abuse, but not 
 to so much abuse as our present mode of con- 
 ducting lawsuits, which, on account of their cost- 
 liness, often afford but little protection to persons 
 in narrow circumstances. 
 
 In the Old Testament we do not hear of a 
 learned profession of the law. Lawyers ( vopuuol ) 
 are mentioned only after the decline of the Mo- 
 saical institutions had considerably advanced. 
 As, however, certain laws concerning contagion 
 and purification were administered by the priests, 
 these might be called lawyers. They, however, 
 did not derive their maintenance from the ad- 
 ministration of these laws, but were supported 
 by glebe-lands, tithes, and portions of the sacri- 
 ficial offerings. It is, indeed, very remarkable, 
 that in a nation so entirely governed by law, 
 there were no lawyers forming a distinct profes- 
 sion, and that the vopucoi of a later age were not 
 so much remarkable for enforcing the spirit of the 
 law, as rather for ingeniously evading its injunc- 
 tions, by leading the attention of the people from 
 its spirit to a most minute literal fulfilment of its 
 letter. The Jews divide the whole Mosaical law 
 into 613 precepts, of which 248 are affirmative 
 and 365 negative. The number of the affirma- 
 tive precepts corresponds to the 248 members 
 of which, according to Rabbinical anatomy, the 
 whole human body consists. The number of the 
 negative precepts corresponds to the 365 days 
 of the solar year; or, according to the Rabbinical 
 work Brandspiegel (which has been published in 
 Jewish German at Cracow and in other places), 
 the negative precepts agree in number with the 
 365 veins which, they say, are found in the hu- 
 man body. Hence their logic concludes that if 
 on each day each member of the human body 
 keeps one affirmative precept and abstains from 
 one thing forbidden, the whole law, and not the 
 decalogue alone, is kept. The whole law is some- 
 times called by Jewish writers Thering, which 
 word is formed from the Hebrew letters that 
 are employed to express the number 613; viz. 
 400 =n + 200 =U- 10 = 3=0. Hence 613 
 =i'“in theriog. Women are subject to the 
 negative precepts or prohibitions only, and not to 
 the affirmative precepts or injunctions. This 
 exception arises partly from their nature, and 
 partly from their being subject to the authority 
 of husbands. According to some Rabbinical 
 statements women are subject to 100 precepts 
 only, of which 64 are negative and 36 affirmative. 
 The number 613 corresponds also to the num- 
 ber of letters in the decalogue. Others are in- 
 clined to find that there are 620 precepts accord- 
 ing to the numerical value of the word "IfD = 
 crown; viz., 400 = n+200=T+20 = 3 ; and 
 others, again, observe that the numerical value 
 of the letters min, law, amounts only to 611. 
 The first in order of these laws is found in 
 Gen. i. 27, *QT| V”l!D, be fruitful and multipig. 
 The transgressor of this law is, according to Rabbi 
 Eliezer, as wicked as a murderer. He who is 
 still unmarried at twenty years of age is a trans- 
 gressor ; and the law is binding upon every man, 
 according to Schamai, until he has two sons ; or 
 
232 
 
 LAW. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 according to Ilillel, one son and one daughter 
 (compare Juris Hebrasorum leges, ductu Rabbi 
 Ijevi Barzelonitae, auctore J. Henrico Hottinger). 
 
 The Jews assert that, besides the written laio , 
 min, vofjLos eyypacpos, which may be 
 translated into other languages, and which is 
 contained in the Pentateuch, there was com- 
 municated to Moses on Mount Sinai an oral 
 
 law, na byzw mm, vSjxos &ypacpos , which 
 was subsequently written down, together with 
 many Rabbinical observations, and is contained 
 in the twelve folio volumes which now consti- 
 tute the Talmud, and which the Jews assert can- 
 not be, or at least ought not to be, translated 
 [Talmud], 
 
 The present article is, of course, closely inter- 
 woven with the contents of a number of others 
 which in this Cyclopaedia have preceded, or which 
 follow it in alphabetical order, such as Adultery, 
 Blood-revenge, Decalogue, Deuteronomy, Divorce, 
 Exodus, Gospel, Leviticus, Marriage, Moses, 
 Murder, Pentateuch, Retaliation, Robbery, Sab- 
 bath, Slavery, Theft, &c. &c. It is, indeed, both 
 unnecessary and impracticable to exhaust in this 
 place all that might with propriety be brought 
 under the head of Law. We therefore make no 
 such attempt, but refer our readers to the cognate 
 articles for further information. The chief point 
 here to be considered, is the authority ascribed in 
 the Bible itself to law in general, and to Biblical 
 law in particular. The misconceptions on this 
 subject prevalent in the religious world are the 
 more surprising, since many distinguished eccle- 
 siastical teachers of various periods, and among 
 these St. Augustine of the fourth and fifth, and the 
 Reformers of the sixteenth century, have stated 
 file Biblical doctrine respecting the law with par- 
 ticular clearness. 
 
 The great importance ascribed by the Reformers 
 to the right understanding of the law is thus tersely 
 expressed by Philip Melancthon : ‘ Ilaec demum 
 Christiana cognitio est, scire quod lex poscat, 
 unde faciendae legis vim, unde peccati gratiam 
 petas, quomodo labascentem animam adversus 
 daemonem, carnem, et mundum erigas, quomodo 
 adflictamconscientiam consoleris.’ ‘This alone is 
 Christian knowledge, to be acquainted with the 
 demands of the law, to know whence to obtain 
 the power requisite for fulfilling the law, and 
 whence to obtain pardon for sins committed ; to 
 know how to raise up the drooping soul against 
 the devil, the fiesh, and the world, and how to 
 comfort the afflicted conscience.’ 
 
 Christ anil the Apostles express themselves 
 respecting the authority of the law so variously, 
 that in order to reconcile their apparent con- 
 tradictions, the divines of various Christian de- 
 nominations have usually felt themselves com- 
 pelled to distinguish between different portions of 
 the law, soms of which, they assert, were abo- 
 lished by Christ, while they maintain that 
 others were established by him. For instance, 
 when Christ says, in the sermon on the mount, 
 that he was not come to destroy the law and the 
 prophets, but to fulfil them, it has usually been 
 asserted that he meant this merely in reference 
 to the moral law, but that he nevertheless abo- 
 lished the ceremonial and civil law of the Jews. 
 And again, when he declines to enter into the 
 debate pending between the Samaritans and the 
 
 Jews, concerning the proper place where God 
 ought to be worshipped ; when he states as th« 
 reason for not entering into this debate, that God 
 is a Spirit and that his true worshippers must wor- 
 ship him in spirit and in truth ; when be pro- 
 mises a Comforter, the Spirit of truth, who would 
 lead his true disciples into all truth ; and when 
 he indicates that this would be the period up to 
 which the law would remain in force, -namely, 
 until all things are fulfilled — divines usually say 
 that this future cessation of the law under the 
 authority of the Spirit could never apply to the 
 moral, but only to the ceremonial and the civil 
 law. In a similar manner the abolition of the 
 law, most clearly set forth in the epistles of Paul 
 to the Romans and the Galatians, where the 
 apostle teaches that Christians are as free from the 
 authority of the law as the widow is free from the 
 authority of her deceased husband, and as the 
 adult is free from the authority of the schoolmaster 
 who ruled his infancy, is said to apply only to 
 the ceremonial and civil, but not to the moral 
 law ; while the latter alone is held to be referred 
 to when the Apostle, in apparent contradiction to 
 the general tenor of his epistles, says that ‘ we 
 establish the law by faith’ (Rom. iii. 31). 
 
 Against this convenient mode of overcoming 
 the difficulty the following observations may be 
 adduced : I. Neither Christ nor the Apostles 
 ever distinguish between the-moral, the ceremonial, 
 and the civil law, when they speak of its esta- 
 blishment or its abolition. 
 
 II. They even clearly indicate that the moral 
 law is by no means excepted when they speak o! 
 the abolition of the law in general. Thus, for 
 instance, St. Paul, after having stated that, t he law 
 is not incumbent upon the righteous, guards tut 
 against misunderstanding him, as if this referred 
 to the .ceremonial law alone ; for he specifies 
 various transgressors to whom the law is given, 
 and who are restrained by the same. The trans- 
 gressors mentioned by St. Paul are not those of 
 the ceremonial, but of the moral law. ‘ But we 
 know that the law is good, if a man use it law- 
 fully ; knowing this, that the law is not made for 
 a righteous man, but fo( the lawless and disobe- 
 dient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for un- 
 holy and profane, for murderers of fathers and 
 murderers of mothers, for man-slayers, for whore- 
 mongers, for them that defile themselves with 
 mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured 
 persons, and if there be any other thing that is 
 contrary to sound doctrine ’ (1 Tim. i. 8-10). If 
 it had been the intention of the Apostle to incul- 
 cate that the righteous or the Christian believers 
 were exempt from the observance of the ceremonial 
 law, the examples taken from the transgressors of 
 the moral law would not have illustrated, but 
 obscured the subject. Whoever mentions mur- 
 derers, whoremongers, men-stealers, liars, and 
 perjurers, undoubtedly refers to the moral rather 
 than to the ceremonial law. And wh iever says 
 that the law against the crimes alluded to has 
 been abolished, cannot be supposed to speak of the 
 ceremonial law only. And when Christ, in his first 
 public sermon, declares that not a tittle of the 
 law shall perish until all things are fulfilled, he 
 cannot be supposed to mean that two-thirds of the 
 law, viz., the civil and the ceremonial, periahej 
 eighteen centuries ago. 
 
 The foregoing observations are intended to in 1 
 
LAW. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 tluce the reader not hastily to reject our position, 
 that the prevalent doctrine concerning ihe law is 
 not the doctrine of Christ, nor that of St. Pa A. 
 Nor is it that of St. Augustine, nor of Luther, 
 Melancthon, and other teachers of the church, 
 who felt no interest in paring truth down to 
 meet the preconceived notions of congregations, 
 but who endeavoured in their respective ages to 
 receive revealed truth faithfully as it was given, 
 and to communicate it in an unadulterated 
 manner, in words as clear as the abstract nature 
 of the subject will allow. 
 
 In order to reconcile the apparent contradic- 
 tions between the various dicta of the New 
 Testament concerning the authority of the law, 
 we must not commence, as is usually done, 
 namely, by distinguishing the matter of the 
 law, but the form or manner in which it is 
 binding or obligatory. He who said that not a 
 jot or a tittle of the law should perish until all 
 things were fulfilled, certainly could not mean 
 that more than two-thirds of the law were abo- 
 lished, but intended forcibly to express the idea 
 that, in a certain sense, by his instrumentality, 
 the whole law, without any exception, had ob- 
 tained an increased authority. On the other 
 hand, when the Apostle says, A oyfopieQa ovv 
 Trt(TT€i diKaiovaOai ai/dpanrou, x a p' is tpyaw v6p.ov, 
 Therefore ice conclude that a man is justified 
 by faith icithout ihe deeds of the law (Rom. iii. 
 28), he cannot mean anything else but that, in 
 a certain sense, the whole law, without any ex- 
 ception, is not binding upon the faithful. We, 
 therefore, conceive that in order to reconcile the 
 apparent, but merely apparent, contradictions of 
 the New Testament, we must distinguish not so 
 much the various materials, ritual, civil, and 
 moral, of which the law is composed, as the 
 various manners in which its modus obligandi 
 may exist. 
 
 The authority which other beings may exercise 
 upon us is two-fold : it is either nomothetical or 
 didactical. The nomothetical authority, which 
 a book, or the living voice of another moral 
 being may exercise upon us, is either such that it 
 precludes the exercise of our own judgment, like 
 that which Pythagoras is said to have exercised 
 upon his disciples, who were in tl e habit of 
 settling all their disputes, as by a tinal reason 
 from which there was no appeal, by auT^s eepa, he 
 has said so ; or the authority is such as to excite 
 the faculties of the listener, so that he perceives 
 the necessity of the truth communicated. In this 
 last case the authority exercised is not nomothe- 
 tical, but didactical. The college-tutor who 
 meets the question, how minus multiplied by 
 minus can give plus, by ‘Upon my honour, gen- 
 tlemen, it is so,’ endeavours to exercise a nomo- 
 thetial authority ; while he who endeavours to 
 illustrate the internal necessity of this, to the un- 
 initiated, startling fact, endeavours to exercise a 
 didactical authority. 
 
 Beginners in any science, either mental or 
 morai, are obliged for some time to submit to 
 nomothetical authority. If, as sometimes happens, 
 we meet with adult pupils who, instead of taking 
 for granted our grammatical statements, constantly 
 endeavour to cavil at the wording of those gram- 
 matical rules which we give them, before they are 
 enabled to judge for themselves, we invariably find 
 that such pupils do not make the same progress 
 
 2a 
 
 as others who admit without dispute what their 
 teacher and their grammar state, until they have 
 penetrated so far into the genius of the language 
 to be acquired as to investigate for themselves the 
 applicability of the rules communicated. On 
 the other hand, students of a language who never 
 learn to recognise the spirit of that language per- 
 vading the works and discourses of e]:;q„ein men 
 as an authority above the rules of grammar and 
 of grammarians, remain always inferior to those 
 who have raised themselves to the recognition of 
 that higher authority which may enable them 
 to surpass their instructors who formerly exercised 
 a nomothetical authority over them. The same 
 is the case in any other branch of knowledge oi 
 science, viz., beginners are necessarily under the 
 law or under the nomothetical power of elemen 
 tary books and teachers until they are emancipated 
 by seizing the spirit of the science or art ; after 
 which the external authority of books and teachers 
 can be for them didactical only, and subordinate 
 to that spirit the life of which can never be fully 
 embodied in words. 
 
 So it was also with the human race at large: it 
 was necessary that the law of Moses should exer- 
 cise nomothetical authority by ‘ Cursed is he 
 who does not continue in the words of this law.’ 
 And so it is now with a great portion of Christian 
 religionists, who still require frightful curses and 
 opposite benedictions somewhat similar to those 
 formerly pronounced on the mountains Ebal and 
 Gerizim, in order to keep them in the right di- 
 rection. But the assertion of this nomothetical 
 authority was not the ultimate aim of Christ. 
 His most intimate disciple, whom he especially 
 loved, states strikingly, "Ort 6 v6gos 8ia Maxrecus 
 i860 rj ’ 7) x^P ls Ka -i V &A.7J deia 8ia ’It ]crov Xpiarov 
 iyevzTo, For the laic was given by Moses, but 
 grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 
 
 In reference to this text, the Reformers declared 
 it to be improper to call Christ a new lawgiver. 
 This was an objection which drew forth againsi 
 them the anathema pronounced in the sixth ses- 
 sion of the Council of Trent : ‘ Si quis dixerit 
 Christum Jesum a Deo hominibus datum fuisse 
 ut redemtorem, cui fidant ; non etiam utlegisla- 
 torem cui obediant ; anathema sit.’ ‘ If any man 
 should assert, that God granted Christ Jesus to 
 mankind only as a Redeemer in whom they should 
 trust, and n- t also as a lawgiver whom they 
 should obey, let him be accursed’ (Cone. Trid. 
 Sess. iv. Can. 21). 
 
 It is, however, a fact, that Christ did not give 
 new laws, but only new motives for keeping the 
 moral precepts more or less clearly known to Jews 
 and Gentiles, by making it a prominent doctrine, 
 that love is due to God and to men in general, 
 even to our enemies, and that intentions are of 
 greater moral importance than outward acts. . 
 
 The characteristic of the doctrine of Christ 
 does not consist in new laws given, but rather in 
 the forgiveness ofi'ered for past transgressions, and 
 in the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised to 
 his true disciples. The authority of this Holy 
 Spirit is described in the Gospel of John, and in 
 the Epistle to the Romans, as superior to the letter 
 of the law. Whosoever is filled with this Spirit 
 is not under the law, although he fulfils the holy 
 aim and intention of the law. The true disciple 
 of Christ, if asked, Why did you not kill such 
 or such a person? cannot answer, Because it is 
 
234 
 
 LAW. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 written, ‘Thou sha.lt do no murder.’ Christians 
 feel that they are filled with a spirit which pre- 
 vents them from desiring the commission of 
 crimes. But if they grieve that Spirit by for- 
 saking his guidance, they sink again under the 
 jH)v/er of the written law, because they cease to 
 belong to the bUaioi ols vo/xos ov jceirai, whose 
 actions are not extorted by any external authority, 
 but who follow the holy impulses of their sancti- 
 fied mmd as a vSpos i\evdepias, and thus are 
 enabled to act more in harmony with the supreme 
 scope of the law, viz., holiness unto the Lord, than 
 any subjection to external precepts ever could 
 produce. This is beautifully illustrated by St. 
 Augustine : Augustinus, libro de Spiritu et Litera; 
 ‘Per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem impetratio 
 gratiae contra peccatum, per gratiam sanatio 
 animae a vitio peccati, pet animae sanitatem libertas 
 arbitrii, per liberum arbitrium justitiae dilectio, 
 per justitiae dilectionem legis operatic. Ac per 
 hoc sicut lex non evacuatur, sed firmatur per 
 fidem, quia tides impetrat gratiam, qua lex im- 
 pleatur; ita liberum arbitrium non evacuatur 
 per gratiam, sed statuitur, quia gratia sanat volun- 
 tatem qua justitia libere diligatur. Omnia liaec 
 (quae veluti catenatim connexui) habent voces suas 
 in Scripturis sanctis. Lex dicit, non concupisces. 
 Fides (licit (Ps. xl.), “ Sana animam meam, quia 
 peccavi.” Gratia ait ( Joannis 5), a Ecce sanus fac- 
 tus es, jam noli peccare, ne tibi deterius contingat.” 
 Sanitas dicit (Ps. xxix.), “ Domine Deus mens, 
 exclamavi ad te, sanasti me.” Liberum arbitrium 
 dicit (Ps. cxviii.), “ Narraverunt mihi injusti de- 
 lectationes suas, sed non ut lex tua Domine.” 
 Ilaec Augustinus. Non destruit. legem Paulus, 
 qui praedicat factum, quod lex promiserat ; 
 eumque nunciat in quern ceu scopum, summa 
 legis spectabat. Nam Rom. x. finis est ct per- 
 fectio legis Christus, ad justitiam omni credenti, 
 et Christus ait, “ Non veni solvere legem, sed 
 adimplere.” Compare In omnes Pauli Epistolas 
 Collatio, per Claudium Guilliaudum. Paris, 
 1550, p. 20. It is very surprising that the clear 
 perception of the true source of the law, which 
 was fulfilled even by its abrogation, could have 
 been so effectually obscured as is done by the 
 doctrine current in the religious world concerning 
 the abolition of its civil and ceremonial, and the 
 establishment of its moral precepts. The whole 
 aim and scope of the Mosaical legis’ation havebeen 
 established as much as the aim ot temporary po- 
 lice regulations, enacted in order to meet the 
 emergencies of a commonwealth during a period 
 of rebellion, is established and fulfilled by him 
 who restores perfect peace and public tranquillity, 
 although the natural consequence of this peace is, 
 that those regulations cease to be in force. On 
 the other hand, although the Christian, who is 
 under the guidance of a spirit leading him into 
 all truth, cannot be led by this spirit to the com- 
 mission of any crime contrary to the moral pre- 
 cepts of Moses, it cannot be said, that by not com- 
 mitting murder and adultery, he obeys the Mo- 
 saical law, any more than that he obeys ihe in- 
 junctions of the Code Najxoleon, in these particular 
 instances. However, the didactic authority of the 
 whole Mosaical law is for the Christian much 
 greater than that of any other legislation. This 
 didactic or teaching authority is expressed even 
 in the words of the New Testament. The law 
 is not merely called tt aidaycoybs Pis "Kpiariu, 
 
 ( a schoolmaster’ (i. e. an educational guide) ‘ft 
 Christ' (Gal. iii. 24), but the whole Old Testa- 
 ment (tt acra ypacpp) is said to be useful for 
 teaching (nphs 8i5curKa\lav), for convincing, for 
 directing, for educating (irpbs Traideiav) in right- 
 eousness, so that the man of God may be fully 
 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works 
 (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17). 
 
 It was the didactic authority of the Mosaical 
 legislation to which Michaelis referred in the de- 
 dication of his celebrated Mosaisches Recht to 
 Rabenius, who had formerly requested him to in- 
 struct him in select points of Mosaic jurispru- 
 dence. ‘ Others will not find my remarks un- 
 worthy of their attention: but you, Sir, will re- 
 gard them with the eye of an actual legislator, on 
 whom his country (Sweden) has devolved the 
 honourable duty of examining the archives of the 
 state and collecting statutes and decisions; in 
 order, thence, and from the laws already known, 
 which had become burdensome by their multitude, 
 to prepare a new digest of national law, not 
 merely for the instruction of students, but ba- 
 the use of the courts,’ &c. Of course neither 
 Michaelis nor Rabenius meant to change the 
 Swedish monarchy into a Mosaical theocracy, by 
 giving to the Pentateuch nomothetical force, as 
 the Anabaptists in Germany and other fanatics 
 partly endeavoured to effect. 
 
 Luther, who diligently translated and ex- 
 pounded the Pentateuch, and particularly the 
 ten commandments, and who placed the deca- 
 logue in his catechisms as one of the five articles 
 chiefly to be inculcated in popular instruction, 
 was undoubtedly convinced of its didactic autho- 
 rity, and he expressed himself against the nomo- 
 thetical authority of the law in his book Untericht 
 wie sich die Christen in Mosen schicken sollen 
 ( Opera , ed. Hal. tom. iii.). ‘ The law belongs to 
 the Jews, and binds us no more. From the text 
 it is clear that the ten commandments also do 
 not belong to us, because he has not led us out 
 of Egypt, but the Jews only. Moses we will take 
 to be our teacher, but not as our lawgiver, unless 
 he agrees with the New Testament and the natural 
 law.' Many even more startling passages of the 
 great Reformer’s writings are transcribed in the 
 present writer’s work, De Legis Mosaicce Abroga- 
 tiotie, scripsit C. H. F. Bialloblotzky, Gottingae, 
 1824. Compare besides Johann David Michaelis, 
 Mosaisches Recht, translated by Alexander Smith, 
 under the title, Commentaries on the Laics of 
 Moses, by the late John David Michaelis, London, 
 1814; Josephus, Contra Apionem , ii. 16, sq.; 
 Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum collatio, re- 
 ferred usually to the fifth century ; Jos. Priestley, 
 Comparison of the Law of Moses with those of 
 the Hindoos , etc. ; Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli 
 et Pads ; J. H. Hottinger, Juris Ilebreeorum 
 leges cclxi., ad Judceorum mentem explicates, 
 Tiguri, 1655 ; Selden, De Jure naturali et 
 gentium juxta Hebrceorum disciplinam, libri vii., 
 Argentorati, 1665; John Spencer, Dissertcitio de 
 Theocratia Judaica ; Christoph. Blechschmidii 
 Dissert, de Theocratia in Populo Sancto insti* 
 tuta ; Salomonis Devlingii Exercitatio de Israeli 
 Jehovce Dominio ; Thomas Goodwin, Dissert, dxs 
 Theocratia Israelitarum ; Hen. Hulsii Dissert, 
 de Jehova Deo Rege ac Duce militari in prisco 
 Israele ; Dissert, de Schechinah, &c. ; Joh. Conr 
 Dannhaveri Politica Biblica ; Hermann i Con- 
 
LAWYER. 
 
 LEAD. 
 
 235 
 
 ringii Exsrcit. de Politia sivc de Republic a 
 Hebrceorum ; Christ. Bened. Michaelis, Dissert. 
 Philoi. de Antiquitatibus (Economice Patri- 
 archalis ; Wilhelmi Schickardi Jus Recjium 
 Hebrceorum cum animadversionibus et notis 
 Jo. Belied. Carpzovii ; R. Isaaei Abarbanelis 
 Dissert, do Statu et Jure Reg to ; Dissert, de 
 Judicum et Regum differentia, in Blasii Ugolini 
 Thesaurus Antiquit atum Sacrarum , vol. xxiv. ; 
 I). Hornsyli De principals Legum Mosaicarum , 
 Hafniae, 1792; Staudlini Commentationes II. 
 de Legum Mosaicarum, Gottingse, 1796 ; Pur- 
 mann, De fontibus et ceconomia Legum Mosa- 
 icarum, Francol'urti, 1789; T. G. Erdmann, 
 Leges Mosis prcestantiores esse legibus Lycurgi 
 et Soionis, Vitebergae, 1788 ; Hartmann, Verbin- 
 dung des Alten und Neuen Testamentes ; Hee- 
 ren, Ideen, ii. 430, sq. Beilage iv. ; Pastoret, 
 Ilistoire de la Legislation , Paris, 1817, vols. iii. 
 et iv. ; J. Salvador, Histoire des Institutions de 
 Mdise et du Peuple Hebreu, Paris, 1828, 3 vols. ; 
 Welker, Die Letzten Griinde von Recht , p. 279, 
 sq. ; Staudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 
 i, 111, sq. ; Holberg, Geschichte der Sittenlehre 
 Jesu, ii. 331, sq. ; De Wette, Sittenlehre, ii. 21, 
 sq. On the abolition of the law see several dis- 
 sertations and programmata of the elder Witsch, 
 published in Wittenberg, and De Legis Mosaic ce 
 Abrogations, scripsit C. II. F. Bialloblotzky, 
 Gottingse, 1824. — C. H. F. B. 
 
 LAWYER ( vop.iK.6s ). This word, in its ge- 
 neral sense, denotes one skilled in the law, as in 
 Tit. iii. 13. When, therefore, one is called a 
 lawyer, this is understood with reference to the 
 laws of the land in which he lived, or to which 
 :.e belonged. Hence among the Jews a lawyer 
 was one versed in the laws of Moses, which he 
 taught in the schools and synagogues (Matt, 
 xxviii. 35 ; Luke x. 25). The same person who 
 is called ‘ a lawyer’ in these texts, is in the pa- 
 rallel passage (Mark xii. 28) called a scribe 
 ( 7 papparevs ) ; whence it has been inferred that 
 the" functions of the lawyers and the scribes were 
 identical. The individual may have been both a 
 lawyer and a scribe; but it does not thence follow 
 that all lawyers were scribes. Some suppose, 
 however, that the ‘scribes’ were the public ex- 
 pounders of the law, while the ‘ lawyers ’ were the 
 private expounders and teachers of it. But this 
 is a mere conjecture ; and nothing more is really 
 known than that the ‘ lawyers ’ were expounders 
 of the law, whether publicly or privately, or both. 
 
 LAZARUS (Ad Capos, an abridged form of the 
 Hebrew name Eleazer), an inhabitant of Bethany, 
 brother of Mary and Martha, who was honoured 
 with the friendship of Jesus, by whom he was 
 raised from the dead after he had been four days 
 in the tomb. This great miracle is minutely 
 described in John xi. The credit which Christ 
 obtained among the people by this illustrious act, 
 of which the life and presence of Lazarus afforded 
 a standing evidence, induced the Sanhedrim, 
 in plotting against Jesus, to contemplate the 
 destruction of Lazarus also (John xii. 10). 
 Whether they accomplished this object or not, we 
 are not informed : but the probability seems to 
 be that when they had satiated their malice on 
 Christ, they left Lazarus unmolested. 
 
 The raising of Lazarus from the dead was a 
 tpork of Christ beyond measure great, and of all 
 ’£»c miracles he had hitherto wrought undoubtedly 
 
 the most stupendous. ‘ If it can be incontro- 
 vertibly shown that Christ performed one such 
 miraculous act as this,’ says Tholuck (in his 
 Commentar zum Evang. Johannis ), ‘ much will 
 thereby be gained to the cause of Christianity. 
 One point so peculiar in its character, if irrefra* 
 gably established, may serve to develope a belief 
 in the entire evangelical record.’ The sceptical 
 Spinoza was fully conscious Gf this, as is related 
 by Bayle {Diet., art. ‘Spinoza’) : ‘ On m’a assur 6 , 
 qu’il disait a ses amis, que s’il efit pu se per- 
 suader la resurrection de Lazare, il auroit. brise 
 en pieces tout son systeme, il auroit embrass 6 
 sans repugnance la foi ordinaire des Chretiens.’ 
 
 It is not surprising, therefore, that the enemies 
 of Christianity have used their utmost exertions 
 to destroy the credibility of the narrative. The 
 earlier cavils of Woolston and his followers were, 
 however, satisfactorily answered by Lardner and 
 others ; and the more recent efforts of the German 
 neologists have been ably and successfully refuted 
 by Oertelius, Langius, and Reinhard; and by 
 Hiibner, in a work entitled Miraculorum ab 
 Evangelistis narratorum interpretat. gramma- 
 tico-historica , Wittenb. 1807 ; as well as by 
 others of still more recent date, whose answers, 
 with the objections to which they apply, may be 
 seen in Kuinoel. See also Flatt, in Mag. f Hr 
 Dogm. und Moral, xiv. 91 ; Schott, Opusc. i. 
 259 ; and Ewald's Lazarus /Hr Gebildete Chris- 
 tusverehrer, Berl. 1790. 
 
 LEAD (D'nsV ; Sept. MJA:j85os), a well- 
 known metal, the first Scriptural notice of which 
 occurs in the triumphal song in which Moses 
 celebrates the overthrow of Pharaoh, whose host 
 is there said to have ‘ sunk like lead ’ in the waters 
 of the Red Sea (Exod. xv. 10). 
 
 Before the use of quicksilver was known, lead 
 was used for the purpose of purifying silver, and 
 separating it from other mineral substances (Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. xxxii. 31). To this Jeremiah alludes 
 where he figuratively describes the corrupt condi- 
 tion of the people : ‘ In their fire the lead is con- 
 sumed (in the crucible) ; the smelting is in vain, 
 for the evil is not separated’ (Jer. vi. 29). Ezekiel 
 (xxii. 18-22) refers to the same fact, and for the 
 same purpose, but amplifies it with greater mi- 
 nuteness of detail. Compare also Mai. iii. 2, 3. 
 
 Job (xix. 23, 24) expresses a wish that his 
 words were engraven ‘ with an iron pen and lead.’ 
 These words are commonly supposed to refer to 
 engraving on a leaden tablet ; and it is unde- 
 niable that such tablets were anciently used as t 
 writing material (Pausan. ix. 31 ; Plin. Ilist. Nat 
 xiii. 11). But our authorized translators, by ren- 
 dering ‘ an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever,’ 
 seem to have entertained the same view with 
 Rosenmuller, who supposes that molten lead was 
 to be poured into letters sculptured on stone with 
 an iron chisel, in order to raise the inscription. 
 The translator of Rosenmuller (in Bib. Cabinet , 
 xxvii. 64) thinks that the poetical force of the 
 passage has been overlooked by interpreters : 
 ‘ Job seems not to have drawn his image from 
 any thing he had actually seen executed : he 
 only wishes to express in the strongest possible 
 language the durability due to his words ; and 
 accordingly he says, “ May the pen be iron, and 
 the ink of lead, with which they are written on 
 au everlasting rock,” i. e. Let them not be written 
 
230 
 
 LEAH. 
 
 LEAVEN. 
 
 with ordinary perishable materials.* This expla- 
 nation seems to be suggested by that of the Septu- 
 agint, which has 'Ev y pacpetcp aibypcp teal fxo\lfi5cp, 
 
 iv virpais iyyAvcprivai, i. e. ‘ that they were 
 sculptured by an iron pen and lead, or hewn 
 Into rocks.’ 
 
 Although the Hebrew weights were usually of 
 stone, and are indeed called ‘ stones,’ a leaden 
 weight denominated w attach , which is the 
 Arabic word for lead, occurs in Amos vii. 7, 8. 
 In Acts xxvii. 28, a plummet for taking sound- 
 ings at sea is mentioned, and this was of course 
 of lead. 
 
 The ancient uses of lead in the East seem to 
 have been very few, nor are they now numerous. 
 One may travel far in Western Asia without dis- 
 covering any trace of this metal in any of the 
 numerous useful applications which it is made to 
 serve in Eyropean countries. 
 
 We are not aware that any trace of lead has 
 been yet found within the limits of Palestine. 
 But ancient lead-mines, in some of which the 
 ore has been exhausted by working, have been dis- 
 covered by Mr. Burton in the mountains between 
 the Red Sea and the Nile; aud lead is also said 
 to exist at a place called Shell', near Mount Sinai. 
 
 LEAH, one of the two daughters o.f Laban 
 who became the wives of Jacob [Jacob]. 
 
 LEAVEN AND FERMENT. The organic 
 chemists define the process of fermentation, and 
 the substance which excites it, as follows : — 
 
 ‘ Fermentation is nothing else but the putrefac- 
 tion of a substance containing no nitrogen. 
 Ferment , or yeast, is a substance in a state of 
 putrefaction, the atoms of which are in a con- 
 tinual motion’ (Turner’s Chemistry , by Liebig). 
 This definition is in strict accordance with the 
 views of the ancients, and gives point and force 
 to many passages of Sacred Writ (Ps. lxxix. 21 ; 
 Matt. xvi. G, 1 1, 12; Markviii. 15; Lukexii.l; 
 xiii. 21 ; 1 Cor. v. 5-8 ; Gal. v. 9). Leaven , and 
 fermented or even some readily fermentible sub- 
 stances (as honey), were prohibited in many of 
 the typical institutions both of the Jews and 
 Gentiles. The Latin writers use corruptus, as 
 signifying fermented ; Tacitus applies the word 
 to the fermentation of wine. Plutarch (Rom. 
 Qiuest. cix. 6) assigns as the reason why the 
 priest of Jupiter was not allowed to touch leaven , 
 
 ‘ that it comes out of corruption, and corrupts that 
 with which it is mingled.’ See also Aul. Gellius, 
 viii. 15. All fermented substances were prohibited 
 in the Paschal Feast of the Jews (Exod. xii. 8, 19, 
 20) ; also during the succeeding seven days, 
 usually called ‘ The Feast of Unleavened Bread,' 
 though bread is not in the original. God forbade 
 either ferment or honey to be offered to Him in his 
 temple (i. e. in the symbolical rites), while they 
 were permitted in offerings designed to be con- 
 sumed as food (Num, xv. 20, 21). On Lev. ii. 
 11, Dr. Andrew Willet observes, ‘ They have a 
 spiritual signification, because fermentum cor - 
 ruptionem siynat, as St. Paul applyeth (1 Cor. v. 
 8). The honey is also forbidden because it had 
 fermentandi vim , a leavening force’ (Junius, 
 Ilexapla, 1631). On the same principle of 
 symbolism, God prescribes that salt shall always 
 constitute a part of the oblations to Him (Lev. ii. 
 31). Salt prevents corruption or decay, and pre- 
 serves flesh. Hence it is used as a symbol of 
 uicorruption and perpetuity. Thus St. Paul 
 
 (comp. Col. iv. 6; Eph. iv. 29) uses ‘ salt’ as 
 preservative from corruption, on the same prin- 
 ciple which leads him to employ that which is 
 unfermented (&£u/j.os) as an emblem of purity 
 and uncorrupt edness. 
 
 ‘The usual leaven in the East is dough kept 
 till it becomes sour, and which is kept from one 
 day to another for the purpose of preserving lea- 
 ven in readiness. Thus, if there should- be no 
 leaven in all the country for any length of time, 
 as much as might be required could easily be 
 produced in twenty-four hours. Sour douyh , 
 however, is not exclusively used for leaven in the 
 East, the lees of wine being in some parts em- 
 ployed as yeast’ (Pictorial Bible, wol. i. p. 161). 
 
 In the Hebrew we find two distinct words, 
 both translated leaven in the common version of 
 the Bible. This is unfortunate, for there is the 
 same distinction between seor , and 
 
 khametz. in the Hebrew, as between leaven and 
 ferment in the English. The Greek (vp-rj ap- 
 pears to comprehend both senses, viz. fermentation 
 in general, whether of a mass or a liquid. Che- 
 mically speaking, the ‘ ferment’ or ‘ yeast’ is the 
 same substance in both cases: but * leaven' is 
 more correctly applied to solids, ‘ ferment’ botli 
 to liquids aud solids. 
 
 seor. This word occurs only five times 
 in the Scriptures, in four of which it is rendered 
 ‘ leaven,’ and in the fifth ‘ leavened bread.' It 
 seems to have denoted originally the remnant of 
 dough left on the preceding baking, which had 
 fermented and turned acid. Hence (according 
 to the Lexicon of Dr. Avenarius, 1588) the 
 German saner , English sour. Its distinctive 
 meaning therefore is, fermented or leavened mass. 
 It might, in this way, apply to the murk or lees 
 of wine. 
 
 }‘On khametz ; Greek, (vprj. This word ought 
 not to be rendered ‘ leaven,’ but ferment. It is 
 a more general term than the former, and is ap- 
 plied, even in our translation, to both liquids and 
 solids. It would be an obvious impropriety 
 to speak of ‘leavened wine;’ but j‘On, in 
 Num. vi. 3, is applied to wine as an adjective. 
 It should there be translated ‘ fermented wine.’ 
 not. ‘ vinegar of wine.’ In fact, as ‘ vin aigre ’ 
 signifies ‘ soured wine,' the translation is equiva- 
 lent to saying, ‘ sour-wine-wine !’ Professor Lee 
 defines it, comprehensively, as ‘ anything fer 
 mented .’ Castell, and the best and oldest lexico- 
 graphers support him, applies it both to fermented 
 mass and fermented wine, ‘ vinum fermentatum.' 
 
 In this last sense it seems to correspond to the 
 Greek o|os, a sort of acid wine in very common 
 use amongst the ancients, called by the Latins 
 posca, vinum culpatum (Adam’s Rom. Antiq. 
 
 р. 393 ; Jahn, Bib. Antiq. § 144). This species of 
 wine (and in hot countries pure wine speedily 
 passes into the acetous state) [Drink, Strong] 
 is spoken of by the Talmudists, who inform us 
 that it was given to persons about to be executed, 
 mingled with drugs, in order to stupify them 
 (Prov. xxxi. G; Bab. Tr. Sanhedrin , fol. 43. 1. 
 
 с. 6). This serves to explain Matt, xxvii. 34. 
 
 A sour, fermented drink, used by the Tartar* 
 (Koumiss), appears to have derived its name 
 from the Hebrew khametz. is formed 
 
 from HUD, to wring or press out, suck, Sic. j 
 whence also HVD, unleavened (not bread, fo* in 
 several passages ‘ bread’ and 1 cakes’ are c list e» 
 
LEBBi®US, 
 
 LEOPARD. 
 
 231 
 
 pressed) In Exod- xiii. 7, both sc, or and kha- 
 mets occur together, and are evidently distinct : — • 
 ‘ unleavened, things { .matzah ) shall be consumed 
 during the seven days, and there shall not be 
 seen with th ec fermented things, and there shall 
 not be seen with thee leavened mass in all thy 
 borders.’ — F. R. L. 
 
 LEBANON. [Libanus.] 
 
 LEBBAEUS, a surname of the apostle Jude 
 [JuubJ. 
 
 LEECH. ( Aluicah.] 
 
 LEEK. [Chatzir.] 
 
 LEES. [Shemauim.] 
 
 LEGION (Aeyedv), a division of the Roman 
 army. It always comprised a large body of men ; 
 
 but the number varied so much at different times, 
 that there is considerable discrepancy in the state- 
 ments with reference to it. The legion appears to 
 have originally contained about 3000 men, and to 
 Jjave risen gradually to twice that number, or even 
 more. In and about the time of Christ it seems 
 
 x nave consisted of 6000 men ; but this was ex- 
 ilutive of horsemen, who usually formed an addi- 
 
 tional body amounting to one-tenth of the infantry. 
 As all the divisions of the Roman army arena* 
 ticed in Scripture, we may add that each legion 
 was divided into ten cohorts or regiments, each 
 cohort into three maniples or bands, and each 
 maniple into three centuries or companies of 
 100 each. This smaller division into centuries 
 or hundreds, from the form in which it is exhi- 
 bited as a constituent of the larger Lvisions, 
 clearly shows that 6000 had become at least tire 
 formal number of a legion. 
 
 The word legion came to be used to express a 
 great number or multitude. Thus, the unclean 
 spirit (Mark v. 7 ), when asked his name, an- 
 swers, ‘ My name is Legion, for we are many.’ 
 Many illustrations of this use of the word might 
 be cited from the Rabbinical writers : who even 
 apply it to inanimate objects, as when they speak 
 of ‘ a legion of olives,* &c. 
 
 LENTIL. [Adashim.] 
 
 LEOPARD ("1103 nimr or namer ; Cant. iv. 
 8 ; Isa. xi. 6 ; Jer. v. 6 ; xiii. 23 ; Hos. xiii. 7 ; 
 Hab. i. 8; Dan. vii. 6; Rev. xiii. 2; Ecclus. 
 xxviii. 23). Though zoologists differ in opinion 
 respecting the identity of the leopard and the 
 panther, and dispute, supposing them to be dis- 
 tinct, how these names should be respectively 
 applied, and by what murks the animals should 
 be distinguished, nevertheless there can be no 
 doubt that the nimr of the Bible is that grea 
 spotted feline which anciently infested the Syrian 
 mountains, and even now occurs in the wooded 
 
 ranges of Libanus ; for the Arabs still use 
 
 nimr , the same word slightly modified, to denote 
 that, animal. The Abyssinian name differs scarcely 
 from either ; and in all these tongues it means 
 spotted. Pigikris, according to Kirscher, is the 
 Coptic name ; and in English, ‘ leopard ’ has been 
 adopted as the most appropriate to represent 
 both the Hebrew word and the Greek TrdpSaAis, 
 although the Latin leopardus is not found in any 
 author anterior to the fourth century, and is de- 
 rived from a gross mistake in natural history. 
 The variety of leopard, or rather panther, of Syria, 
 is considerably below the stature of a lioness, bu 4 
 very heavy in proportion to its bulk. Its general 
 form is so well known as to require no description 
 beyond stating, that the spots are rather more irre- 
 gular, and the colour more mixed with whitish, 
 than in the other pantherine felinee, excepting the 
 Felis Uncia, or Felis Irbis, of High Asia, which 
 is shaggy and almost white. It is a nocturnal, 
 cat-like animal in habits, dangerous to all domestic 
 cattle, and sometimes even to man. In the Scrip- 
 
LEPROSY. 
 
 LEPROSY. 
 
 239 
 
 tures it is constantly placed in juxtaposition with 
 the lion or the wolf; which last, if the hyaena be 
 intended, forms a natural association. There is 
 in Asia Minor a species or variety of panther, 
 much larger than the Syrian, not unfrequent on 
 the borders of the snowy tracts even of Mount 
 Ida, above ancient Troy ; and the group of these 
 spotted animals is spread over the whole of 
 Southern Asia to Africa. From several names of 
 places, it appears that, in the earlier ages of 
 Israelitish dominion, it was sufficiently numerous 
 in Palestine. Leopard skins were worn as a part 
 of ceremonial costume by the superiors of the 
 Egyptian priesthood, and by other personages in 
 Nubia; and the animal itself is represented in 
 the processions of tributary nations. — C. H. S. 
 
 LEPROSY. Leprosy, or \iirpu, which is de- 
 rived from \eirls, a scale , is a name that was 
 given by the Greek physicians to a scaly disease 
 of the skin. During the dark ages it was indis- 
 criminately applied to all chronic diseases of the 
 skin, and more particularly to elephantiasis, to 
 which latter, however, it does not bear the slightest 
 resemblance. Hence prevailed the greatest dis- 
 crepancy and confusion in the descriptions that 
 authors gave of the disease, until Dr. Willan re- 
 stored to the term lepra its original signification. 
 The disease, as it is known at the present day, 
 commences by an eruption of small reddish spots 
 slightly raised above the level of the skin, and 
 grouped in a circle. These spots are soon covered 
 by a very thin, semi-transparent scale or epi- 
 dermis, of a whitish colour, and very smooth, 
 which in a little time falls off', and leaves the 
 skin beneath red and uneven. As the circles in- 
 crease in diameter the skin recovers its healthy 
 appearance towards the centre; fresh scales are 
 formed, which are now thicker, and superimposed 
 one above the other, especially at the edges, so 
 that the centre of the scale appears to be de- 
 pressed. The scales are of a greyish white colour, 
 and have something of a micaceous or pearly 
 lustre. The circles are generally of the size of a 
 shilling or half-crown, but they have been known 
 to attain half a foot in diameter. The disease 
 generally affects the knees and elbows, but some- 
 times it extends over the whole body; in which 
 case the circles become confluent. It does not 
 at all affect the general health, and the only in- 
 convenience it causes the patient is a slight itch- 
 ing when the skin is heated ; or, in inveterate 
 cases, when the skin about the joints is much 
 thickened, it may in some degree impede the free 
 motion of the limbs. It is common to both 
 sexes, to almost all ages, and all ranks of society. 
 It. is not in the least infectious, but it is always 
 difficult to be cured, and in old persons, when it 
 is of long standing, may be pronounced incurable. 
 It is commonly met with in this country and in 
 all parts of Europe. Its systematic name is 
 Lepra vulgaris. Dr. Willan has described another 
 species, which he observed in this country, under 
 the specific name of nigricans ; but there is still 
 some doubt as to its existence, and at any rate it 
 must be of very rare occurrence. The Greeks 
 distinguished three species of Lepra, the specific 
 names of which were a.\(pos, \evicf}, and pe\as. 
 Now, on turning to the Mosaic account, we also 
 find three species mentioned, which were all in- 
 cluded under the generic term of mrQ Baheret, 
 x * bright spot.’ The first is called pfQ Bohaq , 
 
 which signifies ‘ brightness,’ but in a subordinate 
 degree. This species did not render a person un- 
 clean. The second was called run 1 ? mm, 
 Bahdret lebandhy or a bright white Bake ret. 
 The third was PlDD mm, Baheret kehah, or 
 dusky Baheret, spreading in the skin. These 
 two last were also called DjnY Tsordat (i. e. 
 properly, ‘a stroke,’ as if a chastisement), and 
 rendered a person unclean. The characteristic 
 marks of the Baheret lebandh mentioned by 
 Moses, are a glossy white and spreading scale 
 upon an elevated base, the elevation depressed in 
 the middle, the hair on the patches participating 
 in the whiteness, and the patches themselves per- 
 petually increasing. Dr. Good considers the 
 Bohaq and the aA (p6s of the Greeks to be iden- 
 tical with the Lepra vulgaris, the Baheret le- 
 bandh with the Aewcrj, and the kehah and pt\ as 
 with the nigricans of Dr. Willan (Good's Study 
 of Med., v. 590). It is very probable that the 
 first two are the same, and it is also probable that 
 he is correct with regard to the second two ; for 
 Celsus mentions that the Aeu/oj was the most se- 
 vere of the three, that the patches were whiter 
 than in a\(p6s, and that the hairs on the patches 
 become white — in eaque albi pili sunt et lanu- 
 gini similes ; but he certainly excludes all idea 
 of contagion when he says of Vitiligo, which is 
 the generic name under which he describes the 
 three Greek species, quamvis per se milium peri- 
 culum affert , tamen estfocda et ex malo corporis 
 habitu ft (De Re Medica, v. 28). It must, 
 however, be borne in mind, that it is extremely 
 difficult to determine, even in our day, whether an 
 endemic or epidemic disease be really contagious; 
 and on that account it is safer to suppose that 
 a nation has deceived itself in believing a disease 
 to be contagious, than to assume without further 
 grounds that the disease has changed its character. 
 Less can be said respecting the identity of the Ba * 
 heret kehah of Moses and the yueA as of the Greeks. 
 It may, however, be remarked, that not only do 
 their names correspond, but each is classed with 
 other species which respectively resemble each 
 other. There are some other slight affections 
 mentioned by name in Leviticus, which the priest 
 was required to distinguish from leprosy, such as 
 
 DM? Seet, Shaphdl, pm Neteq, |W 
 
 Shechin , i. e. ‘ elevation,’ ‘ depressed,’ &c. ; and 
 to each of these Dr. Good (/. c.) has assigned a 
 modern systematic name. But, as it is useless to 
 attempt to recognize a disease otherwise than by 
 a description of its symptoms, we can have no 
 object in discussing his interpretation of these 
 terms. If a person had any of the above diseases 
 he was brought before the priest to be examined. 
 If the priest found the distinctive signs of a 
 Tsordat, or contagious leprosy, the person was 
 immediately declared unclean. If the priest 
 had any doubt on the subject, the person was 
 put under confinement for seven days, when he 
 was examined a second time. If in the course 
 of the preceding week the eruption had made no 
 advance, he was shut up for another seven days ; 
 and if then the disease was still stationary, and 
 had none of the distinctive signs above noticed, 
 he was declared clean (Lev. xiii.). 
 
 It may be useful here to subjoin a description 
 of elephantiasis, or the leprosy of the middle 
 ages, as this is the disease from which most of the 
 
LEPROSY. 
 
 LEVIATHAN. 
 
 239 
 
 pievalsnt notions concerning leprosy have been 
 derived, and to which the notices of lepers con- 
 tained in modern hooks of travels exclusively refer. 
 
 Elephantiasis first of all make3 its appearance 
 by spots of a reddish, yellowish, or livid hue, 
 irregularly disseminated over the skin and slightly 
 raised above its surface. These spots are glossy, 
 and appear oily, or as if they were covered with 
 varnish. After they have remained in this way 
 for a longer or shorter time, they are succeeded 
 by an eruption of tubercles. These are soft, 
 roundish tumours, varying in size from that of a 
 pea to that of an olive, and are of a reddish or 
 livid colour. They are principally developed on 
 the face and ea's, but in the course of years ex- 
 tend over the whole body. The face becomes 
 frightfully deformed ; the forehead is traversed 
 by deep lines and covered with numerous tuber- 
 cles; the eyebrows become bald, swelled, fur- 
 rowed by oblique lines, and covered with nipple- 
 like elevations; the eyelashes fall out, and the 
 eyes assume a fixed and staring look ; the lips 
 arc enormously thickened and shining ; the beard 
 falls out ; the chin and ears are enlarged and 
 beset with tubercles ; the lobe and alae of the nose 
 are frightfully enlarged and deformed ; the nos- 
 trils irregularly dilated, internally constricted, 
 and excoriated ; the voice is hoarse and nasal, 
 and the breath intolerably fetid. After some 
 time, generally after some years, many of the 
 tubercles ulcerate, and the matter which exudes 
 from them dries to crusts of a brownish or 
 blackish colour; but this process seldom termi- 
 nates in cicatrization. The extremities are affected 
 in the same way as the face. The hollow of the 
 foot is swelled out, so that the sole becomes flat ; 
 the sensibility of the skin is greatly impaired, 
 and, in the hands and feet, often entirely lost ; 
 the joints of the toes ulcerate and fall off one 
 after the other ; insupportable foetor exhales from 
 the whole body. The patient's general health 
 is not affected for a considerable time, and his 
 sufferings are not always of the same intensity as 
 his external deformity. Often, however, his 
 nights are sleepless or disturbed by frightful 
 dreams; he becomes morose and melancholy; 
 he shuns the sight of the healthy, because he feels 
 what an object of disgust he is to them, and life 
 becomes a loathsome burden to him ; or he falls 
 into a state of apathy, and after many years of 
 such an existence he sinks either from exhaustion, 
 or from the supervention of internal disease. The 
 Greeks gave the name of elephantiasis to this dis- 
 ease, because the skin of the person affected with 
 it was thought to resemble that of an elephant, 
 in dark colour, ruggedness, and insensibility, or, 
 as some have thought, because the foot, after the 
 loss of the toes, when the hollow of the sole is 
 filled up and the ankle enlarged, resembles the 
 
 foot of an elephant. The Arabs called it 
 
 G'udham, which means ‘mutilation,’ ‘amputa- 
 tion,’ in reference to the loss of the smaller mem- 
 bers. They have, however, also described another 
 disease, and a very different one from elephan- 
 tiasis, to which they gave the name of 
 
 Da* l fll, which means literally morbus elephas. 
 The disease to which they applied this name is 
 called by modern writers the tumid Barbadoes 
 1*3, and consists in a thickening of the skin and 
 
 subcutaneous tissues of the leg, but presents 
 nothing resembling the tubercles of elephantiasis*. 
 Now the Latin translators from (he Arabic, find- 
 ing that the same name existed both in the Greek 
 and Arabic, translated Dal fil by elephantiasis, 
 and thus confounded the Barbadoes leg with the 
 Arabic G'udham, while this latter, which was in 
 reality elephantiasis, they rendered by the Greek 
 term lepra. About the period of the Crusades 
 elephantiasis spread itself like an epidemic over 
 all Europe, even as far north as the Faroe Islands, 
 and henceforth, owing to the above-named mis- 
 takes, every one became familiar with leprosy 
 under the form of the terrible disease that has 
 just been described. Leper or lazar-houses 
 abounded everywhere : as many as 2000 are said 
 to have existed in France alone. The disease 
 was considered to be contagious possibly only on 
 account of the belief that was entertained respect- 
 ing its identity with Jewish leprosy, and the 
 strictest regulations were enacted for secluding 
 the diseased ’ from society. Towards the com- 
 mencement of the seventeenth century the disease 
 gradually disappeared from Europe, and is now 
 confined to intertropical countries. It existed in 
 Faroe as late as 1676, and in the Shetland Islands 
 in 1736, long after it had ceased in the southern 
 parts of Great Britain. The best authors of the 
 present day who have had an opportunity of ob- 
 serving the disease do not consider it to be con- 
 tagious. There seems, however, to be little doubt 
 as to its being hereditary (Good’s Study of Med., 
 iii. 421 ; Rayer, Mai. de la Peau, ii. 296 ; Simp- 
 son On the Lepers and Leper Houses of Scotland 
 and England, in Edin. Med. and Surg. Journ., 
 Jan. 1, 1842).— W. A. N. 
 
 LEVI 0)!?, a joining ; Sept. Level), the third 
 son of Jacob and Leah, born in Mesopotamia 
 B.c. 1750 (Gen. xxix. 34). No circumstance is 
 recorded of him save the part which he and his 
 full brother Simeon took in the massacre of the 
 Shechemites, to avenge the wrong done to their 
 sister Dinah (Gen. xxxiv. 25, 26). This transac- 
 tion was to his last hour regarded by Jacob with 
 abhorrence, and he failed not to allude to it in 
 his dying declaration. As Simeon and Levi were 
 united in that Jfct, so the patriarch couples them 
 in his prophecy : ‘ Accursed be their anger, for it 
 was fierce ; and their wrath, for it was cruel ! I 
 will divide them in Jacob, and disperse them in 
 Israel.’ And, accordingly, their descendants were 
 afterwards, in different ways, dispersed among 
 the other tribes ; although, in the case of Levi, 
 this curse was eventually turned into a benefit 
 and blessing. 
 
 LEVIATHAN (|JW, Job iii. 8 ; xli. 1 ; Ps. 
 lxxiv. 14; civ. 26; Isa. xxvii. 1) [Behemoth, 
 Crocodile, Dragon]. Gesenins very justly 
 remarks that this word, which denotes any twisted 
 animal, is especially applicable to every great 
 tenant of the waters, such as the great marine 
 serpents and crocodiles, and, it may be added, the 
 colossal serpents and great monitors of the desert. 
 In general it points to the crocodile, and Job xli, 
 is unequivocally descriptive of that Saurian. Pro- 
 bably the Egyptian crocodile is therein depicted 
 in all its magnitude, ferocity, and indolence, 
 such as it was in early days, when as yet uncon- 
 scious of the power of man, and only uidividually 
 tamed for the purposes of an imposture, which had 
 
240 
 
 LEVITES. 
 
 LEVITES. 
 
 sufficient authority to intimidate the public and 
 protect the species, under the sanctified pretext 
 that it was a type of pure water, and an emblem 
 of the importance of irrigation ; though the people 
 in general seem ever to have been disposed to con- 
 sider it a personification of the destructive prin- 
 ciple. At a later p&riod the Egyptians, probably 
 of such places as Tentyris, where crocodiles were 
 not held in veneration, not only hunted and slew 
 them, but it appears from a statue that a sort, of 
 Bestiarii c( uld tame them sufficiently to perform 
 certain exhibitions mounted on their backs. The 
 intense musky odour of its flesh must have ren- 
 dered the crocodile, at all times, very unpalatable 
 food, but breast-armour was made of the horny 
 and ridged parts of its back. We have ourselves 
 witnessed a periodical abstinence in the great Sau- 
 rians, and have known negro women, while bathing, 
 play with young alligators; which, they asserted, 
 they could da without danger, unless they hurt 
 them and thereby attracted the vengeance of the 
 mother; but the impunity most likely resulted 
 from the period of inactivity coinciding with the 
 then state of the young animals, or from the 
 negro women being many in the water at the same 
 lime. The occurrence took place at Old Har- 
 bour, Jamaica. 
 
 Some misstatements and much irrelevant learn- 
 ing have been bestowed upon the Leviathan. 
 Viewed as the crocodile of the Thebaid, it is not 
 clear that it symbolised the Pharaoh, or was a 
 type of Egypt, any more than of several Roman 
 colonies (even where it was not indigenous, as at 
 Nismes in Gaul, on the ancient coins of which 
 the figure of one chained occurs), and of cities 
 in Phoenicia, Egypt, and other parts of the coast 
 of Africa. But in the Prophets and Psalms 
 there are passages where Pharaoh is evidently 
 apostrophized under the name of Leviathan, 
 though other texts more naturally apply to the 
 whale, notwithstanding the objections that have 
 been made to that internretation of the term 
 | Whai.e].— C. H. S. 
 
 LEVITES Sept. Aevlrat), the de- 
 
 scendants of Levi, through his sons Gershon, 
 Kohath, and Merari, whose descendants formed so 
 many sub-tribes or great families of the general 
 body. In a narrower sense the lerm Levites 
 designates the great body of the tribe employed in 
 the subordinate offices of the hierarchy, to distin- 
 guish them from that one family of their body — 
 the family of Aaron — in which the priestly func- 
 tions were vested. 
 
 While the Israelites were encamped before 
 Mount Sinai, the tribe of Levi, to which Moses 
 and Aaron belonged, was, by special ordinance 
 from the Lord, set specially apart for sacerdotal 
 services, in the place of the first-born of the dif- 
 ferent tribes and families to whom such func- 
 tions, according to ancient usage, belonged; and 
 which indeed had already been set apart as holy, 
 in commemoration of the first-bom of the Israel- 
 ites having being spared when the first-born of the 
 Egyptians were destroyed (Mum. iii. 12,13, 40-5 1 ; 
 Exod. xiii.). When it was determined to set apart 
 a single tribe of Levi for this service, the numbers 
 of the first-born in Israel and of the tribe selected 
 were respectively taken, when it was found that 
 the former amounted to 22.273, and the latter to 
 ?2,000. Those of the first-bo beyond the number 
 
 of the Levites were then redeemed at the rate o* 
 five shekels, or 12s. 6d., each, and the mone; 
 assigned to the priests. At tire same time th 
 cattle which the Levites then happened to posses 
 were considered as equivalent to all the firstling 
 of the cattle which the Israelites had ; and, ac 
 cordingly, the firstlings were not required to b< 
 brought, as in subsequent years, to the altar 
 and to the priesthood (Num. iii. 41-51). • 
 
 In the wilderness the office of the Levites was U 
 carry the Tabernacle and its utensils and furni- 
 ture from place to place, after they had been 
 packed up by the priests (Num. iv. 4- 15). In 
 this service each ot the three Levitical families 
 had its separate department; the Gershonites car- 
 ried the hangings and cords of the Tabernacle, for 
 which they were allowed two wains, each drawn 
 by four oxen (Num. iii. 25, 26; iv. 24-28; vii. 
 7). The Kohathites carried the ark, the table ol 
 shew-bread, the candlestick, the two altars, and 
 such of the hangings us belonged to the sanctuary : 
 for this they had ro wains or oxen, the whole 
 being carried upon their shoulders (Num. iii. 31 ; 
 iv. 4-15 ; vii. 9); the Merarites had charge of the 
 substantial parts of the Tabernacle — the boards, 
 pillars, bars, bases, &c., and also all the ordinary 
 vessels of service, for which they were allowed 
 four wains and eight oxen (Num. iii. 36, 37 ; iv. 
 31, 32 ; vii. 8). In this manner they proceeded 
 in all their journeys ; and when they settled in a 
 place, and had erected the Tabernacle, the ditl'er- 
 ent families pitched their tents around it in the 
 following manner: the Gershonites behind it on 
 the west (Num. iii. 23), the Kohathites on the 
 south (iii. 29), the Merarites on the nort h (iii. 35), 
 and the priests on the east (iii. 38). Thev all 
 assisted Aaron and his sons in taking care of, and 
 attending on, the Tabernacle, when it was pitched ; 
 but they were allowed to take no part in the se; - 
 vices of the altar (xviii. 2-7). 
 
 This was the nature of their service iu the 
 desert: but when they entered the land of Ca- 
 naan, and the tabernacle ceased to be migratory, 
 the range of their service was considerably altered. 
 While part attended at the tabernacle, the rest 
 were distributed through the country in the several 
 cities which were allotted to them. These cities 
 are commonly reckoned forty-eight; but thirteen 
 of them were reserved for the priests, so that only 
 thirty-five belonged to the Levites. The names 
 of these cities, and the tribes in which they were 
 situated, are given in Josh. xxi. 20-42 ; 1 Chron. 
 vi. 61-81. Of the forty-eight cities six were 
 cities of refuge for the unintentional homicide, 
 of which one, Hebron, was a priestly city (Deut. 
 iv. 41-43 ; Josh. xx. 2-9). 
 
 In the time of David, when the number of the 
 priests and Levites had much increased, a third 
 and very important alteration was effected, as 
 much, or more, with reference to the Temple, for 
 which he made every possible preparation, as for 
 the existing service at the Tabernacle. Whilt 
 tire priests were divided into twenty-four courses, 
 that they might attend the Temple in rotatior 
 weekly, and only officiate about two weeks in th* 
 year, the Levites were also divided into twenty-fou: 
 courses. In the book of Chronicles we have four 
 times twenty- four courses of Levites mentioned 
 but all their employments are not distinctly 
 stated (1 Chron. xxiii. 7-23; xxiv. 20-31; xxv 
 1 31 ; xxvi. 1-12). The most conspicuous clar 
 
LEVITES. 
 
 LEVI1ES. 
 
 24 i 
 
 sification 13 that of twenty-four courses of porters 
 and servitors, and twenty-four of musicians. 
 
 The courses of the porters and servitors are 
 mentioned in 1 Chron. xxvi. 1-12; their different 
 posts are stated in verses 13-16; and it would ap- 
 pear from 1 Chron. xxvi. 17-19, that the guard of 
 Levites for each day was twenty-four. In 1 Chron. 
 ix. 20-34 there are some further particulars of the 
 articles they had in charge. It is clear from all 
 this that the porters were quite distinct from the 
 singers. 
 
 The office of the porters was to open and shut 
 the doors arid gates of the Temple-courts, at which 
 they also attended throughout the day to prevent 
 the entrance of any harmful or unclean person or 
 thkng (1 Chron. xxvi. 17, 18). They had also 
 the charge of the treasure-chambers in their re- 
 spective wai'ds ; for we find four of the chief porters 
 holding this trust in 1 Chron. ix. 26, and t heir- 
 names and the articles in their charge are given 
 in 1 Chron. xxvi. 20-29; 2 Chron. xxxi. 12-14. 
 
 Besides acting as porters and servants during 
 the day, we learn that they were also the guards of 
 the Temple. Minute particulars with reference to 
 the second Temple are given by the Rabbinical 
 and other authors, and so far as they are correct, 
 which they seem to be in substance, they may be 
 supposed to apply equally well to the first Temple, 
 from which they must have been in the main 
 transmitted. Without enteving into specific de- 
 tails, it may be remarked that the whole number 
 of guards to the Temple, at night, is stated to 
 have been twenty-four, of whom three were priests. 
 These are described as having been under an 
 overseer, called ‘ the man of the mountain of the 
 *ouse.-’ He went his rounds to see that the guards 
 were at their posts : if he found any one seated 
 ♦vho should have been standing, he said ‘ Peace 
 be unto thee;’ but if he found any one asleep, he 
 6truck him, and sometimes set fire to his clothes 
 (Maimon. Beth Hahech. ch. viii.). This has been 
 thought to throw light upon Rev. xvi. 15, ‘ Be- 
 hold I corne as a thief ; blessed is he that watcheth 
 and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and 
 they see his shame.’ 
 
 Bishop Lowth (on Isa. lxii. 6) supposes that 
 Ps. cxxxiv. furnishes an example of the manner 
 in which the watchmen of the Temple acted dur- 
 ing the night, and that the whole Psalm is nothing 
 more than the alternate cry of the two different 
 divisions, the first addressing the second, remind- 
 ing them of their duty, and the second answering 
 by a solemn blessing. 
 
 First chorus. — Come on, now, bless ye Jehovah, 
 all ye servants of Jehovah ; ye who stand in 
 the house of Jehovah in the night ; 
 
 Lift up your hands towards the holy place, and 
 bless ye Jehovah. 
 
 Second chorus . — Jehovah bless thee out of Zion, 
 He that made heaven and earth.’ 
 
 The bishop further supposes that the address 
 and answer constituted a set form which each 
 division proclaimed at stated intervals to notify 
 the time of the night ; and he illustrates this 
 view by reference to Isa. lxii. 6 — 
 
 ‘ Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem ! have I appointed 
 watchmen, 
 
 That shall never be silent the whole day nor the 
 whole night.’ 
 
 Here, however, the allusion is obviously to the 
 guard of the city, not of the T'onrile ; although 
 
 the existence of trie practice in the city may sup 
 ply an argument for its existence in the Temple. 
 
 We have thus seen that one division of the Le- 
 vites was employed as porters during the day, ana 
 another as guards during the night : a third di- 
 vision served as musicians. A catalogue of these 
 is given in 1 Chron. xxi. 1-9, according to their 
 employments ; and another, according to their 
 courses, in 1 Chron. xxi. 9-31. We shall have to 
 speak of Music under that head, and need only 
 here state that on grand occasions, when a full 
 band was formed, the family of Heman sung in the 
 middle (L Chron. vi. 33-38), the family of Asaph 
 on the right hand (vi. 39-43), and the family of 
 Ethan on the left. The ordinary place for the 
 musicians, vocal and instrumental, was at the 
 east end of the court of the priests, between the 
 court of Israel and the altar. We are told, how- 
 ever, that although the Levites were the regular- 
 ministers of sacred song, other men of skill and 
 note, of the commonalty, especially such as were 
 connected by marriage with the priesthood, were 
 occasionally allowed to assist in the instrumental 
 department, with the instruments on which they 
 excelled; but that even these might not, on any 
 account, join in the vocal department, which was 
 considered the most solemn-(7’. Bah. tit. Eracldn, 
 fol. 11; Maimon. Keh Mikdash, ch. iii.). This 
 may help to explain or illustrate 2 Sam. vi. 5. 
 
 It seems that the singers could never be under 
 twelve, because that, number was particularly men- 
 tioned at their first appointment (1 Chron xxv. 
 9); but there was no objection to any larger num- 
 ber (Erachin, ut supra). The young sons of the 
 Levites were, on such occasions only, allowed to 
 enter the court of the priests with their fathers, that 
 their small voices might relieve the deep bass of 
 the men ( Gemar . tit. Succah, ch. v.) ; and for this 
 authority was supposed to be found in Ezra iii. 9. 
 
 The Levites were not at liberty to exercise any 
 properly sacerdotal functions; but on extraordi- 
 nary occasions they were permitted to assist in 
 preparing the sacrifices, without, however, in any 
 way concerning themselves with the blood (2 
 Chron. xxix. 34; xxx. 16, 17; xxxv. 1). 
 
 In Num. iv. 3 the Levites are described as com- 
 mencing their actual service at thirty years of age ; 
 but in Num. viii. 24, 25, twenty-five is the age 
 mentioned ; and in 1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 25, and 
 Ezra iii. 8, twenty. The reason of these ap- 
 parent discrepancies is, that from twenty. five to 
 thirty they were in the state of probationers, doing 
 some things, but excluded from others (Aben Ezra, 
 on Num. viii.). At thirty they became qualified 
 for every part of the Levitical service. This was 
 under the Tabernacle ; but when the Temple was 
 built, and bodily strength was less required, the 
 age was reduced to twenty. After fifty they were 
 no longer called upon to serve as a matter of obli- 
 gation ; but they might attend if they thought 
 proper, and perform any usual service which was 
 not considered burdensome. Thus, in the wilder- 
 ness, they ceased at that age to carry any part of 
 the burdens when the ark and Tabernacle were 
 removed (Num. viii. 25, 26). 
 
 When the Levitical body was first set apart 
 for its sacred duties, the existing members were 
 consecrated in the manner particularly described 
 in Num. viii. 6, 22. They, and in them their 
 descendants, were thus inducted into their par- 
 ticular office ; and, ill later times, when any on« 
 
LEVITES. 
 
 LEVITES. 
 
 *4‘J 
 
 became of age, it was sufficient for his admission 
 to prove that lie belonged to a Levitical family, 
 and, probably, to offer some trifling- sacrifice. It 
 does not appear that the Levites, when at home, 
 had any particular dress to distinguish them from 
 their countrymen ; nor is there any positive evi- 
 dence that they had any distinctive garb, even 
 when on actual service at the tabernacle or 
 temple. Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9) relates, that 
 only six years before the destruction of the Temple 
 by the Romans, the Levites were allowed by 
 Agrippa to wear a linen tunic, like the priests — 
 an innovation with which the latter were highly 
 displeased. This shows that the dress of the 
 Levites, even when on duty, had not previously 
 been in any respect similar to that of the priests. 
 
 The subsistence of the Levites was provided for 
 in a peculiar manner. It consisted, first, of a 
 compensation for the abandonment of their right 
 to one-twelfth of the land of Canaan ; and, 
 secondly, of a remuneration for their services in 
 their official capacity as devoted to the services of 
 the sanctuary. The territorial compensation lay 
 in the 48 cities which were granted to the whole 
 tribe, including the priests. These cities were 
 scattered among the different tribes, as centres of 
 instruction, and had 1000 square cubits, equal to 
 above 305 English acres, attached to each of them, 
 to serve for gardens, vineyards, and pasturage. 
 It is obvious, however, that this alone could not 
 have been an adequate compensation for the loss 
 of one-twelfth of the soil, seeing that the produce 
 of 305 acres could not in any case have sufficed 
 for the wants of the inhabitants of these cities. 
 The further provision, therefore, which was made 
 for them must be regarded as partly in compen- 
 sation for their sacrifice of territory, although we 
 are disposed to look upon it as primarily intended 
 as a remuneration for the dedication of their 
 'Services to the public. This provision consisted 
 of the tithe, or tenth of the produce of the grounds 
 allotted to the other tribes. The simplest view of 
 this payment is to regard it, first, as the pro- 
 duce of about as much land as the Levites 
 would have been entitled to if placed on the same 
 footing with regard to territory as the other tribes ; 
 and also as the produce of so much more land, 
 which the other tribes enjoyed in consequence of its 
 not having been assigned to the tribe of Levi. In 
 giving the produce of this land to the Levites the 
 Israelites were therefore to be regarded as simply 
 releasing them from the cares of agriculture, to 
 enable them to devote themselves to the service of 
 the sanctuary. The land which produced the tithe 
 was just so much land held by the other tribes 
 in their behalf ; and the labour of cultivating 
 this land was the salary paid to the Levites for 
 their official services. The tenth was paid to the 
 whole tribe of Levi; but as the Levites had to give 
 out of this one-tenth to the priests, their own allow- 
 ance was only nine-tenths of the tenth. A more 
 particular account of tithes belongs to another 
 head [Tithes]. The Levites had also a certain 
 interest in the ‘second tithe,’ being the portion 
 which, after the first tithe ha 1 been paid, the 
 cultivator set apart for hospitable feasts, which 
 were held at the place of the sanctuary in two 
 out of three years, but in the third year at home. 
 This interest, however, extended no further than 
 that the offerer was particularly enjoined to invite 
 the priests and Levites to. such feasts. 
 
 The earliest notice we have of the numbers of 
 the Levites occurs at their first separation in the 
 desert, when there were 22,300, of a month old 
 and upwards ; of whom 8580 were fit for service, 
 or between the ages of 30 and 50 (Ni m. iii. 22, 
 28. 31; iv. 2, 34-49). Thirty-eight years after, 
 just before the Israelites entered Canaan, they had 
 increased to 23,000, not one of whom had, been 
 born at the time of the former enumeration 
 (Num. xxvi. 57, 62-65). About 460 years 
 after the entry into Canaan (b.c. 1015) they were 
 again numbered by David, a little before his 
 death, and were found to have increased to 38.000 
 men fit for Levitical service — of whom 24,000 
 were ‘ set over the work of the Lord,’ 60(J0 were 
 officers and judges, 4000 were porters, and 4000 
 were musicians (1 Chron. xxiii. 3, 4, 5). If the 
 same proportion then existed between those come 
 of age and those a month old which existed when 
 the tribe quitted Egypt, the entire number of the 
 Levitical body, in the time of David, must have 
 been 96,433. 
 
 After the revolt of the ten tribes, those of the 
 Levites who resided in the territories of those 
 tribes, having resisted the request of Jeroboam to 
 transfer their services to his idolatrous establish- 
 ments at Dan and Bethel, were obliged to abandon 
 their possessions and join their brethren in Judah 
 and Benjamin (2 Chron. xi. 12, 13, 14; xiii. 9); 
 and this concentration of the Levitical body in 
 the kingdom of Judah must have had an impor- 
 tant influence ujion its condition and history. 
 That kingdom thus actually consisted of three 
 tribes — Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. — of which 
 one was devoted to sacerdotal uses. This altered 
 position of the Levites — after they had been de- 
 prived of most of their cities, and the tithes from 
 ten of the tribes were cut off’ — presents a subject 
 for much interesting investigation, into which we 
 cannot enter. Their means must have been much 
 reduced; for it cannot be supposed that Judah and 
 Benjamin alone were able, even if willing, to un- 
 dertake the support of the whole Levitical body 
 on the same scale as when the dues of all Israel 
 flowed into its treasuries. In the subsequent his- 
 tory of Judah the Levites appear less frequently 
 than might have been expected. The chief 
 public measure in which they were engaged was 
 the restoration of the house of David in t he person 
 of young Joash (2 Chron. xxiii. 1-11); which 
 may he regarded as mainly the work of the Le- 
 vitical body, including the priests. 
 
 Under the edict of Cyrus, only 341 Levites, 
 according to Ezra (ii. 40-42), or 350, according 
 to Nehemiah (vii. 43-45), returned with Zerub- 
 babel to Jerusalem. This is less surprising than 
 might at first sight appear; for if, before the cap- 
 tivity, the great body of them had been in strait- 
 ened circumstances and without fixed possessions 
 in Judah, it was only consistent with human pru- 
 dence that those who had, in all probability, com- 
 fortably settled themselves in Babylon, should 
 not be anxious to return in such numbers to Pa- 
 lestine as were likely to produce similar effects. 
 A few more are mentioned in Neh xii. 24 26. 
 Those who did return seem to have had no very 
 correct notion of their obligations and duties; for 
 there were many who formed matrimonial alii* 
 ances with the idolaters of the land, and thereby 
 corrupted both their moral? and genealogies. But 
 they were prevailed upon to reform this abuse; 
 
LEVITES. 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 243 
 
 and, as a token of obedience, signed tbe national 
 covenant with Nehemiah, and abode at Jerusalem 
 to influence others by their authority and ex- 
 ample (Neh. x. 9-13; xi. 15 19). 
 
 The Levites are not mentioned in the Apocry- 
 phal books, and very slightly in the New Testa- 
 ment (Luke x. 32; John i. 19; Acts iv. 36) ; 
 but the ‘scribes’ and the ‘lawyers,’ so often 
 named in the Gospels, are usually supposed to 
 haxe belonged to them. 
 
 It would lie taking a very narrow view of the 
 duties of the Levirical body if we regarded them 
 as limited to their services at the sanctuary. On 
 the contrary, we see in their establishment a pro- 
 vision for the religious and . moral instruction of 
 the great body of the people, which no ancient 
 lawgiver except Moses ever thought of attending to. 
 But that this was one principal object for which 
 a twelfth of the population — the tribe of Levi 
 — was set apart, is clearly intimated in Deut. 
 xxxii. 9, 10 : ‘They shall teach Jacob thy judg- 
 ments and Israel thy law ; they shall put incense 
 before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine 
 altar.’ They were to read the volume of the law 
 publicly every seventh year at the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles (Deut. xxxi. 10-13). ‘This public and 
 solemn periodical instruction,’ observes Dean 
 Graves ( Lectures , p. 170), ‘though eminently 
 useful, was certainly not the entire of their duty ; 
 they were bound from the spirit of this ordinance 
 to take care that at all times the aged should be 
 improved and the children instructed in the 
 knowledge and fear of God, the adoration of his 
 majesty, and the observance of his law ; and for 
 this purpose the peculiar situation and privileges 
 of the tribe of Levi, as regulated by the divine 
 appointment, admirably fitted them. Possessed 
 of no landed property, and supported by the tithes 
 and offerings which they received in kind, they 
 were little occupied with labour or secular care ; 
 deriving their maintenance from a source which 
 would necessarily fail if the worship of God were 
 neglected, they were deeply interested in their 
 support. Their cities being dispersed through all 
 the tribes, and their families permitted to inter- 
 marry with all, they were everywhere at hand to 
 admonish and instruct; exclusively possessed of 
 the high-priesthood, as well as of all other reli- 
 gious offices, and associated with the high-priest 
 and judge in the supreme court of judicature, and 
 with the elders of every city in the inferior tri- 
 bunals, and guardians of the cities of refuge, 
 where those who were guilty of homicide fled for 
 an asylum, they must have acquired such influ- 
 ence and reverence among the people as were ne- 
 cessary to secure attention to their instructions; 
 and they were led to study the rules of moral 
 conduct, the principles of equity, and, above all, 
 the Mosaic code, with unceasing attention ; but 
 they vere not laid under any vows of celibacy, 
 or monastic austerity and retirement, and thus 
 abstracted from the intercourse and feelings of 
 social life. Thus circumstanced, they were as- 
 suredly well calculated to answer the purpose of 
 their institution, to preserve and consolidate the 
 union of all the other tribes, and to instruct and 
 forward the poor in knowledge, virtue, and piety ’ 
 
 ( Lectures , pp. 169-171 ; Brown's Antiquities , i. 
 301-347 ; Godwyn's Moses and Aaron, i. 5 ; 
 Wits ius, Dissert. II. de Theocrat. Israelitar. 
 add. Goodwini Moses et Aaron ; Jei:«nings, An- 
 
 tiquities, pp. 184-206; Carpzov, Apparat. Cr,.. 
 see Index ; Saubert, Comm, de Sacerdot. et Sacris 
 Hjebr. personis, Opp. p. 283, sqq. ; Gramberg, 
 dir it. Gesch. der Jleligionsideen dcs Alten Test. 
 vol. i. c. 3). 
 
 LEVITICUS, in the Hebrew canon, is called 
 and is the third book of Moses. 
 
 Contents. — Leviticus contains the further 
 statement and development of the Sinaitic legis- 
 lation, the beginnings of which are described in 
 Exodus. It exhibits the historical progress of 
 this legislation; consequently we must not expect 
 to find the laws detailed in it in a systematic 
 form. There is, nevertheless, a certain order 
 observed, which arose from the nature of the sub- 
 ject, and of which the plan may easily be per- 
 ceived. The whole is intimately connected with 
 the contents of Exodus, at the conclusion of which 
 book that sanctuary is described with which all 
 external worship was connected (Exod. xxxv.- 
 xl.). Leviticus begins by describing the worship 
 itself. First are stated the laws concerning sacri- 
 fices (ch. i.-vii.). In this section is first described 
 the general quality of the sacrifices, which are 
 divided into bloody and unbloody ; secondly , 
 their aim and object, according to which they 
 are either thank-offerings or sin-offerings; 
 and lastly , the time, place, and manner in 
 which they should be made. 
 
 Then follows a description of the manner ii. 
 which Aaron and his sons were consecrated as 
 priests, and how, by the manifestation of the 
 divine glory, they were ordained to be mediators 
 between God and his people (ch. viii.-ix.). As 
 formerly the ingratitude of the people had been 
 severely punished (Exod. xxxii. sq.), so now the 
 disobedience of Ihe priests was visited with signal 
 marks of the divine displeasure (Lev. x.). On 
 this occasion were given several laws concerning 
 the requisites of the sacerdotal office. 
 
 The theocratical sanctity of the nation was 
 intimately connected with the existence of the 
 sanctuary. Every subject, indeed, connected 
 with the sanctuary was intended to uphold a strict 
 separation between holy and unholy things. 
 The whole theocratical life was based on a strict 
 separation of things unclean from things clean, 
 which alone were offered to God and might ap- 
 proach the sanctuary. The whole creation, and 
 especially all animal life, should, like man him- 
 self, bear testimony to the defilement resulting 
 from sin, and to its opposite, viz. the holiness of 
 the Lord (ch. xi.-xv.). 
 
 The great feast of atonement formed, as it 
 were, the central point of the national sanctity, 
 this feast being appointed to reconcile the whole 
 people to God, and to purify the sanctuary itself. 
 All preceding institutions, all sacrifices and puri- 
 fications, receive their completion in the great 
 feast of Israel’s atonement (ch. xvi.). 
 
 Thus we have seen that the sanctuary was 
 made the positive central point of the whole 
 nation, or of national holiness ; but it. was to be 
 inculcated negatively also, that ill worship 
 should be connected with the sanctuary, and that 
 no sacrifices should be offered elsewhere, lest any 
 pagan abuses should thereby strike root again 
 (ch. xvii.). 
 
 The danger of deserting Jehovah and bis woi- 
 ship would be increased after tbe conauest ol 
 
244 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 Canaan, when the Israelites should inhabit a 
 country surrounded by pagans. The following 
 chapters (xviii.-xx.) refer to the very important 
 relation in which Israel stood to the surrounding 
 tribes, and the positive motive for separating 
 them from all other nations ; to the necessity of 
 extirpating the Canaanites ; and to the whole posi- 
 tion which the people of the Lord should occupy 
 with reference to paganism. Chapter xviii. begins 
 with the description of those crimes into which the 
 people might easily be misled by the influence 
 of their pagan neighbours, viz. fornication, con- 
 tempt of parents, idolatry, &c. 
 
 The priests were specially appointed to lead 
 the nation by their good example scrupulously 
 to avoid every thing pagan and unclean, and 
 thus to testify their faithful allegiance to Jehovah 
 (ch. xxi.-xxii. 16). It is particularly inculcated 
 that the sacrifices should be without blemish ; 
 and this is made a means of separating the Israel- 
 ites from all pagan associations and customs (ch. 
 xxii. 17-33). But the strongest bulwark erected 
 against pagan encroachments was the appoint- 
 ment of solemn religious meetings, in which the 
 attention of the people was directed to the central 
 point of national religion, and which theocra- 
 tically consecrated their whde proceedings to the 
 worship of God. This was the object of the laws 
 relating to fasts (ch. xxiii.). These laws divided 
 the year into sacred sections, and gave to agri- 
 cultural life its bearing upon the history of the 
 works of God, and its peculiarly theocratic cha- 
 racter, in contradistinction to all pagan worship, 
 which is merely bent upon the symbolisation of 
 the vital powers of nature. 
 
 In ch. xxiv. 1 -9 follows the law concerning the 
 preparation of the sacred oil, and the due setting 
 forth of the shew-bread. Although this is in con- 
 nection with ch. xxii. 17, sq., it is nevertheless 
 judiciously placed after ch. xxiii., because it 
 refers to the agricultural relation of the Israelites 
 to Jehovah stated in that chapter. The Mosaical 
 legislation is throughout illustrated by facts, and 
 its power and significance are exhibited in the 
 manner in which it subdues all subjective arbi- 
 trary opposition. So the opposition of the law to 
 paganism, and the evil consequences of every 
 approach to pagans, are illustrated by the history 
 of a man who sprang from a mixed marriage, 
 who cursed Jehovah, and was stoned as Jehovah 
 directed (ch. xxiv. 10-24). 
 
 The insertion of this fact in its chronological 
 place slightly interrupts the order of the legal de- 
 finitions. The law concerning the Sabbath and 
 t he year of Jubilee, which follow it, are intimately 
 connected with the laws which precede. For the 
 Sabbatical law completes the declaration that 
 Jehovah is the real proprietor and landlord of 
 Canaan, to whom belong both the territory and 
 its inhabitants ; and whose right is opposed to all 
 occupation of the country by heathens (ch. xxv.). 
 
 This section is concluded with the fundamental 
 position of the law, viz. that Jehovah, the only 
 true and living God, will bless his faithful people 
 who heartily keep his law ; and will curse all who 
 despise him and transgress his law (ch. xxvi.). 
 
 After it has thus, been explained how the 
 people might be considered to be the owners of 
 the country, there appropriately follows the law 
 concerning several possessions which were more 
 exclusively consecrated to Jehovah, or which, like 
 
 the first-born, belonged to him without being 
 specially offered. The whole concludes with an 
 appendix embracing the law concerning vowi 
 and tithes, with a manifest reference to the pre- 
 ceding parts of the legislation (ch. xxvii. 17-24). 
 
 Authenticity. — The arguments by which 
 the unity of Leviticus has been attacked are very 
 feeble. Some critics, however, such as De Wette, 
 Gramberg, Yatke, and others, have strenuously 
 endeavoured to prove that the laws contained 
 in Leviticus originated in a period much later 
 than is usually supposed. But the following 
 observations sufficiently support their Mosaical 
 origin, and show that the whole of Leviticus is 
 historically genuine. The laws in ch. i.-vii. con- 
 tain manifest vestiges of the Mosaical period. 
 Here, as well as in Exodus, when the priests 
 are mentioned, Aaron and his sons are named ; as, 
 for instance, in ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 11, &c. The taber- 
 nacle is the sanctuary, and no other place of wor- 
 ship is mentioned anywhere. Expressions like 
 the following constantly occur, TyiD '32^, 
 
 before the tabernacle of the congregation , or 
 njno SnN‘ nns, the door of the tabernacle oj 
 the congregation (ch. i. 3; iii. 8, 13, &c.). The 
 Israelites are always described as a congregation 
 (ch. iv. 13, sq.), under the command of the 
 myn '3pT, elders of the congregation (ch. iv. 
 15), or of a fcOEW, ruler (ch. iv. 22). Every thing 
 has a reference to life in a camp, and that camp 
 commanded by Moses (ch. iv. 12, 21; vi. 11 ; 
 xiv. 8; xvi. 26, 28). A later writer could 
 scarcely have placed himself so entirely in the 
 times, and so completely adopted the modes of 
 thinking of the age, of Moses : especially if, as 
 has been asserted, these laws gradually sprung 
 from the usages of the people, and were written 
 down at a later period with the object of sanction- 
 ing them by the authority of Moses. They sc 
 entirely befit the Mosaical age, that, in order tc 
 adapt them to the requirements of any later pe- 
 riod, they must have undergone some modifica- 
 tion, accommodation, and a peculiar mode of in- 
 terpretation. This inconvenience would have been 
 avoided by a person who intended to forge laws 
 in favour of the later modes of Levitical worship. 
 A forger would have endeavoured to identify the 
 past as much as possible with the present.. 
 
 The section in ch. viii.-x. is said to have a 
 mythical colouring. This assertion is grounded 
 on the miracle narrated in ch. ix. 24. But what 
 could have been the inducement to forge thi3 
 section? It is said that the priests invented it in 
 order to support the authority of the sacerdotal 
 caste by the solemn ceremony of Aaron’s con- 
 secration. But to such an intention the nar- 
 ration of the crime committed by Nadab and 
 Abihu is strikingly opposed. Even Aaron him- 
 self here appears to be rather remiss in the ob- 
 servance of the law (comp. x. 16, sq., with iv. 
 22, sq.). Hence it would seem that the forgery 
 arose from an opposite or anti-hierarchical ten- 
 dency. The fiction would thus appear to have 
 been contrived without any motive which could 
 account for its origin. 
 
 In ch. xvii. occurs the law which forbids the 
 slaughter of any beast except at the sanctuary. 
 This law could not be strictly xept in Palestine, 
 and had therefore to undergo some modification 
 (Deut. xii.). Our opponents cannot show any 
 
LIBANUS. 
 
 LI BAN US. 
 
 245 
 
 rati ana 1 , inducement for contriving such a fiction. 
 The law (ch. xvii. 6, 7) is adapted to the nation 
 only while emigrating from Egypt. It was the ob- 
 ject of this law to guard the Israelites from falling 
 into the temptation to imitate the Egyptian rites 
 and sacrifices offered to lie-goats, ; which 
 
 word signifies also demons represented under the 
 form of he-goats, and which were supposed to 
 inhabit the desert (comp. Jablonsky, Pantheon 
 AEgyptiacum, i. 272, sq.). 
 
 The laws concerning food and purifications ap- 
 pear especially important if we remember that the 
 people emigrated from Egypt. The fundamental 
 principle of these laws is undoubtedly Mosaical, 
 hut in the individual application of them there 
 is much which strongly reminds us of Egypt. 
 This is also the case in Lev. xviii. sq., where 
 the lawgiver has manifestly in view the two op- 
 posites, Canaan and Egypt. That the lawgiver 
 was intimately acquainted with Egypt, is proved 
 by such remarks as those about the Egyptiau mar- 
 riages with sisters (ch. xviii. 3); a custom which 
 6tands as an exception among the prevailing habits 
 of antiquity (Diodorus Siculus, i. 27 ; Pausa- 
 nias, Attica, i. 7 ). 
 
 The book of Leviticus has a prophetical cha- 
 racter. The lawgiver represents to himself the 
 future history of his people. This prophetical 
 character is especially manifest in chs. xxv., xxvi., 
 where the law appears in a truly sublime and di- 
 vine attitude, and when its predictions refer to the 
 whole futurity of the nation. It is impossible to 
 say that these were vaticinia ex eventu, unless we 
 would assert that this book was written at the close 
 of Israelitish history. We must rather grant that 
 passages like this are the real basis on which the 
 authority of later prophets is chiefly built. Such 
 passages prove also, in a striking manner, that the 
 lawgiver had not merely an external aim, but that 
 his law had a deeper purpose, which was clearly 
 understood by Moses himself. That purpose was 
 to regulate the national life in all its bearings, and 
 to consecrate the whole nation to God. See espe- 
 cially ch. xxv. 18, sq. 
 
 But this ideal tendency of the law does not 
 preclude its applicability to matters of fact. The 
 law bad not merely an ideal, but also a real cha- 
 racter, evidenced by its relation to the faithlessness 
 and disobedience of the nation. The whole future 
 history of the covenant people was regulated by 
 the law, which has manifested its eternal power 
 and truth in the history of the people of Israel. 
 Although this section has a general bearing, it is 
 nevertheless manifest that it originated in the 
 times of Moses. At a later period, for instance, 
 it would have been impracticable to promulgate 
 the law concerning the Sabbath and the year of 
 Jubilee: for it was soon sufficiently proved how 
 far the nation in reality remained behind the 
 ideal Israel of the law. The sabbatical law bears 
 the impress of a time when the whole legislation, 
 in its fulness and glory, was directly communi- 
 cated to the people, in such a manner as to attract, 
 penetrate, and command. 
 
 The principal works to be consulted with re- 
 ference to Leviticus will be found under the 
 article Pentateuch. — H. A. C. H. 
 
 LIBANUS, or LEBANON (|13^ ; Sept. 
 A l&avos), the Latin, or rather the Greek name of 
 a long chain of mountains on the northern border 
 
 of Palestine. The term Libatius is more con- 
 venient in use than the Hebrew form Lebanon, 
 as enabling us to distinguish the parallel ranges 
 of Libanus and Anti-Lihanus, which have no 
 such distinctive names in connection with the 
 Hebrew designation. Lebanon seems to be ap- 
 plied in Scripture to either or both of these ranges ; 
 and we shall also use it in this general sense : but 
 Libanus means distinctively the westernmost of 
 those ranges, which faces the Mediterranean, and 
 Anti-Libanus the eastern, facing the plain of Da- 
 mascus ; in which sense these names will be used 
 in this article. The present inhabitants of the 
 country have found the convenience of distin- 
 guishing these parallel ranges ; and give to Li- 
 banus the name of ‘ Western Mountain’ (Jebel 
 esh-Sharki), and to Anti-Libanus that of ‘Eastern 
 Mountain ’ (Jebel el-Gharbi) ; although Jebel 
 Libnstn (the same name in fact as Lebanon) 
 occurs among the Arabs with special reference 
 to the eastern range. 
 
 These two great ranges, which together form 
 the Lebanon of Scripture, commence about the 
 parallel of Tripoli (lat. 34° 28'), run in a 
 general direction from N.£. to S.W., through, 
 about one degree of latitude, and form, at their 
 southern termination, the natural frontier of 
 Palestine. These parallel ranges enclose be- 
 tween them a fertile and well-watered valley, 
 averaging about fifteen miles in width, which is 
 the Ccele-Syria (Hollow Syria) of the ancients, 
 but is called by the present inhabitants, by way of 
 pre-eminence, El-Bekaa, or ‘ the Valley,’ whicli 
 is watered through the greater portion of its length 
 by the river Litany, the ancient Leontes. 
 
 Nearly opposite Damascus the Anti-Libanus 
 separates into two ridges, which diverge some- 
 what, and enclose the fertile Wady et-Teim. 
 The easternmost of these two ridges, which has 
 already been pointed out as the Hermon of Scrip- 
 ture [Hermon], Jebel esh-Sheikb, continues its 
 S.W. course, and is the proper prolongation of 
 Anti-Libanus. From the base of the higher 
 part of this ridge, a low broad spur or mountainous 
 tract runs off towards the south, forming the 
 high land which shuts in the basin and Lake of 
 el-Huleh on the east. This tract is called Jebel 
 Heish, the higher poition of which terminates at 
 Tel el-Faras, nearly three hours north of Fiek. 
 The other ridge of Anti-Libanus takes a more 
 westerly direction. It is long, low, and level ; 
 and continues to border the lower part of the 
 great valley of Bekaa, until it seems to unite 
 with the higher bluffs and spurs of Lebanon, and 
 thus entirely to close that valley. In fact, only a 
 narrow gorge is here left between precipices, in 
 some places of great height, through which the 
 Litany finds its way down to the sea, north of 
 Tyre. The chain of Lebanon, or at least its 
 higher ridges, may be said to terminate at the 
 point where it is thus broken through by the 
 Litany. But a broad and lower mountainous 
 tract continues towards the south, bordering the 
 basin of the Huleh on the west. It rises to its 
 greatest elevation about Safed (Jebel Safed); 
 and at length ends abruptly in the mountains of 
 Nazareth, as the northern wall of the plain of 
 Esdraelon. This high tract may very properly 
 be regarded as a prolongation of Lebanon. 
 
 The mountains of Lebanon are of limestone 
 rock, which is indeed the general A const i tuent oi 
 
246 
 
 LIBANUS. 
 
 LIBERTINES. 
 
 the mountains of Syria. In Lebanon it has 
 generally a whitish hue, and from the aspect 
 which the range thus bears in the distance, in its 
 cl id's and naked parts, the name of Lebanon 
 (which signifies ‘ white ') has been supposed to be 
 derived ; but others seek its origin in the snows 
 which rest long upon its summits, and perpetu- 
 al iy upon the highest of them. 
 
 Of the two ranges, that of Libanus is by far the 
 highest. Its uppermost ridge is marked by a 
 line, drawn at the distance of about two hours’ 
 journey from the summit, above which all is 
 barren (Burckhardt, p. 4) : but the slopes and 
 valleys below this line afford pasturage, and 
 are capable of cultivation, by reason of the nume- 
 rous springs which are met with in all directions. 
 Cultivation is, however, chiefly found on the sea- 
 ward slopes, where numerous villages flourish, 
 and every inch of ground is turned to account by 
 the industrious natives, who, in the absence of 
 natural levels, construct artificial terraces in 
 order to prevent the earth from being swept away 
 by the winter rains, and at the same time to 
 retain the water requisite for the irrigation of the 
 crops (Burckhardt, pp. 19, 20, 23). When one 
 looks upward from below, the vegetation on these 
 terraces is not visible; so that the whole moun- 
 tain appears as if composed only of immense 
 rugged masses of naked whitish rock, traversed by 
 deep wild ravines, running down precipitously 
 to the plain. No one would suspect among 
 these rocks the existence of a vast multitude of 
 thrifty villages, and a numerous population of 
 mountaineers, hardy, industrious, and brave 
 (Robinson, iii. 440). Here, amidst the crags of 
 the rocks, are to be seen the remains of the re- 
 nowned cedars ; but a much larger proportion of 
 firs, oaks, brambles, mulberry-trees, fig-trees, and 
 vines (Volney, i. 272). 
 
 Although the general elevation of Anti-Libanus 
 i3 inferior to. that of Libanus, the easternmost 
 of the branches into which it divides towards its 
 termination (Jebel esh-Sheikh) rises loftily, and 
 overtops all the other summits of Lebanon. Our 
 information respecting Anti-Libanus is less dis- 
 tinct than that concerning the opposite range. It 
 appears, however, that it has fewer inhabitants, 
 and is scarcely in any part cultivated. It is, in- 
 deed, not equally cultivable: for it would appear 
 from a comparison of the dispersed notices in 
 Burckhardt, that its western declivities, towards 
 the great enclosed valley, are completely barren, 
 without trees or pasture ; but on the summits of 
 the eastern side, fronting the plain of Damascus, 
 there seem to be parts, at least, affording good 
 pasturage, and abounding also in stunted oak 
 trees, of which few are higher than 12 or 15 feet. 
 The common route across these mountains, from 
 Baal bee to Damascus, at, one time ascends into 
 the region of snow (in the month of March) ; 
 at another follows the direction of the mountain 
 rorrents, between parallel lines of hills, by the 
 side of aspens, oaks, and numerous willows which 
 grow along the water-courses (Burckhardt, pp. 4, 
 15; Elliot, ii. 276). 
 
 None of the summits of Libanus or Anti- 
 Libanus have been measured. The author of the 
 Pictorial History of Palestine (Introduct. p. lv.), 
 by comparing the accounts of different travellers 
 as to the continuance of snow upon the higher 
 summits, and adjusting them with reference to 
 
 the point of perpetual congelation in ‘liat latitude, 
 forms a rough estimate, which, thougl higher than 
 some estimates more loosely constructed, and lower 
 than others, is probably not far from the truth. Ac- 
 cording to this, the average height of the Libantu 
 mountains, from the top of which the snow en- 
 tirely disappears in summer, must be consider- 
 ably below 11,000 feet, probably about 10,000 
 feet above the level of the sea. But the higher 
 points, particularly the Sannin, which is the 
 highest, of all, must be above that limit, as the 
 snow rests on them all the year. By the same 
 rule the average height of the Anti-Libanus range 
 is reckoned as not. exceeding 9000 feet : but its 
 highest point, in the Jebel es-Sheik, or Mount 
 Hermon, is considered to be somewhat more lofty 
 than the Sannin, the highest point in Libanus. 
 
 In Scripture Lebanon is very generally men- 
 tioned in connection with the cedar trees in 
 which it abounded [Erks} ; but its wines are also 
 noticed (Hosea xiv. 8); and in Cant. iv. 11; 
 Hos. xiv. 7, it is celebrated for various kinds of 
 fragrant plants (Robinson, Biblical Researches , 
 iii. 344, 345, 439; Kitto, Pictorial History of 
 Palestine , Introd. pp. xxxii.-xxxv., lv.; Reland, 
 PalcEstina , i. 311 ; Rosenm filler, Biblisch. Alter - 
 thum , ii. 236 ; Raumer, Paldstina, pp. 29-35 ; 
 D’Arvieux, Memoir es, ii. 250 ; Volney, Voyage 
 en Syrie, i. 243; Seetzen, in Zach’s Monatl. 
 Corresp., June, 1806; Burckhardt, Travels in 
 Syria, p. 1, sq. ; Richter, Wallfahrten, p. 102, 
 &c. ; Irby and Mangles, Travels, pp. 206-220; 
 Buckingham, Arab Tribes, p. 468, sq. ; Fisk, in 
 Missionary Herald, 1824; Elliot, Travels, ii. 
 276 ; Hogg, Visit to Alexandria, Jerusalem, 
 &c. , i. 219, sq. ; ii. 81, sq. ; Addison, Palmyra 
 and Damascus, ii. 43-82). 
 
 LIBERTINES (AiPeprli/oi). ‘ Certain of the 
 synagogue, which is called (the synagogue) o 
 the Libertines, and Cvrenians, and Alexandrians,’ 
 &c., are mentioned in Acts vi. 9. There has 
 been much diversity in the interpretation of 
 this word. It obviously denotes state or con- 
 dition, not. nature (i. e. country) ; and since 
 Libertini here occurs among the names of na- 
 tions, and Josephus ( Antiq . xii. 1, and Cont. 
 Apion. ii. 4) has told us that many Jews were 
 removed by Ptolemy, and placed in the cities of 
 Libya, Beza, Le Clerc, and others conclude that 
 the word must have been AiBocrrioov, i. e. ‘ sprung 
 from Libya. 1 But there is no authority of 
 MSS. or versions for this reading. Others, on 
 the same premises, conceive that the word Liber- 
 tini denotes the inhabitants of some town called 
 Libertus in Africa Proper, or Carthage ; but they 
 fail to show that any town of this name existed in 
 that quarter. The most probable opinion, and 
 that which is now generally entertained, is, that 
 the Libertini were Jews, whom the Romans had 
 taken in war and conveyed to Rome, but after- 
 wards freed ; and that this synagogue had been 
 built at their expense. Libertini is, therefore, tc 
 be regarded as a word of Roman origin, and to 
 be explained with reference to Roman customs. 
 This view is further confirmed by the fact that 
 the word avvayoryys does not occur in the 
 middle of the national names, but stands first, 
 and is followed by t/js Aeyopepys : whence it 
 clearly appears that A ifieprirot is at least not the 
 name of a country or region. Further, we know 
 that there were in the time of Tiberius many 
 
LI BN AH. 
 
 LIBNEII. 
 
 241 
 
 libertini, or ‘ freed -men,’ of the Jewish religion 
 at Rome (Tacit. Annul, ii. 85 ; com}). Suet. Tib. 
 36 ; and Philo, p. 1014 ; see Bloomfield, Kuinoel, 
 Werstein., &c. on Acts vi. 9; and comp.- Gerdes, 
 De Sy nag. Liber tinorum, Gron. 1736; Scherer, 
 L)e Synag. Libertin. Argent. 1754). 
 
 I J BN AII (nn^>; Sept. AejSra), one of the 
 royal cities of the Canaanites, taken by Joshua 
 immediately after Makkedah (Josh. x. 20, 30). It 
 lay within the territory assigned to Judah (Josh, 
 xv. 42). and became one of the Levitical towns 
 in that tribe (Josh. xxi. 13; 1 Chron. vi. 57). 
 It was a strongly fortified place. The Assyrian 
 king Sennacherib was detained some time before 
 it. when he invaded Judaea in the time of Heze- 
 kiah ; and it was before it that he sustained that 
 dreadful stroke which constrained him to with- 
 draw to his own country (2 Kings xix. 8 ; Isa. 
 xxxvii. 8). In the reign of King Jehoram, 
 Libnah is said to have revolted from him 
 (2 Kings viii. 22; 2 Chron. xxi. 10). From the 
 circumstance of this revolt having happened 
 at the same time with that of the Edomites, 
 it has been supposed by some to have reference 
 to another town of the same name situated in 
 that country. But such a conjecture is unne- 
 cessary and improbable. Libnah of Judah re- 
 belled, because it refused to admit the idolatries 
 of Jehoram ; and it is not said in either of the 
 passages in which this act is recorded, as of 
 Edom, that it continued in revolt ‘ unto this 
 day.’ It may be inferred either that it was 
 speedily reduced to obedience, or that, on the re- 
 establishment of the true worship, it spontaneously 
 returned to its allegiance. Libnah existed as a 
 village in the time of Eusebius and Jerome, and 
 is placed by them in the district of Eleuthe- 
 ropolis. 
 
 LIBNATH, or, more fully, Shihor-Libnath 
 (nni> ii w ; sept. AaPavad), a stream near 
 Carmel, on the borders of Asher (Josh. xix. 26). 
 Michaelis conceives this to be the ( glass-river ’ 
 (n^nV), i. e. the Belus, from whose sands the 
 first glass was made by the Phoenicians. 
 
 LIBNEH (i“!3!2^) occurs in Iwo places of 
 Scripture, viz. Gen. xxx. 37; Hos. iv. 13, and is 
 supposed to indicate either the while poplar or 
 the storax tree. The arguments in support of 
 the respective claims of these are neatly equally 
 balanced, although those in favour of the storax 
 appear to us to preponderate. The libneh is first 
 mentioned in Gen. xxx. 37, as one of the rods 
 which Jacob placed in the watering troughs of 
 the sheep; the lutz (the almond) and armon (the 
 oriental plane) being the two others : he ‘ pilled 
 white strakes in them, and made the white appear 
 which was in the rods/ In Hos. iv. 13 reference 
 is made to the shade of trees and the burning of 
 incense : — ‘ They sacrifice upon the top of the 
 mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under 
 oaks gallon, e terebinth tree’) and poplars ( libneh ), 
 because the shadow of them is good/ 
 
 Libneh, in the passage of Hosea, is translated 
 Aevtcr], ‘ white poplar,’ in the Septuagint, and this 
 translation is adopted by the majority of inter- 
 preters. The Hebrew name libneh, being sup- 
 posed to be derived from ( album esse), has 
 neen considered identical with the Greek AeuK-q, 
 
 which both signifies ( white,’ and also the * white 
 poplar,’ Populus alba. This poplar is said to be 
 called rohite, not on account of the whiteness of 
 its bark, but of that of the under surface of its 
 leaves. It may perhaps be so designated from 
 the whiteness of its hairy seeds, which have a re- 
 markable appearance when the seed covering first 
 bursts. The poplar is certainly common in the 
 countries where the scenes are laid of the transac- 
 tions related in the above passages of Scripture. 
 Belon ( Obs . ii. 106) says, ‘ Les peupliers blancs et 
 noirs, et arbres fruictiers font que la plaine de 
 Damas resemble une forest.’ Rauwolf also men- 
 tions the white poplar as abundant about Aleppo 
 and Tripoli, and still called by the ancient Arabic 
 
 name haur or hor (j*s»-), which is the word used 
 
 in the Arabic translation of Hosea. That poplars 
 are common in Syria has already been men- 
 tioned under the head of Baca. 
 
 388 
 
 Others, however, have been of opinion tnat 
 libneh denotes the storax tree rather than the 
 white poplar. Thus, in Gen. xxx. 37, the Sep- 
 tuagint has pafibov (TTvpaKivr]v, ‘ a rod of styrax ;’ 
 and the Greek translation of the Pentateuch, ac- 
 cording to Rosenmuller, is more ancient and of far 
 greater authority than that of Hosea. So R. Jonah, 
 as translated by Celsius, says of libneh , Dicitur 
 lingua Arabum Lubna ; and in the Arabic trans- 
 lation of Genesis (^i«»S) lubne is employed as the 
 
 representative of the Hebrew libneh. Lubne, both 
 in Arabic and in Persian, is the name of a tree, 
 and of the fragrant resin employed for fumigating, 
 which exudes from it, and which is commonly 
 known by the name of Storax. This resin was well 
 known to the ancients, and is mentioned by Hip- 
 pocrates and Theophrastus. Dioscorides describes 
 several kinds, all of which were obtained from Asia 
 Minor; and all that, is now imported is believed 
 to be the produce of that country. But. the tree 
 is cultivated in the south of Europe, though it 
 does not there yield any storax. It is found in 
 Greece, and is supposed to be a native of Asia 
 Minor, whence it extends into Syria, and pro- 
 bably farther south. It is therefore a native of 
 the country which was the scene of the transaction 
 related in the above passage of Genesis. 
 
 From the description of Dioscorides, and hit 
 
LIBYA. 
 
 LICE. 
 
 US 
 
 comparing the leaves of the styrax to those of the 
 quince, there is no doubt of the same tree being 
 intended : especially as in early times, as at the' 
 present day, it yielded a highly fragrant balsamic 
 substance which was esteemed as a medicine, 
 and employed in fumigation. From the simi- 
 larity of the Hebrew name libneh to the Arabic 
 lubne, and from the Septuagint having in Genesis 
 translated the former by styrax , it seems most 
 probable that this was the tree intended. It is 
 capable of yielding white wands as well as the 
 poplar ; and it is also well qualified to afford com- 
 plete shade under its ample foliage, as in the 
 passage of Hos. iv. 13. We may also suppose 
 it to have been more particularly alluded to, 
 from its being a tree yielding incense. ‘ They 
 sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and 
 burn incense upon the hills, under the terebinth 
 and the storax trees, because the shadow thereof 
 is good.’ — -J. F. R. 
 
 LIBYA (Aifiva, AtjSihj). This name, in its 
 largest acceptation, was used by the Greeks to 
 denote the whole of Africa. But Libya Proper, 
 which is the Libya of the New Testament and 
 the country of the Lubim in the Old, was a large 
 tract, lying along the Mediterranean, to the west 
 of Egypt. It is called Pentapolitana Regio by 
 Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 5), from its five cities, 
 Berenice, Arsinoe, Ptolemais, Apollonia, anti 
 Cyrene; and Libya Cyrenaica by Ptolemy 
 [Geog. iv. 5), from Cyrene, its capital. 
 
 Libya is supposed to have been first peopled 
 by, and to have derived its name from, the 
 Lehabim or Lubim [Nations, Dispersion ok]. 
 These, its earliest inhabitants, appear, in the time 
 of the Old Testament, to have consisted of wan- 
 dering tribes, who were sometimes in alliance 
 witli Egypt, and at others with the Ethiopians, 
 as they are said to have assisted both Shishak, 
 king of Egypt, and Zerah the Ethiopian in their 
 expeditions against Judaea (2 Chron. xii. 4 ; xiv. 
 8 ; xvi. 9). They were eventually subdued by the 
 Carthaginians; and it was the policy of that 
 people to bring the nomade tribes of Northern 
 Africa which they mastered into the condition of 
 cultivators, that by the produce of their industry 
 they might be able to raise and maintain the 
 numerous armies with which they made their 
 foreign conquests. But Herodotus assures us that 
 none of the Libyans beyond the Carthaginian ter- 
 ritory wure tillers of the ground (Herod, iv. 186, 
 187; comp. Polybius, i. 161, 167, 168, 177, ed. 
 Schweighaeuser). Since the time of the Car- 
 thaginian supremacy the country, with the rest 
 of the East, has successively passed into the hands 
 of the Greeks, Romans, Saracens, and Turks. 
 The name of Libya occurs in Acts ii. 10, where 
 ‘ the dwellers in the parts of Libya about Cy- 
 rene 1 are mentioned among the stranger Jews 
 who came up to Jerusalem at the feast of Pen- 
 tecost. 
 
 LICE (D33 and D'SS) occurs in Exod. viii. 
 .6, 17, 18 (Heb. 12, 13, 14); Ps. cv. 31; Sept. 
 axiicpes or (ravines', Vulg. cyniphes and scyniphes ; 
 Wisd. xix. 10; Sept, anvlira (Alex. Aid. aKv[<pas ) ; 
 Vulg. mascas. The name of the creature em- 
 ployed in the third plague upon Egypt, miracu- 
 lously produced from the dust of the land. Its 
 exact nature has been much disputed. Those who 
 reason from the root of the word in the Hebrew 
 
 text, and assume it to be derived from p3, to fix, 
 settle, or establish, infer lice to be meant, from their 
 fixing themselves on mankind, animals, &c. The 
 meaning of the root is, however, too general to 
 afford by itself any assistance in ascertaining the 
 particular species intended. Dr. A. Clarke has 
 further inferred from the words ‘ in man and in 
 beast,’ that it was the acarus sanguisugus, or 
 ‘ tick ’ ( Comment . on Exod. viii. 16). But since 
 it is spoken of as an Egyptian insect, the name 
 for it may be purely Egyptian, and may have 
 no connection with any Hebrew root (Michaelis, 
 Suppl. ad Lex. n. 1174). However this may 
 be, the preposition from which Dr. Clarke argues 
 is too various in meaning to assist his hypothesis. 
 Nor is it certain whether the word is singular or 
 plural. The variation, both in letters and points, 
 seems to betoken uncertainty somewhere, though 
 Gesenius takes D33 in the collective sense. Mi- 
 chaelis also remarks that if it be a Hebrew word 
 for lice, it is strange that it should have dis- 
 appeared from the cognate tongues, the Aramaic, 
 Samaritan, and Ethiopic. The rendering of the 
 Septuagint seems highly valuable when it is con- 
 sidered that it was given by learned Jews resident 
 in Egypt, that it occurs in the most ancient and 
 best executed portion of that version, and that it 
 can be elucidated by the writings of ancient 
 Greek naturalists, &c. Thus Aristotle, who was 
 nearly contemporary with the Septuagint trans- 
 lators of Exodus, mentions the xviires (the crxv'npe! 
 of the Septuagint) among insects able to distin- 
 guish the smell of honey (Hist. Animal, iv. 8), 
 and refers to species of birds which he calls 
 i rxvnrocpdya , that live by hunt.ng axviires (viii. 
 6). His pupil Theophrastus says : — iyyivovrai 
 Be KaX xviires iv rial twv BevBpwv, Hcrirep iv rtf 
 Bpvl Ka\ rfj <tvxt}. xa\ Boxovffiv ix rrjs vyp6rr)ros 
 avv'iaratrdai tt}s vi rb rbv (pAoibv avvuxrap.evi]s. 
 avTT) Be icTTi yAvxela yevopevois. yivovrai Be xai 
 iv Aaxavois rlaiv. * The Kv'nres are born in certain 
 trees, as the oak, the fig-tree, and they seem to 
 subsist upon the sweet moisture which is collated 
 under the bark. They are also produced on 
 some vegetables’ (Hist. Plant, iv. 17, and ii. u It.). 
 This description applies to aphides, or rather to 
 the various species of ‘ gall flies ’ (Cynips, Linn.). 
 Hesychius, in the beginning of the third century, 
 explains a/cviip, (cook %A wp6v re t 6t pain epov, ‘ a 
 green four-winged creature,’ and quotes Phry- 
 nichus as applying the name to a sordid wretch, 
 and adds, airb r ov OrjpiBiov rod iv rois £u\ois, 
 tov Kara fipaxv avra xaTeaOiovros, ‘ from the 
 little creature among trees, which speedily de- 
 vours them.’ Philo (a.d. 40) and Origen in the 
 second century, who both lived in Egypt, describe 
 it. in terms suitable to the gnat or mosquito 
 (Philo, Vita Mosis , i. 97. 2, ed. Mangey ; Origen, 
 Homilia tertia in Exod.) ; as does also Augustine 
 in the third or fourth century (De Convenientia. 
 & c.). But Theodoret, in the same age, distin- 
 guishes between a xviires and xaivcoires ( Vita Ja- 
 cobi). Suldas (a.d. 1100) says, crxv'nl/, (cvok 
 xuvwiribBes, ‘ resembling gnats,’ and adds, ecm 
 yap 6 crxvhf/ (cvok pnxpbv ^vAorpayov, ‘ a little 
 creature that eats wood.’ These Christian fathers, 
 however, give no authority for their explanations ; 
 and Bochart remarks that they seem to be speak- 
 ing of gnats under the name cxviires, which word, 
 he conjectures, biassed them from its resemblance 
 to the Hebrew. Schleusner adds ( Glo*sema w 
 
LICE. 
 
 LIGHT. 
 
 *49 
 
 Octateuch. oicviipes, £c5a piKpa virb robs Kt&vcoiras , 
 less than gnats,' and (Lex. Cyrilli, MS. Brem.) 
 <nev'i(pes favcpia. ianu ioindra K&vwtyiv, ‘ very 
 small creatures like gnats.’ From this concur- 
 rence of testimony it would appear that, not lice, 
 but some species of gnats is the proper rendering, 
 though the ancients, no doubt, included other 
 species of insects under the name. Mr. Bryant, 
 however, gives a curious turn to the evidence 
 derived from ancient naturalists. He quotes 
 Theophrastus, and admits that a Greek must be 
 the best judge of the meaning of the Greek word 
 but urges that the Septuagint translators concealed 
 the meaning of the Hebrew word, which he 
 labours to prove is lice, under the word they 
 have adopted, for fear of offending the Ptolemies, 
 under whose inspection they translated, and the 
 Egyptians in general, whose detestation of lice 
 was as ancient as the time of Herodotus (ii. 
 37), (but who includes rl &A.A o pvaapov, ‘ any 
 other foul creature’), and whose disgust, he thinks, 
 would have been too much excited by reading 
 that their nation once swarmed with those crea- 
 tures through the instrumentality of the servants 
 of the God of the Jews (Plagues of Egypt , Lond. 
 1794, p. 56, &c.). This suspicion, if admitted, 
 upsets all the previous reasoning. It is also in- 
 consistent with Bryant’s favourite hypothesis, that 
 the plagues of Egypt were so adapted as to afford 
 a practical mortification of the prejudices of the 
 Egyptians. Nor could a plague of lice, upon 
 his own principles, have been more offensive to 
 them than the plague on the river Nile, and the 
 frogs, &c., which he endeavours to show were 
 most signally opposed to their religious notions. 
 Might it not be suggested with equal probability 
 that the Jews in later ages had been led to in- 
 terpret the word lice as being peculiarly humi- 
 liating to the Egyptians? (see Joseph, ii. 14. 3, 
 who, however, makes the Egyptians afflicted with 
 phthiriasis .) The rendering of the Vulgate af- 
 fords us no assistance, being evidently formed 
 from that of the Septuagint, and not being illus- 
 trated by any Roman naturalist, but found only 
 in Christian Latin writers (see Facciolati, in 
 "oc.). The other ancient versions, &c., are of 
 no value in this inquiry. They adopt the popular 
 notion of the times, and Bochart’s reasonings 
 upon them involve, as Rosenmuller (apud Boc- 
 hart) justly complains, many unsafe permuta- 
 tions of letters. If, then, the Septuagint be dis- 
 carded, we are deprived of the highest source of 
 information. Bochart also reasons upon the 
 similarity of the word to Kdrides, the word 
 
 in Aristotle for the eggs of fleas, lice, bugs, &c., 
 whether infesting mankind or beasts (vi. 26), but 
 which is not more like it than Kwrcoires ; and an 
 enthusiast in etymology might remark that koulSc s 
 means both ‘ dust ’ and ‘ lice,’ which Scaliger 
 explains lendes, ‘ nits,’ ab exiguitate similes pul- 
 veri, ‘ from their minuteness, like dust’ (p. 518). 
 It is strange that it did not occur to Bochart that 
 if the plague had been lice, it would have been 
 easily imitated by the magicians, which was 
 attempted by them, but in vain (Exod. viii. 18). 
 Nor is the objection valid, that if this plague were 
 gnats, &c., the plague of flies would be antici- 
 pated, since the latter most likely consisted of 
 one particular species having a different desti- 
 nation [Fly] ; whereas this may have consisted 
 df not only mosquitoes or gnats, but of some other 
 
 species which also attack domestic cattle, as the 
 oestrus, or tabanus, or zimb (Bruce's Travels , 
 ii. 315, 8vo.) ; on which supposition these two 
 plagues would be sufficiently distinct. 
 
 But since mosquitoes, gnats, &c., nave ever 
 been one of the evils of Egypt, there must have 
 been some peculiarity attending them on this 
 occasion, which proved the plague to be ‘ the 
 finger of God.’ From the next chapter, verse 31, 
 it appears that the flax and the barley were 
 smitten by the hail ; that the former was beginning 
 to grow, and that the latter was in the ear — which, 
 according to Shaw, takes place in Egypt in 
 March. Hence the would be sent about 
 
 February, i. e. before the increase of the Nile, 
 which takes place at the end of May, or beginning 
 of June. Since, then, the innumerable swarms 
 of mosquitoes, gnats, &c., which every year affect 
 the Egyptians come, according to Hasselquist, 
 at the increase of the Nile, the appearance of 
 them in February would be as much a variation 
 of the course of nature as the appearance of the 
 oestrus in January would be in England. They 
 were also probably numerous and fierce beyond 
 example on this occasion ; and as the Egyptians 
 would be utterly unprepared for them (for it 
 seems that this plague was not announced), the 
 effects would be signally distressing. Bochart 
 adduces instances in which both mankind and 
 cattle, and even wild beasts, have been driven by 
 gnats from their localities. It may be added 
 that the proper Greek name for the gnat is 
 ignis, and that probably the word rcuivai}/, 
 which much resembles fcviif/, is appropriate to 
 the mosquito. Hardouin obseft'es that the ol 
 Kuines of Aristotle are not the ipnides, which 
 latter is by Pliny always rendered culices , but 
 which word he employs with great latitude 
 [Gnat]. For a description of the evils inflicted 
 by these insects upon man, see Kirby and Spence, 
 Introduction to Entomology, Lond. 1828, i. 115, 
 &c. ; and for the annoyance they cause in Egypt, 
 Maillet, Description de V Egypte par l'Abbe 
 Mascrier, Paris, 1755, xc. 37; Forskal, Descript. 
 Animal, p. 85. Michaelis proposed an inquiry 
 into the meaning of the word crKvi<pes to the 
 Societe des Savants, with a full description of the 
 qualities ascribed to them by Philo, Origen, anu 
 Augustine (Recueil, &c. Amst., 1744). Niebuhr 
 inquired after it of the Greek patriarch, and also 
 of the metropolitan at Cairo, who thought it to 
 be a species of gnat found in great quantities in 
 the gardens there, and whose bite was extremely 
 painful. A merchant who was present at the in- 
 quiry called it dubdb-el-keb, or the dog-fly (De- 
 ception de V Arabic, Pref. pp. 39, 40). Besides 
 the references already made, see Rosenmuller, 
 Scholia- in Exod. ; M i chael \s,.Bn ppl. ad Lex. 
 Hebraic., p. 1203, sq. ; Oedmann, Verm. Samml 
 aus der Naturkunde, i. 6. 74-9L; Bakerus, 
 Annotat. in Et. M. ii. 1090 ; Harenberg, Ob- 
 serv. Crit. de Insectis JEgyptum infesiantibus, 
 in Miscell. Lips. Nov., ii. 4. 617-20; Winer, 
 Biblisches Real-ivorterbuch, art. ‘ Miicken.’ — 
 
 J. F. D. 
 
 LIGHT is represented in the Scriptures as the 
 immediate result and offspring of a divine com- 
 mand (Gen. i. 3). The earth was void and dark, 
 when God said, ‘ Let light be, and light was.’ 
 This is represented as having preceded the placing 
 of ‘ lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater 
 
LIGHT. 
 
 250 
 
 light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule 
 the night. : he made the stars also ’ (Gen. i. 14, sq.). 
 W hatever opinion may be entertained as to the 
 facility with which these two separate acts may be 
 reconciled, it cannot be questioned that the origin 
 of light, us of every other part of the universe, is 
 thus referred to the exertion of the divine will : as 
 little can it be denied that the narrative in the 
 original is so simple, yet at the same time so 
 majestic and impressive, both in thought and dic- 
 tion, as to till the heart with a lofty and plea- 
 surable sentiment of awe and wonder. 
 
 The divine origin of light made the subject 
 one of special interest to the Biblical nations — the 
 rather because light in the East has a clearness, 
 a brilliancy, is accompanied by an intensity of 
 heat, and is followed in its influence by a large- 
 ness of good, of which the inhabitants of less 
 genial climes can have no conception. Light 
 easily and naturally became, in consequence, 
 with Orientals, a representative of the highest 
 human good. All the more joyous emotions of 
 the mind, all the pleasing sensations of the frame, 
 all the happy hours of domestic intercourse, were 
 described under imagery derived from light (1 
 Kings xi. 36; Isa. lviii. 8; Esther viii. .16; Ps. 
 xcvii. 1 1). The transition was natural from earthly 
 to heavenly, from corporeal to spiritual things; and 
 so light came to typify true religion and the feli- 
 city which it imparts. But as light not only 
 came from God, but also makes man’s way clear 
 before him, so it was employed to signify moral 
 truth, and pre-eminently that, divine system of 
 truth which is set forth in the Bible, from its 
 earliest gleaming^ onward to the perfect day of 
 the Great Sun of Righteousness. The appli- 
 cation of the term to religious topics had the 
 greater propriety because the light in the world, 
 being accompanied by heat, purities, quickens, 
 enriches; which efforts it is the peculiar province 
 of true religion to produce in the human soul 
 (Isa. viii. 20; Matt. iv. 16; Ps. cxix. 105; 
 2 Pet. i. 19 ; Eph. v. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; 1 Pet. 
 ii. 9). 
 
 It is doubtless owing to the special providence 
 under which the divine lessons of the Bible were 
 delivered, that the views which the Hebrews took 
 on this subject, while they were high and worthy, 
 did not pass into superstition, and so cease to be 
 truly religious. Other Eastern nations beheld 
 the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in 
 brightness, and their hearts were secretly enticed, 
 and their mouth kissed their hand in token of 
 adoration (Job xxxi. 26, 27) This ‘ iniquity ’ 
 the Hebrews not only avoided, but when they 
 considered the heavens they recognised the work 
 of God's fingers, and leamt a lesson of humility 
 as well as of reverence (Ps. viii. 3, sq.). On the 
 contrary, the entire residue of the East, with 
 scarcely any exception, w'orshipped the sun and 
 the light, primarily perhaps as symbols of 
 divine power and goodness, but, in a more 
 degenerate state, as themselves divine; whence, 
 in conjunction with darkness, the negation of 
 light, arose the doctrine of dualism, two prin- 
 ciples, the one of light, the good power, the other 
 of darkness, the evil power; a corruption which 
 rose and spread the more easily because' the whole 
 of human life, being a chequered scene, seems 
 divided a3 between two conflicting agencies, the 
 bright and the 'lark, the joyous and the sorrowful, 
 
 LILY. 
 
 what is called prosperous and what is called 
 adverse. 
 
 When the tendency to corruption to which we 
 have just alluded is taken into account, we can 
 not but feel both gratified and surprised that, 
 while the Hebiew people employed the boldest 
 personifications when speaking of light, they in 
 no case, nor in any degree, fell into the almost 
 universal idolatry. That individuals ’ among 
 them, and even large portions of the nation, did 
 from time to time down to the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity forget and desert the living God, is very 
 certain; hut then the nation, as such, was not 
 misled and corrupted ; witnesses to the truth 
 never failed ; recovery was never impossible ; nay, 
 was more than once effected, till at last affliction 
 and suffering brought a changed heart, which 
 never again swerved from the way of truth. 
 
 Among the personifications on this point which 
 Scripture presents we may specify, 1. God. The 
 Apostle James (i. 17) declares that ‘ every good 
 ami perfect gift cometh down from the Father of 
 lights, with whom is no variableness, neither sha- 
 dow of turning obviously referring to the faith- 
 fulness of God and the constancy of his goodness, 
 which shine on undimmed and unshadowed. So 
 Paul (1 Tim. vi. 16) : ‘God who dvvelleth in the 
 • light which no man can approach unto.’ Here 
 the idea intended by the imagery is the incom- 
 prehensibleness of the seH-existent and eternal 
 God. 
 
 2. Light is also applied to Christ: 1 The peo- 
 ple who sat. in darkness have seen a great light 1 
 (Matt. iv. 16; Luke ii. 32; John i. 4, sq.). ‘He 
 was the true light ;’ ‘ I am the light of the world ’ 
 (John viii. 12; xii. 35, 36). 
 
 3. It is further used of angels, as in 2 Cor. 
 xi. 14 : ‘ Satan himself is transformed into an 
 angel of light.’ 4. Light is moreover employed 
 of men: John the Baptist ‘was a burning and 
 a shining light’ (John v. 35); ‘ Ye are the light 
 of the world ’ (Matt. v. 14 ; »ee also Acts xiii. 47 ; 
 Eph. v. 6).— J. R. B. 
 
 LIGN ALOES. [Ahai.im.] 
 
 LILY (icpli/ov). The lily is frequently men- 
 tioned in the Authorized Version of the Old Testa- 
 ment as the translation of sJioshun. We shall 
 reserve for that head the several points of con- 
 sideration which are connected with it, and con- 
 fine our attention at present to the Icrinon, or lily, 
 of the New Testament. This plant is mentioned 
 in the well-known and beautiful passage (Matt, 
 vi. 26) : ‘ Consider the lilies of the field, -how they 
 grow; they toil not, neither do they spin, and 
 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all 
 his glory, was not arrayed like one of these;’ so 
 also in Luke xii. 27. Here it is evident that the 
 plant alluded to must have been indigenous or 
 grown wild, in the vicinity of the sea of Galilee, 
 must have been of an ornamental character, and, 
 from the Greek term Kplvov being applied to it, of 
 a liliaceous nature. The name Kpivov occurs in 
 all the old Greek writers. Theophrastus first uses 
 it, and is supposed by Sprengel to apply it to 
 species of Narcissus and to Lilium candidum. 
 Dioscorides indicates two species, but very imper- 
 fectly : one of them is supposed to be the Lilium 
 candidum , and the other, with a reddish flower, 
 may be L. martagon, or L. chalcedonicum. He 
 ;i i 1 udes more particularly to the lilies of Syria and 
 of Parnphylia being well suited for making the 
 
LILY. 
 
 LION. 
 
 251 
 
 •nitment of lily. Pliny enumerates three kinds, 
 a white, a red, and a purple-coloured lily. Tra- 
 vellers in Palestine mention that in the month of 
 January the fields and groves everywhere abound 
 v tli various species of lily, tulip, and narcissus. 
 
 Benard noticed, near Acre, on Jan. 18th, and 
 about Jaffa, on the 23rd, tulips, white, red, 
 blue, &c. Gumpenberg saw the meadow's of 
 Galilee covered with the same flowers on the 31st. 
 Tulips figure conspicuously among the flowers of 
 Palestine, varieties probably of Tulipa gesneriana 
 (Kitto’s Palestine , p. ccxv.). So Pococke says, 
 ‘ I saw many tulips growing wild in the fields (in 
 March), and any one who considers how beautiful 
 those flowers are to the eye, would be apt to con- 
 jecture that these are the lilies to which Solomon 
 in all his glory was not to be compared.’ This 
 is much more likely to be the plant intended than 
 some others which have been adduced, as, for 
 instance, the scarlet amaryllis , having white 
 flowers with bright purple streaks, found by Salt 
 at Adowa. Others have preferred the Crown 
 imperial , which is a native of Persia and Cash- 
 mere. Most authors have united in considering 
 the white lily, Lilium candidum, to be the plant 
 to which our Saviour referred; but it is doubtful 
 whether it has ever been found in a wild state in 
 Palestine. Some, indeed, have thought it to be 
 a native of the new world. Dr. Lindley, however, 
 in the Gardeners' Chronicle (ii. 744), says, 4 This 
 notion cannot be sustained, because the white lily 
 occurs in an engraving of the Annunciation, 
 executed somewhere about 1480 by Martin 
 Schongauer; and the first voyage of Columbus 
 did not take place till 1492. In this very rare 
 print the lily is represented as growing in an 
 ornamental vase, as if it were cultivated as a 
 curious object.’ This opinion is confirmed by a 
 correspondent at Aleppo ( Gardeners' Chronicle , 
 iii. 429), who has resided long in Syria, but is 
 acquainted only with the botany of Aleppo and 
 Antioch : ‘ I never saw the white lily in a wild 
 state, nor have I heard of its being so in Syria. 
 It is cultivated here on the loofs of the houses in 
 pots as an exotic bulb, like the daffodil.’ In 
 consequence of this difficulty the late Sir J. E. 
 Smith was of opinion that the plant alluded to 
 
 under the name of lily was the Amaryllis lulea 
 (now Oporanthus luteus ), ‘ whose golden liliaceous 
 flowers in autumn afford one of the most brilliant 
 and gorgeous objects in nature, as the fields of 
 the Levant are overrun with them; to them the 
 expression of Solomon, in all his glory, not being 
 arrayed like one of them, is peculiarly appro- 
 priate.’ Dr. Lindley conceives 4 it to be much 
 more probable that the plant intended by our 
 Saviour was the Ixiolirion montanum , a plant 
 allied to the amaryllis , of very great beauty, 
 with a slender stem, and clusters of the most 
 delicate violet flowers, abounding in Palestine, 
 where Col. Chesney found it in the most brilliant 
 profusion’ (l. c. p. 744). In reply to this a 
 correspondent furnishes an extract of a letter from 
 Dr. Bowring, which throws a new light upon the 
 subject : ‘ I cannot describe to you with botanical 
 accuracy the lily of Palestine. I heard it called 
 by the title of Lilia syriaca, and I imagine 
 under this title its botanical characteristics may 
 be hunted out. Its colour is a brilliant red; its 
 size about half that of the common tiger lily. 
 The white lily I do not remember to have seen 
 in any part of Syria. It was in April and May 
 that I observed my flower, and it was most 
 abundant in the district of Galilee, where it and 
 the Rhododendron (which grew in rich abun- 
 dance round the paths') most strongly excited my 
 attention.’ On this Dr. Lindley observes, ‘ It is 
 clear that neither the white lily, nor the Opo- 
 ranthus luteus , nor Ixiolirion , will answer to 
 Dr. Bowring’s description, which seems to point 
 to the Chalcedonian or scarlet martagon lily, 
 formerly called the lily of Byzantium, found 
 from the Adriatic to the Levant, and which, with 
 its scarlet turban-like flowers, is indeed a most 
 stately and striking object’ ( Gardeners' Chro- 
 nicle, ii. 854). As this lily (the Lilium chalce- 
 donicum of botanists) is in flower at. the season 
 of the year when the sermon on the Mount is sup- 
 posed to have been spoken, is indigenous in thf 
 very locality, and is conspicuous, even in the 
 garden, for its remarkable showy flowers, there 
 can now be little doubt that it is the plant alluded 
 to by our Saviour. — J. F. R. 
 
 LINEN. [Bad.] 
 
 LINUS (Afros), one of the Christians at Rome 
 whose salutations Paul sent to Timothy (2 Tim. 
 iv. 21). He is said to have been the first bishou 
 of Rome after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul 
 (Irenseus, Adv. Hceres. iii. 3 ; Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 
 iii. 2, 4 ; v. 6). 
 
 LION (n$ ari ; ITHN arjeh ; Sept. AeW), 
 the most powerful, daring, and impressive of all 
 carnivorous animals, the most magnificent in 
 aspect and awful in voice. Being very common in 
 Syria in early times, the lion naturally supplied 
 many forcible images to the poetical language of 
 Scripture, and not. a few historical incidents in 
 its narratives. This is shown by the great 
 number of passages where this animal, in all the 
 stages of existence — as the whelp, the young adult, 
 the fully mature, the lioness — occurs under dif- 
 ferent names, exhibiting that multiplicity of de- 
 nominations which always results when some great 
 image is constantly present to the popular mind. 
 Thus we have, 1. T|j gor , a lion’s whelp, a very 
 young lion (Gen. xlix. 9 ; Deut. xxxiii. 20 ; Jer. 
 Ii. 38; Ezek. xix. 2; Nahum ii. 11, 12, &oA 
 
LION. 
 
 LION. 
 
 232 
 
 2. chephir , a young lion, when first leaving 
 the protection of the old pair to hunt independently 
 (Ezek. xix. 2, 3 ; Ps. xci. 13 ; Prov. xix. 12, &c.). 
 
 3. HX ari, an adult and vigorous lion, a lion 
 
 having paired, vigilant and enterprisiug in search 
 of prey (Nahum ii. 12; 2 Sam. xvii. 10 ; Num. 
 xxiii. 24). This is the common name of the 
 animal. 4. sachal, a mature lion in full 
 
 strength ; a black lionV (Job iv. 10 ; x. 16 ; Ps. 
 xci. 13; Prov. xxvi. 13; Hosea v. 14; xiii. 7). 
 This denomination may very possibly refer to a 
 distinct variety of lion, and not to a black species 
 or race, because neither black nor white lions are 
 recorded, excepting in Oppian {De Venat. iii. 43) ; 
 
 but the term may be safely referred to the colour 
 of the skin, not of the fur ; for some lions have the 
 former fair, and even rosy, while iu other races it is 
 perfectly black. An Asiatic lioness, formerly at 
 Exeter Change, had the naked part of the nose, the 
 roof of the mouth, and the bare soles of all the feet 
 pure black, though the fur itself was very pale 
 buff. Yet albinism and melanism are not un- 
 common in the felinae ; the former occurs in 
 tigers, and the latter is frequent in leopards, 
 
 panthers, and jaguars. 5. lais/i, a fierce lion, 
 one in a state of fury (Job iv. 11; Prov. xxx. 30 ; 
 
 Isa. xxx. 6). 6. wib labia , a lioness (Job iv. 11, 
 where the lion’s whelps are denominated ‘ the 
 sons of Labiah,’ or of the lioness). 
 
 The lion is the largest and most formidably 
 armed of all carnassier animals, the Indian tiger 
 alone claiming to be his equal. One full grown, 
 of Asiatic race, weighs above 450 pounds, and 
 those of Africa often above 500 pounds. The fall 
 of a fore paw in striking has been estimated to 
 be equal to twenty-five pounds’ weight, and the 
 grasp of the claws, cutting four inches in depth, 
 is sufficiently powerful to break the vertebrae of an 
 ox. The huge laniary teeth and jagged molars 
 worked by powerful jaws, and the tongue entirely 
 covered with homy papillae, hard as a rasp, are 
 all subservient to an immensely strong, muscular 
 structure, capable of prodigious exertion, and mi- 
 nister to the self-confidence which these means of 
 attack inspire. In Asia the lion rarely measures 
 more than nine feet and a half from the nose to 
 the end of the tail, though a tiger-skin of which 
 we took the dimensions wars but a trifle less than 
 13 feet. In Africa they are considerably larger, 
 and supplied with a much greater quantity of 
 mane. Both tiger and lion are furnished with 
 a small horny apex to the tail — a fact noticed by 
 the ancients* fcut only verified ;f late years, be- 
 
 cause this object lies concealed in the hart of tbs 
 tip and is very liable to drop elf. AH the 
 varieties of the lion are spotted when wlielps; 
 but they become gradually buff or pale. One 
 African variety, very large in size, perhaps a 
 distinct species, has a peculiar and most fero- 
 cious physiognomy, a dense black mane extend- 
 ing half way down the back, and a black fringe 
 along the abdomen and tip of the tail ; while 
 those of southern Persia and the Dekkan are 
 nearly destitute of that defensive ornament. The 
 roaring voice of the species is notorious to a 
 proverb, but the warning cry of attack is short, 
 snappish, and sharp. 
 
 If lions in primitive times were as numerous in 
 Western Asia and Africa as tigers still are in 
 some parts of India, they must have been a seri- 
 ous impediment to the extension of the human 
 race; for Colonel Sykes relates that in less than 
 five years, in the Dekkan alone, during his resi- 
 dence there, above 1000 of the latter were shot. 
 But the counterbalancing distribution of endow- 
 ments somewhat modifies the dangerous vicinity 
 of these animals : like all the felinae, they are 
 more or less nocturnal, and seldom go abroad to 
 pursue their prey till after sunset. When not 
 pressed by hunger, they are naturally indolent, 
 and, from their habits of uncontrolled superiority, 
 perhaps capricious, but often less sanguinary and 
 vindictive than is expected. 
 
 Lions are monogamous, the male living con- 
 stantly with the lioness, both hunting together, or 
 for each other when there is a litter of whelps ; and 
 the mutual affection and care for their offspring 
 which they display are remarkable in animals by 
 nature doomed to live by blood and slaughter. 
 It is while seeking prey for their young that they 
 are most dangerous ; at other times they bear 
 abstinence, and when pressed by hunger will 
 sometimes feed on carcasses found dead. They 
 live to more than fifty years ; consequently, 
 having annual litters of from three to five cubs, 
 they multiply rapidly when not seriously opposed. 
 After the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs the 
 lion soon spread again into Lower Egypt; and 
 Fidelio, a European traveller, in the beginning 
 of the eighth century, saw one slain at the foot of 
 the pyramids, after killing eight of his assailants. 
 Lately they have increased again on the Upper 
 Nile ; and in ancient times, when the devastations 
 of Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Roman armies 
 passed over Palestine, there can be little doubt 
 that these destroyers made their appearance in 
 great numbers. The fact, indeed, is attested by 
 the impression which their increase made upon 
 the mixed heathen population of Samaria, when 
 Israel was carried away into captivity (2 Kings 
 xvii. 25, 26). 
 
 The Scriptures present many shaking pictures 
 of lions, touched with wonderful force and fide- 
 lity : even where the animal is a direct instrument 
 of the Almighty, while true to his mission, he 
 still remains so to his nature. Thus nothing can 
 be more graphic than the record of the man ol 
 God (1 Kings xiii. 28), disobedient to his charge, 
 struck down from his ass, and lying dead, while 
 the lion stands by him, without touching the life- 
 less body, or attacking the living animal, usu 
 ally a favourite prey. See also Gen. xlix. 9 ; Job 
 iv. 10, 11; Nahum ii. 11 , 12. Samson’s ad- 
 venture also with the young lien (Judg. xiv. 5, S> 
 
LITTER. 
 
 LITTER. 
 
 255 
 
 »nd the picture of the young lion coming up 
 from the underwood cover on the banks ot the 
 Jordan — all attest a perfect knowledge of the 
 animal and its habits. Finally, the lions in the 
 den with Daniel, miraculously leaving him un- 
 molested, still retain, in all other respects, the 
 real characteristics of their nature. 
 
 The lion, as an emblem of power, was symbol- 
 ical of tiie, tribe of Judah (Gen. xlix. 9 ). The 
 type recurs in the prophetical visions, and the 
 figure of this animal .vas among the few which the 
 Hebrews admitted in sculpture, or in cast metal, 
 as exemplified in the throne of Solomon. The 
 heathen assumed the lion as an emblem of the 
 sun, of the god of war, of Ares, Ariel, Arioth, Re, 
 the Indian Seeva,of dominion in general, of valour, 
 ‘fee., and it occurs in the names and standards of 
 many nations. Lions, in remote antiquity, appear 
 to have been trained for the chace, and are, even 
 now, occasionally domesticated with safety. Pla- 
 cability and attachment are displayed by them 
 even to the degree of active defence of their 
 friends, as was exemplified at Birr, in Ireland 
 in 1839, when ‘ a keeper of wild beasts, being 
 within the den, had fallen accidentally upon a 
 tiger, who immediately caught the man by the 
 thigh, in the presence of numerous spectators ; 
 but a lion, being in the same compartment, rose 
 up, and seizing the tiger by the neck, compelled 
 it to let go, and the man was saved.’ Numerous 
 anecdotes of a similar character are recorded 
 both by ancient and modem writers. 
 
 Zoologists consider Africa the primitive abode 
 of lions, their progress towards the north and 
 west having at one time extended to the forests 
 of Macedonia and Greece; but in Asia, never 
 to the south of the Nerbudda, nor east of the 
 lower Ganges. Since the invention of gunpowder, 
 and even since the havoc which the ostentatious 
 barbarism of Roman grandees made among them, 
 they have diminished in number exceedingly, 
 although at the present day individuals are not 
 (infrequently seen in Barbary, within a short 
 distance of Ceuta. — C. H. S. 
 
 LITTER. The word translated litter, in Isa. 
 Ixvi. 20, is tzab ; and is the same which, 
 in Num. vii. 3, denotes the wains or carts drawn 
 by oxen, in which the materials of the taber- 
 nacle weie removed from place to place. The 
 tzab was not, therefore, a litter, which is not drawn, 
 but carried. This is the only place in which the 
 word occurs in the Authorized translation. We 
 are not, however, to infer ftom this that the 
 Hebrews had no vehicles of the kind. Litters, 
 or palanquins, were, as we know, in use among 
 the ancient Egyptians. They were borne upon the 
 shoulders of men (No. 391), and appear to have 
 been used for carrying persons of consideration 
 short distances on visits, like the sedan chairs 
 of a former day in England. We doubt if the 
 Hebrews had this kind of litter, as it scarcely 
 agrees with their simple, unluxurious habits ; but 
 that, they had litters borne by beasts, such as are 
 still common in Western Asia, seems in the 
 highest degree probable. 
 
 In Cant. iii. 9, we find the word aj)hir- 
 
 yon, Sept, nopeiou, Vulg. ferculum, which occurs 
 nowhere else in Scripture, and is applied to a 
 vehicle used by king Solomon. This word is 
 rendered ‘ charict’ in our Authorized version, 
 although unlike any other word so rendered in 
 
 that version. It literally means a moving couch , 
 and is usually conceived to denote a kind of 
 
 391 . 
 
 sedan, litter, or rather palanquin, in which great 
 personages and women were borne from place 
 to place. Toe name, as well as the object, im- 
 mediately suggests that it may have been nearly 
 
 the same thing as the L takht-ravan, 
 
 the moving throne , or seat , of the Persians 
 
 It consists of a light frame fixed on two strong 
 poles, like those of our sedan-chair. The frame is 
 generally covered with cloth, and has a door, 
 sometimes of lattice work, at each side. It is 
 carried by two mules, one between the poles 
 before, the other behind. These conveyances are 
 used by great persons, when disposed for retire- 
 ment or ease during a journey, or when sick or 
 feeble from age. But they are chiefly used by 
 ladies of consideration in their journeys (No. 392). 
 
 The popular illustrators of Scripture do not 
 appear to have been acquainted with this and the 
 other litters of Western Asia; and have, there- 
 fore, resorted to India, and drawn their illustra- 
 tions from the jialanquins borne by men, and from 
 the howdahs of elephants. This is unnecessary, as 
 Western Asia still supplies conveyances of this 
 description, more suitable and more likely to have 
 been anciently in use, than any which the further 
 east can produce. If the one already described 
 should seem too humble, there are other takht- 
 ravans of more imposing appearance. Some 
 readers may remember the ‘ litter of red ploth, 
 adorned with pearls and jewels,' together with 
 ten mules (to bear it by turns), which king 
 Zahr-Shah prepared for the journey of his 
 daughter (Lane’s Arab. Nights , i. 528). This 
 was, doubtless, of the kind which is borne by foui 
 mules, two behind and two before. In Arabia, 
 or in the countries where Arabian usages prevail, 
 two camels are usually employed to bear the 
 takht-ravan, and sometimes two horses. When 
 borne by camels, the head of the hindmost cf 
 the animals is bent painfully down uader tb* 
 
251 
 
 LIVER. 
 
 LIVER 
 
 vehicle. This is the most comfortable kind of 
 litter, and two light persons may travel in it. 
 
 The shibrceyeh is another kind of camel-litter, 
 resembling the Indian howdah , by which name 
 (or rather hddaj ) it is sometimes called. It 
 is composed of a small square platform with a 
 canopy or arched covering. It accommodates 
 
 but one person, and is placed upon the back of a 
 camel, and rests upon two square camel-chests, 
 one on each side of the animal. It is very evi- 
 dent, not only from the text in view, but from 
 others, that the Hebrews had litters; and there 
 is little reason to doubt that they were the same 
 as those now employed in Palestine and the 
 neighbouring countries, where there are still the 
 same circumstances of climate, the same domestic 
 animals, and essentially the same habits of life, 
 as in the Biblical period. 
 
 LIVER 033) occurs in Exod. xxix. 13, 22 ; 
 Lev. iii. 4, 10, 15; iv. 9; vii. 4; viii. 16, 25; 
 ix. 10, 19; Prov. vii. 23; Lam. ii. 11; Ezek. 
 xxi. 21. The Hebrew word is generally derived 
 from 12 V' be heavy, in reference to the weight 
 of the liver ^s the heaviest of all the viscera, just 
 as in English the lungs are called ‘ the lights,’ from 
 their comparative lightness. Gesenius, however, 
 
 adduces the K; c meaning, probably, 
 
 ‘the most preciouo, which, indeed, suits the notions 
 of the ancient Orientals, who esteemed the liver 
 to be the most valuable of all the viscera, because 
 they thought it most concerned in the formation 
 of the blood, and held that ‘ in the blood is the 
 life.’ In all the instances where the word occurs 
 in the Pentateuch, it forms part of the phrase 
 
 TOn by mrvn, or 12 nn rnrv, or -nrsn-p, 
 
 translated in the Authorized Version, ‘ the caul 
 that is above the liver,’ but which Gesenius, rea- 
 soning from the root, understands to be the great 
 lobe of the liver itself, rather than the caul over 
 it; which latter he terms omentum minus hepati- 
 cogastricum, and which, he observes, is incon- 
 siderable in size, and has but little fat. Jahn 
 
 thinks the smaller lobe to be meant. The jhrase 
 is also rendered in the Sept, rbv \of$bv roi 
 ^iraros, or rbv in\ rov, &c., ‘ the lobe or lower 
 pendent of the liver,’ the chief object of attention 
 in the art of hepatoscopy, or divination by tne 
 liver among the ancients. (Jerome gives reticulum 
 jecoris, 4 the net of the liver,’ and arvina, 4 the 
 suet,’ and adeps, ‘ the fat ;’ see Bochart/iftcras. 
 i. 498.) It appears from the same passages 
 that it was burnt upon the altar, and not eaten 
 as sacrificial food (Jahn, Biblisches Archaol. 
 § 378, n. 7). The liver was supposed by the 
 ancient Jews, Greeks, and Romans to be the seat 
 of the passions, pride, love, &c. Thus, Gen. 
 xlix. 6, 4 with their assembly let not (lite- 
 
 rally, ‘my liver’) be united;’ Sept. rb rjirara , 
 see also Heb. of Ps. xvi. 9; lvii. 9; cviii. 2; 
 and Anacreon, Ode iii. fin.; Theocritus, Idyll. 
 xi. 16 ; Horace, Carm. i. 13. 4 ; 25. 15 ; 
 iv. 1. 12; and the Notes of the Delphin 
 edition; comp, also Persius, Sat. v. 129; Ju- 
 venal, Sat. v, 647. Wounds in the liver were 
 supposed to be mortal ; thus the expressions in 
 Prov. vii. 23, 4 a dart through his liver,’ and 
 Lam. ii. 11, 4 my liver is poured out upon the 
 earth,’ are each of them a periphrasis for death 
 itself. So also ^Eschylus uses the words Ocyydvei 
 tt pbs rjirap to describe a mortal wound (Aga- 
 memnon, 1. 442). The passage in Ezekiel con- 
 tains an interesting reference to the most ancient, 
 of all modes of divination, by the inspection of 
 the viscera of animals and even of mankind 
 sacrificially slaughtered for the purpose. It is 
 there said that, the king of Babylon, among other 
 modes of divination referred to in the same verse, 
 
 4 looked upon the liver.’ The Cambridge manu- 
 script of the Sept, gives fjirari <TKoirr](ra(rdai ; other 
 copies use the precise technical term rjiraroo-Ko- 
 vTicraadai. The liver was always considered the 
 most important organ in the ancient art of 
 Extispicium, or divination by the entrails. Phi- 
 lostratus felicitously describes it as ‘ the prophe- 
 sying tripod of all divination’ (Lif e of Apollo- 
 nius, viii. 7. 5). The rules by which the Greeks 
 and Romans judged of it are amply detailed in 
 Adams’s Roman Antiquities , p. 261, &c., Lond. 
 1834 ; and in Potter’s Archceologia Grrrca, 
 i. 316, Lond. 1775. It is an interesting inquiry 
 how this regard to it originated. Vitruvius sug- 
 gests a plausible theory of the first rise of hepa- 
 toscopy. He says the ancients inspected the 
 livers of those animals which frequented the 
 places where they wished to settle ; and if they 
 found the liver, to which they chiefly ascribed 
 the process of sanguification, was injured, they 
 concluded that the water and nourishment col- 
 lected in such localities were unwholesome 
 (i. 4). But divination is coeval and co-exten- 
 sive with a belief in the divinity. We ac- 
 cept the argument of the Stoics, 4 sunt Di : ergo 
 est Divinatio .’ We know that as early as the 
 days of Cain and Abel there were certain means 
 of communication between God and man, and 
 that those means were c-cnnected with the sacri- 
 fice of animals ; and we prefer to consider those 
 means as the source of divination in later ages, 
 conceiving that when the real tokens of the 
 divine interest with which the primitive families 
 of man were favoured ceased, in consequence of 
 the multiplying of human transgressions, th*ii 
 descendants endeavoured to obtain counsel 
 
LIZARD. 
 
 LIZARD. 
 
 2$> 
 
 information by the same external observances. 
 We believe that thus only will the minute resem- 
 blances be accounted for, which we discover be- 
 tween the clilfe rent methods of divination, utterly 
 untraceable to reason, but which have prevailed 
 from unknown antiquity among the most distant 
 regions. Cicero ascribes divination by this and 
 other means to what he calls ‘ the heroic ages,’ 
 by which term we know he means a period ante- 
 cedent to all historical documents (De Divina- 
 tione). Prometheus, in the play of that title 
 (1. 474, &c.), lays claim to having taught, man- 
 kind the different, kinds of divination, and that 
 of extispicy among the rest. ; and Prometheus, 
 according to Servius (ad Virg. Eel. vi. 42), in- 
 structed the Assyrians ; and we know from sacred 
 record that Assyria was one of the countries first 
 peopled. It is further important to remark that 
 the first recorded instance of divination is that 
 of the teraphim of Laban, a native of Padan- 
 aram, a district bordering on that country 
 (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16), but by which teraphim 
 both the Sept, and Josephus understood rjirap 
 t&v alywu ‘th e liver of goats’ (Antiq. vi. 11. 
 4); nor does Whiston, perhaps, in his note on 
 that passage, unreasonably complain that, ‘ since 
 the modern Jews have lost the signification of 
 the word T33, and since this rendering of the 
 Sept.., as well as the opiniou of Josephus, are 
 here so much more clear and probable, it is 
 unaccountable that our commentators should so 
 much hesitate as to its true interpretation ’ 
 (Whiston’s Josephus , p. 169, note, Edinb. 1828; 
 Bochart, i. 41, De Caprarum Nominibus ; En- 
 cyclopedia Metropolitana , art. ‘ Divination ; ’ 
 Rosenmiiller's Scholia on the several passages 
 referred to; Perizonius, ad JElian. ii. 31 ; Peucer, 
 De Prcecipuis Divinationum Generibus , &c., 
 VVitteberg, 1560).— J. F. D. 
 
 LIZARD (3)j» tzab , 113 coach , letaah, 
 
 ana/cah, thinsemeth, EDIfl chomet, 
 
 semmamith ). Under this denomination 
 the modern zoologist places all the cold-blooded 
 animals that have the conformation of serpents 
 with the addition of four feet. Thus viewed, as 
 one great family, they constitute the Saurians, 
 Laeertinse, and Lacertidae of authors; embracing 
 numerous generical divisions, which commence 
 with the largest, that is, the crocodile group, and 
 pass through sundry others, a variety of species, 
 formidable, disgusting, or pleasing in appearance 
 ■ — some equally frequenting the land and water, 
 others absolutely confined to the earth and to the 
 most arid deserts ; and though in general harm- 
 less, there are a few with disputed properties, some 
 being held to poison or corrode by means of the 
 exudation of an ichor, and others extolled as 
 Aphrodisiacs, or of medical use in pharmacy ; but 
 these properties in most, if not in all, are unde- 
 termined or illusory. Of some genera, such as the 
 crocodile and chameleon, we have already made 
 mention [Chameleon; Crocodile; Dragon; 
 Leviathan], and therefore we shall confine our 
 present remarks to the lizards that are inhabitants 
 »f Western Asia and Egypt, and to those more 
 particularly noticed in the Bible. Of these 
 commentators indicate six or seven species, 
 whereof some indeed may be misapprehended ; but 
 when it is considered that the regions of Syria, 
 Arabia, and Egypt are overrun with animata of 
 
 this family, there is every rensen to expect al 
 lusion (o more tlvan one genus in the Scriptures, 
 where so many observations and similes are 
 derived from the natural objects which wera 
 familiar to the various writers. Among the 
 names enumerated above, Bochart refers 3 If 
 tzab (Lev. xi. 29) to one of the group of Mo- 
 nitors or Varanus, the Nilotic lizard, Lacerta 
 Nilotica , Varanus Niloticus, or War an of the 
 Arabs. Like the other of this form, it is possessed 
 of a tail double the length of the body, but 
 is not so well known in Palestine, where there 
 is only one real river (Jordan), whiih is not 
 tenanted by this species. We have already 
 shown that the true crocodile frequented the 
 shores and marshes of the coast down to a com- 
 paratively late period ; and therefore it may well 
 have had a more specific name than Leviathan — 
 a word apparently best suited to the dignified 
 and lofty diction of the prophets, and clearly of 
 more general signification than the more collo- 
 quial designation. Jerome was of this opinion; 
 and it is thus likely that tzab was applied 
 to both, as waran is now considered only a 
 variety of, or a young, crocodile. There is a 
 second of the same group, Lacerta Scincus of 
 Merrem ( Varanus Arenarius ), Waran-el-hard, 
 also reaching to six feet in length ; and a third, 
 no i as yet clearly described, which appears to be 
 larger than either, growing to nine feet, and 
 covered with bright cupreous scales. This last 
 prefers rocky and stony situations. It is in this 
 section of the Saurians that most of the gigantic 
 fossil species, the real D^arp ben-nephilim , 
 ‘childien of the giants,’ are found to be located ; 
 and of the existing species some are reported to 
 possess great strength. One of the last-mentioned 
 pursues its prey on land with a rapid bounding 
 action, feeds on the larger insects, and is said to 
 attack game in a body, sometimes destroying 
 even sheep. The Arabs, in agreement with the 
 ancients, assert that this species will do fierce and 
 victorious battle with serpents. 
 
 Considerations like these induce us to assign 
 the Hebrew name P13 coach (a designation of 
 strength) to the species of the desert ; and if the 
 Nilotic waran be the tzab, then the Arabian 
 dhab, as Bruce asserts, will be Varanus Arenarius, 
 or Waran-el-hard of the present familiar lan- 
 guage, and chardaun, the larger copper- 
 
 coloured species above noticed. But it is evident 
 from the Arabic authorities quoted by Bochart, and 
 from his own conclusions, that there is not only 
 confusion among the species of lizard, but that 
 the ichneumon of Egypt ( Iiorpestes Pharaonii' 
 is mixed up with the history of these Saurians. 
 
 We come next to the group of lizards mors 
 properly so called, which Hebrew commentator* 
 
258 LIZARD. 
 
 take to be the HNLI^ letnah , a name having some 
 allusion to poison and adhesiveness. The word 
 occurs only once (Lev. xi. 30), where Saurians 
 alonw appear to be indicated. If the Hebrew root 
 were to guide the decision, letaah would be another 
 name for the gecko or anaka , for there is but one 
 specios which can be deemed venomous : and with 
 regard to the quality of adhesiveness, though the 
 geckos possess it most, numerous common lizards 
 run up and down perpendicular walls with great 
 facility. We, therefore, take tDDin chomct, or 
 «a.r«.l lizard of Bochart, to be the true lizard, 
 sevtral (probably many) species existing in my- 
 riads on the rocks in sandy places, and in ruins in 
 every part of Palestine and the adjacent countries. 
 There is one species particularly abundant and 
 small, well known in Arabia by the name of Sara- 
 bandi. We now come to the Stelliones , which 
 have been confounded with the noxious geckos 
 and others from the time of Aldrovandus, and 
 thence have been a source of inextricable trouble 
 to commentators. They are best known by the 
 bundles of starlike spines on the body. Among 
 tiiese Lacerta Stellio, Stellio Orientalis, the ttpo- 
 nodeiAos of the Greeks, and hardun of the Arabs, 
 is abundant in the east, and a great frequenter of 
 ruinous walls. The genus Uromastix offers Stellio 
 Spinipes of Daud. or Ur-Spinipes, two or three 
 feet long, of a fine green, and is the species whicli 
 is believed to strike with the tail ; hence formerly 
 denominated Caudi Verbera. It is frequent in 
 the deserts around Egypt, and is probably the 
 Guard of the Arabs. Another subgenus, named 
 Trcipelus by Cuvier, is exemplified in the TV. 
 ALgypticus of Geoff., with a spinous swelled body, 
 but remarkable for the faculty of changing 
 colour more rapidly than the chameleon. 
 
 Next we place the Geckotians , among which 
 comes HpIN anakah, in our versions denominated 
 ferret , but whicli is with more propriety trans- 
 ferred to the noisy and venomous abu-burs of the 
 Arabs. There is no reason for admitting the verb 
 PIN anak, to groan, to cry out , as radical for the 
 name of the ferret, an animal totally unconnected 
 with the preceding and succeeding species in Lev. 
 xi. 29, 30, and originally found, so far as we know, 
 only in Western Africa, and thence conveyed to 
 Spain, prowling noiselessly, and beaten to death 
 without a groan, though capable of a feeble, short 
 scream when at play, or when suddenly wounded. 
 Taking the interpretation ‘to cry out,’ so little 
 applicable to ferrets, in conjunction with the whole 
 verse, we find the gecko , like all the species of this 
 group of lizards, remarkable for the loud grating 
 noise which it is apt to utter in the roofs and 
 walls of houses all the night through : one, indeed, 
 is sufficient to dispel the sleep of a whole family. 
 The particular species most probably meant is the 
 lacerta gecko of Hasselquist, the gecko lobatus of 
 Geotfroy, distinguished by having the soles of the 
 feet dilated and striated like open fans, from 
 w hence a poisonous ichor is said to exude, in- 
 flaming the human skin, and Infecting food that 
 may have been trod upon by the animal. Hence 
 the Arabic name of abu-burs, or ‘ father leprosy,’ 
 at Cairo. The species extends northwards in 
 Syria; but it may be doubted whether the gecko 
 fascicularis , or tarentola, of South-Eastern Europe 
 be not also an inhabitant of Palestine ; and in 
 that case the fVftDSP semmamiih of Bochart 
 would find an appropriate location. 
 
 LOAN. 
 
 To these we add the Chameleons , already de- 
 scribed [Chameleon] ; and then follows the 
 Scincus (in antiquity the name of varanus 
 arenarius ), among which lacerta scincus , Linn., 
 or scincus officinalis, is the el-adda of the Arabs, 
 figured by Bruce, and well known in the old 
 pharmacy of Europe. S. cyprius , or lacerta 
 cyprius scincoides, a large greenish species, 
 marked with a pale line on each flank, occurs 
 also ; and a third, scincus variegatus or ocillatus, 
 often noticed on account of its round black spots, 
 each marked with a pale streak, and commonly 
 having likewise a stripe on each flank, of a pale 
 colour. 
 
 Of the species of Scps, that is, viviparous ser- 
 pent-lizards, having the body of snakes, with four 
 weak limbs, a species with only three toes on 
 each foot, the lacerta ehalcides of Linn., appears 
 to extend to Syria. — C. H. S. 
 
 LOAN. The Mosaic laws which relate to the 
 subject of borrowing, lending, and repaying, are in 
 substance as follows : — If an Israelite became poor, 
 what he desired to borrow was to be freely lent to 
 him, and no interest, either of money or produce, 
 could be exacted from him; interest might be 
 taken of a foreigner, but not of an Israelite by 
 another Israelite (Exod. xxii. 25; Deut. xxiii. 
 19, 20; Lev. xxv. 35-38). At the end of every 
 seven years a remission of debts was ordained ; 
 every creditor was to remit what he had lent : 
 of a foreigner the loan might be exacted, but not 
 of a brother. If an Israelite wished to borrow, he 
 was not to be refused because the year of remis- 
 sion was at hand (Deut. xv. 1-11). Pledges 
 might be taken, but not as such the mill or the 
 upper millstone, for that would be to take a man’s 
 life in pledge. If the pledge was raiment, it was 
 to be given back before sunset, as being needful 
 for a covering at night. The widow’s garment 
 could not be taken in pledge (Exod. xxii. 20, 
 27 ; Deut. xxiy. 6, 17). A part of the last pass- 
 age we must cite entire, as showing a most ami- 
 able and considerate spirit on the part of Moses 
 towards the poor : ‘ When thou dost, lend thy 
 brother anything, thou shalt not go into his house 
 to fetch his pledge ; thou shalt stand abroad, and 
 the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out 
 the pledge abroad unto thee; and if the man be 
 poor thou shalt not sleep with his pledge : in any 
 case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when 
 the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own 
 raiment, and bless thee ; and it shall be righteous- 
 ness unto thee before the Lord thy God.’ The 
 strong and impressive manner in which the duty 
 of lending is enjoined, is worthy of being exhibited 
 in the words of Scripture : ‘ If there be among 
 you a poor man of one of thy brethren, thou shall 
 not harden thy heart nor shut thine hand from 
 thy poor brother, but thou shalt open thine hand 
 wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him suffi- 
 cient for his need. Beware that there be not a 
 thought in thy wicked heart, saying, the year of 
 release is at hand, and thine eye be evil against 
 thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought, 
 and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be 
 sin unto thee : thou shalt surely give him, and 
 thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest 
 unto him ; because that for this thing the Lord 
 thy God shall bless thee in all thy works and in 
 all that thou puttest thy hand unto.’ 
 
 These laws relating to loans may wear a stran§» 
 
LOAN 
 
 LOAN. 
 
 267 
 
 and somewhat repulsive aspect to toe meie mo- 
 dern reader, and cannot be understood, either in 
 their bearing or their sanctions, unless considered 
 from the Biblical point of view. The land of 
 Canaan (as the entire world) belonged to its 
 Creator, but was given of God to the descendants 
 of Abraham under certain conditions, of which 
 this liberality to the needy was one. The power 
 of getting loans therefore was a part of the poor 
 man’s inheritance. It was a lien on the land (the 
 source of all property with agricultural people), 
 which was as valid as the tenure of any given 
 portion by the tribe or family do whose lot it had 
 fallen. This is the light in which the Mosaic 
 polity represents the matter, and in this light, so 
 long as that polity retained its force, would it, as 
 a matter of course, lie regarded by the owners of 
 property. Thus the execution of this particular 
 law was secured by the entire force with which 
 the constitution itself was recommended and sus- 
 tained. But as human selfishness might in time 
 endanger this particular set of laws, so Moses 
 applied special support to the possibly weak pait. 
 Hence the emphasis with which he enjoins the 
 duty of lending to the needy. Of this emphasis 
 the very essence is the sanction supplied by that 
 special providence which lay at the very basis 
 of the Mosaic commonwealth; so that lending to 
 the destitute came to be enforced with all the 
 power derivable from the express v/ill of God, of 
 the Almighty Creator, of the Redeemer of Israel, 
 of Him whose favour was life and whose frown 
 was dismay and ruin. 
 
 It is impossible not to admire the benevolence 
 which runs through the entire of this piece of 
 legislation ; and when the age to which its origin 
 is referred, and the peculiar circumstances under 
 which it was produced, are considered, our ad- 
 miration rises to a very high pitch, and we feel 
 that it is most insufficient praise to say that 
 nothing so benign in spirit had been previously 
 conceived : nothing more beneficent and humane 
 has been carried into elfect, even since Jesus came 
 to seek and to save the lost. The conduct which 
 ‘he Romans observed towards the debtor affords a 
 striking contrast to what is thus required by 
 Moses. Insolvent debtors might be compelled to 
 serve their creditors, and often had to endure 
 treatment as bad as that of slaves (Liv. ii. 23; 
 A. Gell. xx. 1, 19; Appian, Ital. p. 40). In 
 Athens also the creditor had a claim to the per- 
 son of the debtor (Plut. Vit. Sol. 15). Moses 
 himself seems to have admitted some restrictions 
 to his benevolent laws ; for from Lev. xxv. 39, sq., 
 it appears that a poor Israelite might be sold to 
 one possessed of substance : be was, however, to 
 serve, not as a bond, but as a hired servant, who 
 at tie jubilee was restored with his children to 
 entire liberty, so that he might return unto the 
 jx)ssession of his fathers, 
 
 That the system of law regardihg loans was 
 carried into elfect. there is no reason to doubt. It 
 formed an essential part of the general constitution, 
 and therefore came recommended with the entire 
 sanction which that systfi n had on its own be- 
 half; nor were there any predominant, antagonist 
 principles at work which would prevent this from 
 proceeding step by step, in its proper place and 
 dine, with the residue of the Mosaic legislation. 
 Nor do the passages of Scripture (Job xxii. 6 ; 
 Kxiv. 3; Matt, xviii. 28; Prov. xxviii. 8; Ezek 
 
 rou 18 
 
 xviii. 8; Ps. xv. 5; cix. II) which give ua 
 reason to think that usury was practised and the 
 poor debtor oppressed, show anything but those 
 breaches to which laws are always liable, espe- 
 cially in a period when morals grow corrupt and 
 institutions in consequence decline; on the con- 
 trary, the stern reproofs which such violations 
 called forth forcibly demonstrate that the legis- 
 lation in question had taken elfect, and had also 
 exerted a powerful influence on (he national cha- 
 racter, and on the spirit with which the misdeeds 
 of rich oppressors and the injuries of the needy 
 were regarded. 
 
 While, however, the benign tendency of the 
 laws in question is admitted, may it not be ques- 
 tioned whether they were strictly just? Such a 
 doubt could arise only in a mind which viewed 
 the subject from the position of our actual society. 
 A modern might plead that he had a right to do 
 what he pleased with his own ; that his property 
 of every kind — laud, food, money — was his own ; 
 and that he was justified to turn all and each part 
 to account for his own benefit. Apart from reli- 
 gious considerations this position is impregnable. 
 But such a view of property finds no support in 
 the Mosaic institutions. In them property has a 
 divine origin, and its use is intrustol to man on 
 certain conditions, which conditions are as valid 
 as is the tenure of property itself. In one sense, 
 indeed, the entire land — all property — was a great 
 loan, a loan lent of God to the people of Israel, 
 who might well therefore acquiesce in any ar- 
 rangement which required a portion — a small 
 portion — of this loan to be under certain circum- 
 stances accessible to the destitute. This view 
 receives confirmation from the fact that interest 
 might, be taken of persons who were not Hebrews, 
 and therefore lay beyond the sphere embraced by 
 this special arrangement. It would open loo wide 
 a field did we proceed to consider bow far the 
 Mosaic system might be applicable in the world 
 at large ; but this is very clear to our mind, that 
 the theory of property on which it rests — that 1*3, 
 making property to be divine in its origin, and 
 therefore tenable only on the fulfilment of such 
 conditions as the great laws of religion and mo- 
 rality enforce — is more true and more philoso- 
 phical (except in a college of atheists) than the 
 narrow and baneful ideas which ordinarily prevail. 
 
 Had the Hebrews enjoyed a free intercourse 
 with other nations, the permission to take usury of 
 foreigners might have had the effect of impover- 
 ishing Palestine by affording a strong induce- 
 ment for employing capital abroad ; but, under 
 the actual restrictions of the Mosaic law, this evil 
 was impossible. Some not inconsiderable advan- 
 tages must have ensued from the observance of 
 these laws. The entire alienation and loss of the 
 lent property were prevented by that peculiar in- 
 stitution which restored to every man his property 
 at the great year of release. In the interval be- 
 tween the jubilees the system under consideration 
 would tend to prevent those inequalities of social 
 condition which always arise rapidly, and which 
 have not seldom brought, disaster and ruin on 
 states. The affluent were required to part with 
 a portion of their affluence to supply the wants 
 of the needy, without, exacting that recompense 
 which would only make the rich richer and the 
 poor more needy ; thus superinducing a state of 
 tliiugs scarcely more injurious to the one than to* 
 
258 
 
 LOCUST. 
 
 LOCUST. 
 
 the other of these two parties. There was also 
 in this system a strongly conservative influence. 
 Agriculture was the foundation of the constitu- 
 tion. Had money-lending been a trade, money- 
 making would also have been eagerly pursued. 
 Capital would be withdrawn from the land; the 
 agriculturist would pass into the usurer ; huge 
 inequalities would arise; commerce would as- 
 sume predominance, and the entire commonwealth 
 be overturned — changes and evils which were pre- 
 vented, or, if not so, certainly retarded and abated, 
 by the code of laws regarding loans. As it was, 
 the gradually increasing wealth of the country was 
 in the main laid out on the soil, so as to augment 
 its productiveness and distribute its bounties. 
 
 These views may prepare the reader for con- 
 sidering the doctrine of ‘ the Great. Teacher ’ on 
 the subject of loans. It is found forcibly ex- 
 pressed in Luke's Gospel (vi. 34, 35) : ‘ If ye 
 lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what 
 thank have ye ? for sinners also lend to sinners, to 
 receive as much again : but love ye your enemies, 
 and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; 
 and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be 
 the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto 
 the unthankful and to the evil.’ The meaning 
 of the passage is distinct and full, unmistakeable, 
 and not to be evaded. He commands men to 
 lend, not as Jews to Jews, but even to enemies, 
 without asking or receiving any return, after the 
 manner of the Great Benefactor of the Universe, 
 who sends down his rains and bids his sun to 
 shine on the fields of the unjust as well as of the 
 just. To attempt to view this command in the 
 light of reason and experience would require 
 space which cannot here be given ; but we must 
 add, that any attempt to explain the injunction 
 •away is most unworthy on the part of professed 
 disciples of Christ; and that, not impossibly at 
 least, fidelity to the behests of Him whom we 
 call Lord and Master would of itself answer 
 all doubts and remove all misgivings, by practi- 
 cally showing that this, as every other doctrine 
 that fell from His lips, is indeed of God (John 
 vii. 17).— J. R. B. 
 
 LOAVES. [Bread.] 
 
 LOCUST (order, Hemiptera; species, Gryllus, 
 Linn.). There are ten Hebrew words which ap- 
 pear to signify ‘ locust’ in the Old Testament : 
 1. n2“]K arbeh ; 2. 3*1 il gob ; 3. DT3 gazam ; 
 4. nan chagab; 5. chanamal ; 6. ^pn 
 
 ckasil ; 7. hzyi chargol ; 8. yelek ; 9. 
 
 ■ salam ; 1 0. Wy tzelatzal. It has been 
 
 supposed, however, that some of these words 
 denote merely the different states through which 
 the locust passes after leaving the egg, viz. the 
 larva, the pupa, and the perfect insect — all which 
 much resemble each other, except that the larva 
 has no wings, and that the pupa possesses only the 
 rudiments of those members, which are fully 
 developed only in the adult locust (Michaelis, 
 Supplem. ad Lex. Hebr. ii. C67, 1080). But 
 this supposition is manifestly wrong with regard 
 'to the first, fourth, seventh, and eighth, because, 
 in Lev. xi. 22, the word ‘ after his kind,’ 
 
 or species, is add£d after each of them (comp, 
 ver. 14, 15, 16). It. is most probable, there- 
 fore, that all the rest are also the names of species. 
 But the problem is to ascertain the particular 
 
 species intended by them respectively. Many 
 writers have endeavoured to solve it. They have 
 first examined the roots of these names, which are 
 nearly all the resources afforded by the Hebrew, 
 since there is only one instance in which any de- 
 scriptive epithet is applied to the name of a 
 locust which might assist in identifying the 
 species (Jer. li. 27), ‘ the rough caterpillar.’ 
 Bochart thus states the principle of tlris method 
 of investigation ‘ Res latet in verbis, et ex nomi- 
 nibus multa eruunturquae ad horum animal ium 
 naturam pertinent .’ — * The thing signified is 
 couched in the words, and out. of the names many 
 things are deduced which relate to the nature of 
 these creatures’ ( Hierozoicon , a Rosenm idler, 1796, 
 vol. iii. p. 251, lib. iv. p. ii. c. 1). But as 
 Hebrew roots alford oidy abstract ideas, these 
 writers next endeavour to ascertain the particular 
 species intended, by considering to what species 
 of locust the general characteristic especially 
 applies. This would be a sufficiently arduous 
 task, supposing the true Hebrew roots to be 
 known ; whereas it will he seen that several 
 Hebrew roots often compete with equal claims for 
 the place of etymon to the same word. The roots 
 of the cognate dialects, to which these writers 
 resort in the absence of any in Hebrew, which is 
 frequently the case, are chargeable with the same 
 vagueness and incertitude. The next resource 
 would seem to be the ancient versions ; but the 
 Septuagint, even in the most ancient and accurate 
 portions of it, seldom gives a definite rendering. 
 The renderings of the Vulgate, though nearly an 
 echo of the Sept., are valuable, as furnishing all 
 the illustration which Jerome could give in the 
 fifth century. Bochart has observed, that all the 
 other ancient versions, Chaldaic, Syriac, and 
 Arabic, as well as the Targums and rabbins, 
 afford us no assistance in this inquiry, because 
 ‘ vel retinent voces Hebraeas, vel alii3 utuntur 
 nihilo magis notis’ — ‘ they either retain the He- 
 brew words or use others no better understood.’ 
 Our only materials, then, consist of reasonings 
 from the Hebrew roots, the Sept, and Vulg., and 
 of those few places where the definite renderings 
 they give can be illustrated from ancient Greek 
 and Roman naturalists, &c. It will now be 
 attempted to lay before the reader the results of 
 these several sources of investigation. 
 
 1. n3“lK arbeh ; occurs in Exod. x. 4, Sept. 
 cucplda ttoWt] v (‘ a vast, flight. of locusts/ or perhaps 
 indicating that several species were employed), 
 Vulg. locustam; and, in ver. 12, 13, 14, 19, cutpls 
 and locasta, Eng. locusts ; Lev. xi. 22, /3 povxov, 
 bruchus, locust; Deut. xxviii. 38, unpis, locustce, 
 locust; Judg. vi. 5; vii. 12, axpis, locuslarum, 
 grasshoppers; 1 Kings viii. 37, fipovxos , locusta , 
 locust; 2 Chron. vi. 2S, ax pis, locusta, locusts; 
 Job xxxix. 20, axpldes, locustas, grasshoppers : 
 Ps. lxxviii. 46, dfcp/Si, Symm. ckcoXtiki, locustce , 
 locust; Ps. cv. 34, axpls, locusta, locust; Ps. cix. 
 23, a Kpities, locustce, locust; Prov. xxx. 27, axpls, 
 locusta, locust; Jer. xlvi. 23, axplba, locusta, grass- 
 hoppers ; Joel i. 4; ii. 25, dxp'is, locusta, locust; 
 Nahum iii. 15, fipovxos, bruchus, locusts, ver. 17, 
 arTeXafios, locustce , locusts. In the foregoing 
 conspectus the word !73")N, in Exod. x., aa 
 indeed everywhere else, occurs in the singular 
 number only, though it is there associated with 
 verbs both in the singular and plural (ver. 5 , 6 ), 
 as are the corresponding words in Sept, and 
 
LOCUST. 
 
 LOCUST. 
 
 Vulg. This it might be, as a noun of multitude ; 
 but it will be rendered probable that four species 
 were employed in the plague on Egypt, n3"lN> 
 
 pV' and 5?D3n (Ps. lxxviii. 46, 47 ; cv. 
 31). These may all have been brought into 
 Egypt from Ethiopia (which has ever been the 
 cradle of all kinds of locusts), by what is called 
 in Exodus, ‘ the east wind,’ since Bochart proves 
 that the word which properly signifies ‘ east* 
 often means ‘south’ also. The word may 
 
 be used in Lev. xi. 22, as the collective name for 
 the locust, and be put first there as denoting also 
 the most numerous species; but in Joel i. 4, and 
 Ps. lxxviii. 46, it is distinguished from the other 
 names of locusts, and is mentioned second, as if 
 of a different species ; just, perhaps, as we use 
 the word fly, sometimes as a collective name, and 
 at others for a particular species of insect, as 
 when speaking of the hop, turnip, meat fly, &c. 
 When the Hebrew word is used in reference to a 
 particular species, it has been supposed, for rea- 
 sons which will be given, to denote the gryllus 
 gregarius or migratorius. Moses, therefore, in 
 Exodus, refers Pharaoh to the visitation of the 
 locusts, as well known in Egypt; but the plague 
 would seem to have consisted in bringing them 
 into that country in unexampled numbers, con- 
 sisting of various species never previously seen 
 there (comp. Exod. x. 5, 6, 15). The Sept, word 
 @povx')S (Lev. xi. 22) clearly shows that the 
 translator uses it for a winged species of locust, 
 contrary to the Latin fathers (as Jerome, Augus- 
 tine, Gregory, &c.), who all define the bruchus to 
 be the unfledged young or larva of the locust, and 
 who call it at tela bus when its wings are partially 
 developed, and locusta when able to fly ; although 
 both Sept, and Vulg. ascribe flight to the bruchus 
 here, and in Nah. iii. 17. The Greek fathers, on 
 the other hand, uniformly ascribe to the /3 poises 
 both wings and flight, and therein agree with the 
 descriptions of the ancient Greek naturalists. 
 Thus Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, who, 
 with his preceptor, was probably contempora- 
 ries with the Sept, translators of the Pentateuch, 
 plainly speaks of it as a distinct species, and not 
 a mere state : ^aAe7ral giv ovv at aupides, xaAe7ra>- 
 t epoi Se ol arreXafioi, Kal tovtwv gaKiora ovs Ka- 
 \ov(Ti fipovKOvs . — ‘ The aKptdes (the best ascer- 
 tained general Greek word for the locust) are inju- 
 rious, the arreXafloi still more so, and those most 
 of all which they call fipovKoi' (T>e Anim.'). The 
 Sept, seems to recognise the peculiar destructive- 
 ness of the j8 povxos in 1 Kings viii. 37 (but has 
 merged it in the parallel passage, 2 Chron.), and 
 in Nah. iii. 15, by adopting it for JT1TN. In these 
 passages the Sept, translators may have understood 
 the G. migratorius or gregarius (Linn.), which 
 is usually considered to be the most destructive 
 species (from fipwaKO), I devour ). Yet. in Joel i. 
 
 4 ; ii. 25, they have applied it to the which, 
 however, appears there as engaged in the work of 
 destruction. Hesychius, in the third century, 
 explains the (SpovKos as dupid <av eYdos, ‘ a species 
 of locust,’ though, he observes, applied in his time 
 by different nations to different species of locusts, 
 and by some to the drreKaBos. May not his 
 testimony to this effect illustrate the various uses 
 of the word by the Sept, in the minor prophets ? 
 Our translators have wrongly adopted the word 
 ‘ grasshopper 1 in Judg. and Jer. xlvi. 23, where 
 
 259 
 
 ‘ locusts’ would certainly have better illustrated 
 the idea of * innumerable multitudes; 1 and here, 
 as elsewhere, have departed from their professed 
 rule, ‘ not to vary from the sense of that which 
 they had translated before, if the word signified 
 the same in both places’ (Translators to the reader, 
 ad flnem). The Hebrew word in question, is 
 usually derived from PQ"), ‘ to multiply 1 or ‘ be 
 numerous,’ because the locust is remarkably pro- 
 lific ; which, as a general name, is certainly not 
 inapplicable ; and it is thence also inferred, that 
 it denotes the G. migratorius, because that species 
 often appears in large numbers. However, the 
 largest flight of locusts upon record, calculated to 
 have extended over 500 miles, and which darkened 
 the air like an eclipse, and was supposed to come 
 from Arabia, did not consist of the Q. migratorius , 
 but of a red species (Kirby and Spence, Introd. 
 to Entomology, i. 210); and, according to Forskal, 
 the species which now chiefly infests Arabia, and 
 which he names G. gregarius , is distinct from 
 the G. migratorius of Linn. ( Ency . Brit. art. ‘ En- 
 tomology,’ u. 193). Others derive the word from 
 ,‘tolie hid, 1 or ‘in ambush,’ because the newly 
 hatched locust emerges from the ground, or because 
 the locust besieges vegetables. Elosenmuller 
 justly remarks upon such etymologies, and the in- 
 ferences made from them, ‘ Quam infirmum verb 
 sit hujusmodi e solo nominis etymo petitum 
 argumentum, unusquisque intelliget ipse.’ He 
 adds, ‘Nec alia est ratio reliquarum specierurr/ 
 
 ( Schol . in Joel i. 4). ‘ How precarious truly the 
 
 reasoning is, derived in this manner from the 
 mere etymology of the word, every body may un- 
 derstand for himself. Nor is the principle other- 
 wise in regard to the rest of the species. 1 He also 
 remarks that the references to the destructive-' 
 ness of locusts, which are often derived from the 
 roots, simply concur in this, that locusts consume 
 and do mischief. Illustrations of the propriety of 
 his remarks will abound as we proceed. Still it 
 by no means follows from a coincidence of the 
 Hebrew roots, in this or any other meaning, that the 
 learned among the ancient Jews did not recognise 
 different species in the different names of locusts. 
 The English word fly, from the Saxon fleon , the 
 Heb. and its representative ‘fowl’ in the 
 Eng. Version (Gen. i. 20, &c.), all express both 
 a general and specific idea. Even a modern 
 entomologist might speak of ‘ the flies’ in a room, 
 while aware that from 50 to 100 different spe- 
 cies annually visit our apartments. The scrip- 
 tures use popular language : hence ‘ the mul- 
 titude, 1 ‘ the devourer,’ or ‘ the darkener,' may 
 have been the familiar appellations for certain 
 species of locusts. The common Greek words 
 for locusts and grasshoppers, &c., are of them- 
 selves equally indefinite ; yet they also served for 
 the names of species, as aupts, the locust generally, 
 from the tops of vegetables, on which the locust 
 feeds ; but it is also used as the proper name of a 
 particular species, as the grasshopper : rerpairrt- 
 pvWts, ‘ four-winged,’ is applied sometimes to the 
 grasshopper ; Tp«£aAAls, from rpcoyu, ‘ to chew,’ 
 sometimes to the caterpillar. Yet the Greeks had 
 also distinct names restricted to particular spe- 
 cies, as ovos, goAovpis, Kepuunn), &c. The Hebrew 
 names may also have served similar purposes. 
 
 2. 313 gob, Isa. xxxiii. 4; Sept. aKptdas ; 
 Vulg. is deficient; Eng. locusts; Amos v ii. 1 
 im'yovi] a Kpidwr ; Aquila, fiopadow (voratrices). 
 
LOCUST. 
 
 LOCUST. 
 
 locustae, grasshoppers; Nah. iii. 17, aTT&.efios, 
 locustae, grasshoppers. Here the lexicographers, 
 finding no Hebrew root, resort to the Arabic. 
 Bochart derives it from the Arabic* X33, * to 
 creep out ’ (of the ground), as the locusts do 
 in spring. But this applies to the young of 
 all species of locusts, and his quotations from 
 Aristotle and Pliny occur unfortunately in ge- 
 neral descriptions of the locust. Castell gives 
 
 another Arabic root (y_ 3X3, secxiit , ‘ to cut’ 
 
 or ‘ tear,’ but this is open to a similar objection. 
 Parkhurst proposes 33, anything gibbous, curved, 
 or arched, and gravely adds, ‘ the locust in the 
 caterpillar state, so called from its shape in 
 general, or from its continually hunching out its 
 back in moving.’ The Sept, word in Nahum, 
 ctTT<s\efios, has already been shown to mean a 
 perfect insect and species. Accordingly, Aris- 
 totle speaks of its parturition and eggs (Hist. 
 Anim. v. 29 ; so also Plutarch, De Isid. et OsirQ. 
 It seems, however, not unlikely that it means a 
 wingless species of locust, genus Podisma of La- 
 treille. Grasshoppers, which are of this kind, he in- 
 cludes under the genus Tettix. Hesychius defines 
 the aTTeKefios as a.Kp\s piKpa, ‘ a small locust;’ 
 and Pliny mentions it as ‘ locustarum minimae, 
 sine penuis, quas attelabos vocant’ (Hist. Nat. 
 Kxix. 5). Accordingly the Sept, ascribes only 
 leaping to it, i^-f]\aro ws arreKefios. In Nahum 
 we have the construction '313 313, locusta 
 locustarum, which the lexicons compare with 
 D'iJHp and explain as a vast multitude of 
 
 locusts. Archbishop Newcome suggests that ‘ the 
 phrase is either a double reading where the scribes 
 had a doubt which was the true reading, ora mis- 
 taken repetition not expunged.’ He adds, that we 
 may suppose '313 the contracted plural for D'313 
 ( Improved Version of the Minor Prophets , 
 Pontefr. 1809, p. 188). 
 
 * From the affinity of Arabic to Hebrew, it 
 might have been hoped that from inquiries in 
 Arabia some light would have been cast upon 
 the Hebrew names of locusts by the traditional 
 names for them still in use in that region. But 
 (he modern Arabic names, which may be seen in 
 Bochart, Tychsen, Forskal, Niebuhr, Shaw, &c., 
 hear no resemblance to the Hebrew. The word 
 H31X was among the topics of inquiry proposed 
 to Niebuhr by Michaelis in 1774 ( Recued de 
 Questions proposecs, Sfc. Quest, xxx.). Niebuhr 
 replied, ‘ Comme la philologie n’est point mon 
 fort, je dois avertir de nouveau, que je ne saurois 
 decider si l'explication en est toujours juste. Je 
 n ai fait que l'ecrire telle que je l’ai reque 
 des Juil's, Chretiens, ou Mahometans orientaux. 
 n33X sont a Bagdad et a Maskat les sauterelles 
 ile passage,’ &c. (Desa'ipt. de l Arabic, 1774, 
 p. 33). Dr. Harris, however, makes Niebuhr 
 say, ‘ Arbah is the name at Bagdad and Maskat 
 of those locusts,’ &c. (Nat. Hist, of the Bible, 
 London, 1825, art ‘Locust.’), which i3 evidently 
 an over-translation. Indeed Forskal, who went in 
 toe same expedition with Niebuhr, expressly says 
 that the Arabs every where call what he names 
 
 G. gregarius Djerdd, and that the Jews 
 
 inhabiting Yemen (Arabia Felix) affirmed that it 
 was the ri3“lX ( Desci iptiones Animalium, 8$c. 
 p. 81, Hauniae, 1775, and Flora JEgypt., p. 83). 
 
 3. DT3 gazam ; Joel i. 4 ; ii. 25; Alios iv. 9; 
 in all which the Sept, reads Kapirq, the Vulg. eruea % 
 and the English palmcricorm. Bochart observes 
 that the Jews derive the word from T13 or TT3, ‘ to 
 shear’ or ‘ clip,’ (hough he prefers DT3, ‘ to cut ;’ 
 because, he observes, the locust gnaws the tender 
 branches of trees, as well as the leaves. Gese- 
 nius urges that the Chaldaic and Syriac explain 
 it as the young unfledged bruchus, which he 
 considers very suitable to the passage in Joel, 
 where the DT3 begins its ravages before the lo- 
 custs ; but Dr. Lee justly remarks that there is no 
 dependence to be placed on this. Gesenius adds 
 that the root DT3 in Arabic, and the Talmud, i:> 
 kindred with DD3, ‘ to shear’ — a derivation which, 
 however, applies to most species of locusts. 
 Michaelis follows the Sept, and Vulgate, where 
 the word in each most probably means the cater- 
 pillar, the larvae of the lepidopterous tribes of 
 insects (Suppl. ad Lex., p. 290, compared with 
 Recueil de Quest , p. 63). We have, indeed, the 
 authority of Columella, that the creatures which 
 the Latins call erucce, are by the Greeks called 
 Kap.Tr ox, or caterpillars : — ‘ Animalia quae a nobis 
 appellant ur erucae, gra*ee autem Kapirai nomi- 
 nantur’ (xi. 3) ; which he also describes as creep- 
 ing upon vegetables and devouring them. Never- 
 theless, the depredations ascribed to the DT3 in 
 Amos, better agree with the characteristics of 
 the locust, as, according to Bochart, it was un- 
 derstood by the ancient, versions. The English 
 word ‘ palmenvorm,’ in our old authors, means 
 properly a hairy caterpillar, which wanders like 
 a palmer or pilgrim, and from its being rough, 
 called also ‘ beareworm ’ (Mouffet, Insectorum 
 Theatrum, p. 186). 
 
 4. 33PI chagab ; Lev. xi. 22; Num. xiii. 33; 
 Isa. xl. ’22 ; Eccles. xii. 5 ; and 2 Chron 
 vii. 13 ; in all which the Sept, reads dupis, 
 Vulgate locusta, and English grasshopper, except 
 the last, where the English has i locusts . The mani- 
 fest. impropriety of translating this word ‘ grass- 
 hoppers’ in Lev. xi. 22, according to the English 
 acceptation of t he word, has already been shown 
 [Grasshopper] ; in all the other instances it. most 
 probably denotes a species of locust. Our trans- 
 lators have, indeed, properly rendered it. ‘locust’ 
 in 2 Chron. ; but in all the other places ‘ grass- 
 hopper,’ probably with a view to heighten the con- 
 trast. described in those passages, but with no real 
 advantage.’ Oedman infers, from its being so 
 often used for this purpose, that it denotes the 
 smallest species of locust; but in the passage in 
 Chronicles voracity seems its chief characteristic. 
 An Arabic root, signifying ‘ to hide,’ is usuall} 
 adduced, because it is said that locusts fly in such 
 crowds as to hide the sun ; but others say, from 
 their hiding the ground when they alight. Even 
 Parkhurst demurs, that ‘to veil the sun and 
 darken the air is not peculiar to any kind ol 
 locust ;’ and with no better success proposes to 
 understand the cucullated, or hooded, or veiled 
 species of locust. Tychsen suggests the G. coro - 
 natus.. 
 
 5. ?K33n chanamal, Ps. lxxviii. 47 ; Sept. 
 Trdxvri ; Aq. iv Kpvei ; Vulg. in pruina ; Eng. 
 
 ‘ frost.’ Notwithstanding this concurrence ol 
 Sept., Vulg., and Aquila, it is objected that 
 ‘ frost. ’ is nowhere mentioned as having been 
 employed in the plagues of Egypt, to which 
 the Psalmist evidently alludes ; but that, it hil 
 
locust: 
 
 LOCUST. 
 
 words he compared with Exod. x. 5, 15, it will 
 be seen that the locusts succeeded the hail. The 
 Psalmist observes the same order, putting the 
 devourer after the hail (comp. Mai. iii. H). 
 Hence it is thought to be another term for the 
 locust. If this inference be correct, and assuming 
 that the Psalmist is describing facts, this would 
 make a fourth species of locust employed against 
 
 Egypt, two of the others, the and ^DH, 
 
 being mentioned in the preceding verse. Pro- 
 posed derivation, to settle , and to cut 
 
 off, because where locusts settle they cut otf 
 leaves, &c., or as denoting some non-migrating 
 locust which, settles in a locality (see Bochart, 
 in voc.). 
 
 6. chasil; Sept, fipovxos, epvatfir} ; Vulg. 
 rubigo , bruchus, cerugo [Chasil]. 
 
 7. chargol ; Lev. xi. 22; ocpiopdxps, 
 ophiomachus [Chargol]. Since that article 
 was written it has been found that Becmann, 
 reasoning from the Sept, and Vulg., arrived 
 at a similar conclusion; viz., that some insect 
 of the sphex or ichneumon kind was meant 
 (apud Bochart, a Rosenmiiller, vol. iii. p. 264). 
 The genus of locusts called truxalis answers the 
 description. It is some excuse for the English 
 rendering ‘beetle’ in this place, that Pliny 
 classes one species of gryllus, the house-cricket, 
 G. domesticus , under the scarabaei (Hist. Nat. 
 xi. 8) 
 
 8. p?' yelek ; Ps. cv. 34, j Qpovxos, bruchus, cater- 
 pillar ; Jer. li. 14, 27, aicpis, brucus, caterpillar; 
 and in the latter passage the Vulg. reads brucus 
 aculeatus, and some copies horripilantes ; Joel 
 i. 4 ; ii. 25, / Ipovxos , bruchus, cankerworm ; Nah. 
 iii. 15, 16, dicpis and fipovxos , cankerworm. As- 
 suming that the Psalmist means to say that the 
 
 was really another species employed in the 
 plague on Egypt, the English word caterpillar in 
 the common acceptation cannot be correct, for we 
 can hardly imagine that the larvae of the Papi- 
 lionidae tribe of insects could be carried by 
 ‘ winds.’ Cankerworm means any worm that preys 
 on fruit. B povxos could hardly be understood 
 by the Sept, translators of the minor prophets as 
 an unflddged locust; for in Nah. iii. 16 they give 
 fipovxos &pgi](T€ Kal i^eireTdaO-r], the fipovx°s fl ies 
 away. The Arabic p^', to be white, is offered ; 
 hence the white locust or the chafer-worm, which 
 is white (Michaelis, Recueil de Quest, p. 64 ; 
 
 Sup. ad Lex. II eh. p. 1080). Others give pp^>, to 
 lick off, as Gesenius, who refers to Num. xxii. 4, 
 where this root is applied to the ox ‘ licking ’ up 
 his pasturage, and which, as descriptive of celerity 
 in eating, is supposed to apply to the p? 1 *. Others 
 
 suggest the Arabic p^l, to hasten, alluding to the 
 quick motions of locusts. The passage in Jer. 
 li. 27 is the only instance where an epithet is 
 
 applied to the locust, and there we find p^> 1DD, 
 * rough caterpillars.’ As a noun the word means 
 nails,’ ‘sharp-pointed spikes.’ Hence Michaelis 
 refers it to the rough sharp-pointed feet of some 
 species of chafer (ut supra). Oedman takes it for 
 the G. cristatus of Linn. Tychsen, with more pro- 
 bability, refers it to some rough or bristly species i,f 
 locust, as the G. hcema'opus of Linn., whose thighs 
 are ciliated with hail's. Many grylli are furnished 
 
 MI 
 
 with spines and bristles ; the whole species acfieta, 
 also the pupa species of Linn., called by Degeer 
 locusta pupa spinosa , which is thus described : — 
 Thorax ciliated with spines, abdomen tuberculous 
 and spinous, posterior thighs armed beneath with 
 four spines or teeth ; inhabits Ethiopia. The al- 
 lusion in Jer. is to the ancient accoutrement of 
 war-horses, bristling with sheaves of arrows. 
 
 9. salam; Lev. xi. 22, drrdi cy, atthacus , 
 
 ‘ the bald locust.’ A Chaldee root is given by 
 Bochart, to devour. Another has been pro- 
 
 posed, j/?D, a rock or stone, and to go up. 
 
 Hence the locust, which climbs up stones or 
 rocks ; but, as Bochart observes, no locust is 
 known. answering to this characteristic. Others 
 give J/PD, a stone, and DDy, to hide under ; 
 equally futile. Tychsen thinks the G. Eversor 
 of Asso is meant. 
 
 10. tzelatzal; Deut. xxviii. 42, ipvaifiy, 
 rubigo, locust. The root commonly assigned is 
 to* , to sound ; hence, says Gesenius, a species of 
 locust that makes a shrill noise. Dr. Lee says a 
 tree-cricket that does so. Tychsen suggests the 
 G. stridulus of Linn. The song of the gryiio-talpa 
 is sweet and loud. With equal certainty we 
 might give the Chald. to pray, and thence 
 infer the mantis religiosa, or Prier Dieu, so called 
 from its singular attitude, and which is found 
 in Palestine (Kitto’s Physical History , p. 419j. 
 The words in the Sept, and Vulg. properly mean 
 the mildew on corn, &c., and are there applied 
 metaphorically to the ravages of locusts. This 
 mildew was anciently believed by the heathens to 
 be a divine chastisement; hence their religious 
 ceremony called Rubigalia (Pliny, Hist. Nat. 
 xviii. 29). The general references to locusts in the 
 Scriptures are well collected by Jahn ( Biblisches 
 Archdol., § 23). Some popular errors respecting 
 them are, however, diligently retailed by others. 
 It is well known that locusts live in a republic 
 like ants. Mr. Horne says ‘like bees and ants.’ 
 Agur, the son of Jakeh, correctly says, ‘the locusts 
 have no king.’ But Mr. Horne gives them one 
 (Introduction, &c., 1839, vol. iii. p. 76), and Dr. 
 Harris, ‘a leader whose motions they invariably 
 observe ’ (Nat. Hist, of the Bible, Lond. 1825, 
 art. * Locust’). See this notion refuted by Kirby 
 and Spence (vol. ii. p. 16), and even by Mouffet 
 ( Theat . Insect, p. 122, Lond. 1634). It is also 
 worthy of remark that no Hebrew root, has ever 
 been offered favouring this idea. Our translation 
 (Nah. iii. 17) represents locusts, ‘great grasshop- 
 pers,’ as ‘ camping in the hedges in the cold day, 
 but when the sun ariseth as fleeing away.’ Here 
 the locust, *01!l, is undoubtedly spoken of as a 
 perfect insect, able to fly, and as it is well known 
 that at evening the locusts descend from their 
 flights and form camps for the night, may not the 
 cold day mean the cold portion of the day, t. e. the 
 night, so remarkable for its coldness in the East, 
 the word DP being used here, as it often, is, in a 
 comprehensive sense, like the Gr. rjpepa and Lat. 
 diest And Gesenius suggests that ]Y|"ni, ‘ hedges,’ 
 should here be understood like the Gr. aipaaid, 
 shrubs, brushwood, &c. 
 
 As the result of the whole preceding analysis it 
 would seem that several, if not all, of the Hebrew 
 words denote as many species of locusts ; that the 
 roots of these words afford no safe clue in any in 
 
LOCUST. 
 
 LOCUST. 
 
 2*2 
 
 stance to the particular species intended ; that the 
 Sept, and Vulg. afford us assistance only where the 
 definite renderings 1 hey give are elucidated by other 
 writers; and that this elucidation goes no further 
 than to render it probable that species and not 
 states of the locust are denoted in such places. 
 Take, for instance, the Sept, word ofpio/j.dxys and 
 the corresponding word ophiomachus in the Vulg. 
 (Lev. xi. 22), which is one of the few instances 
 of a definite rendering in either, being elucidated 
 by any ancient author, and compare it with the 
 references made by Aristotle (ix. 9) and by 
 Pliny (xi. 29), to locusts fighting with serpents, 
 as the Greek word would indicate, and ‘ killing 
 them, biting them at the throat;’ and even with 
 the testimony of Simon Majolus's gardener 
 ( Colloq . viii. 123), who told his master that he 
 had seen a locust thus occupied with a serpent ; 
 and ‘ to speak advisedly,’ we must confess that in 
 the present state of our knowledge the elucidation 
 is not very clear or satisfactory. There is one 
 instance of agreement between Moses and Aristotle 
 not unworthy of notice. Moses evidently assigns 
 but ‘ four feet ’ to locusts (Lev. vi. 22) ; so does 
 Aristotle in the first instance, but afterwards re- 
 marks that they have six, if the parts with which 
 they leap be counted, avv rots o.\tiko7s poplois. 
 Augustine remarks that Moses did not consider these 
 as legs. The true solution appears to us to be, 
 that Moses, and Aristotle also in the first instance, 
 considers the two fore leg3 as hands and arms, 
 and that Aristotle takes in the parts both above 
 and below in the hind legs, and with these ‘ leap- 
 ing parts' makes out six (see also Kirby and 
 Spence, vol. i. p. 23). Still it must be confessed 
 with Bochart, that we know not sufficiently how 
 the words locusta , bruchus , attacus , and ophio- 
 machus differ from each other, and much less 
 whether these words in Greek and Latin accu- 
 rately corresponded to the Hebrew. The specific 
 application of the several names was evidently all 
 but lost in the time of the Septuagint translators, 
 since they make no distinctions, and, rather from 
 the want of ability than inclination, we may pre- 
 sume, apply aKpis to four out of the ten names, 
 Ppovxos to three, citt e\efios to two, ipvari^n] to 
 two, and all the first three of these Greek words 
 to nilN. It is doubtful whether they are correct 
 in the only instance in which they observe uni- 
 formity of rendering, viz., udp-m). Even where 
 they have given definite renderings, how know we 
 but that they have done here as Jerome says they 
 have in other, places, ‘ seemed to define this or 
 that, rather because they would say something, 
 than because they were sure of what they said V 
 (Hieron. in Ez. c. iii.) But Jerome has him- 
 self followed them in these passages for a similar 
 reason. We must, then, admit, with Rabbi 
 Selomo (apud Bochart), that we know not how to 
 distinguish the several species. Bochart conjec- 
 tures that till the time of John the Jews were able 
 to do so, otherwise the Baptist, he urges, would 
 not have known which to eat (Matt. iii. 4). But 
 surely the definition alone in Lev. xi. 21 must 
 have been a sufficient guide to him, as it would 
 be now to a Jew. It is a wild speculation of the 
 Jewish doctors, that whenever their nation shall 
 be restored a prophet will be directed to point 
 out by inspiration the creatures distinguished 
 \y the different names in their law ; it is a spe- 
 culation, however, originated by the confessed 
 
 impenetrable obscurity of the general Subject. I 
 will be refreshing to the reader to turn from 
 this dry and unsatisfactory, yet useful detail, to 
 some proofs that locusts are not, as they have 
 been commonly represented, wholly an evil ; not 
 altogether ‘ pestis irae Deorum,’ as Pliny calls them 
 (xi. 29). When directed, indeed, by divine 
 agency in enormous numbers and various species, 
 as in the case of Egypt, their depredations might 
 merit Mr. Horne’s description as ‘one of the most 
 terrible scourges by which mankind can be 
 afflicted ’ ( Introd . vol. iii. p. 74, Loud. 1839). 
 With regard to the description in Joel, it is con- 
 sidered by many learned writers as a figurative 
 representation of the ravages of an invading 
 ‘army’ of human beings , as in Rev. ix. 2-12, 
 rather than a literal account, since such a devas- 
 tation would hardly, they think, have escaped 
 notice in the books of Kings and Chronicles. 
 Accordingly some understand by the four species 
 of locusts there mentioned, Salmaneser, Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, Antiochus, and the Romans. The- 
 odoret explains them as the four Assyrian kings, 
 Tiglathpileser, Salmaneser, Sennacherib, and Ne- 
 buchadnezzar ; and Abarbanel, of the four king- 
 doms inimical to the Jews, viz. the Babylonians. 
 Persians, Greeks, and Romans (Pococke’s Works, 
 vol. i. p. 214, &c., London, 1740; Rosenmiiller, 
 Scholia in Joel, c. i.). Locusts, like many other 
 of the general provisions of nature, may occasion 
 incidental and partial evil ; but upon the whole 
 they are an immense benefit to those portions of the 
 world which they inhabit ; and so connected is the 
 chain of being that we may safely believe that the 
 advantage is not confined to those regions. ‘ They 
 clear the way for the renovation of vegetable pro- 
 ductions which are in danger of being destroyed 
 by the exuberance of some particular species, and 
 are thus fulfilling the law of the Creator, that of 
 all which he has made should nothing be lost. 
 A region which has been choked up by shrubs 
 and perennial plants and hard half-withered im- 
 palatable grasses, after having been laid bare by 
 these scourges, soon appears in a far more beau- 
 tiful dress, with new herbs, superb lilies, fresh 
 annual grasses, and young and juicy shrubs of 
 perennial kinds, affording delicious herbage for 
 the wild cattle and game ’ (Sparman’s Voyage^ 
 vol. i. p. 367). Meanwhile their excessive mul- 
 tiplication is repressed by numerous causes. Con- 
 trary to the order of nature with all other insects, 
 the males are far more numerous than the females. 
 It is believed that if they were equal in number 
 they would in ten years annihilate the vegetable 
 system. Besides all the creatures that feed upon 
 them, rains are very destructive to their eggs, to 
 the larvae, pupae, and perfect insect. When per- 
 fect, they always fly with the winds, and are there- 
 fore constantly being carried out to sea, and often 
 ignorantly descend upon it as if upon land. 
 Myriads are thus lost in the ocean every year, and 
 become the food of fishes. On land they afford 
 in all their several states sustenance to countless 
 tribes of birds, beasts, reptiles, &c. ; and if theii 
 office as the scavengers of nature, commissioned to 
 remove all superfluous productions from the face 
 of the earth, sometimes incidentally and as the 
 operation of a general law, interferes with the 
 labours of man, as do storms, tempests, &c., they 
 have, from all antiquity to the present hour, 
 afforded him an excellent supply fill the land 
 
LOCUST. 
 
 LOGOS. 
 
 263 
 
 acquires the benefit of their visitations, by yielding 
 him in the meantime an agreeable, wholesome, 
 and nutritious aliment. They are eaten as meat, 
 are ground into Hour, and made into bread. They 
 are even an extensive article of commerce (Spar- 
 man’s Voyage , vol. i. p. 367, &c.). Diodorus 
 Siculus mentions a people of Ethiopia who were 
 so fond of eating them that they were called 
 Acridophagi, ‘ eaters of locusts ’ (xxiv. 3). 
 Whole armies have been relieved by them when 
 in danger of perishing (Porphyrius, De Absti- 
 nentia Carnis). We learn from Aristophanes 
 and Aristotle that they were eaten by the inha- 
 bitants of Greece (Aristoph. Acharnen. 1116, 
 1117, ed. Bind.; Aristot. Hist. Anim. v. 30, where 
 he speaks of them as delicacies). Their great 
 flights occur only every fourth or fifth season. 
 Those locusts which come in the first instance 
 only fix on trees, and do not destroy grain : it 
 is the young before they are able to fly which 
 are chiefly injurious to the crops. Nor do all 
 the species feed upon vegetables ; one, compre- 
 hending many varieties, the truxalis, feeds upon in- 
 sects. Latreille says the house-cricket will do so. 
 4 Locusts,’ remarks a very sensible tourist, ‘ seem 
 to devour not so much from a ravenous appetite 
 as from a rage for destroying.’ Destruction, there- 
 fore, and nof, food, is the chief impulse of their 
 devastations, and in this consists their utility ; 
 they are in fact, omnivorous. The most poisonous 
 plants are indifferent to them ; they will prey 
 even upon the crowfoot, whose causticity burns 
 tire very hides of beasts. They simply con- 
 sume everything without predilection, vegetable 
 matter, linen, woollen, silk, leather, &c. ; and 
 Pliny does not exaggerate when he says ‘ fores 
 quoque tectorum/ ‘ and even the doors of houses ’ 
 (xi. 29), for they have been known to consume 
 the very varnish of furniture. They reduce 
 everything indiscriminately to shreds, which be- 
 come manure. It might serve to mitigate popular 
 misapprehensions on the subject to consider what 
 would have been the consequence if locusts had 
 been carnivorous like wasps. All terrestrial 
 beings, in such a case, not excluding man himself, 
 would have become their victims. There are, no 
 doubt, many things respecting them yet unknown 
 to us which would still further justify the belief 
 that this, like 4 every ’ other ‘ work of God is good ’ 
 — benevolent upon the whole (see Dillon's Travels 
 in Spain , p. 256, &c. 4to. Lond. 1780). The best 
 account of their cookery and domestic uses will 
 be found in Kitto's Physical History of Pales- 
 tine y p. 420 : for the species whose existence in 
 Palestine is ascertained , viz., G. domesticus, 
 nasutus, gryllotalpa, migratorius, and falcatus, 
 and for some beautiful and accurate cuts of lo- 
 custs, see p. 419 ; and for an account of the locust- 
 bird, Smurmur, which the Turks believe eats a 
 thousand locusts in a day, pp. 410, 411. We 
 subjoin a list of the principal writers on the Bibli- 
 cal locusts, of whom wemay say with Bochart,‘Cre- 
 dimus? an qui amant: ipsi sibi somnia fingunt!’ 
 Franciscus Stancarus, whom Mouffet records to 
 have written on seven of the Biblical locusts; 
 Faber, De Locustis Biblicis, 4to. Vitemb. 1710 ; 
 Don Ignacio de Asso y Del Rio, Abhandlung von 
 den Ileuschreken, Rostock, 1787-8, to which is 
 added sometimes in the same vol. Tychsen, Com- 
 ment. de Locustis , in which he has collected all the 
 Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic names for locusts. 
 
 p. 47, &c. ; Ludolphus, Dissert, de Locustis y 
 Francof. 1694, and Luclol. Hist. AEthiop. Frank- 
 fort, ad Maenum, 1691 ; and ad suam Hist. APAhiop. 
 Comment, fol. Frank. 1691. He maintains that 
 the qxiails (Num. xi.) were locusts, as do the 
 Jewish Arabs to this day. So does Patrick, in 
 his Comment, on Numbers. Oedman, Vermischte 
 Sammlxmgen, fasc. ii. c. vii. ; partie. ii. pp. 91, 
 92. Bochart’s Hieroz. a Rosenm idler. For general 
 information, Kirby and Spence, Introduction to 
 Entomology , vol. i. p. 215, &e., Lond. 1828; 
 and the Travels of Russel, Tavernier, Hasselquist, 
 Volney, Burckhardt, Clarke, &c. For the locusts 
 of St. John, see Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclcsiasticus , 
 tom. i. pp. 169, 179; and Gutherr, De Victu 
 Johannis Baptist, in Desertis, Franc. 1785. For 
 the symbolical locusts (Rev. ix.), Newton, On 
 the Prophecies ; and Woodhouse, On the Apo- 
 calypse. Among the curiosities in this depart- 
 ment is Norelii Schediasma de Avibus esu licitis , 
 Arbeh , So lam, Chargol, et Chagab (Lev. xi. 
 22), Upsal, 1746, in which the author endeavours 
 to show that these words denote birds and not 
 locusts. — J. F. D. 
 
 LOD. [Lydda.] 
 
 LOG. [Weights and Measures.] 
 
 LOGOS. It was in Egypt, that religion 
 and philosophy came once more into the presence 
 of each other after the lapse of so many ages; 
 and whence they were once more to go forth on 
 their divided, yet united, mission to the nations. 
 We speak not of that forced union of doctrines 
 and principles which was attempted in the 
 Gnostic heresy, and which came so utterly to 
 nothing that our knowledge of that heresy and 
 its leaders is derived altogether from the report of 
 its opponents ; but of that real and sound accord 
 between religion and philosophy, between the 
 commands of God and the reason of man, which 
 the Christian desires to make more and more 
 manifest, even to the coming of the perfect day. 
 The Gnostic heresy attempted a union between 
 fanatical feeling and ascetic discipline — a union 
 which too often ends in licentiousness, and which 
 never can attain the sound principles and right 
 practices which together constitute man’s rea- 
 sonable service. On the other hand, the opponents 
 of Gnosticism have toe often exhibited an unfair- 
 ness, a rancour, and a alumny, which must have 
 had the worst effects upon themselves, as it has 
 greatly tended to prejudice their cause, and has left 
 us the example of a spirit so unchristian that we 
 regret to see it associated with a purer faith. In 
 spite of such opponents as the Gnostics — advocates 
 of an unsound religion united to an unsound 
 philosophy — and in spite also of supporters who 
 knew not what spirit they were of, Christianity 
 has triumphed so completely over Gnosticism as 
 to leave of that great heresy little more than 
 the name. Yet are the few and scattered me 
 morials of Gnosticism not without instruction, 
 whether we examine them critically in all fair- 
 ness, for the purpose of separating the good from 
 the evil, or whether we trace them historically 
 to their sources, or onward to their effects. 
 
 In our article on Gnosticism, of which this is 
 a sequel, we have given a brief and clear account, 
 in the words of Professor Burton, — first, of the 
 great leading doctrines of all the Gnostic secrts; 
 secondly, of the three principal seurces from 
 which Gnosticism was derived ; and thirdly, of 
 
364 
 
 LOGOS. 
 
 LOGOS. 
 
 the effects produced l>y the Gnostic heresy on the 
 progress of Christianity, (luring the time which 
 elapsed between the conversion of St. Paul, and 
 his first preaching to the Gentiles. Before we 
 return to the latter subject, which will be found 
 closely connected with Professor Burton’s view of 
 the Logos in St. John’s Gospel, we propose to 
 examine a little farther into the merits of that 
 philosophy of Plato, which he considers the im- 
 mediate, if not the original, cause of the Gnostic 
 heresy. The original cause of that heresy, more 
 ancient even than the theosophy of Babylon, 
 must be sought in the mixed good and evil prin- 
 ciples of human nature, which have so often led 
 to folly in opinion, as well as to crime in con- 
 duct. But the immediate cause of Gnosticism 
 may certainly be traced to types and shadows in 
 the philosophy of Plato ; and we consider Pro- 
 fessor Burton to have done a valuable service to 
 the cause of religion and philosophy, in directing 
 the attention of the critic, as well as of the his- 
 torian, to this source of information. 
 
 It would appear that some writers have a sort 
 of dread of the philosophy of Plato, and labour 
 rather disingenuously to fix upon all his writings 
 the character of obscurity and mysticism, front, 
 which many of them are altogether free. Others, 
 on the contrary, profess great admiration of his 
 sublime doctrines and pure morality, and speak 
 of him as a sort of herald of Christianity ; and, 
 strange to say, ground their admiration of him 
 on some of his most questionable works. It 
 is in these works that we trace the immediate 
 causes of the corruption which the Gnostic heresy 
 attempted to introduce into Christianity, — mysti- 
 cism, asceticism, and licentiousness ; from all 
 which, in spite of that attempt, the Christian 
 religion is so eminently free. Plato, as a writer, 
 at least in many of his works, cannot be spoken 
 of too highly: but Plato, as a philosopher, inde- 
 pendently of what he reports of the conversation 
 and teaching of Socrates, appears to us to have 
 been estimated far beyond his deserts. The un- 
 soundness of that which may justly be considered 
 the philosophy of Plato, may be tested by the 
 downward course of the philosophical schools 
 and religious sects which proceeded from that phi- 
 losophy in Alexandria. It is in this sense that 
 the study of Plato’s philosophy may he most 
 profitable to the critic and historian, the moralist 
 and divine; and by which the contrast between 
 Gnosticism and Christianity, in principles as well 
 as in effects, may be made most manifest. And 
 in our estimate of Plato, we would judge him 
 by his own words, before we presume to make 
 him answerable for the mischievous consequences 
 into which his disciples followed out his errors. 
 In like manner, we would not judge of Gnos- 
 ticism by the unjust and rancorous reports of 
 some of its opponents; but by the fairer views of 
 the lives and doctrines of its professors, which 
 have in many cases been established by the keen 
 and searching criticisms of Beausobre. Indeed, 
 it is hardly possible to overrate the advantage of 
 having, in Professor Burton, a fair arbiter between 
 the parties — between the Gnostics and the Fathers 
 on the one hand, and between Plato and the 
 Gnostics on the other hand. 
 
 We have not space here for such an examina- 
 tion of the philosophy of Plato as the largeness and 
 complication of the subject demand. This is the 
 
 less necessary, nowever, because the English reader 
 will find in Dr. Enfield’s abridgment of Brucker’i 
 Hist, of Philosophy , a very sound, learned, ana 
 intelligible view of Plato's opinions, should he 
 wish to know more of them than is contained in 
 Professor Burton’s work. But if we were re- 
 quired to bring the inquiry to a clear issue, and 
 in brief space, we should say that in the fifth 
 book of the Republic of Plato may be seen that 
 unsound union of religious mysticism with moral 
 licentiousness, closely connected in other parts of 
 his philosophy with opinions tending to asceticism, 
 which the Professor has shown to have been 
 strangely, but by no means unnaturally, united ir. 
 the theory and practice of many of the Gnostics, 
 and which union is as much opposed to sound 
 philosophy as to sound religion. The divine and 
 moralist must not shrink from testing Plato # 
 philosophy (for these theories are in manifest dis- 
 agreement with the practical piety and sound 
 morality of Socrates, and unquestionably canno’. 
 be referred to him) by the contents of this cele- 
 brated book, in which a system of the most unre- 
 strained indulgence of the sensual appetites is set 
 forth as the completion of politics and the per • 
 fection of philosophy ; and in strange connection 
 with this immoral plan are exhibited pretensions 
 to a divine knowledge of the most mystic charac- 
 ter, which, both in this book and in other works of 
 Plato, is set forth as the elevator and purifier of 
 human nature, just as the gnosis of Gnosticism 
 was set forth at a later period. Here and else- 
 where Plato speaks of matter as so altogether in- 
 capable of good, from its weakness rather than its 
 malignity, as to thwart the benevolent intentions 
 of the Deity to promote human virtue and human 
 happiness; and, on the other hand, he 1 sets forth 
 intellect as only requiring to be separated from 
 matter in order to be perfect ; and in close con- 
 nection with these views of mind and body, lie 
 speaks of a mystic knowledge of the divine nature 
 able to purify and elevate the mind by its intense 
 contemplation, and, in the end, to free it from its 
 corporeal prison-house. It is in the first part of 
 the fifth book of the Republic that the affections 
 and duties of husband and wife, parent and child, 
 brothers and sisters, are sacrificed to a system of 
 concubinage, as absurd in the arguments by 
 which it is supported as it would be ruinous to 
 domestic happiness and national character in its 
 consequences ; and it is at the close of this very 
 book that there is brought forward in the swelling 
 language of mysticism a secret, and sublime, and a 
 scarcely intelligible gnosis, which is to purify and 
 elevate the intellect whilst the body is, as we have 
 seen, placed in a moral and political system of 
 wide and deep sensualism. These are the deli- 
 berate opinions of Plato, put forth in one of the 
 latest, most highly finished, and most closely com- 
 pacted of his works, and again deliberately con 
 firmed in a subsequent work of still higher pre- 
 tension. Now, it was to Plato, the mystical prc»- 
 pounder of a divine gnosis, that the Gnostic sect* 
 gave ear; and whilst some devoted themselves to 
 this divine contemplation, even to the maceration 
 and mortification of the body, others were not 
 wanting who thought such ideal and spiritual 
 purity might render the service of the poor and 
 despised body altogether unnecessary. How un- 
 like is all this to the sound principles and strong 
 sense, tire rational piety and wholesome self-corn- 
 
LOGOS. 
 
 LOGOS. 
 
 20$ 
 
 tnand of Christianity ! It is the boast of the 
 Christian religion that not its least pure worship 
 is by the lomestic hearth, and that marriage is the 
 most honoured of all institutions by its founder, 
 from Cana of Galilee, where the sign of water 
 turned to wine teaches that a healthful purity 
 must be the foundation of domestic happiness, 
 to the mystic union of Christ with his church, 
 applying 'he nearest and dearest of ties to express 
 the connection between man and his master and 
 teacher and great exemplar. In the Christian 
 commonwealth woman is neither the poor slave 
 of the harem, nor the spoilt child of Feudalism, 
 nor yet the Aspasia of Plato's Republic, but the 
 help meet for man, appointed to aid in working out 
 the highest destinies of our race, beginning, not in 
 the gymnasia or syssitia of Plato, but in the home 
 of our affections, where must be born, bred, and 
 educated a race strong in body, firm in mind, and 
 stedfast in principle. It is plain that of these 
 great domestic and national objects the system of 
 Plato would be utterly destructive, tending to 
 concubinage instead of marriage, fanaticism in- 
 stead of piety, and asceticism instead of self- 
 command. And as the licentiousness of Plato, 
 and of some of his Gnostic followers, is in direct 
 opposition to the precepts and practice of Christ 
 and his disciples, so there is not a word in the New 
 Testament, that would warrant divine contempla- 
 tion being substituted for holiness of life, whether 
 that contemplation consisted in endless genealogies 
 of divine emanations, or in mystic reveries on the 
 divine perfections; even though these were ac- 
 companied with a voluntary humility in the wor- 
 shipping of angels, or in fasting and prayer more 
 rigidly ceremonial than those of the Pharisee. 
 Those who feel themselves in danger of being 
 mastered by some strong passion will do well to 
 call to their aid such means, whether of prayer or 
 fasting, as may enable them to overcome the 
 temptation. But this use of a sound means to a 
 good end, and under extraordinary circumstances, 
 of which the individual can be and ought to be 
 the only judge, is very different from the yoke of 
 an ascetic discipline, whether it be dictated by a 
 fanaticism which aims at something unsuited to 
 our Tiature, or by that hard task-master, a spiritual 
 tyranny. If the mystical ideas of Plato are fairly 
 compared, on the one hand, with the plain Evi- 
 dences of the Being, Power, Wisdom, and Good- 
 ness of God, as set forth by Socrates in the Memo- 
 rabilia of Xenophon, and, on the other hand, with 
 the clear definitions.of Species, Genus, Differentia, 
 Property, and Accident, as laid down by Aris- 
 totle in his Works on Logical Analysis , it will be 
 seen that little was gained to religion or to philo- 
 sophy by a theory, which certainly diverted men’s 
 minds from the right direction into which Socrates 
 had turned them, both in philosophy and religion. 
 Socrates had ascended step by step, by a process 
 of logical reasoning, from matter to spirit, from 
 the world to its Creator; and had arrived by that 
 process at the sound conclusion, that such unity 
 of design demonstrates the oneness of the de- 
 signer. Plato, on the other hand, descends, as it 
 were, in the theatrical machine of the Timceus , 
 from heaven to earth, bringing with him (he fruits 
 of his great master’s philosophy, under the fanciful 
 disguise of a mythological mysticism. This 
 purely imaginative statement of Plato might be 
 more imposing to some minds, and more adapted 
 
 to the perverted tastes of some periods, than tb* 
 sound, rational statements of Socrates; more e w 
 daily when these dogmas of Plato came to be 
 exhibited at one time as a political remedy in 
 the Republic , at another as metaphysical abstrac- 
 tion in the Parmenides, now in the mythological 
 form of the Timceus , and now as the foundation 
 of asceticism in the Pha-don. The sound philo- 
 sophical reasoning of Socrates receives a con- 
 stantly increasing evidence from every fresh dis- 
 covery in the physical and moral sciences; whilst 
 the ideal types of Plato are sickly exotics which 
 cannot be revived — personified ideas in religion, 
 and extracted essences in philosophy. 
 
 Professor Burton’s lectures, to which, as con- 
 taining his remarks on the Logos of St. John's 
 Gospel, and on its connection with Gnosticism, 
 we must now return, will supply many texts 
 from the New Testament clearly directed against 
 the religious and moral errors of the Gnostic 
 sects, and which cannot be rightly understood, 
 unless this is constantly borne in mind. The 
 following passages give a summary of this part of 
 the Professor’s work : — 
 
 ‘ I pointed out in my first lecture the import- 
 ance of the fact, that nearly fifteen years elapsed 
 between our Saviour’s death and St. Paul’s first 
 apostolical journey. During the greater part of 
 this period, Simon Magus and his followers were 
 spreading their doctrines; and I have shown that 
 Christ, as one of the AEons, held a conspicuous 
 place in their theological system. There is rea- 
 son therefore to suppose that in many countries, 
 before they were visited by an apostle, the name 
 of Christ was introduced in a corruption of the 
 Platonic doctrines.’ Applying the same im- 
 portant remark to the later period when St. John s 
 Gospel is supposed to have been written, Pro- 
 fessor Burton adds ‘ St. John was as far as pos- 
 sible from being the first to apply the term Logos 
 to Christ. I suppose him to have found it so 
 universally applied, that lie did not attempt to 
 stop the current of popular language, but only 
 kept it to its proper channel, and guarded it from 
 extraneous corruptions.’ In these few words we 
 have a brief statement of Professor Burton's theory 
 respecting the first use of the term Logos by the 
 Christian converts, and its subsequent adoption 
 into (he Gospel of St. John. In other parts of 
 Professor Burton’s work he shows how often the 
 misuse of the term Logos, amongst other Gnostic 
 errors, is referred to in the Epistles, and how 
 many texts in the New Testament have a pri- 
 mary reference to the Gnostic Heresy. Professor 
 Burton’s theory respecting (fee first use of the 
 term Logos is supported with great learning and 
 moderation, and appears to us to tend equally to 
 truth, faith, and charity. Professor Burton con- 
 siders the term Logos to have been borrowed by 1 
 the first Christian converts from the Gnostics, and 
 to have been applied by them to Christ, and that 
 it is one of the peculiar objects of St. John’s 
 Gospel to show in what sense the term Logos can 
 be applied properly to Christ. As the latter part 
 of the inquiry respects some of the chief ends 
 and objects of Christianity, in so far as Christ 
 is set forth by St. John as the Wohd of God, it is 
 our intention to return to this part of the subject 
 in an article under that title. 
 
 The errors of the Gnostics, intellectual, religious 
 and moral, are route 1 in human nature ; and to 
 
266 
 
 LOIS. 
 
 LONGEVITY. 
 
 guard against those corruptions is to guard against 
 the evil tendencies of our own natures. But 
 before we can clearly understand the application 
 of such lessons as are contained in the Scriptures 
 to ourselves, we must understand clearly their 
 more immediate application to the errors against 
 which they were first directed. Doubtless there 
 is an absolute meaning in each of the texts 
 quoted by Dr. Burton, which is as true now as it 
 was true then ; but in order to get at this abso- 
 lute meaning, we must attend closely to the rela- 
 tive meaning of the text, as it applied to the 
 opinions, practices, and persons against whom it 
 was primarily directed. The truth of this re- 
 mark, when fairly stated and considered, is 
 equally obvious and important ; yet it is too 
 commonly neglected, and hence great mistakes, 
 and, we may add, great dangers have arisen, not 
 only to individual Christians, but to Christian 
 societies, and to Christianity itself. To use the 
 strong language of Scripture, and which is itself 
 an instance of the importance of calling in his- 
 tory to aid the labour of criticism, men wrest texts 
 to their own condemnation, and still more fre- 
 quently to the condemnation of others, the force of 
 which might be wisely and charitably modified 
 by ascertaining their original relative application. 
 Through the neglect of this many are made ene- 
 mies, and the love of many waxeth cold. Pro- 
 fessor Burton was too stanch a Protestant to be 
 suspected of any leaning towards Rome ; but he 
 has had the honest boldness to show that some 
 texts have been applied prophetically to the 
 Romanist, which hail a direct, historical applica- 
 tion to the Gnostic, and could only be applied to 
 the Romanist (and then as a reproof, and not as a 
 prophecy), in so far as the Romanist of that day 
 shared in the errors of the Gnostic at an earlier 
 period. To neglect this plain and obvious cau- 
 tion has a tendency to fasten upon Christianity a 
 narrow, harsh, and sectarian spirit, from which 
 it is, in itself, eminently free ; and also tends 
 more than any other thing to obscure that real 
 accord between sound religion and sound phi- 
 losophy, which, as we have before said, the Chris- 
 tian desires to make more and more manifest, 
 even to the coming of the perfect day. — J. P. P. 
 
 LOIS (A tils), the grandmother of Timothy, not 
 by the side of his father, who was a Greek, but by 
 that of his mother. Hence the Syriac has ‘ thy 
 mother’s mother.’ She is commended by St. Paul 
 for her faith (2 Tim. i. 5) ; for although she might 
 not have known that t lie Christ was come, and 
 that Jesus of Nazareth was lie, she yet believed in 
 the Messiah to come, and died in that faith. 
 
 LONGEVITY. Longevity is a compound of 
 two Latin words, and signifies prolongation of 
 life. The lengthened ages of some of the ante; and 
 post-diluvian fathers, as given by Moses in the 
 Hebrew text, are as follows : — 
 
 Adam 
 
 . . Gen. 
 
 v. 5 
 
 Years, 
 
 930 
 
 Seth .... 
 
 
 8 
 
 912 
 
 Enos .... 
 
 
 11 
 
 905 
 
 Cainan 
 
 • • 55 
 
 14 
 
 910 
 
 Mahalaleel . 
 
 
 17 
 
 895 
 
 Jared ... 
 
 • ♦ „ 
 
 20 
 
 962 
 
 Enoch 
 
 • • 55 
 
 23 
 
 365 
 
 Methuselah . 
 
 • • 55 
 
 27 
 
 969 
 
 Lamech . 
 
 • * 55 
 
 31 
 
 777 
 
 Noah 
 
 • • >5 
 
 ix. 29 
 
 950 
 
 Shem . 
 
 . . . Gen. 
 
 xi. 10, 11 
 
 600 
 
 Arphaxad 
 
 • • • 55 
 
 12, 13 
 
 438 
 
 Salah 
 
 
 14, 15 
 
 433 
 
 Eber . 
 
 • • • «) 
 
 16, 17 
 
 464 
 
 Pel eg . 
 
 * • • 55 
 
 18, 19 
 
 239 
 
 Reu . 
 
 • • • 55 
 
 20. 21 
 
 239 
 
 Serug 
 
 • . • • 55 
 
 22, 23 
 
 230 
 
 Nah or . 
 
 • • • 55 
 
 24, 25 
 
 148 
 
 Terah . 
 
 
 32 
 
 '205 
 
 Abraham 
 
 • • • 55 ; 
 
 xxv. 7 
 
 175 
 
 Infidelity has not failed, in various ages, to 
 attack revelation on the score of the supposed ab- 
 surdity of assigning to any class of men this 
 lengthened term of existence. In reference to 
 this Josephus (Antiq. lib. iii.) remarks : — ‘ Let no 
 one upon comparing the lives of the ancients with 
 our lives, and with the few years which we now 
 live, think that what we say of them is false; or 
 make the shortness of our lives at present an argu- 
 ment that neither did they attain to so long a 
 duration of life.’ When we consider the com- 
 pensating process which is going on, the marvel is 
 that the human frame should not last longer than 
 it does. Some, however, have supposed that the 
 years above named are lunar , consisting of about 
 thirty days ; but this supposition, with a view 
 to reduce the -lives of the antediluvians to our 
 standard, is replete with difficulties. At this rate 
 .the whole time, from the creation of man to the 
 Flood, would not be more than about 140 years; 
 and Methuselah himself would not have attained 
 to the age which many even now do, whilst many 
 must have had children when mere infants ! Be- 
 sides, if we compute the age of the post-diluvians 
 by this mode of calculation — and why should we 
 not?- — we shall find that Abraham, who is said to 
 have died in a good old age (Gen. xxv. 8) could 
 not have been more than fifteen years old ! Moses 
 must therefore have meant solar , not lunar years 
 — not, however, exactly so long as ours, for the 
 ancients generally reckoned twelve months, of 
 thirty days each, to the year. ‘ Nor is there,’ 
 observes St. Augustine ( De Civ. Dei, xv. 12), 
 ‘any care to be given unto those who think that 
 one of our ordinary years would make ten of the 
 years of these times, being so short ; and there- 
 fore, say they, 900 years of theirs are 90 of ours — 
 1 heir 10 is our 1 and their 100 our 10. Thus 
 think they, that Adam was but 20 years old when 
 he begat Seth, and he but 20^ when he begat 
 Enos, whom the Scriptures call (the Sept, ver.) 
 205 yeais. For, as these men hold, the Scrip- 
 ture divided one year into ten. parts, calling each 
 part a year; and each part had a six-fold qua- 
 drate, because in six days God made the world. 
 Now 6 times 6 is 36, which multiplied by 10 
 makes 360 — i. e. twelve lunar months.’ Abar- 
 banel, in his Comment, on Gen. v., states that 
 some, professing Christianity, had fallen into the 
 same mistake, viz. that Moses meant lunar , and 
 not solar years. Ecclesiastical history does not 
 inform us of this fact, except it be to it that 
 Lactantius refers (ii. 12) when he speaks of one 
 Varro : — ‘ The life of man, though temporary, 
 was yet extended to 1000 years; of tins Varro is 
 so ignorant that, though known to all from the 
 sacred writings, he would argue that the 1000 
 years of Moses were, according to the Egyptian 
 mode of calculation, only 1000 months!’ 
 
 That the ancients computed time differently 
 we learn from Pliny (Hist. Nat vii.), and 
 
LONGEVITY. 
 
 LONGEVITY 
 
 267 
 
 from Scaliger {Be Emend. Temporum , i.) : still 
 this does not alter the case as above stated (see 
 Heideggerus, Be Anno Patriarcharuni). 
 
 But it is asked, if Moses meant solar years, 
 how came it to pass that the patriarchs did not 
 begin to beget children at an earlier period than 
 they are reported to have done? Seth was 105 
 years old, on the lowest calculation, when he 
 begat Enos; and Methuselah 187 when La- 
 meclx was born ! St. Augustine (i. 15) explains 
 tins difficulty in a two-fold manner, by supposing 
 1. Either that the age of puberty was later in 
 
 f iropoition as the lives of the ante-diluvians were 
 onger than ours ; or 
 
 2. That Moses does not record the first-born 
 sons, but as the order of the genealogy required, 
 his object being to trace the succession from 
 Adam, through Seth, to Abraham. The learned 
 Heideggerus ( Be JEtate Ante-Biluv.') thus con- 
 firms this latter view : ‘ Consilium fuit Mosi, 
 uti cuilibet confectu proclive est, Nose et Abra- 
 hami genealogiam pertexere, turn quia illi duo 
 inter cseteros fide et pietate eminebant et uterque 
 divinit.ns insigni donatus est prserogativa.’ 
 
 Whilst the Jews have never questioned the 
 longevity assigned by Moses to the patriarchs, they 
 have yet disputed, in many instances, as to whe- 
 ther it was common to all men who lived up to 
 the period when human life was contracted. Mai- 
 monides ( More Nevochim , ii. 47) says — 
 
 ‘ Longaevitatem hanc non fuisse nisi quorun- 
 dam singularium commemoratorum in lege ; reli- 
 quosillorum seculorum annosattigisse non plures, 
 quam hodie adhuc communiter fieri solet.’ 
 
 With this opinion Abarbanel, on Gen. v., agrees ; 
 Nachmanides, however, rejects it, and shows that 
 the life of the descendants of Cain: must have 
 been quite as long as that of the Sethites, though 
 not noticed by Moses; for only seven indivi- 
 duals of the former filled up the space which in- 
 tervened between the death of Abel and the 
 Flood, whereas ten of the latter are enumerated. 
 We have reason then to conclude, that longevity 
 was not confined to any peculiar tribe of the ante 
 or post-diluvian fathers, but was vouchsafed, in 
 general, to all. Irenseus {Adversus Hceret. v.) 
 informs us that some supposed that the fact of 
 its being recorded that no one of the ante-dilu- 
 vians named attained the age of 1000 years, was 
 the fulfilment of the declaration (Gen. iii.), ‘ in 
 the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;’ 
 grounding the opinion, or rather conceit, upon 
 Ps. xc. 4, namely, that God’s day is 1 000 years. 
 
 As to the probable reasons why God so pro- 
 longed the life of man in the earlier ages of the 
 world, and as to the subordinate means by which 
 this might have been accomplished, Josephus says 
 (Antiq. i. 3) : ‘ For those ancients were beloved of 
 God, and lately made by God himself ; and be- 
 cause their food was then fitter for the prolongation 
 of life, they might, well live so great a number of 
 years : and because God afforded them a longer 
 time of life on account of their virtue and the 
 good use they made of it in astronomical and 
 geometrical discoveries, which would not have 
 afforded the time for foretelling the periods of the 
 stars unless they had lived 600 years ; for the 
 great year is completed in that interval.’ To 
 this he adds the testimony of many celebrated 
 profane historians who affirm that the ancients 
 lived 1000 years. 
 
 In the above passage Josephus enumerates four 
 causes of the longevity of the earlier patriarchs. 
 As to the first, viz., their being dearer to God than 
 other men, it is plain that it cannot be maintained ; 
 for the profligate descendants of Cain were 
 equally long-lived, as mentioned above, with 
 others. Neither can we agree in the second reason 
 he assigns; because we find that Noah and others, 
 though born so long subsequently to the creation 
 of Adam, yet lived to as great an age, some of 
 them to a greater age than he did. If, again, it 
 were right to attribute longevity to the superior 
 quality of the food of the aute-diluvians, then 
 the seasons, on which this depends, must, about 
 Moses’s time — for it was then that the term of 
 human existence was reduced to its present 
 standard — have assumed a fixed character. But 
 no change at that time took place in the revolu- 
 tion of the heavenly bodies, by which the seasons 
 of heat, cold, &c. are regulated : hence we must 
 not assume that it was the nature of the fruits 
 they ate which caused longevity. IIow far the 
 ante-diluvians had advanced in scientific re- 
 search generally, and in astronomical discovery 
 particularly, we are not informed; nor can we 
 place any dependence upon what. Josephus 
 says about the two inscribed pillars which re- 
 mained from the old world (see Antiq. i. 2. 9). 
 We are not, therefore, able to determine, with 
 any confidence, that God permitted the earlier 
 generations of man to live so long, in order that 
 they might arrive at a high degree of mental 
 excellence. From the brief notices which the 
 Scriptures afford of the character and habits of 
 the ante-diluvians, we should rather infer that 
 they had not advanced very far in discoveries in 
 natural and experimental philosophy (see Ante- 
 diluvians). W e must suppose that they did not 
 reduce their language to alphabetical order ; nor 
 was it necessary to do so at a time when human life 
 was so prolonged, that the tradition of the creation 
 passed through only two hands to Noah. It would 
 seem that the book ascribed to Enoch is a work of 
 post-diluvian origin (see Jurieu, Crit. Hist., i. 41). 
 Possibly a want of mental employment, together 
 with the labour they endured ere (hey were able 
 to extract from the earth the necessaries of life, 
 might, have been some of the proximate causes of 
 that degeneracy which led God in judgment to 
 destroy the old world. If the ante-diluvians 
 began to bear children at the age on an average 
 of 100, and if they ceased to do so at 600 years 
 (see Shuckford’s Connect ., i. 36), the world might 
 then have been far more densely populated than it 
 is now. ■ Supposing, moreover, that the earth was 
 no more productive antecedently than it was 
 subsequently to the flood; and that the ante- 
 diluvian fathers were ignorant of those mecha- 
 nical arts which so much abridge human labour 
 now, we can easily understand how difficult they 
 must have found it to secure for themselves the 
 common necessaries of life, and this the more so 
 if animal food was not allowed them. The pro- 
 longed life, then, of the generations before the 
 flood, would, seem to have been rather an evil 
 than a blessing, leading as it did to the too rapid 
 peopling of the earth. We can readily conceive 
 how this might conduce to that awful state of 
 things expressed in the words, ‘ And the whole 
 earth was filled with violence.’ In the absence of 
 any well regulated system of government, we can 
 
268 
 
 LORD. 
 
 imagine what evils must have arisen : the un- 
 principled would oppress the eak, the crafty 
 would outwit the unsuspecting, and, not having 
 the fear of God before their eyes, destruction and 
 misery would be in their ways. Still we must 
 admire the providence of God in the longevity 
 of man immediately after the creation and the 
 flood. After the creation, when the world was to 
 be peopled by one man and one woman, the age 
 of the greatest ] art of those on record was 900 
 and upwards. But after the flood, when there 
 were tliwee couples to re -people the earth, none 
 of the patriarchs, except Shem, reached the age 
 of 500 ; and only the three first of his line, viz., 
 Arphaxad, Selah, and Eber, came near that age, 
 which was in the first century after the Flood. 
 In the second century we do not find that any 
 attained the age of 240 ; and in the third century 
 (about the latter end of which Abraham was 
 born), none, except Terah, arrived at 200 ; by 
 which time the world was so well peopled, that 
 they had built cities, and were formed into dis- 
 tinct nations under their respective kings (See 
 Gen. xv. ; see also Usher and Petavius on the 
 increase of mankind in the three first centuries 
 after the flood). 
 
 That the common age of man has been the 
 same in all times since the world was peopled, is 
 manifest from profane as well as sacred history. 
 Plato lived to the age of 81, and was accounted 
 an old man ; and those whom Pliny reckons up 
 (vii. 48) as rare examples ot long life, may, for the 
 most part, be equalled in modern times. We can- 
 not, tiien, but see the hand of God in the propor- 
 tion that there is between births and deaths; for by 
 this means the population of the world is kept up. 
 If the fixed standard of human life were that of 
 Methuselah's age. or even that of Abraham’s, the 
 world would sooii be overstocked ; or if the age of 
 man were limited to that of divers other animals, 
 to 10, 20, or 30 years only, the decay of mankind 
 would then be too fast. But on the present scale 
 the balance is nearly even, and life and death keep 
 an equal pace ! In thus maintaining throughout 
 all ages and places these proportions of mankind, 
 and all other creatures, God declares himself to be 
 indeed the ruler of the world. We may, then, 
 conclude in the language of the Psalmist (Ps. civ. 
 29, 30), ‘Thou hidest thy face, all creatures are 
 troubled ; thou takest away their breath, they die 
 and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy 
 spirit, they are created ; and thou renewest the 
 face of the earth.’ — J. W. D. 
 
 LOOKING-GLASSES [Mirrors]. 
 
 LORD, a Saxon word signifying ruler or 
 governor. In its original form it is hlaford 
 (hlajrojlb), which, by dropping the aspiration, be- 
 came la ford, and afterwards, by contraction, lord. 
 In the authorized translation of the Scriptures it 
 is used without much discrimination for all the 
 names applied to God; which cannot be helped, 
 as our language does not afford the same number 
 of distinguishing titles as the Hebrew. When, 
 however, the word represents the dread name of 
 Jehovah, it is printed in small capitals, Lord, 
 and is by this contrivance made a distinguishing 
 term. Having already explained the different 
 names of God which the term Lord is made to 
 represent, namely, Adonai, Elohim, Jehovah (see 
 also God), no further statement on the subject is 
 here necessary. It also, however, represents the 
 
 LORD’S DAY. 
 
 Greek K vpios, which, indeed, is used in much tli* 
 same way and in the same sense as Lord. It i* 
 from Kvpos, authority, and signifies ‘ master’ or ‘ pos- 
 sessor.’ In the Septuagint this, like Lord in our 
 version, is invariably used for ‘Jehovah’ and 
 ‘ Adonai •/ while 0eJs, like God in our trans- 
 lation, is generally reserved to represent the He- 
 brew ‘Elohim.’ K vpios in the original of tiie 
 Greek Testament, and Lord in our version ot 
 it, are used much in the same manner as in 
 the Septuagint ; and so also is the correspond- 
 ing title, Dommtis , in the Latin versions. As 
 the Hebrew name Jehovah is one never used 
 with reference to any but the Almighty, it 
 is to be regretted that the Septuagint, imitated 
 by our own and other versions, has represented it 
 by a word which is also used for the Hebrew 
 ‘ Adonai/ which is applied not only to God, but, 
 like our ‘ Lord,’ to creatures also, as to angels 
 (Gen. xix. 2; Dan. x. 16, 17), to men in au- 
 thority (Gen. xlii. 30, 33), and to proprietors, 
 owners, masters (Gen. xlv. 8). In the New Tes- 
 tament K vpios, representing * Adonai/ and both 
 represented by Lord, the last, or human application 
 of the term, is fiequent. In fact, the leading idea 
 of the Hebrew, the Greek, and the English words, 
 is that of an owner or proprietor, whether God or 
 man ; and it occurs in the inferior application 
 with great frequency in the New Testament.. This 
 application is either literal or complimentary : 
 literal , when the party is really an owner or master, 
 as in Matt. x. 24; xx. 8; xxi. 40; Acts xvi. 10, 
 19; Gal. iv. 1, &c. ; or when he is so as having 
 absolute authority over another (Matt. ix. 38; 
 Luke x. 2), or as being a supreme lord or sove- 
 reign (Acts xxv. 26) ; and complimentary, when 
 used as a title of address, especially to superiors, 
 like the English Master, Sir ; the French Sieur, 
 Monsieur ; the German Herr, &c., as in Matt, 
 xiii. 27; xxi. 20 ; Mark vii. 8; Luke ix. 54. 
 
 It cannot but be deemed desirable that, instead 
 of the extensive use of the word Lord which we 
 have described, discriminating terms should l>e 
 adopted in translations. Apart from the Jewish 
 superstitions which influenced the Seventy in 
 their translation, there can be no good reason why 
 the name Jehovah should not be retained wher- 
 ever it occurs in the Hebrew. Then Loud might 
 represent Adonai; or perhaps Sir, or Master, 
 might be used when that word is applied to 
 creatures ; and God would very properly repre- 
 sent Elohim. 
 
 LORD’S DAY. The expression so rendered 
 in the Authorized English Version (iv Tij Kvpiaufj 
 rjpLepa) occurs only once in the New Testament, 
 viz. in Rev. i. 10, and is there unaccompanied by 
 any other words tending to explain its meaning. 
 It is, however, well known that the same phrase 
 was, in after ages of the Christian church, used 
 to signify the first day of the week, on which 
 the resurrection of Christ was commemorated. 
 Hence it has been inferred that the same name 
 was given to that day during the time of the 
 apostles, and was in the present instance used 
 by St. John in this sense, as referring to an 
 institution well known, and therefore requiring 
 no explanation. 
 
 Others, however, have held that it means simply 
 ‘the day of the Lord,’ the substantive being 
 merely exchanged for the adjective, as in 1 Ccr. 
 xi. 20, Kvpiaxdu Seiirvav, ‘ the Lord's Supj ei ; 
 
LORD’S DAY. 
 
 269 
 
 LORD’S DAY. 
 
 which would make it merely synonymous with 
 if Tjfiepa Kvp'iov , ‘ the day of the Lord (1 Thes. 
 v. 2). Such a use of the adjective became ex- 
 tremely common in the following ages, as we 
 have repeatedly in the fathers the corresponding 
 expressions, Dominicae crucis, ‘ the Lord s cross,’. 
 Dominicae nativitatis, ‘the Lords nativity’ (Ter- 
 tullian, De Idol. 5) ; hoyiwv KvpiaKuv (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. iii. 9). According to their view 
 the passage would mean, ‘ In the spirit I was 
 present at the day of the Lord,’ the word ‘ day ’ 
 being used for any signal manifestation (possibly 
 in allusion to Joel ii. 31), as in John viii. 50, 
 
 ‘ Abraham rejoiced to see my day.’ And the 
 peculiar use of the word ypipa, as referring to a 
 jreriod of ascendancy, appears remarkably in 
 l Cor. iv. 3, where avdpairivys ypipas is rendered 
 “ mans judgment.’ 
 
 But upon the whole, the former interpretation 
 is perhaps the most probable. Without, however, 
 here pursuing further the question of the name (to 
 which we shall afterwards recur), let us examine 
 more closely the evidence for the actual institu- 
 tion. This, as far as tire New Testament records 
 go, is, in fact, very scanty. 
 
 We must class with very visionary interpreters 
 those who can see anything really bearing on the 
 question, in the circumstance of our Lord’s re- 
 appearance on the eighth day after his resurrec- 
 tion (John xx. 26), or in the disciples being then 
 assembled, when we know that they were all along 
 abiding together in concealment for fear of the 
 Jews. Nor, again, will their being in like manner 
 together (Acts ii. 1) on the Feast of Pentecost 
 appear remarkable, on the same grounds, even 
 supposing the computation admitted which makes 
 it sail on a Sunday; which depends on whether 
 the fifty days were reckoned from the Sabbath of 
 the Passover inclusive or not, on which difference 
 of opinion has existed. Indeed, on any ground 
 we could hardly look for any settled institution 
 of this kind, till the Christian church had been 
 ictually in some degree organized, as it only was 
 after the effusion of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 We find that immediately after that great 
 event, the disciples met together daily for prayer 
 and communion (Acts ii. 46) ; and this practice 
 lias been supposed by some to be implied, at a 
 later period, in the expressions used in 1 Cor. 
 xi. 21. 
 
 But on one occasion afterwards, we have it 
 specially recorded, that they ‘came together on 
 the first day of the week to break bread’ (Acts 
 xx. 7), when ‘Paul preached unto them, and 
 continued his speech till midnight.’ It has 
 from this last circumstance been inferred by 
 some that the assembly commenced after sunset 
 on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day of 
 the week had commenced, according to the Jewish 
 reckoning (Jahn’s Bibl. Antiq. § 398), which 
 would hardly agree with the idea of a commemo- 
 ration of the resurrection. 
 
 But further, the words of this passage, ’Ey he rfj 
 uia rcov aafifiareov, avvyypivwv ruv paGyricv rod 
 
 tcAc 'urai Aprov have been by some considered 
 
 to imply that such a weekly observance was then 
 the established custom ; yet it is obvious that, the 
 mode of expression would he just as applicable 
 if they had been in the practice of assembling 
 daily. 
 
 The regulation addressed to the church of 
 
 Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 2) with respect to charitable 
 contributions ‘ on the first day of the week,’ is 
 not connected with any mention of public wor- 
 ship or assemblies on that day. Yet this has been 
 inferred : and the regulation has been supposed to 
 have a reference to the tenets of the Jewish con- 
 verts, who considered it unlawful to touch money 
 on the Sabbath (Vitringa, De SynagogA , trans- 
 lated by Bernard, pp.75-1 67). In consideration for 
 them, therefore, the apostle directs the c Election 
 to be made on the following day, on which secular 
 business was lawful ; or, as Cocceius observes, 
 they regarded the day 4 non ut festum, sed ut 
 ipyaaipov,' ‘ not as a feast, but as a working 
 day’ (Vitringa, p. 77). Again, the phrase pla 
 rwv aafifiarwv is generally understood to be, 
 according to the Jewish mode of naming the 
 days of the week, the common expression for the 
 first day. Yet it has been differently construed 
 by some, who render it 4 upon one of the days of 
 the week ’ ( Tracts for the limes, ii. 1. 16), 
 
 Thus far, then, wa cannot say that the evidence 
 for any particular observance of this day amounts 
 to much; still less does it appear what purpose 
 or object was referred to. We find no mention 
 of any commemoration , whether of the resurrec- 
 tion or any other event in the Apostolic records. 
 
 On these points we have no distinct testimony 
 till a later period. The earliest, or apostolic 
 fathers, make no mention whatever of such an 
 institution, unless we except one passage to which 
 we shall presently refer, but which is at most a 
 mere allusion. 
 
 The well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan 
 (about a.d. 100) mentions the Christians assem- 
 bling together for worship on a stated day : 4 Soliti 
 stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo 
 quasi Deo dicere,’ — 4 They are accustomed to as- 
 semble on a stated day before light, and sing a 
 hymn to Christ as a God’ (Epist. x. 97). 
 
 But it is not till the time of Justin Mart.vr 
 (a.d. 140) that we find a distinct account of the 
 observance. His statement is clear and circum- 
 stantial, to the effect that the Cln istihns were in 
 the practice of assembling for public worship on 
 the first day of the week, as being that on which 
 the work of Creation was commenced, and on 
 which Christ rose from the dead : — T^y de rod 
 y\iov ypepav Koivrj rravres ryv avv(?\.evaiv ttoiou- 
 pe6a, irreihy irpwry earl v ripe pa, iv ?; u Qeos rb 
 CKoros, Kal ryv v\yv rpi'l/os Koapov inotyae, Kal 
 o lyaovs Xpiaros 6 ypir epos 'Zwryp rfj avrfj rfj 
 ypipa in veKpuv aviary — 4 On Sunday we all 
 assemble in common, since that is the first day, 
 on which God, having changed darkness and 
 chaos, made the world, and on the same day our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead’ (Justin 
 Mart. Apol. i. 67). 
 
 In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably 
 a forgery of the second century [Barnabas!, 
 the first day of the week is spoken of as observed 
 with rejoicing in memory of the resurrection: — 
 J Ay opev ryv ypepav ryv oyd eg v els eveppoavvyr 
 iv i j Kal d ’ lyaovs aviary e/c veicpuv : — 4 We keep 
 the eighth day with joy, on which also Jesus rose 
 from the dead’ (Barnab. Ep. i. 15). 
 
 The earliest authentic instance in which the 
 name of 4 the Lord's day’ is applied (after tire 
 passage in the Apocalypse), is not till a.d. 200, 
 when Tertullian speaks of it as 4 die Dominico 
 resurrexionis' (De Orat. 1) 23); again, 4 Domini- 
 
270 
 
 LORD S DAY. 
 
 cum diem* (De Idol. 14); and Dionysius of 
 Corinth (probably somewhat later), as ‘ ypepav 
 KvpiaK-f]v (quoted by Kuseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 23). 
 
 Thus far, also, nothing has appeared relative 
 to any observance of the day beyond that of hold- 
 ing assemblies for religious worship, and a festal 
 commemoration of the resurrection and the be- 
 ginning of the creation. 
 
 But in these last cited writers we trace the 
 commencement of a more formal observance. 
 Thus the whole passage in Tertullian is : — ‘ Solo 
 die Dominico resurrexionis non ab isto tantum 
 (genuflexione), sed enim anxietatis habitu et 
 officio cavere debemus, differentes etiarn negotio 
 ne quern diabolo locum demus,’ — ‘ On the day of 
 the Lord's resurrection alone we ought to abstain 
 not only from kneeling, but from all devotion to 
 care and anxiety, putting off even business, lest 
 we should give place to the devil and that of 
 Dionysius, ‘ T ijv aypepov oZv Kvpiaic^v ayiav 
 ppepav Siyydyopev,' — ‘ We keep the Lord's day 
 •roly;’ and at dates later than this we find in- 
 creasing indications of the same spirit, as appears 
 from Clemens Alexandriuus (Strom, vii. p. 744), 
 Hilary, Augustine, and other authorities, of 
 which a large number will be found in Bishop 
 Pearson On the Creed , and Notes (vol. ii. p. 341, 
 ed. Oxford). 
 
 But we must here notice one other passage of 
 earlier date than any of these, which has often 
 been referred to as bearing on the subject of the 
 Lord’s day, though it certainly contains no men- 
 tion of it. It occurs in the Epistle of Ignatius to 
 the Magnesians (about a.d. 100). The whole 
 passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may 
 oe corrupt. It has, however, been understood in 
 a totally different sense, and as referring to a dis- 
 tinct subject; and such we confess appears to us 
 to be the most obvious and natural construction 
 of it. 
 
 The passage is as follows : — ‘ Et ovv o! iv na- 
 KaioTs TTpdrypacnv dvaarpacpivres, els Kaivoryra 
 4 A.tt id os jjAOov — prjKen cra0fiarl(ovres, aAAa Kara, 
 icvpiajc^v (coyv (covres — (iv ical rj £a>?) rjpcov 
 
 averetAev St’ avrov, Kal rov Oavarov avrov [ov 
 rives dpvovvrc.i\, Si ov pvarypiov iAafiopev .... 
 &c.), 7 rws rj/xeis SvvycrdpeOa, (rjaai X^P^ avrov ; 
 ....,’ &c. (Ignatius, ad Magnesios , § ix. ; 
 Jacobson’s Patres Apost. ii. 322. Oxford, 1840). 
 
 Now many commentators assume (on what 
 ground does not appear), that after uvpiaK^v the 
 word Tj/xepav is to be understood. On this hypo- 
 thesis they endeavour to make the rest of the sen- 
 tence accord with a reference to the observance of 
 the Lord’s day, by further supposing iv y to refer 
 to ypepa understood, and the whole to be put in 
 contrast with cafif3arl(ovres in the former clause. 
 For opinions in support of this view, the reader 
 is referred to the Notes in Jacobson’s edition, 
 p. 324. 
 
 Dr. Neander, in his History of Christianity , 
 translated by Mr. Rose (i. 336), refers to this 
 passage adopting this supposition, on which the 
 translator remarks (in a note) very truly, though 
 somewhat laconically, that he dan only find 
 * something of the kind ’ in the passage. The 
 meaning of Neander ‘s version is altogether very 
 confused, but seems to represent the Lord’s day 
 as a sort of emblem of the new life of a Christian. 
 
 Let as now look at. the passage simply as it 
 stands. The defect of the sentence is the want of 
 
 LORD’S DAY. 
 
 a substantive to which avrov can refer. This 
 defect, so far from being remedied, is rendered 
 still more glaring by the introduction of ypepa. 
 Now it we take KvpiaKi) (oof) as simply * the life 
 of the Lord,’ having a more personal meaning, 
 it certainly goes nearer to supplying the substan- 
 tive to avrov. Again, iv jj may well refer to (ayf), 
 and icvoiaKTj (coy, meaning our Lord’s life, as em- 
 phatically including his resurrection (as' in Rom. 
 v. 10, &c.), presents precisely the same analogy 
 to the spiritual life of the Christian as is con- 
 veyed both in Rom. v. ; Coloss. iii. 3, 4, and 
 many other passages. Thus upon the whole the 
 meaning might be given thus : — 
 
 ‘ If those who lived under the old dispensation 
 have come to the newness of hope, no longer 
 keeping Sabbaths, but living according to our 
 Lord s life (in which, as it were, our life has 
 risen again, through him, and his death [which 
 some deny], through whom we have received the 
 
 mystery, &c ), how shall we be able to 
 
 live without him ?’ .... 
 
 In this way (allowing for the involved style of 
 the whole) the meaning seems to us simple, con- 
 sistent, and grammatical, without any gratuitous 
 introduction of words understood ; and this view 
 has been followed by many, though it is a sub- 
 ject on which considerable controversy has ex- 
 isted. On this view the passage does not refer at 
 all to the Lord’s day ; but even on the opposite 
 supposition it cannot be regarded as affording any 
 positive evidence to the early use of the term 
 ‘ Lord's day’ (for which it is often cited), since 
 the material word ypepa is purely conjectural. 
 It however offers an instance of that species of 
 contrast which the early fathers were so fond of 
 drawing between the Christian and Jewish dis- 
 pensations, and between the new life of the Chris- 
 tian and the ceremonial spirit of the law, to 
 which the Lord's day (if it be imagined to be 
 referred to) is represented as opposed. 
 
 To return, however, to the nature of this ob- 
 servance in the Christian church, we will merely 
 remark that though in later times we find con- 
 siderable reference to a sort of consecration of th» 
 day, it does not seem at any period of the ancient 
 church to have assumed the form of such an ob 
 servance as some modern religious communities 
 have contended for. Nor do these writers in any 
 instance pretend to allege any divine command, 
 or even apostolic practice, in support of it. 
 
 In the laws of Constantine (a.d. 300), cessation 
 from ordinary work on the Lord’s day was first 
 enjoined, but with an express exception in favour 
 of the labours of agriculture. (See Jortin’s Re- 
 marks on Eccles. Hist. iii. 236.) 
 
 Chrysostom (a.d. 360) concludes one of his 
 Homilies by dismissing his audience to their re- 
 spective ordinary occupations. The Council of 
 Laodicea (a.d. 364), however, enjoined Christians 
 to rest (<rx°h-a(eiv) on the Lord’s day. To the same 
 effect is an injunction in the forgery called the 
 Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 24), and various 
 later enactments from a.d. 600 to a.d. 1100, 
 though by no means extending to the prohibition 
 of all secular business. In fact, in these subse- 
 quent ages of the church we find the ceremonial 
 spirit rather displaying itself in the multiplica- 
 tion of religious festivals and solemnities, than in 
 any increasing precision in the observance of the 
 Lord’s day. This is exemplified in the practice 
 
LOT. 
 
 LOT. 
 
 271 
 
 ©1 the unreformed church in modern times, and 
 retained by most of the reformed, with the ex- 
 ception of those formed on the puritanical model, 
 who have adopted a peculiar view of the entire 
 institution, to which we shall refer in another 
 "lace. [Sabbath.] We may add, also, that as 
 in the case of Constantine, so in some modern 
 states, where a church has been established by 
 law , the same policy has prevailed of passing 
 temporal enactments for the cessation of business, 
 and even public amusements, on the Lord’s day, 
 especially in move recent times. 
 
 But to pursue such topics would be beyond 
 our purpose. Upon the whole we would observe, 
 that on questions of this nature it is peculiarly 
 important to bear in mind the propriety of not 
 advancing to gratuitous inferences beyond what 
 the evidence warrants. We can have no proof 
 of the existence of tenets or practices in the first 
 ages beyond the testimony of the writers of those 
 ages ; and there was always in operation a power- 
 ful tendency to an increasing formality in ex- 
 ternal observances, which were in all cases in- 
 troduced gradually from small beginnings. 
 
 To those Christians who look to the written 
 word as the sole authority for anything claiming 
 apostolic or divine sanction, it becomes peculiarly 
 important to observe, that the New Testament 
 evidence of the observance of the Lord’s day 
 amounts merely to the recorded fact that the dis- 
 ciples did assemble on the first day of the week, 
 and the 'probable application of the designation 
 ‘ the Lord's day’ to that day. — B. P. 
 
 LOT a covering ; Sept. A cor), son of 
 
 Haran and nephew of Abraham, who by the early 
 death of his father had already come into pos- 
 session of his property when Abraham went into 
 the land of Canaan (Gen. xi. 31). Their united 
 substance, consisting chiefly in cattle, was not 
 then too large to prevent them from living toge- 
 ther in one encampment. Eventually, however, 
 their possessions were so greatly increased, that 
 they were obliged to separate ; and Abraham with 
 rare generosity conceded the choice of pasture- 
 grounds to his nephew. Lot availed himself of 
 this liberality of his uncle, as lie deemed most for 
 his own advantage, by fixing his abode at Sodom, 
 that his flocks might pasture in and around that 
 fertile and well-watered neighbourhood (Gen. xiii. 
 5-13). He iittd soon very great reason to regret 
 this choice; for although his flocks fed well, his 
 soul was starved in that vile place, the inhabitants 
 of which were sinners before the Lord exceedingly. 
 There i he vexed his righteous soul from day to 
 day with the filthy conversation of the wicked’ 
 (2 Pet. ii. 7). 
 
 About eight years after, his separation from 
 Abraham (b.c. 1913), Lot was carried away pri- 
 soner by Chedorlaomer, along with the other in- 
 habitants of Sodom, and was rescued and brought 
 back by Abraham (Gen. xiv.), as related under 
 other heads [Abraham ; Chedorlaomer]. This 
 exploit procured for Abraham much celebrity in 
 Canaan ; and it ought to have procured for Lot 
 respect and gratitude from the people of Sodom, 
 who had been delivered from hard slavery and 
 restored to their homes on his account. But this 
 does not appear to have been the result. 
 
 At length the guilt of ‘ the cities of the plain 9 
 brought down the signal judgments of Heaven. 
 
 The avenging angels, after having been enter- 
 tained by Abraham, repaired to Sodom, where 
 they were received and entertained by Lot, who 
 was sitting in the gate of the town when they 
 arrived. While they were at supper the house 
 was beset by a number of men, who demanded 
 that the strangers should be given up to them, for 
 the unnatural purposes which have given a name 
 of infamy to Sodom in all generations. Lot re- 
 sisted this demand, and was loaded with abuse 
 by the vile fellows outside on that account. They 
 had nearly forced the door, when the angels, thus 
 awfully by their own experience convinced of the 
 righteousness of the doom they came to execute, 
 smote them witli instant blindness, by which their 
 attempts were rendered abortive, and they were 
 constrained to disperse. Towards morning the 
 angels apprised Lot of the doom which hung over 
 the place, and urged him to hasten thence with 
 his family. He was allowed to extend the benefit 
 of this deliverance to the families of his daughters 
 who had married in Sodom ; but the warning 
 was received by those families with incredulity 
 and insult, and he therefore left Sodom accom- 
 panied only by his wife and two daughters. As 
 they went, being hastened by the angels, the wife, 
 anxious for those who had been left behind, or 
 reluctant to remove from the place which had 
 long been her home, and where much valuable 
 property was necessarily left behind, lingered 
 behind the rest, and was suddenly involved in the 
 destruction, by which — smothered and stiffened as 
 she stood by saline incrustations — she became ‘ a 
 pillar of salt.’ 
 
 Lot and his daughters then hastened on to Zoar, 
 the smallest of the five cities of the plain, which had 
 been spared on purpose to afford him a refuge : but, 
 being fearful, after what had passed, to remain 
 among a people so corrupted, he soon retired to a 
 cavern in the neighbouring mountains, and there 
 abode. After some stay in this place, the daughters 
 of Lot became apprehensive lest the family of their 
 father should be lost for want of descendants, 
 than which no greater calamity was known or 
 apprehended in those times : and in the belief 
 that, after what had passed in Sodom, there was 
 no hope of their obtaining suitable husbands, they, 
 by a contrivance which has in it the taint of 
 Sodom, in which they were brought up, made 
 their father drunk with wine, and in that, state 
 seduced him into an act which, as they well knew, 
 would in soberness have been most abhorrent to 
 him. They thus became the mothers, and he the 
 fathen of two sons, named Moab and Ammon, 
 from whom sprung the Moabites and Ammonites, 
 so often mentioned in the Hebrew history (Gen. 
 xix.). This circumstance is the last which the 
 Scripture records of the history of Lot ; and fche 
 time and place of his death are unknown. 
 
 The difficulties which the narrative that we 
 have sketched has been supposed to involve may 
 be reduced to two — the death of Lot’s wife, and 
 the conduct of his daughters. With respect to the 
 former of these, whatever difficulty has been con- 
 nected with the subject has arisen from the ridi- 
 culous notions which have been connected with it, 
 for which no authority is found in the Scriptural 
 narrative. It has been supposed that the woman 
 was literally turned into a pillar of salt, and that 
 this pillar stood for many ages, if it does not still 
 exist, as a standing monument of the tvansactioa. 
 
172 
 
 LOT. 
 
 LOT. 
 
 Indeed, sundry old travellers have averred that they 
 had seen it; and no doubt they did see something 
 which they supposed to be the pillar into which 
 Lot’s wife was turned, or were told to be such. 
 This notion originated with the author of the Wis- 
 dom of Solomon, which was regarded by the Ro- 
 man Catholics as Scriptural authority that might 
 not be disputed. Therefore old pilgrims and tra- 
 vellers sought for this monument; and from their 
 example, more modern travellers have done the 
 same : although, if Protestants, they could attach 
 no particular weight to the authority which alone 
 justified their predecessors in their hopes of finding 
 it. The passage referred to is that in which the 
 author, after alluding to the punishment of Sodom 
 and the deliverance of Lot, adverts to the existing 
 evidence of the former, and then adds, somewhat, 
 vaguely, am<TTov(n)s ipvxys nvrjfieiov karyKvia 
 <rrr,\rj a\os, ‘ a standing pillar of salt is a mo- 
 nument of an unbelieving soul.’ This was no 
 doubt the authority relied upon : indeed, we find 
 it expressly quoted by some old travellers as the 
 ground of their expectation. But the testimony of 
 Josephus is still more explicit, and with us would 
 oe quite as authoritative. He expressly says not 
 inly that the monument existed, but that he had 
 seen it ( Antiq . i. 11. 4). His contemporary, Cle- 
 ment of Rome, makes a similar statement ( Epist . 
 i. § 11) ; and so, in the next century, does Irenseus 
 (iv. 51, 64). But their evidence is of little ori- 
 ginal value on a point like this. Josephus and 
 the author of Wisdom no doubt believed what 
 they stated : and their testimony amounts to this, 
 that in their day an object existed which was said 
 to be the pillar into which Lot's wife was turned, 
 and which they believed to be such. But in the 
 piesent day, when the sources of historical evi- 
 lence are more carefully investigated than in 
 former times, we regard these authorities, 2000 
 years after the event, as having no particular 
 weight, unless so far as they may be supported by 
 anterior probabilities and documents, which in 
 this case do not exist. Further, it is all but im- 
 possible that if so strange a monument had existed 
 imi the borders of the Dead Sea, it should not 
 have been noticed by the sacred historians, and 
 alluded to by the poets: and we may be almost 
 certain that if it had remained when the hook of 
 Genesis was written, the frequent formula, that it 
 was there ‘ unto ihis day,’ would not have been 
 omitted. Indeed there is every probability that, 
 if such a monument had then existed, the Ca- 
 naanites would have made it one of their idols. 
 The expression of our Lord, ‘ Remember Lot's 
 wife’ (Luke xvii. 32), appears from ihe context 
 to be solely intended as an illustration of the 
 danger of going back or delaying in the day of 
 God’s judgments. From this text, indeed, it would 
 appear as if Lot's wife had gone back, or had tar- 
 ried so long behind, in the desire of saving some 
 of their property. Then, as it would seem, she was 
 struck dead, and became a stiffened corpse, fixed 
 for the time to the soil by saline or bituminous 
 incrustations. The particle of similitude must 
 here, as in many other passages of Scripture, be 
 understood — 11 like a pillar of salt.’ 
 
 With respect to Lot’s daughters, Whiston and 
 others are unable to see any wicked intention in 
 them. lie admits that the incest was a horrid 
 crime, except under the unavoidable necessity 
 which apparently rendered it the only means of 
 
 preserving the human race : and this justifying 
 necessity he holds to have existed in their minds, 
 as they appear to have believed that all the inha- 
 bitants of the land had been destroyed except 
 their father and themselves. But. it is incredible 
 that they could have entertained any such belief. 
 The city of Zoar had been spared, and they had 
 been there. The wine also with which they made 
 their father drunk must have been procured from 
 men, as we cannot suppose they had brought it 
 with them from Sodom. The fact would there- 
 fore seem to be that, after the fate of their sisters, 
 who had married men of Sodom and perished 
 with them, they became alive to the danger and 
 impropriety of marrying with the natives of the 
 laud, and of the importance of preserving the 
 family connection. The force of this consideration 
 was afterwards seen in Abraham's sending to the 
 seat of his family iti Mesopotamia for a wife to 
 Isaac. But Lot's daughters could not go there 
 to seek husbands; and the only branch of their 
 own family within many hundred miles was that 
 of Abraham, whose only son, Ishmael, was then a 
 child. This, therefore, must have appeared to 
 them the only practicable mode in which the 
 house of their father could be preserved. Their 
 making their father drunk, and their solicitous 
 concealment of what they did from him, show 
 that they despaired of persuading him to an act 
 which, under any circumstances, and with every 
 possible extenuation, must have been very dis- 
 tressing to so good a man. That he was a good 
 man is evinced by his deliverance from among 
 the guilty, and is affirmed by St. Peter (2 Pet. 
 ii. 7); his preservation is alluded to by our Sa- 
 viour (Luke xvii. 18, &c.) ; and in Deut. ii. 9, 
 19, and Ps. lxxxiii. 9, his name is used to de- 
 signate the Moabites and Ammonites, his de 
 sceudants. 
 
 LOT (t^6, sometimes written Ei 1 ?) is men- 
 tioned in two passages of Scripture, in both of 
 which it is erroneously translated myrrh in the 
 Authorized Version. In Gen. xxxvii. 25, ‘ Behold, 
 a company of Ishmeelites came from Gilead with 
 their camels bearing spicery ( nccoth ), and balm 
 {tzeri), and myrrh ( lot ), going to carry it down 
 to Egypt./ Again, in ch. xliii. 1 1, Jacob directs 
 his sons to take into Egypt 1 of the best fruits in 
 the land in your vessels, and carry down the man 
 a present, a little balm ( tzeri ), and a little honey, 
 spices ( necoth ), and myrrh {lot), nuts ( botnim ), 
 and almonds {shaJcadim). In this enumeration, 
 in one case, of merchandise, and in the other, of 
 several articles intended for a present, and both 
 destined for Egypt, at that time a highly civilized 
 nation, it is evident that, we are to look only for 
 such lubstances as were likely to he acceptable 
 in that country, and therefore not such as were 
 produced there, or as were more easily procuraU i 
 from elsewhere than from Syria, as was the case 
 with myrrh, which was never produced, in Syria, 
 and could not have been an article of export from 
 thence. This difficulty has been felt by others, 
 and various translations of lot have been pro- 
 posed, as lotus, chesnuts, mastiche, stacte, balsam, 
 turpentine, pistachio nuts. Junius and Tre- 
 mellius render it ladanum, which is suitable., 
 and appears to be correct. 
 
 Ladanum, or yum ladanum, as it is oftea 
 called, was known to the Greeks as early as the 
 
LOT. 
 
 LOVE. 
 
 times of Herodotus and Theophrastus, and bore 
 the names of ledon and ladanon, which are 
 very closely allied to ladun , the Arabic name of 
 the same drug. It has been well observed by 
 
 Rosenmiiller that the proper root and origin 
 of these names is led , but that the Hebrew has 
 the hard consonant t instead of the softer d, of 
 which letters many permutations are to be found 
 in these, as weJl as in other languages. A He- 
 brew author, as quoted by Celsius ( Hierobot . i. p. 
 28l), says, ‘ Est aroma, ex succo arboris cujusdam 
 proveuiens. 1 Ladanum is described by Herodotus 
 us particularly fragrant, though gathered from 
 the beards of goafs, where it is found sticking. 
 This is explained by referring to the description of 
 Dioscorides, from which we learn that goats, after 
 browsing upon the leaves of the ladanum plants, 
 necessarily have this viscid substance adhering to 
 their hair and beards, whence it is afterwards 
 scraped off. Tournefort, in modern times, has 
 given a detailed description of the mode of ob- 
 taining ladanum , and relates that it is now ga- 
 thered by means of a kind of rake with whip-like 
 thongs, which is passed over the plants. When 
 these thongs are loaded with the odoriferous and 
 sticky resin, they are scraped with a knife, 
 and the substance rolled into a mass, in which 
 state it is called ladanum or labdanum. It con- 
 sists of resin and volatile oil, and is highly fra- 
 grant, and stimulant as a medicine, but is often 
 adulterated with sand in commerce. The lada- 
 num which is used iri Europe is collected chiefly 
 in the Greek isles, and also in continental Greece. 
 It; is yielded by species of the genus Cistus (espe- 
 cially by C. creticus ), which are known in this 
 country by the name of ltock Rose. They are 
 natives of the south of Europe, the Mediterranean 
 islands, and the north of Africa. Species are also 
 found in Judaea; and C. creticus in some parts 
 of Syria. Some authors have been of opinion 
 that one species, the Cistus roseus , is more likely 
 than any other to be the Rose of Sharon, as it 
 is very common in that locality, while nothing 
 like a true rose is to be found there. Ladanum 
 seems to have been produced in Judaea, according 
 to writers in the Talmud (Cels. 1. c. p. 286). 
 
 VOL. II -i q 
 
 W* 
 
 It is said by Pliny, as long before by Herodotus, 
 to be a produce of Arabia, though this has not 
 been proved to be the case in modern times. 
 Sufficient, however, has been adduced to show 
 that ladanum was known to, and esteemed by, 
 the ancients, and as its Greek and Arabic names 
 are similar to the Hebrew, and as it is stated to 
 have been a produce of Syria, it was very likely 
 to have been sent to Egypt both as a present and 
 as merchandise. — J. F. R. 
 
 LOTS, FEAST OF. [Purim.] 
 
 LOVE may be regarded either as the interna* 
 feeling of good will and kindness which one in- 
 telligent being bears to another, or the expression 
 of that benevolence in words and acts which 
 gratify and benefit another; but in its full and 
 proper sense, love is the union of these two — of the 
 internal emotion with the outward act : whence 
 it appears that neither doing good nor wishing 
 good to another can in strict propriety be deno- 
 minated love. The definition also shows that 
 love is restricted to intelligent beings, takes place 
 only between persons, and cannot be predicated 
 of things, being used in a merely derivative and 
 secondary sense whenever we speak of loving 
 aught but rational beings. It also appears that 
 the emotion implies two intelligent existences; 
 indeed, reciprocity seems an almost essential ele- 
 ment in the idea of love. Certainly all durable 
 love is mutual ; and if love implies two, then, 
 prior to creation, God, however good he might 
 be, could hardly be said to love; so that love is 
 a consequence of creation, a result of the rela- 
 tions in which God was pleased to place himself 
 in regard to man ; and since these relations are 
 best declared, if they are not exclusively made 
 known, by the sacred Scriptures, love is a doctrine- 
 which takes its source in revelation, where indeed^ 
 considered as existing between God and man,. it- 
 finds at once its highest sanctions and best sup- 
 ports. But if love, as between God and man, hap 
 its origin and its sustentation in Scripture,, then, 
 without revelation, this love could not axisfy. 
 though it. may be allowed that a certain evanes- 
 cent fluttering of the heart on the thought, of God 
 might be excited by the survey of the majesty 
 of creation and the bounty of the seasons. All 
 pantheistic notions must lie hostile to the forma-, 
 tion and existence of love in man’s breast — all 
 mere recognition of God as the first cause. of life; 
 and whatever tends to bring God before the mind 
 in a personal character, especially as the moral 
 governor of the world, must powerfully conduce 
 to make the human heart love its Creator; for in 
 love between human beings it is the personal 
 and moral ^lenient which exerts the strongest, the 
 most lasting, and the most worthy influence. 
 Now it is in a personal character, it is as a moral . 
 governor, it is as a Judge as well as a Maker, a 
 Guide as well as a Ruler, above all as a Father 
 and a Redeemer, that the Scriptures, from first to 
 last, with some variations indeed, hut with a 
 unity of plan, set forth God for our minds to 
 apprehend and our hearts to love; thus perform- 
 ing a most important office indhe spiritual edu- 
 cation of the human race, and presenting a dis- 
 tinction, as between this view and the view of 
 God taken by schools of philosophy, or the bare 
 decisions of the human intellect, which is 
 honourable to revelation as . it is momentous !/& 
 moJCL 
 
274 
 
 LOVE. 
 
 LOVE. 
 
 From the rect or) of love, in which God in Ins 
 word has condescended to place himself in regard 
 to man, flow all human duties, hopes, and ex- 
 pectations, which, if they he logically deduced 
 from the mother idea, must he no less true than 
 Scriptural, because necessary inferences from the 
 fundamental conception of God which revelation 
 presents. Thus, ‘we love God because lie first 
 loved us;’ ‘if God hath so loved us, how ought 
 we to love one another ;’ ‘ he that loveth is born 
 of God;’ ‘if a man say that he love God, and 
 hate his brother, the truth is not in him ‘ if we 
 love one another his love is perfected in us 
 4 whoso keepeth his word, in him is the love of 
 God perfected : hereby we know that we are in 
 him ;’ ‘ behold what manner of love the Father 
 hath bestowed on us, that we should he called the 
 sons of God;’ ‘now are we sons of God, and it 
 sloth not yet appear what we shall be, but we 
 know that when Christ shall appear we shall be 
 like him, for we shall see him as lie is — thus, 
 and in more minute particulars, does the Apostle 
 John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, develope 
 the doctrine according to godliness, from the grand 
 idea of the love of God, which tilled his mind and 
 warmed his heart, with a dialectic rigour which is 
 no less remarkable than the gentle and affec- 
 tionate tone that pervades the whole. How truly 
 ■and how fully John comprehended the root-idea 
 •of the Bible may be seen in his aphorism, ‘ God 
 h love’ (1 John iv. 16): thus making love not 
 jin attribute of God, nor a mode of the divine 
 existence, nor a display of his providence to man, 
 but the very essence of his nature — the depth 
 which enfolded all other depths, giving its own 
 warm colouring to each. 
 
 The New Testament speaks in its great bear- 
 ings of the love of God towards Christ and 
 towards man. The Sou of God, as the most per- 
 fect. image of the Heavenly Father, is represented 
 as the special object of the divine love ; as a con- 
 sequence of which affection God communicates 
 ■to Christ all spiritual gifts needful for the re- 
 demption of mankind : * The Father loveth the 
 Son, and showeth him all things whatsoever he 
 doeth ’ (John v. 20) ; ‘ therefore doth my Father 
 love me, because I lay down my life that I might 
 take it again’ (John x. 17); ‘for thou lovedst 
 me before the foundation of the world ’ (John xvii. 
 21), ‘God so loved the world, that lie gave «is 
 .only- begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him 
 •should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 
 iii. 16). And so, ‘ He that spared not his only 
 Son, but freely gave him up for us all, how shall 
 he not with him also freely give us all things?’ 
 (Horn. viii. 32): accordingly ‘ the love of God 
 is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 
 which is given unto us’ (Rom. v. 5; see the 
 following verses). The following passages will 
 aid the reader in pursuing this interesting subject 
 into its Scriptural particulars, which want of 
 space compels us to be content with pointing 
 out; — namely, Rom. viii. 35; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 
 Eph. ii. 4; 2 Thess. iii. 5 ; 1 John iv. ; 1 Tim. 
 i. 1, 2, 4 ; Ti;. ii. 10; John xiii. 35; comp. xv. 
 17 ; Mark xii. 30. 
 
 Love to Christ is represented in Scripture as a 
 natural consequeuce of C hrist's love to man, and 
 as a necessary concomitant of the love of God, with 
 which it is kindred in nature, causes, operation, 
 «nd effects. This holy affection manifests itself 
 
 not. in i'dle reveries nor warm piotesfation>,but in 
 meek and lowly obedience to Jesus as the medi- 
 ator between God and man; and has for its 
 highest reward the love which God displays to- 
 wards all those who honour his son: which love, 
 springing from God, fills and sanctities the heart 
 of man (John viii. 40 ; xiv. 15, 21, 23, 28 ; xvi. 
 27 ). 
 
 Love to man ensues from the universal love 
 of God, as the one Creator and Father of all 
 men, who, in consequent stand in the relation 
 of brothers one to another, and are, whatever 
 earthly differences or even antipathies they may 
 allow, still, in the sight of God and of his Son, 
 neighbours; and as brothers ami neigh hours they 
 have a claim on each other for mutual service — 
 a claim which has its roots and sanctions in reli- 
 gion, or rather in the Gospel, considered as the 
 completion of former dispensations. The measuit 
 and test, of love to others is the love we each bear 
 to self no less than the higher and perfect model 
 which Jesus has given in his own life and death 
 (Matt. xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31; John xv. 12; 
 comp. xiii. 15; l Peter ii. 21; 1 John ii. 6). 
 This general good-will and active beneficence 
 may he enhanced and invigorated by those nearer 
 relations which take place between kindred minds, 
 men of ‘like precious faith,’ whose hearts and 
 aims are one, and who have alike received the 
 gracious and all-prevailing influences of God’s 
 spiiit; so that Christianity not only places man- 
 kind in immediate connection with God, and 
 thas renders all equal and all worthy of each 
 other's love, but creates a new, peculiar, and very 
 intimate relation, making all true disciples one 
 with each other, and with the great head of the 
 church, and thus one, ultimately, with God 
 (John xiii. 34, 35; xv. 12; Rom. xiii. 8, 10; 
 1 Cor. xiii.). And it is this specific Christian 
 affection — the love of man as a brother, purified 
 and enlarged by the consciousness of being an 
 object of divine mercy and goodness, so as to 
 become a properly Christian emotion — ivhich is 
 to actuate the disciples of Christ, in their bene- 
 volent efforts for the good of others, and speci- 
 ally for their rescue from the evil that is in the 
 world that bringeth death (2 Cor. v. 14, 19, 20, 
 21 ; Acts xx. 24). 
 
 This imperfect and incomplete sketch may 
 serve to show how incomparably superior the 
 view is which the Scriptures give of the relation 
 in which God stands to man and in which men 
 stand to each other, to any view whatever that 
 rests upon a mere earthly foundation ; and conse- 
 quently how much of the highest spiritual good 
 they lose who take as their guide philosophy in- 
 stead of the Gospel. 
 
 Perhaps there are few biblical topics of con- 
 templation more fitted than the one before us to 
 excite in the mind a just and therefore a very 
 high estimate of the value of revealed religion in 
 contrast with the view which the highest of 
 heathen civilization put forth on the point. The 
 reader has seen what in a measure love implies 
 in the Bible. VVliat does the corresponding term 
 designate in Greek and Roman writers? This is 
 not the place to pursue the inquiry ; we must 
 content ourselves with having pointed to it ; but 
 we may add, as the result of some classical read- 
 ing, that the view given by classic civilization 
 presents a succession of disparities so decided at 
 
LUCIFER. 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 to suffice of itself to satisfy the unprejudiced 
 mind that something more than human was con- 
 cerned in the promulgation ot Judaism and 
 Christianity — J. R. B. 
 
 LOVE FEASTS. [Agape.] 
 
 LUBIM, the Libyans. [Libya.] 
 
 LUCIFER Sept. 6 'Ew<r</>dpos), a word 
 
 that occurs once in the English Version in the 
 lines — 
 
 k How art thou fallen from heaven, 
 
 Lucifer , son of the morning ! 
 
 IIow art thou felled to the ground, 
 
 That, didst weaken the nations!’ 
 
 (Isa. xiv. 12). It is taken from the Vulgate, 
 which understood the Hebrew word helel 
 
 to be the name of (he morning star, and therefore 
 rendered it try the Latin name of that star. Lu- 
 cifer, i. e. ‘ light-bringing.’ This, the popular 
 sense, is conveyed in the note in Barker's Bible: 
 ‘Thou that thoughtest thyselfe most glorious, and 
 as it were placed in the heaven : for the morning 
 starre that goeth before the sunne is called Lucifer, 
 to which Nebuchadnezzar is compared.’ 
 
 held , the word translated ‘ Lucifer,’ how- 
 ever, occurs also in Ezek. xxi. 12 (Heb. 17), as 
 
 the imperative of yalal, ‘ to howl,’ ‘ to lament,’ 
 and is there rendered ‘ howl.’ Some take it in 
 the same acceptation in the above passage, and 
 would translate, ‘ Howl, son of the morning !’ 
 But to this the structure of the verse is entirely 
 opposed ; for the parallelism requires the second 
 line to refer entirely to the condition of the star 
 before it had fallen, as the parallel member, the 
 fourth line, does to the state of the tree before it 
 was cut down. This necessity is apparent even 
 in the English version, where the word ‘ lament,’ 
 in the place which ‘ Lucifer’ occupies, would not 
 agree with the context, nor make good sense, or 
 indeed, any sense. Any imperative interjected 
 would spoil the beauty and impair the force of the 
 language. It is from this consideration that we 
 must concur with those who refer tire source of 
 
 the word not to yalal , but to halal, ‘ to 
 
 shine,’ and regard it. as a verbal noun designed to 
 be intensive in its signification. Hence it would 
 mean ‘ brilliant,’ * splendid,’ ‘ illustrious,’ or, as 
 in the Septuagint, Vulgate, the Rabbinical com- 
 mentators, Luther, and others, 4 brilliant star;’ and 
 
 if ^Vf, in this sense, was the proper name among 
 the Hebrews of the morning star, then ‘ Lucifer’ 
 is not only a correct but beautiful interpretation, 
 both as regards the sense and the application. 
 And that it was such is probable from the fact 
 that the proper name of the morning star is 
 formed by a word or words expressive of bril- 
 liance, in the Arabic and Syriac, as well as in 
 the Greek and Latin. Tertullian and Gregory 
 the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in 
 reference to the fall of Satan ; in consequence 
 of which the name Lucifer has since been ap- 
 plied to Satan -, and this is now the usual accepta- 
 tion of the word. But Dr. Henderson, who in 
 his Isaiah renders the line, ‘ Illustrious son of 
 the morning !’ justly remarks in his annotation: 
 ‘ The application of this passage to Satan, and to 
 the fall of the apostate angels, is one of those 
 gross perversions of Sacred Writ which so exten- 
 
 275 
 
 sively obtain, and which are to be traced to a 
 proneuess to seek for more in any given passag* 
 than it really contains, a disposition to be in- 
 fluenced by sound rather than sense, and an im- 
 plicit. faith in received interpretations. “ Quum,” 
 says Calvin, “ temere arripiuntur Scripturse loci, 
 nec attcnditur contextus, hos errores passim obo- 
 riri mirum non est”’ ( Comment . in loc.J. The 
 scope and connection show that none but the king 
 of Babylon is meant. In the figurative language 
 ot' the Hebrews 3D*D, a star , signifies an illus- 
 trious king or prince (Num. xxiv. 17 ; comp. 
 Rev. ii. 28 : xxii. 16). The monarch here referred 
 to having surpassed all other kings in royal 
 splendour, is compared to the harbinger of day, 
 whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding 
 stars. Falling from heaven denotes a sudden 
 political overthrow — a removal from the position 
 of high and conspicuous dignity formerly occu- 
 pied (comp. Rev. vi. 13 ; viii. 10). 
 
 LUCIUS of Cyrene (A ovkios 6 Kvpyvaios), a 
 person named along with Barnabas, Saul, and 
 others, as ‘ prophets and teachers ’ in the church 
 at Antioch (Acts xiii. 1). Lucius was probably 
 one of ‘ the synagogue of the Cyrenians,’ and was 
 without doubt one of the men of Cyrene, who 
 went abroad in consequence of the persecution 
 raised on the death of Stephen (Acts vi. 9 ; xi. 
 20). Some suppose that he was one of the seventy 
 disciples; and the tradition is, that he was eventu- 
 ally bishop of Cyrene. This is probably the 
 same Lucius who is mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21 
 as Paul s kinsman ; and he has been supposed by 
 some the same with Luke the Evangelist. 
 
 LUD, fourth son of Shem (Gen. x. 22). For 
 his descendants, see Nations, Dispersion of. 
 
 LUDIM, the descendants of (Gen. x. 13), con- 
 cerning whom see Nations, Dispersion of. 
 
 LUKE. We divide this article into the three 
 following heads — Najie, Person, Writings 
 of Luke. 
 
 The name A ovKas is a cont raction of Aovnavds, 
 Lueanus , and indicates that Luke was descended 
 from heathen ancestors, and that he was either a 
 slave or a freedman, liberties. The contraction 
 of the final syllable av6s into as occurs repeat- 
 edly in names given to slaves (comp. Lobeck, De 
 Substuntivis in as exeuntibus, in Wolf’s Ana- 
 lecten, iii. 49). According to ecclesiastical tra- 
 dition, the author of the Gospel is the same Luke 
 who is mentioned in Paul’s Epistles (Philem. 24 ; 
 2Tim.iv. 11; Coloss. iv. 14), and who is called, 
 in the last-mentioned passage, 6 larpos, ‘ the phy- 
 sician.’ This tradition is confirmed by the Acts 
 of the Apostles, according to which the author of 
 that work accompanied the Apostle Paul in his 
 journeys (Acts xvi. 10, sq. ; xx. 5-13). Luke 
 accompanied Paul also in his last journeys to 
 Jerusalem and Rome (Acts xxi. 1-17 ; xxvii. 28). 
 In addition to this we may observe that the 
 account of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. xi. 24, and 
 the quotation in 1 Tim. v. 18, agree more with 
 Luke than with Matt. x. 10, where we find the 
 word rpoipri instead of puoQ6s. The profession of 
 a physician harmonises also with the condition of 
 a freedman, indicated by the form of the name. 
 The higher ranks of the Romans were disinclined 
 to practise medicine, which they left rather to 
 their freedmen, ‘ Medicinam factitasse, manu- 
 missum’ (Quinctil. Instit. vii. 2. 27); ‘ Mitt« 
 prseterea cum eo ex fervis meis medicum &c. 
 
276 LUKE. 
 
 * Besides, I send with him a physician from 
 among my servants’ (Snet. Cal. 8). It har- 
 monises with this that Paul (Coloss. iv. 14) dis- 
 tinguishes Luke from the Christians of Jewish 
 descent, whom, in verses II and 12, he styles 
 6vtcs in TrepiTOfj.r)s, ‘ being of the Circumcision.’ 
 Eusebius ( Rtst . Eccles. iii. 4) states that An- 
 tioch in Syria was the native city of Luke. In 
 this city there was at an early period a congre- 
 gation of Christians converted from heathenism. 
 Since Luke was a physician, we must suppose that 
 he was a man of education. Only such slaves as 
 had some talent were taught the artes ingenuee , 
 
 * liberal arts/ The freedman Antonius Musa hav- 
 ing worked a cure upon Augustus, was raised to 
 the equestrian order, and a statue was erected in 
 honour of him in the temple of ^Esculapius. 
 From the time of Antoninus Pius, and perhaps 
 earlier, there was in every city a collegium archia - 
 trorwn, ‘ a college of physicians,’ to whom was 
 entrusted the examination of medical men, and 
 who probably required of them some knowledge of 
 the writings of Hippocrates (Galenus, De Theriac. 
 ad Pisonem , p. 456 ; Digest, i. tit. 1 8 ; De Offic. 
 Pr&s., vi. 7 ; Digest. 1. tit. 4). 
 
 To those sceptics who excuse their disbelief of 
 the miracles recorded in the Gospels, by the as- 
 sertion that their authors were ill-informed Jews, 
 greedy of the marvellous, it must appear of 
 some importance to meet in Luke a well-informed 
 Greek, skilled even in the medical sciences. The 
 higher degree of his education is further proved by 
 ■he classical style in which the prooemium to his 
 Gospel, and the latter portion of the Acts, are 
 written ; and also by the explicit and learned de- 
 tails which he gives in the Acts on various anti- 
 quarian, historical, and geographical subjects. The 
 classical, connected, periodic, and sustained style 
 of the introduction to the Gospel of St. Luke 
 differs so strikingly from the Hellenistic Greek of 
 the history itself, that we clearly perceive that he 
 made use of written documents. The same differ- 
 ence exists, although in a less striking degree, 
 between the portions of the Acts relating to trans- 
 actions of which Luke himself was not an eye- 
 witness, and in which he bore no part, and those 
 where he speaks as a companion of Paul. He 
 did not, however, transcribe verbatim from the 
 documents before him, nor did he merely write 
 down verbal traditions ; for we find the same 
 characteristic phraseology which belongs to St. 
 Luke’s individual style, both in the Gospel and 
 in the Acts. Compare, for instance, the peculiar 
 use of the words noil avros, Luke i. 17, 22; ii. 
 28, 50; iii. 23; iv. 15, 51; Acts ii- 27 ; v 1, 
 9, 51, &c. — IkcivSs, Luke vii. 12; viii. 27, 32; 
 xx. 9; Acts v. 37 ; ix. 23, 43; xi. 24, &c. — 
 irons Oeov, Luke i. 54, 69; Acts iii. 13, 16; iv. 
 25, 27, 30, &c. 
 
 It is important to notice what he himself says, 
 in his introduction, of the relation borne by his 
 writings to those of others. It is evident that 
 even then ttoAAo'i, ‘many,’ had attempted to com- 
 pose a history of our Lord from the statements of 
 eye-witnesses and of the first ministers of the word 
 of God. Luke follows the example of these au- 
 thors, with this rtfxference, that he writes avcoQtv 
 and KaOe^T/s ; that is, starling from earlier facts 
 in the history of the Baptist and of the infancy of 
 our Lord, and continuing the narration in un- 
 inter *upted succession. Origen, Credner, and 
 
 LUK r. 
 
 Olshausen suppose that ihe were heretical 
 
 authors; but this is unlikely, since Luke does 
 not express any blame of them. But it is also 
 unsatisfactory to refer the word ttoWoi. ‘ many,’ 
 merely to Matthew and Mark, as Hug and 
 De Wette have done, especially since the iroAAot 
 are distinguished from the eye-witnesses. We 
 must therefore suppose that many Christians 
 wrote brief accounts of the life of Jesus, although 
 they had not been eye-witnesses. It is possible 
 that Luke made use of such writings 
 
 It appears to be doubtful whether Luke had the 
 Gospel of Matthew before his eyes, since, had 
 that been the case, he would probably have been 
 more careful to avoid apparent contradictions,, 
 especially in the history of the birth of Jesus, in 
 which he seems to have made use of documents 
 referring to the family of Mary, while the ac- 
 counts given by Matthew refer more to the family 
 of Joseph. This is also confirmed by the apho- 
 ristic mode in which he reports the Sermon on the 
 Mount. We can scarcely imagine that, he would 
 have communicated a relation so unusually ab- 
 rupt, if he had seen the well-arranged and com- 
 plete statements of Matthew. 
 
 The Gospel of St. Luke contains exceedingly 
 valuable accounts, not extant in the books of the 
 other evangelists ; for instance, those concerning 
 the childhood of Jesus, the admirable parables in 
 chapters xv. and xvi., the narration respecting 
 the disciples at Emtnaus, the section from chap, 
 ix. 51 to xix. 27, which contains particulars 
 mostly wanting in the other evangelists. It has 
 been usual, since the days of Schleiennacher, to 
 consider this portion as the report of a single 
 journey to the feast at Jerusalem; but it is evident 
 that it contains accounts belonging to several 
 journeys, undertaken at different periods. 
 
 Some critics of modern times, such as D. Schulz, 
 Schleiermacher, Sieffert, and Schneckenburger, 
 were in the habit of ascribing to the reports of 
 Luke a greater historical accuracy than to those 
 of Matthew ; but of late, opinions on this subject 
 have changed, and Strauss, De Wette, and Bruno 
 Bauer find in the reports of St. Matthew more of 
 independent and original information than in 
 those of Lqke. There is certainly in the details 
 of the historical account given by St. Luke, more 
 clearness ; but. maiiy discourses of our Redeemer 
 given by St. Matthew liave more of the impress of 
 historical precision, especially the Sermon on the 
 Mount, and the Discourse against the Pharisees 
 in ch. xxiii. and xxiv. ; although it seems that 
 Matthew sometimes brings into connection simi- 
 lar discourses, held at various periods, concerning 
 which we find in Luke more accurately stated 
 the particular circumstances under which they 
 were delivered. 
 
 The statement of Luke himself, at the begin- 
 ning of his Gospel, must dispose us favourably 
 with regard to its historical credibility. He 
 states that he had accurately investigated the 
 truth of the accounts communicated, and that, 
 following the example of the noWoi, he had made 
 use of the statements of eye-witnesses. Luke had 
 frequent opportunity of meeting these eye- 
 witnesses when he travelled with Paul. He 
 himself reports, in Acts xxi. 15, that he met 
 James. He gives also, with greater accuracy 
 than the other evangelists, some chronological 
 notices, such as those at the beginning of chapters 
 
LUKE. 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 an 
 
 ii. and Hi., and in Acts vii. 35, &c. Yet th^ge 
 very dates have been quoted by Strauss and De 
 Wette as being quite incorrect, and as proofs that 
 Luke was destitute of accurate historical inform- 
 ation. 
 
 This daring assertion has induced some modern 
 apologet.ical authors to examine (he matter more 
 closely, who have triumphantly vindicated the 
 historical character of these statements of Luke. 
 (Compare the work of the learned jurist, Huschke, 
 Ueber den zur Zeil der Geburt Christi gehaltenen 
 Census, Breslau, 1810, ‘ On the Census taken at 
 die Birth of Christ ;’ see also Wieseler, Chronolo- 
 i/ische Synopse der tier Evangelien , Ham- 
 burg, 1843; and also Tholuck, Glaubiciirdigkeit 
 der cvangelischcn Geschichte). 
 
 As to the statements of the ancients concerning 
 the date or time when the Gospel of St. Luke 
 was written, we lind in Irenaeus (Ado. Hcer. 
 lii. 1), that Mark and Luke wrote after Matthew. 
 According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 28), 
 Origen stated that Luke wrote after Matthew 
 and Mark ; but Clemens Alexandrinus, accord- 
 ing to the same writer (Hist. Eccles. vi. 14), 
 asserted on the authority of the napaSoais rwv 
 ayeuadev TrpeafivTepcoy, ‘ the tradition of the 
 earlier elders/ that the Gospels containing the 
 genealogies were written before the others. Ac- 
 cording to this view, Mark was written after 
 Luke. It is however likely that, this statement 
 arose from a desire to explain why the genealogies 
 were omitted by Mark and John. Eusebius, at 
 least (Hist. Eccles. iii. 21), in reference to the 
 Gospel of John, says : EIkotus 8'ovv tt)V ge v tt)s 
 japiebs tov (Turripos ygc by yeyeaAoyiay, are 
 tdarda'icp /cat AovicS. irpoypaipeiaav, airoauairria'ai. 
 rby ’Iwawrjr. — ‘ John properly passed over in 
 silence the genealogy according to the flesh of 
 our Saviour, which was detailed by Matthew 
 ind Luke.’ 
 
 ' Since the extreme criticism of Strauss and De 
 Wette has been unable to produce even a plau- 
 sible argument against the authenticity of the 
 Gospel of Luke, attempts have been made to prove 
 at least the very late date of this Gospel. De 
 Wette (Introduction to the New Testament , 4th 
 edition, p. 176) endeavours to infer from the 
 definiteness with which the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem is predicted, and from the circumstance 
 that, according to ch. xxi. 25, some time was to 
 intervene between the destruction of Jerusalem 
 and the second advent of Christ, that this Gospel 
 was written some time after the destruction of the 
 city had taken idace, and after it had become 
 apparent from facts that the second advent was 
 not to be immediately consequent upon that de- 
 ttruction. 
 
 We do not here enter into the question whether, 
 according to St. Matthew xxiv. 29, it was ex- 
 pected that the second advent should directly 
 follow the destruction of Jerusalem ; we merely 
 observe that, a petitio principii runs through the 
 whole train of this argument, since it sets out 
 with assuming the impossibility of detailed pre- 
 dictions. 
 
 From the circumstance that the book of Acts 
 leaves St Paul a captive, without relating the 
 result, of his captivity, most critics have, with 
 considerable probability, inferred that Luke 
 accompanied St. Paul to Rome, that he em- 
 ployed his leisure while there in composing the 
 
 Acts, and that he left off writing before the fata 
 of Paul was decided. Now, since the Gospel of 
 St.. Luke was written before the Acts, it seeum 
 to follow that it was written a considerable time 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem. De Wette 
 meets this argument merely by his petitio prin- 
 cipii , that from the detailed nature of the pre- 
 dictions on that head in the Gospel, it would 
 follow that they were written after the events to 
 which they refer, and consequently after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. 
 
 It is likely that Luke, during Paul’s captivity 
 at. Caesarea, employed his leisure in collecting the 
 accounts contained in his Gospel in the localities 
 where the events to which they relate happened. 
 The most ancient testimonies in behalf of Luke’s 
 Gospel are those of Marcion, at the beginning of 
 the second century, and of Irenaeus, in the latter 
 half of that century. 
 
 According to Meyer's opinion, Luke terminates 
 the Acts witli Paul's captivity, because the later 
 events were well known to Theophilus, to whom 
 the Acts are dedicated. We do not know who 
 this Theophilus was. Hug, however, infers, from 
 the manner in which Luke mentions Italian lo- 
 calities, that, they were well known to Theophilus, 
 and that consequently it was likely he resided in 
 Italy. 
 
 A good separate commentary on the Gospel of 
 Luke is still a desideratum. Kuinoel’s Com- 
 mentarius in Evangelium Luces (4th ed. 1843) is 
 not quite satisfactory ; nor Bornemann’s Scholia in 
 Lucam (1830). It is therefore necessary to have 
 recourse to the best commentaries on the first 
 three Gospels, and on the New Testament in 
 general. 
 
 Besides the Gospel which bears his name, Luke 
 wrote the Acts of the Apostles. This work con- 
 tains the history of the foundation of the Christian 
 church in two great sections : the first embracing 
 the spread of Christianity among the Jews, chiefly 
 by the instrumentality of Peter (ch. i.-xii.); and 
 the second, its spread among the heathen, chiefly 
 by the instrumentality of Paul (ch. xiii.-xxviii.). 
 
 Schneckenburger has lately endeavoured, in his 
 work Ueber den Ziceck der Apostelgeschichte , 
 1841, to prove that the Acts had an apologetical 
 tendency, called forth by the particular circum- 
 stances of the times. He especially appeals to 
 the manner in which Paul refutes all objections 
 of the Judaizers, who were his enemies. 
 
 In those portions of the Acts in which Luke 
 speaks as the companion of Paul, and, conse- 
 quently, as an eye-witness, his Greek style is 
 more classical than in the rest of the work. This 
 circumstance supports the opinion that. Luke fol- 
 lowed some written documents in the earlier part 
 of the Acts, as well as in the Gospel. Compare 
 Riehm. De fontibus Actuum Apostolorum, Tra- 
 jecti, 1825; Mayerhoff, Ueber den Ziceck, die 
 Qucllen und den Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte 
 (in his Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, 
 pp. 1-30); Kling, Ueber den historischen Cha- 
 racter der Apostelgeschichte (in the Sludien und 
 Kritiken, 1837, Heft 2). 
 
 That the accounts of Luke are authentic may 
 be perceived more especially from a close exami- 
 nation of the inserted discourses and letters. The 
 characteristic marks of authenticity in the e~itio» 
 of the Roman lawyerTertullus. in ch. xxiv., and in 
 the official letters in ch. xxiii. 26, sq. ; xv. 23, sq« , 
 
278 
 
 LUZ. 
 
 LYCIA. 
 
 can scarcely be overlooked. The address of Paul 
 to the elders of the Ephesian church is charac- 
 teristically Pauline, and even so full of definite 
 allusions an 1 of similarity to the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, fiat it furnishes a confirmation of the 
 authenticity of that letter, which has lately been 
 questioned. Respecting these allusions, see an 
 essay of Tholuck in the Studien und Kritiken, 
 IS39. p. 306, sq. 
 
 Characteristic also are the discourses of Stephen 
 (ch. vii.), and those of Peter, concerning- which 
 compare Seyler’s Abhandlungen uber die Ileden 
 des Petrus , in the Studien und Kritiken , 1832, 
 p. 53, sq. Even De Wef.te, in his Introduction , 
 § 115 a, admits the appropriateness of these 
 discourses. 
 
 It is, however, difficult to reconcile some of 
 Luke's statements with the chronological notices 
 in the Epistles of Paul. Very important investi- 
 gations on this subject are to be found in the 
 work of Angar, De temporum in Adis Aposto- 
 lorum ratione. As for the testimonies in behalf 
 of the authenticity of the Acts, they are the 
 same as for Luke s Gospel. Clemens Alexan- 
 drians, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, expressly men- 
 tion the Acts, and Eusebius reckons them among 
 the Homologoumena. However, the book of 
 Acts was not read and quoted so often in the 
 early church as other parts of Scripture. Chry- 
 sostom, in his first homily In Actus Apostolorum, 
 says that many Christians in Asia knew neither 
 the book nor its author. The Manichees rejected 
 it for dogmatical reasons (Augustinus, De utili- 
 tate credendi, ii. 7). So also did the Severiani 
 (Euseti. Hist. Eccles. iv. 29). Since the book of 
 Acts was not much read, it is surprising that its 
 text is particularly corrupt. Jt does not, how- 
 ever, by any means appear that these corruptions 
 arose from intentional alterations made for dog- 
 matical purposes (comp. Eichhorn’sv£tnfet^«i^r 
 ins Neue Testament , ii. 154). 
 
 The most complete commentary on the Acts is 
 that of Kuinoel, 2nd ed., 1827. A student of 
 the Acts ought also to consult the very learned 
 Dissertationes in Actus Apostolorum , ab Ema- 
 nuele VValch, Jenae, 1756-61, 3 vols. 4to. There 
 are also some valuable manuals, as Meyer’s 
 Commentary , 1S35, and that of De Wette, 2nd 
 ed., 1841.- A. T. 
 
 LUNATICS. [Demoniacs.] 
 
 LUZ, the ancient name of Bethel (Gen. 
 xxviii. 19) [Bethej.]. The spot to which the 
 name ot Bethel was given appears, however, to 
 have been at a little distance in the environs of 
 Luz, and they are accordingly distinguished in 
 Josh. xvi. 2, although the name of Bethel was 
 eventually extended to that town. A small place 
 of the same name, founded by an inhabitant of 
 this Luz, is mentioned in Judg. i. 26. 
 
 LUZ (tA) occurs only once in the Old Testa- 
 ment, namely, in Gen. xxx. 37 (a passage al- 
 ready adduced in the article Libneh), where it 
 indicates one of the kinds of rod from which 
 Jacob peeled the bark and which he placed in 
 the water-troughs of the cattle. Luz is translated 
 hazle in the Authorized Version, as well as in 
 several others ; in some it is rendered by words 
 equivalent to ‘ walnut,’ but ‘ almond' appears to 
 be its true meaning. For in the Arabic we have 
 
 lotiz, which is indeed the same word, and which 
 
 denotes the almond. Thus Abu'l Fadli, as quoted 
 by Celsius ( llierobot . i. 254), says, 4 Louz esl 
 arbor nota, et magna, foliis mollibus. Specie* 
 dure, hortensis et silvestris. Hortensis quoque 
 duae sunt species, dulcis et amara where refer- 
 ence is evidently made to the sweet and hitter 
 almond. Other Arab authors also describe the 
 almond under the name of louz. But this name 
 was well known to the Hebrews as indicating the 
 almond ; for R. Saadias, in Ab. Esra’s Comment., 
 as quoted by Celsius (p. 253), remarks : ‘ Lus est 
 amygdalus, quia ita earn appellant. Arabes ; nam 
 hae duae linguae, et Syriaca, ejusdem sunt familiae.' 
 Almonds have been always produced in Syria 
 and Palestine, and extend from thence into 
 Afghanistan. But as there is another word by 
 which the almond was known to the Hebrews, we 
 shall reserve our further remarks for that head 
 [Shakam]. — J. F. R. 
 
 I.YCAONIA (Ai iKao/ia), a province of Asia 
 Minor, having Cappadocia on the east, Galatia 
 on the north, Phrygia on the west, and Isauria 
 and Cilicia on the south. It extends in length 
 about twenty geographical miles from east to 
 west, and about thirteen in breadth. It was an 
 undulating plain, involved among mountains, 
 which were noted for the concourse of wild-asses. 
 The soil was so strongly impregnated with salt 
 that, few of the brooks supplied drinkable water, so 
 that good water was sold for money. But sheep 
 throve on the pasturage, and were reared with 
 great advantage (Strabo, xii. p. 56S ; Pliny, Ilist. 
 Nat. viii. 69). It was a Roman province when 
 visited by Paul (Acts xiv.6), and its chief towns 
 were Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, of which the 
 first, was the capital. ‘ The speech of Lycaonia’ 
 (Acts xiv. 11) is supposed by some to have been 
 the ancient Assyrian language, also spoken by 
 the Cappadocians (Jablonskv, Disquis. de Lingua 
 Lycaonica , Opusc. iii. 3, sqq.); but it. is more 
 usually conceived to have been a corrupt Greek-, 
 intermingled with many Syiiac words (Guiding, 
 Dissert, de Lingua Lycaon.). 
 
 LYCIA (Awcia), a province in the south-west 
 of Asia Minor, having Pamphylia on the east, 
 Phrygia on the north, Caria on the west, and the 
 Mediterranean on the south. Great pait of the 
 country, however, consists of a peninsula project- 
 ing south into the Mediterranean. It is moun- 
 tainous, and is watered by numerous small rivers 
 which flow from the mountains. Its inhabitants 
 were believed to be descendants of Cretans, who 
 came thither under Sarpedon, brother of Minos. 
 One of their kings was Bellerophon, celebrated in 
 mythology. The Lycians were a warlike people, 
 powerful on the sea, and attached to their inde- 
 pendence, which they successfully maintained 
 against Croesus, king of Lydia, and were after- 
 wards allowed by the Persians to retain their own 
 kings as satraps. Lycia is named in 1 Macc. 
 xv. 23, as one of the countries to which the Ro- 
 man senate sent its missive in favour of the Jews. 
 The victory of the Romans over Antiochus (b.c. 
 189) gave Lycia rank as a free state, which it re- 
 tained till the time of Claudius, when it waa 
 made a province of the Roman empire (Suet. 
 Claud. 25 ; Vespas. 8). Lycia contained many 
 towns, two of which are mentioned in the New 
 Testament; Patara (Acts xxi. 1, 2) ; Myra (Acts 
 xxvii. 5); and one, Phaselis, in the Apocrypha 
 (1 Macc. xv. 23). 
 
LYSANIAS. 
 
 LYDDA. 
 
 LYDDA (A*i35a; Ileb. TlS), a town within 
 tne limits of the trihe of Ephraim, nine miles 
 east of Joppa, on the road between that port and 
 Jerusalem. It bore in Hebrew the name of Lod, 
 and appears to have been first built by the Ben- 
 jamites, although it lay beyond t lie limits of their 
 territory; and we find it again inhabited by Ben- 
 jumites after the Exile (1 Clnon. viii. 12; Ezra 
 ii. 33; Neh. xi. 35). It is mentioned in the 
 Apocrypha (1 Macc. xi. 31), as having been taken 
 from Samaria and annexed to Judaea by Deme- 
 trius Nicator; and at. a later date its inhabitants 
 are named among those who were sold into slavery 
 by Cassius, when he inflicted the calamity of his 
 presence upon Palestine after the death of Julius 
 Caesar (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 11. 2; xii. 6). In 
 the New Testament the place is only noticed, 
 under the name of Lvdda, as the scene of Peter s 
 miracle in healing ASneas (Acts ix. 32, 35). Some 
 years later the town was reduced to ashes by 
 Cestius Gallus, in his march against Jerusalem 
 (Joseph. De Bell. . hid. ii. 19. 1); but it must 
 soon have revived, for not long after we find it at 
 the head of one of the toparchies of the later 
 Judaea, and as such it surrendered to Vespasian 
 (Joseph. De Bell. Jtid. iii. 3, 5 ; iv. 8). At that 
 time it is described by Josephus (Antiq. xx. 6. 2) 
 as a village equal to a city ; and the Rabbins 
 have much to say of it as a seat of Jewish learn- 
 ing, of which it was the most eminent in Judaea 
 after Jalmeh and Bet her (Light foot, Par ergon , 
 § 8). In the general change of names which 
 took place under the Roman dominion, Lvdda be- 
 came Diospolis, and under this name it occurs in 
 coins of Severus and Caracal la, and is often men- 
 tioned by Eusebius and Jerome. It was earl/ 
 the seat of a bishopric, and at the different coun- 
 cils the bishops are found to have subscribed their 
 names variously, as of Lydda or Diospolis : but 
 in the later ecclesiastical records the name of 
 Lydda predominates. The latest bishop distinctly 
 mentioned is Apollonius, in a.d. 513. Lydda 
 early became connected with the homage paid to 
 ‘;he celebrated saint and martyr St. George, who 
 was not less renowned in the east than afterwards 
 in the west. He is said to have been born at 
 Lydda, and to have suffered martyrdom at Nico- 
 rnedia in the earliest persecution under Diocletian 
 and Maximian, at the end of the third century. 
 His remains were transferred to his native place, 
 ami a church erected in honour of him, by the Em- 
 peror Justinian. This church, which stood outside 
 the town, had just been levelled to the ground by 
 the Moslems when the Crusaders arrived at 
 Lydda; but it was soon rebuilt by them, and they 
 established a bishopric of Lydda and Ramleh. 
 Grea.t honours were paid by them to St. George, 
 and they invested him with the dignity of their 
 patron : from this time his renown spread more 
 widely throughout Europe, and he became the 
 patron saint of England and of several ether 
 states and kingdoms. The church was destroyed 
 by Saladin in 1191; and there is no evidence 
 that it was ever rebuilt, although there was in 
 later centuries an unfounded impression that the 
 church, the ruins of which were then seen, and 
 which still exist, had been built by our king 
 Richard. From that time there has been little 
 notice of Lydda by travellers. It now exists, 
 under its ancient name of Lud, as a considerable 
 rillage of small houses, with nothing to distin- 
 
 279 
 
 guish it from ordinary Moslem villages, save me 
 ruins of the celebrated church of St. George, 
 which are situated in the eastern part of the town. 
 The building must have been very large. The 
 walls of the eastern end are standing only in the 
 parts near the altar, including the arch over the 
 latter; but the western end remains more perfect, 
 and has been built into a large mosque, the lofty 
 minaret of which forms the landmark of Lud 
 (Raumer’s Pa/cish'»m, 20S ; Robinson's Bib. Re- 
 searches. iii. 55; Sandys. Travailes ; Cotovicus, 
 Itiner. pp. 137, 138; D Arvieux, Memoires, ii. 
 28; Pococke, Description, ii. 58 ; Volney, Voy- 
 age. i. 278). 
 
 LYDIA (A u5ta), a province in the west of Asia 
 Minor, supposed to have derived its name from 
 Lud, the fourth son of Shem (Gen. x. 22; see 
 Nations, Dispeusion of). It was bounded on 
 the east by Greater Phrygia, on the north by 
 .TEolis or Mysia, on the west by Ionia and the 
 .TEgean Sea, and on the south it was separated 
 from Caria by the Maeander. The country is for 
 the most part level. Among the mountains that 
 ofTmolus was celebrated for its saffron and red 
 wine. In the palmy days of Lydia its kings 
 ruled from the shores of the ./Egean to the river 
 Halys ; and Croesus, who was its king in the 
 time of Solon and of Cyrus, was reputed the 
 richest monarch in the world. lie was able to 
 bring into the field an army of 420,000 foot and 
 60,000 horse against Cyrus, by whom, however, 
 he was defeated, and his kingdom annexed to 
 the Persian empire (Herod, i. 6). Lydia after- 
 wards formed part of the kingdom of the Seleu- 
 cidm; and it is related in 1 Macc. viii. 3, that 
 Antiochus the Great was compelled by the Ro- 
 mans to cede Lydia to king Eumenes. In the 
 time of the travels of the Apostles it was a pro- 
 vince of the Roman empire. Its chief towns 
 were Sardis (the capital), Thyatira, and Phila- 
 delphia, all of which are mentioned in the New 
 Testament, although the name of the province 
 itself does not occur. The manners of the 
 Lydians were corrupt even to a proverb (Herod, 
 i. 93). 
 
 LYDIA, a woman of Thyatira, ‘a seller of 
 purple,’ who dwelt in the city of Philippi in 
 Macedonia (Acts xvi. 11, 15). The commen- 
 tators are not agreed whether ‘ Lydia’ should be 
 regarded as an appellative, or a derivative from 
 the country to which the woman belonged, Thy- 
 atira, her native place, being in Lydia. There 
 are examples of this latter sense : but the pre- 
 ceding word ov6g.ari seems here to support tire 
 former, and the name was a common one. Lydia 
 was not by birth a Jewess, but a proselyte, as the 
 phrase ‘who worshipped God’ (crejSo/xeVrj rbv 
 ©eoV) imports. She was converted by the preach- 
 ing of Paul ; and after she and her household had 
 been baptised, she pressed the use of her house so 
 earnestly upon him and his associates, that they 
 were constrained to accept the invitation. The 
 Lydians were famous for the art of dyeing purple 
 vests, and Lydia, as ‘a seller of purple, 1 is sup- 
 posed to have been a dealer in vests so dyed, rather 
 than in the dye itself (see Kuinoel on Acts xiv. 14). 
 
 LYSANIAS (A vaai'ias), tetrarch of Abilene, 
 when John commenced his ministry as the har- 
 binger of Christ (Luke iii. 1). He is supposed 
 to have been son or grandson of another Lysanias, 
 known in history, who was put to death by Mark 
 
280 LYSIAS. 
 
 Antony, and part of his territories given to Cleo- 
 patra [Abilene]. 
 
 LYSIAS ( Avcrias ), or Claudius Lysias, 
 chiliarch and commandant of the Roman troops 
 who kept guard at the temple of Jerusalem, by 
 whom Paul was secured from the fury of the 
 Jews, and sent under guard to the procurator 
 Felix at Caesarea (Acts xxi. 27; xxiii. 31). 
 
 LYSTRA (A ixrrpa), a city of Lycaonia in 
 Asia Minor, to which Paul and Barnabas fled 
 from the danger which threatened them at Ico- 
 nium (Acts xiv. 6). Here, Paul having mi- 
 raculously cured a cripple, they were both adored 
 as gods ; but afterwards, at the instigation of the 
 Jews, Paul was stoned and left, for dead (Acts 
 xiv. 8-21). Timothy was a native of Lystra (Acts 
 xvi. 12; 2 Tim. iii, 11). This city was south of 
 Iconium, but its precise site is uncertain, as well 
 as that of Derbe, which is mentioned along with 
 it. Col. Leake remaiks that the sacred text ap- 
 pears to place it nearer to Derbe than to Iconium ; 
 for St. Paul, on leaving that city, proceeded first to 
 Lystra, and from thence to Derbe ; and in like 
 manner returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to 
 Antioch of Pisidia. And he observes that this 
 seems to agree with the arrangement of Ptolemy, 
 who places Lystra in Isauiia, and near Isaura, 
 which seems evidently to have occupied some 
 )>art of the valley of Sidy Shehr, or Bey Shehr. 
 Under the Greek Empire Homonada, Isaura, and 
 Lystra, as well as Derbe and Laranda. were all 
 included in the consular province of Lycaonia, 
 and were bishoprics of the metropolitan see of 
 Iconium. Considering all the circumstances, Col. 
 Leake inclines to think that the vestiges of Lystra 
 may be sought with the greatest probability of 
 success at or near Wiran Khatoun, or Khatoun 
 Serai, about, thirty miles to the south of Iconium. 
 ‘Nothing,’ says this able geographer, ‘can more 
 strongly show the little progress that has hitherto 
 been made in a knowledge of the ancient geo- 
 graphy of Asia Minor, than that of the cities 
 which the journey of St. Paul has made so inter- 
 esting to us, the site of one only (Iconium) is 
 yet certainly known.’ Mr. Arundell supposes 
 that,' should the ruins of Lystra not be found at 
 the place indicated by Col. Leake, they may 
 possibly be found in the remains at Kara-hissar, 
 near the lake Bey-shehr (Leake, Tour and Geog. 
 of Asia Minor ; Arundell, Discoveries in Asia 
 Minor). 
 
 M. 
 
 MAACAH (H^D ; Sept. Maa X a), or Maa- 
 cath (HlJjMP), a city and region at the foot of 
 Mount Ilermori, not far from Geshur, a district 
 of Syria (Josh. xiii. 13 ; 2 Sam. x. 6, 8 ; 1 Chron. 
 xix. 7). Hence the adjacent portion of Syria is 
 called Aram-Maacah, or Syria of Maachah (1 
 Chron. xix. 6). The Israelites seem to have con- 
 sidered this territory as included in their grant, 
 but were never aide to get possession of it (Josh, 
 xiii. 13). In the time of David the small state 
 had a king of its own, who contributed 1000 men 
 to the grand alliance of the Syrian nations against 
 the Jewish momrch (2 Sam. x. 6, 8). The lot of 
 the half-tribe of Manasseh beyond the Jordan ex- 
 *tided to this country, as had previously’ the do- 
 
 MACCABEES. 
 
 minion of Og, king of Bashan (Dent. iii. 14 ; JoeJv, 
 xii. 5). . The Gentile name is 'DDJJD Maacathite, 
 which is also put for the people (Dent. iii. 14, 
 Josh. xii. 5 ; xiii 11 ; 2 Kings xxv. 23). Near, or 
 within the ancient limits of Maacah, was the town 
 called for that reason Abel betli-Maacah [Abrl]. 
 
 > MAACAH, or Maachah, is also the name 
 of several persons in the Old Testament, male 
 and female, who may be mentioned to distin- 
 guish them from one another, namely — 
 
 1. MAACAH, the father of Achish, king of 
 Gath (1 Kings ii. 39). 
 
 2. MAACAH, the father of Hunan, one of 
 David’s worthies (1 Chron. xi. 43). 
 
 3. MAACAH, the father of Shephatiah, the 
 military chief of the Simeonites in the time of 
 David (1 Chron. xxvii. 16). 
 
 4. MAACAH, a person whose sex does not 
 appear, one of the offspring of Nahor’s concubine 
 Reumah (Gen. xxii. 24). 
 
 5. MAACAH, a concubine of Caleb (1 Chron 
 ii. 48). 
 
 6. MAACAH, grand-daughter of Benjamin, 
 who was married to Machir, son of Manasseh 
 (1 Chron. vii. 16). 
 
 7. MAACAH, daughter of Talmai, king of 
 Geshur, wife of David, and mother of Absalom 
 (2 Sam. iii. 3). In 1 Sam. xxvii. 8 we read of 
 David's invading the land of the Geshurites, and 
 the Jewish commentators allege that he then took 
 the daughter of the king captive, and, in conse- 
 quence of her great beauty, married her, after 
 she had been made a proselyte according to the 
 law in Deut. xxi. But this is a gross mistake, 
 for the Geshur invaded by David was to the south 
 of Judah, whereas the Geshur over which Talmai 
 ruled was to the north, and was regarded as part 
 of Syria (2 Sam. xv. 8). The fact appears to 
 be that David, having married the daughter of 
 this king, contracted an alliance with him, in 
 order to strengthen his interest against Ishboshefh 
 in those parts. 
 
 8. MAACAH, daughter of Abishalom, wife 
 of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijam (1 Kings 
 xv. 1). In verse 10 we read that Asa s ‘ mother's 
 name was Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom.’ 
 It is evident that here ‘mother’ is used in a loose 
 sense, and means ‘ grandmother,’ which the Maa- 
 cah named in verse 1 must have been to the Asa 
 of verse 10. It therefore appears to be a great 
 error to make two persons of them, as»is done by 
 Calrnet and others. The Abishalom who was 
 the father of this Maacah is called Absalom in 
 2 Chron. xi. 20, 21, and is generally supposed by 
 the Jews to have been Absalom the son of David ; 
 which seems not improbable, seeing that Reho- 
 boam’s other two wives were of his father’s family 
 (2 Chron. xi. 18). But Josephus says that she 
 was the daughter of Tamar, the daughter of Ab- 
 salom (Antiq. viii. 10. 1), and consequently his 
 granddaughter. This seems not unlikely [Am- 
 jah]. It would appear that Asa’s own mother 
 was dead before he began to reign; for Maacah 
 bore the rank and state of queen-mother (resem- 
 bling that of the Sultaness Valide among the 
 Turks), the powers of which she so much abused 
 to the encouragement of idolatry, that Asa com- 
 menced his reforms by ‘ removing her from being 
 queen, because she had made an idol in a grove ‘ 
 (1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Chron. xv. 16). 
 
 MACCABEES. The etymology of this word 
 
MACCABEES. 
 
 MACCABEES. 
 
 281 
 
 is too uncertain to reword I lie inquiries made re- 
 specting it. As a family, the Maccabees com- 
 menced their career of patriotic and religious 
 heroism during the persecution of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, about the year u.c. 167. At this time 
 the aged Mattathias, a descendant of the Asmo- 
 nseans, and his (ive sons, inhabited the town of 
 Modin, to which place Antiochus sent certain of 
 his officers with instructions to erect an altar for 
 heathen sacrifices, and to engage the inhabitants 
 in the celebration of the most idolatrous and 
 superstitious rites. The venerable Mattathias 
 openly declared his resoluti n to oppose the 
 orders of the tyrant, and one of the recreant Jews 
 approaching the altar which had been set up, lie 
 rushed upon him, and slew h'm with his own 
 hand. H is part thus boldly taken, he called his 
 sons and his friends around him, and immediately 
 fled to the mountains, inviting all to follow him 
 who had any zeal for God and the law. A small 
 band of resolute and devoted men was thus 
 formed, and the governor of the district saw 
 reason to fear that a general insurrection would 
 be the consequence of their proceeding. By a 
 sudden attack directed against them on the Sab- 
 bath, when he knew the strictness of their prin- 
 ciples would not allow them to take measures for 
 their defence, he threw them into disorder, and 
 slew about a thousand of their number, consisting 
 of men, women, and children. 
 
 Warned by this event, and yielding to the 
 necessity of their present condition, Mattathias 
 and his sons determined that for the future they 
 would defend themselves on the Sabbath in the 
 same manner as on other days. The mountain- 
 hold of the little band was now guarded more 
 cautiously than before. Fresh adherents to the 
 holy cause were continually flocking in; and in 
 a few months the party found itself sufficiently 
 6trong to make attacks upon (he towns and vil- 
 lages of the neighbourhood, throwing down the 
 heathen altars, and punishing the reprobates who 
 had taken part with the enemies of God. 
 
 By the death of Mattathias, the leadership of 
 the party devolved upon his son Judas Macca- 
 beus, whose worth and heroic courage pointed 
 him out as most capable of carrying on the enter- 
 prise thus nobly begun. Judas lost no time in 
 attacking the enemy. He made himself master 
 of several towns, which he fortified and garrisoned. 
 Apollonius, general of the army in Samaria, 
 hastened to stop the progress of the insurgents. 
 Judas met him on the way, joined battle with 
 him, slew him, and routed his army. The 
 same success attended him in his encounter with 
 Seron, general of the Syrians; and it now became 
 evident to Antiochus that the Jewish nation 
 would soon be delivered from his yoke, unless 
 he proceeded against them with a more formidable 
 force. While, therefore, he himself went into 
 Persia to recruit his treasures, Lysias, whom he 
 left, as regent at home, sent an army into Judaea, 
 composed of forty thousand foot and seven thou- 
 sand cavalry. This powerful array was further 
 increased by auxiliaries from the provinces, and 
 by bands of Jews, who dreaded nothing more than 
 the triumph of those virtuous men of their own 
 nation, who were struggling to save it from repro- 
 bation. So unequal did the forces of Judas 
 appear to an encounter with such an army, that 
 in addressing his followers he urged those among 
 
 them who had any especial reason to love the 
 present world to retire at once ; while to those 
 who remained he pointed out the promises of God 
 as the best support of their courage and lidelity 
 By a forced march lie readied a portion of the 
 enemy encamped at Emmaus, while utterly un- 
 prepared for his approach. Complete success 
 attended this hold proceeding, The several parts 
 of the hostile army were successively put to flight, 
 a splendid booty was secured, and Judas gained 
 a position which made even the most powerful of 
 his opponents tremble. Another and more nume- 
 rous army was sent against him the following 
 year, but with no better success. At. the head of 
 ten thousand determined followers, Judas defeated 
 ihe army of Lysias, consisting of sixty thousand. 
 A way was thereby opened for his progress to 
 Jerusalem, whither he immediately hastened, with 
 the devout purpose of purifying the temple and 
 restoring it to its former glory. The solemn reli- 
 gious rites having been performed which were 
 necessary to the cleansing of the sacred edifice, 
 the Festival of the Purification was instituted, 
 and added to the number of the other national 
 festivals of more ancient date. 
 
 Judas had full occupation for his courage and 
 ability in repelling the incursions of those nume- 
 rous foes who dreaded the restoration of order and 
 religion. But. every day added to his successes. 
 Having overthrown the Syrian commanders sent 
 against him. he occupied Samaria, made himself 
 master of the strong city of Hebron, of Azotus, and 
 other important places, taking signal vengeance on 
 the people. of Joppa and J amnia, who had trea- 
 cherously plotted the destruction of numerous 
 faithful Jews. 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes was succeeded by Anti- 
 ochus Eupator. At first this prince acled towards 
 the Jews with moderation and tolerance. But he 
 soon afterwards invaded Judsea with a powerful 
 army, and was only induced to make peace with 
 Maccabieus by the fears which he entertained of 
 a rival aspirant to the throne. His caution did 
 not save him. He was put to death by his own 
 uncle, Demetrius, who, obtaining the throne of 
 Syria, made peace with Judas, but took possession 
 of the citadel of Jerusalem, which was occupied 
 by bis general, Nicanor, and a body of troops. 
 This state of things was not allowed to last long. 
 Demetrius listened to the reports of Nicanor’s 
 enemies, and threatened to deprive him of his 
 command unless he could disprove the accusation 
 that he had entered into a league with Judas, and 
 was betraying the interests of his sovereign. 
 Nicanor immediately took measures to satisfy 
 Demetrius, and Judas saw it necessary to escape 
 from Jerusalem, and put. himself in a posture of 
 defence. A battle took place in which he de- 
 feated his enemy. Another was soon after fought 
 at Beth-horon, where he was again victorious. 
 Nicanor himself fell in this battle, and his head 
 and right hand were sent among the spoils to 
 Jerusalem. But the forces of Demetrius were 
 still numerous. Judas had retired to Laish with 
 about three thousand followers. He was there 
 attacked by overwhelming numbers. Only eight 
 hundred of his people remained faithful to him 
 on this occasion. Resolved not to flee, he bravely 
 encountered tbe enemy, and was speedily slain, 
 regarding his life as a fitting sacrifice to the caus* 
 in which he was engaged. 
 
282 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 
 
 Simon and Jonathan, the brothers of Judas, 
 rallied around 1 hem t.l:e bravest of their com- 
 panions, and took up a strong position in the 
 neighbourhood of 1 ekoa. Jonathan proved him- 
 self a worthy successor of his heroic brother, and 
 skilfully evaded the first attack of Bacchides, the 
 Syrian general. For two years after this, the 
 brothers were left in tranquillity, and they esta- 
 blished themselves in a little fortress called Beth- 
 tasi, situated among the locks near Jericho. The 
 skill and resolution witii which they pursued 
 their measures rendered them formidable to the 
 enemy, and the state of affairs in Syria some 
 time after obliged Demetrius to make Jonathan 
 the general of his forces in Judaea, and to invest 
 him with the authority of governor of Jerusalem. 
 To this he was compelled by the rivalry of Alex- 
 ander Balas; but his policy was too lale to 
 secure the attachment of his new ally. Jonathan 
 received offers from Alexander to support his 
 interests among the Jews, and the high-priesthood 
 was the proffered reward. The invitation was 
 accepted ; and Jonathan became the first of the 
 Asmonaean line tlaough which the high-priesthood 
 was so long transmitted. Alexander Balas left 
 nothing undone which might tend to secure the 
 fidelity of Jonathan. He gave him a high rank 
 among the princes of his kingdom, anil adorned 
 him with a purple rohe. Jonathan continued to 
 enjoy his prosperity till the year b.c. 113, when 
 he fell a victim to the treaclury of Trypho, who 
 aspired to the Syrian throne. He was succeeded 
 by his brother Simon, who confirmed the Jews in 
 their temporary independence; and in the year b.c. 
 141 they jiassed a decree whereby the dignity of 
 the high-priesthood and of prince of the Jews was 
 rendered hereditary in t he family of Simon. He 
 fell a victim to the treacheiy of his son-in-law, 
 Ptolemy, governor of Jericho; but was succeeded 
 by his son, the celebrated John Hyrcanus, who 
 possessed the supreme authority above thirty 
 years, and at his death left it to lie enjoyed by 
 his son Aristobulus, who, soon after his accession 
 to power, assumed t he title of king. This dignity 
 continued to lie enjoyed by descendants of the 
 Asmonean family till the year b.c. 34, when it 
 ceased with the downfall of Antigonus, who, con- 
 quered by Herod and the Romans, was put to 
 death by the common executioner. — H. S. 
 
 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF [Apocrypha] 
 (Gr. MaKKafiaiot), a name usually supposed to 
 have been cabbalistically derived from '2313 
 ( Makkabi ), the initial letters of •’■DfoD 'P 
 
 ni.T (‘who among the gods is like Jehovah?’), 
 the motto on the Jewish standard in the war witii 
 the Syrians. The hooks of Maccabees are the 
 titles of certain Jewish histories containing prin- 
 cipally the details of the heroic exploits referred 
 to in the preceding article. It has been, how- 
 ever, maintained in our more critical age, that 
 according to the etymology here assigned, the 
 name ought to be written Maxafiaiot with a x • 
 The word is therefore with more probability sup- 
 posed to be derived from '3pD, ‘ a hammer’ or 
 ‘ mallet,’ a word expressive of the prowess of Judas 
 Maccabaeus, or the hammerer. For other deri- 
 vations of this word, and of Asmonceans , see 
 Hottinger's Thesaurus Philologicus , p. 516. 
 
 There were in all four hooks (to which some 
 add a fifth) known to the ancients, of which three 
 
 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 
 
 are still read in the eastern, and two in fbi 
 western church. Of these the third is the first in 
 order of time. We shall, however, to avoid con- 
 fusion, speak of them in the order in which they 
 are commonly enumerated. 
 
 The First Book ok Maccabees contains a 
 lucid and authentic history of the undertakings 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jews, from 
 the year b.c. 175 to the death of Simon' Macca- 
 basus, b.c. 135. This history is confessedly ol 
 great value. Although its brevity, observes De 
 Wette (see 1 Macc. i. 6; viii. 7 ; xii), renders it 
 in some instances unsatisfactory, defective, and 
 uncritical, and occasionally extravagant, it is 
 upon the whole entitled to credit; chronologically 
 accurate, and advantageously distinguished above 
 all other historical pioductions of this period 
 ( Einlcitnng in die Apokrgfe Bucher , § 299). 
 It is the second book in order of time. 
 
 Language of the First Book. — There is little 
 question that this hook was written in Hebrew, 
 although the original is now lost. The Greek 
 version abounds in Hebraisms and errors of 
 translation. Origen ( a pud Eusebium , Feel. Hist. 
 vi. 25) gives it a Hebrew title, 2ap/37?0 2 apfiave 
 
 ca, bx ib r\iry, ‘ the prince of the temple, 
 the prince of the sons of God,’ or according to 
 
 others '33"lD ‘ the scourge of the rebels 
 
 of God.’ Jerome ( Prolog . Ga/cat.) says that lie 
 had seen tl^e Hebrew original. There is a Chal- 
 dee work still extant, published by Bartolocci 
 (i. 383), which Hengstenberg ( Beitr . 1) main 
 tains to he the work referred to by Origen 
 and Jerome. Kennicott, however ( Diss . 2), 
 observes that this work differs materially from 
 the present Greek. There is a Hebrew version ol 
 the Chaldee extant, which is also published by 
 Bartolocci (ut supra), wit h a Lalin translation. 
 This work is said by Wolfius (Bib. Hist.) to be 
 still found in the Jewish ritual, and to he read 
 by the Jews at the least of Dedication. Fabricius 
 (Cod. Apoc.) has reprinted Bartolocci’s Latin 
 version. Wagenseil discovered a copy in Mora- 
 via, and there is a MS. Hebrew roll of the same 
 in the library of St. Sepulchre’s in Dublin. 
 
 Author and Age. — Of the author nothing is 
 known ; but he must have been a Palest inian Jew, 
 who wrote some considerable time after the death 
 of Simon Maccabaeus, and even of Hyrcanus, 
 and made use of seveial written, although chiefly 
 of traditionary, sources of information. At the 
 same time it is not impossible that the author was 
 present at several of the events which he so gra- 
 phically describes. 
 
 Versions. — The Greek text of the Alexandrine 
 version is the original of all the others now extant. 
 This text was that made use of hv Josephus. 
 The Latin version of the Vulgate is that in use 
 before the time of Jerome, who did not translate 
 the book. There is also a Syrian version, which 
 has been printed in the Polyglotts. 
 
 The Second Book ok Maccabees (the third 
 in order of time) is a work of very inferior cha- 
 racter to the first. It is an abridgment of a more 
 ancient work, written by a Jew named Jason, who 
 lived atCyrene in Africa, comprising the principal 
 transactions of the Jews which occurred during 
 the reignj^of Seleucns IV., Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 and Antiochus Eupator, It partly goes over tin 
 
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 
 
 same ground with the first book, but commences 
 ten or twelve years earlier, and embraces in all a 
 period of fifteen years. It does not appear that 
 the author of either saw the others work, lhc 
 second book of Maccabees is divided into two 
 unconnected parts. It commences with a letter 
 from the citizens of Jerusalem and Judaea to the 
 'Greek Jews in Egypt, written b.c. 123 (which 
 refers to a former letter written to the same, b.c. 
 143, acquainting them of their sufferings), and 
 informs them that their worship was now restored, 
 and that they were celebrating the Feast ot Dedi- 
 cation. The second part (ii. 18) contains a still 
 more ancient letter, written b.c. 159, to the priest 
 Aristobulus, the tutor of King Ptolemy, recount- 
 ing, besides some curious matter, the death of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes. The third part contains the 
 preface, in which the author states that he is about 
 to epitomise the five books of Jason. The work 
 commences with the attack of Heliodorus on the 
 temple, and closes with the death ot Nicanor, a 
 period of fifteen years. The history supplies some 
 blanks in the first book ; but the letters prefixed 
 to it contradict some of the facts recorded in the 
 body of the work, and are consequently supposed 
 to have been added by another hand. Neither 
 are the letters themselves considered genuine, and 
 they were probably written long alter the death ot 
 Nicanor, and even of John Hyrcanus. This book 
 gives a different account of the place and manner 
 of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes from that 
 contained in the first book. 
 
 The narrative, as De VVette observes, abounds in 
 miraculous adventures (iii. 25, sq. ; v. 2; xi. 8; 
 xv. 12), historical and chronological errors (x. 3, 
 sq. comp, with 1 Macc. iv. 52, i. 20-29; xi. I 
 comp, with 1 Macc. iv. 28, sq. ; xiii. 21, sq., 
 comp, with 1 Macc. vi. 31, sq. ; iv. 13, comp, 
 with 1 Macc. viii.), extraordinary and arbitrary 
 embellishments (vi. 18, sq. ; vi i. 27, sq. ; ix. 19- 
 27 ; xi. 16-38), affected descriptions (iii. 14, sq. ; 
 
 v. 11, sq.), and moralising reflections (v. 17, sq. ; 
 
 vi. 12, sq. ; ix. 8, sq.). For a solution of the 
 chronological discrepancy between it and the first 
 book (comp. 1 Macc. vi. 20, with 2 Macc. xiii. 
 1), see Auctoritas utriusque Lib. Macc., p. 129, 
 &c. ; Jalm's Antiq. ii. 1.328; Michaelis on 1 
 Macc. x. 21 ; and Bertholdt, viii. 1079). The 
 embellisuments are those of the epitomiser. The 
 letters in xi. 16, &c., are most probably genuine. 
 
 Author and Age . — We are not aware when 
 either Jason himself or his epitomiser lived. S. 
 G. Hasse, who published a berman translation 
 of this book, at Jena, in 1786, supposes it to have 
 been written b.c. 150, by the author of the Book 
 of Wisdom. Jahn refers the age of the epitomiser 
 to some time previous to the middle of the last 
 century before the birth of Christ, and De VVette 
 maintains that Jason must have written a consi- 
 derable time after the year b.c. 161. This book 
 is supposed to be that referred to by Clemens 
 Alexandrinus ( Stromata ) as MaKKa^aiKwr 'Em- 
 rog.’)]. The mode of computation differs from 
 that in the first book, in which it takes place 
 after the Jewish manner. 
 
 Language and Versions. — Jerome ( Prolog . 
 Galeat.) observes that the phraseology of this book 
 evinces a Greek original. The elegance and purity 
 of the style have misled some persons into the 
 supposition that its author was Josephus. The 
 Latur version (which is ante-Hieronymian) is a 
 
 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 283 
 
 free translation from the Greek. The Syriac is also 
 from the Greek, but is not always exact. The 
 Arabic appears to be a compilation from the 
 Greek hooks of Maccabees, and from the history 
 appended to the woiks of Josephus. There have 
 been two books of Maccabees found among the 
 Chinese Jews ; hut whether they are the same with 
 ours is doubtful. 
 
 In the celebrated theses of the Jesuit Professors 
 Less and Hamel i us, which were condemned by 
 the theological faculties of Louvain and Douai 
 in 1586, and which consisted in denying the 
 necessity of universal verbal inspiration, as well 
 as the immediate inspiration of every truth or 
 sentence contained in Scripture, it is worthy of 
 remark that this hook is introduced in illustration 
 of the third thesis, which is as follows: — ‘Any 
 book, such as the Second Book of Maccabees , 
 written by human industry, without the aid of 
 the Holy Spirit, becomes Holy Scripture, if the 
 Holy Spirit afterwards testifies to its containing 
 nothing ’ false. 1 The truth of these theses, how- 
 ever, was advocated by Cornelius a Lapide 
 Suarez, Bonfrere, Bellarmine, Huet, Du Pin 
 Calmet, and Richard Simon (Henderson, On In- 
 spiration, lect. i. p. 65). 
 
 The Thikd Book ok Maccabees, still 
 read in the Greek church, and contained in 
 the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS. (A. & B.) is, 
 as has been already observed, the first in order of 
 time. It contains an account of the persecution 
 of the Egyptian Jews by Ptolemy Philopator, 
 who is said to have proceeded to Jerusalem after 
 his victory at Raphia over Antiochus the Great, 
 b.c. 217, and after sacrificing in the temple, to 
 have attempted to force his way into the Holy of 
 Holies, when he was prostrated and rendered 
 motionless by an invisible hand. Upon his re- 
 turn to Egypt, he revenged himself by shutting 
 up the Jews in the Hippodrome, and exposing 
 them to be crushed beneath the feet of elephants. 
 This book contains an account of their deliver- 
 ance by divine interposition. It is anterior in 
 point of date to the Maccabsean period, and has 
 received its designation from a general resem- 
 blance to the two first hooks in the heroic cha- 
 racter of the actions which it describes. Calmet 
 (' Commentary ) observes that this hook is rejected 
 as apocryphal in the Latin Church ; not, however, 
 as not containing a true history, hut as not being 
 inspired, as lie considers the first two books to be. 
 It is nevertheless regarded by De VVette as a 
 tasteless fable, and notwithstanding the relation 
 which it contains of an annual festival, con- 
 sidered by him as most probably destitute of any 
 historical foundation. Dr. Milman (Hist, of the 
 Jews ) describes it as a ‘ romantic story.’ There 
 is a similar relation in the Latin version by Ru- 
 finus of the Supplement to Josephus, which De 
 Wette considers, although a highly improbable 
 narration, to approach nearer to the truth than 
 the third hook of Maccabees. Josephus’s narra- 
 tive is placed fifty years later, not under Ptolemy 
 Philometor, but under Ptolemy Physcun. 
 
 Author , Age, end Versions. — The author is 
 unknown. Dr. Ailix ( Judgment of the Jewish 
 Church ) considers it to have been written b.c. 
 200, and by the author of Ecclesiastic, is. There 
 is a Syriac version in the Polyglotts, but no 
 ancient Latin translation has come down ts 
 
2fH MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 
 
 us. The work dot's not appear either in the 
 MSS. or early prime.] editions of the Vulgate, 
 and is find, found in Latin in the edition of 
 Frobenins ( 1538). There was an English ver- 
 sion by Walter Lynne (1550), which was after- 
 wards appended, with some corrections, to Day's 
 folio Bible (1551). It was again translated by 
 Whiston (Authentic Documents, 1719 and 1727) 
 and afterwards by Crutwell (Bible, 1 7 Q 5), and 
 again by Dr. Cotton (Five Books of Maccabees , 
 1832). There is 4 'French translation by Calniet, 
 appended to his commentary. The version of 
 3 Maccabees (and of 3 and 4 Esdras), which is 
 found in some German Bibles since Luther’s 
 time, was by Daniel Cramer. Luther himself 
 only translated the first two books. 
 
 The Fouuth Book ok Maccabees, which is 
 also found in the Alexandrian and Vatican 
 manuscripts, is generally supposed to be the same 
 with the Supremacy of Reason, attributed to 
 Josephus, with which it for the most part accords. 
 It consists of an inflated amplification of the 
 history of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the 
 seven brothers, whose torments and death, with 
 that of their mother, form the subject of 2 
 Macc. ch vi. vii. In some Greek MSS. it is 
 entitled the Supremacy of Reason , by Josephus, 
 or the Fourth Book of Maccabees, in others sim- 
 ply the Fourth Book of Maccabees. It is found 
 in the Gree . Bibles piinted at Basle in 1545, 
 and at Francfort in 1597, where it is entitled 
 The Book of Jcsippos (Josephus) on the Macca- 
 bees. It bears the same title in several other 
 MSS. Philostratus (Hist. Eccles.), Jerome (De 
 Script. Ecclcs. and lib. 2 cont. Relay.), and 
 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii 10), ascribe this work 
 to Josephus. Eusebius (l. c.) describes it as a 
 work of no mean execution, entitled the Supre- 
 i\acy of Reason, and by some Maccabaicum, 
 because it contains the conflicts of those Jews who 
 contended manfully for the true religion, as is 
 related in the books called Maccabees.’ St. 
 Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. de Maccab.), St. Am- 
 brose ( De Vita Beat a, lib. ii. c. 10, 11, 12), St. 
 Chrysostom llomil. ii. in Sand. Maccabceos ), 
 and even St. Jerome (Epist. 100), in their eulo- 
 gies of the consistency of the Maccabaean mar- 
 tyrs, have evidently drawn their descriptions from 
 th e fourth book. The details given I iy St. Jerome 
 of their sufferings, such as the breaking of their 
 bodies on the wheel, the history of which, he 
 adds, is read throughout the churches of Christ, 
 are not found in the second book. 
 
 Cal met (Preface to the Fourth Book of Mac- 
 cabees) has pointed out several contradictions 
 between this and the second bonk, as well as the 
 books of Moses, together with some opinions de- 
 rived from the Stoics, such as the equality of 
 crimes; which, he supposes, together with its 
 tedious descriptions, have consigned it to the rank 
 of an Apocryphal book. 
 
 The fourth book was printed by Dr. Grabe 
 from the Alexandrian MS. in the British Mu- 
 seum. There is a French translation by Calmet 
 (Commentary), and an English one by Dr. Cotton 
 (Five Books of Maccabees, 1832). 
 
 What has been called the Fifth book of Mac- 
 cabees is now extant only in the Arabic and 
 Syriac languages. It was first published, as the 
 
 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 
 
 supposed fourth book, in the Paris Pol yglott, with 
 a Latin version. Before this, Sixtus of Sienna 
 had published an account of a Greek MS. 
 containing the history of the jxmtificate of John 
 Hy realms, which lie had seen in the library 
 of Sanctes Pagnini at Lyons, and which he 
 persuaded himself and others to be the long- 
 lost fourth book so often referred to in the an 7 
 cient church. This unique MS., however, soon 
 after perished in the flames which consumed the 
 library of Pagnini. Josephus remained as the 
 sole authority for the history of these times. 
 The Arabic work, however, above referred 1o, 
 and which bad the appearance of being h version 
 from the Greek, bore such ajesemblance to the 
 lost. MS. of Pagnini, commencing with the 
 same words, ‘ Alter the death of Simon, his son 
 John was made high-priest in his place,’ that Le 
 Jay. the editor, had no hesitation in printing it 
 as the Fourth book of Maccabees. Calmet, how- 
 ever, has advanced several reasons to show that 
 this was not, in fact, the genuine fourth book. 
 The whole Arabic history was translated into 
 French by Bauhrun in bis edition of the Bible. 
 Calmet has limited himself to the translation of 
 seven chapters, or that portion which accords 
 with what had been taken by Sixtus of Sienna 
 for the fourth book of Maccabees. This is pre- 
 ceded in the Arabic by nineteen, and followed by 
 thirty-two chapters. 
 
 It is described in the Paris Polyglolt as being 
 derived from a Hebiew original, in which cha- 
 racter it also accords with the Greek MS. or 
 Pagnini. From the Paris Pol yglott it. found its 
 way into the London. Dr. Cotton has given a 
 translation of the Latin version which first ap- 
 peared in the Paris Polyglott. 
 
 Author, Aye , and Subject. — It is impossible t« 
 ascertain the author, who could scarcely hav« 
 been Josephus, as he disagrees in many things with 
 that histoiian (Calmet ’s Preface). Calmet sup- 
 poses that the original Hebiew may have consisted 
 of ancient annals, but that the Greek or Arabic 
 translator must have lived after the destruction 
 of the temple by the Romans (see 5 Macc. ix. ; 
 xxi.). To Samaria lie gives its mere modern 
 name of Sebaste, and to Sicliem that of Neapolis. 
 
 The work consists of a history of Jewish 
 affairs, commencing with the attempt on the 
 treasury at Jerusalem by Heliodorus, and ending 
 with the tragic fate of the last, of the Asmonaean 
 princes, and with the inhuman execution by 
 Herod of bis noble and virtuous wife Mariamne, 
 and of his two sons. This history thus fills up 
 the chasm to the birth of Christ. 
 
 Dr. Cotton has pointed out, among the ‘ re- 
 markable peculiarities’ found in this book the 
 phrases, ‘ Peace be unto thee,’ and ‘ God be 
 merciful to them,’ showing that the practice of 
 prayer for the dead was at this time prevalent. 
 But the most remarkable passage in reference to 
 this subject is 2 Macc. xii. 40-45, where Judas 
 forwards to Jerusalem 2000. or according to the 
 Syriac 3000, and according to the Vulgate 
 12,000, drachmas of silver, to make a sin-offering 
 for the Jews slain in action, on whose persons 
 were found things consecrated to idols, which 
 they had sacrilegiously plundered in violation tl 
 the law of Moses (Deut. vii. 25, 26). The author 
 of the book remarks that it was a holy and good 
 thought to pray lor the dead, which, he observes, 
 
MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. 
 
 would nave been superfluous, liad there been no 
 resurrection. Grot ins {in loc.) supposes that this 
 practice commenced after the exile, when the 
 Jews had learned from the prophets Ezekiel and 
 Daniel a distinct notion of a future state (see 
 Bartolocci’s Biblioth. Rabbin, ii. 250 ; Basnage, 
 Hist, des Juifs, iii. 4. 32, &c.). Calmet observes 
 that, according to the notions of the Jews and 
 some of the Christian Fathers, the pains of hell 
 for those who died in mortal sin (as appears to 
 oave been the case of these Jews) were alleviated 
 ty the prayers and alms of the living (Augustine, 
 lie Fide, Spe, et Charitate, ch. 110), if not entirely 
 removed ; and cites a passage from a very an- 
 cient Christian Liturgy to the same effect. This 
 learned commentator supposes that the ancient 
 and Catholic practice of prayer for the dead had 
 its origin in this usage of the Jews, although he 
 admits it to be a distinct thjjng from the doctrine 
 of purgatory as held in the Roman Church. As, 
 however, it is intimated in ver. 45 that this mercy 
 was reserved for those who died piously, which 
 could not be predicated of persons who had died 
 in mortal sin, he conjectures that Judas might 
 have charitably presumed that they had repented 
 before death, or that there were other extenuating 
 circumstances unknown to us, which attended the 
 character of their offence, and rendered them fit 
 objects for the divine mercy. 
 
 Church Authority of Maccabees. — The first, 
 two books of Maccabees have been at all times 
 treated with a very high degree of. respect in the 
 Christian Church. Origen ( apud Eusebium ), 
 professing to give a catalogue of the twenty-two 
 canonical books, of which, however, he actually 
 enumerates only twenty-one, adds, ‘ besides, there 
 are the Maccabees.’ This has given rise to the 
 notion that he intended to include these books in 
 the canon, while others have observed that, he has 
 omitted the minor prophets from his catalogue. 
 In his preface to the Psalms he excludes the two 
 oooks of Maccabees from the books of Holy 
 Scripture, but in his Princip. (ii. i), and in his 
 Comment, ad Rom. ch. v., he speaks of them as 
 inspired, and as of equal authority with the other 
 books. St. Jerome says that the Church does not 
 acknowledge them as canonical, although he 
 elsewhere cites them as Holy Scripture {Com. ad 
 Isa. xxiii. ; ad Eccl. vii., ix. ; ad Dan. viii.). 
 Bellarmine (De Verbo Dei) acknowledges that 
 these, with the other deutero-canonical books, are 
 rejected by Jerome, as they had not been then deter- 
 mined by any general council. Vicenzi, however 
 ( Introd . in Scrip. Deuterocan.), maintains that 
 Jerome only hesitates to receive them {Sanctus 
 dubitat). St. Augustine {De Civit. Dei) observes 
 that the ‘ books of Maccabees were not found in 
 the canonical Scriptures, but in those which not 
 the Jews, but the Church, holds for canonical, on 
 account of the passions of certain martyrs.’ The 
 first councils which included them in the canon- 
 ical Scriptures were those of Hippo and Car- 
 thage ; the first council professing itself to be 
 general, which is said to have adopted then), was 
 that of Ferrara or Flo*ence in the year 1439 ; but 
 the supposed canon of this council which contains 
 them is by others said to be a forgery (see Rainoldi 
 Censura Lib. Apoc., 1611, and Cosin s History of 
 the Canon, ch. xvi). However this may be, we 
 nave already seen [Deuterocanonicai.] that 
 they were received with the other books by the 
 
 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. *83 
 
 Council of Trent. Basnage, cited by Lardner 
 {Credibility), thinks that the word ‘ Canon teal ’ 
 may be supposed to be used here [by the coun- 
 cils of Hippo and Carthage] loosely, so as to 
 comprehend not only those books which are ad- 
 mitted as a rule of faith, but those which are 
 esteemed useful, and may be publicly read for 
 the edification of the people, in contradistinction 
 to such books as were entirely rejected. This is 
 also the opinion of the Roman Catholic Professor 
 Jahn {Introd. 6 29), who expresses himself in 
 nearly the same words. Dr. Lardner conceives 
 that Augustine also, unless he would contradict 
 himself, must be understood to have used the 
 word in the same sense. De Wette ( Einleitung , 
 
 § 25) observes that as the Jewish Scriptures could 
 only be read in the Alexandrian version, th® 
 early Christian writers frequently cite the apo- 
 cryphal as if th y were canonical writings, to 
 which effect he furnishes many examples ; and his 
 translator adds that the most celebrated teachers 
 
 of the second and third centuries regard 
 
 them with the same esteem as the canonical writ- 
 ings, of which he observes that the books of Mac- 
 cabees are among those most often appealed to. 
 De Wette {l. c.) supposes that at the end of the 
 fourth century the word ‘ canon ’ included the 
 collateral idea of an ecclesiastical decision. It 
 is remarkable that the ancient writers of the 
 Greek church uniformly rejected from the canon 
 all books written in the Greek language, in 
 which they were followed in the west by Hilary 
 and Jerome, while others continued to use all 
 the books contained in the Alexandrian version. 
 Dr. Cotton is astonished that 6 a Roman Catholic 
 at. least should not have bowed with implicit de- 
 ference to the recorded judgment of St. Jerome, 
 to whom he owns himself indebted for his Bible 
 not recollecting that the authority of St. Augustine 
 was at all times greater in the Western church 
 than that, of St. Jerome. 
 
 It has been supposed by some that the Egyptian 
 Jews had a peculiar canon distinct from the 
 Hebrew ; but the utmost that can be said is, that 
 the latter books were held in higher esteem among 
 the Hellenist than among the Palestinian Jews. 
 Bertholdt thinks that the apocryphal books were 
 treated by the Egyptian Jews rather as an appen- 
 dix to the canon than as a part of it, and were 
 therefore placed, not in, but beside the canon ; 
 but that the ancient Christians, not being ac- 
 quainted with Hebrew, considered all the books 
 of the Alexandrian codex as genuine and sacred, 
 and made the same use of the Apocrypha and of 
 the Hebrew canon. 
 
 The ancient Greek catalogues sometimes enu- 
 merate four, sometimes three, and at other times 
 only two books of Maccabees. There are three 
 books of Maccabees cited in the 84th of the 
 apostolic canons. Theodoret {in Dan. xi. 7) 
 cites the third book as Holy Scripture. The 
 author of the Synopsis Scyipturce enumerates 
 four books of Maccabees among the antileg omena 
 of the Old Testament. Nicephorus cites three 
 only in the same class. Eusebius ( Chronicon ) 
 merely observes that the third book is placed out 
 of its chronological order. Philostorgius {Eccles. 
 Hist.) a.d. 425, highly esteems the first book of 
 Maccabees; the second does not appear to him 
 to have been the work of the same author. Tbs 
 third he calls a ‘ monstrous production,’ having 
 
186 
 
 MACEDONIA. 
 
 MAGI. 
 
 nothing similar to the first book. There are four 
 books of Maccabees named in av.cient catalogues 
 gi\en bv Coblstius as among lhe books not. of 
 the Seventy. Three books of Maccabees are 
 received with equal authority in the Greek 
 church. 
 
 It is remarkable that although the Anglican 
 church has received the canon of St. Jerome 
 (art. vi.), she has prescribed no lessons to be read 
 from either of the books of Maccabees [Esther, 
 EsdrAs, Deutekocanonicae] which she has 
 appended to lhe Old Testament. In John x. 22, 
 there is a marginal reference in the authorized 
 version to 1 Macc. iv. 09, and in Heb. xi. 30, 
 36, there are references to 2 Macc. vi. 18, 19; 
 tv> vii. 7, &c , and to vii. 1-7. 
 
 In the order of the books in the Codex Alexan - 
 drinus [Deuterocanonicae], the reader will 
 observe the position which the four books of Mac- 
 cabees occupy. In the Vatican Codex Tobit 
 and Judith are placed between Nehemiah and 
 Esther; Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus follow Can- 
 ticles ; Baruch and Lamentations are placed 
 after Jeremiah, and the four books of Maccabees 
 close the canon. — W. VV. 
 
 MACEDONIA (MaiceSoida), a country lying 
 to the north of Greece Proper, having on the east 
 Thrace and the^Egaean Sea, on the west the Adri- 
 atic and Illyria, on the nort]i Dardania and Ma;sia, 
 and on the south Thessaly and Epirus. The country 
 is supposed to have been first peopled by Chittim 
 or Kittim, a son of Javan (Gen. x. 4) [Nations, 
 Dispersion op] ; and in that case it is probable 
 that the Macedonians are sometimes intended 
 when the word Chittim occurs in the Old Testa- 
 ment. Macedonia was the original kingdom of 
 Philip and Alexander, by means of whose vic- 
 tories the name of the Macedonians became cele- 
 brated throughout the East, ami is often used for 
 the Greeks in Asia generally (Esth. Apoc. xviii. 
 10, 14 ; 2 Macc. viii. 20). The rise of the great 
 empire formed by Alexander is described by the 
 prophet Daniel under the emblem of a goat with 
 one horn (Dan. viii. 3-8). As the horn was a 
 general symbol of power, and as the oneness of 
 the horn Implies merely the unity of that power, 
 we are not prepared to go the lengths of some 
 over-zealous illustrators of Scripture, who argue 
 that if a one-horned goat were not a recognised 
 symbol of Macedonia we should not be entitled 
 to conclude that Macedonia was intended. We 
 hold that ther£ could be no mistake in the mat- 
 ter, whatever may have been the usual symbol 
 of Macedonia. It. is, however, curious and inter- 
 esting to know that Daniel did describe Mace- 
 donia under its usual symbol, as coins still exist 
 in which that country is represented under the 
 figure of a one-horned goat. There has been 
 much discussion on this subject — more curious 
 than valuable — but the kernel of it lies in this 
 fact. The particulars may be seen in Murray's 
 Truth of Revelation Illustrated , and in the article 
 Macedonia. :, in Taylor's Calmet. 
 
 When subdued by the Romans under Paulus 
 .ASmilius (b.c. 168), Macedonia was divided into 
 four provinces ; but afterwards (b.c. 142) the 
 whole of Greece was divided into two great 
 urovinces, Macedonia and Acliaia [Greece, 
 Achaia]. Macedonia therefore constituted a Ro- 
 man province, governed by a proconsul ( provincia 
 
 proconsulates ; Tacit. Annal. i. 76 ; Suet. Claud. 
 26), in the time of Christ and his Apostles. 
 
 The Apostle Paul being summoned in a vision, 
 while at Troas, to preach the Gospel in Macedonia, 
 proceeded thither, and founded the churches ot 
 Thessalonica and Philippi (Acts xvi. 9), a.d. 55. 
 This occasions repeated mention of the name, 
 either alone (Acts xviii. 5 ; xix. 21 ; Rom. xv. 26 ; 
 2 Cor. i. 16; xi. 9 ; Phil. iv. 15), or along with 
 Achaia (2 Cor. ix. 2 ; 1 Thess. i. 8). The prin- 
 cipal cities of Macedonia were Amphipolis, Thes- 
 salonica, Pella, and Pelagonia (Liv. xlv. 29); 
 the towns of the province named in the New 
 Testament, and noticed in the present work, are 
 Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Neapolis, Apollonia, 
 and Beroea. 
 
 MACHPELAH (nSsHP, twofold, double , 
 Sept. SurAovs), the name of the plot of ground 
 containing the cave which Abraham bought of 
 Eplnon the Hiltite for a family sepulchre (Gen. 
 xxiii. 9, 17) [Hebron]. 
 
 MADAl ('*112 ; Sept. MaSot), third son of 
 Japhet (Gen. x. 2), from whom the Medes, &c., 
 are supposed to have descended [Goo ; Nations, 
 Dispersion op]. 
 
 MADMANNAH (n3£H>2; Sept. MaS^vd), 
 a city of Simeon (Josh. xv. 31), very far south 
 towards Gaza (1 Chron. ii. 49), which in the 
 first distribution of lands had been assigned to 
 Judah. Eusebius and Jerome identify it with 
 a town of their time, called Menois, near the city 
 of Gaza ( Onomast. p. 89). 
 
 MADMENAH (H3EHP ; Sept. MaMW), 
 a town only named in Isa. x. 31, where it is ma- 
 nifestly placed between Nob and Gibeah. It 
 is generally confounded with the preceding, which 
 is much too far southward to suit the context. 
 
 MAGDALA (McrySaAd), a town mentioned 
 in Matt. xv. 39, and the probable birthplace of 
 Mary Magdalene, i. e. Mary of Magdala. It 
 must have taken its name from a toicer or castle , 
 as the name signifies. It was situated on the 
 lake Gennesareth, but it has usually been placed 
 on the east side of the lake, although a careful 
 consideration of the route of Christ before lie 
 came to, and after he left, Magdala, would show 
 that it must have been on its western shore. 
 This is confirmed by the Jerusalem Talmud 
 (compiled at Tiberias), which several times 
 speaks of Magdala as being adjacent to Tiberias 
 and Hamath, or the hot-springs (Lightf'oot, Cho- 
 rog. Cent. cap. lxxvi.). It was a seat of Jewish 
 learning after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
 the Rabbins of Magdala are often mentioned in 
 the Talmud (Lightfoot, l. c.). A small Moslem 
 village, bearing the name of Mejdel, is now found 
 on the shore of the lake about three miles north 
 by west of Tiberias ; and although there are no 
 ancient ruins, trie name and situation are very 
 strongly in favour of the conclusion that it repre- 
 sents the Magdala of Scripture. This was pro- 
 bably also the Migdal-el, in the tribe of Naphtali, 
 mentioned in Josh. xix. 38 (Burckhardt, Syria, 
 p. 559; Seetzen in Monat. Corresp. xviii. 349; 
 Fisk, Life,\). 316; Robinson, Researches, iii. 279) 
 
 MAGI. The Magi were originally one of th* 
 six tribes (Herod, i. lDl ; Piin. Hist. Nat. v. 29) 
 into which the nation of the Medes was divided. 
 
MAUI. 
 
 MAGI. 
 
 287 
 
 who, like the Levit.es under the Mosaic institu- 
 tions, were intrusted with the care of religion : an 
 office which was held in the highest honour, gave 
 the greatest influence, and which they probably 
 acquired for themselves only after a long time, as 
 well as many worthy efforts to serve their country, 
 and when they had proved themselves superior to 
 the rest of their brethren. Power oiiginallv has 
 always excellence of some kind for its basis; 
 and, since the kind of power exerted by the Magi 
 was the highest on earth, as being concerned with 
 religion, so is it certain that 1 hey'' surpassed their 
 fellow-countrymen in all the finer and loftier 
 points of character. As among other ancient na- 
 tions, as the Egyptians, and Hebrews, for instance, 
 so among the Medes, the priestly caste had not only 
 religion, but the arts and all the higher culture, 
 ’n their charge. Their name points immediately 
 Io their sacerdotal character (from Mag or Mog , 
 which in the Pehlvi denotes k priest'), either be- 
 cause religion was the chief object of their atten- 
 tion, or more probably because, at the first, reli- 
 gion and art were so allied as to be scarcely more 
 than different expressions of the same idea. 
 
 Little in detail is known of the Magi during 
 the independent existence of the Median govern- 
 ment ; they appear in their greatest glory after 
 the Medes were united with the Persians. This 
 doubtless is owing to the general imperfection of 
 the historical materials which relate to the earlier 
 periods. So great, however, was the influence 
 which the Magi attained under the united empire, 
 that the Medes were not ill compensated for their 
 loss of national independence. Under the Medo- 
 Persian sway the Magi formed a sacred caste or 
 college, which was very famous in the ancient 
 world (Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 1. 23; Ammian. Mar- 
 vell. xxiii. 6; Heeren, Ideen , i. 45] ; Schlosser, 
 Universal Uebers. i. 278). Porphyry (Abst. iv. 
 16) says, ‘the learned men who are engaged 
 among the Persians in the service of the Deity 
 are called Magi and Saidas, ! Among the Per- 
 sians the lovers of wisdom (< piXoaocpoi ) and the 
 servants of God are called Magi.’ In the earlier 
 periods of the world, science, being built alto- 
 gether on appearances, comprised and sanctioned 
 error as well as truth ; and, when cultivated in 
 dose connection with a corrupt form of religion, 
 could hardly fail to produce a plentiful crop of 
 lares : hence divination, astrology, and magic. 
 How completely the last, is to be traced ulti- 
 mately to the East appears from the word itself, 
 derived as it is from Magi. According to Strabo 
 (tom. ii. p. 1084, ed. Falcon.) the Magi practised 
 different sorts of divination — 1. by evoking the 
 dead; 2. by cups or dishes (Josephs divining 
 cup, Gen. xliv. 5) ; 3. by means of water. Py 
 the employment of these means the Magi af- 
 fected to disclose the future, to influence the 
 present, and to call the past to their aid. Even 
 the visions of the night they were accustomed to 
 interpret, not empirically, but. according to such 
 established and systematic rules as a learned 
 priesthood might be expected to employ (Strabo, 
 xvi. p. 762; Cic. De Uivin. i. 41; ^Elian. V. II. 
 ii, 17). The success, however, of their efforts over 
 the invisible world, as well as the holy office 
 which they exercised, demanded in themselves 
 peculiar cleanliness of body, a due regard to 
 which and to the general principles of their caste 
 would naturally be followed by professional 
 
 prosperity, which in its turn conspired with pre- 
 vailing superstition to give the Magi great social 
 consideration, and make them of high importance 
 before kings and princes (Diog. Laert. ix. 7.2) — 
 an influence which they appear to have sometimes 
 abused, when, descending from the peculiar duties 
 of their high office, they took part in the strife 
 and competitions of polit ics, and found themselves 
 sufficiently powerful even to overturn thrones 
 (Herod, iii. (il, sq.). 
 
 Abuses bring reform ; and the Magian religion, 
 which had lost much of its original character, 
 and been debased by some of the lowest elements 
 of earthly passions, loudly called for a renovation, 
 when Zoroaster appeared to bring about the need- 
 ful change. As to the time of Ids appearance, and 
 in general the particulars of his history, differ- 
 ences of opinion prevail, after all the critical 
 labour that has been expended on the subject. 
 Winer ( Real-wort .) says he lived in the second 
 half of the seventh century before Clnist. He 
 was not the founder of a new system, but the 
 renovator of an old and corrupt one, being, as he 
 himself intimates (Zendavesta, i. 43), the restorer 
 of the word which Ormuzd had formerly revealed, 
 but which the influence of Dews had degraded 
 into a false and deceptive magic. To destroy 
 this, and restore the pure law of Ormuzd, was 
 Zoroaster’s mission. After much and long-con- 
 tinued opposition on the part of the adherents and 
 defenders of existing corruptions, he succeeded 
 in his virtuous purposes, and caused his system 
 eventually to prevail. The Magi, as a caste, did 
 not escape from his reforming hand. He appears 
 to have remodelled their institute, dividing it into 
 tfiree great classes: — I. Herbeds, or learners; 
 2. Mobeds, or masters ; 3. Destur Mobeds, or 
 perfect scholars (Zendav. ii. 171, 26] ). The Magi 
 alone he allowed to perform the religious rites ; 
 they possessed the forms of prayer and worship; 
 they knew the cerernumes which availed to con- 
 ciliate Ormuzd, and were obligatory in the pub- 
 lic offerings (Herod, i. 132). They accordingly 
 became the sole medium of communication be- 
 tween the Deity and his creatures, and through 
 them alone Ormuzd made his will known; none 
 but them could see into the future, and they dis- 
 closed their knowledge to those only who were so 
 fortunate as to conciliate their good will. Hence 
 the power which the Magian priesthood possessed. 
 The general belief in the trustworthiness of their 
 predictions, especially when founded on astro- 
 logical calculations, the all but universal custom 
 of consulting the will of the divinity before en- 
 tering on any important undertaking, and the 
 blind faith which was reposed in all that the 
 Magi did, reported, or commanded, combined to 
 create for that sacerdotal caste a power, bolh in 
 public and in private concerns, which has pro- 
 bably never been exceeded. Indeed the sooth- 
 sayer was a public officer, a member, if not the 
 president, of the privy council in the Med/)-Per- 
 sian court, demanded alike for show, in uider io 
 influence the people, and for use, in order to 
 guide the state. Hence the person of the monarch 
 was surrounded by priests, who, in different ranks, 
 and with different otiices, conspired to sustain the 
 throne, uphold the established religion, and con- 
 ciliate or enforce the obedience of the subject. 
 The litness of the Magi for, and their usefulness 
 to, an Oriental-court were not a little enhanced bf 
 
£83 
 
 MAGI. 
 
 MAGI. 
 
 the pomp of their dress, the splendouv of their 
 ceremonial, and the number and gradation of the 
 sacred associates. Well may Cyrus, in uniting 
 the Medes to his Persian subjects, have adopted, 
 in all its magnificent details, a priesthood which 
 Mould go far to transfer to him the affections of 
 his conquered subjects, and promote, more than 
 any other thing, his own aggrandisement and that 
 of his empire. Neither the functions nor the in- 
 fluence of this sacred caste were reserved for pecu- 
 liar, rare, and extraordinary occasions, but ran 
 through the web of human life. At the break of 
 day they had to chant the divine hymns. This 
 office being performed, then came the daily sacri- 
 fice to be offered, not indiscriminately, but lo the 
 divinities whose day in each case it was — an 
 office therefore which none but the initiated could 
 fulfil. As an illustration of the high estimation 
 in which the Magi were held, it may be men- 
 tioned that it was consider d a necessary part 
 of a princely education to h%ve been instructed 
 in the peculiar learning of their sacred order, 
 which was an honour conceded to no other but 
 royal personages, except in very rare and very pecu- 
 liar instances (Cicero, De Divin. i. 23 ; Plutarch, 
 Themist . ). This Magian learning embraced 
 
 everything which regarded the higher culture of 
 the nation, being known in lusfmy under the de- 
 signation of the law of the Medes and Persians. 
 It comprised the knowledge of all the sacred rites, 
 customs, usages, and observances, which related 
 not merely to the worship of the gods, but to the 
 ifchole private life of every worshipper of Ormuzd 
 — the duties which, as such, he had to observe, 
 and the punishments which followed the neglect of 
 these obligations ; whence may be learnt how 
 necessary the act. of the priest on all occasions 
 was. Under the veil of religion the priest had 
 bound himself up with the entire of public and 
 domestic life. The judicial office, too, appears to 
 have been, in the time of Cambyses, in the hands 
 of the Magi ; for from them was chosen the college 
 or bench of royal judges, which makes its appear- 
 ance in the history of that monarch (Herod, iv. 
 31 ; vii. 194 ; Esther i. 13). Men who held 
 these offices, possessed this learning, and exerted 
 this influence with the people, may have proved 
 a check to Oriental despotism, no less powerful 
 than constitutional, though they were sometimes 
 unable to guarantee their own lives against the 
 wrath of the monarch (Herod, vii. 194 ; Dan. ii. 
 12); and they appear to have been well versed in 
 those courtly arts by which the hand that bears 
 the sword is won to protect instead of destroying. 
 Thus Cambyses, wishing to marry his sister, in- 
 quired of the Magi (like our Henry VIII.) if the 
 laws permitted sucli an union: ‘We 'nave, 1 they 
 adroitly answered, ‘ no law to that effect; but a 
 law there is which declares that the king of the 
 Persians may do what he pleases 1 (Heeren, Ideen, 
 1; Hyde, Rel. Vet. Persarum ; Brisson, Princip. 
 Pers.). 
 
 If we turn to the books of Scripture we find 
 the import of what has been said confirmed ; and 
 hence are justified in holding that the Scriptures 
 have an historical worth which learning may 
 illustrate, but. cannot, even when guided by in- 
 fidelity, invalidate, much less destroy. Let the 
 hook of Daniel be studied on this point. There 
 the great influence of the Magi is well illustrated, 
 and it is seen that their functions were not only 
 
 numerous, but held in the highest regard. In 
 the 1st verse of the 2nd chapter, Nebuchadnezzar, 
 being troubled by a dream, invokes the aid of 
 none other than the magicians, and the astro- 
 logers, and the sorcerers, the Chaldaeans, and the 
 soothsayers (ver. 27). The precise import of 
 some of these terms it may not be easy to assign ; 
 but it is clear that there were various kinds of 
 wise men, and it is probable that the above were 
 classes belonging to one great order, which com- 
 prised, under the general name of Magi, all who 
 were engaged in the serv ice of religion ; so that we 
 find here an ample priesthood, a sacred college, 
 graduated in rank and honour. Indeed, in Jer. 
 xxxix. 3, we find this order or caste expressly so 
 denominated, HQ 2*1. which, in the English version, 
 is given as a proper name, Rab-mag, which de- 
 notes the chief of the Magi, Sunnnus Pontifex, 
 or high priest — an office to which Daniel was ele- 
 vated in consequence of his skill in interpreting 
 the king’s dream after the established authorities 
 had failed (Dan. ii. 4S). The acts which accom- 
 panied this appointment serve as illustrations of 
 the high reverence in which the Magi were held : 
 
 ‘ Then the king Nebuchadnezzar tell upon his 
 face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded 
 that, they should offer an oblation and sweet 
 odours unto him 1 (ver. 4G; see also ver. 48). 
 From the 49th verse it would seem not unlikely 
 that the administration of justice in the last resort 
 belonged to this priestly oider, as we know it. did 
 to the hierarchy of northern and more modern 
 courts. 
 
 The Magi were not confined to the Medes and 
 Persians. Since they are mentioned by Herodotus 
 as one of the original tribes of the Medes, they 
 may have been primitively a Median priesthood. 
 If so, they extended themselves into other lands. 
 Possibly Magi may have been at first not the 
 name of a particular tribe or priestly caste, but a 
 general designation for priests or learned men ; as 
 Pharaoh denoted not an individual, but. generally 
 king or ruler. However this may be, the Chal- 
 daeans also had an organised order of Magi, a 
 caste of sacerdotal scholars, which bore the name 
 of ‘wise men 1 (Jer. 1. 35) ; ‘the wise men of 
 Babylon 1 (Dan. ii. 12), among whom Daniel is 
 classed (ii. IS, 24). Among the Greeks and Ro- 
 mans they were known under the name of Chal- 
 daeans (Strabo, xvi. p. 7G2; Diog. Laert. Procem. 
 1), and also of Magi (Diog. Laert. ‘viii. 1. o). 
 They lived scattered over the land in different 
 places (Dan. ii. 14 ; Strabo, xvi. p. 739), and had 
 possessions of their own. The temple of Belus 
 was employed by them for astronomical observa- 
 tions ; but their astronomy was connected with 
 the worship of the heavenly bodies practised by 
 the Babylonians (Diod. Sic. ii. 31 ; Ephraem Syr. 
 Op. ii. 488; consult Ideler, in the Transactions 
 of the Berlin Academy for 1S24-5), and was 
 specially directed to vain attempts to foretell the 
 future, predict the fate of individuals or of com- 
 munities, and sway the present, in alliance with 
 augury, incantation, and magic (A.Gell. iii. 10. 9; 
 xiv. 1 ; Am. Marcell, xxiii. 6 ; p. 352, ed. Bipont; 
 Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ; Isa. xlvii. 9, 13 ; Dan. ii.). 
 
 It is easy to understand how the' lofty science 
 (so called) of these Magi — lofty while its scholars 
 surpassed the rest of the world in knowledge, and 
 were the associates, the advisers, the friends, and 
 the monitors of great anti flourishing monarch*. 
 
MAGI. 
 
 MALACHI. 
 
 of indeed successively the rulers of the world — 
 might, could indeed hardly fail, as resting on uo 
 basis of fact or reality, in process of time, to sink 
 into its own native insignificance, and become 
 either a mere bugbear to frighten the ignorant, or an 
 instrument to aid the fraudulent : thus hastening 
 on to the contempt into which all falsities are 
 sure sooner or later to fall. The decline was 
 indeed gradual ; ages passed ere it was com- 
 pleted ; but as soon as it ceased to have the sup- 
 port afforded by the mighty and splendid thrones 
 of Asia, it began to lose its authority, which the 
 progress of knowledge and the advent of Christ 
 prevented it from ever regaining. Yet is it im- 
 possible to contemplate this, any more than any 
 other powerful system of religious influence, with- 
 out emotions that are akin to admiration. Even 
 in the latter days of the Roman empire, however, 
 a remnant of the Magian system was found, 
 though in a low and degenerate condition. The 
 civilized world was overrun with magician.®, not 
 very much more respectable than our modern 
 conjurors, who managed to delude the ignorant 
 vulgar, and sometimes to ‘ carry captive ’ the 
 noble and the rich, or even to sway the councils 
 of princes, by pretending to a knowledge and a 
 power over the occult qualities and the more 
 mighty agencies of earth, heaven, and hell. They 
 could interpret the language of the stars ; they 
 could predict the future ; they could expound 
 dreams; they could cure otherwise incurable dis- 
 eases ; and the skill which an individual might 
 be so happy as to possess, he, having derived it 
 from some predecessor, who had again had it 
 from another, himself the last in a long line of 
 wise nien, could, and for money or other con- 
 siderations did, impart to others. Egypt and the 
 East generally, Solomon, and Pharaoh were ac- 
 counted the great fountains whence this much- 
 esteemed knowledge and these dark mysteries 
 were to be drawn (Othon. Lex. Rabbin, p. 104; 
 Tacit. Ann. ii. 27 ; xii. 2. 32; vi. 29 ; Joseph. Be 
 Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 3). The case of Simon Magus 
 (Acts viii. 9; see also Acts xiii. 6, sq.) may be 
 taken as a specimen of these wandering im- 
 postors; and those who are curious to trace the 
 Steps by which the Magi declined and sunk may 
 see the same Simon in conflict with Peter in the 
 Apostolical Constitutions. The estimation, how- 
 ever, in which Simon is evidently held, as re- 
 corded in the Acts (‘some great one,’ &c.), gives 
 reason to think that Magianism still retained a 
 large share of as influence at the commencement 
 of our era. It seems, indeed, to have held a sort 
 of middle position, half way between its ancient 
 splendour and its coming degradation : whence 
 •ve may understand the propriety of the visit paid 
 by the Magi to the new-born King of the Jews 
 (Matt, ii., 4 star in the East ). For if th&system 
 had been then sunk so low as to correspond in 
 any degree with our conception of these pretended 
 arts, it is difficult to assign, at least to the un- 
 iteliever, a sufficient reason why the visit was 
 made, or at any rate why it was recorded ; but its 
 credibility is materially furthered if the circum- 
 stances of the case are such as to allow us to 
 regard that visit as a homage paid by the repre- 
 sentatives of the highest existing influences to the 
 rising star of a new day, in the fuller light of 
 which they were speedily to vanish. — J. R. B. 
 MAGICIANS. [Magi] 
 
 28 S 
 
 MAGOG (3130 ; Sept. Mayciry)^ son of Japhet 
 (Gen. x. 2). In Ezekiel (xxxviii. 2 ; xxxix. 6} 
 it occurs as the name of a nation, coupled with 
 Gog, and is supposed to represent certain Scythian 
 or Tartar tribes descended from the son of Japhet 
 [Nations, Dispersion op]. 
 
 MAHALATH, the title of Psalms liii. and 
 lxxxviii. [Psai.ms.] 
 
 MAHANAIM (DOPIO, tioo hosts; Sept. Ma 
 voil/x), a place beyond the Jordan, north of the river 
 Jabbok, which derived its name from Jacob’s 
 having been there met by the angels on his return 
 from Padan-aram (Gen. xxxii. 2). The name 
 was eventually extended to the town which then 
 existed, or which afterwards arose in the neigh- 
 bourhood. This town was in the territory of the 
 tribe of Gad (Josh. xiii. 26, 30), and was a city 
 of the Levites (Josh. xxi. 39). It was in this 
 city that Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, reigned 
 (2 Sam. ii. 8), probably because he found the in- 
 fluence of David's name less strong on the east 
 than on the west of the Jordan. The choice, at 
 least, seems to show that Mahanaim was then an 
 important and strong place. Hence, many years 
 after, David himself repaired to Mahanaim when 
 he sought refuge beyond the Jordan from his son 
 Absalom (2 Sam. xvii. 24, 27 ; l Kings ii. 8). 
 We only read of Mahanaim again as the station 
 of one of the twelve officers who had charge, in 
 monthly rotation, of raising the provisions for the 
 royal establishments under Solomon (1 Kings 
 iv. 14). The site has not yet been identified. In 
 Dr. Robinson's Arabic list of names of places in 
 Jebel Ajlun (Bib. Researches, vol. iii. Append, xi. 
 p. 166), we find Mahneh , and this may possibly 
 prove to be Mahanaim. 
 
 MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ frbf *7»jD 
 T? ; Sept. Tou o£eo>s tt povop^v noiricrai tr/co- 
 Awj/), words prognostic of the sudden attack of 
 the Assyrian army (‘he hasteth to the spoil'), 
 which the prophet Isaiah was first commanded to 
 write in large characters upon a tablet, and after- 
 wards to give as a symbolical name to a son that 
 was to be born to him (Isa. viii. 1, 3). It is, as 
 Dr. Henderson remarks, the longest of any of the 
 Scripture names, but has its parallels in this re- 
 spect in other languages, especially in our own 
 during the time of the Commonwealth. 
 
 MAHLON, one of the two sons of Elimelech 
 and Naomi, and first husband of Ruth the Moab- 
 itess (Ruth i. 2, sq.). [Ruth.] 
 
 MAKKEDAH (rnjpD ; Sept. MaKrjda), a 
 royal city of the ancient Canaanites (Josh. xii. 
 16), in the neighbourhood of which was the cave 
 in which the five kings who confederated against 
 Israel took refuge after their defeat (Josh. x. 10- 
 29). It afterwards belonged to Judah (Josh. xv. 
 41). Makkedah is placed by Eusebius and 
 Jerome 8 Roman miles to the east of Eleuther- 
 opolis ( Onomast. s. v. Maceda). 
 
 MALACHI ; Sept. MaAaxlos; Vulg. 
 
 Malachias'), the last of the minor prophets, and 
 consequently the latest writer in the canon of the 
 Old Testament. Ch. iv. 4, 5, 6, might alone 
 suggest that he was the last of the Hebrew pro- 
 phets till John the Baptist appeared. Nothing is 
 known of his person or history. It appears that he 
 lived after Zechariah, since in his time the secona 
 
290 
 
 MALACHI. 
 
 MALACHI. 
 
 temple was already built (cb. iii. 10) ; and it is 
 probable that he was contemporary with Nehe- 
 miali (comp. ch. ii. 11, with Neh. xiii. 23 27, and 
 ch. iii. S, with Neh. xiii. 10). Tradition, as usual, 
 has not failed to supply the lack of authentic 
 information. Malachi is reprrsen'ed to have 
 been of the tribe of Zebulon, and a native of 
 Sapha (Saphir?); to have died young, and to 
 have been buried with his ancestors at. Sapha, 
 after having assisted as a member of the great 
 Synagogue, on the re-establishment of order and 
 prosperity in his country (Epiphanius, De Proph. 
 Vita et Interitiiy cap. xxii. ; Isidor. De Vita et 
 Morte Sand. cap. li.). . 
 
 The name Malachi ('DlS/ft) means, as some un- 
 derstand it, my angel ; but it seems more correct to 
 
 regard it as a contracted form of angel 
 
 of Jehovah. The traditionists already cited regard 
 it as a proper name, given to the prophet on account 
 of the beauty of his person and his unblemished 
 life. The word translated ‘ angel,’ however, means 
 also a ‘ messenger,’ angels being, in fact, the 
 messengers of God ; and as the prophets are often 
 styled angels or messengers of Jehovah, it is sup- 
 posed that ‘ Malachi’ is merely a general title de- 
 scriptive of this character, and not a proper name. 
 It has been very generally supposed that it de- 
 notes Ezra. The Chaldee paraph r as t. is of this 
 opinion, as is R. Joshua Den Korcha and other 
 Jewish writers ; but Kimchi resists this, alleging 
 that Ezra is never called a prophet, but a scribe, 
 and Malachi never a scribe, but a prophet. R. 
 .Nachman supposes Malachi to have been Mor- 
 deeai, and that he was so called because he was 
 second to the king; the force of which reason is not 
 very apparent. The current opinion of the Jews 
 is that of the Talmud, in which this question is 
 mooted, and which decides, it seems to us rightly, 
 that this prophet is not the same with Mordecai, 
 or Ezra, or Zerubbabel, or Nehemiah, whose 
 claims had all been advocated by different par- 
 ties, but a distinct person named Malachi ( F . 
 Bab. Megillah, fol. xv. 1). Jerome, however, 
 supports the claim of Ezra ( Comment . in Mai. 
 i. 1), and many modern commentators have 
 yielded to his authority ; but the prevailing 
 opinion is in favour of the separate existence of 
 Malachi. Some, however, have been content to 
 leave the authorship unsettled, and to suppose that 
 the title is taken from the promise of an angel or 
 messenger of the Lord, in ch. iii. 1, ‘ Behold, I 
 send my messenger ,’ &c. wnere the word ( 
 malachi ) is the very same that forms the title 
 of the book. Considering the peculiar import- 
 ance of this text, which was fulfilled in John the 
 .Baptist, the harbinger of the new covenant, it 
 cannot he denied that there is much force in this 
 conjecture, although that for which we have 
 intimated a preference seems to offer still stronger 
 claims in its favour. By some the word malachi 
 has been taken very literally to denote an incar- 
 nate angel. This was one of the many vagaries 
 of Origen, and it has been , adopted by a good 
 number of ancient, and modern commentators, 
 the rather, perhaps, as the Septuagint affords it 
 some countenance by translating the first verse, 
 A r>piia Koyov nvplov eVi rbu T <rpaf\ iv X Ci $ 
 £yye\ ov avrov — ‘ The but den of the word of the 
 Lord to Israel by the hand of his angel.' 
 
 Although there has been * faint. disposition to 
 
 regard Zecnariah as the last of the prophet* 
 (Lactant. De Vera Sapent. iv. 5), the received 
 opinion decides for Malachi. Accordingly Aben 
 Ezra calls him ^ID, ‘ the end of the 
 
 prophets;’ Kimcin, ‘the last of 
 
 them and not seldom he is distinguished by 
 the Rabbins as DlYin, ‘ the seal of 
 
 the prophets.’ But although it is well agreed 
 that Malachi was the last of the prophets, tne 
 date of his prophecy has been variously deter- 
 mined. Usher makes him contemporary with 
 Nehemiah, in bc. 416; and the general opinion 
 that this prophet was contemporary with, .or imme- 
 diately followed, Nehemiah, makes most of the 
 proposed alternatives range within a few years of 
 that date. lie censures the same offences which 
 excited the indignation of Nehemiah, and which 
 that governor had not been able entirely to reform. 
 Speaking of God's greater kindness to the Israelites 
 than to the Edomites, he begins with declaiming 
 against the priests for their profane and mer- 
 cenary conduct, and against the people for their 
 multiplied divorces and intermarriages with idol- 
 atrous nations ; he threatens them with punish- 
 ment and rejection, declaring that God would 
 ‘ make his name great among the Gentiles’ (ch. 
 i. 11). for that he was wearied with the impiety 
 of Israel (ch . i. ii.). From this the prophet takes 
 occasion solemnly to proclaim that the Lord 
 whom they sought should suddenly come to his 
 temple, pi^ceded by that messenger who, like a 
 harbinger, should prepare his way ; that the Lord 
 when he should appear would purify the sons of 
 Levi from their unrighteousness, and refine them 
 as metal from the dross (ch. iii. 1-3); that then 
 ‘ the offering of Judah,* the spiritual sacrifice of 
 the heart, ‘ should he pleasant to the Lord,’ as 
 was that of the patriarchs and their uncorrupted 
 ancestors (ch. iii. 4); and that the Lord would 
 quickly exterminate the corruptions and adul- 
 teries which prevailed. The prophet then pro- 
 ceeds with an earnest exhortation to repentance ; 
 promising high rewards and remembrance to the 
 righteous in that last day when the Lord shall 
 make up his peculiar treasures, and finally establish 
 a distinction of doom and condition between the 
 righteous and the wicked (ch. iii. 16-18). Malachi 
 then concludes with an impressive assurance of 
 approaching salvation to those who feared God s 
 name from that ‘ sun of righteousness,’ who 
 should arise with healing in his wings, and render 
 them triumphant; enjoining in the solemn close 
 of his exhortation, when uttering as it were the 
 last admonition of the Jewish prophets, an ob- 
 servance of the law of Moses, till the advent of 
 Elijah the prophet (ch. iv. 5. or John the Baptist, 
 who came in the spirit and power of Elias, Mark 
 xi. 12; Luke i. 17), who before the corning of 
 that ‘ great and dreadfnl day of the Lord, should 
 turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and 
 the heart of the children to their fathers' (ch. iv.). 
 Thus Malachi sealed up the volume of prophecy 
 with the description of that personage at whose 
 appearance the evangelists begin their gospel 
 history. 
 
 Ttie claim of the book of Malachi to its place 
 in the canon of the Old Testament has never 
 been disputed ; and its authority is established 
 by the references to it in the New Tes tamer C 
 (Matt. xi. 10 ; xvii. 12; Mark i. 2; ix.. V 12 , 
 Luke i. 17 ; Rom. ix. 13). 
 
MALCHUS. 
 
 MALLTjACH. 
 
 291 
 
 The manner of Malachi offers few, if any, dis- 
 tinguishing characteristics. The style, rhythm, 
 and imagery of his writings are substantially 
 those of the old prophets, but they possess no 
 remarkable vigour or beauty. This is accounted 
 for by his living during that decline of Hebrew 
 poetry, which we trace more or less in all the 
 sacred writings posterior to the Captivity. 
 
 In consequence of the peculiar questions which 
 arise out of this prophecy and its authorship, the 
 literature connected with Malachi is very ample. 
 Copious notices will be found in the Latin, Ger- 
 man, and English Introductions to the Old Testa- 
 ment, and in the Prefatory Dissertations of the va- 
 rious commentators. The principal separate works 
 on the subject are: — Chytraeus, Explicat. Malach. 
 Prophet. Rost. 1 56S ; G'rynaeus , Hypomnemata 
 in Malach. Frcf. 1652 ; Stock, Commentary upon 
 the whole Prophesye of Malachy , Loud. 1641 ; 
 Schlater, A Brief and Plain Commentary upon 
 the whole Prophecie of Malachy, Loud. 1650 ; 
 Ursinus, Comment, in Malach. Frcf. 1652; Sal. 
 van Til, Malach . illm trains. Lug. Bat. 1701 ; 
 Wesselius, Malachias enudeatus , Lubeck, 1729; 
 Malachia Propheta c. Tar gum Jonathis et Ra- 
 daki Raschii ac Aben-Esrce Comment, et In- 
 terpret. J. C. Hebenstreit, Lips. 1746 ; X enema, 
 Comment, in Malach. Leovard. 1759; Bahrdt, 
 Comment, in Malachiam, c. examine verss. vett. 
 et lectt. variant. Houbigantii, Lips. 1768 ; J. M. 
 Faber, Comment, in Malachiam , Onold. 1779; 
 J. F. Fischer, Observatt. Crit. in Malachiam , 
 Lips. 1759 ; J. M. Faber, Abweischungen der 
 alten Uebersetzer d. Propheien Malachias , in 
 Kichhorn's Report, vi. 104-124. 
 
 MALCHUS (M aXxos), the servant of the high- 
 priest Caiaphas, whose right ear was cut off by 
 Peter in the garden of Gethsemane (John xviii. 
 10). The name of Malchus was not unlrequent 
 among the Greeks (see Wetstein, in loc .) ; but as 
 it was usually applied to persons of Oriental 
 countries, there is reason to suppose it derived 
 from the Hebrew melech, and, if so, it ex- 
 actly corresponds to our title ‘ King.’ Some, 
 however, compare it with the Hebrew 
 mallauch, ‘ counsellor.’ 
 
 MALLUACH (O^D) occurs only once in 
 Scripture, namely, in the passage where Job com- 
 plains that he is subjected to the contumely of 
 the meanest people, those 1 who cut up mallows 
 ( malluach ) by the bushed — for their meat.’ (Job 
 xxx. 4). The proper meaning of the word mal- 
 luach has been a subject of considerable discussion 
 among authors, in consequence, apparently, of 
 its resemblance to the Greek pahaxn ( malakhe ), 
 signifying ‘ mallow.’ and also to maluch , which is 
 said to be the Syriac name of a species of Orache , 
 or Atriplex. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say 
 which is the more correct interpretation, as both 
 appear to have some foundation in truth, and 
 seem equally adapted to the sense of the above- 
 quoted passage. The malakhe of the Greeks is 
 distinguished by Dioscorides into two kinds ; of 
 which he states that the cultivated is more fit for 
 food than the wild kind. Arab authors apply the 
 description of Dioscorides to khoob-bazee, a name 
 which in India we limnd applied both to species 
 of Malva rotundifoUa and of M. sylvestris, which 
 extend from Europe to the north of India, and 
 
 which are still used as food in the latter country, 
 as they formerly were in Europe, and probably 
 in Syria. That some kind of mallow has been 
 so used in Syria we have evidence in the Quota- 
 tion made by Mr. Harmer from Biddulph" who 
 says, ‘ We saw many poor people collecting 
 mallows and three-leaved grass, and asked them 
 what they did with it; and they answered, that 
 it was all their food, and that they boiled it, and 
 did e?t it.’ Dr. Shaw, in his Travels, on the con- 
 trary, observes that ‘ Mellon keah, or mulookiah , 
 
 K'nfe, as in the Arabic, is the same with 
 the melochia or corchorus, being a podded species 
 of mallows, whose pods are rough, of a glutinous 
 substance, and used in most of their dishes. 
 Mellou-keah appears to be little different in name 
 from (Job xxx. 4), which we render et mal- 
 lows;” though some other plant, of a more saltish: 
 taste, and less nourishing quality, may be rather 
 intended.’ The plant alluded to is Corchorus 
 olitorius, which has been adopted and figured 
 in her Scripture Herbal by Lady Calcotf, who 
 observes that this plant, called Jews’ Mallow, 
 appears to be certainly that mentioned by the 
 patriarch Avicenna calls it olus Judaicum ; and 
 Rauwolf aw the Jews about Aleppo use the 
 leaves as potherbs ; * and this same mallow con- 
 tinues to be eaten in Egypt and Arabia, as well 
 as Palestine.’ But there are so many plants cf 
 a mild mucilaginous nature which are used as 
 articles of diet in the East, that it is hardly pos- 
 sible to select one in preference to another, unless 
 we find a similarity in the name. Thus species 
 of Amaranthus, of Chenopodium , of Portnlacca, 
 as well as the above Corchorus, and the mallow , 
 are all used as food, and might be adduced as 
 suitable to the above passages, since most of them 
 are found growing wild in many parts of the 
 countries of the East. 
 
 The learned Bochart, however, contends {Hie- 
 roz. part i. t. iii. c. 16) that the word mal- 
 luach denotes a saltish plant called a\iuos by 
 the Greeks, and which with good leason is sup- 
 posed to be the Atriplex Halimus of botanists, or 
 tall shrubby Orache. The Septuagint, indeed, 
 first ^ave &\ipa as the interpretation of malluach. 
 Celsius adopts it, and many others consider it as 
 the most correct. A good abstract of Bochart's 
 arguments is given by Dr. Harris. In the first 
 place the most ancient Greek translator inter- 
 prets malluach. by halimos. That ihe Jews were 
 in the habit of eating a plant called by the former 
 name, is evident from the quotation given by 
 Bochart from the Talmudical Tract Kiddusin , 
 (c. iii. 66), where it is said : ‘ Ivit in urbem Co- 
 chalith, quae est in deserto. Et invitatis omnibus 
 sapientibus Israelis dixit, Patres nostii (prse 
 inopia) malluchim comederunt quo tempore 
 laborabant in eediticatione Templi sec midi : et 
 nos quoque malluchim comedimus in memoriam 
 patrum nostrorum. Et allati sunt malluchim 
 super mensas aureas, et comedeiunt.’ By Ibn 
 Buetar, malookh is given as the synonyme of at 
 kutvf albuhuri, i. e. the sea-side Kutuf or Orache, 
 which is usually considered to be the Atriplex 
 marinum , now A. Halimus. Bochart, indeed, re- 
 marks : ‘ Dioscorides libro primo halimum. quod 
 populus Syiiae vocat maluch, ait. esse arbnstum. 
 ex quo hunt sepes, rhamno simile, nisi quod caret 
 spinis, et folio simili oleae, sed latiori, et creacert 
 
293 
 
 MAMMON. 
 
 MAN. 
 
 ad litora maris, et circa sepes.’ This notice evi- 
 dently refers to the *AAip.os of Dioscorides (Diosc. 
 i. 121), which, as above stated, is supposed to be 
 the Atriplex Halimus of botanists, and the Kutuf 
 buhuree of the Arabs, while the aTpd<pa£is of the 
 same author (ii. 145) is their kutuf and Atriplex 
 hortensis, Linn. Bochart quotes Galen as describ- 
 ing the tops of the former as being used for food 
 when young. Dioscorides also says that its leaves 
 are employed for the same purpose. What the 
 Arab writers state as to the tops of the plants being 
 eaten, corresponds to the description of Job, who 
 states that those to whom he refers cropped upon 
 the shrub — which by some is supposed to indi- 
 cate that the malluach grew near hedges. These, 
 however, do not exist in the desert. There is no 
 doubt that species of Orache were used as articles 
 of diet in ancient times, and, probably, still are 
 so in the countries where they we indigenous ; 
 but there are many other plants, similar in na- 
 ture, that is, soft and succulent, and usually very 
 saline, such as the Salsolas, Salicornias , &c., 
 which, like the species of Atriplex, belong to the 
 same natural family of Chenopodece, and which 
 from their saline nature have received their 
 respective names. Many of these are wel 1 known 
 fyr yielding soda by incineration. In '•'"iformity 
 with this, Mr. Good thinks that ‘ the veal plant 
 is a species of Salsola, or “ salt-wort and that 
 the term &\ipa, employed in the Greek versions, 
 gives additional countenance to this conjecture.’ 
 Some of these are shrubby, but most of them are 
 herbaceous, and extremely common in all the dry, 
 desert, and saline soils which extend from the south 
 of Europe to the north of India. Most of them 
 are saline and bitter, but some are milder in taste 
 and mucilaginous, and are therefore employed as 
 articles of diet, as spinach is in Europe. Salsola 
 indica , for instance, which is common on the 
 coasts of the Peninsula of India, Dr. Roxburgh 
 states, saved the lives of many thousands of the 
 jioor natives of India during the famine of 1791- 
 2-3 ; for while the plant lasted, most of the poorer 
 classes who lived near the sea had little else to 
 eat ; and indeed its green leaves ordinarily form 
 an essential article of the food of those natives 
 wiio inhabit the maritime districts. — J. F. R. 
 
 MAMMON (Ma/ian/as), a Chaldee word 
 (fcOlDD), signifying ‘wealth’ or ‘riches,’ and 
 hearing that sense in Luke xvi. 9, 11 ; but also 
 used by our Saviour (Matt. vi. 24 ; Luke xvi. 13) 
 as a personification of the god of riches : ‘ Ye 
 cannot serve God and Mammon.’ Gill, on Matt, 
 vi. 24, brings a very apt quotation from the 
 Talmud Hieros. ( Yoma, fol. 38), in confirmation 
 of the character which Christ in these passages 
 gives of the Jews in hi3 day : ‘ We know that 
 they believed in the law, and took care of the 
 commandments, and of the tithes, and that their 
 whole conversation was good — only that thev 
 PDDP. DX f'SmN, loved the Mammon, and 
 hated one another without cause.’ 
 
 MAMRE (fcOipE) ; Sept. M apfiprf), the name 
 of an Amoritish chief who, with his brothers Aner 
 and Eshcol, was in alliance v/ith Abraham (Gen. 
 xiv. 13, 24). Hence, in the Authorized Version, 
 
 ‘ the oaks of Mamre,’ ‘ plain of Mamie ’ (Gen. 
 xiii. 18; xviii. 1), or simply ‘Mamre’ (xxiii. 17, 
 19 ; xxxv. 27), a grove in the neighbourhood of 
 Hebron. 
 
 1 . MAN. Four Hebrew words are thus translated 
 in the English Version (D“IX, "Dj? )• 
 
 They are used with as much precision as the terms 
 of like import in Greek and Roman writers. Not 
 is the subject merely critical ; it will be found 
 connected with accurate interpretation, (a.) DIM 
 is 1. the proper name of the first rnan, though Ge- 
 senius thinks that when so applied it lias the force 
 rather of an appellative, and that, accoidingly, 
 in a translation, it would be better to render it the 
 man. It seems, however, to be used by St. Luke 
 as a proper name in the genealogy (iii. 38) ; by 
 St. Paul (Rom. v. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14); and 
 by Jude (14). St. Paul's use of it in 1 Cor. xv. 
 45 is remarkably clear: 6 irpwTos dvOpooiros' AZdp, 
 * the first man, Adam.’ It is so employed through- 
 out the Apocrypha without exception (2 Esdras 
 iii. 5, 10, 21, 26 ; iv. 30 ; vi. 54 ; vii. 11, 46, 48 ; 
 Tobit viii. 6 ; Ecclus. xxxiii. 10 ; xl. I ; xlix. 
 16) ; and by Josephus (ut infra). Gesenius 
 argues that, as applied to the first man, it has the 
 article almost without exception. It is doubtless 
 often thus used as an appellative, but tne ex- 
 ceptions are decisive : Gen. iii. 17, D“1N^, ‘ to 
 Adam he said/ and see Sept., Deut. xxxii. 8, 
 DIN ‘ the descendants of Adam ;’ 4 if I co- 
 vered my transgressions as Adam’ (Job xxxi. 33) ; 
 ‘ and unto Adam he said,’ &c. (Job xxviii. 28), 
 which, when examined by the context, seems to 
 refer to a primeval revelation not recorded in 
 Genesis (see also Hos. vi. 7, Heb. or margin). 
 Gesenius further argues that the woman, 
 has an appropriate name, iTU"!, but that the man 
 has none. But the name Eve was given to her 
 by Adam, and, as it would seem, under a change 
 of circumstances ; and though the divine origin 
 of the word Adam, as a proper name of the first 
 man, is not recorded in the history of the creation, 
 as is that of the day, night, heaven, earth, seas, & c. 
 (Gen. i. 5, 8, 10), yet its divine origin as an ap- 
 pellative is recorded (comp. Heb., Gen. i. 26 ; 
 v. 1) ; from which state it soon became a proper 
 name, Dr. Lee thinks from its frequent occur- 
 rence, but we would suggest, from its peculiar 
 appropriateness to ‘the man,’ who is the more im- 
 mediate image and glory of God’ (1 Cor. xi. 7). 
 Other derivations of the word have been offered, 
 as ‘ to be red ’ or ‘ red-haired and hence 
 
 some of the Rabbins have inferred that the first 
 man was so. This derivation is as old as Jo- 
 sephus, who says that ‘the first man was called 
 (eK\T)Qri) Adam, because he was formed anb rijj 
 ivvfipas 77/s, ‘ from the red earth,’ and adds, roiavrr/ 
 yap iarlu f] napOevos yrj teal d\r)Qivi]. ‘ for the 
 true virgin earth is of this colour’ (Antiq. i. 1, 
 § 2). But is this true ? and when man is turned 
 again to his earth, is that red ? The truer origin 
 of the word in Gen. i. 26, v. 1, has already been 
 pointed out, viz. Dl, likeness, because man was 
 made 71)0*12, in the likeness of God. 2. It is 
 the generic name of the human race as originally 
 created, and afterwards, like the English word 
 man, person, whether man or woman, equivalent 
 to the Latin homo , and Gr. di/dpcoiros (Gen. i. 26, 
 27 ; v. 2 ; viii. 21 ; Deut. viii. 3 ; Matt. v. 13, 16 ; 
 1 Cor. vii. 26), and even without regard to age 
 (John xvi. 21). It is applied to women only, 
 bmn D'lK ^33), ‘ the human persons or 
 women’ (Num. xxxi. 35), Sept, dvBpd'Xter 
 
 arri r&v yvvaiKuv. Thus p dsOpumos means t 
 
MAN. 
 
 MAN. 
 
 woman (Herod, i. 00), and especially among the 
 orarors (comp. 1 Macc. ii. 38). 3. It. denotes 
 
 man in opposition to woman (Gen. iii. 12; Matt, 
 xix. 10), though, more properly, the husband 
 in opposition to the wife (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1). 
 4. It is used, though very rarely, for those who 
 maintain the dignity of human nature, a man, as 
 we say, meaning one that deserves the name, like 
 the Latin vir, and Greek avr]p : ‘ One man in a 
 thousand have I found, but a woman,’ &c. (Eccles. 
 vii. 28). Perhaps the word here glances at the 
 original uprightness of man. 5. It is frequently 
 used to denote the more degenerate and wicked 
 portion of mankind : an instance of which occurs 
 very early, ‘ The sons, or worshippers, of God 
 married the daughters of men, or the irreligious 1 
 (Gen. vi. 2). We request a careful examination 
 of the following passages by their respective con- 
 texts, Ps. xi. 4 ; xii. 1, 2, 8 ; xiv. 2, &c. The 
 atter passage is often adduced to prove the total 
 depravity of the whole human race , whereas it 
 applies only to the more abandoned Jews, or pos- 
 sibly to the more wicked Gentile adversaries of 
 Israel. It is a description of ‘the fool,’ or wicked 
 man (ver. T), and of persons of the same class 
 (ver. 1, 2), ‘ the workers of iniquity, who eat up 
 God's people like bread, and called not upon the 
 name of the Lord ’ (ver. 4). For the true view of 
 St. Paul’s quotations from this Psalm (Rom. iii. 
 10), see M‘Knight, in loc. : and observe the use of 
 the word ‘ man ’ in Luke v. 20 ; Matt. x. 17. It 
 is applied to the Gentiles (Matt, xxvii. 22; comp. 
 Mark x. 33, and Mark ix. 31 ; Luke xviii. 32; 
 see Mounteney, ad Demosth. Phil. i. 221). 6. The 
 word is used to denote other men, in opposition 
 to those already named, as, ‘ both upon Israel and 
 other men ’ (Jer. xxxii. 20), i. e. the Egyptians. 
 * Like other men (Ps. lxxiii. 5), i. e. common men, 
 in opposition to better men (Ps. lxxxii. 7) ; men 
 of inferior rank, as opposed to {Jt'N, men of higher 
 rank (see Heb , Is. ii. 9 ; v. 15; Ps. xlix; 3 ; lxii. 
 10 ; Prov. viii. 4). The phrase ‘ son of man,’ in 
 the Old Testament, denotes man as frail and un- 
 worthy (Num. xxiii. 19 ; Job. xxv. 6; Ezek. ii. 
 1, 3); as applied to the prophet, so often, it has 
 the force of ‘ oh mortal !’ (5.) &2'N is a man in 
 the distinguished sense, like the Latin vir, and 
 Greek dvrjp. It is used in all the several senses 
 of the Latin vir, and denotes a man as distin- 
 guished from a woman (1 Sam. xvii. 33 ; Matt, 
 xiv. 21); as a husband (Gen. iii. 16; Hos. ii. 
 16)„; and in reference to excellent mental qua- 
 lities. A beautiful instance of the latter class 
 occurs in Jer. v. 1 : ‘ Run ye to and fro through 
 the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, 
 and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can 
 lind a man [B^N], if there be any that executeth 
 judgment, that seeketh the truth ; and I will par- 
 don it.’ This reminds the reader of the philosopher 
 who went through the streets of Athens with a 
 lighted lamp in his hand, and being asked what 
 he sought, said, ‘ I am seeking to find a man’ (see 
 Herodot. ii. 120; Horn. II. v. 529). It is also used 
 to designate the superior classes (Prov. viii. 4 ; Ps. 
 cxli. 4, &c.), a courtier (Jer. xxxviii. 7), the male 
 of animals (Gen. vii. 2). Sometimes it means 
 men in general (Exod. xvi. 29; Mark vi. 44). 
 
 (c.) P13N, mortals, fSporoi, as tiansienl, perish- 
 able, liable to sickness, &c. : ‘ Let no man [mar- 
 gin, ‘ mortal man’] prevail against thee’ (2 Chron. 
 xiv, 11). ‘ Write with the peB f the common 
 
 293 
 
 man’ PUN tDIHl (Isa. viii. 1), i. e. in a com- 
 mon, legible character (Job xv. 14 ; Ps. viii. 5 ; 
 ix. 19, 20 ; Isa. Ii. 7 ; Ps. ciii. 15). It is applied 
 to women (Josh. viii. 25). ( d. ) "03, vir , man, in 
 regard to strength, &c. All etymologists concur 
 in deriving the English word « man ’ from the 
 superior powers and faculties with which man is 
 endowed above all earthly creatures; so the Latin 
 vir, from vis, vires ; anti such is the idea con- 
 veyed by the present Hebrew word. It is applied 
 to man as distinguished from woman : ‘ A man 
 shall not put on a woman’s garment’ (I)eut. xxii. 
 5), like dt/dpocTTos in Matt. viii. 9 ; John i. 6 ; to 
 men as distinguished from children (Exod. xii. 
 37); to a male child, in opposition to a female 
 (Job iii. 3 ; Sept, dpcrev). It is much used in 
 poetry : ‘ Happy is the man’ (Ps. xxxiv. 9 ; xl. 5 ; 
 Iii. 9 ; xciv. 12). Sometimes it denotes the species 
 at large (Job iv. 17 ; xiv. 10, 14). For a complete 
 exemplification of these words, see the lexicons ol 
 Gesenius and Schleusner, &c. Some peculiar uses 
 of the word in the New Testament remain to be 
 noticed. ‘ The Son of Man,’ applied to Our Lord 
 only by himself and St. Stephen (Acts vii. 56), is 
 the Messiah in human form. Schleusner thinks 
 that the word in this expression always means 
 woman, and denotes that he was the promised 
 Messiah, born of a virgin, who had taken upon 
 him our nature to fulfil the great decree of God, 
 that mankind should be saved by one in their own 
 form. ‘O naAaids, ‘ the old man,' and 6 Kaivds, ‘ the 
 new man’ — the former denoting unsanctified dis- 
 position of heart, the latter the new disposition cre- 
 ated and cherished by the gospel ; 6 €<r<w avtipcoiros, 
 ‘ the inner man ;’ 6 upvirTbs rrjs Kapd'ias dvdpcoiros, 
 ‘ the hidden man of the heart,’ as opposed to the i 
 dvGpoonos, 6 the external visible man.’ ‘ A man 
 of God,’ first applied to Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 1). 
 and always afterwards to a person acting under a 
 divine commission (1 Kings xiii. 1 ; 1 Tim. vi. 
 11; et alibi). 6 dt/Opunos rr)S a/xaprlas, that im- 
 pious man, the 6 dvogos, ‘ the lawless one’ (2 
 Thess. ii. 3), Sept, for JIN B”N (Isa. lv. 7) 
 angels are styled men (Acts i. 10). — J. F. D. 
 
 2. MAN (}ft ; Sept. gawd), or Manna. The 
 name given to the miraculous food upon which the 
 Israelites were fed for forty years, during their 
 wanderings in the desert. The same name has in 
 later ages been applied to some natural produc- 
 tions, chiefly found in warm dry countries, but 
 which have little or no resemblance to the original 
 manna. This is first mentioned in Exod. xvi. It 
 is there described as being first produced after the 
 eighth encampment in the deseit of Sin, as white 
 like hoar frost (or of the colour of bdellium , Num. 
 xi. 7), round, and of the bigness of coriander seed 
 {gad). It fell with the dew every morning, and 
 when the dew was exhaled by the heat of the sun, 
 the manna appeared alone, lying upon the ground 
 or the rocks round the encampment of the Israelites. 
 ‘ When the children of Israel saw it. they said one 
 to another, What is it? for they knew not what it 
 was’ (Exod. xvi. 15). In the authorized, and 
 some other versions, this passage is inaccurately 
 translated — which indeed is apparent from the two 
 parts of the sentence contradicting each other. 
 In the Septuagint the substance is almost always 
 called manna instead o 1 man. Josephus {Antiq. 
 iii. 1. § 10), as quoted by Dr. Harris, says: ‘The 
 Hebrews call this food manna , for the particle 
 
man In our language is the asking of a question, 
 Whit is this ? (■ man-hit ). Moses answered this 
 question hv telling them, k This is the bread which 
 the Lord hath given you to eat.’ We are further 
 informed that the manna fell every day, except 
 on the Sabbath. Every sixth day, that is on Fri- 
 day, there fell a double quantity of it. Every 
 man was directed to gather an omer (about 
 three English quarts) for each member of his 
 family ; and the whole seems afterwards to have 
 been measured out at the rate of an omer to each 
 person : ‘ He who gathered much had nothing 
 over, and he who gathered little had no lack.’ 
 That which remained ungathered dissolved in the 
 heat of the sun, and was lost. The quantity col- 
 lected was intended for the food of the current 
 day only; for if any were kept till next morning, 
 it corrupted and bred worms. Yet it was di- 
 rected that a double quantity should be gathered 
 on the sixth day for consumption on the Sabbath. 
 And it was found that the manna kept for the 
 Sabbath remained sweet and whohsome, not- 
 withstanding that it corrupted at other times, if 
 kept, for more than one day. In the same manner 
 as they would have treated grain, they reduced 
 it to meal, kneaded it into dough, and baked it 
 into cakes, and the taste of it was like that of 
 wafers made with honey, or of fresh oil. In Nura. 
 xi. 6-9, where the description of the manna is 
 repeated, an omer of it is directed to be pre- 
 served as a memorial to future generations, ‘ that 
 they may see the bread wherewith I have fed 
 you in the wilderness;’ and in Joshua v. 12 we 
 learn that after the Israelites had encamped at 
 (Algal, and ‘ did eat of the old corn of the land, 
 the manna ceased on the morrow after, neither 
 had the children of Israel manna any more.’ 
 
 This miracle is referred to in Deuf. viii. 3 ; 
 Neh. ix. 20; Ps. Ixxviii. 24; John vi. 31, 49, 
 58 ; Hcb. ix. 4. Though the manna of Scripture 
 was so evidently miraculous, both in the mode and 
 in the quantities in which it was produced, and 
 though its properties were so different from any 
 thing with which we are acquainted, yet, because 
 .ts taste is in Exodus said to be like that of wafers 
 made with honey, many writers have thought 
 that they recognised the manna of Scripture in a 
 sweetish exudation which is found on several 
 
 plants in Arabia and Persia. Toe name man , o: 
 manna , is applied to this substance by the Arat 
 writers, and was probably so applied even before 
 their time. But the term is now almost en- 
 tirely appropriated to the sweetish exudation ot 
 the ashes of Sicily and Italy ( Or mis Ettropesa 
 and Frazimis rotxindifolia ). These, however, 
 have no relation to the supposed manna of Scrip- 
 ture. Of this one kind is known to the Arabs by 
 the name of guzunjbeen , being the produce ot a 
 plant called guz, and which is ascei tallied to bee 
 species of tamarisk. The same species seems also 
 to be called toorfa, and is common along different 
 parts of the coast of Arabia. It is also found iii 
 the neighbourhood of Mount Sinai. Burckhardt, 
 while in the valley Wady el-Sheik, to the north 
 of Mount Serbal, says : ‘ In many parts it was 
 thickly overgrown with the tamarisk or toorfa; it 
 is the only valley in the Peninsula where this 
 tree grows at present in any quantity, though 
 some small bushes are here and there met with hi 
 other parts. It is from the tarfa that the manna is 
 obtained ; and it is very strange that the fact 
 should have remained unknown in Europe till 
 M. Seetzen mentioned it in a brief notice of his 
 ‘ Tour to Sinai,’ published in the Mines de 
 l' Orient. The substance is called by the Arabs 
 mann. In the month of June it drops from the 
 thorns of the tamarisk upon the fallen twigs, leav es 
 and thorns, which always cover the ground be- 
 neath the tree in the natural state. The Arabs 
 use it as they do honey, to pour over their un- 
 leavened bread, or to dip their bread into: its 
 taste is agreeable, somewhat aromatic, and as 
 sweet as honey. If eaten in any quantity it is 
 said to be highly purgative.’ He further adds, 
 ‘ that the tamarisk is one of the most common 
 trees in Nubia and throughout the whole ol 
 Arabia: on the Euphrates, on the Astaboras, in 
 all the valleys of the Hedjaz and Bedja it grows 
 in great quantities, yet nowhere but in the region 
 of Mount Sinai did he hear of its producing 
 manna. Ehrenberg has examined and described 
 this species of tamarisk, which he calls T. manni- 
 fera, but which is considered to be only a variety 
 of T. gallica. The manna lie considers to he 
 produced by the puncture of an insect which he 
 calls Coccus manniparus. Others have been of the 
 same opinion. When Lieut. Wellsted visited 
 this place in the month of September, he found the 
 extremities of the twigs and branches retaining 
 the peculiar sweetness and flavour which cha- 
 racterize the manna. The Bedouins collect it 
 early in the morning, and, after straining it 
 through a cloth, place it either in skins or gourds ; 
 a considerable quantity is consumed by them- 
 selves; a portion is sent to Cairo; and some is 
 also disposed of to the monks at Mount Sinai. 
 Tne latter retail it to the Russian pilgrims.’ * The 
 Bedouins assured me that the whole quantity 
 collected throughout the Peninsula, in the most 
 fruitful season, did not exceed 150 wogas (about 
 700 pounds) ; and that it was usually disposed 
 of at the rate of 60 dollars the woga ’ ( Travels in 
 Arabia, vol. i. p. 511). 
 
 Another kind of manna, which has been 
 supposed to be that of Scripture, is yielded 
 by a thorny plant very common from the north 
 of India to Syria, and which, by the Arabs, 
 is called Al-haj ; whence botanists have con- 
 structed the name Alhagi. The two species have 
 
MAN. 
 
 295 
 
 MANASSEH. 
 
 been called Alhcujt maurm'vm and A. dcserlo- 
 rum. Both species are also, by the Arabs, called 
 ooshter-khar, or ‘ camel’s-thoru ; and in Mesopo- 
 tamia agool, accoiding to some authorities, while 
 by others this is thought to be the name of another 
 plant. The Alhagi maurorum is remarkable for 
 the exudation of a sweetish juice, which concretes 
 into small granular masses, and which is usually 
 distinguished by the name of Persian manna. 
 The late Professor Don was so confident, that, this 
 was the same substance as the manna of Scrip- 
 ture, that he proposed calling the plant itself 
 Manna hebraica. The climates of Persia and 
 Bokhara seem also well suited to the secre- 
 tion of this manna, which in the latter country is 
 employed as a substitute for sugar, and is imported 
 into India for medicinal use through Caubul and 
 Kliorassan. In Arabian and Persian works on 
 Materia Medica it is called Tunmgbee){. These 
 two, from the localities in which they are pro- 
 duced, have alone been thought to be the manna of 
 Scripture. But, besides these, there are several other 
 kinds of manna. Burckhardt, during his journey 
 through El-Cihor, in the valley ofvthe Jordan, heard 
 of the Beiruk honey. This is described as a sub- 
 stance obtained from the leaves and branches of a 
 tree called Gharb or Gcirrab. of the size of an 
 olive-tree, and with leaves like those of the poplar. 
 When fresh this greyish coloured exudation is 
 sweet in taste, but in a few days it becomes sour. 
 The Arabs eat it. like honey. One kind, called 
 Sheer-khisht, is said to be produced in the country 
 of the Uzbecs. A Caubul merchant informed the 
 author of this article, that it was produced by a 
 tree called Gundeleh , which grows in Candahar, 
 and is about twelve feet high, with jointed stems. 
 A fifth kind is produced on Calotropis procera, or 
 the plant called Ashur. The sweet exudation 
 is by Arab authors ranked with sugars, and 
 called Shukur-al-ashur. It is described under 
 this name by Avicenna, and in the Latin trans- 
 lation it is called Zuccarum-al husar. A sixth 
 kind, called Bed-khisht , is described in Persian 
 works on Materia Medica, as being produced on 
 a species of willow in Persian Kliorassan. An- 
 other kind would appear to be produced on a 
 species of oak, for Niebuhr says, ‘At Merdin, 
 in Mesopotamia, it appears like a kind of pollen, 
 on the leaves of the tree called Ballot and Afs 
 (or, according to the Aleppo pronunciation, As ), 
 which I take to be of the oak family. All are 
 agreed, that between Merdin and Diarbekir 
 manna is obtained, and principally from those 
 trees which yield gall-nuts.’ Besides these, 
 there is a sweetish exudation found on the larch, 
 which is called Manna brigantiaca, as there is 
 also one kind found on the cedar of Lebanon. 
 Indeed a sweetish secretion is found on the leaves 
 of many other plants, produced sometimes by 
 the plant itself, at others by the punctures of 
 insects. It has been supposed, also, that these 
 sweetish exudations being evaporated during the 
 heat of the day in still weather, may afterwards 
 become deposited, with the dew, on the ground, and 
 on the leaves of plants ; and thus explain some of 
 the phenomena which have been observed by tra- 
 vellers and others. But none of these mannas ex- 
 plain, nor can it be expected that they should ex- 
 plain, the miracle of Scripture, by which abund- 
 ance is s'rated to have been produced for millions, 
 where kindreds cannot now be subsisted. — J. F. R. 
 
 MAN OF SIN. [Anticiiuist.] 
 
 MANAEN (M ararjv), a Christian teacher at 
 Antioch, who had been foster-brother of Herod 
 Antipas (Acts xiii. I). lie is supposed to have 
 been one of the seventy disciples, but this is un- 
 certain, as no particulars of his life are known. 
 
 MANASSEH, TRIBE OF. When the tribe 
 of Manasseh quitted Egypt, it numbered 32,200 
 adult males (Num. i. 34, 35), being 8300 less than 
 the tribe of Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph. 
 This wa? the lowest number of adult males in 
 any tribe at that period ; but if we add the two 
 together, the tribe of Joseph, composed of these 
 two tribes, reached to 72,700, which was more 
 than any other tribe contained, except Judah. 
 During the sojourn in the wilderness, the tribe of 
 Manasseh rose to 52,700 (Num. xxvi 34), being 
 an increase of 20,500. This gave it rank in point 
 of population as the sixth of the tribes, Judah, 
 Issachar, Zebulon, Dan, and Asher only being 
 more numerous. In the same period Ephraim had 
 declined to nearly the same position which Ma- 
 nasseh had previously occupied, its numbers being 
 reduced to 32,500. Yet the prophecy of Jacob 
 was fulfilled, and, when settled in Canaan, 
 Ephraim became superior in wealth, power and 
 population, not only to Manasseh, but to all the 
 tribes except Judah. One circumstance tending 
 to weaken Manasseh may have been the divi- 
 sion which took place in it. on entering Palestine. 
 The pastoral half of the tribe was allowed to 
 establish itself with Reuben and Gad, on the east 
 of the Jordan, where it occupied the northernmost 
 portion, consisting of Argob and Bashan, from the 
 Jabbok to Mount Hermon (Num. xxxii. 39: 
 xxxiv. 14 ; Deut. iii. 3: Josh. xii. 6; xiii. 7 ; J 
 Chron. vi. 23), while the other half was provided 
 for with the rest of the tribes in Canaan proper, 
 west of the Jordan, where it had a fine tract of 
 country extending from that river to the Medi- 
 terranean, with the kindred tribe of Ephraim on 
 the south, and Issachar on the north (Josh. xvi. 9 ; 
 xvii. 7-11). The half-tribe west of the river was 
 not, however, for some time able to expel the 
 former inhabitants of the territory, so as to obtain 
 the exclusive possession of it (Josh. xvii. 12; 
 Judg. i. 27). The tribe of Manasseh makes no 
 figure in the history of the Hebrews. 
 
 1. MANASSEH (figO£, who makes forget , 
 see Gen. xli. 51 ; Sept. Mavacraris), the elder of 
 the two sons of Joseph, born in Egypt (Gen. 
 xli. 51 ; xlvi. 20), whom Jacob adopted as 
 his own (xlviii. 1) — by which act each became 
 the head of a tribe in Israel. The act. of adop- 
 tion was however accompanied by a clear intima- 
 tion from Jacob,- that the descendants of Manas- 
 seh, although the elder, would be far less numerous 
 and powerful than those of the younger Ephraim. 
 The result corresponded remarkably with this in- 
 timation. [Ephuaim.] 
 
 2. MANASSEH, fourteenth king of Judah, son 
 and successor of Hezekiah, who began to reign in 
 h.c. 699. at the early age of twelve years, and 
 reigned fifty-five years. It appears that the. 
 secret enemies of the vigorous reforms of Hezekiah 
 re-appeared, and managed to gain much influence 
 at court during the youth of Manasseh ; and he 
 was prevailed upon to re-establish all the idola* 
 tries and abominations which it had taken hit 
 excellen' father so much pains to subvert. Tbi* 
 
296 
 
 MANAGER. 
 
 bent having be n unhappily given to the mi. i of 
 one old enough to isten to evil counsels, but too 
 young to see their danger, the king followed it with 
 all the reckless ardour of youth, and without any 
 of the prudent reservations which older sovereigns, 
 more discreet in evincing the same inclinations, 
 had maintained. Idolatry in its worst forms, and 
 all the abominations connected with its observances, 
 were practised without stint and without shame, 
 not ouly in the face of the temple, but in its very 
 courts, where altars to the heavenly bodies were 
 set up, and rites of idolatrous worship performed. 
 Under this altered state of tilings, the Judahites, 
 with the sanction of the king’s example, rushed 
 into all the more odious observances of Syrian 
 idolatry, with all the ardour which usually 
 attends the outbreak of a restrained propensity, 
 till they became far ‘ worse than the heathen, 
 whom the Lord destroyed before the children of 
 Israel.’ In vain did the prophets raise their voice 
 against these iniquities, and threaten Manasseh 
 and his kingdom with awful tokens of Divine 
 indignation. Instead of profiting by these warn- 
 ings, the king vented his rage against those by 
 whom they were uttered, and in this, and other 
 ways, filled Jerusalem with innocent blood be- 
 yond any king who reigned before him (1 Kings 
 xxi. 1-16; 2 Cbron. xxxiii. 1-10). 
 
 At length the wrath of God burst over the 
 guilty king and nation. At this time there was 
 constant war between Assyria and Egypt, and it 
 would seem that Manasseh adhered to the policy 
 of his father in making common cause with the 
 latter power. This, or some other cause not stated 
 by the sacred historian, brought into Judaea an 
 Assyrian army, under the generals of Esar-had- 
 don, which carried all before it. The miserable 
 king attempted flight, but was discovered in a 
 thorn-brake in which he had hidden himselfj 
 was laden with chains, and sent away as a cap- 
 tive to Babylon, which was then subject to the As- 
 syrians, where he was cast into prison (b.c. 677). 
 Here, at last, Manasseh had ample opportunity 
 and leisure for cool reflection; and the hard 
 lessons of adversity were not lost upon him. He 
 saw and deplored the evils of his reign, he became 
 as a new man, he humbly besought pardon from 
 God, and implored that he might be enabled to 
 evince the sincerity of his contrition, by being re- 
 stored to a position for undoing all that it had 
 been the business of his life to effect. His prayer 
 was heard. His captivity is supposed to have 
 lasted a year, and he was then restored to his 
 kingdom under certain obligations of tribute and 
 allegiance to the king of Assyria, which, although 
 not expressed in the account of this transaction, 
 are alluded to in the history of his successors (2 
 Chron. xxxiii. 11-13). 
 
 On his return to Jerusalem, Manasseh exerted 
 himself to the utmost in correcting the errors of 
 his early reign, and in establishing the worship of 
 Jehovah in its former purity and splendour. The 
 good conduct of his latter reign was rewarded 
 with such prosperity as enabled him to do much 
 for the improvement and strengthening of his 
 capital and kingdom. He thoroughly repaired 
 the old walls of Jerusalem, and jjdded a new wall 
 on the wide towards Gihon ; he surrounded and 
 fortified by a separate wall the hill or ridge, on 
 !he east of Zion, which bore the name of 
 Ophel, « nA he strengthen ?d, garrisoned, and pro- 
 
 MANASSES, PRAYER OF. 
 
 visioned ‘the fenced cities of Judah’ (2 Chron. 
 xxxiii. 13-17). He died in peace (b.c. 664), at 
 the age of sixty-eight, after having reigned longer 
 than any other king of Judah, and was buried in 
 a sepulchre which he had prepared for himself in 
 his own garden (xxxiii. 20). 
 
 MANASSES, PRAYER OF [Apocrypha). 
 This pseudepigraphal work has come down to us 
 in the MSS. of the Latin Vulgate, and is found 
 in the early printed editions of that version. It 
 is erroneously stated in the preface to the Antwerp 
 edition, that, this prayer is found only in the Latin 
 language, and that it does not exist either in the 
 Greek or Hebrew ; and the same is repeated by 
 Du Pin (Prolegomena ; and Canon of Scrip- 
 ture, i. 1). It had, however, already appeared 
 in Greek and Latin in Robert Stephen’s folic 
 edition of the Latin Vulgate, Paris, 1540, im- 
 mediately after the second hook of Chronicles 
 (p. 159), and in the edition of the same printed 
 in 1546, while in his quarto edition of 1545 and 
 those which followed, it appears in Latin only. 
 Robert Stephen prefaces the first Greek impression 
 of this prayer by observing: * Graecam banc 
 Manassae regis Juda orationem, nunquam ante- 
 hac excusatn, peperit tihi, candide lector, bibli- 
 otheca Victoriana, quae quam dives sit veterum 
 exemplarium omnis generis, nemo non novit. 
 Quid multa? Secundat Deus res eorum, qui 
 omnibus literarum meliorum studiosis talem 
 bibliothecam quotidie curant et instruunt. magis 
 ac magis.’ It was next published by Dauderstadt 
 in 1628, and was afterwards found in the Codex 
 Alexandrians , among the hymns which follow 
 the book of Psalms, and was inserted by Walton 
 in his Polyglott , with the various readings of this 
 MS. It also appears among the hymns in the 
 Ethiopic Psalter, as published by Ludolf in 
 1701. When the Apocryphal writings were sepa- 
 rated from the other books at the Reformation, 
 the Prayer of Manasses was placed between Bel 
 and the Dragon and Maccabees. 
 
 Du Pin (/. c.) asserts that the Latin fathers 
 have often cited this prayer ; but the earliest refer- 
 ence to it which we know of is in the Apostolical 
 Constitutions (§ 12), attributed to Clemens Ro- 
 manus, but which are generally believed to be a 
 work of the fourth century. In this work (ii. 22) 
 the prayer is cited as if it were an integral portion 
 of the hook of Chronicles, together with some tra- 
 dionary accounts of the nature of his imprison- 
 ment in shackles of iron, and of his miraculous 
 release : which are also alluded to in the Tar 
 gum on Chronicles. It was held to he genuine 
 by the author of the Sermon on the Pharisee 
 and Publican , in the works of Chrysostom (i. 6) ; 
 by Anthony the Monk (ii. 94) ; Theodore Stu- 
 dita ( Serm . Catechet. 93); Theophanes Ceramaeus 
 (Homil. ii. and lvi.) ; Freculfus, and George Syn 
 cellus, and George the Sinner, in their Chronicles , 
 also by Suidas ( Lexicon , s. v. Ma va<r<rrjs), who 
 cites the commencement, Kvpte irarTnicpaTwo, 
 ic. r. A., and by Anastasius Sinaita (in Psalm, vi.). 
 By several of these writers it is called a hymn. 
 or hymn of prayer (■jrpoa'evxyy rrjs d5i)s), which 
 was sung in the churches- — a statement corrobo- 
 rated by its position in the Codex Alexandrinus. 
 The modem Greeks still place it in their 
 Psalter along with the other hymns (Leo Allatius, 
 De lib. Ecclesiast. Grcecorum, p. 62). It was 
 printed in Greek in th <i Apostolical Constitutions 
 
MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. 297 
 
 m 1563, and in the Apostolical Fathers of Cofe- (a.) The synagogue rolls contain the Penfa- 
 levins in 1672. The learned Fabricius reprinted tench, the appointed sections of the prophets, or 
 it at Leipsic in 1691, together with the books of the book of Esther, which last is used only at the 
 Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit. He also Feast of Purim. The three are never put together ; 
 published metrical versions of it in Greek and but are written on separate rolls. They are in the 
 Latin, one of which had previously appeared in Chaldee or square Hebrew character, without 
 l )98 ; and there had been a Latin metrical ver- vowels and accents, accompanied with the puncia 
 siou published by Claudius Espencaeus at Paris, extraordinaria , and having she unusual forms of 
 in 1566. It appeared in the Greek Apocrypha, certain consonants. The parchment is prepared in 
 Frankfort, 1694, and homiletic expositions of it a particular manner by the hands of Jews only, 
 were eiven to the public bv John Forster, George and made from the hides of clean animals, which 
 
 Albert, and others. (See Fabricii Biblioth. Grcec. 
 lib. iii. cap. 29, p. 740, or Harles’s edit. cap. xiv. 
 vol. 3, p. 732). 
 
 It is entitled ‘ The Prayer of Manasses, king 
 of Judah, when he was holden captive in Ba- 
 bylon,’ and had doubtless its origin from 2 Chron. 
 xxxiii. 12, 13: ‘ And when he was in Babylon 
 in affliction, he besought the Lord his God . . . 
 md prayed unto him;’ and verse 18, ‘ Now the 
 ;est of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto 
 God . . . behold, they are written in the book 
 of the kings of Israel and verse 19, ‘ His prayer 
 also, and how God was entreated of him .... 
 
 behold, they are written among the 
 
 sayings of the seers.’ 
 
 This prayer, however, not being found in the 
 Hebrew, and not being cited by the more eminent 
 lathers, nor contained in any of the catalogues of 
 ancient councils, has not been received in the 
 church as genuine or canonical. It is classed in 
 the Sixth Article of the Church of England, 
 among the ‘ other books read by the church for 
 example of life and instruction of manners but 
 the church of Rome classes it with 3rd and 4th 
 Esdras [Esdras], removing it to the end of the 
 Bible, and rejecting it from the deutero-canonical, 
 as well as from the proto-canonical books. Dens 
 ( Theologia , vol. ii. p. 94, Qusest. vi., N. 61) 
 states that the church places these books, together 
 with 3rd and 4th Maccabees, among the Apo- 
 crypha, as she did not find a sufficiently cer- 
 tain tradition respecting them. He classifies the 
 Apocrypha as consisting of books positively Apo- 
 cryphal , or condemned, and negatively Apocry- 
 phal ', that, is, neither approved nor rejected. ‘ The 
 latter may become canonical when the church’s 
 doubts are removed, as was the case of the deutero- 
 canonical books’ [Deutero-canonical]. ‘ A 
 positively Apocryphal book can never become 
 canonical, although a canonical book may be- 
 come apocryphal.’ 
 
 The prayer of Manasses abounds in pious sen- 
 timents. Mr. Horne ( Tntrod . vol. ii.) describes 
 it as not unworthy of the occasion on which it 
 is pretended to have been composed. Du Pin 
 ( ut supra ) observes that though not very eloquent, 
 it is full of good thoughts. Bishop Cosin ( Scho- 
 lastic Hist, of the Canon') cites a passage from 
 it, ‘ Repentance is not for the just, but for sin- 
 ners,’ as hearing a resemblance to Matt. ix. 13. 
 MANDRAKE. [Dudaim.] 
 
 MAN EH. [Weights & Measures.] 
 MANNA. [Man, 2.] 
 
 MANOAH, father of Samson [Samson]. 
 
 MANSLAYER. [Bi.ood-Revenge.] 
 MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. These are 
 either Hebrew or Greek : we shall treat of them 
 separately. 1. Jewish MSS. are divided into («.) 
 Synagogue rolls or saeo ed copies ; and lb.) Private 
 w common copies. 
 
 when duly wrought, are joined together by thongs 
 made out of the same material. They are then 
 divided into columns, the breadth of which must 
 not exceed half their length. These columns, 
 whose number is prescribed, must be of equal 
 length and breadth among themselves, and con- 
 tain a certain number of lines, each line having 
 no more than three words. The Talmud contains 
 strict rules concerning the material, the colour, 
 the ink, letters, divisions, writing-instrument, &c., 
 which are closely followed, especially in the Pen- 
 tateuch. These rules are extracted from tire 
 Talmud, and translated in Adler's Judceorum 
 Codicis Sacri rite scribendi leges ad recte cesti- 
 niandos Codices Manuscriptos antiquos perve- 
 teres. Ex libello Talmudico in Latinum con- 
 versas et adnotationibus necessariis explicates, 
 eruditis examinandas tradit , &c., Hamburgh, 
 1779, 8vo. The minuteness of such regulations 
 renders it a most irksome task for the soplier ox 
 scribe to write out a synagogue roll. The revi- 
 sion of the Torah, as the synagogue roll is often 
 called, must be undertaken within thirty days 
 after its transcription, else it is unfit, for use. 
 Three mistakes on one side or skin are allowable ; 
 but should there be four, or should there happen 
 to be an error in the open and close sections of the 
 law; in the position of the songs in Exodus ch. 
 v., and Deuteronomy ch. xxxii., which are the 
 only portions of the Pentateuch written in poetical 
 lines, then the whole copy is worthless. The great 
 beauty of penmanship exhibited in these syna- 
 gogue copies has been always admired. They 
 are taken from authentic exemplars, without the 
 slightest deviation or correction. They seldom 
 fall into the hands of Christians, since, as soon as 
 they cease to be employed in the synagogue, they 
 are either buried or caiefully laid aside, lest they 
 should be profaned by coming into the possession 
 of Gentiles. 
 
 (b.) Private MSS. are written partly in the 
 square or Chaldee character, partly in the Rab- 
 binical. They are held in far less esteem than 
 the synagogue rolls, and are wont to be denomi- 
 nated profane ( pesidim ). Their form is entirely 
 arbitrary. They are in folio, quarto, octavo, and 
 duodecimo. Of those written in the square cha- 
 racter, the greater number are on parchment, some 
 on paper. The ink of the letters is always black, 
 but the vowel points are usually written with ink 
 of a different colour from that of the consonants. 
 Initial words and letters are frequently decorated 
 with gold and silver colours. The prose parts are 
 arranged in columns, the poetic in parallel mem- 
 bers. Some copies are without columns. The 
 columns are not always occupied with the Hebrew 
 text alone; for a version is frequently added, which 
 is either written in the text after the manner of 
 verses, or in a column by itself, or in the margin 
 in a smaller character. The number of lines is 
 
298 MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. 
 
 not prescribe 1 by the Talmud. The upper and 
 lower margin are filled with ihe Great Masora, 
 And sometimes with a Rabbinical commentary; 
 as also with prayers, psalms, ami the like. The 
 external margin is for corrections, scholia, vari- 
 ations, notices of the haphtaroth (sections from 
 the prophets), parashoth (sections from the law), 
 the commentaries of the Rabbins, &c. &c. The 
 inner margin, or that between the columns, is 
 occupied with the little Masora. The single 
 books of the Old Testament are separated from 
 one another by spaces, except the hooks of Samuel, 
 Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which 
 are written continuously. The sections of the 
 law and prophets are generally marked. In the 
 MSS. of different countries the books are differ- 
 ently arranged. These copies generally pass 
 through various hands before they are finished. 
 The consonants proceed from the sopher or scribe. 
 When the same person writes both consonants and 
 vowels, as is frequently the case, he never makes 
 them at the same time; the former are finished 
 before lie begins to append the latter. The K'ris 
 in the margin uniformly proceed from the vowel- 
 writer. It is probable that these copies were in no 
 instance made by Christians. 
 
 Although the square character be employed in 
 all the MSS. of which we have spoken, yet it has 
 varieties. The Jews themselves distinguish in the 
 synagogue rolls, 1. the Tam letter, with sharp cor- 
 ners and perpendicular coronulae, used among the 
 German and Polish Jews; 2. the Velshe letter, 
 more modern than the Tam , and rounder, with 
 coronulae, particularly found in the sacred copies 
 of the Spanish and Oriental Jews. 
 
 The age of Hebrew MSS. is not easily deter- 
 mined. It is true that they often contain sub- 
 scriptions giving an account of the time when 
 they were written, and the name of the scribe, or 
 also of the possessor. But these accounts are 
 often ambiguous, and occasionally incorrect. 
 Where they are altogether wanting, it is still more 
 difficult to discover the age. In t lie latter case, 
 the character of the writing, the colour of the ink, 
 the quality and yellowness of the parchment, the 
 absence of the Masora, of the vowel-points, of the 
 unusual letters, &c. have been chiefly rested upon. 
 Still, however, such particulars are uncertain 
 marks of age. 
 
 The oldest Hebrew MS. at present known be- 
 longs to a.d. 1106 (No. 154 of Kennicott). It. is 
 true lliat. some others are supposed to be older, 
 but. simply by conjecture. As far as certainty is 
 concerned, this is certainly the oldest. Loehnis 
 ( Grundziige der Biblischen Hermeneutik und 
 Kritik , Giessen, 1839) affirms that some reach 
 as far back as the eighth century, an assertion 
 grounded merely on the conjecture of De Rossi 
 and Kennicott. So much uncertainty attaches to 
 the internal marks adopted by these two Hebraists, 
 that the ages to which they assign several Hebrew 
 MSS. are quite gratuitous. No Hebrew MS. 
 possessing an indubitably accurate register of its 
 antiquity, goes farther back than the twelfth cen- 
 tury (see the third section of Tvchsen’s Tentamen 
 de va-riis Codicum Hebraicorum Vet: Test. MSS. 
 qeneribus , #c., Rostock, 1772, 8vo., in which the 
 learned writer examines the marks of antiquity 
 assumed by Simon, Jablonski, Wolf, Houbigant, 
 Kennicott, and Lilienthal, and shows that the 
 Masora alone ir a certain index for determining 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLK AL 
 
 the age and goodness of Hebrew MSS. ; ihc same 
 writer’s Beurthcilung der Jahrzahlen in den 
 Ilebratisch- Biblischen llandschrijten , Rostock. 
 1786, Rvo., in which the mode of detet mining the 
 age of MSS. adopted by Kennicott, Bruns, and 
 De Rossi, is rejected ; and Scbnurrer’s Disser - 
 tatio Inaugurates de Codicum Ilebrccorum VeL 
 'J'est. estate difficulter determinandd , Tubingen, 
 1772, 4to., and reprinted in his Dissertations 
 1 *h ilologico- Criticee, Gotha and Amsterdam, 179*', 
 8vo). 
 
 Private MSS. written in the Rabbinical cha- 
 racter are much more recent than the preceding ; 
 none of them being older than 500 years. They 
 are on cotton or linen paper, in a cursive cha- 
 racter, without vowel-points or the Masora, and 
 with many abbreviations. 
 
 The MSS. found among the Chinese Jews are 
 partly synagogue rolls, partly private copies, 
 whose text does not differ from the Masoretic. 
 The Pentateuch of the Malabar Jews brought 
 from India to England by the late Dr. Bu- 
 chanan, and described by Mr. Yeates, resembles 
 on the whole the usual synagogue rolls of the 
 Jews, except that it is written on red skins. Its 
 text is the Masoretic, with a few unimportant 
 deviations. 
 
 Eight exemplars are celebrated among the 
 Jews for their correctness and value. They are 
 now lost, but extracts from them are still pre- 
 served. From Jewish writings, and from the 
 margin of some MSS., where a reference is made 
 to them, we learn that they were highly prized 
 for their singular accuracy. They formed the 
 basis of subsequent copies. They are — l. The 
 codex of Hillel; 2. The Babylonian codex, 
 3. The codex of Israel ; 4. An Egyptian codex ; 
 5. Codex Sinai ; 6. The Pentateuch of Jericho; 
 7. Codex Sanbuki ; 8. The book Taggin. Foi 
 a more copious account of Hebrew MSS. we refer 
 to Eichhorn’s Einleitung (Introduction), vol. ii. : 
 Kennicott’s Dissertatio generalis ; Walton's Pro- 
 legomena to the Polyglott , which have been sepa 
 lately edited by Dathe andWrangham; Tycli- 
 svn's Tentamen ; De Rossi’s Varicc Lectioncs 
 Vet. Test. &c. ; and his Scholia critica in V. T. 
 libros,’& c. ; De Wette, Lehrbuch der llistorisch- 
 Kritischen Einleitung ; and Davidson’s Lectures 
 on Biblical Criticism, in which last the best 
 books are pointed out. 
 
 II. We have now to refer to the MSS. of the 
 Greek Testament. Those that have descended 
 to our time are either on vellum or paper. The 
 oldest material was the Egyptian papyrus ; but 
 even so early as the fourth century, the New 
 Testament was written on the skins of animals. 
 This writing material continued in use till the 
 eleventh century, when paper began to be em- 
 ployed. Till the tenth century, MSS. were 
 usually written in capital or uncial letters ; then 
 the cursive character came into use. The most 
 ancient copies have no divisions of words, being 
 written in a continued series of lines. Accents, 
 spirits, and iota subscript, are also wanting. 
 
 The whole New Testament is contained in 
 very few MSS. Transcribers generally divided 
 it into three parts ; the first containing the four 
 Gospels ; the second, the Act? of the Apostles and 
 the Epistles; the third, the Apocalypse of St- 
 John. The greatest number of MSS. are those 
 which have the four Gospels, because they were 
 
MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. 
 
 most frequently read in the churches. Those 
 containing the Acts and epistles are also nu- 
 merous. Such as have the booV of Revelation 
 alone are extremely few, because it was seldom 
 read in public. 
 
 Greek codices are not often complete in all 
 their parts. They have many chasms. Again, 
 some contain merely detached portions of the 
 New Testament, or sections appointed to be read 
 on certain days in the churches. Hence such 
 codices are called avayvdxreis or avay vucr para in 
 Greek ; and in Latin lectionaria. Those con- 
 taining lessons from the Gospels are called evan- 
 pelistaria; while such as were taken from the 
 Acts and epistles were denominated irpa^air6o'- 
 toAoi. 
 
 Several MSS. are accompanied with a Latin 
 translation interlined , or in a parallel column. 
 Such have been called bilingues , or Graeco- Latini. 
 
 We shall now advert to the uncial MSS. of the 
 Greek Testament, and to those usually quoted in 
 the examination of the controverted passage 1 
 John v. 7. The former are marked with the 
 letters of the alphabet A, B, C, &c. 
 
 A. Codex Alexandrinus , presented by Cyril 
 Lucar, patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards 
 of Constantinople, to Charles I., now in the 
 British Museum. It contains the whole Bible, 
 the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in 
 three folios, and the New Testament in one. It 
 has various chasms. A fac-simile of the New 
 Testament portion was published by Dr. Woide, 
 in a folio volume, London, 1786. Mr. Baber 
 of the British Museum executed the Old Testa- 
 ment in the same manner, in four folio volumes, 
 London, 1819. This MS. was probably written 
 at Alexandria, and belongs to the fifth century. 
 
 B. Codex Vatic antes, 1209, in' the Vatican 
 Library at Rome, containing the Old and New 
 Testaments. It is defective in several places ; 
 and portions have been supplied by a modern 
 hand. Hug has proved that it belongs to the 
 middle of the fourth century. In regard to the 
 internal value of its readings, it is probably 
 superior to the Codex Alexandrinus. 
 
 C. Codex regius, or Ephraemi. This is a 
 rescript or palimpsest MS., i. e. the ancient writ- 
 ing lias been erased to make room for some other. 
 The works of Ephrem the Syrian were over the 
 original. In endeavouring to ascertain the cha- 
 racter of what was first written on the parchment, 
 and washing off the latter letters, it was found 
 that the MS. contained originally the Old and 
 New Testaments in Greek. In many places it 
 is so faded as to be illegible. There are nume- 
 rous chasms in it. Several forms of words seem 
 to indicate that it was written in Egypt : it pro- 
 bably belongs to the sixth century, and is now in 
 the Royal Library at Paris, where it is marked 9. 
 
 D. Codex Cantabrigiensis, or Bezce.- — This 
 MS. was presented, in 1581, to the University of 
 Cambridge, by Theodore Beza. It is a Greek - 
 Latin MS. of the four Gospels, and the Acts of the 
 Apostles, with a single fragment of the Catholic 
 epistles. Its age is probably the seventh cen- 
 tury, though many have assigned it to the’ fifth. 
 Xipling, Hug, and Scholz think that it was 
 written in Egypt; but Scholz has given some 
 reasons for assigning it to the south of France, 
 which are not without weight. Credner assents to 
 the latter opinion, as far as the MS. is concerned; 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. 299 
 
 while he thinks that the text is of Jewish-Chris- 
 tian origin, and attributes it to Palestine. Great 
 diversity of opinion has prevailed respecting the 
 quality of its readings. Bishop Middleton, at 
 tire end of his work on the Greek article, depre- 
 ciated it. Matthsei had done so before. Both 
 have unduly lessened its value. Dr. Kipling 
 published a fac-simile of it at Cambridge, 1793, 
 2 vols. folio. 
 
 D. Claromontanus, or Regius , 107, a Greek- 
 Latin copy of Paul's epistles, marked with the 
 same letter of the alpliabet as the preceding, but 
 containing a different, part of the New Testament. 
 It is at present in the Royal Library at Paris : it 
 probably belongs to the eighth century. 
 
 E. Codex Basileensis. — This MS. has many 
 chasms, and several parts of it have beetr written 
 by a more recent hand than the rest. If contains 
 the Gospels, and belongs to the ninth century. 
 
 E. Laudianus, having once belonged to Arch- 
 bishop Laud, and now in the Bodleian Library. 
 It contains the Acts of the Apostles, with a Latin 
 version, and wants from xxvi. 29 to xxviii. 26. 
 This MS. belongs to the seventh or eighth cen- 
 tury, and was published by Thomas Hearne at 
 Oxford in 1715, octavo. 
 
 E. Sangermanensis. — This is a Greek-Latin 
 MS. of Paul's epistles, but a copy of the Claro- 
 montanus , with various corrections. It belongs 
 to the eleventh century. 
 
 F. Codex Boreeli, containing the four Gospels. 
 It has been collated no farther than Luke x. 
 
 F. Coislinianus, a MS. containing part of the 
 Old Testament and Acts ix. 21, 25. It belongs 
 to the seventh century. 
 
 F. Augiensis. — This is a Greek-Latin MS. of 
 Paul’s epistles, now in the library of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. It belongs to the tenth 
 century. 
 
 G. llarleianus , in the British Museum. This 
 is a MS. of the four Gospels, but with many 
 chasms. It belongs to the eleventh century. 
 
 G. Angelicus. — A MS. containing the Acts of 
 the Apostles, with the Pauline and Catholic epis- 
 tles, belonging to the Angelican Library at Rome. 
 It is as old as the ninth century. In the Pauline 
 epistles it is marked I. 
 
 G. Boernerianus, a Greek MS. of Paul's 
 Epistles, with an interlinear Lalin version, now 
 in the Electoral Library at Dresden. It wants 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, and probably belongs 
 to the ninth century. The characters show an 
 approach to the cursive. 
 
 H. Wolfiiis, a MS. of the four Gospels, with 
 many chasms. It belongs to the eleventh century. 
 
 H. Mutinensis. — This MS. contains the Acts 
 of the Apostles written in the ninth century ; but 
 chapters i. 1 — v. 28, were added in the fifteenth 
 century, and xxvii. 1 to the end, in the eleventh 
 century. With the Catholic epistles, it contains 
 the Pauline, written in cursive letters (179), and 
 belongs to the twelfth century. 
 
 H. Coislinianus. — This MS. contains frag 
 ments of the Pauline epistles, which have been 
 printed by Montfaucon in the Bibliotheca Cois 
 liniana. According to Hug it belongs to the 
 sixth century. 
 
 J. Cottonianus. — This codex contains frag- 
 ments of Matthew and John's Gospels. It be- 
 longs to the seventh or eighth century. 
 
 K. Codex Cyprius , formerly Colbertinus, 5149 
 
*50 MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. 
 
 now Regius, 63, a MS. containing the Gospels. 
 It belongs to the eighth or ninth century, probably 
 the latter, and has been i'ully collated and de- 
 scribed by Scholz at the end of his Cures Criticos , 
 4to., Heidelberg. 1820. See, however, Schulz in 
 the prolegomena to Griesbach, vol. i. 
 
 L. Regius, 62. — This MS. contains the four 
 Gospels, with several mutilations. It is of 
 Egyptian origin, as Griesbach has proved ; and 
 belongs to the ninth century. 
 
 M. Regius, 48, containing the Gospels, and 
 belonging to the tenth century. 
 
 N. Vindobonensis Ccesareus. — This fragmen- 
 tary MS. contains only Luke xxiv. 13-21 and 
 39-49. It belongs to the seventh century. 
 
 O. Monte falconii , a MS. containing Luke 
 xviii. 
 
 P. Guclpherbytanus, a codex rescriptus , con- 
 taining fragments of the four Gospels, and be- 
 longing to the sixth century. 
 
 Q. Guclpherbytanus , also a rescript MS., con- 
 taining fragments of the Gospels of Luke and 
 John, and belonging to the sixth century. These 
 two MSS. were published and described by 
 Knittel in 1763, 
 
 R. Tubingensis. — This fragment, containing 
 John i. 38-50, has been published by Reuss. It 
 belongs to the seventh century. 
 
 S. Vaticanus , 354. — This MS. contains the 
 Gospels, and belongs to the tenth century. 
 
 T. The Borgian fragment, part of a Coptic- 
 Gieek MS. brought from Egypt. It contains 
 John vi. 28-67 ; vii. 6 — viii. 31. It was printed 
 by George in 1789, and belongs to the fourth or 
 more probably the fifth century. 
 
 U. A MS. of the Gospels in St. Mark's Library, 
 Venice. It belongs to the tenth century. 
 
 V. Mosquemis, a MS. of the four Gospels, be- 
 longing to the library of the Holy Synod at 
 Moscow. It wants some parts of Matthew, and 
 from John vii. 39 is written in cursive characters 
 of the thirteenth century ; the first part belongs to 
 the ninth century. 
 
 W. Regius, a fragment containing Luke ix. 
 36-47 ; x 12-22; and belonging to the eighth 
 century. 
 
 X. Landshutensis. — This MS. contains the 
 
 four Gospels, but with numerous chasms and some 
 supplements. It belongs most probably to the 
 tenth century. X 
 
 Y. Barber inns , a fragment in the library of 
 Cardinal Barberini at Rome, containing John 
 xvi. 4 — xix. 28. It belongs to the ninth century. 
 
 Z. Dublinensis, a rescript, exhibiting the Gospel 
 of Matthew, but in a very imperfect state. It 
 was published in fac-simile by Dr. Barrett (Dub- 
 lin, 1801, 4to.), and belongs to the sixth cen- 
 tury. 
 
 T. Vaticanus . — This fragment contains Mat- 
 thew xix. 6-13; xx. 6-22; xx. 29— xxi. 19. It 
 belongs to the seventh century. 
 
 A. Sangallensis. — This is a Greek -Latin MS. 
 of the Gospels, made by the monks in the monas- 
 tery of St. Galleu. It was published by Retti- 
 gius at Turin, in 1836, and belongs to the ninth 
 century. 
 
 Such are the uncial MSS. hitherto collated. 
 Those written in the cursive character are de- 
 icribed in the large critical editions of Wetsfein, 
 Griesbach, and Scholz ; and in the Introduction 
 if Michaelis, up to the period when it was pub- 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS, BIBLICAL. 
 
 lished. The other Introductions contain ilestrip 
 tions of several, but not all the MSS. 
 
 Three cursive MSS. deserve mention, frunr 
 their connection with the much-disputed passage 
 1 John v. 7, which they are usually quoted a.' 
 containing. As they are written in ft ursive letters 
 they are not older than the tenth century. 
 
 1 . The Codex Montfortianus, or Dublinensis 
 belonging to the library of Trinity College, 
 Dublin. It was quoted by Erasmus, under the 
 title of Codex Britannicus. It is written on 
 paper in 12mo. size, and could not have been 
 made earlier than the fifteenth century. It follows 
 the Vulgate very closely, not. only in the insertion 
 of the much-disputed verse, but in other passages 
 of a remarkable character. 
 
 2. The Codex Ravianus, or Berolinensis . — 
 This MS. is generally supposed to be. a forgery 
 copied in the greater part of it from the Greek 
 text of the Complutensian Polyglott, and the third 
 edition of Stephens. It has even their typogra- 
 phical errors. It was written in the sixteenth 
 century, and has no critical value (see Pap- 
 pel ban m's Untersuchung der Ravischen Griechi- 
 schen Handschrift des Neuen Testaments , Berlin, 
 1785, 8vo. ; and his subsequent treatise, enti- 
 tled, Codicis Manuscripti N. T. Greed Raviam 
 in Biblioth. Reg. Berol. publica asservati examen , 
 quo ostenditur, alteram ejus partem majorem 
 ex editione Complutensi, alteram minorem ex 
 editionc Rob. Stephani tertia esse descriptam, 
 Berlin, 1796, 8voh 
 
 3. Codex Ottobonianus (298), preserved in 
 the Vatican. This MS. contains the Acts and 
 epistles, with a Latin version. Scholz ascribes it 
 to the fifteenth century. It has no critical value, 
 because it. has been altered in many cases to 
 correspond with the Vidgate. In it the disputed 
 text is found in a different form from the com- 
 mon reading. Instead of in heaven , it has from 
 heaven ; and instead of on earthy it. has from tin 
 earth. 
 
 MSS. are generally divided by the moderr 
 critics of Germany into — 1. Such as were writter 
 before the practice of stichometry, a mode o*. 
 dividing the text which shall be explained after 
 wards. 2. The stichometrical. 3. Those written 
 after stichometry had ceased. So Hug and IX 
 Wette in their Introductions to the New Testa 
 ment. According to this classification A, B, and 
 C belong to the first class; D, D, &c., to tho 
 second ; and by far the greatest number to the 
 third. We have alluded to them under the two 
 great heads of uncial and cursive. 
 
 In examining MSS. and comparing then cna- 
 racteristic readings, it is not easy in every instance 
 to arrive at the true original form of a passage. 
 Many circumstances are to be taken into account 
 — many cautions must be observed. They aie 
 more useful in detecting interpolated passages 
 than in restoring the correct reading. 
 
 The reading of an older MS. is preferable 
 ceteris paribus. 
 
 In determining the age of a MS. internal 
 marks have been chiefly followed, such as the 
 form of the letters, the divisions, abbreviations, 
 the nature of the lines, the presence or absence of 
 the accents, &c. These particulars, however, are 
 not safe criteria. 
 
 Age alone is not sufficient to ensure the value 
 of the text of a MS, The copyist may have been 
 
MAON. 
 
 MARAH. 
 
 0(1 
 
 guilty of negligence or inattention. Iti proportion 
 to iiis accuracy or carelessness will the authority 
 of the codex be greater or less. 
 
 Again, a document certainly copied from one 
 which is very ancient, will have greater authority 
 than an earlier taken from another of no great 
 antiquity. Thus a MS. of the eighth century 
 may have been directly copied from one of the 
 fifth, and consequently the former will be en- 
 titled to greater estimation than one belonging to 
 the seventh century transcribed from one of the 
 sixth. 
 
 In determining the value of a codex, it is usual 
 to refer to the country where it was written. 
 Griesbach and others prefer the African ; Scholz, 
 the Constantinopolitan. With respect to Hebrew 
 MSS., it is admitted by all that the Spanish are 
 the best. The Italian, again, are superior to the 
 German. The reading contained in the greater 
 number of MSS. is preferable to that of a less 
 number. Mere majority , however, is not a safe 
 criterion. A majority arising from independent 
 sources, or, in other words, of those belonging to 
 different recensions , can alone be relied on a 3 
 decisive. But here critics are not agreed as. to 
 the number of recensions belonging to Greek 
 MSS. Some have proposed four, some three, 
 others two. Besides, the same MS. may belong 
 to a different recension in different parts of itself. 
 In others, the characteristic readings of two or 
 three recensions are mingled together, rendering 
 it difficult to determine which recension or 
 family preponderates. 
 
 Hebrew MSS. belong to one and the same re- 
 cension. It is true that some have distinguished 
 them into Masoretic and Ante-masoretic ; but 
 the existence of the latter is a mere fiction. One 
 great family alone, viz. the Masoretic , can be 
 distinctly traced. — S. D. 
 
 MAON ; Sept. Mawv), a town in the 
 
 tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 55), which gave name 
 to a wilderness where David hid himself from 
 Saul, and around which the churlish Nabal had 
 great possessions (I Sam. xxiii. 24, 25 ; xxv. 2). 
 Jerome places it to the east of Daroma (Onomast. 
 s. v. Maon). The name does not occur in mo- 
 dem times, and Dr. Robinson regards it as one 
 of the sites first identified by himself. Irby and 
 Mangles were in the neighbourhood in 1818, but 
 did not detect this and other ancient names. 
 Robinson finds it in the present Main, which is 
 about seven miles south by east from Hebron. 
 Here there is a conical hill about 200 feet 
 high, on the top of which are some ruins of no 
 great extent, consisting of foundations of hewn 
 stone, a square enclosure, the remains probably of 
 a tower or castle, and several cisterns. The view 
 from the summit is extensive. This is Main. 
 The traveller found here a band of peasants keep- 
 ing their flocks, and dwelling in caves amid the 
 ruins (Bibl. Researches, ii. 190-196). 
 
 MARAH (rnD, bitterness; Sept. M apu). 
 The Israelites, in departing from Egypt, made 
 some stay on the shores of the Red Sea, at the 
 place where it had been crossed by them. From 
 this spot they proceeded southward for three days 
 without finding any water, and then came to 
 A well, the waters of which were so bitter, that, 
 thirsty as they were, they could not drink them. 
 The well was called Marah from the quality of 
 
 its waters. This name, in the form of A marah, 
 is now borne by the barren bed of a winter 
 torrent, a little beyond which is still found a 
 well called Howara, the bitter waters of which 
 answer to this description. Camels will drink 
 it ; but the thirsty Arabs never partake of it 
 themselves; and it is said to be the only water 
 on the shore of the Red Sea which they cannot 
 drink. The water of this well, when first taken 
 into the mouth, seems insipid rather than bitter, 
 hut when held in the mouth a few seconds it be- 
 comes exceedingly nauseous. The well rises 
 within an elevated mound surrounded by sand- 
 hills, and two small date-trees grow near it. 
 
 The Hebrews, unaccustomed as yet to the 
 hardships of the desert, and having been in the 
 habit of drinking their full of the best, water in 
 the world, were much distressed by its scarcity 
 in the region wherein they now wandered; and in 
 their disappointment of the relief expected from 
 this well, they murmured greatly against Moses 
 for having brought them into such a dry wilder- 
 ness, and asked him, ‘ What shall we drink T 
 On this Mose3 cried to Jehovah, who indicated to 
 him ‘a certain tree,’ on throwing the branches of 
 which into the well, its waters became sweet and 
 fit for use. The view which has been taken of this 
 transaction by the present writer in another work 
 ( Pictorial Hist, of Palestine, pp. 209, 210), is 
 here introduced, as it has been judged satisfactory, 
 and as no new information on the subject has 
 since heen obtained. 
 
 ‘ The question connected with this operation 
 is — whether the effect proceeded from the in- 
 herent virtue of the tree in sweetening bad water : 
 or that it had no such virtue, and that the effect 
 was purely miraculous. In support of the former 
 alternative, it may be asked why the tree should 
 have been pointed out and used at all, unless it 
 had a curative virtue? And to this the answer 
 may be found in the numerous instances in which 
 God manifests a purpose of working even his 
 miracles in accordance with the general laws by 
 which he governs the world, and for that purpose 
 disguising the naked exhibition of supernatural 
 power, by the interposition of an apparent cause; 
 while yet the true character of the event is left 
 indisputable, by the utter inadequacy of the 
 apparent cause to produce, by itself, the resulting 
 effect. This tends to show that the tree, or por- 
 tion of it, need not be supposed, from the mere 
 fact of its being employed, to have had an in- 
 herent curative virtue. It had not necessarily 
 any such virtue; and that it positively had not 
 such virtue seems to follow, or, at least, to be 
 rendered more than probable by the consideration 
 — that, in the scanty and little diversified vege- 
 tation of this district, any such very desirable 
 virtues in a tree, or part of a tree, could scarcely 
 have been undiscovered before the time of the 
 history, and if they had been discovered, could 
 not but have been known to Moses ; and flic 
 divine indication of the tree would not have heen 
 needful. And, again, if the corrective qualities 
 were inherent, but were at this time first made 
 known, it is incredible that so valuable a dis- 
 covery would ever have been forgotten ; and yet 
 it is manifest that in after-times the Hebrews had 
 not the knowledge of any tree which could 
 render bad water drinkable ; and the i habitants 
 of the desert have not only not preserved the 
 
502 
 
 MAR AH 
 
 MARESHAH. 
 
 knowledge of a fact which would have been so 
 important to them. but. have not discovered it in 
 the thirty-five centuries which have since passed. 
 This is shown by the inquiries of travellers, some 
 of whom were actuated by the wish of finding a 
 plant which might supersede the miracle. Burck- 
 hardf confesses that, after numerous inquiries, he 
 could never learn that, the Arabs were acquainted 
 with any plant or tree possessing such qualities ; 
 but lie regrets that lie omitted to make this in- 
 quiry at Marah in particular. Lord Lindsay, 
 remembering this regret, did make particular 
 inquiries at that place. “ I asked whether they 
 had any means of sweetening bad water, and he 
 mentioned the mann , a gum that exudes from 
 the tamarisk-free, and the juice of the homr berry. 
 The homr plant, and tarfah , or tamarisk-tree, 
 grow in great abundance in Wady Gharaudel. 
 The former bears small, red, juicy berries, which 
 they squeeze into water : the mann has a strong 
 aromatic taste, like turpentine. One of our 
 guides had a piece of it, which I tasted ; they 
 keep it in casks, melt it when required, and 
 spread it on their bread like honey. Some have 
 taken it for the miraculous manna — too absurd 
 an opinion to he confuted. Are we to under- 
 stand that the elTect produced on the bitter waters 
 of Marah, by casting in the tree, shown to Moses 
 by the Almighty (or ‘ something of a tree,’ as the 
 Arabic version runs), was also miraculous? If 
 not, it has been suggested that the mann or the 
 homr juice may have been the specific employed. 
 The hoynr is, however, a mere shrub, and had the 
 whole valley for miles round been full of tarfah 
 trees, or homr bushes, ihere would scarcely have 
 been enough to sweeten water sufficient for such 
 a host as that of Israel. Moreover, the Israelites 
 were here within a month after the institution of 
 the Passover, at the vernal equinox, whereas the 
 mann harvest, does not take place till June. This 
 alone, I think, must decide the question in favour 
 of the miracle.” This traveller goes on to tell 
 us that the Hebrew name of the tree in question 
 was alvah , whence he is led to conclude, from the 
 analogy of the names, that, it might be identified 
 with the species of acacia to which the Arabians 
 give the name of elluf. ' But all that is said on 
 this point gees for nothing, as it happens that the 
 tree is not called in Hebrew alvah, nor is any 
 name given to it, but is indicated simply as 
 rv etz , a tree. His concluding observation is 
 more correct : “Whatever the tree was, it can 
 have had no more inherent virtue in sweetening 
 the bitter well of Marah, than the salt, had, which 
 produced the same effect, when thrown by Elisha 
 into the well of Jericho ” (Lindsay, i. 263-5). 
 
 ‘ This leaves little to be said. As Lord Lind- 
 say proposed his question to an Arab, who could 
 not apprehend his precise object, tiirough an in- 
 terpreter, who probably apprehended it as little, 
 there can be no doubt that the answer applies to 
 the supposition that he wanted to know how a 
 cup of bad water might have its unpalateableuess 
 disguised, so as to be made drinkable ; and it is 
 much the same, in effect, as might be given in 
 this country to a similar question, “ Put a little 
 rngar, or a little lemon-juice into it.” Probably 
 the Bedouins use both of the articles mentioned — 
 being a sweet and an acid — in making a kind of 
 sherbet. It will not d> to think of the Hebrew 
 as equeezi rg the juice of little red berres, or as 
 
 mixing up a vegetable gum in the well of Marah, 
 even if a sufficient quantity of either could have 
 been procured tc sweeten water enough for tlte 
 thousands of Israel. This, therefore, being the 
 only case in which the Arabs of Sinai have been 
 brought to mention the oidy articles known to 
 them as used for the indicated purpose, does the 
 more abundantly prove that they know no tree 
 answering to the description which, without the 
 miracle, it. would be necessary to require In 
 this, as in many other dealings with the Scripture 
 miracles, it. is easier to understand and believe 
 the miracle itself than the best explanation; 
 which have been given. 
 
 ‘ The Jewish writers, generally, are so far from 
 looking for any inherent virtues in the “ tree,” 
 that they, contrariwise, affirm that its natural 
 quality was rather to make that bitter which was 
 sweet, than to sweeten that which was bitter. 
 The Targums call it. the bitter tree Ardiphne, 
 which most of the Hebrew interpreters take to 
 signify the same to which botanists give the name 
 of Rhodo- daphne, the rose-laurel.’ 
 MARANATHA. [Anathema.] 
 MARCHESHVAN ; Josephus, An- 
 
 tiq. i. 3. 3, Maparouavrjs ; the Macedonian A?os) 
 is the name of that month which was the eighth 
 of the sacred, and the second of the civil, year of 
 the Jews ; which began with the new moon ol 
 our November. There was a fast on the 6th, in 
 memory of Zedekiah's being blinded, after he 
 had witnessed the slaughter of his son3 (2 King3 
 xx v. 7). 
 
 This month is always spoken of in the Old 
 Testament by its numerical designation ; except 
 
 once, when it is called Bui (^-13, 1 Kings vi. 38- 
 Sept. BactA). According to Kimchi, Bui is a 
 shortened form of the Hebrew ^13', ‘ rain,’ frorr. 
 
 ^3\ The signification of rain-month is exactly 
 suitable to November in the climate of Palestine. 
 
 Others derive it from ^?3- Benfey, availing 
 himself of the fact, that the Palmyrene inscrip- 
 tions express the name of the god Baal, accord- 
 ing to their dialect , by ^13 (as 'AyXtfid- 
 
 Aos), has ventured to suggest that, as the months 
 are often called after the deities, Bui may have 
 received its name from that form of Baal ( Monats - 
 namen, p. 182). The rendering of the Sept, might 
 have been appealed to as some sanction of this 
 view. He supposes that Marcheshv&n is a com- 
 pound name, of which the syllable mar is taken 
 from the Zend Ameretut, or its later Persian form 
 Morddd ; and that cheshvun is the Persian chezdn , 
 ‘ autumn both of which are names belonging tc 
 the same month ( l . c. p. 136. sq.). — J. N. 
 
 MARESHAH (M^ID ; Sept. Mapurct), a town 
 in the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 14), re-built and 
 fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 8). The 
 Ethiopians under Zerah were defeated by Asa in 
 the valley near Mareshah (2 Chron. xiv. 9-13). 
 It was laid desolate by Judas Maccabseus, on his 
 march from Hebron to Ashdod (1 Macc. v. 65- 
 68; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 8. 6). Josephus men- 
 tions it among the towns possessed by Alexander 
 Jannaeus, which bad been in the hands of the 
 Syrians (Antiq. xiii. 15. 4) ; but by Pompey it 
 was restored to the former inhabitants, and at« 
 tached to the province of Syiia ( lb . xiv. 4. 4) 
 
MARK. 
 
 MARK. 
 
 903 
 
 Ma-iesa was among the towns rebuilt by Gabinius 
 ( lb . xiv. 5. 3), but was again destroyed by the 
 Parthians in their irruption against IIe?od ( lb . 
 xiv. 5. 3). A place so often mentioned in his- 
 tory must have been of considerable importance; 
 but it does not appear that it was ever again 
 rebuilt. The site, however, is set down by Euse- 
 bius and Jerome ( 0 nomast . s. v. Morasthi), as 
 within two miles of Eleut.heropolis, but the direc- 
 tion is not stated. Dr. Robinson ( Bibl . Researches, 
 ii. 422) found, at a mile and a half south of the 
 site of Eleutheropolis, a remarkable tel , or artificial 
 hill, with foundations of some buildings. As 
 there are no other ruins in the vicinity, and as 
 the site is admirably suited for a fortress, this, he 
 supposes, may have been Mares hah. 
 
 MARK Pekson of Makk. — According to 
 ecclesiastical testimonies the evangelist Mark is 
 the same person who in the Acts is called by the 
 Jewish name John, whose Roman surname was 
 Marcus (Acts xii. 12, 25). This person is some- 
 times called simply John (Actsxiii. 5, 13) ; and 
 sometimes Mark (Acts xv. 39). 
 
 Mary, Mark's mother, had a house at Jerusa- 
 lem, in which the Apostles were wont to assemble 
 (Acts xii. 12). In the Epistle to the Colossians 
 (iv. 10, 11) Mark is mentioned among the assist- 
 ants of Paul, and as being one of the converts from 
 Judaism. From this passage we learn also that 
 Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, which circum- 
 stance confirms the opinion that he was of Jfewish 
 descent. It was probably Barnabas who first in- 
 troduced him to Paul. He accompanied Paul 
 and Barnabas on their travels as an assistant 
 (Acts xii. 25 ; xiii. 5). When they had arrived 
 in Pamphylia, Mark left them and returned to 
 Jerusalem, from which city they had set out 
 'Acts xiii. 13). On this account Paul refused to 
 ake Mark with him on his second a.postolical 
 ouruev, ‘ and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed 
 unto Cyprus’ (Acts xv. 37-39). It seems, how- 
 ever, that Mark, at a later period, became recon- 
 ciled to Paul, since, according to Coloss. iv. 10, 
 and Philem. 24, he was with the apostle during 
 his first captivity at Rome ; and according to 
 2 Tim. iv. 11, he was also with him during his 
 second captivity. The passage in Colossians 
 proves also that he was about to undertake for 
 Paul a journey to Colosse. 
 
 There is a unanimous ecclesiastical tradition 
 that Mark was the companion and kpp.i}vevTT)s 
 of Peter. This tradition is the more credible, as 
 the New Testament does not contain any passage 
 drat could have led to its invention. Since, ac- 
 cording to Acts xii. 12, Peter was in the habit of 
 visiting as a friend at the house of Mark’s mother, 
 ne may perhaps be considered as the spiritual 
 father of Mark. From the works of Papias (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. iii. 39) it appears that Mark could 
 not have been a direct disciple of Christ. Hence 
 it seems to follow that the statement of Origen, 
 that Mark was one of the seventy disciples of 
 Christ, is incorrect (see Originis Opera , edit. De 
 la Rue, tom. i. p. 807). If the expression in 1 Pet. 
 v. 13, 7] aweKXsKTT}, means the congregation of 
 Peter, the word - vl6s would signify a spiritual 
 eon, in which case we could refer this teim only 
 to the evangelist Mark mentioned in the Acta. 
 This, however, is doubtful, because we should in 
 that case rather expect the word re-, tvov. We 
 learn from Luke iv. 38, and 1 Cor. ix. 15, that 
 
 Peter was married, and from Eusebius (Hist. 
 Ecclcs. iii. 30) that he had children. Hence we 
 may well refer the word o-we/tAe/cT^ to the wifeoi 
 the Apostle, and understand vt6s to mean his real 
 son. It is by no means unlikely that alter Paul 
 had quitted the scene, Mark should have united 
 himself to Peter, witli whom he had been on 
 friendly terms at an early period of his life. In 
 case that Paul is not considered the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, we may say that Timothy 
 also attached himself to another teacher after the 
 death of that apostle (see the Commentaries on 
 Heb. xiii. 23). The testimony in favour of the 
 connection between Mark and Peter is so old and 
 respectable, that it cannot be called in question. 
 It first occurs at the commencement of the second 
 century, and proceeds from the presbyter John 
 (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 39); it afterwards appears 
 in Irenseus (Adv. Hear. iii. 1. 1, and x. 6) ; in Ter- 
 tullian ( Contra Mart. iv. 5) ; in Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, Jerome, and others. The question arises, 
 what is the true meaning of the expression eppn j- 
 vevT^s Tlezpov, which is employed even by the pres- 
 byter John. It was formerly supposed that Mark 
 was thereby described as being the interpreter of 
 Peter, who was said to be unacquainted with 
 Greek. This opinion was entertained by Eich- 
 horn, Bertholdt, and KuinoeL But Fritsche, in 
 his Commentarius in Marcum xxvi., has appealed 
 to the testimonies of ancient writers in order to 
 prove that Mark was called epprjrevT'f}^, because 
 lie wrote down what Peter taught by word of 
 mouth. According to our opinion, Mark was 
 called ep/j.rjvevT'hs because he was the assistant 
 of Peter, and either orally or in writing com- 
 municated and developed what Peter taught. 
 The sense in which the ancients employed the 
 word interpres may be clearly understood from 
 the passage in Jerome ( Epistola cxx. ad Iledi- 
 biam. cap. xi.). It. is there stated that although 
 Paul had the gift of various languages, as 
 may be seen from 1 Cor. xiv. 18, he was still 
 not able ‘divinorum sensuum majestatem digno 
 Graeci eloquii explicare sermone that is, ‘ to 
 express the majesty of divine truth in a sufficiently 
 oratorical Greek style’ (comp. Epistola M,d Aly- 
 asiam, quaest. x.). Jerome adds, ‘ Habebat ergo 
 Titum interpretem ; sicut et beatus Petrus Mar- 
 cum, cujus Evangelium Petro narrante, et illo 
 scribente, compositum est. Denique et duae 
 epistolae quae leruntur Petri, stilo intus et cha- 
 ractere discrepant, structuraque veiborum. Ex 
 quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum, diversis 
 eurn usum interpretibus.’ — ‘ Therefore he had 
 Titus for a secretary, as the blessed Peter had 
 Mark, whose Gospel was composed by him after 
 the dictation of Peter. The two Epistles of 
 Peter which are in circulation differ from each 
 other in character and style. Hence we perceive 
 that he was compelled by circumstances to em- 
 ploy different secretaries.’ 
 
 It is quite evident that in this passage interpres 
 cannot mean an ‘interpreter’ or ‘translator, but 
 rather the person who develops and puts into 
 style the discourses of another. From the following 
 passage we learn that this does not merely refel 
 to wriiten composition : — p.€T a t^v tovtocv (Peter 
 and Paul) e£o5oF M dpicus 6 padrjT'qs teal kppr,- 
 vev~)]S n erpov, noil aurbs t a in to Tlerpov Kripvrcr6- 
 p.€i>a i'yypdcpcos ripiiv i rapadedance (Eusebius, Hist. 
 Eccles. v. 8). — ‘Alter the departure of Pete.r and 
 
304 
 
 MARK. 
 
 MARK. 
 
 Paul, Mark, the disciple and secretary ( interjrrcs ) 
 jf Peter, transmitted to us in writing what Peter 
 had preached.’ It is evident that Mark is here 
 called epfxyyevrr,s without reference to his au- 
 thorship. 
 
 Eusebius represents {Hist. Eccles. ii. 15) from 
 the later life of Mark, that he was with Peter at 
 Rome. Epiphanius and others inform us that 
 he introduced the Gospel into Egypt, founded the 
 church at Alexandria, and that he died in the 
 eighth year of Nero's reign. 
 
 The Gospel of Mark. — T he same ancient 
 authors who call Mark a nadyrys (disciple) and 
 €pnr}vevrv,s (secretary) of Peter, state also that he 
 wrote his Gospel according to the discourses of that 
 Apostle. The most ancient statement of this fact 
 is that of the presbyter John and of Papias, which 
 we quote verbatim from Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. i ii. 
 39) as follows : M apnos per epppyevr^s Tlerpov 
 yevopsvos, oca epvripdvevcrev, aKpifiws eypaij/ey, ov 
 pey tol ra£er ra vnb t ov Xpicrov Aex^eVra 
 vpaxOwTa’ our e yap jjicovcre rov Kvptov , ovre 
 ■napi]Ko\ovQri<rev avT<p u<tt epou 8e, dr ecprjv, rierpw, 
 tis irpbs ras xp €ias eiroiciro ras diSaa-KO\ias, a \\ ’ 
 ot>x &o"irep crvyra^tv tuv KvptaKuy iroiovpevos 
 \oyuvy. "flCTe obSev Vipapre M apnos ovrws tvia 
 ypd-pas ws careuyquovevaev. ’Evbs yap (TroiTjcaro 
 ■/rpiuotav, too urjbev uv fjnovce irapa\nre7v, 
 yl/evcracdai n iv abrols . — ‘ Mark having become 
 secretary to Peter, whatever he put into style he 
 wrote with accuracy, but did not observe the 
 chronological order of the discourses and actions 
 of Curist, because he was neither a hearer nor a 
 follower of the Lord ; but at a later period, as I 
 have said, wrote for Peter to meet the requisites 
 of instruction, but by no means witli the view to 
 furnish a connected digest of the discourses of 
 our Lord. Consequently Mark was not in fault 
 when he wrote down circumstances as he recol- 
 lected them ; for he had otdy the intention to omit 
 nothing of what he had heard, and not to mis- 
 represent anything.’ Critics usually ascribe all 
 these words to the presbyter. Schmidt especially 
 observes, in his Einleitung ins Neue Testament 
 Nachtriige (p. 270), that he himself had errone- 
 ously quoted this testimony as the words of 
 Papias ; but it seems to us that the words ds 
 £rpT]y do not allow us to consider all this passage 
 as belonging to the presbyter. Papias had not 
 before his eyes a book of the presbyter, and he 
 seems to have alluded to that passage of his own 
 work to which Eusebius refers in his second book 
 (ch. xv.), in which work Papias had given some 
 account respecting the life of this evangelist. 
 According to this view it seems that, with the 
 words oijre yap tfnovcre, there begins an explana- 
 tion of the words of the presbyter. 
 
 ft has been observed in the article Gospel 
 that this passage has been made use of in order 
 to disprove the existence of an orally fixed evan- 
 gel ium-tradition, since it is here stated that Peter 
 preached as circumstances required. To this we 
 replied that Papias considers the Gospel of Mark 
 io be the reflex of the discourses of Peter, in 
 which character they are described by t lie pres- 
 byter ; and since the Gospel of Mark really 
 contains a sketch of the life of Jesus, the ac- 
 count of the presbyter does not imply that the 
 discourses of Peter could not likewise have con- 
 tained a sketch of his life. The presbyter only 
 
 says that Pt ter did not furnish a complete life 
 of Jesus, embracing a history of Ins infancy, 
 youth, &c. ; and that, therefore, the account oi 
 Peter was in some respects incomplete, since he, 
 as Papias states, omitted various circumstances. 
 Schleiermacher, anil after him Strauss, Imre 
 turned this into an argument against the Gospel 
 of Mark. They assert that this Gospel is a 
 cvyrd^ts, which, if not chronological, is at least 
 a concatenation according to the subjects. Now 
 the presbyter states that Mark wrote ov 
 without order. By this expression they consider 
 all such arrangement excluded; consequently 
 they infer that the presbyter John, the old dis- 
 ciple of the Lord, spoke of another Mark. We 
 learn, however, from what Papias adds, how 
 Papias himself understood the words of the pres- 
 byter; and we perceive that he explains ov rd^ei 
 by (via ypa\pas, writing isolated facts. Hence 
 it appears that the words ov ra^ei signify only 
 incompleteness, but do not preclude all and 
 every sort of arrangement. 
 
 It would be arbitrary, indeed, to suppose that 
 another Mark had an existence in the earliest 
 times of Christianity, without having any his- 
 torical testimony for such a supposition. There is 
 no indication that there was any other Mark in 
 the early times of Christianity besides the Mark 
 mentioned in the Acts, who is also reported to 
 have been the author of that Gospel which bears 
 his name. 
 
 We have mentioned in the article Luke that, 
 according to Irenaeus, the Gospels of Mark and 
 Luke were written later than that of Matthew ; 
 and according to a tradition preserved by Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus, the Gospels of Matthew and 
 Luke preceded that of Mark. The chronolo- 
 gical order of the Gospels is, according to Origen, 
 the same in which they follow each other in the 
 codices. Irenaeus {Adversus Hcercscs, iii. 1) 
 states that Mark wrote after the death of Peter 
 and Paul ; but, according to Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus {Hypotypos. vi.) and Eusebius {Hist. 
 Eccles. vi. 14), he wrote at Rome while Peter 
 was yet living. These various data leave us in 
 uncertainty. 
 
 If the opinions concerning the relation of Mark 
 to Matthew and Luke, which have been current 
 since the days of Griesbacn, were correct, we 
 might be able to form a true idea concerning the 
 chronological succession in which the first three 
 Gospels were written. Griesbach, Saunier, 
 Strauss, and many others, state it as an unques- 
 tionable fact, that the Gospel of Mark was merely 
 an abridgment of the Gospels of Matthew and 
 Luke. De Wette, even in the latest edition of 
 his Einleitung , 1842, calls this opinion erwiesen , 
 
 4 demonstrated’ (see pp. 130 and 157). The value 
 of such demonstrations may be learned from what 
 appears to De Wette the most certain proof of the 
 alleged fact, viz. that the statements of Mark 
 concerning the temptation of Christ are merely a* 
 abridgment of other sources. But we do not 
 perceive why it should be impossible to furnish a 
 condensed statement from oral communications. 
 
 Weisse, Wolke, and Bauer, on the other hand, 
 have, in recent times, asserted that the Gospel of 
 Mark was the most ancient of all the Gospels, 
 that Luke amplified the Gospel of Mark, awd 
 that Matthew made additions to both. Weiss* 
 and Wolke emphrv some very artificial exp<* 
 
MARK 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 306 
 
 Rents in order to explain how it happened that, 
 if Luke and Matthew transcribed Mark, there 
 thould have arisen a considerable ditierence 
 both in words and contents. VVolke especially 
 accuses Luke and Matthew of intentional mis- 
 representations. Tire author of Kritik der Evan- 
 gelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 
 18ilj goes still further. 
 
 The following examples will explain the fore- 
 going observation. If Mark, in ch. i. 21-28, 
 abridged Luke, ch. iv. 31-37, what could have 
 induced him, although usually retaining the 
 same sentences, nevertheless, for lozOrjkOcv to 
 substitute elcnropeuovTcu ; for piipar, cirapd^av ; 
 for eycuero dapfios, idapfivS^aav ; and for 
 \ vo/|, & c. ? Rut if Mark’s Gospel was earlier 
 than that of Luke, what could have induced the 
 latter to change these words in copying the Gos- 
 pel of the former '2 According to VVolke, in his 
 book entitled Der Urevangelist, 1838, p. 584, sq., 
 Luke has, in an arbitrary manner, changed a 
 collection of proverbial sayings into the Sermon 
 on the Mount, and inserted Mark iii. Id; while 
 Matthew again has amplified the Sermon on the 
 Mount of Luke (p. 6c5, sq.) ! 
 
 Wolke has left his readers in doubt how much 
 fhese evangelists took from historical documents; 
 but Bauer has distinctly asserted that Mark pro- 
 duced the contents of his book from his imagina- 
 tion, and that his fictitious narrative was extended 
 and spun out by the other evangelists. Such 
 assertions are so utterly groundless that they do 
 not require to be formally refuted. 
 
 In the article Gosuei.s we have stated our opi- 
 nion concerning the relative position in which the 
 evangelists stand to each other. We do not see 
 any reason to contradict the unanimous tradition 
 of antiquity concerning the dependence of Mark 
 upon Peter. We deern it possible, and even pro- 
 bable, that Luke r^ad Mark, and that he also 
 alludes to him by reckoning him among the 
 7 tJaAoi, the many , who had written gospel history 
 before him. This supposition, however is by no 
 means necessary or certain ; and it is still possible 
 that Mark wrote after Luke. Some of the ancient 
 testimonies which we have quoted, namely, those 
 of IreiiBeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and 
 others, state that Mark’s Gospel was written at 
 Rome. In favour of this opinion there have been 
 urged some so-called Latinisms ; for instance, 
 in ch. xv. 15, tw ux'y ixav'bv Troirttrai, and 
 ch. v. 23, i< rxdroDS ex tl * These expressions are, 
 however, rather Grsecisms man Latinisms. Others 
 appeal to words which have a Latin origin, such 
 as o'TrexouhdTcop, xevTvpleov, i-earris, (ppayeWoco ; 
 but these are military terms which the Greeks 
 adopted from the Romans. The words £eaTr]s 
 and (ppayeWdco occur in other Greek authors. 
 The use of the word Keurvplccv is rather sur- 
 prising, since in the other New Testament writers 
 we find eKardvrapxos and kKaTOvrdpXPs. In our 
 opinion these Latinisms cannot prove much re- 
 specting the locality in which Mark's Gospel was 
 written ; but it is certain that it was written for 
 Gentile Christians. This appears from the expla- 
 nation of Jewish customs (ch. vii. 2. 11 ; xii. 18; 
 xiii. 3; xiv. 12; xv. 6, 42). The same view is 
 confirmed by the scarcity of quotations from the 
 Old Testament, perhaps also by the absence of 
 the genealogy of Christ, and by the omission of 
 tee Sermon til the Mount, which explains the 
 vo i,. u. < 2 j 
 
 relation of Christ to the Old Testament dispen- 
 sation, and which was, therefore, of the greatest 
 importance to Matthew. 
 
 The characteristic peculiarity of Mark as an 
 author is particularly manifest in two points: 
 
 1. He reports rather the works than the dis- 
 courses ot our Saviour; 2. lie gives details more 
 minutely and graphically than Matthew and 
 Luke; for instance, lie describes the cures effected 
 by Jesus more exactly (iv 31, 41; vi. 5, 13; 
 vii. 33 ; viii. 23). He is also more particular in 
 stating definite numbers (v. 13, 42 ; vi. 7, 14, 30,), 
 and furnishes mine exact dates and times (i. 32, 
 35; ii. 1, 26 ; iv. 26, 35; vi. 2; xi. 11, 19, 20, &c.) 
 
 It may he that these characteristics of Mark 
 originated from his connection with Peter. With 
 more certainty we may ascribe to Mark him 
 self certain peculiarities of diction and phrase- 
 ology ; for instance, the frequent use of the word 
 evdeas, and his predilection for diminutives (v 
 23, 39, 40, 41, 42 ; vi. 22. 28 ; vii. 25, 28). 
 
 Most of the materials of Mark's narrative occur 
 also in Matthew and Luke. He has. however, 
 sections exclusively belonging to himself, viz. 
 iii. 21, 31, sq. ; vi. 17, sq. ; xi. 11 ; xii. 28, sq. 
 These peculiar statements of Mark have an en- 
 tirely historical character : consequently we deem 
 it unjustifiable in Strauss and De Wette to endea- 
 vour to depreciate them by calling them arbitrary 
 additions. 
 
 We mention the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel 
 separately, since its genuineness may be called in 
 question. 
 
 Among the Codices Mctjusculi the Codex B. 
 omits ch. xvi. 9-20 altogether, and several of the 
 Codices Minusculi mark this section with asterisks 
 as doubtful. Several ancient Fathers and authors 
 of Scholia state that, it was wanting in some ma- 
 nuscripts. We cannot, however, suppose that it 
 was arbitrarily added by a copyist, since at 
 present all codices, except B., and all ancient 
 versions contain it, and the Fathers in general 
 quote it. We may also say that Mark could not 
 have concluded his Gospel witli ver. 8, unless he 
 had been accidentally prevented from finishing 
 it. Hence Miehuelis and Hug have inferred 
 that the addition was made by the evangelist at 
 a later period, in a similar manner as John made 
 an addition in ch. xxi. of his Gospel. Perhaps also 
 an intimate friend, or an amanuensis, supplied the 
 defect. If either of these two hypotheses is well 
 founded, it may he understood why several codices 
 were formerly without this conclusion, and why, 
 nevertheless, it. was found in most of them. 
 
 Among the various commentaries on the Gospel 
 of Mark, which have been published in modern 
 times, the following deserves to he specially men- 
 tioned : Evangelium Marci recensuit, et cum 
 Conimentariis perp etuis edidit, C. F. A. Fritsche, 
 Lipsiae, 1830. This author does not enter much 
 into the explanation of Biblical thoughts and 
 truths, hut he has furnished very valuable contri- 
 butions for the critical study of the language. — 
 
 A. T. 
 
 MARRIAGE. — The Levirate Law. — The 
 divine origin of marriage, and the primitive stare 
 of the institution, are clearly recorded in the in- 
 stance of the first human uair (Gen. ii. 18~261 t , 
 whence it appears that woman was made after 
 man to he ‘ a helper suited to him.’ The narrative- 
 is calculated to convey exalted ideas of the iustl- 
 
m 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 rution. It Is introduced by a declaration of the 
 Lord God, that ‘ it is not good that the man should 
 be alone’ (ver. 18); of the truth of which Adam had 
 necome convinced by experience. In order still 
 further to enliven his sense of h is deficiency, the 
 various species of creatures are made to pass in 
 review before him, ‘ to see what he would call 
 them on which occasion he could behold each 
 species accompanied by its appropriate helper, and 
 upon concluding his task would become still 
 more aii’ectingly aware, that amid all animated 
 nature ‘ Ihere was not found au help meet for 
 himself. 5 It was at this juncture, when bis heart 
 was thus thoroughly prepared to appreciate the 
 intended blessing, that a divine slumber (Sept. 
 tKCTTarris ), or trance, fell upon him — a state in 
 which, as in after ages, the exercise of the external 
 senses being suspended, the mental powers are 
 peculiarly prepared to receive revelations from 
 God (Gen. xv. 12; Acts x. 10; xxvii.^ 17; 2 
 Cor. xii. 2). His exclamation when Eve was 
 brought to him shows that he had been fully con- 
 scious of the circumstances of her creation, and 
 had been instructed by them as to the nature of 
 the relation which would thenceforth subsist be- 
 tween them. ‘ The man said, this time, it is bone 
 of my bone, and flesh of my flesh ; this shall be 
 called woman, for out of man was this taken ’ 
 (New Translation by the Rev. D. A. De Sola, &c. 
 Loud. ]). 8). The remaining words, ‘ for this 
 •cause shall a man leave bis lather and mother, 
 •and shall cleave unto his wife, and they (two) 
 shall be one flesh,’ which might otherwise seem a 
 proleptical announcement by the historian of the 
 •social obligations of marriage, are by our Lord 
 ■ascribed to the Divine agent concerned in the 
 ■transaction, either uttered by him personally, 
 •or by the mouth of Adam while in a state of 
 inspiration. ‘ Have ye not. read that he that 
 ■made them at the beginning, made them male 
 and female, and said, for this cause/ &c. 
 (Matt. xix. 4, 5). It is a highly important 
 circumstance in this transaction, that God cie- 
 ated only one female lor one man, and united 
 them — a circumstance which is the very basis of 
 •our Lord's reasoning in the passage against 
 divorce and re-marriage; hut which basis is lost, 
 and his reasoning consequently rendered incon- 
 clusive, by the inattention of cur translators to the 
 absence of the article, ‘ he made them 'ipaev xal 
 0/jA.u,’ a male and a female, ‘ and said, they shall 
 become one flesh ; so that they are no more two, 
 But one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined 
 together, let no man put asunder.’ ‘ The weight 
 of our Lord’s argument,’ says Campbell, ‘ lay in 
 this circumstance, that God at. first created no 
 more than a single pair, one of each sex, whom 
 lie united in the bond of marriage, and, in so 
 doing, exhibited a standard of that union to 
 all generations.’ ‘The word Svo / he observes, 
 
 * has indeed no word answering lo it in the 
 present Masoretic editions of the Hebrew Bible, 
 but it is found in the Samaritan, Septuagint, 
 Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic versions efthe Old 
 Testament, and in all the quotations of the pas- 
 sage in the New Testament (Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark 
 x. 8; I Cor. vi. 16 ; Ephes. v. 31), and it may be 
 reasonably concluded that the ancient reading in 
 the Old Testament was the same with that in the 
 New’ {The Four Gospels , &c., vol. ii.p. 427, Loud. 
 1787). The apostacy introduced a new feature 
 
 into the institution., namely, the subjection of th* 
 wifes will to that of her husband (Gen. iii. IS ; 
 comp. Num. xxx. 6-16). The primitive model 
 was adhered to even by Cain, who seems to have 
 had but one wife (Gen. iv. 17). Polygamy, one 
 of the earliest developments of human degeneracy, 
 was introduced by Lamed), who ‘ took unto him 
 two wives’ (Gen. iv. 19; circa 3871 b.c.). The 
 intermarriage of ‘ the Sons of God,’ i. c. the wor- 
 shippers of the true God, with ‘ the daughters of 
 men/ i.e. the irreligious (b.c. 2168), is the next 
 incident in the history of marriage. They in- 
 dulged in unrestrained polygamy, ‘ they took 
 them wives of all that they chose.’ From this 
 event may he dateil that headlong degeneracy of 
 mankind at this period, which ultimately brought 
 on them extirpation by a deluge (Gen. vi. 3-7). 
 At the time of that catastrophe Noah had but one 
 wife (Gen. vii. 7), and so each of his sons (ver. 
 13). The remaining part of the investigation 
 will be pursued according to Townsend s chrono- 
 logical arrangement as affording a means of 
 tracing the development of the subject in succeed- 
 ing times, though differences of opinion may be 
 entertained respecting the true chronological 
 order of some of the hooks or passages. Accord- 
 ing to that arrangement, Job next appears (b.c. 
 2130) as the husband of one wife (Job ii. 9 ; 
 xix. 17)^ Reference is made to the adulterer, 
 who is represented as in terror and accursed (xxiv. 
 15-18). The wicked man is represented as leav- 
 ing ‘ widows' behind him; whence his polygamy 
 may be inferred (xxvii. 15). Job expresses his 
 abhorrence of fornication (xxxi. 1), and of adultery 
 (ver. 9), which appears in his time to have been 
 punished by the judges (ver. 11). Following the 
 same arrangement., we find Abraham and Nahor 
 introduced as having each one wife (Gen. xi. 29). 
 From the narrative of Abraham’s first equivoca- 
 tion concerning Sarah, it may be gathered that 
 marriage was held sacred in Egypt. Abraham 
 fears that the Egyptians would sooner rid them- 
 selves of him by murder than infringe by adultery 
 the relation of his wife to an obscure stranger. 
 The reproof of Pharaoh, ‘ Why didst thou say, 
 She is my sister? so I might have taken her to 
 me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take 
 her, and go thy way’ (Gen. xii. 11-19), affords 
 a most honourable testimony to the views of mar- 
 riage entertained by Pharaoh at that period, and 
 most likely by his court and nation. It seems 
 that Sarah was Abraham'*, naif- sister. Such mar- 
 riages wore permitted till ihe giving of the law 
 (Lev. xviii. 9). Thus Amram, the father of Moses 
 and Aaron, married his father’s sister (Exod vi. 
 20), a union forbidden in Lev. xviii. 12. 
 
 The first mention of concubinage, or the con- 
 dition of a legal though subordinate wife, occurs 
 in the case of Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian handmaid, 
 whom Sarah, still childless, after a residence of 
 ten years in Canaan, prevailed on Abraham, appa- 
 rently against his will, to receive into that rela- 
 tion (Gen. xvi. 1), which was however considered 
 inviolable (Gen. xlix. 4; Lev. xviii. 8; 2 Sam. 
 iii. 8, 16, 21, 22 ; 1 Chron. v. 1). The vehe- 
 ment desire for offspring, common to women in 
 the East, as appears from the histories of Rebecca 
 (Gen ; xxv. 21), of Rachel (xxx. 1), of Leah 
 (ver. 5), and of Hannah (1 Sam. i. 6, 7), seems to 
 have been Sarah’s motive for adopting a procedure 
 practised in such cases in that region in all ag*a 
 
MARRIAGE. 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 The miseries naturally consequent upon it are 
 amply portrayed in the history of the Patriarchs 
 (Gen. xvi. 4-10; xxx. 1,3, 15). 
 
 Lot does not appear to have exceeded one 
 wife (Gen. xix. 15). The second equivocation 
 of the same kind by Abraham respecting Sarah 
 elicits equally honourable sentiments concern- 
 ing marriage, on the part of Abimelech, king 
 of Gerar (Gen. xx. 5, 6, 9, 10, &c.), who, it ap- 
 pears, had but one proper wife (ver. 17; see 
 also ch. xxvi. 7-11). Perhaps Abraham relied 
 on the ancient custom, which will shortly be 
 adverted to, of the consent of the ‘ brother’ being 
 requisite to the sister s marriage, and thus hoped 
 to secure his wife's safety ami his own. In an- 
 cient times the parents chose wives for their 
 children (Gen. xxi. 21 ; xxxviii. 5 ; Deut. xxii. 
 16) ; or the man who wished a particular female 
 asked his father to obtain her from her father, as 
 in the case of Shechem (b.c. 1732; Gen. xxxiv. 
 4-6 ; comp. Judges xiv. 2, 3). The consent of her 
 brothers seems to have been necessary (ver. 5, 8, 
 11, 13, 14; comp. Gen. xxiv. 50; 2 Sam. xiii. 
 20-29). A dowry was given by the suitor to the 
 father and brethren of the female (ver. 11, 12; 
 comp. 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Hos. iii. 2). This, in a 
 common case, amounted to from 30 to 50 shekels, 
 according to the law of Moses (comp. Exod. xxii. 
 16; Deut. xxii. 29). Pausanias considers it so re- 
 markable for a man to part with his daughter with- 
 out receiving a marriage-portion with her, that he 
 takes pains, in a case he mentions, to explain the 
 reason ( Lacon . iii. 12. 2). In later times we meet 
 with an exception (Tobitviii. 23). It is most likely 
 that: from some time before the last-named period 
 the Abrahamidas restricted their marriages to cir- 
 cumcised persons (Gen. xxviii. 8; comp. Judg. iii. 
 6 ; 1 Kings xi. 8, 1 1, 16 ; Joseph. Antiq. xi. 8. 2; 
 xii. 4. 6 ; xviii. 9. 5). The marriage of Isaac 
 developes additional particulars ; for beside Abra- 
 ham’s unwillingness that his son should marry a 
 Canaanitess (Gen. xxiv. 3; comp. xxvi. 34 ; xxvii. 
 46 ; Exod. xxxiv. 16 ; Josh, xxiii. 12; Ezra ix. 2; 
 x. 3, 10, 11), costly jewels are given to the bride 
 at the betrothal (ver. 22), and ‘ precious things to 
 Iter mother and brother ’ (ver. 53) ; a customary 
 period between espousals and nuptials is referred 
 to (ver. 55); and the blessing of an abundant 
 offspring invoked upon the bride by her relatives 
 (ver. 60) — which most likely was the only mar- 
 i iage ceremony then and for ages afterwards 
 (comp. Ruth iv. 11-13 ; Ps. xlv. lb, 17) ; but in 
 Vobit vii. 3, the father places his daughter's right 
 hand in the hand of Tobias before he invokes this 
 blessing. It is remarkable that no representation 
 lias been found of a marriage ceremony among 
 the tombs of Egypt (Wilkinson’s Ancient Egypt. 
 vol. ii., Loud. 1837). The Rabbins say that 
 among the Jews it consisted of a kiss (Gant. i. 2). 
 It is probable that, the marriage covenant was 
 committed to writing (Prov. ii. 17 ; Mai. ii. 14 ; 
 Tobit vii. 13, 14) ; perhaps, also, confirmed with 
 an oath (Ezra xvi. 8). It seems to have been the 
 custom with the patriarchs and ancient Jews to 
 bury their wives in their own graves, but not their 
 concubines (Gen. xlix. 31). Tn Gen. xxv. 1, 
 Abraham, after the death of Sarah, marries a 
 second wife. Esau’s polygamy is mentioned Gen. 
 xxviii. 9 ; xxxvi. 2-13 (b.c. 1760). Jacob serves 
 seven years to obtain Rachel in marriage (Gen. 
 xxix, 18-20); and has a marriage feast, to which 
 
 the men of the place are invited (ver. 22 ; comp. 
 Cant. v. 1 ; vi ii. 33). Samson's marriage feast 
 lasts a week (Judg. xiv. 10-12 ; b.c. 1136; comp, 
 John ii. 1, &c.) ; in later times it lasted longer 
 (Tobit viii. 19). The persons invited to Samson s 
 marriage are young men (Judg. xiv. 10); called 
 ‘ sons of the bridal-chamber,’ Matt. ix. 15. Fe- 
 males were invited to marriages (Ps. xlv. 14), and 
 attended the bride and bridegroom to their abode 
 (1 Macc. ix. 37); and in the time of Christ, if it 
 was evening, with lamps and flambeaux (Matt, 
 xxv. 1-10). In later ages the guests were sum- 
 moned when the banquet was ready (Matt. xxii. 3), 
 and furnished with a marriage garment (ver. 11). 
 The father of the bride conducted her at night to 
 her husband (Gen. xxix. 23; Tobit viii. 1). 
 The bride and bridegroom were richly ornamented 
 (Isa. lxi. 10). In Mesopotamia, and the East 
 generally, it was the custom to marry the eldest 
 sister first (Gen. xxix. 26). By the deception 
 practised upon Jacob in that country, he marries 
 two wives, and, apparently, without any one 
 objecting (ver. 31). Laban obtains a promise 
 from Jacob not to marry any more wives than 
 Rachel and Leah (Gen. xxxi. 50). The wives 
 and concubines of Jacob and their children travel 
 together (Gen. xxxii. 22, 23) ; but a distinction 
 is made between them in the hour of danger 
 (Gen. xxxiii. 1, 2 ; comp. Gen. xxv. 6). Fol- 
 lowing the arrangement we have adopted, we 
 now meet with the first reference to the Leviraie 
 Laic. Judah, Jacob’s son by Leah, had married 
 a Canaanitisli woman (Gen. xxxviii. 2). His 
 first-born son was^Er (ver. 3). Judah took a wife 
 for him (ver. 6). Er soon after died (ver. 7), and 
 Judah said to Onan, ‘ Go in unto thy brother’s wife, 
 Tamar, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy 
 brother.’ ‘ Onan knew that the offspring would 
 not be his.’ All these circumstances bespeak a 
 pre-established and well known law, and lie 
 evaded the purpose of it, and thereby, it is said, 
 incurred the wrath of God (ver. 10). It seems, 
 from the same account, to have been well 
 understood, that upon his death the duty de- 
 volved upon the next surviving brother. Judah 
 interfered to prevent him from fulfilling it, and 
 this two-fold denial suggested to Tamar the stra- 
 tagem related of her in Gen. xxxviii. 13-26. No 
 change is recorded in this law till just before the 
 entrance of Israel into Canaan (b.c. 1451), at 
 which time Moses modified it by new regulations 
 to this effect : — ‘ If brethren dwell together (i. e. 
 in the same locality), and one of them die, and 
 leave no child, the wife of the dead must not 
 marry out of the family, but her husband's brother 
 or his next kinsman must take her to wife, and 
 perform the duty of a husband's brother, and the 
 first-born of this union shall succeed in the name 
 of his deceased father, that his name may be 
 extant in Israel ;’ not literally bear bis name, for 
 Ruth allowed her son by Boaz to be called Obed, 
 and not Mahlon, the name of her first husband 
 (Ruth iv. 17, yet see Josephus, Antiq., iv. 8, 23). 
 In case the man declined the office, the woman 
 was to bring him before the elders, loose his shoe 
 from off his foot, and spit in, or, as some render it, 
 before his face, by way of contempt. (Deut. xxv. .9, 
 10 : Josephus understands in the face, Antiq. v. 9. 
 4), and shall say, 4 So shall it be done unto the 
 man that will not build up his brother’s house; 
 and his name shall be called in Israel, the house of 
 
JO 8 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 MARRIAGE. 
 
 him that hath his shoe loosed,’ quasi Baresole ! Il 
 does not appear that the original law was binding 
 on the brother, if already married; anil we may 
 well believe that. Moses, who wished to mitigate 
 it, allowed of that exception. The instance of 
 Ruth(B.c. 1245), who married Boaz, her husband's 
 relation, exhibits the practice of the law under 
 the Judges. Boaz was neither the father of, nor 
 the nearest relation to, Klimelech, father-in-law to 
 Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, and yet he married 
 her after the refusal of him who was the nearest 
 relation (Ruth ii. 20 : iii., iv.). These facts serve 
 to exonerate the stratagem of Tamar, Judah’s 
 daughter, already alluded to (Gen. xxxviii. 
 13-26), which was dictated by a wish to fulfil the 
 Levirate Law as near as possible. Accordingly, 
 when Judah discovered it lie justified her conduct, 
 6aying: ‘She hath been more righteous than 1,’ 
 i. e. has more adhered to the law, ‘ because I gave 
 her not to Slielah my son’ (ver. 26 ; comp. ver. 11). 
 Hence, then, the children of Judah, by Tamar, 
 inherited as his sons legally as well as naturally, 
 and are reckoned to him in the genealogy in 1 
 Citron, ii. 4 : ‘And Tamar, his daughter-in-law, 
 hare him Pharez and Zerah’ (comp. Num. xxvi. 
 20). The legitimacy of her offspring is an im- 
 portant question ; for the pedigree of David, Solo- 
 mon, and all the kings of Judah, and even of 
 Christ himself, is derived from Pharez, the son of 
 Judah, by Tamar (comp. Ruth iv. 18-22, and 
 Matt. i. 3-16). It must, nevertheless, be con- 
 fessed that the Levirate Law was attended with 
 many inconveniences, not the least of which was 
 the inducement which it afforded to females to in- 
 trigue and indelicacy, a3 in the cases of Tamar 
 and Ruth. A subtle objection to the doctrine of 
 the resurrection, proposed to our Lord by the Sad- 
 ducees, was grounded upon a real or supposed case 
 of compliance with it running through a family 
 of seven brethren (Matt. xxii. 23, See.). The mar- 
 riage of Herod with Herodias, his brother Philip's 
 wife (Mark vi. 17, 18), did not come under the 
 Levirate Law; for Josephus states that Herodias 
 bad a daughter by her husband, and that the 
 marriage with Herod was contracted in the life- 
 time of her husband ( Antiq . xviii. 5. 4). Resem- 
 blances to this law have been traced in India 
 (. Asiatic Researches, iii. 35) ; among the Athe- 
 nians (Terence, Phorm., act i. sc. ii. 75, 6) ; 
 among the ancient Germans (Tacitus, Germ. 8); 
 and among the modern Egyptians (Niebuhr, 
 Description de V Arabic, p. 61 ; Volney, Voyage 
 en Syrie, tom. ii. p. 74). 
 
 To return from this digression. It should seem, 
 from the instance of Potiphar’s wife, that mono- 
 gamy was practised in Egypt (Gen. xxxix. 7). 
 Pharaoh gave to Joseph one wife (Gen. xli. 45). 
 The Israelites, while in Egypt, seem to have re- 
 stricted themselves to one. One case is recorded 
 of an Israelite who had married an Egyptian 
 woman (Lev. xxiv. 10). The giving of the law 
 (b.c. 1491) acquaints us with many regulations 
 concerning marriage, which were different from 
 the practices of the Jews while in Egypt, and 
 from those of the Canaanites, to whose land they 
 were approaching (Lev. xviii. 3). There we find 
 laws for regulating the marriages of bondmen 
 (Exed. xxi. 3, 4), and of a bondmaid (ver. 7-12). 
 The prohibition against marriages with the Ca- 
 o&anites is established by a positive law (Exod. 
 ejziv 16). Marriage is prohibited with any one 
 
 near of kin, 1 of the remainder of his flesh’ (Lev, 
 xviii. 6-19). A priest is prohibited from mar- 
 rying one that had been a harlot, or divorced 
 (Lev. xxi. 7). The high-priest was also excluded 
 lrom marrying a widow, and restricted to one 
 wife (ver. 13, 14). Daughters who, through 
 want of brothers, were heiresses to an estate, 
 were required to marry into their own tribe, and, 
 if possible, a kinsman, to prevent the estate pass- 
 ing into another family (Num. xxvii. 1-11; 
 xxxvi. 1-12). The husband had power to annul 
 his wife’s vow, if lie heard it, anil interfered at 
 the time (Num. xxx. 6-16). If a man had be- 
 trothed a wife, he was exempt from the wars, &c. 
 (Deut. xx. 7 ; xxiv. 5). It was allowed to marry 
 a beautiful captive in war, whose husband pro- 
 bably had been killed (Deut. xxi. 1ft 14, &c.). 
 Abundance of offspring was one of the bless- 
 ings promised to obedience, during the miracu- 
 lous providence which superintended the Theo- 
 cracy (Lev. xxvi. 9; Deut. vii. 13, 14; xxviii. 
 11 ; Ps. cxxvii. 3; cxxviii. 3); and disappoint- 
 ment. in marriage was one of the curses (Deut. 
 xxviii. 18, 30: comp. Ps. xlvii. 9; Jer. viii. 10). 
 A daughter of a distinguished person was offered 
 in marriage as a reward for perilous services (Josh, 
 xv. 16, 17 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 25). Concubinage ap- 
 pears in Israel (b.c. 1413, Judg. xix. 1-4). The 
 violation of a concubine is avenged (Judg. xx. 
 5 10). Polygamy (Judg. viii. 30). The state 
 of marriage among the Philistines may be in- 
 ferred, in the time of Samson, from the sudden 
 divorce from him of his wife by her father, and 
 her being given to his friend (Judg. xiv.20), and 
 from the father offering him a younger sister in- 
 stead (Judg. xv. 2). David’s numerous wives (2 
 Sam. iii. 3-5). In Ps. xlv., which is referred to 
 this period by the best harmonists, there is a de- 
 scription of a royal marriage upon a most, mag- 
 nificent scale. The marriage of Solomon to Pha- 
 raoh’s daughter is recorded in 1 Kings iii. 1 ; to 
 which the Song of Solomon probably relates, and 
 from which it appears that his mother ‘crowned 
 him with a crown on the day of his espousals’ 
 (ver. 3, 11 ; and see Sept, and Vulg. of Is. lxi. 
 10). It would appear that in his time females 
 were married young (Prov. ii. 17; comp. Joel i. 
 8); also males (Prov. v. 18). An admirable 
 description of a good wife is given in Prov. 
 xxxi. 10-31. The excessive multiplication of 
 wives and concubines was the cause and effect 
 of Solomon’s apostacy in his old age (1 Kings 
 xi. 1-8). He confesses his error in Ecclesiastes, 
 where he eulogizes monogamy (viii. 9 ; vii. 29). 
 Rehoboam took a plurality of wives (2 Chron. 
 xi. 18-21); and so Abijah (2 Chron. xiii.21), and 
 Ahab (1 Kings xx. 3), and Belshazzar, king of 
 Babylon (Dan. v. 2). It would seem that the out- 
 ward manners of the Jews, about the time of our 
 Lord’s advent, had become improved, since there 
 is no case recorded in the New Testament, of 
 polygamy or concubinage among them. Oui 
 Lord excludes all causes of divorce, except 
 whoredom (jrctpeicTbs A 6yov iropvelas, Matt. v. 
 32), and ascribes the origin of the Mosaic law to 
 the hardness of their hearts. The same doctrine 
 concerning divorce had been taught by the pro 
 phets (Jer. iii. 1; Micah ii. 9 ; Mai. ii. 11-16). 
 The apostles inculcate it likewise ^Rom. vii. 3; 
 1 Cor. vii. 4, 10, 11, 39) ; yet St. Paul considers 
 obstinate desertion by an unbel eving party as a 
 
MARTHA. 
 
 MARTHA. 
 
 309 
 
 release (1 Cor vii. 15). Our Lord does not re- 
 prehend celibacy for the sake ot religion, ‘those 
 who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom 
 of heaven's sake’ (Matt. xix. 12; comp. 1 Cor. 
 vii. 32, 3G). Second marriages not condemned 
 in case of death (Rom. vii. 12). Mixed mar- 
 riages disapproved (1 Cor. vii. 39; 2 Cor. vi 
 14). Early marriage not recommended (1 Cor. 
 vii. 3G). Marriage affords the means of copious 
 illustrations to the writers of Scripture. The 
 prophets employ it to represent the relation of the 
 Jewish church to Jehovah, and the apostles that, 
 of the Christian church to Christ. The applica- 
 tions they make of the idea constitute some of the 
 boldest and most touching figures in the Scrip- 
 ture. The striking similarity between modern 
 and ancient Oriental customs, in regard to mar- 
 riage, may be seen in the travels of Arvieux, Rus- 
 sell, Bruce, Buckingham, &o. ; and see Selden, 
 Uxor Ebraica, seu de Nuptiis et Divor., Londini, 
 1 6 16 ; Selden, De Sticcessionibus , c. 14; De 
 Nuptiis Boazi et Rulhcc, Lond., 1631 ; Peri- 
 zonius. Dissert, de Constitut. Div. super ducenda 
 de fundi wain’s uxore. Lugd. Batav. 1740. — 
 
 J. F. D. 
 
 MARS’ HILL. [Areopagus.] 
 
 MARTHA (M dpOa), sister of Lazarus and 
 Mary, who resided in the same house with them 
 at. Bethany [Lazarus]. From the house at 
 Bethany being called ‘ her house,’ in Luke x. 
 33, and from the leading part, which Martha is 
 always seen to take in domestic matters, it has 
 seemed to some that she was a widow, to whom 
 the house at Bethany belonged, and with whom 
 her brother and sister lodged ; but this is uncer- 
 tain, and the common opinion, that the sisters 
 managed the household of their brother, is more 
 probable. Luke probably calls it her house lie- 
 cause lie had no occasion to mention, and does 
 not mention, Lazarus; and when we speak of a 
 house which is occupied by different persons, we 
 avoid circumlocution by calling it the house of 
 the individual who happens to be the subject, of our 
 discourse. Jesus was intimate with this family, 
 and their house was often his home when at Jeru- 
 salem, being accustomed to retire thither in the 
 evening, after having spent the day in the city. 
 The point which the Evangelists bring out most 
 distinctly with respect to Martha, lies in the con- 
 trariety of disposition between her and her sister 
 Mary. The first notice of Christ’s visiting this 
 family occurs in Luke x. 38-42. He was received 
 with great attention by the sisters; and Maltha 
 soon hastened to provide suitable entertainment 
 for the Lord an l his followers, while Mary re- 
 mained in his presence, sitting at his feet, and 
 drinking in the sacred words that fell from his lips. 
 The active, bustling soliciiude of Martha, anxious 
 that the best things in the house should he made 
 subservient to the Master’s use and solace, and 
 the quiet earnestness of Mary, more desirous to 
 profit by the golden opportunity of hearing his 
 instructions, than to minister to his personal wants, 
 Strong! y mark the points of contrast in the cha- 
 racters of the two sisters. ‘ There was,’ says 
 Bishop Hall, ‘more solicitude in Martha's active 
 part, more piety in MaTv’s sedentary attendance: 
 l know not in whether more zeal. Good Martha 
 was desirous to express her joy and thankfulness 
 for the presence of so blessed a guest, by the ac- 
 tions of her careful and plent eous entertainment. 
 
 I know not how to censure the holy woman for 
 her excess of care to welcome our Savioui. 
 Sure, she herself thought she did well; ami out 
 of that confidence feared not to complain to 
 Christ of her sister.’ This she did in the words, 
 
 ‘ Lord, carest lliou not that my sister leavetb rna 
 to serve alone?’ Out of respect to Jesus, she pre- 
 sumed not to call her sister privately away with- 
 out his leave. Her words, however, seem to convey 
 a gentle reproach to Christ for not having suffi- 
 cient regard to her exertions ; and in this she was 
 wrong, as well as in measuring her sister's conduct 
 by her own. Apprehending her own act to he 
 good, she supposed her sister's wrong, because it 
 was not the same ; ‘ whereas goodness,’ as the 
 bishop remarks, ‘ hath much latitude. Ill is op- 
 posed to good, not good to good. Mary might 
 hear, Martha might serve, and both do well.’ 
 Martha no doubt expected that Jesus would 
 commend her active zeal, and send away Mary 
 with a slight, reproof. Great, therefore, was her 
 surprise to hear him say, ‘ Martha, Martha, thou 
 art careful and troubled about many things ; 
 but one thing is needful : and Mary hath chosen 
 that good part, which shall not he taken away 
 from her.’ Tills has been variously explained j 
 but the obvious reference is to the value of the 
 soul as compared with that of the body, and to 
 the eternal welfare of the one as compared with 
 the temporary interests of die other. 
 
 The part taken by the sisters in the transactions 
 connected with the death and resurrection of 
 Lazarus, is entirely arid beautifully in accord- 
 ance with their previous history. Martha is 
 still more engrossed with outward things, while 
 Mary surrenders herself move to her feelings, and 
 to inward meditation. When they heard that 
 Jesus was approaching, Martha hastened beyond 
 the village to meet him, ‘ but Mary sat still in 
 in the house’ (John xi. 20, 22). When she saw 
 Jesus actually appear, whose presence had been so 
 anxiously desired, she exhibits a strong degree of 
 faith, and hesitates not to express a confident 
 hope that, he, to whom all things were possible, 
 would even yet afford relief. But, as is usual 
 with persons of her lively character, when Christ 
 answered, with what seemed to her the vague in- 
 timation, ‘Thy brother shall rise again,' she was 
 instantly cast down from her height of confidence, 
 the reply being less direct than she expected : 
 she referied this saying to the general resurrection 
 at t be last day, and thereon relapsed into despond- 
 ency atid grief. This feeling Jesus reproved, by 
 directing her attention, before all other things, to 
 that inwaid, eternal, and divine life, which con- 
 sists in union with him, and which is raised far 
 above the power even of the grave. This he did 
 in the magnificent words, ‘ 1 am the resurrection, 
 and the life: he that helieveth in me, though he 
 were dead, yet shall he live : and whosoever 
 liveth and helieveth in me shall never die. 
 Be’ievest thou this?’ Sorrow and shame per- 
 mitted the troubled Martha, in whose heart the 
 feeling of an unconditional and entire surrender to 
 his will was re-awakened, to make only the gene- 
 ral confession that he was actually the promised 
 Messiah ; in which confession she, however, com- 
 prised an acknowledgment of his power and 
 greatness. It is clear, however, that she found 
 nothing in this discourse with Christ, to encourags 
 her first expectation of relief. With the usual 
 
310 
 
 MARTYR. 
 
 MARY. 
 
 rapid change in persons of lively susceptibilities, 
 she had now as completely abandoned all hope 
 of rescue for her brother, as she had before been 
 sanguine of his restoration to life. Tlius, when 
 Jesus directed the stone to be rolled away from 
 the sepulchre, she gathered from this no ground 
 of hope ; but rather objected to its being done, 
 because the body, which had been four days in the 
 tomb, must already have become disagreeable. 
 The reproof of Christ, ‘ Said I not unto thee, 
 that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see 
 the glory of God V suggests that more discourse 
 had passed between them than the evangelist 
 has recorded, seeing that no such assurance is 
 contained in the previous narrative (John xi. 
 39, 40). 
 
 Nothing more is recorded of Martha, save that 
 some time after, at a supper given to Christ and 
 his disciples at Bethany, site, as usual, busied 
 herself in the external service. Lazarus, so marvel* 
 lously restored from the grave, sat with her guests 
 at table. ‘ Martha served,’ and Mary occupied 
 her favourite station at the feet of Jesus, which she 
 bathed with her tears, and anointed wdth costly 
 ointment (John xii. 1,2). [Lazarus; Mary.] 
 
 There are few characters in the New Testament, 
 end certainly no female character, so strongly 
 Drought out in its natural points as that of Martha ; 
 and it is interesting to observe that Luke and John, 
 although relating different transactions in which 
 she was concerned, perfectly agree in the traits of 
 character which they assign to her. Tholuck has 
 skilfully followed out its development in his 
 Commentary on the eleventh chapter of St. John. 
 See also Niemeyer, Charakt. i. (56; and Hall's 
 Contemplations , vol. iii., b. 4, Contemp., 17, 
 23, 24. 
 
 MARTYR (^apTus). This word moans 
 properly a loitncss , and is applied in the New 
 Testament — 1. To judicial witnesses (Matt, 
 xviii. 16; xxvi. 65 ; Mark xiv. 63 ; Acts vi. 13; 
 vii. 58; 2 Cor. xiii. 1 ; 1 Tim. v. 19; He’b. x. 
 28). The Septuagint also uses it for the Hebrew 
 ID ed, in Deut. xvii. 16 ; Prov. xxiv. 28. — 2. To 
 one who has testified, or can testify to the truth of 
 what he has seen, heard, or known. This is a fre- 
 quent sense in the New Testament : as in Luke 
 xxiv. 48 ; Acts i. 8, 22; Rom. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 23 ; 
 
 1 Thes. ii. 5, 10; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 2; 
 
 1 Pet. v. 1 ; Rev. i. 5 ; iii. 14 ; xi. 3, and else- 
 where. — 3. The meaning of the word which has 
 now become the most usual, is that in which it 
 occurs most rarely in the Scripture, *. <?., one 
 who by his death hears witness to the truth. 
 In this sense we only find it in Acts xxii. 20; 
 Rev. ii. 13; xvii. 6. This now exclusive sense 
 of the word was brought into general use by 
 the early ecclesiastical writers, who applied it, to 
 every one who suffered death in the Christian 
 cause (see Suicer, Thesaurus Eccles. sub voc.). 
 Stephen was in this sense the first martyr 
 | Stephen] ; and the spiritual honours of his death 
 tended in no small degree to raise to the most 
 extravagant estimation, in the early church, the 
 value of the testimony of blood. Eventually a 
 martyr's death was supposed, on the alleged au- 
 thority of the under-named texts, to cancel all the 
 sins of the past life (Luke xii. 50 ; Mark x. 39) ; 
 to supply the place of baptism (Matt. x. 39) ; and 
 at once to secure admittance to the presence of the 
 Lufd in Paradise (Matt„ v. 10-12). In imita- 
 
 tion of the family custom of annually comnie 
 morating at. the grave the death of deceased mem* 
 hers, the churches celebrated the deaths of their 
 martyrs by prayer at their graves, and by love- 
 feasts. From this high estimation of the martyrs, 
 Christians were sometimes led to deliver themselves 
 up voluntarily to the public authorities — thus jus- 
 tifying the charge of fanaticism brought, against 
 them by the heathen. For the most part, however, 
 this practice was discountenanced, the words of 
 Christ himself being brought against it (Matt. x. 
 23; see Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. i. 109, 110). 
 
 1. MARY (Mapla or Mapiap ; Hell. D^")P .1/ i- 
 riam ), ‘the Mother of Jesus ’ (Acts i. 14), and 
 ‘ Mary his Mother’ (Matt. ii. 11), are the appella- 
 tions of one who has in later times been generally 
 called the ‘ Virgin Mary,’ but who is never so 
 designated in Scripture. 
 
 Little is known of this ‘highly favoured’ in- 
 dividual, in whom was fulfilled the first prophecy 
 made to man, that ‘ the seed of the woman should 
 bruise the serpent's head’ (Gen. iii. 15). As her 
 history was of no consequence to Christianity, it 
 is not given at large. Her genealogy is recorded 
 by St. Luke (ch. iii.), in order to prove the truth 
 of the predictions which had foretold the descent 
 of the Messiah from Adam through Abraham and 
 David, witli the design evidently of showing that 
 Christ was of that royal house and lineage (comp. 
 Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics , p. 589, If.). 
 
 Eusebius, the early ecclesiastical historian, 
 although unusually lengthy upon ‘the name 
 Jesus,’ and the genealogies in Matthew and 
 Luke's Gospels, throws no new light upon Mary’s 
 birth and parentage. The legends respecting 
 Anne, who is said to have been her mother, are 
 pure fables without the slightest evidence. 
 
 The earliest event in her history, of which we 
 have any notice, was the annunciation to her by 
 the angel Gabriel that she was destined, whilst 
 yet a pure virgin, to become the mother of the 
 Messiah — an event which was a literal fulfilment 
 of the prophecy given centuries before by Isaiah, 
 that ‘ a virgin should conceive, and bear a son, 
 and should call his name Immanuel,’ which 
 being interpreted, is ‘ God with us’ (Isa. vii. 14 ; 
 Matt. i. 23). On this occasion she was expli- 
 citly informed that she should conceive by the 
 miraculous power of God, and that her child 
 should be ‘ Holy,’ and be called ‘ the Son of 
 God.’ As a confirmation of her faith in this 
 announcement she was also told by the angel 
 that her cousin Elizabeth, who was the wife of 
 one of the chief priests, and who was now far 
 .advanced in years, had conceived a sou, and that 
 the time was not far off' when her reproach among 
 women should cease (Luke i. 36). 
 
 Almost immediately on receiving this an- 
 nouncement Mary hastened from Nazareth, where 
 she was when the angel visited her, to the house 
 of her cousin, who was then residing in the hilly 
 district in ‘ a city of Judah.’ This ‘ city’ some 
 have supposed to be Hebron ; whilst others, read- 
 ing T ovTra for T ovSa, translate the clause ‘ the 
 city Juttah,’ and identify the place of Elizabeth's 
 residence with the town of that name mentioned 
 in Josh. xv. 55; xxi. 16 (Kuinoel, in loc. ; Ols- 
 hausen, Bib. Comment, in loc. ; Reland, Palaes- 
 tina, p. 870). The meeting of these two pious 
 females, on whom such unexpected privileges had 
 
MARY. 
 
 MARY. 
 
 Sil 
 
 *jecn conferred, was one of mutual congratu- 
 lations, and united thanksgiving to the author of 
 their blessings. It was on this occasion that 
 Mary uttered the Magnificat — that splendid 
 burst of grateful adoration which Christians of 
 all parties have from the earliest times delighted 
 to adopt as expressive of the best feelings of the 
 pious heart towards God (Luke i. 39-56). After 
 spending three months with her relative, Mary 
 returned to Nazareth, where a severe trial awaited 
 her, arising out of the condition in which it 
 had now become apparent she was. Betrothed 
 (perhaps in early life) to a person of the name of 
 Joseph, an artificer of some sort (reT-rco v, Matt, 
 xiii. 55, probably, as our translators suppose, a 
 carpenter), the Jewish law held her exposed to 
 the same penalties which awaited the married 
 wife who should be found unfaithful to the 
 spousal vow. Joseph, however, being a right- 
 hearted man (bitccuos — one who feels and acts as 
 a man ought to do in the circumstances in which 
 he i3 placed), was unwilling to subject her to the 
 evils of a public exposure of what he deemed 
 her infidelity; and accordingly was turning in 
 his mind how he might privately dissolve his 
 connection with her, when an angel was sent to 
 nim also to inform him in a dream of the true 
 state of the case, and enjoin upon him to com- 
 plete his engagement with her by taking her as 
 his wife. This injunction he obeyed, and hence 
 came to be regarded by the Jews as the father of 
 Jesus (Matt. i. 18-25). 
 
 Summoned by an edict of Augustus, which 
 commanded that a census ( airoypaty) ?) of the 
 population of the whole Roman empire should 
 be taken, and that each person should be enrolled 
 in the chief city of his family or tribe, Mary and 
 her husband weut. up to Bethlehem, the city of 
 the Davidic family ; and whilst there the child 
 Jesus was born. After this event the only cir- 
 cumstances in her history mentioned by the 
 sacred historians are her appearance and offerings 
 in the temple according to the law of Moses 
 (Luke i. 22, If.) ; her return with her husband to 
 Nazareth (Luke ii. 39) ; their habit of annually 
 visiting Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover 
 (ver. 41); the appearance of the- Magi, which 
 seems to have occurred at one of these periodic 
 visits (Matt. ii. 1-12); the flight of the holy 
 family into Egypt, and their return, after the 
 death of Herod, to Nazareth (ver. 13-23); the 
 scene which occurred on another of those periodic 
 visits, when, after having proceeded two days’ 
 journey on her way homeward, she discovered 
 that her son was not in the company, and, on 
 returning to Jerusalem, found him sitting in the 
 temple with the doctors of the law, ‘ both hearing 
 them and asking them questions’ (Luke ii. 42- 
 52) ; her appearance and conduct at the mar- 
 riage-feast in Cana of Galilee (John ii. 1, ff.) ; 
 her attempt in the synagogue at Capernaum to 
 induce Jesus to desist from teaching (Matt. xii. 
 46, ft'.) ; her accompanying of her son when he 
 went up to Jerusalem immediately before his 
 crucifixion; her following him to Calvary; her 
 being consigned by him while hanging on the 
 cross to the care of his beloved apostle John, who 
 from that time took her to reside in his house 
 (John xix. 25, ff.); and her associating with the 
 disciples at Jerusalem after his ascension (Acts 
 
 i. H). 
 
 The traditions respecting the death jf Mary 
 differ materially from each other. There is a 
 letter of the General Council of Ephesus in fhe 
 fifth century, which slates that she lived at 
 Ephesus with St. John, and there died and was 
 buried. Another epistle of the same age says 
 she died at Jerusalem, and was buried in Geth- 
 semane. The legend tells that three days after 
 her interment, when the grave was opened (that 
 Thomas the Apostle might pay reverence to her 
 remains), her body was not to be found, ‘ but only 
 an exceeding fragrance,’ whereupon it was con- 
 cluded that it had been taken up to heaven. The 
 translations of Enoch and Elijah, and the ascen- 
 sion of the Lord Jesus Christ, took place while 
 they were alive, and the facts are recorded by the 
 inspiration of God ; but when the dead body of 
 Mary was conveyed through the earth, and re- 
 moved thence, there were no witnesses, and no 
 revelation was ever made of the extraordinary and 
 novel incident, which certainly has no parallel 
 in Scripture. This miraculous event is appro- 
 priately called ‘ the Assumption.’ 
 
 It is said that Mary died in a d. 63. The Canon 
 of Scripture was closed in a.d. 96, thirty-three 
 years after her decease ; which, however, is never 
 alluded to by any of the apostles in their writings, 
 nor by St. John, to whose care she was entrusted. 
 
 In the Romish Church many facts are believed 
 and doctrines asserted concerning the Virgin 
 Mary, which not only are without any authority 
 from Scripture, but many of which are diame- 
 trically opposed to its declarations. Such, be- 
 sides that just mentioned, viz. the Assumption, 
 are the following : — 
 
 1. ‘ The immaculate conception of the Blessed 
 Virgin.’ The Council of Trent, treating upon 
 ‘ Original Sin,’ decreed that ‘ the blessed and 
 immaculate Mary, the Mother of God,’ is 
 ‘ exempt from all sin, actual and original ’ 
 (Sess. 5). This dogma is utterly destitute of 
 any Scriptural evidence, and is plainly contra- 
 dictory to the unqualified and repeated assertions 
 of the sacred writers respecting the universal 
 depravity of mankind (comp, especially Rom. 
 iii. 10, 23; Gal. iii. 22). St. Paul, the inspired 
 author of these passages, lived after the death of 
 Mary, and must have known the singular fact of 
 her immaculate and sinless nature, if such had 
 been the case; hut he makes no exception in 
 her favour, and never alludes to her in any way. 
 St. John could not have been ignorant of her 
 alleged perfection, and yet he, writing about 
 a.d. 90, declares, ‘ If we say that we have not 
 sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is 
 not in us’ (1 John i. 10). 
 
 2. ‘ The perpetual virginity* of Mary. As to 
 this point we possess no direct testimony from 
 Scripture on either side; but from the very pre- 
 cise language and phraseology of the Bible on 
 primogeniture, and from the application of this 
 language in the case of Mary, there are grounds 
 for concluding that she had several children 
 after the birth of Christ. 
 
 Matthew (i. 25) and Luke (ii. 7) both state 
 that ‘ she brought forth her first-born son.’ The 
 term £ first-born’ signifies the eluest of a family, 
 or first in order of nativity: in ail tongues and 
 countries the epithet is used in this sense, and 
 in no other; and never, in any instance, sig- 
 nifies an only child. This analogy holds in ell 
 
312 
 
 MARY. 
 
 MARY MAGDALENE. 
 
 -uses. ‘Fust-fruits’ (Lev. xxiii. 10) relate to the 
 maturity and beginning of a series of similar 
 productions, and not to one solitary thing. ; The 
 first-fruits of every creature* (Col. i. 15) can- 
 not imply one detached unsucceeded person. 
 The ‘ first-born from the dead’ (Col. i. 18) does 
 not mean that Chiist alone should rise from the 
 dead, for it is written, ‘ all shall rise in him.’ 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ is repeatedly called 
 ‘ the only-begotten Son of God* (John iii. 16, 
 18), but never the only son of Mary. The evange- 
 lists say he was the ‘ first-born son* — an expres- 
 sion which necessarily involves the inference that 
 there was at least a second. Neither Samson, nor 
 the son of the Shunamite, who were only children, 
 is ever styled ‘ Jirst born ; yet, when there are 
 hut two children in a family, the order of their 
 birth is always regularly noted as a thing of 
 much importance. Esau, i . claiming his supe- 
 rior right, says, ‘ 1 am thy first-born’ (Gen. xxvii. 
 32). Joseph says of Manasseh, ‘ This is the first- 
 born’ (Gen. xlviii. 18). Very peculiar stress is 
 laid upon this point, which is always carefully 
 observed in Scripture; but nowhere can it be seen 
 that the words * first-born* are ever attached to an 
 only child. We abstain, however, from pressing 
 into the argument the repeated mention of ‘ the 
 brethren of the Lord,' and ‘ James, the Lord's 
 brother ,* on account of the latitude of interpre- 
 tation which the word ‘ brother* admits ill Scrip- 
 ture, as explained in other articles [Buotueu ; 
 James; Joses; Jude]. 
 
 As the Gospels were not written till after the 
 death of Christ, there could be no mistake upon 
 the subject. 
 
 No Christian discredits or disbelieves the fact 
 of Christ having been born, according to the pro- 
 phecy, of a pure virgin; but the perpetual vir- 
 ginity of Mary is merely traditional, unsupported 
 by any evidence, and opposed by the whole tenor 
 of Jewish and Scriptural language. 
 
 3. ‘ The worship of the Virgin.’ At the an- 
 nunciation the angel said to Mary, ‘ Blessed art 
 thou among women * (Luke i. 28). In the Scrip- 
 tures this is a usual mode of salutation. In the 
 Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 24 ) it is said. ‘ Jael 
 is blessed above women.’ Such was the Hebrew 
 form of expressing great joy or congratulation ; 
 and although Mary was ‘highly favoured’ in 
 being the mother of Jesus, yet as Jael receives a 
 similar acknowledgment of her superior station 
 and happiness, for having slain with her own hand 
 the enemy of her country, t he phrase must certainly 
 be taken in both cases with some limitation; for 
 in neither of them could it. mean, that the party 
 was to be reverenced with any species of worship. 
 In the Old and New Testaments there are many 
 persons who are both individually and collec- 
 tively blessed. God said to Abraham (Gen. xii. 
 3), ‘ I will bless them that bless thee, and curse 
 him that curseth thee ; and in thee shall all the 
 families of the earth he hlessed.’ Again, our 
 Lord Jesus Chiist extends his blessing to an in- 
 definite number, saying, ‘ Blessed are they that 
 mourn — the meek — the merciful, 1 ‘ for they shall 
 •ee God’ — * theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ 
 (Matt. v.). The words of Christ are much 
 Stronger, and contain greater promises to his 
 faith fi 1 followers, than thoseof th e angel to Mary. 
 There is no instance of peculiar honour, or of 
 &i y kind of worship, having been paid to Mary 
 
 earlier than the ^fth century, and it was not 
 until the sixth that her festivals (under the pa- 
 tronage of Augustine) began to be generally 
 observed. 
 
 4. ‘ The mediation and intercession of Mary.’ 
 This is not supported by a single passage of Holy 
 Writ. The Lord seems to have had little or no 
 communication with her after he entered upon 
 his public ministry. Mary and Martha, Mary 
 Magdalene, and ‘ other women,* aie frequently 
 mentioned as being in his c m pan y, but on one 
 occasion we read that k while Cmist talked to 
 the people his mother stood without, desiring to 
 speak with him : and one said, Thy mother stands 
 without , desiiing to speak to thee. But he an- 
 swered and said, who is my mother? And he 
 stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, 
 and said, Behold my mother and my brethren , 
 for whosoever shall do the will of my Father 
 which is in heaven, the same is my brother , and 
 sister, and mother' (Matt. xii. 46 to 56^- No- 
 thing can be more conclusive than this passage in 
 showing that those who were his kindred according 
 to the flesh were of no importance to him merely 
 on that account, hut that the righteous were alone 
 regarded by him in the neatest degrees of rela- 
 tionship. 
 
 At tiie marriage in Cana of Galilee (John ii.), 
 Mary, after desiring the -servants to do whatever 
 he commanded, ‘ saith unto him, they have no 
 wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have 
 I to do with thee?* If Jesus declined receiving 
 any information from her upon a point of no con- 
 sequence in vvoildly matters, it is impossible to 
 believe that ‘He who doeth all things after his 
 oion good pleasure’ has permitted her to obtain any 
 pre-eminence, or allows any interference by her in 
 heaven. We have besides the explicit assurance 
 that ■ there is one God, and one Mediator between 
 God and man, the man Chiist Jesus’ (1 Tim. 
 ii. 5). k We have an advocate with the leather, 
 Jesus Christ’ (1 John ii. 1). 
 
 It does not appear that Mary ever saw Christ 
 after the resurrection ; for she was not one of the 
 ‘ chosen witnesses* specilied in Scripture, as Mary 
 Magdalene was. — S. P. 
 
 2. MARY MAGDALENE (Mapla y Mayda • 
 Xyvi]) was probably so called from Magdala in 
 Galilee, the town where she may have dwelt. 
 According to the Talmudists, Magdalene signi 
 lies ‘ a plaiter of hair.’ 
 
 Mucli wrong has been done to this individual 
 from imagining that she was the person spoken 
 of by St. Lake in ch. vii. 39 ; but there is no 
 evidence to support this opinion. There were 
 two occasions on which Christ was anointed. 
 The first is thus recorded in John xii. 1, 3 : — ‘Six 
 days before the Passover Jesns came to Bethany, 
 where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom 
 he raised from the dead. There they made him 
 a supper; and Martha served. Then took Mary a 
 pound of* ointment of spikenard, very costly, and 
 anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet 
 with her hair.' This Mary was certainly the 
 sister of Martha. The second instance occurred 
 in the house of Simon. ‘ And, behold, a woman 
 in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew 
 that Jesus sat at. meat in the Pharisee's house, 
 brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood 
 at his feet behind him weeping, and began to 
 wash his feet with ’‘ears, and did wi 4< e (hern wito 
 
MARY MAGDALENE. 
 
 MARY. 
 
 313 
 
 the hairs >f lier head, and kissed his feet, and 
 tnointed them with (lie ointment.' (Luke vii. 37). 
 How Mary Magdalene came to be identified 
 with the person here mentioned, it is difficult to 
 lay ; but such is the case: and accordingly she 
 is generally regarded as having been a woman of 
 depraved character. For such an inference, how- 
 ever, there appears to be no just ground whatever. 
 
 The earliest notice of Mary Magdalene is in 
 St. Luke's Gospel (viii. 2), where it is recorded 
 that out of her ‘ had gone seven devils,’ and 
 that she was 4 with Joanna, the wife of Herod’s 
 steward, and Susanna, and many others, which 
 ministered unto Christ^of their, substance.’ 
 
 This is sufficient to prove that she had not 
 been known as a person of bad character ; and 
 it also implies that she was not poor, or amongst 
 the lower classes, when she was the companion of 
 one whose husband held an important office in the 
 king’s household. 
 
 It is as unjust to say that she who had been so 
 physically wretched as to be possessed by seven 
 devils, was dissolute, as to affirm that an insane 
 person is necessarily depraved ; and as there is 
 no evidence to prove that Mary Magdalene was 
 ‘ the sinner’ referred to in the passage quoted 
 above, the ignominy which has been attached to 
 her name ought to be removed. 
 
 In the Saviour’s last hours, and at his death 
 and resurrection, Mary Magdalene was a chief 
 and important witness. There had followed him 
 from Galilee many women (Matt, xxvii. 55, 56), 
 and there slood by the cross several, of whom 
 Mary Magdalene was one; and, after his death, 
 she ‘ and Mary the mother of Joses beheld 
 where' the body was laid’ (Mark xv. 47; Luke 
 xxiii. 55, 56); 4 and they returned and prepared 
 spices and ointments.’ ‘ The first day of the 
 week comelh Mary Magdalene early, when it was 
 yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone 
 taken away from the sepulchre’ (John xx. 1). 
 
 Then she returned to tell Peter and John that 
 the stone was removed. Peter immediately ran to 
 the place with the other disciple, when they saw 
 only the napkin and linen clothes lying; and. * the 
 disciples went away again unto their own homes ’ 
 (John xx. 2-11). But she ‘who was last at the 
 cross and first at the tomb ’ 4 stood at the sepulchre 
 weeping,’ and saw two angels, who said to her, 
 
 ‘ Woman, why weepest thou? She saith, because 
 they have taken away my Lord, and I know not 
 where they have laid him.’ Her patient waiting 
 was rewarded, for she had scarcely ceased speak- 
 ing when Jesu3 himself asked her the same ques- 
 tion, and as soon as he said ‘ Mary,’ she turned her- 
 self, and then, seeing who if. was, said unto him, 
 
 ‘ Rabboni,’ and at once acknowledged his risen 
 person; when he not only assured her of his 
 resurrection, but also announced his intended 
 ascension (John xx. 17). Mary Magdalene 
 then returned and told these things to the Apostles 
 (Luke xxiv. 10, 11), 4 and her words seemed to 
 them as idle tales.’ 4 and they, when they had 
 heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, 
 believed her not ’ (Mark xvi. 10). On every 
 occasion^Chrst selected the most fit and proper 
 persons, ami on this, his first appearance from 
 the dead, he chose Mary Magdalene to be the 
 only witness of his resurrection ; and to other 
 women had been also vouchsafed the vision of 
 angels (Luke xxiv. 10). These persons, with 
 
 the acute perception of their sex, receiving 
 distinct evidence without captious disbelief, at 
 once saw, believed, and ‘worshipped’ their 
 risen Lord (Matt, xxviii. 9): whilst the men 
 who had been his daily companions during 
 t lie whole time of his public ministry, and had 
 heard 4 the gracious words which fell from his 
 lips,’ entirely refused the testimony of eye-wit- 
 nesses, to whom, 4 by infallible proofs, He had 
 shown himself alive,' and remained unconvinced 
 until 4 Jesus stood in the midst, of them,’ and 
 4 showed them his hands and Iris feet.’ (Luke 
 xxiv. 36, 40) ; and even then 4 they believed not 
 for joy.’ 
 
 But. the failh of Mary Magdalene is 4 in ever- 
 lasting remembrance,’ inasmuch as, when others 
 were 4 fools and slow of heart to believe,’ she, with 
 less evidence than 1 hey possessed, at once acknow- 
 ledged that ‘Christ is risen from the dead, and is 
 become the first-fruits of them that slept,’ and to 
 her was granted the honour of being the first 
 witness of that great event, the Resurrection, 
 without which Christ would have died in vain 
 (1 Cor. xv.).— S. P. 
 
 3. MARY, wife of Cleoplms or Alpbaeus, and 
 sister of the Lord's mother (Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark 
 xv. 40; John xix. 25). This Mary was one of 
 those holy women who followed Christ, and was 
 present at the crucifixion; and she is that 4 other 
 Mary’ who, with Mary Magdalene, attended the 
 body of Christ to the sepulchre when taken down 
 from the cross (Matt, xxvii. 61 ; Mark xv. 47 ; 
 Luke xxiii. 55). Sh# was also among these who 
 went on the morning of the first day of the week 
 to the sepulchre to anoint the body, and who be- 
 came the first witnesses of the resurrection (Matt, 
 xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 1 ; Luke xxiv. 1). James, 
 Joses, Jude, and Simon, who are called the Lord’s 
 brethren [see the names; also Aj.ph^eus ; Bro- 
 ther], are very generally supposed to have been 
 the sons of this Mary, and therefore cousins of 
 Jesus, the term brother having been used with 
 great latitude among the Hebrews. This is the 
 usual alternative of those who deny that, these 
 persons were sons of our Lord’s mother by her 
 husband Joseph ; although some imagine that 
 they may have been sons of Joseph by a former 
 wife. The fact seems to he this : Christ had four 
 4 brethren ’ called James, Joses, Simon, and Jude ; 
 he had also three apostles called James, Simon, 
 and Jude, who were his cousins, being sons of 
 Alpbaeus and this Mary : and it is certainly very 
 difficult to resist the conclusion that the three 
 cousins arid apostles are to he regarded as the 
 same with those three of the four 4 brethren’ who 
 bore the same names. 
 
 4. MARY, sister of Lazarus and Martha. The 
 friendship of our Lord for this family has been 
 explained in other articles [Lazarus; Martha]. 
 The points of interest in connection with Mary 
 individually arise from the contrast of character 
 between her and her sister Martha, and from the 
 incidents by which that contrast was evinced. 
 As these points of contrast have already been 
 produced under Martha, it is not necessary to 
 go over the same ground in the present article. 
 Apart from this view, the most signal incident in 
 Ihe history of Mary is her conduct at the supper 
 which was given to Jesus in Bethany, when he 
 came thither after having raised Lazarus from 
 the dead. The intense love which distinguished 
 
311 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 her character then glowed with the highest fer- 
 vour, manifesting the depth of her emotion and 
 gratitude for the deliverance from the cold terrors 
 of the grave of that brother who now sat alive 
 and cheerful with the guests at table. She took 
 the station she best loved, at the feet of Jesus. 
 Among the ancients it was usual to wash the feet 
 of guests before an entertainment, and with this the 
 anointing of the feet was frequently connected 
 [Anointing]. Mary possessed a large quantity 
 of very costly ointment ; and in order to testify 
 her gratitude she sacrificed it. all by anoint- 
 ing with it the feet of Jesus. We are told that 
 the disciplps murmured at the extravagance of 
 this act, deeming that it would have been much 
 wiser, if she had sold the ointment and given the 
 money to the poor. But Jesus, looking beyond 
 the mere external act to the disposition which 
 gave birth to it — a disposition which marked the 
 intensity of her gratitude— vindicated her deed. 
 Always meditating upon his departure, and more 
 especially at that, moment, when it was so near at 
 baud, he attributed to this act a still higher sense 
 — as having reference to his approaching death. 
 The dead were embalmed : and so, lie said, have 
 I received, by anticipation, the consecration of 
 death (John xii. 1-8; Matt. xxvi. G-13; Mark 
 xiv. 3-9). 
 
 MASCHIL, a title of some of the Psalms 
 [Psalms], 
 
 MASSA, an encampment of the Israelites 
 [ Wandering]. 
 
 MATTHEW (Mar0a?os)» 1. The Person of 
 Matthew. — According to Mark ii. 14, Matthew 
 was a son of Alpliaeus. It is generally supposed 
 that Jacobus, or James, the sou of Alphaeus, was a 
 son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, who was a sister 
 of the mother of Jesus (John xix. 25). If this 
 opinion is correct, Matthew was one of the rela- 
 tives of Jesus. Matthew was a portitor, or in- 
 ferior collector of customs at Capernaum, on the 
 Sea of Galilee. He was not a publicanas, or 
 general farmer of customs. We may suppose 
 either that he held his appointment at the port of 
 Capernaum, or that he collected the customs on 
 the high road to Damascus, which went through 
 what is now called Khan Minyeh, which place, as 
 Robinson lias shown, is the ancient Capernaum 
 ( Bibl . lies, in Palestine , vol. iii. pp. 288-295). 
 Thus we see that Matthew belonged to the lower 
 class of people. 
 
 In Mark ii. 14, and Luke v. 27, lie is called 
 Levi. We lienee conclude that he had two names. 
 This circumstance is not mentioned in the list of 
 the apostles (Matt. x. and Luke vi.) ; but the omis- 
 sion does not prove the contrary, as we may 
 infer from the fact that Lebbaeus is also called 
 Judas in Luke vi. 16, in which verse the name 
 Lebbaeus is omitted. In Matt. ix. 9 is re- 
 lated how Matthew was called to be an apostle. 
 We must, however, suppose that he was previously 
 acquainted with Jesus, since we read in Luke 
 vi. 13, that when Jesus, before delivering the 
 Sermon on the Mount, selected twelve disciples, 
 who were to form the circle of his more intimate 
 associates, Matthew was one of them. After this 
 Matthew returned to his usual occupation ; from 
 which Jesus, on leaving Capernaum, called him 
 away. On this occasion Matthew gave a parting 
 entertainment to his friends. After this event lie 
 is n.entnned only in Acts i. 13. 
 
 According to a statement in Clemens Alexan* 
 drinus ( Pcedagog . ii. !), Matthew abstained from 
 animal food. Hence some writers have rather 
 hastily concluded that he belonged to the sect of 
 the Essenes. It is true that the Essenes practised 
 abstinence in a high degree; but it is not true that 
 they rejected animal food altogether. Admitting 
 the account in Clemens Alexandrinus to be cor- 
 rect, it proves only a certain ascetic strictness, of 
 which there occur vestiges in the habits of other 
 Jews (comp. Joseph. Vila, cap. ii. & iii.). Some 
 interpreters find aho in Rom. xiv. an allusion to 
 Jews of ascetic principles. 
 
 According to another account, which is as old 
 as the first century, and* which occurs in the 
 Kr/puy/ua Tlerpou in Clemens Alex. (Strom, vi. 
 15), Matthew, after the death of Jesus, remained 
 about fifteen years in Jerusalem. This agrees with 
 the statement in Eusebius (Hist. Ecclcs. iii. 24), 
 that Matthew preached to his own nation before he 
 went to foreign countries. Rutiims (Hist. Eccles. 
 x. 9) and Socrates ( H ist. Eccles. i. 19) state that 
 he afterwards went into Ethiopia ; and other 
 authors mention other countries. There also he 
 probably preached specially to the Jews. Ac- 
 cording to Heracleon (about a.d. 150) and Cle- 
 mens Alex. (Strom, iv. 9), Matthew was one of 
 those apostles who did not. suffer martyrdom. 
 
 2. The Gospel ok St. Matthew. — The 
 genuineness of this Gospel has been more strongly 
 attacked than that of any of the three others, as 
 well by external as by internal arguments. 
 
 We vv ill first consider the external arguments. 
 The most ancient, testimony concerning Matthew's 
 Gospel is that of Papias. who, according to Euse- 
 bius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39), wrote as follows: 
 MaT0a?os p\v our 'Eflpdidi SiaXeKTcp ra A 6yia 
 (Tvveypa\f/aTo. 'H p/j.i)reuo'e S’ aura, us eSvmro 
 cicao-ros (var. lect. us itv bvuaros eKaaros). — 
 
 ‘ Matthew wrote the sayings in the Hebrew 
 tongue, but every body interpreted them accord- 
 ing to his ability.’ Doubts of three different 
 kinds have been raised whether this testimony 
 could refer to our Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. 
 
 1st. Papias, the most ancient witness, who was 
 a disciple of John, speaks only about the \6yia of 
 Christ, which were apparently a collection of the 
 remarkable sayings of our Lord. 
 
 2dly. lie speaks about a work written in the 
 Hebrew, which here means probably the Aramaean 
 or Chaldee tongue. 
 
 3dly. Ilis statement seems to imply that there 
 was no translation of this work. 
 
 These doubts were particularly brought forward 
 by Schleiermacher in the Studien und Kritikcn , 
 1832, Heft 4. The opinion of Schleiermachei 
 was adopted by Sehneckenburger, Lachmann, and 
 many others. According to these critics, the 
 apostle wrote only a collection of the remarkable 
 sayings of Jesus; which collection was put into 
 an historical form by a Greek translator. Papias 
 is said to ini end by r,pn'hvev<J€, the explanation of 
 the sayings of Christ by means of the addition 
 of the historical facts. Most critics, however, have 
 either never adopted, or have subsequently re- 
 jected, the above interpretation of the words \6yia 
 and fjpfj.'l)veu(re. It was first objected by Dr. 
 Liioke, that Papias, in his report, followed tl e 
 statements of Johannes Presbyter, who said tha' 
 Peter furnished a avura^is ruv Kvpiatcuv Ao^iuy, 
 
 ‘ a collection of the sayings of our Lord,’ and that 
 
MATTHEW. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 313 
 
 Mark stated vdiat he had heard from Peter, and 
 that Papias nevertheless adds that Mark wrote 
 ret uirb rod Xptffrov fj Ae%0evT a r\ i rpax^eura, ‘ as 
 well the sayings as the doings of Christ.’ Hence 
 it follows, according to Dr. Liicke, that \6yia is a 
 term a parte potiori, which comprehends the history 
 also. In addition to this, Dr. Liicke observes, 
 that Papias himself wrote a work under the title of 
 ‘ Aoyluu Kvpianoov P/qyqffis,' and that the extracts 
 from this work which Eusebius has furnished 
 prove that its contents were partly historical. Ac- 
 cording to this view, the testimony of Papias 
 may be considered as referring to our Gospel of 
 St. Matthew ; but the force of the two other objec- 
 tions remains still unimpared. 
 
 It has been observed by those who deny the 
 genuineness of this Gospel, that in none of the 
 Fathers before Jerome do we find any statement 
 from which we could infer that they had seen the 
 Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew ; and that conse- 
 quently we may consider as a mere conjecture 
 the opinion of the Fathers, that our Gospel is a 
 Greek translation of a Hebrew original. 
 
 Jerome, in his Catalogus de viris illustribus 
 (cap. iii.), reports that the Hebrew gospel of St. 
 Matthew was preserved in the library at Caesarea, 
 and that he took a copy of it. In his commen- 
 tary on Matt. xii. 13, he says that he translated 
 this Hebrew Gospel into Greek. In the same pass- 
 age, and in his book Contra Pelagianos (iii. 2), 
 Jerome states that this Hebrew copy was con- 
 sidered ‘ by most people’ (a plerisque) to be the 
 original text of St. Matthew. The cautious ex- 
 pression ‘ a plerisque' is considered by many cri- 
 tics as an indication that Jerome’s statement 
 Cannot -be depended upon. Indeed it appears 
 that the Hebrew copy of St. Matthew was not the 
 mere original of our Gospel, for what motive, 
 in that case, could Jerome have had to translate 
 it into Greek ? 
 
 The whole difficulty is cleared up if, like most 
 modern critics, we suppose that the Evangelium 
 secundum Hebrceos, about which Jerome speaks, 
 was the Gospel of St. Matthew corrupted by 
 apocryphal additions. This conjecture is con- 
 firmed by the fragments of it which have been 
 preserved. 
 
 Hence many critics are led to suppose that the 
 strictly Juddizing Christians made a translation 
 of St. Matthew, which they endeavoured to bring 
 into harmony with their own opinions and legends. 
 As a proof that this Evangelium secundum Ile- 
 brceos was not an original work, but merely a 
 translation, it has been urged that the name 
 BupaPPas wa3 not rendered K3K "13, but "13 
 }.n3"l ,Jilius magistri eorvm. 
 
 Nevertheless Jerome's statement respecting the 
 Evangelium secundum, Hebrceos may be taken as 
 a confirmation of the account of Papias, that 
 Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. If this 
 be the fact, the question must arise whether our 
 Greek Matthew is a correct translation of the 
 Hebrew. The words of Papias seem to imply 
 that in his days there was no Greek translation in 
 existence. This has induced many critics to 
 question his account, and to suppose that the 
 original text was Greek. Such is the opinion of 
 Erasmus, CEcolampadius, Calvin, Beza, Lardner, 
 Guerike, Harless, and others. 
 
 The authority of Papias has been deemed to be 
 overthrown by the character given of him by 
 
 Eusebius, according to whose statement he w« i 
 ccpSdpa cr/juicpbs rbv vovv, ‘of a very little mind.’ 
 Guerike considers also as rather incredible the 
 addition, that everybody interpreted that gospel 
 according to his ability, ypp'qvevce Vavra us fiv 
 Swards eicaaros. 
 
 Papias, indeed, proves himself very credulous, 
 by reporting, according to Eusebius, iroA\& 
 [AvOiKurepa, ‘ many rather fabulous things;’ but 
 this does not authorize us to reject his testimony 
 in a mere matter of fact, for the perception of 
 which no extraordinary abilities were required, 
 especially as his account of this fact agrees with 
 the statements of Jerome. 
 
 It is by no means improbable, that after several 
 inaccurate and imperfect translations of the 
 Aramsean original came into circulation, Mat- 
 thew himself was prompted by this circumstance 
 to publish a Greek translation, or to have his 
 Gospel translated under his own supervision. It 
 is very likely that this Greek translation did not 
 soon come into general circulation, so that Papias 
 may have remained ignorant of its existence. It 
 may also be, and nothing prevents us from sup- 
 posing, that Papias, being acquainted with our 
 Greek Gospel, spoke, in the passage referred to, of 
 those events only which came to pass soon after 
 the publication of the Aramaean original. We, at. 
 least, rather prefer to confess ourselves unable to 
 solve the objection, than to question the direct 
 testimony of Papias; especially since that testi- 
 mony is supported by other ancient authorities : 
 
 1st. By Otigen (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25). 
 2dly. By the Alexandrian Catechist Pantaenus, 
 who, according to Eusebius ( Hist . Eccles. v. 10), 
 having, in the latter half of the second century, 
 gone on a missionary expedition to India, found 
 there some Christians who possessed the Gospel of 
 St. Matthew in Hebrew. 3dly. By Irenaeus ( Adv . 
 liter. iii. 1) and Eusebius ( Hist . Eccles. v. 8). 
 
 To this it. has been objected, that Origen and 
 Irenaeus probably only repeated the statement of 
 Papias ; but it is unlikely that a man of so much 
 learning as Origen should have had no other au- 
 thority for his account; and the statement of 
 Pantaenus, at least, is quite independent of that of 
 Papias. It ought also to be considered that 
 Matthew was not so much known in ecclesiastical 
 antiquity, that any partizanship could have 
 prompted writers to forge books in his name. 
 
 On summing up what we have stated, it ap- 
 pears that the external testimonies clearly prove 
 the genuineness of the Gospel of St. Matthew. 
 The authenticity indeed of this Gospel is as well 
 supported as that of any work of classical anti- 
 quity. It can also be proved that it. was early in 
 use among Christians, and that the apostolical 
 Fathers, at the end of the first century, ascribed to 
 it a canonical authority (see Polycarp, Epist. c. 
 ii. 7 ; Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. c. vi.; Ad Rom. c. vi. ; 
 Clemens Romanus, Epist. i. c. xlvi. ; Barnabas, 
 Epist. c. iv. 
 
 But the EXTERNAL arguments against the au- 
 thenticity of this Gospel are less important than 
 the doubts which have been started from a con- 
 sideration of its internal qualities. 
 
 1st. The representations of Matthew (it is said) 
 have not that vivid clearness which characterizes 
 the narration of an eye-witness, and which we 
 find, for instance, in the Gospel of John. Even 
 Mark and Luke surpass Matthew in this respect 
 
316 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 Compare, for example, Matt. iv. 18 with Luxe 
 v. t, sq. ; Matt. viii. 5 sq. with Luke vii. 1, sq. 
 This is most striking in the history of his own 
 call, where we should expect a clearer repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 2nd. He omits s <me facts which every apostle 
 certainly knew. For instance, he mentions only 
 one journey of Christ to the passnver at Jerusa- 
 lem, namely, the last ; and seems to be acquainted 
 only with one sphere of Christ's activity, namely, 
 Galilee. He even relates t lie instances of Christ's 
 appearing alter his resurrection in such a manner, 
 that it might be understood as if he showed him- 
 self only to the women in Jerusalem, and to his 
 disciples nowhere hut in Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 32 
 and xxviii. 7). 
 
 3rd. He lelates unchrouologically, and trans- 
 poses events to times in which they did not hap- 
 pen ; for instance, the event mentioned in Luke 
 iv. 14-39 must have happened at the commence- 
 ment of Christ’s public career, but Matthew 
 relates it as late as eh. xiii. 53, sq. 
 
 4th. He embodies in one discourse several 
 sayings of Clnist. which, according to Luke, were 
 pronounced at different times (comp. Matt. v.-vii., 
 and xxiii.). 
 
 5th. He falls, it is asserted, into positive errors. 
 In ch. i. and ii. he seems not to know that, the 
 real dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus was at 
 Nazareth, and that their abode at Bethlehem was 
 only temporary (comp. Matt. ii. 1, 22, 23. with 
 Luke ii. 4, 39). According to Maik xi. 20, 21, 
 the fig-tree withered on the day after it was 
 cursed, but according to Matt. xxi. 19. it withered 
 immediately. According to Matt. xxi. 12, 
 Christ purified the Temple immediately after his 
 entrance in f o Jerusalem ; hut according to Mark 
 he on that day went out to Bethany, and purified 
 the Temple on the day following (Mark xi. 11-15). 
 Matthew says (xxi. 7) that Christ rode on a she- 
 ass and on a colt, which is impossible. The other 
 Gospels speak only of a she-ass. 
 
 These circumstances have led Strauss and 
 others to consider the Gospel of St. Matthew as 
 an unapostolical composition, originating perhaps 
 at the conclusion of the first century ; while some 
 consider it a reproduction of the Aramaean Mat- 
 thew, augmented by some additions; others call 
 it an historical commentary of a later period, 
 made to illustrate the collection of the sayings of 
 Christ which Matthew had furnished (comp. 
 Siefl'ert, Ueber die Aechtheit und den Ursprung des 
 ersten Evangel ii, 1832; Schnecken burger, Ueber 
 den Ursprung des ersten Evangelii. 1834; Schott, 
 Ueber die Authenticitat des Ev. Matth. 1S37. 
 
 To these oljecfions we may reply as follows: — 
 
 1st. The gilt of narrating luminously is a per- 
 sonal qualification of which even an apostle 
 might be destitute, and which is rarely found 
 among the lower orders of people ; this argument 
 therefore has recently been given up altogether. 
 In the history of his call to he an apostle, Mat- 
 thew has this advantage over Mark and Luke, 
 that he relates the discourse of Christ (ix. 13) 
 with greater completeness than these evangelists. 
 Luke relates that Matthew prepared a great 
 banquet in Lis house, while Matthew simply 
 mentions that an entertainment took place, be- 
 cause the apostle could not well write that he 
 himself prepared a great banquet. 
 
 2nd. An argumentum a silentio must not be 
 
 urged against the evangelists. The raising of 
 Lazarus is narrated only liy John ; and th« 
 raising of the youth at Nain only by Luke; 
 the appearance of five hundred brethren after the 
 resurrection, which, according to ihe testimony 
 of Paul (1 Cor. xv. (i), was a fact generally 
 known, is not recorded by any of the evangelists. 
 The apparent restriction of Christ's sphere of 
 activity to Galilee, we find also in Mark and 
 Luke. This peculiarity arose perhaps from the 
 circumstance that the apostles first taught in 
 Jerusalem, where it \yas unnecessary to relate 
 what hail happened there, hut where the events 
 which had taken place in Calilee were unknown, 
 and required to he narrated : thus the sphere of 
 narration may have gradually become fixed. At 
 least it is generally granted that hitherto no satis- 
 factory explanat ion of this fact has been discovered. 
 The expressions in Matt. xxvi. 32, and xxviii. 7, 
 perhaps only indicate that the Lord appeared 
 more frequently, and for a longer period, in Ga- 
 lilee than elsewhere. In Matt, xxviii. 16, we 
 are told that the disciples in Galilee went up to 
 a mountain, whither Christ had appointed them 
 to come ; and since it is not previously mentioned 
 that any such appointment had been made, the 
 narrative of Matthew himself here leads us to 
 conclude that Christ appeared to his disciples in 
 Jerusalem after his resurrection. 
 
 3rd. There is no reason to suppose that the 
 evangelists intended to write a chronological 
 biography. On the contrary, we learn from 
 Luke i. 4, and John xx. 31, that their object \va3 
 of a more practical and apologetical tendency. 
 With the exception of John, the evangelists have 
 grouped their communications more according to 
 the subjects than according to chronological suc- 
 cession. This fact is now generally admitted. 
 The principal groups of facts recoided by St. 
 Matthew are: — 1. The preparation of Jesus, nar- 
 rated in ch. i. — iv. 16. 2. The public ministry 
 of Jesus, narrated in ch. iv. 17 — xvi. 20. 3. The 
 conclusion of the life of Jesus, narrated in ch. 
 xvi. 21— xxviii. 
 
 The second of these groups is subdivided into 
 minor groups. If we consider that Matthew, for 
 the benefit of the Jews, describes Christ as being 
 the promised Messiah of the old covenant, it must 
 appear perfectly appropriate in him fo narrate tho 
 Sermon on the Mount before the calling of his 
 disciples. The Sermon on the Mount shows the 
 relation in which the Redeemer stood to the old 
 covenant. In ch. viii. and ix. are given ex- 
 amples of the power which Jesus possessed of per- 
 forming miracles; after which, in ch. ix. 36, is 
 stated the need of ‘labourers’ to instruct the 
 people. Then naturally follows, in ch. x., the 
 admonition delivered to the apostles before they 
 are sent out on their mission. In ch. xii. is re- 
 corded how Jesus entered into conflict with the 
 dominant party, &c. (comp. Kern’s Abhandlung 
 iiber den Ursprung des Evangelii Matthcei, p. 
 51, sq. ; Koster, Ueber die Composition des Ev, 
 Matth. in Pelt's Mitarbeiten, Heft i. ; Kulir^ 
 Leben Jesu , t.. i., Beilage. 
 
 But our adversaries further asserl, that the 
 evangelist not only groups together events belong- 
 ing to different times, but that some of his date* 
 are incorrect : for instance, the date in Matt. xiii. 
 53 cannot be correct if Luke, ch. iv., has placed 
 the event rightly. If, however, we carefully 
 
MATTHEW. 
 
 MEDEBA. 
 
 317 
 
 •sonsider the matter, we shall find that Matthew 
 has placed this fact, more chronologically than 
 Luke. Jt is true that the question in Matt. xiii. 
 54 , and the annunciation in Luke iv. 18-21, seem 
 to synchronize best with the first public appearance 
 of Jesus. But. even Schleiermacher, who, in his 
 work on Luke, generally gives the preference to 
 the arrangement of that evangelist, nevertheless 
 observes in. 63) that Luke iv. 23 leads us to sup- 
 pose that Jesus abode for a longer period in Ca- 
 pernaum (comp. the words /card rb eiwdbs avry in 
 ver. 16). 
 
 4th. If the Evangelist arranges his statements 
 according to subjects, and not chronologically, 
 we must not lie surprised that he connects similar 
 sayings of Christ, inserting them in the longer 
 discourses after analogous topics had been men- 
 tioned. These discourses are not compiled by 
 the Evangelist, but always form the fundamental 
 framework to which sometimes analogous subjects 
 are attached. But even this is not, the case in the 
 Sermon on the Mount; and in ch. xiii. it may be 
 doubted whether the parables were spoken at dif- 
 ferent times. In the discourses recorded in ch. x. 
 and xxiii., it can be proved that several sayings 
 are more correctly placed by Matthew than by 
 Luke (comp, especially Matt, xxiii, 37-39 with 
 Luke xiii. 34, 35). 
 
 5th. It depends entirely upon the mode of 
 interpretation, whether such positive errors as are 
 alleged to exist are really chargeable on the 
 evangelist. Tiie difference, for instance, be- 
 tween the narrative of the birth of Christ, as 
 severally recorded by Matthew and Luke, may 
 easily be solved without questioning the correct- 
 ness of either, if we suppose that each of them 
 narrates what he knows from his individual 
 sources of information. The history of Christ’s 
 childhood given in Luke, leads us to conclude 
 that it was derived from the acquaintances of 
 Mar)’’, while the statements in Matthew seem to 
 he derived from the friends of Joseph. As to 
 the transaction recorded in Matt. xxi. 18-22, and 
 Mark xi. 11, 15, 20, 21, it appears that Mark 
 describes what occurred most accurately ; and 
 we must grant that we should scarcely have 
 expected from an eye-witnes3 the inaccuracy 
 which is observable in Matthew. But we find 
 that there are characters of such individuality 
 that, being bent exclusively upon their main 
 subject, they seem to have no perception for 
 llates and localities. 
 
 If these arguments should still appear unsatis- 
 factory, they may be supported by adding the 
 positive internal proofs which exist in favour of 
 the apostolical origin of this Gospel. 1 . The nature 
 of the book agrees entirely with the statements of 
 the Fathers of the church, from whom we learn that 
 it was written for Jewish readers. None of the 
 other Evangelists quotes the Old Testament so 
 often as Matthew, who, moreover, doe3 not ex- 
 plain the Jewish rites and expressions, which 
 are explained by Maik and John. 2. If there is 
 a want of precision in the narration of facts, 
 there is, on the other hand, a peculiar accuracy 
 and richness in the reports given of the discourses 
 of Jesus ; so that we may easily conceive why 
 Papias, a parte potiori, styled the Gospel of Mat- 
 !hew * 6 yia ico Kvpiov, the sayings of the Lord. 
 
 Some of the most beautiful and most, important 
 sayings of our Lord, the historical credibility of 
 
 which no sceptic can attack, have been preserved 
 by Matthew alone (Mat), xi. 28-30; xvi. 16-19; 
 xxviii. 20; comp, also xi. 2-21 ; xi i. 3-6,25-29; 
 xvii. 12, 25, 26 ; xxvi. 13). Above all, the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount must here be considered. Even 
 negative criticism giants that. Luke’s account is 
 defective as compared with Matthew's; and that 
 Luke gives as isolated sentences what in Matthew 
 appears in beautiful connection. In short, the 
 Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, 
 forms the most beautiful and the best arranged 
 whole of all the evangelical discourses. It. may 
 also be proved that in many particulars the re- 
 ports of several discourses in Matthew are more 
 exact than in the other evangelists ; as may be 
 seen by comparing Matt, xxiii. with the various 
 parallel passages in Luke. Under these circum- 
 stances it is surprising that the genuineness of 
 this gospel has not yet met. with more distin- 
 guished advocates. The most, important work in 
 defence of the genuineness of Matthew is that 
 of Kern, Ueber den Ursprung des Evangelii 
 Matthcei , Tubingen, 1834. Next in value are 
 Olshausen’s Drei Programme ; 1835, and the two 
 Lucubrationes of Harless, 1840 and 1843. Even 
 He Wette, in the fourth edition of his Introduc- 
 tion. p. 170, has ascribed only a qualified value 
 to the doubts on this head. 
 
 With regard to the date of this gospel, Clemens 
 Alexandrinus and Origen state that it was written 
 before the others. Irenseus (Adv. Hcer. iii. 1) 
 agrees with them, but places its origin rather late 
 — namely, at the time when Peter and Paul 
 were at. Rome. Even De Wefle grants ( Einleitung , 
 § 97) that it was written before the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. In proof of this we may also quote 
 ch. xxvii. 8. 
 
 Among all the German commentaries on the 
 first three Gospels, the best spirit pervades that of 
 Olshausen, 3rd edit. 1837. The commentary on 
 St. Matthew by De Wette, 2nd edit. 1838, is 
 pervaded by the scepticism of Strauss. — A. T. 
 
 MATTHIAS (Mar0:as, equivalent to Mccrtfcuos, 
 Matthew), one of the seventy disciples who was 
 chosen by lot, in preference to Joseph Barsabas, 
 into the number of the apostles, to supply the de- 
 ficiency caused by the treachery and suicide of 
 Judas (Acts i. 23-26). Nothing is known of his 
 subsequent, career. 
 
 MAZZAROTH (Job xxxviii. 32). [Astro- 
 nomy.] 
 
 MEASURES. [Weights and Measures.] 
 
 MEDAD and ELDAD, two of the seventy 
 elders who were nominated to assist Moses in the 
 government of the people, but who remained in 
 the camp, probably as modestly deeming them- 
 selves unfit for the office, when the others presented 
 themselves at the Tabernacle. The Divine spirit*, 
 however, rested on them even there, ‘and they 
 prophesied in the camp' (Num. xi. 24-29). The 
 Targum of Jonathan alleges that these two men 
 were brothers of Moses and Aaron by the mother’s 
 side. 
 
 MEDAN or Mad an (j*1p ; M adtap ), son oi 
 Abraham, by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 2). He and 
 his brother Midian are supposed to have peopled 
 the country of Midian, east of the Dead Sea. 
 
 MEDEBA ; Sept. Maida/Bay), a town 
 
 east of the Jordan, in the tribe of Reuben (Josh, 
 xiii. 9, 16), before which was fought the great 
 
31$ 
 
 MEDES. 
 
 MEDES. 
 
 battle in which J cab defeated the Ammonites and 
 their allies (1 Chron. xix. 7). It originally be- 
 longed to the Moabites (Nnm. xxi. 30) ; and 
 after the captivity of the tribes beyond the Jordan, 
 they again took possession of it (Da. xv. 2). 
 The Onomasiicon places it near Heshbon ; and 
 it was once the seat of one of the thirty-five 
 bishoprics of Arabia (Reland, Palastina , pp. 217, 
 223, 226). Medeba, now in ruins, still retains 
 its ancient name, and is situated upon a round 
 hill seven miles south of Heshbon. The ruins 
 are about a mile and a half in circuit, but not a 
 single edifice remains perfect (Seetzen, in Zach's 
 Manat. Corresp., xviii. 431 ; Burckhardt, Syria , 
 p. 625 : Legh. p. 245). 
 
 MEDES, the inhabitants in ancient times of one 
 of the most fruitful and populous countries of Asia, 
 called Media, the precise boundaries of which it 
 is not easy, if indeed it is now possible, to ascer- 
 tain. \V iner, in bis Realwarterb., defines it as the 
 country which lies westward and southward from 
 the Caspian Sea, between 35 3 and 40° of N. lat. 
 Nature has divided Media into three great divi- 
 sions. On the north is a fiat, moist, and insalu- 
 brious district, stretching along the Caspian Sea, 
 vliich is made a separate portion by a chain of 
 dlls connected with Anti-Taurus. In this plain 
 *nd on these mountains there live uncultivated 
 und independent tribes. The country is now 
 known under the names of Masanderan and Gilun 
 (see Knight’s Illuminated Atlas , last Slap). 
 South of this mountain range lies the country 
 which the ancients denominated Atropatene 
 (’ ArpoTraTTivf]), being separated on the west from 
 Armenia by Mount Caspius, which springs from 
 Ararat; and on the south and south-east by the 
 Orontes range of hills, which runs through Media. 
 South and south-east of the Oronteg is a third 
 district, formerly termed Great Media, which 
 Mount Zagros separates from Assyria on the 
 west, and from Persia on the south : on the east 
 it is bordered by deserts, and connected on the 
 north east with Parthia and Ilyrcania by means 
 of Mount Caspius, being now called Irak-Ajemi. 
 This for the most part is a high hilly country, yet 
 not without, rich and fruitful valleys, and even 
 plains. The sky is clear and bright, and the 
 climate healthy (Winer, ut supra ; Ker Porter, 
 i. 216). Media Atropatene, which corresponds 
 pretty nearly with the modern Azerbijari, contains 
 fruitful and well-peopled valleys and plains. The 
 northern mountainous region is cold and un- 
 fruitful. In Great Media lay the metropolis of 
 the country, Ecbatana (Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 17), 
 as well as the province of Rhagiana and the city 
 Rhagae, with the plain of Nisacum, celebrated in 
 tlie time of the Persian empire for it3 horses and 
 horse-races (Herod., iii. 106; Arrian, vii. 13; 
 Heeren, Ideen, i. 1. 305). This plain was near the 
 city Nisaea, around which were fine pasture lands 
 producing excellent clover (/ Ierba Medico). The 
 horses were entirely white, and of extraordinary 
 height and beauty, as well as speed. They con- 
 stituted a part of the luxury of the great, and a 
 tribute in kind was paid from them to the 
 monarch, who, like all Eastern sovereigns, used to 
 delight in equestrian display. Some idea of the 
 opulence of the country may be had when it is 
 known that, independently of imposts rendered 
 in money, Media paid a yearly tribute of not 
 le.33 than 3000 horses, 4000 mules, and nearly 
 
 100,000 sheep. The races, once celebrated 
 through the world, .appear to exist no more ; but 
 Ker Porter saw the Shah ride on festival occasions 
 a splendid horse of pure white. Cattle abounded, 
 as did the richest fruits, as pines, citrons, oranges, 
 all of peculiar excellence, growing as in their 
 native land. Here also was found the Silphium 
 (probably assafoetida), which formed a consider- 
 able article in the commerce of the ancients, and 
 was accounted worth its weight in gold. The 
 Median dress was proverbially splendid; the 
 dress, that is, of the highest class, which seems to 
 have gained a sort of classical authority, and to 
 have been at a later period worn at the Persian 
 court, probably in part from its antiquity. This 
 dress the Persian monarclis used to present to 
 those whom they wished to honour, and no others 
 were permitted to wear it. It. consisted of a long 
 white loose robe, or gown, flowing down to the 
 feet, and enclosing the entire body, specimens of 
 which, as now used in those countries, may be 
 seen in plates given in Perkin's Residence in 
 Persia, New York, 1843. The nature and the 
 celebrity of this dress combine with the natural 
 richness of the country to assure us that the an- 
 cient Medians had made no mean progress in the 
 arts; indeed, the colours of the Persian textures 
 are known to have been accounted second only 
 to those of India. If these regal dresses were of 
 silk, then was there an early commerce between 
 Media and India; if not, weaving, as well as 
 dyeing, must have been practised and carried to 
 a high degree of perfection in the former country 
 (Ammian. Marcell. xxiv. 6, p. 353, ed. Bip. ; 
 Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 3. 2; Atben. xii. pp. 512, 514, 
 sq. ; Heeren, Ideen, i. 205, 307 ; Herod, vi. 112; 
 Strabo, xi. p. 525; Dan. iii. 21). 
 
 The religion of the Modes consisted in the 
 worship of the heavenly bodies, more particularly 
 the sun and moon, and the planets Jupiter, Venus, 
 Saturn, Mercury, and Mars (Strabo, xv. p. 732; 
 Rhode, Ileil. So ye de Baktr. Medcr unci Perser , 
 ]>. 820; Abbildungen aits der Mythol. der Alten 
 l Veit; Pcrs. Med., tafel 10, 11 ; where also may 
 be seen the famous Median dress, comprising the 
 mitre, as well as the flowing robe). The priestly 
 caste were denominated magi ; they were a sepa- 
 rate tribe, and bad the ttiarge not only of reli- 
 gion, but. of all the higher culture. 
 
 The language of the ancient Medes was not 
 connected with the Shemitic, but the Indian; 
 and divided itself into two chief branches, the 
 Zend, spoken in North Media, and the Pelilvi, 
 spoken in Lower Media and Parthia; which last 
 was the dominant tongue among the Parthians 
 (Adelung, Mithridates, i. 256, sq. ; Eichhonj, 
 Gcsch. der Lit., v. 1, 294, sq.). 
 
 The Medes originally consisted of six tribes, of 
 which the Magi (Mayot) were one (Herod., i. 
 101). Being overcome by Ninus, they formed a 
 part of the great Assyrian empire, which, how- 
 ever, lost in course of time the primitive simpli- 
 city of manners to which its dominion was owing, 
 and fell into luxury and consequent weakness ; 
 when Arbaces, who governed the country as a 
 satrap for Sardanapalus, taking advantage of the 
 effeminacy of that monarch, threw off his yoke, 
 destroyed his capital, Nineveh, and became him- 
 self sovereign of the Medes, in the ninth century 
 before the Christian era (Diod. Sic., ii. 1, 2, 24, 
 32). According to Diodorus, this empire ex* 
 
MEDES. 
 
 MEDES. 
 
 319 
 
 tended through nine monarchs, enduring 310 
 years, until Astyages, son ot‘ Cyaxares, was de- 
 throned by Cyrus in the year of the world 3495, 
 when Media became a part of the Persian empire, 
 sinking from the same inevitable causes as those 
 which enabled it to gain over the Assyrian power 
 the dominion of Asia. The account given by 
 Herodotus varies from that now set forth. We 
 do not propose to subject the diversities to a cri- 
 tical investigation, believing that little, if any, 
 good could result, at least within our narrow 
 space. Dates, names, and dynasties may be 
 more or less uncertain, but the facts we have 
 given are unimueaehed. The magnitude of the 
 Median empire is another important fact equally 
 well ascertained. Being in their time the most 
 valorous, as well as the most powerful nation of 
 Asia, the Medes extended their power towards the 
 east and the west beyond any strictly definable 
 limits, though, like dominion generally in Ori- 
 ental countries, it was of a vague, variable, and 
 unstable kind. That, ihey regarded the Tigris as 
 their western boundary appears from the fact that 
 they erected on i:s banks strongholds, such as 
 Mespila and Larissa (Xenoph., Anab. iii. 4. 10); 
 but that they carried their victorious arms still 
 farther westward, appears from both Herodotus 
 (i. 134) and Isaiah (xiii. 17, 18). The eastern 
 limits of the empire seem to have been different at 
 different periods. Heeren inclines to the opinion 
 that it may have reached as far as the Oxus, and 
 even the Indus (Ideen, i. 142). Many, how- 
 ever, were the nations and tribes which were 
 under the sway of its sovereigns. The govern- 
 ment was a succession of satrapies, over all of 
 which the Medes were paramount ; but the dif- 
 ferent nations exerted a secondary dominion over 
 each other, diminishing with ihe increase of dis- 
 tance from the centre of royal power (Herod., i. 
 1341, to which ultimately the tribute paid by 
 each dependent to his superior eventually and 
 securely came. Not only were the Medes a 
 powerful, but also a wealthy and cultivated 
 people ; indeed, before they sank, in consequence 
 of their degeneracy, into the Persian empire, they 
 were during their time the foremost people of 
 Asia, owing their celebrity not only to their 
 valour, but also to the position of their country, 
 which was the great commercial highway of 
 Asia. The sovereigns exerted absolute and un- 
 limited dominion, exacted a rigid court-ceremo- 
 nial, and displayed a great love of pomp (Heeien, 
 Jdeen , 1 43). Under the Persian monarchs Me- 
 dia formed a province, or satrapy, by itself, 
 whose limits did not correspond with independent 
 Media, but cannot be accurately defined. To 
 Media belonged another country, namely, Aria, 
 which, Heeren says, took its name from the river 
 Alius (now Heri), but which appears to contain 
 the elements of the name in the Zend language, 
 which was common to the two, if not to other 
 Eastern nations, who were denominated Indians 
 by Alexander the Great, as dwellers in or near 
 the Indus, which he also misnamed, but who 
 were known in their own tongue as Arians (Alii, 
 Aria, Ariana, also the name of Persia, Iran ; see 
 Ritter, Erdkunde, v. 458 ; Manu, 22 ; x. 45 ; 
 Herod., vii. 62, who declares that the Medes were 
 of old universally called Arii, ’'A pioi). Subse- 
 quently, however, from whatever couse, the Arians 
 were separated from the Medes. forming a dis- 
 
 tinct satrapy in the Persian empire. Thus the 
 name of a clan, or gens, became the name of a 
 nation, and then of an individual tribe (Strabo, 
 quoted by Heeren, Ideen, i. 190). It may be 
 added that Schlosser ( Alton Welt , i. 243) holds 
 it as a fundamental fact, that the Medes and Per- 
 sians formed in reality one kingdom, only that 
 now one, now another, of the two elements gained 
 predominance : whence he thinks himself enabled 
 to explain the discrepancies which the ancients 
 present as to the names an d^ succession of rao- 
 liarchs. Supported by Tychsen ( Observ . Hist. 
 Crit. de Zoroast., in the first part of the Gottingen 
 Comment . Societ. Beg.'), Schlosser supposes that, 
 under the influence of the Magian religion, theie 
 was a setting up of the Median kingdom by Cy- 
 axares, whence Zoroaster is referred to this period ; 
 and a renewal of the old Median rule, accom- 
 panied by reforms, under Darius Hystaspis, 
 whence also other authorities place Zoroaster in 
 the days of that monarch. 
 
 The Medes are not mentioned in sacred Scrip- 
 ture till the days of Hoshea, king of Israel, about 
 740 e.c., when Shalmaneser, king of Assyria., 
 brought that monarch under his yoke, and in the 
 ninth year of his reign took Samaria, and carried 
 Israel away into Assyria, placing them in Hal ah 
 and in Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the 
 cities of the Medes. Here the Medes a] ‘.pear as 
 a part of the Assyrian empire ; but at a later period 
 Scripture exhibits them as an independent and 
 sovereign people (Isa. xiii. 17 ; Jer. xxv. 25; li. 
 11, 28). In the last passage their kings are ex- 
 pressly named : ‘ The Lord hath raised up Ihe 
 kings of the Medes; for his device is against 
 Babylon to destroy it.’ ‘ Prepare against her 
 (Babylon) the kings of the Medes, the captains 
 thereof, and all the rulers thereof.’ It has been 
 conjectured that soon after the time of Arbaces 
 they again fell under the dominion of the Assy- 
 rians ; but availing themselves of the opportunity 
 afforded by the distant expeditions which Sen- 
 nacherib undertook, they gained their freedom, 
 and founded a new line of kings under Dejoces 
 (W iner, BeahoorL). Indeed, so sudden and rapid 
 are the changes of government, even to the present 
 day, in Oriental monarchies, that we need not be 
 surprised at any difficulties which may occur in 
 arranging the dynasties or the succession of kings, 
 scarcely in any ancient history, certainly least of 
 all iri the fragmentary notices preserved regarding 
 the kings of Media and other neighbouring em- 
 pires. According, however, to other historical 
 testimony, we find the Medes and Persians united 
 as one people in holy writ. (Dan. v. 28 ; vi. 15 ; 
 viii. 20; Estli. i. 3, 18; x. 2), in the days of 
 Cyrus, who destroyed the separate sovereignty of 
 the former. To the united kingdom Babylon 
 was added as a province. After the lapse of 
 about 200 years, Media, in junction with the 
 entire Persian monarchy, fell under the yoke of 
 Alexander the Great (u c. 330) ; but after the 
 death of Alexander it became, under Seleueus 
 Nicator, the Macedonian governor of Media and 
 Babylonia, a portion of the new Syrian king- 
 dom (1 Macc. vi. 56), and, after many variar 
 tions of warlike fortune, passed over to the 
 Parthian monarchy (1 Macc. xiv. 2; Strabo, 
 xvi. p. 715). 
 
 The ancient. Medes were a warlike people, asd 
 much feared for their skill in archery (Herod., ^iL 
 
 
MEDIATOR. 
 
 MEDIATOR. 
 
 WO 
 
 6 J . Strabo, xi. p. 525). They appear armed with 
 the bow in the army of the Persians, who bor- 
 rowed the use of that weapon from them (Herod., 
 ut supra). Those who remained in the more 
 mountainous districts did not lose their valour ; 
 but the inhabitants of the cities and towns which 
 covered the plains, in becoming commercial lost 
 their former hardy habits, ♦together with their 
 bravery, and, giving way to luxury, became in 
 process of time an easy prey to new aspirants to 
 martial fame and civil dominion.- — J. R. B. 
 
 MEDIATOR. 1. M€<rtT7js, ‘ mediator,’ is a 
 word peculiar to the Scriptures (see Beza, Annot. 
 in Gr. Test.), and is used. ir. an accommodated 
 sense, by many of the ancient Fathers, to denote 
 one who intervenes between two dispensations. 
 Hence it is applied to John the Baptist, because 
 he came, as it were, between the Mosaic and 
 Christian dispensations. Thus Greg. Nazianzenus 
 ( Orat . xxxix. p. 633) calls him 6 iraAaias ual 
 vias peaiTTjs. Theophylact, commenting on 
 Matt, iii., gives him the same denomination. 
 
 2. Again, it signifies, in its more proper sense, 
 an internuncius, or ambassador, one who stands as 
 the channel of communication between two con- 
 tracting parties. Some commentators think that 
 tire Apostle Paul, in Gal. iii. 19, calls Moses 
 mediator, because he conveyed the expression of 
 God’s will to the people, and reported to God their 
 wants, wishes, and determinations. In reference 
 to this passage of Scripture, Basil {De Spiritu 
 SanctOy cap. xiv.) says, * Mosen figuram repre- 
 sentasse quando inter Deum et. populum inter- 
 medius extiterit.’ Many ancient, and modern 
 divines, however, are of opinion that Christ him- 
 self, and not Moses, is here meant l>y the inspired 
 Apostle, and this view would seem to be con- 
 firmed by comparing Deut. xxxiii. 2 with Acts 
 vii. 38-52. Christ it was who, surrounded by 
 angelic spirits, communicated with Moses on 
 Mount Sinai. On this point, the words of the 
 learned and pious Chrysostom, on Gal. iii. are 
 very express : ‘ Here,’ says he, ‘ Paul calls Christ 
 Mediator, declaring thereby that He existed before 
 the law, and that by Him the law was revealed.’ 
 This application of the passage will be the more 
 evident if we consider the scope of the Apostle’s 
 argument, which evidently is, to point out the 
 dignity of the law. How could he present a 
 clearer demonstration of this than by showing 
 that it. was the second person of the ever- blessed 
 Trinity who stood forth on the mount to com- 
 municate between God the Father and his crea- 
 ture man ! Moreover, to contradistinguish Christ's 
 mediation from that of Moses, the former is em- 
 phatically styled pealrgs upeiTTovos hiaQiiK'qs 
 (Heb. viii. 6). 
 
 3. Christ is called Mediator by virtue of the 
 reconciliation He has effected between a justly 
 offended God and his rebellious creature man 
 (see Grotius, De Satisfactio)ie Chrislt, cap. viii.). 
 In this sense of the term Moses was, on many 
 occasions, an eminent type of Christ. The latter, 
 however, was not Mediator , merely by reason 
 of his coming between God and his creatures, 
 as certain heretics would affirm (see Cyril Alex. 
 Dial. I. de Sancta Trinitate , p. 410); but because 
 he appeased his wrath, and made reconciliation 
 for iniquity. ‘ Christ is the mediator,’ observes 
 Theophylact, commenting on Gal. iii., ‘ of two, 
 C e. of Go l and man. He exercises this office 
 
 between both by making peace, and putting a 
 stop to that spiritual war which man wages against 
 Gcd. To accomplish this He assumed our na- 
 ture, joining in a marvellous manner the human, 
 by reason of sin unfriendly, to the divine na- 
 ture.’ ‘ Hence,’ he adds, ‘ he made reconcilia- 
 tion.’ Oecunumius expresses similar sentiments on 
 the same passage of Scripture. Again, Cyril, in 
 his work before quoted, remarks : ‘He is esteemed 
 mediator because the divine and human nature 
 being disjointed by sin, he has shown them united 
 in his own person ; and in this manner he reunites 
 us to God the Father.’ 
 
 If, in addition to the above general remarks, 
 confirmed by many of the most .ancient, and or- 
 thodox fathers of the church, we consider the 
 three great offices which holy Scripture assigns to 
 Christ as Saviour of the world, viz., those of pro- 
 phet, priest, and king, a further and more ample 
 illustration will be afforded of his Mediatorship. 
 
 One of the first and most palpable predictions 
 which we have of the prophetic character of Christ, 
 is that of Moses ^Deut, xviii. 15): ‘ The Lord thy 
 God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the 
 midst of thee, of thy brethren, like imlo me ; unto 
 him ye shall hearken.’ That this refers to Christ 
 w'e are assured by the inspired apostle Peter 
 (Acts iii. 22). 
 
 Again, in Isaiah lxi. 1, 3, Christ’s consecration 
 to the prophetic office, together with its sacred 
 and gracious functions, is emphatically set forth : 
 (see Luke iv. 1(5 21, where Christ applies this 
 passage to himself). In order, then, to sustain this 
 part of his mediatorial office, and thus work out 
 the redemption of the world, we may see the 
 necessity there was that Messiah should be both 
 God and man. It belongs to a prophet to ex- 
 pound the law, declare the will of God, and 
 foretell things to come : all this was done, and 
 that, in a singular and eminent manner, by Christ, 
 our prophet (Matt. v. 21, &c. ; John i. 8). All 
 light comes from this prophet. The Apostle shows 
 that all ministers ate but stars which shine by a 
 borrowed light (2 Cor. iii. 6, 7). AH the prophets 
 of the Old, and all the prophets and teachers of the 
 New Testament, lighted their tapers at this torch! 
 (Luke xxi. 15.) It was Christ who preached by 
 Noah (1 Pet. iii. 19), taught the Isra lifes in the 
 wilderness (Acts vii 37), and still teaches by his 
 ministers (Eph. iv. 11, 12). On this subject 
 Bishop Butler ( Analogy , part ii. eh. v.) says : ‘ He 
 was, by way of eminence, the prophet, “ the pro* 
 phet that should come into the world ” (John vi. 
 14) to declare the divine will. He published anew 
 the law of nature, which men had corrupted, and 
 the very knowledge of which, to some degree, was 
 lost amongst them. He taught mankind, taught 
 us authoritatively, to live soberly, righteously, and 
 godly in this present world, in expectation of the 
 future judgment of God. He confirmed the truth 
 of this moral system of nature, and gave us addi- 
 tional evidence of it, the evidence of testimony. 
 He distinctly revealed the manner in which God 
 would be worshipped, the efficacy of repentance, 
 and the rewards and punishments of a future life. 
 Thus he was a prophet in a sense in which no othei 
 ever was.’ Hence the force of the term 6 A 6yo% 
 by which St. John designates Christ. 
 
 But, on the other hand, had the second person 
 of the Trinity come to us in all the majesty of 
 his divine nature, we could not have approached 
 
MEDIATOR. 
 
 MEGIDDO. 
 
 him as our instructor. The Israelites, terrified at 
 the exhibitions of Deity, cried out that the Lord 
 might not so treat with them again ; it was then 
 tnat lie, in gracious condescension to their feel- 
 ings, promised to communicate with them in 
 future through a prophet like unto Moses. The 
 son of God, in assuming the form of an humble 
 man, became accessible to all. Thus we perceive 
 the connection of Christ’s prophetic office — he 
 being both God and man — with the salvation of 
 man. On this subject Chrysostom ( Homil . cxxxiv. 
 tom. v. p. 860) remarks: ‘A mediator, utdess he 
 has a union and communion with the parties for 
 whom he mediates, possesses not the essential 
 qualities of a mediator. When Christ, therefore, 
 became mediator between God and man (I Tim. 
 ii. &c,), it was indispensable that he should be 
 both God and man.’ 
 
 Macarius also (Homil. vi. 97), on this question 
 more pointedly observes : ‘ The Lord came and 
 took his body from the virgin ; for if he had ap- 
 peared among us in his naked divinity, who could 
 hear the sight? But he spoke as man to us men.’ 
 
 Again, the Redeemer was not only to propound, 
 explain, and enforce God's law, but it was needful 
 that he should give a practical proof of obedience 
 to it in his own person. Now, if he had not been 
 man , he could not have been subject to the law ; 
 hence if is said, Gal. iv. 4, ‘ When the fulness of 
 the time was come, God sent forth his son, made 
 of a woman, made under the law and if he had 
 not been God, he could not, by keeping the law, 
 have merited forgiveness for us, for he had done 
 but what was required of him. It was the fact 
 of his being very God and very man which con- 
 stituted the merit of Christ’s obedience. 
 
 Moreover, in working out the mighty scheme 
 of redemption the mediator must assume the 
 office of priest. 
 
 To this office he was solemnly appointed by 
 God (Ps. cx. 4 ; Heb. v. 10), qualified for it by 
 his incarnation (Heb. x. 6, 7), and accomplished 
 all the ends thereof by his sacrificial death (Heb. 
 ix. 11, 12); as ha sustaining his prophetic cha- 
 racter, bo in this, his Deity and humanity will be 
 seen. According to the exhibition of type and 
 declaration of prophecy, the mediator must die, 
 and thus rescue us sinners from death by destroy- 
 ing him who had the power of death. * But we 
 see Jesus,’ says the Apostle (Heb. ii. 9), ‘who 
 was made a little lower than the angels for the 
 suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, 
 that he by the grace of God should taste death 
 for every man. Forasmuch, then, as the children 
 are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself 
 likewise took part of the same, that through death 
 he might destroy him who had the power of death, 
 that is, the Devil.’ On the other hand, had he 
 not been God he could not have raised himself 
 from the dead. ‘ I lay down my life (saith he, 
 John x. 17, 18), and take it up again.’ He had 
 not had a life to lay down if he had not. been 
 man, for the Godhead could not die ; and if he had 
 not been God, he could not have acquired merit 
 by laying it down : it must be his own, and not 
 in the power of another, else his voluntarily sur- 
 rendering himself unto death — as he did on the 
 charge that he, being only man, made himself 
 equal with God — was an act of suicide , and 
 consequently an act of blasphemy against God ! 
 It was, then the mysterious union of both natures 
 
 YPL. u. 22 
 
 31 
 
 in the one person of Christ, which constituted 
 the essential glory of his vicarious obedience arid 
 death. 
 
 Nor are the two natures of Christ more apparent 
 in his death than they are in the intercession 
 which he ever liveth to make in behalf of all who 
 come unto God by him (Heb. vii. 25). The 
 author of the epistle to the Hebrews teaches us 
 (chaps, vii., ix.) how the high-priest, under the 
 Levitical dispensation, typified Christ in his in- 
 tercessory character : as the high-priest entered 
 alone within the holiest place of the. tabernacle 
 once a-year with the blood of the sacrifice in his 
 hands, and the names of the twelve tribes upon 
 his heart, so Christ, having offered. up himself as 
 a lamb without spot unto God, has gone into 
 glory bearing oil his heart the names of his re- 
 deemed. We may, then, ask, with the Apostle 
 (Rom. viii. 33), ‘Who shall lay anything to the 
 charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, 
 who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that 
 died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even 
 at the right hand of God, who also maketh inter- 
 cession for us.’ In this part of his mediatorial 
 work God’s incommunicable attributes of omni- 
 science, omnipresence , and omnipotence are seen. 
 He must therefore have been God, and on the 
 ground of his being able, from personal experi- 
 ence, to sympathise with the suffering members of 
 his mystical body, he must have been man ; being 
 perfect God and perfect man, he is, then, a perfect 
 intercessor. 
 
 We come, lastly, to notice Christ's mediatorial 
 character as king. The limits of this article will 
 not admit of our even alluding to the varied and 
 multiplied passages of Scripture which delineate 
 Christ as ‘ Head over all things to the church ’ 
 (see Ps. ii. 6 ; lxx. ; Isaiah xxxii. 1 ; Dan. ix. 
 25 ; Col. i. 17, 18, &c.). Suffice it here to say 
 that Christ could not, without the concurrence of 
 his divine nature, gather and govern the church, 
 protect and defend it against all assailants open 
 and secret, and impart to it his Holy Spirit, to 
 enlighten and renew the minds and hearts of men 
 and subdue Satan — all these are acts of his kingly 
 office. 
 
 Such, then, is the work of Christ’s mediatorship 
 — salvation revealed by him as prophet, procured 
 by him as priest, and applied by him as king— ■ 
 the work of the whole person wherein both natures 
 are engaged. Hence it is that some of the ancients 
 speaking f it, designate it OeavbpiKT) iyepyela, ‘a 
 divine-human operation ’ (see Dionys. Areopag. 
 Epist. IV. ad Caiam. Damascenus , iii. 19). For 
 a more ample view of this important subject see 
 Flavel, Panstratia of Shamier, vol. iii. fob 
 Genev. vii. 1, in which the views of the Romish 
 church are ably controverted. See also Brinsley 
 (John), Christ’s Mediation , 8vo. Lond. 1657. — 
 
 J. W. D. 
 
 MEGIDDO (nap ; in Zech. xii. 11 fVttD; 
 Sept. MayeSSe, MccyeSSai), a town belonging to 
 Manasseh, although within the boundaries of 
 Issachar (Josh. xvii. 11). It had been originally 
 one of the royal cities of the Canaanites (Josh. xii. 
 2H, and was one of those of which the Israelites 
 were unable for a long time to gain actual pos- 
 session. Megiddo was rebuilt and fortified by 
 Solomon (1 Kings ix. 15), and thither Ahaziah 
 king of Judah fled when wounded by Jehu, and 
 
322 
 
 MELCHIZKDEK. 
 
 MELCHIZKDEK. 
 
 died t'nere (2 Kings ix. 27). It was in the battle 
 near this place that Josiah was slain by Pharaoh- 
 Nechu (2 Kings xxiii. 29, 30; 2 Chron. xxxv. 
 20-25). From the great mourning held for his 
 loss, it became proverbial to compare any grievous 
 mourning as being ‘ like the mourning of Hadail- 
 rimmon in the valley of Megiddon’ (Zech. xii. 
 11). ‘The waters of Megiddo’ 'ft) are 
 
 mentioned in Judges v. 19; and are probably 
 those formed by the river Kishon. Eusebius and 
 Jerome do not attempt to mark the situation of 
 the place, ami it appears that the name Megiddo 
 was in their time already lost. They often men- 
 tion a town called Legio, which must, in then- 
 day have been an important and well-known 
 place, as they assume it as a central point from 
 which to mark the position of several other places 
 in this quarter. This has been identified with 
 the village now called Lejjun, which is situated 
 upon the western border of the great plain of 
 Esdraelon, where it begins to rise gently towards 
 the low range of wooded hills that connect 
 Carmel with the mountains of Samaria. This 
 place was visited by Maundrell, who speaks of it 
 . is an old village near a brook, with a khan then 
 m good repair ( Journey , March 22). This khan 
 was for the accommodation of the caravan on the 
 route between Egypt and Damascus, which passes 
 here. Having already identified the present vil- 
 lage of Taannuk with the ancient Taanach, the 
 vicinity of this to Lejjun induced Dr. Robinson 
 to conceive that the latter might be the ancient 
 Megiddo, seeing that Taanach and Megiddo are 
 constantly named together in Scripture; and to 
 this a writer in a German review adds the further 
 consideration that the name of Legio was latterly 
 applied to the plain, crlo.v valley along the Kishon, 
 us that of Megiddo had been in more ancient 
 times. If this explanation be accepted, and it is 
 certainly probable, though not certain, it only 
 remains to conclude that the ancient Legio was 
 not. founded by the Romans, but that this was a 
 new name imposed upon a still older place, 
 which, like the names Neapolis (now Nabulus) 
 andSebaste (now Sebustieh), has maintained itself 
 in the mouths of the native population, while the 
 earlier name lias perished. 
 
 MELCHIZKDEK (pTi '!?Vft, King of right- 
 eousness ; Sept. MeAx«reSe/c), ‘ priest of the most, 
 high God,’ and king of Salem, who went forth to 
 meet Abraham on his return from the pursuit of 
 Chedorlaomer and his allies, who had carried 
 Lot away captive. He brought refreshment, de- 
 scribed in the general terms of ‘ bread and wine/ 
 for the fatigued warriors, and bestowed his bless- 
 ing upon their leader,, who, in return, gave to 
 Ihe royal priest a tenth of all the spoil which 
 had been acquired in his expedition (Gen. xiv. 
 18, 20). 
 
 This statement seems sufficiently plain, and 
 to offer nothing very extraordinary; yet it has 
 formed the basis of much speculation and con- 
 troversy. In particular, the fact that Abraham 
 gave a tithe to Mef chizedek attracted much at- 
 tention among the later Jews. In one of the 
 Messianic Psalms (cx. 4), it is foretold that the 
 Messiah should be ‘ a priest after the order of 
 Melchizedek which the author of the Epistle tc 
 the Hebrews (vi. 20) cites as showing that Mel- 
 chizedek was a type of Christ, and the Jews 
 
 themselves, certainly, on the authority o. this 
 passage of the Psalms, regarded Melchizedek at 
 a type of the regal-priesthood, higher than that 
 of Aaron, to which the Messiah should belong. 
 The bread and wine which were set forth on the 
 table of shew-bread, was also supposed to tie repre- 
 sented by the bread and wine which the king of 
 Salem brought forth to Abraham (Schottgen, llat . 
 11 eb. ii. 645). A mysterious supremacy came also 
 to he assigned to Melchizedek, by reason of his 
 having received tithes from the Hebrew patriarch ; 
 and on this point the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (vii. 1-10) expatiates strongly, as showing the 
 inferiority of the priesthood represented, to that 
 of Melchizedek. to which the Messiah belonged. 
 ‘ Consider how great this man was, unto whom 
 even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the 
 spoils ;’ and he goes on to argue that the Aaronic 
 priesthood, who themselves received tithes of the 
 Jews, actually paid tithes to Melchizedek in the 
 person of their great ancestor. This superiority 
 
 is. as we take it, inherent in his typical rather 
 than his personal character. Rut the Jews, in 
 admitting this official or personal superiority of 
 Melchizedek to Abraham, sought to account for 
 it by alleging that the royal priest was no other 
 than Shem, the most pious of Noah’s sons, who, 
 according to the shorter chronology, might have 
 Jived to the time of Abraham (Bochart, *Phaleg y 
 ii. 1). Christian writers have not. failed to entei 
 into the same unprofitable researches, and would 
 make Melchizedek lo have been either Shem, 
 or Mizraim or Canaan, the sons of Ham, or Ham 
 himself, or even Enoch -(Deyling, Observat. Soar. 
 ii. 71, sqq. ; Clayton, Chronolog. of the IJeb. 
 Bible, p. 100). The last-named conjectures 
 seem to require no notice; but the one which 
 holds Melchizedek to have been Shem, and which 
 we find in the Jerusalem Targum, and also that ot 
 Jonathan, requires an explanation of how his name 
 came to lie changed, how he is found reigning in 
 a country inhabited by the descendants of Ilarn, 
 how he came forth to congratulate Abraham on 
 the defeat of one of his own descendants, as was 
 Chedorlaomer, and how lie could he said to have 
 been without recorded parentage (Heb. vii. 3), 
 since the pedigree of Shem must have been no- 
 torious. In that, case also the difference of the 
 priesthoods of Melchizedek and Levi would not 
 be so distinct as to hear the argument which the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews founds upon it. . Rejecting 
 oil such grounds this opinion, others, in their 
 anxiety to vindicate the dignity of Abraham 
 from marks of spiritual submission to any mortal 
 man, have held that Melchizedek was no orher 
 than the Son of God himself. But in this case 
 
 it. would hardly have been said that he was made 
 ‘ like unto the Son of God’ (Heb. vii. 3), or that 
 Christ was constituted ‘ a priest ’ after the order 
 of Melchizedek (Heb. vi. 20), or, in other words, 
 was a type of himself. Some who do not go so 
 far as this, take him to have been an angel; 
 and this was one of the wild notions of Origen 
 and several of his school. The best founded 
 opinion seems to be that of Carpzov ( Apparat . 
 Antiq. Sacr. Cod. c. iv. p. 52) and most judicious 
 moderns, who, after Josephus (De Bell. Jud. vi. 
 10), allege that he was a principal person among 
 the Canaanites and posterity of Noah, and eminent 
 for holiness and justice, and therefore discharged 
 the priestly as well as regal functions amonj 
 
MELITA. 
 
 MELITA. 
 
 323 
 
 the people : and we may conclude that his twc 
 fold capac.ty of king and piiest (characters very 
 commonly united in the remote ages) afforded 
 Abraham an opportunity of testifying his thank- 
 fulness to God in the manner usual in those 
 times, by offering a tenth of all the spoil. This 
 combination of characters happens for the first 
 time in Scripture to be exhibited in his . person, 
 which, with the abrupt manner in which he is 
 introduced, and (he natute of the intercourse 
 between him and Abraham, render him in 
 various respects an appropriate and obvious type 
 of the Messiah in his united regal and priestly 
 character. 
 
 Salem, of which Melchizedek was king, is 
 usually supposed to have been the original of 
 Jerusalem (Joseph. Antiq. i. 10. 2; Jerome, 
 Queest. in Genes.). But in another place {ad 
 Evagrium, iii. lbl. 13) Jerome mentions a town 
 near Scytliopolis, which in his time bore the name 
 of Salem, and where was shown the palace of 
 Melchizedek, which from the extent of the ruins 
 
 must have been very magnificent. This he takes’ 
 to have been the Shalem of Gen. xxxiii. 18 ; and 
 the Salim, near to which John was baptizing 
 (John iii. 23). The fact stated by Jerome shows 
 that the place was in his time regarded as the 
 Salem of Melchizedek ; but the rabbinical tra- 
 dition involved in this intimation is too late to 
 be of much value; and as Jerusalem is called 
 Salem in Ps. lxxvi. 2, the site of the Salem in 
 question must be determined by the intimations 
 of the context, which are more in agreement with 
 Jerusalem than with any site near Bethshan. 
 Besides the cited authorities, see Heidegger, Hist. 
 Patriarch, ii. n. 2; Borger, Hist. Crit. Melchi- 
 sedegi; Fabrici, Cod. Pseudepigr. i. 311; Het- 
 tinger, Enneas Dissertatt. p. 159, sqq. ; Ursini, 
 Analect. Sacr. i. 349. 
 
 MELITA (MeA irrj), an island in the Mediter- 
 ranean, on which the ship which was conveying 
 St. Paul as a prisoner to Rome was wrecked, and 
 which was the scene of the interesting circum- 
 stances recorded in Acts xxvii. 28 
 
 398. [Malta.] 
 
 Melita was the ancient name of Malta, and 
 also of a small island in the Adriatic, now called 
 Meleda, and each of these has found warm advo- 
 cates for its identification with the Melita of 
 Scripture. The received and long-established 
 opinion is undoubtedly in favour of Malta ; and 
 those who uphold the claims of Meleda are to be 
 regarded as dissenting from the general conclu- 
 sion. This dissent proceeds chiefly upon the 
 ground that the ship of St. Paul was ‘driven 
 about in (the sea oH Adria,’ when wrecked on 
 Melita. The conclusions deducible from this 
 strong position are vigorously stated by P. Abate 
 D. Ignazio Giorgi, in his Inspezione Anticritiche , 
 published at Venice in 1730, and which then at- 
 rracted consideral le attention. There is a curious 
 account of the controversy (o which this gave rise 
 in Ciantar's edit, of Abela'sA/aZfo Illustrata, i.609, 
 6qq. The view thus advocated was in this country 
 
 taken up by the learned Bryant, and more lately 
 by Dr. Falconer, in his clever Dissertation on 
 St. Paul's Voyage , 1817. These writers do not, 
 however, seem to be aware of the very solid answers 
 to this notion, and the arguments in support, of the 
 received conclusions, which were produced at the 
 time. There was nothing to answer but this one 
 objection; for if that could be obviated, the his- 
 torical and other probabilities in favour of Malta 
 remained in their former force, although they 
 could have no countervailing weight if the limit- 
 ation of the name Adria to the gulf of Venice 
 could be established. The course taken was, 
 therefore, to show from ancient writers that the 
 name Adria was not, in its ancient, acceptation, 
 limited to the present Adriatic Sea, but compre- 
 hended the seas of Greece and Sicily, and ex- 
 tended even to Africa. This seems to have beeH 
 established beyond dispute, and every one e*’- 
 
m 
 
 MELITA. 
 
 MELITA. 
 
 quainted with the mass of evidence brought to 
 bear on this point, must regard the only strong 
 argument in favour of Meleda as having been en- 
 tirely overthrown. Those who have any curiosity 
 or doubt in the matter may find this evidence 
 copiously produced in Ciantar’s edition of Abela’s 
 work, and also in Wetstein. Abela, after dis- 
 posing of tins part of his subject, very properly 
 calls attention to the ample memorials of St. 
 Paul’s visit which exist in Malta, and the utter 
 absence of any such in Meleda : — ‘ Finalmente 
 in Meleda non vi fu ma vestigio, o memoria di 
 S. Paolo, non che Tempio ad onor di lui edifi- 
 cato ; ma sibbene nella nostra isola vene sono 
 molte memorie : anzi non v’ e luogo, in cui non 
 si celebri il glorioso nome dell’ Appostolo ( Malta 
 Illustrata, i. 608). He goes on to enumerate 
 particulars, which we will spare the reader, al- 
 though the present writer’s personal acquaintance 
 with the island would enable him greatly to 
 extend Abela's list of the Pauline associations 
 which it contains. There is, perhaps, no piece 
 of land of the same extent, in the world which 
 is made to contain reference so diversified and so 
 numerous to any one person, as the island of 
 Malta to St. Paul, who is, in fact, the tutelary 
 saint of the island. These appropriations of 
 Pauline memorials may in detail be open to dis- 
 pute, or may possibly all be erroneous ; but they 
 serve in the mass to indicate a current of opinion 
 which may be traced back to a remote source in 
 ancient times. 
 
 The name of St. Paul’s Bay has been given to 
 the place where the shipwreck is supposed to have 
 taken place. This, the sacred historian says, was 
 at ‘a certain creek with ashore,’ i. e. a seemingly 
 practicable shore, on which they purposed, if pos- 
 sible, to strand the vessel, as their only apparent 
 chance to escape being broken on the rocks. In 
 attempting this the ship seems to have struck and 
 gone to pieces on the rocky headland at the en- 
 trance of the creek. This agrees very well with 
 St. Paul's Bay, more so than with any other creek 
 of the island. This bay is a deep inlet on the 
 north side of the island, being the last indentation 
 of the coast but one from the western extremity 
 of the island. It is about two miles deep, by 
 one mile broad. The harbour which it forms is 
 very unsafe at some distance from the shore, al- 
 though there is good anchorage in the middle for 
 light vessels. The most dangerous part is the 
 western headland at the entrance of the bay, par- 
 ticularly as there is close to it a small island 
 (Salamone), and a still smaller islet (Salamo- 
 netta), the currents and shoals around which are 
 particularly dangerous in stormy weather. It is 
 usually supposed that the vessel struck at this 
 point. From this place the ancient capital of 
 Malta (now Citta Vecchia, Old City) is dis- 
 tinctly seen at the distance of about five miles; 
 and on looking towards the bay from the top of the 
 church on the summit of the hill whereon the city 
 stands, it occurred to the present writer that the 
 people of the town might easily from this spot 
 have perceived in the morning that a wreck had 
 taken place ; and this is a circumstance which 
 throws a fresh light on some of the circumstances 
 of the deeply interesting transactions which en- 
 sued. 
 
 The sacred historian calls the inhabitants fiap- 
 Qapot, ‘ barbarians : ’ — ‘ the barbarous people 
 
 showed us no small kindness.’ This i> far fna 
 implying that they were savages or uncivilised 
 men : it merely intimates that they were not of 
 Greek or Roman origin. This description applies 
 to the ancient inhabitants of Malta most accu- 
 rately ; and as it could not apply to the inhaoitants 
 of Melida, who were Greeks, this is another argu- 
 ment to show that not Melida but Malta is the 
 Melita of Scripture. 
 
 The island of Malta lies in the Mediterranean, 
 about sixty miles south from Cape Passaro in 
 Sicily. It is sixty miles in circumference, twenty 
 in length, and twelve in breadth. Near it, on the 
 west, is a smaller island, called Gozo, about 
 thirty miles in circumference. Malta has no 
 mountains or high hills, and makes no figure from 
 the sea. It is naturally a barren rock,’ but has 
 been made in parts abundantly fertile by the 
 industry and toil of man. The island was first, 
 colonized by the Phoenicians, from whom it was 
 taken by the Greek colonists in Sicily, about 
 B.c. 736 ; but the Carthaginians began to dis- 
 pute its possession about b.c. 528, and eventually 
 became entire masters of it. From their hands it 
 passed into those of the Romans, b.c. 242, who 
 treated the inhabitants well, making Melita a 
 municipium, and allowing the people to be go- 
 verned by their own laws. The government was 
 administered by a propraetor, who depended upon 
 the praetor of Sicily ; and this office appears to 
 have been held by Publius when Paul was on 
 the island (Acts xxviii. 7). On the division 
 of the Roman empire, Melita belonged to the 
 western portion; but having, in a.d. 553, been 
 recovered from the Vandals by Belisarius, it was 
 afterwards attached to the empire of the East. 
 About the end of the ninth century the island was 
 taken from the Greeks by the Arabs, who made 
 it a dependency upon Sicily, which was also in 
 their possession. The Arabs have left the impress 
 of their aspect, language, and many of their cus- 
 toms, upon the present inhabitants, whose dialect, 
 is to this day perfectly intelligible to the Ara- 
 bians, and to the Moors of Africa. Malta was 
 taken from the Arabs by the Normans in a.d. 
 1090, and afterwards underwent othei changes till 
 a.d. 1530, when Charles V., who had annexed it 
 to his empire, transferred it to the Knights of St. 
 John of Jerusalem, whom the Turks had recently 
 dispossessed of Rhodes. Under the knights it 
 became. a flourishing state, and was the scene of 
 their greatest glory and most signal exploits. 
 The institution having become unsuited to modern 
 times, the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, com- 
 monly called Knights of Malta, gradually fell 
 into decay, and the island was surrendered to the 
 French under Buonaparte when on his way to 
 Egypt in 1798. From them it. was retaken by 
 the English with the concurrence and assistance of 
 the natives ; and it was to have been restored to 
 the Knights of Malta by the stipulations of the 
 treaty of Amiens; but as no sufficient security 
 for the independence of the Order (composed 
 mostly of Frenchmen) could be obtained, the 
 English retained it in their hands; which neces- 
 sary infraction of the treaty was the ostensible 
 ground of the war which only ended with the battle 
 of Waterloo. The island is still in the hands oi 
 the English, who have lately remodelled the go- 
 vernment to meet the wishes of the numerous in- 
 habitants. It has lately become me actual seat 
 
MEMPHIS. 
 
 MEMPHIS. 
 
 335 
 
 sf an Ang\ican bishopric, which however takes its 
 *itle from Gibraltar out of deference to the exist- 
 ing Catholic bishopric of Malta — a deference not 
 paid to the Oriental churches ir. icently esta- 
 blishing the Anglican bishopric of Jerusalem. 
 F. Wandalin, Dissert, de Melita Pauli , Havn. 
 1707; P. Carlo, Origine della Fede in Malta, 
 Milan, 1759; Ciantar, Critica de' Critici Mo- 
 derni sub Controversa Naufragio di San Paolo, 
 Yenez. 1703; Boisgelin, History of Malta, 1804 ; 
 and the works cited in the course of this article. 
 
 MELON. [Abbatachim.] 
 
 MEMPHIS, a very ancient city, the capital of 
 Lower Egypt, standing at the apex of the Delta, 
 ruins of which are still found not far from its 
 successor and modern representative, Cairo. Its 
 Egyptian name, in the hieroglyphics , is Meno- 
 fri; in Coptic, Memfi, Manfi, Membe, Panoufi or 
 Mefi, being probably corrupted from Man-nofri, 
 ‘the abode,’ or, as Plutarch terms it, tippos ayadaiv 
 ' Isid . et Osir. c. 20), ‘the haven of good men.’ It 
 was called* also Pthah-ei, the abode of Pthah 
 (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, iii. 278). In Hebrew 
 the city bears the name of P|0 (Hos. ix. 6), or 
 Pp (Isa. xix. 13). These several names are obvi- 
 ously variations of one, of which Meph seems to 
 contain the essential sounds. Whether we may 
 hence derive support to the statement that the 
 place was founded by Menes, the first human 
 king of Egypt, or whether we have here a very 
 early instance of the custom which prevailed so 
 extensively among the Greeks and Romans, of 
 inventing founders for cities, having names cor- 
 respondent with the names of the places they were 
 said to have built, it is impossible, with the ma- 
 terials we possess, to determine with any fair ap- 
 proach to certainty. Menes, however, is univer- 
 sally reputed to have founded not only Memphis 
 but Thebes; the addition of the latter may seem 
 to invalidate his claim to the former, making us 
 suspect that here, too, we have a case of that cus- 
 tom of referring to some one distinguished name 
 great events which happened, in truth, at different 
 and far distant eras. If, as is probable, Thebes 
 as well as Memphis was, at any early period, 
 the seat of a distinct dynasty, the cradle and the 
 throne of a line of independent sovereigns, they 
 could scarcely have had one founder. 
 
 The statement, however, is, that having diverted 
 the course of the Nile, which had washed the foot 
 of the sandy mountains of the Libyan chain, 
 Menes obliged it to run in the centre of the val- 
 h y, and built the city Memphis in the bed of the 
 a icient channel. This change was effected by 
 o instructing a dyke about a hundred stadia above 
 the site of the projected city, whose lofty mounds 
 and strong embankments turned the water to the 
 Last and confined the river to its new bed. The 
 iyke was carefully kept in repair by succeeding 
 kings, and even as late as the Persian invasion, 
 a guard was always maintained there to overlook 
 the necessary repairs ; for, as Herodotus asserts, 
 if the river were to break through the dyke, the 
 whole of Memphis would be in danger of being 
 Overwhelmed wiflu water, especially at the period 
 if the inundation. Subsequently, however, when 
 the increased deposit of the alluvial soil had 
 raised the circumjacent plains, the precautions 
 became unnecessary ; and though the spot where 
 the diversion of the Nile was made may still be 
 traced, owing to the great bend it takes about 
 
 fourteen miles above ancient Memphis, the lofty 
 mounds once raised there are no longer visible. 
 The accumulated deposit of the river has elevated, 
 the bank about Kafr-el-Iyat to a level with the 
 summit of these mounds ; and a large canal runs, 
 during the inundation, close to the villages of 
 Saggara and Metrahenny, which occupy part of 
 the old city, without endangering their security. 
 And it is the opinion of Wilkinson, that consider- 
 ing the great height of several mounds still exist- 
 ing at Memphis, the city could not have been 
 overwhelmed at any period by the rising Nile, 
 thoughmuch damagemight have been done to some 
 of the portions of it which may have stood on less 
 elevated ground (Herod, ii. 99 ; Wilkinson, Anc 
 Egypt, i. 91). The site of Memphis was first ac 
 curately fixed by Pococke, at the village of Metra- 
 henny. According to the reports of the French, 
 the heaps which mark the site of the ancient 
 buildings have three leagues of circumference; 
 but this is less than its extent in early times, 
 since Diodorus gives it 150 stadia, or six leagues 
 and a quarter. Memphis declined after the 
 foundation of Alexandria, and it's materials were 
 carried off to build Cairo (Kenrick, Egypt of 
 Herodotus, p. 129; Reunell, ii. 115; Champoli. 
 Egypte et les Ph. i. 336). 
 
 The kingdom of which Memphis was the capi- 
 tal, was most probably the Egypt of the patriarchs, 
 in which Abraham, Jacob, and the Israelites re- 
 sided. Psammetichus, in becoming sole monarch 
 of all Egypt, raised Memphis to the dignity of the 
 one metropolis of the entire land (arx AEgypti 
 regum , PI in. Hist. Nat. v. 9), after which Mem- 
 phis grew in the degree in which Thebes declined. 
 It became distinguished for a multitude of splen- 
 did edifices, among which may be mentioned a 
 large and magnificent temple to Vulcan, who was 
 called by the Egyptians Phthah, the demiurgos, 
 or creative power (Wilkinson, i. 96; Herod, ii. 
 136, 154 : Strabo, xvii. p. 807 ; Plin. Hist. Nat. 
 viii. 71; Diod.Sic. i.57, 67). Under the dominion 
 of the Persians, as well as of the Ptolemies, Mem- 
 phis retained its pre-eminence as the capital, though 
 even in the time of the former it began to part 
 wilh its splendour ; and when the latter bestowed 
 their favour on Alexandria, it suffered a material 
 change for the worse, from which the place never 
 recovered. In the days of Strabo many of its 
 fine buildings lay in ruins, though the city was 
 still large and populous. The final blow was 
 given to the prosperity of Memphis in the time of 
 Abdollatif, by the erection of the Arabian city of 
 Cairo. 
 
 That the arts were carried to a great degree of 
 excellence at Memphis is proved by the most 
 abundant evidence. Its manufactures of glass 
 were famed for the superior quality of their work- 
 manship, with which Rome continued to be sup- 
 plied long after Egypt became a province of the 
 empire. The environs of Memphis presented cul- 
 tivated groves of the acacia tree, of whose wood 
 were made the planks and masts of boats, the 
 handles of offensive weapons of war, and various 
 articles of furniture (Wilkinson, iii. 92, 168). 
 Memphis was also distinguished as being the 
 place where Apis was kept, and where his worship 
 received special honour. Under the form of this 
 sacred bull was Osiris worshipped. Psammeti- 
 chus erected here in his honour a grand court 
 ornamented with figures in lieu of columns, twelvt 
 
MEN AIIEM. 
 
 MENE. 
 
 m 
 
 cubits in height, forming a peristyle around it, in 
 which the god was kept when exhibited in public. 
 The festival held in his honour lasted seven days, 
 and brought a large concourse of people to Mem- 
 phis. The priests then led the sacred bull in solemn 
 procession, every one coming forward from their 
 houses to welcome him as lie passed; and Pliny 
 affirms that children who smelt his breath were 
 thought to be thereby gifted with the power of 
 predicting future events (Wilkinson, ii. 351). — 
 
 J. R. B. 
 
 MENAHEM (DPtiB, consoler ; Sept. Ma- 
 vagpi), sixteenth king of Israel, who began to 
 reign n.c. 772, and reigned ten years. Menahem 
 appears to have been one of the generals of king 
 Zachariah. When he heard the news of the 
 murder of that prince, and the usurpation of 
 Shallum, he was at Tirzah, but immediately 
 marched to Samaria, where Shallum had shut 
 himself up, and slew him in that city. He then 
 usurped the throne in his turn; and forthwith 
 marched to Tiphsah, which refused to acknow- 
 ledge his rule. Having taken this place after a 
 siege, he treated the inhabitants with a degree of 
 savage barbarity, which, as Josephus remarks 
 (Antiq. ix. 11. 1), would not have been pardon- 
 able even to foreigners. He adhered to the sin of 
 Jeroboam, like the other kings of Israel. In his 
 time the Assyrians, under their king Pul, made 
 their first appearance on the borders of Palestine; 
 and Menahem was only able to save himself from 
 this great invading power at the heavy price of 
 1000 talents of silver, which he raised by a tax of 
 50 shekels from every man of substance in Israel. 
 This was probably the only choice left to him ; 
 and he is not therefore to be blamed, as he had 
 not that resource in the treasures of the temple of 
 which the kings of Judah availed themselves in 
 similar emergencies. Menahem died in b.c. 
 701, leaving the throne to his son Pekahiah (2 
 Kings xv. 14-22. 
 
 MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPIIARSIN 
 
 (| > P'7S ; I, tOp, fcPP ; Sept. Manj, 0e/ce A, 
 
 4>apes; Vulg. Mane , Thecel, P hares'), the inscrip- 
 tion supernaturally written ‘upon the plaster of 
 t he wall ’ in Belshazzar’s palace at Babylon (Dan. 
 v. 5 25).; which ‘ the astrologers, the Chaldaeans, 
 and the sooth sayers’ could neither read nor interpret, 
 but which Daniel first read, and then interpreted. 
 Yet the words, as they are found in Daniel, are pure 
 Chaldee, and if they appeared in the Chaldee 
 character, could have been read, at least, by any 
 person present on the occasion who understood the 
 alphabet of his own language. To account for 
 their inability to decipher this inscription, it has 
 been supposed that it consisted of those Chaldee 
 words written in another character. Dr. Hales 
 tli inks that it may have been written in the pri- 
 mitive Hebrew character, from which the Sama- 
 ritan was formed, and that, in order to show on 
 this occasion that, the writer of the inscription was 
 the offended (rod of Israel, whose authority was 
 being at that moment peculiarly despised (ver. 2, 
 3, 4). he adopted his own .sacred character, in 
 which he had originally written the decalogue, in 
 which Moses could transcribe it into the law, and 
 whose autograph copy was found in Josiah's days, 
 and was most probably brought to Babylon in the 
 care of Daniel, who could therefore understand the 
 
 character without inspiration, but which woul l b* 
 unknown to ‘ the wise men of Babylon’ (New Ana* 
 lysis of Chronology, vol. i. p. 505, Load. 1811) 
 This theory has the recommendation, that it in- 
 volves as little as possible of miraculous agency. 
 Josephus makes Daniel discourse to Belshazzar as 
 if the inscription had been in Greek. The pass- 
 age is certainly curious : ’ESfjAou 5t ra ytypap.- 
 pdva raSe. MANH. tovto S’ tAeyev 'EAAuSi 
 yAcoTTTj err) patron' av apidgos’ wairep rrjs £ai >rjs crov 
 toctoutov x?^ vov K °d tt)s hpxns rjpiOpgKev 6 Oeds, 
 kcu tr epicraeveiv 4ir\ <rol fipaxvv XP^ V0V ' ®EKEA. 
 crgpaivei tovto (yra.Qp.dv. (TT^aas olv crov Aeyei 
 rbv xpdvov rrjs fiaaiAeias d 6eds. f/Srj KaTacpepopiwqv 
 StjAo/. 4>APE2. /cal tooto kAolc pa StjAo? wa-rct 
 'EAAaSa yAdorrav. kA<L(Tsi roiyapovv aov rrjv &acn- 
 A dav, Kal Mr/Sots avrjjv /cal IlepcraiS Siavep.e'i. ‘ He 
 (Daniel) explained the writing thus : MANH. 
 “ this,” said he,“t» the Greek language, may mean 
 a number ; thus God hath numbered so long a 
 time for thy life and for thy government, and 
 ttiat, there remains a short time for thee.” 0EKEA. 
 This signifies iceight ; hence he says, “ God having 
 weighed in a balance the time of thy kingdom, 
 finds it already going down.” 4>APE2. This 
 also, according to the Greek language , denotes 
 a fragment; hence “he will break in pieces 
 thy kingdom, and divide it .among the Medes 
 and Persians’” (Antiq, x. 11. 3). There is 
 some doubt whether the reading eAeytv be ge- 
 nuine, but Josephus evidently represents the 
 whole passage as addressed by Daniel to the 
 king, and makes him speak as if the inscription 
 had been in Greek. Still Josephus, for some 
 cause or other, represents Daniel as speaking 
 doubtfully (‘ may mean’) in the former part of the 
 passage, and scarcely less so in the latter. It has 
 been supposed by some, that ‘ the wise men’ were 
 not so much at fault to read the inscription, as to 
 explain its meaning, which, it is said, they might 
 sufficiently understand to see its boding import 1o 
 the monarch, and be unwilling to consider fur- 
 ther — like the disciples in regard to the predictions 
 of our Lord's death (Luke ix. 45), where it is said, 
 ‘this saying was hid from them, they perceived it 
 not, and they feared to ask him of that saying.’ 
 And certainly it is said throughout our narrative 
 that ‘ the wise men could not read the writing, 
 nor make known the interpretation of it,’ phrases 
 which would seem to mean one and the same 
 thing; since, if they mean different things, the order 
 of ideas would be that they could not interpret 
 nor even read it, and Wintle accordingly trans- 
 lates, ‘could not read so as to interpret it’ (Im- 
 proved Version of Daniel, Loud. 1807). At all 
 events the meaning of the inscription by itself 
 would be extremely enigmatical and obscure. 
 To determine the application, and to give the full 
 sense, of an isolated device which amounted to ne 
 more than ‘ he or it is numbered, he or it is num- 
 bered, he or it is weighed, they are divided ’ (and 
 there is even a riddle or paranomasia on the last 
 word D"IS ; comp. Susannah, ver. 54, 55 and 58, 
 59, Greek, and Jer. i. 11, 12, Hebrew ; which may. 
 either mean ‘they divide,’ or ‘the Persians,’ accord- 
 ing as it is pronounced), must surely have required 
 a supernatural endowment on the part of Daniel — 
 a conclusion wdiich is confirmed by the exact coin- 
 cidence of the event with the prediction, which 
 he propounded with so much fortitude (ver. 
 30, 31).— J. F. D. 
 
MENI. 
 
 MERAB. 
 
 $27 
 
 MEN I ('2p , it is doubtful whether the Sept, 
 renders it by or by SaipSuiou) is mentioned 
 
 in Is. lxv. 11, together with Gad, as receiving an 
 ottering of mixed wine. As derived from fOD, 
 
 ! to distribute,’ * to number, 1 the word is either 
 taken, by those namely who consider Gad in that 
 passage to mean troop, to signify a multitude , a 
 number ; or, by those who suppose the whole verse 
 to refer to idolatrous worship, to be the name of a 
 god, and to mean destiny. To this sense the first 
 clause of the next verse appears to allude : ‘ But, 
 
 I destine you to the sword.’ The signification of 
 destiny is very naturally evolved from the primi- 
 tive notion of distributing', apportioning : as in 
 
 the Greek poipa, and in the Arabic manan, 
 
 fate , from the same root as Meni. Pocock has, 
 moreover, pointed out the resemblance between 
 Meni and Manat, an idol of the ancient Arabs, 
 which is mentioned in the Quran, Sur. liii. 20 
 ( Specim . p. 94). The fact of Meni being a Baby- 
 lonian god renders it probable that some planet 
 was worshipped under this name : but there is 
 much diversity of opinion as to the particular 
 planet to which the designation of destiny 
 would be most applicable. Miiuter considers it 
 to be Venus, as the lesser star of good fortune ; 
 Ewald takes it to be Saturn, the chief dispenser 
 of evil influences; and Movers has returned to an 
 old opinion, that Meni is the moon, which was 
 also supposed to be an arbitress of fortune: the 
 nest arguments for which last view are collected 
 by Yitringa {ad loc.'). It also deserves notice that 
 there are some, among whom is Hitzig, who con- 
 sider Gad and Meni to be names for one and the 
 same god, and who chiefly differ as to whether 
 the sun or the moon is the god intended. — J. N. 
 
 MEPHIBOSHETH (flfca 'Dp, extermina- 
 tion of idols ; Sept. M epcpL^oaQe ; also in 1 Chron. 
 ix. 40, Merib-Baal), son of Jonathan and nephew 
 of Saul (2 Sam. iv. 4). He was only five years of 
 age when his father and grandfather were slain in 
 Mount Gilboa: and on the news of this cata- 
 strophe, the woman who had charge of the child, 
 apprehending that David would exterminate the 
 whole house of Saul, fled away with him ; but in 
 her hasty flight she stumbled with the child, and 
 lamed him for life (b.c. 1055). Under this ca- 
 lamity, which was very incapacitating in times 
 when agility and strength were of prime import- 
 ance, Mephibosheth was unable to take any part 
 in the stirring political events of his early life. 
 According to our notions, he should have been the 
 heir of the house of Saul ; bu.1 in those times a 
 younger son of an actual king was considered to 
 have at least as good a claim as the son of an heir 
 apparent who had never reigned, and even a 
 better claim if the latter were a minor. This, 
 with his lameness, prevented Mephibosheth from 
 ever appearing as the opponent or rival of his 
 uncle Ishbosheth on the one hand, or of David on 
 the other (2 Sam. ix). He thus grew up in quiet 
 obscurity in the house of Machir, one of the great 
 men of the country beyond the Jordan (2 Sam. 
 ix. 4 ; xvii. 27); and his very existence was un- 
 known to David till that monarch, when firmly 
 settled in his kingdom, inquired whether any of 
 the family of Jonathan survived, to whom he 
 might show kindness for his father’s sake. Hear- 
 ing then of Mephibosheth from Ziba, who had 
 
 been the royal steward under Saul, he invited him 
 to Jerusalem, assigned him a place at his own 
 table, and bestowed upon him lands, which were 
 managed for him by Ziba, and which enabled 
 him to support an establishment suited to his 
 rank. He lived in this manner till the revolt of 
 Absalom, and then David, in his flight, having 
 noticed the absence of Mephibosheth, inquired for 
 him of Ziba, and being informed that he had re- 
 mained behind in the hope of being restored to his 
 father’s throne, instantly and very hastily revoked 
 the grant of land, and bestowed it on Ziba (2 Sam. 
 xvi. 1-4). Afterwards, on his return to Jeru- 
 salem, he was met with sincere congratulations 
 by Mephibosheth, who explained that being lame 
 he had been unable to follow the king on foot, and 
 that Ziba had purposely prevented his beast from 
 being made ready to carry him : and he declared 
 that so far from having joined in heart, or even 
 appearance, the enemies of the king, he had re- 
 mained as a mourner, and, as his appearance de- 
 clared, had not changed his clothes, or trimmed 
 his beard, or even dressed his feef, from the day 
 that the king departed to that on which he re- 
 turned. David could not but have been sensible 
 that he had acted wrong, and ought to have been 
 touched by the devotedness of his friend’s son, and 
 angry at the imposition of Ziba; but to cover one 
 fault by another, or from indifference, or from 
 reluctance to offend Ziba, who had adhered to him 
 when so many old friends forsook him, he an 
 swered coarsely, ‘ Why speakest thou any more 
 of thy matters? I have said, thou and Zd)a divide 
 the land. 1 The answer of Mephibosheth was 
 worthy of the son of the generous Jonathan : — 
 ‘ Yea. let him take all ; forasmuch as my lord 
 the king is come again in peace unto his own 
 house 1 (2 Sam. xix. 21-30). Undoubtedly David 
 does not shine in this part of his conduct, to Me- 
 phibosheth ; but some of the German writers, in 
 their eagerness to impugn the character and mo- 
 tives of ‘ the man after God’s own heart, 1 have 
 handled the matter much more severely than a 
 due consideration of the difficult circumstances 
 in which the king was placed will be found to 
 justify. 
 
 We hear no more of Mephibosheth, except that 
 David was careful that he should not be included 
 in the savage vengeance which the Gideonites 
 were suffered to execute upon the house of Saul 
 for the great wrong they had sustained during his 
 leign (2 Sam. xxi. 7). Another Mephibosheth, 
 a son of Saul by his concubine Rizpah, was, how- 
 ever, among those who suffered on that occasion 
 (ver. 8, 9). 
 
 MERAB increase ; Sept. MepJ/3), eldest 
 
 daughter of king Saul, who was promised in 
 marriage to David ; but when the time fixed 
 for their union approached, she was, to the sur- 
 prise of all Israel, bestowed in marriage upon an 
 unknown personage named Adriel (1 Sam. xiv. 
 49: xviii. 17-19). By him she had six sons, who 
 were among those of the house of Saul that were 
 given up to the Gibeonites, who put them to death 
 in expiation for the wrongs they had sustained 
 from their grandfather. By an error of some 
 copyist, the name of Michal — the younger sister, 
 who was afterwards given to David — has found 
 its way into the text which records this transac- 
 tion (2 Sam. xxi. 8), in place of that of Merab, 
 
338 
 
 MERARI. 
 
 MERODACH. 
 
 which rentiers the account unintelligible. The 
 context, however, sufficiently indicates the proper 
 correction. 
 
 MERARI bitter ; Sept. Meoapi ), 
 
 youngest son of Levi, born in Canaan (Gen. xlvi. 
 11; Exod. vi. 16; Num. iii. 17; 1 Chron. vi. 
 1). He is only known from his name having been 
 given to one of the three great divisions of the 
 Levitical tribe. 
 
 MERCURY [Hermes]. 
 
 MERCY-SEAT (n*YS3 ; Sept. IXaarlipiov ; 
 Vulg. propiiiatorium ; Luth. gnadenstuhl). The 
 Hebrew name literally denotes a cover , and, in 
 fact, describes the lid of the ark with cherubim, 
 over which appeared ‘ the glory of God ’ (Exod. 
 xxvi. 17, sq. ; xxx. 8; xxxi. 7, and elsewhere). 
 [Ark.] Compare 1 Chron. xxviii. 11, where the 
 holy of holies is called the rnSDH JV2, ‘ house 
 of the mercy-seat.’ The idea involved in these 
 translations seems to be founded upon the meta- 
 phorical application of the word copher 
 
 (perhaps the origin of the very word cover which 
 translates it), thus making ‘ to cover sin ’ mean 
 to forgive or expiate it. Whether this be the 
 literal application of the word to the material 
 covering of the ark, or a latent reference to this 
 symbolical meaning of the term might have been 
 doubted, had not the New Testament (Heb. ix. 5) 
 followed the example of the Septuagint in as- 
 signing it the latter sense — which, therefore, all 
 translators have felt bound to follow. The 
 word used in the Septuagint and New Testament 
 to translate the term, which in Hebrew means 
 simply ‘ a cover, 1 is lXa<rTT]piov, the ‘expiatory 1 or 
 ‘ propitiatory, 1 in allusion to that application of the 
 Hebrew word which we have noted : which appli- 
 cation is in this instance justified and explained 
 by reference to the custom of the high-priest once 
 a-year entering the most holy place, and sprinkling 
 the lid of the ark with the blood of an expiatory 
 victim, whereby ‘ he made atonement for the sins 
 of the people.’ As this was the most solemn and 
 significant act of the Hebrew ritual, it is natural 
 that a reference to it should be involved in the 
 name which the covering of the ark acquired. By 
 a comparison of the texts in which the word occurs, 
 it will be seen that there would, in fact, have been 
 little occasion to name the cover of the ark sepa- 
 rately from the ark itself, but for this important 
 ceremonial. From this it will be seen that 
 ‘ mercy-seat* is not a good or correct translation 
 of the idea involved in the metaphorical sense of 
 the original Hebrew, and still less of the Greek 
 iXacriipiov. It carries the idea a stage further 
 from the original. The lid of the ark was no 
 doubt the ‘ seat of mercy, 1 but it was mercy con- 
 ferred through the act of expiation, and therefore 
 a name bringing the sense nearer to the idea of 
 expiation or of propitiation would be more exact. 
 The term ‘ mercie-seat 1 occurs in Barker’s Bible, 
 but is explained there by ‘ or covering, or pro- 
 pitiatorie and the notion which led the English 
 translators to call it * mercie-seate, 1 is expressed in 
 the note — ‘ There God appeared mercifully unto 
 them : and this was a figure of Christ. 1 In the 
 same Bible a figure >f the covering of the ark is 
 given separately, and the explanatory description 
 is, ‘ The propitiatorie, or mercie-seate, which is 
 the covering of the arke of the testimonie. 1 
 
 MERI-BAAL, or MERIB-BAAL , 
 
 Sept. M epifiadx), a name given to Mephibosheth, 
 son of Jonathan, in 1 Chron. viii. 34 ; ix. 40 
 [Mephibosheth]. Of the two the latter seems 
 the more correct form. It means ‘ contender 
 against Baal. 1 Some think that tne difference 
 has arisen from some corruption of the text; but, 
 from the analogy of Ishbosheth, whose original 
 name was Esh-baal, it seems more like a de- 
 signed alteration, arising probably from the re- 
 luctance of the Israelites to nronounce the name 
 of Baal [Ishbosheth] . 
 
 1. MERIBAH (nnHp, quarrel , strife ), one 
 of the names given by Moses to the fountain in 
 the desert of Sin, on the western gulf of the Red 
 Sea, which issued from the rock which he smote 
 by the divine command (Exod. xvii. 1-17). He 
 called the place, indeed, Massa (temptation) and 
 Meribah, and the reason is assigned ‘ because of 
 the chiding of the children of Israel, and because 
 they did there tempt the Lord. 1 [Wandering.] 
 
 2. MERIBAH. Another fountain produced 
 in the same manner, and under similar circum- 
 stances, in the desert, of Zin (Wady Arabah), near 
 Kadesh ; and to which the name was given with 
 a similar reference to the previous misconduct of 
 the Israelites (Num. xx. 13,24; Deut. xxxiii. 8). 
 In the last text, which is the only one where the 
 two places are mentioned together, the former is 
 called Massah only, to prevent the confusion of 
 the two Meribahs, ‘ Whom thou didst prove at 
 Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the 
 waters of Meribah.’ Indeed this latter Meribah 
 is almost always indicated by the addition of 
 ‘ waters, 1 i. e. ‘ waters of Meribah 1 (PQ'HD 'D), as 
 if further to distinguish it from the other (Pa. 
 Ixxxi. 8 ; cvi. 32) ; and still more distinctly 
 ‘waters of Meribah in Kadesh 1 (Num. xxvii. 
 14; Deut. xxxii. 51; Ezek. xlvii. 19). Only 
 once is this place called simply Meribah (Ps. 
 xcv. 8). It is strange, that with all this carefulness 
 of distinction in Scripture, the two places should 
 rarely have been properly discriminated. The 
 distance of place from the former Meribah, the 
 distance of time, and the difference of the people 
 in a new generation, are circumstances which, 
 when the positive conditions of the two wells were 
 so equal, explain why Moses might give the same 
 name to two places. The necessity for a diver- 
 sified nomenclature was not at all felt in those 
 ancient times : hence the number of places which 
 in Scripture are found bearing the same names ; 
 which, however, are not perhaps greater, nor in- 
 deed so great as the repetitions of the same names 
 which occur at this day in our own and other 
 European countries. 
 
 MERODACH CqTllt? ; Sept. Vat. Mcupa>bh x ) 
 occurs in Jer. 1. 2, in such connection with idols 
 as to leave no doubt that it is the name of a 
 Babylonian god. In conformity with the gene- 
 ral character of Babylonian idolatry Merodach is 
 supposed to be the name of a planet ; and, as the 
 Tsabian and Arabic names for Mars are Nerig 
 and Mirrich, ‘ arrow 1 (the latter of which Gesenius 
 thinks may be for Mirdich, which is very nearly 
 the same as Merodach), there is some presump - 
 tion that it may be Mars. As for etymologies of 
 the word, Gesenius has suggested that it is the 
 Persian marda/c. the diminutive of mard. ‘ map, 1 
 
MERQM. 
 
 MESH A. 
 
 329 
 
 used a* a fern, of endearment ; or, rather, that it 
 is from the Persian and Indo-Germanic morel, or 
 mort (which means death, and is so far in har- 
 mony with the conception of Mars, as the lesser 
 star of evil omen), and the affix och, which is 
 found in many Assyrian names, as Nisroch, &c. 
 The bloody rites with which Mars was worshipped 
 by the ancient Arabs are described in Nor berg's 
 Onomast. Codicis Nasar. p. 107. — J. N. 
 
 MEROM. ‘ The waters of Merom,’ of Josh, 
 ix. 5, are doubtless the lake Samechonitis, now 
 called Huleh, the upper or highest lake of the 
 Jordan [Palestine]. 
 
 MERORIM (D'YID) occurs in two places in 
 Scripture, and is in both translated bitter herbs 
 in our Authorized Version, as well as in several 
 others. In Exod. xii. 8, Moses commanded the 
 Jews to Oat the lamb of the Passover ‘ with unlea- 
 vened bread, and with bitter herbs ( merorim ) 
 they shall eat it.’ So at the institution of the 
 second Passover, in the wilderness of Sinai 
 (Num. ix. 1 1), ‘ The fourteenth day of the second 
 month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with 
 unleavened bread and bitter herbs.’ The word 
 merorim , which is here translated ‘ bitter herbs,’ is 
 universally acknowledged to signify bitter , and 
 the word herbs has been supplied to complete 
 the sense. By the Sept, it has been translated 
 iirl mKpiduv, and by St. Jerome, * cum lactucis 
 agrestibus.’ Several interpreters, however, render 
 it simply amara ; which Celsius adopts, and con- 
 siders that merorim has reference to the e/x- 
 Pa/x/xa which was eaten with the paschal lamb, 
 and that it signifies ‘ cum amaritudinibus, vel 
 rebus amaris.’ In the Arabic a word similar to 
 the Hebrew has also reference to bitterness, and, 
 like the Greek word nriKpos, came to be applied 
 to a bitter plant. Thus the Arabic murr, ‘ bitter,’ 
 pi. viurar, signifies a species of bitter tree or plant ; 
 as does maru, a fragrant herb which has always 
 some degree of bitterness. Murooa is in India 
 applied both to the bitter Artemisia, or wormwood, 
 and to the fragrant Ocyniim pilosum, a species of 
 Basil ; in Arabia, to the bitter Centaury, accord- 
 ing to Forskal. It is extremely probable that a 
 bitter herb of some kind is intended, but whether 
 a particular species or any bitter herb, it is diffi- 
 cult to say. The Jews, as we learn from the 
 Mishna (Tract. Pesachim, cap. ii. § 6, as quoted by 
 Bochart, Hieroz. i. 1. ii. c. 50), used five kinds of 
 bitter herbs, thus given by Dr. Harris : ‘ 1. C/ta- 
 z'areth, taken for lettuce; 2. TJlsin, supposed to 
 be endive, or succory ; 3. Tamca, probably tansy ; 
 4. Charubbinim, which Bochart thought might 
 be the nettle, but Scheuchzer shows to be the 
 camomile ; 5. Meror, the sow-thistle, or dent-de- 
 'ion, or wild lettuce.’ All these translations be- 
 any their European origin. To interpret them 
 with any thing like accuracy, it is requisite in the 
 first place to have a complete Flora of the coun- 
 tries, from Egypt to Syria, with the Arabic names 
 of the usefal plants, accompanied by a notice of 
 .heir properties. Science is as yet far from having 
 my thing of the kind. We have seen that the 
 succory or endive was early selected as being the 
 bitter herb especially intended; and Dr. Geddes 
 justly remarks, that ‘ the Jews of Alexandria, who 
 translated the Pentateuch, could not be ignorant 
 what herbs were eaten with the paschal lamb in 
 their days.’ Jerome understood it in the same 
 
 manner ; and Pseudo-Jonathan expressly men- 
 tions horehound and lettuces. Forskal informs 
 us that the Jews at Sana and in Egypt eat the 
 lettuce with the paschal lamb. Lady Calcott 
 inquires whether mint was originally one of the 
 bitter herbs with which the Israelites ate the 
 paschal, as -our use of it with roast lamb, parti- 
 cularly about Easter time, inclined her to sup- 
 pose it was. Aben Ezra, as quoted by Rosen- 
 miiller, states that the Egyptians used bitter herbs 
 in every meal : so in India some of the bitter Cu- 
 curbitacece, as kurella, are constantly employed 
 as food [Pakyoth]. It is curious that the two 
 sets of plants which appear to have the greatest 
 number of points in their favour, are the endive or 
 succory, and one of the fragrant and usually also 
 bitter labiate plants ; because we find that the 
 term marooa is in the East applied even in the 
 present day both to the bitter wormwood and the 
 fragrant Ocymum. Moreover the Chaldee trans- 
 lator, Jonathan, expressly mentions lettuce and 
 horehound , or marrubium, which is also one of the 
 Labiatse. It is important to observe that the 
 Artemisia, and some of these fragrant labiatae, 
 are found in many parts of Arabia and Syria ; 
 that is, in warm, dry, barren regions. The endive 
 is also found in similar situations, but requires, 
 upon the whole, a greater degree of moisture. 
 Thus it is evident that the Israelites would be 
 able to obtain suitable plants during their long 
 wanderings in the Desert, though it is difficult 
 for us to select any one out of the several which 
 might have been employed by them. — J. F. R. 
 
 MEROZ (TV"1 1? ; Sept. M ypcAQ, a place in 
 the northern part of Palestine, the inhabitants 
 of which are severely reprehended in Judg. v. 23, 
 for not having taken the field with Barak against 
 Sisera. It would seem as if they had had an 
 opportunity of rendering some particular and im- 
 portant service to the public cause which they 
 neglected. The site is not known : Eusebius and 
 Jerome ( Onomast . s. v. ‘Merus’) fix it twelve 
 Roman miles from Sebaste, on the road to 
 Dothaim ; but this position would place it south 
 of the field of battle, and therefore scarcely agrees 
 with the history. 
 
 MESECH; MESHECH [Nations, Dis- 
 persion of]. 
 
 1 . MESH A (X&^D ; Sept. Macroy'), a place 
 mentioned in describing that part of Arabia in- 
 habited by the descendants of Joktan (Gen. x. 
 30). [See Nations, Dispersion of.] 
 
 2. MESHA (WV, deliverance; Sept. M curd), 
 a king of Moab, who possessed an immense 
 number of flocks and herds, and appears to have 
 derived his chief wealth from them. In the time 
 of Ahab, he being then under tribute, ‘ rendered 
 unto the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and 
 100,000 rams, with the wool (2 Kings iii. 4). 
 These numbers may seem exaggerated if under- 
 stood as the amount of yearly tribute. It is, 
 therefore, more probable that the greedy and im- 
 placable Ahab had at some one time levied this 
 enormous impost upon the Moabites ; and it is 
 likely that it was in the apprehension of a recur- 
 rence of such ruinous exactions, < hat they seized the 
 opportunity for revolt, which the death of Ahab 
 seemed to offer (2 Kings i. 1 ; iii. 5). The short 
 reign of Ahaziah afforded no opportunity for 
 
MESSIAH. 
 
 MESSIAH. 
 
 *30 
 
 reducing them to obedience; but after liis death 
 his brother and successor, Jehoram, made prepa- 
 rations for war; anil induced Jehoshaphat to 
 join him in this expedition. The result, with the 
 'part taken by Elisha the prophet, has been re- 
 lated under other heads [Ei.isha; Jehoram; 
 Jkhoshaphat]. King Mesha was at. length 
 driven to shut himself up, with the remnant of 
 his force, in Areopolis, his capital. He was there 
 besieged so closely, that, having been foiled in 
 an attempt to break tnrough the camp of the 
 Edomites (who were present as vassals of Judah), 
 he was reduced to extremities, and it) the mad- 
 ness of his despair, sought to propitiate his angry 
 gods by offering up his own son, the heir of his 
 crown, as a sacrilice, upon the wall of the city. 
 On beholding this fearful sight, the besiegers with- 
 drew in horror, lest some portion of the monstrous 
 crime might attach to their own souls. By this 
 withdrawal they, however, afforded the king the 
 relief he desireu, and this was, no doubt, attri- 
 buted by him to the efficacy of his offering, and 
 to the satisfaction of his gods therewith. The 
 invaders, however, ravaged the country as they 
 withdrew, and returned with much spoil to their 
 own land [Moabites]. 
 
 MESOPOTAMIA. [Aram.] 
 
 MESSIAH (H'^'P 5 Sept. XpiaTiis). In both 
 languages this word signifies the same thing, viz. 
 anointed. Hence Sept. 6 Upevs 6 xp l<TT ^ s f° r 
 rmpn jnlsn, the high priest (Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16). 
 In order to have an accurate idea of the Scrip- 
 tural application of the term, we must consider 
 the custom of anointing which obtained amongst 
 the Jews. That which was sjiecilically set apart 
 for God’s service was anointed, whether persons 
 or things [Anointing]. Thus we read that 
 Jacob poured oil upon the pillar (Gen. xxviii. 
 IS, 22). The tabernacle also and its utensils 
 were anointed (Lev. viii. It)), being thereby ap- 
 propriated to God's service. 
 
 But this ceremony had, moreover, relation to 
 persons. Thus priests , as Aaron and his sous, 
 were anointed, that they might minister unto God 
 (Exod. xl. 13, 15). We are informed by Jewish 
 writers (see Maimon. II. Melach ; Abarhanel, on 
 Exod. xxx. 33) that the high-priest, was anointed, 
 but not the inferior priests ; the high-priesthood 
 not devolving, as a matter of course, on the eldest 
 son. the person who succeeded his father must 
 needs be thus consecrated to God (Buxtorf, Lex. 
 Rabbin, s. v. PP^D). 
 
 Kings were anointed. Hence it is that a 
 king is designated the Lord's anointed (Heb. 
 ni.T rPi^’P'TlXi ; Sept. 6 xpxrr&y too K vplov). 
 Saul and David were, according to the divine 
 appointment, anointed by Samuel (1 Sam. x. I ; 
 xv. 1 ; xvi. 3, 13). Zadok anointed Solomon, 
 that there might be no dispute who should suc- 
 ceed David (1 Kings i. 39). 
 
 We cannot speak with confidence as to whether 
 the prophets were actually anointed witli the 
 material oil. We have neither an express law 
 nor practice to this effect on record. True it is 
 that Elijah is commanded to anoint Elisha to be 
 piophet in his room (1 Kings xix. 16); but, no 
 more may be meant by this expression than that 
 he should constitute him his successor in the 
 prophetic office; for all that he did, in executing 
 
 his divine commission, was to ca*t his owi ga> 
 ment upon Elisha (1 Kings xix. 19 ) ; upon whici* 
 he arose and ministered unto him (ver. 21), 
 For kings and priests the precept and practice 
 are unquestionable. It is in this extended, fignra 
 tive, sense of the expression that we are to under- 
 stand the passages in Ps. cv. 15 and Isa. xlv. 1, 
 wherein the Israelites and Cyrus are called the 
 Lord's anointed — they being expressly raised up 
 lor the accomplishment of the divine purposes. 
 
 But the name Messiah is, par excellence , ap- 
 plied to the Redeemer of man in the Old Testa- 
 ment (Dan. ix. 16; Ps. ii. 2). The words of 
 Hannah, the mother of Samuel, at the close of 
 her divine song, are very remarkable (1 Sam. 
 ii. 10): ‘The adversaries of the Lord shall lie 
 broken in pieces ; out of heaven shall He thunder 
 upon them: the Lord shall judge tire ends of 
 the earth ; and he shall give strength unto his 
 king, and exalt the horn of his Messiah.' The 
 Hebrews as yet had no king; hence the passage 
 may lie taken as a striking prophecy of the pro- 
 mised deliverer. In various parts of the New 
 Testament is this epithet applied to Jesus. St. 
 Peter (Acts x. 36, 38) informs Cornelius the 
 centurion that God had anointed Jesus of Naza- 
 reth to he the Christ , and our Lord himself 
 acknowledges to the woman of Samaria that, he 
 is the expected Messiah (John iv. 25). This 
 term, however, as applied to Jesus, is less a name 
 than the expression of his office; thus Laetantius 
 says, ‘ Christus non proprium liomen est, sed 
 nuncupatio potestatis et. regni’ ( Institut . iv. 7). 
 
 Thus the Jews had in type, under the Mosaic 
 dispensation, what we have in substance under 
 the Christian system. The prophets, priests, and 
 kings of the former economy were types of Him 
 who sustains these offices as the head of his mys- 
 tical body, the Church [Mediator]. As the 
 priests and kings of old were set apart for their 
 offices and dignities by a certain form prescribed 
 in the law of Moses, so was the blessed Saviour 
 by a better anointing (of which the former was 
 hut a shadow), even by the Holy Ghost. Thus 
 the apostle tells us that God anointed Jesus of 
 Nazaieth witli the Iloly Ghost, and with power 
 (Acts x. 38). He was anointed: — 
 
 First, at his conception : the angel tells Mary, 
 4 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
 power of the Highest, shall overshadow thee : 
 therefore that, holy thing which shall he born of 
 tbee shall he called the Sun of God" (Luke i. 35). 
 
 Second, at his baptism at the river Jordan 
 (Matt. iii. 13; Mark i. 9, 10, 11, 12). St. Luke, 
 moreover, records (Luke iv. 17, 21) that our 
 Lord being at Nazareth, he had given unto him 
 the book of the prophet Isaiah ; and ini reading 
 from ch. lxi. 1, 4 The Spirit of the Lord is upon 
 me,’ &c., he said to his hearers, 4 This day is this 
 Scripture fulfilled in your ears.’ 
 
 On this subject Chrysostom ( Ilomil . i. in 
 Epist. ad Romanos , p. 6) says, 4 He, the Saviour, 
 is called Christ, because, as to the flesh, he was 
 anointed : and wherewith was he anointed? With 
 nothing truly hut the Spirit.’ Commenting on 
 Ps. xlv. the same father observes, 4 Christ was 
 anointed when the Spirit descended upon him in 
 the form of a dove.’ Theophylact, on Matt, i., 
 writes, 4 The Lord is called Christ as king, be- 
 cause He rules over sin, and as priest because 
 He offered himself a sacrifice for us. He \va* 
 
MESSIAH. 
 
 MESSIAH. 
 
 331 
 
 anointed by the proper oil, even by the Holy 
 Spirit.’ Such are the views taken of this subject 
 by many other most celebrated fathers of the 
 Church. Bitt as the Jews will not acknowledge 
 ihe right of either Jesus, or his apostles, to apply 
 (he prophetic passages which point to the Messiah 
 to himself, it now remains for us to show — 
 
 First, That the promised Messiah has already 
 come. 
 
 Second, That Jesus of Nazareth is unquestion- 
 ably he. 
 
 To prove our first assertion, we shall confine 
 our remarks to three prophecies. The first occurs 
 in Gen. xlix. 8, 10, where Jacob is giving his 
 sons his parting benediction, &c. When he comes 
 to Judah he says : ‘ The sceptre shall not de- 
 part from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between 
 his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall 
 tiie gathering of the people be.’ It is evident 
 that by Judah is here meant, not the person but 
 the tribe; for Judah died in Egypt, without any 
 pre-eminence. By sceptre and lawgiver are ob- 
 viously intended the legislative and ruling power, 
 which did, in the course of time, commence in 
 David, and which, for centuries afterwards, was 
 continued in his descendants. Whatever variety 
 *the form of government — whether monarchical 
 or atistocratical — might have assumed, the law 
 and polity icere still the same. This prediction 
 all the ancient Jews referred to the Messiah. Ben 
 Uzziel renders it, ‘Until the time when the king 
 Messiah shall come.’ The Targum of Onkelos 
 speaks to the same effect, and that of Jerusalem 
 paraphrases it thus: ‘Kings shall not cease from 
 the house of Judah, nor doctors that teach the 
 law from his children, until that the king Messiah 
 do come, whose the kingdom is; and all nations 
 of the earth shall be subject unto him.' Now, 
 that the sceptre has departed from Judah, and, 
 consequently, that the Messiah has come, we argue 
 from the acknowledgments of some most learned 
 Jews themselves. Kimchi thus comments on 
 Hosea: ‘ These are the days of our captivity, 
 wherein we have neither king nor prince in Israel ; 
 but we are in the power of the Gentiles, and 
 under their kings and princes.’ Again, Abar- 
 banel, commenting on Isa. c. liii., says that it is 
 a great part of their misery in their captivity, that 
 they have neither kingdom nor rule, nor a sceptre 
 of judgment! The precise time when all autho- 
 rity departed from Judah is disputed. Some date 
 its departure from the time when Herod, an Idu- 
 maean, set aside the Maccabees and Sanhedrim. 
 Whereupon the Jews are said to have shaved 
 their heads, put. on sackcloth, and cried, ‘ Woe 
 to us, because the sceptre is departed from Judah, 
 and a lawgiver from beneath his feet!’ Others 
 think that it rvas when Vespasian and Titus de- 
 stroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, that the Jews 
 lost the last vestige of authority. If, therefore, 
 the sceptre has departed from Judah — and who 
 can question it who looks at the broken-up, scat 
 tered, and lost state of that tribe for ages? — the 
 conclusion is clearly irresistible, that the Messiah 
 must have long since come ! To avoid the force 
 of this conclusion the Jews now soy, that the 
 
 shebet, which we render sceptre, may be 
 
 translated rod , and metaphorically signifies, in 
 the above passage, affliction. That the word 
 cannot bear this meaning here , is evident, because 
 
 for a long while after the prophecy was uttered, 
 especially in the reigns of David and Solomon, 
 the tribe of Judah was in a most prosperous state 
 
 The next proof that the Messiah has long since 
 come, we adduce from Dan. ix. 25, 26, 27. It 
 is evident that the true Messiah is here spoken of. 
 He is twice designated by the very name. And i. 
 we consider what the work is which he is here said 
 to accomplish, we shall have a full confirm at io» 
 of this. Who but He could finish and takeaway 
 transgression, make reconciliation for iniquity, 
 bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up the 
 vision and prophecy, confirm the covenants with 
 many, and cause to cease the sacrifice and obla- 
 tion? Indeed there is a saying extant in the 
 Talmud, as the tradition of former times, ‘ In 
 Daniel is delivered to us the end of the Messiah,’ 
 i. e. the term wherein he ought to come, as it is 
 explained by Jarchi. Grotius (De Veritat. v.) 
 speaks of a Jew, R. Berachia, who lived fifty years 
 before our Lord, and who declared that the time 
 fixed by Daniel could not go beyond fifty years ! 
 If then it be the true Messiah who is described in 
 the above prophecy, it remains for us to see how 
 the time predicted for his coming has long since 
 transpired. This is expressly said to be seventy 
 weeks from the going forth of the commandment 
 to restore and build Jerusalem. That by seventy 
 weeks are to be understood seventy sevens of 
 years, a day being put for a year, and a week for 
 seven years, making up 400 years, is allowed by 
 Kimchi, Jarchi, Rabbi Saadias, and other learned 
 Jews, as well as by many Christian commenta- 
 tors. It is clear that these seventy weeks cannot 
 consist of weeks of days, for all put together make 
 but one year, four months, and odd days — a 
 space of time too short to crowd so many various 
 events into as are here specified ; nor can any 
 such time be assigned between the two captivities, 
 wherein like events did happen (see Prideaux, 
 Connect, lib. v., part 1). This period of time 
 then must have long since elapsed, whether we 
 date its commencement from the first decree of 
 Cyrus (Ezra i. 1, 2), the second of Darius 
 Hystaspes (ch. vi. 15), or that of Artaxerxes 
 (ch. viii. 11). See Grotius De Veritat. v. ; 
 Josephus, De Hcll.Jud. vii. 12, 13. 
 
 We can only barely allude to one remarkable 
 prediction more, which fixes the time of the 
 Messiah’s advent, viz., Hag. ii. 7-9 : ‘ I will 
 shake all nations, and the desire of all nations 
 shall come : amt I will till this house with glory, 
 saith the Lord of Hosts. The silver is mine, and 
 the gold is mine, saith the Lord of Hosts. The 
 glory of this latter house shall be greater than of 
 the former, saith the Lord of Hosts.’ The glory 
 here_ spoken of must be in reference to the Mes- 
 siah, or on some oilier account. It could not 
 have been said that the second Temple exceeded 
 in gloiy the former one ; for in many particulars, 
 according to the acknowledgment of the Jews 
 themselves, it was far inferior both as a building 
 (Ezra iii. 3, 12), and in respect of the symbols 
 and tokens of God s special favour being wanting 
 (see Kimchi and R. Salomon on Hag. i. 8). 
 The promised glory, therefore, must refer to the 
 coming and presence of him who was promised 
 to the world before there was any nation of the 
 Jews; and who is aptly called the ‘ Desire of all 
 nations.' This view is amply confirmed by the 
 prophet Malachi (ch. iii. 1). Since then the 
 
332 
 
 MESSIAH. 
 
 very Temple into which the Saviour was to enter, 
 has for ages been destroyed, He must, if the 
 integrity of this prophecy be preserved, have come. 
 That there was, at the time of our Lord’s birth, 
 a great expectation of the Messiah, both amongst 
 Jews and Gentiles, may be seen from three cele- 
 brated historians, as well as from the sacred 
 Scriptures. Tacitus {Hist. c. 13) says: ‘ Plu- 
 ribus persuasio inerat, anliquis sacerdotum lite- 
 ris conlineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret 
 Oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potirentur.’ 
 Again, Suetonius (in Vespas. 4) says : ‘ Percre- 
 bruerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, 
 esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judaei profecti rerum 
 potirentur.’ Josephus not being able to find any 
 calculation by which to protract the general ex- 
 pectation of the Messiah, applies it in the follow- 
 ing words to Vespasian (De Bell. Jud. vii. 31) : 
 ‘ That which chiefly excited the Jews to war was 
 an ambiguous prophecy, which was also found 
 in the sacred books, that at that time some one 
 within their country should arise, that should 
 obtain the empire of the whole world.’ We are, 
 moreover, informed again by Suetonius ( Octav . 
 94), that, upon the conception of Augustus, it was 
 generally thought that Nature was then in labour 
 to bring forth a king that should rule the Romans ! 
 Some suppose that the words of Virgil ( Eclog . iv.), 
 point at our Saviour ; hut they were intended 
 by him to apply to the son of Pollio. We may 
 just add, that as there was a general expectation 
 of the Messiah at this time, so there were many 
 impostors who drew after them many followers 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xx. 2. 6; De Bell. ,hid. lvii. 
 31). See also a full account of the false 
 Christs who appeared by John a Lent Schediasm , 
 c. 2 ; Maimon. Ep. ad Judceos Marsilienses ; 
 Christ prophesies of such persons (Matt. xxiv. 
 21, 29). 
 
 The limits of this article will admit of our 
 only touching upon the proofs that Jesus of 
 Nazareth, and none other, is the very Messiah who 
 was to come. What was predicted of the Mes- 
 siah was fulfilled in Jesus. Was the Messiah to be 
 of the seed of the woman (Gen. iii. 15), and this 
 woman a virgin? (Isa. vii. 14). So we are told 
 (Gal. iv. 4 ; Matt. i. 1 8, and 22, 23) that Jesus was 
 made of a woman, and born of a virgin. Was it 
 predicted that he (Messiah) should be of the tribe 
 of Judah, of the family of Jesse, and of the house 
 of David ? (Mic. v. 2; Gen. xlix. 10; Isa. xi. 
 10; Jer. xxiii. 5). This was fulfilled in Jesus 
 (Luke i. 27,69; Matt. i. 1) [Geneai.ogy]. 
 
 2. I.f die Messiah was to be a prophet like unto 
 Mos^s, so was Jesus also (Isa. xviii. ; John vi. 14). 
 1 f the Messiah was to appear in the second Temple, 
 so did Jesus (Hag. ii. 7, 9 ; John xviii. 20). 
 
 3. Was Messiah to work miracles? (Isa. xxxv. 
 5, 6 ; comp. Matt. xi. 4, 5). 
 
 4. If the Messiah was to suffer and die (Isa. liii.), 
 we find that Jesus died in the same manner, at 
 the very time, and under the identical circum- 
 stances, which were predicted of him. The very 
 man who betrayed him, the price for which he was 
 sold, the indignities he was to receive in his last 
 moments, the parting of his garments, and his last 
 words, &e., were all foretold of the Messiah, and 
 accomplished in Jesus! 
 
 5. Was the Messiah to rise from the dead? So 
 did Jesus ! How stupendous and adorable is the 
 Providence of God, who, through so many ap- 
 
 METALS. 
 
 parent contingencies, brought such things t« 
 pass ! — J. W. D. 
 
 METALS. The principal metals are in this 
 work considered separately under their several 
 names; and a few general observations alone 
 are necessary in this place. 
 
 The mountains of Palestine contained metals, 
 nor were the Hebrews ignorant of the fact (Deut. 
 viii. 9) ; but they do not appear to have understood 
 the art of mining. They therefore obtained from 
 others the superior as well as the inferior metals, 
 and worked them up. They received also metal 
 utensils ready made, or metal in plates (Jer. x. 9), 
 from neighbouring and distant countries of Asia 
 and Europe. The metals named in the Old Tes- 
 tament are ‘PT-Q barzely iron (steel, Jer. xv. 12); 
 nCTIJ nechusheth , copper, or copper ore ; 
 ccscph, silver; 2HT zahab, gold ; TTIDy ophereth, 
 lead ; and b'^12 bedil , tin. The trade in these 
 metals was chiefly in the hands of the Phoenicians 
 (Ezek. xxvii. 7), who obtained them from their 
 colonies, principally those in Spain (Jer. x. 9 ; 
 Ezek. xxvii. 12). Some also came from Arabia 
 (Ezek. xxvii. 19), and some apparently from the 
 countries of the Caucasus (Ezek. xxvii. 13). 
 composition of several metals is expressed by 
 the Hebrew word chasmil (which see). 
 
 In general the ancients had a variety of metallic 
 compositions, and that which the word chasmil 
 describes appears to have been very valuable. 
 Whether it was the same as that precious com- 
 pound known among the ancients as Corinthian 
 brass is uncertain, but it is likely that in later 
 times the Jews possessed splendid vessels of the 
 costly compound known by that name. Indeed 
 this is distinctly affirmed by Josephus ( Vita, 13). 
 
 The vast quantity of silver and gold used in 
 the temple in the time of Solomon, and which 
 was otherwise possessed by the Jews during the 
 flourishing time of the nation, is very remarkable, 
 under whatever interpretation we regard such texts 
 as 1 Chron. xxii. 14 ; xxix. 4, &c. In like manner, 
 we find among other ancient Asiatic nations, and 
 also among the Romans, extraordinary wealth in 
 gold and silver vessels and ornaments of jewellery. 
 As all the accounts, received from sources so va- 
 rious, cannot be founded on exaggeration, we may 
 rest assured that the precious metals were in those 
 ancient times obtained abundantly from mines — 
 gold from Africa, India, and perhaps even then 
 from Northern Asia; and silver principally from 
 Spain. 
 
 The following are the metallic manufactures 
 named in the Old Testament : — Of iron , axes 
 (Deut. xix. 5-2 ; 2 Kings vi. 5) ; saws (2 Sam. 
 xii. 31); stone-cuttera’ tools (Deut. xxvii. 5); 
 sauce-pans (Ezek. iv. 3) ; bolts, chains, knives, 
 &c., but especially weapons of war (1 Sam. xvii. 
 7 ; 1 Macc. vi. 35). Bedsteads were even some- 
 times made of iron (Deut. iii. 11); ‘ chariots of 
 iron,’ i. e. war-chariots, are noticed elsewhere 
 [Chariots]. Of cojjper we find vessels of all 
 kinds (Lev. vi. 28 ; Num. xvi. 39 ; 2 Chron. iv. 
 16; Ezek. viii. 27) ; and also weapons of war, 
 principally helmets, cuirasses, shields, spear* 
 (1 Sam. xvii. 5 ; vi. 38 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 16) ; alsa 
 chains (Judg. xvi. 21); and even mirrors (Exod. 
 xxxviii. 8) [Copper]. Gold and silver furnished 
 articles of ornament, also vessels, such as ;upg 
 goblets, &c. The holy vessels of the temple ^er* 
 
METHUSAEL. 
 
 mostly of gold (Ezra v. 14). Idolaters had idols 
 and other sacred objects of silver (Exod. xx. 20 ; 
 Isa. ii. 20; Acts xvii. 29; xix. 24). Lead is 
 mentioned as being used for weights, and for 
 plumb-lines in measuring (Amos vii. 7 ; Zech. 
 v. 8). Some of the tools of workers in metal are 
 also mentioned : Dy.Q paam, anvil (Isa. xli. 7) ; 
 mpO mdkkabdh (Isa. xliv. 12) ; pattish, 
 
 hammer (Isa. xli. 7) ; DTip mal kachirn , 
 pincers; and HSD mappuach, bellows (Jer. vi. 
 29) ; matzreph , crucible (Prov. xvii. 3) ; 
 
 *VD cur, melting- furnace (Ezek. xxii. 18j. 
 
 There are also allusions to various operations 
 connected with the preparation of metals. 1. The 
 smelting of metal was not only for the purpose of 
 rendering it fluid, but in order to separate and 
 purify the richer metal when mixed with baser 
 minerals, as silver from lead, &c. (Isa. i. 25; 
 comp. Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 47 ; Ezek. xxii. 
 18-20). The dross separated by this process is 
 called D'PD sigim, although this word also ap- 
 plies to metal not yet purified from its dross. For 
 the actual or chemical separation other materials 
 were mixed in the smelting, such as alkaline salts, 
 TQ bor (Isa. i. 25) ; and lead (Jer. vi. 29 ; comp. 
 Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxiii. 31). 2. The casting of 
 
 images (Exod. xxv. 12; xxvi. 37 ; Isa. xl. 19); 
 which are always of gold, silver, or copper. The 
 casting of iron is not mentioned, and was perhaps 
 unknown to I he ancients (Hausmann, in Com - 
 mentatt. Soc. Goett. iv. 53, sqq. ; Muller, Archaol. 
 p. 371). 3. The hammering of metal, and making 
 it into broad sheets (Num. xvi. 38 ; Isa. xliv. 12 ; 
 Jer. x.). 4. Soldering and welting parts of metal 
 together (Isa. xli 7). 5. Smoothing and polish- 
 ing metals (1 Kings vii. 45). 6. Overlaying 
 
 with plates of gold and silver and copper (Exod. 
 xxv. 11-24; 1 Kings vi. 20; 2 Chron. iii. 5; 
 comp. Isa. xl. 19). The execution of these dif- 
 ferent metallurgic operations appears to have 
 farmed three distinct branches of handicraft be- 
 fore the Exile; for we read of the blacksmith, by 
 the name of the ‘ worker in iron ’ ((?nn wn, 
 Isa. xliv. 12); the brass-founder (1 Kings vii. 
 14); and the gold and silversmith (Judg. xvii. 
 4 ; Mai. iii. 2). 
 
 Tbe invention of the metallurgic arts is in 
 Scripture ascribed toTubal-cain (Gen. iv. 22). In 
 later times the manufacture of useful utensils and 
 implements in metals seems to have been carried 
 on to a considerable extent among the Israelites, 
 if we may judge from the frequent allusions to 
 them by the poets and prophets. But it does not 
 appear that, in the finer and more elaborate 
 branches of this great art, they made much, if 
 any progress, during the flourishing times of their 
 commonwealth ; and it will be remembered that 
 Solomon was obliged to obtain assistance from the 
 Phoenicians in executing the metal work of the 
 temple (1 Kings vii. 13). 
 
 The Hebrew workers in iron, and especially 
 such as made arms, were frequently carried away 
 by the different conquerors of the Israelites (1 Sam. 
 xiii. 19; 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 15; Jer. xxiv. 1; 
 xxix. 2) ; which is one circumstance among others 
 to show the high estimation in which this branch 
 of handicraft was anciently held. 
 
 METHUSAEL (*?NK«inp, man of God ; 
 Sept MatfoueraAa), son of Mehujael, of the race of 
 Cain (G;n. iv. 18). 
 
 MIC AH. 331 
 
 METHUSELAH (nfe-inp, man of the lust; 
 Sept. MaOovaaKa), son of Enoch, and remarkable 
 as being the oldest of those antediluvian patriarchs 
 whose great ages are recorded (Gen. v. 21, 22). 
 At the age of 187 years he begat Lamech (the 
 father of Noah); after which he lived 782 years, 
 making altogether 9G9 years [Longevity]. 
 
 MEZUZOTH (niUP). This word is found 
 in Exod. xii. 17, 22 ; Dent. vi. 9 ; and in other 
 places, in all of which it signifies ‘ door-posts.’ 
 It has no other meaning in Scripture. In the 
 texts now referred to, the word occurs in the in- 
 junction, ‘Thou shalt never forget the laws of 
 the Lord thy God ; but shalt write them on the 
 posts of thy house, and on thy gates.’ This, 
 contrary to most Christian interpreters, the Jews 
 understand in the literal sense ; and in this 
 sense it might have been followed in the East, 
 where it is at this day not unusual for the 
 Moslems to inscribe on or over the gates, and on 
 other parts of buildings, passages from their sacred 
 book, the Koran. If therefore the Jews, before their 
 dispersion, interpreted this precept literally, they 
 probably applied it in the same manner. But 
 when they came into western countries, where 
 such was not the custom, and where ofttimes it 
 might have proved inconvenient thus to point out 
 their houses as those belonging to Jews, they 
 adopted the custom of writing the precepts on 
 scrolls of parchment, which they enclosed in a case 
 and attached to the doors of their houses and 
 chambers. To the scrolls thus enclosed the name 
 of mezuzoth is, not very properly, given. 
 
 The mezuzah (singular) then is a piece of 
 parchment, prepared for the purpose according to 
 the rules laid down by the rabbins, on 
 which, with ink prepared with the same 
 care, are written the words containing the 
 precept, namely, Deut. vi. 4-9 ; xi. 13- 
 30. The parchment is then rolled up, 
 with the ends of the lines inward; the 
 Hebrew word Shaddai, ‘ Almighty,’ 
 is then inscribed on the outside, and 
 the roll is put into a cane, or a cylin- 
 drical tube of lead, in which a hole is 
 cut that, the word may appear. This 
 tub® is fastened to the door-post by a nail 
 at each end. The fixing of it is accom- 
 panied by the prayer, ‘ Blessed art thou, 
 
 O Lord our God, King of the Universe, 
 who hast commanded us to fix the Me- 
 zuzah !’ The injunction in the law being 
 in the plural number, ‘ upon the posts 
 of thy house and of thy gates/ it is con- 
 cluded that Mezuzoth ought to be fixed 
 on all the doors of dwelling-houses, 
 whether palaces, bed-rooms, kitchens, or 
 cellars, on the doors of barns or storehouses, or 
 on the gates of cities or towns. The Mezuzah is 
 generally placed on the right side of the entrance, 
 and those who are deemed the most devout 
 Israelites often touch and kiss it as they pass. 
 The synagogue being a house of prayer, and not 
 of residence, requires no Mezuzoth. Talm. Bah. 
 tit. Sabbat. 10; Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. pp. 4S2- 
 487 ; Leo Modena, Rites a?id Customs , pt. i 
 ch. ii. § iii. ; Allen’s Modern Judaism , pp. 327- 
 329. 
 
 MIC AH (np'p ; Sept. Mixalas), one of th* 
 twelve Minor Prophets who, according to th« la- 
 
 A 
 
 @ 
 
334 
 
 MIC ATI. 
 
 MIC AH. 
 
 •cviptivtnof the look, prophesiel during the reigns 
 of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (b.c. 759-699), 
 and was consequently contemporary with Isaiah. 
 It is however doubtful whether any accurate sepa- 
 ration of the particular prophecies of Micah can 
 be ascertained. He was a native of Moresheth of 
 Gath (i. 14, 15), so called to distinguish it from 
 another town of the same name, in the tribe of 
 Judah (Josh. xv. 44; 2 Chron. xiv. 9, 10). 
 Micah is to be distinguished from a former pro- 
 phet of the same name, called also Micaiah, men- 
 tioned in 1 Kings xxii. 8 (b.c. 897). The allu- 
 sions to idolatry (vii. 13) and to Babylon (iv. 10) 
 have induced Berthold to refer the prophecy of 
 Micah to the time of the captivity : but. De 
 M'ette truly observes that this supposition is un- 
 necessary, as idolatry existed under Hezekiah 
 (2 Kings xxiii.), and Babylon equally belonged 
 to the kingdom of Assyria. Hartmann’s attempt 
 to regard the passage respecting Babylon as an in- 
 terpolation (see Micah neu ubersetzt') De Wette 
 regards as even still more venturesome ; nor had 
 this writer the slightest authority for supposing 
 that some only of the prophecies are Micah s, and 
 that the work was compiled during the exile. 
 In fact, the period of Micah's predictions is fully 
 attested by Jeremiah (xxvi. 18, 19), where it is 
 stated that Micah the Morasthite foretold the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah. 
 It is a matter of dispute whether the passage 
 in ch. iv. 13 is borrowed from Isaiah, ii. 2, 4, or 
 whether the passage in Micah is the original, 
 if, indeed, both may not be derived from a com- 
 mon and more ancient source. Ilengstenberg 
 ( Ckristology ) strongly maintains the originality 
 of this passage in Micah. De Wette ( Einleitung ) 
 observes that we have the best reason for regarding 
 the last years of Ahaz as the period of Micah’s 
 prophetic glory. 
 
 The contents of Micah’s prophecy may be 
 briefly summed up. It consists of two parts, the 
 first of which terminates with chapter v. He 
 commences with a majestic exordium (i. 2-4), in 
 which is introduced a sublime theophany, the 
 Lord descending from his dwelling-place to judge 
 the nations of the earth, who are approaching to 
 receive judgment. There is then a sudden trans- 
 ition to the judgment of Israel, whose captivity 
 is predicted (chaps, i. and ii.). That of Judah 
 follows, when the complete destruction of Jeru- 
 salem is foretold, with the expatriation of the 
 Jews to Babylon, their future return, the glories 
 of Sion, and the celebrity of its temple (iv. 1, 8, 9, 
 12), with the chastisement prepared for the op- 
 pressors of the Jews (ver. 13). After this, glorious 
 wars are seen in perspective, attended with 
 great slaughter (ch. v.) ; after many calamities 
 a ruler is seen to arise from Bethlehem. An in- 
 vasion of the Assyrians is predicted, to oppose 
 which there will be no want of able leaders (v. 
 4-8). A new monarchy is beheld, attended with 
 wars and destruction. 
 
 The second part, from this to the end, consists 
 of an elegant dialogue or-' contestation between 
 the Lord and his people, in which the corruption 
 of their morals is reproved, and their chastise- 
 ment threatened ; but they are consoled by the 
 promise of a return from their captivity. 
 
 Jahn ( Introd .) points out the following pre- 
 dictions as contained in the prophet Micah. 
 1. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel, 
 
 which was impending when the prophecy wai 
 delivered, and which was fulfilled in the taking 
 of Samaria bv Shalmaneser, in the sixth year of 
 Hezekiah (2 Kings xvii.), and then that of the 
 kingdom of Judah, with the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem (iii. 12; vii. 13). 2. The Babylonian 
 
 captivity (iv. 10, 11 : vii. 7, 8, 13). These pre- 
 dictions were delivered 150 years before the event, 
 when the Chaldaeans, by whom they were accom- 
 plished. were scarcely known as a people. 3. The 
 return from the exile, with its happy effects, and 
 the tranquillity enjoyed by the Jews under the 
 Persian and Grecian monarchies, which referred 
 to events from 200 to 500 years distant (iv. 18; 
 vii. 11; xiv. 12). 4. The heroic deeds of the 
 
 Maccabees, and their victories over the Syrians or 
 Syro- Macedonians, called Assyrians in Micah v., 
 as well as Zechariah x. 11 (iv. 13). 5. The esta- 
 blishment of the royal residence in Sion (iv. 8). 
 6. The birth and reign of the Messiah (v. 2). 
 The three last prophecies, observes this learned 
 writer, are more obscure than the others, by rea- 
 son of the remote distance, in point of time, of 
 their accomplishment, from the period of their 
 being delivered. 
 
 There is no prophecy in Micah so interesting to 
 the Christian as that in which the native place of 
 the Messiah is announced. ‘ But thou, Bethlehem 
 Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thou- 
 sands of Judah, [yetj out of thee shall he come 
 forth unto me, [that is] to be ruler in Israel’ (Eng. 
 Authorized Version). It is thus translated by 
 the Sept : Kal av Brj6Aee/J. dittos rod ’E <ppa6a, 
 oAiyoarbs el tow eivai iv xiAicunv TooSa’ etc trod 
 fioi e^eAevaerat gyov/xevos tov eivai els &pxovra 
 iv t $ ’IaparjA : — ‘And thou, Bethlehem, house of 
 Ephratah, although thou be least among the thou- 
 sands of Judah, out of thee shall come unto me 
 one that shall be a ruler of Israel.’ The citation 
 of this passage by the Evangelist differs both from 
 the Hebrew and the Septuagint : Kal av BrjdAeeju 
 yrj ’I ovSa, ovSajucos iAaxiarr} el iv rots r\yep.6aiv 
 ’IooSa - itt aov yap i^eAevaerai riyov/ievos, octis 
 noi/aave? t bv Aa6v fxou rbv ’ lapaiiA : — ‘ And thou, 
 Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, art not the 
 least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee 
 shall come a governor, that shall rule [Gr. feed] 
 my people Israel 1 (Matt. ii. 6). The difference, 
 however, is but verbal. Some suppose that the 
 negative (oySa/usDs) originally belonged to the 
 Hebrew, and others to the Greek, while many 
 read the Hebrew interrogatively, ‘ art thou little,’ 
 &c. ? Eichhorn supposes that the Greek trans- 
 lator of St. Matthew’s Gospel interchanged 
 thousands , with rulers. 
 
 Of more importance is the application of the 
 prophecy. It is evident that the Jews in the time 
 of Jesus interpreted this passage of the birth-place 
 of the Messiah (Matt. ii. 5; John vii. 41, 42). 
 The later Rabbinical writers, however, such as 
 Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Abarbanel, &c., have main- 
 tained that it had only an indirect reference to 
 the birth-place of the Messiah, who was to be a 
 descendant of David, a Bethlehemite, but not of 
 necessity himself born in Bethlehem. Others, 
 however, as David Ganz (B. Zemach David), 
 expressly mention Bethlehem as the birth-place 
 of the Messiah. The interpretation which con- 
 sidered this prophecy as intimating only that the 
 
MIC AH. 
 
 MICHAEL. 
 
 335 
 
 Messiah was to be a descendant of David, was 
 that current among the Jews in the time of 
 Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthy- 
 miu8 Zigabeuus, from whom we learn that it was 
 maintained to have been fulfilled in Zerubbabel, 
 the leader of the Jews on their return from Ba- 
 bylon, of which, and not of Bethlehem, he was a 
 native. This interpretation was held among 
 Christians by the celebrated Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia (as we learn from his condemnation by 
 the council at Rome under Pope Vigil ius), and 
 afterwards by Grotius ( Comment .), who, however, 
 regarded Zerubbabel as a type of Christ, and 
 considered Christ's birth-place at Bethlehem as 
 an outward representation of his descent from the 
 family of David. ‘ Natus ex Bethlehemo Zoro- 
 babel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis familia esset, 
 quae orta Betldehemi.' Many of the moderns 
 have been attached to this interpretation of the 
 prophecy, referring : t *o "he general idea of the 
 Messiah rarher than to Zerubbabel, while some 
 among them have, after the example of some 
 Jews, ventured to assert that the account of the 
 birth of Christ at Bethlehem was not to be de- 
 pended on. Some have asserted after Jerome 
 (Comm, in Mic.), that the citation in Matt. ii. 6 
 is that of the Sanhedrim only, not of the Evan- 
 gelist (Hengstenberg's Christology). Jahn ( Ap- 
 pend. Hermeneut.) observes that it is evident that 
 the Jews in the time of Christ expected the Mes- 
 siah's birth to take place at Bethlehem ; and 
 although he admits that the prophecy may be 
 understood tropically in the sense applied to it by 
 Grotius, he contends that the conlext will not 
 admit of its applicability either to Hezekiah or 
 any other monarch than the Messiah ; nor is it 
 possible to apply the prophecy fully and literally 
 to any but Him who was not only of the house 
 and lineage of David, but was actually born at 
 Bethlehem, according to the direct testimony of 
 both St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels. 
 
 The style of Micah is sublime and vehement, 
 in which respects he exceeds Amos and Hosea. 
 De Wette observes that he has more roundness, 
 fulness, and clearness in his style and rhythm 
 than the latter prophet. He abounds in rapid 
 transitions and elegant tropes, and piquant plays 
 upon words. He is successful in the use of 
 the dialogue, and his prophecies are penetrated 
 by the purest spirit of morality and piety (see 
 especially ch. vi. 6-8; and vii. 1-10.) 
 
 Micah is the third of the minor prophets accord- 
 ing to the arrangement of the Septuagint, the sixth 
 according to the Hebrew, and the fifth according 
 to the date of his prophecies. 
 
 See, besides the works on the minor prophecies 
 collectively in De Wette's Introd., Pococke's 
 Commentary on Micah ; Groseschopf 's Micah 
 Uebersetzt ; and Jahns and Eichhorn’s Intro- 
 ductions . — W. W. 
 
 2. MICAH. An Ephraimite, apparently con- 
 temporary with the elders who outlived Joshua, 
 lie secretly appropriated 1 100 shekels of silver 
 which his mother had saved ; but being alarmed 
 at her imprecations on the author of her loss, he 
 confessed the matter to her, and restored the 
 money. She then forgave him, and returned him 
 tire sliver, to be applied to the use for which it 
 had been accumulated. Two hundred shekels of 
 the amount were given to the founder, as the co9t or 
 material of two teraphim, tire one molten and the 
 
 other graven ; and the rest of th money served to 
 cover the other expenses of the semi-idolatrous 
 establishment which was formed in the house of 
 Micah, of which a wandering Levite became the 
 priest, at a yearly stipend ; till the Danite army, 
 oti their journey to settle northward in Laish, took 
 away both the establishment and the priest, which 
 they afterwards maintained in their new settle- 
 ment (Judg. xvii. 18) [Dan ; Jonathan 2J. 
 The establishments of this kind, of which there 
 are other instances — as that of Gideon at Ophrah 
 — were, although most mistakenly, formed in 
 honour of Jehovah, whom they thus sought to 
 serve by means of a local worship, in imitation of 
 that at Shiloh. This was in direct contravention 
 of the law, which allowed but one place of sacri- 
 fice and ceremonial service ; and was something 
 of the same kind, although different in extent and 
 degree, as the service of tire golden calves, which 
 Jeroboam set up, and his successors maintained, 
 in Dan and Bethel. The previous existence of 
 Micah’s establishment in the former city no doubt 
 pointed it out to Jeroboam as a suitable place for 
 one of his golden calves. 
 
 MICAIAH (IT^P, who as Jehovah ? Sept. 
 Mi^cdor;), a prophet of the time of Ahab. Pie 
 was absent from the mob of false prophets who 
 incited the kings of Israel and Judah to march 
 against the Syrians in Ramoth-gilead ; for Ahab, 
 having been offended by his sincerity and bold- 
 ness, had not called for him on this occasion. 
 But he was sent for at the special desire of Jeho- 
 shaphat ; and as he declared against the enterprise, 
 which the other prophets encouraged, Ahab com- 
 manded him to be imprisoned, and allowed only 
 ‘bread and water of affliction’ till he returned 
 from the wars in peace. To which the prophet 
 ominously answered, ‘ If thou return at all in 
 peace, then the Lord hath not spoken by me’ 
 (1 Kings xxii. 8-28). The event corresponded 
 with this intimation [Ahab] ; but we have no 
 further information concerning the prophet. 
 
 2. MICAIAH. One of the princes whom 
 Jehoshaphat sent to ‘ teach in the cities of Judah 
 (2 Chron. xviii. 7). 
 
 3. MICHAIAH, son of Gemariah, who, after 
 having heard Baruch read the terrible predictions 
 of Jeremiah in his father’s hall, went, apparently 
 with good intentions, to report to the king’s officers 
 what he had heard (Jer. xxxvi. 11-13). 
 
 MICHAEL who as God? Sept. 
 
 Mixar}\), the name given to one of the chief 
 angels, who, in Dan. x. 13-21, is described as 
 having special charge of the Israelites as a nation ; 
 and in Jude 9, as disputing with Satan about the 
 body of Moses, in which dispute, instead of bring- 
 ing against the arch-enemy any railing accusation, 
 he only said, ‘ The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan !’ 
 Again, in Rev. xii. 7-9, Michael and his angels 
 are represented as warring with Satan and his 
 angels in the upper regions (iv rip ovpai/w), from 
 which the latter are cast down upon the earth. 
 This is all the reference to Michael which we find 
 in the Bible. 
 
 On the authority of the first of these texts the 
 Jews have made Michael not only one of the 
 ‘ seven ’ archangels, but the chief of them ; and 
 on the authority of all three the Christian church 
 has been disposed to concur in this impression. 
 
336 
 
 MICHAL. 
 
 MIDIANITES. 
 
 The Jews regard the archangels as being such, 
 not simply as a class by themselves, but as 
 respectively the chiefs of the several classes into 
 which they suppose the angels to be divided ; 
 and of these classes Michael is the head of the 
 lirst, and therefore chief of all the archangels 
 (Sepher Othioth, fob 16). 
 
 The passages in Daniel and Revelations must 
 be taken as symbolical, and in that view offer 
 little difficulty. The allusion in Jude 9 is more 
 difficult to understand, unless, with Vitringa, 
 Lardner, Macknight, and others, we regard it also 
 as symbolical ; in which case the dispute referred 
 to is that indicated in Zech. iii. 1 ; and ‘ the body 
 of Moses ’ as a symbolical phrase for the Mosaical 
 law and institutions [Jude]. A comparison of 
 Jude 9 with Zech. iii. 1 gives much force and 
 probability to this conjecture. 
 
 MICHAL (^'0, who as Godf Sept. Me\- 
 youngest daughter of king Saul (1 Sam. xiv. 
 49). She became attached to David, and made no 
 secret of her love ; so that Saul, after he had dis- 
 appointed David of the elder daughter [Merab], 
 deemed it prudent to bestow Michal in marriage 
 upon him (T Sam. xviii. 20-28). Saul had hoped 
 to make her the instrument of his designs against 
 David, but was foiled in his attempt through the 
 devoted attachment of the wife to her husband. Of 
 this a most memorable instance is given in 1 Sam. 
 xix. 11-17. When David escaped the javelin 
 of Saul he retired to his own house, upon which 
 die king set a guard over-night, with the inten- 
 tion to slay him in the morning. This being dis- 
 covered by Michal, she assisted him to make 
 his escape by a window, and afterwards amused 
 the intended assassins under various pretences, in 
 order to retard the pursuit. * She took an image 
 ( tsraph ), and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow 
 of goats' hair for a bolster, and covered it with a 
 cloth.’ This she pretended was David, sick in 
 bed ; and it was not until Saul had commanded 
 him to be brought forth even in t hat state, that the 
 deception was discovered. Michal then pretended 
 to her father that David had threatened her with 
 death if she did not assist his escape. Saul pro- 
 bably did not believe this ; but he took advantage 
 of it by cancelling the marriage, and bestowing 
 her upon a person named Phalli (2 Sam. xxv. 44). 
 David, however, as the divorce had been without 
 his consent, felt that the law (Deut. xxiv. 4) 
 against a husband taking back a divorced wife 
 could not apply in this case : he therefore formally 
 reclaimed her of Ish-bosheth, who employed no less 
 a personage than Abner to take her from Phalti, 
 and conduct her with all honour to David. It 
 was under cover of this mission that Abner 
 sounded the elders of Israel respecting their ac- 
 ceptance of David for king, and conferred with 
 David himself on the same subject at Hebron 
 (2 Sam. iii. 12-21). As this demand was not 
 made by David until Abner had contrived to 
 intimate his design, it has been supposed by some 
 that it was contrived between them solely to 
 afford Abner an ostensible errand in goiv.g to 
 Hebron ; but it is more pleasant to suppose that, 
 although the matter happened to be so timed as to 
 give a colour to this suspicion, the demand really 
 arose from David's revived affection for his first 
 wife and earliest love. 
 
 The re-union was less happy than might have 
 
 been hoped. On that great day when the ark 
 was brought to Jerusalem, Michal viewed the 
 procession from a window, anil the royal notions 
 she had imbibed were so shocked at the sight of 
 the king not only taking part in, but leading, 
 the holy transports of his people, that she met him 
 on his return home with a keen sarcasm on his 
 undignified and unkingly behaviour. This ill- 
 timed sneer, and the unsympathising state of 
 feeling which it manifested, drew from David a 
 severe but not unmerited retort ; and the Great 
 King, in whose honour David incurred this con- 
 tumely, seems to have punished the wrong done 
 to him, for we are told that ‘ therefore Michal, 
 the daughter of Saul, had no chijd to the day of 
 her death’ (2 Sam vi. 16-23). It was thus, per- 
 haps, as Abarbanel remarks, ordered by Pro- 
 vidence that the race of Saul and David should 
 not be mixed, and that no one deriving any ap- 
 . parent right from Saul should succeed to the 
 throne. 
 
 _ MICHMAS, or Michmash (DEOp, PODO, 
 
 5 Sept. Ma^ay), a town of Benjamin 
 (Ezra ii. 27; Neh. xi. 31; comp. vii. 31), east 
 of Beth-aven (1 Sam. xiii. 5), and south from 
 Migron, on the road to Jerusalem (Isa. x. 28). 
 The words of 1 Sam. xiii. 2, xiv. 4, and Isa. x. 29, 
 show that at Michmas was a pass where the pro- 
 gress of a military body might be impeded or 
 opposed. It was perhaps for this reason that 
 Jonathan Maccabaeus fixed his abode at Mich- 
 mas (1 Macc. ix. 73) ; and it is from the 
 chivalrous exploit of another hero of the same 
 name, the son of Saul, that the place is chiefly 
 celebrated (1 Sam. xiii, xiv., 4-16). Eusebius 
 describes Michmas as a large village nine R. 
 miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Ramah 
 ( Onomast. s. v. Ma^juo). Travellers have usually 
 identified it with Bir or El-Bireh ; but Dr. 
 Robinson ( Researches , ii. 117) recognises it in 
 a place still bearing the name of Mukhmas, at 
 a distance and position which correspond well 
 with these intimations. This is a village situated 
 upon a slope to the north of a valley called Wady 
 es-Suweinit. It is small, and almost desolate, 
 but bears marks of having been once a place 
 of strength and importance. There are many 
 foundations of hewn stones, and some columns 
 lie among them. The valley es-Suweinit, steep 
 and precipitous, is probably the ‘passage of Mich- 
 mash’ mentioned in Scripture. In it, says Dr. 
 Robinson, ‘just at the left of where we crossed, 
 are two hills of a conical, or rather spherical, 
 form, having steep rocky sides, with small wadys 
 running up between each so as almost to isolate 
 them. One of them is on the side towards Jeba 
 (Gibeah), and the other towards Mukhmas. 
 These would seem to be the two rocks men- 
 tioned in connection with Jonathan’s adventure 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 4, 5). They are not, indeed, so 
 “sharp" as the language of Scripture would seem 
 to imply ; but they are the only rocks of the 
 kind in this vicinity. The northern one is con- 
 nected towards the west with an eminence still 
 more distinctly isolated.’ 
 
 MIDIAN, fourth son of Abraham by Keturab, 
 and progenitor of the Midianites (Gen. xxv. 2). 
 
 MIDIANITES (DW&; Sept. MaS.waVcu, 
 MaSirivaloi), a tribe of people descended froa 
 
MIDIANITES. 
 
 MIGRON. 
 
 337 
 
 Abiaham’s son Midian. His descendants must 
 aave settled in Arabia, and engaged in trade at 
 an early period, if we identify them with those 
 who in the time of Jacob appear, along witli the 
 Ishmaelites, as merchants travelling from Gilead 
 to Egypt, and who, having in their way bought 
 Joseph from his brethren, sold him in the latter 
 country (Gen.xxxvii. 28, 36). It is, however, very 
 difficult to conceive that the descendants of a son 
 of Abraham, born so many years after Isaac, had 
 become a tribe of people at the time when the 
 descendants of Isaac himself were so few. One 
 is therefore much inclined to suppose that these 
 Midianites were different and distinct from those 
 descended from Abraham’s son ; and there ap- 
 pears the more ground for this when at a later 
 jjeriotl we find two tribes of Midianites, different 
 in locality and character, and different in their 
 feelings towards the Israelites. If this distinction 
 be admitted, then it would be necessary to seek 
 the earlier Midianites in those dwelling about 
 the eastern arm of the Red Sea, among whom 
 Moses found refuge when ‘he fled from Egypt,’ 
 and whose priest or sheikh was Jethro, who be- 
 came the father-in-law of the future lawgiver 
 (Exod. iii. 1 ; xviii. 5; Num. x. 29). These, 
 if not of Hebrew, would appear to have been of 
 Cushite origin, and descended from Midian the 
 son of Cush. It is certain that some Cushite tribes 
 did settle in and on the outskirts of Arabia, 
 which was therefore called Cush, in common 
 with other districts occupied by Cushite tribes ; 
 and, under this view, it is observable that the wife 
 of Moses is called a Cushite (Num. xii. 1), and 
 that, in Hab. iii. 7, the Midianites are named 
 with the Cushites ; for these are undoubtedly the 
 Midianites who trembled for fear when they lieam 
 that the Israelites had passed through the Red 
 Sea. We do not again meet witn these Midian- 
 ites in the Jewish history, but they appear to have 
 remained for a long time settled in the same 
 quarter, where indeed is the seat ot trie only 
 Midianites known to Oriental authors. The 
 Arabian geographers of the middle age (Edrisi, 
 Ibn el Ward:, and Abulfeda) speak of the ruins 
 of an ancient town called Madian on the eastern 
 side of the Red Sea, where was still to be seen 
 the well at which Moses watered the flocks of 
 Shoaib, or Jethro. This was doubtless the same 
 as Modiana, a town in the same district, men- 
 tioned by Ptolemy (Geoff. \. 19); and Niebuhr 
 conjectures that the site is now occupied by 
 Moiiah, a small town or village on the Red Sea, 
 on the Hadj road from Egypt (Descript. Arab. 
 [>. 377) ; but, as Rosenmuller remarks (Bibl. 
 Geoff, iii. 224), this place is too far south to be 
 identified with the Midian of Jethro. 
 
 The other Midianites, undoubtedly descended 
 from Abraham and Ketuuah, occupied the coun- 
 try east and south-east of the Moaoites, who were 
 seated on the east of the Dead Sea ; or rather, 
 perhaps, we should say that, as tney appear to 
 oave been a semi-nomade people, they pastured 
 their focks in the unsettled country beyond the 
 Moabites, with whom, as a kindred, although 
 more settled tribe, they seem to have been on 
 the most friendly terms, and on whose borders 
 were situated those ‘ cities and goodly castles 
 which they possessed’ (Num. xxxi. 10). It will, 
 in fact, much contribute to the better understand- 
 ing of the passages in which the Midianites ap- 
 von. ii. 23 
 
 pear, if it be understood that they were still in a 
 great degree a nomade people, extending their 
 wanderings far beyond any limits to which we 
 might confine their territorial possessions. These 
 Midianites, like the other tribes and nations who 
 had a common origin with them, were highly 
 hostile to the Israelites. In conjunction with the 
 Moabites, they designedly enticed them to idol- 
 atry as they approached Canaan (Num. xxxi. 2, 
 5; xxv. 6, 14-18); on which account Moses at- 
 tacked them with a strong force, killed all their 
 fighting men, including their five princes or emirs, 
 and made the women and children captives 
 (Num. xxxi.). The account of the spoil con- 
 firms the view which we have taken of the semi- 
 nomade position of the Midianites — namely, 
 
 675.000 sheep, 72,000 beeves, 61,000 asses, 
 
 32.000 persons. This was only the ‘prey,’ or 
 live stock ; but besides this there was a great 
 quantity of ‘ barbaric pearl and gold,’ in the 
 shape of ‘jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, 
 lings, ear-rings, and tablets.’ 
 
 Some time after the Israelites obtained pos- 
 session of Canaan, the Midianites bad become so 
 numerous and powerful, that, for seven successive 
 years, they made inroads into the Hebrew territory 
 in the time of harvest, carrying off the fruits and 
 cattle, and desolating the land. At length Gi- 
 deon was raised up as the deliverer of his country, 
 and his triumph was so complete that the Israel- 
 ites were never mure molested by them (Judg. 
 vi. 1-7 ; vii. ; viii.). Their mode of invasion ii 
 a vast horde for this purpose, and at the time ot 
 in-gathering, corroborates the view we have taken 
 of the essentially nomade character of these Mi- 
 dianites ; and, in the account of the spoil, we have 
 an indication of ‘camels,’ which were alone ne- 
 cessary in addition to the former list, to stamp 
 their character (Judg. viii. 26 ; comp. Isa. lx. 6), 
 Here also there is the same display of personal 
 ornament which was noticed on the former oc- 
 casion : — : Golden ear-lings, ornaments, collars,, 
 purple raiment that was on the kings of Midian, 
 and chains that; were about their camels’ necks.’ 
 To this victory there are subsequent allusions in 
 the sacred writings (Ps. lxxxiii. 10, 12; Isa. ix. 
 4 ; x. 6) ; but the Midianites do not again appear 
 in sacred or profane history. 
 
 MIGDGL ( L /n?P ; Sept. McryCwAos, MaySwr- 
 \6v), a place between which and the Hed Sea the 
 Israelites were commanded to encamp on leaving 
 Egypt (Exod. xiv. 2; Num. xxxiii. 7) [Exo- 
 dus]. The name, which means a tower, appears 
 to indicate a fortified place. In Jer. xliv. 1 
 xlvi. 14, it occurs as a city of Egypt, and it 
 would seem to have been the last town on the 
 Egyptian frontier, in the direction of the Red Sea : 
 hence ‘ fromMigdol to Syene,’ in Ezek. xxix. 10 ; 
 xxx. 6, 
 
 MIGRON (fn3D ; Sept. M aydciv), a town 
 which, from the historical indications, must have 
 been south or south-west of Ai, and north of Mich- 
 mas (Isa. x„ 28). From Michmas northward a 
 narrow valley extends out of and at right angles 
 with that which has been identified as the pass of 
 Michmas [Michmas]. The town of Migran seems 
 to have been upon and to have commanded the pass 
 through this valley, but its precise situation has 
 not been determined. Saul was stationed at the 
 further side of Gibeah, ‘ under a pomegranaie-tree 
 
338 
 
 MILK. 
 
 MILK. 
 
 which is by Migron ’ (1 Sam. xiv. 2), when Jo- 
 nathan performed his great exploit at Michmas; 
 and this is to be explained on the supposition that 
 Migron was on the border, towards Michmas, of 
 the district to which Gibeah gave its name. 
 MILCOM. [Moi.och.] 
 
 MILE (fiiAtov). This word is only mentioned 
 in Matt. v. 41, where Christ says, ‘ If any one 
 compel thee to go with him one mile, go with him 
 two.’ The mile was originally (as its derivation 
 from mille, ‘a thousand,’ implies) a Roman mea- 
 sure of 1000 geometrical paces ( passus ) of 5 
 feet each, and was therefore equal to 5000 Roman 
 feet. Taking the Roman foot at 11 6496 English 
 inches, the Roman mile would be 1 6 1 S English 
 yards, or 142 yards less than the English statute 
 mile. By another calculation, in which the foot 
 is taken at 11-62 inches, the mile would be little 
 more than 1614 yards. The number of Roman 
 miles in a degree of a large circleof the earth is very 
 little more than 75. The most common Latin term 
 for the mile is mille passuum, or only the initials 
 M.P. ; sometimes the word passutim is omitted. 
 The Roman mile contained 8 Greek stadia (see 
 Smith’s Diet, of Greek and Rom. Antiq., art. 
 
 ‘ Milliare ’). The Greek stade hence bore the 
 same relation to the Roman mile which the Eng- 
 lish furlong does to the English mile : and it is 
 indeed usual with the earlier writers on Biblical 
 geography to translate the Greek ‘ stade ’ into the 
 English ‘ furlong,’ in stating the measurements of 
 Eusebius and Jerome. As the measurements of 
 these writers are often cited in the present work, 
 it is necessary to remember that their mile is 
 always the Roman mile. 
 
 MILETUS (yii\T]Tos), a city and seaport of 
 Ionia in Asia Minor, about thirty-six miles south 
 of Ephesus. St. Paul touched at this port on his 
 voyage from Greece to Syria, and delivered to the 
 elders of Ephesus, who had come to meet him 
 there, a remarkable and affecting address (Acts 
 xx. 15-38). Miletus was a place of considerable 
 note, and the ancient capital of Ionia and Caria. 
 
 It was the birth-place of several men of renown — 
 Thales, Timotheus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, 
 Democritus (Pomp. Mela, i. 17; Diog. Luert. Vit. 
 Philosoph. pp. 15, 88, 89, 650). Ptolemy ( Geog r. 
 v. 2) places Miletus in Caria by the sea, and it 
 is stated to have had four havens, one of which 
 was capable of holding a fleet. It was noted 
 for a famous temple of Apollo, the oracle of which 
 is known to have been consulted so late as the 
 fourth century (Apollodorus, De Orig. Deor. iii. 
 130). There was, however, a Christian church in 
 the place; and in the fifth, seventh, and eighth 
 centuries we read of bishops of Miletus, who were 
 present at several councils (Magdeburg, Hist. 
 Eccles. ii. 192; iv. 86; v. 3 ; vii. 254; viii. 4). 
 The city fell to decay after its conquest by the 
 Saracens, and is now in ruins, not far from the 
 spot where the Meander falls into the sea. The 
 site bears, among the Turks, the name of Melas. 
 
 Some take the Miletus where Paul left Trophi- 
 mus sick (2 Tim. iv. 20) to have been in Crete, 
 and therefore different from the above ; but there 
 seems no need for this conclusion. 
 
 MILK. The Hebrew word for milk, 2 
 ehalab, is from the same root as cheleb, 
 
 * fatness,’ and is properly restricted to new milk, 
 nnere beipg a distinct term, ilNDn chemah, for 
 
 milk when curdled. Milk, and the preparations 
 from it, butter and cheese, are often mentioned in 
 Scripture. Milk, in its fresh state, appears to 
 have been used very largely among the Hebrews, 
 as is usual among people who have much cattle, 
 and yet make but sparing use of their flesh for 
 food. Tire proportion which fresh milk held 
 in the dietary of the Hebrews, must not, however, 
 be measured by the comparative frequency with 
 which the word occurs; because, in the greater 
 number of examples, it is employed figuratively, 
 to denote great abundance, and in many instances 
 it is used as a general term for all or any of the 
 preparations from it. 
 
 In its figurative use, the word occurs some- 
 times simply as the sign of abundance (Gen. 
 xlix. 12; Ezek. xxv. 4; Joel iii. 18, &c.) ; but 
 more fiequently in combination with honey — 
 ‘milk and honey’ being a phrase which occurs 
 about twenty times in Scripture. Thus a rich and 
 fertile soil is described as a ‘land flowing with 
 milk and honey which, although usually said of 
 Palestine, is also applied to other fruitful coun- 
 tries, as Egypt (Num. xvi. 13). This figure is 
 by no means peculiar to the Hebrews, but is 
 frequently met with in classical writers. A 
 beautiful example occurs in Euripides ( Bacch . 
 
 1 42). Hence its use to denote the food of children. 
 Milk is also constantly employed as a symbol of 
 the elementary parts or rudiments of doctrine (1 
 Cor. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12, 13); and from its purity 
 and simplicity, it is also made to symbolize the 
 unadulterated word of God (1 Pet. ii. 2; comp 
 Isa. Iv. 1). 
 
 In reading of milk in Scripture, the milk of 
 cows naturally presents itself to the mind of the 
 European reader; but in Western Asia, and es- 
 pecially among the pastoral and semi-pastoral 
 people, not only cows, but. goats, sheep, and camels, 
 are made to give their milk for the sustenance o! 
 man. That this was also the case among the 
 Hebrews, may be clearly inferred even from the 
 slight intimations which the Scriptures afford. 
 Thus we read of ‘ butter of kine, and milk of 
 sheep’ (Deut. xxxii. 14); and in Prov. xxvii. 27, 
 the emphatic intimation, ‘Thou shalt have goats’ 
 milk for food,’ seems to imply that this was con- 
 sidered the best for use in the simple state. 
 
 ‘ Thirty milch camels’ were among the cattle 
 which Jacob presented to his brother Esau (Gen. 
 xxxii. 15), implying the use of camels’ milk. 
 
 The word for curdled milk (HXDn) is always 
 translated ‘butter’ in the Authorized Version. 
 It, seems to mean both butter and curdled milk, 
 but most generally the latter ; and the context 
 will, in most cases, suggest the distinction, which 
 has been neglected by our translators. It was 
 this curdled milk, highly esteemed as a re- 
 freshment in the East, that Abraham set before 
 the angels (Gen. xviii. 8), and which Jael gave 
 to Sisera, instead of the water which ne asked 
 (Judg. v. 25). In this state milk acquires a 
 slightly inebriating power, if kept long enough., 
 Isaiah vii. 22, where it is rendered ‘butter,’ is the 
 only text in which the word is coupled with 
 ‘ honey,’ and there it is a sign of scarcity, not of 
 plenty, as when honey is coupled with fresh milk. 
 It means that there being no fruit or grain, the 
 remnant would have to live on milk and honey;, 
 and, perhaps, that milk itself would be so scarce, 
 that it would be needful to use it with economy ; 
 
MI LK. 
 
 MILK 
 
 and hence to curdle it, as fresh milk cannot be 
 preserved for chary use. Although, however, this 
 word properly denotes curdled milk, it seems also 
 to be sometimes used for milk in general (Deut. 
 xxxii. 14; Job xx. 15; Isa. vii. 15). 
 
 The most striking Scriptural allusion to milk 
 is that which forbids a kid to be seethed in its 
 mother’s milk, and its importance is attested by 
 its being thrice repeated (Exod. xxiii. 19; xxx^v. 
 26; Deut. xiv. 21). There is, perhaps, no pre- 
 cept of Scripture which has been more variously 
 interpreted than this, and we may state the most 
 remarkable views respecting it : — 1. That it 
 prohibits the eating of the foetus of the goat as 
 a delicacy : but there is not the least evidence that 
 the Jews were ever attached to this disgusting 
 luxury. 2. That it prevents the kid to be killed 
 till it is eight days old, when, it is said, it might 
 subsist without the milk of its mother. 3. This 
 ground is admitted by those who deduce a further 
 reason from the fact, that a kid was not, until the 
 eighth day, fit for sacrifice. But there appears 
 no good reason why a kid should be described as 
 ‘ in its mother’s milk,’ in those days, more than 
 in any other days of the period during which it is 
 suckled. 4. Others, therefore, maintain that the eat- 
 ing of a sucking kid is altogether and absolutely 
 prohibited. But a goat suckles its kid for three 
 months, and it is not likely that the Jews were 
 so long forbidden the use of it for food. No 
 food is forbidden but as unclean, and a kid 
 ceased to be unclean on the eighth day, when it 
 was fit for sacrifice ; and what was fit for sacri- 
 fice could not be unfit for food. 5. That the 
 prohibition was meant to prevent the dam and 
 kid from being slain at the same time. But this 
 is forbidden with reference to the goat and other 
 animals in express terms, and there seems no 
 reason why it should be repeated in this remarkable 
 form with reference to the goat only. 6. Others 
 understand it literally, as a precept designed to 
 encourage humane feelings. But, as Michaelis 
 asks, how came the Israelites to hit upon the 
 strange whim of boiling a kid in milk, and just 
 in the milk of its own mother 1 ? 7. Still, under- 
 standing the text literally, it is possible that this 
 was not a common act of cookery, but an idola- 
 trous or magical rite. Maimonides, in his More 
 Nevochim , urges this opinion. He says, i Flesh 
 eaten with milk, or in milk, appears to me to have 
 been prohibited, not only because it affords gross 
 nourishment, but because it savoured of idolatry, 
 some of the idolaters probably doing it in their 
 worship, or at their festivals; and I am the more 
 inclined to this opinion from observing that the 
 law, in noticing this practice, does so twice, im- 
 mediately after having spoken of the three great 
 annual feasts (Exod. xxiii. 17, 19; xxxiv. 23, 
 26). “ Three times in the year all thy males 
 
 shall appear before the Lord God Thou 
 
 shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.’’ As if 
 it had been said, “ When ye appear before me in 
 your feasts, ye shall not cook your food after the 
 manner of the idolaters, who are accustomed to 
 this practice.” This reason appears to me of great 
 weight, although I have not yet been able to find 
 it in the Zabian books.’ This is confirmed by 
 an extract which Cudworth ( Discourses concern- 
 ing the True Notion of the Lord's Supper , 
 p. 30) gives from an an dent Karaite commentary 
 #n the Pentateuch. ‘ It was a custom of the 
 
 ,139 
 
 ancient heathen, when they had gathered in all 
 their fruits, to take a kid, and boil it in the 
 dam’s milk, and then in a magical way to go 
 about and besprinkle with it all their frees, and 
 fields, and gardens, and orchards, thinking that 
 by this means they should make them fructify, 
 and bring forth more abundantly the following 
 year.’ Some such rite as this is supposed to be 
 the one interdicted by the prohibition. This 
 opinion is supported by Spencer (JDe Legibus 
 Hebr. ii. 9, sec. 2), and has been advocated by 
 Le Clerc, Dathe, and other able writers. It is 
 also corroborated by the addition in the Samaritan 
 copy, and in some degree by the Targum. The 
 former has ‘ For he who doth this is like a man 
 who sacrificeth an abomination, and it is a tres- 
 pass against the God of Jacob :’ and the latter, 
 
 ‘ O my people, house of Israel, it is not lawful 
 for you to boil or eat flesh and milk mixed 
 .together, lest my wrath be enkindled, and I boil 
 your products, corn and straw, together-’ 8. 
 Michaelis, however, advances a quite new opinion 
 
 of his own. He takes it for granted that 
 rendered ‘ seethe,’ may signify to roast as well as 
 to boil, which is hardly disputable; that the kid's 
 mother is not here limited to the real mother, but 
 applies to any goat that has kidded ; that here 
 denotes not milk but butter ; and that the precept 
 is not restricted to kids, but extends not only to 
 lambs (which is generally granted), but to all 
 other not forbidden animals. Having erected 
 these props, Michaelis builds upon them the con- 
 jecture, that the motive of the precept was to en- 
 dear to the Israelites the land of Canaan, which 
 abounded in oil, and to make them forget their 
 Egyptian butter. Moses, therefore, to prevent 
 their having any longing desire to return to that 
 country, enjoins them to use oil in cooking their 
 victuals, as well as in seasoning their sacrifices 
 ( Mosaisches Recht, pt. iv. p. 210). This is in- 
 genious, but it is open to objection. The postu- 
 lates cannot readily be granted ; and if granted, 
 the conclusion deduced from them is scarcely 
 just, seeing that, as Geddes remarks, ‘there was 
 no need nor temptation for the Israelites to return 
 to Egypt on account of its butter, when they 
 possessed a country that flowed with milk .and 
 honey’ ( Critical Remarks , p. 257). 
 
 Butter is not often mentioned in Scripture, and 
 even less frequently than our version would sug- 
 gest; for, as already intimated, the word ilKDri 
 chemah, must sometimes be understood of curdled 
 milk. Indeed, it may be doubted whether it de- 
 notes butter in any place besides Deut. xxxii. 
 1 4, ‘ butter of kine,’ and Prov. xxx. 33, ‘ the 
 churning of milk bringeth forth butter,’ as all 
 the other texts will apply better to curdled milk 
 than to butter. Butter was, however, doubtless, 
 much in use among the Hebrews, and we may be 
 sure that it was prepared in the same manner as 
 at this day among the Arabs and Syrians. The 
 milk is put into a large copper pan over a slow 
 fire, and a little leben or sour milk (the same a« 
 the curdled milk mentioned above), or a portion 
 of the dried entrails of a lamb, is thrown into it. 
 The milk then separates, and is put into a goat- 
 skin bag, which is tied to one of the tent poles, 
 and constantly moved backwards and forwards 
 for two hours. The buttery substance then coagu- 
 lates, the water is pressed out, and the butter put 
 
340 
 
 MILL. 
 
 MILLENNIUM. 
 
 into another skin. In two days the butter is again 
 placed over the fire, with the addition of a quan- 
 tify of burgoul (wheat boiled with leaven, and dried 
 in the sun), and allowed to boil for some time, 
 during which it is carefully skimmed. It is 
 then found that the burgoul has precipitated all 
 the foreign substances, and that the butter remains 
 quite clear at the top. This is the process used 
 by the Bedouins, and it is also the one employed 
 by the settled people of Syria and Arabia. The 
 chief difference is, that in making butter and 
 cheese the townspeople employ the milk of cows 
 and buffaloes, whereas the Bedouins, who do not 
 keep these animals, use that of sheep and goats. 
 The butter is generally white, of the colour and 
 consistence of lard, and is not much relished by 
 English travellers. It is eaten with bread in 
 large quantities by those who can adord it, not 
 spread out thinly over the surface, as with us, 
 Out. taken in mass with the separate morsels of 
 bread. 
 
 Cheese has been noticed under its proper head. 
 
 MILL (n^>5 i Sept. ijlvAij). The mill for 
 grinding corn had not wholly superseded the 
 mortar for pounding it in the time of Moses. 
 The mortar and the mill are named together 
 in Num. xi. 8. But fine meal, that is, meal 
 ground or pounded fine, is mentioned so early as 
 the time of Abraham (Gen. xviii. C) : hence 
 mills and mortal's must have been previously 
 known. The mill common among the Hebrews 
 differed little from that which is :n use to this 
 day throughout Western Asia and Northern 
 
 400 . 
 
 Africa. It consisted of two circular stones two 
 feet in diameter, and half a foot thick. The lower 
 
 is called the ‘ nether millstone,’ nTUin 
 Job xli. 16 (24), and the upper the ‘rider/ 
 (Judg. ix. 53 ; 2 Sam. xi. 21). The former 
 was usually fixed to the floor, and had a slight 
 elevation in the centre, or in other words, was 
 slightly convex in the upper surface. The upper 
 
 stone had a concavity in its under surface fitting 
 to, or receiving, the convexity of the lower stone. 
 There was a hole in the top, through which the 
 corn was introduced by handfuls at a time. 
 The upper stone had an upright stick fixed in it 
 as a handle, by which it was made to turn upon 
 the lower stone, and by this action the com was 
 ground, and came out at the edges. As there 
 were neither public mills nor bakers, except the 
 king's (Gen. xl. 2 ; IIos. vii. 4-8), each family 
 possessed a mill; and as it was in daily use, it 
 was made an infringement of the law for a person 
 to take another's mill or mill-stone in pledge 
 (Dent. xxiv. 6). On the second day, in warm 
 climates, bread becomes dry and insipid ; hence 
 the necessity of baking every day, and hence also 
 the daily grinding at the mills early in the 
 morning. The operation occasions considerable 
 noise, and its simultaneous performance in a 
 great number of houses or tents forms one of the 
 sounds as indicative of an active population in 
 the East, as the sound of wheel carriages is in the 
 cities of the West. This sound is alluded to in 
 Scripture (Jer. xxv. 10 ; Rev. xviii. 22, 23). 
 The mill was, as now, commonly turned by two 
 persons, usually women, and these, the work 
 being laborious, the lowest maid-servants in the 
 house. They sat. opposite each other. One took 
 hold of the mill-handle, and impelled it halfway 
 round ; the other then seized it, and completed 
 the revolution (Exod. xi. 5; Job xxxi. 10, 11; 
 Isa. xlvii. 2; Matt. xxiv. 41). As the labour 
 was severe and menial, enemies taken in war 
 were often condemned to perform it (Judg. xvi. 
 21 ; Lam. v. 12). (Jalm, Biblischcs Archceol. 
 ix. 139.) It will be seen that this millstone does 
 not materially differ from the Highland quern ; 
 and is, indeed, an obvious resource in those 
 remote quavers, where a population is too thin 
 or too scattered to afford remunerative employ- 
 ment to a miller by trade. In the East this trade 
 is still unknown, the hand-mill being in general 
 and exclusive use among the corn-consuming, 
 and the mortar among the rice-consuming, nations. 
 [Bread.] 
 
 MILLENNIUM. This word is not found in 
 Scripture ; hut as it refers to ideas supposed to 
 be founded in Scripture, a slight notice of it is 
 required. The word denotes the term of a thousand 
 yeais, and. in a theological sense, that thousand 
 yeais mentioned in Rev. xx. 2, 3, 4, 6; dining 
 which Satan is there described as being bound, 
 Christ as reigning triumphant, and the saints as 
 living and reigning with l im. The doctrine in- 
 volved in this view is usually called Millehnarian- 
 ism, but in ecclesiastical history more usually 
 Chiliasm, from the Greek word x'i^ L01 ’ ‘ a thousand.’ 
 As the world was made in six days, and as. ac- 
 cording to Ps. xc. 4, ‘a thousand years are as one 
 day’ in the sight of God, so it was thought the 
 world would continue in the condition in which 
 it had hitherto been for 6000 years ; and as the 
 Sabbath is a day of rest, so will the seventh 
 period of a thousand years consist of this mil- 
 lennial kingdom, as the close of the whole ear; hi y 
 state. 
 
 The Jews supposed that the Messiah at his 
 coming would reign as king upon the earth, and' 
 would reside at Jerusalem, the ancient royal 
 city. The period of his reign they thought 
 would be very long, and it was therefore put 
 
MILLENNIUM. 
 
 MILLENNIUM. 
 
 341 
 
 down as a thousand years, which was at first 
 understood only as a round number. This period 
 was conceived by the Jews as a sort of golden 
 age to the earth, and every one formed such a 
 picture of it as agreed with his own disposition, 
 and with the views concerning the highest felicity 
 which were dictated by the degree of intellectual 
 and moral culture to which he had attained. 
 With many these views were very low, being con- 
 fined to sensual delights, while others entertained 
 better and more pure conceptions of that happy 
 time (Wetstein, Comment, in Rev. xxii. 2; 
 Knapp, Christ. Theolog ., translated by Leonard 
 Woods, Jun. D.D., § 154). 
 
 This notion was taken up by many of the 
 Judaizing Christians : Jesus had not yet appeared 
 as an earthly king, and these persons were un- 
 willing to abandon an expectation which seemed 
 to them so important. They therefore allowed 
 themselves to hope for a second advent of Christ 
 to establish an earthly kingdom, and to this they 
 transferred most if not all of that which in their 
 unconverted state they had expected of the first. 
 The apostles generally seem to have entertained 
 this notion till after the ascension of Christ and 
 the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, whereby they 
 were instructed in the higher verities and myste- 
 ries of the Gos{>el : but that they then abandoned 
 it, and expected no other coming of Christ than 
 that at the judgment of the world, appears clear 
 from 1 Cor. xv. and other passages. The fact 
 that these Jewish notions had taken deep root in 
 the minds of many Christians, even in the aposto- 
 lical age, is however manifest from 1 Thess. iv. 13, 
 sq. v., and 2 Thess. ii. 
 
 From this explanation, Eusebius must be un- 
 derstood with some limitation, when he alleges 
 that the doctrine ‘ took its rise from Papias (a 
 disciple of St. John), a man of slender judg- 
 ment ; but the antiquity of the man prevailed 
 with many to be of that opinion, particularly 
 with Irenaeus’ (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39). This seems 
 to mean, not that Papias was the, first to entertain 
 the opinion, but the first to advance and advo- 
 cate it in writing. It, however, occurs in the 
 Epistle of Barnabas (ch. xv.), which, whatever 
 view be formed of its genuineness, is evidence 
 for the opinions of the age in which it was 
 written. In the second century the opinion seems 
 to have been all but universally received in the 
 wthodox cluarches, and i3 as plainly produced in 
 i:he writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Ter- 
 tulliari, as afterwards in those of Cyprian and 
 Lactan tius. 
 
 Perhaps the most satisfactory view of the 
 opinions on this subject which many sincere, 
 pious, and eyen well-instructed early Christians 
 deemed themselves warranted in entertaining, is 
 that which Semisch has collected out of the 
 writings of Justin Martyr. After the lapse of 
 the appointed time, which the prophet Daniel 
 had foretold, Justin expected the visible return of 
 Christ to earth. The prophets, he affirms, fore- 
 told two advents (w apovaiat). One had al- 
 ready taken place. Iti that Christ appeared as 
 ft sufferer, in a mean and despised firm, dis- 
 honoured, and at last crucified. It will be 
 otherwise at his second appearing. Christ will 
 then visit the earth in splendour and glory, on the 
 clouds of heaven, and s irrounded by the angelic 
 costs, as the judge of mankind. In the very 
 
 place where he was crucified, his murderers will 
 recognise him whom they pierced, and all the 
 tribes shall mourn, tribe by tribe, the men apart, 
 and the women apart ( Apol . i. 52. p. 74 ; Dial 
 c. Tryph. xxxi. p. 128 : xl. p. 137). But before tk;a 
 advent takes place Elias will come (Dial. c. 
 Tryph. xlix. p. 145), agreeably to the prophecy in 
 Mai. iv. 5 ; also the man of apostacy and iniquity, 
 who will utter blasphemies against the Most High, 
 and commit outrages against, the Christians, must 
 precede the re-appearance of the Son of Man. 
 Th is will soon happen, for already the adversary 
 is at the door-(D*aZ. c. Tr. xxxii. p. 129). The 
 immediate object of this return of Christ is the 
 erection of the Millennial kingdom (Dial. li. 147). 
 Christ, Justin says, will come again, in order to 
 make a new heaven and new earth, to reign as 
 king over Salem, and to shine in Jerusalem as an 
 unchangeable light. The fallen city will be 
 restored, changed, and beautified ; all the saints, 
 that is, believing Christians, will rise from the 
 dead, and be assembled in Jerusalem and the 
 Holy Land, in order to take possession of it, 
 there to receive the eternal and unchangeable 
 blessings promised to them, and to rejoice in 
 communion with Christ. Justin dwells with 
 deep emotion on this hope. It was in his esteem 
 a sacred fire, at which he kindled afresh his 
 Christian faith and practice. That this ho)** (in 
 its pure millennarian character and extent) might 
 possibly be vain, never entered his thoughts. He 
 believed that it was supported by Scripture. He 
 expressly appealed to the New Testament Apoca- 
 lypse, and from such passages in the Old Testa- 
 ment as Isa. lxv. 22 (in connection with Gen. ii. 
 17, and v. 5, and Ps. xc. 4), he deduced the mil- 
 lennial period (Dial, lxxxi. 178 sq.\ How could 
 he doubt it ? As to the specific mode in which 
 he conceived that hope, he held the mean between 
 the gross materialism with which the Ebionites 
 (Jerome, Comment . in Jes. lxv. 20; lxvi. 20; in 
 Zech. xiv. 9), Papias (Adv. Hceres. v. 33 ; Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. iii. 39), Irenaeus (Adv. Hceres. v. 
 53), and Laclantius (Instit. Divin. vii. 14) ex- 
 plained it ; and the spiritualizing in which Bar- 
 nabas (Epist. c. 15) and Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 
 iii. 24) indulged. He certainly expected physical 
 enjoyments, and believed that Christ would eat 
 and drink with the members of his kingdom 
 (Dial. c. Tr. li. 147). But he denied the con- 
 tinuance of the sexual functions, being assured 
 from Luke xx. 34, that those who rose again 
 would ‘ neither marry nor be given in marriage, 
 but be as the angels’ (Dial. li. p. 157); and de- 
 picted the state of the elect under the personal reign 
 of Christ as one of blissful unchangeableness, re- 
 pose, and exemption from pain. Thus he says, i At 
 his glorious advent Christ will in every way con- 
 found those who have hated him and unrighteously 
 apostatized from him ; but his own people he will 
 bring to enjoy repose, and fulfil all their expecta- 
 tions’ (Dial. exxi. p. 214). And in another 
 passage, ‘ Whoever is faithful to the doctrine of 
 Jesus, him will Christ raise from the dead at his 
 second advent, and make him immortal, un- 
 changeable, and free from all sorrow’ (Dial. lxix. 
 p. 168). At the close of the thousand years of 
 the personal reign, to enjoy which the saints only 
 were to be raised, Justin expected that the general 
 and final resurrection of all the dead would take 
 place ; but this being the term of the millennial 
 
342 
 
 MILLENNIUM. 
 
 MILLENNIUM. 
 
 period we need not proceed with him further 
 (Semisch, Justin Martyr , his Life, Writings, 
 and Opinions, translated by J. E. Ryland, Edinb. 
 1843, ii. 370-37 6). 
 
 This millennial doctrine may be regarded as 
 generally prevalent in the second century. Origen, 
 in the third century, was the first who wrote in 
 opposition to it, and who gave a different and 
 allegorical interpretation of the texts of Scripture 
 on which the Chiliasts rested their opinion. The 
 anti-materialism of the Alexandrian school neces- 
 sarily led to this opposition. Clement does not 
 once allude to it, anil Origen strenuously opposed 
 it. And this opposition was effectual ; for Ori- 
 gen s pupil, Dionysius (a.d. 223-248), bishop of 
 Alexandria, may be regarded as having com- 
 pletely put down in the Eastern church, by per- 
 sonal argument and by his work irepi iirayytAicbv, 
 the doctrine which his master had attacked. 
 (Knapp, Christ. Theolog. § 154, 2; Gieseler, 
 Eccles. Hist., ch. iii. § 61, 62, 64). 
 
 The blow thus given was followed up in the 
 Latin churches by Augustine, Jerome, and others. 
 Dionysius had been answered by Apollonaicus, 
 and the answer so far satisfied the Latin churches, 
 that it was still the prevailing opinion in them 
 when Jerome wrote. This great man opposed 
 the Chiliasts with characteristic energy. ‘ If,’ 
 says he, ‘ we understand the revelation lite- 
 rally, we must Judaize; if spiritually, as it is 
 written, we shall seem to contradict many of 
 the ancients, particularly the Latin, Tertullian, 
 Victorious, Lactantius, and the Greeks, espe- 
 cially Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, against whom 
 Dionysius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, 
 wrote a curious piece deriding the fable of a 
 thousand years, the terrestrial Jerusalem adorned 
 with gold and precious stones, rebuilding the 
 temple, bloody sacrifices, sabbatical sect, circum- 
 cision, marriages, lyings-in, nursing of children, 
 dainty feasts, and servitude of the nations : and, 
 again, after this, wars, armies, triumphs, and 
 slaughters of conquered enemies, and the death 
 "»f the sinner a hundred years old. Him Apol- 
 .onarius answered in two volumes, whom not only 
 men of his own sect, but most of our own people 
 likewise , follow in this point. So it is no hard 
 matter to foresee what a multitude of persons T 
 am like to displease’ (Hieron. In Es. ii. 18; In 
 Proem., pp. 477, 478). 
 
 The outward prosperity which the church at* 
 tained under Constantine and his successors 
 seems to have done quite as mucli as the argu- 
 ments of these fathers, in putting down a doc- 
 trine which had been cherished as a source of 
 consolation to a suffering and martyr church ; 
 and during the invasions of the northern nations, 
 and the deluge of disasters which flowed in upon 
 the empire, speculation was overborne, and the 
 minds of Christians were absorbed by the com- 
 motion of the times, and the evils endured by 
 them or impending over them. In the age of 
 darkness which succeeded, scarcely a vestige of 
 millennarian doctrine is to be traced ; but in the 
 ferment produced in men’s minds by the Re- 
 formation, it was turned up in Germany by 
 Miincer and his followers, who wished to esta- 
 blish the earthly kingdom of Christ by fire and 
 sword. Hence Luther and Melancthon set them- 
 selves against the doctrine with great zeal and 
 earnest! ess (vide Augsb. Confess., art. 18). Rut 
 
 it was afterwards reproduced in England by ths 
 Fifth Monarchy men, who 'were disposed to carry 
 their notions to the like extremities of infatuation. 
 The writings of the learned Joseph Mede, in the 
 seventeenth century, contributed much to revive 
 the ancient doctrine as a speculative opinion ; 
 and individual writers have, from that time to 
 this, sent forth their speculations, advocating sub- 
 stantially the same views. More especially, within 
 the last ten or fifteen years, the subject has ac- 
 quired anew a considerable degree of prominence, 
 and has given rise in England to an animated 
 controversy, which is at this day dividing the 
 ranks of biblical scholars and theologians. 
 
 Dionysius, the ancient opponent of the mil- 
 lennial doctrine, perceiving that his antagonists 
 derived their chief arguments and illustrations 
 from the Apocalypse, took upon him to deny that 
 that book was written by St. John. 
 
 The modern opponents of the opinion seldom 
 take this ground ; but allege that the Apocalypse 
 (xx. 1-8) does not speak of Christ as reigning 
 visibly and bodily upon the earth, but of his 
 spiritual dominion, resulting from the spread of 
 Christianity, when it shall at length be univer- 
 sally diffused throughout the earth — a kingdom 
 which shall last a thousand years, here used as a 
 round number to denote many centuries, or a long 
 period. A modified expectation and hope, founded 
 substantially on this latter view, sometimes ex- 
 hibits itself in high-toned feeling and flowing lan- 
 guage, which might be taken for downright chili- 
 asm, and which has, indeed, caused many ancient 
 writers to be set down as millennarians, who cer- 
 tainly would have refused the designation. On 
 the other hand, the progress of this doctrine is 
 not to be estimated by the number of those 
 who adopt the name as a distinctive title. 
 Believers in the doctrine, and advocates of it, 
 have been, and are still, found among all deno- 
 minations ; and the number of the gifted and 
 holy men by whom it has been entertained, and 
 to whom it has been a well-spring of hope and 
 comfort, entitles it to the respectful consi- 
 deration even of those who deem it erroneous 
 as a speculative opinion. When soberly en- 
 tertained, there is nothing in it contrary to 
 Christian grace; and it may safely be placed 
 among the notions on which Christians may al- 
 lowably differ. Neander, in his account of this 
 doctrine ( Kirchengesch ., b. i., abth. 3, sec. 1090), 
 suggests the important caution, that we should 
 not allow ourselves, through disgust at the extra- 
 vagant visions of enthusiasts about the millennium, 
 to decide against that which we are really justified 
 in hoping and expecting as to the future exten- 
 sion of the kingdom of Christ. As the Old Tes- 
 tament contains an intimation of the things in the 
 New, so Christianity contains an intimation of a 
 higher order of things hereafter, which it will be the 
 means of introducing ; but faith must necessarily 
 come before sight. The divine revelations enable 
 us to see a little now' and then of this higher order, 
 but not enough to form a complete picture. As 
 prophecy is always obscure until its fulfilment, 
 so must be the last predictions of Christ re- 
 specting the destiny of his church, until the en- 
 trance of this higher order. 
 
 The doctrine is entertained with shades of 
 difference so numerous, that it is difficult to define 
 its characteristics beyond the great leading poin: 
 
MILLO. 
 
 MINGHA. 
 
 34 1 
 
 - — that Christ shall again come in person to live 
 tnd reign witn his saints a thousand years upon 
 the earth. The formal tenets of the millennarians, 
 as a sect, do not materially differ from the no- 
 tions already defined from Justin Martyr. In the 
 most recent account of these tenets (Rupp’s His- 
 tory of the Religious Denominations of the 
 United States , 1844), in which the articles are 
 written by members of the bodies described, an 
 expectation of the restoration of antediluvian 
 longevity during the millennial period, is deduced 
 from Isa. lxv. 20, ‘The child shall die a hundred 
 years old,’ coupled with ver. 23, ‘ As the days 
 of a tree, are the days of my people ‘ which,’ 
 says the writer, ‘ according to the best testimony, 
 is from 800 to 1000 years in Palestine,’ as if the 
 ages of trees did not vary with the species, and 
 as if trees of the same species were not of the 
 same age in Palestine as in other countries. The 
 same writer is certainly in error, in alleging that 
 millennarianism was the doctrine of the Reformers 
 and their successors, till Whitby ‘ introduced into 
 the Protestant church a system of spiritualizing 
 the prophecies to such an extent, as to leave little 
 to be anticipated in relation to the personal reign 
 of David’s greater son on the throne of his fathei 
 David, as king of Zion.’ 
 
 On a topic so fruitful of controversy, it is im- 
 possible to enumerate all the writers upon it. 
 The following are among <hose which have fallen 
 under our notice: — Tibbechon, Hist. Cluliasmi , 
 1667 ; Mede, Works, p. 603, sqq. ; Whitby, 
 Treat, on the True Millenium ; Dauhez, Perpct. 
 Comment, on Revel., 1720; Gill, Serm. on the 
 Glory of the Church , 1752 ; Corrodi, Krit. 
 Gescli. d. Chiliasmus, 1781-1783 ; Gregoire, 
 Hist, des Sectes Relig., ii. 333, sqq. ; Bogue, 
 Disc, on the Millenium; Noel (Gerard), En- 
 quiry into the Prospects of the Christian 
 Church; Auderson, Apolog. for Millen. Doct., 
 Glasg. 1830 ; Irving, Led. on the Revelat., 
 1831 ; Greswell, Exposition of the Parables, 
 1834-5; Pigou, The Millennium, 1837; Millen- 
 iarism Unscriptural, 1838; Jefferson, The Millen- 
 nium, 1840; Bush, The Millenium, Salem (N.S.), 
 1842. Several American writers on the subject, 
 little known in this country, are enumerated in 
 Rupp’s Relig. Denominations, p. 519. 
 
 MILLET. [Dochan.] 
 
 MILLO (K-I^JO ; Sept, dupd). This word de- 
 notes ‘ fulness,’ and is applied to a mound or ram- 
 part, probably as being filled up with stones or 
 earth. Hence it is the name given to 
 
 1. Part of the citadel of Jerusalem, probably 
 the rampart (2 Sam. v. 9 ; 1 Kings ix. 15, 24 ; 
 xi. 27 ; 1 Chron. xi. 8 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 5). In 
 the last of these texts, where David is said to have 
 restored or fortified Millo ‘ of’ (not ‘ in ’) the city 
 of David, the Sept, has rb ai'd\gpg.a rrjs irSXeus, 
 ‘ the fortification of the city of David.’ 
 
 2. The fortress in Shechem. ‘ All the men of 
 Shechem, and all that dwelt in the house of Millo ;’ 
 that js, in the castle or citadel (Judg. ix. 6, 20). 
 
 MINISTER, one who acts as the less (from 
 minus or minor ) or inferior agent, in obedience 
 or subservience to another, or who serves, officiates, 
 &c., as distinguished from the master, magister 
 (from magis), or superior. The words so trans- 
 lated in the Old Testament are and n^>3 
 
 (Chald.), and in the New, biaicosos, \enovpy6s, 
 and {nrrip(Tris . 1. ‘ Moses and his mi- 
 
 nister Joshua’ (Exod. xxiv. 13); Sept, napeir * 
 rrjKcljs avTip ; Aquila and Symm. 6 \eirovpy6s 
 avroO; comp. Exod. xxxiii. 11 (Sept. Qepdirwv 
 'lycrovs ) ; Num. xi. 28 ; Josh. i. 1 (Sept, virovpybs 
 M cavag ; Alex. A irovpyds). This Hebrew word 
 is clearly distinguished from 13^, which is the 
 more comprehensive term for servant (1 Kings 
 x. 5), ‘ Solomon's servants and ministers,’ where 
 the Sept, reads Traldccu for the former, and Aei- 
 rovpyuv for the latter. It is applied to Elisha as 
 minister to Elijah, 2 Kings vi. 15 (Sept. Xeirovp- 
 y 6s)', comp. 2 Kings iii. 11; 1 Kings xix. 21. 
 Persons thus designated sometimes succeeded to 
 the office of their principal, as did Joshua and 
 Elisha. The word is applied to the angels, 
 Ps. ciii. 21 (Aeirovpyol) ; comp. Ps. civ. 4; Heb. 
 i. 7 ; and see Stuart’s Comment, in loc. Both 
 the Hebrew and Sept, words are applied to the 
 Jews in their capacity as a sacred nation, ‘ Men 
 shall call you the ministers of our God’ (Isa. lxi. 
 6) ; to the priests (Jer. xxxiii. 21 ; Ezek. xliv. 11 ; 
 xlv. 4 ; Joel i. 9). The Greek word is continued 
 in the same sense in Luke i. 23, and applied to 
 Christian teachers, Acts xiii. 2; Rom. xv. 16; 
 and to Christ, Heb. viii. 2 ; to the collectors of 
 the Roman tribute, in consequence of the divine 
 authority of political government, ‘ they are God's 
 ministers ’ (A eiTovpyoi). It was applied by the 
 Athenians to those who administered the public 
 offices (A eiTovpyiai) at their own expense (Boeckh, 
 Staatshaush. der Athencr. i. 480 ; ii. 62 ; Potter’s 
 Gr.Ant. i. 85. 2. (Chald.), Ezra vii. 24, 
 
 ‘ ministers ’ of religion, Aenovpydis (comp. 
 ver. 19), though he uses the word in the 
 
 same sense, ch. viii. 17. 3. The word biduoyos , 
 
 4 minister,’ is applied to Christian teachers, 1 Cor. 
 iii. 5; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; vi. 4; xi. 23; 1 Thess. iii. 
 2; to false teachers, 2 Cor. xi. 15; to Christ, 
 Rom. xv. 8, 16 ; Gal. ii. 17; to heathen magis- 
 trates, Rom. xiii. 4; in all which passages it has 
 the sense of a minister, assistant, or servant in 
 general, as in Matt. xx. 26 ; but it means a par- 
 ticular sort of minister, ‘ a deacon,’ in Philip, i. 1 ; 
 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12. The term SiaKovoi denotes 
 among the Greeks a higher class of servants than 
 the SovAot (Athen. x. 192; 13. comp. Xen. 1. c. 
 Buttm. Lexic. i. 220; comp. Matt. xxii. 13, and 
 Sept, for m^D, Esth. i. 10 ; ii. 2 ; vi. 3). 4. iSthj- 
 
 per-ps is applied to Christian ministers, Luke i. 2 ; 
 Acts xxvi. 16 ; 2 Cor. iv. 1. Josephus calls Moses 
 t'ov vTT7]perriv &eov, Antiq. iii. 1. 4. Kings are 
 so called in Wisd. vi. 4. The word denotes, in 
 Luke iv. 20, the attendant in a synagogue who 
 handed the volume to the reader, and returned it 
 to its place. In Acts xiii. 5 it is applied to 
 ‘John whose surname was Mark,’ in his capa- 
 city as an attendant or assistant on Barnabas 
 and Saul. It primarily signifies an under- 
 rower on board a galley, of the class who used 
 the longest oars, and consequently performed the 
 severest duty, as distinguished from the Qpav'nr)s, 
 the rower upon the upper bench of the three, 
 and from the ol vavrai, sailors, or the iirifidrai, 
 marines (Dem. 1209. 11. 14; comp, also 1208. 
 20: 1214. 23; 1216. 13; Pol. i. 25.3): hmce 
 in general a hand, agent, minister, attendant, &c. 
 
 J. F. D 
 
 MINCHA, the Hebrew name of the bloodless 
 
344 
 
 MINN1TH. 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 effeiings (meal, cakes, &c.) presented in the 
 Temple [Offerings]. 
 
 M1NNI. [Armenia.] 
 
 MINNITIi (JV3D), a town in the country of 
 the Ammonites (Judg. xi. 33), celebrated for the 
 excellence of its wheat, which was exported to the 
 markets of Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 17). It. still existed 
 in the age of Eusebius, four R. miles from Hesh- 
 bon, on the road to Philadelphia (Onomast. in 
 Maavid). The Sept, seem to have found difficulty 
 in this name. In Judg. xi. 33 they substitute the 
 name of the Anion, and in Ezek. xxvii. 17 they 
 render it by ixvpov , ‘ mvrrh/ 
 
 MINT. [Hkduosmon.] 
 
 MIRACLES. God sees fit to carry on his 
 common operations on established and uniform 
 principles. These principles, whether relating to 
 the phvsical or moral world, are called the laws 
 of nature. And by the laws of nature the most 
 enlightened philosophers and divines have under- 
 stood the uniform j jlan according to which, or 
 the uniform manner in lohich, God exercises his 
 cower throughout the created universe. Or it 
 may be said, the laws of nature are the uniform 
 method in which the powers or active principles, 
 which God has imparted to created things, called 
 second or secondary causes, operate anil produce 
 their effects. Or, according to the language of 
 some, the laws of nature are the uniform manner 
 In which events come to pass, or, in which action 
 and the results of action among created beings 
 take place. It is evident that various powers and 
 properties belong to the things which are made, 
 and are inherent in them, and that nothing in 
 the creation, whether material or spiritual, would 
 lie what it is without those powers and properties. 
 But we know that the existence of things, with 
 their several powers and properties, was, at first, 
 owing to the operation of divine power, and that 
 their continued existence is owing to the same 
 cause. 
 
 The above-mentioned uniform method of di- 
 vine operation is evidently conducive to the most 
 important ends. It manifests the immutable 
 wisdom and goodness ot God, and, in ways too 
 many to be here specified, promotes the welfare 
 of his creatures. Without the influence of this 
 uniformity, rational beings would have no effectual 
 motive to effort, and the affairs of the universe, 
 intelligent, and unintelligent, would be in a state 
 of tolal confusion. And this general fact may 
 be considered as a sufficient reason why God, in 
 the common course of his providence, has adopted 
 a uniform method of operation in preference to 
 any other. 
 
 But if, in conducting the affairs of his great 
 empire, God sees, in any particular case, as good 
 a reason fov a deviation from this uniform order, 
 as there is generally for uniformity, that is, if 
 the glory of his attributes and the good of his 
 creatures require it — and no one can say that 
 such a case may not occur— then, unquestionably, 
 the unchangeable God will cause such a devia- 
 tion; in other words, will work miracles: 
 miracles being effects which are produced, or 
 events which take place, in a manner not con- 
 formed to the common laws of nature, and which 
 cannot be accounted for according to those laws. 
 In the case supposed, if God should not depart 
 tom his ’sual course, and work miracles, he 
 
 would not show the same regard as he ordinarily 
 does to his own glory and the good of his crea- 
 tures. On the condition, then, here supposed, 
 there is a strong and decided presumption in 
 favour of miraculous operations ; and it would 
 contradict our best views of the immutable per- 
 fection of God, to suppose that they will not take 
 place. 
 
 It is admitted that no man, apart from the 
 knowledge of facts, could ever, by mere reason- 
 ing, have arrived at a confident belief, that the 
 conjuncture supposed would certainly occur. 
 But to us, who know that mankind are so de- 
 praved and wretched, and that the efforts of 
 human wisdom to obtain relief have been in vain, 
 the importance of a special divine interposition 
 is very apparent. And being informed what the 
 plan is, which a merdml God has adopted for 
 our recovery to holiness and happiness, and being 
 satisfied that this plan, so perfectly suited to the 
 end in view, could never have been discovered 
 by man, and never executed, except by a divine 
 dispensation involving miracles, we conclude, 
 that the introduction of a new and miraculous 
 dispensation was in the highest degree an honour 
 to God and a blessing to the world. It is clear 
 that man could not have been saved without it. The 
 divine government proceeding according to the 
 original law of justice, would have left no luq* 
 for transgressors. If man is to be saved, there 
 must be a departure from the original laws of a 
 moral government. There must be a new dis- 
 sipation, and that new dispensation must be 
 made known to man; because, without knowing 
 it, man could not enjoy its benefits. The work 
 of saving a lost world cannot be accomplished 
 while the world remains wholly ignorant, of the 
 grace which saves. But. the requisite knowledge 
 can never be reached by any of our natural 
 faculties, and never communicated to us by any 
 thing in creation. It. must come from God, and 
 that in an extraordinary manner. Now God is 
 able, if he please, by a supernatural influence, to 
 impart the requisite knowledge directly to every 
 human being. But this mode of imparting know- 
 ledge would itself be miraculous, as it would be 
 entirely beyond what any human mind would be 
 capable of in the use of ordinary means. But it 
 is manifest that such a mode of imparting know- 
 ledge is not in fact the mode which God has 
 chosen, and that it would not be well suited to 
 the ends of divine wisdom. The method of 
 divine appointment, as set forth in the sacred 
 volume, is that of making a revelation to a num- 
 ber of individuals, who are to write and publish 
 it for the benefit of the world. This revelation to 
 individuals is made in such a manner as renders 
 it certain to their minds, that the revelation i9 
 from God. But. how can that revelation be made 
 available to others? It will not answer the pur- 
 pose for those who receive it merely to declare 
 that God has made such a revelation to them, and 
 authorized them to proclaim it to their fellow 
 creatures. For how shall we know that they are 
 not deceivers? Or if their character is such as 
 to repel any suspicion of this kind, how shall we 
 know that they are not themselves deceived, — as 
 it is no uncommon thing for a man, even a good 
 man, to be misled by enthusiastic impressions, or 
 in some other way ? How shall we come to fee! 
 entire confidence in the truth ari l divine au- 
 
MIRACLES. 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 343 
 
 tkority of what individuals say has been revealed 
 to them from God? Have we not a light, nay, 
 are we not bound in duty, to ask for evidence? 
 But what evidence will suffice? The reply is 
 obvious. The revelation, in order to be of use to 
 us, as it is to those who receive it directly from 
 God, must not only be declared by them to us, 
 but must have a divine attestation. In other 
 words, those who declare it to us must show, 
 by some incontestable proof, that it is from God. 
 Such proof is found in a miracle. If an event 
 takes place which we know to be contrary to the 
 laws of nature, we at once recognise it as the 
 special act. of him who is the God of nature, and 
 who alone can suspend its laws, and produce 
 effects in another way. The evidence of a direct 
 interposition of God given in this way is irresist- 
 ible. No man, no inlidel, could witness an ob- 
 vious miracle, without being struck with awe, 
 and recognising the finger of God. What would 
 become of the scepticism of a Hume or a Voltaire, 
 should he go to the grave where a father or brother 
 had been buried for years, and see him wake up 
 to life and come forth at the word of a divine 
 messenger? What will become of his scepticism, 
 when he himself, after having slept in death 
 thousands of years, shall rise from the dead, and 
 t shall see others rise around him? In a miracle, 
 God works, and shows us his hand, speaks, and 
 causes us to hear his voice, as plainly as if he 
 should instantly, before our astonished eyes, 
 create a new sun in the expanse of heaven, or in 
 a voice as loud as thunder should speak distinct 
 and intelligible words in our ears. 
 
 In respect to the subject before us, there is a 
 manifest and wide difference between a miracle 
 and any event which is referable to the laws of 
 nature. Let a man come to us and say, that 
 such a doctrine has been made known to him by 
 special revelation. It may properly be our first 
 inquiry, whether the doctrine referred to, for ex- 
 ample, the deity of Christ, or the truth of the 
 Newtonian philosophy, is supported by other 
 evidence. If so, we receive it on the ground of 
 that other evidence, not because he tells us that it 
 was revealed to him. But suppose that there is 
 no other evidence, and that if we receive if, we 
 must receive it on the ground of his declaration. 
 We look then for evidence that his declaration is 
 true. We say to him, prove that you are a pro- 
 phet sent from God, and that this doctrine has 
 been revealed to you from above. He under- 
 takes to give the proof required, and he says, the 
 Hudson river, or the Danube, which is now liquid, 
 shall, to a considerable depth, become a solid 
 mass, before the end of January ; and thus my 
 claim to a special revelation shall be confirmed. 
 We reply to him, — why not make it a solid mass 
 now in the midst of summer? And why not 
 freeze up a river in the torrid zone? A man who 
 has had no revelation can do all that you under*- 
 take. He may say, he will bring about a total 
 eclipse of the sun at such a time (having found 
 out the right time). We tell him to bring about 
 such an eclipse in the old of the moon , and we 
 will yield to his pretensions. 
 
 It is clear that no event, which can be ac- 
 counted for on natural principles, can prove a 
 supernatural interposition, or contain a diviue 
 attestation to the truth of a prophet’s claim. But 
 when we look at an event which cannot be traced 
 
 to the laws of nature, and is clearly above them, 
 such as the burning of the wood upon the altar 
 in the case of Elijah's controversy with the false 
 prophets, or the resurrection of Lazarus, we 
 cannot avoid the conviction, that the Lord o* 
 heaven and earth does, by such a miracle, give 
 his testimony, that Elijah is his prophet, and that 
 Jesus is the Messiah. The evidence arising from 
 miracles is so striking and conclusive, that there 
 is no way for an infidel to evade it, but to deny 
 the existence of miracles, and to hold that all the 
 events called miraculous may be accounted for 
 according to the laws of nature. 
 
 Hume arrays uniform experience against the 
 credibility of miracles. But, the shallow sophistry 
 of his argument has been fully exposed by Camp- 
 bell, Paley, and many others. We inquire what, 
 and how much he means by uniform experience. 
 Does he mean his own experience? But because 
 he has never witnessed a miracle, does it follow 
 that others have not? Does he mean the unifoim 
 experience of the greater part of mankind? But 
 how does he know that the experience of a smaller 
 part has not been different from that of the 
 greater part? Does he mean, then, the uniform 
 experience of all mankind in all ages? How 
 then does his argument stand? He undertakes 
 to piove that no man has ever witnessed or ex- 
 perienced a miracle, and his real argument is, 
 that no one has ever witnessed or experienced it. 
 In other words, to prove that there has never been 
 a miracle, he asserts that there never has been a 
 miracle. This is the nature of his argument — 
 an instance of petitio principii , which a man 
 of Hume’s logical powers would never have 
 resoited to, had it not been for his enmity to 
 religion. 
 
 If it is said that the ordinary experience of 
 mankind in general contradicts the idea of a 
 miracle, it is said without due consideration. 
 The experience or testimony of any number of 
 men cannot, be regarded as contradictory to the 
 experience or testimony of other men, unless the 
 experience or testimony of both parties relate to 
 the same event, and to the same place and time 
 of its occurrence. Ten thousand Romans might 
 have said that no such thing as the murder of 
 Julius Caesar had ever taken place within their 
 observation or experience, and their testimony 
 might, have been true ; but how would their tes- 
 timony have contradicted the testimony of those 
 who witnessed the fatal deed of his murderers? 
 There is no contradiction between two witnesses, 
 or two sets of witnesses, if the testimony of both 
 may be true. Suppose two men testify before a 
 court of justice, that, at such a time, naming the 
 hour and the minute, and in such a room, naming 
 the very part of the room, they saw a man murder 
 his father by stabbing him. Now let three other 
 men come forward and testify that they often saw 
 ihe father and son together, but never witnessed 
 any act of violence on the part of the son. Here 
 is no contradiction of testimonies; for both may 
 lie true. But let the three witnesses testify that 
 they were present at the very time and place re- 
 ferred to ; that they saw the father and son to- 
 gether in the room, and the part of the room men- 
 tioned by the two witnesses ; that the son had no 
 instrument in his hand ; and that the father was 
 attacked suddenly with apoplexy, and died in 
 the arms of his son. Here you have contradic* 
 
346 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 tory testimonies, and both cannot be true. The 
 testimony of al. generations antecedent to the time 
 cf Christ, that they had never seen a man who 
 had been dead and buried for some days, raised 
 to life by a word of command; and the testi- 
 mony of the greater part of the Jewish nation at 
 that time, that they had seen no such thing as the 
 resurrection of Lazarus, would not have contra- 
 dicted the testimony of the few who declared that 
 they were present and witnessed his resurrection. 
 The truth of the former testimonies would not 
 have disproved the truth of the last. So much 
 for the argument of Hume. After all, he seems 
 to admit that a miracle may be credible, if it is 
 not tor ought in favour of religion ; whereas it 
 would have been much nearer the truth, had he 
 said, a miracle is credible, if it it wrought in 
 favour of religion. 
 
 The miraculous events recorded in the Scrip- 
 tures, particularly those which took place in the 
 times of Moses and Christ, have all the marks 
 which are necessary to prove them to have been 
 matters of fact, and worthy of full credit, and to 
 distinguish them from the feats of jugglers and 
 impostors. This has been shown very satisfac- 
 torily by Leslie, Paley, Douglas, and many 
 others. These miracles took place in the most 
 public manner, and in the presence of many wit- 
 nesses ; so that there was opportunity to subject 
 them to the most searching scrutiny. Good men 
 and bad men were able and disposed to examine 
 them thoroughly, and to prove them to have been 
 impostures, if they had been so. Why did not 
 the scribes and pharisees and rulers, who were so 
 full of zeal against the religion of Jesus, adopt 
 the most natural and effectual means of prevent- 
 ing its growing influence? Why did they not 
 bring Jesus and his disciples to a fair trial before 
 a proper tribunal, and prove them to be de- 
 ceivers ? 
 
 A large number of men, of unquestionable 
 honesty and intelligence, constantly affirmed that 
 the miracles took place before their eyes. And 
 some of these original witnesses wrote and pub- 
 lished histories of the facts, in the places where 
 they were alleged to have occurred, and near the 
 time of their occurrence. In these histories it 
 was openly asserted that the miracles, as de- 
 scribed, were publicly known and acknowledged 
 to have taken place; and this no one took upon 
 him to contradict, or to question. Moreover, 
 many persons who stood forth as witnesses of 
 these miracles passed their lives in labours, dan- 
 gers, and sufferings, in attestation of the accounts 
 they delivered, aird solely in consequence of then- 
 belief of the truth of those accounts ; and, from 
 the same motive, they voluntarily submitted to 
 uew rules of conduct; while nothing like this is 
 true respecting any other pretended miracles (see 
 Paley ’s Evidences ). Paley attaches great im- 
 portance, and that very justly, to these positions ; 
 and he says lie should believe in the reality of 
 miracles in any other case, if attended with the 
 circumstances which distinguished the miracles 
 of Christ. And if any one calls assent to such 
 evidence credulity, it is incumbent on him to 
 produce examples in which the same evidence 
 tias turned out to be fallacious. 
 
 In comparing the evidence for Christian mi- 
 racles with that which can be offered in favour 
 of any other miracles, it is proper, as the same 
 
 author shows, to lay out of the case such accounts 
 as the following : — 
 
 1. It is proper to lay out of the case such 
 accounts of supernatural events as are written a 
 long time after their alleged occurrence. On 
 this principle, we may at once set aside the 
 miraculous story of Pythagoras, the fables of the 
 heroic ages, a great part of the accounts of 
 Popish saints, and the miracles of Apollonius 
 Tyanaeus. And this circumstance is shown to be 
 of special value in regard to the history of Ig- 
 natius Loyola. His life, written by a companion 
 of his, who was one of the order of the Jesuits, 
 was published about fifteen years after his death 
 The author of this biography, so far from ascrib- 
 ing miracles to Ignatius, states the reasons why 
 he was not invested with any such power. Aboil 
 sixty years after, the Jesuits, wishing to exalt the 
 character of their founder, began to attribute to 
 him a catalogue of miracles, which could not 
 then be distinctly disproved, and which those who 
 ruled in the church were disposed to admit upon 
 the slightest evidence. 
 
 2. ‘ We may lay out of the case accounts pub- 
 lished in one country of what passed in a distant 
 country, without any proof that such accounts 
 were received or known at home.’ It is greatly 
 in favour of Christianity that the history of 
 Christ was first published, and his church first 
 planted in the place where he lived, and wrought 
 miracles, and died. But most of the miracles of 
 Apollonius Tyanaeus are related to have been per- 
 formed in India; while we have no evidence that 
 the history of those miracles was ever published, 
 or that the miracles were ever heard of, in India. 
 This matter is satisfactorily treated by Douglas 
 in his Criterion. 
 
 3. We ought to lay out of the case transient 
 rumours. On the first publication of any story, 
 unless we are personally acquainted with the fact 
 referred to, we cannot know whether it. is true or 
 false. We look for its confirmation, its increas- 
 ing notoriety, and its permanency, and for subse- 
 quent accounts in different, forms, to give it sup- 
 port. In ibis respect the miracles recorded in 
 Scripture are presented before us in the most 
 favourable light. 
 
 4. We lay out of the case what may be called 
 naked history , — history found merely in a book, 
 unattended with any evidence that the accounts 
 given in the book were credited and acted upon 
 at the time when the events are said to have oc- 
 curred, and unsupported by any collateral or 
 subsequent testimony, or by any important vi- 
 sible effects. We see here what singular' advan- 
 tage attends the history of the miracles of Christ. 
 That history is combined with permanent. Chris- 
 tian institutions ; with the time and place, and 
 circumstances of the origin and progress of the 
 Christian religion, as collected from other history ; 
 with its prevalence to the present, day; with the 
 fact of our present books having been received by 
 the advocates of Christianity from the first; with 
 a great variety of subsequent books referring tc 
 the transactions recorded in the four Gospels, and 
 containing accounts of the effects which flowed 
 from the belief of those transactions — those subse- 
 quent books having been written with very differ- 
 ent views, ‘ so disagreeing as to repel the suspicion 
 of confederacy, and yet so agreeing as to show 
 that they were founded in a common origin.’ 
 
MIRACLES. 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 34 ? 
 
 5. We lay out of the case stories of super- 
 natural events upon which nothing depends, and 
 in which no interest is involved — stories which 
 require only an indolent assent, and which pass 
 from one to another without examination. How 
 different are the accounts of the miracles of 
 Christ! Those accounts, if true, decided the 
 most momentous questions upon which the im- 
 mortal mind can fix. Who could be indifferent 
 and careless in such a case as this? Whoever 
 entertained the account of these miracles, whether 
 Jew or Gentile, could not avoid the following 
 reflection : ‘ If these things be true, I must sur- 
 render the principles in which I have been brought 
 up, the religion in which my fathers lived and 
 died.’ And who would do this ? Who would 
 give up his most favourite opinions, and his for- 
 mer way of life, and adopt new rules, and new 
 habits, and a new course of conduct, and en- 
 counter the severest sufferings, upon a mere idle 
 report, or, indeed, without the most serious con- 
 sideration, and the fullest conviction of the truth 
 of the history in which he confided ? 
 
 6. We lay aside all those events which can be 
 accounted for by a heated imagination, false per- 
 ception, momentary insanity, or any other natural 
 principle. Now, although we may, in some 
 cases, be in doubt, whether the events which take 
 place can be resolved into the common powers 
 of nature, no doubt can remain as to the princi- 
 pal miracles of Christ. If a person born blind 
 is, by a word, restored to sight, or a man un- 
 questionably dead restored to life, or if a con- 
 version takes place, with the accompanying cir- 
 cumstances and the permanent consequences of 
 that of Paul, we are sure that the event must be 
 ascribed to a supernatural cause. 
 
 It appears, then, that after the various classes 
 of events above-mentioned have been excluded, 
 the miracles recorded in Scripture remain, with 
 all the characteristics of supernatural events, 
 showing the special presence and extraordinary 
 agency of God, and containing his direct testi- 
 mony in favour of the doctrines to which they 
 refer. Hence we see the propriety and the per- 
 fect conclusiveness of the appeal which Jesus 
 often made to his works as proof of his Messiah- 
 ship : ‘ The works that I do in my Father's name, 
 they bear witness of me again, ‘ The works 
 that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father has 
 sent me.’ These miraculous works were as really 
 a divine attestation to the Messiahship of Jesus, 
 as that voice which God uttered from heaven, 
 ' This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ 
 
 It has been a long agitated question, whether 
 miracles have ever been wrought, or can be con- 
 sistently supposed to be wrought, by apostate 
 spirits . 
 
 It is sufficient to say here, that it would be 
 evidently inconsistent with the character of God 
 to empower or to suffer wicked beings to work mi- 
 racles in support of falsehood. Miracles, sup- 
 posing them not to be wrought at random, but to 
 contain a divine attestation, must go to support 
 the truth. Neither wicked beings nor good 
 beings can overwork them in such a manner that 
 they shall avail to give countenance to error, 
 and thus nullify the clearest and most striking 
 evidence which can be given in support of the 
 truth of a special divine communication. Ba- 
 laam was a real prophet ; that is, he was endued 
 
 with supernatural knowledge, and enabled to pre- 
 dict the good which was to come upon the people 
 of God. His supernatural foresight availed to 
 make known the truth — as really so as though he 
 had been a good man. Yea, the divine testi- 
 mony in that case was attended with one peculiar 
 advantage, namely, that Balaam was constrained 
 by divine influence to pronounce a blessing upon 
 Israel against both his interest and his inclina- 
 tion. And if wicked spirits in the time of Christ 
 had power to produce preternatural effects upon 
 the minds or bodies of men, and if those effects 
 are to be ranked among real miracles (which, 
 however, we do not affirm), still the end of mi- 
 racles is not contravened. For those very opera- 
 tions of evil spirits were under the control of 
 divine providence, and were made in two ways 
 to subserve the cause of Christ. First ; they fur- 
 nished an occasion, as doubtless they were de- 
 signed to do, for Christ to show his power over 
 evil spirits, and, by his superior miracles, to give 
 a new proof of his Messiahship. Secondly ; the 
 evil spirits themselves were constrained to give 
 their testimony, that Jesus was the Christ, the 
 Holy One of Israel — a very different matter from 
 wliat it would have been if they had declared that 
 Jesus was an impostor, and had undertaken to 
 support their declaration by supernatural works. 
 
 Instead, therefore, of attempting to prove ab- 
 solutely, as some writers have dene, ‘that evil 
 spirits have never had power, and never been per- 
 mitted, in any case, to do supernatural works, 
 we shall content ourselves with saying, that God 
 has never given them power, and never per- 
 mitted them to do such works in such circum- 
 stances , and in such a manner , as to support error, 
 or in any way to discredit divine truth. This 
 being the case, it will not detract at all from the 
 weight of the testimony which God gives by mi- 
 racles to the truth of any supernatural revelation, 
 if. in some instances, he should see fit to empower 
 evil spirits to do miraculous works for the same 
 holy ends — thus making use of the agency oi 
 evil spirits, as well as of good men, to promote the 
 cause of righteousness and truth. 
 
 As to the time when the miraculous dispensa- 
 tion ceased, we can only remark, that the power 
 of working miracles, which belonged pre-emi- 
 nently to Christ and his apostles, and, in inferior 
 degrees, to many other Christians in the aposto- 
 lic age, subsided gradually. After the great 
 object of supernatural works was accomplished 
 in the establishment of the Christian religion, 
 with all its sacred truths, and its divinely ap- 
 pointed institutions, during the life of Christ and 
 his apostles, there appears to have been no farther 
 occasion for miracles, and no satisfactory evidence 
 that they actually occurred. 
 
 If the inquiry is made, whether in the future 
 advancement of Christ’s kingdom and the con- 
 version of Jews and Gentiles, miraculous inter- 
 positions are to be expected, our reply is, that this 
 must be referred entirely to the sovereign wisdom 
 of God. It does, indeed, seem quite evident, 
 that the grand design and appropriate influence 
 of miracles have been already realized in the 
 confirmation of the truth and authority of the 
 Christian religion. And it has become more and 
 more evident, that the Gospel may be propagated, 
 and men in all circumstances converted, by the 
 power of divine truth, and the renewing of the 
 
349 
 
 MIRIAM. 
 
 M1TYLENE. 
 
 Holy Spirit, without any resort to miracles. 
 From these and other considerations we very na- 
 turally infer, that the recurrence of a miraculous 
 dispensation is not required in order to the com- 
 pletion of the Saviour’s work ; still it is not for 
 us to decide this point. As Christians, we ought 
 to keep in remembrance that God’s ways are not 
 as our ways, and to cherish such a state of mind, 
 that if God should at any time see lit, for the glory 
 of his name and the salvation of men, to repeat 
 the wonderful works which he wrought in former 
 days, or to perform any other unquestionable 
 miracles, we may not turn. away from them in 
 sullen unbelief, but may hail them as precious 
 tokens of God s special favour, and evidences of 
 ois gracious design to give new success to the 
 Gospel, and an enlargement and prosperity never 
 before experienced to the kingdom of righteous- 
 ness and peace. — L. VV. 
 
 MIRIAM (DHD, bitterness; Sept. M apiay, 
 Josephus. Mapia/xi/f]'), sister of Moses and Aaron, 
 and supposed to be the same that watched her 
 infant brother when exposed on the Nile ; in which 
 case she was probably ten or twelve years old at 
 the time (Exod. ii. 4, sq.). When the Israelites 
 left Egypt, Miriam naturally became the leading 
 woman among them. She is called ‘ a prophetess’ 
 (Exod. xv. 20). After the passage of the Red Sea, 
 she led the music, dance, and song, with which 
 the women celebrated their deliverance (Exod. xv. 
 20-22). The arrival of Moses’ wife in the camp 
 seems to have created in her an unseemly dread 
 of losing her influence and position, and led her 
 into complaints of and dangerous reflections upon 
 Moses, in which Aaron joined. For this she was 
 smitten with leprosy, anil, although healed at the 
 intercession of Moses, was excluded for seven 
 days from the camp (Num. xii. ; Deut. xxiv. 9). 
 Her death took place in the first month of the 
 fortieth year after the Exodus, at the encampment 
 of Kadesh-barnea (Num. xx. 1), where her 
 sepulchre was still to be seen in the time of 
 Eusebius. 
 
 MIRROR (HSOD, Exod. xxxviii. 8; 'iO, 
 Job xxxii. 8). In the first of these passages the 
 mirrors in the possession of the women of the 
 
 Israelites, when they quitted Egypt, are described 
 as being of brass ; for k the laver of brass, and the 
 foot of it,’ are made from them. In the second, 
 the firmament is comj»ared to ‘ a molten mirror.' 
 In fact, all the mirrors used in ancient times were 
 of metal ; and as those of the Hebrew women 
 in the wilderness were brought out of Egypt, they 
 were doubtless of the same kind as those which 
 have been found in the tombs of that country, 
 and many of which now exist in our museums 
 and collections of Egyptian antiquities. These 
 are of mixed metals, chiefly copper, most care- 
 fully wrought and highly polished; and so ad- 
 mirably did the skill of the Egyptians succeed 
 in the composition of metals, that this substitute 
 for our modern looking-glass was susceptible of a 
 lustre which has even been partially revived at 
 the present day in some of those discovered at 
 Thebes, though buried in the earth for so many 
 centuries. The mirror itself was nearly round, 
 and was inserted in a handle of wood, stone, or 
 metal, the form of which varied according to 
 the taste of the owner (see Wilkinson’s Ancient 
 Egyptians, iii. 384-386). 
 
 MISHAEL, one of the three companions of 
 Daniel, who were cast into the burning furnace 
 by Nebuchadnezzar, and were miraculously de- 
 livered from it (Dan. iii. 13-30). The Chald»an 
 name was Mesheeh (Dan. i. 7). 
 
 MISIIPAT, a fountain in Kadesh [see Ka- 
 dksii]. 
 
 M1SHNAH. [Talmud.] 
 MISREPHOTH-MAIM (IT» n hElWQ , 
 
 Sept. M aaeped Me/xipco/xaf/x), a place or district 
 near Sidou (Josh. xi. 8 ; xiii. 6). The name means 
 ‘ burnings of water,’ which Kimchi understands 
 of warm baths ; hut more probably it means 
 burnings by or beside the water — either lime 
 kilns or smelting furnaces situated near water 
 (Gesenius). 
 
 MITE (\eirTov), a small piece of money, two 
 of which made a Kotipdvrrjs, a quadrans — four ol 
 
 the latter being equal to the Roman as. The as 
 was of less weight and value in later than in early 
 times. Its original value was 3*4 farthings, and 
 afterwards 2\ farthings. The latter wa3 its 
 value in the time of Christ, and the mite being 
 one-eighth of that sum, was little more than one- 
 fourth of an English farthing. It was the smallest 
 coin known to the Hebrews (Luke xii. 59). 
 
 MITHCAH, one of the encampments of the 
 Israelites [Wandering]. 
 
 MITYLENE (Mn-oA^j/rj), the capital of the 
 isle of Lesbos, in the xEgean Sea, about seven miles 
 and a half from the opposite point on the coast ol 
 Asia Minor. It was a well-built town, but un- 
 wholesomely situated (Vitruv. De Architect, i. 6), 
 It was the native place of Pittacus, Theophaneis 
 
MIZPAH. 
 
 MOABITES. 
 
 348 
 
 Thsophrastus, Sappho, Alcseus, and Diophanes. 
 St. Pau 1 touched at Mitylene in his v ovage from 
 Corinth to Judtea (Acts xx. 14). It toes not ap- 
 pear that any Christian church was established at 
 this place in tha apostolic age. No mention is 
 made of it in ecclesiastical history until a late 
 period ; and in the second century heathenism was 
 so rife in Mitylene that a man was annually sacri- 
 ficed to Dionysus. In the fifth, sixth, seventh, 
 and eighth centuries, we, however, find bishops ot 
 Mitylene present at several councils (Magdeburg, 
 Hist. Eccles. Cent. ii. 195; v. 6; vi. 6; vii. 4, 
 253, 254 ; viii. 6). Mitylene still exists, and has 
 given its name, in the form of Mytilni, to the 
 whole island ; but it is now a place of no import- 
 ance. 
 
 MIZPAH (HID VP 5 Sept. Ma<rirr)<pd). The word 
 signifies a xoatch-tower, and is the name of several 
 towns and places in lofty situations whether fur- 
 nished with a watch-tower or not. 
 
 1. MIZPAH, atown or city in Gilead (Judg. 
 x. 17 ; xi. 11, 34 ; Hos. v. 1). The place origi- 
 nated in the heap of stones set up by Laban, and 
 to which he gave his name (Gen. xxxi. 49). 
 Some confound this with the Mizpeh of Gilead in 
 Judg. xi. 29 ; but it is better to distinguish them 
 [Mizpkh 3]. 
 
 2. MIZPAH, a city of Benjamin, where the 
 jieople were wont to convene (Josh, xviii. 26 ; 
 Judg. xx. 1, 3; xxi. 1; 1 Sam. vii. 5-16; x. 
 
 1 7, sq.). It was afterwards fortified by Asa, to 
 protect the borders against the kingdom of Israel 
 ^1 Kings xv. 22 ; 2 Chron. xvi. 6). Inlatertimes 
 il became the. residence of the governor under the 
 Chaldaeans (Jer. xl. 6, sq. ; comp. Nell. iii. 7, 
 15, 19). In one place the name occurs witli e, 
 Mizpeh (HBVP). Its position is nowhere men- 
 tioned in Scripture or by Josephus; but it could 
 uot have been far from Ramah, since king Asa 
 fortified it with materials taken from that place; 
 and that it was situated on an elevated spot is 
 clear from its name. There are two such high 
 points, which in these respects might correspond 
 with the site of Mizpah. One is Tell el-Ful 
 (Bean-hill), lying about an hour’s journey south 
 of Er-Ram (Ramah), towards Jerusalem. It is 
 high, and overlooks the eastern slope of the moun- 
 tains, and has upon it the remains of a large 
 square tower ; but there is no trace of a former 
 city upon or even around the hill. The other 
 point is at the present village of Neby Samv.il 
 
 Prophet Samuel), which, although somewhat 
 
 istant from Er-Ram, is a higher and more import- 
 ant station than the other. On these grounds Dr. 
 Robinson ( Researches , ii. 144) inclines to regard 
 this as the probable site of Mizpah, especially as 
 in 1 Macc. iii. 46 it is described as ‘ over against 
 Jerusalem,’ implying that it was visible from that 
 city, which is true of Neby Samwil, but not of 
 Tell el-Ful. This Neby Samwil is the place 
 which it has been usual to identify with Ramah ; 
 but this on sufficient probability has been removed 
 to Er-Ram, leaving Neby Samwil vacant for the 
 present appropriation. This last place is now a 
 poor village, seated upon the summit of an ele- 
 vated ridge. It contains a mosque, now in a state 
 of decay, which, on the ground of the apparently 
 erroneous identification with Ramah, is regarded 
 by Jews, Christians, and Moslems, as the tomb of 
 riamutl. This mosque was once a Latin church 
 
 built in the form of a cross, upon older founda- 
 tions, and probably of the time of the Crusaders. 
 There are few houses now inhabited, but many 
 traces of former dwellings. By the map of Dr. 
 Robinson this place is about four miles and a half 
 N.N.W. from Jerusalem. 
 
 MIZPEH (nay*?). This name has the same 
 meaning and application as Mizpah, and is borne 
 by several nlaoes mentioned in Scripture. 
 
 1. MIZPEH, a town in the plains of Judah 
 (Josh. xv. 38). Eusebius and Jerome identify it 
 with a place which, in their time, bore the name 
 of Mapha, on the borders of Eleutherdpolis south- 
 ward, on the road to JElia or Jerusalem. 
 
 2. MIZPEH, the place more usually called 
 Mizpah, in the tribe of Benjamin, is once called 
 Mizpeh (Josh, xviii. 26) [Mizpah 2]. 
 
 3. MIZPEH OF GILEAD, through or by 
 which Jephthali passed in his pursuit of the Am- 
 monites (Judg. xi. 29). Some think it the same 
 with Mizpah 1 ; and it is possibly the same with 
 the Ramath-mizpeh of Josh. xiii. 26. 
 
 4. MIZPEH, a valley in the region of Leba- 
 non (Josh. xi. 8; comp. xi. 3). 
 
 MIZRAIM (DT.V9 ; Sept. MetrpcuV), or land 
 of Mizraim, the name by which, in Scripture, 
 Egypt is generally designated, apparently from 
 its having been peopled by Mizraim, the son 
 of Ham (Gen. x.). This ancient title is still 
 preserved in Misr, the existing Arabic name of 
 the country [Egypt], 
 
 MNASON (MpaoW), an ‘ old disciple,’ with 
 whom St. Paul lodged when at Jerusalem in 
 a.d. 58 (Acts xxi. 16). He seems to have been 
 a native of Cyprus, * ut an inhabitant of Jem 
 salem, like Joses and Barnabas. Some think 
 that he was converted by Paul and Barnabas 
 while at Cyprus (Acts xiii. 9); but the designs 
 tion ‘ an old disciple,' has move generally in- 
 duced the conclusion that he was converted by 
 Jesus himself, and was perhaps one of the seventy. 
 
 MOAB (3N*1?D, semen patris ; Sept. M&>a/3), 
 son of Lot and his eldest, daughter (Gen. xix. 
 30-38). He was born about the same time with 
 Isaac, and became the founder of the Moabites. 
 
 MOABITES, a tribe descended from Moab 
 the son of Lot, and consequently related to the 
 Hebrews (Gen. xix. 37). Previous to the exodus 
 of the latter from Egypt, the former, after ex- 
 pelling the original inhabitants, called D'P'N 
 Emims (Gen. xiv. 5 ; Deut. ii. 11), had possessed 
 themselves of the region on the east of the Dead 
 Sea and the Jordan, as far north as the river 
 Jabbok. But the northern, and indeed the finest 
 and best, portion of the territory, viz. that ex- 
 tending from the Jabbok to the Arnon, had passed 
 into the hands of the Amorites, who founded there 
 one of their kingdoms, witli Heshbon for its ca- 
 pital (Num. xxi. 26). Og had established an- 
 other at Bashan. Hence at the time of the 
 exodus the valley and river Arnon constituted 
 the northern boundary of Moab (Num. xxi. 13; 
 Judg. xi. 18; Joseph. Antiq. iv. 5. i). As the 
 Hebrews advanced in order to take possession ot 
 Canaan, they did not enter the proper territory 
 of the Moabites (Deut.. ii. 9; Judg. xi. 18), but 
 conquered the kingdom of the Amorites (a Ca- 
 naanitish tribe), which had formerly belonged to 
 Moab ; whence the western part, lying along the 
 
550 
 
 MOABITES. 
 
 MOABITES. 
 
 Joidan, t frequently occurs under the name of 
 21^10 ni3~iy, * plains of Moab’ (Dent. i. 5 ; xxix. 
 1). The Moabites, fearing the numbers that were 
 inarching around them, showed them at least no 
 kindness (Deut. xxiii. 3) ; and their king (Balak) 
 hired Balaam to utter prophetic curses, which, 
 however, were converted into blessings in his 
 mouth (Num. xii. sq.). The Gadites now took 
 possession of the northern portion of this territory, 
 which the Amorites had wrested from the Moabites, 
 and established themselves there; while the Reu- 
 benites settled in the southern part (Num. xxxii. 
 31 ; comp. Josh, xiii., which, however, differs some- 
 what. in the designation of particular towns). 
 
 We see the first hostilities breaking out in the 
 beginning of the period.of the Judges, when the 
 Hebrews hail been for a long time tributary to the 
 Moabites, but threw off their yoke under Ehud 
 (Judg. iii. 12-30).' Towards the end of this period, 
 however, peace and friendship were restored, mu- 
 tual honours were reciprocated (as the history of 
 Ruth shows), and Moab appears often to have 
 afforded a place of refuge to outcasts and emi- 
 grant Hebrews (Ruth i. 1; comp. 1 Sam. xxii. 
 
 3, 4 ; Jer. xl. 11; Isa. xvi. 2). After Saul had 
 waged successful war against them (1 Sam. xiv. 
 47), David made them tributary (2 Sam. viii. 
 2, 12; xxiii. 20). The right to levy this tribute 
 seems to have been transferred to Israel after the 
 division of the kingdom; for upon the death of 
 Aliab (about b c. 89j6), they refused to pay the 
 customary tribute of 100,000 lambs and as many 
 rams (2 Kings i. I ; iii. 4; comp. Isa. xvi. 1). 
 Jehoram (b.c. 896), in alliance with Judah and 
 Kdom, sought indeed to bring them back to their 
 subjection. The invading army, after having 
 been preserved from perishing by thirst through 
 the intervention of Elisha, defeated the Moabites 
 and ravaged the country ; but, through the strange 
 conduct of the king, in offering up in sacrifice his 
 sou [Mesha], were induced to retire without com- 
 pleting the object of the expedition. The Moabites 
 deeply resented the part which the king of Judah 
 took in this invasion, and formed a powerful con- 
 federacy with the Ammonites, Edomites, and 
 others, who marched in great force into Judaea, 
 and formed their camp at Engedi, where they fell 
 out among themselves and destroyed each other 
 through the special interposition of Providence, in 
 favour of Jehoshaphat and his people (2 Kings iii. 
 
 4, sq. ; comp. 2 Chron. xx. 1-30) [Elisha; Je- 
 HoiiAM ; Jehoshaphat], Under Jehoash (n.c. 
 849) we see them undertake incursions into the 
 kingdom of Israel, and carry on offensive war 
 against it (2 Kings xiii. 20). 
 
 Though the subsequent history of Israel often 
 mentions the Moabites, yet it is silent respecting 
 a circumstance which, in relation to one passage, 
 is of the greatest importance, namely, the re- 
 conquest of the territory between the Arnon and 
 the Jabbok, which was wrested from the Moabites 
 by the Amorites, and afterwards of the territory 
 possessed, by the tribes of Reuben and Gad. This 
 territory in general we see, according to Isa. xvi., 
 In the possession of the Moabites again. Even Selah, 
 the ancient capital of the Edomites, seems like- 
 vf'-ge, from Isa. xvi. 1, to have belonged to them, 
 at least for a time. The most natural supposition 
 ia that of Reland ( Palcestina , p. 720), Paulus 
 ( Clavis f p. 110), and Rosenmiilhr (in loc .), that, 
 after the carrying away of those tribes into cap- 
 
 tivity, the Moabites occupied their territory ; as i» 
 is expressly stated (Jer. xlix. 1-5) that the Amorites 
 intruded themselves into the territory of the cap- 
 tive Gadites, as the Edomites did in respect to the 
 Jews at. a later period (Joseph. De Bell. Jnd. v. 
 79). The tribes of Reuben and Gad were not, 
 however, as is commonly supposed, first carried 
 away after the destruction of Samaria (b.c. 722) 
 by Shalmaneser (2 Kings xviii. 9, 10), but, accord- 
 ing to l Chron. v. 26, by Pul and Tiglathpileser 
 certainly, and perhaps (for the account is some- 
 what indefinite) in the earliest campaign against 
 Menahem, b.c. 774 (2 Kings xv. 19), and Pekah, 
 b.c. 741 (2 Kings xv. 29). Nevertheless the sin- 
 gular fact remains, that here, where we should 
 have expected every wrong done to the Israelites 
 by Moab to be made prominent, this usurpation 
 of their territory is not noticed. Hence we 
 cannot wholly resist the conjecture that it was 
 with that tevritoty as with the territory of the 
 Philistines, Tyrians, and Sidonians, t. e. it, was 
 never permanently possessed by the Hebrew 
 tribes, and the division of this region into 
 many parts in the book of Joshua remained 
 ideal (an assignment in partibus infidelium ), 
 without being generally realised in history. 
 Perhaps also many of these cities were as 
 little inhabited by the Hebrews as Tyre and 
 Sidon, which are likewise assigned them in the 
 book of Joshua. In like manner it may be ex« 
 plained why many cities (Num. xxxii. 34, sq.) 
 were apportioned to the tribe of Reuben, which 
 are afterwards ascribed (Josh, xiii.) to Gad, and 
 vice versd (Reland, Palcestina, pp. 582, 720, 
 735). 
 
 Still later, under Nebuchadnezzar, we see the 
 Moabites acting as the auxiliaries of the Chal- 
 daeans (2 Kings xxiv. 2), and beholding with 
 malicious satisfaction the destruction of a 
 kindred people (Ezek. xxv. S-l 1) ; yet, accord- 
 ing to an account in Jogephus (Antiq. x. 9. 7), 
 Nebuchadnezzar, when on his way to Egypt, made 
 war upon them, and subdued them, together with 
 the Ammonites, five years after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. On the other hand, there is no 
 authority in any one ancient account for that 
 which modern historians have repeatedly copied 
 from one another, viz. that Moab was carried into 
 exile by Nebuchadnezzar, and restored with the 
 Hebrews under Cyrus. 
 
 That continual wars and contentions must have 
 created a feeling of national hostility between the 
 Hebrews and the Moabites, may be readily con- 
 ceived. This feeling manifested itself on the part 
 of the Hebrews, sometimes in bittcv proverbs 
 sometimes in the denunciations of the prophets ; 
 on the part of the Moabites in proud boastings 
 and expressions of contempt (Isa. xvi. 6). 
 
 Among the prophecies, however, that of Balaam 
 (Num. xxii.-xxiv.) is above all remarkable, in 
 which this ancient prophet (who withal was not an 
 Israelite), hired by Moab to curse, is impelled by 
 the Divine Spirit to bless Israel, and to announce 
 the future destruction of Moab by a mighty here 
 in Israel (Num. xxiv. 17). It is a genuine epic 
 representation worthy of the greatest poet of any 
 age. Nor should we overlook the song of triumph 
 and scorn respecting Moab, suggested by Hesh- 
 bon, and obscure only as to its origin (Num. xxi. 
 17-30). Among the later prophets, Amos (ii. 1-3) 
 predicts their destruction in consequence of then 
 
MOABITES. 
 
 MOABITES. 
 
 cruelty to the king of Edom ; probably with re- 
 ference to the war recorded in 2 Kings iii., when 
 the Edomites were confederate with the Hebrews; 
 although the particular instance of cruelty is not 
 there specified. Zephaniah (ii. 8-10) condemns 
 them to punishment for their scorn and contempt 
 of Israel. Jeremiah repeats the denunciation of 
 evil, for the most part in the words of Numbers 
 and Isaiah (Jer. xlviii. ; comp, also ix. 26 ; xxv. 
 21) ; and Ezekiel threatens them with punish- 
 ment for their malicious joy at the overthrow of 
 Judaea (xxv. 6-11). Moreover, the subjection of 
 Moab finds a place in every ideal description of 
 6plendid wars and golden ages predicted for Israel 
 (Isa. xi. 14; xxv. 10; Ps. lx 8), ‘Moab is my 
 wash-pot ’ (Ps. lxxxiii. 6). 
 
 After the exile, an intimate connection between 
 the two nations had found place by means of 
 intermarriages (Ezra ix. 1, sq. ; Neh. xiii. I), 
 which, however, were dissolved by the theocratic 
 zeal of Ezra. The last (chronologically) notice 
 of the Moabites which occurs in Scripture is in 
 Dan. xi. 41, which contains an obscure intimation 
 of the escape of the Moabites from the overthrow 
 with which neighbouring countries would be 
 visited : but Josephus, in the history of Alexander 
 Jannaeus, mentions the cities between Arnon and 
 Jabbok under the title of cities of Moab (. Antiq . 
 xiii. 15). Thenceforth their name is lost under that 
 of the Arabians, as was also the case with Ammon 
 and Edom. At the time of Abulfeda, Moab 
 Proper, south of the Arnon, bore the name of 
 Karak, from the city so called ; and the territory 
 north of the Arnon, that of Belka, which in- 
 cludes also the Ammonites. Since that time, 
 the accounts of that region are uncommonly 
 meagre ; for through fear of the predatory and 
 mischievous Arabs that people it, few of the 
 numerous travellers in Palestine have ventured 
 to explore it. For scanty accounts, see Biis- 
 ching’s Asia, pp. 507, 508. Seetzen, who in 
 February and March, 1806, not without dan- 
 ger of losing his life, undertook a tour from Da- 
 mascus down to the south of the Jordan and the 
 Dead Sea, and thence to Jerusalem, was the first 
 to shed a new, and altogether unexpected light 
 upon the topography of this region. He found a 
 multitude of places, or at least of ruins of places, 
 still bearing the old names ; and thus has set 
 hounds to the perfectly arbitrary designations of 
 them on the old charts. Seetzen’s wish, that 
 some other traveller might acquaint the public 
 with the remarkable ruins of this region, espe- 
 cially those of Gerasa and Amman, and then 
 advance to the splendid ruins of Petra at W ady 
 Mousa, is already partly accomplished, and will 
 soon be completely so. From June to September, 
 1812, Burckhardt made the same tour from Da- 
 mascus beyond the Jordan down to Karak; 
 whence he advanced over Wady Mousa, or the 
 ancient Petra (which he was the first Euro- 
 pean traveller to visit), to the bay ot Aila, 
 and thence went to Cairo. The accurate de- 
 tails of this tour, which are contained in his 
 Travels in Syria and the Holy Land , 1822, 
 chrew much light upon the ancient topography 
 and present condition of the lands of Moab and 
 Edom. The accounts of Seetzen and Burck- 
 hardt give the substance of all the information 
 which we even yet possess concerning the land of 
 Moab in particular, although of Edom, or rather 
 
 35: 
 
 of Petra, fuller, if not more exact accounts, have 
 been since obtained. Most of the travellers who 
 visited Petra after Burckhardt, passed also 
 through the land of Moab; but it afterwards be- 
 came usual to pass from Petra direct to Hebron ; 
 whence this country has escaped the researches of 
 many travellers whose observations have of late 
 years enriched the topography of this region. A 
 party of English gentlemen, Captains Irby and 
 Mangles, Mr. Bankes and Mr. Legh, passed 
 through the land of Moab in returning from Petra 
 in 1818; and their observations published in 
 their Travels by Irby and Mangles, and by Legh 
 in a Supplement to Dr. Macmichael’s Journey 
 from Moscow to Constantinople , 1819, furnish 
 the most valuable additions which have as yet 
 been obtained to the information of Seetzen and 
 Burckhardt. The northern parts of the country 
 were visited by Mr. Buckingham, and more 
 lately by Mr. George Robinson and by Lord 
 Lindsay, but very little additions have been 
 made by these travellers to our previous know- 
 ledge. The plates to Laborde’s new work, Voyage 
 en Orient , show that he also visited the land of 
 Moab ; but the particulars of his journey have 
 not yet been published. 
 
 From these sources we learn that in the land 
 of Moab, which lay to the east and south-east 
 of Judaea, and which bordered on the east, north- 
 east, and partly on the south of the Dead Sea, 
 the soil is rather more diversified than that of 
 Ammon ; and, where the desert and plains of 
 salt have not encroached upon its borders, of 
 equal fertility. There are manifest and abun- 
 dant signs of its ancient importance. ‘ The whole 
 of the plains are covered with the sites of towns 
 on every eminence or spot convenient for the con- 
 struction of one ; and as the land is capable of 
 rich cultivation, there can be no doubt that the 
 country, now so deserted, once presented a con- 
 tinued picture of plenty and fertility’ (Irby and 
 Mangles, p. 378). The form of fields is still 
 visible, and there are remains of Roman highways 
 which are in some places completely paved, ‘ and 
 on which there are milestones of the times of 
 Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Severus, with the 
 numbers of the miles legible upon them. Wher- 
 ever any spot is cultivated the com is luxuriant ; 
 and the frequency and almost, in many instances, 
 the close vicinity of the sites of ancient towns, 
 prove that the population of the country was for- 
 merly proportioned to its fertility (Irby and Man- 
 gles, pp. 377, 378, 456,460). It was in its state 
 of highest prosperity that the prophets foretold that 
 the cities of Moab should become desolate, with- 
 out any to dwell in them ; and accordingly we 
 find, that although the sites, ruins, and names of 
 many ancient cities of Moab can be traced, not 
 one of them exists at the present day as tenanted 
 by man. The argument for the inspiration of 
 the sacred records deducible from this, among 
 other facts of the same kind, is produced with 
 considerable force by Dr. Keith in his work on 
 Prophecy. Gesenius, Comment, on Isa. xv. xvi. 
 Introduct. translated by W. S. Tyler, with Notes 
 by Moses Stuart, in Biblical Repos, for 1836, 
 vol. vii. pp. 107-124; Keith’s Evidence from 
 Prophecy, pp. 153-165; and Land of Israel, 
 279-295 ; Pictorial Bible, Notes to Deut. ii. 2 ; 
 Isa. xvi. xvii. ; Jer. xliii. See also the travels 
 and other works cited in this article. 
 
MOLOCH 
 
 &>2 m6le. 
 
 MOLE, *-6n dialed: Arabic, khuld (Lev. 
 xi. 29, in our version ‘ weasel ’), Although the 
 similarity of sound in names is an unsafe ground 
 to depend upon when it is applied to specific 
 animals, still, the Hebrew and Syriac appearing 
 likewise to imply creeping into, creeping under- 
 neath by burrowing — characteristics most obvious 
 in moles — and the Arabic denomination being un- 
 doubted, dialed may be assumed to indicate the 
 above animal, in preference to chmsemeth, which, 
 io conformity with the opinion of Bochart, is re- 
 ferred to the chamceleon. This conclusion is the 
 more to be relied on as the animal is rather com- 
 mon in Syria, and in some places abundant. 
 Zoologists have considered the particular species 
 to be the Talpa Europcea , which, under the name 
 of the common mole, is so well known as not to 
 require a more particular description. The an- 
 cients represented the mole to have no eyes : which 
 assertion later scientific writers believed they had 
 disproved by showing our species to be possessed of 
 these organs, though exceedingly small. Neverthe- 
 less, recent observations have proved that a species, 
 in other respects scarcely, if at. all, to be distin- 
 guished from the common, is totally destitute of 
 eyes, and consequently has received the name of 
 Talpa cceca. It is to be found in Italy, and pro* 
 bably extends to the East, instead of the Europcea. 
 Moles must not, however, be considered as forming 
 a part of the Rodent order, whereof all the families 
 and genera are provided with strong incisor teeth, 
 like rats and squirrels, and therefore intended for 
 subsisting chiefiy on grain and nuts : they are on 
 the contrary supplied with a great number of small 
 teeth, to the extent of twenty-two in each jaw — 
 indicating a partial regimen; for they feed on 
 worms, larvae, and under-ground insects, as well as 
 on roots, and thus belong to the insectivorous 
 order : which brings the application of the name 
 somewhat nearer to carnivora and its received 
 interpretation ‘ weasel.’ 
 
 With regard to the words TV)")*} “I5PI Jchaphar 
 phiroth, wliich have exercised the ingenuity of 
 Gesenius and others, there does not appear suffi- 
 cient evidence to prove that any, or a particular, 
 animal is meant ; and consequently, that the Spa- 
 lax microsthalmus , or blind rat, may be intended, 
 is very doubtful; nor is eseth, ‘an embryo,’ 
 
 ‘an abortion,’ more applicable to this spalax , which 
 makes galleries and hills like the common mole, 
 and, most likely, was confounded with it by the 
 ancient Hebrews : unless it was designated by 
 rV'IQ'lD, which should, perhaps, be read as one 
 word, and gives great force to Isa.ii.20. — C. H. S. 
 
 MOLOCH, or rather Molech al- 
 
 ways with the article, except in 1 Kings xi. 7). 
 The Septuagint most frequently render it as an 
 appellative, by 6 &.px<*>v, or a<ri\evs but they 
 also write Mo\6x, as Aquila, Symmachus, and 
 Theodotion, appear to have generally done. 
 Whatever reasons there may be for doubting 
 whether Malchum is a name of this god, or is 
 merely ‘ their king,’ in a civil sense, in Am. i. 
 i5; Zeph. i. 5 (on which see the notes of Hitzig, 
 Dilute. j\ temcn Propheten), yet the context, in 
 Jer. xlix. 1, seems to require that it should there 
 denote this god, as indeed the Septuagint and 
 Syriac versions have expressed it. But Milchom 
 — which Movers considers to be an Aramaic pro- 
 nunciation of Malcham , i. e. to be an appella 
 
 tive, ‘ their king,’ in a theocratical sense (Dee 
 Phmizier, i. 358) — is evidently a name of this 
 god (comp. 1 Kings xi. 5 and 7). 
 
 Molech is chiefiy found in the Old Testament 
 as the national god of toe Ammonites, to whom 
 children were sacrificed by fire. There is some 
 difficulty in ascertaining at whet period the 
 Israelites became acquainted with this idolatry ; 
 yet three reasons render it probable that it was 
 before the time of Solomon, the date usually as- 
 signed for its introduction. First, Molech ap- 
 pears — if not under that name, yet. under the 
 notion that we attach to it — to have been a prin- 
 cipal god of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, 
 whose other idolatries the Israelites confessedly 
 adopted very early. Secondly, there are some 
 arguments which tend to connect Molech with 
 Baal, and, if they be tenable, the worship ot 
 Molech might be essentially as old as that of the 
 latter. Thirdly ; if we assume, as there is much 
 apparent ground for doing, that, wherever huma» 
 sacrifices are mentioned in the Old Testament, 
 we are to understand them to be offered to Mo- 
 lech — the apparent exception of the gods of Se 
 pharvaim being only a strong evidence of thev 
 identity with him — then the remarkable passage 
 in Ezek. xx. 26 (cf. v. 31) clearly shows that the 
 Israelites sacrificed their first-born by fire, when 
 they were in the wilderness .* Moreover, those 
 who ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses will recog 
 nise both the early existence of the worship of this 
 god, and the apprehension of its contagion, in 
 that express prohibition of his bloody rites wliich 
 is found in Lev. xx. 1-5. Nevertheless, it is for 
 the first lime directly stated that Solomon erected 
 a high-place for Molech on the Mount of Olives 
 (l Kings xi. 7) ; and from that period his wor- 
 ship continued uninterruptedly there, or in To- 
 phet, in the valley of Hinnom, until Josiah defiled 
 both places (2 Kings xxiii. 10, 13). Jehoana^ 
 however, the son and successor of Josiah, again 
 ‘ did what was evil in the sight of Jehovah, ac- 
 cording to all that his fathers had done’ (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 32). The same broad condemnation is 
 made against the succeeding kings, Jehoiakim, 
 Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah ; and Ezekiel, writing 
 during the captivity, says, ‘ Do you, by offering 
 your gifts, and by making your sons pass through 
 the fire, pollute yourselves with all your idols 
 zmtil this day, and shall 1 be enquired of by 
 you?’ (xx. 31). After the restoration, all traces 
 of this idolatry disappear. 
 
 It has been attempted to explain the terms in 
 which the act of sacrificing children is described 
 in the Old Testament so as to make them mean 
 a mere passing between two fires, without any 
 risk of life, for the purpose of purification. This 
 theory — which owes its origin to a desire in some 
 Rabbins to lessen the mass of evidence which 
 their own history offers of the perverse icV.i Kew 
 of the Jews— is effectually declared untenable by 
 such passages as Ps. cvi. 38; Jer. vii. 31 ; Ezek. 
 xvi. 20 ; xxiii. 37 ; the last two of \v4iich may 
 
 * The words in Amos v. 20, as rendered by the 
 Septuagint, and as cited from that version in 
 Acts vii. 43, might also be adduced here. But 
 it is not clear that Molech is intended by the 
 ‘ your king’ of the original text ; and Jarchi 
 refers the whole verse to the future, instead of the 
 past, in which he is followed by Ewald 
 
MONEY. 
 
 MONEY. 
 
 Also be adduced to show that the victims were 
 slaughtered befoie they were burnt. 
 
 As the accounts of this idol and Ins worship 
 bund in the Old Testament are very scanty, the 
 more detailed notices which Greek and Latin 
 writers give of the bloody rites of the Phoenician 
 colonies acquire peculiar value. M (inter has 
 
 collected these testimonies with great complete- 
 ness, in his Religion der Kartkager. Many of 
 these notices, however, only describe late develop- 
 ments of the primitive rites. Thus the descrip- 
 tion of the image of Molech as a brazen statue, 
 which was heated red hot, and in the outstretched 
 arms of which the child was laid, so that it fell 
 down into the flaming furnace beneath — an ac- 
 count which is first found in Diodorus Siculus, 
 as referring to the Carthaginian K p6vos, but 
 which was subsequently adopted by Jarchi and 
 others — is not admiited by Movers to apply to 
 the Molech of the Old Testament. 
 
 The connection between Molech and Baal — the 
 very names, as meaning 1 king* and ‘ lord,’ being 
 almost synonymous — is seen in comparing Jer. 
 xxxii. 35 with xix. 5, in which both names are 
 used as if they were interchangeable, and in 
 which human sacrifices are ascribed to both. 
 Another argument might be drawn from Jer. iii. 
 24, in which Ilesbboshetk, ‘ shame,’ is said to have 
 devoured their flocks and herds, their sons and 
 daughters. Now, as Bosheth is found, in the 
 names Ish-bosheth and Jerubbesheth. to alternate 
 with Baal, as if it was only a contemptuous per- 
 version of it., it would appear that human sacri- 
 fices are here again ascribed to Baal. Further, 
 whereas Baal is the chief name under which we 
 find the principal god of the Phoenicians in the 
 Old Testament, and whereas only the two above 
 cited passages mention the human victims of 
 Baa./, it is remarkable that the Greek and Latin 
 authors give abundant testimony to the human 
 sacrifices which the Phoenicians and their colo- 
 nies offered to their principal god, in whom the 
 classical writers have almost always recognised 
 their own K p6vos and Saturn. Thus we are again 
 nrougtit to the difficulty, alluded to above 
 ’Baal], of reconciling Molech as Saturn with 
 Baal as the sun and Jupiter. In reality, how- 
 ever, this difficulty is in part created by our as- 
 sociation of classical with Semitic mythology. 
 When regarded apart from such foreign affini- 
 ties, Molech and Baal may appear as the per- 
 sonifications of the two powers which give and 
 destroy life, which early religions regarded as 
 not incompatible phases of the same one God of 
 nature. — J. N. 
 
 MONEY. This term is used to denote what- 
 ever commodity the inhabitants of any country 
 may have agreed or are compelled to receive as 
 an equivalent for their labour, and in exchange 
 for other commodities. Etymologists differ re- 
 specting its derivation. Bouteroue contends that 
 it is derived from monere, because the stamp 
 impressed on ttie coin indicates its weight and 
 fineness (■ Recherches stir les Monnoyes de Franca ) ; 
 and Suidas (s. v. M ovrjra), that it originated in 
 the circumstance of silver having been first coined 
 at Rome in the temple of Juno Moncta. 
 
 Different commodities have been used as 
 money in the primitive state of society in all 
 countries. Those nations which subsist by the 
 chase, such as the ancient Russians and the 
 
 TOL. II. 24 
 
 m 
 
 greater part of the No>-‘h American Indians, use the 
 skins of the animals killed in hunting as money 
 (Storch, Traite d’ Economic Politique , tome i.). 
 In a pastoral state of society cattle are chiefly 
 used as money. Thus, according to Ilomer, the 
 armour of Diomede cost nine oxen, and that of 
 Glaucus one hundred (Iliad, vi. 235). The 
 etymology of the Latin word pecunia, signifying 
 money, and of all its derivatives, affords suf- 
 ficient evidence that, cattle (peons) were the first 
 money of the Romans. They were also used as 
 money by the Germans, whose laws fix the 
 amount of penalties for particular offences to be 
 paid in cattle (Storch, l. c.). In agricultural coun- 
 tries corn would be used in remote ages as money, 
 and even at the present day it is not unusual to 
 stipulate for corn rents and wages. Various 
 commodities have been and are still used in 
 different countries. Smith mentions salt as the 
 common money of Abyssinia (Wealth of Na- 
 tions, i. 4). A species of eyprcea called the cotcree, 
 gathered on the shores of the Maidive Islands, 
 and of which G400 constitute a rupee, is used in 
 making small payments throughout India, and 
 is the only money of certain districts in Africa. 
 Dried fish forms the money of Iceland and New- 
 foundland ; sugar of some of the West India 
 Islands; and among the first settlers in America 
 corn and tobacco were used as money (Holmes's 
 American Annals ). Smith mentions that, at 
 the time of the publication of the Wealth of 
 Nations, there was a village in Scotland where it 
 was customary for a workman to carry nails as 
 money to the baker s shop or the alehouse (i. 4). 
 
 A long period of time must have intervened 
 between the first introduction of the precious 
 metals into commerce, and their becoming gene- 
 rally used as money. The peculiar qualities: 
 which so eminently fit them for this purpose 
 would only be gradually discovered. They 
 would probably be first introduced in their gross- 
 and unpurified state. A sheep, an ox, a certain 
 quantity of corn, or any other article, would, 
 afterwards be bartered or exchanged for } .eces. of 
 gold or silver in bars or ingots, in the same way 
 as they would formerly have been exchanged for 
 iron, copper, cloth, or anything else. The mer- 
 chants would soon begin to estimate their proper 
 value, and, in effecting exchanges, would first 
 agree upon the quality of the metal to be given, 
 and then the quantity which its possessor had 
 become bound to pay would be ascertained by 
 weight. This, according to Aristotle and Pliny,, 
 was the manner in which the precious metals, 
 were originally exchanged in Greece and Italy. 
 The same practice is still observed in different 
 countries. In many parts of China and Abys- 
 sinia the value of gold and silver is always 
 ascertained by weight (Goguet, De l Origine dea 
 Loix, &o.). Iron was the first money of the 
 Lacedsemonians, and copper of the Romans. 
 
 In the sacred writings there is frequent mention 
 of gold, silver, and brass, sums of money, pur- 
 chases made with money, current money, anu 
 money of a certain weight. Indeed, the money 
 of Scripture is all estimated by weight. ‘Abra- 
 ham weighed to Ephron the silver which lie haa 
 named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four 
 hundred shekels of silver, current money with the 
 merchant’ (Gen. xxiii. 19). The brethren or 
 Joseph carried back into Egypt the money * Lc 
 

 MONEY. 
 
 MONEY. 
 
 full weight’ which they had found in their sacks 
 (Gen. xliii. 21). The golden earring presented 
 by Abraham's steward to liebekah weighed half 
 a shekel, and the tvs bracelets for her hands were 
 ‘ten shekels weight of gold’ (Gen. xxiv. 22). 
 In paying for the lield of Hanameel, Jeremiah 
 weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels 
 of silver’ (Jer. xxxii. 9). Amos represents the 
 merchants of Israel as ‘ falsifying the balances by 
 deceit’ (viii. 5). The shekel and the talent do 
 not appear to have been originally fixed and 
 stamped pieces of money, but simply weights 
 used in traffic. Hence. ‘ thou shalt not have in 
 thy bag divers weights, a great and a small’ 
 (Deut. xxv. 13). It was customary for the Jews 
 to have scales attached to their girdles for 
 weighing the gold and silver they received; but 
 the Canaanites carried them in their hands. 
 
 There is no direct allusion in the sacred 
 writings to coined money as belonging to the 
 Jewish nation. In Gen. xxxiii. 19, Jacob is said 
 to have bought a part of a field ‘ for an hundred 
 pieces of money;’ and the friends of Job are said 
 to have given him each ‘ a piece of money ’ (Job 
 xlii. 11 ). The term in the original is kesitoth, and 
 is by some thought to denote ‘sheep’ or ‘ lamb;’ 
 by others a kind of money having the impression 
 of a sheep or lamb; and by others again a purse 
 of money. The most correct, translation may be 
 presumed to be that which favours the idea of a 
 piece of money bearing some stamp or mark 
 indicating that it was of the value of a sheep or 
 lamb. The name shekel, first used to indicate a 
 weight, might afterwards be applied to a piece of 
 money. According to Arbntlniot, 3000 of these 
 shekels were equal to a talent. Some allegorical 
 device would naturally suggest itself as the most 
 appropriate for being impressed upon pieces of 
 gold or silver of a given weight and fineness; 
 and as in the patriarchal ages property consisted 
 chiefly of flocks and herds, no better emblem 
 could be used than that of a lamb, with which it 
 is imagined the pieces of money alluded to may 
 have been impressed. Maurice, in his Antiquities 
 of India (vol. vii.), bears testimony to the fact that 
 the earliest coins were stamped with the figure of 
 an ox or sheep. In the British Museum there is a 
 specimen of the original Roman As, the surface 
 of which is nearly the size of a brick, with the 
 figure of a bull impressed upon it. Other devices 
 
 would suggest themselves to different nations as 
 arising out of, or connected with, particular places 
 or circumstances, as the Babylonish lion, ./Egina's 
 tortoise, Boeotia’s shield, the lyre of Mytilene, 
 the wheat of Metapontum. On some of the 
 reverses cf the Roman large brass may be de- 
 tipr.ered, * Valour standing full armed : Honour 
 
 robed and chapleted : Happiness crowned with 
 obliviscent poppies : Concord with extended hand, 
 and the horn of plenty in her bosom : Hope 
 tripping lightly, and smiling on a flower-bud: 
 Peace offering the olive-branch : Fortune resting 
 on a rudder: Military Faith stretching forth his 
 consecrated standard : Abundance emptying her 
 cornucopia : Security leaning on a column : 
 Modesty veiled and sitting ; Piety taking her 
 gift to the altar: Fruitfulness in the midst of her 
 nurselings: Equity adjusting her scales : Victory 
 with wings and coronal and trumpet : Eternity 
 holding the globe and risen phoenix ; or better, 
 seated on a starry sphere: Liberty with cap and 
 staff: National Prosperity sailing as a good ship 
 before the favouring gale : and Public Faith 
 with joined hands clasping between them the 
 palms of success, and the caduceus of health’ 
 ( Quarterly Review , vol. lxxii. p. 358). Religion 
 would also at an early period claim to be distin- 
 guished, and accordingly the effigies of Juno, 
 Diana, Ceres, Jove, Hercules, AjhiIIo, Bacchus, 
 Pluto, Neptune, ami many other of the heathen 
 deities are found impressed upon the early coins. 
 The Jews, however, were the worshippers of the 
 one only true God ; idolatry was strictly for- 
 bidden in their law ; and therefore their shekel 
 never bore a bead, but was impressed simply with 
 the almond rod and the pot of manna. 
 
 The first Roman coinage took place, according 
 to Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxiii. 3), in the reign of 
 Servius Tullius, about 550 years before Christ ; 
 but it was not. until Alexander of Macedon had 
 subdued the Persian monarchy, and Julius Caesar 
 had consolidated the Roman empire, that the 
 image of a living ruler was permitted to be 
 stamped upon the coins. Previous to that period 
 heroes and deities alone gave currency to the 
 money of imperial Rome. 
 
 Antiochus Sidetes, king of Syria, is represented 
 to have granted to Simon Maccahaeus the pri- 
 vilege of coining- money in Judaea (1 Macc. xv.6). 
 This is considered to he the first mention of 
 Hebrew money, properly so called. It consisted 
 of shekels and demi -shekels, the third part of a 
 shekel, and the quarter of a shekel, of silver. 
 
 From the time of Julius Caesar, who first 
 struck a living portrait on his coins, the Roman 
 coins run in a continued succession of so-called 
 Caesars, their queens and crown-princes, from 
 about n.c. 48 down to Romulus Augustulus, em- 
 peror of the West, who was dethroned by Odoaee* 
 about a.d. 475 (Quarterly Review , ut supra). 
 
 After its subjugation by Rome much foreign 
 money found its way into the land of Judaea. 
 The piece of tribute money, or coin mentioned in 
 Luke xx. 24, as presented to our Saviour, bore 
 the image and superscription of the Roman 
 emperor, and it is reasorable to suppose that • 
 
MONEY CHANGERS. 
 
 MONTHS. 
 
 355 
 
 large quantity of Roman coins was at that time 
 jn circulation throughout Judaea. — G. M. 13. 
 
 MONEY CHANGERS. It is mentioned by 
 Volney that in Syria, Egypt, and Turkey, when 
 any considerable payments are to be made, an 
 agent of exchange is sent for, who counts paras by 
 thousands, rejects pieces of false money, and 
 weighs all the sequins either separately or together. 
 It has hence been suggested that the ‘current 
 money with the merchant,’ mentioned in Scripture 
 (Gen. xxiii. J6), might have been such as was 
 approved of by competent judges whose business 
 it was to detect fraudulent money if offered in 
 payment. The Hebrew word "lfTiD soeher, sig- 
 nifies one who goes about from place to place, 
 and is supposed to answer to the native exchange- 
 agent or money-broker of the East, now called 
 shroff. It appears that there were bankers or 
 money-changers in Judaea, who made a trade of 
 receiving money in deposit and paying interest 
 for it (Matt. xxv. 27). Some of them had even 
 established themselves within the precincts of the 
 temple at Jerusalem (xxi. 12), where they were 
 in the practice of exchanging one species of money 
 for another. Persons who came from a distance 
 to worship at Jerusalem would naturally bring 
 with them the money current in their respective 
 districts, and it might therefore be a matter of 
 convenience for them to get this money exchanged 
 at the door of the temple for that which was cur- 
 rent in Jerusalem, and upon their departure to 
 receive again that species of money which circu- 
 lated in the districts to which they were journey- 
 ing. These money-changers would, of course, 
 charge a commission upon all their transactions, 
 but from the observation of our Saviour, when he 
 overthrew the tables of those in the temple, it may 
 be inferred that they were not distinguished for 
 honesty and fair dealing: ‘It is written, my 
 house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye 
 have made it a den of thieves ’ (ver. 13). 
 
 In the Life of Aratus, by Plutarch, there is 
 mention of a hanker of Sicyon, a city of Pelopon- 
 nesus, who lived 240 years before Christ, and 
 whose whole business consisted in exchanging one 
 species of money for another. — G. M. B. 
 
 MONTHS. It is proposed to comprise, under 
 (his head, some observations which may be con- 
 sidered supplementary to the articles on the sepa- 
 rate months, and subordinate to that on the year. 
 For this end it is expedient to distinguish three 
 periods in the Jewish mode of denoting dates by 
 months: the 'first extending until the Babylonian 
 captivity ; the second until one or two centuries 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans ; 
 and the third from the adoption of the calendar 
 of Rabbi Hill el the younger (i. e. from about the 
 middle of the fourth century of our era) until the 
 present time. 
 
 In the first period the months are, as a rule, 
 mentioned by their numerical designation only — 
 as ‘ the first month,’ ‘ the second, 1 &c.* We have 
 
 * The only exception to this rule in the Penta- 
 teuch, occurs in the terms, ‘ in the month of 
 Abib, 1 which are found in the Authorized Version. 
 This is, however, only an apparent exception, since 
 Abib is not the proper name of the month, but 
 means ears of corn, and distinguishes that month, 
 which is elsewhere called 4 the first,’ as the month 
 
 no explicit indication of the number of days in a 
 month, nor of ihe number of months in a year: 
 the 27th day and the 11th month being re- 
 spectively the highest mentioned (Gen. viii. 14; 
 Beut. i. 3); unless 1 Kings iv. 7 be considered 
 to prove that the year had 12 months.* Never 
 the! ess, as the two Hebrew terms for month — 
 BHri, literally new moon, thence month, from a 
 root signifying to be new ; and PIT, moon, and 
 < lienee month — afford some proof that the months 
 were measured by the moon (comp. Ps. civ. 19); 
 and, as the festivals of the Mosaic law bore a 
 fixed relation to certain epochs of the agricul- 
 tural year, which were fixed by nature, there 
 is much reason to conclude that the year had 
 twelve lunar months, and that it must have been 
 kept parallel with (he sun by some mode of inter- 
 calation adequate to, if not identical with, the one 
 afterwards employed. 
 
 In the second period, we find, in part, a conti- 
 nuation of the previous method, with somewhat 
 more definite statements (for instance, 1 Chron. 
 xxvii. clearly proves that the year had twelve 
 months), and, in part, the adoption of new names 
 for the months : but the co-existence of both 
 these systems is not easily explained. For, 
 whereas Zechariah, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 
 introduce the seven new names — Shebat, Chislev, 
 Adar, Nisan, Elul, Tebeth, and Si van — all the 
 other canonical books written after the restoration 
 do nothing more than enumerate the months, 
 without any name, in the order of their succession. 
 There is, moreover, another discrepancy in the 
 usage of the writers of the former class, inasmuch 
 as, while they all generally give the name of the 
 month together with its ordinal adjective, Nehe- 
 miah gives the naked names alone. It is on these 
 discrepancies that Benfey and Stern, who also 
 give a minute statement of the particular devia- 
 tions, rest one external support of their theory, 
 that these names of the months are not Aramaic, as 
 is commonly supposed, but Persian, and adopted 
 during the Captivity — for which it may suffice to 
 refer to their Monatsnamen einiger alter Vblker, 
 Beilin, 183(3. Although only the above-mentioned 
 seven names occur in the Old Testament, yel 
 there is no manner of doubt that the Jews at ilie 
 
 of ears, in reference to the ripeness of the corn 
 (Sept, /irjv t lav vtwv\ Vulg. mensis novarmn 
 frugum ). The only remaining exceptions in the 
 other hooks of this period occur exclusively in 
 1 Kings vi. and viii., where we find the second, 
 eighth, and seventh months called Ziv, Bui, ami 
 Ethanim. In this case, two circumstances mili- 
 tate against the hypothesis that these names were 
 in the current use of the people : the one being, 
 that this is the only instance of their use; (lift 
 other, that the writer has, at the same time de- 
 scribed the three by the order of their succession 
 (as ‘ in the month Ziv, which is the second 
 month,’ &c.) just as the writers of the second 
 period do with the confessedly foreign names, 
 Nisan, &c. 
 
 * Some have attempted to show, from the sum 
 of days assigned to the flood (Gen. vii. 11 ; viii 
 4, 14), that the ancient Hebrew months bad 
 30 days each, and that the antediluvian year 
 was a solar year of 365 days, like that of (he 
 Egyptians. (See Yon Bohlen, Die Gened*, 
 p. 107> 
 
356 
 
 MONTHS. 
 
 MOON. 
 
 same time adopted the entire twelve names, of 
 which the following is a table: 
 
 Nisan, Tishri, 
 
 Iyar, Marcheshvan, 
 
 Sivan, Chislev, 
 
 Tammuz, Tebeth, 
 
 Ab, Sliebat, 
 
 Elul. Adar. 
 
 In the same manner as the Old Testament con- 
 tains no indication of the mode of intercalation, 
 when yet it is certain that some mode must have 
 been used, so also it does not mention by what 
 method the commencement and conclusion of 
 every month were ascertained in either of these 
 periods. According to the Talmud, however, it 
 is certain that, in the second period, the com- 
 mencement of the month was dated from the 
 time when the earliest visible appearance of the 
 new moon was announced to the Sanhedrim ; that, 
 if this happened on the 30th day of the current 
 month, that month was considered to have ended 
 ■on toe preceding 29th day, and was called defi- 
 cient (“1DH) ; but, if no announcement was made 
 on the 30th day, that day was reckoned to the 
 current month, which was in that case called full 
 (*&»), and the ensuing day was at once consi- 
 dered to be the first of the next month. Further, 
 as the cloudy state of the weather sometimes hin- 
 dered the actual sight of the new moon, it was an 
 established rule that no year should contain less 
 than four, and more than eight, full months. It 
 is generally assumed, although without express 
 warrant, that the commencement of the month 
 was determined in the same way in the first period : 
 but it is very probable, and the Mosaic festivals 
 of the new moon seem to be some evidence for it. 
 
 This is a fit occasion for discussing a question 
 which equally concerns both periods : — with 
 which of our months, namely, did the first month, 
 ‘the month of ears,’ or Nisan, most neatly coin- 
 cide? We are indebted to J. I). Michael is for 
 discovering the true sta’e of this case, after the 
 rabbinical writers had so universally established 
 an erroneous opinion that it has not even yet dis- 
 appeared from our popular books. His disserta- 
 tion ‘ De Mensibus Hebraeorum’ (in his Commen- 
 tationes per annos 1763-1768 oblatce, Bremen, 
 1769, p. 16) proceeds on the following chief argu- 
 ments : — That, if the first month began with the 
 new moon of March , as was commonly asserted, 
 the climate of Palestine would not in that 
 month permit the oblation of the sheaf of barley, 
 which is ordered on the second day of the Paschal 
 Feast ; nor could the harvest lie finished before the 
 Feast of Weeks, which would then fall in May ; 
 nor could the Feast of Tabernacles, which was 
 after the gathering of all fruits, accord with the 
 month of September, because all these feasts de- 
 pend on certain stages in the agricultural year, 
 which, as he shows from the observations of tra- 
 vellers, solely coincide with the states of vegeta- 
 tion which are found, in that climate, in the 
 months of April, June, and October. Secondly, 
 that the Syrian calendar, which has essentially 
 toe same names for the months, makes its Nisan 
 absolutely parallel with our April. And, lastly, 
 that Josephus, in one place, makes Nisan equi- 
 valent to the Macedonian month Xanthicus ; and, 
 
 La another, mentions that, on the 14th of Nisan, 
 fo* sun was in the sign of the Ran — whUh cou.’d 
 
 not be on that day, except in April ( Antiq . ii, 
 14.6; iii. 10.5). Michaelis concludes that till 
 later Jews fell into this departure from their an- 
 cient order, either through some mistake in the 
 intercalation, or because they wished to imitate 
 the Romans, whose year began in March. Ideler 
 says, ‘So much is certain, that, in the time of 
 Moses, the month of ears cannot have com- 
 menced before the first days of our April, which 
 was then the period of the vernal equinox ( Hand - 
 bitch dcr Chronologic, i. 490). As Nisan then 
 began with the new muon of April, *we have a 
 scale for fixing the commencement of all the 
 other months with reference to our calendar ; and 
 we must accordingly date their commencement 
 one whole month later than is commonly done: 
 allowing, of course, for the circumstance that, as 
 the new moon varies its place in our solar mouths, 
 the Jewish months will almost invariably consist 
 of portions of two of ours. 
 
 With regard to the third period, it is not neces- 
 sary to say more here than that, as the dispersion' 
 of the Jews rendered it impossible to communi- 
 cate the intelligence of the visible appearance of 
 the new moon, they were obliged to devise a 
 systematic calculation of the duration of their 
 months ; but that, they retained the above-men- 
 tioned names for the months, which are still lunar 
 months, of the mean duration of 29 days, 12 
 hours, 44 seconds; and that when they were no 
 longer able to regulate the epochs of their festivals 
 by the agricultural year of Palestine, they came, 
 for some such reasons as those assigned by Mi- 
 chaelis, to place every month earlier by one luna- 
 tion than it. had been in the first two periods, so 
 that their Nisan now most nearly coincided with 
 March. The rabbinical writers, therefore, who 
 maintained that the ancient Nisan likewise began 
 with the new moon of March, were mainly led 
 into that opinion by the practice existing in their 
 own time. — J. N. 
 
 MOON. The worship of the heavenly bodies 
 was among the earliest corruptions of religion, 
 which would naturally take its rise in the eastern 
 parts of the world, where the atmosphere is pure 
 and transparent, and the heavens as bright as they 
 are glowing. In these countries the moon is of 
 exceeding beauty. If the sun ‘rules the day,’ 
 the moon has the throne of night, which, if loss 
 gorgeous than that of the sun, is more attractive, 
 because of a less oppressively brilliant light, 
 while her retinue of surrounding stars seems to 
 give a sort of truth to her regal state, and certainly 
 adds not inconsiderably to her beauty. The moon 
 was therefore worshipped as a goddess in the Eas k 
 at a very early period ; in India under the name 
 ofMaja; among the Assyrians as Mylitta ; with 
 the Phoenicians she was termed Astaite or Ash- 
 tcroth, who was also denominated the Syrian 
 mother. The Greeks and Romans worshipped 
 her as Artemis and Diana. Job (xxxi. 26) al- 
 ludes to the power of the moon over the lmmai 
 soul : * If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the 
 moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath 
 been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed 
 my hand : this also were an iniquity, for I should 
 have denied the God that is above.' There is tc 
 the same effect a remarkable passage in Julian 
 ( Orat . in Salem, p. 90) : ‘ From my childhood I 
 was filled with a wonderful love for the rays o* 
 that goddess ; and when, in my boyhood, I di« 
 
MOON. 
 
 MOON. 
 
 357 
 
 reefed my eyes to her aetherial light, I was quite 
 beside myself. By night especially, when 1 found 
 myself under a wide, pure, cloudless sky, I forgot 
 everything else under her influence, and was absorb- 
 ed in the beauties of heaven, so that I did not hear 
 if addressed, nor was aware of what I did. 1 ap- 
 peared solely to be engaged with this divinity, so 
 that even when a beardless boy I might have been 
 taken for a stargazer.’ 
 
 The moon, as being mistress of the night, may 
 well have been considered as the lesser of the two 
 great lights of heaven (Gen. i. 16). It was accord- 
 ingly regarded in the old Syrian superstition as 
 subject to the sun's influence, which was worship- 
 ped as the active and generative power of nature, 
 while the moon was reverenced as the passive and 
 producing power. The moon, accordingly, was 
 ooked upon as feminine. Herein Oriental usage 
 agrees with our own. But this usage was by no 
 means universal. The gender of mond in German 
 is an exception in modern days, which may jus- 
 tify the inference that even among the northern 
 nations the moon had masculine qualities ascribed 
 to it. The Egyptians represented their moon as 
 a male deity, Ihoth ; and Wilkinson ( Anc . Egypt. 
 v. 5) remarks that ‘ the same custom of calling it 
 male is retained in the East to the present day, 
 while the sun is considered feminine, as in the 
 language of the Germans. Ihoth, in the charac- 
 ter of Lunus, the moon, has sometimes a man's 
 face, with the crescent of the moon upon his head 
 supporting a disk. Plutarch says the Egyptians 
 ‘ call the moon the mother of the world, and hold 
 it to be of both sexes : female, as it receives the 
 influence of the sun ; male, as it scatters and dis- 
 perses through the air the principles of fecundity.’ 
 In other countries also the moon was held to be 
 hermaphrodite. Another pair of dissimilar qua- 
 lities was ascribed to the moon — the destructive 
 and the generative faculty — whence it was wor- 
 shipped as a bad as well as a good power. 
 
 The epithet ‘ queen of heaven 1 (Horace, siderum 
 regina) appears to have been very common. Nor 
 was it, any more than the worship of the moon, 
 unknown to the Jews, as may be seen in a remark- 
 able passage in Jeremiah (xliv. 17), where the 
 Israelites (men and women, the latter exert most 
 influence) appear given over to this species of 
 idolatry: ‘We will certainly burn incense to 
 the queen of heaven , and pour out drink-oflerings 
 unto her, as we have done, we and our fathers ; 
 for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, 
 and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn 
 incense to the queen of heaven, we have wanted 
 all things.' The last verse of the passage adds to 
 the burnt- offerings and drink-offerings, ‘cakes 
 to worship her.’ Vows were also made by the 
 Jews to the moon, which superstition required to 
 be fulfilled (ver. 25). The appeal made in this 
 passage to the alleged authority of the ancient 
 Israelites can have no other ground than such as 
 these idolaters made or found by referring to the 
 religious observances in the Jewish church con- 
 nected with the full moon. In all probability, 
 however, their consciences misgave them while 
 they put forth this plea, though they may to some 
 extent have confounded the new moon ceremonies 
 with their loved idolatrous rites. Whence arises 
 ii justificat ion of the conduct of Moses in separat- 
 ing, in the most sharp and rigid manner, the cus- 
 toms, usages »nd laws of his people from those of 
 
 the idolaters by whom they were surrounded : had 
 he not done so, the flesh-pots of Egypt would nav£ 
 had an irresistible attraction for the children of 
 Israel, and a nation of monotheists would not 
 have been produced, to become the great spiritual 
 instructors of the world. 
 
 The baneful influence of the moon still finds 
 credence in the East. Moonlight is held to be detri- 
 mental to the eyes. In Ps. exxi. 6 we read, ‘ The 
 sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by 
 night; 1 so that the impression that, the moon may 
 do injury to man is neither partial nor va^ue. 
 Rosenmuller ( Morgenland . iv. 108) refers this to 
 the cold of night, which, he says, is very great and 
 sensible in the East, owing, partly, to the great 
 heat of the day. If this extreme (comparative? 
 cold is considered in connection with the Oriental 
 custom of sleeping sub divo, out of doors, a la 
 belle etoile , on the flat roofs of houses, or even on 
 the ground, without in all cases sufficient precau- 
 tionary measures for protecting the frame, we 
 see no difficulty in understanding whence arose 
 the evil influence ascribed to the moon. In the 
 East Indies similar effects result from similar 
 self-exposure. Sbakspere, who knew everything 
 that the eye and the heart could feach, makes re- 
 ference in two passages to this evil influence : — 
 
 ‘ the moon, the governess of floods, 
 
 Pale in her anger, washes all the air, 
 
 That rheumatic diseases do abound.’ 
 
 Mids. N. D. ii. 2. 
 
 ‘It is the very error of the moon; 
 
 She comes more nearer earth than she was 
 wont, 
 
 And makes men mad.’ — Othello, v. 2. 
 
 Unquestionably, great is the operation of the 
 moou on all the higher animals, as well as man. 
 The usages of language attest this, pointing also 
 to her malign effects ; thus ‘ moon-stricken, 1 ‘lu- 
 natic.’ Darkness seems essential to sound repose ; 
 accordingly men sleep uneasily under moonshine ; 
 sometimes they awake to a half or dreamy con- 
 sciousness; or never sink into that entire self- 
 oblivion which is necessary to sweet and refreshing 
 slumber. By her very changes, too, the moon 
 would rouse and stimulate the minds of men ; 
 the regularity of these changes would suggest, and 
 supply the earliest, measuie of time; the coinci- 
 dence of certain events with certain states of the 
 planet, would make the first be regarded as the con- 
 sequence of the last ; lienee watchful observation, 
 which would lead to honourable observance, and 
 this feeling is worship begun. Even at the present 
 hour, how much are the changes of the weather 
 held by the vulgar weather-wise to depend on 
 changes of the moon. The new moon is regarded 
 as specially auspicious, not only to bring serene 
 skies, but to give success. And, as of old the 
 interlunar space was a time of terror ( iracunda 
 Diana , Horat. Ars Poet. v. 454), when the queen 
 of heaven had sunk into Proserpine, ‘mistress ol 
 hell, 1 so still the darkness which intervenes from 
 the disappearance of the old to the return of the 
 new moon, causes the latter to be hailed with 
 pleasurable feelings, and to be regarded as the 
 bright harbinger of various kinds of good (Hone, 
 Every-Day Book, i. 1509). Birth and growth 
 induce grateful and cheerlul emotions ; waning, 
 vanishing, and darkness give sorrow and pain ; no 
 wonder, therefore, that the moon became aa ohjact 
 
$58 
 
 MOR. 
 
 MOR. 
 
 of intense interest to man. In some respects 
 its claims were superior to those of the sun, 
 since the moon, by its proximity, by its variations, 
 by its soft light, and less oppressive beauty, seems 
 to be more suited to the mind, the disposition, 
 and the lot of mortal man, and may well have 
 easily won its way to his heart as a friend taking 
 part in the fluctuations and diversities of our hu- 
 man condition. Whence it came to pass that in 
 days of ignorance and superstition the agency of 
 the moon was sought in love potions and other 
 remedies for human ills. Dido is represented by 
 ^ h’gil (sEn. iv. 512) to have chosen moonlight for 
 getting the herbs requisite to recover for her the 
 affection of tineas : — 
 
 ‘ad lunam quaeruntur 
 Pubentes herbae.’ 
 
 On the influence of tire moon on man, see Ilayn, 
 De Planetar, in Corp. hum. Influxu ; and 
 Kretschmar, De Astror. in Corp. hum. Imperio , 
 Jena, 1820; also Came, Lcb. und Sitten im 
 Morgenl. i. 73. — J. R. B. 
 
 MOON, NEW. [Festivals.] 
 
 MOR (TID), sometimes written Mur, is tire 
 well known substance myrrh, which the ^Eolians 
 called poppa, and the other Greeks apbpva. The 
 Greek poppa and the Latin myrrha are no doubt 
 
 derived from the Hebrew mor , or Arabic yc 
 
 .nur, though some of the ancients traced them to 
 the mythological Myrrha, daughter of Ciuyras, 
 king of Cyprus, who fled to Arabia, and was 
 changed into this tree — ‘dominae nomina gutta 
 tenet ’ (Ov. Art. Am. i. 28S). Myrrh is the exu- 
 dation of a little known tree found in Arabia, 
 but much more extensively in Abyssinia. It 
 formed an article of the earliest commerce, was 
 highly esteemed by the Egyptians and Jews, as 
 well as by the Greeks and Romans, as it still is both 
 in the East and in Europe. The earliest notice 
 of it occurs in Exod. xxx. 23, ‘Take thou also 
 unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh (mor- 
 dei'or) 500 shekels.’ It is afterwards mentioned 
 in Esther ii. 12, as employed in the purification 
 of women ; in Ps xlv. 8, as a perfume, ‘All thy 
 garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia;’ 
 also in several passages of the Song of Solomon, 
 ‘ I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and 
 to the hill of frankincense ’ (iv. 6) ; ‘ My hands 
 dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sicect 
 smelling myrrh’ (v. 5); so in ver. 13, in both 
 which passages Rosenmiiller states that in the 
 original it is stilicidious or profluent myrrh . 
 Under its Greek name, apbpva. we find it men- 
 tioned in Matt. ii. 11, among the gifts presented 
 by the wise men of the East to the infant Jesus — 
 ‘ gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.’ It may 
 be remarked as worthy of notice, that myrrh and 
 frankincense are frequently mentioned together. 
 In Mark xv. 23, we learn that the Roman soldiers 
 ‘ gave him (Jesus) to drink wine mingled with 
 myrrh ; but he received it not.’ The Apostle 
 John (xix. 39) says, ‘ Then came also Nico- 
 demus, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes 
 [Ahai.im], about an hundred pound weight,’ 
 for the purpose of embalming the body of our 
 Saviour. 
 
 Though myrrh seems to have been known from 
 the earliest times, and must consequently have 
 been one of the most ancient articles of com- 
 
 merce, the country producing it long remained 
 unknown. Herodotus mentions Arabia as the 
 last inhabited country towards the south which 
 produced frankincense, myrrh, &c. ; Hippocrates 
 employed it as a medicine ; Theophrastus de- 
 scribes it as being produced .n Southern Arabia, 
 about Saba and Adramyt.ta; so Pliny, ‘Myrrha 
 tlmris avboribus permixta in Sabaeorum sylvis 
 nascitur ;’ so also Dioscorides and several other 
 Greek authors. But others have not so limited 
 its production. Celsius ( Ilierobot . i. 523) says, 
 ‘ Gigni perhibent in Syria, Gedrosia (Arrian, Ex- 
 ped. Al. vi. ]). 421), India, ^Ethiopia, Troglody- 
 tica, et ./Egypt o ; ubi /3aA dictam fuisse refert 
 Plutarchus de Iside et Osiride, p. 383 (Klrcher, 
 Prod. Copt. p. 175).’ The fact of myrrh being 
 called bal among the Egyptians is extremely 
 curious, for bol is the name by which it is uni- 
 versally known throughout India in the present 
 day. The writer learns from Professor \V ilson 
 that the Sanscrit name is bola, which occurs in 
 the Ameera Cosha, that is, at least before the 
 Christian era, with several other names showing 
 that it was well known. But from the time of the 
 ancients until that of Belou we were without any 
 positive information respecting the tree yielding 
 myrrh : he supposed it to be produced in Syria, 
 and says, that near Rama he met with a thorny 
 shrub witli leaves resembling acacia, which lie 
 believed to be that producing myrrh (Mimosa 
 agrcstis, Spr.). Similar to this is the information 
 of the Arabian author Abu’l Fadli, quoted by 
 Celsius, who says, that mur is the Arabic name 
 of a thorny tree resembling the acacia, from which 
 flows a white juice, which thickens and becomes 
 a gum. The Persian authors referred to under 
 Abattaciiim state that myrrh is the gum of a 
 tree common in the Mughrub, that, is, the West 
 or Africa, in Room (a general name for the 
 Turkish empire), and in Socotra. The Arabian 
 and Persian authors probably only knew it as 
 an article of commerce: it certainly is not pro- 
 duced in Socotra, but has undoubtedly long been 
 exported from Africa into Arabia. We were in- 
 formed by the captain of a vessel trading with the 
 Red Sea, that myrrh is always to be obtained 
 cheap and abundant on the Soumalee coast. 
 Bruce had indeed long previously stated that 
 myrrh is produced in the country behind Azab, 
 Mr. Johnson, in his recently published Travels in 
 Abyssinia (i. 249), mentions that ‘ Myrrh and 
 mimosa trees abounded in this place' (Koranhe- 
 dudah in Adal). The former he describes as 
 being ‘ a low, thorny, ragged-looking tree, with 
 bright-green trifoliolate leaves; the gum exudes 
 from cracksr'in the bark of the trunk near the 
 root, and flows freely upon the stones immediately 
 underneath. Artificially it is obtained by bruises 
 made with stones. The natives collect it prin- 
 cipally in the hot months of July and August, 
 but it is to be found, though in very small quan- 
 tities, at other times of the year. It is collected 
 in small kid-skins, and taken to Errur, whence 
 the Hurrah merchants, on their way from Slioa, 
 convey it to the great annual market at Ber- 
 berah, from whence great quantities are shipped 
 for India and Arabia.’ When the Portuguese 
 first entered these seas, gold dust, ivory, myrrh, 
 and slaves formed the staple commerce of Adal. 
 So early as the time of Arrian, in his Periplui 
 of the Erythraean Sea, we find myrrh ( apbp **) 
 
MOR. 
 
 MORDECAI. 
 
 35f 
 
 sue of the articles of export, with \lfiavos, or 
 frankincense, from the coast of Adal, styled 
 Barbaria. 
 
 The Peri pins mentions the myrrh of this coast 
 as the finest ot its kind, and specifies the means of 
 conveying it to Yemen, .or Sabea. There the first 
 Greek navigators found it, and through their 
 hands it was conveyed into Europe under the 
 name of Sabean myrrh. Though there is no doubt 
 that the largest quantity of myrrh has always been 
 obtained from Africa — ‘ omnium prima est quae 
 Troglodytica appellator ’ — yet it is equally cer- 
 tain that some is also procured in Arabia. 
 This seems to be proved by Ehrenberg and 
 Iiemprich, who found a small tree in Arabia 
 near Gison, on the borders of Arabia Felix, off 
 which they collected pieces of myrrh, which, when 
 brought home and analysed, was acknowledged 
 to be genuine. It is an interesting fact that the 
 specimens of the mvrrh-plant brought by Mr. 
 Johnson from the confines of Abyssinia seem to be 
 of the same species. This is the Bcilsamodendron 
 Myrrha of botanists, and which we here figure 
 
 from Nees von Esenbech’s plate of Ehrenberg’s 
 plant. By some it is supposed to be produced 
 by another species of Bcilsamodendron, the 
 Amyris katctf of Forskal, which differs little 
 from A. kufal. 
 
 Several kinds of myrrh were known to the 
 ancients, and are described by Dioscorides under 
 the name of Stacie, Gabirea , Troglodytica, Kau- 
 kalis , Aminasa , Ergasima. So the Arab authors 
 mention several varieties, as 1 . mur saf, 2. mur 
 fortarukh, 3. mur jushee ; and in modern com- 
 merce we have Turkish and East. Indian myrrh, 
 and different names used to be. and are still 
 applied to it, as red and fatty myrrh, myrrh in 
 tears, in sorts, and myrrh in grains. In the 
 Bible also several kinds of myrrh are enume- 
 rated, respecting which various opinions have 
 been entertained. Thus, in Exod. xxx. 23, the 
 words mor-deror have been variously translated 
 myrrha prima, electa , ingenua, exceilens, & c. 
 
 dhcror , in Arabic, according to Celsius, 
 
 means an aromatic powder, and mur dherorce , in 
 Arabic, like mor deror in Hebrew, signifies 
 myrrheus pulvis. This may be the correct mean- 
 ing, but it is curious that the Arabians should 
 apply the term Kusb-al-zurire to another famed 
 aromatic, the sweet cane of Scripture. Hence 
 there may be a connection between these similarly 
 sounding terms. Rosenmuller says, ‘ Luther 
 correctly translates the Hebrew expression, which 
 properly denotes spontaneously -pro fluent myrrh.' 
 The same kind of myrrh is in the Song of Solo- 
 mon (ch. v. 13) called stilicidious or profluent 
 myrrh (mor obor). usually translated myrrham 
 electam et prcestantissimam , transeuntem, &c. 
 (Cels. 1. c. p. 528) Another kind of myrrh is 
 said to be indicated by the word Nataf, translated 
 stacte, which occurs in Exod. xxx. 24 ; but on 
 this opinions have differed [Nataf]. 
 
 Myrrh, it. is well known, w'as celebrated in the 
 most ancient times as a perfume, and a fumi- 
 gator, as well as for its uses in medicine. As 
 several kinds were included under the name of 
 myrrh, it is probable that some may have pos- 
 sessed more aromatic properties than others : but 
 the tastes and the customs of nations vary so 
 much in different ages of the world, that it is im- 
 possible for us to estimate correctly what was 
 most agreeable to the nations of antiquity. Myrrh 
 was burned in their temples, and employed in 
 embalming the bodies of the dead. Herodotus, 
 speaking of the practice of embalming among the 
 Egyptians, says, ‘They then fill the body with 
 powder of pure myrrh, cassia, and other perfumes, 
 except frankincense" (ii. 86). It was offered in 
 presents, as natural products commonly were in 
 those days, because such as were procured from 
 distant countries were very rare. In the same 
 way we often hear of a rare animal or bird being 
 presented to royalty even in the present day. 
 The ancients prepared a wine of myrrh, and also 
 an oil of myrrh, and it formed an ingredient in 
 many of the most celebrated compound medi- 
 cines, as the Theriaca, the Mithridata, Manus 
 Dei, & c. Even in Europe it continued to recent 
 times to enjoy the highest medicinal reputation, 
 as it does in the East in the present day. It is 
 no doubt useful as a moderately stimulant medi- 
 cine ; but Von Helmont was extravagant enough 
 to state that it is calculated to render man im- 
 mortal, if we had any means of perfectly dissolving 
 it in the juices of the body. From the sensible 
 properties of this drug, and from the virtues which 
 were ascribed to it, we may satisfactorily account 
 for the mention of it. in the several passages of 
 Scripture which have been quoted. — J. F. R. 
 
 MORDECAI ('5"™, supposed to come from 
 
 the Persian little man, mannikin ; or, 
 
 according to others, from the idol “Tip Mero- 
 dach, thus signifying a votary of Merodach. 
 The last, supposition is not unlikely, seeing that 
 Daniel had the Chaldaean name of Belshazzar ; 
 Sept. MapSoxaros). son of ./air, of the tribe of 
 Benjamin, descended from one of the captives 
 transported to Babylon with Jehoiachin (Esth. ii. 
 5). He was resident at Susa, then the metropolis 
 of the Persian empire, and had under hi* care 
 his niece Hadessa, otherwise Esther, at the tins* 
 
MO 
 
 MORDECAI. 
 
 MOSES. 
 
 when tl e fairest damsels of the land were gathered 
 together, that from among them a fitting suc- 
 cessor to queen Vashti might be selected for king 
 Ahasuerus. Among them was Esther, and on her 
 the choice fell ; while, by what, management we 
 <m>w not. her relationship to Mordecai, and her 
 Jewish descent, remained unknown at the palace. 
 The uncle lost none of his influence over the 
 niece hy her elevation, although the seclusion of 
 the royal harem excluded him from direct inter- 
 course with her. He seems to have held some 
 office about file court; for we find him in daily 
 attendance there, and it appears to have been 
 through this employment that lie became privy to 
 a plot of two of the chamberlains against the life 
 of the king, which through Esther he made 
 known to the monarch. This great service was 
 however suffered to pass without reward at the 
 'time. On the rise of Hainan to power at court, 
 Mordecai alone, of all the nobles and officers who 
 crowded the royal gates, refused to manifest the 
 customary signs of homage to the royal favourite. 
 It would be too much to attribute this to an in- 
 dependence of spirit, which, however usual in 
 Europe, is unknown in Eastern courts. Hainan 
 was an Amalekile; and Mordecai brooked not to 
 liow himself down before one of a nation which 
 from the earliest times had been the most, devoted 
 enemies of the Jewish people. The Orientals are 
 tenacious of the outward marks of respect, which 
 they hold to be due to the position fliey occupy; 
 and the erect mien of Mordecai among the bending 
 courtiers escaped not the keen eye of Hainan. He 
 noticed it, and brooded over it from day to day : 
 he knew well the class of feelings in whicir it 
 originated, and — remembering the eternal enmity 
 vowed by the Israelites against his people, and 
 how often their conquering sword had all but 
 swept bis nation fiom the face of the earth — he 
 vowed by one great stroke to exterminate the 
 Hebrew nation, the fate of which he believed to 
 Ire in his hands. The temptation was great., and 
 to his ill-regulated mind irresistible. He there- 
 fore procured the well-known and bloody decree 
 fiom the king for the massacre of all the Israel- 
 ites in the empire in one day. When this decree 
 became known to Mordecai, he covered himself 
 with sackcloth and ashes, and rent the air with 
 his cries. This being made known to Esther 
 through the servants of the harem, who now knew 
 of their relationship, she sent. Hatach, one of the 
 royal eunuchs, to demand the cause of his grief: 
 through that faithful servant he made the facts 
 known to her, urged upon her the duty of deliver- 
 ing her people, and encouraged her to risk the 
 consequences of the attempt. She was found 
 equal to the occasion. She risked her life by en- 
 tering the royal presence uncalled, and having 
 by discreet management procured a favourable 
 opportunity, accused Harnan to the king of 
 plotting to destroy her and her people. His 
 doom was sealed on this occasion by the means 
 which in his agitation he took to avert it: and 
 when one of the eunuchs present intimated that 
 this man had prepared a gallows fifty cubits high 
 on which to hang Mordecai, the king at. once said, 
 
 4 Hang him thereon.’ This was, in fact, a great 
 aggravation ol his offence, for the previous night, 
 the king, being unable to sleep, nad commanded 
 the records of his reign to be read to him ; and 
 the reader hid providentially turned to the part re- 
 
 cording the conspiracy which had been frustrated 
 through Mordecai. The king asked what had 
 been the reward of this mighty service, and being 
 answered 4 nothing,’ he commanded that any one 
 who happened to be in attendance without, should 
 be called. Haman was there, having come for the 
 very purpose of asking the king's leave to hang 
 Mordecai upon the gallows lie had prepared, and 
 was asked what should he done to the man whom 
 the king delighted to honour ? Thinking that, the 
 king could delight, to honour no one but himself, 
 he named the highest and most public honours lie 
 could conceive, and received from the monarch 
 the astounding answer, ‘Make haste, and do even 
 so to Mordecai that sitteth in ! lie king’s gate ! ’ 
 Then was Haman constrained, without a word, and 
 with seeming cheerfulness, to repair to the man 
 whom he hated beyond all the world, to dnvest 
 him with the royal robes, and to conduct him in 
 magnificent cavalcft.de through the city, pro- 
 claiming, 4 Thus shall it be done to the man 
 whom the king delighteth to honour.’ After this 
 we may well believe that the sense of poetical 
 justice decided the perhaps till then doubtful 
 course of the king, when he heard of the gallows 
 which Haman had prepared for the man by whom 
 his own life had been preserved. 
 
 Mordecai was invested with power greater 
 than that which Haman had lost, and the first 
 use he made of it was, as far as possible, to 
 neutralize or counteract the decree obtained by 
 Hainan. It could not be recalled, as the kings 
 of Persia had no power to rescind a decree once 
 issued ; but us the altered wish of the court 
 was known, and as the Jews were permitted to 
 stand on their defence, they were preserved from 
 tiie intended destruction, although much blood 
 was, on the appointed day, shed even in the royal 
 city. The Feast of Purim was instituted in me- 
 mory of this deliverance, and is celebrated to this 
 day (Eslli. ii. 5; x.) [Purim]. 
 
 A Mordecai, who returned from the exile with 
 Zerubbabel, is mentioned in Ezra ii. 2 and Neb. 
 vii. 7 ; but this cannot well have been the Mor- 
 decai of Esther, as some have supposed. 
 
 MORIAH (rP'lto ; Sept. ’A/^o >pla), one of the 
 hills of Jerusalem, on which the temple was 
 built by Solomon (2 Chron. iii. 1). The name 
 seldom occurs, being usually included in that of 
 Zion, to the north east of which it lay, and from 
 which it was separated by the valley of Tyropoeon 
 (Joseph. Ant'iq. viii. 3-9) [Jerusalem]. Thb 
 Land or Moriah, whither Abraham went to 
 offer up Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2), is generally sup- 
 posed to denote the same place, and may at least 
 be conceived to describe the surrounding district. 
 The Jews themselves believe that the altar of 
 burnt-offerings ir; the temple stood upon the very 
 site of the altar on which the patriarch purposed 
 to sacrifice his son. 
 
 MOSERAH, MOSEROTH, a station of the 
 Israelites near Mount Hor (Num. xxxiii. 30) 
 [Wandering]. 
 
 MOSES Mo ><n}s), the law- 
 
 giver of Israel, belonged to the tribe of Levi, and 
 was a son of Amram and Jochebed (Exod. vi. 
 20). According to Exod. ii. 10, the name 
 means drawn out of water. Even ancient writers 
 knew that the correctness of this interpretation 
 
MOSES. 
 
 MOSES. 
 
 331 
 
 *o; lid be proved by a reference to the Egyptian 
 language (comp. Joseph. Antiq. ii. 9. 6; contra 
 Apioncm , i. 31; Philo, ii. 83, &c. e(l. Mang.). 
 The name contains also an allusion to the verb 
 
 H^D, extraxit, he extracted, pulled out. Hence 
 it appears that is a significant memorial 
 
 of the marvellous preservation of Moses when an 
 infant, in spite of those Pharaonic edicts which 
 were promulgated in order to lessen the number 
 of the Israelites. It was the intention of divine 
 providence that the great and wonderful destiny 
 of the child should be from the lirst apparent : 
 and what the Lord had done for Moses he in- 
 tended also to accomplish for the whole nation of 
 Israel. 
 
 It was an important event that the infant Moses, 
 having been exposed near the banks of the Nile, 
 was found there by an Egyptian princess ; and 
 that, having been adopted by her, he thus ob- 
 tained an education at the royal court (Exod. 
 ii. 1-10). Having been taught, all the wisdom 
 of the Egyptians (Acts vii. 22; comp. Joseph. 
 Antiq. ii. 9. 7), the natural gifts of Moses were 
 fully developed, and he thus became in many 
 respects better prepared for his future vocation. 
 
 After Moses had grown up, he returned to his 
 brethren, and, in spite of the degraded state of his 
 people, manifested a sincere attachment, to them. 
 He felt deep compassion for their sufferings, and 
 showed his indignation against their oppressors by 
 slaying an Egyptian whom he saw ill treating an 
 Israelite. This doubtful act became by Divine 
 Providence a means of advancing him further in 
 his preparation for his future vocation, by in- 
 ducing him to escape into the Arabian desert, 
 where he abode for a considerable period with the 
 Midianitlsh prince, Jethro, whose daughter Zip- 
 porah he married (Exod. ii. 11, sq.). Here, in 
 the solitude of pastoral life, he was appointed to 
 ripen gradually for his high calling, before he 
 was unexpectedly and suddenly sent back among 
 his people, in order to achieve their deliverance 
 from Egyptian bondage. 
 
 His entry upon this vocation was not in conse- 
 quence of a mere natural resolution of Moses, whose 
 constitutional timidity and want of courage ren- 
 dered him disinclined for such an undertaking. 
 An extraordinary divine operation was required to 
 overcome his disinclination. On Mount Iloreb 
 he saw a burning thorn-bush, in the flame of 
 which he recognised a sign of the immediate pre- 
 sence of Deity, and a divine admonition induced 
 him to resolve upon the deliverance of his people. 
 He returned into Egypt, where neither the dispi- 
 rited state of the Israelites, nor the obstinate op- 
 position and threatenings of Pharaoh, were now 
 able to shake the man of God. 
 
 Supported by his brother Aaron, and commis- 
 sioned by God as his chosen instrument, proving, 
 by a series of marvellous deeds, in the midst of 
 heathenism, the God of Israel to be the only true 
 God, Moses at last, overcame the opposition of 
 the Egyptians. According to a divine decree, 
 the people of the Lord were to quit Egypt, under 
 the command of Moses, in a triumphant manner. 
 The punishments of God were poured down upon 
 the hostile people in an increasing ratio, termi- 
 nating in the death of the firstborn, as a sign that 
 ttll had deserved death. The formidable power of 
 paganism, in its ’onfiict with the theocracy, was 
 
 obliged to bow before the apparently weak people 
 of the Lord. The Egyptians paid tribute to the 
 emigrating Israelites (Exod. xii. 35), who set out 
 laden with the spoils of victory. 
 
 The enraged king vainly endeavoured to de- 
 stroy the emigrants. Moses, firmly relying upon 
 miraculous help from the Lord, led his people 
 through the Red Sea into Arabia, while the host 
 of Pharaoh perished in its waves (Exod. xii.- 
 xv.). 
 
 Atter this began the most important functions of 
 Moses as thelavvgiverof the Israelites, who were des- 
 tined to enter into Canaan aslhe people of promise 
 upon whom rested t he ancient blessings of the pa- 
 triarchs. By the instrumentality of Moses they 
 were appointed to enter into intimate communion 
 with God through a sacied covenant, and to he 
 firmly bound to him hy a new legislation. .Moses, 
 having victoriously repulsed the attack of the 
 Amalekites, marched to Mount Sinai, where he 
 signally punished the detection of his people, 
 and gave them the law as a testimony of divine 
 justice and mercy. From Muunt Sinai they 
 proceeded northward to the desert of Paran, anil 
 sent spies to explore the Land of Canaan (Num. 
 x.-xiii.). On this occasion broke out a violent 
 rebellion against the lawgiver, which he, how- 
 ever, by divine assistance, energetically repressed 
 (Num. xiv.-xvi.). 
 
 The Israelites frequently murmured, and were 
 disobedient during about forty years. In a part 
 of the desert of Kadesh, which was called Zin, 
 near the boundaries of the Edomites, after the 
 sister of Moses had died, and after even the new 
 generation had, like their fathers, proved to be 
 obstinate and desponding. Moses fell into sin, and 
 was on that account deprived of the privilege of 
 introducing the people into Canaan. He was 
 appointed to lead them only to the boundary of 
 their country, to prepare all that was requisite 
 for their entry into the land of promise, to ad- 
 monish them impressively, and to bless them. 
 
 It. was according to God’s appointment that 
 the new generation also, to whom the occupation 
 of the country had been promised, should arrive 
 at their goal only after having vanquished many 
 obstacles. Even before they had reached the real 
 boundaries of Canaan they were to be subjected 
 to a heavy and purifying trial. It was important 
 that a man like Moses was at the head of Israel 
 during all these providential dispensations. His 
 authority was a powerful preservative against 
 despondency under heavy trials. 
 
 Having in vain attempted to pass through the 
 territory of the Edomites, the people marched 
 round its boundaries by a circuitous and tedious 
 route. Twopowerful kings of the Amorites, Sihon 
 and Og, were vanquished. Moses led the people 
 into the fields of Moab over against Jericho, to 
 the very threshold of Canaan (Num. xx., xxi.). 
 The oracles of Balaam became, by the instru- 
 mentality of Moses, blessings to Ins people, be- 
 cause by them they were rendered conscious of 
 the great importance of having the Lord on then 
 side. 
 
 Moses happily averted the danger which 
 threatened the Israelites on the part of Midvm 
 (Num. xxv.-xxxi.). Hence he was enabled to 
 grant to some of the tribes permanent dwellings 
 in a considerable tract of country situated to '".he 
 east of the river Jordan ("Nunn- xxxii ), and to 
 
262 
 
 MOTH. 
 
 MOTH. 
 
 give to 1 is people a foretaste of that well-being 
 which was in store for them. 
 
 Moses made excellent preparations for the con- 
 quest and distribution of the whole country, 
 and took leave of his people with powerful ad- 
 monitions and impressive benedictions, transfer- 
 ring his government to the hands of Joshua, who 
 was not unworthy to become the successor of so 
 great a man. YVith a longing but gratified look, 
 be surveyed, from the elevated ground on the 
 border of the Dead Sea, the beautiful country 
 destined for his people. 
 
 Moses died in a retired spot at the age of one 
 hundred and twenty years. He remained vi- 
 gorous in mind and body to the last. His body 
 was not buried in the promised land, and his 
 grave remained unknown, lest it should become 
 an object of superstitious and idolatrous worship. 
 This honour was due, not to him, but to the 
 Lord, who had manifested himself through the 
 whole life of Moses. Not the body, but the word, 
 of Moses was permanently to abide in Israel. 
 The people of God produced no prophet greater 
 than Moses, because by none was tbe Lord more 
 glorified. Among all the men of God recorded 
 in the Old Testament, Moses presents the most 
 wonderful and imposing aspect. 
 
 The Pentateuch is the greatest, monument of 
 Moses as an author. The ninetieth psalm also 
 seems to be correctly ascribed to him. Some 
 learned men have endeavoured to prove that he 
 was the author of the book of Job, but their 
 arguments are inconclusive [Job]. 
 
 Numerous traditions, as might have been ex- 
 ]>ected, have been current respecting so cele- 
 brated a personage. Some of these were known 
 to the ancient Jews, hut most of them occur in 
 later rabbinical writers (comp. Philo, De Vita 
 Mosis, c. iii ; Joseph. Antiq. ii. 9, sq. ; Barto- 
 locci, Bibliotheca Babbinica. iv. 115, sq.). 
 
 The name of Moses is celebrated among the 
 Arabs also, and is 1 lie nucleus of a mass of le- 
 gends (com]). Hottinger. Historia Orientalis, p. 80, 
 sq.). Tbe Greek and Roman classics repeatedly 
 mention Moses, but. their accounts contain the 
 authentic Biblical history in a greatly distorted 
 form (vid. the collection of Meier , Judaica, seu 
 vcterum Scriptorum profanorum de Rebus Judai- 
 cis Fragrnenta , Jena?, 1832). 
 
 Concerning the life of Moses, compare also 
 Warburton, On the Divine Legation of Moses ; 
 Hess, Geschichte Mosis, Zurich, 1778, 2 vols. ; 
 Niemeyer, Charaktcristik der Bibel, 3rd vol. 
 
 H. A. C. H. 
 
 MOTH '(&%) occurs in Job iv. 19; xiii. 23; 
 xxvii. 18; Isa. 1. 9; li. 8; Hosea v. 12; Matt, 
 vi. 19, 20; Luke xii. 33; Ecclus. xix. 3; 
 xlii. 13 : in all which places the Sept, and 
 Greek Testament read c^s, and the Vulg. 
 tinea. In P.$. xxxix. 11. W]), Sept. apdxvn], 
 Vulg. aranea. The same Hebrew word occurs 
 in the phrase ‘ moth-eaten,’ Job xiii. 28; Sept. 
 arjTSPpaiTov, comeditur a tineis ; James v. 
 2, a f]T<i!3pci}Ta, a tineis comesta. The word 
 DD occurs once in Isa. li. 8; Sept. or)s, Vulg. 
 tinea. There is no biblical insect whose identity 
 is better ascertained. The following is the chain 
 of evidence through which it is traced. The 
 word c rtfs, adopted by the Sept., unquestionably 
 caean3 ‘ ruoth 1 in the writings of Aristotle (who 
 
 was contemporary with the translators of th* 
 earliest ami best, rendered portions of the Sept); 
 for when treating of the generation of insects he 
 says : rivercu de Kai aAAa fobapta, ra p.ev Iv 
 iplois, Kal oaa e£ ipiwv ioriv, oiov ol arjre s, 
 ol ipcpvovrai paAAov orav Koviopawbi] ?7 va epia. 
 
 ‘ Other small creatures are generated, some in 
 wool, and in such substances as are formed from 
 wool, as for instance, moths, or moth worms, 
 which are principally produced in dusty woollen 
 substances anti, again, speaking of the same 
 insect, ylverai be iv x iT & vl o aK(l>Ari£ outos, ‘this 
 worm or insect is produced in garments.’ To 
 the same effect, Aristotle’s pupil, Theophrastus, 
 speaking of the herb ttoAIov, says, tovto be Kal 
 T-pbs robs ariras rubs iv ' r o7s ipaTlois ayadbv — 
 ‘this is good against the moths in clothes’ ( Hist . 
 Plant, i. 16). Menander, educated under Theo- 
 phrastus. speaking of things which consume, says, 
 rb b’ luanov ol ar}res, * moths consume clothes.’ 
 Then with regard to the word tinea , adopted by 
 the Vulg., Pliny uses it in translating our first 
 quotation from Aristotle '(‘pul vis in lanis et veste 
 tineas creat,’ Hist. Nat. xi. 41, edit. Harduin), 
 and elsewhere, for the moth, though he also applies 
 the word to other insects, &c. ; and from the time 
 of Pliny to Aldrovandus, this, and almost all the 
 other names in natural history, remained the same, 
 and were retained as much as possible by YVil- 
 lughby and Linnaeus. The latter, under the order 
 Lepidoptera, genus Phalaena, gives the species of 
 moths, Tinea tapetzella, T. pel/ionella , and 
 T. recurvaria sarcdella , as peculiarly destruc- 
 tive to woollen clothes, furs, &c. The following 
 allusions to the moth occur in Scripture; — to its 
 being produced in clothes: ‘for from garments 
 cometh a moth’’ (Ecclus. xiii. 13); to its well- 
 known fragility : ‘mortal men are crushed before 
 the moth’ (Job iv. 19), literally ‘before the face 
 of the moth,’ hut which words really mean ‘ like as 
 
 the moth is crushed.’ The Hebrew word 
 here translated ‘before,’ occurs in tbe sense of ns 
 or like in 1 Sam. i. 16 : ‘count not thine handmaid 
 
 (W?nvn vsb) as a daughter of Belial lite- 
 rally, 4 before, or ‘ as the face of:’ and so the Sept, 
 understood our passage, arjTbs Tpbrrov. The 
 Latin phrase ad faciem occurs in the same sense 
 in Plautus ( Cistell . i. 1. 73): ‘ ad istani faciem est 
 morbus qui me macerat.’ Olliers take this allu- 
 sion to the moth in an active sense, thus — ‘as a 
 garment is consumed by the moth ;' so the Vulg. 
 a tinea. The allusion to ‘the house of the moth’ 
 (Job xx\ii. 18) seems to refer plainly to the 
 silky spindle-shaped case, covered with detached 
 hairs and particles of wool, made and inhabited 
 by the larva of the Tinea sarcitclla ; or to the 
 felted case or tunnel formed by the larva of the 
 Tinea pellionella ; or to the arched gallery formed 
 by eating through wool by the larva of the Tinea 
 tapetzella. References occur to the destructive- 
 ness of the clothes-moth : ‘ as a garment that is 
 moth-eaten’ (Job xiii. 28); ‘the moth shall eat 
 them up’ (Isa. 1. 9); ‘ lhe moth shall eat them 
 up like a garment’ (li. 8) ; ‘1 will he to Ephraim 
 as a moth,’ i. e. will secretly consume him (Hos. 
 v. 12); comp. Matt. vi. 19, 20; Luke xii. 33; 
 James v. 2, metaphorically: and Ecclus. xix. 3 — 
 ‘Moths and worms shall have him that cleave tla 
 to harlots,’ but the better reading is arjirr), ‘ rotten- 
 ness.’ Since the ‘ treasures ’ oi the Orientals, in 
 
MOTHER. 
 
 MOUNTAINS. 
 
 363 
 
 ancitnt times, consisted partly of 4 garments, 
 both view and old’ (Matt. xiii. 52 ; and comp. 
 Josh. vii. 21. ; Judges xiv. 12), the ravages of 
 *-lie clothes-moth afforded them a lively emblem of 
 destruction. Their treasures also consisted partly 
 of com laid up in bains, &c. (Luke xii. 18, 24; ; 
 and it nas been supposed that the fipwarts, trans- 
 lated ‘rust,’ joined with the 0-175 in Matt. vi. 19, 
 20 , refers also to some species of moth, &c., 
 irobably in the larva state, which destroys corn. 
 Cuinoel says the ‘ curculio, or kormvurm,’ the 
 larva of the Tinea granella , is injurious to corn. 
 Compare the common Roman phrase blatta et 
 tinea. Aquila gives fipuens for J er * 1- 9 ; 
 
 and those words, ‘ Gods which cannot save tliem- 
 selves from moths,’ ^peegarwu, Ep. of Jer. xii., 
 maybe another instance. Comp. Mai. iii. 11, 
 Sept, and MS. B. in margin, and Symmachus in 
 Isa. v. 9. The word DD occurs, as well as the word 
 in Isa. li. 8 : • the W]) shall eat them up like 
 a garment, and the DD shall eat them like wool ,’ 
 Sept. wy e pia fipcndrjaeTcu virb arjrSs (comp, the 
 first quotation from Aristotle), where the similarity 
 between the Hebrew and Greek word is striking. 
 If two species of moth be here alluded to, may not 
 the DD be the distinctive name for the Tinea 
 iapetzella , which is peculiarly destructive to 
 ‘ wool?’ The Sept, also gives cr^s for 2pT, Prov. 
 xiv. 30, and for pin, Micah vii. 4. Moths, like 
 (leas, &c., amid other more immediate pur- 
 poses of their existence, incidentally serve as a 
 stimulus to human industry and cleanliness; 
 for, by a remarkable discrimination in her in- 
 stinct, the parent moth never deposits her eggs in 
 garments frequently overlooked or kept clean. 
 Indeed the most remarkable of all proofs of 
 animal intelligence, is to be found in the larvae of 
 the water-moth, which get into straws, and adjust 
 the weight of their case so that it can always float : 
 when too heavy they add a piece of straw or wood, 
 and when too light a bit of gravel ( Transactions 
 of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. i. 
 p. 42).— J. F. D. 
 
 MOTHER. The Hebrew word for mother 
 is D& am, and is regarded by the lexicographers 
 as a primitive, imitating the earliest lisping of 
 an infant : they compare it with the Greek 
 /.idyga. p.d/xp.r], ycua ; Sanscrit, mu, ambu ; Copt., 
 man ; English, and French, mama ; German, 
 amine (nurse), &c. 
 
 The ordinary applications of the word require 
 no illustration ; but the following points of He- 
 brew usage may be noticed. When the father had 
 more than one wife, the son seems to have con- 
 fined the title of ‘ mother’ to his real mother, by 
 which he distinguished her from the other wives 
 of his father. Hence the source of Joseph’s pecu- 
 liar interest in Benjamin is indicated in Gen. 
 xliii. 29, by his being * his mother's sun.’ The 
 other brethren were the sons of his father by other 
 wives. Nevertheless, when this precision was not 
 necessary, the step-mother was sometimes styled 
 mother. Tims Jacob (Gen. xxxvii. 10) speaks of 
 Leah as Joseph's mother, for his real mother had 
 long been dead. The step-mother was however more 
 properly distinguished from the womb-mother by 
 the name of ‘ father's wife’ (Dfc$ HD’^). The 
 word ‘mother’ was also, like father, brother, 
 sister, employed by the Hebrews in a somewhat 
 wider sense than is usual with us. It is used of 
 
 a grandmother (1 Kings xv. 10), and even of any 
 female ancestor (Gen. iii. 20); of a benefactress 
 (Judg. v. 7), and as expressing intimate relation- 
 ship (Job xvii. 1 1). In Hebrew, as in English, 
 a nation is considered as a mother, and indivi- 
 duals as her children (La. 1. 1 ; Jer. 1. 12; Ezek, 
 
 xix. 2 : Hos. ii. 4 ; iv. 5) ; so our ‘ mother-coun- 
 try,’ which is quite as good as ‘ father-land,’ 
 which we seem beginning to copy from the Ger- 
 mans. Large and important cities are also 
 called mothers, i. e. ‘ mother-cities,’ with refer- 
 ence to the dependent towns and villages (2 Sam. 
 
 xx. 19), or even to the inhabitants, who are called 
 her children (Isa. iii. 12; xlix. 23). ‘The 
 parting of the way, at the head of two ways’ 
 (Ezek. xi. 21) is in the Hebrew ‘ the mother of 
 ihe way,’ because out of it the two ways arise as 
 daughters. In Job i. 21, the earth is indicated 
 as the common ‘ mother to whose bosom all man- 
 kind must return.’ So Chaucer — 
 
 ‘ And on the ground, which is my modres gate, 
 
 I knocke with my staf erlich and late, 
 
 And say to hire, “ Leve, mother, let me in.” ’ 
 
 The particulars relating to the position which 
 a mother occupied among the Jews, are involved 
 in other relations, which are referred to the ge- 
 neral head Woman. 
 
 MOUNTAINS. The mountains mentioned 
 in Scripture are noticed under their different 
 names, and a general statement with reference to 
 the mountains of Palestine is given under that 
 head. We have therefore in this place only to 
 notice more fully some remarkable symbolical or 
 figurative uses of the word in the Bible. 
 
 In Scripture the governing pari of the body 
 politic appears under symbols of different kinds. 
 If the allegory or figurative repiesentation is 
 taken from the heavens, the luminaries denote the 
 governing body ; if from an animal, the head or 
 horns; if from the earth, a mountain or fortress ; 
 and in this case the capital city or residence of the 
 governor is taken for the supreme power. These 
 mutually illustrate each other. For a capital 
 city is the head of the political body: the head 
 of an ox is the fortress of the animal ; mountains 
 are the natural fortresses of the earth ; and there- 
 fore a fortress or capital city, though seated in a 
 plain, may be called a mountain. Thus the words 
 head, mountain, bill, city, horn, and king, are used 
 in a manner as synonymous terms to signify a 
 kingdom, monarchy, or republic, united under one 
 government, only with this difference, that it is to 
 be understood in different respects; for the term 
 head represents it in respect of the capital city; 
 mountain or hill in respect of the strength of the 
 metropolis, which gives law to, or is above, and 
 commands the adjacent territory. W hen David 
 says, ‘ Lord, by tnv favour thou Last made my 
 mountain to stand strong " (Ps. xxx. 7), he means 
 to express the stability of his kingdom. 
 
 It is according fu these ideas that the kingdom 
 of the Messiah is described under the figure of a 
 mountain (Isa. ii. 2 ; xi. 9 ; Dan. ii. 35), and its 
 universality by its being the resort of all nations, 
 and by its filling die whole earth. The mystic 
 mountains in the Apocalypse denote kingdoms 
 and states subverted to make room for the Mes- 
 siah’s kingdom (Rev. vi. 14 ; x\i. 20). 
 
 The Chaldaean monarchy is described as a 
 mountain in Jer. li. 25; Zech. iv. 7 ; and the 
 Targum illustrates the idea by substituting the 
 
364 
 
 MOURNING. 
 
 MOURNING. 
 
 word ‘fortress’ in the former text.. In this view, 
 then, a mountain is the symbol of a kingdom, 
 or of a capital city with its domains, or of a king, 
 which is the same. 
 
 Mountains are frequently used to signify places 
 of strength, of what kind soever, and to whatsoever 
 use applied (Jer. iii. 23). 
 
 Eminences were very commonly chosen for the 
 sites of Pagan temples : these became places of 
 asylum, and were looked upon as the fortresses 
 and defenders of the worshippers, by reason of 
 the presence of the false deities in them. On 
 *:his account mountains were the strongholds of 
 Paganism, and therefore in several parts of Scrip- 
 ture they signify idolatrous temples and places of 
 worship (Jer. ii. 23 ; Ezek. vi. 2-6; Mic. iv. 1 ; 
 comp. Deut. xii. 2; Jer. ii. 20; iii. 16; Ezek. 
 vi. 3). See VVemyss’s Clavis Symbolica , pp. 
 309 316. 
 
 MOURNING. This head embraces both the 
 outward expressions of sorrow for the dead, re- 
 ferred to in the Scriptures, and those expressions 
 which were intended to exhibit repentance, &c. 
 These subjects will be pursued according te 
 Townsend’s chronological arrangement, and sinco 
 they nearly approximate, will be pursued together. 
 Assuming the propriety of this arrangement, the 
 earliest reference to any kind of mourning is that 
 of Job (b.c. 2130), who being informed of the de- 
 struction of his children as the climax of his 
 calamities, ‘arose, rent his mantle, shaved his 
 head, and fell down upon the ground and wor- 
 shipped’ (Job i. 20), uttered sentiments of sub- 
 mission (ver. 21), and sat down among the ashes 
 (ch. ii. 8). His friends came to him by an ap- 
 pointment among themselves to mourn with him 
 and comfort him (ver. i 1 ); they lift up their voices 
 and wept upon a view of his altered appearance ; 
 they rent every man his mantle and sprinkled 
 dust upon their heads towards heaven (ver. 12), 
 and sat down with him on the ground seven days 
 anti seven nights, waiting till his grief should 
 subside before they commenced their office as 
 mourners. Job then bewails aloud his unhappy 
 condition (ch. iii.). In ch. xvi. 15, 16, reference 
 is made to the customs of sewing sackcloth upon 
 the skin, deliling the head with dust, and suffer- 
 ing the face to be begrimed with weeping. Cla- 
 mour in grief is referred to (xix. 7 ; xx. 2S) : 
 it is considered a wicked man s portion that his 
 -widows shall not weepr at his death (xxvii. 15). 
 Upon Job's recovery from his afflictions all his 
 relatives and acquaintances bemoan and comfort 
 him concerning his past sufferings ; which seems 
 to have been a kind of congratulatory mourning, 
 indulged in order to heighten the pleasures of 
 prosperity by recalling associations of adversity 
 (ch. xlii. 11). Indeed, the expressions of affec- 
 tionate joy and grief near! w coincide. Joseph fell 
 upon his brother Benjamin s neck and wept (Gen. 
 xiv. 1 1 ; comp. Acts xx. 37, 38, and Gen. 1. 1). 
 However it is to be accounted for, in the course 
 cf the book of lob nearly all the chief character- 
 istics of eastern mourning are introduced. This 
 will appear as we proceed. The next instance is 
 that of Abraham, who came to mourn and weep 
 for Sarah (b.c. 1871), words which denote a formal 
 mourning (Gen. xxiii. 2). Days of mourning 
 are referred to in regard to the expected death of 
 Isaac (Gen. xxvii. 41 ). These appear generally to 
 hare consisted of seven, as for Saul (l Sam. xxxi. 
 
 13; for Judith xvi. 24; comp. Ecclus. xxii. 15). 
 Weeping appears (b.c. 1729), either as one ohie/ 
 expression of mourning, or as the general name 
 for it. Hence when Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, 
 was buried at Bethel under an oak, at this period, 
 the tree was called Allon-bachuth, the oak of 
 weeping (Gen. xxxv. 8). The children of Israel 
 were heard to weep by Moses throughout their 
 families, every man in the door of his tent (Num. 
 xi. 10; comp. xiv. 1 ; xxv. 6). So numerous are 
 the references to tears in the Scriptures as to give 
 the impression that the Orientals had them nearly 
 at command (comp. Ps. vi. 6). The woman 
 washed our Lord's feet with tears (Luke vii. .38 ; 
 comp. Ecclus. xxviii. 17). Weeping, with lifting 
 up of the voice, occurs in Ruth i. 9 ; 1 Sam. ii. 
 4 ; 2 Sam. iii. 31 ; xiii. 36). Their exciteable- 
 ness appears otherwise; they shout for joy and 
 howl for grief, even the ministers of the altar 
 (Joel i. 13 ; Micah i. 8, &c.). Reuben rent, his 
 clothes upon finding Joseph gone (Gen. xxxvii. 
 29), and uttered lamentations (ver. 30). Jacob 
 rends his clothes and puts sackcloth upon his 
 loins, and mourns for his son many days; his sons 
 and his daughters rise up to comfort him, and he 
 gives utterance to his grief ; ‘ thus his father wept 
 for him’ (Gen. xxxvii. 34, 35). Joseph's brothers 
 rend their clothes (Gen. xliv. 13); and this act, 
 as expressive of grief or horror, occurs in multi- 
 tudes of passages dow-n to the last age of the 
 Jewish empire (Acts xiv. 14). Scarcely less 
 numerous are the references to sackcloth on the 
 loins as an expression of mourning; we have even 
 lying in sackcloth (1 Kings xxi. 27), and sack- 
 cloth upon both man and beast at Nineveh 
 (Jonah iii. 8). Joseph's brethren fell to the 
 ground before him in token of grief (Gen. xliv. 
 14); and this, or lying, or sitting on the ground, 
 was a common token of mourning (comp. Ps. 
 xxxv. 14; 1 Sam. xxv. 24; Isa. iii. 26; xlvii. 1; 
 Ezek. xxvi. 10, &c.). The next incident in the 
 history of the subject is the mourning for Jacob 
 by the Egyptians, which was conducted, no doubt, 
 by professional mourners during threescore and 
 ten days (Gen. 1. *3), called the days of mourn- 
 ing (ver. 4), though most likely that computation 
 includes the process of embalming (Wilkinson’s 
 Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, 
 v. 451, 459). . It seems to have amounted to \ 
 royal mourning, doubtless out of regard to Jo- 
 seph/ Herodotus states that the Egyptians 
 mourned for a king seventy-two days. The 
 mourning for Joseph’s father was renewed by Jo- 
 seph's command, with a very great and sore 
 lamentation, upon the funeral cavalcade having 
 arrived in Canaan, and continued seven days 
 (ver. 10). The vehemency of that mourning 
 seems to have surprised even the Canaanites, who 
 in consequence named the place where it was 
 held Abel-mizraim, or the mourning of the 
 Egyptians (ver. 11). We learn from Diodorus 
 that at the death of a king the Egyptian people tore 
 their garments, every temple was closed, sacrifices 
 were forbidden, and no festivals celebrated. A 
 procession of two or three hundred persons wan- 
 dered through the streets, throwing dust and mud 
 upon their heads, and twice every day sung a 
 funeral dirge in honour of the deceased. In the 
 mean time the people abstained from baths, oint- 
 ments, every luxury, and e^ en wheaten bread 
 (i. 72, 91). Tie Egyptians have ever been n- 
 
MOURNING. 
 
 MOURNING. 
 
 nowned for the vociferation of their grief; ‘there 
 was a great cry in Egypt at the death of tue first ■ 
 born* (Exod. xii. 30). When the children of 
 Israel (r.c. 1491) mourned under the threat of the 
 divine displeasure, they did not put on their orna- 
 ments (Exod. xxxiii. 4 ; comp, duel ii. 16 ; Ezek. 
 xxiv. 17). At the giving of the law the modes 
 of mourning were regulated by several enact- 
 ments. It was forbidden the Jews to make cut- 
 tings in their flesh for the dead (Lev. xix. 28). 
 The ancient Egyptians, according to Herodotus, 
 did not cut themselves (ii. 61); it was a Syrian 
 custom, as appears from the votaries of Baal 
 (l Kings xviii. 28); nor were the Jews allowed 
 to make any baldness between their eyes for the 
 dead (Dent. xiv. 1). The priests were forbidden 
 to uncover the head in mourning (Lev. x. 6), or 
 to rend the'ir clothes, or to contract the ceremonial 
 defilement involved in mourning except for their 
 nearest kindred (Lev. xxi. 1, 4); but the high- 
 priest was entirely forbidden to do so even for his 
 father or his mother (ver. 11), and so was the Na- 
 zarite (Num. vi. 7). These prohibitions respecting 
 the head and the beard (Lev. xix. 27) seem to have 
 been restricted to funeral occasions, as the customs 
 referred to were lawfully practised on other sor- 
 rowful events (comp. Ezra ix. 3; Job i. 20; Isa. 
 xxii. 12; Jer. vii. 29; Micah i. 16). Even the 
 food eaten by mourners was considered unclean 
 (comp. Deut. xxvi. 14, with Hos. ix. 4 ; Ezek. 
 xxiv. 17). The Jews were commanded to afflict 
 their souls on the day of atonement (Lev. xxiii. 
 27), and at the Feast of Trumpets (Num. xxix. 7). 
 All the house of Israel mourned for Aaron thirty 
 days (Num. xx. 29). The beautiful captive, 
 whom the law permitted to marry, was l-equired 
 first to bewail her father and mother a full month, 
 and the requisitions that she should shave her 
 head and pare her nails have been by some con- 
 sidered signs of mourning (Deut. xxi. 11, 13). 
 The Israelites wept for Moses thirty days, called 
 the days of weeping and mourning for Moses 
 (Deut. xxxiv. 8 ; b.c. 1451). Joshua and the 
 elders of Israel put dust upon their heads at the 
 defeat of Ai, and fasted (Josh. vii. 6), as did the 
 eleven tribes after the defeat at Gibeah, and wept 
 (Judg. xx. 26), as did all the Israelites at the 
 command of Joshua, on which occasion it is said 
 ‘they drew water and poured it out before the 
 Lord’ (1 Sam. vii. 6; comp. Ps. xxii. 14). The 
 prophet. Joel commanded a fast as part of a na- 
 tional, mourning. A fast is proclaimed to all the 
 inhabitants or visitors at Jerusalem (Jer. xxxvi. 9 ; 
 comp. Zech. vii. 5). Fasting is practised at 
 Nineveh as part of a public humiliation (Jonah 
 iii. 5). In our Lord's language, ‘ to fast’ and 
 ‘to mourn’ are the same thing (Matt. ix. 15). 
 Public humiliations attended with religious as- 
 semblies and prayers (Joel ii. 16, 17) ; with fasts 
 (Isa. lviii. 3) ; see all these united (l Macc. iii. 
 44, 47, 48). The first complete description of 
 mourning for the dead occurs in 2 Sam. iii. 31, 35, 
 where David commands Joab and all the people 
 that were with him to rend their clothes, gird 
 themselves with sackcloth, and mourn for Abner ; 
 and David himself followed the bier, and they 
 buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up 
 jiis voice and wept at the grave ot Abner, and 
 all the people wept, and David fasted two days, 
 and wrote a lam rotation for the deceased. Ele- 
 gie* urere composed by the prophets on several 
 
 365 
 
 disastrous occasions (Ezek xxvi. 1-18; xxvii. 
 1-36; Amos v. 1, &e.). The incident at 
 Jephlhah’s daughter (h.c. 1187) is too uncertain 
 to afford any index to the modes of mourning at 
 that era. It appears that she was allowed two 
 months to bewail her virginity, with her compa- 
 nions, and that the Jewish women of that country 
 went some where yearly to lament or celebrate 
 her (Judg. xi. 37-40) [Jephthah]. In Ps. 
 xxxv., which is ascribed to David, there is a 
 description of the humiliations practised by the 
 friends of the sick, in order 1o procure their reco- 
 very : ‘ When they were sick my clothing was 
 sackcloth; I humbled my soul with lasting; I 
 behaved as if it, had been a friend or a brother; I 
 bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his 
 mother ;’ where different modes of mourning seerr. 
 adverted to for different occasions. Samuel 1 
 honoured with a public mourning by the Israel- 
 ites (1 Sam. xxv. 1), B.c. 1058. Upon the death 
 of Saul, David wrote an elegy (2 Sam. i. 17-27). 
 This, like that upon the death of Aimer, seems tr 
 be a poetical description of the character of the 
 departed, like the dirge for an Egyptian king 
 
 Lifting up the hands seems 1o have been an ex- 
 pression of grief (Ps. cxli. 2; Lam. i. 17; Ezra 
 ix. 5). Messengers were sent to condole with sur- 
 vivors ; thus David sent such to Hanun, king of 
 Ammon, upon the death of his father (2 Sam. x. 1, 
 2) ; ‘ Many of the Jews came to comfort Martha 
 and Mary ’ (John xi. 19) ; ‘A great company of 
 women attended our Lord to the cross, bewailing 
 and lamenting him’ (Luke xxiii. 27); ‘Much 
 people 1 were with the widow of Nain (Luke vii. 
 12). Indeed, if persons met a funeral procession 
 they were expected to join it — a custom which is 
 thought to illustrate St. Paul's words, ‘Weep 
 with them that weep' (Rom. xii. 15). Herodotus 
 relates that when Cambyses bewailed his calami- 
 ties, the Persians tore their garments and expressed 
 their grief aloud (iii. 66). The next incident in 
 historical order is die mourning of Bathsheba for 
 Uriah (2 Sam. xi. 26). David, in deprecation 
 of the death of his son by her, prayed to God for 
 the child, fasted, and lay all night upon the earth. 
 Ashes were often laid on the head in token of 
 mourning ; thus ‘ Tamar put ashes on her head 
 
MOURNING. 
 
 MOURNING. 
 
 3*86 
 
 rent her garme nt, and laid her hand upon her 
 nead, and went on crying' (2 Sam. xiii. 19, 20; 
 com]). Isa. lxi. d ; 2 Esdras ix. 08). They even 
 wallowed in ashes (Ezek. xxvii. 30). Mourning 
 apparel is first mentioned in 2 Sam. xiv. 2, where 
 it appears that the wearer did not anoint himself 
 with oil (com]). Matt. vi. 17). In Egypt the 
 common people allowed their beards to grow when 
 mourning (Herod, ii. 36 ; comp. 2 Sam. xix. 24). 
 The first reference to hired mourners occurs in 
 Eccles. xii. 5, ‘ The mourners D'“721Dn go about 
 the streets.' (The root of this word, observes Gese- 
 nius, signifies ‘ a mournful noise,’ and he adduces 
 Mi call i. 8; Jer. xxii. 18; xxxiv. 5). They are 
 certainly alluded to in Jer. ix. 17-20, ‘ the mourn- 
 ing women ’ (probably widows, comp. Ps. lxxviii. 
 64; Acts ix. 39), answering to the Praeficae of 
 the Romans (comp. Ilor. Ars Poet. 429). Ano- 
 ther reference to them occurs in 2 Chron. xxxv. 
 25; comp. Joseph. De Bell. Jud. iii. 9. 5. The 
 greater number of the mourners in ancient Egypt 
 were women, as in the modern East. In the fol- 
 lowing cut (No. 407) mourners, all females, are 
 
 shown casting dust upon their heads before the 
 mummy of a man. Mourning for the dead was 
 conducted in a tumultuous manner; they also 
 wept and wailed greatly (Mark v. 38). Even 
 devout men made great lamentations (Acts viii. 
 2). When any one died in ancient Egypt the 
 females of his family covered their faces with 
 mud, ran through the streets with their bosoms 
 exposed, striking themselves, and uttering loud 
 lamentations; they were joined as they went 
 by neighbours and friends, and, if the deceased 
 was of consequence, by strangers also. The men, 
 girding their dress below their waist, ran through 
 the town, smiting their breast, and throwing mud 
 upon their heads (Herod, ii. 85 ; Diod. Sic. i. 9i). 
 The modern lamentations in Cairo seem to resem- 
 ble the ancient. The mourners are said to parade 
 the streets, crying ‘ Oh, my misfortune !’ ‘ Oh, my 
 brother!’ ‘ 01), my master!’ ‘Oh, lord of the 
 house!’ &c. The similarity is striking between 
 such exclamations and the following: Jephthah’s 
 ‘Alas, my daughter!’ David's ‘Oh, Absalom, 
 my sou ; my son Absalom !’ (2 Sam. xviii. 33.) 
 ‘ Alas, my brother!’ (1 Kings xiii. 30). ‘Ah, my 
 brother! ah, my sister! ah, Lord, or ah, his glory’ 
 (Jer. xxii. 18). See Lane’s Modern Egyptians , 
 ii. 286. 
 
 A nong other signs of mourning they shaved 
 the bead, and even tore off the hair (Amos viii. 
 10; Micah i. 16; Isa. xv. 2; xxii. 12; Jer. vii. 
 29) Ezra plucked off the hair of his head and of 
 
 his beard (Ezra ix. 3 ; Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 7 . &)- 
 The Jews went up to the house-tops to mourn 
 (Isa. xv. 2, 3 ; xxii. 1); and so did the Moabites 
 
 (Jer. xl viii. 37, 38; Judith viii. 5). They also 
 made cuttings in their hands (Jer. xlviii. 37, 38); 
 they smote upon the thigh (Jer. xxxi. 19 ; Ezek. 
 xxi. 12) ; on the breast (Nahum ii. 7 ; Luke xviii. 
 lo ; xxiii. 48 ; they smote both hands together 
 (N um. xxiv. 10), stamped with the foot (Ezek. 
 vi. 11), bowed down the head (Lam. ii. 10), 
 covered the lips (Micah iii. 7), the face (2 Sam. 
 xix. 4), and the head (2 Sam. xv. 3d), and went 
 barefoot (2 Sam. xv. 30). Neighbours and friends 
 provided food for the mourners (2 Sam. iii. 35 ; 
 Jer. xvi. 7; comp. Ezek. xxiv. 17); this was 
 called 4 the bread of bitterness,’ ‘ the cup of con- 
 solation.’ In later times the Jews had a custom of 
 giving bread to the poor, at funerals, and leaving 
 it for their use at tombs, graves, &c., which 
 resembles the Roman visceratio (Tobit iv. 17 ; 
 Ecclus. xxx. 8). Women went to tombs to 
 indulge their grief (John xi. 31); anniversary 
 mournings (l Esdras i. 22). The extravagance 
 of mourning among the Greeks is ridiculed by 
 
 [409. Mourning the Dead — Etruscan.] 
 
 Lucian (De Lucta ), who describes tiiem as expos- 
 tulating with the dead for leaving them, &c., and 
 other particulars similar to an Irish wake. It is 
 difficult to ascertain the philosophy of mourning. 
 Potter thinks that it consisted in receding as much 
 as possible from ordinary customs and manners, 
 in token that an extraordinary event had hap- 
 pened, and observes that such is the diversity of 
 human customs that the signs of mourning in 
 some nations coincide with those of joy in others 
 ( Archceologia Grceca, ii. 194, 195, Lond. 1775). 
 Although, no doubt, man’' modes of mourning 
 are conventional, and or.ginated in caprice, yet 
 there would seem to be physical reasons for cer- 
 tain forms which have so widely and permanently 
 prevailed. Shaving the head may be a dictate of 
 nature to relieve the excited brain. Plucking the 
 hair is well calculated to assuage the action of 
 some particular organs, to which the sensations of 
 the individual may be a sufficient guide. Beat* 
 
MOUSE. 
 
 MUSIC. 
 
 567 
 
 ing the breast may relieve the heart, oppressed 
 with a tumultuous circulation. Cutting may be 
 the effect of nat ure's indication of bleeding. Cry- 
 ing aloud certainly diverts the attention from 
 anguish of mind or body. Tearing and rending 
 seem to palliate nervous irritation, &c. (Carpzov, 
 De cinerurn ap. Ilebr. usu matrons atque luctus , 
 Rostock ; Kivchmann, De Funer. Roman. ; J. Q. 
 Hedenus, De Scissione Vest. Ebreeis ac Gentibus 
 usitata , Jen. 1665; or in Ugolini, Thesaurus, 
 29; Wichmannshausen, De Laceratione Vestium 
 ap. Ilebr. Viteb. ; also in Ugolini, Thesaurus , 
 3‘df Wichmannshausen, De Corpore Scissuris 
 ftgurisque non cruentando, Viteb. ; J. G. Mi- 
 chael is, De Incisura super mortuos, in Observatt. 
 tfacr. — J. F. D. 
 
 MOUSE (“lSpy achbar ; perhaps generically 
 including aliarbai or jerboa , or parah of 
 
 the Arabs). The word occurs where, it seems, 
 the nomenclature in modern zoology would point 
 out two species of distinct genera (Lev. xi. 
 29; 1 Sam. vi. 4, 5, 11, 18; Isa. lxvi. 17). 
 The radical meaning of the name, according to 
 Bochart, designates a field ravager, one that 
 devours the produce of agriculture, and there- 
 fore is applicable to several genera of Rodentia, 
 &c., notwithstanding that the learned etymo- 
 logist would confine it to the jerboa or jump- 
 ing-mouse of Syria and Egypt, although that 
 animal is not abundant in the first- mentioned re- 
 gion, and even in the second is restricted almost 
 exclusively to the desert, as it can live without 
 water. Bochart, it is true, cites examples of the 
 ravages committed by murine animals in divers 
 localities; but among them several are pointed out 
 where the jerboa is rare, or not found at all ; con- 
 sequently they apply not to that species, but to 
 seme other Rodent. It is likely that the Hebrews 
 extended the acceptation of the word achbar, in 
 the same manner as was the familiar custom of 
 the Greeks, and still more of the Romans, who 
 included within their term mus, insectivora of 
 the genus sorex, that is ‘shrews;’ carnivora, 
 among which was the Mustela erminea, ‘stoat’ or 
 ‘ermine,’ their Mus ponticus ; and in the syste- 
 matic order Rodentia, the muridee contain Myoxus 
 ylis or fat dormouse; Dipus jaculus or Egyptian 
 jerboa; Mas, rats and mice properly so called, 
 constituting several modern genera ; and cricetus 
 or hamster, which includes the marmot or Roman 
 Mus Alpinus. This was a natural result of the 
 imperfect state of zoological science, where a 
 somewhat similar external appearance was often 
 held sufficient, for bestowing a general name which, 
 when more remarkable particulars required fur- 
 ther distinction, received some trivial addition of 
 quality or native country, or a second local desig- 
 nation, as in the present case ; for, according to 
 some Biblical critics, the jerboa may have been 
 Known also by the name of shaphan. In 
 the above texts, all in 1 Sam. vi. apparently refer 
 to the short-tailed field-mouse, which is still the 
 most destructive animal to the harvests of Syria, 
 and is most likely the species noticed in antiquity 
 and during the crusades; for, had they been jerboas 
 in shape and resembled miniature kangaroos, we 
 would expect W illiam of Tyre to have mentioned 
 the peculiar form of the destroyers, which was 
 then unknown to Western Europe; whereas, they 
 
 being of species or appearance common to the 
 Latin nations, no particulars were required. But 
 in Leviticus and Isaiah, where the mouse is de- 
 clared an unclean animal, the species most ac- 
 cessible and likely to invite the appetite of 
 nations who, like the Arabs, were apt to covet all 
 kinds of animals, even when expressly forbidden, 
 were, no doubt, the hamster and the dormouse ; 
 and both are still eaten in common with the 
 jerboa, by the Bedoueeiis, who are but too often 
 driven to extremity by actual want of food. — 
 
 C. II. S. 
 
 MOUTH (HD). The ordinary applications 
 of this word, common to all languages, require no 
 explanation; but the following somewhat pecu- 
 liar uses may be noted : ‘ Heavy-mouthed,’ that 
 is, slow of speech, and so translated in Exod. iv. 
 10; ‘smooth mouth’ (Ps. xxvi. 28), that is, a 
 flattering mouth; so also ‘a mouth of deceit’ 
 (Ps. cix. 2). The following are also remarkable 
 phrases: ‘To speak with one mouth to mouth,’ 
 that is, in person, without the intervention of an 
 interpreter (Num. xii. 8 ; comp. 1 Kings viii. 15 ; 
 Jer. xxxii. 4). ‘With one mouth,’ that is, with 
 one voice or consent (Josh. ix. 2; 1 Kings xxii. 
 13 ; 2 Chron. xviii. 12). ‘ With the whole mouth,’ 
 that is, with the utmost strength of voice (Job 
 xix. 16; Ps. lxvi. 17). ‘ To put words into one's 
 
 mouth,’ that is, to suggest what one shall say 
 (Exod. iv. 15 ; Num. xxii. 38 ; xxiii. 5, 12 ; 
 
 2 Sam. xiv. 19, &c.). ‘ To be in one’s mouth,’ 
 
 is to be often spoken of, as a law, & c. (Exod. xiii. 
 
 9 ; comp. Ps. v. 10 ; xxxviii. 15). The Hebrew 
 also says, ‘ upon the mouth,’ where we say, and 
 indeed our translation says, in or into the mouth 
 (e. g. Nah. iii. 12) ; that which is spoken is also 
 said to be ‘ upon the mouth,’ where we should 
 say, ‘ upon the lips’ (as in 2 Sam. xiii. 32). ‘ To 
 lay the hand upon the mouth ’ is to be silent 
 (Judg. xviii. 19 ; Job xxi. 5 ; xl. 4 ; comp. Prov. 
 xxx. 32), just as we lay the finger on the mouth 
 to eujoin silence. ‘ To write from the mouth of 
 anyone’ is to do so from his dictation (Jer- 
 xxxvi. 4, 27, 32; xlv. 1). 
 
 The mouth, as the organ of speech, also sig- 
 nifies the words that, proceed out of it, which in 
 the sacred style are the same as commands and 
 actions, because they imply the effects of the 
 thoughts; words and commands being the means 
 used to communicate decrees to those who are 
 to execute them. Instances of this abound in 
 Scripture, in various shades of application, but 
 few of them are preserved in translation. Thus 
 (Gen. xlv. 12), ‘according to the commandment 
 of Pharaoh,’ is in the original, ‘ according to the 
 mouth of Pharaoh ’ (comp., among numerous 
 other examples, Num. iii. 16 ; Job xxxix. 27 ; 
 Eccles. viii. 2). Hence, for a person or thing to 
 come out of the mouth of another is to be con- 
 stituted or commanded to become an agent or 
 minister under a superior power : this is frequent 
 in the Revelations (Rev. xvi. 13, 14; i. 16; xi. 
 4,5; xii. 15; ix. 19). The term mouth is not 
 only applied to a speech or words, but to the 
 speaker (Exod. iv. 16 ; Jer. xv. 19), in which 
 sense it has a near equivalent in our expression 
 ‘ mouth piece.’ 
 
 MULBERRY-TREE. [Baca.] 
 
 MUSIC. It seems probable that music is the 
 oldest of all the tine arts. It is more than any otbar 
 
3GS 
 
 MUSIC. 
 
 MUSIC. 
 
 an immediate work of nature. Hence we find it 
 among all nations, even those which are totally 
 ignorant of every other art. Some instruments 
 of music are in Scripture named even before 
 the deluge, as being invented by Jubal, one of 
 Cain’s descendants (Gen. iv. 21) ; and some 
 will regard this as continued by the common 
 opinion of the Orientals. Chardin relates that 
 the Persians and Arabians call musicians and 
 singers Kayne , or ‘ descendants from Cain.’ The 
 instruments invented hy Jubal seem to have re- 
 mained in use after the flood, or at least, the 
 names were still in use, and occur in the latest 
 books of the Old Testament. Music, in practical 
 use, is almost constantly mentioned in connection 
 with the song and the dance (Gen. xxxi.27 ; Exod. 
 xv. 20), and was doubtless employed to elevate 
 the former and regulate the latter. Women es- 
 pecially are seen io have employed it in this con- 
 nection from the earliest times (Exod. xv. 20 ; 
 Judg. xi. 34 ; 1 Sam. xviii. 6). At a later 
 period we trace the appearance of foreign girls in 
 Palestine, as in Greece and Italy, who visited 
 the towns like t he Bayaderes of the present day 
 (Isa. xxiii. 16). Music was also through all 
 Deriods used in social meetings, and in public 
 rejoicings (1 Kings i. 40 ; Isa. v. 12; xiv. 11; 
 xxiv. 8; Amos vi. 5 ; Hag. v. 14; 1 Macc. ix. 
 39; Judith iii. 8). By David music was vari- 
 ously and conspicuously connected with the 
 temple worship ( I Chron. xxv. 1); in ptrticular, 
 the Levites, in their several choirs, performed their 
 music divided into different. classes at the great 
 sacrifices (2 Chron. xxix. 25 ; xxx. 21 ; xxxv. 
 15). The prophets also appear to have regarded 
 music as necessary to their services (1 Sam x. 
 5) ; and they used it sometimes for the purpose, 
 apparently, of bringing their minds into the 
 frame suited for prophetic inspirations (2 Kings 
 iii. 15). In the case of David playing before 
 Saul, we have marked and interesting evidence 
 x mt the effect of music in soothing t lie perturba- 
 sions of a disordered intellect, was well known 
 among the Hebrews (1 Sam. xvi. Id). 
 
 It would be truly interesting to know to what 
 extent the Israelites, during their sojourn in 
 Egypt, where they became a nation, profited by 
 the musical science and instruments of that coun- 
 try. It is impossible but the patriarchs had some 
 kind of music and musical instruments before 
 they journeyed thither; hut the presence of music 
 among the Israelites is not positively indicated 
 till after the exoue. If we could rely on the 
 assumption that the celebrated painting at Beni- 
 Hassan really represents tne arrival of the Israel- 
 ites in Egypt, we should r lienee learn that they 
 were in possession of a lyre peculiar to themselves, 
 or more probably adopted from the Canaanites. 
 Whatever instruments they had before they went 
 down to Egypt they doubtless retained, although 
 they may have added to their musical science and 
 their instruments while in that country. One 
 people adopts the musical instruments of another, 
 without also adopting its music. If we find 
 this to be the case now, how much more so in 
 those ancient times, when the absence of musical 
 notation made every air a matter of tradition — 
 since the traditions of one people are not usually 
 imparted to foreigners, or sought after by a foreign 
 people. Hence, although we have no doubt that 
 the musical instruments which we read of in 
 
 Scripture may find their types in the Egyptian 
 monuments, we are unable even to conjecture hoi 
 much they were indebted to the music of tha 
 people, of which indeed we know almost as little 
 as of that of the Hebrews, although we know more 
 of their instruments. 
 
 It will be remembered that mus.c and song 
 were cultivated in the region from which the 
 Israelites first came (Gen. xxxi. 27\ and that 
 there must have been in the party which Abraham 
 brought from Aram, and in (he larger party which 
 Jacob took into Egypt, many persons by whom this 
 native music was practised, and to whom it was 
 dear ; and they were almost certain to preserve and 
 transmit it to their children. In Egypt they were 
 in the midst of a people infinitely their superiors in 
 all the arts of civilization, in consequence of which 
 they were kept more apart, anti likely to adopt 
 less from them than if the resemblance had been 
 greater. Their condition was also soon changed 
 into one of intolerable bondage — a state in the 
 highest degree unfavourable to the cultivation of 
 music and its kindred arts, although there were 
 doubtless among the Israelites many individuals 
 who were led by circumstances or inclination 
 to cultivate the learning and the arts of Egypt, 
 among which music was not likely to be forgotten. 
 The conclusion we should he disposed to deduce 
 from this is, that the native music of the Israelites 
 was much of the same kind which exists in Syria 
 and Western Asia to this day, and that the instru- 
 ments resembled the most simple of those in pre- 
 sent use, while we must be content to remain in 
 ignorance respecting the measure of that im- 
 provement in musical science which they may 
 be supposed to have derived from the Egyptians ; 
 although with respect to the instruments much 
 information may he collected from the monu- 
 ments of that ancient people. 
 
 With respect to the nat me of the Hebrew music, 
 it was doubtless of the same essential character as 
 that of other ancient nations, and of all the present 
 Oriental nations; consisting not so much in har- 
 mony (in the modern sense of the term) as in 
 unison or melody. This is the music of nature, 
 and for a long time after the more ancient period 
 was common among the Greeks and Romans. 
 From the Hebrews themselves we have no definite 
 accounts in reference to this subject; but *be 
 history of the art among other nations must r.ere 
 also serve as our guide. It was not the har- 
 mony of differing or dissonant sounds, hut the 
 voice formed after the tones of the lyre, that con- 
 stituted the beauty of the ancient music. 
 
 ‘ Tu calamos inflate leves, ego dicere versus,’ 
 was the general rule followed in the musical 
 rhapsodies of the ancients, and which so enrap- 
 tured the Arabian servant of Niebuhr, that he 
 cried out, in contempt of European music, ‘ By 
 Allah, that is fine! God bless you! ' ( Reisebeschreib . 
 nach Arabien , p. 176). The whole of antiquity 
 is full of stories in praise of this music. By its 
 means battles were won, cities conquered, mutinies 
 quelled, diseases cured (Plutarch, De Music a'). 
 Effects similar to these occur in the Scriptures, 
 and have already been indicated. Why are 
 these effects so seldom produced by our music? 
 Are they among the things in music yet to be 
 restored? The different parts which we now have 
 are the invention of modern times. Respecting 
 the base, treble, &c., very few discriminating re- 
 
MUSIC. 
 
 marks had then been made. Tlte old, the young, 
 maidens, &c., appear to have sung one part. The 
 heauiy of their music consisted altogether in me- 
 lody. The instruments by which, in singing, this 
 melody was accompanied, occupied the part of a 
 sustained baseband, if we are disposed to apply 
 in this case what Niebuhr has told us, ihe beauty 
 of the concerts consisted in this — that other persons 
 repeated the mu'sic which had just been sung, 
 three, four, or five notes, lower or higher. *Such, 
 for instance, was the concert which Miriam held 
 ■with her musical fellows, and to which the ‘ topli, 
 or tahret, furnished the continued base ;- just, as 
 Niebuhr has also remarked of the Arabian women 
 of the present-day, ‘ that when they dance or sing 
 in their harem, they always beat the correspond- 
 ing time upon this drum ( Reiseb . i. 181). To 
 this mode of performance belongs the 24th Psalm, 
 which' rests altogether upon the varied representa- 
 tion ; in like manner, also, the 20th and 21st 
 Psalms. This was all the change it admitted; 
 ^.nd although it is very possible that this mono- 
 ^mous, or rather unisonous music, might not be 
 Interesting to ears - tuned to musical progressions, 
 sr.odulations, and cadences, there is something m 
 5 : with which, the Orientals are well pleased. 
 They love it for the very reason that it h mono- 
 tonous or unisonous, and from Morocco to China 
 we meet with no other. Even the cultivated 
 Chinese, whose civilization oilers so many points 
 of resemblance to, that of the ancient Egyptians, 
 like, their own ipusic, which consists wholly of 
 Melody, better than curs, although it is not 
 fiifSiolly despised by them (Du Halde s China, iii. 
 $16). 
 
 A music of . this description could easily dis- 
 pense with the compositions which mark the time 
 by Holes ; and the Hebrews do not ap$>ear to have 
 known anything- of musical notation; for that the 
 accents served that purpose is a position which yet 
 remains to he prpved. At the best the accent must 
 have been a very imperfect instrument for this 
 purpose, however high ir^ antiquity. Europeans 
 nad not yet attained to musical notes in the 11th 
 century ; and the Orientals do not profess to ha^e 
 Known them till the 17th. On the other hand, 
 
 the word r&D sclak, whicbcccurs in the P/alms 
 
 and Habakkuk, may very possibly be a mark for 
 the change of time, or. lor repeating the melody 
 a few tones higher, or, as some think, for an ac- 
 companiment or after-piece of entirely instru- 
 EH'ental music. - 
 
 The Hebrew music is judged to have been of a 
 slaill character; for this would result from the 
 nature of the instruments — harps, flutes, ami 
 cymbals — which were employed in the temple 
 service. 
 
 The manner of singing single songs was, it 
 seems, ruled by that of others in the same mea- 
 sure, and it is usually supposed that many of the 
 titles of fee Psalms are intended to indicate the 
 names of other songs according to which these 
 were to be sung [Psaj.ms]. 
 
 There is a notion somewhat widely diffused, 
 that in their sacred services the Hebrews drs- 
 jiensed with reul melody, and contented them- 
 selves v/ifh such cantillation as they now use in 
 their synagogues. This seems very doubtful. 
 On Such a subject it is -not. safe to argue from the 
 practice of the mpclew Jews ; and as singing b 
 
 VQJW2. 25 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 3GZ 
 
 something so exceedingly simple and natural, i» 
 is difiiciilt. to believr that in tbe solemn services 
 of their religion they stopped at the point of can- 
 tillation. 
 
 The allusions to music in the Scriptures are to 
 incidental and concise, that it will never tie pos- 
 sible to forth out of them a complete or connected 
 view of tbe stale of musical science among the 
 ancient Hebiews. The little knowledge which 
 has beeir realized* on the subject has been ob- 
 tained chiefly through the patient labours and 
 minute investigations of the authors named at the 
 end of the next article. 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. It is less 
 difficult to determine the general character of the 
 Hebrew instruments of music, than to identify tbe 
 particular instruments which are named in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. We see certain instruments 
 different from our own in use among the modern 
 Orientals, and we infer that the Hebrew instru- 
 ments were probably not unlike these, because 
 the Orientals change but little, and we recognise 
 in them the peoples, and among them the habits 
 and the manners described in the Bible. We see 
 other instruments represented in great variety in 
 thjf sculptures and mural tablets of the Egyptians ; 
 and we conclude that the Hebrews had something 
 similar, on account of their long sojourn among 
 .that people. We find also many instruments 
 presented in the sculptures of Greece and Rome, 
 and we need not ret use to draw infeiences Iron* 
 them, for they derived their origin from the 
 East, and the Romans distinctly refer' them 
 to Syria (Juv. Sat* iii.; Liv. Ih&t. xxxix. 5). 
 When, however, we endeavour to identify witii 
 these a particular instrument named by the He- 
 brews, our difficulty begins ; because the Hebrew 
 names are seldom to he recognised in those whidE 
 they notv bear, and because the Scripture afiorus 
 us little information respecting the form of the in- 
 struments which it mentions. There are some eluea^ 
 however, it is likely that the Gieek3 and Ro- 
 mans retained the names of the instruments they 
 derived from Syria, and these names have been 
 preserved. The Orientals also have for the most 
 part retained the original names of things really 
 old ; and by comparing these names with tbe 
 Hebrew, and then examining the instruments to 
 which they ajqiear to belong, we shall throw some 
 glimmerings of light on the subject. 
 
 The matter naturally arranges itself under the- 
 following heads — 
 
 I. Stringed Instruments. 
 
 II. Wind Instruments. 
 
 III. Instruments of Percussion. 
 
 I. — I. ,At tl |e head off the Strinokd Instru- 
 ments we-must place the “1133 kinnor , which is 
 rendered ‘harp’ in the Authorized Version. The 
 invention and first use of this instrument are as-' 
 cribed to Jubal (Gen. iv. 21) ; and Laban names 
 it among the instruments which should havfe cele- 
 brated the departure of his son-in-law (Gen. xxxi. 
 27; In the first ages the kinnor was consecrated 
 to jovRiid exultation hence the frequency of its 
 use v by David and others in praise of the Divine 
 Majesty. It is thought probable that the instru- 
 ment received some improvements from David 
 (comp. Amos vi. 5). In bringing back the ark 
 of the covenant (1 Chron. xvi. 5), as well as 
 afterwards, at the consecration of the temple, the 
 
37 0 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 kinncr was assigned to players of known emi- 
 nence, chiefly of the family of Jeduthuu (1 Chron, 
 xxv. 3). Isaiah mentions it as used at festivals, 
 along with the nebel ; he also describes it as carried 
 round by Bayaderes from town to town (xxiii. 1 6). 
 and as increasing by its presence the joy of vin- 
 tage (xxiv. 8). When Jehoshaphat obtained his 
 great victory over the Moabites, the triumphal 
 entry into Jerusalem was accompanied by the 
 nebel and the kinnor (2 Chrmi. xx. 27, 23). 
 The sorrowing Jews of the captivity, far re- 
 moved from their own land and the shadow of the 
 smctuary, hung their kinnors upon tire willows 
 by the waters- of Babylon, and refused to sing the 
 tongs of Zion in a strange land (Ps. cxxxvii. 2). 
 Many other passages of similar purport might be 
 adduced in order to fix the uses of an instrument, 
 the name of which occurs so often in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. They mostly indicate occasions of joy, 
 such a9 jubilees and festivals. Of the instrument 
 itself the Scripture affords us little further in- 
 formation than that it was composed of the sound- 
 ing part3 of good wood, and furnished with strings. 
 David made it of the berosh wood f Bbhosh] ; 
 Solomon of the more costly algum (2 Sam. vi. 
 5; 2 Kings x. 12); and Josephus mentions 
 emne composed of the mixed metal called elec- 
 trum. He also asserts that it was furnished with 
 ten strings, and played with a plectrum (Antiq. 
 vii. 12. 3); which however 19 not understood to 
 imply that it never had any other number of 
 strings, or was always played with the plectrum. 
 David certainly played it with the hand (1 Sam. 
 xvi. 23 ; xviii. 10 ; six. 9), and it wa3 probably 
 used in both ways, according to its size. 
 
 That th ; » instrument was really a harp, is now 
 i -very generally denied; and Pfeiffer, Winer, and 
 | other writers on the subject, conclude that it was 
 i a kind of guitar. This is entirely grounded on 
 somewhat uncertain etymological derivations. 
 Thus T!3D is in the Septuagint translated by 
 i uOapa and Kivvpa ; and by Aquila. Symmachus, 
 end Theodotion always by itiOupa. Now the 
 Greek cithara, it is argued, was a kind of guitar, 
 
 • from which the modern instrument so called, and 
 its very name, gittare, guitar , is derived. The 
 testimony of the Arabic is also adduced ; for the 
 name among the Arabians for instruments of the 
 guitar kind is tambura. and it happens that this 
 is the' very term by which the word ki'inor is 
 rendered in the Arabic version. When this kind 
 of argument was used by PfeifFer apd others, it 
 was not well known that the guitar was in fact an 
 ancient Egyptian, as it is also a modem Oriental, 
 instrument. It is frequently figured in the mo- 
 numents. Tliere is therefore little ptfjm tq doubt 
 that the guitar was known to the Hebrews, and 
 probably in U6e among them. Notwithstanding 
 this kind of evidence, the editor of the Pictorial 
 Bible {on Ps. xliii. 4) ventured to suggest the 
 greater nrohability that the lyn, in some of its 
 various kinds, was denoted by the word kinnor ; 
 and subsequent inquiry has tended to establish 
 {Iris conclusion as firmly perhaps as the nature 
 of the subject admits. It is shown, first, that 
 the cithara , which the Greek translators appear to 
 have had in view, was in fact originally the same 
 &s the lyre ; in other words, the name Xvpa, lyra, 
 rarely occurs in the early Greek writers, that of 
 being far more common*. But, about the 
 sioaa of Pindar, certain innovations were intro- 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 diieed, in consequence of which the lyre end 
 cithara came to be used as distinctive words : the 
 lyre denoting the instrument which exhibited the 
 strings free on both sides, and the cithara that, with 
 the strings partly drawn over the sounding body. 
 This latter instrument, preserving the shape oi 
 the lyre, and wholly distinct in form and ar- 
 rangement from the guitar, resembling it only in 
 this one point, should surely not be confounded 
 with it, especially a3 antiquity had another .in- 
 strument which more obviously belongs to the 
 guitar species. If those who allege .that the kin- 
 nor was a kind of guitar, mean merely that it was 
 a species of lyre which in one point resembled 
 a guitar, we do not differ from thorn ; hut if they 
 allege that it bad any general resemblance to the 
 modern instrument, they remove it from the lyre 
 class of instruments, which the authorities on 
 which they rely will not allow. If therefore the 
 word tciQdpa denoted, when the Greek translators 
 of the Bible lived, a species of lyre, which was 
 the only lyre when the Hebrew Scriptures were 
 written, it follows, that in using this word for 
 the Hebrew kinnor , they understood and in- 
 tended to convey that a lyre was signified. They 
 also could not but know that the distinction be- 
 tween the lyra and cithara was of recent origin ; 
 and as the latter word had originally been a 
 general term for die lyre, they must have felt it 
 to be more strictly equivalent than lyra to the 
 Hebrew kinnor. It may also be observed that 
 all the usga of the kinnor, as described in Scrip- 
 ture, were such as were applicable to the lyre, 1 
 and to the lyre only, of all the ancient instru-j’ 
 merits of music: most of them being egre- 
 giously inapplicable to the harp, and not very 
 suitable to the guitar. And it must not be over- 
 looked that it i9 morally certain the Hebrews hat! 
 the lyre, seeing that it was common among all 
 their neighbours; and yet there is no other of their 
 instruments but the kinnor with which it can 
 possibly be identified. The frequency of its 
 
 Hebrew lyre ) 
 
 occurrence in Scripture also corresponds with 
 preference given to it in most ancient writers 
 
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 37S 
 
 We are moreover inclined to place some reliance 
 upon the Egyptian painting supposed to represent 
 the arrival of Joseph’s brethren in Egypt (No. 410, 
 fig. 4). Here one of the men is playing on a lyre of 
 somewhat peculiar shape; and if he be a Hebrew 
 the instrument is undoubtedly a kinnor, as no other 
 stringed instrument is mentioned till the time of 
 David. This instrument has seven strings (the 
 usual number of the lyre), which are partly 
 drawn over the sounding body : this is the cha- 
 racteristic of that more ancient species of lyre 
 called the cithara. The engravings 410 and 41 1 
 will give some idea of the varieties in form and 
 strings which the lyre assumed among the Egyp- 
 tians. There were probably similar differences 
 among the Hebrews ; for in concluding the kinnor 
 to be the lyre, we have no wish to restrict it to any 
 tme particular instrument : we father apprehend 
 that it was a general term for all instruments of 
 tiie lyre kiud. If there was one instrument more 
 
 41 J. . (Egyptian Lyres. 1, in the Leyden collection; 
 . !i, in the Berlin collection. J 
 
 than another on which the Hebrews were likely 
 to pride themselves, and which should be re- 
 garded as their national instrument, it is the 
 kinnor; and if they gave the figure of an in- 
 strument on any coin as a type of their nation, 
 as the harp of Ireland, it would be this. Now 
 the instrument which we do find on some coins 
 ascribed to Simon Maccabseus is no other than 
 a lyre (No. 415, (ig. 3j, and there can be little 
 doubt that it was intended to represent the instru- 
 ment known among the Hebrews by the name of 
 kinnor. An instrument resembling the ancient 
 lyre is also in use among the Arabians, bearing the 
 name of kussir ''derived perhaps from kitfiara). 
 There is a figure of it in Niebuhr, and he saw 
 no other instrument in the East which lie felt 
 disposed to identify with ‘the harp of David’ 
 ( Reisebesch. i. 179). 
 
 , 2. nebel , is the next instrument which 
 
 requires attention. The Greek vafiAiov (vafiAa, 
 vd[}\Th vavAa. or t'd.^Aas) and the Latin nab- 
 limn , nab him (or nabla ) are obviously con- 
 nected with or derived from the same source as 
 the Hebrew word, and may afford some help in 
 our search after the instrument. The word is 
 rendered * psaltery* in the Authorized Version, in 
 imitation of the Sept, translation of the Psalms 
 and Nehemiah, which renders it liy tyaAriipiov 
 ith^the exception of tf/uA/uos in Ps. lxxi. 22, 
 and 'niOdpa in Ps. Ixxxi. 2. The Sepfuagint in 
 the other hooks in which the word occurs, renders 
 it by rdfiAa, q* with a different ending va£hw, 
 
 As to when this instrument was invented, and 
 when it came into use among the Hebrews, no- 
 thing can be determined with certainly. The 
 first mention of it is in the reign of Saul (1 Sam. 
 x. 5), and from that time forward we continue ti> 
 meet with it in the Old Testament. It is how- 
 ever not found in the 2nd chapter of Daniel, 
 where mention is made of so many instruments ; 
 whence we may infer either that it did not exist 
 among the Babylonians, or was known among 
 them by another name. Indeed, among the 
 Greeks and Latins the word nablium is not of 
 frequent occurrence, and is only employed by the 
 poets, who are generally fond of borrowing foreign 
 names. The use of the instrument prevailed par- 
 ticularly in the* public worship of God. David's 
 own instrument was the kinnor^ ; but he neglected 
 not the nebel. It wa3 played upon by several 
 persons in the grand procession at the removal of 
 the ark (1 Chron. xv. 16; xvi. 5); and in the 
 final organization of the temple music it was 
 entrusted to 'he families of Asaph, Heman, and 
 Jednthun (1 Chron. xxv. 1-7) ; Asaph, how- 
 ever, was only the overseer of the nebel ists, as 
 
 be himself played on the metziltaim . 
 
 Out of the worship of God, it was employed at 
 festivals and for luxurious purposes (Amos vi. 5). 
 In the manufacture of this instrument a con- 
 stant increase of splendour was exhibited. The 
 first we meet with were made simply of the wood 
 of the berosk (2 Sam. vi. 5 ; 1 Chron. xiii. S)» 
 others of the rarer algum tree (1 Kings x. 12; 
 2 Chron. ix. 11); and some perhaps of metal 
 (Joseph. Antiq. i. 8. 3), unless the last is to be 1 
 understood of particular parts of the instrument. 
 
 Conjectures respecting the probable form of 
 this instrument have been exceedingly various. 
 Passing by the eccentric notion that the nebel 
 was a kind of bagpipe, we may assume from 
 the evident tendency of the Scriptural intima- 
 tions, ami from the general bearing of other 
 authorities, that it was composed of strings 
 stretched over a wooden frame. This being as- 
 sumed or granted, we must proceed to seek soma 
 hint concerning its shape; and we find nothing 
 more tangible than the concurrent testimony of 
 Jerome, Isidurus, and Cassiodorus, that it wag 
 like the Greek letter A inverted v. The only in* 
 
 412, (Egyptian triangular instruments.} 
 
 strument of this shape known to/ the older writers 
 on the subject was the harp ; wnich some of them 
 (as Calmet) on this insufficient ground inferred ta 
 be the instrument intended, But since then, vast 
 
*72 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 additions to our knowledge of ancient musical in* 
 etrumenfs have been found in the tombs of Egypt 
 and the buried cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii. 
 From these we learn two things — that the ancient 
 harp was not shaped like the Greek A inverted; 
 And that there were stringed instruments, some- 
 thing between the harp and the lyre, which in their 
 various forma bore a remarkable resemblance to 
 that letter (No. 412). We feel assured that among 
 these forms may be found the instrument which the 
 fathers hLl in view, for they lived while they were 
 or ill in use. They held it to be the same as the 
 Hebrew nebel ; anil as we can, through the Egyp- 
 tian monuments, trace the instrument up to early 
 Scriptural times, this view certainly deserves con- 
 siderable attention. 
 
 We are, however, far from thinking that the 
 fiebel was always of this shape. It appears to us to 
 l>e a general name for various of the larger stringed 
 instruments of the harp kind, and also to denote, in 
 a more special sense, one particular sort : in other 
 words, that the nebel was an instrument of a prin- 
 cipal species, the name of which was applied to 
 the whole ^enus. In fact we have the names of 
 *ev.eral instruments which are generally conceived 
 to be different varieties of the nebel. Before pro- 
 ceeding to these, we must express an opinion that 
 one of these "kinds, if-not the principal kind, qt 
 the one most frequently denoted by the word, was 
 the ancient harp, agreeing more or )es9 with 
 that represented in the Egyptian 'monument^. 
 Whether the nebel or not, there can be little 
 doubt that the Hebrews bad such an instrument, 
 although we may be unable to point out the pre- 
 cise word by which they described it. It is mo- 
 rally impossible that an instrument so common 
 in Egypt, and of which the powers must have 
 much exceeded that of any other instrument 
 kuown to them, could have been neglected by a 
 people whose stringed instruments of music were 
 so various as those of the Hebrews. It may fur- 
 ther be observed, that the use of this instrument 
 as shown in the Egyptian paintings, agrees in all 
 respects with that which the Scriptures refer to 
 
 the nebel, so far as we can gather any indications 
 from them; and it is somewhat reprarjjable that 
 the two great harps, in what ie called Bruce's 
 tomb, Lave respectively , .eleven and thirteen 
 strings, being only one gnore and one less than 
 the twelve assigned by Josephus to the nebel. 
 These liarp9 are shown in No 413, and other 
 varieties of the same instrument are figured in 
 No. 414. 
 
 One of the classical traditions respecting the 
 Origin o / the lyre refers it to an observation made 
 upen the resonance of the gut-strings iu the shell 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRt MENTS. 
 
 of a dried-up tortoise ; anotherto a similar obser- 
 vation upon the twanging of a bow-string. Thegp 
 traditions have been deemed contradictory, from 
 
 being supposed to refer to one and the same instru- 
 ment ; but they are perfectly reconcilable when 
 referred to two. The lyre, which we have already 
 sought to connect with the Hebrew kinnor, might 
 have had the tortoise origin, and the histrument we 
 have now in view might as obviously be referred to 
 ' the how and it3 string. That the latter has only 
 lately become known to us through the Egyptian 
 monuments sufficiently accounts for this con- 
 fusion, and explains why no attempt has hitherto 
 been made (except in the Pictorial Bible , nore 
 on Ps. cxxxviii. 2), to place the Egyptian harp 
 among the musical instruments of the Hebrews. 
 ’We have no desire to insist on its identity witli 
 the nebel in particular: but it is remarkable 
 that, whereas the nebel is in Scripture mentioned 
 so as to show that it always or generally formed 
 part of a band of instruments, so the Egyptian 
 harp is usually seen to be played in concert with 
 other instruments. Sometimes, however, it was 
 played alone, or as an accompaniment to the 
 voice, anj4 a band of seven or more choristers 
 frequently sung to it a favourite ay, beating timg 
 with their hands between each stanza (Wilkinson* 
 Anc. Egypt, ii. 239). The principle of the bow 
 was among the Egyptians extended to other in- 
 struments, which, from their smaller size ami 
 manner of being played, might be classed anjoig 
 lyres ^No. 416). It is more than probable that 
 these simple instruments were known to the He- 
 brews, although we are unable to discover the 
 name by which they were called. 
 
 " 3. TW asor> occurs as an instrument in 
 only, a few places, and never but in connection 
 with* the nebel. This has given rise to the con- 
 jecture that the two instruments may have dif- 
 fered from each other only in the number of 
 their strings, or the openings at the bottom. 
 Hence we meet with the Sept, translation iy 
 8(Kax6pb(j>t and in the Chaldee, Syriac; and 
 Arabic, words expressing an instrument of ten 
 strings, which is also followed in the Authorised 
 Version (Ps. xxxiii. 2; cxliv.* 1). We see nc 
 reason to dissent from this conclusion. Pfeffei 
 was inclined to thjuk that the aeor may have 
 been the quadrangular lyre which is represented 
 in different varieties in ancient monuments, and 
 yvhich has usually ten - strings, though sometimes 
 more (No. 415, 8ga, 1, 2> 
 
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 41». [Miscellaneous stringed instruments.] 
 
 4. Fl'Fl| gittith , a word which occurs in rhe 
 titles to Ps. viii., Ixxxi.. lxxxiv., and is generally 
 •opposed to denote a musical instrument. From 
 tlje name it has been supposed to be an instru- 
 ment which David brought from Gath •, and it 
 l as been inferred from Iso. xvi. 10. that it was in 
 (articular use at the vintage season, if an in- 
 itrument of emusic, it is remavkable that it does 
 i ot occur in the list of the instruments assigned 
 ly David to the temple musicians; nor even 
 mi that list which appears in versps 1 and 2 of 
 Ps. Ixxxi., in the title of which it is found. The 
 eupposition of Gesenius, that it is a general name 
 h r a stringed instrument , obviates this difficulty. 
 The Septuagint renders the title by o-rrep rwv 
 Xr.v&v, * upon the winepress.’ and Carpzov, 
 P (eider and others, follow this, in taking the 
 word to denote a song composed for the vintage, 
 or for the Feast of Tabernacles (Carpzov, Observ. 
 
 Philcl. super Psalmos Tres Helmst. 
 
 1758 ; Pfeiffer, vber die Musik, p. 32). 
 
 5. D'lD vninnim , which occurs in Ps. xlv. 8 
 and cl. 4, is supposed by some to denote a stringed 
 instrument, but it seems merely a poetical allu- 
 sion to the strings of any instrument. Thus in 
 Ps. xlv. 8 we would read * Out of the ivory pa- 
 laces the strings («. e. concerts of music) have 
 made thee glad and so in Ps. cl. 4, * Praise him 
 with strings (stringed instruments) and ugabs .' 
 
 6. &OSK* or &OSD, sabeca, an instrument 
 rendered ‘sackbut,’ amf which occurs only in Dan. 
 iii. 5, 7, 10, 15. It is doubtless the same as the 
 stringed instrument of music denominated by the 
 Greeks <rap.&vK7}, o'a^i^vicps, <rd/x/3u£, £aju/Strc?j, and 
 by the Latins sambuca. It seems to have been a 
 species of harp or lyre, and, ar some think, was 
 only a species of the • nebel , distinguished by the 
 number of its strings. The able tvriter of the 
 musical articles in Smith’s Classical Dictionary 
 thinks the sambuca was the same as the Egyptian 
 aarp, which we have already conjectured to be the 
 particular instrument designated by the name 
 nebel , or one of the instruments of the class so 
 denominated. We saould have no objection to 
 regard this harp as being represented by the sabeca 
 as a species of the nebel ; but we cannot see that 
 any jjsoof of the conjecture is adduced, and as the 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 373 
 
 word only occurs in a list of Babylonian instnj» 
 merits, and never among those of the Hebrews 
 the identification would goto show that the lanes 
 had not the harp, for which conclusion we are by 
 no means p reflated . 
 
 As tbe intimations which can he collected re- 
 specting the sambuca amount to this, that it was 
 a large stringed instrument of a somewhat trr 
 angular shape, it may possibly have home some 
 resemblance to figs. 4 and 5, No. 415, which ait; 
 copied from old writers on the subject, and which 
 bear much* resemblance to instruments, such as the 
 khanoon and tchenk , which continue to be com- 
 mon and popular in Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and 
 Persia, ami which correspond to both these con- 
 ditions. 
 
 410. (Bow shaped Egyptian instruments.] 
 
 7 . I’TFODS or ]'"lt£)3D!p, pesanterin , the tf/cA- 
 vijpiov or psaltery of the Greeks: it occurs only 
 in Dan. iii. 7, 10, 15. where it is supposed to repre- 
 sent the Hebrew nebel. The word ibaXr'fipiov is, 
 however, applied by the Greek translators so arbi- 
 trarily to instruments which have different names 
 in Hebrew, that nothing can be built upon its use; 
 still less are we disposed to accept the conclusion of 
 Gesenius, that the Chaldee word is in this instance 
 formed from the Greek. The Chaldee name, and 
 perhaps the instrument represented by it, may jbe 
 
 recognised in the modern santeer, which 
 
 is of the cl-is3 already referred to as represented by . 
 figs. 3, 4, No. 415). < 
 
 8. machalath , which occurs in the 
 titles of Ps. liii. and Ixxxviii., is supposed by 
 Gesenius and others to denote a kind of lute or 
 guitar, which instrument others find in the 
 minnim above noticed. We should not like to 
 affirm that instruments of this kind are repre- 
 sented by either of these words — not that we doutii 
 whether the Hebrews had such instruments, but 
 because we are not satisfied that these are the pre- 
 cise wdrds by which they were denoted. The fire, 
 valence in the East of instruments of this sort 
 would alone suggest the probability that the Jews 
 were not without them ; and this probability ia 
 greatly increased by the evidence which the Egyp- 
 tian paintings offer, that they were equally pre- 
 valent in ancient times in neighbouring nations. 
 Before this evidence was obtained it was usual to 
 offer figs. I and 3- in the subjoined cut (No. 
 417), as affording probable examples of Hehrev/ 
 instruments of this class; and fig. 3, from Nie- 
 buhr’s Travels, as a modern Arabian 'example. 
 Objections were tsrged to these figures, which is 
 would, until lately, have been difficult to answer. 
 But now we find their prototypes among the 
 ancient Egyptians, This will seen from ilia 
 
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 3T4 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 *utj vined engravings, a very cursory inspection 
 of which will -show the geueral resemblance of 
 
 Si®. [1. A kind of guitar; 2. Ancient lute. 3. Arabian 
 tajibur.] 
 
 the above to the instruments represented in at 
 least figs. 1, 3 (No. 418), or in other words, 
 to instruments of the lute and guitar class. 
 
 <18. (Egyptian stringed instruments with necks.} 
 
 The Egyptian guitar consisted of two parts, a 
 long flat neck or handle, and a hollow oval body, 
 composed wholly of wood, or covered with leather, 
 tvhose upper surface was perforated with several 
 holes to allow the sound to esdipe ; over this body, 
 and the whole length of the handle, extended 
 three strings of catgut secured at the upper ex- 
 tremity. The length of the handle was some- 
 fcimes*twice, sometimes thrice that of the body, 
 
 4 19. (Egyptian stringed instruments with necks.) 
 
 and the whole instrument seems to have measured 
 three or four feet. It was struck with a plectrum, 
 and the performers usually stood as they played. 
 Both men and women used the guitar; some 
 danced while they touched its strings (No. 418, • 
 
 fig. 2), supporting it on the right arm ; and in 
 one instance (fig. 3) it is seen slung by a hand 
 round the neck, like the modem Spanish guitar. 
 The others (No. 419) are variations of these in- 
 struments ; in fig. 3 making a near approach to 
 the lute. They are from actual and somewhat 
 decayed specimens, and therefore do not exhibit 
 the wires and other minute parts. 
 
 With all this evidence before us, we need not 
 hesitate to conclude that the Heh-ews were iu 
 possession of instruments of this kind, although 
 we may not venture to affirm by what name they 
 were called. 
 
 II. Wind Insthuments. — T here is, happily, 
 less difficulty with respect to instruments of this 
 class than with respect to stringed instruments. 
 The most ordinary division of these is into trum- 
 pets and pipes, of which the Hebrews had both, 
 and of.various kinds. 
 
 1. pj5 keren , ‘ horn/ sometimes, hut not often, 
 occurs as the name of a musical instrument (Josh, 
 vi. 5 ; 1 Chron. xxv. 5; Dan. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15). 
 Of natural horns, and of instruments in the shape 
 of horns, the antiquity and general use are evinced 
 by every extensive collection of antiquities. It is 
 admitted that natural horns were at first used, and 
 ’that they at length came to he imitated in metal, 
 but were still called horns. This use and ap- 
 plication of the word are illustrated in our ‘cor- 
 net.’ It is generally conceived that rams’ horn* 
 were the instruments used by the early Hebrews; 
 and these are, indeed, expressly, named in our own 
 and many other versions, as the instruments used 
 at the noted siege of Jericho (Josh. vi. 5) ; and the 
 horns are those of the ram, which Josephus assigns 
 to the soldiers of Gideon (Antig. v. 6. 5 ; comp. 
 Judg. vii. 16). 
 
 Tiie former of these passages requires some 
 remark. The text is pp, keren jobel, or 
 jobel- horn. It is admitted that jobel means the 
 jubilee, and in that case it would be jubilee-horn ; 
 and in th® other verses of the chapter where 
 trdmpets are mentioned, with the epithet jobelim. 
 affixed, to denote ‘jubilee-trumpets.’ But tliep 
 the translation ‘rams’ horn’ ia- verse 5 is sought 
 to be justified on the ground that the jubilee itself 
 took its name from the instruments with which it 
 was .proclaimed, and as these instruments are be- 
 lieved to have been rams' horns, the term has sc 
 been rendered in this text. In other words the 
 argument stands thus 1. The jubilee w_as named 
 from the instruments by which it wa3 proclaimed. 
 2. These instruments were rams' horns. 3. There- 
 fore jobel means a ram. It is, however, ad- 
 mitted that a ram is never called jobel in 
 Hebrew :■ and an anecdote of R. AkiTa implies 
 that it was derived from an Arabian source.* 
 ‘ When I was in Arabia,’ he says, ‘ 1 heard them 
 call a ram jobel ; and the trumpet itself is called 
 jobel. because made of rams’ horn ’ It would 
 be better, however, to translate it ‘jubilee-horn ’ 
 (see below, sect. 4). The text is not necessary 
 to show that rams’ horns were in use ; the genera] 
 belief of the Jews on the subject, and the exist- 
 ence of sculptured figures of ancient instru- 
 ments imitated from the horns of rams, if not 
 actually rams' horns, bring good evidence in 
 favour of this opinion. Bocbart and a few others 
 contest tills conclusion on the ground that rams’ 
 
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 37S 
 
 noma are not suited to the purpose, and that the 
 Greeks and Romans used the horns of neat cattle. 
 Neither of the3e positions is tenable or of much 
 weight, and the probability seems to be that kercn 
 e/as first, in its widest acceptation, the general 
 name for instruments of the horn kind, and 
 also the particular name for rams’ horns, or the 
 more crooked kind of horns, and were thu3 dis- 
 tinguished from the 
 
 2. shophar , which is a far more common 
 
 word than Aere/t, and is rendered 1 trumpet* in the 
 Authorized Version. This word seems, first, to 
 
 4-'0. (I, 2 . !f, 4. Ancient horns and curved trumpets ; 
 5 straight trumpet-; 6. pipe.J 
 
 denote horns of the sfraighter kind, including, pro- 
 bably, those of neat cattle, and all the instruments 
 which were eventually made in imitation of and 
 in improvement upon such horns. It is, however, 
 difficult to draw a distinction between it and the 
 keren, seeing that the words are sometimes used 
 synonymously. Thus that which is called *a 
 Jobel-hora ’ in Josh. vi. 5, is in the same chapter 
 (ver. 4, 6, 8, 13), called ‘a jobel-liom trumpet* 
 (shophar). Upon the whole, we may take the 
 shophar , however distinguished from the keren , to 
 have been that kind of horn or horn-shaped trumpet 
 which was best known to the Hebrews. The name 
 shophar means bright or clear , and the int^ument 
 may be conceived to have been so called^rom its 
 clear and shrill sound, just as we call an instrument 
 a ‘clarion,’ and speak of a musical tone as ‘brilliant* 
 or ‘clear.’ In the service of God thi3 shophar or 
 trumpet was only employed in making announce- 
 ments, and for calling the people together in the 
 time of the holy solemnities, of war, of rebellion, 
 or of any other great occasion (Exod. xix. *.3 ; 
 Num. x. 10; Judg. iii. 7; 1 Sam. xiii. 3; xv. 
 20; 2 Chron. xv. 14; Isa. xviii. 3). The strong 
 sound of the instrument would have confounded 
 a choir of singers, rather than have elevated their 
 music. At feasts, and exhibitions of joy, horns 
 and trumpets were not forgotten (2 Sam, vi. 15 ; 
 1 Chron. xvi. 42). There is no reason to conclude 
 tliat_the trumpet was an instrument peculiar to the 
 Levi tea, as some have supposed. If that were the 
 ca9e we should be unable to account for the 300 
 trumpets with which Gideon’s men were furnished 
 (Judg. vii. 8), and for the use of trumpets in 
 making signals by watchmen, who were not always 
 Levites. In Matt. vi. 2, we read * When thou 
 does! thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before 
 thee as the hypocrites do in the synagogues, and 
 
 in the streets, that they may have glory of men. 1 ' 
 This verse has excited some speculation, and many 
 have sought to illustrate it by reference to the cus- 
 tom of Eastern beggars of attracting attention by 
 mean3 of a musical instrument — a usage which, 
 indeed, exists in England. But here it is the 
 donor and not the beggar who is enjoined not to 
 pound a trumpet; and Lightfoot, after examining; 
 the matter with his usual care, confesses that he 
 can find no trace in the whole range of Hebrew lite- 
 rature, of a trumpet being sounded in connection 
 with public or private almsgiving ( Hor.Rebr.oTt 
 Matt. vi. 2). It is therefore safest to suppose the 
 expression derived by an easy metaphor from the 
 practice of using the trumpet to proclaim what- 
 ever was about to be done, in order to call atten- 
 tion to it and make it extensively known. 
 
 3. rTOOT chatzozerah. This was the straight! 
 trumpet, different from the shophar „ which was 
 more or less bent like a horn. There has been 
 various speculation on the name; but we are dis- 
 posed to assent to the conclusion of Gesenius, that 
 it is an onomatopoetic word, imitating the brokers 
 pulse-like sound of the trumpet, like the Latiit 
 tgratantara , which this word would more re- 
 semble if pronounced as in Arabic, kaddderafr „ 
 Among the Israelites these trumpets were a di- 
 vine regulation, Moses having been expressly- 
 directed how to make them (Num. x. 27® 
 They were of pure beaten silver, but the par- 
 ticular form does not appear in Scripture. The 
 words 'plpl nra^m, ‘withcAateofeero*& 
 
 and voice of the shophar' (Ps. xcviii. 6), brings 
 together names which most translators confound 
 under that of ‘trumpet,’ and obliges them for 
 once, at least, to draw a distinction between the two. 
 
 The Auth. Vers, here ha3 ‘with trumpets and the 
 sound of the cornet,’ which clearly intimates that 
 the translator considered the shophar a kind of 
 hom, though usually called a trumpet. The Sept, 
 draws the distinction very nice’y — iv ad\.Tny^i s* 
 iAarais. kcli <pwvfj odXiriyyos Keparlvns , ‘with 
 ductile trumpets, and the sound of horn-trumpets.' 
 which i3 closely copied by the Vulgate, ‘in tubia 
 ductilibus, et voce tubas comes.’ The idea con- 
 veyed of the chatzotzerah in these translations is, 
 that these trumpets were of wrought or ductile 
 silver, and drawn out in length ; with this some 
 combine a reference to the signification of the word 
 WPQ mihshah , applied to these trumpets in the 
 
376 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 original description in Num. x. 2, which they under- 
 stand to mean ‘turned ' or ‘rounded,’ and hencfe 
 infer that they were not merely drawn out in length 
 but turned back upon themselves, like a trombone. 
 Some German writers, indeed, directly call the 
 instrument a trombone, as De Wette, who, in his 
 translation of the Psalms, renders the line under 
 notice * Mit trompeten, mit pusaunen-klaug,’ that 
 is. * with trumpets, with tromboue-sound.* And 
 Pfeiffer, pressing upon this signification, gives the 
 figure of an Oriental instrument of this kind called 
 the sumara, as . a possible representative of the 
 ckatzotzerah. We assign little weight to all this. 
 It seems clear that these instruments were long 
 trumpets of solid wrought silver ; and as it appears 
 that these are the only musical instruments un- 
 doubted representations of which are preserved, 
 there ought to lie no question on the subject. These 
 silver trumpets are figured on the arch of Titus, 
 among the other spoils of the Jewish Temple (Fig. 5, 
 No. 420), and they correspond with the descrip- 
 tion which Josephus, who. as a priest, could not 
 in this matter be mistaken, has given r ‘ Moses,’ 
 he says, % invented a kind of trumpet of silver ; in 
 length it was little less than a cubit., and it was 
 somewhat thicker than a pipe; its opening was 
 oblong, so as to permit blowing on it with the 
 mouth; at the lower end it had the form of a bell, 
 like the horn,* era Kiri-yl- ( Anttq . iii. 2). Moses 
 was commanded to make only two of these trum- 
 pets, because there were then but two priests, the 
 two sons of Aaron. Afterwards far more of thetn 
 were made ; and Josephus ventures to say that 
 Solomon made 200,000 of them, according to the 
 command of Moses ( Antiq viii.4). When, how- 
 ever, riches departed from Palestine, trumpets 'of 
 baser metal were used (2 Kings xii. 13), although 
 probably a certain number of silver were still pre- 
 served They were used in calling the congrega- 
 tion together for sacrifices, and in battle (Hos. v. 
 S). “The tone of this trumpet, or rather the noise 
 made by blowing on it, was very variable, and is 
 distinguished by different terms in Scripture. 
 
 4. ' Jobel . There has been much speculation 
 concerning this term, which the reader may find 
 in ample abundance in Bochart ( Hieroz . i. 43:>). 
 It seems now to be agreed that the word due* not 
 denote u separate instrument, but is an epithet 
 applied to the trumpets with which the jubilees 
 were proclaimed^ i. e. the * jubilee- trumpet and 
 as the same trumpets* were used for signals and 
 alarms, * the alarm -trumpet, ■ the alarm-horn * 
 This name for the sound of music is supposed to 
 he derived from Jubal, the inventor of instru- 
 ments of music. 
 
 Wind instruments of softer sound next require 
 attention. The first and principal of these is the. 
 
 5. b'hn chalil, the meaning of which is bored 
 through, and denotes a pipe, perforated and fur- 
 nished with holes. The Sept, always renders it 
 by au\Ss, a pipe or flute There are but five 
 places where it occurs in the Old Testament 
 (l Sam. x. 5; i Kings i. 40; Isa. v. 12; xxx. 
 29; Jer. x‘viii.-3G); but the Greek av\6s occurs 
 in the New Testamei t (Matt. :x. 23), and in the 
 Apocryphal books (1 Mace. iv. 51; ix. 39; 
 Judith iii. S). It would seem to have come 
 rather late into use among the Hebrews, and pro- 
 bably had a foreign origin. The passages to which 
 
 we have referred will indicate the use of this in- 
 strument or class of instruments ; but of the form 
 
 422. [Egyptian reed-pipea.] 
 
 we can only guess by reference to those of the at 
 cienr Egyptians, which are very similar to thus* 
 still in use in Western Asia. The pipe is, how- 
 ever, rarely introduced in the Egyptian sculptures, 
 and does not seem to have been held in much es- 
 timation. The principal are the sing le ami double 
 pipes. The single pipe of the Greeks is allowed 
 to have been introduced from Egypt (J. Pollux, 
 Onom. iv, 10; Atbenaeus, Deipnos . iv.), from, 
 which the Jews probably hud their?’- It. was a 
 straight tube, without any increase at the mouth, 
 and when played was held with both hands. It 
 was usually of moderate length, about eighteen 
 inches, but occasionally less, and sometimes so 
 exceedingly long and the holes so low that the 
 player was obliged to extend his agins to the ut- 
 most. Some had three holes, others four, and 
 actual specimens madeof common reed have been 
 found (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians , ii. i5U9). 
 
 The double pipe was formed with two of such 
 tidies, of equal or unequal lengths, having a com- 
 mon mouth-piece, and each played with the corre- 
 spundinirhand. They were distinguished as the 
 right anjQefr pipes, and the latter, having but lew 
 holes and Emitting a deep sound; served as a base; 
 the othec had more holes apd gave, a sfi^trp sound 
 (Plin. Hist^Ndi. xvi. 36). This pipe is still used 
 in Palestine. The Scottish missionary deputation 
 overtook, among the hills of Judah, • an Arab 
 playing with all his might upon a shepherd's pipe, 
 made of two reeds. This was the first time we 
 had seen any marks of joy in the land * (Narra- 
 tive, p. 118). 
 
 From the references, which have oeen given it 
 will he seen that the pipe was, among the Jews, 
 chiefly consecrated to joy and pleasure. So much 
 was this the case that in the time of Judas Mac- 
 cabaeus the Jews complained ‘that jov was taken 
 from Jacob, and the pipe with the harp (tudapa) 
 ceased* (l Macc. iii. 45). It was particularly 
 used to enliven the periodical journeys to Jeru- 
 salem to attend the great festivals (Isa. xxx. 29); 
 and this custom of accompanying travelling in 
 companies with music is common. in the East at 
 this day (Harmer, Observatt. ii, 197 ; to whjcb 
 add Tournefort, Voyage dm Levant, iii. 189). 
 Athenasus (iv, 174) tella us of a plaintive pipe 
 
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 which was in me among the Phoenicians. This 
 serves to illustrate Matt. is. 23, where our Saviour, 
 finding the flute-players with the dead daughter 
 of the ruler, orders them away, because the damsel 
 was not dead ; and in this we also recognise the 
 regulation of the Jews, that every one, how- 
 ever poor he might be, should have at least 
 
 two pipes (D>W?n) at the death of his wife 
 ( Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad Matt. ix. 23). [ Mourn- 
 ing. J 
 
 43. NrP|fn ? ^P mishrokiika. This word occurs 
 four time 3 in Daniel (ch. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15), but 
 aiowhere else, and appears to be the Chaidcean 
 name for the flute with two reeds, of which we 
 have already spoken. 'If that double pipe be 
 t.ot comprehended under the Hebrew chalil, then 
 we may consider that we have it here. The Sept, 
 and Tneodotion render it by <?vpiy£, syrinx, which 
 is the name of the Pandaeau pipe. This would 
 imply that it had at least more than one reed ; and 
 if it really denotes the Pandaeau pipe itself, the 
 word is to be regarded as the Chaldaean name of the 
 instrument called by the Hebrews ugab, 
 
 which was undoubtedly the syrinx. This is the 
 mure probable from the fact that the Hebrew 
 translator actually renders mishrokitha by ugab. 
 
 It may, however, have differed from the com- 
 mon ugab ; and some writers on the subject have 
 been disposed .to regard it as similar to the instru- 
 ment represented in the annexed cut (No; 424 
 lig. 1). This is constructed somewhat on the 
 principle of an organ, being composed of pipes of 
 •various sizes, fitted into a kind of modern chest, 
 open at top, and stopped at the bottom with wood 
 covered by a shin ; wind was conveyed to it frtftn 
 tlte lips by means of a pipe fixed to the chest ; the 
 pipes were of lengths musically proportioned to 
 each other, and the melody was varied at plea- 
 sure, by stopping or unstopping the apertures at 
 the upper extremity. We are not however satis- 
 fied with the evidence which makes this instru- 
 ment, or the modification of it in fig. 2, to have 
 been known to either iho ancient Hebrews or the 
 Babylonians. 
 
 naepts whoso invention is ascribed to Jubal (Gen, 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 377 
 
 iv. 21)j and higher antiquity cannot therefore tx> 
 claimed for any instrument. There are only three 
 other places in which it is mentioned in the Old 
 Testament: two in the book of Job (xxi. 12, 
 Scxx. 31), and one in the Psalms (cl. 4). The 
 Targum renders the word simply by &QO&, « 
 pipe ; the Septuagint varies; it has KiOdpa in 
 Genesis, ipaApos in Job, and ftpyavov in the 
 Psalms. The last is the sense which the Ara- 
 bic, Syriac, Latin, English, and most other ver- 
 sions have adopted. The organon simply denotes 
 a double or manifold pipe; and hence in particular 
 the Patvdasan or shepherd’s pipe, which is at this 
 day called a ‘moutl -organ’ among ourselves. For- 
 merly it was called simply * organ/ and ‘mouth.*’ 
 has been added to distinguish it from the compara- 
 tively modern instrument which has usurped the 
 more simple designat ion of * organ/ Our trans- 
 lators are thus not chargeable with the obscurity 
 which has since arisen, for they, by the word 
 ‘organ/ interfiled to indicate no other instrument 
 than this, -.We thus find a tolerably fair concur- 
 rence on the.su bjeot among the translations which 
 we are accustomed to respect. The grounds of 
 their conclusion are to he sought in the etymology 
 of the Hebrew word ; and, so Stir aa these go, which 
 is not very far, they tend to support if. To these 
 probabilities the known antiquity of the Syrian 
 syrinx (avpiyt) or Pandean pipe may be added* 
 The instrument is in fact so old that the profane 
 writers do not know fo whom to ascribe it. Some 
 refer it to Pan (Virgil, Eel. ii.), others to Mercury 
 (Pind. Oil. xii. de Palladd), others to Marsyaa 
 and Silenus (Atheuaeus, iv. 182). This antiquity 
 corresponds with the Scriptural intimation con- 
 cerning the ugab , and justifies us in seeking lor the 
 syrinx among the more ancient instruments of 
 the Orientals, especially as it is still common in 
 Western Asia. Niebuhr saw it in the hands of a 
 peasant at Cairo (Reisebeschr. i. 181); and Rus- 
 sell, in his Nat. Hist, of Aleppo (t. 155, 156), 
 says that ‘ the syrinx or Pan's pipe is still a festi- 
 val instrument in Syria ; it is known also in the 
 city, but very few performers can sound it tolerably 
 well. The higher notes are. clear anil pleasing, 
 but the longer reeds are apt, like the devvise flute, 
 to make a hissing sound, though blown by a good 
 player. The number of reeds of which the syrinx 
 is composed, varies in different instruments from 
 five to twenty-three.’ The classical syrinx is 
 usually said to have had seven reeds (Virg. EeL 
 ii.) ; but we find some in the monuments with a 
 greater number, and the shepherd of Theocritus 
 (/id. viii.) had one of nine reeds. 
 
 III. Instruments of Percussion, — or such 
 as give forth their sounds on being struck or 
 shaken. 
 
 1. fjh toph, seems to have denoted primarily tha 
 tambourine, and generally all instruments of the 
 drum kind which were in use among the Israel- 
 ites. There is not the slightest doubt about this 
 instrument. All the translations and lexicons 
 agree in this one point; and we have, besides, the 
 actual evidence of existing instruments of this 
 kind among the Arabians, bearing the same name 
 in the forms of doff and adufe. The toph was 
 known to the Jews before they quitted Syria (Gen. 
 jixxi. 27) ; it is also mentioned by Job (xxi 12), 
 and it is the first instrument named after the exode, 
 being that with which Miriam led the dances* 
 with w’.aic* the daughters gf Israel celebrated the 
 
379 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 overthrow of Pharaoh (Exotl. xv. 20). It was 
 employed by David in all the festivities of religion 
 (2 Sam. vi. 5). Isaiah adduces it as the instru- 
 ment of voluptuaries, but left in silence amid 
 wars and desolations (Isa. xxiv. 8). The occa- 
 sions on which it was used were mostly joyful, 
 and those who played upon it were generally 
 females (Ps. lxviii. 25), as was the case among 
 most ancient nations, and is so at the present day 
 ir the East. It is nowhere mentioned in connec- 
 tion with battles or warlike transactions. The 
 usages of the modern East might adequately illus- 
 trate all the Scriptural allusions to this instrument, 
 but happily we have more ancient and very valu- 
 able illustration from the monuments of Egypt. In 
 these we find that the tambourine was a favourite 
 instrument, both on sacred and festive occasions. 
 There were three kinds, differing, no doubt, in 
 sound as well as form ; one was circular, another 
 square or oblong, and the third consisted of two 
 squares separated by a bar. They were all beaten by 
 the hand, and often used as an accompaniment ito 
 the harp and other instruments. The tambourine 
 
 485. [Tambourines. 1. angular; 2 . circular.) 
 
 mas usually played by females, who are represented 
 as dancing to its soqnd without the accompaniment 
 of any other instrument. The imperfect manner 
 of representation does not allow us to see whether 
 the Egyptian tambourine had the same moveable 
 pieces of metal let into the wooden frame which 
 we find in the tambourines of ihe present day. 
 Their presence may, however, be inferred from the 
 manner in which the tambourine is held up after 
 being struck ; and we know that the Greek instru- 
 ments were furnished with balls of metal attached 
 by short thongs to the circular rim (Wilkinson, 
 Ancient Egyptians, ii. 314). 
 
 At mournings for the dead the tamboarine was 
 sometimes introduced among the Egyptians, and 
 the ‘mournful song’ was accompanied by its mo- 
 notonous sound. This is still a custom of the East, 
 and probably existed among the Jews 
 
 Whether the Israelites had drums or not does 
 not clearly appear, and in the absence of evidence 
 pro or con it is useless to speculate on the subject. 
 If they had, they musITrbe included under the gene- 
 ral name of toph. The ancient Egyptians had a 
 long drum, very similar to the tom-toms of India 
 (No. 426, figs. 1, 3). It wa3 about two feet or two 
 feet and a half in length, and was beaten with the 
 hand. The case was of wood or copper, covered 
 at both ends with parchment or leather, and 
 braced with cords extended diagonally over the 
 
 exterior of the cylinder. It was used chiefly » 
 war. There was another larger drum, less unlikf 
 
 our own ; it was about two feet and a halflong 
 by about two feet broad, and was shaped much 
 like a sugar-cask (No. 427, fig 3). It was formed 
 of copper, anti covered at the ends with red 
 leather, braced by catgut strings passing through 
 6mall holes in its broad margin. This kind of 
 drum was beaten with sticks (fig. 5). It does not 
 appear on the monuments, but an actual specimen 
 was found in the excavations made by D'Atha- 
 nasi, in 1823, and is now in the museum at Paris. 
 
 Another species of drum is represented in the 
 Egyptian paintings, and is of the same kind 
 which is still in use in Egypt and Arabia, under 
 the naihe of the darabooka drum. It is made of 
 parchment stretched over thetop of a funnel-shaped 
 case of metal, wood, or pottery (No. 427, figs. 1,2, 
 4). It is beaten with the hand, and when re- 
 laxed, the parchment is braced by exposing it for 
 a few moments to the sun, or the warmth of a 
 fire. This kind of drum claims particular atten- 
 tion from its being supposed to be represented on 
 one of the coins ascribed to Simon Maccabaeus 
 (No. 429, fig. 5). When closely examined, this 
 
 instrument will appear to be the same in prin- 
 ciple with our kettle-drum, which, indeed, has 
 been confessedly derived from the East, where 
 other instruments on the same principle are not 
 wanting. One of them (No. 429, fig. 4) is just 
 the same as the instrument we have derived from, 
 it : others are smaller in various degrees, are of 
 different, forms, and are tapped lightly with the 
 fingers.- Such drurn-tabrets were not unknown to 
 the ancient Egyptians, as may be perceived by 
 fig. 2, No. 425. 
 
 The Rabbins speak obscurely of a sort of drum 
 which may have been of this kind. It stood, they 
 say, in the temple court, and was used to call 
 the priests to prayer, the Levites to singing, and 
 
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 leprous'persons to their purification. They ven- 
 ture to add that its sound could betynird from 
 Jerusalem to Jericho ( BuxxOif, Lex. Rabbin . s. v. 
 
 fisnao). 
 
 2. phaamon. This name nowhere oc- 
 curs but with reference to the small golden append- 
 ices to the robe of the high-priest (Exod. ^xviii. 
 33; xxxix. 25), which all versions agree in ren- 
 dering * bells,' or ‘ little bells.' These bells were 
 attached to the hem of the garment, and were 
 separated from each other by golden knobs, Shaped 
 like pomegranates. They obviously produced 
 their tinkling sound by striking against the 
 golden knobs which were appended near them. 
 There ts no trace of bells among the ancient 
 Egyptians, or in classical antiquity, and we call 
 these such for want of a hetter term to describe 
 sonorous pieces of metal used in thi3 manner. \ 
 
 3. tzeitzelim , D&VP metzilloih , 
 
 0?r6^p metzilthaim. These words are trans- 
 lated cymbals in most versions, except in Zech. 
 xiv. 20, where they are rendered ‘bells’ — the 
 * bells of the horses.’ If the words, however, de- 
 note cymbals in other places, they cannot well 
 denote a different thing here. It is true that 
 ramels, and sometimes horses, wear bells in the 
 East g,t present; and it is probable that the He- 
 brews had something similar in the shape of small 
 cymbal-shaped pieces of cnotal. suspended under 
 the necks of the animals, and which struck against 
 each other with the motions of the animal. The 
 "Romans attached metallic pendants of this kind, 
 called ph.alarea. To their war-horses, in Older to 
 produce a Terrific effect when shaken by the rapid 
 motions of the animals. These were certainly not 
 bells, but might without any violent impropriety 
 be called cymbals, From the manner in which they 
 Btruck against each other. This is the single doubt- 
 ful text; in all the other texts we may conclude 
 with reasonable certainty that cymbals, and some- 
 times castagnets (which are small cymbals), are in- 
 tended. There is an important passage (Ps. cl. 5), 
 ‘Praise him with the clear cymbal, praise him 
 v/ith The resounding cymbal,’ which clearly 
 points To two instruments under the same name, 
 und leaves us to conclude that the Hebrews had 
 both hand-cymbals and finger-cymbals (or cas- 
 tagnets), although it may not in all cases be 
 easy to say which of the two is intended in 
 particular texts. Cymbals figure in the grand 
 procession at the removal of the ark (1 Chron. 
 Kiii. 8) : other instances occur of their being 
 used in the worship of God (Neh. xii. 27 ; Ps. 
 cl. 5; 1 Chron. xv. 2); and the illustrious 
 
 Asaph was himself a player on the cymbal (1 
 Chron. xvi. 5). The sound of these instruments 
 is very sharp and piercing, but it does not belong 
 To fine, speaking, expressive music. Hence Paul 
 could describe it by the word &kukd(ov. ‘ clanging’ 
 (1 Cor xiii. 1). The Hebrew instruments were 
 probably similar to those of the Egyptians. These 
 were of mixed metal, apparently brass, or a com- 
 pound of brass and silver, and of a form exactly 
 resembling those of modern times, though smaller, 
 being only seven inches or five inches and a half 
 in diameter. The handle has disappeared from the 
 existing specimens, but is supposed to have been of' 
 the same material, bound with leather or string, 
 and being inser :ed in a small bole at the sum- 
 
 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 37ft 
 
 mit, to nave been secured by bending back the two 
 ends (No. 428, fig. 3). The same kind of instru- 
 ment is still used by the modem inhabitants of 
 
 Egypt, and from them, says Wilkinson, * have 
 been borrowed the very small cymbals played 
 with the finger and thumb, which supply the 
 place of castagnets in the abneh dunce * ( Ancient 
 Egypt, iii. 255). In thus calling instruments 
 used as castagnets ‘small cymbals,’ this author 
 incidentally supports the view we have taken. 
 The modern castagnef, introduced into Spain 
 by the Moors, is to be referred to the same 
 source. 
 
 429. (Instruments o! Percussion*. 1 mallet used in strik- 
 in'; suspended boards ; 2. cast.ignets ; 3. tabret- 
 
 drum, struck by attached balls; 4- Oriental kettle- 
 drum; 5. supposed ancieut Jewish coin representing 
 drums. J 
 
 4. shalishim. This word occurs but 
 
 once, viz. in 1 Sam. xviii. 6, and is there uncer- 
 tainly rendeied, in the Authorized Version, • in- 
 struments of music,’ and in the margin ‘three- 
 stringed instruments.’ The word is plural, and 
 means ‘threes.’ Most writers, proceeding upon 
 this interpretation, identify it with the triangle, 
 which At.henaeus (iv. 23) alleges to have been a 
 Syrian invention. We have no Egyptian repie-s 
 6entation of it, but that people had instruments 
 which are not figured on the existing monuments., 
 As this was the instrument with which the dam-: 
 sels of Israel came forth to meet the victorious; 
 David, the ancient translators have usually ren-> 
 dered the word by cymbals or castagnets, which; 
 seemed to them more proper to women. But jhe 
 triangle may not the less have been suited to a 
 military triumph, and as an accompaniment to) 
 the other instruments used on that occasion. Je- 
 rome has sistra, an idea which has received little, 
 attention from commentators ; but if we had uo& 
 preferred to tied the sistrum unde? another word 
 
830 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 
 
 MYSTERY. 
 
 we would not hesitate to accept this conclusion, 
 founded, as it manifestly is, on the three Irans verse 
 raoveible bars with which the sistra are usually 
 furnished. In Barker’s Bible (1595), the word is 
 rendered by ‘rebecke.' 
 
 5. D'i’jyiD menaaneim. This is another word 
 which occurs but once in Scripture (2 Sam. vi. 
 5), where our version translates it by * cymbals.’ 
 
 430. (Instrumt-tits of Percussion, t, 3, 6. Triangular 
 and ether rods of metal charged with rings ; 2. a sup. 
 osed. Hebrew instrument, regarded by some as the 
 Jenaaneim; 4 a kind of Eastern cymbals ■, 5. a pan 
 of sounding metal.) 
 
 although it has appropriated another word to 
 that instrument. It is now more generally 
 tiiougbt to denote the sistrum, and appears to be 
 derived from nua, ‘to shake ’ or ‘to vibrate,’ 
 corresponding to the etymology of the sistrum 
 (auarpov), from aelu. An objection has indeed 
 been urged, that the sistrum was not sufficiently 
 ancient ; but this has been 6et at rest by the 
 recent discoveries in Egyptian antiquities, which 
 liave revealed sistra belonging to the most ancient 
 period. The sistrum was generally from eight 
 
 80 si steen or eighteen inches in length, and en- 
 tirely of. bronze or brae& Jt was sometimes iur 
 
 laid with silver, gilt, or otherwise ornamented, and 
 being held upright was shaken, tlie rings moving 
 to and fro upon the bars. The lust were fre- 
 quently made.to imitate snakes, or simply bent at 
 each end to secure them from slipping through the 
 holes. Several actual specimens of these instru- 
 ments have been found, and are deposited in the 
 British, Berlin, and other museums. They are 
 mostly furnished with sacred symbols, and were 
 chiefly used by the priests and priestesses in the 
 ceremonies of religion, particularly in those con- 
 nected with the worship of Isis (Plut. de Isid. c. 
 63 ; Juven. xiii. 93; Jablonsky, Opusc. i. 306). 
 See Burney « and Hawkins’s Histories of Music ; 
 Forkel, Geschichte der Musik ; Cal met, Dissert. 
 6ur la Musique des Hebreux, annexed to his Com- 
 mentary on the Psalms ; Pfeiffer, Ueber die Musik 
 der Alten Hebr. 1779 ; Saalohutz, Form der Hebr . 
 Poesie ; Gesch. und Wiirdigung d. Musik bei den 
 Hebr. 1 829 ; H are n berg, Cdmtn. de Re Musica 
 Vetus. in Miscell. Lips. ix. 218, sq. ; Winer,, 
 Biolisckes Real-ioorterbuch, arts. ‘Musik/ ‘Mu- 
 6ikalische lustrumente/ * Becken,' ‘ Harfe,* 
 ‘Tambourine/ &c. $ Jalin, Biblisches Archd 
 ologie ; Reland, De Spoliis Temp. Hieros. ; Ver- 
 euch, Die Meloche zt. Harmonic der Alt. Hebr. 
 Shiite Haggiborim , in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 
 xxxii. ; Con.-tant, Traite sur la Poesie et la 
 Musique des Hebreux ; De Wette, Commentar. 
 iiber die Psalmen ; Rosellinij Monumenti del P 
 Egitto ; Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians ; Villoteau, 
 Sur la Musique des Orientaux, in Descript, de 
 l Egypte ; Lady M. W. Montague's Letters „• Vol- 
 ney, Voyage en Syrie; Tournefort, Voyage an Le- 
 vant; Niebuhr, Reisebesckreibung ; Russell’s Nat. 
 Hist, of Aleppo ,• Lane’s Modern Egyptians. 
 MUSTARD-TREE. [Sinapib.] 
 
 MYRA (Mvpa\ one of the chief towns of 
 Lycia, in Asia Minor. It lav about a league 
 from the sea (in N. lat. 36° 18'^E. long. 30°), upon 
 a rising ground, at the foot of which flowed a navi- 
 gable river with an excellent harbour at its mouth 
 (Strabo, xiv. p. 665 ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxii. 8). 
 The town now lies desolate. When Paul was on 
 his voyage from Caesarea to Rome, he and the 
 ether prisoners were landed here, and were re- 
 embarked in a ship of Alexandria bound to 
 Rome (Acta xxvii. 5). 
 
 MYRRH. [Mon.] 
 
 MYRTLE. [IIadab.] 
 
 MYSIA (M eola\ a province occupying the 
 north-west angle of Asia. Minor, and sejiarafed 
 ffom Europe only by the Propontis and Helles- 
 pont; on the eouth it joined iEolis, and was 
 oepamted on the east from Bithynia by the river 
 ^Fisopus. Latterly i^Eolis was included in Mysia*: 
 which was then separated frpm Lydia and Ionia by 
 the river Hcrmus, now Sarabad orDjedis (Strabo, 
 xii. 562, xiii. 628 ; Pliny, Hist Nat. v. 32 ; Ptol. 
 Geog. v. 2). In ancient times the province of 
 Mysia was celebrated for its fertility in corn and 
 wine, and although now but j>oorly tilled it is still 
 one of the finest, tracts in Asia Minor, Paul 
 passed through this province and embarked at. it 
 chief port, Troas, on bis first voyage to Europe 
 (Acts xvi. 7, 8 ; Rosenmuller. Bill. Geog. iii. 
 32$ Winer, Bill. Reahcorterb. s. v. Mysia / 
 Richter, Wallfahrten , p. 466). 
 
 MYSTERY (pvfrrfipiw). The etymology ct 
 this Greek word, which seems to be th® simplest and 
 
MYSTERY. 
 
 MYSTERY. 
 
 3ft 
 
 most illustrative of its meaning, is that from “inD, 
 \o ‘hide >v ‘conceal,’ whence "VinDD or "inDO. a 
 covert 01 secret place, a secret. A most unsorip- 
 tural an«l dangerous sense is hut too often put upon 
 the word, as if it meant something absolutely 
 unintelligible and incomprehensible; whereas, 
 in everv instance in which it occurs in the Sept, 
 or New Testament, it is applied to something 
 which is revealed, declared, explained, spoken, or 
 which may be known or- understood This fact 
 will appear from the following elucidation of the 
 passages in which it is found. Fust, it is some- 
 runes used to denote the meaning of a symbolical 
 representation, whether addressed to the mind by 
 a parable, allegory, Ike... or to the eye, by a vision, 
 &c. Thus our Lord, having delivered to the 
 multitude the parable of the sower (Matt. xiii. 
 
 when the disciples asked-hini (vev. 10) why 
 spoke to them in parables, replied, ‘Unto you 
 it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom 
 uf heaven, but unto them which are without it is 
 not given’ (Mark iv. 11); ‘Therefore I speak to 
 them in parables’ (Matt. xiii. 13); ‘But your 
 eyes see, and your, ears understand ’ (ver. 10); 
 w here our Lord applies tire term * mysteries ' to 
 the moral truths couched under that parable, that 
 is, to its figurative meaning. His words, taken 
 in their general sense, are thus paraphrased hy Dr. 
 MacknLght : ‘ 1 may explain to yon the nature 
 of tire Messiah’s kingdom, and the other difficult 
 doctrines of the Gospel, because you are able to 
 bear them, but 1 may not deal so with the multi- 
 tude, who are obstinate to such a degree, that they 
 will not hear anything contrary to their prejudices 
 and passions’ {Harmony of the Gospels , & 49). 
 Again, the mystery or symbolical vision of the 
 * seven stars and of the seven golden candlesticks’ 
 (Rev. i. 12, lfi), is explained to mean ‘ the angels 
 of the seven churches of Asia, and the seven 
 churches themselves (ver. 20). Again. 4 the mys- 
 tery or symbolical representation 'of the woman 
 upon a scarlet-coloured beast ’ (Rev. xvii. 3-6), is 
 also explained, ‘1 will tell thee the mysteiy 
 of the woman,’ &c. (xvii. 7). When St. Paul, 
 speaking of marriage, says ‘this is a great mys- 
 tery ’ (Eph. v. 32), lie evidently neats the original 
 institution of marriage, as affording a figurative 
 representation of the union betwixt Christ and the 
 church (Campbell, Dissertation, p. 10, part iii. § 
 9) The word is a*lso used to denote anything 
 whatever v/hich is hidden or concealed, fill it is 
 explained. The Sept, uses it to express V7, a 
 secret (Dan. li. l«, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47 ; n . 6), 
 in relation to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which was 
 a secret till Daniel explained it, and even from 
 the king himself, for he had totally forgotten it 
 ( ver. 5, 9). Thus the word is used in the New 
 Testament to denote those dociines of Christi- 
 anity, general or particular, which the Jews and 
 the world at large did not understand, till they 
 were revealed by Christ and his apostles, ‘Great 
 is the mystery of godliness,’ i. e. the Christian re- 
 ligion ( 1 Tim. iii 16), the chief parts of which the 
 apostle instantly proceeds to adduce, — ‘God was 
 manifest in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, seen 
 of angels, &c. — facts which bad not entered into 
 the heart of man (l Cor. ii. 9) until God visibly 
 accom '.dished them, and revealed them to the 
 apostles by inspiration (ver. 10). The apostle is 
 generally thought here to compare the Gospel with 
 tire greater Eleusinian mysteries ; for which see 
 
 Diod. Sic. iv. 25 ; Dem. xxix. ult. Xen. H. G.. 
 i. 4, 14 ; or Leland s Advantage and Necessity 
 of the Christian Iievelatwn , part i. ch. 8, 9 ; of 
 Macknight’s Preface to the Ephesians, § 7 
 Thus also the Gospel in general is called 1 the 
 mystery of the faith, which it was requisite the 
 deacons should 1 hold with a pure conscience’ (1 
 Tim. iii. 9 ), and ‘the mystery which from the 
 beginning of the world had been bid with God, 
 but which was now made known through mean* 
 of the church’ (Eph. iii. 9); the mystery of the 
 Gospel which St. Paul desired ‘to make known * 
 (Epl). vi. 19); ‘the mystery of God, and of the 
 Father, and of Christ,’ to the full apprehension or 
 understanding of which (rather than * the acknow- 
 ledgment ’) he piaved that the Colossians might 
 come (Col. ii. 2 ; comp, the use of tire word 
 inly inverts, I Tim. ii. 4; 2 Tim. iii. 7); which he 
 desired the Colossians to pray that God would en- 
 able himself and his fellow apostles ‘to speak anil 
 to make manifest * (Col. iv. 3, 4) ; which he calls 
 ‘the revelation of the mystery which was kept 
 secret since the world began, but now is made 
 manifest and knowfi to all nations ’ (Rom. xvi. 
 2-5); which, he say?, 4 we speak ’ (1 Cor. ii. 7), and 
 •of which the apostles were 4 stewards ( ) Cor. iv. 
 1). The same word is used respecting certain 
 particular doctrines of the Gospel, as, for instance^ 
 
 4 the partial and temporary blindness of Israel,’ of 
 which mystery ‘the apostle would not have 
 Christians’ ignorant (Rom. xi. 25), and which he 
 explains (ver. 25-32). He styles the calling of 
 the Gentiles ‘a mystery which, in other ages, was 
 not made known unto the sons of men as it is now 
 revpaled unto the holy apostles and prophets by 
 the Spirit ’ (Eph. iii. 4-6; comp. i. 9, 10, &c.)„ 
 To this class we refer the well-known phrase, 
 
 ‘ Behold I show you a mystery (1 Cor. xv 51); 
 we shall all he changed;’ and then follows an 
 explanation of the change (ver. 51-55). Even in 
 the case of a man speak ing in an unknown tongue, 
 in the absence of an interpreter, and when, there- 
 fore, no man understood him, although ‘by the 
 Spirit he was speaking mysteries,’ yet th’e Apostle 
 supposes that the man so doing understood what 
 himself said (1 Cor. xiv. 2-1). And in the pro- 
 phetic jmrtion of his writings ‘ concerning the 
 mystery of iniquity ’ (2 Thess. ii. 7), he speaks of 
 it as being ultimately ‘revealed’ (ver. 8). Jose- 
 phus applies nearly the same phrase, pvariipiov 
 Kcoclas , fi mystery of wickedness, to Antipater s 
 crafty conduct to ensnare and destroy his brother 
 Alexander ( De Bell. Jud. i. 24. 1) ; and to com- 
 plete the proof that the word ‘mystery’ is used in 
 the sens*’ of knowable secrets, we add the words 
 ‘Though 1 understand all mysteries' (1 Cor. 
 xiii. 2). The Greeks used the word in the same 
 way Thus Menander, pvar'fjpiov aov jul) trctT e;- 
 7 ttjs rw <pi\ev, 4 Tell not your secret to a friend’ 
 (p. 274, line 671, ed. Clerici). Even when they 
 apply the term to the greater arid lesser Eleusinian 
 mysteries, they are still mysteiies into which a 
 person might be initiated, when, they would, of 
 course, cease to be mysteries to him. The word 
 is used in the same 8ense throughout the Apocrypha 
 as in the Sept, and New Testament (Tohit xii 7; 
 Judith ii. 2; Kcclus. xxii. 22 ; xxvii 16,17,21; 
 2 Macc. xiii 21 ) ; it is applied to divine or sacred 
 mysteries (Wisd. ii. 22; vi. 2*2), and to the ce- 
 remonies of false religions (Wisd. xiv. 15, 23 \ 
 
 J. F. ft 
 
NAAMAH. 
 
 NAAMAN. 
 
 
 N. 
 
 1. N A AM AH pleasant ; Sept. Noe/m), 
 
 daughter of Lamech und Zillah, and sister of 
 Tubal -cam (Gen. iv. 22). The family was one 
 of inventors : and as few women are named, the 
 Jewish commentators ascribe suitable inventions 
 to each of them. Naamah is affirmed by them to 
 nave invented the spuming of wool and making of 
 cloth. But the book of Genesis does not say this, 
 and they could have no other source of informa- 
 tion. 
 
 2. NAAMAH, an Ammonitess, one of the 
 wives of Solomon, and mother of Reboboam 
 (1 Kings xiv. 21). 
 
 NAAMAN pleasantness i Sept. Nmjtdv), 
 
 commander of the armies of Damascene Syria, in 
 the time of Joram, king of Israel. Through his 
 valour and abilities Naamati held a high place in 
 the esteem of his king Benhadad ; and although 
 he was afflicted with leprosy, it would seem that 
 this did not, as among the Hebrews, operate as a 
 disqualification for public employment. Never- 
 theless the condition of a leper could not hut have 
 been in his high place both afflicting anti pain- 
 ful : and when it was heard that a little Hebrew 
 slave-girl, who waited upon Nuaman’s wife, had 
 spoken of a prophet in Samaria who could cure 
 her master of his leprosy, the faint and uncertain 
 hope thus offered was eagerly seized; and the 
 general obtained permission to visit the place 
 where this relief was to be sought. Benhadad 
 even furnished him with a letter to his old enemy 
 king Juram; hut as this letter merely stated that 
 Naaman had been sent for him to cure, the king 
 of Israel rent his clothes in astonishment and 
 anger, suspecting that a request so impossible to 
 yrrant, involved a studied insult or an intention to 
 Ii.\ a ouarrel upon him with a view to future 
 aggressions. When tidings of this affair reached 
 the prophet Elisha, he desired that the stranger 
 might be sent to him. Naaman accordingly 
 went, and his splendid train of chariots, horses, 
 and laden camels tilled the street before the pro- 
 phet's house. As a leper, Naaman could not be 
 admitted into the house ; and Elisha did not come 
 out to him as he expected, arid as he thought civi- 
 lity required ; but he sent out his servant to tell him 
 in go and dip himself seven times in the Jordan, 
 and that his leprosy would then pass from him. He 
 was, however, by this time so much chafed and dis- 
 gus'ed by rhe apparent neglect and incivility with 
 which he had been treated, that if his attendants 
 bad not prevailed upon him to obey the directions 
 of rhe prophet, he ivo ild have returned home still 
 a leper. But he went to the Jordan, and having 
 bent himself seven-times beneath its waters, rose 
 from them clear from all leprous stain. His 
 gratitude was now proportioned to his previous 
 wrath, and he drove back to vent the feelings 
 of his full heart to the prophet of Israel. He 
 avowed to him his conviction that the God of 
 Israel, through whom this marvellous deed had 
 been wrought, was great beyond all gods ; and he 
 declared that henceforth he would worship Him 
 only, and to that end he proposed to take with him 
 mules’ load of the soil of Israel wherewith 
 
 to set up in Damascus an altar to Jehovah. 
 This shows he had heard that an altar of earth 
 was necessary (Exod. xx. 24) ; ami the imperfect 
 notions which he entertained of the duties which 
 his desire to serve Jehovah involved, v/ere natural 
 in an uuiustiucted foreigner. He had also heard 
 that Jehovah was a very jealous God, and had 
 forbidden any of his servants to bow themselves 
 down before idols ; and therefore he expressed to 
 Elisha a hope that he should be forgiven if, when 
 his public duty required him to attend his king 
 to the temple of Ilimmon, he bowed with bis 
 master. The grateful Syrian would gladly have 
 pressed upon Elisha gifts of high value, but the 
 holy man resolutely refused to take anything 1 lest 
 the glory redounding to God from this great act 
 should in any degree be obscured. His servant, 
 Gehazi, was less scrupulous, and hastened with a 
 lie in his mouth to ask in his master’s name 
 for a portion of that which Elisha had refused. 
 The illustrious Syrian no sooner saw the man 
 running after his chariot, than he alighted to meet 
 him, and happy to relieve himself in some degree 
 under the sense of overwhelming obligation, he 
 sent him back with more than he had ventured to 
 ask (2 Kings v.). Nothing more is known of 
 Naaman ; and what betel Gehazi is related under 
 another head [Gehazi]. 
 
 The only points of difficulty in this narrative 
 are those connected with the requests made by 
 Naaman to Elisha, aad which the prophet, seems 
 not to have refused. The request, for two mules’ 
 load of eurth with which to build an altar to 
 Jehovah in Damascus, appears to have arisen from 
 the notion, that the soil of the land was proper to 
 the God of the land, whom he proposed henceforth 
 to worship. Jehovah’s claim to be the universal 
 God was unknown to, or misunderstood bv, the 
 neighbouring nations ; and the only question 
 that ever came before them was whether Jehovah, 
 the God whom the Hebrews worshipped, was 
 more or less powerful than the gods they wor- 
 shipped. That he was infinitely more powerful, 
 was, as we take it, the point at which this man s 
 faith rested. He was convinced not that Jeho- 
 vah was the rniveisal God, but that ‘there was 
 no God in all the earth save only in the land of 
 Israel ’ — and, therefore, he desired to worship at 
 an altar formed of the eoil which was thus 
 eminently honoured. It is not clear u telhec 
 he intended to say absolutely that there was no 
 God in the world save in the land of . Israel, os 
 used the phrase as a strong expression of his belief 
 that the gods of other lands were nought as com- 
 pared with Him. The explanation applies ir> 
 either sense. Naaman’a other request for per- 
 mission to bow in the house of Rim.mon seems to 
 have amounted to this. He had acknowledged 
 indirectly that Rimmon was no god, or else a god 
 too powerless to be henceforth the object of his 
 worship. Yet, as a great officer of state, his duty 
 required him to attend the king to the temple of this 
 idol, and, as the king leaned upon his arm, to how 
 when the monarch bowed. To refuse this would 
 bring disgrace ujjon him, and constrain him to 
 relinquish his high place, if not his country ; and 
 for this he was not prepared. Of the views 
 under jvhich Elisha consented to this request, we 
 are less able to judge. But indeed it is not clear 
 that he did consent, or expressed any distinct 
 opinion in the matter. His words of dismissal, 
 
NAAZUZ. 
 
 Go in peace,’ do not necessary convey his ap- 
 iroval of all that Naaman had asked, although 
 Ui ten ieruess to one so well intentiorjed, and 
 e^hom there vva3 no opportunity of instructing 
 further, he may have abstained from urging upon 
 the Syrian .those obligations which would have 
 Seen indispensable to a subject ol the Mosaical 
 covenant 
 
 NAAZUZ, or Na'atzutz (f^\V ; 3), occurs only 
 sn two passages of Isaiah, in both of which it is 
 translated ‘ thorn’ in the Authorized Version. 
 Thus (ch. vii. 18, 19), ‘Jehovah shall hiss for 
 the fly that is in the uttermost part of the 
 rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the 
 land of Assyria : and they shall come, and shall 
 rest all of them, in fh.° desolate valleys, and 
 in the holes of the rc*;ks, and upon all the 
 thorjis' ( naaznzim ). By some this has been 
 translated crevices : but that it is a plant of 
 some kind is evident from ch. lv. 13 — ‘ Instead 
 of the thorn ( nciazuz ) shall come up the fir-tree, 
 auid instead of the briar shall come up the mvrtle- 
 Sree.’ Some have translated it generally, as in the 
 ■English version, by thorn, shrub, timing shrub, 
 or small tree. Others have attempted to define 
 it specifically, rendering it bramble, white-thorn, 
 &c. (Cels. Hierobot. ii. p. 190); but nothing 
 certain has been determined respecting it. Cel- 
 sius endeavours to trace it to the same origin 
 
 as the Arabic word naaz, which he 
 
 states to be the name of a plant, of which the bark 
 is employed in tanning leather. The meaning of 
 the term he continues, in Chaldee, is mfgere, defi- 
 gzre, ‘to stick into’ or ‘fix,’ and it is therefore 
 supposed to refer to a. pricldy or thorny plant. 
 R. Ben Melech says that commentators explain 
 naazuz by the Arabic word sidr, which is the 
 name of a well known thorny bush of Eastern 
 countries, a species of Zizyphus. This, Sprengel 
 says, is the Z. vulgaris , found in many parts of 
 Palestine, as well as in many of the uncultivated 
 tracts of Eastern countries Others suppose the 
 6pecies to lie the nabak of the Arabs, which is the 
 Zizyphus Lotus , and considered to be the Lotus of 
 the ancients. But from the context it would appear 
 that the plant, if a zizyphus, must have been a less 
 highly esteemed variety or species. But in a wild 
 state these are very abundant, bushy, prickly, and 
 of little value. Belon says, * Les haves, pour la 
 plus part, sont de tamarisques, tEiioplia (i. e. 
 zizvphi. species) et rhamiies.' In Frey tag's Arabic 
 lexicon the above Arabic word naaz is said to 
 be the name of a thorny tree, common in the 
 Hedjaz, the bark of which is used in tanning 
 liides, and from whose wood a dentifrice is pre- 
 pared. This might be a species of acacia, of 
 which many species are well known to be abun- 
 dant in the dry and barren parts of Syria, Arabia, 
 and Egypt.— J. F. R. , 
 
 NABAL' (vd3, stupid, foolish ; Sept. Na/3aA), 
 a descendant of Caleb, dwelling at Maon, and 
 having large possessions near Carmel of Judah, in 
 the same neighbourhood. He hud abundant 
 wealth, being the possessor of 3000 sheep and 1000 
 goats, but his churlish and harsh character had 
 i it been softened by the prosperity with which 
 Je had been favoured. He was holding a great 
 sheep-shearing of his numerous flocks at Carmel 
 — wliich was a season of great festivity among 
 
 NABOTH. £83 
 
 the sheep-masters of Israel — when David sent 
 some of his young men to request a small supply 
 of provisions, of which his troop was in great 
 need. He was warranted in asking this, as, white 
 Nabal’s flocks were out in the desert, the presence 
 of David and his men in the neighbourhood had 
 effectually protected them from the depredations 
 of the Arabs. But Nabal refused this applica- 
 tion, with harsh words, reflecting coarsely upon 
 David and his troop as a set of worthless runa- 
 gates. On learning this, David was highly in- 
 censed, and set out with his band to avenge die 
 insult. But his intention was anticipated and 
 averted by Nabal s wife Abigail, who met him on 
 the road with a most acceptable supply of provi- 
 sions,' and by her consummate tact and good 
 sense, mollified his anger, arid indeed, caused 
 him in the end to feel thankful that he had been 
 prevented from the bloodshed which would have 
 ensued. When Nabal, after recovering from the 
 drunkenness of the feast, was informed of these 
 circumstances, he was struck with such intense 
 terror at the danger to which he had been ex- 
 posed, that * his heart died within him. and he 
 became as a stone;* which seems to have been 
 the exciting cause of a malady that carried him 
 off about ten days after. David, not lung after, 
 evinced the favourable impression wliich the good 
 sense and comeliness of Abigail had made upon 
 him, hv making her his wife, b.c. 1061 (1 Sam. 
 xxv.) [Abigaii.]. 
 
 NABATH jEANS.' [Nksaxoth.] 
 
 NABOTH (lli33, fruit, produce ; Sept. 
 NaPovOal), an inhabitant of Jezreel, who was the 
 possessor of a patrimonial vineyard adjoining 
 the garden of the palace which the kings of 
 Israel had there. King Ahab had conceived a 
 desire to add this vineyard to his ground, to 
 make of it ‘a garden of herbs,’ but found that 
 Naboth could not, on any conaideration, be 
 induced to alienate a property which he had 
 derived from his fathers. This gave the king so 
 much concer.n, that he took tu his bed and le- 
 fused his food ; but when his wife, the notorious 
 Jezebel, understood the cause of his trouble, she 
 bade him be of good cheer, for she would procure 
 him the vineyard. Some time after Naboth was, 
 at a public feast, accused of blasphemy, by an 
 order from her under the royal seal, and, being con- 
 demned through the testimony of false witnesses, 
 was stoned to death, according to the law, outside 
 the town (Lev. xxiv. 16; Num. xv. 30). Co- 
 querel (in the Biographic Sacree ) thinks that tl.*e 
 children of Naboth perished with him, being 
 perhaps put to death by the creatures of Jezebel ; 
 and his reason is, that otherwise the crim’e would 
 have been useless, as the children would still have 
 been entitled to the father's heritage. But we 
 know not that Naboth had any sons; and if oe 
 had sons, and they had been taken oil’, the estate 
 might not have wanted an heir. It therefore rather 
 seems that a usage had crqit in for the property 
 of persons convicted of treason (and blasphemy 
 was treason in Israel) to be estreated to the crown. 
 There are other indications of this usage. If it 
 did not exist, the estate of Naboth could not have 
 lapsed to the crown, even if his children had 
 shared his fate ; and if it did exist it was not ne» 
 cessary that the children should he slain to se- 
 cure the estate to the king. 
 
SS4 NACHON. 
 
 When Ahab heard of the death of Naboth— 
 and be must have known how that death had been 
 accomplisheu, or he would not have supposed 
 himself a gainer by the event — he hastened to 
 take possession. But he was speedily taught that 
 this horrid crime had not passed without notice 
 by the all-seeing God, and would not remain un- 
 punished by his justice. The only tribunal to 
 which he remained accountable, pronounced his 
 doom through the prophet Elijah, who met him on 
 the spot, * In the place where dogs licked the blood 
 of Naboth, shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine* 
 (1 Kings xxi.). 
 
 NACHON (|ta3; Sept. Na X c5p). The floor 
 of Nachon is the name given to the threshing-floor 
 near which Uzzah was slain, for laying his hand 
 npou the ark (2 Sam. vc6). It is doubted whether 
 this be a proper name, denoting the owner of the 
 floor, or merely an epithet applied to it. t. e. ‘ the 
 
 ? repared floor.* which in that case it would signify. 
 
 'his floor could not have been far from Jerusalem, 
 and must have nearly adjoined the house of Obed- 
 cdom, in which the ,arlc was deposited. In the 
 parallel text (1 Chron. xiii. 9) the place is called 
 the floor of Chidon, pTO, showing that the owner 
 or the place had two names, which last is the 
 alternative adopted by the Hebrew writers (7*. 
 j Bab. tit. Sotak , iii. fnl. 35). 
 
 NACHOR. [Nahoh.] 
 
 1. NADAB (213, liberal ; Sept. NaSJ.6), 
 eldest son of Aaron, who. with his brother Abihu, 
 was slain for oifering strange fire to the Lord 
 [Abihu]. 
 
 2. NADAB, con of Jeroboam, and oecor.d 
 king of Israel. He ascended the throne upon the 
 death of his father (b.c. 954), whose deep-laid, 
 but criminal and dangerous policy, he followed. 
 He was engaged in the siege of Gibbethon, a city 
 of the Levites (of which the Philistines had ob- 
 tained possession), when he wa3 slain in the camp 
 in a conspiracy formed against him by Baasha, 
 one of his officers, who mounted the throne in his 
 Btead. He reigned two years (1 Kings xiv. 20; 
 xv. 25-28). 
 
 NaHALAL (<^n£; Sept. NajScsciA), a town 
 in the tribe of Zebiilun (Jo3b. xix. 15), which wa3 
 assigned to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 35). hut. of 
 which Zebulun was slow iu -dispossessing the Ca- 
 naahites (Judg. i. 30). 
 
 NAHALIKL, an encampment of the Israelites 
 in the Wilderness [Wandering], 
 
 1. NAHASH (BTI3, a serpent ; Sept. Ndcss), 
 a person named only in 2 Sam. xvii. 25 : and as 
 he is there described as the father of Abigail and 
 Zerniah, who are elsewhere called the sisters of 
 David, this must have been either another name 
 for Jesse, or. as some suppose, of a former husband 
 of David’s mother. 
 
 2. NAHASH, king of the Ammonites, noted 
 for the harhamus terms of canifillation which he 
 offered to the town of Jahesh-Gilead, and for his 
 eubspquent defeat by Saul Uabesh]. It was na- 
 tural that the enemy of Saul should be friendly 
 to David ; and we find that he did render to the 
 latter, during his persecutions, some acts ofkind- 
 ness, which the monarch did not forget when he as- 
 cended the throne of Israel (1 Sam. x. 2 ; 1 Chron. 
 aix. 2). These act3 are not specified, but he pro- 
 
 NASUM. 
 
 hably offered the fugitive hero an asylum in bts 
 dominions. 
 
 1. NAHOR (I'lTO, snorting; Sept. Na X cvp), 
 or rather Nachor, as iti Luke iii. 34, son of Serug, 
 and father of Terab, the father of Abraham (Geu. 
 xi. 22-25). 
 
 2. NAHOR, grandson of the preceding, being 
 one of the sons of Terah, and brother of Abraham. 
 Nahor espoused Milcah his niece, daughter of 
 his eldest brother Haran (Gen. xi. 27-29). Nahor 
 did not quit his native place, • Ur of the Chal 
 dees,’ when the rest of the family removed to 
 Haran (Gen. xi. 30) ; but it would appear that 
 he went thither afterwards, as we eventually find 
 his son Bethuel. and his grandson Laban, esta- 
 blished there (Gen. xxvii. 43 ; xxix. 5). 
 
 NAHSHON (]Vu?n3, enchanter ; Sept. Nacscr- 
 cchv, from which he is called Naason in the gene- 
 alogies of Christ in Matt. i. 4;, Luke iii. 32), 
 son of Aminadah, and prince or chief of the tribs 
 of Judah, at the time of the exode (Num. i. 7 ; 
 
 ii. 3). The chiefs of tribes, of which Nahshou 
 was one 0 took an important and leading part in 
 the aflairs of the Israelites, as described in the 
 article Tribes. 
 
 NAHUM (Dins, consolation ; Sept. Naou/i), 
 the seventh of the minor prophets, according to the 
 arrangement of both the Greek and Hebrew, but 
 the sixth in point of date, was a native of Elkosb, 
 a village of Gal’ilee (Jerome’s Pref. to his Com- 
 ment.). He prophesied in Judah after the deporta- 
 tion of the ten tribes, and soon after the unsuccess- 
 ful irruption of Sennacherib (ch. i. 11-13; ii. I, 
 1 4). consequently towards the close of the reign of 
 Hezelciah. Attempts have been made to fix the 
 date with precision, from the allusion to the de- 
 struction of No- Ammon or Thebes in Egypt (ch. 
 
 iii. 8) ; but as it is uncertain when this event took 
 place, Eichhom and others have conjectured that 
 h was near the beginning of the reign of Heze- 
 kiah, or about b.c. 720, as about this time Sargon, 
 king of Assyria, waged an unsuccessful war for 
 three years against Egypt (Isa. xx.). 
 
 The contents of the prophecy of Nahum are as 
 follows: — Chap. i. 2-7. The destruction of Ni- 
 neveh and of the Assyrian monarchy is depicted 
 in the liveliest colours, together with the relief 
 of Judah from oppression. The destruction of 
 Nineveh is detailed with still greater particu- 
 larity in the third chapter; which has induced 
 some to suppose that the prophet refers Jo two 
 difl'erent events — the sack of Nineveh by the 
 Medes, b.c. 867, in the reign of SardanapaJus, 
 and its second and final destruction, under Cliy- 
 niladan, by Cyaxares the First and Nabopolassar, 
 b.c. 625. Those who suppose that fcwo.event$ are 
 here alluded to, conclude that Nalnun must have 
 prophesied before the first destruction of Nineveh, 
 or about b.c. 877. It is, however, observer! hy 
 Jahn ( Jntrod .) that it i3 evident froor-eh, L 9-1 1, 
 14; ii. 1, 14, where the Hebrews are represented 
 as oppressed by the Assyrians, and the irruption 
 of Sennacherib is mentioned as having already 
 taken place, that there is but one event referred 
 to, namely, the last destruction of Nineveh. 
 De Wette remarks that Nahum could not have 
 alluded to the historical circumstances under 
 which Nineveh was taken by Cyaxares and Na- 
 bopolassar (b.c. 625, 603, or .600), a3 at that lime 
 
NAIL 
 
 NAKED. 
 
 385 
 
 Babylon, not Assyria, was formidable to the Jews ; 
 but that perhaps he was led to prophesy by the 
 liberation of the Medes (from (he Assyrians), and 
 their election of a king, in the person of Dejoces. 
 
 The beauty of the style of Nahum lias been 
 universally felt. It is classic, observes l)e Wette, 
 in all respects. It is marked by clearness, by its 
 finished elegance, as well as by tire, richness, and 
 originality. The rhythm is regular and lively. 
 The whole book remaikably coherent, and the 
 author only holds his breath, as it were, in the 
 last chapter. Jalin observes thut the language is 
 pure, with a single exception (Q*HDDt3, ch. iii. 
 17), that the style is ornate, and the tropes bold 
 and elegant (rendering it, however, necessary for 
 •lit* reader to supply some omissions; see li. 8; 
 *x. 3, lb); anil that the descriptions of the 
 Jiwne omnipotence, and of the destruction of 
 Nineveh, are resplendent with all the per- 
 fection of oratory. No one, however, has en- 
 tered, more fully into the beauties of the prophet 
 Nahum than the accomplished Eichhorn, who 
 :oticeives that the most striking characteiistic of 
 his style is the power of representing several 
 phases of an idea in the briefest sentences, as in 
 tiis description of God, the conquest of Nineveh, 
 And the destruction of No-Ammon. ‘ The va- 
 fiety in his manner of presenting ideas discovers 
 much poetic talent in the prophet. The reader 
 of taste and sensibility will be affected by the 
 entire structnre of the poem, by the agreeable 
 manner in which the ideas are brought forward, 
 by the flexibility’ of the expressions, the roundness 
 of his turns, the delicate outline of his figures, 
 by the strength and delicacy, and the expression 
 of sympathy and greatness, which diffuse them- 
 selves over the whole subject. He does not come 
 upon you roaring and violent, nor yet softly and 
 'ightly. Here there is something sonorous in his 
 language, there something murmuring; ard with 
 both there alternates somewhat that is soft, deli- 
 cate, and melting, as the subject demands. This 
 is not possible for a poet of art, but only for 
 She poet of nature* (De Wette's Introd ., Eng- 
 lish transl.). "I he following works on this pro- 
 phet are enumerated by l)e VVetie: — liibliander, . 
 Proph. Nahum, 1531; Ursini lltjpomnemata in 
 Obad. et Nahum, 1652; Ilattenretl'eri Comm, in 
 Nah. et Habac. 1663 ; Abarbanel, Comment. 
 Itabbinicus in Nahum, a. Sprechero, 1703; Von 
 Hoke, On the Six last Minor Prophets, 1709, 
 1710; Kalinsky. Vaticc. Habac. et Nahum, %c., 
 1748; Agrell, Vaticc. Nahum , Observ. Hist. 
 Phil, lllustr 1788; Gieve, Nah. et Habac. In- 
 tirp. ed. Metrica , 1793; Svanhorg, A ahum, 
 Latine Vers. be. 1806; Frahn, Cur. Exeg. Cnt. 
 1806; Ki penen, Nahum Vatic. Phil, et Crit. 
 Expos. 1808.— W. W. 
 
 NAIL. There are two Hebrew words thus 
 translated in the Auth. Vers., which it may be 
 well to distinguish. 
 
 1- .717' tjalhed , which usually denotes a peg, 
 i 5 ‘", or nail, as driven info a wall (Ezek. xv. 3 ; Isa. 
 xxii. 20); and more especially a tent pin driven 
 into the earth to fasten the tent(Exod. xxvii. 19; 
 xxxv. 18; xxxviii. 31 ; Judg. iv. 21, 22; Isa. 1 
 xxxiii. 20; liv. 2j. Hence, to drive a pin, or to 
 fasten a nail, presents among the Hebrews an 
 image of a fixed dwelling, a firm and stable abode 
 (Isa. xxii. 23). And this image is still frequent 
 among rhe Arabs, as shown by several quotations 
 
 v OL. IJ. 
 
 produced by Gesenioa, in his Thesaurus, unde? 
 this word. A pm or nail 13 also, by a further 
 application of the metaphor, applied to a prince, 
 on whom the care and welfare of the stare de- 
 pends (Zech. x. 4), where the term 1733, corner 
 6 tone, is applied to the same person denoted by 
 the word 4 nail.' All these allusions will seem 
 very plain, if we bear in mind the leading sensa 
 of the word, as referring to those large nails, or 
 pins, or cramps, vised in applications requiring* 
 great strength, being driven, into walls, or into 
 the gfound. 
 
 2. 1717DDD mismeroth , which, with some 
 variations of form, is applied to ordinary and 
 Ornamental nails. It always pectus in the plural,' 
 and is the word, which we tind’iu l Chron. xxii. 3 5 
 2 Chron. iii. 9 ; Jsa. xli. 7; Jer. oc. 4 ; Eccles. xii. 
 1 1. The last of these texts involves a very signi- 
 ficant proverbial application — * The words of the 
 wise are as nails infixed,’ &c., that is, ‘ they sink 
 deep info the heart of man.’ The golden nails of 
 the temple are denoted by this word. 
 
 NAIN (NatV), a town of Palestine, mentioned! 
 only in the New Testament, as; the place where 
 Jesus raised the widow's son to life (Luke vii. 1 
 1 1-17). > Eqsebius and Jerome QOtiomast, s. v.i 
 Naim) describe if as not far from Endor. As its 
 name bas always been preserved, if was recognised; 
 by the crusaders, autp4pis been often noticed by 
 travellers up to the pd'sent day. It has now 
 dwindled to a small hamlet 'called Nein , which 
 is situated about three miles by W. from] 
 Mount Tabor. 
 
 NAIOTH (rn3 : Sept. NctudS), a place in or 
 near Itamab, where Samuel abode with his dis- 
 ciples (1 Sam. xix. 18, 19, 2% 23; xx. I)J 
 Nuioth does not appear to have, been a distinct 
 town or village ; and we are ivilling to accept tha 
 explanation of li. Isaiah and other Jewish com- 
 mentators, who state that. Iiamah was che name of 
 a hill, and Naioth of the place upon it. In that 
 case Naioth must be fixed on the same grounds 
 which determine the site of Ramah. , 
 
 NAKED. The word 0*17^ dram, rendered 
 ‘naked’ in our Bibles, doe9 not in many places 
 mean absolute nakedness. It ha3 this meaning 
 in such passages as Job i» 21 ; Eccles. v. 15 ; 
 Mic. i. 8; Amos ii. 16. But in mother places it 
 means one who is ragged or poorly clad (1 Joloi 
 xxi. 7; Isa. lviii. 7), in the - same sense a» 
 yvpvos in James ii. 15; which does not indeed 
 differ from a familiar application of the word 
 ‘naked’ among ourselves. A more peculiar anti 
 Oriental sense of the word is that in which it 
 is applied to oue who has laid aside his looso 
 outer garment, and goes about in his tunic. 
 When, therefore, Saul is described as having lain 
 down ‘ naked ’ (1 Sam. xix. 24), we are to under- 
 slantl that lie had laid aside his (lowing outer ^obe, 
 by which his rank was most indicated, and was 
 therefore a king ‘naked’ or undressed; and ic 
 was thus that Isaiah went * naked ’ anti barefoot 
 (Isa. xx. 2 ; comp. John xxi. 7). The point of tho 
 expression may be the better apprehended when we 
 mention that persons in their own houses freely 
 lay aside their outer garment, and appear in their 
 tunic and girdle ; but this is undress, and they/ 
 would count it improper to apjjear abroad, or fa 
 eee company ip their own house, without the outst 
 
&B6 NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 rotw*. Tn fact. our use of the word ‘ undress * to 
 denote not nakedness, sis it would literally imply, 
 but a dress less than that which we consider full 
 and complete, corresponds very exactly to this 
 signification of the word. 
 
 - The metaphorical uses of the word in Scriptuie 
 are too obvious to require explanation. 
 
 - NAMES, PROPER, chiefly of the Old Testa- 
 meet. It is so interesting, as well as useful, 
 *0 know the original signification of proper names, 
 tha.t a careful investigation of their nature has 
 many advantages. The chief use, however, -which 
 accrues from an accurate knowledge of them is, 
 that we are by their means, enabled to at tain a 
 more lively apprehension of the truth of ancient . 
 bistory. 
 
 • Without doubt many parts of, this subject are 
 very obscure, as proper names are so often only 
 the scattered and decayed ruins of a distant age. < 
 But as soon as we take a more animated view of 
 all the relics that have been preserved to us, and 
 compare them more cautiously with the customs 
 of other nations, we are able to discern their more 
 general and important features at least, with 
 reasonable certainty. 
 
 There are two chief classes of projier names, 
 those of men, and those of every thing besides « 
 man, as beasts, places, and festivals. Those of 
 the latter class are much more durable in their 
 form, as man alone is always changing; they are 
 also important for history, and it is desirable to 
 ascertain, as far a9 possible, their original signifi- 
 cation. But the proper names of the changeable 
 races of men are in a much higher degree those 
 in which history reflects itself in its ^vicissitudes ; 
 they also constitute the more numerous class. 
 For these reasous, we confine ourselves at present 
 to the proper names of men, as it is beyond our 
 present scope to treat the entire subject. 
 
 The first-fact, that strikes us, on a generril view 
 of them all, is, that the ancient Hebrews’ always 
 retained the greatest simplicity in the use of 
 names. In reality, there is always only one 
 single name which distinguishes a person. Where 
 it is necessary, the name of the father is added ; 
 sometimes that of the mother instead, in case she 
 (happens to> be more -celebrated ;* or the line of 
 descent is traced farther back, often to the fourth 
 generation, or even farther. Mere epitjiets. like 
 4 David the king,’ ‘Isaiah the prophet/ always 
 ■express the actual and significant dignify of a 
 mian.' The instances in which a person receives 
 •two names alternately, as Jacob-lsrael, Gideon- 
 •Jerubbaal (Judg. vi.-ix.), are casual and rare, 
 •and are not. to be ascribed to a general custom 
 of the people. On comparing the mode in which 
 -•the Arabs use proper names we discover a striking 
 •difference. With them) every man of any im- 
 portance always receives, besides his proper name 
 •and perhaps nickname, a praenomen ( Kwije ), 
 -which might be most fittingly called the name of 
 -compliment, or domestic name, as it denotes the 
 Jinan under the special relation of father, as Abu 
 .Zaid, * father of Zaid and, iri addition to these, - 
 a name of honour for the world — which at least 
 ‘has prevailed generally since the time of the Ab- 
 
 * Tfio. three heroic brothers, Joab, Abishai, 
 and Asael. are always called after their mother 
 Zeruja (l Clirun. ii. 16), 
 
 NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 bassides, and which usually exalts, m pompous 
 terms, the person in relation to religion (as Snlah- 
 eddin, ‘ the welfare of rrligiou or to the state 
 (as Saif edd aula, * the sword of the state’). In 
 this the A mbs a* e absolutely a modern jieople, 
 and overvalue externals as much asllie Europeans 
 ol the present, day. How much more simple 
 were the Hebrews during the most flourishing 
 period of their history ! For, in this respect, also, 
 the usage ol names is only an evidence of the pre- 
 dominant customs and views of whole periods. 
 
 When we, then, consider proper n.lrnes wiilr 
 reference to the grand distinction of »imes, we 
 are able to discover in their varying use ueuily 
 the same three periods as those which mark the 
 history of this people in all other respects. These 
 are the three, periods which are most simply de- 
 fined by the three different names of the nation 
 which prevailed in each : the Hebrews \ as they 
 were called iti early times, gradually adopted 
 the name ol Israelites in t he middle period, ami 
 exchanged this name, in ihe third, for that of 
 Je\os. It is a remarkable, bur. nevertheless true,- 
 coincidence that, just as the name of the nation 
 varies in these three periods, the colour of the 
 names of individuals changes in like manner, 
 according to the different tendencies character- 
 izing the times. ; 
 
 I. In the first period, which, for reasons ad- 
 duced below, we here limit by the- commence- 
 ment of the Mosaic religion, we; are. able to see 
 the whole process according "to which names are 
 formed among this people :> the distinct character 
 of the formation of names which was established 
 in this primitive time, continues essentially the 
 same in the succeeding period, while the elements 
 of which names are formed -undergo a partial 
 change. For tlsis reason* we may explain the 
 laws of this formation in-terms of merely general 
 application. — Now names aie either simple or 
 compound words, or also words which arise from 
 either of these kinds by derivation. 
 
 1. The simple names exist in great abundance ; 
 and their signification, as to the mere word itself 
 i3 generally evident : as*fn, ‘judge;’ 1'P', the 
 Latin dextei', an ancient name, according t<» 
 
 Gen. xlvi. 10, 1 Chron. ti. 27; ‘desired/ 
 
 ’ also an ancienT name according to Gen. xlvi. lit, 
 cf. xxxvi. 37; “153, ‘hero/ 1 Kings iv. 19„ 
 Thus most of them express an honourable sense ; 
 although examples are not wanting of the direct 
 contrary, as * crooked/ 2 Sum. xxiii. 26. 
 
 With what ease also feminine words become 
 names for men, is shown by cases like * vul- 
 ture/ 2 Sum. iii. 7, xxi. 8 ; cf. Geii. xxxvi. 21 ; 
 n3i', ‘ dove/ which are just as applicable to 
 men as the masculine * fox/ 1 Citron, vii. 
 
 36. Diminutives, which are so frequently used 
 as proper names by the Arabs, | are rare among 
 the Hebrews ; but are by no rdeaus wanting, 
 
 is proved by pb-OJ or {VlUT, the name of the 
 son of Jacob, and pirVlTiy or fin'”!',, the name o# 
 the singer of David. ,AU those names which 
 are formed with a prefixed jod are to tie consi- 
 dered as especially ancient, because this nominal' 
 formation became entirely obsolete in the la^i- 
 guage, and recurs almost; only in proper names* 
 
NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 as is shown not only by the well-known najnea, 
 Spy', P|DP, min». pns\ but also by a u umber 
 'of less common ones, as 3-15^, Num. xxvi. 24 ; 
 ^T. E 'Chron. iv. 21; ^1?!, »v. 34; \3]}l 
 a. *13; inV^, Kxod. vj. 18; *7n3\ 2 Sain- 
 v. 15 ; ngDl’, Num. xiii. 6, 1 Chron. vii. 38; 
 BmT, i Sarn.'U 1. 1 Chron. viii. 27; and others. 
 There is an ancient adjective-ending, that in dm 
 >ur 6m, winch has fixed itself most firmly in 
 proper names, as QJHK, 1 Chron. iv. 6 ; D-JJ, 
 Ezra ii. 48; the sister of Moses, and 
 
 CiDhl his son; DTO3, 2 Sam. xix. 38. which 
 aiot only exists also in the form OITO?, Jer. xlii. 
 17, but in IHD3, 2 Sam. xix. 41, according to 
 customary changes. We are anxious not to 
 fatigue the reader by such philological observa- 
 tions, but we can assure him that a deeper in- 
 vestigation into these apparently dead subjects 
 will lead to the discovery of much that illus- 
 trates the ancient language and customs of the 
 .people. ' ■■?>«: . 
 
 2. The compound names, however, are more 
 important for history; ( b 1 ecause they express more 
 complete and distinct 1 ideas than the simple 
 names. Some of thetid qxe altogether isolated, aa 
 DrO'Sl, properly ‘serpent's mouth,’ the grandson 
 of Aaron; the son of Jacob; Oholiab \ 
 
 t ; r 
 
 Exod. xxxi. 6, * fathers tent,’ a name resembling 
 she Greek Pafrocles. But most of them bear a 
 general resemblance to each other, and follow in 
 enoals certain dominant opinions and customs; 
 and these last are what we must particularly 
 consider here. , 1 
 
 A great number of them owe their origin to the 
 relations of the house, as the sense of the first 
 word of the compound shows. Most of these have 
 f.he word ahi, 4 father,’ for their first member, as 
 Abiezer , Abital , Abigail The prevalent opinion 
 sitnnng modern scholars f resjjecting this class 
 is that they are really epithets, which have after- 
 wards, as it were casually, become proper names ; 
 that Abigail , for example, is literally 4 father 
 Eif joy/ or 4 whose father is jo / that this means 
 cheerful , and thus became a proper name ; and 
 in proof they appeal to the Arabic language, in 
 which such periphrases with a&i are common. In 
 reality, however, this assumption is extremely un- 
 certain and erroneous. The Arabic undoubtedly 
 possesses a vast number of such names, as Abul- 
 Ma’ali, 4 the father of dignities/ i. e. the vene- 
 rable; Abul-busni, * the father of beauty/ t. c. the 
 peacock ; Abul-hussaini, 4 the father of the little 
 fortress/ i. e. the fox, who lives in holes; Abu- 
 Aijuba, 4 the father of Job/ i . e. the camel, be- 
 cause it is- as patient as Job. But 6uch names, 
 which may be formed ad libitum , by hundreds, 
 
 This dbi was, without doubt, gradually 
 shortened to ab, as is proved by heside 
 
 1 Sam. xiv. 50, 2 Sam. ii. 8, and by 
 many other examples. The further softening o t 
 this ab to eb is only .possible when a j follows it, 
 as 1^, 1 Sam. xxii. 20; SjDhSiS, 1 Chron. 
 
 8, 22, beside the older form Exoch 
 
 m. 24. 
 
 i For instance, Gesenius in bis Thesaurus, 
 
 NAMES, PROPER. 33? 
 
 belong in Arabic rather to the artificial, often to 
 the sportive, and generally also to the later, lan- 
 guage, and were not possible until the Arabs had 
 adopted the custom of always using a pracnomen, 
 or domestic name — the above-mentioned Kunjc — 
 in addition to the chief name. As soon as ever 
 it became customary to give a man a double 
 designation — his real name, and the more fami- 
 liar, often sportive, domestic name — this custom 
 was gradually transferred to other subjects, and 
 then these in themselves extraordinary circum- 
 locutory names arose. * But such domestic 
 
 names were never in use among the Hebrew# 
 — nay, more, such periphrastic names with all 
 do not even occur in their poetic diction as 
 the only passage which could be adduced in 
 favour of it (Job xvii. 14) is not, when taken in 
 its true sense, at all an instance in point. 1 o 
 call the came! 4 father of Job’ is undeniably a 
 kind of sportive name: and are we to assume 
 that this jesting custom prevailed among the 
 primitive Hebrews? Thus we have here another 
 striking example of the danger attending super- 
 ficial comparisons of Arabic with Hebrew; for 
 this view never could have been formed by those 
 who were intimately acquainted with the trea- 
 sures of Arabic literature.f I believe, on the 
 contrary, that the first member of such com- 
 pounds did indeed, in the early times in which 
 they were first formed, really denote nothing but 
 ilia father of the son who is named in the second 
 member; but that subsequently, for a particular 
 reason, they were employed only to denote a kind 
 of dignity. If we compare the numerous genea- 
 logical registers in the books of Chronicles, 
 which, dry as they are, yet contain much that ia 
 instructive, we find that a man is often called 
 the father, that is, the lord , of a town or village, 
 as * Ashchur the father of Teqoa/ 1 Chron. ii. 
 29; ‘ Mesha, the father of Zif/ ver. 42; 4 Meou, 
 the father of Beth-zur/ ver. 45 ; 4 Shobal, th<» 
 father of Qirjathjearim/ ver. 5i>, &c. In these 
 cases the meaning cannot be doubtful, as the 
 second member always signifies a place; but this 
 is at the 6ame time a genuine Hebrew custom, 
 which will hardly be found among the other 
 Semitic nations. As soon, then, as it had become 
 customary to use the word * father’ to denote a 
 kind of dignity in the family and in the nation, 
 it was easy to prefix this short word, as a mere 
 term of honour, to any name by way of distin- 
 guishing the eldest or the favourite son. Several 
 cogent arguments favour this view. First, it can 
 almost always be proved, even from our present 
 scanty documents, that the second member of 
 such compound names was also used, by itself, 
 
 ® See a learned article on the Kunje , by Kose- 
 garten, in the Zeitschrift fur das Morgenland , 
 i. 297, sq. ; in which he has only neglected to 
 insist sufficiently on the fact, that abu originally 
 denoted the actual father of the son mentioned 
 ,iu the second member. 
 
 | We could more easily admit such a me! a 
 phorical sense in the compounds with son, sine* 
 is really often used in a highly metaphorical 
 sense, Bathsheba* is certainly not the daughter 
 of a man named Sheba’, 2 Sam. xi. 3. Such 
 compound names with son 5 however, are, on the 
 whole, rare, and are only found in gome frequency 
 in I Kings iv, 7, eq» 
 
SS8 NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 as a proper name, as Dun beside AfoYMn^Num. 
 Lit; Ezer, I Chron. vii. 21, Neh iii. 19, beside 
 Abiezcr ; Asaph beside Abiasaph or Ebjasaph ; 
 Nadab, Exod. vi. 23, beside Abinadab ; Noam 
 or Noam, 1 Chron. iv. 15, beside Abinoam ; 
 Jathar or Jether, a very common name, beside 
 Ebjatkar ; nay, they are even found in the same 
 family, as Abiner or Abner, the son of Ner, 
 
 1 Sam. xiv. 50, 2 Sam. ii. 8. Moreover, this 
 explains how other words of relationship are pre- 
 fixed in the same way ; the latter member i3 
 always a word which was originally a proper 
 name, which is only multiplied by means of 
 these 1 it: le prefixes, and in tfhich we indeed no 
 longer discern why father is the word pretixed in 
 one instance, and brother that in another. Achi, 
 t. 6. ‘ brother,’ is often prefixed in this manner; 
 thus, the one was called Ram, 1 Chron. ii. 9, 
 xj{v. 27, Ruth iv. 19; the other Abirdm, Num. 
 
 xvi. I ; and the third Achirdm , Num. xxvi. 38. 
 Achinoam , Achiezer , and others of this sort, are 
 easily accounted for.* Chamu, i. e. 4 brother in 
 law,’ is rarely so used ; a3 Chamutal or Chamital, 
 
 2 Kings xxiv. 18. Jer. Iii. 1 ; beside Abital, 
 2 Sam. iii. 4. Under this class we may also 
 include* 4 man,’ with which several names 
 are comyxvanded. As the Hebrews had a simple 
 name, liud or Hod, i. e. 4 splendour,’ (cf. Jehu- 
 dah ), 1 Chron. vii. 37, and an Abihnd , 1 Chron. 
 viii. 3, and Achihud, Num. xxriv. 27, so also 
 they formed an IsheMd, 1 Chron. vii. 18; as 
 they had an Abitub and Ackitob, so also an 
 Ishtob, 2 Sara. x. 6 ; and as there was an ancient . 
 name Chur , 4 free,’ who is mentioned in Exod. 
 
 xvii. 10 as a friend of Moses, so Ash-chur * ap- 
 pears us a relative of the family of Chur, 1 Chron. 
 iv. 5, comp. ver. 1 . 
 
 Another, but a smallei, class consists of names 
 comf)ounded with D>?, * people,’ resembling the 
 many Greek compositions with Aa«is and 5 rjpos ; 
 and just as in Greek Sg/ios is placed first or last 
 (Demosthenes, Aristodemos), so also DV is at one 
 time found in the first, and at another in the 
 last place ; only that, according to the laws of 
 the Semitic language, the sense of one of these 
 positions is exactly the reverse of the other. It 
 is important., however, to remark lieie that in 
 this, just as in the former .class, one member is 
 generally a word which is used by itself as a 
 primer name ; that liere, therefore, instead of a 
 reference to the mere family, a wider regard to 
 
 * There is no doubt that this ash, as also rsh , 
 in l Chron. viii. 33, is an abbreviation 
 
 of ish. No words are more liable to such gradual 
 shortenings then proper names, ( esj)ecially those of 
 longer compass. Even Abi, above explained, 1ms 
 been sometimes shortened to f, in consequence 
 of its frequent use, as is shown by comparing 
 which occurs twice in Num. xxvi. 30, 
 with the Abiezer of Josh. xvii. 2, Jndg. vi. 11 ; 
 and we must explain the few other names of this 
 kind in the same way, such as *1Z0rPN, Exod. 
 vi. 22; 1 Kings xvi. 31; and 
 
 1 Sam. iv. 21. In the last passage there i3 an 
 allusion to the sense without, which 'K considered 
 per se may express; but the only conclusion 
 ^rom this is, that this sound had already, in some 
 eames suffered that change constantly. ' 
 
 NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 the whole people prevails, and an individual is 
 considered with relation to his nation. Thus ths 
 common name Exod. vi. 23, the Ger- 
 
 man Edelvolk, i. e. owe who belongs to the noble 
 people, so that it answers to the Greek Arisro- 
 Uemos ; “IhTTSy, Glanzvolk, also a favourite 
 name, which would be Phaidrodeinos in Greek ; 
 on the contrary, Q^nJV, 2 Sam. iii. 5, perhaps 
 the German Volkhart , the Greek Demosthenes , 
 Volkbreit ; Volhgrun, which 
 
 occurs in l Chron. ii. 44 as the name of a place, 
 but which must originally have been the name 
 of the founder of that place. As all these com- 
 pounds must be conceived to be in the state 
 construct, so likewise we are probably to take the 
 names properly 4 people's increaser,’ a 
 
 suitable name for a prince, and 4 people's 
 
 turner’ or 4 leader;’ for, as was observed above, 
 the simple names are often formed with a pre- 
 fixed jod ; and we actually find as a 
 
 simple name, in Num. xxvi. 29, 1 Chron. vii. I. 
 
 Most of the compound names, however, rathex 
 endeavour to express a religious sense, and there- 
 fore often contain the divine name. And here 
 we at the same time find a new law of formation : 
 as these compounds are intended to express z 
 complete thought, such as the religious sentiment 
 requires, a name may consist of an entire pro- 
 position with a verb, but of course in as brief a 
 compass as possible ; and indeed shorter com- 
 pounds are made with a verb than with a passive 
 
 participle, as ^>K3n3 (in the New Test. fla6avai]\ 
 properly 4 God-gave,’ t. e. whom God gave, given 
 by God, GfSSoros or 0e<S8cvpos) sounds shorter 
 than ^&'3-in3 with the participle, which would 
 certainly express the same sense. But as the 
 finite verb, as also any other predicate, can just 
 as well precede as follow, accordingly a great 
 freedom in the position of the divine name lias 
 prevailed in this class; and this peculiarity is 
 preserved, in the same case, in the following 
 period : but indeed the Greeks use AupoQeSs as 
 well as 0e68wpos ■ Thus, ^{$3113, 1 Chron. ii. 14, 
 or Jer. xxxvi. 12. The two names are 
 
 then generally assigned to two different persons ; 
 nevertheless, both combinations may form names 
 for the same person, as 1 Chron. iii. 5, 
 
 and 2 Sam. xi. 3, belong to the same 
 
 individual. Now, as compound names evidently 
 became very general, it is not surprising that, its 
 the infinite multiplication of names to corre- 
 spond with the infinite 'multitude of persons, some* 
 proper names were at length formed which solely 
 consist of two names of God himself, expressing-* 
 as it were, the ineffably holy name to which tha 
 person dedicates himself,* as Abiel and Eliab m 
 nay, even Eliel, 1 Chron. v. 21, viii. 20, 2 Chron. 
 
 * Names of this sort are found among -sit 
 nations. We may briefly mention that there are 
 persons with the Latin name' Salvator , with the 
 German ones, Heiland, Herrgott, and that a well 
 known Dutch orientalist was called Louio do 
 Dieu. The impious Seleucid® took the nairas 
 Thcos for a different reason. 
 
NAMES, PROPER, 
 
 8xxi. 13 A very important question, however, 
 still remains: what, divine names were thus used 
 ir the earliest times until Moses? VVe find that 
 El was then the commonest, and Shaddai less 
 frequent; the latter is mly found in 
 * rock of the Almighty. Num. i. G, ii. 12,* ami 
 ‘ people of the Almighty,’ ver. 12; still 
 more rarely is 'Vl'tf, 4 ru-k,' itself used as a divine 
 name, as “MVITID. Num. i. 10, which is almost 
 equivalent to 4 God redeems.’ If we 
 
 now consider that, according to the ancient testi- 
 mony in Exod. vi. 3, the name Jahve (Jehovah) 
 tvas not known then, hut that the only other name 
 of God which existed, beside the common El and 
 Elohim, was the rarer and more awful Shaddai, 
 these historical traces which are discovered in 
 proper names, accord most perfectly with that 
 statement, and furnish a very welcome confirma- 
 tion of it. 
 
 On reviewing this whole system of forming 
 compound names, it is evident that they at length 
 became very common, as if their sounding pomp 
 was^ considered more dignified and attractive ; 
 nevertheless, their chief tendency was to express 
 the three great and most comprehensive relations 
 in which a man can stand, namely, Home, 
 People, and God. The original luxuriance of 
 all language again gathered itself together . in 
 names, as in a fruitful soil; and accordingly there 
 kvere times, even within the historical period, in 
 which the primitive energies of all language were 
 eo busily active even in this apparently barren 
 province, that (since all possible combinations 
 xvere attempted in order to make an infinitude of 
 names for the infinite number of persons) such 
 names Also were devised as, at first hearing, were 
 Burpri3ing, as feS-lfTON, properly 4 sqlf-f'ather,’ 
 * self-god,’ avroOc-ds, a name which may 
 be old, although it is only now found in the book 
 nf Job And if we compare this Hebrew mode 
 t>r forming compound names with that of the 
 Greeks and Arabs, as the more familiar examples, 
 «e find this remarkable result, although it har- 
 monises with many other phenomena; namely, 
 that it is essentially more like the Greek than 
 the Arab mode ; only that the Greeks allude 
 more frequently, in their names, to the people , 
 which is characteristic of the whole of Greek life ; 
 ivliile the Arabs, who always had families only, 
 but never were a nation, never allude to the 
 people, and do not, in composition, possess so 
 great freedom in the position and juncture of 
 words. 
 
 3. Lastly, many proper names have assumed 
 the derivative syllable -?, or ai (which appears to 
 
 * That 13, * who seeks protection in the Al- 
 mighty,’ like &ioKpu.T7js. it is desirable to con- 
 fine the force of the-? 4 , as much as possible, to 
 that of a mere vowel of union, because the uni- 
 formity of the other structures of names requires 
 it. There is no doubt, however, that in later 
 times, as this union- vowel became lost to the 
 common lar guage, it was taken as the sufiix 
 of the first person, as is shown by the newly- 
 coined poetical name, 4 With-me-is-God,’ 
 
 Prov. ^xx. L But this is not the force of it 
 originally. 
 
 NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 be only dialectically different from -l, and 5s 
 chiefly frequent in the later periods); and w» 
 must certainly consider that, in some cases, this 
 syllable may possibly form mere adjectives, and 
 therewith simple names, as ‘ trueman,’ 
 
 from n£N, 4 truth,’ and Barzillai 4 Iron,' vs 
 c Ironman,’ the name of a celebrated Gileadite 
 family, Ezra ii. 61 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 27; or that is 
 is derived from a place, as Hos. i. 1 ; 
 
 l Chron vii. 36, 4 be of the well,' or, he of a 
 place known as the well. But it undoubtedly 
 very often also expresses a genealogical relation, 
 like the Greek ending -i8ys, and presupposes a 
 previous proper name from which it is derived ; 
 thus the name 'Tin, 1 Chron. v. 14, as surely pre- 
 supposes the above- mentioned Chur, as the GreeS 
 Philippides does Philippos, and as Ketubai , & 
 Chron. ii. 9, one of the descendants of* Judah, is 
 connected with the Ketub in iv. 1 1.* 
 
 Among the names of women, thefoldest as well 
 as the simplest which are found/ are actually 
 only suited for women, as Rachel, 4 Ewe;’ De- 
 borah, ‘Bee;’ Tamar , ‘ Palm-tree;’ Hannah , 
 
 4 Favour,’ the mother of Samuel. Those which 
 express such a delicate and endearing sense as 
 Qeren Happuk , 4 box of eye-ointment,’ Job xlii. 
 14, and fQ’Vipn, 4 my delight is in her,’ 2 
 Kings xxi. 1, betray that they were formed in 
 much later times ; for, although the first occurs 
 in the book of Job, which sedulously refaius al" 
 archaisms, it nevertheless belongs to the same 
 date as the latter. It appears indeed to have 
 been customary, at an early period, to form 
 names for women from those of men, by means 
 of the feminine termination : as JT|n. 2 SatS5, 
 
 iii. 4, beside *20, Num. xxvi. 15; Til&piXi.e. 
 Pia, 2 Kings xxi. 19, beside dWd, Pius, § 
 Chron. v. 13, viii. 17, and T\ v chu, Friedcnke, 
 Num. xxiv. 11, beside ilb^, Friedcrich . But 
 we must not overlook the fact that, all these are 
 instances of simple names :f no single example 
 occurs from a compound man’s name. As the 
 same compound names, however, are sometimes 
 used both for men and women, and as even those 
 very names are applied to women, which could 
 not originally have been applicable to any hue 
 men, as Abigail, Achinoam, accordingly, we 
 must assume that the plastic power of the lan- 
 guage had already exhausted itself in this remote 
 province, and that, for that reason, the distinction 
 of the feminine was omitted ; almost in the same 
 way as Sanscrit and Greek adjectives of the foiua 
 
 * It is remarkable that the genealogical rela- 
 tion appears to be sometimes expressed by the 
 mere ST of motion, as fQpJP* l Chron. iv. S&, 
 which" would be equivalently expressed by a 
 German name Zu- Jacob; De Israel 9 
 
 1 Chron. xxv. 14, cf. ver. 2; and most distinctly 
 in rms^n, 4 reckoned to Dan,’ Neh. viii. 4 j 
 cf. in 1 Chron. xxv. 4. 
 
 f Or of those also in which the masculine haa 
 already dropped the second member: forChanaid 
 and Zabdi, as is shown below, are shortened fro® 
 Chananjabj Zabdijah 
 
$9® NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 nvfcai) uttf, tvrvxfts, are not able to distinguish the 
 feminine in form. 
 
 II. Tliis is the whole principle which regulates 
 the formation of Hebrew names, both as it mani- 
 fests itself in the earliest times, and as it extends 
 into the succeeding periods, in which it receives 
 new impulses, and undergoes moditi cations of 
 colour but not of substance. 
 
 For if we inquire what new element the Mosaic 
 period introduced into names, we find that, on 
 the whole, it is only the influence of the new 
 religion which manifests itself in the strongest 
 characters, and causes extraordinary innovations. 
 It is not in the Psalms only and other l>ooks that 
 we discover how deeply this religion affected 
 men ; we may also infer it from the names which 
 Became current in that period. Nay, it is only 
 these words of common life which render it 
 evident to our senses with what a power- this 
 religion penetrated all the depths of the national 
 tnind, and how zealously every man in Israel 
 endeavoured \ to glory in tits name of Jahve/ 
 according to the words of the prophet, Isa. xliv. 
 & ; cf. Ps. cv. 3. 
 
 As tlte whole national life wa3 renovated by so 
 influential a new religion, the mode of giving 
 names returned to its primitive state, since not 
 only were new names created, but entire sen- 
 tences, of the shortest compass, expressing the 
 mighty thoughts which agitated the times, were 
 also applied as names.* Thus, especially in the 
 times in which the Mosaic religion exercised a 
 more vivid influence, names were formed of entire 
 sentences, in which some of its most affecting 
 truths are expressed, os *lpp 3^-1\ * mercy-is- 
 recompensed,* I Chron. iii. 20 ; * to- 
 
 Jahve-are- mine-eyes’ (as if it were derived from 
 hymns like Ps. cxxiii.), 1 Chron. iv. 36, vii. 8, 
 riii. 20 if '"Kara x. 22, 27; Nehem. xii. 41; 
 ?min, ‘ praise-ye-Jah’ (from well-known pas- 
 sages of the Psalms), 1 Chron. iii. 24, Ezra ii. 
 40 ; J as a name of a woman, ‘ Give- 
 
 shadow-thou'-that-seest-me* (God), 1 Chron. iv. 3. 
 But we seem to have the words of a great prophet 
 distributed in names of several relations, when 
 we’ find the words— 
 
 nixnqp *rriin 
 
 i. e* ‘ I have given great and exalted aid, 
 
 Have spoken oracles in abundance * 
 (which evidently contain a verse such as an 
 ancient prophecy might begin with), applied to 
 the five musical sous of Heman — Giddalti (ezer), 
 Romamtiezery Malloti , Rothin ■, Machaziotk y 1 
 
 * Similar instances* occurred in England in 
 the seventeenth century. . 
 
 f In this ‘place we find '3JT;?N, which the 
 Masoretes point Elienai ; but this would not 
 produce any sense, and a 1 has evidently been 
 emitted.^ The Sept, reads ’Ehicova'i, which is right. 
 
 £ 'The' heavier pronunciation Hoddvjah seems 
 So be designedly preferred to Hod'jah, because 
 H^dujah would easily pass over into Hodijjah, 
 %4»ich would give a different sense. There is 
 Only one other similar example, 1 Chron.' 
 
 th 46, the meaning of which is obscure. 
 
 NAMES, PROPER. 
 
 Chron. xxr. 4, cf. ver. 26, 2S-31. This is Midi* * 1 
 a remarkable example. We also once find, in 
 Isa. vii., a particular representation of the moda 
 in which such names as Eheurjashub and Im- 
 manuel arose in real life. 
 
 But it was chiefly only the name of God fa 
 this religion, Jahve, which was employed in the 
 formation of names (in the same way as the 
 earlier divine names were); and it is shortened, 
 when it constitutes the last, member of the name, 
 to jd/iu, or, still more, to -jah, and, when it is 
 the first member, to Jeh6 or. Jo-. In this usage 
 it occurs with infinite frequency (the older name 
 Shaddai becoming obsolete, and El alone con-, 
 turning in usej, while the other member of the 
 name often retains the same form as in the pri- 
 mitive times, e.g. nj23, like *13, and The 
 
 mother of Moses, Jokebed , Exod. vi. 20, is, ac- 
 cording to all traces, the first whose name bears 
 evidence of the worship of this God (which is ura 
 exceedingly important test runny to the truth of 
 the whole history, but we cannot pursue the 
 subject farther here) ; and it is a beautiful’ in- 
 cident that Moses, with. his own mouth, changed 
 the name of his most valiant wairior Hoshea, 
 i. e. c Help!’ into Jehoshd'z, i. e. ‘Godbelp;’ as 
 Muharomed, in like manner, gave some iff lna 
 followers names conformable to his new religion.** 
 The frequency of such compositions with the 
 name of Jahve may lie estimated by the abbre- 
 viations whicll sometimes become customary iia> 
 such names. Thus or BTO'D (aa it ia 
 
 occasionally pointed), is not only shortened to 
 iTD'D. but to H3'P, Judg. xvii. 5, 9-13, cf. ver. 
 1, 4; 2 Chron. xviji. 14, cf. ver. 7-13; in which 
 manner we are also to explain the name of the 
 well-known minor prophet. Thus also the com- 
 mon name for men and women, Abijahu or Abijd » 
 is once shortened to Abi, 2 Kings xviji. 2.f- 
 Tliere are, however, two cases which are not to be 
 confounded with these casual and gradual abbre- 
 viations. First, namely, we find the rave in- 
 stance that a name which has been preserved un- 
 changed, is nevertheless occasionally formed by' 
 dropping the syllable Jo- or -jah : as it is evident 
 that jri3 has been shortened from ' iT3ri3 txt 
 jn3*P; as likewise JfiD. 2 Kings xi« 18, fronv* 
 rnrip; and *DT, 1 Chron. viii..31, from nn2?p, 
 because names which mean ‘ gave,* 4 gift,’ ‘ me-; 
 mory,’ do not by themselves produce a suitable 
 sense, and because they never are found withj 
 Abi-y Achi-y and such additions, nor can bet 
 traced back into the primitive times.* r . We aie 
 therefore obliged, in this case, to assume that 
 these names have been designedly shortened, fa 
 the effort to make as many different names as 
 possible; and, a3 it is not uncommon for two* 
 brothers to receive similar names, this may be the! 
 immediate cause for the formation of a name 
 Nathan beside Nethanjah.\ Secondly, when.-* 
 
 * * Weit, ; n his Leben Muhammeds (Stuttgardf^ 
 1843, p. 344), treaf3 this subject too briefly. Kl-\ 
 navavi discusses it. more at length in the preface 
 to his Tahdsib elasmdiy ed. Wiistenfeld, p. 15. 
 
 ; -j*~ In like manner, 1 Sam. xxv. 14, 
 
 -an abbreviation of 2 Sam. iii. -15. j 
 
 l This ca.se occurs in the same way among 
 
NAOMI. 
 
 NARCISSUS. 
 
 391 
 
 ever a derivat.ve in -t 13 formed, the addition 
 •jak, or even Jo- at the beginning, disappears ; 
 and in this, case also we find ’’SSH (although it is 
 equivalent to'J.he patronymic Cfiananiad.es ), be- 
 side nearly 'a» the name of his brother, 1 Chron. 
 xxv. 4, 23, 25. 
 
 III. 'fhi$ is the type and fashion of the names 
 as late as the times alter the first destruction of 
 Jerusalem. Tlie influence of the dispersion 
 among foreign nations may, indeed, be imme- 
 diately traced in the new names which allude to 
 the captivity, as the name of Zeruhbabel himself, 
 which is a contraction of -IT means 1 scat- 
 tered to Babylon ' Yet this foreign influence is 
 l>4jt transient; and in the centuries immediately 
 succeeding the Exile, in which the last books of 
 {lie Old Testament weie wtitteii, we find, on the 
 contrary, tliat the ancient mode of giving names 
 is preserved almost unchanged. 
 
 in tlias inspect, however, there is a tntal differ- 
 ence in the times between the close of the Old 
 and the beginning of tire New Testament. For 
 alter a purely learned study of the Old T^sta-. 
 tr.enf. liad sprung up, and tlie whole nation only 
 continued to exist in its sacred books, they de- 
 lighted to give their children the ancient Scrip- 
 tural names; nay, they sought out such names 
 as had only Ixeen common in fire times before 
 Rioses, and liad become obsolete in the long in- 
 terval : names like Jacoby Joseph , Maria. But 
 while these dead names were revived and zea- 
 lously sought out, the capability for forming new 
 names became gradually weaker. And, as the 
 love of novelty still operated, and as the jieople 
 lost iheis 'independence more and more, many 
 foreign names became favourites, and were used 
 equally with tlie old Biblical names. In this 
 manner the form of names had, by the time of 
 the New Testament,. reached a state of develop- 
 ment which nearly resembles tliat prevalent 
 among ourselves. 
 
 Lastly, with regard to the Biblical nantes’of 
 Individuals belonging to the less eminent nations 
 with which tlie Israelites were surrounded, such 
 as die Edomites, Phoenicians, Damascenes, &c., 
 thdir formation indeed is generally very like that 
 of tire Hebrew names, inasmuch as all these 
 nations spoke a Semitic language; but the ma- 
 terials of which they are formed are so different, 
 that one cart almost recognise these foreign na- 
 tions by tlieir mere names. Thus names like 
 Jladad. , Ben-hadad, Hadad-eter , ate quite strange 
 to tire Israelites, and refer, to the tribes to the E .'st 
 of Palestine, where a god natoed / Hadad was 
 worshipped,— H. v. E. 
 
 NAOMI, wife of Elimelech of Bethlehem, 
 anil mother-in-law of Ruth, in whose history hers 
 <> involved [Roth]. 
 
 NAPHTALI (^9513, my ivrestliny ; Sept. 
 NeepduAzlp), the sixth son of Jacob, and his second 
 
 the Arabs (of which Hasan and Husain , the sons 
 of Alt, are the readiest example) as among thp 
 Hebrews (cf. Geschichte des Volks Israel , i. 321). 
 Instances like Uzziel and IJzzi, 1 Chlon. vii. 7, 
 belong altogether 1 tcj this rule; as also Jishvah 
 and Jishvi (with '.he-' derivative syllable), G^n. 
 jrivi. 17. Father and eon also, for the same 
 season, bear names of similar sound. 
 
 by Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, born r.c. 1747, 
 in Padan- Aram. Nothing of his peisonal history 
 is recorded. In the testamentary blessing of Jacob 
 
 Naphtali is described as |niin nn-iV 
 "IBS? (Gen. xlix. 21), translated in the 
 
 Audi. iV era. *a bind let loose, he giveth goodly 
 words.! This sense is certainly that conveyed by 
 the pointed Hebrew text as it now^stands, and it is 
 substantially preserved in the Oriental ami Lath* 
 versions, and in theTargum of Jonathan. Gesenina 
 renders it, * Naphtali est cerva pvocera, eden* 
 veiba pulchra,’ i. c. pleasant, or persuasive words, 
 referring, he thinks, to some poetic or oratorical 
 talent, of this tribe, otherwise unknown. He vin- 
 dicates this, which is essentially the current ver- 
 sion, from the common objection, — How can words 
 lie ascribed to a hind? — by observing that the 
 * giving foitli ’ applies not to the hind but to Naph- 
 tali. The Sept, translators, however, must have 
 found the words rendered ‘hind’ and ‘words’ 
 different, for they render the verse, Ne^CcAel^ 
 ct*A tx os arei/j-irot/ imdi&ovs Iv tw yevrjfxare 
 &dAAor; and as this reading merely requires a 
 difference of points in the two Hebrew words ire 
 question, tlie idea here conveyed has been adopted 
 by tlie great Iwdy of modern interpreters, Boehart’s 
 version of it being generally followed: — *Neph- 
 tali tercbinthus patula, edens ratnos pulchrus.* 
 According to this leading the veise might be ren- 
 dered, ‘ Naphtali is a goodly tree [tthebinth or 
 oak] that puts forth lovely branches.’ We cer- 
 tainly incline to this view of the text; the me- 
 taphor which it involves being well adapted to the 
 residence of the tribe of Naphtali, which was a 
 beautiful woodland c#untry, extending to Mount 
 Lebanon, and producing fruits of every sort. 
 With this interpretation, better than with dh{} 
 other, agrees the blessing of Moses upon th& same 
 frihe : ‘>0 Naphtali, satislied with favour, and 
 full with the blessing of the Lord, possess thou the 
 west ami the south’ (Deut. xxxiii. 23). 
 
 When the Israelites quitted Egypt, the tribe of 
 Naphtali numbered 53,400 adult males (Num. 
 i. 43), which made it the sixth in population 
 among the tribes; but at the census taken in the 
 plains- of Moab it counted only 45,400 (Num. 
 xxvi. 50), being a decrease of 8000 in one gene- 
 ration, whereby it became the seventh in point 
 of numbers. The limits of the territory assigned 
 to this ti i be are stated in Josh. xix. 32-39, which 
 show .that it. possessed one iff the finest and most 
 fertile 'districts of Upper Galilee, extending- mure 
 the Lake Gennesaieth and the border of Zebulun, 
 on tlie south, to tlie sources of the Jordan and the 
 spurs of Lebanon on the north, and from the 
 Jordan, on the east, to the borders of Asher ore 
 the west. But it was someyvhat slow in acquiring 
 possession of the assigned territory (Judg. i. 33;. 
 The chief towns of the tribe were Kedesh, Hazor» 
 Harosheth, and Chinnereth, which last was alsre 
 the name of the great lake afterwards called 
 Gennesaieth.. In the Hebrew history Naphtali 
 is distinguished for the alacrity with which it 
 obeyed the call to arms against the oppressors of 
 Israel when many other tribes held back (Judg. 
 iv. 10; v. 18; vi. 35; vii. 23). In the time of 
 David the tribe had on 1 its rolls 37,000 men titt 
 for military service, armed with shields and spears* 
 under a Thousand officers (1 Chron. xii. 34). 
 NARCISSUS (Nd/McurtfoTl, a person of Uomcs, 
 
NATAF. 
 
 392 
 
 apparently 'of 9ome consequence. tQ the tiel levers 
 of whose household St. Paul sent his greetings 
 (Rom. xvi. 11). Many commentators have sup- 
 jwsed tliis person the sinie Narcissus who was 
 *he freed man and favourite of the Emperor Clau- 
 dius (Suet. Claud. 28; Tacit Annul, xii. I7) t 
 NATAF (►jOp occurs only once in Scripture, 
 and is translated ‘stacte* in the Authorized Ver- 
 sion (Exnd. xxx. 34). ‘And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, Take unto thee sweet spices, sacte (junta/), 
 and onycha, and galhanum ; these sweet spices 
 ivith pure i rank incense.’ ‘Thou shalt make it a 
 perfume after the art. of the apothecary ' (ver. 35). 
 2>ataf has been variously translated — balsam , 
 liquid sty rax, benzoin, costus, ma stick, bdellium. 
 Celsius is of opinion that it means the purest 
 kind of myrrh, called stacte by the Greeks [Mou], 
 He adduces Pliny as saying of the myrrh-trees, 
 ‘•Sudant sponte sfacten dictam,’ and remaiks, 
 
 * Ehraris ^03 Nathaf est stillare ’ — adding, as an 
 argument, that if you do not translate it myrrh 
 in this place, you will exclude myrrh altogether 
 from the sacred perfume. But Rosenmuller says, 
 
 * This, however, would not be s*iited for. the pre- 
 paration of the perfume, and it also has another 
 Hebrew name, for it is called mcr deror. But the 
 Gre.-ks also called stakte a species of Storax gum, 
 which Dioscorides describes as transparent like a 
 tear and resembling mvrrli. This agrees well 
 with the Hebrew name.* But Storax does hot 
 appear to us to be more satisfactorily proved 
 to be nataf than the former. The Arabs apply 
 
 the term tsj&bU to a sweetmeat composed of suga?,, 
 
 flour, and butter, in equal parts, with the addition 
 of aromatics. We have no meanqof determining 
 the question more accurately. — J. F. R. 
 
 NATHAN (jm, given ; Sept. Natfct*), a pro- 
 phet of the time of David. When that monarch 
 conceived the idea of building a temple to Jehovah, 
 the design and motives seemed to Nathan so good 
 that he ventured to approve of it without the Di- 
 vine authority ; but the night following he received 
 the Divine command, which prevented rlie king 
 from executing this great work (2 Sam. vii. 2, sq. ; 
 i Citron. xvii.). Nathan does not again appear 
 in the sacred history, till he comes forward in the 
 name of the Lord to reprove David, and to de- 
 nounce dire punishment for his frightful crime 
 in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba. This he 
 does by exciting the king’s indignation, and lead- 
 ing him to condemn himself, by recitjng to him 
 the very striking pa»able of the traveller and the 
 lamb. Then, changing the voice of a suppliant 
 for that, of a judge and a Commissioned prophet, 
 be exclaims, * Thou art the man!’ aini pro- 
 ceeds to announce the evils which were to cm- 
 Litter the remainder of his reign (2 Sam. xii. 1, 
 sq. ; comp. Ps. li.). The lamentations of the 
 repentant king drew forth some mitigation of 
 punishment; but the troubled history of the re- 
 mainder of his reign shows how completely God’s 
 righteous doom was fulfilled. The child con- 
 ceived ill adultery died; but when Batlisheba's 
 6econ.d son was bom, the prophet gave him the 
 name of Jedidiah (beloved uf Jehovah), although 
 Ire is better known by that of Solomon (2 Sam. 
 «ii.. 24, 25). He recognised in this young prince 
 tht successor of David ; and it was in a great 
 measure through his interposition that the design, 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 O t Adonijah to seize the crown was unsuccessful 
 (1 Kings i. 8, sq.). Nathan probably died soon 
 after the accession of Solomon, for bis name does 
 not again historically occur. It is generally sup- 
 posed that Solomon was brought up under his 
 care. His sons occupied high places in this 
 king’s court (1 Kings iv. 5). He assisted David 
 by his counsels when he re-organized the public 
 worship (2 Cbroo. xxix. 25); and he composed 
 annals of the times in which be lived i I Chron. 
 xxix. 29; 2 Chron. ix. 2 f U; but these have not 
 been preserved to us» In Zechariah (xii. 12) tho 
 name of Nathan occurs a9 representing t lie great 
 family of the prophets. 
 
 NATHANAEL given of God; Neve 
 
 Test. Na6avari\), a person of Cana* in Galilee, 
 tv ho, when informed by Philip that the Messiah 
 had appeared in the jx’rson of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 asked, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth 4* 
 But lie nevertheless accented Philip’s laconic in- 
 vitation, ‘ Come and see ! W hen Jesus saw him 
 corning lie said, ‘ Behold an Israelite indeed, in 
 whom is no guile.’ Astonished, to hear this fiom 
 a man to whom he supposed himself altogether 
 unknown, he asked, * Whence know est thou nie f C 
 And the answer, ‘ Before that Philip called thee, 
 when thou wast under the fig-tree, 1 saw thee,’ 
 wrought such conviction on his rnind that he at 
 once exclaimed, ‘ Rabbi, thou art the son of God ; 
 thou art the king of Israel ’ (John i. *45-51). It 
 is clear, -from the etl'cct, that Nathanael knew by 
 this that Jesus was snpernaturally acquainted 
 with his disposition and character, as the answer 
 had reference to the private acts of devotion, or to 
 the meditations which tilled his mind, wlietPpnder 
 the fig-tree in his garden. It is questioned whether 
 Jesus had actually seen Nathanael or not with 
 his bodily eyes. It matters not to the result ; but 
 the form of the words employed seems to suggest 
 that he had actually noticed him when under the 
 fig-tree, and had then cast a look through his 
 inward being. Passages from the rabbinical 
 liooks might Ire multiplied to show that the Jews 
 were in the habit of studying the law and medi- 
 tating on religious, subjects under shady trees 
 (comp. Tholuck, Commentar zum Johan, i. 49)i 
 It. is believed that Nathanael is the same as the 
 apostle Bartholomew. AH the disciples of Julia 
 the Baptist named in the first chapter of St. John 
 became apostles; and St.John does not name 
 Bartholomew, nor the other evangelists Nathanael 
 in the lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 3; Mark ii»„ 
 18; Luke vi. 14): besides, the name of Bartho- 
 lomew always follows that of Philip; anil it 
 would Xippear that Bartholomew (son of Thohnai) 
 is no mine than a surname [Bautholomkw]. 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. Many 
 obvious reasons incline us to suppose that the 
 small number of. mankind which divine mercy 
 spared from the extirpation of the Deluge, eight 
 persons, forming at the utmost five families, would 
 continue to dwell hear each other as long as the 
 utmost, stretch of convenience would permit them. 
 The undutiful conduct of Ham and his fourth 
 son cannot well fie assigned to a point of tithe 
 earlier than twenty or thirty years after the Flood. 
 So long, at least, family affection and mutual 
 interests would urge the children of Noah not to 
 break up their society. The dread of dangers, 
 ktuwu and unknown, and every day’s experiem* 
 
NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 of the benefits derived from mutual aid, would 
 strengthen other motives. It is evident from 
 Gen. xi. lU-16, that about 100 years, according 1 
 to the Hebrew text, were spent in this state of 
 family, propinquity, yet with a considerable 
 degree of) proximate diffusion, which necessity 
 would ur£e ; but the date3 of the Septuagint, 
 without including the generation of the post- 
 diluvian Cainan [see that article], give 400. 
 The well weighed computation of Proiessor Robert 
 Wallace, not yet. published, mjakesthe period 531 
 years. The Hebrew period can scarcely be ad- 
 mitted'.' but even that, much more the others, 
 will afford a sufficient time for such an increase 
 of mankind as would render an extensive out- 
 spread highly expedient. A crowded population 
 would be" likely to furnish means and incentives 
 to turbulence, on the one hand, and to some form 
 of tyranny on- the oilier. Many of the unoc- 
 cupied districts would become dangerously un- 
 wholesome, by stagnating waters and the accu- 
 mulation of vegetable ami animal putrescence. 
 The products of cultivation, and of other arts, 
 *vould have been acquired so slowly, as to have re- 
 tarded human improvement and comfort. Tardy 
 .expansion 3 would have failed to reach distant 
 regions, till many hundreds or thousands of years 
 - bad-run out. The noxious animals would have 
 multiplied immoderately. The religious obedi- 
 ence associated, by the Divine commapd, with 
 the possession and use of the earth, would have 
 been checked ami perverted to a greater degree 
 than the world’s bitter experience proves that it 
 actually has been. Thus, it may appear with 
 pretty strong evidence, that a dispersion of man- 
 kind was highly desirable to be in a more prompt 
 and active style than would haye been effected 
 by the impulses of mere conyenience and vague 
 inclination.. 
 
 i* That this dictate of reasonable conjecture was 
 realized in fact, is determined by the Mosaic 
 writings. Of the elder sou of Eber, the narrative 
 says, his * name was Peleg, because in his days 
 the earth was divided’ (Gen. x. 18); and this is 
 repeated; evidently as a literal transcript, in 1 
 Chron. i. 19. If we might coin a 'word to imitate 
 the Hebrew,- we might show the paronomasia by 
 saying, * the earth wa3 pelegged.' Some are of 
 opinion that, the event took place ahout the time of 
 Jtis birth, and that his birth-name was given to him 
 as a memorial of the transaction. But it was 
 the practice of probably all nations in the early 
 times, that j>ersons assumed to themselves, or im-. 
 posed upon their children and other connections, 
 new names at different epochs of their lives, de- 
 rived from coincident events in all the variety of 
 associated ideas. Of ihatVpractice many ex- 
 amples occur in the Scriptures. The conjecture 
 ; ts more probable that, in this instance, the name 
 was applied in the individual’s maturer age, and 
 on. account of some personal concern which he 
 had in the commencement or progress of the se- 
 paration. But the signification usually given is 
 oy no means a matter of indubitable certainty. 
 The verb octurs only in the two passages men- 
 tioned (strictly but one), and in Fs. Iv. 9, 
 
 * divide ' their tongues,’ and Job xxxviii. 25, 
 
 ‘ who hath divided a channel for the torrent ’ (pro- 
 duced by a heavy thunder-shower) ? Respectable 
 philologists have- disputed whether it refers at all 
 io a separation of mankind; and think that tho 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 39 Z 
 
 event which singularly marked Peleg s life was 
 an occurrence in physical geography, an earth- 
 quake, which produced a vast chasm, separating 
 two considerable parts of the earth, in or near !ne 
 district inhabited by men. That earthquakes and 
 dislocations of land have taken place in and 
 around that region, at various times before 
 the historical period, the present very different! 
 levels, and other results of volcanic agency, 
 afford ample proofs. The possibility , therefore, 
 of.some geological convulsion cannot be denied jj 
 or that it might have been upon a great scale, 
 and followed by important effects upon the con* 
 dition of mankind. 
 
 But neither the affirming nor the rejecting of 
 this interpretation of * the earth’s being divided,® 
 can affect the question upon the primeval separa- 
 tion and migratory distributions of men. Th<? 
 reasons which we have mentioned render it cer» 
 tain, that some such event, and successive events, 
 have taken place : and, without urging the pass- 
 age of disputed interpretation, it is evident that! 
 the chapters of Genesis x. and xi. assume the 
 fact, and may be considered as rather a summary 
 recognition of it than as a detailed account. Two 
 sentences are decisive (ch. ix. 19), ‘These are 
 the three sons of Noah, and from these all the 
 earth (fl^M) was scattered over.' This is the- 
 closest translation we can give. Gesenius assigns 
 to the verb a reilexive signification ; and thus if 
 would be well expressed in French by la terra 
 siest repandue or s'est distribuee . The other is 
 ch. x. 32, ‘These are the families of the sons of 
 Noah, [according] to their generations, in their 
 nations; and from these the nations (^T^SJ) were, 
 dispersed in the earth, after the Flood.’ Here 
 another verb is used, often occurring ::s the Old 
 Testament, and the meaning of which admits of 
 no doubt. We find it also at verse 5— ‘ From 
 these the isles of the nations were dispersed , ira 
 their lands, each [according] to its language, 
 [according] to their families, in their nations.® 
 We have an idiom perfectly similar in our mo- 
 dern language, when we say, the field is soim } lb? 
 the seed is sown in the field. 
 
 In the. latest composition of Moses is another 
 passage which, in this inquiry, must not be neg- 
 lected (Deut. xxxii. 8, 9) — * In the Most High’s 
 assigning abodes to the nations, in his dispersing 1 
 the sons of Adam, he fixed boundaries to the 
 peoples according to the number (1SDD, more 
 exactly, numeration ) of the sous of Israel : lbs 
 the assigned portion of Jehovah is his people; 
 Jacob, the iot of his inheritance.’ Of this 8th 
 verse the Septuagint translhtiun is remarkable ; 
 and it thus '"became the source of extraordinary 
 interpretations: ‘ When the Most High -appor- 
 tioned nations, when he scattered abroad the sons 
 of Adam, he fixed boundaries of nations accord- 
 ing to the number of the angels of God.’ Tlieie 
 might be a reading (£7 or E/ohim, instead of 
 Israel ), which would yield that meaning lYo«i ( 
 comparison with Job i.6; ii. 1 j xxxviii. 7. Abo the 
 Alexandrine translators might welcome a Colour- 
 able reason for the rendering, that it might haply 
 serve ' as a protection from the danger of the 
 Macedonico-Egyptian government, taking up the 
 idea that the Jews claimed a divine right of su- 
 premacy over all other nations. This heading, 
 however, gave occasion to the -Greek Fathers 
 (Justin Martyr, Grigen, Eusebius, &c.\ to maiij. 
 
094 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 tain the doctrine of a later Jewish origin, that 
 the grandsons of Noah being seventy, each was 
 the ancestor of a nation ; each nation having its 
 own language, derive 1 from the confusion of 
 Babel ; and each also its guardian-angel, set over 
 if by the Creator ; excepting the nation of Israel, 
 of which Jehovah himself was the Tutelary Deity. 
 In this notion a reader who is versed in the Bible' 
 sees the mixture of a little truth with great error. 
 That error of ancient heathen priest* and their 
 followers, of the Gnostics in the second anil third 
 centuries, and of some tnodern anti-superna- 
 turalists, involves that the God of Israel, the 
 Jehovah of the Old Testament, was an imaginary 
 being, a part of the national mythological ma- 
 chinery, and not the Ai.i.-Peiikect Supreme. 
 
 The accessory perplexities in this passage are 
 thus satisfactorily unravelled. The only leal 
 difficulty lies in its seeming to assert that the 
 nascent population was distributed info group? 
 with the express design of effecting* a numerical 
 correspondence with the Israelitish family eight 
 hundred years after. The names assigned to the 
 third degree, that is the sons (rather tribes or 
 nations) of, Noah’s three sons, are, Japhet four- 
 teen, Ham thirty-one, Shem twenty-five, making 
 ■seventy ; and the whole family of Jacob, when 
 it came to be domiciliated in Egypt, was seventy 
 (Gen. xlvi, 26; Exod. i. 5 ; Deut. x. 22). Some 
 have also fancied a parallel in the seventy eldere 
 (Exod. xxiv. 1, 9; Num. xi. 16. 24, 25; see also 
 Pictorial Palestine , Civil Histoiy, Index, article 
 Elders'). These puerilities might have been pre- 
 vented had men considered that "12DD does not 
 signify merely an arithmetical amount, but is 
 used to denote an exact narration (Judg. vii. 15). 
 The passage is in the highly poetical style of the 
 magnificent ode in which it occurs, and, reduced* 
 to plain terms; might be thus represented : * The 
 Almighty and Omniscient Jehovah has decreed, 
 and disjjosed all beings and events, *iu all time 
 and every place, upon a perfect system of mutual 
 relationship, every part of which corresponds to 
 every other : therefore, by his provident wisdom, 
 and power, he directed the movements ajid settle- 
 ments of all the tribes of men in such a manner 
 as would, after the lapse of a thousand years, 
 combine every agent and instrument, for putting 
 the Israelites into possession of tire country pro- 
 mised to their ancestors, and thereby demon- 
 strating them to be the peculiarly favoured people 
 of God.’' , ' ( ’ 
 
 We now come to the immediate subject of this, 
 article, the Dispersion of Nations . ■ 
 
 Under this or some similar, designation, it has 
 been the prevalent opinion that the outspreading , 
 which is the entire subject of Genesis, ch. £., and 
 the scattering narrated in ch. Xi. 1-9, refer to the 
 same event, the latter being included in the for- 
 mer description, and being a statement of the 
 ananner in which the separation was effected. 
 From this opinion, however, we dissent ; and our 
 conviction was formed solely from the perusal. 
 ,of the Scriptural narrative, before we were aware 
 (or in total forgetfulness) that Mr. Jacob Bryant 
 had long ago maintained the same opinion 
 {Ancient Mythology , vol. iv., 3rd ed., pp. 23-44, 
 92). An unbiassed reading of the text appears 
 most plain/y to mark the distinctness, in time and 
 character, of the two narratives. The first was 
 universal, regulated, orderly, quiet, end progrees- 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF* 
 
 ive : the second, local, embracing only a part of 
 mankind, sudden, turbulent, and attended wiiu' 
 marks of the Divine displeasure. 
 
 The former is introduced and entitled m these 1 
 words : — ‘Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; — these' 
 are the three sons of Noah ; and from them waV 
 the whole earth overspread.’ After the mentior* 
 of the sons of Japheth, it is added, ‘From thest 
 the isles of the nations were dispersed, in their, 
 lands, each to its language, to their families, us 
 their nations.’ A formula somewhat differing 
 is annexed to the descendants of Ham : f These 
 are the sons of Ham, [according] to their families; 
 to their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.* 
 The same phrase follows the enumeration of the 
 house of $hern : and the whole concludes with. 
 ‘These are the families of the sons of Noah, 
 [according] to their generations, in their nations ; 
 and from these the nations were dispersed in the 
 earth after the Flood’ (Gen. ix. 19; 5, 29, 
 
 31,32). 
 
 The second relation begins in the manner which 
 often, in the Hebrew Scriptures, introduces a nn\y 
 subject. We shall present it in a literality even 
 servile, that the reader may gain '.he most prompt 
 apprehension of the meaning. 4 And it was [co/j 
 ha-aretz] all. the earih (but with perfect pro-" 
 priety it miglit. be rendered the- whole land * 
 country , region , or district ) : lip one and words 
 one [t. e. the same, similar].' And it was in 
 their going forwards that they discovered a plain 
 in the country Shinar; and they fixed [their 
 abode) there.’ Then comes the narrative of their 
 resolving to build a lofty tower which' should 
 serve a9 a signal-point for their rallying*and le- 
 maining united. The defeating of this purpose 
 is expressed in the anthropomorphism, which is 
 characteristic of the earliest Scriptures, and wag 
 adapted to the infantile condition of mankiudj 
 ‘And Jehovah scattered them from thence upon' 
 the face of the whole earth [or land], and, they' 
 ceased to build the city' (ch. xi. 2-9; Anthro- 
 pomorphism, Babei., in this 0 work ; also J. Fyo 
 Smith’s Scnpture and Geology , lent, vii.^ where 
 this characteristic of primeval style is largely in- 
 vestigated). We shall here quote so much from 
 Mr. Bryant as appears to us supported by direct 
 evidence, or a high degree of probability. 
 
 Of Noah— ‘ We may suppose that his sons 
 showed him always great reverence; and, after 
 they were separated, and when he was no more, 
 that they still behaved in conformity to the rules 
 Which he established. But there was one family 
 * which seems to have acted a Contrary part. The 
 sons of Cush would not submit to the Divine dis- 
 pensation [in the dispersion of the families] : andi 
 Nimrod’, who first took upon himself regal state, 
 drove Ashur from his demesnes, and forced himr 
 to take shelter in the higher .parts of Mesopotamia- 
 The sacred historian, after this, mentions another 
 act of a rebellious purpose, which consisted in’ 
 building a lofty tower with a very evil intent. 
 Most writers have .described this and the former 
 event (Nimrod’s usurping conduct), as antecedent 
 to the migration of mankind : but it will be my 
 endeavour to show that the general migration was* 
 -not only prior, but from another part of the world. 
 
 I think that we may (from Gen. x. and x>-) oK, 
 serve two different occurrences which are gene-' 
 rally blended together. First, that there was a 
 formal migration of families to the several re.- 
 
NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 sfions appointed for them, according . to the deter- 
 mination of the C Almighty : secondly, that there 
 was a dissipation of others, who would not ac- 
 quiesce in the Divine dispensation. It is gene- 
 rally thought that the whole, of mankind is in- 
 cluded in this description (Gen. xi. I, 2). Hut 
 J am not certain that these words a fiord any 
 proof to this opinion. The passage, when truly 
 translated, does not by any means refer to the 
 whole of mankind. According to the original, 
 at is said indeterminately that, “ in the journey- 
 ing of people from the East, they found a plain, 
 9n the land of Shinar.” The purport of the whole 
 jxissage amounts only to this, that before there 
 v/as any alteration in the language of mankind , .3 
 Jmdy of people came .from the East fo the place 
 above specified. So that I am far from being 
 satisfied that the whole of mankind was engaged 
 an this expedition from the East. The Scripture 
 does not. seem to say so; nor can there be any. 
 reason assigned why they should travel so far 
 anerely to be dissipated afterwards. _ We have 
 s eason to think that, soon after .the descent from 
 tftie ark, the patriarch found himself in a tine and 
 fruitful country (as described by all the ancient 
 and modern authorities). Here I imagine that 
 3 he patriarch resided. The sacked writings men- 
 fiiors seemingly his taking up his abode for a long 
 Jime upon the spot. Indeed they do not afford 
 us any reason to infer that he ever departed from 
 it. The Very plantation of the vine seems to im- 
 |)ly a. purpose of residence. Not a word is said 
 <t)f the patriarch’s ever quitting^ the place; nor of 
 any of his sons departing from it till the general 
 migration J When mankind had ‘become very 
 riumerous, it pleased God to allot to the various 
 families different regions to which they were to 
 retire : and they accordingly, in the days of 
 Veleg, did remove and betake themselves to their 
 different departments. But the sons of Cush 
 would not obey. Th e y went oft' under ’the con- 
 duct of the arch-rebel Nimrod, and seem to have 
 ibeeii fora long time in a roving state; but at 
 last they arrived at the plains of Shinar. These 
 they found occupied by Ashur (ch. x. 11) and 
 iris sons ; for he had been placed there by divine 
 appointment. But they ejected him, and sejzed 
 upon his dominions. Their leader is often men- 
 tioned by the Gentile writers, who call him 
 Balus’ [Be/, Baal ; ‘not a name oft any particu- 
 lar person, but a title assumed by many, and of 
 different nations;’ Anc. Mythol. vol. vi. p. 260]. 
 * In the beginning of this history it ir said that 
 they journeyed from the East when they came to 
 the land of Shinar. This was the latter part of 
 iheir route ; and the reason of their coming in 
 Shis direction may, I think, be plainly shown. 
 The ark, according to the best accounts, both 
 sacred and profane, rested upon a mountain of 
 Armenia, called Minyas, Baris, Lubar, and 
 ^rarat.’ [See in this work Ararat, especially 
 j). 200, ana Ark ] .* Many families of the emi- 
 grants went probably directly east or west , in 
 co'usequence of the situation to which they were 
 appointed. But those who were destined to the 
 southern par*s of the great continents which they 
 were to inhabit, could not so easily and uniformly 
 proceed; there being but few outlets to their 
 place of destination. For the high Tauric ridge 
 and the Gordyaean mountains came between and 
 intercepted their due course,’ [Mr, Bryant ia- 
 
 NATION&, DISPERSION OF/ 395 
 
 v . 
 
 traduces evidence of the next to insurmountable 
 character of those mountains, which must have 
 been far more impassable in those early times than 
 now.] ‘i should therefore think that mankind must 
 necessarily, for some ages, have remained near the 
 place of descent, from which they did not depart 
 till the time of the general migration. Armenia 
 is. in great measure bounded either by the Pontic 
 Sea or by mountains : and it seems to have beet* 
 the purpose of Providence to confine the sons of 
 men to this particular region, to prevent their 
 roving too soon. Otherwise they might hav« 
 gone dll’ in small parties before the great families 
 were constituted. Many families were obliged 
 to travel more or less eastward^wha wanted Uj 
 come down to the remoter parts of Asia. The 
 Cushites [Culhites, Bryant, p. 246], who seem 
 to have been a good while in a roving state, migliJ 
 possibly travel to the Pylse* Caspisa before they 
 found an outlet, ju consequence of tin® the 
 latter part of their route must liave beers a 
 “journeying from the East.” I was surprised, 
 after 1 had formed this opinion from the natural 
 history of the country, to find it verified -by that 
 ancient historian Berosus/ [The Chaldsean his- 
 torian, contemporary with Alexander, a write® 
 apparently of fidelity and judgment, considering 
 his circumstances. Ql his work a few fragments 
 only are preserved by Josephus, Eusebius, and 
 other ancient writers. See a considerable num- 
 ber of these passages translated by Mr. Bryant^ 
 vol. iv. p. 123-137.] ‘ He mentions the route 0 $ 
 
 his countrymen from Ararat after the Deluge, 
 and says that it vvu3 not in a straight line; bu§ 
 the people had been instructed to take a circuit \ 
 and so descend to the regions of Babylonia. Ira 
 this manner the sons of Cush came to the plains 
 of Shinar, of which Babylonia was a part-, and 
 from hence they ejected Ashur, and afterwards 
 trespassed upon Elam in tire region beyond the 
 Tigris’ (Anc. Mythol. vol. iv. p. 21-34). 
 
 Mr. Bryant adduces reasons for believing that' 
 the confusion of speech Was a miraculously-iii-i 
 fiicted failure of the physical organs, producing 
 unintelligible pronunciation of one and the same 
 language; that it affected only the house of Cusls 
 and their adherents ; and that it was temporary, 
 ceasing upon their separation. He proceeds 
 * They seem to have been a very numtrons body *' 
 and, in consequence of this calamity, they ffeil 
 away ; not to any particular place of destination,’ 
 but were scattered abroad upon the face of the 
 whole, earth.” They had many associates, pro- 
 bably out of every family; apostates from the 
 truth, who had left the stock of their fathers and 
 the religion of the true God. For when Babe? 
 was deserted we find among the Cushites of 
 ChaTdaea some of the line of Shem (ch. xi. 28, 
 31), whom we could scarcely have expected t» 
 have met in such a society. And we may well 
 imagine that many of the branches of Ham were 
 associated in the same manner in confederacy 
 with the rebels : and some perhaps of every great 
 division into which mankind was separated’ (Ibi 
 pp. 3S-45). 
 
 Having thus removed, as we trust, the obstruc- 
 tions and obscurities, our .course will be plain and 
 brief in the consideration of our chief subject, the 
 first and properly so-called Dispersion of fa- 
 milies and tribes destined to form the cations of 
 the earth. 
 
336 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 ‘The most ancient history of the human race, 
 and the oldest composition perhaps in the world, 
 is a work in Hebrew ;’ of which the initial por- 
 tions (Gen. i., ii.) are 4 a preface to die oldest civil 
 history now extant ; we see the truth of them con- 
 firmed by antecedent reasoning, and byevidence in 
 part highly probable, and in part certain ; but the 
 connection of the Mosaic history with that of the 
 Gospel, by a chain of sublime predictions unques- 
 tionably ancient, and apparently fulfilled, must 
 " iduce us to think the Hebrew narrative more than 
 iiuman in its origin, and consequently true in 
 every substantial part of it ; though possibly 
 expressed in figurative language [referring to the 
 accounts of the creation and the fall]. It is no 
 longer probable only, but it is absolutely certain, 
 thal the whole race of man proceeded from Iran 
 [the proper and native name of Persia and some 
 connected regions], as from a centre, whence they 
 migrated at first in three great colonies ; and that 
 those three branches grew from a common stock, 
 which had been miraculously preserved in a gene- 
 ral convulsion and inundation of this glohe ’ (Sir 
 William Jones, On the Origin and Families of 
 Nations, Works, ed. by Lord Teignmouth. 8Vo. 
 iii. 191- 196). 
 
 (From the study of this interesting fragment of 
 antiquity, the following observations have pre- 
 sented themselves. 
 
 1. The enumeration comprises only nations ex- 
 isting in the age of Moses, and probably of them 
 only the most conspicuous, as more or less con- 
 nected with the history of the Israelites. Many 
 nations have been formed in subsequent times, 
 and indeed are still forming, by separation 
 and by combination ; these can be considered 
 Duly as included on the ground of long subse- 
 quent derivation. Such are the populations of 
 Eastern Asia, Medial and South Africa, America, 
 and Australasia. 
 
 2. It cannot be affirmed with certainty that we 
 ore here presented with a complete- Table of Na- 
 tions , even as existing in the time of Mdses. Of 
 t-’ach of the sons of Noah, it gives the sons : but of 
 flieir sons (Noairs great-grandsons) it is manifest 
 that all are not mentioned, and we have no pos- 
 sible means of ascertaining how many are omitted. 
 Thus, of the soii3 of Japheth. the line is pursued 
 only of Gomer and Javan ; Magog, Madai, Tubal, 
 Slesltech, and Tiras, are dropped without any 
 mention of their issue.; yet we have evidence that 
 nations cf great importance in the history of man- 
 kind have descended from them. Ham had four 
 sons : of three cf them the sons, or rather clannish 
 nr national descendants, are specified; but to - 
 frMmt, the fourth, no posterity is assigned. Shem 
 bad five sons, but the descendants of only two of 
 fhem are recorded. It cannot be supposed that 
 f.hose whose sequence is thus cut off, died without 
 children; for, as we shall presently see, nations 
 of great historical interest may be traced up to 
 them. V \ 
 
 3. The immediate descendants of Japheth, 
 Ham, and Shem are, except in the instance of 
 Nimrod and a few more, some of which are doubt- 
 ful, given by names not personal, but designative 
 of tribes or nations, or their countries. Thus, all 
 those terminating in the plural im , arid those spe- 
 cified by the' Gentilitian adjective, the Jebusite, 
 Hie Hivite. &c. 
 
 4. lu attaching the names of nations to those 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 here given, there is Sometimes a deep uncertainty. 
 Resemblances in orthographical appearanc e, or in, 
 similarity of sound, are not to be relied on alone 
 there must be accessory and confirmatory evidence 
 Oriental names possess a distinguished character of 
 unchangeableness ; a circumstance of which Dr- 
 Robinson has made important use in his Biblical 
 Researches in Palestine . On this ground, in- 
 ferences are pretty safe. But it is far otherwise 
 with names Known to us only through the me- 
 dium of the Greeks and Romans; for they were 
 in the habit of altering proper names, often with 
 wide licence, to a conformity with their own 
 tongues. For the investigation before us we have 
 an aid, invaluable both for its ample comprehen- 
 sion and its divine authority, in the account of 
 the traffic of Tyre (Ezek. xxvii.). 
 
 5. We are not warranted to suppose that the 
 families, or clans, or tribes, or however the groups 
 might ha”e been formed, migrated immediately 
 to their respective seats, by any sort of generul 
 breaking up. This would presuppose some kind 
 of compulsory enforcement, which neither the 
 nature of the case, nor any intimation -in the nar- 
 rative, warrants us to assume. We may rather 
 conceive that a diversity of movements took place* 
 excited by general conviction of duty and utility** 
 guided in a great measure hy patriarchal direc- 
 tions, and strengthened by circumstances which 
 would inevitably occur; such, on the one hand, 
 as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, local inunda- 
 tions, land-slips, proof of utiwliolesomeness in 
 marshy districts, the annoyance of winged insects 
 or other noxious animals — urging to depart from 
 disagreeable or dangerous places; and, on the 
 other hand, attractive peculiarities, new and more 
 convenient situations for pasturage, better soils for 
 the various kinds of agriculture, more pleasing 
 sites for dwellings, the formation of towns, and the 
 security of their inhabitants. It is also too pro- 
 bable that there were turbulent men, or those who 
 bad perpetrated crimes or occasioned offences, 
 who, with their families and adherents, would quit 
 hastily and travel as rapidly and as far as they 
 could. 
 
 6. The acts of separation and journeying would 
 have specific differences of im pulse ^and perform- 
 aivce; they would affect one party and another* 
 more or less, a3 to time, numbers, and rapidity of 
 movement. 
 
 7. Did this great measure, so important in its 
 influence upon the whole history of mankind* 
 originate in a pxvine command, given hy mira- 
 culous revelatiou ? Or, was it brought to pass 
 solely in the way of God’s universal providence* 
 to. which nothing is great, nothing is small- 
 operating by natural means upon the judgments* 
 wills, and actions of men as rational agents? 
 We think that we have not decisive reasons fo£ 
 adopting either side of this alternative. In fa- 
 vour of the former may be urged the necessity of 
 a supernatural authority to induce universal obe- 
 dience, the motive arising from the assurance oi 
 Divine guidance and protection, and the analogy 
 of the fact which took place 660 years after (cor- 
 rected chronology, but, according to the presen' 
 Hebrew text, only 176); f The. Lfird had said 
 unto Abram, Get thee outjjf thy country, unto ft 
 land which I will show thee’ (Gen. xii. 1), Oa 
 behalf of the latter supposition it is to be reco? 
 lected, that all events are <?4uai]y providential. 
 
NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 fft&a't ©6(1 rules by his unseen and too often tin* 
 acknowledged influence upon the free actions of 
 his creatines, no less than by any supernatural 
 disclosure of his will ; that, in this case, the in- 
 spired record is silent upon such a disclosure ; 
 that the ordinary plan of the Divine government 
 is ’fully adequate to all the effects ; and that the 
 language upon which we have before commented, 
 (Dent, xxxis. 8) is completely applicable to that 
 ordinary .course of events by which * the Most 
 High God ruleth in the kingdom of men,’ and 
 
 wurketh all things according to the counsel of 
 his otm will' (Dan. v. 21 ; Ephes. i 11). 
 
 We have now only to place the enumeration 
 of nations before our readers, having availed our- 
 selves of the labours of Bocliavf, J. D. Michaelis,' 
 tl»e younger RosenmUller, Gesenius, Robinson, 
 and Baunigarten. 
 
 1. Sous of Japheth, the lapetus of the Greeks. 
 
 1. Gomer. This name is traced in the Kim- 
 nierii of Homer and Herodotus; the Gomares 
 {Top-aptis, Josephus, Antiq. i. 6), whence Kelts, 
 Gauls, Galatians; the Kymry; all the Celtic 
 and Iberian tribes, Welsh, Gaelic, Irish, Breton ; 
 $i?e Cimmerian Bosphorus, Crimea. 
 
 Sons of Gomer:— 
 
 !. Ashkenaz. Axeni, inhabifatits of the south- 
 ern coasts of the^Euxine Sea, where we find a 
 country Askania, and a river Askauius, and a 
 large part of Armenia ; the Basques in the north 
 of Spain ; the Saxons, as the Jews interpret Ash- 
 kenaz, in Jer. li. 27, to be Germany. 
 
 2. Riphath (Biphath, 1 Chron. i. 6, a permu- 
 tation of D and R. not unexampled). RhTou, 
 east of the Euxine ; Tobata and other parts of 
 Paphlagonia ; Croatia ; the Riphsean mountains, 
 a very obscure name in ancient geography (Strabo, 
 Virgil, Pliny, Mela), referring probably to thj 
 great chains of mountains from the north of Asia 
 tyestwards (Hyperboreeaus, Steph. Byzant.), and 
 therefore including vague knowledge ©f the 
 Uralian, Hartz, and Alpine regions. 
 
 3. Xogarmali. Peoples of Armenia and other 
 parts of the Caucasian region. The Armenian 
 traditions assign as their ancestor Haiki the son 
 of Torgom and grandson of Noah. 
 
 si. Magog. In Ezekiel this seems to be «3ed 
 ■a'SAthe name of a country, and Gog that of it3 
 chieftain. The Mongoles, Moguls; the great 
 Tartar nation. 
 
 ■iii. Madah The Medes; people of Iran, to 
 whom the Sanscrit language belonged ; primeval 
 inhabitants of Hindustan. 
 
 iv. Javan. The Greek 3} Asiatic and Euro- 
 pean. laones (Horn. Z/.-xui; 685). 
 
 Sons of Javan : — 
 
 1. Elisha. Greeks' especially of the Pelopon- 
 ti&iif; Hellas ; Elis', in which is Alisium (’AAef- 
 o'iOVi II. ii. 617). 
 
 2. Tarshish. The east coast of Spain, where 
 the Phoenician Cahaaiiite3 afterwards planted 
 their colony. 
 
 3. Kittim. Inhabitants of the isles and many 
 of the coasts of the Mediterranean,, particularly 
 She .Macedonians and the Romans, and those far** 
 \het toihe west: 
 
 4. Dodaisim (Rhodanim, 1 Chron. i. 7), Do- 
 doma, a colony from which probably settled at 
 the months of the Rhone, Rhodanus. 
 
 To this Javanian (Ionian) branch is attributed 
 the peopling of * the jsle3 of the nations’ % 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 597 
 
 ft frequent Hebrew denomination of llie westera 
 countries to which the Israelites, Tyrians, Egyp- 
 tians, &c., bad access by sea. 
 
 11. Sons of Ham. The word signifies heat or 
 hoty alluding to the climes which the most of his 
 posterity were to occupy : it was also an indi- 
 genous nam* of Egypt. 
 
 i. Cush. The Ethiopians, first on the Arabian, 
 side of the Red Sea, then colonizing the African 
 side, and subsequently extending indefinitely to 
 the west, so that Cushite (Jer. xiii. 23) became 
 the appellative of a negro. 
 
 Sons of Cush : — • 
 
 1. Seba Joined with Mizraim and Cush (Isa. 
 xliii. 3), evidently denoting contiguity and affi- 
 nity. This tribe or class is probably referred to 
 Siiba, a native name of Meroe upon the Nile, in 
 the farthest south of Egypt, or the beginning of 
 Ethiopia. 
 
 2. Havilah. Of this word vestiges are found 
 in various names of places in Western Arabia, 
 and the adjacent parts of Africa. It is quite 
 distinct from the Havilah (cb. ii. 11) in or near 
 Armenia, and probably from another (v.er. 29) in 
 Arabia, unless we suppose a union of tribes, or 
 one succeeded by the other. 
 
 3. Sabtah. Sabota or Sabbatha is the name 
 of an ancient trading town of Arabia. 
 
 4. Raamah, flDlH, Sept. Rhegma (Alex. Rhe~ 
 gehmd), which, changing e into??, is the name of 
 a port which the vEgypto- Greek geographer Clau- 
 dius Ptolemy (who flourished in the earlier part of 
 the second century) places on the Arabian coasc 
 of the Persian Gulf. To this place Dr. Baum- 
 garten (Kiel, 1843) refers the name : others take 
 it to be Reams, a town of considerable importance 
 in the south-western part of Arabia the Happy* 
 whose inhabitants are remarkably black ; men- 
 tioned along with Sheba in Ezek. xxvii. 22, as as 
 •place of rich Oriental traffic. 
 
 Two sons of this Raamah are mentioned, Sheba 
 ami Dedan. We find these in the subsequent 
 Scriptures distinguished for trade and opulence^ 
 (Ps. Ixxii. 10, 23;. 1 King3 x. 2; Isa. Ix. d; 
 Ezek. xxvii. 15, 20,22). They both He in the 
 western part of Arabia. The queen of Sheba 
 came to the court of Solomon. Dedan is not 
 improbably considered as the origin of Aden, 
 that very ancient sea-port and island at the mouth 
 of the Arabian Gulf of Red Sea. which has very 
 recently risen into new importance. 
 
 5. Nimrod, an individual [Nim^odT. He 
 
 built, besides Babel, his metropolis, three cities 
 or towns in the great plain of Sliiuar— Erecl\ 
 Accad, and Cal neb. These were probably 
 _Aracca or Arecha on the Tigris (some think 
 ; Edessa) ; Sacada, near the continence of the Ly- 
 cos and the Tigris ; and the third (Calno, Isa. 
 x. 9) Chalonitis of the Greeks, afterwards called 
 Ctesiphon: but much obscurity lies upon these 1 
 conjectures. ’ f 
 
 ii. Mizraim, literally tne ‘tivo Egypts , the 
 upper and the lower : each was called Misr , a 
 word even now vernacular in that country. Of 
 liis descendants seven are specified , under plural 
 national name?, some of which are well ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 1. Ludim. Ludites, celebrated as soldier? 
 pnd archers (Isa. Ixvi. 19; Jer. xlvi. 9 ; Ezek. 
 xxvii. 10 ; xxx. 5), and in those passages con® 
 ijected with other peoples known t© be African. 
 
NATIONS. DISPERSION OF. 
 
 o23 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 The Ludim probably lay towards Ethiopia. 
 They must nut be confounded with the Lydians 
 of Asia Minor (vcr. 22). Mr. William John 
 Hamilton, in his recent very valuable Researches 
 
 Asia Minor , Pontus, and Armenia , annexes 
 the following paragraph to liis account of the few 
 remaining ruins of Sardis, 4 the ancient capital of 
 Lydia : — 
 
 ‘ It was my intention to have added some 
 observations on the early traditional history of 
 Lydia, and, following the plan of an interesting 
 work by the Abbe Guerin du Roelier, on the 
 fabulous history of Egypt, to show how that of 
 Lydia might also he divested of many of the in- 
 consistent fables with which it has been clothed 
 by Herodotus and other ancient historians. I 
 wished to have shown that Manes, the first king 
 pf Lydia, was no other than Noah ; that Lydus, 
 flie grandson of Manes, was Lud, the grandson 
 of Noah; and. particularly with regard to the j 
 touch involved question of the Tyrrhenian emi- 
 gration of the Lydians, that the whole account is 
 a confused and perverted narrative, founded on 
 the real emigration of another Tyrrhenus,. viz, 
 Abraham the son of Terah, with the account of 
 which, in the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of 
 Genesis, the Lydian emigration coincides in every 
 imjiortant respect. I have found, however, that 
 the development of this view would extend to a 
 greater length than 1 had anticipated ; and I am 
 therefore compelled to defer the consideration of 
 it to a future opportunity’ (vol. ii. p. 383). - 
 
 2. Ananim. Very uncertain. Bochart sup- 
 
 poses them to have been wandering tribes about 
 the temple of Jupiter Ammon, where was an an- 
 cient people calletf Nasamones. ' 
 
 3. Lehabim. Perhaps inhabitants of a coast- 
 district immediately west of Egypt. Probably 
 Jhe Luhim (2 Chron. xii. 3 ; Nahum iii. 9). 
 
 .4. Pathrusinu. The people of the Thebaid 
 (Patliros) in Upper Egypt. ■ > • ■ • * 
 
 - 5. ‘ Casluhim, out of whom came Phimtim.* 
 A people on the north-east coast' of Egypt, of 
 whom the Philistines, were a colony, probably , 
 Combined with some ot the Caphtorirn. 
 
 6. Caphtyrim. Inhabitants of the island Cy- 
 
 # r V. 8 ; '• *. '..-A* 
 
 iii. Phut. This word occurs in two or three 
 jjpassages besides, always in connection with Africa. 
 Josephus and Pliny mention an African river, 
 Phutes.' The great modem archajologist geo- 
 grapher, Ritter, says that hordes of peoples have 
 been poured out of Futa, in the interior of Africa. 
 
 * iv. Canaan. .His descendants came out of 
 Arabia,' planted colonies in Palestine, and gra- 
 dually possessed themselves of the whole country. 
 
 His children or posterity : — 
 
 1. Sidon, his first-born, founded the city of 
 Jhat name. v 
 
 2. Heth, the ancestor of the Hittites. The re-, 
 mairiing nine are well known, ami are here laid 
 down in the singular of the patronymic, or patrial 
 adjective — the Jebusite, the Emorite (Amorite), 
 .the Girgashite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, 
 ihe Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. 
 All are assigned to Palestine, and the boundaries 
 pf the country are precisely laid down. , 
 
 III. Shew, though here introduced last, is de- 
 clared to be the eldest of the three brothers. The 
 reason of this order evidently is the design of the 
 .historian to. pursue the line of the favoured 
 
 people which the Divine Sovereign would raifrf 
 up in the posterity of Shein, and in which, * when 
 the fulness of the time should come,* * dl th« 
 families of the earth should be blessed.* 
 
 Children of Shem : — ^ 
 
 i. Elam. The ancestor of the Elamites or 
 Elymaeans, who possessed Elymais, a region be- 
 tween Susiana and Media, now called Khusistan. 
 The Japlietian Persians afterwards entered that 
 region and gained the ascendancy, and subse- 
 quently they were comprehended under the uame 
 of Elam. 
 
 ii. Ashur, the ancestor of the Assyrians. 
 
 iii. Arphaxad, a personal name in the Ahra- 
 hamic line. The word, a remarkable compound, 
 probably denotes Neighbouring to the Chasdim, 
 i. e. ChaldEeans. The name appears in Arrha • 
 pachitis , a province in Northern Assyria, the 
 primitive seat of* the Chasdim, and near to which, 
 or in it, Abraham was born. 
 
 -- Children of Arphaxad : — 
 
 These are chiefly personal, and contribute to 
 form the sacred pedigree which leads to the Mes- 
 siah.' In this line are mentioned two grandsons, 
 Peleg, of whom we have treated before, and 
 ■, - Eber. The only circumstance that we can 
 attach to him is the very important one (which 
 seems therefore to imply something extraordinary 
 in his personal history) of being the origin of the 
 name Kbrew, or as it is commonly written, on 
 account of the y, Hebrew , the ‘ancient and uni-? 
 versal name* of the nation, including Abraham 
 himself (see Ewald’s IJebr. Gramm., translated 
 by i)r. Nicholson, p. 2, and our article Her eh). 
 
 Joktan. Universally acknowledged to be the 
 father of the numerous tribes of Arabs in Yemen , 
 Arabia the Happy, 60 called on account of it* 
 spices and other rich products, and to distinguish 
 it from the Rocky and the Desert; Of the foun- 
 ders of those tribes thirteen are specified. The 
 first i3 evidently Modad , with the Arabic article; 
 the second is Shaleph ; and Ptolemy mentions a 
 people of interior Arabia, the Salapeni.. Ilatzar - 
 maveth is a fruitful district on the 6outh coast, 
 which still bears exactly the same name. That 
 name signifies the Enclosure, Gate, or Court of 
 Death, on account of its insalubrity, arising from 
 the great abundance and mixture of powerful 
 odours. Jerach signifies the moon ; and on the west 
 of this region i3 a gold-producing tract, in which 
 are the Mountains of the Moon, which yet must he 
 distinguished from a group in East Africa, very 
 imperfectly known, and called also by Orientals 
 the Backbone of the World. Hadoram, the Adra- 
 mites of Ptolemy and Pliny, on the south coast. 
 Uzal, mentioned in Ezek. xxvii. 19, which should 
 be translated ‘ Yedan and Javan [perhaps Ye- 
 men ?] from Uzal.' The ancient name of a prin- 
 cipal city of Yemen, now Sanaha. Obal (Ebal 
 in 1 Chron. i. 22), unknown. Abimael, unknown; 
 the meaning is, my father Mael , and Bochart 
 adduces the Mali of Theophrastus and the Minaei 
 of Strain), a tribe or tribes in Arabia, as possibly 
 intended. Sheba, probably indicating an inva- 
 sion of this tribe upon the Cushite Sheba and 
 Dedan, Gen. x. 7, and 6ee xxv. 3. From such 
 mixtures much embarrassment often arises in 
 ethnography. • Sheba and Seba (x. 7) are often 
 mentioned in the Old Testament as seats of great 
 riches and traffic. Ophir, undoubtedly referring 
 to the sea-port in South Arabia, eg celebrated fu 
 
NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 
 
 ■Its tralrir. in gold, jewellery, and fine woods. 
 The same name was probably given to places in 
 India and East Africa, to which the mercantile 
 chips of this Arabian Ophir resorted. A part of 
 the south coast of Arabia is called Oman, and in 
 it is a town cal led El-Ophir, with the article. 
 Ilnvilah : perhaps the Cushite settlers were in- 
 vaded by this Joktanite tribe. Jobab : Ptolemy 
 /mentions a people, Iobaritcs , on the esst coast of , 
 Arabia. The r may be a mistake, or a, dialectic 
 .variety, for b. ° 
 
 These tliirteen tribes seem to have formed the 
 confederacy of the independent and unconquer- 
 able Arabs, whose peninsular, desert, and moun- 
 tainous country defended them from invasion : 
 Isliniael and his descendants were united with 
 them. U 
 
 Our text concludes with describing a boundary 
 line for the country of these tribes ‘from Mesha 
 to Sephar." The former is probably the country 
 iWaishou or Mesene, at the north-west head of the i 
 Persian Gulf; and the latter, on the south-west 
 coast of Arabia, where is found a Mount Sabber. 
 
 iv. Lud. From him the Lydians in Asia 
 Minor derived their name. 
 
 v. Aram. From him the inhabitants of Syria," 
 Chalonitis, and a considerable part of Mesopo-. 
 tamia. 
 
 Children or posterity of Aram : — 
 
 1. Uz. In the northern part of Arabia, border- 
 ing upon Chaldaea : the land of Job. 
 
 2. Hul. The large flat district in the north of 
 Palestine, through which lies the initial course of 
 the Jordan, even now called the Land of Huleb, 
 and in which is the. Lake Hfileh, anciently Me*- 
 Torn, amply .illustrated by Dr. Robinson, Re- 
 searches, iii. 339-357. 
 
 3. Getber. East of Armenia ; Carthara was a 
 •city on the Tigris. 
 
 4. Mash. A mountain region branching east- 
 wards from tlie great Taurus ridge : the Masian 
 .mountains of the Greeks and Romans. 
 
 These are the results of our own endeavours in 
 the study of this intricate and frequently obscure 
 subject. But we are bound, in concluding, to 
 state that Sir William Jones, whom all will ad- 
 mit to have been a scholar of the highest, order, 
 sind mme comjietent than most men to vanquish 
 the difficulties of this investigation, proposed a 
 theory very dill'erenf, chiefly with respect to the 
 (family of Ham. He has himself given a lumi- 
 nous summary of his views, and we cannot do 
 Letter than transcribe it. 
 
 ‘ It seems to follow, that the only human family 
 after the flood established themselves in the north- 
 ern parts of Iran; that, as they multiplied, they 
 were divided into three distinct branches, each 
 (retaining little at first, and losing the whole by 
 degrees, of their common piimary language, but 
 agreeing severally on new expressions fpr new 
 ideas ; that the branch of Y^ket was enlarged in 
 many scatfeied shoots over the north of Europe 
 and Asia, d'iFusing themselves as far as the 
 western and eastern seas, and at length," in the 
 infancy of navigation, beyond- them both ; that 
 they cultivated no liberal arts, and had no use of* 
 Jeffers, but formed a variety of dialects, as their 
 tribi*a were variously ramified; that, secondly,, 
 toe children of Ham, who founded in Irin itself 
 the monarchy of the first Chaldeans, invented 
 tetters, ol served and named the luminaries of the 
 
 NATIONS, DISPERSION OF. 393 
 
 firmament, calculated the known Indian period 
 of 432,000 years, or 120 repetitions of the saros, 
 and contrived the old system of mythology, 
 partly allegorical and partly grounded on idola- 
 trous veneration for their sages' and lawgivers; 
 that they were dispersed, at various intervals and 
 in various colonies, over land and ocean ; that 
 the tribes of Misr, Cush, and Rama settled in 
 Africa and India, while some of them, having 
 improved the art of sailing, passed from Egypt, 
 Phoenice, and Phrygia, into Italy and Greece; 
 which they found thinly peopled by formee 
 emigrants [Japhefians ?], of whom they sup-; 
 planted some tribes and united themselves wit 
 others ; whilst a swarm from the same hive moved, 
 by a northerly course into Scandinavia, and an- 
 other, by the head of the Oxus and through the 
 passes of the Imaus, into Cashgar and. Eighor, 
 Khata and Khofen, as far as the territories of 
 Chin and Tanciit [an ancient division of China j, 
 where letters have been used and arts, immemu- 
 rially cultivated ; nor is it unreasoiiable to believe 
 that some of them found their way from the 
 eastern isles info Mexico and Peru, where traces 
 were discovered of rude literature and mythology 
 analogous to those of Egypt and India ;* tltar, 
 thirdly, the old Chaldean empire being over- 
 thrown by the Assyrians under Cayumers, othps 
 migrations took place, especially into India, 
 while the rest of Shem s progeny, some^of whotrs 
 had before settled on the Red Sea, peopled the 
 whole Arabian peninsula, pressing close on the 
 nations of Syria and Phtenice; that, lastly, from 
 all the three families were detached many boh! 
 adventurers of an ardent spirit and a roving dis- 
 position, who disdained subordination, and wan- 
 dered in separate clans till they settled in distant 
 isles or in deserts and mountainous regi ot is : that, 
 on the whole, some colonies might have migrated 
 before the death of their venerable progenitor, 
 but. that states and etnpiies could 6carce have 
 assumed a Tegular form till 1509 or 1600 year® 
 before the Christian epoch ;f and that, for the 
 first thousand years of that period, we have no 
 history unmixed with fable, except that of the 
 turbulent and variable, but eminently distin- 
 guished, nation descended from Abraham.’ — Dis- 
 course on the Origin and Families of Nations r 
 Works, iii. 201. ' 
 
 Dr. Charles Von Rolfeck, Professor bf Juris- 
 prudence in the University of Frieburg, published 
 in 1826, the ninth and last volume of A Genera^. 
 History of the World. This work hasibeen ye- 
 ceived in Germany with great favour. It cer- 
 tainly contains proofs of extensive reading atlil;’ 
 eminent talents ; but we think also of a preclpi-; 
 tate judgment and dashing boldness, an aiming- 
 at pungency which often creates afl'ectatiun, and 
 a watchful habit, like that of Hume and Voltaire, 
 of aiming a sly stab at revealed religion. Book®- 
 
 * How would Sir William Jones have beets, 
 delighted, and have felt hi3 argument strength- 
 ened, had he known of the massive ruins lately 
 brought to our knowledge, by Stephens and 
 Qthers, in Central America ! 
 
 The recent disclosures of paintings and uten- 
 sils in the Egyptian tombs and temples reqdire a 
 much higher assignment of established govern- 
 ments, mechanical arts, and great bombinatiousi 
 yf science and power. 
 
400 NAZARENE. ’ 
 
 having tliese qualities, especially if they possess 
 ®ome unquestionable excellences and an attrac- 
 tive style, as Rotteck's do, are sure to find readers 
 and approvers. It is manifest that he is far 
 better acquainted with the Greek and Roman 
 writers, and theatfairs to winch they depose, than 
 with the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, the 
 doctrines which they teach, and the information 
 which they afford. In one word, he is a disbe- 
 liever in any revelation of fact, truth, or duty, 
 jnjsitively from God, or in any other way than by 
 the reason and genius of man. He maintains it 
 to be a character of 4 the scientific inquirer,’ that 
 ‘he rejects every theory of the population of the 
 earth, which is confined to the sons of Noah ; and 
 he knows that, in the time of those sons, or their 
 nearest descendants, according to Moses’s repre- 
 sentation, already nations ami kingdoms actually 
 existed in Asia and Africa, which therefore 
 originated not from the posterity z* Nouh:V 
 and he adds, ‘these last may indeed have sent 
 colonies among those nations, perhaps, also, have 
 occasioned the foundation of some new states; 
 but they were not the only founders of them * 
 •(Gen. Hist. i. 63. Eng. transl.). Further, Von, 
 Rotteck intimates more than an inclination to 
 reject the belief of the descent of mankind from 
 any one common ancestor ; founding that rejection 
 ‘especially upon the striking generic difference 
 of the principal race3 of our species ; and that in 
 particular the attention of the thinker is claimed 
 with perfect justice by the doctrine of three such 
 principal races, viz., 1, the Europaeo-Arabian or 
 Caucasian; 2, the Mongolian; 3, the ./Ethiopian 
 or Negro tribe’ (p. 65). 
 
 Thus, as is the manner of the infidel school, 
 assuming what he ought, to have proved, but of 
 which he brings no proof, this author seeks to fix 
 his insinuated conclusion in the- unwary mind. 
 
 Jin the alienee therefore of counter-evidence, 
 v/eadhere to the conclusion, that the whole human 
 population has descended from Noali a second 
 ancestor, as is plainly affirmed in the pristine 
 records to which we believe ourselves warranted 
 to attribute a divine authority. For ihe phy- 
 siological part of the argument, we appeal to the 
 researches of the late venerable Blumenbach, Dr. 
 Prichard in his elaborate volumes on this subject, 
 the notes in J. Pye Smith's Scripture and Geo- 
 logy, and a dissertation by Samuel Forrey, M. D., 
 entitled, The Mosaic Account of the Unity of the 
 Human Race confirmed by the Natural History 
 *f the American Aborigines , in the American 
 JSiblical Repository , Julv, 1843. — J. P. S. 
 
 NAVIGATION. [Ship.] 
 
 NAZARENE. an epithet constituting a part 
 uf one of the names given to our Lord. There are 
 two nearly similar Greek words connected with 
 this designation — N a£apriv6s and NaCvpaTos — both 
 derived from Nafaped, Nazareth, the place of 
 the Saviour’s childhood and education. These 
 two Greek words occur in the New Testament 
 19 times; out of these instances two only are 
 rendered Nazarene (Matt. ii. 23 ; Acts xxiv. 5); 
 the rest are represented by the words ‘of Naza- 
 reth thus, ‘ Jesus of Nazareth’ (Matt. xxi. .11; 
 Luke iv. 34 *, John xviii. 5 ; Acts ii. 22). From 
 ihe number of times that the epithet is employed 
 it appears that it became at the very first an 
 (appellation of our Lord, and was hence applied 
 W designate hia followers. Considering that the 
 
 NAZARITE. 
 
 name was derived from the place where Jesua 
 resided during the greater part of his life, we sea 
 no reason to think that at first it bore with it, in iis 
 application to him or his followers, anything ot 
 ' an offensive nature. Such a designation was in 
 this case natural and proper. In process of time, 
 . however, other influences came into operation. 
 Nazareth was in Galilee, a part of Palestine 
 which was held iridisesteem for several reasons : — 
 its was a provincial dialect.; lying remote from 
 the capital, its inhabitants spoke a strange 
 tongue, which was rough, harsh, and uncouth, hav- 
 . ing peculiar combinations of words, and words 
 also peculiar to themselves (Buxtorf, Lez. Tal - 
 \ mud i Mark xiv. 70) ; its population was im- 
 pure, being made up not unly of provincial 
 , Jews, but also of heathens of several sorts, Egyp- 
 tians, Arabians, Phoenicians (Strabo, Geog. xvi. 
 523); its people were in an especial manner given 
 to lie seditious, which quality of character they 
 not rarely displayed io the capital itself on occa- 
 fsiouof the public festivals (Josephus, Wetstem, 
 as cited in Schleusner, s. v. ra\t\dios) ; whence 
 may be seen the point of the accusation made 
 against Paul, as * ringleader of the sect of Na- 
 zarenes’ (Acts xxiv. 5). As Galilee was a despised 
 part of Palestine, so was Nazareth a despised 
 s part of Galilee, being a small, obscure, if not 
 mean place. Accordingly Us inhabitants were 
 held in little consideration by other Galileans, 
 and, of course, bv those Jews who dwelt in Judaea. 
 Hence the name Nazarene came to bear with it a 
 bad odour, and wap nearly synonymous with a 
 low, ignorant, and uncultured, if not un-JewisJ» 
 person (Kuinoeljin Matt. ii. 23). It became ac 
 cordiugly a contemptuous designation and a term 
 of reproach (Wetsfeiu, in Matt. ii. 23, 26, 71), 
 and as such, as well as a mere epithet of descr ijj- 
 tion, it is used ip the New Testament. — J. R. B. 
 
 NAZARITE. .This word is derived from the 
 Hebrew "1T3, which,, signifies to ‘separate one's- 
 self;’ and as such separation from ordinary ]if& 
 to religious puqioses must he by abstinence of 
 some kind, so it denotes ‘ to refrain from anything/ 
 Hence the import of the term Nazarite — one, that 
 is, w.ho, by certain acts of self-denial, consecrated 
 himself in a peculiar manner to the service, wor- 
 ship, and honour of God. 
 
 We are here, it is clear, in the midst of a sphere 
 of ideas totally dissimilar to the genius of the 
 Christian system ; a sphere of ideas in which the 
 outward predominates, in which self-mortification 
 is held pleasing to God, and in which man's 
 highest service is not enjoyment with gratitude, 
 but privation with pain. 
 
 It may be questioned, if at least so much of 
 this set of notions a3 supposes the Deity to he. 
 gratified and conciliated by the privations of his 
 creatures, is in harmony with the idea3 of God 
 which the books of Moses exhibit, or had their 
 origin in the law he promulgated. The manner 
 in which bespeaks on the subject (Num. vi. 1-21 ) 
 would seem to imply that he was not introducing 
 a new lav/, but regulating an old custom ; for his 
 words take for granted, that the subject was gene- 
 rally and well known, and that all that was needed 
 was such directions as should bring existing ob- 
 servances into accordance with the Mosaic ritual, 
 W iner, indeed, sees, ip the minuteness and particu- 
 larity of the Mosaso regulations, a proof that the 
 
NAZARITE. 
 
 NAZARI1E. 
 
 40 1 
 
 Nazarite vow was of home origin in Mosaism ; an 
 argument whose force we cannot discern, for a 
 foreign practice, once introduced, must of neces- 
 sity he conformed to its new abode. 
 
 It is not least among the merits of Judaism that 
 in general it is eminently of a practical character. 
 Though admitting a multitude of observances, 
 some of which, being of a very minute kind, and 
 relating to every-day life, must have been trouble- 
 some, if not vexatious, yet the ordinary current 
 of existence was allowed to run on unimpeded ; 
 energy was not directed from its proper channel ; 
 and life was spent in the active discharge of 
 timse offices which human wants require, and by 
 which human happiness may be best, advanced. 
 Tier-, was no Indian self-renunciation; there was 
 no monkish isolation ; yet the vow of the Nazarite 
 shews that personal privations were not unknown 
 in the Mosaic polity. This vow we regard as an 
 instance and an exemplification of that asceti- 
 cism which, wherever human nature is left free 
 to develope itself, will always manifest its ten- 
 dencies and put forth its effects. No age, no 
 nation, no religion has been without asceticism. 
 Self-mortification is, with some minds, as natural 
 as self-enjoyment with others. The proneness to 
 ascetic practices is a sort of disorder of tempera- 
 ment. It is in part a question of original con- 
 stitution. As some individuals are inclined to 
 melancholy, to brood over their own states of 
 mind, so they tend to become morbid in their 
 feelings, intensely self-dissatisfied, over-thought- 
 ful, full of personal solicitudes; then gloomy; 
 then still more dissatisfied with themselves, till, 
 at length they are led to think that nothing but 
 severe mortifications and self-inflicted penalties 
 can atone for their guilt, and placate a justly 
 offended God. This general tendency of a cer- 
 tain physical temperament may tie checked or 
 encouraged by religious opinions or social insti- 
 tutions, as well as by the peculiar hue which the 
 fortune of an age or a country may bear. The 
 disease, however, is eminently contagious ; and, 
 if, owing to unknown circumstances, there was in 
 the days of Moses a tendency, whether borrowed 
 from Egypt or merely strengthened by Egyptian 
 practices, which threatened, in its excess, to be- 
 come in any degree epidemic, it was wise and 
 patriotic in that lawgiver to take the subject into 
 his own remedial hands, and to restrain and limit 
 to individuals that which might otherwise infect 
 large classes, if not reach and so weaken the 
 national mind. 
 
 The law of the Nazarite, which may he found 
 in Nuin. vi., is, in effect, as follows : — male and 
 female might assume the vow ; on doing so a 
 person was understood to separate himself unto 
 the Lord ; this separation consisted in abstinence 
 from wine and all intoxicating liquors, and from 
 everything made therefrom : ‘ From vinegar oi 
 wine, and vinegar of strong drink; neither shall 
 he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist 
 grapes or dried ;’ he was to ‘ eat nothing of the 
 vine-tree, from the kernels even to the husks.’ 
 Nor was a razor to come upon his head all the 
 time of his vow ; he was to ‘ be holy, and let the 
 locks of the hair of his head grow.’ With special 
 -care was he to avoid touching any dead body 
 whatever. Being holy unto the Lord, he was not. 
 to make himself unclean by touching the corpse 
 even of a relative. Should he happen to do so, 
 
 toi. ir. 27 
 
 ne was then to shave his head and offer a sin- 
 offering and a burnt-offering ; thus making an 
 atonement for himself, ‘ for that he sinned by 
 the dead.’ A lamb also, of the first year, was to 
 be offered as a trespass-offering. The days too 
 that had gone before his defilement were to he 
 lost, not. reckoned in the number of those during 
 which his vow w r as to last. On the termination 
 of the period of the vow the Nazarite himself was 
 brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation, there to offer a burnt-offering, a sin- 
 offering, a peace-offering, and a meat and a drink- 
 offering. The Nazarite also shaved his head at 
 the door of the tabernacle, and put the hair 
 grown during the time of separation into the fire 
 which was under the sacrifice of the peace-offer- 
 ings. ‘ And the priest shall take the sodden 
 shoulder of the ram and one unleavened cake out 
 of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and 
 shall put them in the hands of the Nazarite after 
 the hair of his separation is shaven ; and the priest 
 shall wave them for a wave-offering.’ ‘After 
 that the Nazarite may drink wine.’ 
 
 There are not wanting individual instances 
 which serve to illustrate this vow, and to show that 
 the law in the case went into operation. Hannah, 
 Samson’s mother, became a Nazarite that she 
 might have a son. Samson himself was a Naza- 
 rite from the time of his birth (Judg. xiii.). 
 In his history is found a fact which seems to 
 present the reason w r hy cutting the hair was for- 
 bidden to the Nazarite. The hair was considered 
 the source of strength ; it is, in fact, often con- 
 nected with unusual strength of body, for the 
 male has it in greater abundance than the female. 
 Delilah urged Samson to tell her where his strength 
 lay. After a time, ‘He told her all his heart, 
 and said unto her, There hath not come a razoi 
 upon mine head, for I have been a Nazarite unto 
 God from my mother’s womb : if I be shaven, 
 then my strength will go from me, and 1 shall 
 become weak, and be like any other man’ (Judg. 
 xvi. 15 sq.). The secret w as revealed; Samson 
 was shorn, and accordingly lost his strength and 
 his life. 
 
 This conception led to the prohibition in ques- 
 tion ; for as the Nazarite was separated to the 
 Lord, so was it proper that he should be in full 
 vigour of body (secured by the presence of his 
 hair) and of mind (secured by abstinence from 
 strong drink). As animals offered in sacrifice 
 were to be faultless and spotless, so a man or a 
 woman set apart to God was to be in full pos- 
 session of their faculties. 
 
 From the language employed by Samson, as 
 well as from the tenor of the law in this case, the 
 retention of the hair seems to have been one essen- 
 tial feature in the vow. It is, therefore, some- 
 what. singular that any case should have been 
 considered as the Nazaritic vow in which the 
 shaving of the head is put. forth as the chief par- 
 ticular. St. Paul is supposed to have been unde? 
 this vow, when (Acts xviii. 18) he is said t& 
 have ‘ shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had * 
 vow’ (see also Acts xxi. 24). The head was not 
 shaven till the vow was performed, when a person 
 had not a vow. 
 
 Carpzov, Appar. p. 151 sq. p. 799 sq. ; Reland. 
 Antiq. Sacr. ii. 19; Meinhard, De Nasiraais, 
 Jen., 1676 ; Zorn, in Miscell. Lips. Nov, iv- 
 426 sq. ; Spencer, De Leg. Eeb. Rit. r iii. ‘5 
 
NAZARETH. 
 
 NAZARETH. 
 
 493 
 
 Donglaei Analect., i. 37 ; Lucian, De Dea. Syr., 
 c. 60 ; Mishna, Nasir. — J. R. B. 
 
 NAZARETH (N a£ape0, Na(aper), a town in 
 Galilee, in which the parents of Jesus were resi- 
 dent, and where in consequence he lived till the 
 commencement of his ministry. It derives all 
 its historical importance from this circumstance, 
 for it is not even named in the Old Testament or 
 by Josephus : which suffices to show that it could 
 not have been a place of any consideration, and 
 was probably no more than a village. Light foot 
 indeed starts the question whether the name may 
 not l-e recognised in that of the tower of Nozarim 
 in 2 Kings xvii. 9 ( Hor . Hebr. on Luke i. 26); 
 but there is here nothing to go upon but the faint 
 analogy of name. The expression of Nathanael, 
 ‘ Can there any good thing come out of Naza- 
 reth V (John i. 46) might imply a certain degree 
 
 of evil notoriety in the place. There appears no 
 reason for this, however; and as the speaker vai 
 himself of Galilee, the expression could not hare 
 been intended to apply to it merely as a Galilean 
 town; it seems therefore likely that Nathanael’s 
 meaning was, 4 Is it possible that so great a good 
 should come from so obscure a place as Naza- 
 reth, which is never mentioned by the prophets.’ 
 Nazareth is situated about six miles W.N.W. 
 from Mount Tabor, on the western side of a nar- 
 row oblong basin, or depressed valley, about, a 
 mile long by a quarter of a mile broad. The 
 buildings stand on the lower part of the slope of 
 the western hill, which rises steep and high above 
 them. It is now a small, but more than usually 
 well-built place, containing about three thousand 
 inhabitants, of whom two-thirds are Christians. 
 The flat- roofed houses are built of stone, and are 
 
 432. [Nazareth.] 
 
 mostly two stories high. The environs are planted 
 with luxuriantly-growing fig-trees, olive-trees, 
 and vines, and the crops of com are scarcely 
 equalled throughout the length and breadth of 
 Canaan. All the 3]>ots which could be supposed 
 to be in any way connected with the history of 
 Christ are, of course, pointed out by the monks 
 and local guides, but on authority too piecarious 
 to deserve any credit, and with circumstances 
 too puerile for reverence. It is enough to know 
 that the Lord dwelt here ; that for thirty years 
 /te trod this spot of earth, and that his eyes were 
 familiar with the objects spread around. In the 
 south-west part of the town is a small Maronite 
 church, under a precipice of the hill, which here 
 breaks off in a perpendicular wall forty or fifty feet 
 in height. Dr. Robinson noticed several such pre- 
 cipices in the western hill around the village, and 
 with very good reason concludes that one of .these, 
 probably the one just indicated, may well have 
 
 been the spot whither the Jews leu Jesus, 4 unto the 
 brow of the hill whereon the city was built, that they 
 might cast him down headlong’ (Luke iv. 28-30) ; 
 and not the precipice, two miles from the village, 
 overlooking the plain of Esdraelon, which monk- 
 ish tradition indicates to the traveller as the 
 4 Mount of Precipitation.’ He denounces this as 
 the most clumsy of all the local legends of the 
 Holy Land ; and indeed its intrinsic unsuitable- 
 ness is so manifest, that the present monks of 
 Nazareth can only surmount the difficulty by 
 alleging that the ancient Nazarefb was nearer 
 than the modern to this mountain, forgetting. that 
 this hypothesis destroys the identity and credit, of 
 the holy places which they show in the present 
 town. It appears to have been originally selected 
 as a striking object to travellers approaching from 
 the plain of Esdraelon (Robinson’s Researches, 
 iii. 183-200; comp. Burokhardf, Syria, p. 337, 
 Richter, Wallfahrten. p. 37 ; Schubert’s Morgen 
 
NEAPOLIS. 
 
 NEBAIOTH. 
 
 403 
 
 find, iii. 168 ; Clarke’s Travels , iv. vol. i. p. 537 ; 
 Narrative of Scottish Deputation, pp. 305, 306). 
 
 NEAPOLIS (NediroXis), a maritime city of 
 Macedonia, near the borders ot Thrace, now 
 called Napoli. Paul landed here on his first 
 journey into Europe (Acts xvi. 11). 
 
 NEBAIOTH, or Nebajoth (lYPlJ), called 
 
 by the Arabs or the first-born son 
 
 of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13 ; 1 Chron. i. 29), and 
 the prince or sheikh (fcOKO, rendered by Jerome 
 <pv\apxos') of one of the twelve Ishmaelitish tribes, 
 which, as well as the territory they occupied, 
 continued to bear his name in after times (Gen. 
 xxv. 16; comp. ch. xvii. 20). One of Esau's 
 wives, Mahalath, otherwise called Bashemath, is 
 expressly designated as ‘ the sister of Nebaioth’ 
 (Gen. xxviii. 9; xxxvi. 3); and by a singular 
 coincidence the land of Esau, or Edom, was ulti- 
 mately possessed by the posterity of Nebaioth. 
 In common with the other Ishmaelites, they first 
 settled in the wilderness ‘before’ (i. e. to the 
 east of) their brethren, the other descendants of 
 Abraham ; by which we are probably to under- 
 stand the great desert lying to the east and south- 
 east of Palestine (Gen. xxv. 18 ; xxi. 21 ; xvi. 
 12; and see the article Arabia). In Gen. xxv. 
 16, the English Version speaks of the Ishmaelitish 
 * towns and castles,’ but the former word in the 
 original signifies ‘ a moveable village of tents ’ 
 (the horde of the Tartars), and the latter seems to 
 denote pens or folds for cattle and sheep. Both 
 expressions thus point to the nomadic life of shep- 
 herds, which the tribe of Nebaioth seem to have 
 followed for ages afterwards, inasmuch as in the 
 days of Isaiah the ‘ rams of Nebaioth ’ are men- 
 tioned (Isa. lx. 7) as among the most precious 
 gifts which the Bedawees, or ‘ Men of the Desert’ 
 would consecrate to the service of Jehovah. Arab 
 writers mention the tribe of Nabat as successful 
 cultivators in Babylonian Irak ; but the name 
 
 is written with a tha. (D'Herbelot, Bib. 
 Orient, under ‘ Nabat Pocock’s Spec. Hist. 
 Arab. pp. 46, 268). 
 
 The successful invasion of Western Asia, first 
 by the Assyrians and afterwards by the Clial- 
 daeans, could not but affect the condition of the 
 tribes in Northern Arabia, though we possess no 
 record of the special results. The prophet Isaiah, 
 after his obscure oracle regarding Dumah (ch. xxi. 
 11, 12), introduces a ‘judgment upon Arabia,’ 
 i. e. Desert Arabia, which some suppose to have 
 been fulfilled by Sennacherib, while others think 
 it refers to the later events that are foretold by 
 Jeremiah (ch. xlix. 28-33) as befalling ‘ Kedar 
 and the kingdoms of Hazor ’ in consequence of the 
 ravages of Nebuchadnezzar. Be this as it may, 
 we know that when the latter carried the Jews 
 captive to Babylon, the Edomites made them- 
 selves masters of a great part of the south of Pales- 
 tine [Idumjea], while either then or at a later 
 period they themselves were supplanted in the 
 southern part of their own territory by a people 
 called by Greek writers Nafiarcuoi, and by the 
 Romans Nabatcei — a name clearly traceable to the 
 Nebaioth of the Hebrews. It were an error, how- 
 ever, to suppose that they consisted only of his 
 descendants to the exclusion of other Ishmaelites. 
 The Arabfi are frequently described in Scripture 
 
 as ‘ a mingled people ’ (Jer. xxv. 24) ; and as we 
 find in the days both of Jacob (Gen. xxxvii. 27, 
 28, 36) and Gideon (Judg. viii. 22, 24) the name 
 of ‘Ishmaelites ’ used interchangeably for that of 
 ‘ Midianites ’ (the descendants of another son of 
 Abraham); so it cannot be doubted that the Na- 
 bathaeans included a variety of Arab races who 
 took their common name from (he progenitor of 
 the largest or most influential tribe, Nebaioth, the 
 first-born of Ishmael. While the greater number 
 of their countrymen followed the occupation of 
 shepherds, others applied themselves to commerce, 
 which we find them prosecuting so early as the 
 days of Joseph (Gen. xxxvii. 27, 36). They 
 appear to have originated the transit trade carried 
 on by caravans across the desert towards Palestine 
 and Egypt, and probably their chief motive in at 
 length locating themselves in Idumaea was that 
 they might command the great commercial route 
 from the Red Sea northward through the con- 
 tinuous valley of El-Araba and El-Ghor. 
 
 The territory occupied by the Nabathaeans is 
 called by Greek writers Na/Santtrfj (by Epipha- 
 nius NajSoTea and Na/JaTTts), and by Latin writers 
 Nabathcea or Nabathena. In its widest sense 
 this included the whole of Northern Arabia from 
 the Euphrates to the Elanitic Gulf of the Red 
 Sea ; but more strictly taken it denoted (at least 
 in later times) only a portion of the southern part 
 of that vast region (Josephus, Antiq. i. 12.4; 
 St. Jerome, Qucest. on Isa. xxv. 13 : Ammianus 
 Marcellinus, xiv. 8). We first hear of the Na- 
 bathaeans in history in the reign of Antigonus, 
 who succeeded Alexander the Great in Babylon, 
 and died in the year b.c. 301. He sent two ex- 
 peditions against them; the first under Athenians, 
 who found most of the men absent at a certain 
 emporium or mart, having' left their families, 
 says Diodorus Siculus (xix. 95-98) exi Tiros 
 Tlerpas, i. e. upon a certain rock, or, perhaps, 
 rather ‘ in a certain place called Petra,’ thus 
 pointing to their famous metropolis, the Selah or 
 Joktheel of the Hebrews [Petra]. Taking this 
 stronghold by surprise, he found in it a large store 
 of frankincense and myrrh, and five hundred 
 talents of silver, all which he seized and car- 
 ried off. But the Nabathaeans having quickly 
 rallied their forces pursued him and destroyed a 
 great part of his army. Antigonus, after certain 
 deceitful negociations, sent against them another 
 expedition under his son Demetrius ; but having 
 had intelligence of his approach, they drove their 
 flocks into the surrounding deserts and deposited 
 their wealth in Petra, to which, says the historian, 
 ‘ there was but a single approach, and that x ei P°~ 
 rrolriros, 1 i. e. made by hand — an expression strik- 
 ingly descriptive of the passage of El Syk at Wady 
 Musa. Demetrius, thus baflied, had to retire with 
 his troops. It appears from these accounts that 
 the Nabathaeans were as yet essentially a pastoral 
 people, though they were likewise engaged in 
 commerce, which they afterwards prosecuted to a 
 great extent, and thereby acquired great riches 
 and renown. It was in this way that they gra- 
 dually became more fixed in their habits ; and 
 living in towns and villages they were at length 
 united under a regular monarchical government, 
 constituting the kingdom of Arabia, or more 
 strictly, Arabia Petrcea , the name being derived 
 not, as some suppose, from the rocky nature of the 
 country, but from the chief city, Petra. Accord- 
 
404 
 
 NEBAIOTH. 
 
 NEBO. 
 
 ing to Ptolemy this kingdom was bounded on the 
 east by the desert, on the west by Egypt, on the 
 north by Palestine and part of the Roman pro- 
 vince of Syria, and it extended southward to the 
 Elanitic Gulf. It was thus rather limited in ex- 
 tent, not materially exceeding (except on the 
 west) the size of the territory which had been 
 possessed by Edom. 
 
 The common name of the kings of Arabia 
 Petraea was either Aretas or Obodas. Even in 
 the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (about b.c. 166), 
 we read in 2 Macc. v. 8, of an Aretas, king of the 
 Arabians ; and from that period downwards they 
 came frequently into contact both with the Jews 
 and Romans, as may be seen in the books of the 
 Maccabees and the writings of Josephus. When 
 Judas Maccabaeus and his brother Jonathan had 
 crossed the Jordan, they reached after a three 
 days' march the country of the Nabathaeans, who 
 gave them a very friendly reception (l Macc. v. 
 21, 25; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 8. 3 ; comp. xiii. 13. 
 5. 15, and De Bell. Jud., i. 4. 4. 7). Long before 
 the kingdom of Arabia was actually conquered by 
 the Romans, its sovereigns were dependent on the 
 Roman power. An expedition was sent thither 
 by Augustus, under jElius Gallus, governor of 
 Egypt, and a personal friend of the geographer 
 Strabo, who has left us an account of it. After 
 various obstacles, he at last reached A svkt) K wgg, 
 or Albus Pagus, the emporium of the Nabathaeans, 
 and the port of Petra, which was probably at or 
 near Elath (Strabo, xvi. 4, 22, 24 ; Dion Cassius, 
 liii. 27; Arrian, Periplus Maris Eryth .). Another 
 friend of Strabo, the Stoic philosopher Athenodorus, 
 had spent some time in Petra, and related to him 
 with admiration how the inhabitants lived in 
 entire harmony and union under excellent laws. 
 The kingdom was hereditary ; or at least the king 
 was always one of the royal family, and had a prime 
 minister or vizier, iTrfopoiros, who was styled the 
 king's brother. Pliny also repeatedly speaks of 
 the Nabathaeans (Hist. Nat. v. 1 1 ; vi. 28; xii. 27) ; 
 and classes along with them the Cedrei, exactly 
 as Kedar and Nebaioth are placed together in 
 Isa. lx. 7. Another Arabian king of the name of 
 Aretas is the one mentioned by St. Paul (2 Cor. 
 ii. 32; comp. Acts vii. 24, 25; Joseph. Antiq. 
 xviii. 5. 1). We find that a former Aretas had 
 been invited to assume the sovereignty by the 
 inliabitants of Damascus (Joseph. De Bell. Jud., 
 i. 4, 7 ; Antiq. xiii. 15. 1) ; and now, during the 
 weak reign of Caligula, the same city is seized 
 by another Aretas, and governed through an 
 ethnarch , as related by Paul. The kingdom of 
 Arabia Petraea maintained its nominal inde- 
 pendence till about a.d. 105, in the reign of 
 the Emperor Trajan, when it was subdued by Cor- 
 nelius Palma, governor of Syria, and annexed to 
 the vast empire of Rome. 
 
 The Nabathaeans had, as we have seen, early 
 applied themselves to commerce, especially as 
 carriers of the products of Arabia, India, and the 
 far-distant East, which, as we learn from Strabo, 
 were transported on camels from the above-men- 
 tioned Leuke Rome to Petra, and thence to 
 Rninocoloura (El ’Arish) and elsewhere. ‘ But 
 under the Roman dominion the trade of these 
 regions appears to have widely extended itself, 
 and to have flourished in still greater prosperity ; 
 probably from the circumstance that the lawless 
 Sfttoacitv of the adjacent nomadic hordes was 
 
 now kept in check by the Roman power, ami 
 particularly by the garrisons winch were every 
 where established for this specific purpose. T'n« 
 country, too, was now rendered more accessible, 
 and the passage of merchants and caravans more 
 practicable, by military ways. From Elath, oi 
 Ailah, one great road had its direction nortnwardi 
 to the rich and central Petra ; thence it divided 
 and led on one side to Jerusalem, Gaza, and othei 
 ports on the Mediterranean ; and on the other side 
 to Damascus. Another road appears to have led 
 directly from Ailah along the Giior to Jerusalem. 
 Traces of these routes are still visible in many 
 parts. These facts are derived not from the testi- 
 mony of historians, but from the specifications ol 
 the celebrated Tabula Theodosiana, or Peutin- 
 geriana, compiled in the fourth century. Ac- 
 cording to this, a line of small fortresses was 
 drawn along the eastern frontier of Arabia Petraea, 
 towards the desert, some of which became the sites 
 of towns and cities, whose names are still extant. 
 But as the power of Rome fell into decay, the 
 Arabs of the desert would seem again to have 
 acquired the ascendancy. They plundered the 
 cities, but did not destroy them ; and hence those 
 regions are still full of uninhabited, yet. stately 
 and often splendid ruins, of ancient wealth, and 
 taste, and greatness. Even Petra, the rich and 
 impregnable metropolis, was subjected to the same 
 fate -. and now exists, in its almost inaccessible 
 loneliness, only to excite the curiosity of the 
 scholar, and the wonder of the traveller, by the 
 singularity of its site, its ruins, and its fortunes.’ 
 
 In the course of the fourth century this region 
 came to be included under the general name of 
 ‘ Palestinej' and it then received the special de- 
 signation of Palcestina Tertia , or Salutaris. It 
 became the diocese of a metropolitan, whose seat 
 was at Petra, and who was afterwards placed 
 under the patriarch of Jerusalem. With the 
 Mohammedan conquest in the seventh century 
 its commercial prosperity disappeared. Lying 
 between the three rival empires of Arabia, Egypt, 
 and Syria, it lost its ancient independence ; the 
 course of trade was diverted into new channels ; 
 its great routes were abandoned ; and at length 
 the entire country was quietly yielded up to the 
 Bedawees of the surrounding wilderness, whose 
 descendants still claim it as their domain. 
 During the twelfth century it was partially oc- 
 cupied by the Crusaders, who gave it the name 
 of Arabia Tertia , or Syria Sobal. From that 
 period it remained unvisited by Europeans, and 
 had almost disappeared from their maps, until it 
 was partially explored, first by Seetzen in 1S07, 
 and more fully by Bnrckhardt, in 1812; and now 
 the wonders of the Wady Musa are familiarly 
 known to all. (See Reland's Palcestina lllustr. ; 
 Vincents Commerce of the Ancients; Ritter’s 
 Gesch. d. Petr. Arabiens , in the ‘ Trans, of the 
 Berlin Acad.’, 1824; Forster's Mohammedanism 
 Unveiled, and Geography of Arabia; Robinson’s 
 Sketches of Idumced, in ‘ Amer. Bib. Repos.’, 
 1833; and Bibl. Researches, vol. ii.) — N. AI. 
 
 1. NEBO (’ll? ; Sept. NctjBsS), a Chaldaean idol 
 mentioned in Isa. xlvi. 1, and suppose ! to have 
 been the symbol of the planet Mercury, the celestial 
 scribe and interpreter of the gods, answering tc 
 the Hermes and Anubis of the Egyptians. IIs 
 was likewise worshipped- ly the Sabiara ift 
 
NEBO. 
 
 NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 
 
 405 
 
 Arabia (Ncrberj, Onomast. p. 95 . Gesenius 
 traces the name in prophet, an interpreter 
 
 of the Divine will. The divine worship paid to 
 this idol by the Chaldseans and Assyrians is at- 
 tested by many compound proper names of which 
 it forms part, as ATjfotchaclnezzar, A r e£wzaradan, 
 A^efodiashban ; besides others mentioned in clas- 
 sical writers, — iVaionedus, Na&onassar, Nabu- 
 rianus, Na&onabus, Afa&opolassar. (See Gesenius 
 and Henderson on Isa. xlvi. 1). 
 
 2. NEBO, the name of a mountain on the con- 
 fines of Moab (Deut. xxxii. 49 ; xxxiv. 1), and of a 
 town near it (Num. xxxii. 3, 38; Isa. xv. 2). Since 
 the time of Seetzen and Burckhardt, Mount Nebo 
 has been usually identified with Mount Attarus, 
 east of the Dead Sea. Dr. Robinson has weakened 
 this conclusion without substituting any other. 
 He says, ‘ During the whole time we were on the 
 coast of the Dead Sea, on the Jordan, and in or 
 near the plains of Jericho, we were much inter- 
 ested in looking out among the eastern mountains 
 for Mount Nebo, so celebrated in the history of 
 the great Hebrew legislator, where he was per- 
 mitted to behold with his eyes the Land of Pro- 
 mise, and then yielded up the ghost. But our 
 search was in vain ; for although we passed in 
 such a direction as to see the mountains over 
 against Jericho from every quarter, yet there 
 seems to be none standing so out from the rest, 
 or so marked, as to be recognised as the Nebo of 
 the Scriptures. There is no peak or point per- 
 ceptibly higher than the rest, but all is apparently 
 one level line of summit, without peaks or gaps. 
 The highest point in all the eastern mountains is 
 Jebel el- Jil'ad, or es-Salt, near the city of that 
 name, rising about 3000 feet above the Ghor ; 
 but this is much too far north to be Mount Nebo, 
 to which Moses ascended from the plains of Moab 
 over against Jericho. Possibly, on travelling into 
 these mountains, some isolated point or summit 
 might be found answering to the position and 
 character of Nebo. Indeed, Seetzen, Burckhardt, 
 and also Irby and Mangles, have all found 
 Mount Nebo in Jebel ’Attarus, a high mountain 
 south of the Turka Ma’-in. This, however, as 
 the latter travellers remark, is “ far from op- 
 posite Jericho,” and would be almost as distant, 
 and as little convenient to tbe plains of Moab, 
 as is Jebel es-Salt. It may perhaps be sufficient 
 to assume, that Moses merely went up from these 
 plains to seme high part of the adjacent moun- 
 tains, from which he would every where have an 
 extensive view over the Jordan valley, and the 
 mountainous tract of Judah and Ephraim towards 
 the western sea. The Mediterranean itself could 
 never well be visible from any point east of the 
 Jordan.’ 
 
 3. NEBO, a town in the tribe of Judah (Ezra 
 ii. 29) ; or more fully, in order to distinguish it 
 from the preceding, “Ifltf ill3, ‘ the other Nebo ’ 
 (Nell. vii. 33). The name may have, as in the 
 preceding instance, been derived from that of the 
 idol Nebo ; but more probably from HSL ‘ to be 
 high.’ 
 
 NEBUCHADNEZZAR pS&TO-UJ, Kings, 
 Chronicles, and Daniel; Jer. xxvii.; xxviii. ; 
 xxxiv. 1 ; xxxix. I ; Ezek. xxvi. 7 ; and Ezra v. 
 12; written also Nebuchadrezzar, ge- 
 
 nerally in Jeremiah, anil in Ezek. xxx. 18) was the 
 name of the Chaldsean monarch of Babylon by 
 
 whom Judah was conquered, and the Jews Jed 
 into their seventy years’ captivity. In the Sep 
 tuagint version he is called NafiouxoBordaop-, by 
 Berosus (ap. Joseph um), 'Na{}ovxo8ov6<ropos ; by 
 Abydenus (ap. Eusebium, Prcep. Evang .), Ni/jSou- 
 5 pdcropos; and by Strabo, the only writer among 
 the Greeks by whom he is named (xv. 687) Nav- 
 Kooicodp6cropos. This name, Nabuchodonosor, has 
 passed from the Septuagint into the Latin Vul- 
 gate, and into the authorized English version of 
 the books of Judith and Tobit. Nabu or Nebo 
 (Isa. xlvi. 1) was the name of a Chaldsean 
 deity, supposed to be Mercury, and enters fre 
 quently into the composition of Cbaldaean proper 
 names, as Nabopolassar (Can. Ptol.) ; Nabuzar- 
 adan (2 Kings xxv. 8. &c.) ; Sam gar-neb u 
 and Nebushasban (Jer. xxix. 3. 13). The 
 name Nebuchadnezzar has been commonly ex- 
 plained to signify the treasure of Nebo , but, 
 according to Lorsbach ( Archiv . f. Morgenl. 
 Literatur ), it signifies Nebo, the prince of gods ; 
 
 Pers.^«J^A>- ; see also Norberg’s Onomas- 
 
 ticon Cod. Nasar. p. 95, sq. and Gesenius in 
 Isai. iv. 344, 366. 
 
 The only notices which we have of this monarch 
 in the canonical writings are found in the books 
 of Kings, Chronicles, Daniel, and Ezra, and in the 
 allusions of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 
 
 From 2 Kings xxiii. 29, and 2 Chron. xxxv. 20, 
 we gather that in the reign of Josiah (b.c. 610), 
 Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, having approached 
 by sea the coast of Syria, made a friendly appli- 
 cation to King Josiah to be allowed a passage 
 through his territories to the dominions of the As- 
 syrian monarch, with whom he was then at war. 
 ‘ I come not against thee this day, but against the 
 house wherewith I have war ; for God (Elohim) 
 commanded me to make haste,’ &c. (2 Chron. 
 xxxv. 20, 21). The design of Pharaoh-Necho 
 was to seize upon Carehemish (Circesium or Cer- 
 cusium), a strong post on the Euphrates; but 
 Josiah, who was tributary to the Babylonian mo- 
 narch, opposed hia progress at Megiddo, where he 
 was defeated and mortally wounded [Josiah]. 
 Neclio marched upon Jerusalem, when the Jews 
 became tributary to the king of Egypt. Upon 
 this, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 
 xxiv. 1 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, where this mo- 
 narch’s name is for the first time introduced), 
 invaded Judah, retook Carehemish, with the terri- 
 tory which had been wrested from him by Neclio, 
 seized upon Jelioiakim, the vassal of Pharaoh- 
 Necho, and reduced him to submission (b.c. 
 607). This invasion took place, according to 
 Jer. xxvi. I ; xlvi. 1, in the fourth year of Jelioia- 
 chim, but according to Daniel i. 12, in the third. 
 In order to reconcile this apparent contradiction, it. 
 has been generally maintained that the first year of 
 Nebuchadnezzar fell partly in the third and partly 
 in the fourth year of Jehoiakim [Captivities, 
 Daniej,]. Jehoiachim was at first loaded with 
 chains, in order to be led captive to Babylon, but 
 was eventually restored by Nebuchadnezzar to his 
 throne, on condition of paying an annual tribute. 
 Nebuchadnezzar carried off part of the ornaments 
 of the Temple, together with several hostages ot 
 distinguished rank, among whom were the youths 
 Daniel and his three friends Hananiah, Azariah, 
 and Mishael (Dan. i.). These were educated at 
 court in the language and sciences of the Chal- 
 
406 NEBUCHADNEZZAR. NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 
 
 dneans, where they subsequently filled offices of 
 distinction. The sacred vessels were transferred 
 by Nebuchadnezzar to his temple at Babylon 
 (Isa. xxxix. ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 , 7) ; [Babylon]. 
 
 After the conquest of Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar 
 turned his attention towards the Egyptians, whom 
 be drove out of Syria, taking possession of all the 
 land between the Euphrates and the river (2 
 Kings xxiv. 7) : which some suppose to mean the 
 Nile, but others a small river in the desert, which 
 was reckoned the boundary between Palestine and 
 Egypt (Prideaux's Connection ). 
 
 The fate of Jerusalem was now rapidly ap- 
 proaching its consummation. After three years 
 of fidelity, Jehoiachim renounced his allegiance 
 to Babylon, and renewed his alliance with Necho, 
 when Nebuchadnezzar frent incursions of Ammon- 
 ites, Moabites and Syrians, together with Chal- 
 daeans, to harass him. At length, in the eleventh 
 year of his reign, he was made prisoner, and 
 slain (Jer. xxii.) [Jehoiakim]. lie was suc- 
 ceeded by his son Jehoiachin, who, after three 
 months’ reign, surrendered himself with his family 
 to Nebuchadnezzar, who had come in person to 
 besiege Jerusalem, in the eighth year of his reign 
 (2 Kings xxiv. 10 — 12) [Jehoiachin]. Upon 
 this occasion all the most distinguished inha- 
 bitants, including the artificers, were led cap- 
 tive [Captivities]. Among the captives, who 
 amounted to no less than 50,000, were Ezekiel 
 (Ezek. i. 1) and Mordecai [Esther]. The 
 golden vessels of Solomon were now removed, with 
 the royal treasures, and Mattaniah, the brother of 
 Jehoiachin, placed on the throne by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, who gave him the name of Zedekiah, and 
 bound him by an oath not to enter into an alliance 
 with Egypt. Zedekiah, however, in the ninth 
 year of his reign, formed an alliance with Pharaoh- 
 Hophra, the successor of Necho. Hophra, coming 
 to the assistance of Zedekiah, was driven back 
 into Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, who finally cap- 
 tured Jerusalem in the eleventh year of Zedexiah’s 
 reign (b.c. 588) [Zedekiah]. The Temple, and 
 the whole city, with its towers and walls, were all 
 razed to the ground by Nebuzaradan, Nebuchad- 
 nezzar’s lieutenant, and the principal remaining 
 inhabitants put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at 
 'Riblah. Jeremiah was, however, spared, and Ge- 
 daliah appointed governor. He was shortly alter 
 murdered by Ishmael, a member of the royal 
 family, who was himself soon obliged to take 
 refuge among the Ammonites. Many of the re- 
 maining Jews fled into Egypt, accompanied by 
 Jeremiah; those who remained were soon after 
 expatriated by Nebucnadnezzar, who depopulated 
 the whole country. 
 
 He next undertook the siege of Tyre [Tyre], 
 and after its destruction proceeded to Egypt, now 
 distracted by internal commotions, and devastated 
 or made himself master of the whole country from 
 Migdol to Syene (according to the reading of the 
 Seventy, Ezek. xxix. 10; xxx. 6), transferring 
 many of the inhabitants to the territory beyond 
 the Euphrates. 
 
 We have referred to the captivity of the 
 prophet Daniel, and have to turn to the book 
 which bears his name for the history of this pro- 
 phet, who, from an exile, was destined to become 
 the great protector of his nation. In the second 
 year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, 
 who was found superior in wisdom to the Chal- 
 
 dsean magi, was enabled not only to interpret, bi t 
 to reveal a dream of Nebuchadnezzar’s, /he very 
 subject of which that monarch had forgotten 
 [Dreams]. This was the dream of the statue 
 consisting of four different metals, which Daniel 
 interpreted of four successive monarchies, the last 
 of which was to be the reign of the Messiah. Daniel 
 was elevaled to be first minister of state, and his 
 three friends were made governors of provinces. 
 The history of these events (Dan. ii. 4, 8, 9) i s 
 written in the Chaldee language, together with the 
 narrative which immediately follows (ch. iii.), of 
 the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar in the 
 plain of Dura, for refusing to worship which, Da- 
 niels three friends were thrown into a furnace, but 
 miraculously preserved. The fourth chapter, also 
 written in Chaldee, contains the singular history 
 of the judgment inflicted on Nebuchadneczar as 
 a punishment for his pride, and which is narrated 
 in the form of a royal proclamation from the mo- 
 narch himself, giving an account to his people of 
 his affliction and recovery. This affliction had 
 been, by the monarch’s account, predicted by 
 Daniel a year before, in the interpretation of his 
 fearful dream of the tree in the midst of the earth. 
 While walking in his palace, and admiring his 
 magnificent works, he uttered, in the plenitude of 
 his pride, the remarkable words recorded in ver. 
 30, ‘ Is not this great Babylon that I have built 
 for the house of the kingdom, by the might of 
 my power, and for the honour or my majesty ‘ft 
 He had scarce uttered the words, when a voice 
 from heaven proclaimed to him that his kingdom 
 was departed from him; that he should be for 
 seven times (generally supposed to mean years, 
 although some reduce the period to fourteen 
 months ; Jahn, Introd.) driven from the habita- 
 tions of men to dwell among the beasts of the field, 
 and made to eat grass as an ox, until he learned 
 ‘that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of 
 men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.’ The 
 sentence was immediately fulfilled, and Nebu- 
 chadnezzar continued in this melancholy state 
 during the predicted period, at the end of which 
 he was restored to the use of his understanding 
 (ver. 36). We have no account in Scripture of 
 any of the actions of this monarch’s life after the 
 period of his recovery, but the first year of the 
 reign of his successor Evil-merodach is repre- 
 sented as having taken place in the thirty-seventh 
 year of Jehoiachin, answering to b.c. 562 (2 Kings 
 xxv. 27). 
 
 We have now to consider the light which pro- 
 fane history has thrown on the events of these 
 times. 
 
 The canon of Ptolemy the mathematician, who 
 flourished about the commencement of the Chris 
 tian era, consists of a catalogue, arranged in 
 chronological order, of the kings of Babylon, 
 commencing with Nabonassar, who reigned b.c 
 747, and ending with Nabonned, b.c. 556. Ac- 
 cording to this catalogue, Nabopolassar (Na/8ov- 
 7 roXacrapos), who died b.c. 625, was succeeded by 
 Nabocolassar (Na6o/coAa<rapos), b.c. 605. This 
 Nabocolassar is therefore presumed to be the Ne- 
 buchadnezzar of Scripture (for the canon of Pto- 
 lemy, see Table Chronologifjue des Reynes, &c. 
 par l'Abbe Halmy, Paris, 1819). Nabopolassar, 
 the father of Nabocolassar, is supposed to have 
 been the first Chaldaean monarch of Babylon, and 
 to have disunited it from the Assyrian empire, o! 
 
NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 
 
 NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 
 
 which it had hitherto formed a part (Jahn’s He- 
 brew Commomvealth). According to a fragment 
 of Alexander Polyhistor, reported by Syncellus 
 in t is Chronographia, it was this sovereign who 
 destroyed the city of Nineveh, b.c. 612, which, 
 according to Eusebius ( Chron . p. 46), he effected 
 in conjunction with Astyages, the eldest son of 
 Cyaxares, king of the Medes (see also Tobit xiv. 
 15, where the latter is named Assuerus). The 
 following extract, preserved by Josephus, from 
 the lost Chaldsean history of Berosus, priest of the 
 temple of Bel (b.c. 268), will be found to throw 
 considerable light on the Scripture narrative: 
 4 When his father Nabuchodonosor heard that the 
 governor whom he had set over Egypt and the 
 •jlaces about Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had revolted 
 from him, while he was not himself able any 
 longer to undergo hardships, he committed to his 
 son Nabuchodonosor, who was still but a youth, 
 some parts of his army, and sent them against 
 them. So when Nabuchodonosor had given him 
 battle, and fought with the rebel, he overcame 
 him, and reduced the country from under his sub- 
 jection and made it a branch of his own kingdom. 
 But about that time it happened that his father 
 Nabuchodonosor fell ill, and ended his life in the 
 city of Babylon, when he had reigned twenty-one 
 years ; and when he was made sensible that his 
 father Nabuchodonosor was dead — having settled 
 the affairs of Egypt and the other countries, and 
 also those that concerned the captive Jews, and 
 the Phoenicians, Syrians and Egyptians, and hav- 
 ing committed the conveyance of them to Baby- 
 lon to certain of his friends — he hastily crossed the 
 desert, with a few companions, into Babylon. So 
 he toqk upon him the management of public af- 
 fairs, and of the kingdom which had been kept for 
 him by one of the chief Chaldseans, and he received 
 the entire dominions of his father, and appointed, 
 that when the captives came, they should be placed 
 in colonies in the most proper places of Baby- 
 lonia’ (Antiq. x. 11). 
 
 It will be observed that both Nebuchadnezzar 
 (styled by some the Great ) and his father are 
 here equally named Nabuchodonosor, but, in 
 the citation of the same narrative from Berosus 
 by Josephus ( Cont . Apion ., i. 19), the father 
 of Nebuchadnezzar is called Nabolassar (Na/3o- 
 Adaorapos), corresponding nearly with the Nabo- 
 polassar of Ptolemy: which has induced some 
 to suppose the name Nabuchodonosor in the 
 former citation to be an error of transcription. 
 We have already noticed the opinion of those 
 who consider the Nabuchodonosor of Judith to 
 be the same with the Saosduchin of Ptolemy, 
 who was contemporary with Manasseh [Judith]. 
 Some foundation has thus been afforded for con- 
 sidering Nebuchadnezzar as a general name for 
 Babylonian sovereigns (Prideaux, Connect .) ; 
 this, however, is considered by Whiston as a 
 groundless mistake (Whiston’s Josephus , note 
 on ch. xi.). It is by no means improbable that 
 the similarity of the two names may have led to 
 their being sometimes confounded. The conqueror 
 of Nineveh is also called by the name of Nebu- 
 chodonosor in Tobit xiv. 15 (in the Greek, for 
 the Latin ends with ver. 14), and is on this ac- 
 count styled by some, Nebuchadnezzar the First , 
 a designation first applied to him by Rabbi David 
 Ganz, under the age of the world, 3285. Alber 
 considers ( Inst . Herm. V. T. vol. ii. ch. xv.) that 
 
 407 
 
 the Nabuchodonosor of Judith was not one of the 
 legitimate sovereigns who flourished before the 
 Persian domination, but that both he and Ar- 
 phaxad were governors of provinces, who had 
 rebelled against the Persians, and assumed those 
 names, and that the pretended Nebuchadnezzar, 
 or Nebuchadnezzar the Third , was reduced to 
 order upon the failure of his expedition under 
 Holofernes. By this rather hazardous conjecture, 
 whereby he further maintains, in contradiction to 
 Bellarmine(De Verb. Dei), that the book of Judith 
 refers to a period posterior to the exile, he endea- 
 vours to prove that the history of Judith is his- 
 torically true, in opposition to Jahn, who regards 
 it as a fiction [Judith]. 
 
 According to Ptolemy's canon, the reign of 
 Nabocolasar is made to commence two years later 
 than that of the Nebuchadnezzar of Scriplure. 
 Many attempts have been made to reconcile this 
 discrepancy, but the solution generally received 
 assumes that the first capture of Jerusalem (Dan. 
 i. 1) took place during the last years of the reign 
 of Nabopolassar, in the expedition mentioned by 
 Berosus (ut supra), and that the canon of Pto- 
 lemy dates the commencement of his reign from 
 the death of his father, when he became sole king 
 of Babylon (De Wette’s Introd. § 253, note). 
 
 Although Herodotus does not name Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, he is supposed by some to allude to the 
 expedition of Pharaoh-Necho against Babylon, 
 when he observes that ‘ Necho, after an engagement 
 at Magdolos in Egypt, took Kadytis, a great 
 city of Syria.’ It is conjectured that he may 
 have confounded Migdol, in Egypt, with Me- 
 giddo, and that Kadytis was the same with Jeru- 
 salem (El Kaddosh, ‘ the holy city’). (Jahn’s He- 
 brew Commonwealth.) 
 
 We learn from a continuation of the extract 
 from Berosus already cited, that Nebuchadnezzar 
 almost rebuilt the city of Babylon with the spoils 
 of his expedition, and magnificently adorned the 
 temple of Bel, together with other temples, and 
 built a splendid palace, which he beautified with 
 wooded terraces, and those hanging gardens which 
 were considered one of the wonders of the world 
 [Babylon]. To him are also attributed those 
 stupendous canals described by Herodotus, who 
 himself visited Babylon about b.c. 430, and 
 whose descriptions are fully corroborated by the 
 statements of Philostratus, Quintus Curtius, 
 Arrian, and Diodorus Siculus, by none of whom, 
 however, is this monarch mentioned. Josephus 
 adds, that Magasthenes, in his fourth book, refers 
 to the same subject, and thereby endeavours to 
 show that he exceeded Hercules, and conquered 
 a great part of Africa and Spain. Strabo adds, 
 that ‘Sesostris, king of Egypt, and Tearcon, king 
 of Ethiopia, extended their expedition as far as 
 Europe, but that Navokodrosor, who is venerated 
 by the Cbaldaeans more than Hercules by the 
 
 Greeks marched through Spain to Greece 
 
 and Pontus.’ According to the canon of Ptolemy 
 (with which Josephus agrees, c. Apion. i. 20,, 
 Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years, when 
 he was succeeded by llouaroudamos, the Evil- 
 Merodach of Scripture. 
 
 The difficulties attending the nature of the 
 disease and recovery of Nebuchadnezzar have 
 not escaped the notice of commentators in ancient 
 as well as modern times. The impression made 
 by them on the acute mind of Origen, that fatftei 
 
40 S 
 
 NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 
 
 NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 
 
 thus expresses : ‘ How is it possible to suppose a 
 man metamorphosed into a beast? This sounds 
 well cnougli in the poets, who speak of the com- 
 panions of Ulysses and of Diomede as transformed 
 into birds and wolves, fables which existed in the 
 jwet's imagination only. But how could a prince 
 like Nebuchadnezzar, reared in delicacy and 
 pleasure, be able to live naked for seven years, 
 exposed to the inclemency of the weather, and 
 having no nourishment but grass and wild fruits? 
 How could he resist the violence of wild beasts? 
 Who governed the empire of Chaldaea in his 
 absence ? How, at the end of seven years, was 
 he received again by his people, resuming his 
 throne as after the absence of a night? Finally, 
 could an event so singular and so memorable have 
 escaped the notice of profane historians, who relate 
 so many other things regarding the same prince, 
 much less curious, and less worthy of attention 
 than this?’ (ap. Hieron. in Dan.) It must, how- 
 ever, be borne in mind that Origen's passion for 
 allegorizing frequently led him to overstate the 
 difficulties of Scripture, and his own solution of 
 those which he enumerates, viz., that the account 
 of Nebuchadnezzar's metamorphosis was merely 
 a representation of the fall of Lucifer, is not likely 
 to meet with many supporters. Besides Origen’s, 
 there have been no less than five different opinions 
 in reference to this subject. Bodin (in Demonol.) 
 maintains that Nebuchadnezzar underwent an 
 actual metamorphosis of soul and body, a similar 
 instance of which is given by Cluvier (Append, 
 ad Epitom. Hist.) on the testimony of an eye-wit- 
 ness. Tertullian (De Pcenit.) confines the trans- 
 formation to the body only, but without loss of 
 reason, of which kind of metamorphosis St. Au- 
 gustine (De Civ. Dei, xviii. 18) reports some in- 
 stances said to have taken place in Italy, to which 
 he himself attaches little credit; but Gaspard 
 Peucer asserts that the transformation of mm info 
 wolves was very common in Livonia. Some 
 Jewish Rabbins have asserted that the soul of Ne- 
 buchadnezzar, by a real transmigration, changed 
 places with that of an ox (Medina, De redd in 
 Deuyn fid.) ; while others have supposed not a 
 real, but an apparent or docetic change, of which 
 there is a case recorded in the life of St. Ma- 
 carius, the parents of a young woman having 
 been persuaded that their daughter had been 
 transformed into a mare. The most generally 
 received opinion, however, is, that Nebuchad- 
 nezzar laboured under that species of hypochon- 
 driacal monomania which leads the patient to 
 fancy himself changed into an animal or other 
 substance, the habits of which he adopts. Jerome 
 probably leaned to this opinion. ‘ Who does not 
 see,’ he observes, ‘ that madmen live like brute 
 beasts in the fields and woods, and in what is it 
 wonderful that this punishment should be in- 
 flicted by God’s judgment to show the power of 
 God, and to humble the pride of kings? Greek 
 and Roman histories relate much more incredible 
 things, as of men changed into Scyila, the Chi- 
 maera, and the Centaurs, into birds and beasts, 
 flowers, trees, stars, and stones ?’ (in Dan. iv. 4). 
 To this disease of the imagination physicians have 
 given the name of Lycanthropy, Zoanthropy, or 
 Insania Oanina [Diseases ok the Jews]. In 
 Dan. iv. 15 (iv. 12, according to the Latin) there 
 aeems an allusion to some species of insanity in the 
 expression, 1 even with a band of iron and brass ’ 
 
 (alligetur vinculo ferreo et areo, Vulg.); and the 
 loss and return of reason is very clearly intimated 
 in ver. 34, ‘ mine understanding returned to mq 
 and I blessed the Most High.* Virgil (Eclog. 6) 
 refers to this kind of madness in the case of the 
 daughters of Proetus, who fancied themselves 
 oxen, and made the plains resound with their 
 bellowings : 
 
 Implerunt falsis mugitibus agros. 
 
 And a somewhat similar kind of insanity is 
 described bv Mr. Drummond Hay (Western 
 Barbary, 1844, p. 65) as produced by the use 
 of an intoxicating herb among the'Gisowys, or 
 Moorish fanatics. (See Heinroth, Seelenstor. i. 
 65 ; Ader, De cegrotis in Evang. p. 31, &c. ; 
 Meade, Med. Sac. ; and Muller, De Nebuchad- 
 nezz. perapop^doaei). 
 
 The idea of an allegory has been revived in 
 modern times, especially by De Wette ( Enlei - 
 tying, p. 257), who considers the accounts in 
 Daniel too improbable, if literally understood, 
 although he admits that they may have been 
 founded on historical traditions. lie considers 
 the whole of the narrative in Daniel as referring 
 to Antioclms Epiphanes, who he asserts is also 
 signified by Belshazzar. In reference to the sub- 
 ject before us his translator adds, that ‘ Antiochu 3 
 Epiphanes was called with perfect propriety 
 Epimanes, or, the mad, which may have given 
 the author a hint to represent the old and ideal- 
 ized monarch of his nation as bereft of reason, 
 and reduced to the form and character of a beast. 
 Here the historical fact is idealized, and an ex- 
 quisite piece of sarcasm on the folly and brutality 
 of Antiochus is produced’ (Dan. iv. 14, 22-24, 29, 
 31, 32, 34). But the truth of this inference, how- 
 ever ingenious the arguments in its favour, depends 
 altogether on the alleged spuriousness of the book 
 of Daniel, whose genuineness is attested by the 
 citations of the New Testament writers, and by 
 the author of the 1st book of Maccabees, who was 
 acquainted with the book of Daniel, even in the 
 version of the Sept. (Macc. i. 54, comp, with 
 Dan. ii. 27 ; and ii. 59 with Dan. iii. and vi.). 
 [Daniel.] De Wette can only avoid the force 
 of this evidence by denying the authority of the 
 New Testament writers in a case of the kind. lie 
 adds that it is a biassed assumption of Heugsten- 
 berg to maintain that I Macc. was originally 
 written in Greek (allein dass es iirspriinglich 
 griechisch . . . sei,ist eine partciiscke Annahrne'. 
 not Hebrew, as De Wette's English translator has 
 it, and in the time of John Hyrcanus (b.c. 
 134 — 105), as according to him (De Wette) it 
 appears from l Macc. xvi. 23, 21, to have been 
 written much later [Maccabees]. 
 
 Some have fancied that there was an allusion 
 to the disease of Nebuchadnezzar in the passage of 
 Berosus quoted by Josephus (Cunt. Apion. i. 20). 
 ’Sa^ovxobovdaopos pev olv pera rb &p£ct(r0ai tow 
 irpoeipypevov relxous, ipnecibu els ufipcoarlav, 
 peryWa^aro t by (3 iov. * Nabuchodonosor, after 
 he had commenced the aforesaid wall, falling 
 into a sickness, died.' There is another remark- 
 able passage respecting him in Abydenus (ap. 
 Eusebium, Prcepar. Evang. ix. 41), where, hav- 
 ing cited the passage from Megasthenes already 
 referred to, he adds, upon the authority of the 
 same writer, a speech of Nabuchodonosor, where- 
 in, having been struck by some god, lie foie- 
 told the destruction of Babylon by a ‘Persian 
 
NECHO. 
 
 409 
 
 NEBITSHASBAN. 
 
 BM.lt 1 ,’ assisted by a Mede, the former boast of 
 Assyria, after which he instantly vanished. A 
 reference has been supposed to exist in these words 
 to Nebuchadnezzar's madness and consequent dis- 
 appearance, but there is at most, as De VVett.e 
 observes, only a traditional connection between 
 them. Jahu ( Hebrew Commonwealth) conceives 
 the while to be a tradition made up from his 
 prophetic dreams, his insanity .... and from 
 Daniel’s explanation of the well-known hand- 
 writing in the banqueting-hall of Belshazzar. 
 
 Objections have been made by Sir Thomas 
 Browne and others to the proportions of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's golden statue (Dan. iii.), said to have 
 been 60 cubits, or 90 feet high, and only 6 cubits 
 in breadth ; for it is evident that the statue of a 
 man ten times higher than its breadth exceeds all 
 natural symmetry. Jahn ( Introd .) supposes that 
 this form might have a mere august appearance, 
 or have been retained from a rude antiquity. 
 Some consider that the height of 90 feet included 
 
 the pedestal. Hengstenberg supposes that dW 
 mpy mean an obelisk , as well as a statue, in 
 which case the proportions would be symmetrical. 
 Diodorus Siculus (lib. ii.) informs us that one of 
 the images of massy gold found by Xerxes in the 
 Temple of Bel, measured 40 feet in height, which 
 would have been fairly proportioned to a breadth 
 of 6 feet, measured at the shoulders. Prideaux 
 supposes that this may have been the identical 
 statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar, which, however, 
 Jahn conceives was more probably only gilt, as a 
 statue of gold could scarcely have been safe from 
 robbers in the plain of Dura ; but this conjecture 
 of Jaliu's seems by no means necessary. — W.W. 
 
 NEBUSHASBAN (}njB«a5 ; Sept. Naflou- 
 <re0av, Jer. xxxix. 13), a follower of Nebu. 
 
 Pel's. ’ the name of one of the Baby-. 
 
 V*V • v V* 
 
 Ionian officers sent by Nebuzar-adan to take Jere- 
 miah out of prison. — W. W. 
 
 NEBUZAR-ADAN ; Sept. N«0ov- 
 
 fapdav, 1 Kings xxv. 8 ; Jer. xxxix. 9 ; xl. 1 ; 
 lii. 12, &c.). ‘Nebu is the Lord,' according to 
 the Hebrew ; or, according to the Persian, ‘ Nebu 
 
 is wise ’ (comp. Pers. J). The name of the 
 
 captain of Nebuchadnezzar's guard, by whom (lie 
 ruin of Jerusalem was completed. — W.W. 
 
 NECHO ( i D3 ; Sept. ; Herodotus, 
 
 Ne/cws), an Egyptian king, son and successor 
 (according to Herodotus, ii. 158) of Fsamme- 
 ticlius, and contemporary of the Jewish king 
 Josias (b.c. 610). The wars and success of 
 Necho, in Syria, are recorded by sacred as 
 well as profane writers, affording an instance of 
 agreement between them which the historical, 
 and especially the Biblical student, would be 
 glad to find of more frequent occurrence. Stu- 
 dious of military renown, and the furtherance of 
 commerce, Necho, on ascending the throne of 
 Egypt, applied himself to re-organize the army, 
 and to equip a powerful fleet. In order to pro- 
 mote his purposes, he courted the Greeks, to whose 
 troops he gave a post next to his Egyptians. He 
 fitted out a fleet in the Mediterranean, and another 
 in the Red Sea Having engaged some expert 
 Phoenician sailors, he sent them on a voyage of 
 
 discovery along the coast of Africa. ‘ They were 
 ordered (says Herod., iv. 42, 3) to start from the 
 Arabian Gulf, and come round through the pillars 
 of Hercules (the straits of Gibraltar) into the 
 North Sea, and so return to Egypt. Sailing, 
 therefore, down the gulf, they passed into the 
 Southern Ocean, and when autumn arrived, they 
 laid up their ships and sowed the land. Here 
 they remained till harvest time, when, having 
 reaped the corn, they continued their voyage. 
 In this manner they occupied two years, and the 
 third having brought them by the pillars of Pler- 
 cules to Egypt, they related what to me appears 
 incredible, that they had the sun on* their light 
 hand ; and by this means was the form of Africa 
 first known.’ Similar expeditions round Africa 
 were performed by other people (Herod., ut supra ; 
 Plin. Hist. Nat. n. 67 ; Arrian, Rcr. Ind. ad fin.). 
 The honour, however, of being the first to equip 
 an expedition for the purpose of circumnavigating 
 Africa belongs to Pharaoh- Necho, who thereby 
 ascertained the peninsular form of that continent, 
 twenty-one centuries before the Cape of Good 
 Hope was seen by Diaz, or doubled by Vasco de 
 Gama. The assertion by Herodotus, that the 
 suri (when rising) was on the right hand of these 
 Egyptian navigators, though incredible to him, 
 is satisfactory to his modern readers, who are in- 
 debted to his doubts for proof of a fact which might 
 otherwise have been called in question. 
 
 Before entering on this voyage of discovery, 
 Necho had commenced re-opening the canal from 
 the Nile to the Red Sea, which had been cut 
 many years before by Sesostris or Rameses the 
 Great. The work, however, if we may believe 
 Herodotus, was abandoned, an oracle warning the 
 Egyptian monarch that he was labouring for the 
 barbarian (Herod, ii. 158). 
 
 Necho also turned his attention to the Egyptian 
 conquests already made in Asia ; and, fearing 
 lest the growing power of the Babylonians should 
 endanger the territories acquired by the arms of 
 his victorious predecessors, he determined to check 
 their progress, and to attack the enemy on his own 
 frontier. With this view he collected a powerful 
 army, and entering Palestine, followed the route 
 along the sea-coast of Judaea, intending to besiege 
 the town of Carchemish on the Euphrates. But 
 Josiah, king of Judah, offended at the passage of 
 the Egyptian army through his territories, resolved 
 to impede, if unable to prevent, their march. 
 Necho sent messengers to induce him to desist, 
 assuring him that he had no hostile intentions 
 against Judaea, ‘ but against the house wherewith 
 I have war ; for God commanded me to make 
 haste.’ This conciliatory message was of no avail. 
 Josiah posted himself in the valley of Megiddo, 
 and prepared to oppose the Egyptians. Megiddo 
 was a city in the tribe of Manasseh, between forty 
 and fifty miles to the north of Jerusalem, and 
 within three hours of the coast. It is called by 
 Herodotus Magdolus. In this valley the feeble 
 forces of the Jewish king, having attacked Necho, 
 were routed with great slaughter. Josiati being 
 wounded in the neck with an arrow, ordered his 
 attendants to take him from the field. Escaping 
 from the heavy shower of arrows with which their 
 broken ranks were overwhelmed, they removed 
 him from the chariot in which he had been 
 wounded, and placing hint in a ‘ second one that 
 he had,’ they conveyed him to Jerusalem, where 
 
*10 NECOTH. 
 
 he died (2 Kings xxiii. 29 sq. ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 
 20 sq.). 
 
 Intent upon his original project, Necho did not 
 stop to revenge himself upon the Jews, but con- 
 tinued his march to the Euphrates. Three mouths 
 had scarcely elapsed, when, returning from the 
 capture of Carchemish and the defeat of the Chal- 
 daeans, he learned that, though Josiah had left an 
 elder son, Jehoahaz had caused himself to be 
 proclaimed king on the death of his father, with- 
 out soliciting Necho to sanction his taking the 
 crown. Incensed at this, he ordered Jehoahaz to 
 meet him ‘ at Riblah, in the land of Hamath 
 and having deposed him, and condemned the land 
 to pay a heavy tribute, lie carried him a prisoner 
 to Jerusalem. On arriving there, Necho made 
 Eliakim, the eldest son, king, changing his name 
 to Jehoiakim ; and taking the silver and gold 
 which had been levied upon the Jewish nation, he 
 returned to Egypt with the captive Jehoahaz, who 
 there terminated his short and unfortunate career. 
 Herodotus says that Necho, after having routed 
 the Syrians (the Jews) at Magdolus, took Ca- 
 dytis, a large city of Syria, in Palestine, which, 
 he adds, is very little less than Sardis (ii. 159, 
 iii. 5). By Cadytis there is scarcely a doubt he 
 meant Jerusalem ; the word is only a Greek form 
 of the ancient, as well as the modern, name of 
 that city. It is, however, to be regretted that the 
 mural sculptures of Egypt present no commemo- 
 ration of these triumphs on the part of Necho ; the 
 sole record of him which they give being the name 
 of Necho, found among the hieroglyphics in the 
 great hall of Karnak. II is oval also occurs on 
 vases, and some small objects of Egyptian art. 
 
 Pleased with his success, the Egyptian monarch 
 dedicated the dress he wore to the Deity who 
 was supposed to have given him the victory. lie 
 did not long enjoy the advantages he had ob- 
 tained. In the fourth year after his expedition, 
 being alarmed at the increasing power of the 
 Babylonians, he again marched into Syria, and 
 advanced to the Euphrates. The Babylonians 
 were prepared for his approach. Nebuchadnezzar 
 completely routed his army, recovered the town 
 of Carchemish, and, pushing his conquests through 
 Palestine, took from Necho all the territory be- 
 longing to the Pharaohs, from the Euphrates to 
 the southern extremity of Syria (2 Kings xxiv. 
 7; Jer. xlvi. 2; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9; 2 Kings 
 xxiv. 8). Nebuchadnezzar deposed Jehoiachin, 
 who had succeeded his father, and carried the 
 warriors and treasures away to Babylon ; a short 
 time previous to which Necho died, and was suc- 
 ceeded by Psammetichus II. (Wilkinson's Anc. 
 Egyptians, vol. i. 157 sq.) 
 
 According to Manetho (Euseb. Chron. Armen., 
 i. 219), Necho was the sixth king in the twenty- 
 sixth dynasty, successor of Psammetichus, and 
 as there had been another of the same name, he 
 was properly Necho the Second. The period of 
 his reign was, according to Manetho, six, accord- 
 ing to Herodotus sixteen, years (Consult Gese- 
 nius, Isaiah, i. 596). — J. R. B. 
 
 NECOTH (fi&03). This word occurs twice 
 In the book of Genesis, and no doubt indicates 
 a product of Syria, for in one case we find it 
 carried into Egypt as an article of commerce, 
 and in another sent as a present into the same 
 country. It occurs in the same passages as lada- 
 
 NECOTH. 
 
 num, which is translated myrrh in the Autluv 
 rized Version. Many of the same general ob» 
 ser vat ions will therefore apply to both [Lcru] 
 Necoth has unfortunately been rendered spicery. 
 This it is not likely to have meant, at least in the 
 present sense of the term, for such commodities 
 were not likely to be transported into Egypt from 
 Gilead, though many Eastern products were, no 
 doubt, carried north by caravans into Asia Minor, 
 up the Euphrates, and by Palmyra into Syria. In 
 the present case, however, all the articles men- 
 tioned, seem to be products indigenous in Syria. 
 But it is necessary to attend strictly to the original 
 names, for we are apt to be misled by the English 
 translation. Thus, in Gen. xxxvii. 25, we read, 
 ‘ Behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from 
 Gilead with their camels, bearing spiccry (necoth), 
 and balm (tzeri), and myrrh (loth ), going to carry 
 it down to Egypt.’ To these men Joseph was sold 
 by his brethren, when they were feeding their Hocks 
 at Dothan, supposed to be a few miles to the north 
 of Sebaste, or Samaria. It is curious that 
 Jacob, when desiring a present to be taken to the 
 ruler of Egypt, enumerates nearly the same ar- 
 ticles (Gen. xliii. 11), ‘Carry down the man a 
 present, a little balm (tzeri), and a little honey 
 (debash), spices (necoth) and myrrh (loth) ; or, 
 
 ‘ Sumite de laudatissimis lnijus terrae fructibus in 
 vasis vestris,’ as Bochart translates it. (See the 
 several words.) 
 
 Bochart ( llierozoicon , ii. lib. iv. c. 12) en- 
 ters into a learned exposition of the meaning 
 of necoth , of which Dr. Harris has given an 
 abridged view in his article on spices. Bochart 
 shows that t lie true import of necoth has always 
 been considered uncertain, for it is rendered wax 
 by the paraphrast Join than, in the Arabic version 
 of Erpenius, and hi Beresith Rabba (sect. 91, near 
 the end). Others interpret n very differently. The 
 Septuagint renders it Svyiaya, perfume, Aquila 
 storax, the Syrian version resin, the Samaritan 
 balsam, one Arabic version k/nirnoob or caroib , 
 another sumugha (or gum), Kimclii a desirable 
 thing , Rabbi Selomo a collection of several aro- 
 tnatics. Bochart himself considers it to mean 
 storax, and gives six reasons in support of his 
 opinion, but none of them appears of much weight. 
 Storax, no doubt, was a natural product of Syria, 
 and an indigenous product seems to be implied; 
 and Jerome (Gen. xliii. 11) follows Aquila in 
 rendering it styrax. Rosenm Idler, in his Bibl. 
 Bot. p. 165, Eng. transl., adopts tragacanth as 
 the meaning of necoth, without expressing any 
 doubt on the subject ; stating that ‘ The Arabic 
 
 word (l>j or neka or nekat ) which is 
 
 analogous to the Hebrew, denotes that gum 
 which is obtained from the tragacanth, or, as it 
 is commonly called, by way of contraction, tra- 
 ganth shrub, and which grows on Mount Lebanon, 
 in t lie Isle of Candia, and also in southern Eu- 
 rope.’ We have not been able to find any word 
 similar to necoth , indicating the tragacanth, 
 which, in our own MS. Materia Medica, is given 
 under the Arabic name of kitad, sometimes pro- 
 nounced AiYAacJ / and, indeed, it may be fount! 
 under the same name in Avicenna and other 
 Arabic authors. Tragacanth is an exudation from 
 several species of the genus Astragalus, and sub- 
 division tragacantha , which is produced in Crete^ 
 but chiefly in Northern Persia and in Koordis f aiu 
 
NEHEMIAH. 
 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 41 ! 
 
 In the latter province, Dr. Dickson, of Tripoli, saw 
 large quantities of it collected from plants, of which 
 he preserved specimens, and gave them to Mr. 
 Brant, British consul at Erzeroum, by whom they 
 were sent to Dr. Lindley. One of these, yielding 
 the best tragacanth, proved to be A. gummifer of 
 Labillardiere. It was found by him on Mount 
 Lebanon, where he ascertained that tragacanth was 
 collected by the shepherds. It might therefore 
 have been conveyed by Ishmaelites from Gilead to 
 Egypt. It has in its favour, that it is a produce of 
 the remote parts of Syria, is described by ancient 
 authors, as Theophrastus, Dioscorides, &c., and has 
 .always been highly esteemed as a gum in Eastern 
 countries : it was, therefore, very likely to be an 
 article of commerce to Egypt in ancient times. 
 
 In Richardson’s Arabic Dictionary we 
 
 find Slaj 
 
 nakat , translated as meaning the best part of 
 com (or dates) when sifted or cleaned ; also nu- 
 kayet, the choicest part of anything cleaned, but 
 sometimes also the refuse. — J. F. R. 
 
 NEGINIOTH, a word which occurs in the 
 titles of several Psalms [Psalms]. 
 
 NEHEMIAH (PlJDIp, comforted of Jehovah; 
 Sept. N ee/ilas). Three persons of this name occur 
 in Scripture; one, the son of Azbuk (Neh.iii. 16), 
 respecting whom no more is known than that he 
 was ruler in Beth-zur, and took a prominent part 
 in repairing the wall of Jerusalem [Beth-zur], 
 Another is mentioned (Ezra ii. 2; Nell. vii. 7) 
 among those who accompanied Zerubbabel on the 
 first return from captivity. Nothing further is 
 known of this man, though some writers (see 
 Carpzov, Introd. ad Lib. Bib. Vet. Testament i, 
 P. i. 340, sq.) hold him, without valid reasons, 
 f o be the same with the well-known Jewish patriot, 
 
 Nehemiah, whose genealogy is unknown, ex- 
 cept that he was the son of Hachaliah (Neh. i. 1), 
 and brother of Hanani (Neh. vii. 2). Some think 
 he was of priestly descent, because his name ap- 
 pears at the head of a list of priests in Neh. x. 1-8 ; 
 but it is obvious, from Neh. ix. 38, that he stands 
 there as a prince, and not as a priest — that he 
 heads the list because he was head of the nation. 
 The Vulgate, in 2 Macc. i. 21, calls him ‘sacerdos 
 Nehemias but this is a false version of the Greek, 
 which has e/ce Aewre rovs iepeis Neejuias, and not S 
 Iepeu9, which the Latin would require. The Syriac 
 agrees with the Greek. Others with some proba- 
 bility infer, from his station at the Persian court and 
 the high commission he received, that he was, like 
 Zerubbabel, of the tribe of Judah and of the house 
 of David (Carpzov, Introduction & c., P. i. 339). 
 
 While Nehemiah was cupbearer in the royal 
 palace at Shushan, in the twentieth year of Avta- 
 xerxes Longimanus, or 444 years b.c. [Arta- 
 xerxes], he learned the mournful and desolate 
 condition of the returned colony in Judaea. 
 This filled him with such deep and prayerful 
 concern for his country, that his sad countenance 
 revealed to the king his ‘ sorrow of heart;’ which 
 induced the monarch to ascertain the cause, and 
 also to vouchsafe the remedy, by sending him, 
 with full powers, to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, 
 and ‘ to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.’ 
 Being furnished with this high commission, and 
 enjoying the protection of a military escort (ch. 
 ii. 9), Nehemiah reached Jerusalem in the year 
 b.c. 444, and remained there till b.c. 432, being 
 
 actively engaged for twelve years in promoting 
 the public good (ch. v. 14). The principal wor* 
 which he then accomplished was the rebuilding, 
 or rather the repairing, of the city wall, which was 
 done ‘ in fifty and two days ’ (ch. vi. 15), notwith 
 standing many discouragements and difficulties, 
 caused chiefly by Sanballat, a Moabite of Ho- 
 ronaim, and Tobiah, an Ammonite, who were 
 leading men in the rival and unfriendly colony 
 of Samaria (ch. iv. 1-3). These men, with their 
 allies among the Arabians, Ammonites, ami Ash- 
 dodites (ch. iv.7), sought to hinder the re-fortify- 
 ing of Jerusalem, first by scoffing at the attempt ; 
 then by threatening to attack the workmen — which 
 Nehemiah averted by i setting a watch against 
 them day and uight,’ and arming the whole people, 
 so that ‘ every one with one of his hands wrought 
 in the work, and with the other hand held a wea- 
 pon ’ (ch. iv. 7-18) ; and finally, when scoffs and 
 threats had failed, by using various stratagems to 
 weaken Nehemiah 's authority, and even to take 
 his life (ch. vi. 1-14). But in the midst of these 
 dangers from without, our patriot encountered 
 troubles and hiuderances from his own people, 
 arising out of the general distress, which was ag- 
 gravated by the cruel exactions and oppression of 
 their nobles and rulers (ch. v. 1-5). These popular 
 grievances were promptly redressed on the earnest 
 and solemn remonstrance of Nehemiah, who had 
 himself set a striking example of retrenchment 
 and generosity in his high office (ch. v. 6-19). It 
 appears also (ch. vi. 17-19) that some of the chief 
 men in Jerusalem were at that time in conspiracy 
 with Tobiah against Nehemiah. The wall was 
 thus built in £ troublous times' (Dan. ix. 25) ; and 
 its completion was most joyously celebrated by a 
 solemn dedication under Nehemiah's direction 
 (ch. xii. 27-43). 
 
 Having succeeded in fortifying the city, our 
 reformer turned his attention to other measures in 
 order to secure its good government and prosperity. 
 He appointed some necessary officers (ch. vii .1-3 ; 
 also ch. xii. 44-47), and excited among the people 
 more interest and zeal in religion by the public 
 reading and exposition of the law (ch. viii. 1-12), 
 by the unequalled celebration of the Feast of Ta- 
 bernacles (ch. viii. 13-18), and by the observance 
 of a national fast, when the sins of the people and 
 the iniquities of their fathers were publicly and 
 most strikingly confessed (ch. ix.), and when 
 also a solemn covenant was made by all ranks 
 and classes { to walk in God's law,’ by avoiding 
 intermarriages with the heathen, by strictly ob- 
 serving the Sabbath, and by contributing to the 
 support of the temple service (ch. x.). But the 
 inhabitants of the city were as yet too few to de- 
 fend it and to ensure its prosperity ; and hence 
 Nehemiah brought, one out of every ten in the 
 country to take up his abode in the ancient capital, 
 which then presented so few inducements to the 
 settler, that ‘ the people blessed all the men that 
 willingly offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem ’ 
 (ch. vii. 4; also ch. xi. 1-19). 
 
 In these important, public proceedings, which 
 appear all to have happened in the first year of 
 his government, Nehemiah enjoyed the assistance 
 of Ezra, who is named on several occasions as 
 taking a prominent part in conducting affairs 
 (ch. viii. 1, 9, 13; xii. 36). Ezra had gone up 
 to Jerusalem thirteen years before according to 
 some, or thirty-three years according to others ; 
 
412 
 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 but on either reckoning, without supposing un- 
 usual longevity, he might well have lived to be Ne- 
 hemiah’s fellow-labourer [Ezra]. These contem- 
 poraries are alike eminent among the benefactors 
 of the Jewish people — alike patriotic and zealous, 
 though not uniform in character, or the same in 
 operation. In the character of Ezra we find no 
 indication of the self-complacency which forms 
 a marked feature in that of Nehemiah. The 
 former, in accordance with his priestly calling, 
 laboured chiefly in promoting the interests of re- 
 ligion, but the latter had most to do with the 
 general affairs of government ; the one was in 
 charge of the temple, the other of the state. 
 
 Nehemiah, at the close of his successful admi- 
 nistration, ‘ from the twentieth year even to the 
 thirty- second year of ATtaxerxes the king’ (ch. v. 
 14), returned to Babylon in the year b.c. 432, 
 and resumed, as some think, his duties as royal 
 cupbearer. 
 
 He returned, however, after a while, to Jeru- 
 salem, where his services became again requisite, in 
 consequence of abuses that had crept in during his 
 absence. His stay at the court of Artaxerxes was 
 not very long (certainly not above nine years) ; 
 ‘ for after certain days he obtained leave of the 
 king and came to Jerusalem’ (ch. xiii. 6, 7). 
 
 The phrase ‘ after certain days ’ 
 
 the end of days ) is indeed quite vague, and 
 hence many take it, as in our common bibli- 
 cal chronology, for the space of one year, while 
 others, on the contrary, reckon it a period of 
 about twenty years, and so consider the return 
 to have happened about b.c. 410 (Prideaux, i. 
 520 ; Jahn, Einleitung ins A. Test. ii. 288 ; 
 W iner, Real-io'arterbach ). But the former reckon- 
 ing appears too short, for it is exceedingly impro- 
 bable that affairs could fall into such confusion 
 had Nehemiah been absent only one year ; and 
 the latter, though it has much in its favour, is too 
 long, for it makes Nehemiah return after the death 
 of the very king from whom he obtained leave to 
 depart. Artaxerxes Longimanus died in b.c. 423, 
 having reigned forty-one years ; and hence Nehe- 
 miah’s return to Jerusalem cannot be dated later 
 than b.c. 423, which allows only nine years for 
 his stay at Babylon. If, then, we date his return 
 about, b.c. 424, we at once bring it within the 
 reign of Artaxerxes, and allow time enough for 
 abuses to creep in during his absence, or at least 
 for the particular abuse which is expressly named 
 (ch. xiii. 4-9) as having actually arisen (Hiiver- 
 nick, Einleitung ins A. Test. ii. 324). 
 
 After his return to the government of Judsea, 
 Nehemiah enforced the separation of all the 
 mixed multitude from Israel (ch. xiii. 1-3); and 
 accordingly expelled Tobiah the Ammonite from 
 the chamber which the high-priest., Eliashib, had 
 prepared for him in the temple (ch. xiii. 4-9). 
 Better arrangements were also made for the sup- 
 port of the temple service (ch. xiii. 10-14), and 
 for the rigid observance of the Sabbath (ch. xiii. 
 15-22). One of the last acts of his government 
 was an effort to put an end to mixed marriages, 
 which led him to ‘ chase ’ away a son of Joiada 
 the high-priest, because he was son-in-law to Sau- 
 ballat the Horonite (ch. xiii. 23-29). The dura- 
 tion of this second administration cannot be de- 
 termined : only it is evident that Joiada was high- 
 priest during that period. Now Joiada, according 
 
 to some chronologists, succeeded his father Eli» 
 shib in the year b.c. 413; and hence we may 
 gather that Nehemiah’s second rule lasted at leas* 
 ten years, namely, from b.c. 424 to 413. It is 
 not unlikely that he remained at his post till 
 about the year b.c. 405, towards the close of the 
 reign of Darius Notlius, who is mentioned in 
 ch. xii. 22 [Darius]. At this time Nehemiah 
 would be between sixty and seventy years old, if 
 we suppose him (as most do) to have been only 
 between twenty and thirty when he first went to 
 Jerusalem. That lie lived to be an old mau is 
 thus quite probable from the sacred history ; 
 and this is expressly declared by Josephus, who 
 ( Antiq . xi. 5, 6) states that he died at an ad- 
 vanced age ( e Is yrjpas a (piKdjuevos). Of the place 
 and year of his death nothing is known. 
 
 Besides the account in Josephus, there are 
 some notices of Nehemiah in the Apocrypha. 
 The Son of Sirach (ch. xlix. 13) mentions him 
 with great honour as the rebuilder of the city 
 walls; and in 2 Macc. i. 19-36, he is said to 
 have discovered the holy fire that had been con- 
 cealed by Jeremiah the prophet, at the destruction 
 of the temple, which is clearly a mere legend. 
 In 2 Macc. ii. 13, he is said to have formed a 
 library, and collected the books of the kings and 
 prophets, and of David; and hence some think it 
 probable that he was concerned in forming the 
 canon of Hebrew Scriptures — which is quite 
 credible [Cats on]. 
 
 Two titles are given to Nehemiah, expressive 
 of his office. One is nflS (ch. xii. 26), which 
 is translated ‘ governor.’ It is considered a 
 Persian word, meaning friend or assistant of a 
 king, and of the same origin as pasha , still used 
 for the governor of a Turkish province. The 
 other is tirshatha., in ch. viii. 9, which 
 
 might also be translated ‘ governor,’ as it comes 
 probably from a Persian word, meaning severe 
 or stern, and hence applicable to a ruler. But 
 in Nell. vii. 65, 70, this title denotes not Nehe- 
 miah, but Zerubbabel, as is evident from Ezra 
 ii. 63-70. 
 
 The Book or Nehemiah, which bears the 
 title rOlOriJ Nehemiah’s Words , was an- 
 
 ciently connected with Ezra, as if it formed part of 
 the same work (Eichhorn, Einleitung , ii. 627) 
 This connection is still indicated by its first word, 
 *m, ‘ And it came to pass.’ It arose, doubtless, 
 from the fact that Nehemiah is a sort of continu- 
 ation of Ezra [Ezra]. From this circumstance 
 some ancient writers were led to call this book the 
 2nd book of Ezra, and even to regard that learned 
 scribe as the author of it, (Carpzov, Introductio. 
 
 c. p. 336). There can, however, be no reason- 
 able doubt that it proceeded from Nehemiah, for 
 its style and spirit, except in one portion, are 
 wholly unlike Ezra’s. Here we find no Chaldee 
 documents, as in Ezra, though we might expect 
 some from ch. ii. 7, 8, 9, and ch. vi. 5 ; and 
 here also the writer discovers a species of egotism 
 never manifested by Ezra (Neh. v. 14-19, Eich- 
 horn, Einleitung ins A. Test. ii. 619). 
 
 The canonical character of Nehemiah's work is 
 established by very ancient testimony. It should 
 be noticed, however, that this book is not expressly 
 named by Melito of Sardis [a.d. 170] in his 
 account of the sacred writings ; but this creates 
 no difficulty, since he does mention Ezra, of 
 
NEHEMIAH. 
 
 NERD. 
 
 418 
 
 which Nehemiah was then considered but a part 
 (Eichhorn, Einleitung , ii. 627). 
 
 The contents of the book have been specified 
 above in the biography of the author. The work 
 can scarcely be called a history of Nehemiah and 
 his times. It is rather a collection of notices of 
 some important transactions that happened during 
 the first year of his government, with a few scraps 
 from his later history. The contents appear to 
 be arranged in chronological order, with the ex- 
 ception perhaps of ch. xii. 27-43, where the ac- 
 count of the dedication of the wall seems out of 
 its proper place : we might expect it rather after 
 ch. vii. 1-4, where the completion of the wall is 
 mentioned. 
 
 As to the date of the book, it is not likely that 
 it came from Nehemiah’s hand till near the close 
 of his life. Certainly it could not have been all 
 written before the expulsion of the priest, recorded 
 in ch. xiii. 23-29, which took place about the 
 year b.c. 413. 
 
 While the book as a whole is considered to 
 have come from Nehemiah, it consists in part of 
 compilation. He doubtless wrote the greater part 
 himself, but some portions he evidently took from 
 other works. It is allowed by all that he is, in 
 the strictest, sense, the author of the narrative 
 from ch. i. to ch. vii. 5 (Havernick, Einleitung , 
 ii. 304). The account in ch. vii. 6-73 is avow- 
 edly compiled, for he says in ver. 5, ‘ I found a 
 register,’ &c. This register we actually find also 
 in Ezra ii. 1-70 : hence it might be thought that 
 our author borrowed this part from Ezra; but it 
 is more likely that they both copied from public 
 documents, such as ‘the book of the chronicles’ 
 (D^rt l '"D*l), mentioned in Nell. xii. 23. Had 
 Nehemiah taken his list from Ezra, we might 
 expect agreement, if not identity, in the contents ; 
 whereas the two registers present an amazing 
 number of palpable discrepancies, which can 
 scarcely be accounted for without supposing that 
 they were taken from public records that were 
 discordant. It is, however, barely possible that 
 the discrepancies arose from the errors of tran- 
 scribers. 
 
 Chapters viii.-x. were probably not written by 
 Nehemiah, since the narrative respecting him is in 
 the third person (ch. viii. 9 ; x. 1), and not in the 
 first, as usual (ch. ii. 9-20). Havernick, indeed, 
 (Einleitung, ii. 305-308) makes it appear, from 
 the contents and style, that Ezra was the writer 
 of this portion. The remaining chapters (xi.-xiii.) 
 also exhibit some marks of compilation (ch. xii. 
 26, 47) ; but there are, on the contrary, clear 
 proofs of Nehemiah’s own authorship in ch. xii. 
 27-43, and in ch. xiii. 6-31 ; and hence Haver- 
 nick thinks he wrote the whole except ch. xii. 
 1-26, which he took from ‘the book of the chro- 
 nicles,’ mentioned in ver. 23 {Einleitung , ii. 315- 
 319). 
 
 The mention of Jaddua as a high-priest, in 
 ch. xii. 11, 22, has occasioned much perplexity. 
 This Jaddua appears to have been in office in 
 B.c. 332, when Alexander the Great came to 
 Jerusalem (Joseph. Antiq. xi. 8) : how then could 
 he be named by Nehemiah ? The common, and 
 perhaps the readiest, escape from this difficulty 
 is to regard the naming of Jaddua as an addition 
 by a later hand. Yet it is just credible that 
 Nehemiah wrote it, if we bear h* mind that he 
 lived to be an old man, so as possibly to see the 
 
 year b.c. 370 ; and if we further suppose that 
 Jaddua had at that time entered on his office, so 
 that he filled it for about foity years, i. e. till 
 b.c. 332. In supjjort of this conjecture, see espe- 
 cially Hiivernick s Einleitung, ii. 320-324. 
 
 The exegetical helps for the explanation of this 
 book are chiefly, Poli Synopsis; Jo. Clerici 
 Comm, in Lib. Historicos V. T., Amst. 1708; 
 Maurer, Comment. Crit. Grammat. in V. T., vol. i. 
 Lips. 1833; Strigelii Scholia in Nehem., Lips. 
 1575 ; and Ram bach, Annotations in Librum 
 Nehemice. — B. D. 
 
 NEHILOTH, a word which occurs in the title 
 of the fifth Psalm [Psai.ms]. 
 
 NEHUSHTA (NM?n|, brass; Sept. NeVfc*), 
 the mother of king Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxiv. 8). 
 
 NER p2, a light ; Sept. N yp), grandfather of 
 kingSaul (1 Sam. xiv. 50, 51 ; xxvi.5; 1 Chron. 
 viii. 33). 
 
 NERD or Nard 0*1?.) is mentioned in three 
 places in the Song of Solomon, and by Mark and 
 John in the New Testament, under the name of 
 vdpdos. Both are translated in the Authorized 
 Version by the word spikenard, •which indicates 
 a far-famed perfume of the East, that has often 
 engaged the attention of critics, but the plant 
 which yields it has only been ascertained in very- 
 recent times. That the nerd of Scripture was a 
 
 433. [Nardostachys Jatamansi.] 
 
 perfume is evident from the passages in which it 
 occurs. Cant. i. 12 : ‘ While the king sitteth at 
 his table, my spikenard (nard) sendeth forth 
 the smell thereof.’ So in Cant. iv. 14 : ‘Spike- 
 nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with 
 all trees of frankincense, myrrh and aloes, with 
 all the chief spices.’ Here we find it men 
 
NERD. 
 
 NERD. 
 
 41 4 
 
 tioned along with many of the most valued aro- 
 matics which were known to the ancients, and all 
 of which, with the exception perhaps of saffron, 
 must have been obtained by foreign commerce 
 from distant countries, as Persia, the east coast of 
 Africa, Ceylon, the north-west and the south-east 
 of India, and in the present instance even from 
 the remote Himalayan mountains. Such sub- 
 ■ stances must necessarily have been costly when 
 the means of communication were defective, and 
 ! the gains of the successful merchant propor- 
 tionally great. That the nard or nardus was of 
 great value we learn from the New Testament 
 (Mark xiv. 3). When our Saviour sat at meat 
 in Bethany, ‘ there came a woman having an 
 alabaster box of ointment of (vapSov) spikenard 
 very precious ; and she brake the box, and poured 
 it on his head.’ So in John xii. 3 : ‘Then took 
 Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard (iivpov 
 vapdov), very costly, and anointed the feet of 
 Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair ; and the 
 house was filled with the odour of the ointment.’ 
 On this Judas, who afterwards betrayed our 
 Saviour, said (ver. 5), ‘ Why was not. this oint- 
 ment sold for three hundred pence, and given to 
 the poor?’ 
 
 Before proceeding to identify the plant yielding 
 nard, we may refer to the knowledge which the 
 ancients had of this ointment. Horace, at a 
 neriod nearly contemporary, ‘promises td Virgil 
 a whole cadus (about thirty-six quarts) of wine, 
 for a small onyx-box full of spikenard’ (Rosen- 
 on filler, p. 168), 
 
 Nardo vina mere here. 
 
 Nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum. 
 
 The composition of this ointment is given by 
 Dioscorides, in lib. i. c. 77, ir ep\ vapd'ivov pvpov, 
 where it is described as being made with nut oil, 
 and having as ingredients malabathrum, schoenus, 
 costus, amomum, nardus, myrrha, and balsa- 
 mum ; that is, almost all the most valued per- 
 fumes of antiquity. 
 
 43^. [Spikenard from a druggist’s in London.] 
 
 Tbe nard, vapdos, was known in very early 
 times, and is noticed by Theophrastus, and by 
 Hip^>crates. Dioscorides, indeed, describes three 
 
 kinds of naid. Of the first, called vapdos ( nar - 
 dos) simply, there were two varieties, the one 
 Syrian, the other Indian. The former is sc 
 called, not because it is produced in Syria, but 
 because the mountains in which it is produced 
 extend on one side towards Syria, and on the 
 other towards India. This may refer to the 
 Hindoo Khoosh, and to the extensive signification 
 of the name Syria in ancient times, or to so many 
 Indian products finding their way in those ages 
 into Europe across Syria. These were brought 
 there either by the caravan route from north-west 
 India, or up the Persian Gulf and Euphrates. 
 It is evident, from the passages quoted, that nard 
 could not have been a produce of Syria, or its 
 value would nothave been so greateither among the 
 Romans or the Jews. The other variety is called 
 Gangitis, from the Ganges, being found on a 
 mountain round which it flows. It is described 
 as having many spikes from one root. Hence it, no 
 doubt, came to be called vapd6<TTax,vs ; and from 
 the word stachys being rendered by the word 
 spike , it has been translated spikenard. The 
 second kind is by Dioscorides, called Celtic 
 Nard (vapdos /ceA/nfcnj), and the third kind moun- 
 tain nard (vapdos bpeivfj). If we consult the 
 authors subsequent to Dioscorides, as Galen, 
 Pliny, Oribasius, .^Etius, and Paulus .^Egineta, 
 we shall easily be able to trace these different 
 kinds to the time of the Arabs. As the author 
 of this article has already said ( v. infra), on 
 consulting Avicenna, we are referred from nar • 
 den to sunbul , pronounced sumbul , and in the 
 Latin translation from nardum to spica, under 
 which the Roman, the mountain, the Indian, 
 and Syrian kinds are mentioned. So in Per- 
 sian works on Materia Medica, chiefly trans- 
 lations from the Arabic, we have the different 
 kinds of swibnl mentioned; as — 1. Sunbul 
 hindee. 2. Sunbul roomie , called also sunbul 
 ukletee and narden ukletee , evidently the above 
 Celtic nard, said also to be called sunbul 
 italion , that is, the nard which grows in Italy. 
 3. Sunbul jibullee, or mountain nard. The first, 
 however, is the only one with which we are at 
 present concerned. The synonymes given to it in 
 these Persian works are, — Arabic, sunbul al teeb , 
 or fragrant nard ; Greek, narden ; Latin, nar- 
 doom; and Hindee, balchur and jatamansee. 
 
 Sir William Jones ( Asiat . Res. ii. 416, 8vo.) 
 was the first to ascertain that the above Hindee 
 and Sanscrit synonymes referred to the true spike- 
 nard, and that the Arabs described it as being 
 like the tail of an ermine. The next step was 
 of course to attempt to get the plant which pro- 
 duced the drug. This he was not successful in 
 doing, because he had not access to the Hima- 
 layan mountains, and a wrong plant was sent 
 him, which is that figured and described by Dr. 
 Roxburgh (Asiat. Res. iv. 97, 438). The author 
 of this article, when in charge of the East India 
 Company’s botanic garden at Seharunpore, in 
 30° of N. latitude, about 30 miles from the foot 
 of the Himalayan mountains, being favourably 
 situated for the purpose, made inquiries on the 
 subject. He there learnt that jatamansi, better 
 known in India by the name balchur , was yearly 
 brought down in considerable quantities, as an 
 article of commerce, to the plains of India, from 
 such mountains as Shalma, Kedar Kanta, and 
 others, at the foot of which flow the Ganges and 
 
NERGAL. 
 
 NET. 
 
 419 
 
 Jumna rivers. Having obtained some of the 
 fresh brought down roo.’s, he planted them, both In 
 the botanic garden at Seharunpore and in a nursery 
 at Mussooree, in the Himalaya, attached to the 
 garden. The plants produced are figured in his 
 Illustrations of Himalayan Botany , t. 54, and 
 a reduced figure is given in the accompanying 
 wood-cut (No. 433). The plant produced was 
 found to belong to the natural family of Vale- 
 rianece , and has been named nardostachys jata- 
 mansi by De Candolle, and formerly patrinia 
 jaiamansi, by Mr. Dow, from plants sent home 
 by Dr. Wallich from Gossamtham, a mountain 
 of Nepal ( Penny Cyclopedia, art. Spikenard ; 
 and Royle, Illust. Himal. Botany, p. 242). 
 
 Hence there can be no doubt that the jata- 
 mansi of the Hindoos is the sunbicl hindee of 
 the Arabs, which they compare to the tail of an 
 ermine. This would almost be sufficient to iden- 
 tify the drug : the appearance to which it refers 
 may be seen even in the wood-cut (434, fig. 1), but 
 very conspicuously in the specimens of the drug 
 which the author has deposited in the Museum of 
 Materia Medica in King’s College. This is pro- 
 duced in consequence of the woody fibres of the 
 leaf and its footstalk not being decomposed in 
 the cold and comparatively dry climate where 
 they are produced, but remain and form a pro- 
 tection to the plant from the severity of the cold. 
 There can be as little doubt that the Arabs refer 
 to the descriptions of Dioscorides, and both they, 
 and the Christian physicians who assisted them in 
 making translations, had ample opportunities, Irom 
 their profession and their local situation, of becom- 
 ing well acquainted with tilings as well' as words. 
 There is as little reason to doubt that the vdpbos 
 of Dioscorides is that of the other Greek authors, 
 and this will carry us into ancient times. As 
 many Indian products found their way into Egypt 
 and Palestine, and are mentioned in Scripture, 
 indeed in the very passage with nard we have 
 calamus, cinnamon, and aloes (ahalim), there is 
 no reason why spikenard from the Himalayas 
 could not as easily have been procured. The 
 only difficulty appears to arise from the term 
 yapdos having occasionally been used in a ge- 
 neral sense, and therefore there is sometimes con- 
 fusion between the nard and the sweet cane 
 [Kankh bosem], another Indian product. Some 
 difference of opinion exists respecting the fra- 
 grance of the jatamansi : it may be sufficient to 
 state that it continues to be highly esteemed in 
 Eastern countries in the present day, where fra- 
 grant essences are still procured from it, as the 
 unyuentum nardinum was of old. — J. F. R. 
 
 NERGAL (Vrj3; Sept. ’EpyeX), an idol of 
 the Cuthites (2 Kings xvii. 30). The Rabbinical 
 commentators believe that- this idol was in the 
 form of a cock ; founding their not very happy 
 conjecture apparently upon the fact that in the 
 
 Talmud the similar word, tarnegol, means 
 
 a cock. The more measured researches of Nor- 
 berg, Gesenius, and other inquirers into the 
 astroiatry of the Assyrians and Chaldaeans, lead 
 
 to the conclusion that ^“13 is the same as the 
 Za'oian which was the name for the planet 
 
 Mars. This name of the planet, both among the 
 Zal'ians and Arabians, means ill-luck, misfortune ; 
 
 and it was by no means peculiar to the mythology 
 of the West to make it the symbol of bloodshed 
 and war. Among the people first named, the 
 planet Mars was typified under the figure of a 
 man holding in one hand a drawn sword, and in 
 the other a human head just/jut off; and his gar- 
 ments were also red, which, as well as the other 
 ideas attached to this idol, were no doubt founded 
 on the reddish hue which the body of the planet 
 presents to the eye. Among the southern Arabs 
 his temple was painted red ; and they offered to 
 him garments stained with blood, and also a war- 
 rior (probably a prisoner), who was cast into apool. 
 It is related, of the khalif Hakeem that in the 
 last night of his life, as he observed the stars, 
 and saw the planet Mars rise above the horizon, 
 he murmured between his lips, ‘ Dost thou ascend, 
 thou accursed shedder of blood ? then is my hour 
 come;’ and at that moment the assassins sprang 
 upon him from their hiding-place ’ (Mohammed 
 Abu Taleb, a]). Norberg, Onomast. p. 105; Bar- 
 Hebrceus, p. 220). Von Bohlen would rather 
 derive the name from the Sanscrit Nrigal, ‘ man- 
 devourer,’ spoken of a fierce warrior, and corre- 
 sponding to Merodach (Gesenius, Thesaxcr. p. 913, 
 and Comment. zu Jesa, ii. p. 344). 
 
 NERGAL-SH AREZER ; Pers. 
 
 Her gal, prince of fire ; Sept. TStepiyMeradp). 1 . A 
 military chieftain under Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 
 xxxix. 3). 2. The chief of the magi (Rab-mag) 
 
 under the same king, and present in the same 
 expedition (Jer. xxxix. 3, 13). 
 
 NESER. [Eagle.] 
 
 NET. There are in Scripture several words 
 denoting different kinds of nets, and this, with the 
 frequency of images derived from them, shows that 
 nets were much in use among the Hebrews for 
 fishing, hunting, and fowling. Indeed, for the two 
 latter purposes, nets were formerly used to an extent 
 of which now, since the invention of fire-arms, a 
 notion can scarcely be formed. 1. D“IH cherem , 
 which denotes a net for either fishing or fowling. 
 It is derived from a word signifying ‘to shut up;’ 
 and the idea is, therefore, founded on its shutting 
 in the prey. It occurs in Hab. i. 16, 17 ; Ezek. 
 xxvi. 5, 14; xlvii. 10; Zech. xiv. 11, &c. In 
 Eccles. vii. 26, it is applied by an apt metaphor 
 to female entanglements. 2. miitmor or 
 
 machmor, which occurs only in Ps. cxli. 10, Isa. 
 li. 20, where it denotes a hunter’s net; but a 
 longer word, from the same source, DTODD mik- 
 moreth , denotes the net of fishermen in the only 
 passages in which it is found (Isa. xix. 8 ; Hab. 
 i. 15, 16). In these cases we find, by tracing the 
 words to their source, that the idea is founded 
 upon the plaiting, braiding, or interweaving of the 
 net-work. 3. sebaka, which designates an 
 
 actual hunting net in Job xviii. 6 ‘ but elsewhere 
 it is applied to net-work or lattice-work, especially 
 around the capitals of columns (1 Kings vii. 18, 
 20, 41, 42; 2 Kings xxvi. 17; 2 Chron. iv. 12, 
 13 ; Jer. lii. 22, 23) ; and also before a window or 
 balcony (2 Kings i. 2). In the New Testament nc 
 other net than that for fishing alone is mentioned. 
 The word which describes it (Mktvov) is usually 
 confined to fishing nets by classical writers, al- 
 though sometimes applied to the nets of hunters, 
 Another word to describe a net, dpcpifiApo-rpoUj 
 occurs in Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16, which, like 
 
416 
 
 NET. 
 
 NETER. 
 
 c kerem above, is founded on the idea of enfolding 
 or shutting in the prey. 
 
 We have no positive information concerning 
 the nets of the Hebrews, and can only suppose 
 that they were not materially different from those 
 of the ancient Egyptians, concerning which we 
 now possess very good information. Indeed, the 
 nets of Egypt, the fishers who used them, and the 
 fish caught by them, are more than once mentioned 
 in Scripture (Isa xix. 8). The usual fishing net 
 among this people was of a long form, like the 
 common drag-net, with wooden floats on the upper, 
 and leads on the lower side. It was sometimes let 
 down from a boat, but those who pulled it usually 
 stood on the shove, and landed the fish on a 
 shelving bank. This mode, however, was more 
 
 adapted to river than to lake fishing; and hence, 
 in all the detailed examples of fishing in the New 
 Testament, the net is cast from and drawn into 
 boats, excepting in one case where, the draft 
 being too great to take into the boat, the fishers 
 dragged the net after their boats to the shore (John 
 xxi. 6, 8). Sometimes use was made of a smaller 
 net for catching fish in shallow water, furnished 
 with a pole on either side, to which it was attached ; 
 and the fisherman, holding one of the poles in 
 either hand, thrust it below the surface of the 
 water, and awaited the moment when a shoal of 
 fish passed over it. 
 
 It is interesting to observe that the fishermen in 
 the boat, excepting the master (No. 435), are almost 
 
 naked, as are also those who have occasion to 
 wade in the water in hauling the net to the shore 
 (No. 436). Such seems also to have been the prac- 
 tice among his Hebrew fishermen ; for Peter, 
 when he left the boat to hasten on shore to his 
 risen Lord, 1 girt his fisher's coat unto him, for he 
 was naked’ (John xxi. 7) ; although, in this case, 
 the word 4 naked’ must be understood with some 
 latitude [Naked]. 
 
 Nets were also used in taking birds, to an ex- 
 tent of which we can scarcely form an adequate 
 conception. A clap net was usually employed. 
 This was of different kinds, that shown in the 
 cut (No. 438), being the most common. It con- 
 sisted of two sides or frames, over which the net 
 woik was spread; at one end wa3 a short net. 
 
 whiwh they fastened to a bush, or a cluster of 
 reeds, and at the other was one of considerable 
 length, which, as soon as the birds weie seen feed- 
 ing in the area within, was pulled by the fowlers, 
 causing the instantaneous collapse of the two 
 sides (No. 437). Sir J. G. Wilkinson (Ancient 
 Egyptians , iii. 45) says the nets are very similar 
 
 437 . 
 
 to those used in Europe at the present day, but 
 probably larger, and requiring a greater number 
 of persons to manage them, than our own ; which, 
 however, may be ascribed to an imperfection in 
 the contrivance for closing them. 
 
 In hunting, a space of considerable size was 
 sometimes enclosed with nets, into which the 
 animals were driven by beaters. The spots thus 
 enclosed were usually in the vicinity of the water 
 brooks to which they were in the habit of repairing 
 in the morning and evening ; and having awaited 
 
 the time when they went to drink, the hunters 
 disposed their nets, occupied proper positions for 
 observing them unseen, and gradually closed in 
 upon them. The usages of the Egyptians, and, 
 so far as can be ascertained, of other Oriental 
 nations, in this respect, correspond with the in- 
 timations of Julius Pollux (Onomast. v. 4), who 
 states that two kinds of nets were employed in 
 this mode of hunting. One, a long net, called 
 by the Greeks Micros, was furnished with several 
 ropes, and was supported on forked poles, varying 
 in length to correspond with the inequalities ol 
 the ground over which it extended. The otners 
 were smaller nets, called eV35ja,for stopping gaps, 
 These practices are obviously alluded to in such 
 passages as Job xix. 6 ; Ps. cxl. 5 ; Isa. li. 20. 
 
 NETER (*iri3 ; Sept, and Symmachus, vlrpov’ 
 Yulg. nitrum; English version ‘ nitre’) occurs 1.. 
 Prov. xxv. 20 ; Jer. ii. 22; where the substance in 
 question is described as effervescing with vinegar, 
 and as being used in washing; neither of which 
 particulars applies to what is now, by a misappro- 
 priation of this ancient name, called ‘ nitre,’ and 
 which in modern usage means the saltpetre of 
 commerce, but thej both apply to the natron , o» 
 true nitrum of the ancients. The similarity of 
 the names which is observable in this case is 
 considered by Gesenius of great weight in a pro- 
 duction of the East, the name of which usually 
 passed with the article itself into Greece. Both 
 Greek and Roman writers describe natron by the 
 Words given in the Sept, and Vulgate. Jerome, 
 in his note on Prov. xxv. 20, considers this to h* 
 
NETHINIM. 
 
 NICODEMUS. 
 
 417 
 
 flu* substance Intended. Natron, though found 
 hi many parts of the East, has ever been one 
 of the distinguishing natural productions of 
 .Egypt. Strabo mentions two places in that 
 country, beyond Momemphis, where it was found 
 in great abundance, and says that those districts 
 were in consequence called the nitritic nomes 
 or provinces ( Geog . xvii. p. 1139, Oxon. 1807), 
 to which Pliny refers by the name Nitritis (Hist. 
 Nat. v. 9), and describes the natural and ma- 
 nufactured nitrum of Egypt (xxxi. 10). This 
 substance, according to Herodotus, was used 
 by the Egyptians in the process of embalm- 
 ing (ii. 76, 77). The principal natron lakes 
 now found in Egypt, six in number, are situate 
 n a barren valley about thirty miles westward 
 ■>f the Delta, where it both floats as a whitish 
 scum upon the water, and is found deposited at 
 the bottom in a thick incrustation, after the water 
 is evaporated by the heat of summer. It is a 
 natural mineral alkali, composed of the car- 
 bonate, sulphate, and muriate of soda, derived 
 from the soil of that region. Forskal says that it 
 
 is known by the name ^ atrun, or 
 
 natrun , that it effervesces with vinegar, and is 
 used as soap in washing linen, and by the bakers 
 as yeast, and in cookery to assist in boiling meat, 
 &c. (j Flora JEgyptiaco-Arabica, Hauniae, 1775, 
 pp. 45, 46). Combined with oil it makes a harder 
 and firmer soap than the vegetable alkali [Bo- 
 rith]. The application of the name nitre to 
 saltpetre seems accounted for by the fact that the 
 knowledge of natron, the true nitre, was lost for 
 many centuries in this country, till revived by the 
 Hon. R. Boyle, who says he ‘ had had some of it 
 brought to him from Egypt’ ( Memoirs for a 
 History of Mineral Waters, Lond. 1681-5, p. 86). 
 See an interesting paper in which this is stated, in 
 the Philosophical Transactions, abridged, 1809, 
 vol. xiii. p. 216, &c. ; and for a full description of 
 the modern merchandise, uses, &c., of the natron 
 of Egypt, see Oonini’s Travels, Paris, vol. i. ch. 
 xix. ; Andr6ossi’s Memoire sur la Vallee des Lacs 
 de Natron Decade Egyptienne , No. iv., vol. ii. ; 
 Beckmann's Beytrdge zur Geschickte der Er fin- 
 dung en^ th. iv. p. 15, flf. ; J. D. Michaelis, De 
 Nitro Hebrceor. in Comment. Societ. Regal. 
 Prcclect. pt. i. p. 166 ; and Supplem. ad Lex. 
 Hebraic, p. 1704 ; Shaw’s Travels, 2nded. p. 479. 
 
 J. F. D. 
 
 NETHINIM ; Sept. N aQivip). This 
 
 Aame, which means ‘ the given ’ or ‘ the devoted,’ 
 was applied to the servants of the temple, or temple 
 slaves, who were under the Levites in the ministry 
 »f the tabernacle and temple. Gesenius ( Jewish 
 Antiq ., p. 289) is wrong in alleging that there is 
 no trace of the name till the time of David. On 
 the contrary, it was attached in the first instance 
 vo the Levites themselves. Thus God says, ‘ I have 
 ywen the Levites as a gift (Heb. nethinim ) to 
 Aaron and to his sons from among the children 
 of Israel, to do the service of the children of 
 Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation’ (Num. 
 viii. 19). This, in fact, explains the origin of 
 the name. The term ‘Levites,’ however, was at 
 first sufficiently distinctive as a title; but when 
 subordinate helpers were eventually given to these, 
 tne latter took the name of Nethinim. The first 
 servants whom the Levites obtained we.e the 
 28 
 
 Gibeonites, on whom devolved the very laborious 
 services of fetching water and collecting wood 
 (Josh. ix. 3-27). The number of such servants 
 appears to have been increased by David ; and it 
 seems to have been then, jvhen these servants ceased 
 to be wholly Gibeonit.ies, that Nethinim came 
 into use as a proper name for the whole class (Ezra 
 viii. 20). From that time forward, they appear 
 to have been no longer regarded or treated as 
 slaves, but as the lowest order of the servants of the 
 sanctuary ; who, although in their origin foreigners 
 and heathen, had doubtless embraced the Jewish 
 religion. These did not all forget their relation- 
 ship to the sanctuary during the Captivity. Some 
 of them returned to their duties under the decree 
 of Cyrus, and were placed in cities with the Le- 
 vites (Nell. xi. 3; Ezra ii. 70; 1 Cbron. ix. 27. 
 It was not to be expected that many of them 
 would return to this humble station in Palestine, 
 but 220 accompanied Ezra (Ezra viii. 20), and 
 392 Zerubbabel (ii. 5-8). The voluntary de- 
 votedness which was thus manifested by these 
 persons considerably raised (he station of the 
 Nethinim, which was thenceforth regarded ralher 
 as honourable than degrading. Their number 
 was, however, insufficient for the service of the 
 temple ; whence, as Josephus tells us ( De Bell. 
 Jud. ii. 17, 6), a festival, called 'Eu\o(popia, 
 Xylophoria, was established, in which the people, 
 to supply the deficiency, were obliged to bring a 
 certain quantity of wood to the temple for the use 
 of the altar of burnt-offering, 
 
 NETOPHAH (HSb} ; Sept. Ner^d), a place 
 not far from Bethlehem in Judaea (Ezra ii. 22 ; 
 Neh. vii. 26). Hence the Gentile name Netophite 
 (2 Sam. xxiii. 28, 29; 2 Kings xxv. 23). 
 NETTLE [Thorn]. 
 
 NETZ. [Hawk.] 
 
 NEW MOON [Festivals ; Moon]. 
 
 NEW YEAR [Year]. 
 
 NIBHAZ (THI13 ; Sept. ’E/3Aa£rp), an idol of 
 the Avites (2 Kings xvii. 31). The Jewish inter- 
 preters, knowing nothing of this idol, sought to 
 deduce some idea of it from the etymology of the 
 name. Deriving it from |”Q3, ‘to bark,’ they 
 have assigned the idol the figure of a dog ; although 
 there are no traces of any idol of this figure wor- 
 shipped in ancient Syria. In the Zabian books the 
 corresponding name, is that of an evil 
 
 demon, who sits on a throne upon the eartn, while 
 his feet rest on the bottom of Tartarus ; but it is 
 doubtful whether this should be identified with 
 the Avite Nibhaz. Iken , Dissert, de Idola N ibchazj 
 1743; Norberg, Onomast. Cod. Nasar . ; GeseCL 
 Thesaur. an TfOL 
 
 NICODEMUS (Ni/fJory/ios), a Pharisee and 
 member of the Sanhedrim, who was impressed by 
 what he had heard concerning Jesus ; but being 
 unwilling, on account of his station, to commit 
 himself without greater surety than he possessed, 
 repaired by night to the house in which Christ 
 dwelt, and held with him that important discourse 
 which occupies the third chapter of John’s 
 Gospel. The effect which was then produced 
 upon his mind may be collected from the fact 
 that subsequently, at one of the sittings of the 
 venerable body to which he belonged, he ven- 
 tured to let fall a few words in favour of Jesus, 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
il s jNICOLAITANS. 
 
 whose proceedings were then in question (John 
 vii. d»>) ; and that he took part with his col- 
 league, Joseph of Arimalhea, in rendering the last 
 honours to the body of the crucified Redeemer 
 (John xix. 39). Nothing further is known of Nico- 
 demas from Scripture. Tradition, however, adds 
 that after he had thus openly declared himself a fol- 
 lower of Jesus, and had been baptised by Peter, he 
 was displaced from his office, and expelled from 
 Jerusalem (Phot. Cod. p. 171). It is added that 
 he found refuge in a country house of his cousin 
 Gamaliel, and remained there till his death. 
 Modern writers have been disposed to identify 
 Nicodemus with a rich and pious person of the 
 same name (but also called Bonai), mentioned 
 in the Talmud, whose family eventually sank 
 into great poverty (Otho. Lex. Habbin ., p. 459). 
 All this is, however, very uncertain, and what is 
 stated in the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus is 
 unsafe, and in some parts manifestly untrue. Too 
 strong an appreciation of the world’s good opinion 
 seems to have been the failing of Nicodemus, 
 although Niemeyer ( Charakt . i. 113) has lately 
 made a strong effort to clear him from this impu- 
 tation. We do not lay much stress upon what 
 he ventured to say in the Sanhedrim ; for he 
 suffered himself to Ire easily put down, and did 
 not come forward with any bold avowal of his 
 belief. Winer calls attention to the fact, that 
 although he took part in the sepulchral rites of 
 Jesus, he did not join Joseph in his application to 
 Pilate for the body of his crucified Lord ; and 
 justly remarks that such characters usually re- 
 quire a strong external impulse to bring them 
 boldly forward, which impulse was probably in 
 this case supplied by the resurrection of Jesus. 
 
 NICOLAITANS (NjKoAa'rraf). This word 
 occurs twice in the New Testament (Rev. ii. 6, 
 15). In the former passage the conduct of the 
 Nicolaitans, ra epya ru v NiKoAaiT«j/, is con- 
 demned ; in the latter, the angel of the church in 
 Pergamus is censured because certain members 
 of his church held their doctrine, ttjv 5iduxb v t&v 
 H itioXairuv. Irenaeus, the earliest Christian 
 author who mentions them, says simply ( Con- 
 tra IJceres., i. 26), ‘ It very clearly appears, 
 from the Apocalypse, that the Nicolaitans held 
 fornication, and the eating of idol sacrifices, to 
 be things , indifferent, and therefore permitted to 
 Christians.’ In short, Irenaeus evidently knew 
 nothing of the Nicolaitans, except what he 
 gathered from the text of the Apocalypse ; as, in- 
 deed, the concluding words of his short notice 
 suggest : ‘ Quapropter dixit et de iis sermo : Sed 
 hoc babes quod odisti opera Nicolaitarum, quae et 
 ego.odi unless it be his statement that Nicolas, 
 one of the seven deacons (Acts v.), was the founder 
 of the -sect. The practices of these heretics were 
 the anore reprehensible, as being not only opposed 
 to :the whole spirit and morality of the Gospel, 
 but a violation of an express decree of the Apos- 
 tles .and Elders, issued in relation to this matter 
 (Acts xv.). As time rolled on, however, the in- 
 formation regarding Nicolas and his proceedings 
 seems continually to have increased, till Epipha- 
 niua at length, furnishes us with a full-blown 
 ace-»i»t tff the manner in which the proselyte of 
 Arr'-’.r-sh founded the sect which was supposed to 
 bea" bis name. Nicolas, such is the story of 
 Epiwhaniu'S (Advers. Hceres. i. 25, p. 70, edit. 
 P?tav.), vhad a beautiful .wife, ...and, following 
 
 NICOLAITANS. 
 
 the counsels of perfection, lie sejiarated himself 
 from her; but not being able to persevere in his 
 resolution, he returned to her again (as a dog 
 to his vomit, us kvuv eVl rby iSioy ZjueTor ) ; and 
 not. only so, but justified bis conduct by licen- 
 tious principles, which laid the foundation of the 
 sect of the Nicolaitans. 
 
 Against this account (in which Tertullian, 
 Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, and several other 
 fathers, substantially concur) we may object — (1) 
 That the custom of men putting away their wives 
 for the attainment of a supposed higher sanctity 
 evidently belongs to a later period, when the 
 monastic ideas produced these and similar prac- 
 tices. Such an occurrence was natural enough 
 in the age of Clement of Alexandria and of Ter- 
 tullian — that is, towards the conclusion of the 
 second century ; but we cannot believe it could 
 have happened in the Apostolic age. (2) It is not 
 conceivable that his taking back his wife, even if 
 he had, on those grounds, separated himself from 
 her, would then be regarded as an immorality, 
 much less as an enormous crime, especially con- 
 sidering what St. Paul had said on the subject 
 (1 Cor. vii. 3-6). (3) Epiphanius, after stating 
 
 that Nicolas lapsed into the greatest enormities, 
 informs us that all the Gnostics derived their 
 origin from him ; a statement which throws au 
 air of ridicule over all he has told us on this 
 subject, and proves how little his authority in 
 the matter is worth. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria has preserved a dif- 
 ferent version of the story (Strom, iii. 4, p. 
 522, edit. Potter), which Eusebius copies from 
 him (Hist. Eccles., iii. 29), and which is repeated 
 by Augustine and other ancient writers. ‘The 
 apostles,’ they say, ‘reprehended Nicolas for jea- 
 lousy of his wife, who was beautiful ; where- 
 upon Nicolas produced her, and said, Any one 
 might marry her who pleased. In this affair the 
 deacon let fall the expression, ’6tl napaxpiicaaSai 
 rij vapid 5e?, “ that we should abuse the flesh 
 which, though employed in a good sense by him, 
 was perverted to a bad one by those who would 
 gain to their licentiousness the sanction of a re- 
 spectable name, and who from hence styled them- 
 selves Nicolatains.’ Who can believe that a sect 
 should take its rise and its name from a casual 
 expression by a man whose obvious sense and 
 whose conduct were opposed to the peculiarities of 
 the sect? Neither can we think the conjecture 
 of Grotius (Annot. in Apocalyps ., ii. 6) at all 
 probable : ‘ Mihi veterum testimonia conferenti, 
 media placet sententia, quae haecest: Nicolaum 
 accusatum £r)\oTvrr'ias. quod, uxorem pulchram 
 habens, usitata ilia inter Christ ianos utriusque 
 sexus pacis oscula non satis ferret, in contrarium 
 cucurrisse, et exemplo Laconum ac Catonis uxoris 
 suae usuram permisisse aliis, plane quasi in eo 
 quod marito et uxore volentibus fieret non pecca- 
 retur, &c/ For it is bard to conceive that a 
 custom which was universal could excite any 
 jealousy ; and yet more so that a man imbued 
 with the doctrines of the Apostles, as Nicolas was, 
 should seek to turn aside their displeasure by 
 imitating the matrimonial enormities of Spartans 
 or of Cato. 
 
 It is evident from the fathers, that the Nicolai- 
 tans with whom they were acquainted were 
 Gnostics; since they impute to them the distinctive 
 tenets and practices of the Gnostics. But in tne 
 
NICOLAS. 
 
 NIMROD. 
 
 419 
 
 short allusion in Hev. ii. 6, 15, there is nothing 
 to identify the tenets or conduct alluded to with 
 Gnosticism, even supposing that Gnosticism, pro- 
 perly so called, existed in the Apostolic age, which, 
 .o say the least, has not been proved to be the case. 
 So that the conjecture mentioned by Mosheim, 
 and which Tertullian appears to favour, may be 
 regarded as probable, that the Nicolaitans men- 
 tioned in Revelation had erroneously been con- 
 founded with a party of Gnostics formed at a later 
 period by one Nicolas. 
 
 The ingenious conjecture of Michaelis is worthy 
 of consideration, who supposes that by Nicolai- 
 tans (Rev. ii. 6, 15) the same class of persons is 
 intended whom St. Peter (2 Ep. ii. 15) describes 
 as ££a,KoAou6r](TavTes rfj 6 5$ rov BaAadp,followers 
 of the way of Balaam ; and that their name, 
 Nicolaitans, is merely a Greek translation of 
 their Hebrew designation, the noun Nt/cJAaos\irom 
 KLKa<t) and Aa<is) being a literal version of Djta, 
 that is, ny yhi. The custom of translating 
 names, which prevailed so extensively in modern 
 Europe, was undoubtedly practised also among 
 the Jews, as the example in Acts ix. 36 (to which 
 others might be added) shows. Accordingly, the 
 Arabic version, published by Erpenius, renders 
 the words ra epya roov Nucohairuv, the works 
 of the Shuaibites, the Arabic Shuaib being ap- 
 parently the name for Balaam. The only ob- 
 jection which occurs to us against this very 
 ingenious and probable supposition, arises from 
 the circumstance that, in the passage, Rev. ii. 14, 
 15, both ‘ they that hold the doctrine of Balaam,’ 
 and ‘ the Nicolaitans,’ are specified, and are 
 distinguished from each other: ‘So hast thou 
 also,’ ovrcos e%eis /cat crv, the Nicolaitans, as 
 well as the Balaamites, mentioned in the previous 
 verse. So that whatever general agreement there 
 might be between those two classes of heretics — 
 and their collocation in the passage before us 
 seems to imply that there was such agreement — 
 it appears equally evident that some distinction 
 also must have separated them the one from the 
 other. — R. L. 
 
 NICOLAS (Ni/oiAaos), a proselyte of Antioch, 
 and one of the seven deacons (Acts vi. 5). No- 
 thing further is known of him ;' but a large body 
 of unsafe tradition has been connected with his 
 name, under the supposition that he was the 
 founder of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, stigma- 
 tised in Rev. ii. 6, 15. (See the preceding article.) 
 
 NICOPOLIS (N/zeebroAis), a city of Thrace, 
 now Nicopi, on the river Nessus, now Karasou, 
 which was here the boundary between Thrace and 
 Macedonia ; and hence the city is sometimes 
 reckoned as belonging to the latter. In Titus iii. 
 15, Paul expresses an intention to winter at Ni- 
 copolis, and invites Titus, then in Crete, to join 
 him there. 
 
 NIGER [Simon]. 
 
 NIGHT. The general division of the night 
 among the Hebrews has been described under 
 Day ; and it only remains to indicate a few 
 marked applications of the word. The term of 
 human life is usually called a day in Scripture; 
 but in one passage it is called night , to be followed 
 soon by day, ‘the day is at hand’ (Rom. viii. 
 12). Being a time of darkness, the image and 
 shadow of death, in which the beasts of prey go 
 forih to devour, it was made a symbol of a season 
 
 of adversity and trouble, in which men prey upon 
 each other, and the stroirg tyrannize over the weak 
 (Isa. xxi. 12; Zech. xiv. 6, 7 ; comp. Rev. xxi. 
 23 ; xxii. 5). Hence continued day, or the ab- 
 sence of night, implies a constant state of quiet 
 and happiness, undisturbed by the vicissitudes of 
 peace and war. Night is also put, as in our own 
 language, for a time of ignorance and helplessness 
 (Mic. iii. 6). In John ix. 4 night represents 
 death, a necessary result of the correlative usage 
 which makes life a day. 
 
 NIGHTHAWK. [Tachmas.] 
 
 NILE [Egypt]. 
 
 NIMRA [Beth-Nimra]. 
 
 NIMROD : Sept. NeySpwS ; Josephus 
 
 Nej3pw57js), a son of Cush, the eldest son of Ham 
 (Gen. x. 8-10). Five sons of Cush are enume- 
 rated in verse 7 in the more usual manner of this 
 chapter ; but a change of phrase introduces 
 Nimrod. This difference may indicate that 
 while, in relation to the other five, the names 
 have a national and geographical reference, this 
 appellation is exclusively personal. It is strictly 
 an abstract noun, signifying contempt , rebellion , 
 apostacy , impiety : but ‘ it is not to be thought 
 surprising, and it is a thing which, takes place in 
 all languages, that a noun which in respect of 
 its form, is properly an abstract , becomes in the 
 use of speech a concrete ; and conversely’ (Ge- 
 senius, Lehrgebaude, p. 483). But such con- 
 cretes usually carry a strengthened idea of the 
 abstract, a kind of impersonation of the quality. 
 Therefore Nimrod denotes intensively, the ex- 
 tremely impious rebel. Hence we conceive that 
 it was not his original proper name, but was 
 affixed, to him afterwards, perhaps even after his 
 death, as a characteristic appellative. 
 
 No other persons connected with this work 
 must be considered as answerable for the opi- 
 nion which the writer of this article thinks to 
 rest tipon probable grounds, that the earlier part 
 of the book of Genesis consists of several in- 
 dependent and complete compositions, of the 
 highest antiquity and authority, marked by some 
 differences of style, and having clear indications 
 of commencement in each , instance. If this 
 supposition be admitted, a reason presents itself 
 for the citation of a proverbial phrase in eh. x. i). 
 The single instance of minute circumstantiality, 
 in so brief a i elation, seems to imply that the 
 writer lived near the age of Nimrod, while his 
 history was still a matter of traditional noto- 
 riety, and the comparison of any hero with him 
 was a familiar form of speech. It is also sup- 
 posed that those, not fragments, but complete, 
 though short and separate compositions (of which 
 eight or more are hypothetically enumerated in 
 J. Pye Smith’s Scripture and Geology , p. 202), 
 were, under Divine authority, prefixed by Moses 
 to his own history. Their series has a continuity 
 generally, but not rigorously exact. If we place 
 ourselves in such a point of time, suppose the age 
 succeeding Nimrod, which might be the third 
 century after the Deluge, we may see how na- 
 turally the origination of a common phrase would 
 rise in the writer’s mind; and that a motive of 
 usefulness would be suggested with it. But both 
 these ideas involve that of nearness to the time ; 
 a period in which the country traditions were 
 yet fresh, and an elucidation of them would be 
 acceptable and consonant to general feeling. An 
 
42® 
 
 NIMROD. 
 
 NIMROD 
 
 apparently just reason thus accrues for the inser- 
 tion of this little and insulated portion of personal 
 history in the midst of a tablet of the descent of 
 nations. A close translation of the whole passage 
 is this : ‘ And Cush bpgat Nimrod : he began 
 
 [^nn opened a course of action, led the way] to 
 
 being a hero in the earth [or in the land] : he 
 was a hero at the chase in the presence of Jehovah ; 
 on which account the saying is, Like Nimrod, 
 the hero of the chase, in the presence of Jehovah. 
 And the chief [city] of his dominion was Babel ; 
 and [he founded] Ezek and Akkad, and Kalneh, 
 in the land of Shinar.’ 
 
 The common rendering, ‘ a mighty hunter,’ is 
 doubtless equivalent to this literal translation. 
 The adjunct, ‘ in the presence of Jehovah,’ occurs 
 many times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and it 
 generally conveys the idea of favour and appro- 
 bation, as we in our language employ the word 
 countenance. Hence some have supposed that 
 here the expression is used in a good sense, and 
 denotes that, by the special aid and blessing of 
 God's providence, the bravery and skill of this 
 hero were remarkably successful, in attacking and 
 destroying the ferocious animals which had 
 greatly multiplied. The Jewish commentator 
 Abarbanel, with other Rabbinical writers, ‘ in- 
 terpret those words favourably, saying that 
 Nimrod was qualified by a peculiar dexterity 
 and strength for the chace, and that he offered to 
 God [portions] of the prey that he took ; and 
 several of the moderns are of opinion that this 
 passage is not to be understood of his tyrannical 
 oppressions, or of hunting of men, but of beasts ’ 
 ( Ancient Univ. Hist., vol. i. p. 276, oct. ed.). 
 Hence they have contended that we have no 
 reason for regarding Nimrod as any other than a 
 benefactor to his country, and, in that view, a 
 man acceptable and well-pleasing to Jehovah. 
 
 But the general opinion is, that no moral ap- 
 probation is implied, but only that, by his ex- 
 traordinary possession of prowess, the gift of God, 
 as is every natural talent, he became thus distin- 
 guished in clearing the country of wild beasts ; 
 and that, these exploits led him to make aggressions 
 upon men. Interpreters, with scarcely an excep- 
 tion, from the Septuagint and the Targums down 
 to our own times, understand the whole case thus : 
 that Nimrod was a man of vast bodily strength, 
 and eminent for courage and skill in the arts of 
 hunting down and capturing or killing the 
 dangerous animals, which probably were both 
 very numerous, and frequently of enormous size ; 
 that, by these recommendations, he made himself 
 the favourite of bold and enterprising young men, 
 who readily joined his hunting-expeditions ; that 
 hence he took encouragement to break the pa- 
 triarchal union of venerable and peaceful subor- 
 dination, to set himself up as a military chieftain, 
 assailing and subduing men, training his ad- 
 herents into formidable troops, by their aid sub- 
 duing the inhabitants of Shinar and its neigh- 
 bouring districts ; and that, for consolidating and 
 retaining his power, now become a despotism, he 
 employed his subjects in building forts, which 
 became towns and cities, that which was after- 
 wards called Babel being the principal. Com- 
 bining this with the contents of chapter xi., we 
 infer that Nimrod cither was an original party in 
 toe daring impiety of building the tower, or sub- 
 
 sequently joined himself to those who had begun 
 it. The former fact is positively affirmed bj 
 Josephus ; but it is not probable that he could 
 have any other evidence than that of the general 
 interpretation of his countrymen. The late Mr. 
 Rich, not thirty years ago, in the extensive plain 
 where lie buried the ruins of Babylon, discovered 
 the very remarkable mound with remains of build- 
 ings on its summit (of which see the figure in the 
 article Babel, vol. i. p. 267, of this work), which 
 even now bears the name of Birs Nimrod : and this 
 may well be regarded as some confirmation of the 
 common opinion. The precise meaning of the 
 word Birs is said to be unknown ; which seems to 
 be a proof of high antiquity. There is only one 
 other passage of the Old Testament in which 
 Nimrod is mentioned, Micah v. 6, ‘ the land of 
 Nimrod.’ But it is not quite indubitable that 
 these words refer to Babylon, though they may 
 very properly be so construed ; for it is possible, 
 and agreeable to frequent usage, to take them as 
 put in apposition with the preceding object of the 
 action, ‘ the land of Assyria.’ The repetition of 
 the demonstrative particle JIN adds something to 
 the former of the two constructions, yet not de- 
 cisively. 
 
 The two different translations of verse 1 1 have 
 been stated and explained in the article Assyria, 
 vol. i. p. 246. The translation there preferred, and 
 which Bochart and many other high authorities 
 have sanctioned, is, ‘ From that land he [Nimrod] 
 went forth to Asshur, and builded Nineveh and 
 Rehoboth city, and Calah, and Resen between 
 Nineveh and Calah, that the great city.’ As 
 of the three last-named places we can find 
 scarcely a vestige, or rather none at all, in the 
 Scriptures or in profane authors, we seem to have 
 here a proof of an antiquity far higher than the 
 age of Moses — thus strengthening the idea of a 
 collection, above mentioned. The annexed clause, 
 ‘ That [or this] the great city ’ (we decline sup- 
 plying the verb is or teas, as we can have m 
 authority for determining the tense) is most 
 evidently, according to the use of the pronoun, to 
 be referred to Resen, and not, as some have sup- 
 posed, to the remoter object, Nineveh. 
 
 The writer of this article must acknowledge 
 that he thinks the other rendering, taking Asshur 
 for the name of the son of Shem (verse 22), is 
 the more probable. His reasons are, (1.) The 
 internal probability as arising from a remark 
 made in the. beginning of this article, that the 
 whole chapter carries in itself moral evidence of 
 having been written while many of the facts re- 
 mained in the traditional memory of tribes and 
 nations : thus this passage would give authentic 
 confirmation to a matter of current belief. 
 (2.) Had Asshur not been the nominative to the 
 verb, but the name of the country, propriety 
 would have required a preposition separate or 
 prefixed, or the H directive or local to be sub- 
 joined ; as we find it in ch. xxv. 18 — ‘ in the 
 going [l e. on the road] to Asshur,’ Asshurak 
 (see ample and elucidatory proof of this usage in 
 Ewald’s Gram., Nicholson’s transl., 6 420, and in 
 Nordheimer’s Gram. vol. i. § 642). We are aware 
 of the objection, that this He directive is sometimes 
 omitted ; but, we reply, such omission is uncom- 
 mon, and an instance cannot be found easily, if 
 at all, of the omission when any importance 
 attaches to the idea oflocal direction (spe abund- 
 
NIMROD. 
 
 NIMROD. 
 
 «nt examples in Noldius's Particul. Hebr. p. 
 117 ). (3.) The translation for which we plead 
 
 is the plain and natural one, the most obvious to 
 both writer and reader; whereas the other is 
 artificial and obscure : which would not therefore 
 ?>e likely to be adopted by a writer, such as this 
 is, of extreme simplicity and straightforwardness. 
 (4.) All the ancient versions, except the Targum 
 of Onkelos (to which unquestionably great defer- 
 ence is due), adopt this construction. 
 
 The objections to this are, (1.) That it is out 
 of place, and unnatural, to bring in any mention 
 of another family, and that a circumstance which 
 would have found its proper position in verse 22. 
 To this objection we reply, that there are two 
 links of association which would dictate the an- 
 ticipative mention, the idea of building towns, 
 which has this only place in the whole enumera- 
 tion of descents from Noah’s sons ; and the fact 
 that a son of Shem, having for some reason 
 (probable, though we can only conjecture it), 
 settled with his tribe among the Hamites, was, 
 either by prospects of superior advantage, or by 
 the jealousy and annoyance of Nimrod, induced 
 to colonise another district. (2.) That, thus 
 taken, the proposition comes naturally as the 
 correlate of verse 10 ; the one laying down the 
 commencement and chief seat of Nimrod's domi- 
 nion, namely, Babel and its dependencies, and 
 the other subjoining a secondary and subordinate 
 annexation. To this we reply, that it is quite 
 hypothetical, and that the flow of thought and 
 connection is plain and natural upon the other 
 interpretation. (3.) That, in Micah v. 6, Assyria 
 is called 4 the land of Nimrod.’ The doubtful- 
 ness of this interpretation we have already shown. 
 (4.) The learned Mr. Bochart even claims sup- 
 port from the lost writings of Ctesias, as cited by 
 Diodorus the Sicilian ; and he might have added 
 Justin’s Epitome of Trogus. Ctesias lived later 
 than b.c. 400, and wrote histories of Assyria and 
 Persia, of which some fragments, or rather ab- 
 stracts, are in the collections of Photius. He pro- 
 fessed to have derived his materials from ancient 
 authorities in the respective countries ; but he is 
 ieclared by his contempoi-ary Aristotle to be un- 
 worthy of any credit, by Plutarch to be fre- 
 quently a liar, by AulusGellius to be a dealer in 
 fables ; and he is characterised by Joseph Sca- 
 liger as a petty and absurd writer, full of errors 
 and direct falsehoods, and utterly worthless as an 
 Historical authority. Yet the utmost that can be 
 derived from Ctesias is, that Ninus was the first 
 King of the Assyrians, that he built Nineveh, 
 calling it after his own name [suppose Nin 
 Navah, 4 town of Nin ’], and that, after his death, 
 his widow, Semiramis, founded, anti carried to 
 a great extent of magnificence, the city of Ba- 
 bylon. How precarious these premises are to 
 support the conclusion, the studious reader will 
 judge. 
 
 Mr. Bryant has discussed this question at large, 
 and he gives the result thus : 4 The chief objec- 
 tion made by these writers [Bochart, and Hyde in 
 his De Relig. Veterum Persarum , &c.] to the 
 common acceptation of the pussage arises from 
 this, that Asshur, they say, is here mentioned out 
 of his place, which is the most frivolous and ill- 
 grounded allegation that could be thought of. 
 ^othix:g is more common with the sacred writers, 
 m fiving a list of people, than to introduce some 
 
 421 
 
 little history of particular persons, as they merw 
 tion them. The person here spoken of is Nimrod, 
 of the line of Ham, who is mentioned as an ex- 
 traordinary character. As he trespassed upon 
 Asshur, and forced him to leave the land of Shina&i, 
 his history is so blended with that of Asshur, that 
 one could not be mentioned without the other. 
 What is said is so far from being introduced out 
 of its place, that nothing could come in more 
 naturally, or with greater propriety. It was im- 
 possible to omit it without rendering the history 
 defective. Nimrod was a bold and powerful 
 man. He seized upon Babylon, and forced Asshur 
 to leave that country ; who went out of the land, 
 and built Nineveh and other cities. This is the 
 amount of it : and what can be more natural and 
 proper?’ (Anc. Mythol. vi. 192). 
 
 Concerning the subsequent life of Nimrod, the 
 Scriptures give not the slightest information, nor 
 even ground for conjecture. But, after seventeen 
 or more centuries, a dubious and supposititious 
 narrative got into credit, of which the earliest 
 promoter that we know was Ctesias, but which, 
 variously amplified, has been repeated by many 
 compilers of ancient history down to our own 
 times. Rollin, Shuck ford, and Prideaux, seem 
 to have given it a measure of credit. It is briefly 
 to this effect: — Some make Nimrod to be Belus, 
 and consider Nin (for os and us are only the 
 Greek and Latin grammatical r terminations) to 
 have been his son: others identify Nimrod and 
 Ninus. It is further narrated that Ninus, in con- 
 federacy with Aric, an Arabian sovereign, in 
 seventeen years, spread his conquests over Meso- 
 potamia, Media, and a large part of Armenia 
 and other countries ; that he married Semiramis, 
 a warlike companion and continuatrix of his con- 
 quests, and the builder of Babylon ; that their 
 son Ninyas succeeded, and was followed by more 
 than thirty sovereigns of the same family, he and 
 all the rest being effeminate voluptuaries ; that 
 their indolent, and licentious characters trans- 
 mitted nothing to posterity ; that the crown 
 descended in this unworthy line one thousand 
 three hundred and sixty years; that the last king 
 of Assyria was Sardanapalus, proverbial for his 
 luxury and dissipation; that his Median viceroy, 
 Arbaces, with Belesis, a priest of Babylon, re- 
 belled against him, took his capital Nineveh and 
 destroyed it, according to the horrid practice of 
 ancient conquerors, those pests of the earth, while 
 the miserable Sardanapalus perished with his 
 attendants by setting fire to his palace, in the 
 ninth century before the Christian era. 
 
 That some portion of true history lies inter- 
 mingled with error or fable in this legend, espe- 
 cially the concluding part of it, is probable. Mr. 
 Bryant is of opinion that there are a few scattered 
 notices of the Assyrians and their confederates 
 and opponents in Eupolemus and other authors, 
 of whom fragments are preserved by Eusebius ; 
 and in an obscure passage of Diodorus. To a 
 part of this series, presenting a previous subjuga- 
 tion of some Canaanitish, of course Hamite 
 nations, to the Assyrians, a revolt, and a reduc- 
 tion to the former vassalage, Mr. Bryant thinks 
 that the very remarkable passage, Gen. xiv. 1-10, 
 refers; and he supports his argument in an able 
 manner by a variety of ethnological coincidences 
 (Anc. Mythol., vol. vi. pp. 195-208). But what- 
 ever we know with certainty of an Assyrian 
 
NINEVEH. 
 
 NINEVEH. 
 
 m 
 
 monarchy commences with Pul, about b.c. 760; 
 and we have then the succession in Tiglath- 
 tuleser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Esar- 
 haddon. Under this last it is probable that the 
 Assyrian kingdom was absorbed by the Chaldaeo- 
 Baby onian. 
 
 As a great part of the ancient mythology and 
 idolatry arose from the histories of chiefs and 
 sages, decorated with allegorical fables, it is by 
 no means improbable that the life and actions of 
 Nimrod gave occasion to stories of this kind. 
 Hence, some have supposed him to have been 
 signified by the Indian Bacchus, deriving that 
 name from Bar-Chus , ‘ son of Cush and, it is pro- 
 bable, by the Persian giant Gibber (answering to 
 the Hebrew Gibbor, ‘mighty man,’ ‘hero,’ in Gen. 
 x. 8, 9) : and by the Greek Orion, whose fame 
 as a ‘ mighty hunter’ is celebrated by Homer, in 
 the Odyssey, xi. 571-4. The Persian and the 
 Grecian fables are both represented by the well- 
 known and magnificent constellation. — J. P. S. 
 
 NINEVEH, meaning the dwelling of Ninus ; 
 a famous city of the ancient world, capital of the 
 great Assyrian empire, which stood on the eastern 
 bank of the river Tigris, opposite to the present. 
 Mosul ; its actual site being most probably the 
 same with that of Nunia and the tomb of Jonah, 
 about, three- fourths of a mile from the river, in the 
 midst of ruins, N. Lat. 36° 20' 17"; E. L. 43° 
 10' 17". The name in Hebrew is H1PJ ; in the 
 Greek of the Septuagint, Nivei/i, Nn/eibj ; in ordi- 
 nary Greek, Nij/os; Latin, Ninus (Joseph. Antiq. 
 i. 6. 4 ; ix. 11. 3). The Bible makes the city a 
 sort of colony from Babylon or Babel. Shinar [see 
 Bab kb], stating (Gen. x. 11), ‘out of that land 
 (Babel, &c., in the land of Shinar) went forth 
 Asshur and builded Nineveh.’ After this simple 
 statement the sacred record is for a long time en- 
 tirely silent respecting Nineveh, which, we may 
 therefore presume, remained inconsiderable for 
 many generations. At length, some fifteen hundred 
 years after the first mention of the place, in the 
 days of Jeroboam II., king of Israel (b.c. 825), 
 Nineveh again enters by name on the biblical 
 record, having meanwhile grown into a mighty 
 power. This re-appearance of Nineveh is acci- 
 dental, and shows that the Bible does not profess 
 f o give any orderly and systematic history of the 
 world. Other countries come on the scene and 
 disappear, just as the course of events in the king- 
 doms of Judah and Israel seems to require or 
 may chance to occasion. Nineveh is described 
 in the book of Jonah as ‘ that great, city,’ ‘ an 
 exceeding great city of three days' journey,’ pro- 
 bably in a straight line through the place, as the 
 large cities of Asia stood on a great extent of 
 country, having gardens, and even fields, in the 
 midst of them ; and Jonah is said to ‘ enter into 
 tiie city a day’s journey ’ (clr. iii. 4) before he 
 began to foretell its overthrow ; that is, as is most 
 likely, he penetrated into the heart of the place, 
 as being that which was most suitable for deliver- 
 ing his burden. The magnitude of the place may 
 also be gathered from what is said in the last verse 
 of the book : ‘ That great city, wherein are more 
 than six score thousand persons that cannot dis- 
 cern between their right hand and their left hand, 
 and also much cattle ’ (grazing). The population 
 of a place must have been immense in which there 
 were no fewer than 120,000 children — young 
 
 children the language employed seerns to denote,, 
 It also appears from the same book that the state 
 of society was highly complex, organized in divers 
 ranks from the king and the noble to the peasant ; 
 and, if we may argue from the exactness with 
 which the number of children is given, we should 
 be justified in asserting that the people were in an 
 advanced stage of civilization, seeing that theii 
 social statistics were well attended to and care- 
 fully preserved. Civilization, however, had brought 
 luxury, and luxury corruption of morals, for ‘ their 
 wickedness had gone up before God ’ (ch. i. 2). 
 Yet was not their iniquity of the lowest kind, for 
 the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah. 
 In contemplating the dim shade of this immense 
 city and powerful empire, and being made sen- 
 sible that our sole means of acquiring the little we 
 know about it is furnished by a few pages con- 
 nected with a seer of the insignificant kingdom of 
 Israel, we cannot fail to be surprised, nor to ask 
 how it is that the records of Nineveh itself have 
 perished, and that almost its only memorial is 
 found among a petty and despised people ? If the 
 memorials of those great empires of ancient days 
 have perished, and we owe our knowledge of them 
 mainly to the Hebrew race, why did not these 
 Hebrew records perish too? That which pre- 
 served them must have been an influence no less 
 potent than peculiar. The sacred writings of the 
 Hebrews were carefully preserved. This answer 
 is not sufficient. What nation, having record? 
 did not. keep them with care? A special value 
 must have been attached to the Hebrew memorials, 
 otherwise so special and effectual a care would riot 
 have been bestowed on them. But a special value 
 implies a special worth ; and we are thus led to 
 recognise the peculiar character of these writter 
 documents, namely, that they were true and 
 divine. 
 
 A tew years later we find the prophet Nahum 
 entrusted with ‘the burden of Nineveh.’ From 
 this book it would appear that the repentance of 
 the city, if sincere, was not durable. Therefore 
 was the anger of Jehovah about to fall upon it 
 and make it a perpetual waste. Expressions that 
 are employed tend to give a high idea of the size 
 and splendour of the place : it had many strong 
 holds, and many gMes with bars, probably of brass; 
 its inhabitants were ‘ many as the locust it had 
 multiplied its merchants above the stars of heaven ; 
 its crowned (princes) were as the locusts, and its 
 captains as the great grasshoppers (ch. iii. 12-17). 
 So her wealth was prodigious : ‘ There is none end 
 of the store and glory out of all the pleasant fur- 
 niture.’ The reason assigned for the destruction 
 of the city shows how great was its wickedness : 
 
 ‘ Out of the house of thy gods will I cut, off’ the 
 graven image and the molten image ; I will 
 make thy grave; for thou art vile’ (ch. i. 14). 
 ‘Woe to the bloody city ! It is all full of lies 
 and robbery ' (ch. iii. 1). Shortly after (b.c. 713) 
 the delivery of this prophecy Sennacherib, king ot 
 Assyria, having invaded Judaea, suffered a signal 
 defeat by the special act of God : ‘ So Sennacherib 
 departed, and went and returned and dwelt at 
 Nineveh ’ (2 Kings xix. 36). Very brief, however, 
 was his dwelling there, for as he was worshipping 
 in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammeleoh 
 and Sharezer, his sons, smote him with the sword ; 
 and Esarhaddon, his son, reigned in his stead 
 (2 Kings xix. 37). The predicted punishment <ai 
 
NINEVEH. 
 
 NINEVEH. 
 
 the city was row approaching. Zeplianiah also 
 gave his authority that it would come (oh. ii. 13). 
 See also Isa. xiv, 24, sq. : ‘The Lord will stretch 
 out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, 
 and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like 
 a wilderness.’ The language which immediately 
 ensues goes to confirm the view which has been 
 given of the commercial greatness (it was the 
 entrepot for the trade of Eastern and Western Asia), 
 the surpassing opulence, the high culture, the 
 immense population, and the deep criminality of 
 the city of Nineveh. For the account of the de- 
 struction of the city we must look beyond the 
 Bible documents ; but a description of what the 
 ulace was before its overthrow, conceived in the 
 
 43 » 
 
 finest style of Eastern poetry, and adorned with 
 the most splendid imagery — a description which 
 exhibits in the most striking and interesting man- 
 ner the greatness of its dominion and the grandeur 
 of its state — may be found in Ezekiel xxxi. 
 
 The scattered notices of Nineveh found in pro- 
 fane authors agree substantially with the Scrip- 
 tural account. The phrase, ‘ that great city ’ 
 (Jonah i. 2), which seems in the Bible to be em- 
 ployed as its customary appellation, is found 
 applied to Nineveh (N?i/os yeyaAri) in a poetic 
 fragment preserved by Diodorus Sic. (ii. 23) ; so 
 that the epithet would appear to be one by which 
 the city was ordinarily and generally charac- 
 terized. Its greatness was such that it was deno- 
 
 439. [Nineveh,] 
 
 minated ‘ the Great.’ What, however, is most 
 important and interesting is the agreement in so 
 minute a particular of the sacred and the profane 
 authorities. From Strabo (xvi. p. 737), the place 
 appears to have been much greater than even 
 Babylon; and from Diodorus Sic. (ii. 3), that it 
 measured 480 stadia in circumference, having very 
 high and broad walls, which, aided by the river, 
 rendered it impregnable. This safety was, however, 
 merely imaginary. Sardanapalus, who had a full 
 share of the vices of his subjects, endured in the 
 eighth century before Christ a siege of three years’ 
 duration at the hands of the Medes, under Arbaces, 
 which led to the overthrow of the city (Diod. Sic. 
 ii. 26). But so large and so powerful a capital 
 was not easily destroyed. Nineveh was the seat of 
 an Assyrian kingdom till the year b.c. 625, when 
 it was taken by Nabopolassar of Babylon, and 
 Cyaxares, king of the Medes, which led to the 
 destruction of the Assyrian kingdom (Herod, i. 
 106). Nineveh flourished no more. Strabo (xvi. 
 p. 737) represents it is lying waste ; though in the 
 times of the Roman 'mperors some remains of it 
 seem to have survived, as a Nineveh bn the Tigris 
 
 is mentioned in Tacitus ( Annal . xii. 13), and 
 is characterized as a castellum , or fort, probably 
 some small fortification raised out of the ruins of 
 the city for predatory purposes. Something of the 
 kind was found there at a later period, for in the 
 thirteenth century Abulfaragius (Hist. Dynast. 
 p. 404 ; Barhebrseus, Chron. p. 464) makes men- 
 tion of a castellum there. 
 
 The tradition given by Herodotus (i. 185), that 
 its founder’s name was Ninus, disagrees with the 
 Biblical statement, which is that the city was 
 built by Asshur, and may be nothing more than 
 a repetition of the practice so common with the 
 Greeks and Latins, of making founders for cities 
 from the names which the places bear. 
 
 The present remains comprise a rampart and 
 foss, four miles in circuit, with a moss-covered 
 wall about twenty feet in height. The ruins at 
 first sight present a range of hills. From these 
 hills large stones are constantly dug out, from 
 which probably a bridge over the Tigris has been 
 built. 
 
 Jonah’s connection with the city is still pre- 
 served in a tomb which bears his name; but how 
 
424 
 
 NISAN. 
 
 NOAH. 
 
 far back in antiquity tins building runs, it is now 
 impossible to say. The tomb stands on a hill, 
 and is covered by a mosque which is held in great 
 "veneration. Bricks, partly whole, partly in frag- 
 ments, and pieces of gypsum with inscriptions in 
 the arrow-head character, are found from time to 
 time. Landseer, in his Sabeean Researches, gives 
 an engraving of cylinders dug up at Nineveh, 
 which he states to be numerous in the East, and 
 supposes to have been employed as signets : they 
 are of jasper, chalcedony, and jade, and bear astro- 
 nomical emblems, the graving of which, especially 
 considering the hardness of the materials, shows a 
 high state of art. 
 
 Mosul, with which Nineveh is commonly iden- 
 tified, stands on the opposite, or western bank of 
 the Tigris, and lies so near the river that its streets 
 are often flooded — a circumstance which calls to 
 mind some of the terms employed by the pro- 
 phetic writers before referred to. This place, like 
 its great prototype, carries on a trade (though to 
 a small extent) between the East and the West. 
 The climate is stated to be very healthy ; the 
 average temperature of summer not exceeding 
 66° Fahr. ; but in spring, during the floods, 
 epidemics are common, though not fatal. 
 
 See Niebuhr, Reiseb. ii. 353, 368 ; Ives, Voyage , 
 p. 327, seq. ; Rosenmiiller, Alterth. i. 2,116; 
 Bruns, Erdbeschreibung , ii. 1, 199, sq. ; Mannert, 
 v. 440, sq. ; Kinneir's Persia, 256-9 ; Olivier, 
 Voyage en Turquie , iv. 265 ; Ainsworth's Assyria, 
 p. 256.— J. R. B. 
 
 NISAN (|p'3), the first month of the Hebrew 
 civil year. The name, if Semitic, might be 
 traced to netz, ‘ a flower,’ and would hence 
 mean ‘ flower-month,’ like the Floreal of repub- 
 lican France. As, however, this is a later name, 
 posterior to the Captivity (Nell. ii. 1 ; Esther iii. 7), 
 of the month which was originally called TUN 
 Abib, Gesenius is inclined to follow Benfey in seek- 
 ing a Persian origin for the word, and finds it in the 
 Zend Navagan, ‘new day,’ made up of nay, ‘new,’ 
 and agan, equivalent to the Sanscrit ahan, ‘ day.’ 
 Abib, by which name this month is called in the 
 Pentateuch (Exod. xiii. 4; xxiii. 15 ; Deut. xvi. 1), 
 means an ear of grain, a green ear ; and hence 
 ‘ the month Abib,’ is * the month of green ears.’ 
 It thus denoted the condition of the barley in the 
 climate of Egypt and Palestine in this month. 
 Nisan, otherwise Abib, began with the new moon 
 of April, or according to the Rabbins, of March 
 [Month]. 
 
 NISROCH 0pD3 ; Sept. Maaapix), an idol 
 of the Ninevites (2 Kings xix. 37 ; Isa. xxxvii. 
 38). The word is now usually supposed to mean 
 
 < great eagle, ’'from “1T3, Arab^*J, eagle, and the 
 
 syllable och, ach, which in Persian is intensitive. 
 This bird was held in peculiar veneration by the 
 ancient Persians; and was likewise worshipped 
 by the Arabs before the time of Mohammed. 
 (Jurieu, Hist, des Dogmes, iv. 4, ch. 11; Creuzer, 
 Symbolik, i. 723 ; Gesen. Thesaur. p. 892, where 
 also may be seep several derivations proposed by 
 Bolden from the Sanscrit apd Zend). 
 
 NITRE. [Neter.] 
 
 NO, or NO-AMMON [Thebes]. 
 
 NOAH, the second father of the human race, 
 ww the sop of the second Lamech, the grandson of 
 
 Methuselah, and the tenth in descent from Adam. 
 Methuselah, who died at the age of 969, was the 
 longest lived of the patriarchs, and probably of 
 all mankind. The genealogy is in the line ot 
 Seth, who is distinguished in the history (Gen. iv. 
 26) by an interposed observation, that in or about 
 his 105th year ‘a beginning was made for calling 
 by the name of Jehovah:* or ‘a beginning was 
 made for calling upon the name of Jehovah ;’ or 
 ‘ profanation was committed for calling the name 
 of Jehovah,’ i. e. applying the divine name to 
 other objects. This diversity of renderings may 
 seem very extraordinary; but it is to be consi- 
 dered — (1), that the parenthetic character of the 
 sentence and its extreme brevity preclude our 
 receiving aid, except inferentially, from the con- 
 nection ; (2), that the verb ^?n appears not merely 
 to diverge from one primary meaning into several 
 significations, differing from each other, yet ca- 
 pable of being derived, in different lines of asso- 
 ciated thought, from the primary (which is very 
 much the case in the Hebrew and its allied lan- 
 guages); but that it belongs to the class of words, 
 instance's of which are probably to be found in 
 all languages, alike in sound or in spelling, oi 
 even in both, but most widely different in mean- 
 ing, and often in derivation, and therefore each 
 entitled to be considered as a separate verb, 
 having grown from a different radical, probably 
 lost. Dr. Julius Ffirst, in his very judicious and 
 philosophical Lexicography , incorporated in his 
 edition of Buxtorf’s Concordance (Leipzig, 1840), 
 makes of 7^>n four independent verbs, having the 
 several meanings of — to pierce , to turn an object 
 from a holy use to something wicked, to begin , 
 and to whirl round. The question here lies be- 
 tween the second and the third of these senses. 
 (3) That the frequent Hebrew phrase to call , 
 connected by a preposition, especially ^ for ^N, 
 with the noun for name , sometimes signifies to 
 apply a name to an object merely, and sometimes 
 to do so as an act of religious homage. 
 
 Thus the English reader sees the grounds of 
 the difficulty ; and so great is that difficulty on 
 every side as to have compelled the illustrious 
 Hebraist John Drusius to say, ‘ Long has this 
 passage kept me on the rack, and so it does still ;’ 
 and, after an able investigation, he concludes, yet 
 not confidently, in favour of that sense which we 
 have put. the second. The earliest interpretation, 
 that of the Septuagint, seems to have been formed 
 upon a wrong reading, anil few or none regard it. 
 as entitled to acceptance. The next in antiquity 
 is the Targum (Chaldee Paraphrase) of Onkelos, 
 attributed to the first century of the Christian 
 era; it gives ihe passage, ‘ Thus, in his days, the 
 sons of men set aside earnest supplication in the 
 name of Jeja.’ The Syriac has, ‘ Then he began 
 to call upon the name of the Lord.’ The Latin 
 of Jerome is the same, both making Enos the agent 
 of the verb. But St. Jerome, in his Qucestiones 
 in Genesim, gives this translation and remark : 
 ‘ “ Then was the beginning of calling upon the 
 name of the Lord yet many of the Hebrews 
 prefer a different meaning — that then first idols 
 were fabricated in the name of the Lord and in 
 his likeness.’ 
 
 Of these interpretations we own that the first 
 rflost commends itself to our judgment; yielding 
 the sense that, in consequence of the awful in* 
 
NOAH. 
 
 NOAH. 
 
 42ft 
 
 crease of wickedness, the true worshippers of God 
 then begun to be distinguished by the appellation 
 sons of God. Thus the clause stands in an 
 illustrative connection with its proper sequel, 
 Gen. vi. 1 ; for ch. v. is an insulated part, which, 
 in the modern way of composition, would be a 
 genealogical table. This was the interpretation 
 of Aquila in the second century ; it is intimated 
 in the margin of our common version, and is 
 adopted by Piscator in both his Latin and bis 
 German versions ; by Diodati in his Italian, by 
 Ilackspan, by Leclerc (1696), by Bishop Patrick, 
 by Wells (1724), by Dereser (in Brentano’s 
 Bible, 1S20), by Romanus Teller (1749), by 
 Boothroyd, by Leander van Ess, and no doubt 
 by many others. Dereser’s note deserves to be 
 cited : ‘ Some pious families began to call them- 
 selves sons (in the Hebrew idiom equivalent to 
 disciples, learners) of God, in order to distinguish 
 themselves from the sons of men, those who dis- 
 regarded the instructions of divine authority, and 
 gave themselves up to wickedness.’ Wells’s 
 paraphrase is also excellent. Shuckford gives 
 his sanction to this interpretation. Yet the second 
 has great weight of both reason and authority in 
 its favour, and probably the majority of expositors 
 have sanctioned it. None have expressed it better 
 than Bishop Alleigh, in the Bishops Bible (1568) : 
 ‘ Then began men to make invocation in the name 
 of the Lord.’ It possesses a strong recommenda- 
 tion in that the most usual signification of to call 
 upon in the name of the Lord, in the Old Tes- 
 tament, is to perform a solemn act of worship. 
 ‘ Moses is presenting to us the piety of one family 
 which worshipped God in purity and holiness 
 when religion was almost universally corrupted 
 and collapsed ’ (Calvin). ‘ Religious worship be- 
 gan to be celebrated with greater life and energy, 
 and more publicly, than had before been ’ (Jas. 
 Cappell, Willett, &c.). 
 
 The third interpretation, first found in Onkelos, 
 and apparently implied in the Antiquities of 
 Josephus, was maintained by Maimonides, Jarchi, 
 and other Jewish interpreters, and adopted by 
 our illustrious Selden, and by Antony van Dale. 
 But it can .scarcely be made to harmonize with 
 the prefix p before the second verb, which, it is 
 observed by Theodore Hackspan (whose eminence 
 in the niceties of Hebrew and all other Shemitic 
 literature was considered as without a parallel in 
 the former half of the seventeenth century), de- 
 termines the sense of the antecedent verb to the 
 idea of beginning. 
 
 The father of Noah must not be confounded 
 with the Lamech who was the fourth in descent 
 from Cain. There is another instance of the 
 same name in each line, Enoch ; but the periods 
 of each of the two couples must have been very 
 different, though we cannot exactly compare 
 them, for the history does not give the years of 
 life in the line of Cain. The two Lamechs, how- 
 ever, have one remarkable circumstance in com- 
 tnon ; to each of them a fragment of inartificial 
 poetry is attached as his own composition. That 
 of the Cainitic Lamech is in Gen. iv. 23, 24. 
 That of the Sethite now comes before ns in ch. v. 
 28, 29 : — £ Lamech lived 182 years, and then 
 begat a son, and he called his name Noah, 
 saying, 
 
 This shall comfort us 
 
 From our labour, 
 
 And from the sorrowful toils of our hands. 
 From the ground, 
 
 Which Jehovah hath cursed.’ 
 
 The allusion is undoubtedly to the penal conse- 
 quences of the fall in earthly toils and sufferings, 
 and to the hope of a Deliverer excited by the 
 promise made to Eve. That this expectation was 
 grounded upon a divine communication we infer 
 from the importance attached to it, and the con- 
 fidence of its expression. See this subject well 
 argued in Bishop Sherlock's Use and Intent oj 
 Prophecy , Disc. iv. 
 
 That the conduct of Noah corresponded to the 
 faith and hope of his father we have no reason to 
 doubt. The brevity of the history satisfies not 
 human curiosity. He was born six hundred years 
 before the Deluge. We may reasonably suppose 
 that through that period he maintained the cha- 
 racter given of him : — £ Noah foond favour in 
 the eyes of the Lord. Noah was a just man, and 
 perfect in his generations. Noah walked with 
 God ’ (ch. vi. 8, 9). These words declare his 
 piety, sincerity, and integrity, that he maintained 
 habitual communion with the Father of Mercies, 
 by the exercises of devotion, and that he was an 
 inspired instrument of conveying the will of God 
 to mankind. The wickedness of the human race 
 had long called upon the wisdom and justice 
 of God for some signal display of his displeasure, 
 as a measure of righteous government and an 
 example to future ages. For a long time, pro- 
 bably many centuries, the better part of men, the 
 descendants of Seth, had kept themselves from 
 society with the families of the Cainite race. 
 The former class had become designated as 4 the 
 sons of God,’ faithful and obedient : the latter 
 were called by a term evidently designed to form 
 an appellation of the contrary import, £ daughters 
 of men,’ of impious and licentious men. These 
 women possessed beauty and blandishments, by 
 which they won the affections of unwary men, 
 and intermarriages upon a great scale took place. 
 As is usual in such alliances, the worse part 
 gained the ascendancy. The offspring became 
 more depraved than the parents, and a universal 
 corruption of minds and morals took place. 
 Many of them became £ giants, the mighty men 
 
 of old, men of renown ’ (D'/S3 nephilim ) 
 apostates (as the word implies), heroes, warriors, 
 plunderers, ‘filling the earth with violence.’ God 
 mercifully afforded a respite of one hundred and 
 twenty years (ch. vi. 3 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20 ; 2 Pet. ii. 
 5), (luring which Noah sought to work salutary 
 impressions upon their minds, and to bring them 
 to repentance. Thus he was ‘ a preacher of 
 righteousness,’ exercising faith in the testimony 
 of God, moved with holy reverence, obeying the 
 divine commands, and, by the contrast of his 
 conduct, condemning the world (Heb. xi. 7) : 
 and probably he had during, a long previous 
 period laboured in that benevolent and pious 
 work. 
 
 At last the threatening was fulfilled. All 
 human kind perished in the waters, except, this 
 eminently favoured and righteous man, with his 
 three sons (bom about a hundred years before) 
 and the four wives [Deluge]. 
 
 At the appoinred time this terrible state of the 
 earth ceased, and a new surface was disclosed foi 
 the occupation and industry of the deliver 
 
426 
 
 NOAH. 
 
 NOAH. 
 
 family. In seme places that surface would be 
 washed bare to the naked rock, in others sand 
 would he deposited, which would be long uncul- 
 tivable ; but by far the larger portion would be 
 covered with rich soil. With agriculture and its 
 allied arts the antediluvians must have been well 
 acquainted [Adam]. The four men, in the vigour 
 of their mental faculties and bodily strength, ac- 
 cording to the then existing scale of human life, 
 would be at no loss for the profitable application 
 of their powers. Immediately after the desolating 
 judgment the merciful Jehovah gave intimations 
 of his acceptance of the sacrifice and thanks- 
 givings of Noah and his family, and of his gra- 
 cious purposes revealed in the form of a solemn 
 covenant for the continual benefit of them and 
 their posterity. The beautiful phenomenon of 
 the rainbow was put to a new and significant use. 
 As infallibly certain as is the production of a 
 rainbow under certain conditions of the atmo- 
 sphere, so certain and sure of fulfilment are the 
 promises of Jehovah. The act of grace is an- 
 nounced in the condescending language which 
 was best adapted to the earliest condition of 
 human thought [Anthropomorphism] . ‘The 
 Lord smelled a sweet odour ; and the Lord said 
 to his heart, I will not add to inllict a malediction 
 further upon the ground on account, of man’ (Gen. 
 viii. 21). ‘That old curse,’ says Bishop Sherlock, 
 ‘was fully executed and accomplished in the 
 flood. In consequence of which discharge from 
 the curse a new blessing is immediately pro- 
 nounced upon the earth' ( Use and Int. p. 89). 
 Noah and his children would labour the more 
 assiduously from the consolation and hope thus 
 inspired. Accordingly, in a subsequent part of 
 the narrative, we read, ‘ And Noali began, a man 
 of the ground’ (ch. ix. 20), i.e. set diligently to 
 his welcome labour, the sorrow being mitigated, 
 the prospect encouraging, and the assurance of 
 success given by divine promise. The simple 
 phrase comprehends the continuity of action, the 
 formation and prosecution of habit. It is added, 
 ‘ And he planted a vineyard.’ Dr. Dereser thinks 
 that the two members of the sentence should be 
 connected, producing this translation, ‘ And Noah, 
 in his field-work, commenced the planting of a 
 \ ineyard.’ The narrative makes it evident that 
 the occurrence next mentioned, the invention of 
 Anne-making, must have been some years after 
 the cessation of the flood ; for not Ham himself, 
 but Canaan his son, is the first and emphatic ob- 
 ject of the prophetic curse. We cannot with 
 reason assume less than fifteen or eighteen years. 
 We are thus led to the idea that agricultural 
 processes were improved, and produce augmented 
 in variety and in quality. The vine had existed 
 before the flood, and Noah could not be unac- 
 quainted with it ; but not till now had grapes 
 been grown of such size, sweetness, anu abun- 
 dance of juice, as to strike out the thought of 
 expressing that juice, and reserving it in a vessel 
 for future use. Noah, we think it probable, knew 
 not that, in a few days, it would ferment and ac- 
 quire new and surprising properties. Innocently 
 and without suspicion he drank of the alluring 
 beverage, as if it had been water from the spring. 
 The consequence is recorded in the characteristic 
 simplicity of style which affirms neither censure 
 nor apology. W e regard that consequence as 
 not a sinful intoxication, both from what was 
 
 probably the occasional cause, and from the im- 
 mediate agency of the Spirit of God in communi- 
 cating prophecy. The latter, indeed, is not an 
 impregnable ground ; for bad men might receive 
 gifts of inspiration, as Balaam and Judas; but 
 Noah was eminently a righteous and perfect 
 man, and it is inconceivable that a miraculous 
 influence of God should be granted in immediate 
 contiguity with a sinful action. 
 
 That prophetic denunciation is the last recorded 
 fact of the life of Noali, though he lived through 
 the subsequent period of 350 years. It is a pro- 
 phecy of the most remarkable character, having 
 been delivered in the infancy of mankind; in its 
 undeniable fulfilment reaching through more 
 than 4000 years down to our own time ; and 
 being even now in a visible course of fulfilment. 
 It seems more strictly correct in philology, and 
 more in accordance with fact, to render it as a 
 prophecy, than as precatory of malediction and 
 blessing. We give it in the closest version. 
 
 ‘ Accursed Canaan ! 
 
 A slave of slaves he will be to his brethren. 
 
 Blessed Jehovah, God of Sliem ! 
 
 And Canaan will be slave to him, 
 
 God will make Japheth to spread abroad, 
 
 And he will inhabit the tents of Shem, 
 
 And Canaan will be slave to him.’ 
 
 The first part of this prediction implies that, in 
 some way, the conduct of Canaan was more of- 
 fensive than even that of his father Ham. The 
 English reader will perceive the peculiar allusion 
 or alliteration of the third member, when he is in- 
 formed that the name Japheth comes from a verb, 
 the radical idea of which is opening , widening , 
 expansion. In two ways one might imitate it; by 
 translating both the words, or by coining a verb ; 
 thus, 1, God will enlarge the enlarger; or, 2, 
 God will japhethize Japheth. The whole para- 
 graph, short as it is, contains a germ which, like 
 the acorn to the oak, comprehends the spirit of 
 the respective histories of the three great branches 
 of mankind. The next chapter presents to us 
 the incipient, unfolding of the prophecy. See the 
 article Nations, Dispersion ok. 
 
 ‘Godwill give xo Japheth an abundant pos- 
 terity, which will spread itself into different re- 
 gions, and will dwell among the posterity of 
 Shem ; and Canaan's posterity will be compelled 
 to be slaves to that of Japheth. The following 
 chapter shows how this prophecy has been fulfilled.. 
 The descendants of Japheth peopled Europe, the 
 northern parts of Asia, Asia Minor, Media, Iberia, 
 Armenia, the countries between the Black Sea 
 and the Caspian, Great Tartary, India, China, 
 the European settlements in America, and pro- 
 bably America itself. They also inhabit in part 
 the more southerly parts of Asia, mingling freely 
 with the posterity of Shem, who chiefly peopled 
 those regions. On the other hand, Africa, which 
 was peopled by the descendants of Canaan and 
 [other sons of] Ham, was conquered and brought, 
 under the yoke by the Romans, descendants ot 
 Japheth.’ [This applies only- to the Carthaginians 
 and settlers in other districts along the north 
 coast of Africa, which had been peopled by the 
 Phoenicians and other G'anaanitish tribes. We 
 have not the shadow of authority for deriving the 
 negro tribes, or any of the nations of Medial and 
 South Africa, from Canaan.] ‘Down to our dwa 
 
NOAH. 
 
 NOBLEMAN. 
 
 
 times Africa has been to all other nations the 
 source of the supply of slaves’ (Dereser, in the 
 Roman Catholic Germ. TransL of the Bible , by 
 him, Brentano, and Scholz, 17 vols. Francf. 
 1820-1833) : an excellent version, made from 
 the Hebrew and Greek. 
 
 It is an old tradition of the Rabbinical Jews, 
 on which they lay great stress, that at this junc- 
 ture* Noah delivered to his children seven pre- 
 cepts, to be enjoined upon all their descendants. 
 These prohibit, 1, idolatry; 2, irreverence to the 
 Deity; 3, homicide; 4, unchastity ; 5, fraud and 
 plundering; the 6th enjoins government and obe- 
 dience; and the 7th forbids to eat any part of an 
 animal still living. Mr. Selden has largely 
 illustrated these precepts, and regards them as a 
 concise tablet of the Law of Nature (De Jure 
 Nat. et Gent, juxta Disciplin. Ebrceorum ), which 
 excellent work of 900 pages is taken up in com- 
 menting upon them. Though we have no posi- 
 tive evidence of their having been formally 
 enjoined by the great patriarch, we can have no 
 great reason for rejecting such an hypothesis. 
 
 After this event, we have in the Scriptures no 
 further account of Noah, than that ‘all his days 
 were nine hundred and fifty years ; and he died.’ 
 That he had no more children is evident from the 
 nature of the case, notwithstanding the antedilu- 
 vian longevity, from the impossibility of his hav- 
 ing a second wife without horrid incest, which 
 surely no man of sound mind can impute to him, 
 and from the absence of the constant clause of ch. 
 v.. which would naturally have come after the 
 28th verse of ch. ix., ‘and begat sons and daugh- 
 ters.’ Mr. Shuekford regards this absence of any 
 mention of Noah, as ‘a strong intimation that he 
 neither came with the travellers to Shinaar, nor 
 was settled in Armenia or Mesopotamia, or any 
 of the adjacent countries. He was alive a great 
 while after the confusion of Babel, for he lived 350 
 years after the flood; and surely, if he had come 
 to Babel, or lived in any of the nations into which 
 mankind were dispersed from thence, a person of 
 such eminence could not at once sink to nothing, 
 and be no more mentioned than if he had not been 
 at all ’ ( Connect . i. 99) But it must be confessed 
 that the argument from silence, however strong it 
 may appear in this case, is not decisive. The 
 narratives of the Bible are not to be judged of by 
 the common and just rules of* writing history. 
 Those narratives are not, properly speaking, a 
 history, but are a collection of such anecdotes and 
 detached facts as the Spirit of holiness and wisdom 
 determined to be the most practically proper for 
 the religious and moral instruction of all sorts of 
 men. The Bible was written for children and 
 poor peasants, as well as for scholars and philoso- 
 phers. That learned and judicious author sup- 
 poses that Noah migrated far into the East, and 
 that the Chinese mean no other than him when 
 their traditions assign Fohi as their first king, 
 laving no father, i. e. none recorded in their 
 legends ; to whom also they attribute several ac- 
 tions and circumstances which appear to be derived 
 by disguisement from the real facts recorded in 
 our sacred book of Genesis. One in particular 
 is in connection with a universal deluge ; and 
 this is mentioned also by Sir William Jones, who 
 says, ‘ the great progenitor of the Chinese is named 
 by them Fohi,’ and that ‘the earth’s being wholly 
 c<rer$d with water just preceded the appearance 
 
 of Fohi on the mountains of Chin’ (Works, iii. 
 151-5). It may be very rationally conceived that 
 Noah remained long in the neighbourhood of his 
 descent from the ark ; and that, at last, weighty 
 reasons might induce him, with a sufficient num- 
 ber of associates, grandchildren and great-grand- 
 children, who would be born in some 80 or 100 
 years, to migrate far to the East. 
 
 Sir William Jones, also, is evidently inclined 
 to think the seventh Menu of the Hindoos, con- 
 nected in their ancient books with a universal 
 deluge, to be no other than a legendary represent- 
 ation of Noah. The very name is, indeed, iden- 
 tical, Me Nuh , the M being a common Oriental 
 prefix, and Nth is Noah without the points. 
 
 As the flood affected equally the common an- 
 cestry of mankind, all nations that have not sunk 
 into the lowest barbarism would be likely to pre- 
 serve the memory of the chief person connected 
 with it; and it would be a natural fallacy that 
 every people should attach to itself a principal 
 interest in that catastrophe, and regard that chief 
 person as the founder of their own nation and be- 
 longing to their own locality. Hence we can 
 well account for the traditions of so many peoples 
 upon this capital fact of ancient history, and the 
 chief person in it ; — the Xisuthrus of the Chal- 
 daeans, with whom is associated a remarkable num- 
 ber of precise circumstances, corresponding to the 
 Mosaic narrative (Alex. Polyhist. in the Chronicle 
 of Eusebius, so happily recovered by Mr. Zohrab, 
 in the Armenian version, and published by him 
 in 1818); the Phrygian Noe of the celebrated 
 Apamean medal, which, besides Noah and his 
 wife with an ark, presents a raven, and a dove with 
 an olive-branch in its mouth (figured in Bryant's 
 Anc. Myth. vol. iii.) ; the Manes of the Lydians 
 (Mr. W. J. Hamilton’s Asia Min. iii. 383, [Na- 
 tions, Dispersion of] ; the Deucalion of the Sy- 
 rians and the Greeks, of whose deluge the account 
 given by Lucian is a copy almost exactly circum- 
 stantial of that in the book of Genesis (Dea Syria ; 
 Luciani Opp. iii. 457, ed. Reitz; Bryant, iii. 28); 
 the many coincidences in the Greek mythology 
 in respect of Saturn, Janus, and Bacchus; the 
 traditions of the aboriginal Americans, as stated 
 by Clavigero, in his History of Mexico ; and 
 many others. — J. P. S. 
 
 NOB (2i) ; Sept. No/i/3a), a city of Benjamin, 
 in the vicinity of Jerusalem, belonging to the 
 priests, and where the tabernacle was stationed in 
 the time of Saul (1 Sam. xxi. 2; xxii. 9, 11, 19; 
 Neh. xi. 32; Isa. x. 32. From the last of these 
 texts it would appear that Jerusalem was visible 
 from Nob, which, therefore, must have been situ- 
 ated somewhere upon the ridge of the Mount of 
 Olives, north-east of the city. Dr. Robinson states 
 that he diligently sought along the ridge for 
 some traces of an ancient site, which might be 
 regarded as that of Nob, but without the slightest 
 success ( Bibl . Researches , ii. 150). 
 
 NOBLEMAN. The word so rendered in 
 John iv. 46 is fiao i\Ik6s, which is somewhat 
 various in signification. It may mean: 1. A 
 rege oriundus, descended from a king. 2. 
 viryperys rod fiatn^ews, one belonging to the 
 court. 3. arpanwrys fiatriXews, a soldier of the 
 king, in which latter sense it often occurs in 
 Josephus. The second signification seems, how- 
 ever, to be the prevalent one ; and the Greek in- 
 terpreters are also favourably inclined towards it. 
 
428 
 
 NOD. 
 
 NORTH. 
 
 M (inter found it likewise in inscriptions. The 
 Svriac has here, 4 a royal servant the Ethiopic, 
 
 ‘ a royal house-servant.’ This person was, there- 
 fore, probably of the court of Herod Antipas, who 
 reigned over Galilee and Peraea (Tholuck, Com- 
 mentar znm Johan, iv. 46). 
 
 NOD (TO; Sept. Na(8), the land to which 
 Cain withdrew, and in which he appears to have 
 settled (Gen. iv. 16). While the site of Paradise 
 itself remains undetermined, it is useless to seek for 
 that of the land of Nod. This land, wherever it 
 was, could not have had a name till Cain went to 
 it ; and it was doubtless called Nod (which 
 signifies flight , wandering), from the circum- 
 stance that Cain fled to it. 
 
 NOPH [Memphis]. 
 
 NOPHECH Cn»}i)), a precious stone, named 
 in Exod. xxviii. 18; xxxix. 11 ; Ezek. xxvii. 16; 
 xxviii. 13; in all which places it is rendered 
 ‘Emerald’ in the Authorised Version. The 
 Sept, and Josephus render it by &i/a6pa or car- 
 buncle. This name, denoting a live coal, the 
 ancients gave to several glowing red stones re- 
 sembling live coals (a similitudine ignium ap- 
 pellati, Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxii. 25; comp. Theo- 
 phrast. De Lapid. 18), particularly rubies and 
 garnets. The most valued of the carbuncles seems, 
 however, to have been the Oriental garnet, a trans- 
 parent red stone, with a violet shade, and strong 
 vitreous lustre. It was engraved upon (Tlieo- 
 phrast., 31), and was probably not so hard as the 
 ruby, which, indeed, is the most beautiful and 
 costly of the precious stones of a red colour, but 
 is so hard that it cannot easily be subjected to the 
 graving-tool. The Hebrew nophech , in the breast- 
 plate of the high-priest, was certainly an engraved 
 stone; and there is no evidence that the ancients 
 could engrave the ruby, although this has in mo- 
 dern times been accomplished. Upon the whole, 
 the particular kind of stone denoted by the Hebrew 
 word must be regarded as uncertain (Rosen- 
 miiller, Biblical Mineralogy , pp. 32, 33; Winer’s 
 Real-worterbuch, art. ‘ Edelsteine ;’ Braunius, 
 De Vest. Sacerdot. p. 523 ; Bellermann, Ueber 
 die Urim , u. Thummim , p. 43). 
 
 NORTH (fiaV; Sept, floras; Vulg. Sep- 
 tentrio , &c.). The Shemite, in speaking of the 
 quarters of the heavens and of the earth, supposes 
 his face turned towards the east, so that the east 
 is before him, the west behind, the south on the 
 right hand, and the north on the left. Hence the 
 words which signify east, west, north, and south, 
 signify also that which is before, behind, on the 
 right hand, and on the left. Thus Aquila renders 
 the words, ‘ the north and the south' (Ps. lxxxix. 
 12), fioppai/ KaX 8e£tai/, the ‘north and the right 
 hand.’ The Hebrew word, translated north, occurs 
 in the five following senses : 1 . It denotes a quarter 
 of the heavens ; 2. of the earth ; 3. a north aspect 
 or direction; 4. it is the conventional name for 
 certain countries irrespectively of their true geo- 
 graphical situation ; and, 5. it indicates the north 
 wind. 1. It denotes a particular quarter of the 
 heavens ; thus, ‘ fair weather cometh out of the 
 north’ (Job xxxvii. 22); literally, ‘gold cometh,’ 
 which Gesenius understands figuratively, as 
 meaning the golden splendour (of the firmament), 
 and compares Zech. iv. 12, ‘gold-coloured oil.’ 
 The Sept, somewhat favours this idea — <*7r o fioppa 
 vityH Xf' y(rav y°v yTa > ‘ the 'doud having the lustre 
 
 of gold,’ which perhaps corresponds with the 
 Xpvawirbs alO-tjp , the gilded aether, or sky of an old 
 Greek tragedian, quoted by Grotius. The same 
 Hebrew word seems used poetically for the whole 
 heaven in the following passage : ‘ He stretcheth 
 out the north (literally the concealed, dark pk>ce), 
 (like -jrpbs v, in Homer) over the empty place’ 
 (Job xxvi. 7 ; Sept.. eV ooSeV). Hence the mean- 
 ing, probably is, that the north wind clears the 
 sky of clouds ; which agrees with the fact in Pales- 
 tine, to which Solomon thus alludes, ‘The north 
 wind driveth away rain’ (Prov. xxv. 23). Homer 
 styles it aidprjyeveTgs, ‘ producing clear weather ' 
 (II. xv. 171 ; Od. v. 296). Josephus calls 
 it atdpuvTaros, ‘ that wind which most produces 
 clear weather’ ( Antiq . xv. 9. 6) ; and Hesychius, 
 iiri8<l£ios, or ‘auspicious’; and-see the remarkable 
 rendering of the Sept, in Prov. xxvii. 16. In the 
 words, ‘ cold weather cometh out of the north ’ 
 (Job xxxvii. 9), the word rendered ‘ north ’ i? 
 DHTD mezarim, which Gesenius understands to 
 mean literally ‘ the scattering,’ and to be a 
 poetical term for the north winds, which scatter 
 the clouds and bring severe cold. He, therefore, 
 with Cocceius and Schultens, approves of Kim- 
 chi’s rendering of the phrase by ‘ venti tlantes et 
 dispergentes.’ By some a northern star is here 
 understood : the Vulgate has arctxtrus ; the Sept. 
 anpurripia (perhaps to be read apKT&a or apKr 
 oupos ) ; while others, as Aben-Ezra, and after 
 him Michaelis, regard Mezarim in this text as the 
 same with the coustellation denoted elsewhere by 
 mazzaroth (Job xxxviii. 22), and mazzaloih 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 5). 
 
 The word occurs also in the same sense in 
 the following passages: ‘ the wind turneth about 
 to the north’ (Eccles. i. 6); ‘a whirlwind, ou 
 of the north’ (Ezek. i. 4). 2. It means a quart* 
 of the earth (Ps. evii. 3 ; Isa. xliii. 6 ; Ezek. xf 
 47 ; xxxii. 30 ; comp. Luke xiii. 29). 3. I 
 
 occurs in the sense of a northern aspect or dire® 
 tion, &c. ; thus, ‘ looking north’ (1 Kings 7ii. 25 , 
 1 Cliron. ix. 24; Num. xxxiv. 7); on ‘ the nort^ 
 side’ (Ps. xlviii. 2; Ezek. viii. 14 ; xl. 44 ; comp 
 Rev. xxi. 13). 4. It seems used as the conven- 
 
 tional name for certain coun'riee, irrespectively 
 of their true geographical situation, namely, Baby- 
 lonia, Chaldsea, Assyria, and Media, which are 
 constantly represented as being to the north of 
 Judaea, though some of them lay rather to the east 
 of Palestine. Thus Assyria is called the north 
 (Zeph. ii. 13), and Babylonia (Jer. i. 14 ; xlvi. 6, 
 10, 20, 24 ; Ezek. xxvi. 7 ; Judith xvi. 4). The 
 origin of this use of the word is supposed to be 
 found in the fact that the kings of most of these 
 countries, avoiding the deserts, used to invade 
 Judaea cliiefly on the north side, by way of Da- 
 mascus and Syria. Thus also, the kings of the 
 north that were ‘ near,’ may mean the kings of 
 Syria, and ‘ those that are afar off,’ the Hyrcaniaus 
 and Bactrians, &c., who are reckoned by Xeno- 
 phon among the peoples that were subjected or 
 oppressed by the king of Babylon, and perl\a}'S 
 others besides of the neighbouring nations that 
 were compelled to submit to the Babylonish yoke 
 (Jer. xxv. 26). By ‘ the princes of the north’ 
 (Ezek. xxxii. 30), some understand the Tyrians 
 and their allies (ch. xxvi. 16), joined here with 
 the Zidonians, their neighbours. ‘The families of 
 the north’ (Jer. i. 15) are inferior kings, who were 
 allies or tributaries to the Babylonian empire 
 
NOVICE. 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 <*29 
 
 (comp, xxxiv. 1 ; 1. 41 ; li. 27). ‘The families 
 of the north* (Jer. xxv. 9) may mean a still in- 
 ferior class of people, or nations dependent on 
 Babylon. 5. The Hebrew word is applied to the 
 north wind. In Prov. xxvii. 16 , the impossibility 
 of concealing the qualities of a contentions wife, 
 is illustrated by comparing it to an attempt to 
 bind the north wind, nVY{£3¥. The invocation 
 of Solomon (Cant. iv. 16), ‘Awake, oh north, and 
 come, thou south, blow upon my garden that the 
 spices may How out,’ and which has occasioned 
 much perplexity to il.ustrators, seems well ex- 
 plained by Rosenmiiller, as simply alluding to 
 the effect of winds from opposite quarters, in dis- 
 persing the fragrance of aromatic shrubs (ver. 13, 
 1 4) far and wide, in all directions. A fine de- 
 scription of the effects of the north wind, in winter, 
 occurs in Ecclus. xliii. 20 ; which truly agrees 
 with the ‘ horfifer Boreas’ of Ovid (Met. i. 65), 
 and in which reference is made to the coincident 
 effects of the north wind and of fire (v. 21 ; comp, 
 v. 3, 4), like the ‘ Borese penetrabile frigus admit’ 
 of Virgil (Georg, i. 93) ; or Milton’s description, 
 
 ‘ The parching air 
 
 Burns fierce, and cold performs the effects of fire.’ 
 Paradise Lost, ii. 595. 
 Josephus states that the north wind in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Joppa was called by those who sailed 
 there MeXag^Speios, ‘ the black north wind,’ and 
 certainly his description of its effects, on one 
 occasion, off that coast, is appalling ( De Bell. 
 Jud. iii. 9. 3).— J. F. D. 
 
 NOSE-JEWEL [Women]. 
 
 NOVICE, or Neophyte (N e6(pvros), one 
 newly converted (literally newly planted ), not 
 yet matured in Christian experience (1 Tim. iii. 6). 
 The ancient Greek interpreters explain it by ‘ new- 
 baptised,’ veofidTrTiffTos, ‘ proselyte,’ tt pocryAvros, 
 &c. The word continued to be in use in the early 
 church ; but it gradually acquired a meaning 
 somewhat different from that which it bore under 
 the Apostles, when ‘newly converted' and ‘newly 
 baptised’ described, in fact, the same condition, 
 the converted being at once baptised. For when, 
 in subsequent years, the church felt it prudent to 
 put converts under a course of instruction before 
 admitting them to baptism and the full privi- 
 leges of Christian brotherhood, the term N e6<pvroi, 
 Novitii , Novices, was sometimes applied to them, 
 although more uStially distinguished by the ge- 
 neral term of Catechumens. 
 
 NUMBERS is the appellation given to the 
 fourth book of Moses, which in the Septuagint 
 is called 'Apid/xoi, and in the Hebrew canon 
 be-midbar, ‘ in the desert.* 
 
 Contents. — This book embraces more espe- 
 cially the continuation of the Sinaitic legislation, 
 the march through the wilderness, the rejection of a 
 whole generation, and the commencement of the 
 conquest of Canaan. Thus we see that it treats 
 on very different subjects, and on this account it 
 has frequently been attempted to resolve it into 
 separate fragments and documents, and to repre- 
 sent it as being composed of the most heterogene- 
 ous materials. We will endeavour to refute this 
 opinion, by furnishing an accurate survey of its 
 contents, and by describing the internal connec- 
 tion of its component parts, so that the organisa- 
 tion of the book may be clearly understood. 
 
 The sum and substance of the law having been 
 stated in the preceding books, that of Numbers 
 
 commences with the arrangements requisite for 
 preserving good order in the camp of the Israelites. 
 The people are numbered for the express purpose 
 of separating the Levites from those Israelites who 
 had to bear arms, and of thus introducing into 
 practice the law concerning the first-born, for 
 whom the tribe of Levi became a substitute. 
 For this reason the people are not merely 
 numbered, but also classed according to their 
 descent; the order which each tribe should 
 occupy in the camp is defined ; and the Levites 
 are introduced into their respective functions 
 (ch. i.-iv.). 
 
 The camp, having been consecrated, was to be 
 kept pure according to the law of Levitical 
 cleansings ; consequently all persons were ex- 
 cluded from it who were afflicted with leprosy, 
 who had become unclean by a flux, and who had 
 touched a corpse (ch. v. 14). 
 
 Thus, after civil and sacerdotal life bad been 
 brought into a definite form, other laws based upon 
 this form came into force, especially those laws 
 which regulated the authority of the priests in 
 civil affairs (ch. v. 5 ; vi. 27). These regulations 
 conclude with the beautiful form of benediction 
 which indicates the blessing to be expected from 
 the true observance of the preceding directions. 
 The people are impressed with this fact ; the hearts 
 of the Israelites are willing to offer the required 
 gifts, and to entrust them to the Levites. 
 
 Jehovah is faithful to his promise, and glori- 
 ously reveals himself to his people (ch. vii.). 
 Before the Levites enter upon the discharge of 
 their sacred functions, the law concerning th# 
 lamps to be lighted in the sanctuary is signifi 
 cantly repeated (ch. viii.). These lamps sym 
 bolize the communication of the Holy Spiri' 
 and bring to the recollection of the nation th 
 blessings of theocracy to be derived from setting 
 apart the tribe of Levi, which had recently been 
 separated from the rest of the people. 
 
 Then follows a description of the celebration 
 of the Passover, preparatory to the departure of 
 the people from Mount Sinai (ch. ix. 1-14). 
 Some regulations are connected with the cele- 
 bration of the Passover, and the whole miraculous 
 guidance of the people is described (ch. ix. 15-x.). 
 
 Thus the entrance of Israel into the Holy Land 
 seemed to be fully prepared ; and it was of great 
 importance to show how they were prevented 
 from entering it. Accurate details are therefore 
 given of the spirit which pervaded the nation ; 
 a spirit which, in spite of the forbearance of God, 
 manifested itself in daring rebellions against (he 
 divine authority (ch. xi. and xii.). 
 
 Now comes the turning point of the history. 
 Everything seems externally prepared for the 
 conquest of the country, when it appears that the 
 nation are not yet internally ripe for the perform- 
 ance of so important an act (ch. xiii., xiv.). 
 
 In immediate connection with this are some 
 laws which were given in the desert; the in- 
 tention of which was to recal to the recollection of 
 the rejected race, which had been justly con- 
 demned to suffer severe punishment, that never- 
 theless they had not ceased to be the people of the 
 covenant, and the depositary of divine revelation 
 (comp. ch. xv. 2, 13-16, 22, 23, 37, sq.). In 
 this respect the facts mentioned in ch. xv. 32-36 
 and ch. xvi. are also of great importance. They 
 show, on the one hand, the continuance of an evil 
 
430 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 disposit.on in the people, and, on the other, the 
 majesty of God watching over his holy law. 
 
 The content* of ch. xv.-xix. are of a similar 
 character. The facts there recorded relate to a 
 period of thirty-eight years. The conciseness 
 with which they are stated significantly indicates 
 the strictly legal and theocratical principles of 
 the Mosaical legislation. The period of Israel’s 
 rejection is characterized by the circumstance, 
 that the historian is almost silent respecting it, 
 as being a period not strictly belonging to theo- 
 cratical history. During this period the striking 
 deeds of God, his miracles and signs, the more 
 prominent operations of his grace, and his pe- 
 culiar blessings, cease. The rejection of the 
 nation consisted in this suspension of the divine 
 operations. During this period God, as it were, 
 ignored his people. Consequently, the historian 
 also almost ignores the rebellious race. But the 
 period in which the divine promises were to be 
 fulfilled again forms a prominent portion of the 
 history. The termination of the penal period 
 is the commencement of the most important 
 era in the Mosaical history. It brings the 
 legislation to a splendid conclusion. The most 
 glorious facts here follow each other in close 
 succession ; facts which were intended clearly to 
 demonstrate that the chosen people entered into 
 the land of promise, not by their own power and 
 might, but that this land was given into their 
 hands by the God of promise. 
 
 Miriam was already dead ; and the forty years 
 of wandering in the wilderness were accom- 
 plished. Israel was again in sight of the Holy 
 Land on the borders of Edom. Then Moses and 
 Aaron also sinned ; soon after, Aaron died, and 
 was succeeded by Eleazar. Israel sent ambas- 
 sadors to the king of Edom to obtain permis- 
 sion to pass through his territory, but was haugh- 
 tily refused (ch. xx.). Everything seemed to 
 be prepared by preceding events already re- 
 corded. The dying off of the real emigrants 
 from Egypt might be expected, after the divine 
 decree that this should come to pass, had been 
 mentioned ; the unbelief of Moses arose from 
 the protracted duration of the time of punish- 
 ment, which at length broke his courage; the 
 spirit of Edom arose in overbearing animosity, 
 because it seemed that Jehovah had forsaken his 
 people. It was appointed that Israel should un- 
 dergo all this in order that they might grow strong 
 in the Lord. Their strength was soon proved 
 • against Arad. They vowed to devote all the 
 cities of the Canaanites to Jehovah, who gave 
 them the victory. They were directed to avoid 
 the boundaries of Edom, and to have Canaan 
 alone in view. The people murmured, and the 
 significant symbol of the serpent was erected 
 before them, reminding them of their ancient 
 sin, and how it had been healed and over- 
 come by Jehovah. In all this Israel is con- 
 stantly directed to Canaan. They march cou- 
 rageously to the boundaries of the Amorites, 
 singing praises to Jehovah, and, by the power 
 of the Lord, defeat the kings of Heshbon and 
 Bashan (ch. xxi.). 
 
 In the plains of Moab still greater glory 
 awaits the chosen people. The pagan prophet 
 of Mesopotamia, being hired by the king of the 
 Moabites, is overpowered by Jehovah, so that he 
 is compelled to bless Israel instead of cursing 
 
 them ; and also directs them to the ancient hies*' 
 ings granted to the patriarchs. The bitterest 
 enemies of the theocracy are here most deeply 
 humbled, being themselves compelled to con- 
 tribute to the glory of Jehovah (ch. xxii.-xxiv.). 
 Not the God, but the people of Israel, were dis- 
 honoured through the devices of Balaam. 
 
 The subsequent account concerning the idolatry 
 into which the people were led, forms a striking 
 contrast with the preceding chapters, and evinces 
 the impotence of the Israelites, whose first attack, 
 therefore, was to be directed against their seducers. 
 This was to be the beginning of the conquest of 
 Canaan, which was essentially a combat against 
 idolatry, and the victory of the kingdom of God 
 over paganism. The conquered country was 
 granted to separate tribes, and for this purpose the 
 people were once more numbered, and Joshua 
 appointed their leader. 
 
 Jehovah reserves his own rights in the distri 
 bution of the country, and Israel is directed not 
 to forget the sacrifices to the Lord, the sabbaths, 
 festivals, and vows: the ordinances concerning 
 which are here briefly repeated, inculcated, and 
 completed. 
 
 The people shall certainly gain the victory, 
 but only in strict communion with Jehovah. 
 Thus begins the combat against Midian, accord- 
 ing to the directions of the law, and forming as 
 it. were a prototype of the later combats of Israel 
 against pagan powers (ch. xxv.-xxxi.). 
 
 This was the last external work of Moses. 
 Henceforth his eye is directed only to the internal 
 affairs of his people. An entrance has been 
 effected into the country, and the conquered ter- 
 ritory is divided among two tribes and a . half- 
 tribe (ch. xxxii.). 
 
 Moses reminds the people of Jehovah’s guid- 
 ance in the wilderness, and of the manner in 
 which the whole land was to be conquered. He 
 commands the destruction of the Canaanites and 
 of their idolatry. He appoints to what extent 
 the land is to be conquered, and in what manner 
 it should be divided ; also the towns to be granted 
 to the Levites, and the cities of refuge. He 
 establishes also the statute, which was of great 
 importance for the preservation of landed pro- 
 perty, that an heiress should marry otdy within 
 her own tribe (ch. xxxiii.-xxxvi.). 
 
 There have frequently been raised strong 
 doubts against, the historical credibility of the 
 book of Numbers, although it is impressed with 
 indubitable marks of the age to which it refers, 
 and of perfect authenticity. The numerical 
 statements in ch. i.-iv. are such that they repel 
 every suspicion of forgery. There could appa- 
 rently be no motive for any fabrication of this 
 description. The numbering of the people is in 
 perfect harmony with Exod. xxxviii. 26. The 
 amount is here stated in round numbers, because 
 a general survey only was required. When 
 requisite, the more exact numbers are also added 
 (ch. iii. 39, 43.) A later falsarius, or forger, 
 would certainly have affected to possess the most 
 exact knowledge of those circumstances, and con- 
 sequently would have given, not round, but par- 
 ticularly definite numbers. 
 
 The account of the setting apart of the tribe of 
 Levi lias been especially urged as bearing the 
 marks of fiction ; but this account is strongly 
 confirmed by the distribution of the cities of the 
 
NUMBERS. 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 431 
 
 Leviles (Num. xxxv. ; Jos. xxi.). This distri- 
 bution is an undeniable fact, and the existence of 
 these Levitical towns may be appealed to as a 
 document proving that the Levites were really 
 set apart. Our opponents have vainly endea- 
 voured to find contradictions, for instance, in the 
 system of tithing (Num. xviii.), which, they say, 
 is not mentioned in Deuteronomy, where the 
 tithes are applied to different purposes (Deut. 
 
 xii. 6, 7, 17-19; xiv. 22, seep; xxvi. 12-15). 
 But there were two sorts of tithes ; one ap- 
 pointed for the maintenance of the Levites, and 
 the other t > defray the expenses of public ban- 
 quets, of which the Levites also partook on ac- 
 count of their position in society (comp. Neh. 
 
 xiii. 10 ; Tobit i. 7). 
 
 It has also been asserted that the book of 
 Numbers contradicts itself in ch. iv. 2, 3, and 
 ch. viii. 24, with respect to the proper age 
 of Levites for doing duty. But the first of these 
 passages speaks about canning the tabernacle, 
 and the second about performing sacred functions 
 in the tabernacle. To carry the tabernacle was 
 heavier work, and required an age of thirty years. 
 The functions within the tabernacle were com- 
 paratively easy, for which an age of twenty-five 
 years was deemed sufficient. 
 
 The opinions of those writers who deem that 
 the book of Numbers had a mythical character, 
 are in contradiction with passages like x. 26, sq., 
 wdiere Chobab is requested by Moses to aid the 
 march through the wilderness. Such passages 
 were written by a conscientious reporter, whose 
 object was to state facts, who did not con- 
 fine himself merely to the relation of miracles, 
 and who does not conceal the natural occurrences 
 which preceded the marvellous eveuts in ch. xi. sq. 
 How are our opponents able to reconcile these 
 facts? Here again they require the aid of a 
 new hypothesis, and speak of fragments loosely 
 connected. 
 
 The author of the book of Numbers proves 
 himself to be intimately acquainted with Egypt. 
 The productions mentioned in ch. xi. 5 are, 
 according to the most accurate investigations, 
 really those which in that country chiefly served 
 for food. 
 
 In ch. xiii., xxii., we find a notice concerning 
 Zoan (Tanis), which indicates an exact know- 
 ledge of Egyptian history, as well in the author 
 as in his readers. In ch. xvii. 2, where the 
 writing of a name on a stick is mentioned, we 
 find an allusion characteristic of Egyptian cus s 
 toms (compare Wilkinson, Manners and Cus- 
 toms of the Ancient Egyptians , i. p. 388. 
 
 The history of the rebellion of the sons of 
 Korah (xvi. 17) has certainly some colouring of 
 the marvellous, but it nevertheless bears the stamp 
 of truth It is absurd to suppose that a poet who 
 wrote ch. xvii. 6, sq., in order to magnify the 
 priestly dignity, should have represented the Le- 
 vites themselves as the chief authors of these cri- 
 minal proceedings. This circumstance is the 
 more important, because the descendants of Korah 
 (Num. xxvi. 11) became afterwards one of the 
 most, distinguished Levitical families. In this 
 position we find them as early as the times of 
 David ; so that it is inconceivable how any body 
 should have entertained the idea of inventing a 
 crime to be charged upon one of the ancestors of 
 this illustrious family. 
 
 Many vestiges of antiquity are found in ch. xxi. 
 The whole chapter, indeed, bears a charactf risti- 
 cally antique impress, which manifests itself in 
 all those ancient poems which are here commu- 
 nicated only in fragments, so far as was required 
 for the illustration of the narrative. Even such 
 critical sceptics as I)e Wette consider these 
 poems to be relics of the Mosaical period. But 
 they are so closely connected with Instory, as to 
 be unintelligible without a knowledge of the facts 
 to which they refer. 
 
 Narratives like the history of Balaam (xxii., 
 xxiv.) furnish also numerous proofs of their 
 high antiquity. These confirmations are of the 
 greatest importance, on account of the many mar- 
 vellous and enigmatical points of the narrative. 
 Compare, for instance, the geographical state- 
 ments, which are uncommonly accurate, in 
 ch. xxii. 1, 36, 39; xxiii. 14, 15, 27, 28. See 
 Hengstenberg’s Geschichte Bi team's, Berlin, 
 1842, p. 221, sq. 
 
 The nations particularly mentioned in Ba- 
 laam’s prophecy, the Amalekites, Edomites, 
 Moabites, and Kenites, belong to the Mosaical 
 period. In ch. xxiv. 7, it is stated that the king 
 of Israel would be greater than Agag; and it can 
 be proved that Agag was a standing title of the 
 Amalekite princes, and that, consequently, there 
 is no necessity to refer this declaration to 
 that king Agag whom Saul vanquished. The 
 Kenites, at a later period, disappeared entirely 
 was from history. A prophet from Mesopotamia 
 likely to make particular mention of Assur (ch. 
 xxiv. 22). There is also a remarkable prediction, 
 that persons sailing from the coast of Chittim 
 should subdue Assur and Eber (ch. xxiv. 23). 
 The inhabitants of the west should vanquish 
 the dwellers in the east. The writers who 
 consider the predictions of Balaam to be vati- 
 cinia post eventum, bring us down to so late a 
 period as the Grecian age, in which the whole 
 passage could have been inserted only under 
 the supposition of most arbitrary dealings with 
 history. The truth of the biblical narrative here 
 asserts its power. There occur similar accounts, 
 in which it is strikingly evident that they pro- 
 ceeded from the hands of an author contemporary 
 with the events ; for instance, ch. xxxii., in 
 which the distribution of the trans-Jordanic. ter- 
 ritory is recorded, even the account, which has 
 so frequently been attacked, concerning the Ha- 
 voth-jair, the small towns, or rather tent villages 
 of Jair (xxxii. 41, 42; compare Judg. x. 4, and 
 Deut. iii. 14). Even this account, we say, is 
 fully justified by a closer examination. 
 
 The list of stations in ch. xxxiii. is an im- 
 portant document, which could not have originated 
 in a poetical imagination. This list contains 
 a survey of the whole route of the Israelites, and 
 mentions individual places only in case the 
 Israelites abode there for a considerable period. 
 It is not the production of a diligent compiler, 
 but rather the original work of an author well 
 versed in the circumstances of that period. A 
 later author would certainly have avoided the 
 appearance of some contradictions, such as that in 
 Num. xxxiii. 30, 31, comp, with Deut. x. 6. This 
 contradiction may best be removed, by observing 
 that the book of Numbers speaks of the expedi- 
 tion of the Israelites in the second year of their 
 wanderings, and the book of Deuteronomy of 
 
432 
 
 NUN. 
 
 OATH. 
 
 their expedition in the fortieth year. The list of 
 stations contains also important historical notices ; 
 those, for instance, in ch. xxxiii. 4, 9, 14, 38. 
 These notices demonstrate the accurate historical 
 information of the author. 
 
 We still dwell for a moment on the consi- 
 deration of the great fact, which ’is the basis of 
 the narrative of the whole book--namely, the 
 sojourn of the Israelites during forty years in 
 the wilderness. The manner in which the nar- 
 rator states this fact, we have mentioned above. 
 A view so strictly theocratical, and a description 
 so purely objective, are most befitting the law-giver 
 himself. Modern criticism has chiefly taken 
 offence at the statement that Jehovah had an- 
 nounced all this as a punishment to be inflicted 
 upon the people. This, they say, is incompre- 
 hensible. However, the fact stands firm, that the 
 Israelites really abode forty years in the wilder- 
 ness. This fact is proved in the Scriptures by 
 many other testimonies. Hence arises the ques- 
 tion, how this protracted abode was occasioned, 
 and what induced Moses to postpone or give up 
 the conquest of Canaan. De Wette says that 
 such l'esignation, in giving up a plan to which 
 one has devoted the full half of a life, is not 
 human. Gothe asserted, that by such a representa- 
 tion the picture of Moses is entirely disfigured. 
 All this renders the problem of our opponents 
 the more difficult. De Wette says, ‘ Who knows 
 what happened in that long period?’ This ques- 
 tion would amount to a confession of our entire 
 ignorance concerning what was most important, 
 and what is the real turning point of the history 
 of Israel, and would make an enormous and 
 most striking gap in universal history. It is in- 
 credible that no tradition should have been pre- 
 served, in which was told to posterity what was 
 here most important, even if it should only have 
 been in a very disfigured form. It. is incredible 
 that what was most important should have been 
 passed by, and that there should have been com- 
 municated only what was comparatively insigni- 
 ficant. If this were the case, the traditions of 
 Israel would form a perfectly isolated pheno- 
 menon. Thus the history of Israel itself would 
 be something incomprehensible. Either the history 
 is inconceivable, or the astounding fact is, indeed, 
 a truth. And so it is. The resignation of Moses, 
 and the sojourn of the people in the wilderness, 
 can be explained only by assuming an extraordi- 
 nary divine intervention. A merely natural inter- 
 pretation is here completely futile. The problem 
 can only be solved by assuming that the whole 
 proceeded from the command of God, which is 
 unconditionally obeyed by his servant, and to 
 which even the rebellious people must bow, 
 because they have amply experienced that without 
 God they can do nothing. 
 
 For the works relative to Numbers, see the 
 article Pentateuch. — H. A. C. H. 
 
 NUN (j-U ; in Syr. and Arab., a fish), the 
 father of Joshua, who is hence constantly called 
 Joshua ben-Nun, ‘ Joshua the son of Nun.’ 
 Nothing is known of the person who bore this 
 name. The Sept, constantly uses the form it Nat/77, 
 which appears to have arisen from an error of an 
 earlier copyist (NATH for NAYN). From the 
 forms Nc'/3t 7 an d NajSt, found in some MSS., 
 it would seem that later transcribers sup- 
 pose! this Nawj to be the pronunciation of the 
 
 Hebrew (023. It is from this error of the Sept 
 that some of our old versions have * Joshua ih* 
 son of N aue.’ 
 
 o. 
 
 OAK [Ali.on]. 
 
 OATH (ny-nf and flfo), an appeal to God 
 in attestation of the truth of what you say, or in 
 confirmation of what you promise or undertake. 
 The Latin term is juyurandum, or jur amentum. 
 Cicero (De Officiis , iii. 29) correctly terms an 
 oath a religious affirmation ; that is, an affirma- 
 tion with a religious sanction. This appears from 
 the words which he proceeds to employ : ‘ Quod 
 autem affirmate, quasi Deo teste, promiseris, id 
 teneudum est. Jam enim non ad iram deorum, 
 quae nulla est, sed ad justitiam et ad fidem per- 
 tinet which in effect means that an oath is an 
 appeal to God, as the source and the vindicator 
 of justice and fidelity. Hence it appears that 
 there are two essential elements in an oath : first, 
 the human, a declared intention of speaking the 
 truth, or performing the action ir\ a given case ; 
 secondly, the divine, an appeal to God, as a Being 
 who knows all things and will punish guilt. 
 According to usage, however, there is a third 
 element in the idea which ‘ oath’ commonly con- 
 veys, namely, that the oath is taken only on 
 solemn, or, more specifically, on juridical occa- 
 sions. The canon law gives all three elements 
 when it represents judicium , vcritas, jtistitia, as 
 entering into the constitution of an aoth— judicium, 
 judgment or trial on the part of society ; veritas, 
 truth on the part of the oath-taker ‘,justitia, justice 
 on the part of God. An oath is accordingly a re- 
 ligious undertaking either to say ( juramentum as- 
 scrtorium), or to do ( juramentum promissorium) 
 something entered into voluntarily with the cus- 
 tomary forms. Being a religious undertaking, 
 the appeal will vary according to the religious 
 opinions of the country in which the oath is taken. 
 In some instances it will be an appeal imme- 
 diately to God; in others, to objects supposed to 
 have divine power; and by a natural declension, 
 when men have left the only true God, they may 
 appeal in their oaths even to stocks and stones. 
 Accordingly the Romans swore, ‘ per caput suum 
 vel suorum filiorum,’ or ‘ per genium principis ;* 
 that is, by their own head or that of their children, 
 or by the genius of the emperor. We shall have 
 by and by to notice similar errors and abuses 
 among the Jews. 
 
 The essence of an oath lies obviously in the 
 appeal which is thereby made to God, or to 
 divine knowledge and power. The customary 
 form establishes this, ‘ So help me God.’ The 
 Latin words (known to have been used as early 
 as the sixth century), whence our English form is 
 taken, run thus : 1 Sic me Deus adjuvet et ha?c 
 san eta Evangel ia ;’ so may God and these holy 
 Gospels help me ; that is, ‘ as I say the truth.’ 
 The present custom of kissing a book containing 
 the Gospels has in England taken place of the 
 latter clause in the Latin formula. 
 
 If, then, an appeal to God is the essence of an 
 oath, oath-taking is a practice wl>ich cannot be 
 justified. Such an appeal is wrong, because it 
 
OATH. 
 
 OATH. 
 
 433 
 
 a mere act of a creature’s will, being unrequired 
 and unsanctioned by God, in a case in which 
 God is made a party to a certain course, which 
 course may or may not he agreeable to his mind 
 (because a wisn on the part of the oath-taker for 
 punishment, should he fail in his undertaking, or 
 any part of the same, is an act unbecoming a 
 frail man, unseemly in its very nature, and awful 
 to think of when man’s sinfulness and God’s power 
 are rightly apprehended ; because it relaxes the 
 general bonds of religion, and morality, and truth ; 
 ( for in establishing an occasion when justice must 
 be done, it authorizes the idea that its observance 
 is not imnerative on other occasions) ; and because 
 it is founded on an essentially false view of reli- 
 gious obligation; for as God sees, knows, and 
 governsall things, and as all things so each thing, 
 so man is bound universally to speak the truth and 
 perform what he undertakes, bound as much in 
 each and in all the actions of his life, as his de- 
 pendence and God’s sovereignty can bind a ra- 
 tional and accountable being ; so that it is radi- 
 cally false to suppose that there is or can be any 
 thing special in the obligation of an oath ; the 
 iendency of which falsity is not to raise, but to 
 degrade the character, to reduce the general 
 standard of truth and rectitude, to weaken the 
 moral sense, by encouraging the idea that on spe- 
 cial occasions, and of course on special occasions 
 only , truth is to be spoken and promises per 
 formed. 
 
 It is one among those numerous small accord- 
 ances comparatively with the dictates of right 
 reason which will be found to prevail in the 
 Bible the more minutely it is investigated, and 
 which, though now, after a revelation has en- 
 lightened the mind, are discoverable by the mind, 
 are yet so far beyond the reach of the mind when 
 left to its own resources, that the practice of anti- 
 quity bears in an opposite direction — it is one of 
 those very important accordances with truth, that 
 the Mosaic legislation is not answerable for the 
 practice of taking oaths, which existed before the 
 time of Moses. It is found as early as the days 
 of Abraham, who made the oldest servant of his 
 family swear he would select for Isaac a wife of 
 his own kindred (Gen. xxiv. 2, 3, 37). It is here 
 observable that the oath is a private, not a judicial 
 one ; only that the rectoral authority of Abraham, 
 as patriarch, must be taken into account. The 
 form observed is found in these words : 4 Put, 
 1 pray thee, thy hand under my thigh ; and I 
 will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of 
 heaven and the God of earth, that,’ &c. An oath 
 was sometimes a public and general bond, obliging 
 the parties who took it to a certain course — a case 
 in which it appears to have been spontaneous and 
 voluntary; as when, in Judges xxi., the men of 
 Israel swore, saying, there shall not any of us give 
 his daughter unto Benjamin to wife (comp. ver. 5). 
 From 1 Kings xviii. 10, it appears to have been 
 customary to require on occasions of great concern 
 a public oath, embracing even an entire 4 king- 
 dom and nation but whether taken individually 
 Or by some representative, we have no means of 
 ascertaining. Such a custom, however, implying, 
 as it does, a doubt of the public faith of a people, 
 would hardly be submitted to, unless on the part 
 of an inferior. 
 
 Oatns did not take their origin in any divine 
 command. They were a part of that consuetudi- 
 vol. ii 29 
 
 nary law which Moses found prevalent, and was 
 bound to respect, since no small portion of the 
 force of law lies in custom, and a legislator can 
 neither abrogate nor institute a binding law of his 
 own mere will. Accordingly, Moses made use of 
 the sanction which an oath gave, but in that ge- 
 neral manner, and apart from minute directions 
 arid express words of approval ; which shows that 
 he merely used, without intending to sanction, an 
 instrument that he found in existence and could 
 not safely dispense with. Examples are found in 
 Exod. xxii. 11, where an oath is ordered to be 
 applied in the case of lost property ; and here we 
 first, meet with what may strictly be called a 
 judicial oath (Lev. vi. 3-5). 
 
 The forms of adjuration found in the Scriptures 
 are numerous. Saul sware unto Jonathan, 4 As 
 the Lord liveth ’ (1 Sam. xix. 6). 4 A heap and 
 
 a pillar’ were for a witness between Laban and 
 Jacob, with the ensuing for a sanction, ‘ The God 
 of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of 
 their father, judge betwixt us. And Jacob sware 
 by the fear of his father Isaac ’ (Gen. xxxi. 52, 
 sq.). A common formula is, ‘ The Lord do so to 
 me and more also’ (Ruth i. 17 ; 1 Sam. iv. 44), 
 which approaches nearly to our modern form, 
 4 So help me God,’ and is obviously elliptical. 
 Reference appears to be had to the ancient custom 
 of slaying some animal in confirmation of a treaty 
 or agreement. The animal thus slain and offered 
 in a burnt offering to God became an image or 
 type, betokening the fate which would attend that 
 one of the two contracting parties who failed in 
 his engagement ; and the words just cited were 
 intended to be a voluntary assumption of the 
 liability thus foreshadowed on the side of those 
 who joined in the covenant : subsequently the 
 sacrifice was in ordinary cases omitted, and the 
 form came in itself to have the force of a solemn 
 asseveration. 
 
 An oath, making an appeal to the divine justice 
 and power, is a recognition of the divinity of the 
 being to whom the appeal is made. Hence to 
 swear by an idol is to be convicted of idolatry. 
 Such an act is accordingly given in Scripture 
 as a proof of idolatry and a reason for condign 
 punishment. 4 How shall I pardon thee for this ? 
 Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn l./ 
 them that are no gods’ (Jer. v. 7 ; xii. 16 ; Amos 
 viii. 14 ; Zeph. i. 5). 
 
 Other beings besides God are sometimes added 
 in the form of an oath : Elijah said to Elisha, 
 4 As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth ’ 
 (2 Kings ii. 2; 1 Sam. xx. 3). The party ad- 
 dressed is frequently sworn by, especially if a 
 prince : 4 As thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the 
 woman/ &c. (I Sam. i. 26 ; xvii. 55 ; xxv. 26 ; 
 2 Sam. xi. 11). The Hebrews, as well as the 
 Egyptians, swore also by the head or the life of an 
 absent as well as a present prince : 4 By the life 
 of Pharaoh’ (Gen. xlii. 15). Hanway says that 
 the most sacred oath among the Persians is 4 by 
 the king’s head.’ Aben Ezra asserts that in hia 
 time (a.d. 1170) this oath was common in Egypt 
 under the caliphs : death was the penalty of per- 
 jury. Selden, in his Titles of Honour (p. 45j, 
 ascribes the practice to the custom of applying 
 the name god to princes (Rosen m. Morgenl. i. 
 200, sq. ; comp. Strabo, xii. p. 557 ; Herod, iy. 
 68 Tertull. Apol. c. 52). 
 
 The oath-taker swore sometimes by his own 
 
OATH. 
 
 OATH. 
 
 434 
 
 bead (Matt. v. 36 ; see Virg. JEn. ix. 300 ; Ovid, 
 Trist. iv. 4. 45; J liven, vi. 17); or by some pre- 
 cious part of his body, as the eyes (Ovid, Amor. 
 iii. 3. 13; Tibull. iii. 6. 47); sometimes, but 
 only in the case of the later Jews, by the earth, 
 the heaven, and the sun (Matt. v. 34, 35 ; Eurip. 
 Hippol. 1029; Virg. JEn. xii. 176); as well as 
 by angels (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 4) ; by the 
 temple (Matt, xxiii. 16 ; comp. Lightfoot, p. 280); 
 and even by parts of the temple (Matt, xxiii. 16 ; 
 Wetstein). They also swore by Jerusalem, as the 
 holy city (Matt. v. 35 ; Lightfoot, p. 281). The 
 Rabbinical writers indulge. in much prolixity on 
 the subject of oaths, entering into nice distinctions, 
 and showing themselves exquisite casuists. A 
 • brief view of their disquisitions may be seen in 
 Othou. Lex. p. 347, sq. Some oaths they declared 
 invalid : ‘ If any one swear by heaven, earth, the 
 sun, and such things, although there may be in 
 his mind while using these words a reference to 
 Him who created them, yet this is not an oath ; 
 or if any one swear by one of the prophets, or by 
 some book of Scripture, having reference to Him 
 who sent the prophet and gave the book, neverthe- 
 less this is not an oath’ (Maimon. Hal. Schebhuoth , 
 c. 12). So the Mishna ( Schebhuoth , c. 4) : 4 ii' 
 any one adjures another by heaven or earth, he is 
 not held bound by this.’ It is easy to see that 
 oaths of this nature, with authoritative interpreta-| 
 tions and glosses so lax, could hardly fail to 
 loosen moral obligation, and to lead to much 
 practical perjury and impiety. Minute casuistical 
 distinctions undermine the moral sense. When 
 a man may swear and yet not^wear, by the same 
 formula appear to bind himself and yet be free, 
 contract with his associates an obligation from 
 which he may be released by religious authorities, 
 the basis of private virtue and the grounds of 
 public confidence are at once endangered. Besides, 
 the practice of unauthorized and spontaneous oath- 
 taking, which seems even in the earlier periods of 
 Jewish history to have been too common, became 
 about the time of our Lord of great frequency, 
 and must have tended to lower the religious, as 
 well as weaken the moral character. Peter’s con- 
 duct is a striking case in point, who 4 began to curse 
 and to swear, saying, I know not the man’ (Matt, 
 xxv i. 74). An open falsehood, thus asserted and 
 maintained by oaths and imprecations, shows how 
 little regard there was at that time paid to such 
 means of substantiating truth. The degree of 
 guilt implied in such lamentable practices is not 
 lessened by the emphasis with which the Mosaic 
 law guarded the sanctity of the divine name, and 
 prohibited the crime of perjury and profanation 
 (Lev. xix. 12; Exod. xx. 7; Deut. v. Ill; 
 Matt. v. 33). 
 
 These remarks, tending to exhibit the state of 
 mind and the manner of conduct prevalent in 
 our Lord's time, show with what propriety he in- 
 terposed his authority on the point, and not only 
 disallowed the vain distinctions of the Pharisees 
 (Matt, xxiii. 16), but also forbad swearing entirely 
 (Matt. v. 33). Before, however, we submit his 
 doctrine on this matter to some remarks, there are 
 yet a few words to be added, in order to complete 
 our statement touching the ceremonial observed in 
 connection with an oath. 
 
 We have already intimated that it wa3 usual to 
 imt the hand under the thigh (Gen. xxiv. 2 ; xlvii. 
 %9\ On this practice Aben Ezra observes : 4 It 
 
 appears probable to me that the meaning of this 
 custom was as if the superior sat'd, with the con* 
 sent, of his slave, If thou art under my power, 
 and therefore prepared to execute my commands, 
 put thy hand, as a token, under my thigh/ 
 Winer, however, thinks that as it was usual to 
 swear by the more important parts of the human 
 frame, so this was a reference to the generative 
 powers of man. But see on this interpretation, 
 as well as on the general question of swearing 
 by parts of the body, Meiner's Geschichte der 
 llelig. ii. 286, sq. It is, however, certain that it 
 was usual to touch that by which a person swore : 
 
 4 Tange precor mensam, tangunt quo more 
 precantes.’ 
 
 Other instances may be seen in Niedek, De Po- 
 pulor. Adorat. p. 21 3, sq. At p. 2 1 8 of this work, 
 with the plate relating to it, an instance may be 
 found which cannot be mentioned, but which goes 
 immediately to confirm the idea advanced by 
 W iner. 
 
 The more usual employment of the hand was 
 to raise it towards heaven ; designed, probably, to 
 excite attention, to point out the oath-taker, and 
 to give solemnity to the act (Gen. xiv. 22, 23). 
 In the strongly anthropomorphitic language of 
 parts of the Scripture, even God is introduced 
 saying, 4 I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, L 
 live for ever’ (Deut. xxxii. 40). It can only be 
 by the employment of a similar licence that the 
 Almighty is represented as in any way coming 
 under the obligation of an oath (Exod. vi. 8 ; 
 Ezek. xx. 5). Instead of the head, the phylactery 
 was sometimes touched by the Jews on taking an 
 oath (Maimon. Schebhuoth, c. xi.). Even the 
 Deity is sometimes introduced as swearing by phy- 
 lacteries (7 'anch, fob vi, 3; Othon. Lex. p. 757). 
 In cases where a civil authority adjured a party, 
 that is, put a person to an oath, the answer was 
 given by TDK, av cliras, 4 thou hast said ’ (1 Kings 
 xxii. 16; Num. v. 19; Matt. xxvi. 63; Sche- 
 bhzioth, c. i. ; Misch. ii.). Women and slaves 
 were not permitted to take an oath (Maimou. 
 Hilch. Schebh. 9, 10, 11). 
 
 The levity of the Jewish nation in regard to 
 oaths, though reproved by some of their doctors 
 (Othon. Lex. p. 351 ; Philo, ii. 194), was noto- 
 rious; and when we find it entering as an element 
 into popular poetry (Martial, xi. 9), we cannot 
 ascribe the imputation to the known injustice of 
 heathen writers towards the Israelites. This na- 
 tional vice, doubtless, had an influence with the 
 Essenes [Essenes], in placing the prohibition of 
 oaths among the rules of their reformatory order. 
 Certainly, 4 the Great Teacher’ forbade oaths alto- 
 gether. The language is most express (Matt. v. 
 34-37 ; James v. 12). Equally decided was the 
 interpretation put on this language by the ancient 
 church. Justin, Irenaeus, Basil, Chrysostom, 
 Augustine, held oaths to be unchristian (De W etto, 
 Sitlenlehre, iii. 143). Even modern philosophy has 
 given its vote against the practice (see Benlham’s 
 4 Swear not at all’). That no case has been made 
 out by Christian commentators in favour of judi- 
 cial swearing we do not affirm; but we must be 
 excused if we add that the case is a very weak one, 
 wears a casuistical appearance, and as if neces- 
 sitated in order to excuse existing usages, and 
 guard against errors imputed to unpopular sects, 
 such as the Quakers and Mennonites. If in- 
 
OBADIAH. 
 
 OBADIAH. 
 
 434 
 
 ferential and me;«ly probable conclusions, sucli 
 as the case consists of, may be allowed to prevail 
 against the explicit language of Jesus and James, 
 Scripture is robbed of its certainty, and prohibi- 
 tions the most express lose their force. For in- 
 stance, it has been alleged that our Lord himself 
 took part in an oath when, being adjured by the 
 high-priest, he answered * Thou hast said ’ (Matt, 
 xxvi. 63-4). But what has this to do with his 
 own doctrine on the point ? Placed at the bar of 
 judgment, Jesus was a criminal, not a teacher, 
 bound by the laws of his country, which it was a 
 part of his plan never unnecessarily to disregard, 
 to give an answer to the question judicially put to 
 him, and bound equally by a regard to the great 
 interests which he had come into the world to 
 serve. Jesus did not swear, but was sworn. The 
 putting the oath he could not prevent. His sole 
 question was, Should he answer the interrogatory ? 
 — a question which depended on considerations of 
 the highest moment, and which he who alone 
 could judge decided in the affirmative. That 
 question in effect was, ‘Art thou the Messiah?’ 
 His reply was a simple affirmative. The employ- 
 ment of the adjuration was the act of the ma- 
 gistrate : to have objected to which would have 
 brought on Jesus the charge of equivocation, if not 
 >f evasipn, or even the denial of his ‘ high calling.’ 
 
 The general tendency of this article is to show 
 how desirable it is that the practice of oath-taking 
 of all -kinds, judicial as well as others, should at 
 least he diminished, till at the proper time it is 
 totally abolished; for whatsoever is more than a 
 simple affirmation cometh from the Evil One, 
 in rod novTjpod (Matt. v. 37), and equally leadeth 
 to evil. 
 
 On the -subject of this article the reader may 
 consult: Lydii Diss. de Juramento ; Nicolai 
 De Juram. Ilebrceoricm, Gr&corum, Romanorum 
 aliorumque populorum ; Seldeni Diss. de Jura- 
 mentis ; Molembecii De Juramento per Genium 
 principis ; Spenceri Diss. de Juramento jier 
 Anchialum ; — all of which may be found in the 
 ‘26th volume of Ugolino's Thesaurus Antiq. Sacr , 
 bee also Hansen, De Jurament. Vett. in Graev. 
 Thesaurus. A more recent authority may be 
 found in Staudlin, Geschichte der Vorstell. , v. 
 Eide ; Tyler, Oaths ; their Origin , &c. — J. R. B. 
 
 OBADIAH Cinnny and servant of 
 
 Jehovah; Sept. *A/35et<is), the name of several 
 persons mentioned in Scripture. 
 
 1. OBADIAH, the fourth of the minor pro- 
 phets according to the Hebrew, the fifth accord- 
 ing to the Greek, and the eighth according to 
 chronological arrangement, is supposed to have 
 prophesied about the year b.c. 599 (Jahn’s In- 
 trod.'). We have, however, but a small fragment 
 of his prophecies, and it is impossible to determine 
 anything with certainty respecting himself or his 
 history. Several persons of this name occur about 
 the same period, one of whom presided at the restor- 
 ation of the temple in the reign of Josiah, b.c. 624, 
 and is considered by many to have been the 
 author of the prophecy. Another, who v/as go- 
 vernor of the house of Aliab, was regarded by 
 the ancient Jews as the author of the book : 
 which opinion is followed by Jerome (Hieron. 
 Comm, in Abdiam ; Sixtus Senens. Bib. Sanct.). 
 Others place the author in the reign of Ahaz, b.c. 
 128*699; while some think him to have been a 
 
 contemporary of Hosea, who prophesied b.c. 
 722. But, as is observed by Jahn, Newcome, 
 and others, it is evident from ver. 20 that lie pro 
 phesied while Jerusalem was subjected to tluj 
 yoke of the Chaldaeans, and after the expatriation 
 of several of the citizens — which refers him to the 
 period after the seventh year of the captivity, 
 b.c. 599. Jahn maintains, from the warnings to 
 the Edomites, ver. 12-14, that Obadiah prophe- 
 sied before the destruction of Jerusalem by 
 Nebuchadnezzar; while De Wette infers from 
 the mention of the ‘captivity of the children ol 
 Israel,’ and the ‘captivity of Jerusalem’ in 
 ver. 20, that the composition of the book must be 
 placed after the destruction of that city. From o. 
 comparison of Obad. ver. 1-4, with Jer. xlix. 14-. 
 16; Obad. ver. 6, with Jer. xlix. 9, 10; and 
 Obad. ver. 8, with Jer. xlix. 7, it is evident that 
 one of these prophets had read the other’s work. 
 It is not easy, observes Calmet, to decide which 
 of the two copied from the other ; but from the 
 fact that Jeremiah had made use of the writings 
 of other prophets also, it has been generally con- 
 cluded ■‘that Obadiah was the original writer 
 (See Eichhorn's Introd. 6 512: RosenmulJers 
 Scholia, and Jiiger, Ueb.die Zeit Obadjah). That 
 Jeremiah was the original writer has been main- 
 tained by Bertholdt, Credner, De Wette, and 
 others. De Wette supposes ( Introd . § 235) that 
 Obadiah made use of Jeremiah from recollection. 
 
 His prophecies are directed against the Edom- 
 ites, and in this respect correspond with Amos i. 1 1, 
 Jer. xlix. 22, Ezek. xxv. 12-14, and Ps. cxxxvii. 7 
 (Jahn's Introd .).„ He menaces Edom with de- 
 struction for their hostile feeling towards Judah, 
 and their insulting conduct towards the Hebrews 
 when Jerusalem was taken (ver. 11, 12); but 
 consoles the Jews with a promise of restoration 
 from their captivity, when the Hebrews and the 
 Ten Tribes (Jahn's Litrod.) shall repossess both 
 their land and that of Edom and Philistia — a 
 prophecy which was fulfilled in the time of the 
 Maccabees, under John Hyrcanus, b.c. 125 
 (Jahn, l. c.). 
 
 The language of Obadiah is pure ; but Jahn 
 and others have observed that he is inferior to the 
 more ancient prophets in its too great addiction to 
 the interrogatory form of expression (see ver. 8). 
 His sentiments are noble, and his figures bold 
 and striking (De Wette ’s Introd ., Eng. transl.). 
 De Wette's translator observes that his hatred 
 towards other nations is not so deep and deadly 
 as that of some of his younger contemporaries. 
 
 See Leusden’s Obadiah ; Pfeiffer, Comm, in 
 Obad. ; Scbroer, Der Prophet Obad., &c. ; Ve- 
 nema, Lectt. in Obad., with the additions of 
 Verschuirand Lohze; Kohler, Anmerkk. ; Schnur- 
 rer's Dissert. Philol. ; Hendewerth, Obadjce Pro- 
 phetce Oraculum in Idumceos . These are the 
 works referred to in De Wette’s Introduction . — 
 
 W. W. 
 
 2. OBADIAH, the governor of King Aliab s 
 household, and high in the confidence of his 
 master, notwithstanding his aversion to the idola- 
 tries which the court patronized. In the persecu* 
 tion raised by Jezebel, Obadiah hid one hundred 
 of the Lord’s prophets in caves, and supplied 
 them secretly with nourishment during the famine, 
 It was this person, when sent out to explore the 
 country in the vain search of pasture unconsumed 
 by the drought, whom Elijah encountered when 
 
436 
 
 OBADIAH. 
 
 OFFERING. 
 
 about to show himself to Ahab, and who was re- 
 luctantly prevailed upon to conduct the prophet 
 to his master (1 Kings xviii. 4-16). b.c. 906. 
 
 3. OBADIAH, one of the heroes of the tribe of 
 Gad, who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chron. xii. 9). 
 
 4. OBADIAH, one of the nobles whom Je- 
 hoshaphat sent to teach in the cities of Judah (2 
 Chron. xvii. 7). 
 
 5. OBADIAH, one of the Levites who pre- 
 sided over the restoration of the temple under 
 Josiah (2 Chron. xxxiv. 12). 
 
 6. OBADIAH, the head of a party, consisting 
 of 218 males, with females and children in pro- 
 portion, who returned with Ezra from Babylon 
 (Ezra viii. 9). 
 
 7. OBADIAH, one of the priests, who sealed 
 the written covenant which Nehemiah caused the 
 people to enter into (Neh. x. 5). 
 
 Other persons of this name occur in 1 Chron. 
 iii. 21 ; vii. 3; viii. 38; ix. 16, 41; xxvii. 19. 
 
 OBED (*T3iy, serving; Sept. ’ {207/8), son of 
 Boaz and Ruth, and father of Jesse the father of 
 David, according to the apparently incomplete 
 genealogical list (Ruth iv. 17 ; 1 Chron. ii. 12). 
 The name occui-s in the genealogies of Matthew 
 (i- 5) and Luke (iii. 32). 
 
 OBED-EDOM (D“I^ Tltf, serving Edom ; 
 Sept. 'A0e58 apa), a Levite in whose premises, and 
 under whose care, the ark was deposited, when 
 the death of Uzzah caused David to apprehend 
 danger in taking it farther. It remained here 
 three months, during which the family of Obed- 
 edom so signally prospered, that the king was en- 
 couraged to resume his first intention, which he 
 then happily carried into effect. (2 Sam. vi. 10- 
 12). We learn from l Chron. xvi. 38, that Obed- 
 edom’s connection with the ark did not then ter- 
 minate, lie and his brethren having charge of the 
 doors of the sanctuary (1 Chron. xv. 18, 24). 
 
 OBIL (W'lK, chief of the camels ; Sept. 
 ’Aj6 las), an Ishmaelite, or Arab, doubtless of the 
 nomade tribes, who had charge of the royal 
 camels in the time of David — an exceedingly fit 
 employment for an Arab (1 Chron. xxvii. 30). 
 As Obil means in Arabic ‘ a keeper of camels’ 
 Hieron. (ii. 2), reasonably infers that the person 
 had his name from his office, which has always 
 been a very common circumstance in the East. 
 
 OBLATION I Offering]. 
 
 OBOTH, a station of the Israelites [Wan- 
 dering], 
 
 1. ODED (TTpy, erecting; Sept. ’{25^5), the 
 prophet who remonstrated against the detention 
 as captives of the persons whom the army of King 
 Pekah had brought prisoners from Judah, and 
 at whose suggestion they were handsomely treated, 
 and conducted back with all tenderness and care 
 to their own country (2 Chron. xxviii. 9). 
 
 2. ODED, father of Azariah the prophet, who 
 was commissioned to meet and encourage Asa 
 on his return from defeating the Ethiopians (2 
 Chron. xv. 1-8). It curiously happens that the 
 address which, at the commencement, is ascribed 
 to Azariah, the son of Oded, is at the end ascribed 
 to Oded himself (xv. 8). But this is supposed 
 to have been a slip of copyists, and the versions 
 read the latter verse like the former. 
 
 ODEM (D"!X ; Sept. aapbiov), one of the pre- 
 cious stones in the breastplate of the high- priest 
 
 (Exod. xxviii. 17 ; xxxix. 1 7), and also mentioned 
 in Ezek. xxviii. 13. In all these places it ia < 
 rendered ‘ sardius' in the Authorized Version, fol- *5 
 lowing the Septnagint and Josephus (Do Bell, a 
 Jud., v. 5, 7), who, however, in Antiq. iii. 7. 6, 
 makes it the sardonyx (<rapb6vv^). The sardius « 
 is the stone now called the camelian, from its co- ■ 
 lour (a came), which resembles that of raw 
 flesh. The Hebrew name is derived from a root 
 which signifies being red. The sardius or car- >1 
 nelian is of the flint family, and is a kind of 
 chalcedony. The more vivid the red in this 
 stone, the higher is the estimation in which it is v 
 held. It was anciently, as now, more frequently ] 
 engraved on than any other stone. The ancients $ 
 called it sardius, because Sardis in Lydia was ■ 
 the place where they first became acquainted with 1 
 it; but the sardius of Babylon was considered of ^ 
 greater value (Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 7). The 
 Hebrews probably obtained the carnelian from ^ 
 Arabia. In Yemen there is found a very fine / 
 dark-red carnelian, which is called el-Akik (Nie- 
 buhr, Beschreib., p. 142). The Arabs wear it on 
 the finger, on the arm above the elbow, and in 
 the belt before the abdomen. It is supposed to 
 stop hemorrhage when laid on a fresh w’ound. 
 
 OFFERING (the general name for which in 
 Hebrew is T2nj7) is anything presented to God as 
 a means of conciliating his favour : which being 
 in the Jewish, as well as in all other religions, con- 
 sidered as the one thing needful, offerings accord- 
 ingly have always constituted an essential part of 
 public worship and private piety. 
 
 Offerings have been divided into three kinds ; 
 
 1. Impelratoria ; 2. Eucharistica ; 3. Piacu- 
 laria : the first denoting those which are de- 
 signed to procure some favour or benefit ; the 
 second, those which are expressive of gratitude 
 for bounties or mercies received ; the third, those 
 which are meant to atone for sins and pro- 
 pitiate the Deity. Porphyry also gives three r 
 reasons for making offerings to the gods (Absti--'' < 
 nentia, ii. 24), — in order to do them honour, to » 
 acknowledge a favour, or to procure a supply for 
 human needs. Among the Hebrews we find a 
 complex and multiform system of offerings ex- j 
 tending through the entire circle of divine worship. ; J 
 and prescribing the minutest details. A leading 
 distinction separates their offerings into unbloody f 
 (DiriDlD, 7r poaipopat, Supa) and bloody (D'llIlT, t 
 6v(riai). Used in its widest sense the term offering, 'I 
 or oblation, indicates in the Hebrew ritual a very ^ 
 great number of things — as the firstlings of the J 
 flock, first-fruits, tithes, .incense, the shew-bread, 1 
 the wood for burning in the temple (Neh. x. 1 
 34). The objects offered were salt, meal, baked 1 
 and roasted grain, olive-oil, clean animals, such m 
 as oxen, goats, doves, but not fish. The animals 9 
 were required to be spotless (Lev. xxii. 20 ; Mai. 9 
 i. 8), and, with the exception of the doves, not i 
 under eight days old (Lev. xxii. 27), younger j 
 animals being tasteless and innutritious. The j 
 smaller beasts, such as sheep, goats, and calves, j 
 were commonly one year old (Exod. xxix. 38 ; ] 
 Lev. ix. 3 ; xii. 6 ; xiv. 10 ; Num. xv. 27 ; | 
 xxviii. 9, sq.). Oxen were offered at three years \ 
 of age; in Judges (vi. 26) one is offered which \ 
 is seven years old. As to sex, an option was 
 sometimes left to the offerer, as in peace and sin-' ] 
 offerings (Lev. iii. 1, 6 ; xii. 5, 6) ; at other tin es 
 
OFFERING. 
 
 OFFERING. 
 
 437 
 
 males were required, as in burnt sacrifices, for, 
 contrary t\; classical usage, the male was consi- 
 dered the more perfect In burnt-offerings and 
 in' thank-offerings the kind of animal was left to 
 the choice of the worshipper (Lev. i. 3), but in 
 trespass and sin-offerings it was regulated by law 
 (Lev. iv. 5). If the desire of the worshipper was 
 to express his gratitude, he offered a peace or 
 thank-offering ; if to obtain forgiveness, he offered 
 a trespass or sin-offering. Burnt-offerings were 
 of a general kind (Num. xv. 3 ; Deut. xii. 6 ; 
 Jer. xvii. 26). Hecatombs or large numbers of 
 , cattle were sacrificed on special occasions. In 
 1 Kings viii. 5, 63, Solomon is said to have 
 ‘sacrificed sheep and oxen that could not be told 
 or numbered for multitude,’ ‘two and twenty 
 thousand oxen and an hundred and twenty thou- 
 sand sheep’ (see also 2 Chron. xxix. 32, sq. ; 
 xxx. 24; xxxv. 7, sq. ; comp. Herod, vii. 43; 
 Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4 ; Sueton. Calig. 14). Offer- 
 ings were also either public or private, prescribed 
 or free-will. Sometimes they were presented by an 
 individual, sometimes by a family ; once, or at 
 regular and periodic intervals (1 Sam. i. 24 ; 
 Job i. 5 ; 2 Macc. iii. 32). Foreigners were per- 
 mitted to make offerings on the national altar 
 (Num. xv. 14 ; 2 Macc. iii. 35 ; xiii. 23; Philo, 
 Legat. p. 1014 ; Joseph, c. Apion. ii. 5). Offerings 
 i were made by Jews for heathen princes (1 Macc. 
 
 vii. 33 ; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 2. 5). In the case 
 of bloody-offerings the possessor, after he had 
 sanctified himself (1 Sam. xvi. 5), brought the 
 victim, in case of thank-offerings, with his horns 
 gilded and with garlands, &c. (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xiii. 8. 2; Winer, Real-w'drterb. ii. 212, note 5) 
 to the altar (Lev. iii. 1 ; xii. 4 ; xiv. 17), where, 
 laying his hand on the head of the animal (Lev. 
 i. 4 ; iii. 2 ; iv. 4), he thus, in a clear and pointed 
 way, devoted it to God. Having so done he pro- 
 ceeded to slay the victim himself (Lev. iii. 2 ; 
 iv. 4) ; which act might be, and in later times 
 was, done by the priests (2 Chron. xxix. 24), and 
 probably by the Levites (Hottinger, De Func- 
 tionibus Sacerdot. circa victimam, Marb. 1706). 
 
 | The blood was taken, and, according to the kind 
 I of offering, sprinkled upon the altar, or brought 
 into the temple and there shed upon the ark of 
 I the covenant and smeared upon the horns of the 
 j altar of incense, and then the remainder poured 
 forth at the foot of the altar of burnt-offerings. 
 Having slain the animal, the offerer struck oft' its 
 I head (Lev. i. 6), which when not burnt (Lev. iv. 
 i bl) belonged either to the priest (Lev. vii. 8), or 
 ! to the offerer (comp. Mishna, Lebach. xii. 2). 
 The victim was then cut into pieces (Lev. i. 6 ; 
 
 viii. 20), which were either all, or only the best 
 and most tasty, set on fire on the altar by the 
 priests or the offerer, or must be burnt without 
 the precincts of the holy city. The treatment 
 of doves may be seen in Lev. i. 14, sq. ; v. 8 
 (see Hottinger, De Sacrificiis Avium , Marb. 
 1706). In some sacrifices heaving (ntDlSn) and 
 waving (fDVIin) were usual either before or after 
 the slaying. 
 
 The annual expense of offerings, including 
 those made by individuals as well as the nation, 
 must have been considerable. It may, however, 
 • be said that the country produced on all sides in 
 great abundance most of the required objects, and 
 | that uoere were numerous forests whence wood for 
 use m sacrifice was procured. At later periods 
 
 of the nation foreign princes, desirous of con- 
 ciliating the goodwill of the Jews, made large 
 contributions both of natural objects and of 
 money towards the support of the ceremonial ol 
 public worship (Ezra vi. 9 ; 1 Macc. x. 39 ; 
 2 Macc. iii. 3; ix. 16 ; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3. 3). 
 The place where offerings were exclusively to be 
 presented was the outer court of the national 
 sanctuary, at first the Tabernacle, afterwards the 
 Temple. Every offering made elsewhere was 
 forbidden under penalty of death (Lev. xvii. 4, 
 sq. ; Deut. xii. 5, sq. ; comp. 1 Kings xii. 27). 
 The precise spot is laid down in Lev. i. 3 ; iii. 2, 
 ‘ at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation 
 before the Lord.’ According to the Mischna 
 ( Sebach . c. 5), offerings were to be slain partly on 
 the north side of the altar, and, if they were in- 
 considerable, at any part of the outer court. The 
 object of these regulations was to prevent any 
 secret idolatrous rites from taking place under 
 the mask of the national ritual ; and a common 
 place of worship must have tended considerably 
 to preserve the unity of the people, whose constant 
 disagreements required precautions of a special 
 kind (1 Kings xii. 27). The oneness, however, 
 of the place of sacrifice was not strictly preserved 
 in the troubled period of the Judges, nor indeed 
 till the time of David (1 Kings iii. 2, 3). Offer- 
 ings were made in other places besides the door 
 of the Tabernacle (1 Sam. vii. 17 ; Judg. ii. 5). 
 High places, which had long been used by the 
 Canaanites, retained a certain sanctity, and were 
 honoured with offerings (Judg. vi. 26 ; xiii. 19). 
 Even the loyal Samuel followed this practice (1 
 Sam.), and David endured it (I Kings iii. 2). 
 After Solomon these offerings on high places still 
 continued. In the kingdom of Israel, cut off as 
 its subjects were from the holy city, the national 
 temple was neglected. 
 
 Offerings being regarded as an expression of gra- 
 titude and piety, and required as a necessary part 
 of ordinary private life, were diligently and abun- 
 dantly presented, failure in this point being held as 
 a sign ofirreligion (Ps. lxvi. 15 ; cx. 3 ; Jer. xxxviii. 
 11 ; Matt. viii. 4; Acts xxi. 26; Isa. xliii. 23). 
 Offerings were sworn by, as being something in 
 themselves holy, from the purpose to which they 
 were consecrated (Matt, xxiii. 18). And in the 
 glowing pictures of religious happiness and na- 
 tional prosperity which the poets drew, there is 
 found an ideal perfection of this essential element 
 of Israelitish worship (Isa. xix.21 ; lvi. 7; lx. 7 ; 
 Zech. xiv. 21 ; Jer. xvii. 26 ; xxxiii. 18); and 
 deprivation of this privilege was among the cala- 
 mities of the period of exile (Hos. iii. 4). 
 
 Under the load and the multiplicity of these out- 
 ward oblations, however, the Hebrews forgot the 
 substance, lost the thought in the symbol, the thing 
 signified in the sign; and, failing in those devo- 
 tional sentiments and that practical obedience 
 which offerings were intended to prefigure and 
 cultivate, sank into the practice of mere dead 
 works. Hereupon began the prophets to utter 
 their admonitory lessons-, to which the world is 
 indebted for so many graphic descriptions of the 
 real nature of religion and the only true worship 
 of Almighty God (Isa. i. 11; Jer. vi. 20; vii. 
 21, sq. ; Hos. vi. 6 ; Amos v. 22 ; Micah vi. 6, 
 sq. ; comp. Ps. xl. 6; li. 17, sq. ; Prov. xxi. 3). 
 Thus the failures of one church prepared the way 
 for the higher privileges of ancrther, and the law 
 
438 
 
 OG. 
 
 proved a schoolmaster to bring ns to Christ 
 (Matt. v. 23 ; Gal. iii. 24). Even before the 
 advent of our Lord pious and reflecting men, like 
 the Essenes, discovered the lamentable abuses of 
 the national ritual, and were led to abstain alto- 
 gether from the customary forms of a mere out- 
 ward worship (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1. 5). The 
 59th Psalm must have had great influence in 
 preparing the minds of thinking men for a pure 
 and spiritual form of worship, the rather because 
 some of its principles strike at the very root of all 
 offerings of a mere outward kind : thus, ‘ I will 
 take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats 
 out of thy folds ; for every beast of the forest is 
 mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I f I 
 were hungry I would not tell thee ; for the world 
 is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the 
 flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats ? Offer 
 unto God thanksgiving.’ Indeed the conception 
 and composition of such a noble piece show 
 what great progress the best cultivated minds had 
 made from the rudimental notions of primitive 
 times, and may serve of themselves to prove that 
 with all the abuses which had ensued, the Mosaic 
 ritual and institutions were admirably fitted to 
 carry forward the education of the mind of the 
 people. Tims w r as the Hebrew nation, and 
 through them the world, led on so as to be in 
 some measure prepared for receiving the Gospel 
 of the Lord Jesus, in which all outward offerings 
 are done away, the one great offering being made, 
 and all those who are members of the church are 
 required to offer themselves, body, soul and spirit, 
 a holy offering to the Lord (Heb. x. ; Rom. xii.). 
 ‘ By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise 
 to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, 
 giving thanks to his name. But to do good and 
 to communicate forget not ; for with such sacri- 
 fices God is well pleased’ (Heb. xiii. 15, 16; 
 Matt. ix. 13 ; xii. 7 ; Rom. xv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17 ; 
 2 Tim. iv. 6). 
 
 Lightfoot’s work, De Ministerio Templi, is 
 especially to be recommended on this subject; 
 see also Outram, De Sacrif. ; lleland, Antiq. 
 Sacr. iii. 1 ; Bauer, Gottesd. Verfass. i. SO, sq. ; 
 Rosenmiiller, Excurs. I. ad Lev. The Jewish 
 doctrines on offerings may be found in the trea- 
 tises Sebachim, Menachoth , and Temura ; a se- 
 lection from which, as well as from the Rabbins, 
 is given in that useful little work, Othon. Lex. 
 Talmud, p. 621, sq. ; see Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 
 xix.— J. R. B. 
 
 OG (!fiy, giant ; Sept. "Hy), an Amoritish 
 king of Bashan (Num. xxi. 33 ; xxxii. 33 ; Deut. 
 
 iv. 47; xxxi. 4). In form he was a giant, so 
 that his bedstead was preserved as a memorial of 
 his huge stature (Deut. iii. 11; Josh. xiii. 12) 
 [Bed]. He was defeated by the Israelites under 
 Moses (Num. xxi. 33; Deut. i. 4; iii. 3); and 
 his country, which contained many walled cities 
 (Deut. iii. 4-10), was assigned to the tribe of 
 Manasseh (Deut. iii. 13; Josh. xiii. 30) [Amo- 
 kites; Bashan; Giant]. 
 
 OIL Sept. iXaiov ) was far more exten- 
 
 sively used among the ancient Hebrews than in 
 our northern climate. The use of oil is equally 
 general throughout Western Asia at the present 
 time, as it was in primitive ages. Oil was much 
 used instead of butter and animal fat, at meals 
 Attd in various preparations of food (see Food and 
 
 OLIVES, MOUNT OF. 
 
 comp. Ezek. xvi. 13). In such uses oil, whe* 
 fresh and sweet, is more agreeable than animat fat. 
 The Orientals think so ; and Europeans soon ao 
 quire the same preference. Oil was also in many 
 cases taken as a meat-offering (Lev. v. 11 ; Num. 
 
 v. 15); and it was then mixed withjhe meal of 
 oblation (Exod. xxix. 40 ; Lev. ii. 4; vi. 21 ; vii. 
 12; Num. vi. 15) [Offering]. The rite of 
 sprinkling with oil, as a libation, does not occur 
 in the law, but seems to be alluded to in Micah 
 
 vi. 7. 
 
 The application of oil to the person has been de- 
 scribed in the article Anointing. Whether for 
 luxury or ceremony, the head and beard were 
 the parts usually anointed (Deut. xxviii. 40 ; 
 2 Sam. xiv. 2 : Ps. xxiii. 5 ; xcii. 11 ; civ. 15 ; 
 Luke vii. 46); and this use of oil became at 
 length proverbially common among the Israelites 
 (Piov. xxi. 17). 
 
 The employment of oil for burning has been 
 illustrated in the article Lamps. It is only neces- 
 sary to add, that for this, and indeed for most 
 other purposes, olive-oil was considered the best, 
 and was therefore used in the lamps of the taber- 
 nacle. The custom of anointing the diseased 
 and the dead has been noticed in the article 
 Anointing ; aud for the use and composition of 
 fragrant oils and ointments, see Perfumes. 
 
 The numerous olive-plantations in Palestine 
 made olive-oil one of the chief, and one of the 
 most lucrative products of the country ; it sup- 
 plied an article of extensive and profitable traffic 
 with the Tyrians (Ezek. xxvii. 17 ; comp. 1 Kings 
 
 v. 11); and presents of the finer sorts of olive-oil 
 were deemed suitable for kings. There is in fact 
 no other kind of oil distinctly mentioned in 
 Scripture ; and the best, middling, and inferior oils 
 appear to have been merely different qualities of 
 olive-oil. The berries of the olive-tree were some- 
 times plucked, or carefully shaken off by the hand, 
 before they were ripe (Deut. xxiv. 20; Isa. xvii. 
 6 ; xxiv. 13). If while they were yet green, in- 
 stead of being thrown into the press, they were 
 only beaten or squeezed, they yielded the best 
 kind of oil. It was called Ophacinum , or the 
 oil of unripe olives, and also ‘beaten’ or ‘fresh 
 oil’ (Exod. xxvii. 20). There were presses of a 
 peculiar kind for preparing oil called 113, 
 gath-shemen (whence the name Gethsemane, or 
 ‘ oil-press,’ Matt. xxvi. 36 ; John xviii. 1), in 
 which the oil was trodden out by the feet (Micah 
 
 vi. 15). The first expression of the oil was better 
 than the second, and the second than the third. 
 Ripe olives yielded the least valuable kind of oil, 
 but the quantity was more abundant. The best 
 sort of oil was prepared with fragrant spices, and 
 was used in anointing: the inferior sorts were 
 used with food and for lamps. 
 
 OLIVE-TREE. [Zayit.] 
 
 OLIVES, MOUNT OF, a mountain or ridge 
 now called by the Arabs Jebel et-Tur, lying to 
 the east of Jerusalem, from which it is separated 
 only by the narrow valley of Jehoshaphat. To- 
 wards the south it sinks down into a lower ridge, 
 over against the so-called ‘ well of Nehemiah,’ 
 now called by Franks the Mount of Offence, in 
 allusion to the idolatrous worship established by 
 Solomon ‘on the hill that is before,’ that is 
 eastward of ‘Jerusalem.’ In this direction lies 
 the usual road to Bethany, so often trodden by 
 our Saviour. About a mile towards the north is 
 
OLYMPAS. 
 
 another summit, nearly or quite as high as the 
 middle one. The ridge between the two bends 
 slightly eastward, leaving room for the valley below 
 to expand somewhat in that part. The view of 
 the Holy City and of the Dead Sea, from the 
 southern summit, is described in the article 
 Jerusalem ; that from the northern summit does 
 not embrace the Dead Sea. The elevation of the 
 central peak of the Mount of Olives is stated by 
 Schubert ( lieise , ii. 311) at 2556 Paris feet, or 416 
 Paris feet above tne valley of Jehoshaphat; and 
 hence it appears to be 175 Paris feet above the 
 highest part of Mount Zion. Beyond the northern 
 summit the ridge sweeps round towards the west, 
 and spreads out into the high level tract north of 
 the city, which is skirted on the west and south 
 by the upper part of the valley of Jehoshaphat 
 (Uobinson’s Researches , ii. 405-407 ; Olin’s 
 Travels , ii. 127). This inconsiderable ridge de- 
 rives all its importance from its connection with 
 Jerusalem, and from the sacred associations which 
 hence became connected with it. To the mount 
 whose ascent David ‘ went up, weeping and bare- 
 foot,’ to which our Saviour ofttimes withdrew with 
 his disciples, over which lie often passed, and from 
 which he eventually ascended into heaven, be- 
 longs a higher degree of sacred and moral interest 
 than is to be found in mere physical magnitude, 
 or than the record connects even with Lebanon, 
 Tabor, or Ararat, 
 
 OLYMPAS (' OXv/xiras), a Christian at Rome, 
 whom Paul salutes in his Epistle to the Romans 
 (Rom. xvi. 15). 
 
 OMEGA (fl), the last letter of the Greek 
 alphabet, proverbially applied to express the end, 
 as Alpha (A), the first letter, the beginning of any 
 thing [Ai.pha]. 
 
 OMER [Weights and Measures]. 
 
 OMRI C'ypil, God-taught ; Sept. 'A/xfipl), sixth 
 king of Israel, who began to reign in b.c. 929, and 
 reigned twelve years. He was raised to the throne 
 by the army, while it was engaged in the siege of 
 Gibbethon, a Levitical city in Dan, of which the 
 Philistines had gained possession, when the news 
 came to the camp of the death of Elah, and the 
 usurpation of Zimri. On this, the army pro- 
 claimed their general, Omri, king of Israel. He 
 then lost not a moment, but leaving Gibbethon in 
 the power of the infidels, went and besieged his 
 competitor in Tirzah. But he was no sooner de- 
 livered of this rival [Zimri], than another ap- 
 peared in the person of Tibni, whom a part of 
 the people had raised to the throne, probably from 
 unwillingness to submit to military dictation. 
 This occasioned a civil war, which lasted six 
 years, and left Omri undisputed master of the 
 throne, b.c. 925. His reign lasted six years 
 more, and its chief event was the foundation of 
 Samaria, which thenceforth became the capital 
 city of the kingdom of Israel (l Kings xvi. 15- 
 28 ). [Samaria.] 
 
 ON strength; Sept. ’A vv), a chief of the 
 tribe of Reuben, who was one of the accomplices 
 of Korah in the revolt against the authority of 
 Moses and Aaron. He is mentionel among the 
 leaders of this conspiracy in the first instance 
 (Num. xvi. 17), but does not appear in any of 
 the subsequent transactions, and is not by name 
 included in the final punishment. The Rab- 
 
 ON. 433 
 
 binical tradition is, that the wife of On persuaded 
 her husband to abandon the enterprise. 
 
 ON (}iX ; Sept. 'HAroihroAts), one of the oldest 
 cities in the world, situated in Lower Egypt, 
 about two hours N.N.E. from Cairo. The Sep- 
 tuagint translates the name On by Heliopolis, 
 which signifies ‘city of the sun and in Jer. xliii. 
 13, it bears a name, Beth-shemesh (oppidum solis, 
 Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 1 1), of equivalent import. On 
 is a Coptic and ancient Egyptian word, signifying 
 light and the sun (Ritter, Erdk. i 822). The 
 site is now marked by low mounds, enclosing a 
 space about three^uarters of a mile in length by 
 half a mile in breadth, which was once occupied 
 by houses and by the celebrated Temple' of the 
 Sun. This area is at present a ploughed field, 
 a garden of herbs ; and the solitary obelisk which 
 still rises in the midst of it is the sole remnant of the 
 former splendours of the place. In the days of 
 Edrisi and Abdallatif the place bore the name of 
 Ain Shems ; and in the neighbouring village, 
 Matariyeh, is still shown an ancient well bearing 
 the same name. Near by it is a very old sycamore, 
 its trunk straggling and gnarled, under which le- 
 gendary tradition relates that the holy family 
 once rested (Robinson’s Biblical Researches , i. 36), 
 Heliopolis was the capital of a district or nomos 
 bearing the same name (Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 9; 
 Ptolem. iv. 5). 
 
 The place is mentioned in Gen. xli. 45, where 
 it is said that Pharaoh gave to Joseph a wife, 
 Asenath, the daughter of Poti-pherah, priest of 
 On (ver. 50). From the passage in Jeremiah ( ut 
 supra ), it may be inferred that: it was distin- 
 guished for idolatrous worship : ‘ He shall break 
 also the images of Beth-shemesh that is in the 
 land of Egypt, and the houses of the gods of the 
 Egyptians shall he burn with fire.’ The names, 
 ‘ City of the Sun,’ ‘ Temples of the Sun,’ connected 
 with the place, taken in conjunction with the 
 words just cited from the prophet, seem to refer 
 the mind to the purer form of worship which pre- 
 vailed at a very early period in Egypt, namely. 
 
440 
 
 ONAN. 
 
 OPHEL. 
 
 the worship of tl e heavenly bodies, and thence to 
 carry the thought to the deteriorations which it 
 afterwards underwent in sinking to the adoration 
 of images and animals. 
 
 Tiie traces of this city which are found in 
 classic authors correspond with the little of it 
 that we know from the brief intimations of Holy 
 Writ. According to Herodotus (ii. 59), Heliopolis 
 was one of the four great cities that were rendered 
 famous in Egypt by being the centres of solemn 
 rel igious festivals, which were attended by splendid 
 processions and homage to the gocre. In Heliopolis 
 the observance was held in honour of the sun. 
 The majesty of these sacred visits may be best 
 learned now by a careful study of the temples (in 
 their ruins) in which the rites were performed 
 (Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians ). Heliopolis had its 
 priesthood, a numerous and learned body, cele- 
 brated before other Egyptians for their historical 
 and antiquarian lore; it long continued the uni- 
 versity of the Egyptians, the chief seat of their 
 science (Kenrick’s Herod, ii. 3 ; Wilkinson) ; 
 the priests dwelt as a holy community in a spa- 
 cious structure appropriated to their use. In 
 Strabo’s time the halls were to be seen in which 
 Eudoxus and Plato had studied under the direc- 
 tion of the priests of Heliopolis. A detailed de- 
 scription of the temple, with its long alleys of 
 sphinxes, obelisks, &c., may be found in Strabo 
 (xvii. ; Joseph, c. Apion. ii. 2), who says that the 
 mural sculpture in it was very similar to the old 
 Etruscan and Grecian works. In the temple a 
 bullock was fed — a symbol of the god Mnevis. 
 The city suffered heavily by the Persian invasion. 
 From the time of Shaw and Pococke, the place 
 has been described by many travellers. At an 
 early period remains of the famous temple were 
 found. Abdallatif (a.d. 1200) saw many colossal 
 sphinxes, partly prostrate, partly standing. He 
 also saw the gates or propylgea of the temple co- 
 vered with inscriptions ; he describes two immense 
 obelisks whose summits were covered with massive 
 brass, around which were others one-half or one- 
 third the size of the first, placed in so thick a mass 
 that they could scarcely be counted ; most of them 
 thrown down. An obelisk which the Emperor 
 Augustus caused to be carried to Rome, and 
 placed in the Campus Martius, is held by Zoega 
 ( De Orig. et Usu Obelisci ) to have been brought 
 from Heliopolis, and to have owed its origin to 
 Sesostris. This city furnished works of art to 
 Augustus for adorning Rome, and to Constantine 
 for adorning Constantinople. Ritter ( Erdkunde , 
 i. 823) says that the sole remaining obelisk is 
 from (50 to 70 feet high, of a block of red granite, 
 bearing hieroglyphics which remind the beholder 
 of what Strabo terms the Etruscan style. ‘ Tire 
 figure of the cross which it bears ( crux ansata') 
 has attracted the special notice of Christian anti- 
 quaries ’ (Ritter). — J. R. B. 
 
 ONAN (fllifcS, strong , stout; Sept. A vuau), 
 second sou of Judah, who, being constrained by 
 the obligations of the ancient Levirafe law to 
 espouse Tamar, his elder brother's widow, took 
 means to frustrate the intention of this usage, which 
 was to provide heirs for a brother who had died 
 childless. This crime, rendered without excuse by 
 the allowance of polygamy, and the seriousness of 
 which can scarcely be appreciated but in respect 
 *o the usages of the times in which it was com- 
 
 mitted, was punished by premature deuth (Gen 
 xxxviii. 4, sq.). 
 
 ONESIMUS {'Oirqa-i/xos, profitable ), a slave 
 belonging to Philemon of Colossse, who fled from 
 his master, and proceeded to Rome, where he was 
 converted by St. Paul, who sent him back to his 
 master, a friend and convert of the apostle, with 
 an eloquent letter, the purport of which is de- 
 scribed in the article Philemon. Onesimus, 
 accompanied by Tychicus, left Rome with not 
 only this epistle, but with those to the Ephesians 
 and Colossians (Col. iv. 9). It is believed (hat 
 Onesimus, anxious to justify the confidence which 
 Paul reposed in him, by appearing speedily before 
 his master, left Tychicus to take the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians ; and hastened to Colossae, where 
 he doubtless received the forgiveness which Paul 
 had so touchingly implored for him as ‘a brother 
 beloved * {Canon. Apost. 73). An uncertain 
 tradition makes Onesimus to have been bishop 
 of Beraea, where he is said to have suffered mar- 
 tyrdom {Const. Apostol vii. 4G). The part 
 which Paul took in this difficult and trying case 
 is highly honourable to him ; while for Onesimus 
 himself, the highest praise is, that he obtained the 
 friendship and confidence of the apostle. 
 
 ONESIPHORUS ('Oi/?7ai0opos,prq/s(-6nw7er), 
 
 a believer of Ephesus, who came to Rome during 
 the second captivity of St. Paul in that city ; and 
 having found out the apostle, who was in custody 
 of a soldier, to whose arm his own was chained, 
 was ‘not ashamed of his chain,’ but attended him 
 frequently, and rendered him all the services in 
 his power. This faithful attachment, at a time of 
 calamity and desertion, was fully appreciated 
 and well remembered by the apostle, who, in his 
 Epistle to Timothy, carefully records the circum- 
 stance ; and, after charging him to salute in his 
 name ‘ the household of Onesiphorus,’ expresses 
 the most earnest and grateful wishes for his spi- 
 ritual welfare (1 Tim. ii. 16-18). It would ap- 
 pear from this that Onesiphorus had then quitted 
 Rome. 
 
 ONION. [Betzal.] 
 
 ONYX. [Yahalom.] 
 
 OPHEL (^eyn ; Sept. ’ftycU), a place or 
 quarter of Jerusalem near the walls (2 Chron. 
 xxvii. 3 ; xxxiii. 44), on the east side (Neh. iii. 
 26 ; xi. 21). Ophel, or, as he calls it, Oplda 
 {'0<p\a. 'OcpAas), is often mentioned by Josephus 
 as adjoining the valley of the Kidron and the 
 temple mount {De Bell. Jud. v. 6. 1 ; vi. 6. 3). 
 He explains himself more precisely in v. 4. 2, 
 where he makes the first wall of the city to ex- 
 tend from the tower of the Essenes over Siloam 
 and the pools of Solomon to Ophel. From these 
 intimations Winer collects that Ophel was a 
 high or ascending place, built over (in the an- 
 cient city) with houses. This view is confirmed 
 by Dr. Robinson, who identifies it with the low 
 ridge which extends southward from the temple 
 mount to Mount Zion, between the exterior valley 
 of Jehoshaphat and the interior valley of Tyro- 
 poeon. The top of this ridge is flat, descending 
 rapidly towards the south, sometimes by offsets of 
 rocks; and the ground is now tilled and planted 
 with olive and other fruit trees. This ridge is 
 considerably below the level of Mount Moriah ; 
 its length is 1550 feet, and its breadth in the 
 
OPHER, 
 
 OPHIR. 
 
 441 
 
 middle part, fron brow to brow, 290 feet (Winer, 
 t. v . ‘ Opbel ;' Robinson, ii. 349) [Jerusai.em]. 
 
 OPHER (1SV; Arabic algophro ), in 
 
 the Song of Solomon (ch iv. 5), denotes the calf 
 or fawn of a stag {ail) ; it occurs in no other book 
 of Scripture, is unknown in the Syriac and 
 Chaldee, and appears to be only a poetical ap- 
 plication of a term more strictly belonging to 
 fawn-like animals ; for in the above passage 
 it is applied to couples feeding in a bed of 
 lilies — indications hot descriptive of young goats 
 or stags, but quite applicable to the Antilo- 
 pine groups which are characterized in Griffith’s 
 Cuvier, in subgenus X. Cephalophus, and XI. 
 Neotragus ; both furnishing species of exceed- 
 ing delicacy and graceful diminutive struc- 
 tures, several of which habitually feed in pairs 
 among shrubs and geraniums on the hilly plains 
 of Africa; and as they have always been and 
 still are in request among the wealthy in warm 
 climates for domestication, we may conjecture 
 that a species designated by the name of Opher 
 ("IBJJ, perhaps alluding to Ophir, or even 
 
 Africa), was to be found in the parks or royal 
 gardens of a sovereign so interested in natural his- 
 tory as Solomon was, and from the sovereign’s 
 own observation became alluded to in the truly 
 apposite imagery of his poetical diction (Cant, 
 iv. 12). Among the species in question, in which 
 both male and female are exceedingly similar, and 
 which might have reached him by sea or by caravan, 
 we may reckon Cephalophus Grimmia, C. Per- 
 pusilla, C: Philantomba, all marked by a small 
 black tuft of hair between their very short horns, 
 as also the Neotragus Pygmea, or Guevei, the 
 smallest of cloven-footed animals, and the Madoka, 
 with speckled legs ; all these species being natives 
 of Central Africa, and from time immemorial 
 brought by caravans from the interior, for sale or 
 presents.- — C. H. S. 
 
 OPHIR occurs first, as the proper name of one 
 of the thirteen sons of Joktan, the son of Eber, a 
 great-grandson of Shem, in Gen. x. 26-29 ; 
 
 Sept. O xxpe'ip ; Vulg. Ophir). Many Arabian 
 countries are believed to have been peopled by 
 these persons, and to have been called after their 
 respective names, as Sheba, &c., and among 
 others Ophir (Bochart, Phaleg , iii. 15). Ophir 
 occurs also as the name of a place, country, or 
 region, famous for its gold, which Solomon’s ships 
 visited in company with the Phoenician O'S'lfcS ; 
 Sept. Ovcplp ; Alex. Ov<pdp : 2 ov<p(p , 2 ovtpeip , 
 Scacplp, 2 axpipd ; Alex. 2 a<papa and 2co<^>t?/oc£ ; 
 Aid. 2,a,TT<pe(p ; Cam. ’07r</>eip ; Alex, and Cam. 
 
 ; Vulg. Ophir). The difficulty is to as- 
 certain where Ophir was situated. Some writers, 
 reasoning from the etymology of the word, which 
 is supposed to mean dust, &c., have inferred 
 almost every place where gold dust is procured 
 m abundance. Others have rested their con- 
 clusions upon the similarity of the name in 
 Hebrew to that of other countries, as for instance 
 Aphar, a port of Arabia mentioned by Arrian in 
 his Periplus of the Erythraean Sea ; or upon the 
 similarity of the name in the Sept., 2 wcpipa-, 
 hence Sofala, &c. : and others, by a transposition 
 of the letters of the Hebrew word, have, among 
 other conjectures, even made out Peru ! By such 
 methods of investigation the following countries, 
 
 among others, have been proposed : Melindah on 
 the coast of Africa, Angola, Carthage, St. Do- 
 mingo, Mexico, New Guinea, Urphe an island 
 in the Red Sea, and Ormuz in the Persian Gulf. 
 Bochart thinks that the Ophir from which David 
 obtained gold (1 Chron. xxix. 4) was the Cas- 
 sanitis of Ptolemy and Stephanus, on the coast of 
 Arabia ; while that visited by the fleet of Solomon 
 was Taprobane, now called Ceylon ( Geogr . Sacra , 
 ii. 27). Pegu is the place selected by Mafiaei 
 (Hist. Ind. lib. i.). Others decide in favour of 
 the peninsula of Malacca, which abounds in 
 precious ores, apes, and peacocks : others prefer 
 Sumatra, for the same reason. Lipenius, relying 
 on the authority of Josephus, Theodoret, and 
 Procopius, who call Ophir c the golden land,’ { the 
 golden chersonese,’ says that the children of Jok- 
 tan peopled all the countries bounded by the 
 eastern seas, and that Ophir includes not only 
 Sumatra or Malacca, but every coast and island 
 from Ceylon to the Indian Archipelago. We 
 shall now lay before the readers what we conceive 
 to be the exact amount of our information re- 
 specting Ophir, and show how far it applies to 
 what appear to us to be the three most probable 
 theories respecting its situation, namely, Arabia, 
 Africa, and India. Ophir is mentioned in the 
 following thirteen passages : Gen. x. 29 ; 1 Chron. 
 
 i. 23 ; 1 Kings ix. 28 ; 2 Chron. viii. 18; ix. 10 ; 
 1 Kings x. 11 ; xxii. 48; 1 Chron. xxix. 4 ; Job 
 xxii. 24; xxviii. 16; Ps. xlv. 9; Isa. xiii. 12; 
 Ecclus. vii. 18. Only seven of these passages 
 afford even the slightest clue to its position, 
 and these are reduced to three when the pa- 
 rallel passages and texts in which Ophir is not 
 a local name have been withdrawn. We further 
 think that the situation of Tarshish is not in any 
 way connected with this inquiry. It is indeed 
 said, in reference to the voyage to Ophir, that 
 ‘ Solomon had at sea a navy of Tarshish, and 
 that once in three years came the navy of Tar- 
 shish’ (1 Kings x. 22); and that ‘Jehoshaphat 
 made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold ’ 
 (1 Kings xxii. 48) ; but the word may denote 
 large merchant ships bound on long voyages, 
 perhaps distinguished by their construction from 
 the common Phoenician ships, even though they 
 were sent to other countries instead of Tarshish 
 (compare the English naval phraSfe, an Indiaman, 
 and see Isa. xxiii. 1 ; lx. 9 ; Ps. xlviii. 7 ; Isa. 
 
 ii. 16) ; and although the Tarshish ships which 
 went to Ophir (1 Kings xxii. 48, &c.) are ex- 
 pressly said by the writer of Chronicles to have 
 gone to Tarshish (2 Chron. ix. 21 ; xx. 36, 37), 
 yet in the interval between the composition of 
 the books of Kings and that of Chronicles the 
 name was most probably transferred to denote 
 any distant country [Tarshish]. The utmost 
 that can be said is, that Solomon sent ships to 
 Tarshish as well as to Ophir, but it cannot be 
 proved that the same ships are meant, or that they 
 went to both places in the same voyage. It seems 
 to us most probable that Solomon sent direct to 
 Ophir for gold, wherever it might be ; and that, 
 whereas it had been hitherto procured from thence 
 by David, &c. by foreignanerchants, Solomon fitted 
 out a fleet to obtain it at first hand. Neither do 
 we think that the time occupied by the voyage to 
 Ophir is precisely determinable from the words 
 ‘ once in three years came the navy’ (1 Kings x, 
 22). Upon the whole then our information ap 
 
*42 
 
 OPHIR. 
 
 OPHIR. 
 
 pears to amount to this, that King Solomon made 
 a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside 
 Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land 
 of Edom, and that his Phoenician neighbour and 
 ally, Hiram, king of Tyre, sent in this navy his 
 servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, 
 with the servants of Solomon, and that they came 
 to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, and 
 brought it to Solomon (1 Kings ix. 26-29), and 
 that they brought in the same voyage algum or 
 almug-trees and precious stones (1 Kings x. 11), 
 silver, ivory, apes, or rather monkeys, and pea- 
 cocks, or, according to some, pheasants, and to 
 others, parrots ; and that gold in great abundance 
 and of the purest quality was procured from 
 Ophir (1 Chron. xxix. 4; Job xxviii. 16), ren- 
 dered by Symmachus xpvabs 7rpo>Te?oy, (Ps. xlv. 
 9 ; Isa. xiii. 12); Vulg. tnundo obrizo, (Ecclus. 
 vii. 18). The first theory which appears to be 
 attended with some degree of evidence not purely 
 fanciful is that Ophir was situate in Arabia. In 
 Gen. x. 29, Ophir stands in the midst of other 
 Arabian countries. Still, as Gesenius observes, 
 it is possibly mentioned in that connection only 
 on account of its being an Arabian colony planted 
 abroad. Though gold is not now found in Arabia 
 (Niebuhr, Description de V Arabie , Copenhague, 
 1773, p. 124), yet the ancients ascribe it to the 
 inhabitants in great plenty (Judg. viii. 24, 26; 
 2 Chron. i. ; 1 Kings x. 1, 2; Ps. lxxii. 15). 
 This gold, Dr. Lee thinks, was no other than the 
 gold of Havilah (Gen. ii. 11), which he supposes 
 to have been situate somewhere in Arabia, and 
 refers to Gen. x. 7, 29 ; xxv. 18 ; 1 Sam. xv. 7 ; 
 1 Chron. i. 9 ( Translation of the Book Job , 8$c., 
 Lond. 1837, p. 55). But Diodorus Siculus 
 ascribes gold mines to Arabia : MeTaAA. everai Se 
 nal Kara ryv ’Apafiiav ical 6 n tpoaayopevopevos 
 &.irvpos XP V<T ^S (comp. Gen. ii. 12), ovx Ihaivep 
 irapa t o7s aAAois iK ipTjyfiaTow Kadexl/operos, aAA’ 
 opifTTopevos evpiaKerat (ii. 50). lie also 
 testifies to the abundance of ‘ precious stones ’ 
 in Arabia (ii. 54), especially among the in- 
 habitants of Sabas (iii. 46 ; comp. Gen. ii. 
 12; 2 Chron. ix. 1 ; 1 Kings x. 1, 2). Pliny 
 also speaks of the ‘Sabaei ditissimi auri metallis' 
 {Hist. Nat. vi. 32). Again, ‘ Littus Ham- 
 maeum, ubi auri metalla ’ (ib.). Others suppose 
 that though Ophir was situate somewhere on the 
 coast of Arabia, it was rather an emporium, at 
 which the Hebrews and Tyrians obtained gold, 
 silver, ivory, apes, almug-trees, &c., brought 
 thither from India and Africa by the Arabian 
 merchants, and even from Ethiopia, to which 
 Herodotus (iii. 114) ascribes gold in great quan- 
 tities, elephants’ teeth, and trees and shrubs of 
 every kind. Apes, properly speaking, are also 
 ascribed to it by Pliny (viii. 19); who speaks 
 also of the confluence of merchandize in Arabia: 
 
 ‘ Sabaei mirumque dictu, ex innumeris populis 
 pars aequa in commerciis aut latrociniis degit : 
 in universum gentes ditissimae, ut apud quas 
 maximae opes Roraanorum Parthorumque sub- 
 sistant, vendentibus quae e mari aut sylvis 
 capiunt ’ (ut supra). A little before he speaks 
 of the Arabian emporiums : ‘ Insulae multae : em- 
 porium eorum Acila, ex quo in Indiam navi- 
 gatur.’ Again: ‘ Thimaneos. . . Areni : oppidum 
 in quo omnis negotiatio convenit’ (comp. Strabo, 
 ivi. ; 2 Chron. ix. ; Ezek. xxvii. 21, 22; and 
 Diod. Sic. ii. 54). In behalf of the supposi- 
 
 tion that Ophir was the Arabian port Aphar, 
 already referred to, it may be remarked that th« 
 name has undergone similar changes to that of 
 the Sept, of Ophir; for it is called by Arriar 
 Aphar, by Pliny Saphar, by Ptolemy Sapphera, 
 and by Stephanus Saphirini. Grotius thinks his 
 to be Ophir. The very name El Ophir has been 
 lately pointed out as a city of Oman, in former 
 times the centre of a very active Arabian com- 
 merce (Seetzen, in Zachs. Monatl. Correspond. 
 
 xix. 331, If.). In the article Ophir in the 
 Encyclopaedia Londinensis, great stress is laid 
 upon the objection that if Ophir had been any- 
 where in Arabia or Asia, Solomon could have 
 conveyed the commodities he procured from it 
 by caravans : but surely a water-carriage was 
 more convenient, at least for the algum-trees, 
 which he procured from Ophir, and of which he 
 made pillars for the house of the Lord and for 
 the king's house (2 Chron. ix. 10, 11) [Aj.gum], 
 and which it. is highly improbable he had the 
 means of conveying by land. In favour of the 
 theory which places Ophir in Africa, it lias been 
 suggested that we have the very name in “PDIR 
 ofri, Africa, the Roman termination, Africa terra, 
 and that Tarshish was some city or country in 
 Africa; that the Chald. Targumist on 1 Kings 
 xxii. 48 so understood it, where he renders 
 
 by np'HDX. He probably inferred from 2 Chron. 
 
 xx. 36, that to go to Ophir and to Tarshish was 
 one and the same thing, and that Tarshish there 
 meant the name of a place. Origen also says, on 
 Job. xxii. 24, that some of the interpreters under- 
 stood Ophir to be Africa. Michaelis supposes 
 that Solomon's fieet, coming down the Red Sea 
 from Ezion-geber, coasted along the shore yf 
 Africa, doubling the Cape of Good Hope, and 
 came to Tarshish, which he, with many others, 
 supposes to have been Tartessus in Spain, anil 
 thence back again the same way ; that this con- 
 jecture accounts foivtheir three years’ voyage out 
 and home ; and that Spain and the coasts of Africa 
 furnished all t lie commodities which they brought 
 back (& 2 >iciley. Gcogr. Ilebr. Exterce. p. 98). 
 Strabo indeed says that Spain abounded in gold, 
 and immensely more so in silver (see i Mac. viii. 3). 
 Others have not hesitated to carry Solomon’s fleet 
 round from Spain up the Mediterranean to Joppa. 
 The chief support for this supposition is the very re- 
 markable statement of Herodotus, that Necho, king 
 of Egypt, the Pharaoh-Necho of Scripture, whose 
 enterprising disposition appears from his project to 
 unite the Nile and the Red Sea by a canal, ‘ dis- 
 patched some vessels, under the conduct of Phoe- 
 nicians, with directions to pass by the columns of 
 Hercules, now called the Straits of Gibraltar, and 
 after penetrating the Northern Ocean to return 
 to Egypt ; that these Phoenicians, taking their 
 course from the Red Sea, entered into the Southern 
 Ocean, and on the approach of autumn landed in 
 Libya, and planted some corn in the place where 
 they happened to find themselves; tiiat when this 
 was ripe they cut it down and departed. Having 
 thus consumed two years, they in the third year 
 doubled the columns of Hercules, and returned 
 to Egypt.’ He adds, ‘This relation may obtain 
 attention from others, but to me it seems incre- 
 dible, for they affirmed that, having sailed round 
 Libya, they had the sun on their right hand. 
 Thus, he observes, ‘was Libya for the first time 
 known ’ (iv. 42). It seems certain that this 
 
OPHIR. 
 
 OREB. 
 
 445 
 
 royage was accomplished, for the mariners would 
 have the sun on tneir right lnnd after passing the 
 line, a fact which never could have been imagined 
 in that age, when astronomy was in its infancy; 
 jmd it has been supposed that this was the voyage 
 made ‘once in three years’ by Solomon’s fleet, 
 under the conduct also of Phoenician mariners. 
 But, assuming this to have been the case, it seems 
 strange that the knowledge and record of it should 
 have been so completely lost in the time of 
 Pharaoh- Necho, only two centuries after Solomon, 
 as that Herodotus, whose information and accu- 
 racy appear from this very account, should say 
 that Libya, evidently meaning the circuit of it 
 by the sea, was thus for the first time known. 
 Heeren finds an answer in the desolating ravages 
 of the Babylonian conquerors, and indeed in the 
 protracted siege of Tyre itself by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, which followed shortly after the time of 
 Solomon. It seems likely indeed that Necho 
 had heard of such a passage, and believed that 
 the Phoenicians knew how to find it ; and that it 
 was not much frequented during many subse- 
 quent ages appears from the notice taken by 
 Pliny of the few who had accomplished it (Hist. 
 Nat. ii. 67) ; and it was, we know, after his 
 time unused and forgotten till recovered by 
 the Spaniards, a.d. 1497. It must be allowed 
 that, if Solomon’s fleet actually pursued this 
 course, then Qphir as Africa, and Tartessus in 
 Spain, as Tarshish, seem on many accounts very 
 plausible suppositions. In behalf of the con- 
 jecture that Ophir was in India, the following 
 arguments are alleged : that it is most natural to 
 understand from the narrative that all the pro- 
 ductions said to have been brought from Ophir 
 came from one and the same country, and that 
 they were all procurable only from India. The 
 Sept, translators also appear to have understood it 
 to be India, from rendering the word 'Soxpip, ~Sov<pip, 
 2w(pipd, which is the Egyptian name for that 
 country. Champollion says, that, in the Coptic vo- 
 cabularies India bears the name Cctf/fp (L’Egypte 
 
 sous les Pharaons, Paris, 1814, tom. i. p. 98 ; 
 Jablonskii Opuscula , Lug. Bat., 1804, tom. i. 
 p. 336, &c.). Josephus also gives to the sous of 
 Joktan the locality from Cophen, an Indian river; 
 and in part of Asia adjoining it (Antiq. i. 6. 4). 
 He also expressly and unhesitatingly affirms that 
 the land to which Solomon sent for gold was 
 ‘ anciently called Ophir, but now the Aurea 
 Chersonesus, which belongs to India’ (Antiq. viii. 
 G. 4). The Vulgate renders the words ‘ the gold 
 of Ophir’ (Job xxviii. 16) by ‘ tinctis Indiae color- 
 ibus.’ Hesychius thus defines X^P a > * v 
 
 p ot TroXvripoi \iQoi , xa\ 6 xpooSs, eV ’I vbiq ; and 
 Suidas, 2,ov<peip, x^P a * v ; and see Eusebii 
 Onomast. p. 148, ed. Clerici. There are several 
 places comprised in that region which was ac- 
 tually known as India to the ancients [India], 
 any of which would have supplied the cargo of 
 Solomon’s fleet : for instance, the coast of Mala- 
 har, where the natives still call the peacock togei, 
 wnicn is supposed to resemble the Hebrew 
 Perhaps the most probable of all is Malacca, 
 which is known to be the Aurea Chersonesus of 
 the ancients. It is also worthy of remark that 
 the natives of Malacca still call their gold-mines 
 opkirs. De P. Poivre says, ‘ Les iles malaises 
 produissent beaucoup de bois de teinture surtout 
 
 du sapan, qui est le meme que le bois de Bresil. 
 On y trouve plusieurs mines d’or, qui les ha- 
 bitans de Malaca et de Sumatra nemment ophirs, 
 et dont quelques-unes, surtout celles que renfermd 
 la cote orientale de Celebes, et les iles adjacentes, 
 sont plus riches que toutes celles du Perou et du 
 Bresil ’ (Voyage d'un Philosophe, (Euvres Com- 
 pletes, Paris, 1797, p. 123). On the other hand, 
 some writers give a wider extent to the country 
 in question. Heeren observes that 4 Ophir, like 
 the name of all other very distant places or re- 
 gions of antiquity, like Thule, Tartessus, and 
 others, denotes no particular spot, but only a 
 certain region or part of the world, such as the 
 East or West Indies in modern geography. 
 Hence Ophir was the general name for the rich 
 countries of the south lying on the African, Ara- 
 bian, or Indian coasts, as far as at that time 
 known ’ (Historical Researches , translated from 
 the German , Oxford, 1833, vol. ii. pp. 73, 74). 
 It remains to be observed, that in Jer. x. 9 we 
 have ‘ the gold from Uphaz,’ ; and in Dan. 
 x. 5, £ the fine gold of Uphaz;’ and see the Heb. 
 of 1 Kings x. 18. In these instances Uphaz is, 
 by a slight change of pronunciation, put for 
 Ophir. The words of Daniel are quoted and 
 paraphrased in Rev. i. 13, in a manner which shows 
 this to be the true explanation of the difference. 
 If the words 1 the gold of Parvaim ’ (EP'HQ, 
 2 Chron. iii. 6) be really, as Bochart conjectures, 
 the same with “Y’fi'li'?, the name had undergone a 
 still wider alteration. It was by taking this for 
 granted, and arguing from the similarity, that 
 the wild conjecture that Ophir was Peru was ob- 
 tained. The alterations suffered by the Septuagint 
 words are before the reader. Among other works 
 on this controversy not before referred to, see 
 Wahner, De Regione Ophir ; Tychsen, De Com - 
 mere. Hebr. in Comnnentt. Gott. xvi. 164, &c. ; 
 Huetii Commentatio de Navigations Salomonis ; 
 Reland, Dissertt. Miscell. i. 172; or in Ugolini 
 Thesaurus, vii. — J. F. D. 
 
 1. OPHRAH (fTlSy ; Sept. ’Etypada), a town 
 of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 23), seemingly in the 
 north-east of that tribe's domain (1 Sam. xiii. 17). 
 Accordingly it is placed by Eusebius and Jerome 
 (Onomast. s. v. Apbia) five Roman miles east 
 of Bethel. This corresponds with the position of 
 a place called et-Taiyibeb, which was visited by 
 Dr. Robinson in his excursion to Bethel (Bibl. 
 Researches, ii. 120-123). It is now a small 
 village, curiously situated upon a conical hill, 
 on the summit of which is an old tower, whence 
 is commanded a splendid view of the valley of the 
 Jordan, the Dead Sea, and the eastern mountains. 
 
 2. OPHRAH, a town in the tribe of Manas- 
 seh, to which Gideon belonged, and where he 
 continued to reside after he had delivered Israel 
 from the Midianites, establishing there his ephod, 
 which became a snare to Israel (Judg. vi. 11-24 ; 
 viii. 27). Josephus calls the place Ephra (An- 
 tiq. v. 6. 5). It cannot be positively determined 
 from the narrative, whether this Ophrah was in 
 the territory of Manasseh east or west of the Jor- 
 dan ; and no satisfactory attempt to fix the site 
 has yet been made. 
 
 OREB and ZEEB (1KJ1 3*#; Sept. ’O 
 Kal Z 77 / 3 ), the remarkable names (raven and 
 wolf ) of two emirs of the Midianites, who were 
 made prisoners by the Ephraimites in attempting 
 
444 
 
 OREB. 
 
 OREN. 
 
 <0 recross the Jordan after the victory of Gideon. 
 They were put to death by the captors, and their 
 heads carried as a trophy to the conqueror, who was 
 then on the other side the Jordan (Judg. vii. 25 ; 
 viii. 3). The first of these princes met his death 
 near a rock, which thenceforth bore his name (Isa. 
 X. 26) ; the other seems to have at first sought 
 refuge in one of those excavations in which wines 
 were preserved, and which was thenceforth called 
 the winepress of Zeeb (Judg. vii. 25). 
 
 OREB, or Orebim (!TT}tf or written 
 
 also Arab and Arabim, occurs in several pas- 
 sages of Scripture, in all of which it is translated 
 willoio in the Authorized, and most other modem 
 versions. This sense has been inferred from the 
 
 similarity of the word arab to the Arabic <- 
 
 gharb , and from the most ancient Greek trans- 
 lators adopting nea as the synonyme of the 
 Hebrew arab . But it is also similar to ano- 
 ther Arabic word, ghurab, signifying crows ; 
 whence probably some of the early translators 
 have adopted this as the meaning of the Hebrew 
 word. Thus the Arabic translator has, in Jobxl. 
 
 17, adopted corvos , as the interpretation 
 
 of arabim. So also the Septuagint, in Isa. xv. 
 7, gives the same interpretation to this word, 
 and has thus been the cause of error and con- 
 fusion. Moreover, in Lev. xxiii. 40, after irea s 
 it adds without authority &yvou K\aSovs, ramu- 
 los agni, and has adopted Ixyuov in Job xl. 17 
 (Cels. Hierobot. i. 304). ''Ayvos is intended, 
 no doubt, for the plant which by botanists is now 
 called Vitex agnus castus, and was at one time 
 called Salix amerina. 
 
 There is, however, little doubt of ‘ willow’ being 
 the correct interpretation, from its suitableness to 
 all the passages. Thus in Job xl. 22, referring to be- 
 hemoth it is said, ‘ The shady trees cover him with 
 their shadow ; the icillows ( orabim ) of the brook 
 compass him about.’ So the Jews when in cap- 
 tivity sing, ‘ By the rivers of Babylon, there we 
 sat down ; we hanged our harps upon the willows 
 ( orebim ) in the midst thereof’ (Ps. cxxxvii.) 
 And again, in Isa. xliv. 4, ‘ And they shall spring 
 up as among the grass, as willows ( orebim ) of 
 the water-courses.’ The willow is as applicable 
 as any other plant to the other passages, quoted 
 above, in which orebim is mentioned. 
 
 The word gharb is in the present day applied 
 in many parts of the East to the poplar (which 
 one of the Latin versions gives for the Heb. oreb, 
 Cels. ; 304), a genus closely allied to the willow, 
 and forming with it the group of Salicineae in 
 modern botany. The words arab and gharb do 
 not differ so much in the Arabic as they appear 
 to do in the English dress ; for the initial letters 
 are ain and ghain, between which mutual inter- 
 changes frequently take place. 
 
 That willows grow in moist situations, and in 
 the neighbourhood of both still and running water, 
 is sufficiently well known. That they are common 
 in Judaea is evident from what Reland says : ‘Sa- 
 lices, tamarisci, agnus castus, et cannae ingentes, 
 quae usum hastarum praebent, crescunt ad ripam 
 Jordanis, uti referunt aWnvTai' So also on 
 the banks of the Nile, to which we may sup- 
 pose Job alludes when he speaks of the behemoth 
 being covered by the willows of the brook, sa- 
 
 lices torrentis of the Latin version. In reference 
 to this, Celsius quotes: ‘ Teiram istam Nilus 
 alluit ab oriente ad occidentein, ibique ad ripaa 
 ipsius nascuntur arundines Indicae, arbores Ebeni, 
 
 atque buxi, item salicum et tamarisci, 
 
 arborumque similium sylvae latissimaB’ (Geog. 
 Nubiensis, Clim. i. p. 1). It hardly required to 
 be proved that willows were found in Judaea and 
 on the banks of the Nile, but still less does it 
 require to be shown that the willow is common 
 on the rivers of Babylon, for we have a species 
 which is called Salix Babylonica, commonly 
 known by the name of weeping willow, and which 
 Celsius considers to be peculiarly the willow 01 
 the brook. Bochart says of the channels of the 
 Euphrates, ‘ Quorum ripae tarn multis salicibus 
 erant consitae, ut Babylonia ideo vocetur, vail is 
 salicum.’ In all points, therefore, the willow 
 seem well suited to the passages in which orebim 
 occurs, though it is probable that this may have 
 been used, like willow, in a generic rather than 
 in a specific sense; but there is another word, 
 which is also supposed to denote one of tliest 
 willows [Zaphzaphah]. — J. F. R. 
 
 OREN (}'i&) occurs only once in Scripture, 
 and is variously translated ; but from the manner 
 in which it is introduced, it is impossible to de- 
 termine whether any of the translations are cor- 
 rect. The oren is mentioned with other trees, of 
 whose timber idols were made, in Isa. xliv. 14 : 
 ‘ He heweth him down cedars ( eres ) and taketh 
 the cypress { tirsah ), and the oak (allon), which 
 he st.rengtheneth for himself among the trees of 
 the forest ; he planteth an ash {oren), and the 
 rain doth nourish it.’ Though the English ver- 
 sion renders it ash , others consider pine-tree to 
 be the correct translation ; but for neither does 
 there appear to be any decisive proof, nor for the 
 rubus or bramble, adopted for oren in the fable 
 of the Cedar and Rubus, translated from the He- 
 brew of R. Berechia Hannakdan, by Celsius 
 {Hierobot., i. 186); 
 
 Oren is translated pine- tree both in the Greek 
 Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, and this 
 has been acquiesced in by several of the most 
 learned critics, and among them by Calvin and 
 Bochart. Celsius {l. c. p. 191) states, moreover, 
 that some of the Rabbins also consider oren to be 
 the same as the Arabic sanober (which is no 
 doubt a pine), and that they often join together, 
 arasim, aranim , and beroschim, as trees of the 
 same nature. Luther and the Portuguese version 
 read cedar. Rosenmuller contends that it is not 
 the common wild pine {pinus sylvestris') which 
 is intended, but what the ancients called the do- 
 mestic pine, which was raised in gardens on ac- 
 count of its elegant shape and the pleasant fruit 
 it yields, the Pignole nuts of the Italians {Pinus 
 pinea of Linnaeus), and quotes Virgil as saying 
 ‘ Fraxinus in sylvis pulcherrima, pinus in hortis.* 
 
 The English version instead of pine gives ash 
 as the translation of oren ; in consequence pro- 
 bably of ornus having been adopted by several 
 translators, apparently only because the elementary 
 letters of the Hebrew are found also in the Latin 
 word. Celsius objects to this as an insufficient 
 reason for supposing that the ash was intended ; 
 and there does not appear to be any other proo£ 
 Ornus europcea , or manna ash, does, however 
 
OROR. 
 
 OROTH. 
 
 445 
 
 grow in Syria, but being a cultivated plant, it may 
 aave been introduced. Celsius quotes from the 
 Arab author, ’Abu 1 Fadli, the description of a tree 
 
 called aran, which appears well suited 
 
 to the passage, though it has not yet been ascer- 
 tained what tree is intended. The aran is said 
 to be a tree of Arabia Petrsea, of a thorny nature, 
 inhabiting the valleys, but found also in the 
 mountains, where it is however less thorny. The 
 wood is said to be mutfh valued for cleaning the 
 teeth. The fruit is in bunches like small grapes. 
 The berry is noxious while green, and bitter like 
 galls; as it ripens it becomes red, then black 
 and somewhat sweetish, and when eaten is grate- 
 ful to the stomach, &c., and seems to act as a 
 stimulant medicine. Sprengel supposes this to he 
 the caper plant, Capparis spinosa of Linnaeus. 
 Faber thought it to he the Rhamnus siculus pen - 
 taphyllus of Shaw. Link identifies it with Fla - 
 courtia sepiaria of Roxburgh, a tree, however, 
 which has not been found in Syria. To us it 
 appears to agree in some respects with Salvadora 
 persica, but not in all points, and therefore it is 
 preferable to leave it as one of those still requiring 
 investigation by some traveller in Syria conversant 
 both with plants and their oriental names and 
 uses. — J. F. R. 
 
 ORION. [Astronomy.] 
 
 OROR, or Arar (“Ijnj/) occurs in two or 
 three places of Scripture, and has been vari- 
 ously translated, as myrica , tamarisk; tamarin , 
 which is an Indian tree, the tamarind ; re- 
 tama , that is, the broom ; and also, as in the 
 French and English versions, bruiere , heath, 
 which is perhaps the most incorrect of all, though 
 Hasselquist mentions finding heath near Jericho, 
 in Syria. As far as the context is concerned, some 
 of these plants, as the retam and tamarisk , 
 would answer very well ; but the Arabic name, 
 
 arar , is applied to a totally different plant, 
 
 a species of juniper, as has been clearly shown by 
 Celsius ( Hierobot . p. ii. p. 195), who states that 
 Arias Montanus is the only one who has so trans- 
 lated the Hebrew arar or oror (Jer. xvii. 6) : 
 ‘ For he shall be like the heath ( oror ) in the 
 desert, and shall not see when good cometh, but 
 shall inhabit the parched places in the wilder- 
 ness, in a salt land, and not inhabited.’ The 
 word arar, in all the old Arabic authors, signi- 
 fies a kind of juniper. 
 
 Several species of juniper are no doubt found 
 in Syria and Palestine, as has already been 
 mentioned under the head of Eres. Robinson 
 met with some in proceeding from Hebron to 
 Wady Musa, near the romantic pass of Nemela : 
 4 On the rocks above we found the juniper 
 tree, Arabic ar'ar ; its berries have the appear- 
 ance and taste of the common juniper, except 
 that there is more of the aroma of the pine. 
 These trees were ten or fifteen feet in height, and 
 hung upon the rocks even to the summits of the 
 cliffs and needles.’ In a note the author says : 
 ‘ This is doubtless the Hebrew aroer (Jer. 
 
 xlvii. 6) ; whence both the English version and 
 Luther read incorrectly heath. The juniper of the 
 same translation is tlie retem * (Bibl. Researches, 
 ii.5Q6). In proceeding S.E. he states: ‘Large 
 trees of the juniper become quite common in the 
 
 Wadys and on the rocks.’ It is mentioned in 
 the same situations by other travellers, and is no 
 doubt common enough, particularly in wild, un- 
 cultivated, and often inaccessible situations, and 
 is thus suitable to Jer. xlviii. 6 : ‘ Flee, save 
 your lives, and be like the heath (oror) in the 
 wilderness.’ In this passage, some authors pro- 
 pose reading orud instead of oror as the trans- 
 lators of the Septuagint seem to have done, for 
 they render oror by ovos aypios, wild ass. ‘ Be 
 like the wild ass in the wilderness,’ which is con- 
 sideied as agreeing well with the flight recom- 
 mended. Mr. Taylor, in Scripture Rlustratcd, 
 inquires whether the orud , wild ass, may not be 
 the subject of both passages? This can only be 
 settled by Hebrew scholars; we have shown that 
 the juniper, from growing in wild and inacces- 
 sible places, is also suitable to the sense of both 
 passages. — J. F. R. 
 
 OROTH (nnitf) occurs in two passages of 
 Scripture, where it is translated herb in the Autho- 
 rised Version : it is generally supposed to indicate 
 such plants as are employed for food. The most 
 ancient translators seem, however, to have been 
 at a loss for its meaning. Thus the Septuagint 
 in one passage (2 Kings iv. 39) has only the 
 Hebrew word in Greek characters, api&Q, and in 
 the other (Isa. xxvi. 19), ‘ ia/xa, sanationem, v. 
 medicinam, vel herbas medicinales.’ The Latin 
 Vulgate, and the Chaldee and Syriac versions, 
 translate oroth in the latter passage by lucem, in 
 consequence of confounding one Hebrew word 
 with another, according to Celsius ( Hierobot . vol. i. 
 p. 459). But the Syriac and Arabic translators 
 
 give the names for mallows , the Arabic 
 khabeeza, in Lower Egypt called habeeza. 
 
 With respect to the meaning of oroth, Rosen- 
 muller says that it occurs in its original and ge 
 neral signification in Isa. xxvi. 19, viz. green herbs 
 The future restoration of the Hebrew people is 
 there announced under the type and figure of a 
 revival of the dead. ‘ Thy dew is a dew of green 
 herbs,' says the prophet, i. e. as by the dew, green 
 herbs are revived, so shalt thou, being revived by 
 God’s strengthening power, flourish again. The 
 passage, however, appears an obscure one, with 
 respect to the meaning of oroth. Celsius has, 
 with his usual learning, shown that mallows were 
 much employed as food in ancient times. Of 
 tin’s there can be no doubt, but there is no proof 
 adduced that oroth means mallows. It might or 
 it might not, because there are many other plants 
 which were and still are employed as articles of 
 diet in the East, as purslane, goosefoot, chen- 
 podiums, lettuce, endive, &c. Some have trans- 
 lated oroth in 2 Kings iv. 39, by the word eruca, 
 which is usually applied to a species of brassica. 
 
 But it appears to us that oroth should be con- 
 sidered only in conjunction with pakyoth; for we 
 find in 2 Kings iv. that when Elisha came again 
 to Gilgal, and there was a dearth in the land, he 
 said unto his servant, ‘ Set on the great pot, and 
 seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets (ver 
 39) ; and one went out into the field to gathet 
 herbs (oroth), and found a wild vine, # and ga- 
 thered thereof wild gourds (pakyoth) his lap full, 
 and came and shred them into the pot of pottage, 
 for they knew them not ’ From this it would ap- 
 pear that pakyoth had been mistaken for oroth ; 
 and as the former is universally acknowledged to 
 
416 
 
 ORPAH. 
 
 OSTRICH. 
 
 be the fruit of one of the gourd tribe, so it is not 
 unreasonable to conclude that oroth also was 
 the fruit of some plant, for which the pakyoth 
 had been mistaken. This is nothing more than 
 conjecture, but it appears to be justified by the 
 context, and may be admitted, as nothing better 
 than conjecture has been adduced in support of 
 other interpretations, and as there are fruits, sugh 
 as that of the egg plant, which are used as articles 
 of diet, and for which the fruit of the pakyoth, 
 or wild gourd, might have been mistaken by an 
 ignorant person [Pakyoth]. — J. F. R. 
 
 ORPAH fawn; Sept. ’O p<pa), daugh- 
 
 ter-in-law of Naomi, who remained behind among 
 her kindred in Moab, when Ruth returned with 
 Naomi to Bethlehem (Ruth i. 4-14) [Ruth]. 
 
 OSPRAY. [Azaniaii.] 
 
 OSSIFRAGK. [Peres.] 
 
 OSTRICH (T\^_yaanah, poetically ilVD 
 bath-hci-ryaanah ; also Jobxxxix. 13). In 
 
 Arabic, nea-mah, thar-ecls jammel , i. e. ‘ camel- 
 bird ;’ the same as the Persian sutur morgh ; in 
 Western Arabic, ernmim ; and in Greek, arpov66s , 
 and (TTpovOoKctfirikos ; from which the Latin stru- 
 thio camelus is formed. 
 
 The\ ostrich is frequently mentioned in the 
 Bible in terms of great beauty and precision ; 
 which, commentators, perhaps more conversant 
 with the exploded misstatements of the ancients 
 than with the true physiological history of the 
 bird in question, have not been happy in explain- 
 ing, sometimes referring it to wrong species, such 
 as the peacock, or mistaking it for the stork, the 
 eagle, or the bustard (Lev. xi. 19 ; Deut. xiv. 15 ; 
 Job xxx. 29 ; xxxix. 13 ; Isa. xiii. 21 ; xxxiv. 13 ; 
 xliii. 20 ; Jer. x.. 39; Lam. iv. 3; Micah i. 8). 
 In several of these passages ‘ owls ’ has been used 
 in our version for yaanah , now generally admitted 
 to mean ‘ostriches;’ for the passages where the 
 word occurs relate to the deserts and the presence 
 of serpents— certainly more applicable to the latter 
 than the former; for although the owl and the 
 serpent are found in certain localities in the desert, 
 nevertheless neither of them retires far into the ab- 
 solute barren waste, as the ostrich constantly is 
 observed to do. Both joneh and rinonim , as 
 Pococke well observes, appear to be derived from 
 the. power of uttering loud-sounding cries; and 
 the third name, bath-ha-yaanah , ‘ the daughter of 
 .■ociferation,’ or ‘loud moaning,’ i3 in conformity 
 with the others, and an Oriental figurative mode 
 of expressing the same faculty (which exists not, 
 we think, in the females alone, but in the whole 
 species) ; for the ostrich has an awful voice, which, 
 when heard on the desert, is sometimes mistaken 
 in the night, even by natives, for the roar of a lion. 
 It is uttered most likely as a warning to the 
 family, and as a threat to some nightly prowler, 
 stealing towards the nest, and coming within ken 
 of their watchful organs. 
 
 There are two varieties, if not two species, of the 
 ostrich ; one never attaining seven feet in height, 
 and covered chiefly with grey and dingy feathers; 
 the other sometimes growing to more than ten 
 <eet, and of a glossy black plumage ; the males in 
 both having the great feathers of the wings and 
 tail white, but the females the tail only of that 
 colour. Their dimensions render them both the 
 largest animals <*C the feathered creation now 
 
 existing. They appear promiscuously in Asia 
 and Africa, but the troops or coveys of -each are 
 always separate ; the grey is more common in the 
 south, while the black, which grows largest in 
 Caffraria, predominates to the north of the equator. 
 One of the last mentioned, taken on board a 
 French prize, and wounded in the capture, we 
 remember to have seen in London, where it was 
 able to peck its food from a cross-beam eleven feet 
 from the ground. The enormous bird afterwards 
 shown in Bullock’s museum was said to be the 
 same. The common-sized ostrich weighs about 
 eighty pounds; whence it may be judged that the 
 individual here mentioned may have been at least 
 forty pounds heavier. 
 
 The head of the ostrich is small, and not com- 
 posed of strong bones ; the bill, in form somewhat 
 like that of a duck, is flat, with a nail at the apex, 
 and broad at the gape ; the eyes, hazel-coloured, 
 have a clear and distinct vision of objects to a 
 great distance, although when seen obliquely they 
 have an opalescent appearance ; the auditory ap- 
 paratus is large and open, notwithstanding that in 
 the pairing season ostriches are said to be very deaf ; 
 the neck, long and slender, is, together with the 
 head, but scantily clothed with whitish shining 
 hairs, and in the pairing season becomes for a time 
 pink or rosy red ; towards the base it assumes the 
 general polour of the plumage, which, with the 
 quill and tail plumes, is entirely composed ofloose 
 downy-webbed feathers, only differing in size and 
 colour ; the wings, each from three to four feet 
 long, exclusive of feathers, are entirely naked on 
 the inner side, and are supplied towards the end 
 of the pinion bone on each side with two sharp 
 pointed quills resembling those of a porcupine, 
 and no doubt serving for defence : the thighs, 
 nearly bare of plumage, and of a deep flesh-colour, 
 are as full and muscular as those of a strong 
 man, and the tarsi or legs, of corresponding length 
 with the proportions of the neck, are covered with 
 broad horny scales, and terminate in two toes ; the 
 inner, being the longest, is armed with a broad 
 strong claw ; and that on the outside, only half the 
 length of the other, is without any. The great 
 feathers, so much prized in commerce, are twenty 
 
OSTRICH. 
 
 OTHNIEL. 
 
 HI 
 
 W Mirth wing, those of the tail being nearly always 
 useless, broken, and worn. The cloven feet, long 
 neck, and vaulted back of these birds are in them- 
 selves quite sufficient to suggest to the imagination 
 an animal of the camel kind: but these external 
 appearances are not the only points of resem- 
 blance ; the stomach is so formed as to appear 
 possessed of a third ventricle, and there are other 
 structural particulars, such as a sternum, not keel- 
 shaped, as in birds, but in the form of a round 
 buckler, to protect the chest, which, with the fact 
 that they are without the muscular conformation 
 to render them capable of flying, altogether ap- 
 proximate these birds to quadrupeds, and particu- 
 larly to the order of Ruminant ia. 
 
 Ostriches are gregarious — from families cons'st- 
 ing of a male with one or several female birds, and 
 perhaps a brood or two of young, up to troops of 
 near a hundred. They keep aloof from the presence 
 of water in the wild and arid desert, mixing with- 
 out hesitation among herds of gnu, wild asses, 
 quaggas, and other striped Equidae, and the larger 
 Species of Antilopidae. From the nature of their 
 food, which consists of seeds and vegetables, al- 
 though seldom or never in want of drink, it is 
 evident that they must often approach more pro- 
 ductive regions, which, by means of the great 
 rapidity of motion they possess, is easily accom- 
 plished; and they are consequently known to be 
 very destructive to cultivated fields. As the 
 ttrgan of taste is very obtuse in these birds, they 
 swallow with little or no discrimination all kinds 
 of substances, and among others stones ; it is also 
 probable that, like poultry, they devour lizards, 
 snakes, and the young of birds that fall in their 
 way. We have had our own sketch-book snapped 
 out of our hand by an ostrich, attracted to it 
 by the sight of the white paper. It is not yet 
 finally decided whether the two species are poly- 
 gamous, though concurrent testimony seems to 
 leave no doubt of the fact: there is, however, 
 no uncertainty respecting the nest, which is 
 merely a circular basin scraped out of the soil, 
 with a slight elevation at the border, and suf- 
 ficiently large to contain a great number of eggs ; 
 for from twelve to about sixty have been found 
 in them, exclusive of a certain number, always 
 observed to be outlying, or placed beyond the 
 raised border of the nest, and amounting appa- 
 rently to nearly one-third of the whole. These 
 iue supposed to feed the young brood when first 
 hatched, either in their fresh state, or in a cor- 
 rupted form, when the substance in them has 
 produced worms. These eggs are of different 
 periods of laying, like those within, and the birds 
 hatched, form only a part of the contents of a 
 nest, until the breeding season closes. The eggs 
 are of different sizes, some attaining to seven 
 inches in their longer diameter, and others less, 
 having a dirty white shell, finely speckled with 
 lust, colour ; and their weight borders on three 
 pounds. Within the tropics they are kept suf- 
 ficiently warm in the day-time not to require in- 
 cubation, but beyond these one or more females 
 sit constantly, and the male bird takes that duty 
 himself after the sun is set. It is then that the 
 short roar may be heard during darkness ; and at 
 other times different sounds are uttered, likened 
 to tne cooing of pigeons, the cry of a hoarse child, 
 and the hissing of a goose; no doubt expressive of 
 different emotions ; but that the roar is expressive of 
 
 the feeling of anger may be inferred from the as- 
 sertion that jackals and foxes ( Canis Megaloti* 
 Caama ?) have been found close to the nests of 
 these birds, kicked to death. This fact is the more 
 credible, as the last mentioned animal is a dex- 
 terous purloiner of their eggs ; and it may be here 
 added, in proof of the organ of smelling not being 
 quite so obtuse in the ostrich as is asserted, that 
 Caffres and Hottentots, when they daily rob a 
 nest for their own convenience, always withdraw 
 the eggs by means of a stick, in order to prevent 
 the female finding out the larceny by means 1/ 
 the scent which human hands would leave behind ; 
 for then they will not continue to lay, but forsake 
 the abode altogether. This circumstance may 
 account for the small number of eggs often found 
 in their nests. 
 
 Although possessed of strength sufficient to 
 carry with velocity two adult human beings, and 
 although readily tamed, even when taken in a 
 state of maturity, nay easily rendered familiar 
 and docile, and although they are by no means 
 the stupid creatures they have been believed, still 
 their voracity, leading to the destruction of young 
 poultry, and (he impracticability of guiding their 
 powers, will ever render them unsafe and unpro- 
 fitable domestics. Though at first sight useless, 
 we may be assured that. Providence has not ap- 
 pointed their abode in the desert in vain ; and they 
 still continue to exist, not only in Africa, but in 
 the region of Arabia, east and south of Palestine 
 beyond the Euphrates ; but it may be a question 
 whether they extend so far to the eastward as Gca, 
 although that limit is assigned them by late 
 French ornithologists. 
 
 The flesh of a young ostrich is said to he not 
 unpalatable ; but its being declared unclean in 
 Mosaic legislation may be ascribed to a two-fold 
 cause. The first is sufficiently obvious from its 
 indiscriminate voracity already mentioned, and 
 the other may have been an intention to lay a re- 
 striction upon the Israelites in order to wean them 
 from the love of a nomade life, which hunting in 
 the desert would have fostered ; for ostriches must 
 be sought on the barren plains, where they are 
 not accessible on foot, except by stratagem. When 
 pursued, they cast stones and gravel behind them 
 with great force; and though it requires long 
 endurance and skill, their natural mode of flee- 
 ing in a circular form enables well mounted 
 Arabs to overtake and slay them. It may be 
 questioned whether among the Hebrew names 
 referred to ‘ ostrich’ in our versions, one in par- 
 ticular, nesseh, be not the Arabian bustard, 
 Otis Arabs , a bird of great size, abundantly 
 clad with feathers, endowed with the habit of 
 half raising its wings, and keeping them in tre- 
 mulous motion, particularly when preparing to 
 run; for this species always preludes with a 
 rapid course before it can rise on the wing. It 
 occurs iu Arabia and the desert of Syria, and 
 we take it to be the species represented by Sir 
 J. G. Wilkinson, where an Egyptian leads by a 
 rope about its neck a bird with three toed feet, 
 which that interesting writer takes, we believe by 
 inadvertence, to be a young ostrich. — C. H. S. 
 
 OTHNIEL lion of God ; Sepfc 
 
 ToQovifa), first judge of Israel, son of Kenaz, tha 
 younger brother of Caleb, whose daughter Achsah 
 he obtained in marriage by his daring valour si 
 
448 
 
 OWL. 
 
 OWL. 
 
 the siege of Debir (Josh. xv. 17 ; Judg. i. 13 ; 1 
 Chron. iv. 13 ). Rendered famous among his 
 countrymen by this exploit, and connected by a 
 twofold tie with one of the only two Israelites of 
 the former generation who had not died in the 
 desert, we are prepared for the fact that on him 
 devolved the mission to deliver Israel from the 
 Mesopotamian oppression under which, in punish- 
 ment for their sins, they fell after the death of 
 Joshua and of the elders who outlived him (Judg. 
 iii. 9). This victory secured to Israel a peace of 
 forty years. For the chronology, &c., of this 
 period see Judges. 
 
 OWL (DID cos; lilith ). Two other 
 
 Hebrew names have been likewise assigned in our 
 versions to presumed species of owls ; namely, 
 yansuph, which, although it must be con- 
 fessed that in common Hebrew it indicates the 
 owl, we have endeavoured to show is applied more 
 particularly to the night-heron, Ardea nicticorax 
 [Ibis], and TlDp kiphoz, either the same or con- 
 founded, as it appears, with YlDp kephod, which 
 has led to much controversy, and caused one or 
 the other to be referred to six or seven animals, 
 all widely different, for they include owl, osprey, 
 bittern, hedgehog or porcupine (TGp), otter (1), 
 and tortoise. Our reasons for applying kephod to 
 the bittern will be found in Kephod. TIDp 
 kippoz , we have already noticed. Bochart, though 
 admitting that it may designate a kind of owl, was 
 inclined to refer the more specific appellation to 
 the jaciilus , or darting serpent ; and it may be 
 asked whether the Arab kebsch, the wild mountain 
 sheep, or Arabian nmsmon, deriving its name 
 likewise from darting or plunging down preci- 
 pices, does not deserve consideration “? If these 
 names are in part mistakes, and the admitted not 
 free from objections, several others adopted by 
 translators for owl are proved to be quite wrong, 
 such as Luther’s and the Vulgate. B''^ iyim, 
 which is more applicable to howling quadrupeds 
 [Shuai.]. DlDnn tachmas , night-hawk or goat- 
 sucker, has been taken for Strix otus, or ear-pwl ; 
 which bird others again find in the fjlDY yan- 
 suph, one that dwells beneath ruins, and to which 
 is imputed the very questionable habit mentioned 
 by the Arabs of entering open windows at night 
 and tearing the faces of unguarded infants. Be 
 it observed that this unlikely tale is related as oc- 
 curring in a country where the inhabitants, nearly 
 all the year round, sleep in tents or on the house- 
 tops; but as the imputation evidently means to 
 point out an existing species pre-eminently an 
 object of superstitious fear, we would take it to 
 
 be the lilith, which name appears again 
 
 to include both the goat-sucker and the owl. It 
 is not unlikely, in the indefinite form which zoolo- 
 gical nomenclature maintained in Scripture, as 
 repeatedly pointed out in preceding articles, that 
 yansuph was used more or less generically for 
 night-birds, and thus was often taken for the owl, 
 because the family of Strigidce constituting all, 
 or with few exceptions, ‘ birds of darkness,’ it was 
 most present in the public mind ; was connected, 
 as it still is, with superstitious notions, and por- 
 tended evil to the vulgar. 
 
 There are noticed in Egypt and Syria three 
 well-known species of the genus Strix, or owl : — 
 Strix bubo, ‘ the great-eared owl Strix fiam- 
 mea, the common barn owl ; and Strix passe 
 
 rina, the little owl. In this list Strix otus, th* 
 long-eared owl, Strix brachyotus or ultila, the 
 short-eared owl, known nearly over the whole earth, 
 and Strix orietitalis of Ilasselquist, are not in- 
 cluded, and several other species of these wan- 
 dering birds, both of Africa and Asiatic regions, 
 occur in Palestine. DID cos or chos (Lev. xi. 
 17; Dent. xiv. 16; Ps. cii. 6), rendered ‘little 
 owl’ and ‘ owl of the desert,’ is most applicable 
 to the white or barn owl, Strix flammen. Bo- 
 chart referred this name to the pelican, on account 
 of the assumed signification of cos, ‘ cup,’ by him 
 fancied to point out the pouch beneath the bill ; 
 whereas it is more probably an indication of the 
 disproportionate bulk and flatness of the head 
 compared with the body, of which it measures to 
 the eye full half of the whole bird, when 1 he fea- 
 thers are raised in their usual appearance. ‘ Cos’ 
 is only a variation of ‘cup’ and ‘ cap,’ which, 
 with some inflexions, additional or terminal par- 
 ticles, is common to all the great languages of 
 the old continent. The barn owl is still sacred 
 in Northern Asia. 
 
 The eagle-owl, or great-eared owl, Strix bubo , 
 we do not find in ornithological works as an inha- 
 bitant of Syria, though no doubt it is an occasional 
 winter visitant; and the smaller species, Bubo 
 Atheniensis of Gmelin, which may be a rare but 
 permanent, resident, probably also visiting Egypt. 
 It is not, however, we believe, that species, but 
 the Otus ascalaphus of Cuvier, which is common 
 in Egypt, and which in all probability is the type 
 of the innumerable representations of an eared 
 owl in hieroglyphical inscriptions. This may b* 
 the species noticed under the indefinite name of 
 TIDp kippoz, for it is fairly applicable to Isa. 
 xxxiv. 15. 
 
 Next we have Strix xdida, Strix brachyotus, 
 or short-eared owl, likewise found in Egypt and 
 Arabia, as well as to the north of Syria, a bold, 
 pugnacious bird, residing in ruined buildings, 
 mistaken by commentators for the screech-owl, 
 
 Strix stridida, and most probably the 
 lilith of the Bible (Isa. xxxiv. 1 4). The spectral 
 species, again, confounded with t.be goat-sucker, 
 is, we believe, Strix coromanda [Night-Hawk] 
 and the same as Strix orientalis of Ilasselquist 
 who makes it synonymous with massasa and 
 with the Syrian bana, but apparently only upon 
 the evidence of the vulgar, who believe in the 
 ‘ spectral lady’ appearance of the lilith and bana, 
 and in its propensity to lacerate infants, of whicb 
 
ox. 
 
 PAKYOTH. 
 
 44 # 
 
 thia bird, together with the Strix ulula and bubo 
 of antiquity, is accused. The original version of 
 the story, however, refers, not to an owl or goat- 
 sucker, but to the poetical Strix of the ancients, a 
 Lamia with breasts, that is, a harpy or a vampire, 
 being a blood-sucking species of the bat family 
 (Ovid, Fast., vi. 139, and the fables of C. Titinius, 
 quoted by Gesner, De Strige, p. 738) [Bat]. 
 
 The little owl of Egypt is not likely to be the 
 Passerine species of Europe, and probably does not 
 occur under a distinct name in Biblical Hebrew': 
 but that the owls which inhabited Palestine were 
 numerous may be inferred with tolerable certainty 
 from the abundance of mice, rats, and other ver- 
 min, occasioned by the offal and offerings at 
 the numerous sacrifices, and consequently the 
 number of nocturnal birds of prey that subsisted 
 upon them, and were tolerated for that purpose. — 
 
 C. H. S. 
 
 OX Op3 balcar , in a collective sense, ‘cattle,’ 
 treat cattle’). Having already noticed the do- 
 mestic beeves under Bum. and Calk (to which we 
 refer), the few words added here will apply to 
 the breeds of Western Asia and the manner of 
 treating them. The earliest pastoral tribes appear 
 to have had domesticated cattle in the herd ; and 
 judging from the manners of South Africa, where 
 we find nations still retaining in many respects 
 primeval usages, it is likely that the patriarchal 
 families, or at. least their moveables, were trans- 
 ported on the backs of oxen in the manner which 
 the Caffres still practise, as alsc the Gwallahs and 
 grain-merchants in India, wno come down from 
 the interior with whole droves nearing burthens. 
 But as the Hebrews did not castrate their bulls, 
 it is plain some other method of enervation ( bis - 
 tournure?') was necessary in order to render their 
 violent and brutal indocility sufficiently tract- 
 able to permit the use of a metal ring or twisted 
 rope passed through the nostrils, and to ensure 
 something like safety and command to their 
 owners. In Egypt, emasculation, no doubt, was 
 resorted to, for no ring is observable in the nume- 
 rous representations of cattle, while many of these 
 indicate even more entire docility in these animals 
 than ^ now attained. 
 
 The breeds of Egypt were various, differing in 
 the length and flexures of the horns. Tiiere were 
 gome with long horns, otheis with short, and even 
 none, while a hunched race of Nubia reveals an 
 Indian origin, and indicates that at least one of 
 the nations on the Upper Nile had come from the 
 valleys of the Ganges; for it is to the east of 
 the Indus alone that that species is to be found 
 whose original stock appears to be the moun- 
 tain yak (Bos grunniens ). It is born with two 
 teeth in the mouth, has a groaning voice, and 
 is possessed of other distinctive characters. Fi- 
 gures of this species or variety bear the signi- 
 ficant lotus flower suspended from the neck, and, 
 as is still practised in India, they are harnessed 
 to the cars of princesses of Nubia. These, as 
 well as the straight-backed cattle of Egypt, are 
 all figuied with evident indication of beauty in 
 their form, and they are in general painted white 
 with black, 01 rufous clouds, or entirely red, 
 speckled, or yrandinated , that is, black with 
 numerous small white specks ; and there are also 
 oeeves witn white and black oi/casionally marked 
 in a peculiar manner, seemingly the kind of to- 
 
 vol. u. 30 
 
 kens by which the priesthood pretended to recog- 
 nise their sacred individuals. The cattle of 
 Egypt continued to be remarkable fur beauty for 
 some ages after the Moslem conquest ; for Abdol- 
 latiph, the historian, extols their bulk and propor- 
 tions, and in particular mentions the Al-chisiah 
 breed for the abundance of milk it furnished and 
 for the beauty of its curved horns. 
 
 The domestic buffalo was unknown to Western 
 Asia and Eg*pt till alter the Arabian conquest : 
 it is now common in the last-mentioned region 
 and far to the south, but not beyond the equator; 
 and from structural differences it may be sur- 
 mised that there was in early ages a domesticated 
 distinct species of this animal in Africa. In 
 Syria and Egypt the present races of domestic 
 cattle are somewhat less than the large breeds of 
 Europe, and those of Palestine appear to be of at 
 least two forms, both with short horns and both 
 used to the plough, one being tall and lanky, the 
 other more compact; and we possess figures of the 
 present Egyptian cattle with long hums bent 
 down and forwards. From Egyptian pictures it 
 is to be inferred that large droves of fine cattle 
 were imported from Abyssinia, and that in the 
 valley of the Nile they were in general stall- 
 fed, used exclusively for the plough, and treated 
 with humanity. In Palestine the Mosaic law 
 provided with care for the kind treatment of 
 cattle; for in treading out corn — the Oriental 
 mode of separating the grain from the straw — it 
 was enjoined that the ox should not be muzzled 
 (Deut. xxv. 4), and old cattle that had long 
 served in tillage were often suffered to wander 
 at large till their death — a practice still in vogue, 
 though from a different motive, in India. Bui 
 the Hebrews and other nations of Syria grazed 
 their domestic stock, particularly those tribes 
 which, residing to the east of the Jordan, had fertile 
 districts for that purpose. Keie, of course, the 
 droves became shy and wild ; and though we are 
 inclined to apply the passage in Ps. xxii. 12, to 
 wild species, yet old bulls, roaming at large in a 
 land where the lion still abounded, no doubt 
 became fierce ; and as they would obtain cowf 
 from the pastures, there must have been lerp' 
 breeds in the woods, as fierce and resolute as real 
 wild Uri — which ancient name may be a mere 
 modification of Reem [Reem]. — C. H.S. 
 
 P. 
 
 PADAN-ARAM. TAram. ] 
 
 PAKYOTH (my i?a) and Pekaim (D'yp&> 
 It is related in 2 Kings iv. 3S-40, that Elisha 
 having come again to Gilgal, when there was a 
 famine in the land, and many sons of the prophets 
 were assembled there, he ordered his servant to 
 prepare for them a dish of vegetables : ‘ One went 
 out into the field to gather herbs (oroih), and 
 found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild 
 gourds ( pakyoth sadeh) his lap-full, and came 
 and shred them into the pot of pottage, for they 
 knew them not.’ ‘So they poured out for the 
 men to eat: but as they were eating of the pot- 
 tage, they cried out, O thou man of God, there i* 
 death in the pot; and they could noteat thereof.' 
 
^50 PAKYOTH. 
 
 From this it appears that the servant mistook 
 the fruic cf one plant, pakyoth, for something 
 else, called oroih , and that the former was vine- 
 like, that is, with long, weak, slender stems, and 
 that the fruit had some remarkable taste, by 
 which the mistake was discovered whenever 
 the pottage was tasted. Though a few other 
 plants have been indicated, the pakyoth has 
 almost universally been supposed to be one of the 
 family of the gourd or cucumber-like plants, 
 several of which are conspicuous for their bitter- 
 ness, and a few poisonous, while others, it is well 
 known, are edible. Therefore one of the former 
 may have been mistaken for one of the latter, or 
 the oroth may have been some similar-shaped 
 fruit, as, for instance, the egg-plant, used as a 
 vegetable. The reasons why pakyoth has been 
 supposed to be one of the gourd tribe, usually the 
 • Colocynth , are given in detail by Celsius ( Iliero - 
 ■bot. vol. i. p. 393). 1. The name is supposed to 
 
 be derived from paka, ‘ to crush,’ or ‘ to 
 burst;’ and this is the characteristic of the 
 species called the wild cucumber by the ancients. 
 Thus Pliny says : ‘ Semen exilit, oculorum etiam 
 periculo.’ This is the kind called Spring gurken 
 by the Germans, and Squirting cucumber in 
 England. 2. The form of the fruit appears to 
 have been ovoid, as t he pekaim of 1 Kings vi. 18 
 are supposed to be the same fruit as pakyoth ; 
 
 ‘ And the cedar of the house within was carved 
 with knops ' (pekaim). So in vii. 24 : ‘ And 
 under the brim of it round about there were knops 
 (pekaim) compassing it: the knops (pekaim) 
 were cast in two rows, when it was cast.’ Kimchi 
 distinctly says these were called pekaim t 4 quia 
 figurutn haberent rwv pakyoth -agrestium.’ That 
 the form of these was ovoid would appear from 
 the more free exposition of the Chaldaic version 
 of Jonathan, to whom the form of the fruit could 
 not have been unknown : ‘ Et ligurae ovorutn 
 subter labium ejus ' (pul. Cels. 1. c. p. 397). 
 
 3. The seeds of the pakyoth , moreover, yielded 
 oil, as appears from the tract Shabbath (ii. § 2): 
 ■* Non accenduut resina, propter honorem sabbati. 
 At sapientes permittuut omnia olea sequentia : 
 oleum sesatnorum, oleum liucum, oleum rapha- 
 norum, oleum piscium, oleum pakyoth.' So 
 Kimchi: ‘ Faciunt. e seminibus eorum oleum, 
 
 •qurnl vocant Rabbini nostri pise mem. oleum 
 pakyoth.' The seeds of the different gourd and 
 cucumber-like plants are well known to yield oil, 
 which was employed by the ancients, and still is 
 in the East, both as medicine and in the arts. 
 
 4. The bitterness which was probably perceived 
 on eating of the pottage, and which disappeared 
 on the addition of meal, is found in many of the 
 cucumber tribe, and conspicuously in the species 
 which have been usually selected as the pakyoth , 
 that is, the Colocynth (Cucumis Colocynthis), the 
 Squinting Cucumber (Momordica Elatcrium ), 
 and Cucumis prophetarum : all of which are 
 found in Syria, as related by various travellers. 
 The Coloquintida is essentially a desert plant. 
 Mr. Kitto says, ‘ In the desert parts of Syria, 
 Egypt, and Arabia, and on the banks of the rivers 
 Tigris and Euphrates, it3 tendrils run over vast 
 tracts of ground, offering a prodigious number of 
 gourds, which are crushed under foot by camels, 
 horses, and men. In winter we have seen the 
 extent of many miles covered with the connecting 
 Wndrils and dry gourds of the preceding season, 
 
 PALACE. 
 
 the latter exhibiting precisely the same appear 
 ance as in our shops, and when crushed, with a 
 crack ing noise, n n<*;.th the feet, discharging, 
 in the form of a light, powder, the valuable drug 
 which it contains.’ In tne Arabic version, 
 htinzal (which is the Coiocynth) is used as the 
 synonyme for pakyoth in 2 Kings iv. 39. The 
 Globe Cucumber, Mr. Kitto continues, ‘ derives 
 its specific name ( Cucumis prophetarum) from 
 the notion that it afforded the gourd which “ the 
 sons of the prophets’’ shred by mistake into their 
 pottage, and which made them declare, when they 
 came to taste it, that there was “ death in the pot.” 
 This plant is smaller in every part than the com- 
 mon melon, and has a nauseous odour, while its 
 fruit is to the full as bitter as the Coloquintida. 
 The fruit has a rather singular appearance, from 
 the manner in which its surface is armed with 
 prickles, which are, however, soft and harm- 
 less’ ( Pictorial Palestine; Physical Geog. p. 
 cclxxxix.). Rut this plant, though it is nauseous 
 and bitter as the Colocynth , yet the fruit not being 
 bigger than a cherry, does not appear likely to 
 have been that which was shred into the pot. 
 Celsius, however, was of opinion that the Cucu- 
 mis agrestis of the Ancients, and which was 
 found by Eelon in descending from Mount a 
 Sinai, was the plant. This, he says, is the Olc-ra 
 asini of the Hebrews, the Chate al hemar of the 
 Arabs, and (lie Cucumis asininus of the drug- 
 gists of his day. This plant is now called Mo - 
 mordica elaterium , or Squirting Cucumber, and 
 is a well known drastic purgative, violent enough 
 in its action to be considered even a poison. Its 
 fruit is ovate, obtuse, and scabrous. But it is not 
 easy to say whether this or the Colocynth is most 
 likely to have been the plant mistaken for oroth / 
 but the fruit of this species might certainly be 
 mistaken for young gherkins. Both are bitter and 
 poisonous. — J. F. R. 
 
 PALACE, in Scripture, denotes what is con- 
 tained within the outer enclosure of the royal re- 
 sidence, including all the buildings, courts, and 
 gardens (2 Chron. xxxvi. 19 ; comp. Ps. xlviii. 4 ; 
 exxii. 7; exxii. 7; Prov. ix. 3; xviii. 19; Isa. 
 xxiii. 13; xxv. 2; Jer. xxii. 14; Amos i, 7, 12, 
 
 11 ; Nah. ii. G). In the New Testament the term 
 palace (auArj) is applied to the residence of a 
 man of rank (Matt’, xxvi. 3; Mark xiv. 66; 
 Luke xi. 21 ; John xviii. 15). The specific 
 allusions are to the palace built by Herod, which 
 was afterwards occupied by the Roman governors, 
 and was the prsetorium. or hall, which formed the 
 abode of Pilate when Christ was brought before 
 him (Mark xv. 16) : the other passages above 
 cited, except Luke xi. 21, refer to the residence 
 of the high-priest. 
 
 The particulars which have been given under 
 the head House, require only to be aggrandized to 
 convey a suitable idea of a palace; for the general 
 arrangements and distribution of parts are the same 
 in the palace as in the house, save that the courts 
 are more numerous, and with more distinct 
 appropriations, the buildings more extensive, and 
 the materials more costly. The palace of the 
 kings of Judah in Jerusalem was that built by 
 Solomon, called ‘ the house of the forest of Leba- 
 non,’ of which some particulars an given ia 
 1 Kings vii. 1-12 ; and if read along with the de- 
 scription which Josephus gives of the same pile 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 Ml 
 
 
 443 . 
 
 (Antiq. v. 5), a faint idea may be formed of it, 
 as a magnificent collection of buildings in ad- 
 joining courts, connected with and surrounded by 
 galleries and colonnades. The details of the 
 Jewish historian are not. to be contemned ; for he 
 was necessarily better able than we are to appre- 
 hend the particulars in the Scriptural account, on 
 which his own description is based. To him we 
 are also indebted for an account of Herod’s 
 palace, his description of which, from personal 
 knowledge, may be found in De Bell. Jud. v. 
 i. 4. 
 
 PALESTINE. This name, usually applied to 
 the country formerly inhabited by the Israelites, 
 does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. It is, however, 
 
 derived from Philistia (HS^D), or the country 
 of the Philistines, which comprised the southern 
 part of t'iie coast plain of Canaan along the 
 Mediterranean. The word Philistia occurs in 
 Exod. xiii. 17; Ps. lx. 8; lxxxiii. 7; lxxxvii. 
 4; cviii. 9; Isa. xiv. 29, 31. From this arose 
 the name Palestine (UahaiaTiur]), which was ap- 
 plied by most ancient writers, and even by Jo- 
 sephus {Antiq. i. 6. 2 ; ii. 15. 2; viii. 10. 3), 
 to the whole land of the Israelites (see Reland’s 
 Palcestina, p. 38, scp). 
 
 Names. — The other names of the country may 
 be given in the order of their occurrence in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 1. Canaan (|J?D2), from Canaan, the fourth 
 son of Ham, from whom the first inhabitants 
 were descended. It is the most ancient name of 
 the country, and is first found as such in Gen. 
 xi. 31. This denomination was confined to the 
 country between the Mediterranean and the Jor- 
 dan ; for Exod. xvi. 35 (comp. Josh. v. 11, 12) 
 shows that the Jordan was the eastern boundary 
 of Canaan. This is also seen in Num. xxxiii. 
 51 ; xxxiv. 11, 12; comp. Exod. xv. 15. When 
 the name Canaan was thus used with reference 
 So the country vest of the Jordan, the region 
 
 ea*t of that river was called the Land of Gilead 
 (Dent, xxxiv. 1 ; Josh. xxii. 9, 1 1). In later time* 
 the term Canaan was understood to include 
 Phoenicia (Isa. xxiii. 11 ; Matt. xv. 21-22), and 
 also the land of the Philistines. 
 
 2. Land of Israel. This name was given to 
 the whole country as distributed among and oc- 
 cupied by the tribes of Israel. Those recent 
 writers have therefore fallen into error, who ima- 
 gine that it ever comprehended the utmost extent 
 of dominion promised to the seed of Abraham, or 
 actually possessed by David and Solomon. The 
 designation, Land of Israel, was never applied 
 but to the aggregate possessions of the tribes as 
 defined by the limits laid down when the distri- 
 bution was made in the time of Joshua (Judg. 
 xix. 29; 1 Sam. xiii. 19; Ezek.vii. 2; Matt. il. 
 20, 21, yrj TtrpenjA). In Ezek. xxvii. 17, and 
 other places, the land of Israel is considered as 
 the territory of the ten tribes, forming the se- 
 parate kingdom of Israel, as distinct from that of 
 Judah. 
 
 3. Land of Promise. So called as the land 
 which God promised to the patriarchal fathers 
 to bestow on their descendants. This name was 
 applied to it chieffy before the country was actually 
 possessed (Gen. xv. 18 ; 1. 24; Num. xxxii. 1 ; 
 comp. Heb. xi. 9). 
 
 4. Land of Jehovah. So called as being in 
 a special and peculiar sense the property of 
 Jehovah, who, as the sovereign proprietor of the 
 soil, granted it to the Hebrews (Lev. xxv. 2^; 
 Ps. Ixxxv. 1 ; Isa. viii. 8). 
 
 5. The Holy Land. This name only occurs 
 in Zech. ii. 12, ‘The Lord shall inherit Judah, 
 his portion in the Holy Land.’ It was, however, 
 probably without any particular reference to the 
 present text that this became from frequent use a 
 proper name for Palestine. The land is here 
 called ‘ Holy,’ as being the Lord's property, and 
 sanctified by his temple and worship : but Chris- 
 tians, in applying to it the same title, probably 
 regard it more as the scene of the life, the travels, 
 and the sufferings of Christ. 
 
 5. Judah , Judcea. This name belonged at 
 first to the territory of the tribe of Judah alone. 
 After the separation of the two kingdoms, one of 
 them took the name of Judah, which contained 
 the territories both of that tribe and of Benjamin. 
 After the Captivity, down to and after the time 
 of Christ, Judsea was used in a loose way as a 
 general name for the whole country of Palestine ; 
 but in more precise language, and with reference 
 to internal distribution, it denoted nearly the 
 territories of the ancient kingdom, as distinguished 
 from Samaria and Galilee on the west of the Jor- 
 dan, and Peraea on the east. 
 
 Divisions. — The divisions of Palestine were 
 different in different ages. 
 
 1. In the time of the Patriarchs , the country 
 was divided among the tribes or nations de- 
 scended from the sons of Canaan. The precise 
 locality of each nation is not, in every case, dis- 
 tinctly known; but our map exhibits the most 
 probable arrangement. Here it is sufficient to 
 mention that the Kenites, the Kenizzites, ami 
 the Kadmonites lived on the east of the Jordan 
 (Gen. xv. 18-21) ; and that, on the west of that 
 river, or in Palestine Proper, the Hittites, the 
 Perizzites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites, abode 
 
452 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 in the hill country cf the south (afterwards be- 
 longing to Judah); the Canaanites — properly so 
 called — in the middle, across the country, from 
 the sea-coast to the river Jordan ; the Girgashites, 
 along the eastern border of the lake of Genne- 
 sareth ; and the Hivites in the north, among the 
 southern branches of the Lebanon mountains. 
 The southern part of the coast was occupied by 
 the Philistines, and the northern part by the 
 Phoenicians. 
 
 In the time of Moses, when the Israelites were 
 preparing to enter Canaan, the distribution of the 
 nations on the west of the Jordan had undergone 
 very little change ; but, on the east of that river, 
 we find the three principal territories to have been 
 Bashan, in the north, — that is to say, east and 
 north-east of the lake Gennesareth ; Gilead, in 
 the middle; and. in the south, on the east of the 
 Dead Sea, the Land of Moab. 
 
 3. After the Conquest , the land was distri- 
 buted by lot among the tribes. The particulars 
 of this distribution will be best seen by reference 
 to the map. Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and Dan 
 occupied the south ; Ephraim, half of Manasseh, 
 and Issachar, the middle ; and Zebidon, Naph- 
 tali, and Asher, the north. Reuben, Gad, and the 
 other half of Manasseh were settled beyond the 
 Jordan, in Bashan and Gilead. This distribu- 
 tion was in no way affected by the division of 
 the country into two kingdoms, which took place 
 after the death of Solomon. The boundary line 
 between them was the northern limit of the tribe 
 of Benjamin. 
 
 4. After the Captivity, we hear very little of 
 the territories of the tribes, for ten of them never 
 returned to occupy their ancient domains. 
 
 5. In the time of Christ , the country on the 
 west of the Jordan wa3 divided into the provinces 
 of Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea. Galilee is a 
 name which occurs repeatedly in the book of 
 Joshua (xxi. 32); and very often in the later 
 history. It was applied to that part of Palestine 
 north of the plain of Esdraelon or Jezreel. This 
 province was divided into Lower or Southern, 
 and Upper or Northern Galilee. The latter sec- 
 tion was also denominated Galilee of the Gentiles 
 (Matt. iv. 15). Samaria occupied nearly the 
 middle of Palestine; but, although it extended 
 across the country, it did not come down to the 
 sea'-shore. Judaja, as a province, corresponded 
 ta the northern and western parts of the ancient 
 kingdom of that name; but the south-eastern por- 
 tion formed the territory of Idumaea. On the 
 other side of the Jordan the divisions were, at 
 this time, more numerous and less distinct. The 
 whole country, generally, was called Peraea, 
 and was divided into eight districts or cantons, 
 namely: — 1. Pcrcea, in the more limited sense, 
 which was the southernmost canton, extend- 
 ing from the river Arnon to the river Jabbok. 
 2 . Gilead , north of the Jabbok, and highly po- 
 «>*slous. 3. lfecapolis, or the district of ten 
 cities, which were Scythopolis or Bethslmn (on 
 the west side of the Jordan), Hippos, Gadara, 
 Pella, Philadelphia (formerly Rabbath), Diurn, 
 Canatha, Gerasa, Raphana, and, perhaps, Da- 
 mascus : but there is not much certainty with 
 regard to the ten cities from which the region hail 
 its name. 4. Gaulonitis, extending to the north- 
 east of the Upper Jordan and of the lake of Gen- 
 nesareth. 5. Ba'afwa, tlie ancient Bashan, but 
 
 less cxten^e, east of the lake of Gennesareth, 
 0. Auranitis, also called Itura-a, a ad known to 
 this day by the old name of Hainan (Ezek. xlvii. 
 16-18), to the north of Batansea and the east of 
 Gaulonitis. 7. Trachonitis, extending to the north 
 of Gaulonitis, and east from Paneas (Caesarea 
 Philippi) and the sources of the Jordan, where 
 it was separated from Galilee (Luke iii. 1). 
 8. Abilene, in the extreme north, among the 
 mountains of Anti-Libanus, between Baalbec 
 and Damascus. The more important of these 
 names have been noticed under their several 
 heads. 
 
 Situation and Boundaries. — Syria lies at 
 the easternmost extremity of tlie Mediterranean 
 Sea, upon a line of coast which, if prolonged 
 northward, might have been conterminous with the 
 eastern extremity of the Black Sea, did not the 
 peninsula of Asia Minor intervene. It forms 
 part of the western coast of Asia, and ha 3 Asia 
 Minor aif* Mesopotamia on the north, Arabia on 
 the east ai.d south east, Egypt on the south-west, 
 and the Mediterranean on the west. Of this re- 
 gion Palestine is the south-western part, extend- 
 ing from the mountains of Lebanon to the borders 
 of Egypt. It lies about midway between the 
 equator and the polar circle, to which happy po- 
 sition it owes the fine medium climate which it 
 possesses. Its length is embraced between 30-* 40' 
 and 33° 32' of N. latitude, and between 33° 45' of 
 E. longitude in the south-west, and 35° 48' in the 
 north-east. The line of coast from north to south 
 trends westward, which causes the country be- 
 tween the coast and the valley of the Jordan to he 
 much wider in the south than in tlie north. But 
 where the country was narrowest there were pos- 
 sessions on the east of the river, and where widest, 
 there were none beyond the line of the river, so 
 that the actual breadth of territory was in some 
 degree equalized throughout ; and may he taken 
 at an average of sixty-five miles, tlie extreme 
 breadth being about 100 miles. The length, from 
 Mount Ilermon in the north, to which the ter- 
 ritory of Manasseh beyond the Jordan extended 
 (Josh. xiii. 11), to Kadesh-harnea in the south, 
 to which the territory of Judah reached, was 180 
 miles. The above measurement is considerably 
 greater than that which is usually given. This 
 is because the usual measurement is founded 
 upon the authority of the popular scriptural 
 phrase ‘ from Dan to Beersheba.’ But that phrase 
 was only used to designate the length of the 
 country west of the river; for it. is clear that the 
 territory beyond the line of the Jordan reached 
 far more to the north, even to Mount Hermon 
 (now Jebel-es-Sheikh), while on the south we 
 now know that Kadesh-harnea, on the borders 
 of the great Arabah, or valley south of tlie Dead 
 Sea, was on a parallel considerably to the south 
 of Beersheba. Even in making the measure- 
 ment from Dan to Beersheba only, the extent 
 would be greater than has usually been given, 
 seeing that Beersheba is now ascertained to be 
 considerably to the south of the position formerly 
 assigned to it. In fixing tlie limits a3 from Dan 
 to Beersheba, it lias been forgotten that the popu- 
 lar usage merely described two well-known points 
 towards the opposite extremities of the land, and 
 does not imply that there was no territory north- 
 ward of Dan or southyardof Beersheba. The usags 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE, 
 
 45* 
 
 ra the same that according to which it was for- 
 merly customary to describe the length of England 
 by the phrase, from London to York, although 
 there is much country north of York and south of 
 London Dan was the northernmost and Beer- 
 aheba t e southernmost great and well-known 
 towns of tiie land. Dan was also near the northern 
 frontier of the western territory; but although 
 in the tract beyond Beersheba southward, there 
 were few inhabited sites, it is not mere desert, 
 as was formerly supposed; but, as some years 
 since conjectured ( Pictorial Bible , on Josh, xiii.), 
 and since proved by Dr. Robinson (Bib. Re- 
 searches, i. 281-30<)), consists of good pasture 
 grounds, into which the inhabitants of the settled 
 country sent, their flocks to graze. 
 
 Under this more extended view, Palestine may 
 be regarded as embracing an area of almost 1 1 ,000 
 square miles, which iy somewhat more than is 
 usually given to it. Having arrived at this re- 
 sult, we are enabled to give some suggestive com- 
 parisons of its extent, as contrasted witli that of 
 other countries, and find that ‘ this does not give 
 a superficial extent equal to one-fourth of Eng- 
 land and Wales, nor more than two-filths of Scot- 
 land, Ireland, or Portugal. Bavaria and Sar- 
 dinia offer an area about twice as large; that of 
 Denmark is about one-third larger, but according 
 to the estimate we have made, the area of Pales- 
 tine is nearly double that of Wales, Wirtemberg, 
 or Tuscany. Thus, as to mere extent, the coun- 
 try can only be compared to some of the smaller 
 European states, of which Hanover, Belgium, 
 Switzerland, and the Papal States, appear to offer 
 the nearest approximations. But the real surface 
 is much 'greater than this estimate and these com- 
 parisons would imply ; for Palestine being essen- 
 tially a hilly country, the sides of the mountains 
 and the slopes of the hills enlarge the available 
 surface to an extent which does not admit of cal- 
 culation’ (Physical Geog., p. xxviii., in Kittos 
 Pictorial Hist, of Palestine). Still, with all 
 allowances, Palestine is an exceedingly smfall 
 country in proportion to the interest which has 
 been concentrated on it; and this fact, as com- 
 pared with the large claims to attention advanced 
 by and for the ancient inhabitants, has given 
 occasion for ancient unbelievers and modern 
 infidels to blaspheme. Cicero could infer the 
 littleness of the Hebrew god from the smallness 
 of the territory he had given to his people ; and 
 the poor blasphemies of such men as Voltaire 
 and Rhegellini are more lamentable, as uttered 
 against the light of history, which shows that the 
 true interest and importance of a country arise, 
 not from its territorial extent, but from the men 
 who form its living soul ; from its institutions, 
 bearing the impress of mind and spirit; ami from 
 the events which grow out of the character and 
 condition of its inhabitants. It is thus that the 
 histories of such small countries as Phoenicia, 
 Greece, early Rome, Venice, Holland, England, 
 possess an interest and importance to which ihose 
 of countries of ten times their extent cannot pre- 
 sent the slightest claim. 
 
 After this general statement, we may examine 
 the lines of boundary with somewhat more atten- 
 tion. The clearest description of them is that con- 
 tained in Num. xxxiv. In going through that 
 chapter on a former occasion ( Pictorial Bible ), 
 die present w liter had an opportunity of stating 
 
 nis views on the subject at greater length than 
 can be afforded in this general summary. Sub- 
 sequent inquiry has only confirmed the concliv 
 sions at which he then arrived, and which may 
 nere be summarily stated. 
 
 The Soitth Boundary. The text (N urn. xxxiv. 
 3, 5) we read thus : ‘ Your south border shall be 
 at the wilderness of Zin adjoining to Edom, and 
 your south border shall be at the utmost point of 
 the great sea southward.’ There is here a general 
 description of the line, namely, that it extends 
 from the desert of Zin (Wady Arabah), at a 
 point not stated, to the Mediterranean, at a point 
 also not stated. Then in the following verses the 
 Writer returns to state the particulars of this same 
 boundary line : * Your south border shall wind 
 by the ascent of Akrabbim (at the end of the 
 Dead Sea), and pass on (down the Arabah) to 
 Zin ; and thence extending (still southward down 
 the Arabah), to the south of Kadesh-barnea , it 
 shall go on to Hazar-addar, and pass on to Az- 
 mon. And from Azmon the boundary shall wind 
 about to the river of Egypt, and its teimination 
 shall be at the sea.’ What is here said respecting 
 Hazar-addar and Azmon we do not understand, 
 as the sites have not been determined; but with- 
 out this, it is clear that the writer, after prolonging 
 the eastern boundary line from the end of the 
 Dead Sea down the edge of the Arabah, to a 
 point somewhere south of Kadesh-barnea, then 
 turns off westward to form the southern line, 
 which he extends to the Mediterranean, at a 
 point where ‘ the river of Egypt’ falls into the 
 sea. This river of Egypt is usually, and on 
 very adequate grounds, supposed to be the stream 
 which falls info the sea near El-Arish. In for- 
 merly considering this matter, we had to prove 
 the position of Kadesh-barnea by argument.; but 
 Dr. Robinson has relieved us from the necessity 
 of reproducing this argument, by having actually 
 identified the site at a point very near to that in 
 which we had placed it. This conclusion obliged 
 us to draw the southern boundary line much to 
 the south of Beersheba (which, it will be observed, 
 is not. named in these verses), and thus to assign 
 to Palestine a large and important tract of coun- 
 try which had not formerly been ascribed to 
 Israel. The determination of the site of Kadesh- 
 barnea makes all the rest clear; for it is certain 
 that the boundary was drawn south of that place, 
 which is on a parallel 32 minutes south of that of 
 Beersheba. 
 
 The H'est Border, In the 6th verse of the 
 same chapter (Num. xxxiv.) the western border 
 is stated as defined by the Mediterranean coast. 
 This was the boundary of Palestine; but the 
 Hebrews never possessed the whole of it. The 
 northern part of the coast from Sidon to Akko 
 (Acre) was in the hands of the Phoenicians, and 
 the southern part, from Azof us to Gaza, was re- 
 tained by the Philistines, except at. intervals, in 
 and after the time of David, when they were sub- 
 ject to the Hebrew sceptre [Phii.istines] ; and 
 a central portion, about one-third of the whole, 
 from Mount Carmel to Jabneh (Jamnia) was 
 alone permanently open to the Israelites. The rea- 
 son for the non-possession of the Philistine territory 
 has been stated: and the reason for their not occu- 
 pying the coast, from the border of Sidon to Cannel 
 we take to be this. At the time of the conquest tire 
 southernmost Phoenician town was Sidon, to the 
 
t&4 
 
 PALESTINE, 
 
 PALESTINE 
 
 very border of which the coast assigned to Israel 
 extended (Josh. xix. 21); but as the Hebrews 
 neglected to appropriate this territory, the Phoe- 
 nicians did so, and founded thereon Tyre and 
 other settlements. Tyre is admitted to have l>een 
 ‘the daughter of Sidon’ (Isa. xxii. 12), and there 
 are no traces of its existence in the time of Joshua. 
 The friendly relations which afterwards grew up 
 prevented the Hebrews from urging their claim to 
 the narrow slip of coast south of Sidon, which the 
 Phoenicians had appropriated, and which indeed 
 the Hebrews, as an agricultural people, did not 
 feel the want of, though it was invaluable to the 
 Phoenicians. This sufficiently accounts for the 
 exception. 
 
 The North Border is as difficult to define as 
 the south. The verses in which it is described we 
 read thus : ‘ This shall be your north boundary ; 
 from the great sea ye shall draw a line to the 
 great mountain [Lebanon] ; from the great moun- 
 tain ye shall draw your border to the entering in 
 of Hamath ; and the boundary shall pass on to 
 Zedad, and the boundary shall go on to Ziph- 
 ron, and its termination shall be at Hazarenan ’ 
 (Nutn. xxxiv. 7-9). This only refers to the 
 northern boundary of the western territory, or 
 Canaan Proper, and we may therefore extend it 
 in the same direction to Mount Hermon, for the 
 purpose of completing the northern boundary. 
 The Authorized Version of this text has created 
 some confusion by translating "liimn hor 
 ha-hor by ‘ Mount Hor;’ but the phrase, which 
 literally means ‘ mountain of the mountain,’ that 
 is, ‘the great mountain,’ obviously denotes Le- 
 banon. W e think that we cannot be mistakeu in 
 understanding that the line commenced at the 
 sea somewhere not far to the south of Sidon, 
 whence it was extended to Lebanon, and crossing 
 the narrow valley (here called ‘ the entering in of 
 Hamath ’), which leads, into the great plain en- 
 closed between Libanus and Anti-Libanus, ter- 
 minated at Mount Hermon, in the latter range. 
 This arrangement of the northern line of boundary 
 seems to us to meet all the difficulties arising from 
 deficient knowledge, which have hung like a 
 dense mist over the northern boundary of Pales- 
 tine. 
 
 The Eastern Boundary, as respects Canaan 
 Proper, was defined by the Jordan and its lakes; 
 bat as respects the whole country, including the 
 portion beyond the Jordan, it is not so easily deter- 
 mined ; yet it may be made out with close atten- 
 tion. Salchah was a town on the eastern limits 
 of Bashan, and also, therefore, of the Hebrew 
 territory (Deut. iii. 10 ; Josh. xii. o). There is a 
 town in the Hauran of the name of Salkhad, 
 visited by Burckhardt ( Syria , p. 99), who calls it 
 Szalkhat, and which Gesenius is disposed to 
 identify with Salchah. This place is more to 
 the east than the territory usually assigned to the 
 Israelites; and if the identification is to be relied 
 upon, the line drawn to this place from Hermon 
 must have included a considerable breadth of 
 country. From this point, however, the line 
 must have inclined somewhat sharply to the 
 south-west, and it would be best, to bring it to the 
 point where the Wady-ed-Deir en'ers the Zerlca, 
 and thence extend it almost due south to the 
 Anion, which was the southern limit of the 
 eastern territory. The necessity of bringing the 
 eastern boundary line so far west as Wady-ed- 
 
 Deir, arises from tne obligation of excluding the 
 site of Amman, as that city certainly did not 
 belong to the Israelites. 
 
 Mineralogy. — Under this head we know not 
 that we can do better than introduce the observ- 
 ations of Professor Schubert in his Reise nach 
 deni Morgenlande : — ‘ As regards the mineralogy 
 of the Jerusalem neighbourhood, and, if I may 
 form a judgment from the districts through 
 which I passed, of the Holy Land generally, I 
 should say that the mountains on the west ol 
 the Jordan consist chiefly of chalk, on which 
 basalt begins to occur beyond Cana (northward), 
 as is manifestly exhibited in the heights of Hat- 
 tin, and in the western descent to the lake of 
 Tiberias, in such large quantity and great ex- 
 tent as I have never Wfore observed. That 
 the so-called white limestone, which is met 
 with around Jerusalem and thence to Jericho, 
 which covers the summit and forms the declivi- 
 ties of the Mount of Olives, and which is also 
 found at Mount Tabor and around Nazareth, is 
 a kind of chalk, is obvious to any one but 
 slightly acquainted with mineralogy.’ By this 
 we suppose Schubert means that it is a chalk 
 considerably Indurated, and approaching to whit- 
 ish compact limestone, such as may be seen in 
 Normandy, on the high road bordering the Seine, 
 between Havre and Rouen. ‘ Layers and de- 
 tached masses of flint,’ Schubert continues, ‘ are 
 very commonly seen in it ; and these mountains 
 preserve the character of their formation, as well 
 in their more solid condition, resembling Alpine 
 limestone and Schniirl-limestone, as in their 
 softer organization, which has a likeness to chalk- 
 mail. Besides this indurated chalk, a stone is 
 found in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, 
 chiefly towards the north, as well as towards Safet, 
 and in other parts of the country, which, together 
 with the dolomite formation occasionally met 
 with, I could not but consider to be of what 
 in Germany is called the Jura formation. 1 
 am supported in this conclusion by the opinion 
 of a professional gentleman, M. Ilussegger, the 
 distinguished geologist, who travelled in Pales- 
 tine at a later period. He also describes the 
 stone of which I am Speaking as “ a formation 
 which, according to all external and internal w; 
 marks, is to be classed with the upper Jura 
 formation, the oolite, and the Jura-dolomite.” 
 Among the Jura-chalk, containing dolomite, of 
 Jerusalem, Russegger found limestones contain- 
 ing much iron, but no dolomite ; and this forma- 
 tion he was disposed to class with the inferior 
 oolites.’ After mentioning that an unfortunate 
 accident, which deprived him of the use of the 
 extensive geological collections made by him in 
 Arabia Petraea, &c., prevented him from at pre- 
 sent. entering into the subject so largely as he 
 wished, he subjoins : ‘ This one observation on the 
 mineralogy of Palestine may, however be added, 
 that it deserves to be most emphatically called 
 the country of salt, which is produced in vast 
 abundance, chiefly in the neighbourhood of the 
 Dead Sea, which deserves to be regarded as one 
 of the great natural salt-works of the world.’ - 
 
 Under this head it may be noted that the fine 
 impalpable desert-sand, which proves so menacing 
 to travellers, and even to inhabitants, is scarcely 
 found in Palestine Proper ; but it occurs beyond 
 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 Lebanon, near Beirut, and in the neighbourhood 
 of Damascus. 
 
 Palestine is eminently a country of caverns, 
 to which there is frequent allusion in Scripture 
 i C aves], and which are hardly so numerous in 
 any country of the same extent. Many of tiiem 
 were enlarged by the inhabitants, and even arti- 
 ficial grottoes were formed by manual labour. 
 In these the inhabitants still like to reside ; as in 
 summer they afford protection from the heat, and 
 in winter from cold and rain. Even now, in 
 many places, houses are observed built so near to 
 rock's, that their cavities may be used for rooms 
 or sheds suited to the condition of the seasons. 
 Though the country is not unfrequently visited 
 by earthquakes, they leave behind no such fright- 
 ful traces as those of Asia Minor ; as the vaults 
 of limestone offer more effectual resistance than 
 the sandstone of the latter country. While the 
 great earthquake of January 1, 1837, precipitated 
 many buildings to the ground in and around 
 Nazareth, not one of the grottoes dedicated to de- 
 votion was in the slightest degree injured, or their 
 contents disturbed. 
 
 We are glad to see so competent a witness as 
 Schubert bear his testimony to the natural re- 
 sources of the soil, which superficial observers, 
 judging only from present appearance, have so 
 often questioned. He says, ‘The ridge of chalk 
 mountains, chiefly those containing marl, is in 
 most places so irrigated by water, and so acted 
 upon by the sun, as to be remarkable for the 
 luxuriant growth of the great variety of plants 
 with which they are adorned. The basalt moun- 
 tains give birth to numerous springs. No soil 
 could be naturally more fruitful and fit for cul- 
 tivation than that of Palestine, if man had not 
 destroyed the source of fertility by annihilating 
 the former green covering of the hills and slopes, 
 and thereby destroying the regular circulation 
 of sweet water, which ascends as vapour frojn the 
 sea to be cooled in the higher regions, and then 
 descends to form the springs and rivers, for it is 
 well known that the vegetable kingdom performs 
 in this circulation the function of capillary 
 tubes. But although the natives, from exas- 
 peration against their foreign conquerors and 
 rulers (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xii. 54), and the in- 
 vaders who have so often overruled this scene of 
 ancient blessings, have greatly reduced its pros- 
 perity, still I cannot comprehend how not only 
 scoffers like Voltaire, but early travellers, who 
 doubtless intended to declare the truth, represent 
 Palestine as a natural desert, whose soil never 
 could have been fit for pr ifitable cultivation. 
 Y Vlioever saw the exhaustless abundance of plants 
 on Carmel and the border of the desert, the grassy 
 carpet of Esdraelon, the lawns adjoining the 
 Jordan, and the rich foliage of the forests of 
 Mount Tabor ; whoever saw the borders of the 
 lakes of Merom and Gennesareth, wanting only 
 the cultivator to entrust to the soil his seed 
 and plants, may state what other country on 
 earth, devastated by two thousand years of warfare 
 and spoliation, could be more fit for being again 
 taken into cultivation. The bountiful hand of 
 the Most High, which formerly showered abund- 
 ance upon this renowned land, continues to be 
 still open to those desirous of his blessings.’ 
 
 There are some very excellent remarks on this 
 subject in Dr. Olin’s Travels (ii. 235-240), to 
 
 456 
 
 which we must be content to refer the reader, 
 being prevented by wan* c f room from intro- 
 ducing them in tins place 
 
 Levels. — Annexed to the additions to his 
 Palastina , which Raumer has lately published, 
 under the title of Bettriige zur Biblischen Geo- 
 graphic, 1813, there is an engraved scale of levels 
 in Palestine. This document is curious and valu- 
 able, and embodies the observations of Schubert, 
 Ruppell, Russegger, and others, whose scientific 
 observations are more important than the rough 
 guesses of ordinary travellers. We shall copy 
 the results in the subjoined table, and then offer 
 some remarks upon them. The measurements 
 are in Paris feet, above and below the level of the 
 Dead Sea. 
 
 Above. 
 
 Great Hermon 10,000 
 
 Mount St. Catherine (in Sinai) 8063 
 
 Jebel Mousa (in Sinai) . . 7033 
 
 Jehel et-Tyli (in Sinai) . . 4300 
 
 Jebel er-Ramali .... 3000 
 
 Kanneytra 2850 
 
 Hebron ...... 2700 
 
 Mount of Olives .... 2536 
 
 Sinjil 2520 
 
 Safet 2500 
 
 Mount Gerizim .... 2400 
 
 Semua ....... 2225 
 
 t Damascus 2186 
 
 Kidron (brook) .... 2140 
 
 Nabulus 1751 
 
 Mount Tabor 1748 
 
 Pass of Zephath .... 1437 
 
 Desert of et-Tyh .... 1400 
 
 Nazareth 821 
 
 Zerin 515 
 
 Plain of Esdraelon . . . 459 
 
 Below. 
 
 Lake of Tiberias .... 84 * 
 
 The Arahah at Kadesh . . 91 
 
 Dead Sea 1337* 
 
 Some of these results are so extraordinary, that 
 one might occupy whole pages in discussing them. 
 The most important of them will be considered 
 under their proper heads; and it. is here only ne- 
 cessary to indicate a few of the more marked 
 results. First, here is the remarkable fact, that 
 the Mount of Olives and the Kidron, and conse- 
 quently Jerusalem, stand 700 feet higher than 
 the top of Mount Tabor, and about 2500 feet 
 above the level of the Mediterranean. More to 
 the south, Hebron stands on still higher ground ; 
 and while it. is 2700 feet above the sea on the 
 one band, the Asphaltic Lake lies 4000 feet below 
 it on the other. This fact has no known parallel 
 in any other region, and within so short a distance 
 of the sea : and the extraordinary depression of 
 the lake (1337 feet below the sea level) adequately 
 accounts for the very peculiar climate which its 
 remarkable basin exhibits. The points at Tiberias 
 to the north, and Kadesh to the south of the Dead 
 
 * These measurements are in English feet, ami 
 give the results of the lines of altitude carried 
 from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea and the 
 Lake of Tiberias, by the British engineers left in 
 Syria to make a military survey of the country, 
 when the fleet was withdrawn from the coast in 
 1841. 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 4 66 
 
 8ea, are both, and nearly equally, below tlie 
 Mediterranean level, and, taken together, they 
 show the great, slope both from the north and from 
 the south towards the Dead Sea, confirming the 
 discovery of Dr. Robinson, that the water-shed to 
 tire south of the Asphaltic Lake is towards its 
 basin, and that, therefore, the Jordan could not 
 at any time, as the country is at present consti- 
 tuted, have flowed on southward to the Elanitic 
 Gulf, as was formerly supposed On the effects 
 resulting from this greal inequality of surface, we 
 cannot do better than cite the observations of 
 Schubert ( Reise , iii. 104), which are of somewhat 
 general application, although suggested by the 
 extraordinary elevation of the site of Jerusalem. . . 
 4 Apart from the grandeur of this country's his- 
 tory, nature lias stamped on its surface such dis- 
 tinguishing and peculiar features as hardly any 
 other portion of the world exhibits. This ob- 
 servation applies in particular to the neighbour- 
 hood of Jerusalem. W ithout taking into account 
 
 the girdle of heights in its immediate neighbour- 
 hood, the ascent on all sides to this high-seated 
 town is very considerable. It is nearly 2500 
 feet above the' sea, which is an elevation belong- 
 ing to few cities of the Eastern hemisphere equally 
 near the sea. The ascent is, however, most strik- 
 ing from the east, from the vicinity of the Dead 
 Sea, and the Jordan. Science has in our time 
 made such progress., that the question may be 
 fairly raised : — is there any place on earth wlrere 
 extraordinary elevations and depressions co-exist 
 •o near eacli other as they do here, where in the 
 distance of seven hours' slow travel we find a de- 
 pression of at least GOO feet, and an elevation of 
 more than four times that amount below and 
 above the level of the sea? The difference of 
 elevation between Jerusalem and the plain of 
 Jericho (near ihe village so called) is upwards of 
 3000 feet. Now it is supposed that. 100 metres 
 of this difference occasion a difference of climate 
 equal to that which would tie produced by a 
 degree of latitude: and consequently the tem- 
 perature of points so near to each other must be 
 equal to the difference between places so remote 
 in latitude as Rome and London. While the 
 climate in t he plain of the Jordan and Dead Sea 
 is similar to that of Southern Arabia and the 
 Delta of the Nile, that of Jerusalem exhibits a 
 temperature similar to that of the isle of Lemnos 
 and the ancient Troy, or that of the vale of 
 Tempe and the midtile districts of Sardinia. 
 Anil if, from the observations of a few weeks only 
 (but made in April when the temperature is 
 nearly at the average of the year), an inference 
 may he drawn, it will probably be near the 
 mark to estimate the average heat of the summer 
 at 84 or 85 degrees of Fahrenheit. 
 
 Mountains. — As all the principal mountains 
 of Palestine are noticed in this work under their 
 respective names, a few general observations are 
 all that here seem necessary. Schubert's remarks, 
 given in this article under the heads Mineralogy 
 and Levels, still further limit the scope of the ob- 
 servations to he offered, which will consist of a 
 bird’s-eye view over the country from north to 
 couth. 
 
 To Lebanon, which forms the northern boundary 
 of the land [Lebanon], succeeds the high table- 
 land of Gab lee, which extents to the plain of 
 
 Esdraelon, and the general height of which above 
 the sea may, by a comparison of levels, be esti- 
 mated at between 900 and 1000 feet. The elevated 
 situation of this region is evinced by the gradual 
 declivity which it exhibits on all sides but tl>e north, 
 — sloping on the East towards the Jordan and its 
 upper lakes, on the west to the plain of the Acre, 
 and on the south to the plain of Esdraelon. Tra- 
 vellers express surprise at the deep descent from the 
 comparatively level plains of Galilee to the lake 
 of Tiberias, which, as we have seen, is 905 Paris 
 feet below the level of Nazareth. This table-land 
 is not without its eminences. The chief of these 
 is Jebel Safet, which is seen to tower conspicuously 
 and isolated, from every point except the north. 
 This is one of the highest summits in Palestine 
 (2500 Paris feet), although being merely a peak of 
 the high table-land from which it. rises, it does not 
 seem to exceed elevations rising from lower levels, 
 which are scarcely inferior. Still it is very high, 
 even in apparent altitude. Toe summit of this 
 lofty and steep mountain is crowned by a castle, 
 and a little below the summit there is a city. This 
 city is supposed to he that which our Saviour had 
 in view, as ‘ a city set on a hill,’ in his sermon 
 on the Mount (Matt. v. 4): but it is doubtful if 
 any city existed there so early, although modem 
 ecclesiastical tradition has been disposed to regard 
 this as the Bethulia of Judith [Bktuulia]. The 
 mountain itself is not named in Scripture, unless, 
 as is probable, it he the ‘ mountain of Naphtali,’ 
 mentioned in Josh. xx. 9. Among the swells of 
 this table-land are the Khurun Hattin (Homs 
 of IJaltin). This is a ridge about a quarter of 
 a mile in length, and thirty or forty feet high, 
 terminating at eacli end in an elevated peak, 
 which gives the ridge the shape of a saddle. This 
 is alleged to have been the place from which our 
 Lord delivered his famous Sermon on the Mount 
 to the multitude standing in the adjacent plain. 
 The authority for this is very doubtful; and in 
 the neighbourhood, towards Tiberias, there are at 
 least a dozen other eminences which would just 
 as well .answer to the circumstances of the history. 
 One of these, nearly three miles south-east of this, 
 is by similarly uncertain tradition alleged to lie 
 the spot where the five thousand were fed with five 
 loaves, although that, miracle probably took place 
 on the east side of the lake of Tiberias (Matt., 
 xiv. 13-21). 
 
 If we consider the difference of elevation l>e- 
 tween the highland of Galilee and the low plain 
 of Esdraelon, we shall see reason to regard the 
 mountains and ridges of the border between them, 
 and which form as it were the boundaries of the 
 low plain, as merely detached or connected 
 recesses, or peaks of the highland. The moun- 
 tains of Gilboa and Hermon, which bound the 
 plain of Esdraelon on the East, are certainly no 
 other than portions of this high land, though they 
 become mountains from the lower level of the great 
 plain. Tabor itself seems but as one advanced 
 peak or promontory of the high lands of Galilee 
 [TabokJ. On the west the Great Plain it 
 bounded by Carmel, which may be either regard- 
 ed as a detached ridge, or as connected with the 
 mountains of Samaria, which rise beyond the plain 
 on the south [Cakmej.]. 
 
 Southward of the plain of Esdraelon, through 
 out to the borders of the southern desert, is an 
 almost unbroken mountainous country, or ridge of 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 457 
 
 mountains, extending north and south. It offers 
 few conspicuous {joints, but its general elevation 
 in the centre may be determined by that of 
 Geriziin in the north (2100 Paris feet), of Olivet 
 in the centre (2536 P. feet.), and of Hebron in the 
 south (2700 P. feet). The ascent to the higher 
 and central region from the plain of the coast on 
 the west is gradual, by a succession ol natural 
 terraces; but eastward, in the direction ot the 
 Jordan and Dead Sea, t he descents are compara- 
 tively abrupt and precipitous. 
 
 There is no distinct natural boundary between 
 the mountains of Samaria and Judaea. 1 he hills 
 of Samaria exhibit scenery very different lrom 
 those of Galilee. They are often beautifully 
 wooded, and the region is more populous and 
 better cultivated than any other part of Palestine. 
 Among numerous venerable olive-woods towns 
 and villages are scattered in every direction, 
 and some of the views rival those of Switzer- 
 land. Tf.e principal mountains of Samaria are 
 those of Ebal and Gerizim, which have been de- 
 scribed under the proper heads (Morison, ii. 10 ; 
 Buckingham, Palestine, ch. xcii. ; Elliot, ii. 3S0; 
 Olin, ii. 354). 
 
 The mountains of Judaea, although of greater 
 historical celebrity, are now less attractive than 
 those of Samaria, but apparently for no other 
 reason than that their cultivation has been more 
 neglected. The hills are generally separated from 
 each other by valleys and torrents, and are for the 
 most part of moderate height, uneven, and seldom 
 of any regular figure. The rock of which they 
 are composed is easily converted into mould, 
 which, being arrested by terraces when washed 
 down by the rains, renders the hills cultivable, in 
 a series of long narrow gardens, formed by these 
 terraces, from the base upwards. Thus the hills 
 were clad in former time most abundantly, and 
 enriched and beautified with the fig-tree, the olive, 
 and the vine; and it is in this way that the 
 limited cultivation which survives is still carried 
 on. But when the inhabitants were thinned out, 
 and cultivation abandoned, the terraces fell to 
 decay, and the soil which had collected on them 
 was washed down into the valleys, leaving only the 
 arid rock, bare and desolate. This is the general 
 character of the hills of J udaea ; but in some parts 
 they are beautifully wooded, and in others the 
 application of the ancient mode of culture suggests 
 to the traveller how productive the country once 
 was, and how fair the aspect which it offered 
 (Kitto’s Palestine; Phys. Geog. p. xxxix. ; comp. 
 Mariti, ii. 362; Elliot, ii. 407, 408 ; Olin, ii. ; 
 Raumer, Palastina, p. 47, sq.). 
 
 The characteristics of desolation which have 
 been indicated, apply with peculiar force to 
 the northern part of Judaea, forming the ancient 
 territory of Benjamin. Its most favourably-situ- 
 ated mountains are wholly uncultivated; and 
 perhaps in no other country is such a mass of 
 rock exhibited without an atom of soil. In 
 the East, towards the plain of Jericho, it takes 
 a naturally stern and grand character, such as 
 no other part of Palestine offers. It is through 
 this wild and melancholy region that the roads 
 from Jerusalem to Jericho, and (by way of Wady 
 Saba) to the Dead Sea lie. It has hence, by the 
 former route, often been passed by travellers in 
 their pilgrimages to the Jordan ; and they unite in 
 depicting it in the most gloomy hues. ‘ The road,’ 
 
 says Dr. Olin, ‘runs along fhe edge of steep pre- 
 cipices and yawning gulfs, and in a few places is 
 overhung with the crags of the mountain. The 
 aspect of the whole region is peculiarly savage and 
 dreary, vying in these respects, though not in over- 
 powering grandeur, with the wilds of Sinai. The 
 mountains seem to have been loosened from their 
 foundations, and rent in pieces by some terrible 
 convulsion, and there left to he scathed by the 
 burning rays of the sun, which scorches the land 
 with consuming heat' ( Travels , ii. 197). These 
 characteristics became more manifest on approach 
 •ing the Jordan ; and the wild region exteudiugnorth 
 of the road is believed, with sufficient probability 
 to form ‘the wilderness 1 where, after his baptism 
 Jesus ‘was led up of the Spirit, to be tempted ol 
 the devil,’ and where ‘be lasted forty days am. 
 forty nights 1 (Matt. iv. 1, 2). The lofty ridge 
 which extends north of the road, and fronts the 
 plain of Jericho, is called Quarantana, with refer- 
 ence to this event, and the particular summit front 
 which Satan is supposed to have displayed to the 
 Saviour ‘ the kingdoms of the world and the glory 
 of them,’ is crowned by a chapel, still occasionally 
 resorted to by the devouter pilgrims, while the 
 eastern face which overhangs the plain is much 
 occupied with grots and cells, once the favourite 
 abode of pious anchorites. The Quarantana forms, 
 apparently, the highest summit of the whole im- 
 mense pile, and is distinguished for its sere and 
 desolate aspect, even in this gloomy region of 
 savage ami dreary sights. It has not, that we 
 know, been measured, but Dr. Olin computes 
 its height at nearly 2000 feet in perpendicular 
 height ( Travels , ii. 119; Kitto’s Palest.; Phys. 
 Geog. p. xxxix.; Robinson, ii. 289; Hasselquist, 
 p. 128; Maundrell, p. 79; Morison, p. 523; 
 Nau, p. 403). 
 
 In the southern region, usually called in Scrip- 
 ture ‘the hill country of Judah 1 (Matt. iii. 1), 
 there are few mountains of a marked character ; 
 the peaks of the general ridge being of little appa- 
 rent elevation, although actually much elevated 
 above the sea-level. The most remarkable of the 
 whole of this wild region seems to have been dis- 
 tinguished as ‘ the wilderness of Judah 1 (Luke 
 i. 39, 65), while ‘ the mountains of Judah,’ or 
 ‘ the hill country of Judaea, 1 applies to the moun- 
 tainous region south of Jerusalem towards Hebron 
 (Josh. xi. 21; 2 Clnon. xxvii. 4, &o.). To this 
 district belongs the wilderness of Tekoa (2 Citron, 
 xx. 20), and beyond it eastward, ‘ the wilder- 
 ness of Engeddi ’ (l Sam. xxiv. 2), Maon (1 Sam. 
 xxiii. 24, 25), ami Ziph (1 Sam. xxiii. 14, 15), 
 names made familiar to us by the history of David. 
 Here also is the Frank Mountain near Tekoa, 
 which has already been described [Bkthui.ia], 
 as well as the Carmel mentioned in the history 
 of Nabal (Josh. xv. 55 ; 1 Sam. xxv.). It would 
 seem that the hills of southernmost Judaea were, 
 before the conquest of the country by the Hebrews, 
 called ‘the mountains of the Amovites’ (Deut. i. 
 7, 19, 20, 43, 44). This tract has only of late been 
 explored by travellers on the new route from Petra 
 to Hebron, except by Seetzen, at the beginning of the 
 piesent century. To obtain a clear notion of it, we 
 should view it from the great Arabah, beyond the 
 southern extremity of the Dead Sea, whence it was 
 surveyed by the Israelites, when they contemplated 
 entering the Promised Land from the south-east. 
 The two terraces which, towards the south end of 
 
459 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 the Dead Sea on the east side form the descent to 
 its deep basin from the high-lands of Judaea, 
 stretch off to the south-west, and the ascents from 
 the plain to the first, and from the plateau of the 
 first to the top of the second, which forms the 
 general level of Judaea, present to him who ap- 
 proaches from the lower region of the Arabah, 
 nigh mountain barriers, which he has to ascend 
 by gorges or passes of more or less difficult ascent. 
 After ascending from the great valley the traveller 
 passes over a wild district covered with rocky hills, 
 till he comes to the frontier wall of the first terrace 
 or step, and which was probably pre-eminently '■the 
 mountain of the Amorites.’ There are in this three 
 orincipal passes ; the southernmost being that of 
 Nubeh-es-Sufah, the Zephath of Scripture, called 
 also Hormah, which we know to have been the pass 
 by which the Israelites attempted to enter Palestine 
 from Kadesh, when they were driven back (Dent, 
 i. 44; Num. xiv. 45; Judg. i. 17). The top of this 
 pass is given in the table of Levels, on the authority 
 of Schubert, as 14 44 feet above the level of the sea. 
 A particular description of this ‘vast inclined 
 plane of rock’ may be seen in Robinson’s Re- 
 searches (ii. 590). On reaching the top a journey 
 of three hours among hills of chalky limestone 
 brings the traveller to the second great ascent to 
 the general level of the hill country of eastern 
 Judaea. This second ascent is similar to the first, 
 but not more than half as high. This statement 
 will convey some idea of that difficulty of mili- 
 tary access to the country in this direction which 
 eventually induced the invading Hebrews to take 
 another and more circuitous route. 
 
 In the direct south of Judah the approach is 
 marked by an ascent more gradual, over a suc- 
 cession of less elevated plateaus, from the desert 
 legions of sand and rock to the hills of Judah. 
 Recent discoveries in that quarter, chiefly those of 
 I)r. Robinson, have shown that much of the south 
 border country, which was formerly regarded as 
 desert, is in fact a variegated region affording good 
 pastures, into which the sheep-masters of Judah 
 doubtless sent their flocks of old. On the moun- 
 tains of Palestine generally, see Raumer’s Paliis- 
 tina , pp. 29-84 ; Winer’s Real-icorterb ., art. 
 ‘ Gebirge Kitto's Palest ., ‘ Phys. Geog.' ch. ii. 
 
 Plains and Valleys. — The two preceding 
 sections will have given an idea of the general 
 arrangement, of the plains and valleys of Pales- 
 tine; and it is therefore here only necessary to 
 indicate those which are separately the most im- 
 portant or the most distinguished. These are 
 those of Lebanon, of the Jordan, of Jericho, of 
 Esdraelon, and of the Coast. 
 
 The Plain of Lebanon may be described as 
 the valley which is enclosed between the parallel 
 mountain ranges of Libiinus and Anti-Libanus. 
 Although the greater part of it must have been with- 
 in Solomon's dominion, it can scarcely be deemed 
 to belong to Palestine Proper; but its geographical 
 and historical connection with that country re- 
 quires its introduction. This enclosed plain is 
 the Ccele-Syria of the ancients, and now hears 
 the name of El-Bekka (the Valley). It is about 
 ninety miles in length, from north to south, by 
 eleven miles in breadth, nearly equal throughout, 
 except that it widens at the northern end anil 
 narrows at the southern. This plain is, pel haps, 
 the most rich and beautif il part of Syria. The 
 
 soil is good, and the water abundant fron the 
 numerous mountain springs on each side ; but 
 the concentration of the sun's rays renders the 
 summer heat excessive. These are the sources of 
 that fertility for which the valley has, in all ages, 
 been renowned ; but oidy a small portion is now 
 cultivated, the rest being left in pasture to the 
 Arab tribes. (La Roque, i. 115-120; Volney, i. 
 271 ; Burckhardt, pp. 4-18, 31 ; Addison, ii, 48- 
 50; Modern Syrians, p. 124). 
 
 The Plain of the Jordan. By this name we 
 understand the margin of the lakes, as well as 
 the valley watered by the river. Here the heat 
 is still greater than in the valley of Lebanon, 
 and. in consequence, palm-trees and the fruits of 
 more southern climes than Palestine, will grow 
 freely wherever there are soil and water. But the 
 latter is usually wanting, and, therefore, except 
 on the immediate borders of the river, of the lake 
 of Gennesareth, and of the lesser streams, the 
 whole plain is barren and desolate: for the in • 
 tense heat which causes exuberant fertility wher- 
 ever there is water, consumes the plain wherever 
 it is wanting. 
 
 The Plain of Jericho is hut an opening or 
 expansion in the plain of the Jordan, towards the 
 Dead Sea. The whole expansion takes in the 
 plains of Moab on the east side of the river, and 
 the plains of Jericho on the west, the breadth 
 across being from ten to twelve miles. In fact, 
 the plain of the Jordan is in no other part so wide. 
 The large plain of Jericho is partly desert, but, 
 from the abundance of water and the heat of the 
 climate, it might lie rendered highly productive; 
 indeed, the fertility of this plain has been cele- 
 brated in every age. Josephus describes it as the 
 most fertile tract of Judaea, and calls it. a ‘ divine 
 region.’ He speaks also of its beautiful gardens, 
 and its groves of palm-trees ; and his description 
 is borne out by Scripture, in which Jericho is 
 described as ‘ The city of palm-trees’ (Deut. 
 xxxiv. 3; Judg. i. 16). This region also pro- 
 duced honey, opobalsam, the cypress-tree (or ei 
 henna), and tnyrobalanum, as well as the com- 
 mon fruits of the earth in prolific abundance 
 The Scripture adds the sycamore-tree to the num- 
 ber of its products (Luke xix. 4). Of all these 
 productions which so distinguished the climate of 
 Jericho, and the greater par t of which it enjoyed 
 in Tommon with Egypt, very few now remain. 
 Only one solitary palm tree lingers in the plain ; 
 the sycamores have altogether disappeared; the 
 celebrated opobalsam is not known ; and the my. 
 robalanutn alone appears to thrive, being probably 
 the thorny shrub, growing wild in the plain, tj 
 which the name of zukkum is given by the present 
 inhabitants — the modern ‘ Balsam of Jericho’ is 
 an oil, extracted from the kernels of the green nut 
 which it hears. (Nau, p. 349 ; Morison, p. 507 ; 
 Surius, p. 491 ; Marit.i, ii. 301 ; Robinson, ii. 
 281, sqq. ; Olin, ii. 220). 
 
 The Plain of Esdraelon is often mentioned in 
 sacred history (Judg. iv. 13, 15, 16; v. 19; 2 
 Kings xxiii. 29; Zech. xii. 11 ; Judith i. 8), 
 as the great battle-field of the Jewish and othei 
 nations, under the names of the Valley of Megiddo 
 and the Valley of Jezreel; and by Josephus at 
 the Great Plain. The convenience of its extent 
 and situation for military action and display has, 
 from the earliest periods of history down to oiu 
 own day, caused its surface', at certain interval^ 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 459 
 
 to be moistened with the blood, and covered with 
 die bodies, of conflicting warriors of almost every 
 nation under heaven. .This extensive plain, ex- 
 clusive of three great arms which stretch eastward 
 towards the valley of the Jordan, may be said 
 to be in the form of an acute triangle, having the 
 measure of thirteen or fourteen miles on the north, 
 aoout, eighteen on the east, and above twenty 
 on the south-west. In the western portion it 
 seems perfectly level, with a general declivity 
 towards the Mediterranean ; but in the east it is 
 somewhat undulated by slight spurs and swells 
 from the roots of the mountains : from the eastern 
 side three great valleys go off to the valley of the 
 Jordan. These valleys are separated by the ridges 
 of Gilboa and Little Hermon, and the space 
 which lies between these two ridges, is the proper 
 valley of Jezreel, which name seems to be some- 
 times given to the whole plain of Esdraelon. 
 The valley of Jezreel is a deep plain, and about 
 three mile3 across. Before the verdure of spring 
 and early summer has been parched up by the 
 heat and drought of the late summer and autumn, 
 the view of the Great Plain is, from its fertility 
 and beauty, very delightful. In June, yellow 
 fields of grain, with green patches of millet and 
 cotton interspersed, chequer the landscape like a 
 carpet. The plain itself is almost without vil- 
 lages, but there are several on the slopes of the 
 enclosing hills, especially on the side of Mount 
 Carmel. (Robinson, ii. 160-162; Olin, ii. 376; 
 Schubert, iii. 163; Clarke, iv. 356-360; Jowett, 
 ii. 192; Stephens, ii. 307; Elliot, ii. 360.) 
 
 The Plain of the Coast is that tract of land 
 which extends along the coast, between the sea 
 and the mountains. In some places, where the 
 mountains approach the sea, this tract is inter- 
 rupted by promontories and rising grounds ; but, 
 taken generally, the whole coast of Palestine may 
 be described as an extensive plain of various 
 breadth. Sometimes it expands into broad plains, 
 at others it is contracted into narrow valleys. 
 With the exception of some sandy tracts the soil 
 is throughout rich, and exceedingly productive. 
 The climate is everywhere very warm, and is 
 considered rather insalubrious as compared with 
 the upland country. It is not mentioned by any 
 one collective name in Scripture. The part 
 fronting Samaria, and between Mount Carmel 
 and Jaffa, near a rich pasture-ground, was called 
 the Valley of Sharon ; and the continuation 
 southward, between Jaffa and Gaza, was called 
 The Plain , as distinguished from the hill-country 
 of Judah. A minute description of this plain 
 throughout its extent is given in Kitto’s Palestine , 
 Phys. Geog. p. c.-cv. 
 
 Rivers. — The Jordan is the only river of any 
 note in Palestine, and besides it there are only 
 two or three perennial streams. The greater 
 number of the streams which figure in the history, 
 and find a place in the maps, are merely torrents 
 or water-courses, which carry off’ the waters in 
 the season of rain, or if they have their origin in 
 springs, are spent, in t^e season of drought, soon 
 after they quit their sources. 
 
 The Jordan. We should like to consider this 
 river simply as the stream issuing from the reser- 
 voir of the lake Huieh, but custom requires its 
 source to be traced to some one or more of the 
 streams which form that reservoir. The two 
 
 largest streams, w/iich enter the lake on the 
 north, are each formed by the junction of two 
 others. It is usual to refer the origin of a river 
 to its remotest sources ; but in this case the larg- 
 est and longest, being the most easterly of the two 
 streams, does not appear to have been at, any time 
 identified with the Jordan — that honour having for 
 ages been ascribed to the western stream ; this 
 river has distinct, sources, at Banias and at Tel- 
 el-Kadi. At. Banias (anciently Paneas , from 
 the worship of Pan) a stream issues from a spa- 
 cious cavern, under a wall of rock, at the base of 
 the Ileish mountains. Directly over the cavern, 
 and in other parts, in the face of the perpendicu- 
 lar rock, niches have been cut to receive statues. 
 Here Herod built a temple in honour of Augus- 
 tus ; and there was a town somewhat below, 
 traces of which still remain. This is, undoubt- 
 edly, that place and cavern, at the foot of a 
 mountain, which Josephus describes as the main 
 source of the Jordan (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 10. 3; 
 De Bell. Jud. i. 21. 3). Yet, in another place 
 {De Bell. Jud. iii. 10. 7), this writer refers the 
 source to a remoter quarter. He relates that the 
 Tetrarch Philip cast some chafl' into the lake 
 Phiala, and as it came out at the Paneas cavern, 
 the lake was deemed the true source of the river. 
 This lake lay 120 stadia eastward, and was deep 
 and round, like a bowl or cup — whence its name 
 Phiala. Such a lake, about a mile in circum- 
 ference and perfectly round, was discovered by 
 Captains Irby and Mangles, as they journeyed 
 from Damascus to Banias, not more than twelve 
 miles from the latter place. 
 
 A second source of the Jordan, as described by 
 ancient writers, is at the place now called Tel-el- 
 Kadi, which is about three miles to the west of 
 the cavern at Banias. The Tell (hill) is a small 
 elevation in the plain, with a flat space on the 
 top : here are two springs, one of which is very 
 large. The united waters immediately form a 
 stream, twelve or fifteen yards across, which 
 rushes rapidly over a stony bed into a lower plain. 
 After a course of about four miles the stream 
 unites with that from Banias, forming the reputed 
 Jordan, which then continues its course to the 
 lake. 
 
 The true Jordan — the stream that quits this 
 lake — passes rapidly along the narrow valley, 
 and between well-shaded banks, to the lake of 
 Gennesareth : the distance is about nine miles. 
 Nearly two miles below the lake is a bridge, 
 called Jacob’s bridge; and here the river is about 
 eighty feet wide, and four feet deep. It is said 
 that, in passing through, the Jordan does not 
 mingle its waters with those of the lake of Gen- 
 nesareth : the same thing is reported of other rivers 
 that pass through lakes. It is certain that the 
 course of the river may be traced through the 
 middle of the lake by a line of smoother water. 
 
 On leaving the lake of Gennesareth the river 
 enters a very broad valley, or Ghor, by which 
 name the natives designate a depressed tract or 
 plain between mountains. This name is applied 
 to the plain of the Jordan, not only between the 
 lake of Gennesareth and the Dead Sea, but quite 
 across the Dead Sea, and to some distance beyond. 
 The valley varies in width from five to ten miles 
 between the mountains on each side. The river 
 does not make its way straight through the midst 
 of the Ghor ; it flows first near the western hills^ 
 
4S9 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 then near ihe eastern, hut advances to the Dead 
 Sea through the middle of the valley. Within 
 this valley there is a lower one. and within that, 
 in some parts, another still lower, through which 
 the river flows; the inner valley is about half a 
 mile wide, and is generally green and beautiful, 
 covered with trees and hushes, whereas the upper or 
 large vallev is, for the most part, sandy or barren. 
 The distance between the two lakes, in a direct 
 line, is about sixty miles. In the first part of its 
 course the stream is clear, but it becomes turbid 
 as it advances to the Dead Sea, probably from 
 passing over beds of sandy clay. The water is 
 very wholesome, always cool, and nearly taste- 
 less The breadth and depth of the river varies 
 much in different places and at different times 
 of the year. Dr. Shaw calculates the average 
 breadth at thirty yards, and the depth at nine 
 feet. In the season of flood, in April and early 
 
 in May, the river is full, and sometimes over- 
 flows its lower banks, to which fact there are 
 several allusions in Scripture (Josh. iii. 15; 1 
 Ohron. xii. 15; Jer. xii. 5: xlix. 19; 1. 44; 
 Ecclus. xxiv. 26). (Nan, p. 272; Shaw, ii. 156 ; 
 Paxton, p. 158; Stephens, ii. 361-363; Burck- 
 hardt, pp. 39-43; 314. 315, 514; Irby and 
 Mangles, pp. 283-290; 304,326; Buckingham, 
 Arab Tribes, pp. 401-106 ; Palestine , i. 90, 93 ; 
 Robinson, ii. 255-267 ; iii. 309-312; 347, 355; 
 Olin, ii. 229-334 ; Schubert, iii. 80-84 ; Pococke, 
 ii. 71 ; Richardson, ii. 425, 445, 416 ; Lindsav, 
 ii. 65, 91 ; Elliot, i. 71-77.) 
 
 The Kishon , that ‘ ancient river,’ by whose 
 wide and rapid stream the hosts of Sisera were 
 swept away (Judg. iv. 13; v. 21), has been no 
 ticed under the proper head [Kishon]. 
 
 The Belus , now called Nahr Kardanus, enters 
 the bay of Acre higher up than the Kishon. It 
 
 444. [Ford of the Jordan-] 
 
 u t 6mall stream, fordable even at its mouth in 
 summer. It is not mentioned in the Bible, and 
 is chiefly celebrated for the tradition, that the 
 accidental vit refaction of its sands taught man 
 the art jf making glass. 
 
 The other streams of note enter ihe Jordan 
 from the east; these are the Jarmuth, the Jabbok, 
 and the Arnon, of which the last two have been 
 noticed under iheir proper heads. The Jarmuth, 
 called also Sheriat~el-Mandhour , anciently Ilie- 
 romax , joins the Jordan five miles below the lake 
 of Gennesareth. Its source is ascribed to a small 
 lake, almost a mile in circumference, at Mezareib, 
 which is thirty miles east, of the Jordan. It is a 
 beautiful stream, and yields a considerable body 
 of water to the Jordan [Arnon ; Jabbok]. 
 
 Lakes. — The river Jordan in its course forms 
 three remarkable lakes, in the last of which, 
 called the Dead . c ’ea, it is lost : — 
 
 The Lake Merom (Joseph. Antiq. xi. 5, 7), 
 or Samoe.honilis (Antiq. v. 5, 1), now called 
 Suleh, the first of these, serves as a kind of reser- 
 
 voir to collect the waters which form the Joidan, 
 and again to send them forth in a single stream. 
 In the spring, when the waters are highest, the 
 lake is seven miles long and three and a half 
 broad ; but in summer it becomes a mere marsh. 
 In some parts it is sown with rice, and its reeds 
 and rushes afford shelter to wild hogs. (Pococke, 
 ii. 71; Burckhardt, p. 316; Irby and Mangles 
 p. 2h0 ; Buckingham, Arab Tribes, p. 309 , 
 Richardson, ii. 450, 451 ; Robinson, ii. 339-342.) 
 
 The Lake of Gennesareth, called also the Sea 
 of Galilee , and the Lake of Tiberias. After 
 quitting the lake Merom, the river Jordan proceeds 
 for about thirteen miles southward, and then enters 
 the great lake of Gennesareth. This lake lies very 
 deep, among fruitful hills and mountains, from 
 which, in the rainy season, many rivulets descend,* 
 its shape will be seen from the map. Its extent has 
 been greatly over-rated : Professor Robinson con- 
 siders that its length, in a straight line, does not 
 exceed eleven or twelve geographical miles, and 
 that its breadth is from five to six miles. From 
 numerous indications, it is judged that the beUot 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 461 
 
 tills lake was formed by some ancient volcanic 
 eruption, which history has not recorded. Its 
 waters are very clear and sweet, and contain vari- 
 ou» Kinds of excellent fish in great abundance. 
 It will be remembered that several of the apostles 
 were fishermen of this lake, and that it was also 
 the scene of several transactions in the life of 
 Christ : it is thus frequently mentioned in the 
 New Testament, but very rarely in the Old, where 
 it is called the Sea of Cinnereth, of which Gen- 
 nesareth is a corruption. The borders of the 
 lake were in the time of Christ well peopled, 
 being covered with numerous towns and villages; 
 but how they are almost, desolate, and the fish and 
 water-fowl are but little disturbed. (Robinson, 
 iii. 253, 264, 312, 314 ; Schubert, iii. 235-243; 
 Olin, ii. 406-408 ; D’Arvieux, ii. 176, 177 ; 
 Clarke, iv. 119-225; Burckhardt, p. 332; Buck- 
 ingham, Palest . ch. xxv. ; Irby and Mangles, 
 p. 295 ; Jowett, pp. 172-176; Hardy, pp. 237- 
 241 ; Elliot, ii. 342-350.) 
 
 The Bead Sea, called also the Salt Sea, the 
 Sea of Sodom, and the Asphaltic Lake ( Lacus 
 Asphaltites ), is from its size the most important, 
 and from its history and qualities the most re- 
 markable, of all the lakes of Palestine. It. was 
 long assumed that this lake did not exist before 
 vhe destruction of Sodom and the other ‘cities of 
 the plain ' (Gen. xix.) ; and that before that time 
 the present bed of the lake was a fertile plain, in 
 which these cities stood. It was also concluded 
 that the river Jordan then flowed through this 
 plain, and afterwards pursued its course, through 
 the great valley of Arabah, to the eastern arm of 
 the Red Sea. The careful observations of Pro- 
 fessor Robinson have now, however, rendered it 
 more probable that a lake which, as now, received 
 Jhe river Jordan, existed here before Sodom was 
 destroyed ; but that an encroachment of the 
 vaters, southward, then took place, overwhelming 
 » beautiful arid well-watered plain which lay on 
 Hie southern border of the lake, and on which 
 Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar 
 were situated. The promontory, or rather penin- 
 sula,* towards the south, which is so distinct a 
 Mature of this lake, probably marks the original 
 boundary of the lake in that direction, and shows 
 the point through which the waters broke into the 
 plain beyond. 
 
 The Dead Sea is about thiity-nine or forty geo- 
 graphical miles long from north to south, and nine 
 or ten miles wide from east to west; and it lies 
 embedded very deep between lofty cliffs on the 
 western side, which are about, 1500 feet high, and 
 mountains on the eastern shore, the highest ridges 
 of which are reckoned to be from 2030 to 2500 
 feet above the water. The water of the lake is 
 much sal ter than that of the sea. From the quantity 
 of salt which the water holds in solution it is thick 
 and heavy, and no fish can live, or marine plants 
 grow in it. The old stories about the pestiferous 
 qualities of the Dead Sea and its wafers are mere 
 fables or delusions ; and actual appearances are 
 the natural av d obvious effects of the confined and 
 deep situation, *ha intense heat, and the uncom- 
 mon saltness cf the waters. Lying in its deep 
 cauldron, surroanded by lofty cliffs of naked 
 limestone rock, exposed for seven or eight months 
 in the year to the unclouded beams of a burning 
 
 sun, nothing but sterility and solitude can b« 
 looked for upon its shores; and nothing else is 
 actually found, except in those parts where there 
 are fountains or streams of fresh water ; in all which 
 places there is a fertile soil and abundant vege- 
 tation. Birds also abound, and they are observed 
 to flyover and across the sea without being, as old 
 stories tell, injured or killed by its exhalations. 
 Professor Robinson was five days in the vicinity 
 of its shores, without being able to perceive that 
 any noisome smell or noxious vapour arose from 
 the bosom of the lake. Its coasts have always 
 been inhabited, and are so now ; and although the 
 inhabitants suffer from fevers in summer, this is 
 not more than might, be expected from the concen- 
 trated beat, of the climate in connection with the 
 marshes. The same effects might be experienced 
 were there no lake, or were the waters fresh instead 
 of salt. 
 
 On the borders of this lake is found much 
 sulphur, in pieces as large as walnuts, and even 
 larger. There is also a black shining stone, which 
 will partly burn in the fire, and which then emits 
 a bituminous smell : this h the ‘ stink-stone ’ of 
 Burckhardt. At Jerusalem it is made into rosaries 
 and toys, of which great quantities are sold to the 
 pilgrims who visit the sacred places. Another 
 remarkable production found here, from which, in- 
 deed, the lake takes one of its names, is asphallum, 
 or bitumen. Josephus says, that ‘ the sea in 
 many places sends up black masses of asphaitum, 
 which float upon the surface, having the size and 
 shape of headless oxen ’ ( Be Bell. Jud. iv. 8, 4). 
 From recent information it appears that large 
 masses are rarely found, and then generally after 
 earthquakes. The substance is doubtless produced 
 from the bottom of the sea, in which it coagulates, 
 and rises to the surface ; or possibly the coagu- 
 lation may have been ancient, and the substance 
 adheres to the bottom until detached by earth- 
 quakes and other convulsions, when its buoyancy 
 brings it to the surface. We know that ‘ the vale 
 of Siddim ’ (Gen. xiv. 10) was anciently ‘full of 
 slime pits ’ or sources of bitumen ; and these, now 
 under the water, probably supply the asphaitum 
 which is found on such occasions (Nau, pp. 577, 
 578; Morison, ch. xxx. ; Shaw, ii. 157, 158; 
 Hasselquisr, pp. 130, 131,284; Irby and Mangles, 
 pp. 351-356, 346-359 ; Hardy, pp. 201 204 ; 
 Monro, i. 145-148; Elliott, ii. 479 486 ; Wilde, 
 ii. ; Lindsay, ii. 64-66; Stephens, ii. ch. 15; 
 Paxton, pp. 159-163; Robinson, ii. 204-239 
 601 -60S ; 661-677 ; Schubert, iii. 84-92; Olin, 
 ii. 234-245). 
 
 Ci.imatr and Seasons. — The variations of 
 Sunshine and rain which, with us, extend through- 
 out the year, are in Palestine confined chiefly to 
 the latter part of autumn and the winter. During 
 all the rest of the year the sky is almost uninter- 
 ruptedly cloudless, and rain very rarely falls. 
 
 The autumnal rains usually commence at the 
 latter end of October, or beginning of November, 
 not suddenly, but by degrees; which gives oppor- 
 tunity to the husbandman to sow his wheat and 
 barley. The rains come mostly from the west 
 (Luke xii. 54) and south-west, and continue for 
 two or three days at a dme, falling chiefly in the 
 night*, the wind then changes to the nortn or east, 
 end several days of flue weather succeed. During 
 the months of November and Decemi.fr the raiuc 
 
 * See the figure of the Dead Sea in ths map. 
 
4 62 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 continue to fall heavily; afterwards they return 
 at longer intervals, and are not so heavy ; but at 
 no peviod during the winter do they entirely cease 
 to occur. Rain continues to fall more or less 
 during the month of March, but is afterwards very 
 rare. Morning mists occur as late as May, but 
 rain almost never. Rain in the time of harvest 
 was as incomprehensible to an ancient Jew as snow 
 in summer (Prov. xxvi. 1 ; 1 Sam. xii. 17 ; Amos 
 iv. 7). The ‘ early ’ and the ‘ latter ’ rains, for 
 which tire Jewish husbandmen awaite l with long- 
 ing (Prov. xvi. 15; James v. 7), seem to have 
 been the first showers of autumn, which revived 
 the parched and thirsty soil, and prepared it for 
 the seed ; and the later showers of spring, which 
 continued to refresh and forward the ripening 
 crops and the vernal products of the fields. 
 
 The cold of winter is not severe, and the ground 
 is never frozen. Snow falls more or less. In the 
 low-lying plains but little falls, and it disappears 
 early in the day ; in the higher lands, as at Jeru- 
 salem, it often falls, chiefly in January and Fe- 
 bruary, to the depth of a foot or more ; but even 
 there it does not lie long on the ground. Thunder 
 and lightning are frequent in the winter. 
 
 In the plains and valleys the heat of summer is 
 oppressive, but not in the more elevated tracts, as 
 at Jerusalem, except when the south wind ( Sirocco ) 
 blows (Luke xii. 55). In such high grounds the 
 nights are cool, often with heavy dew. The total 
 absence of rain in summer soon destroys the ver- 
 dure of the fields, and gives to the general land- 
 scape, even in the high country, an aspect of 
 drought and barrenness. No green tiling remains 
 but the foliage of the scattered fruit-trees, and oc- 
 casional vineyards and Helds of millet. In autumn 
 the whole land becomes dry and parched ; the 
 cisterns are nearly empty, and all nature, animate 
 and inanimate, looks forward with longing for the 
 return of the rainy season. 
 
 In the lull-country the season of harvest is later 
 than in the plains of the Jordan and of the sea- 
 coast. The barley-harvest is about a fortnight 
 earlier than that of wheat. In the plain of the 
 Jordan the wheat-harvest is early in May; in the 
 plains of the Coast and of Esdraelon it is towards 
 the latter end of that month ; and in the hills, not 
 until June. The general vintage is in September, 
 but the first grapes ripen in July, and from that 
 time the towns are well supplied with this fruit. 
 
 In the Biblical narrative only two seasons of 
 the year, summer and winter, are directly men- 
 tioned. Among many Oriental nations, as the 
 Hindoos and Arabians, the year has six seasons. 
 The Talmud ( Bava Mezia, p. 106. 2) exhibits a 
 similar arrangement, which in this case appears to 
 have been founded on Gen. viii. 22, ‘While the 
 earth remain^th, seedtime and harvest, and cold 
 and heat, and summer and winter, shall not cease.’ 
 This is the only passage of Scripture which can be 
 construed to have reference to any such division of 
 the seasons, and in this it is not very clear. But 
 if such a distribution of the seasons ever existed, 
 the following would seem to have been its arrange- 
 ment : 
 
 1. nt Seedtime ; 15th October to 1 5th De- 
 cember. 
 
 2 . nyi Winter ; 15th December to 15th Fe- 
 bruary. # 
 
 3. ")Vp, Cold; 15th February to 15th April. 
 
 4. Harvest ; 15th April to 15th June. 
 
 5. Dh, Heat ; 15th June to 15th August. 
 
 6. Summer ; 15th August to 15th Oo 
 tober. 
 
 The climate of Palestine has always been con- 
 sidered healthy, and the inhabitants have for the 
 most part lived to a good old age (Tacit. Hist 
 v. 6). Jerusalem, in particular, from its great 
 elevation, clear sky and invigorating atmosphere, 
 should be a healthy place, and so it is generally 
 esteemed; but the plague frequently appears 
 among its ill-fed and uncleanly population; and 
 bilious fevers, the result of great and sudden vicis- 
 situdes of temperature, are more common than 
 might be expected in such a situation. (Schubert, 
 Morgenland, iii. 106; Olin, ii. 333; Robinson, 
 ii. 9.6-100 ; Kalthotf, Hebr. Alterthum , pp. 42- 
 46 ; Bibliotheca Sacra, Feb. 1844, pp. 221-224.) 
 
 Inhabitants. — Under this nead we present the 
 reader with the following observations of Dr. 
 Olin ('Travels, ii. 438, 439): — ‘The inhabitants 
 of Palestine are Arabs ; that is, they speak the 
 Arabic, though, with slight exceptions, they are 
 probably all descendants of the old inhabitant? 
 of Syria. They are a fine, spirited race of men, 
 and have given Mohammed Ali much trouble in 
 subduing them, and still more in retaining them 
 in subjection. They are said to be industrious 
 for Orientals, and to have the right elements foi 
 becoming, under better auspices, a civilized in- 
 tellectual nation. I believe, however, it will be 
 found impracticable to raise any people to a 
 respectable social and moral state under a Turkish 
 or Egyptian, or any other Mohammedan govern- 
 ment. The inherent vices oT the religious system 
 enter, and, from their unavoidable connections, 
 must enter, so deeply into the political adminis- 
 tration, that any reform in government or im- 
 provement. in the people, beyond temporary alle- 
 viations of evils too pressing to be endured, 
 cannot reasonably be expected. The Turks and 
 Syrians are about at the maximum of the civiliza- 
 tion possible to Mohammedans of the present 
 time. The mercantile class is said to be little 
 respected, and generally to lack integrity. Vera- 
 city is held very lightly by all classes. The 
 people are commonly temperate and frugal, which 
 may be denominated Oriental virtues. Their 
 situation, with regard to the physical means of 
 comfort and subsistence, is, in many respects, 
 favourable, and under a tolerable government 
 would be almost unequalled. As it is, tlie Syrian 
 peasant and his family fare much better than 
 the labouring classes of Europe. The mildness 
 of the climate, the abundance of land and its 
 fertility, with the free and luxuriant pasturage 
 that covers the mountains and the plains, render 
 it nearly impossible that, the peasant should not 
 be well supplied with bread, fruit, meat, and 
 milk. The people almost always appear well 
 clothed. Their houses, too, though often of f 
 slight construction and mean appearance, must 
 be pronounced commodious when compared with 
 the dark, crowded apartments usually occupied 
 by the corresponding classes in Europe. Agri- 
 cultural wages vary a good deal in different part* 
 of the country, but I had reason to conclude that 
 the average was not less than three or four piaster* 
 per day.’ With all these advantages population 
 
PALESTINE 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 403 
 
 'ji on the decline, arising from polygamy, military 
 conscription, unequal anil oppressive taxation, 
 forced labour, general insecurity of property, the 
 iiscouragement of industry, and the plague. 
 
 Natural History.— As all the objects of 
 natural history, mentioned in Scripture, are in 
 the present work examined under the proper 
 heads with unexampled care and completeness, 
 by writers eminent in their several departments, 
 it is unnecessary in this place to go over the 
 ground which has been so advantageously pre- 
 occupied. All that is here wanted is an account of 
 the 'actual natural history of the country. In the 
 Physical Geography, attached to the present 
 writer's Pictorial History of Palestine, a large 
 body of information on this subject, derived from 
 a great number of travellers, lias been brought 
 together. Since then Schubert bas published his 
 Reise in das Morgenland , Erlangen, 1840 ; the 
 third volume of which contains several pages 
 (pp. 104-123) devoted to the natural history of 
 Palestine. Schubert was a most competent ob- 
 server, and one of the very few real naturalists 
 who have visited the country since Hasselquist; 
 and we consider that his account forms the most 
 valuable contribution to the natural history of the 
 country which any single traveller has yet offered. 
 His observations on the mineralogy of Palestine 
 have already been introduced, and we shall 
 further enrich this article with the remainder of 
 his important and interesting notice. 
 
 Botany. In the present work, that which is 
 called Biblical Botany is largely considered 
 under the names of the several products ; and for 
 the actual Flora of the country the most, copious 
 account which has hitherto been furnished, will 
 be found in the writer’s above named work on 
 Palestine. The ample materials there brought 
 together are not however so well suited to the ob- 
 ject of this sketch, as the short account given by 
 Schubert of the principal products. He states 
 that a more detailed account is reserved for an- 
 other work, and for the present is content to lead 
 his reader along one footpath of the great garden. 
 
 In the Koran of Mohammed God is introduced 
 as swearing by the fig and by the olive, which the 
 Moslem commentators say, mean Damascus and 
 Jerusalem. The olive certainly was, and still 
 continues to be, the chief of all the trees of Pales- 
 tine, which seems to be its natural home. ‘ Never,’ 
 says Schubert, 4 have I any where beheld such 
 ancient olive-trees as here. But the plantations 
 might be more extensive, and the produce more 
 profitable, were they tended by such careful and 
 diligent hands as those of Provence. Excellent 
 oil is obtained from the fruit. But although 
 the pre-eminence among the trees of Palestine 
 must be assigned to the oli xe, fig-trees also occur 
 in great numbers, and the plantations sometimes 
 cover large tracts which the eye can scarcely 
 unbrace. This sight is most common in the 
 neighbourhood of Jabrut, in the hills between 
 Bir and Sinjil. The fruit has a peculiarly 
 pleasant flavour, and an aromatic sweetness, but 
 is generally smaller than that of Smyrna. As 
 to the vine, which is now only found, in some 
 districts of Palestine, it is not surpassed by any 
 an earth for the strength of its juice, and: — at 
 least in the southern mountains — for the size and 
 abundance of the grapes. In the neighbourhood 
 
 of Lebanon I drank wine, which seemed to m* 
 unequalled by any I hail ever tasted for strength 
 and flavour. As the Moslems do not openly 
 drink wine, though they are beginning to relish 
 the forbidden enjoyment, they avail themselves of 
 such of the abundance of grapes which the coun- 
 try yields, as they do not eat, or sell to Christians 
 and Jews, who press them for wine, in preparing 
 raisins, but more in making an unrivalled syrup 
 called dibs, which is exported chiefly to Egypt. 
 From the large quantities exported the great 
 abundance of the produce is apparent; and Dr. 
 Shaw states that, in his time not less than 2000 
 cwts. were annually exported from Hebron alone. 
 In the environs of Jerusalem and Hebron the 
 grapes are ripe, and are gathered in September ; 
 only in Lebanon do the people trouble them- 
 selves to cherish and preserve the wine ; but 
 generally drink the produce of the year from one 
 vintage to another. 
 
 The first tree whose blossoms appear prior - to the 
 period of the latter rains, and open in the very deep 
 valleys before the cold days of February set in, is 
 the Luz or almond-tree. We found the environs 
 of Hebron, in March, adorned with fruit-trees in 
 blossom, among which were the apricot, the 
 apple, and the pear ; in April the purple of the 
 pomegranate flowers combines with the white of 
 the myrtle blossoms ; and at the same period the 
 roses of the country, and the variegated ladanes 
 (Cistus); the zukkim-tree (Elseagnus angusti- 
 folius), the storax-tree, whose flowers resemble those 
 of theGerman jasmine (Philadelplms coronarius), 
 emit their fragrant odours.* 
 
 Together with the victorious strength of the 
 country, the palm-tree, the symbol of victory, has 
 been removed from its place; and of the famous 
 palm groves of Jericho very few traces now re- 
 main. But how well this excellent tree thrives 
 in the low-lands, we witnessed at Acre, and in the 
 environs of Caipha, under Carmel. 
 
 The tall cypress only exists in Palestine, as 
 cultivated by man, in gardens, and in cemeteries, 
 and other open places of towns. But as the spon- 
 taneous growth of the country, we find upon the 
 heights and swelling hills the azarole (Cratae- 
 gus azarolus), the walnut-tree, the strawberry- 
 tree, the laurel-nee, the laurestinus, species of 
 the pistachio and terebinth trees, of evergreen oaks, 
 and of the rhamnus of the size of trees and shrubs, 
 the cedrine juniper-tree, and some sorts of thy- 
 melaeus ; while on the formerly wooded heights 
 various kinds of pine-trees, large and small, still 
 maintain their ground. The sycamore, the carob 
 trees, and the opuntia fig trees, are only found us 
 objects of cultivation in or near towns; and 
 orchards of orange and lemon trees occur chiefly 
 in the neighbourhood of Nabulus (Sbechem). 
 
 The various kinds of cqrn grow spontaneously 
 in great plenty in many districts, cliiefly in the 
 plains of Jezreel and the heights of Galilee, being 
 the wild progeny of formerly cultivated fields, and 
 bearing testimony by their presence to the fitness of 
 the soil for the production of grain. In addition 
 to wheat and barley, among this wild growth, the 
 common rye was often seen. The present course 
 
 * A very full account of the state of the vege- 
 table products of Palestine, from month to month, 
 throughout the year, is given in the Physical 
 Geography of Palestine above referred to. 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 461 
 
 of agriculture, which is hut carelessly practised, 
 comprises nearly the same kinds of grain which 
 are grown in Egypt. Fields are seen covered 
 with summer dhurah ( dhurah gaydi ), the com- 
 mon dhurah ( dhurah sayfeh ), anil the autumnal 
 dhurah ( dhurah dimiri ), all of which are varie- 
 ties of the Hole us sonrhum. Maize ( knmh ), spelt, 
 and barley ( schayir ), thrive everywhere; and 
 r>ce ( aruz ) is produced on the Upper Jordan and 
 the marshy borders of the lake Meroin. Upon the 
 Jordan, near Jacob's bridge, may be seen fine 
 tall specimens of the papyrus reed. Of pulse the 
 inhabitants grow the hommos or chick pea(Cicer 
 arietanum), the fool or Egyptian bean (Vicia 
 faba), the gishrungayga (Phase-Jus Mungo), the 
 gilban (Lathyrus sativus), together with the ads 
 or lentil, and the bisdlch or peas (Pisutn arvense). 
 Of esculent vegetables, the produce of the various 
 species of hibiscus are much liked and cultivated, 
 particularly the batnia towileh (Hibiscus escu- 
 ientus), the bamia beledi, or wayka (Hibiscus 
 prajeox). In some places the Christian inha- 
 bitants or Franks are endeavouring to introduce 
 the potato which the natives call kolkas Franschi. 
 In the garden of the monasteries the kharschuf 
 or artichoke is very common, as is also the khus 
 or salad : in most, districts, as about Nabulus 
 (Sbechem) the water-melon ( batik/i ) and cucum- 
 ber ( khiar ) are common. Hemp (bust) is more 
 commonly grown in Palestine than flax ( kettan ) ; 
 and in favourable localities cotton ( kotn ) is cul- 
 tivated, and also madder ( fuah , ltubia tincto- 
 rum) for dyeing. 
 
 * My report," pursues Schubert, ‘ would become 
 a volume were I to enumerate the plants and 
 flowers which the season exhibited to our view; 
 for whoever follows the comparatively short course 
 of the Jordan from the Dead Sea northward, 
 along the borders of the lakes of Gennesareth and 
 Merom, and onward to the utmost, springs iit 
 Anti-Libanus, traverses in a few days climates, 
 zones, and observes varieties of plants which are in 
 other countries separated by hundreds of miles. 
 The blood-immortefl^ (Gnaphilium sanguineum) 
 is a small plant which the pilgrims commonly 
 gather in the Mount of Olives ; while from Carmel 
 und Lebanon they pluck the great. Oriental im- 
 mortelle (Gnaph. orientale) as a memorial of their 
 pilgrimage. The fruits of the mandrake of Pa- 
 lestine (Mandragora autumnalis) are sought in 
 the neighbourhood of Jerusalem by the Oriental 
 Christians, as well as by the Moslems, because 
 they are considered to possess peculiar powers : 
 but the plant, is in that quarter very rare, though 
 of frequent occurrence on the south of Hebron, 
 and in Mounts Tabor and Carmel. Whoever 
 desires views really extensive and beautiful of 
 lilies, tulips, hyacinths, and narcissuses, must in 
 the spring season visit the districts through which 
 we passed ; where also the garlic assumes a size 
 and beauty which might render it worthy of be- 
 coming an ornamental plant in our gardens.’ 
 
 Animai.s. — H erds of black cattle are now but 
 rarely seen in Palestine. The ox in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Jerusalem is small and unsightly, 
 and beef or veal is but rarely eaten. But on 
 the Upper Jordan, and in the vicinity of Tabor 
 and Nazareth, and to the east of the Jordan on 
 the way from Jacob’s bridge to Damascus, the ox 
 thrives better and is more frequently seen. The 
 
 buffalo thrives upon the coast, and is there equal 
 in size and strength' to the buffalo of Egypt. 
 The rearing of black cattle seems to have been 
 checked by the exactions of the government, from 
 whose notice wealth, in the shape of animals so 
 bulky, could not be easily withdrawn or con- 
 cealed. The absence of fences also renders it 
 difficult to put them to graze, as they could hardly 
 be prevented from trespassing in the corn-fields, 
 ami of treading down ten times more than they 
 would eat.. King Solomon required daily for his 
 table ten fattened and twenty grass-fed oxen (1 
 Kings iv. 23); but were another Solomon now to 
 ascend the throne of Israel, he would have to be 
 contented with the flesh of sheep and goats. These 
 animals are still seen in great, numbers in all 
 parts of the country : their flesh and milk serve 
 for daily food, and their wool and hair for 
 clothing. The common sort of sheep in Palestine 
 manifest the tendency to form a fat and largo 
 tail. The long-eared Syrian goat is furnished 
 with hair of considerable fineness, but seemingly 
 not so fine as that of the same species of goat in 
 Asia Minor. Of animals of the deer kind, 
 Schubert saw only the female of the fallow-deer, 
 and this was in the same district in which Hassel- 
 quist also met with fallow-deer, namely, on 
 Mount Tabor. On another occasion he thought 
 that he discovered animals of (he deer kind upon 
 the mountain top ; but, on a closer view, deemed 
 it more probable that they were the native brown 
 antelojte (A. hinnuleus ); for of the antelopes 
 several species are met with in the country. 
 
 Camels are not. reared in Palestine to any ex- 
 tent worth mentioning, at least on the west of 
 the Jordan; but several herds of these animals 
 were noticed near Baalbec, in the great valley be- 
 tween Libanus and Anti-Li bairns. Palestine 
 
 cannot boast of its native breed of horses, although 
 fine animals of beautiful shape, and apparently 
 of high Arabian race, are not. unfrequently seen. 
 The ass of the country scarcely lakes higher rela- 
 tive rank than the horse; asses and mules are 
 still, however, much used for riding, as they 
 afford a means of locomotion well suited to the 
 difficult mountain paths of the country. Boars 
 (khanzie) are very often observed upon Mount 
 Tabor and. the Lesser Hermon, as well as on the 
 woody slopes of Mount Carmel ; and from these 
 habitats they often descend into the plains of 
 Acre and Esdraelon. Of the waber or Hyrax 
 Syriacus, to which, in Arabia Petrsea, so much 
 attention has lately been drawn, no trace has 
 been found in Palestine or Syria, although 
 it has been named from the latter country. 
 Onr traveller was informed by the guides 
 who conducted his party from Jerusalem to 
 the Dead Sea, and afterwards to Damascus, to 
 the neighbourhood of which they belonged, that 
 the lion was among the most dangerous animals 
 of the country ; ‘ but,’ he adds, ‘ I could not 
 credit them, on account of their general ignorance, 
 which they evinced by naming several animals 
 after which I inquired by the general term hywan, 
 i. e. “animal or at best, wakcsch , *'. e. “ wild- 
 animal.” If the lion should really have been in 
 modern times seen in Palestine, it can scarcely 
 have been indigenous, but must in all probability 
 have wandered from the more eastern region to- 
 wards the Euphrates, where it certainly exists.’ 
 Among indigenous animals of the genus felis , we 
 
PALESTINE. 
 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 465 
 
 may however name the common panther (nimr) 
 which is found among the mountains of central 
 Palestine ; and in the genus canis there is the 
 Bmall Abul Hhosseyn, or Canis famelicus, and a 
 kind of large fox (Canis Syriacus), which our 
 traveller did not himself see, but supposed to be 
 denoted l y the word taleb. In addition to these 
 is the ja^ ^al ( dibb ), which is very injurious to the 
 flocks. The hyaena (zabue) is found chiefly in the 
 valley of the Jordan, and in the mountains around 
 the lake of Tiberias, but is also occasionally seen in 
 other districts of Palestine. Of bears our traveller 
 &aw none, but he met with hides cut up and 
 hanging from the saddles of some mules, to whose 
 aiders they furnished a comfortable seat. The 
 animals to which the hides belonged were said to 
 have been killed in the Anti-Libanus, not far from 
 Damascus. The hides had more resemblance to 
 vhat of the common brown bear than to that of 
 the bear described by Ehrenberg under the name 
 ©f Ursus Syriacus. A hedgehog was procured 
 near Bethlehem, which was found to resemble the 
 common European animal, and not to be the 
 long-eared Egyptian species. The native arneb 
 or hare is the same as the Arabian. The porcu- 
 pine is frequently found in the clefts of the rocks 
 in Palestine, and is called kanfeds , though the 
 common people also give it the same name with 
 the hedgehog. 
 
 Among the larger birds of prey Schubert often 
 saw the common cathartes or vulture (C. perc- 
 nopterus), and the hedy or kite. Thenutive wild 
 dove, called qimri, differs not perceptibly from 
 our own species, which is also the case with the 
 shrikes, crows, rollers, and other species found in 
 Palestine. 
 
 Schubert had no opportunity of ascertaining 
 whether the large animal called by the Arabs 
 temsah , . and said to be found in a river or 
 small lake to the west of Shechem, really was 
 the crocodile, as the name implies. The tortoise, 
 observed near Bethlehem and Nazareth, was the 
 Testudo Grseca, which is found also in Italy and 
 Greece. Serpents are rare, and none of those 
 which have been observed are poisonous. Our 
 traveller noticed them only in the environs of 
 Nazareth, and on the route from Cana to the lake 
 of Tiberias. For observations on the fresh-water 
 snakes of Palestine, we are referred for informa- 
 \ion to an intended work of Schubert’s fellow- 
 traveller, Dr. Roth, which does not seem to have 
 been yet published. Near Beirut was noticed 
 the Janthina fragilis, which yields the common 
 purple dye. Among the insects the bee is the 
 most conspicuous. Mosquitoes are somewhat 
 troublesome, but not at the time of the year in 
 which Schubert travelled. Beetles are abundant, 
 and of various species, which our traveller does 
 not enumerate, but which are figured and de- 
 scribed in Ehrenberg ’s Symbolic Physicee. 
 
 Of the numerous works on Palestine it is 
 impossible to offer a complete list in this place. 
 A copious list of such works was given in the 
 Pictorial History of Palestine ; and since then 
 one, not materially different, has also been pre- 
 sented in Dr. Robinson’s Biblical Researches. 
 A very excellent list is also prefixed to Raumer’s 
 Paldstina. Nearly all the works in these lists 
 are in the writer's possession, or have been ex- 
 amined by him ; but his object in drawing up the 
 
 l?'v-*ig summary is simply to supply the titles 
 
 vo h, n, 31 
 
 of the works which, for brevity, are referred to in 
 the preceding article only by the names of t he 
 writers, and to indicate such others as appear to 
 him the most, trustworthy and useful. Works 
 merely curious or entertaining are purposely 
 omitted. We have adopted a chronological ar- 
 rangement. The dates are those of publication ; 
 but the order is that of travel : — 
 
 Eusebi* et Hieronymii Onomasticon Locorum 
 et Urbiam , 1631, 1639; Itinerarium B. An ton ini 
 Martyris, 1610 ; Adamnanus, De Locis Sanctis , 
 1619; Benjamin Tudelensis, Itinerarium , 1633, 
 Beilin, 1840 ; Will. Tyrensis, Historia Belli 
 Sacri, 1519; Jacobi de Vitriaco, Historia Hie- 
 rosolymitana, 1597; Brocardi Locorum Terras 
 Sanctar Description 1513 ; Abulfedae Tabula 
 Syrice (Arab, and Latin), 1766 ; Sachem, Von 
 dem Gelohten Land , 1477 ; Gumpenberg, Meer - 
 farth In das Heilige Land, 1561 ; Tucher, 
 Reyssbeschreibung , 1482 ; Breydenbach, Itiner. 
 Hieros. ac in T. Sanctum, 1486; Fabri, Eigent- 
 liche Beschreybung der Hin. und Wiederfarih zu 
 dem H. Land, 1556 ; La Huen, La Grant Voyage 
 de Hierusalem, 1516; Baumgarten, Peregrinatio, 
 1594; Belon, Observations, 1553; Furer, Itine- 
 rarium, 1620; Rauwolf, Aigenliche Beischrei- 
 bung, fyc., 1581, translated in Ray's Collection , 
 1696; Radzivil, J erosolymitana Peregrinatio, 
 1601 ; Zuallart, II Devotissimo Fiaggio di Gieru- 
 salemme , 1587 ; Cotovicus, Itiner ar. Ilierosoly - 
 mitanum et Syria cum, 1619 ; Rochetta, Peregri- 
 natione di Terra Santa, 1630 ; Sandys’ Travailes , 
 1615 ; Qnaresmius, Historica, theologica, et 
 moralis Terrce Sanctce Elucidatio , 1639 ; Cas- 
 tillo, El Devoto Peregrino y Viage de Tierra 
 Santa, 1656: Surius, Le Pieux Pelerin, 1666; 
 Monconys, Journal des Voyages , t$c , 1665 ; 
 Doubdan, Le Voyage de la Terre Sainte, 1657; 
 Thevenot, Voyage au Levant, 1665 ; D'Arvieux, 
 Voyage dans la Palestine, 1717; Von Troilo, 
 Orientalische Reiscbeschreibung , 1676 ; De Bruyn 
 (Le Brun), Reyzen door den Levant, 1699; 
 Nau, Voyage Nouveau de la Terre Sainte, 1679 ; 
 De la Roque, Voyage de Syrie et du Mont 
 Leban, 1722; Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo 
 to Jerusalem , 1697 ; Morison, Relation d'un 
 Voyage au Mont Sinai et a Jerusalem, 1704; 
 Van Egmond en Heyman, Reizen door een Ge- 
 deelte van Europa . . . Syria, §c., 1757, 1758 — 
 English, 1759; Shaw, Travels in Barbary and the 
 Levant , 1738 ; Korten, Reise nach dem Gelobten 
 Lande, 1741 ; Pococke, Description of the 
 East, 1743-1748; Hasselquist, Iter Palcestinum, 
 1757 — English, 1766; Schulz, Leitungen, Hi c., 
 1771-75 ; Mariti, Viaggiper le Soria e Palestine , 
 1769-71 ; Niebuhr, Beschreibung von Arabien, 
 1773; Reisbeschreibung nach Arabien, 1774-78 
 — the volume relating to the Holy Land was not 
 published till 1837 ; Volney, Voyage en Syrie , 
 1787; Clarke, Travels, 1811 ; Ali Bey, Travels , 
 1816; Seetzen — his valuable observations are scat- 
 tered through many volumes of Zach’s Monatliche 
 Correspond enz ; a small portion was translated 
 and published in 1812 by the ‘Palestine Society,’ 
 under the title of A Brief Account of the Coun- 
 tries adjoining the Lake of Tiberias, the Jordan, 
 and the Dead Sea. Burckhardt, Travels in Syria 
 and the Holy Land, 1822; Turner, Journal of 
 a Tour in the Levant, 1820; Richter, H all- 
 fa nr ten im Morgenlande, 1822 ; Buckingham, 
 Travels in Palestine 1821; Travels among the 
 
466 PAMPHYLIA. 
 
 Arab Tribes , 1825 ; Richardson, Travels along 
 the Mediterranean , 1822; Joliffe, Letters from 
 Palestine, 1819; Irby and Mangles, Travels in 
 Egypt, Nubia, Syria, Sfc., 1822; Jowett, Chris- 
 tian Researches in Syria and the Holy Land, 
 1 825 ; Riippell, Reisen in Nuhien, Kordofan, 
 und den Petraischen Arabien, 1829 ; Hogg, Visit 
 to Alexandria, Daniascus, and Jerusalem, 1825; 
 Hardy, Notices of the Holy Land, 18^; Monro, 
 A Summer Ramble in Syria, 1835 ; Stephens, 
 Incidents of Travel, 1837; Elliot, Travels, 
 1838: Wilde, Narrative of a Voyage , 1840 ; 
 Paxton, Letters on Palestine and Egypt, 1 839 ; 
 Lord Lindsay, Letters on Egypt, Edom, and the 
 Holy Land , 1839; Schubert, Reise nach dem 
 Morgenlande, 1838-40 ; Robinson, Biblical Re- 
 searches in Palestine, 1841 ; Bowring, Report 
 on the Commercial Statistics of Syria, 1 840 ; 
 Olin, Travels in the East, 1843 ; Narrative of 
 a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews from the 
 Church of Scotland, 1842 : Herschell, Visit to 
 My Father-Land, 1844; Eothen , 1844; Modern 
 Syrians, 1844 ; Russegger, Reisen in Europa, 
 Asien, und Afrika, 1844, in course of publication. 
 
 Extensive as is the above list, it is but a selec- 
 tion from books numerous enough to fill a library. 
 Besides these, there are numerous works on the 
 geography of Palestine, of which the following 
 are the principal : — Adrichomius, Thcatrum 
 Terrce Sanctce, 1590 ; Bochart, Geographia 
 Sacra, 1646; Sanson, Geographia Sacra, 1665; 
 Fuller, Pisgah Sight of Palestine, 1650 ; Dapper, 
 Syrie en Palastyn of Heilige Lant, 1677 ; 
 Wells, Historical Geography of the New Test., 
 1712; Historical Geography of the Old Test, 
 1712 ; Reland, Palcestina ex Monumentis vete- 
 ribus Illustrata, 1714; Bachiene, Heilige Geo- 
 graphic, 1758-68; Busching’s Erdbeschreibung, 
 1785; Hamelsveldf, Biblische Geographic, 1793; 
 Mannert, Geographic der Griesclien und Romer, 
 1799 (Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, in vol. vi. 
 pt. 1); Ritter, Die Erdekunde, 1818 (Western 
 Asia in vol. ii.) ; Rosenmiiller, Biblische Geo- 
 graphic, 1823-1828; Raumer, Paldstina, 1835 
 and 1838; Supplement, 1843; Kitto's Pictorial 
 History and Physical Geography of Palestine, 
 1841. 
 
 PALM. [Weights and Measures ] 
 
 PALM-TREE. [Tamar.] 
 
 PALSY. [Diseases.] 
 
 PAMPHYLIA (nap<pv\ia), a province in the 
 southern part of Asia Minor, having the Medi- 
 terranean on the south, Cilicia on the east, Pisidia 
 on the north, and Lycia on the west. It was 
 nearly opposite the island of Cyprus; and the sea 
 between the coast and the island is called in Acts 
 the sea of Pamphylia. The chief cities of this 
 province were Perga and Attalia. Christianity 
 was probably first preached in this country by 
 some of the Jewish proselytes who were converted 
 on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10, 15, 38). It 
 was afterwards visited by Paul and Barnabas 
 (Acts xiii. 13). 
 
 PANNAG (i|S) occurs only once in Scrip- 
 ture, but so much uncertainty exists respecting 
 the meaning of the word, that in many transla- 
 tions, as, for instance, in the Authorized English 
 Version, the original is retained. Thus in the 
 account of the commerce of Tyre, it is stated in 
 V.zek. xxvii. 17, ‘ Judah and tire laud of Israel, 
 
 pannagT. 
 
 they were thy merchants ; trey traded in thy 
 markets wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and oil, 
 and honey, and balm' (tzcri, translated also 
 rosin in the margin of the English Bible). From 
 the context it is evident that wheat, oil, and 
 honey, were conveyed by Judah and Israel, that 
 is, the products of their country as an agricultural 
 people, as articles of traffic to the merchants and 
 manufacturers of Tyre, who, it is certain, must, 
 from their insular position, have obtained theii 
 chief articles of diet from the neighbouring land 
 of Syria. It is probable, therefore, that pannag 
 and tzeri, whatever they may have been, were 
 the produce of Palestine, or at least of Syria. 
 Some have considered pannag to indicate balsam, 
 others cassia, ami some again sweetmeats. 1 Chal- 
 daeus kolija Grseca voce, quam interpretatur 
 Hesychius rpocyaXia, bellaria ex melle.’ Some 
 of the Rabbins have also thought that it was a 
 district of Judaea, which, like Minnith, yielded 
 the best wheat ; others, as Junius and Tremellius, 
 from the similarity in the name, have thought it 
 might be the original of the name of Phoenicia. 
 But Hiller (Hierophytica, ii. p. 51) says, ‘ Nullus 
 horum, ut opinor, recte divinavit. Nec enim est 
 casia, narn casiae suum nomen est; neque bal- 
 samum, quia in hortis regiis plantatus balsami 
 frutex, nihil plebi ad mercatum reliquerat, et 
 generali nomine opobalsamum notatum ; 
 
 nec bellaria ex melle, merces vulgatissima, quam 
 Tyrii et Graeci mercatores domi parare poterant ; 
 nec denique Phoeniciam Pannag significaverit, 
 quod insciti Ezechiel scriberet Israelitas triticum 
 Phoenicia in Phoeniciam ad nundinas soil. Ty- 
 rias attulisse.’ He, however, continues, 4 Pannag, 
 nisi magnopere fallor, est Panax vel Panaces, vox 
 Graecae vel Syriacae originis ad Graecam etymo- 
 logiam aptata, quo videatur ipso nomine omnium 
 morborum remedia promittere.’ The name panax 
 occurs as early as the time of Theophrastus (ix. 10), 
 and several kinds are described by him, as well 
 as by Dioscorides ; one kind is called especially 
 Syrian panax. Of one of these plants, now sup- 
 posed to be species of Ferula laserpitium of Hera- 
 cleum, tire juice was called opopanax. This was in 
 great repute among the ancients, and still holds 
 its place as a medicine, though not. possessed of any 
 remarkable properties ; but its name is the origin of 
 our panacea, from tt avaicela , 4 an universal remedy.’ 
 It is curious, however, that the plant yielding the 
 opopanax of commerce is still unknown, as well 
 as the exact locality where it is produced, whether 
 in Syria, or in some part of the Persian empire. 
 By the Arabs it is called jmoasheer. Lady 
 Calcott has supposed the panax of the ancients to 
 refer to Panax quinquefolium , or ginsing of the 
 Chinese, which they also suppose to be a uni- 
 versal remedy, though not. possessed of any active 
 properties. But filename panax was not applied 
 to this plant until the time of Linnaeus, and there 
 is no proof, nor indeed is it probable, that it 
 found i!s way from China at any such early 
 period : at all events the Israelites were not likely 
 to convey it to Tyre. The Syrian version, however, 
 translates pannag by the word dokhon , which, we 
 have already seen (vol. i. p. 570), signifies ‘ millet,’ 
 or Panicum miliaceum. Bishop Newcome, there- 
 fore, translates pannag by the word panis, signi- 
 fying the species of millet which was employed by 
 the ancients as an article of diet, and which still is 
 so by the natives of the East. Dr. Harris quote* 
 
PAPIIOS. 
 
 Caesav, as stating that the Massilienses, w jen be- 
 sieged, ‘ panico vetere omnes alebantur.’ From 
 the context it would seem most likely that this 
 pannag was a produce of the country, and pro- 
 bably an article of diet. One objection to its 
 being the millet is, that this grain has a name, 
 dokhon , which is used by the same prophet in 
 Ezek. iv. 9. Notwithstanding the authority of 
 Hiller, there does not appear sufficient proof in 
 support of his opinion, that the juice of the panax 
 or opopanax was the article intended, and there- 
 fore pannag must still be considered undeter- 
 mined. — J. F. R. 
 
 PAPER, PAPYRUS. [Writing.] 
 PAPHOS (Tlacpos), a city of Cyprus, at the 
 western extremity of the island, and the seat of 
 the Roman governor. That officer, when Paul 
 visited the place, was named Sergius Paulus, 
 who was converted through the preaching of the 
 apostle and the miracle performed on Elymas 
 (Acts xiii. 6-11). Paphos was celebrated for a 
 temple of Venus, whose infamous rites were still 
 practised here 400 years afterwards, notwithstand- 
 ing the success of Paul, Barnabas, and others, in 
 preaching the Gospel. Paphos is now a poor and 
 inconsiderable place, but gives its name to a 
 Greek bishopric. 
 
 PARABLE. The word parable is derived 
 from 7r apa^oXg, which comes from irapafiaWeiv, 
 to compare , to collate. In the New Testament it 
 is employed by our translators as the rendering of 
 
 irapa&oAtj ; in the Old it answers to [Pro- 
 verbs]. 1. It denotes an obscure or enigmatical 
 saying, e.g. Ps. xlix. 4, 
 
 ‘ I will incline mine ear to & parable ; 
 
 I will open my dark saying upon the harp.’ 
 And Ps. Ixxviii. 2, 
 
 ‘ I will open my mouth in a parable , 
 
 I will utter dark sayings of old.’ 
 
 2. It denotes a fictitious narrative, invented 
 for the purpose of conveying truth in a less offen- 
 sive or more engaging form than that of direct 
 assertion. Of this sort is the parable by which 
 Nathan reproved David (2 Sam. xii. 2, 3), that 
 in which Jotham exposed the folly of the She- 
 chemites (Judg. ix. 7-15), and that addressed 
 by Jehoash to Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 9, 10). To 
 this class also belong the parables of Christ. 
 3. Any discourse expressed in figurative, poetical, 
 or highly ornamented diction is called a parable. 
 Thus it. is said, ‘ Balaam took up his parable ’ 
 (Num. xxiii. 7) ; and, ‘ Job continued his parable’ 
 (Job xxvii. 1). Under this general and wider 
 signification the two former classes may not im- 
 properly be included. 
 
 In the New Testament the word seems to have 
 a more restricted signification, being generally 
 employed in the second sense mentioned above, 
 viz., to denote a fictitious narrative, under which 
 is veiled some important truth. It has been sup- 
 posed, indeed, that some of the parables uttered 
 by our Saviour narrate real and not fictitious 
 events ; but whether this was the case or not is a 
 point of no consequence. Each of his parables 
 was essentially true ; it was true to human na- 
 ture, and nothing more was necessary. Another 
 meaning which the word occasionally bears in the 
 New Testament is that of a type or emblem , as in 
 Heb. ix. 9, where rrapa^uX-p is rendered in our 
 veroirn figure . [According to Maclcnight, the 
 
 PARABLE. 467 
 
 word in Keb. xi. 19 has the same meaning, but 
 this is probably incorrect.] 
 
 Parables or fables are found in the literature 
 of all nations. They were called by the Greek* 
 afoot, and by the Romans fabulce. It has been 
 usual to consider the parable as composed of two 
 parts: viz., the prrotasis, conveying merely the 
 literal sense; and the apodosis, containing the 
 mystical or figurative sense. It is not necessary, 
 however, that this second part should be always 
 expressed. It is frequently omitted in the pa- 
 rables of our Lord, when the truth illustrated was 
 such as his disciples were unable at the time fully 
 to comprehend, or when it was his design to re- 
 veal to them something which was to be hidden 
 from the unbelieving Jews (comp. Matt. xiii-. 
 11 - 13 ). 
 
 The excellence of a parable depends on the 
 propriety and force of the comparison on which 
 it is founded ; on the general fitness and harmony 
 of its parts; on the obviousness of its main scope 
 or design ; on the beauty and conciseness of the 
 style in which it is expressed ; and on its adapta- 
 tion to the circumstances and capacities of the 
 hearers. If the illustration is drawn from an 
 object obscure or little known, it will throw no 
 light on the point to be illustrated. If the resem- 
 blance is forced and inobvious, the mind is per- 
 plexed and disappointed in seeking for it. We 
 must be careful, however, not to insist on too 
 minute a correspondence of the objects compared. 
 It is not to be expected that the resemblance will 
 hold good in every particular ; non enim res tota 
 rei toti necesse est similis sit, says Cicero ; but 
 it is sufficient if the agreement exists in those 
 points on which the main scope of the parable 
 depends. 
 
 The parable of the Ten Virgins, for example, 
 is designed to teach the importance and necessity 
 of being always prepared for the coming of the 
 Lord ; and therefore no inference can be drawn as 
 to the number of those finally saved, from the 
 circumstance that five of the virgins were wise 
 and five of them were foolish. Nor does the 
 parable of the Householder teach that there will 
 be no difference in the rewards of the righteous 
 hereafter, because each of the labourers received 
 a penny. The design of the parable as expressed 
 in the words ‘ Is it not lawful for me to do what 
 I will with mine own V is to set forth the perfect 
 sovereignty of God in the dispensation of Iris 
 rewards, the truth that all reward is of grace , 
 and that it is consistent with the strictest justice 
 for him to treat some better than they deserve, 
 since none are treated tcorse. 
 
 If we test the parables of the Old Testament, 
 by the rules above laid down, we shall not find 
 them wanting in any excellence belonging to this 
 species of composition. What, can be more 
 forcible, more persuasive, and more beautiful 
 than the parables of Jotham (Judg. ix. 7-15), of 
 Nathan (2 Sam. xii. 1-14), of Isaiah (v. 1-5), 
 and of Ezekiel (xix. 1-9) ? 
 
 But the parables uttered by our Saviour claim 
 pre-eminence over all others on account of their 
 number, variety, appositeness, and beauty. In- 
 deed it is impossible to conceive of a mode of 
 instiuction better fitted to engage the attention, 
 interest the feelings, and impress the conscience, 
 than that which our Lord adopted. Among its 
 advantages may be mentioned the following : — 
 
408 
 
 PARABLE. 
 
 PARACLETUS. 
 
 1. It secured the attention of multitudes who 
 would not. have listened to truth conveyed in the 
 form of abstract propositions. It did so in virtue 
 »f two principles of human nature, viz., that out- 
 ward and sensible objects make a more vivid 
 impression than inward notions or ideas ; and that 
 the particular and the concrete affect the mind 
 more than the general and the abstract. Thus a 
 virtue or vice may be held up for abhorrence or 
 admiration far more successfully by exhibiting 
 its effects on the character of an individual than 
 by eulogizing or declaiming against it in the ab- 
 stract. How could a disquisition have exhibited 
 the contrast between humility and self-confidence 
 so vividly as does the parable of the Pharisee 
 and the publican? Or how could so effectual a 
 sermon have been preached against worldliness 
 as by the parable of the rich man who said to his 
 soul, 4 Eat, drink, and be merry.’ 
 
 2. This mode of teaching was one with which 
 the Jews were familiar, and for which they enter- 
 tained a preference. They had been accustomed 
 to it in the writings of their prophets, and, like 
 other eastern nations, listened with pleasure to 
 truths thus wrapped in the veil of allegory. 
 
 3. Some truths which, if openly stated, would 
 nave been opposed by a barrier of prejudice, were 
 m this way insinuated, as it .were, into men’s 
 minds, and secured their assent unawares. When- 
 ever ancient prejudices stand in the way of the 
 reception of truth, it is important that the teacher 
 should adopt such a circuitous mode of approach 
 as may for a time conceal his design, and secure 
 for his instructions an impartial hearing. 
 
 4. The parabolic style was well adapted to 
 conceal Christ’s meaning from those who, througn 
 obstinacy and perverseness, were indisposed to re- 
 ceive it. This is the meaning of Isaiah in the pas- 
 sage quoted in Matt. xiii. 13. Not that the truth 
 was ever hidden from those who sincerely sought 
 to know it; but it was wrapped in just enough of 
 obscurity to veil it from those who ‘ had pleasure 
 in unrighteousness,’ and who would 4 not come to 
 the light lest their deeds should be reproved.’ In 
 accordance with strict justice, such were 4 given 
 up to strong delusions, that they might believe a 
 lie.’ 4 With the upright man thou icilt show 
 thyself upright; with the froioard thou wilt 
 show thyself froioard.' 
 
 The scope or design of Christ's parables is 
 sometimes to he gathered from his own express 
 declaration, as in Luke xii. 16-20, xiv. 11, xvi. 9. 
 In other cases it must be sought by considering 
 the context, the circumstances in which it was 
 spoken, and the features of the narrative itself, 
 i. e. the literal sense. For the right understand- 
 ing of this, an acquaintance with the customs of 
 the people, with the productions of their country, 
 and with the events of their history, is often de- 
 sirable. Most of our Lord's parables, however, 
 admit of no doubt as to their main scope, and are 
 so simple and perspicuous that 4 he who runs may 
 read,’ 4 if there be first a willing mind.’ To 
 those moredifficult of comprehension more thought 
 and study should be given, agreeably to the ad- 
 monition prefixed to some of them by our Lord 
 himself, 4 Whoso heareth, let him understand.’ — 
 The following are among the principal works on 
 the parables : — Gray, Delineation of the Pa- 
 rables, 1 777 ; Bulkley, Discourses on the Pa- 
 rables , 1771 ; Collyer, Discourses on the Parables t 
 
 1815; Kromm, Iiomilien uber die I xrabeln 
 Jesu , 1823; Unger, De Parabolis Jesu, 1828; 
 Bailey, Expos tion of the Parables , 1 829 ; 
 Schultze, De Parabolis Jesu Christi, 1827 ; 
 Lisco, Die Parabeln Jesu, 1832. — L. P. H. 
 
 PARACLETUS (napd/c\r]Tof). This word 
 is applied to Christ in 1 John ii. 1. Indeed, 
 in that famous passage in which Christ promises 
 the Holy Spirit as a paraclete to his sorrowing 
 disciples, he takes the title himself: ‘I will send 
 you another paraclete’ (John xiv. 16), implying 
 that he was himself one, and that on his de- 
 parture he would send another. The question 
 then is. In what sense does Christ denominate 
 himself and the Spirit sent from him and the 
 Father, napaKkrjTos, paraclete? The answer to 
 this is not to be found without some difficulty, 
 and it becomes the more difficult from the fact 
 that in genuine Greek the verb irapaKakflv lias a 
 variety of significations : — 1. To call to a place; 
 to call to aid. 2. To admonish; to persuade; 
 to incite. 3. To entreat; to pray. To which 
 may be added the Hellenistic signification, 4 to 
 console 4 to soothe ;’ 4 to encourage.’ Finally, 
 the Rabbins also in their language use the word 
 
 peraklita; a circumstance which must 
 also be taken into consideration. In the explana- 
 tion of the word the leading circumstance to guide 
 us must be to take that signification which is 
 applicable to the different passages in which it 
 occurs. For we may distinguish three explana- 
 tions : — 1. Origen explains it where it is applied 
 to the Holy Spirit by 4 Consolator’ (irapapvOrjr^s). 
 while in 1 John ii. 1 he adopts the signification of 
 4 Deprecator.’ This is the course taken by most 
 of the Greek commentators (Suicer, Thesaur. s. 
 v.), and which has been followed by Erasmus, 
 Luther, and others. But to this Tholuck ami 
 others object that, not to insist that the significa- 
 tion cannot be grammatically established (for no 
 admissible instance can be adduced where the 
 passive TrapaKhpros is used in an active sense for 
 napaKkrjTcop), it is suitable to but a very few 
 passages only, while to others it is either too cir- 
 cumscribed or altogether inappropriate. 2. Aware 
 of this, others, after the example of Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, sanctioned by Mede, Ernesti, and 
 others, would translate it teacher. But neither does 
 this sense seem adapted to all the passages. It 
 would also be difficult to deduce it from the 
 usages of the language ; for — not to mention that 
 in this case also the active signification would be 
 assumed for the passive form — we are pressed 
 with the question, whether the verb tt apanakeiv can 
 anywhere in the New Testament be found in the 
 sense of 4 to teach,’ as this hypothesis assumes. It 
 is at least very certain that this sense never was 
 transferred to the Rabbinical ; and 
 
 since the word occurs here also, this must neces- 
 sarily be taken into account in determining the 
 signification. 3. The considerations which tell 
 against these views incline the balance in favour 
 of a third sense, which is that of 4 assistant,’ 
 
 4 helper,’ 4 advocate ’ (intercessor). Demosthenes 
 uses it with this force in a judicial sense (see Index, 
 ed. Reiske) ; and it occurs in the same sense in 
 Philo (see Loesner, Observatt .), and in the Rab- 
 binical dialect. It is supported by Rom. viii. 
 26, and, which is still more to the purpose, is 
 appropriate .o all the passages in the New Testa- 
 
PARADISE. 
 
 PARADISE. 
 
 4G9 
 
 went where the word occurs. After the example 
 5f the early Latin fathers, Calvin, Beza, Lampe, 
 Bengel, Knapp, Kuinoel, Tittmann, and many 
 others, have adopted this sense. Tertullian and 
 Augustine have advocate. The Authorized Ver- 
 sion renders the word by ‘ advocate’ in 1 John 
 ii. 1, but in other places (John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 
 26 : xvi. 7) by ‘ comforter.’ How much better, 
 however, the more extensive term ‘helper’ (in. 
 eluding teacher, monitor, advocate) agrees with 
 these passages than the narrow term ‘ comforter,’ 
 may be shown by a single instance. Jesus says 
 to his disciples, ‘ I will send you another para- 
 clete’ (John xiv. 16), implying that he himself 
 had been such to them. But he had not been in 
 any distinguishing sense a ‘ comforter’ or ‘ con- 
 soler,’ because, having Him present with them, 
 they had not mourned (Matt. ix. 15). But he 
 had been eminently a helper, in the extensive 
 sense which has been indicated ; and such as he 
 had been to them — to teach, to guide, and to up- 
 hold — the Holy Spirit would become to them 
 after his removal (see the Commentators above 
 named, particularly Tholuck and Tittmann on 
 John xiv. 16; also Knapp, De Sp. S. et Christi 
 Paracletis, Halle, 1790). 
 
 PARADISE, the term wnich by long and ex- 
 tensive use has been employed to designate the 
 Garden of Eden, the first dwelling-place of hu- 
 man beings. Of this word (tt apafienros') the earliest 
 instance that we have is in the Cyropcedia and 
 other writings of Xenophon, nearly 400 years be- 
 fore Christ ; but his use of it has that appearance of 
 ease and familiarity which leads us to suppose that 
 it was current among his countrymen. We find 
 it also used by Plutarch, who lived in the first and 
 second century of our era. It was by those au- 
 thors evidently employed to signify an extensive 
 plot of ground, enclosed with a strong fence or 
 wall, abounding in trees, shrubs, plants, and gar- 
 den culture, and in which choice animals were 
 kept in different ways of restraint or freedom, ac- 
 cording as they were ferocious or peaceable ; thus 
 answering very closely to our English word park, 
 with the addition of gardens , a menagerie, and 
 an aviary. 
 
 The circumstance which has given to this term 
 its extensive and popular use, is its having been 
 taken by the Greek translators of the Pentateuch, 
 in the third century b.c., and, following them, in 
 the ancient Syriac version, and by Jerome in the 
 Latin Vulgate, as the translation of the garden 
 (p gun} which the benignant providence of the 
 Creator prepared for the abode of innocent and 
 happy man. Those translators also use it, not 
 only in the twelve places of Gen. ii. and iii., but 
 in eight others, and two in which the feminine 
 form ( gannah ) occurs ; whereas, in other in- 
 stances of those two words, they employ Kr\iros, 
 the usual Greek word for a garden or an enclo- 
 sure of fruit-trees. But there are three places in 
 which the Hebrew text itself has the very word, 
 giving it the form DTlS pa/'dees. These are, 
 ‘the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give 
 me timber' (Neh. ii. 8); ‘ orchards' (Eccles. ii. 
 6) ; ‘an orchard of pomegranates’ (Song of Solo- 
 mon. iv. 13). Evidently the word is not proper 
 Hebrew, but is an exotic, imported from a more 
 eastern tongue, probably the Persian, from which 
 source also Xenophon derived it. But the best 
 
 authorities carry the derivation farther back. 
 ‘ The word is regarded by most learned men as 
 Persian, of the same signification as the Hebrew 
 gan. Certainly it was used by the Persians in 
 this sense, corresponding to their darchen ; tut 
 that it is an Armenian word is shown both from 
 its constant use in that language, and from its 
 formation, it being compounded of two Arme- 
 nian simple words, part and ses, meaning neces- 
 sary grains or edible herbs. The Armenians 
 apply this word, pardes, to denote a garden ad- 
 joining to the dwelling, and replenished with the 
 different sorts of grain, herbs, and flowers for use 
 and ornament’ (Schroederi Thesaur. Ling. Armen. 
 Dissert., p. 56, Amst. 1711). With this E. F. C. 
 Rosenmiiller accords ( Bibl . Alterthumsk. vol. i., 
 part i., p. 174). ‘ It corresponds to the Greek 
 
 7T apdfieiaos, a word appropriated to the pleasure- 
 gardens and parks with wild animals around the 
 palace of the Persian monarchs. The origin of 
 the word, however, is to be sought with neither 
 the Greeks nor the Hebrews, but in the languages 
 of Eastern Asia. We. find it in Sanscrit para- 
 deesha, a region of surpassing beauty ; and the 
 Armenian pardes, a park or garden adjoining to 
 the Irouse, planted with trees for use and orna- 
 ment’ (Gesenius and Robinson, combining the 
 Leipzig and the American editions of the Hcbr. 
 Lex.'). ‘ A paradise, i. e. an orchard, an arbo- 
 
 retum, particularly of pomegranates, a park, a 
 fruit-garden ; a name common to several Oriental 
 languages, and especially current among the Per- 
 sians, as we learn from Xenophon and Julius 
 Pollux. Sanscrit, pardeesha ; Armenian, par- 
 dez ; Arabic, firdaus ; Syriac, fardaiso ; Chaldee 
 of the Targums, pardeesa' (Fiirst, Concord. V. T. 
 p. 920, Leipzig, 1840). 
 
 In the apocryphal book of Susanna (a moral 
 tale or little novel, possibly founded on some 
 genuine tradition), the word paradise is con- 
 stantly used for the garden. It occurs also in 
 three passages of the Son of Sirach, the first of 
 which is in the description of Wisdom : * I came 
 forth as a canal dug from a river, and as a water- 
 pipe into a paradise' (ch. xxiv. 30). In the 
 other two, it is the objective term of comparisons : 
 ‘ kindness is as a paradise in blessings, and mer- 
 cifulness abideth for ever — the fear of the Lord 
 is as & paradise of blessing, and it adorns above 
 all pomp' (ch. xl. 17, 27). Josephus calls the 
 gardens of Solomon, in the plural number, ‘ pa- 
 radises’ ( Antiq . viii. 7. 3). Berosus (cent. iv. 
 b.c.), quote . ny Josephus (e. Apion. i. 20), says 
 that, the lofty garden-platforms, erected at Baby Ion 
 by Nebuchadnezzar, were called the Suspended 
 Paradise. 
 
 The term, having thus become a metaphor foi 
 the abstract idea of exquisite delight, was trans- 
 ferred still higher to denote the happiness of the 
 righteous in the future state. The origin of this 
 application must be assigned to the Jews of the 
 middle period between the Old and the New 
 Testament. In the Chaldee Targums, ‘ the gar- 
 den of Eden’ is put as the exposition of heavenly 
 blessedness (Ps. xc. 17, and other places). The 
 Talmudical writings, cited by the elder Buxtorf 
 {Lex. Chald. et Talm., p. 1802), and John James 
 Wetstein ( N . T. Gr. vol. i. p. 819), contain fre- 
 quent references to Paradise as the immortal 
 heaven, to which the spirits of the just, are ad- 
 mitted immediately upon the liberation from the 
 
470 
 
 PARADISE. 
 
 PARADISE. 
 
 body. The book Sohar speaks of an earthly and 
 a heavenly Paradise, of which the latter excels 
 the former 4 as much as darkness does light.’ 
 (Schoetgen. Hor. Hebr. vol. i. p. 1096). 
 
 Hence we see that it was in the acceptation of 
 the current Jewish phraseology that the expres- 
 sion was used by our Lord and the apostles : 
 ‘To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise ;’ 4 He 
 was caught up into Paradise 4 The tree of life, 
 which is in the Paradise of my God' (Luke xxiii. 
 43 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4 ; Rev. ii. 7). 
 
 Eden is the most ancient and venerable name 
 in geography, the name of the first district of the 
 earth’s surface of which human beings could have 
 any knowledge. The word is found in the Arabic 
 as well as in the Hebrew language. It is ex- 
 plained by Firuzabadi, in his celebrated Arabic 
 Lexicon (Kamus), as signifying delight, tender- 
 ness , loveliness (see Morren, in Edinb. Biblical 
 Cabinet, vol. xi. pp. 2, 48, 49). Major Wilford 
 and Professor Wilson find its elements in the 
 Sanscrit. The Greek T]bovt] is next to identical 
 with it in both sound and sense. It occurs in 
 three places (Isa. xxxvii. 12 ; Ezek. xxvii. 23 ; 
 Amos i. 5) as the name of some eminently 
 pleasant districts, but not the Eden of this article. 
 Of them we have no certain knowledge, except 
 that the latter instance points to the neighbour- 
 hood of Damascus. In these cases it is pointed 
 with both syllables short; but, when it is applied 
 to the primitive seat of man, the first syllable is 
 long. Those passages, in addition to Gen. ii. 
 iii. iv. 16, are the lew following, of which we 
 transcribe the chief, because they cast light upon 
 the primeval term : ‘ He will make her wilder- 
 ness like Eden and her desert like the garden of 
 Jehovah.’ ‘Thou hast been in Eden, the garden 
 of God.’ ‘ All the trees of Eden, that were in the 
 garden of God, envied him.’ ‘ This land which 
 was desolate is become like the garden of Eden’ 
 (Isa. Ii. 3; Ezek. xxviii. 13; xxxi. 9, 16, 18; 
 xxxvi. 35 ; Joel ii. 3). 
 
 All this evidence goes to show that Eden was 
 a tract of country ; and that in the most eligible 
 part of it was the Paradise, the garden of all 
 delights, in which the Creator was pleased to place 
 his new and pre-eminent creature, with the inferior 
 beings for his sustenance and solace. 
 
 W e now present the passage from the Hebrew 
 Archives to which this disquisition belongs : — 
 
 Genesis ii. 8 — 4 And Jehovah Elohim planted 
 a garden in Eden, on the east ; and placed there the 
 man whom he had formed. And J ehovah Elohim 
 caused to grow out of the ground there every tree 
 agreeable to the sight, and good for eating ; and 
 the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the 
 tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And a 
 river proceeded from Eden, for the watering of 
 the 9F&.*den ; and from thence it was divided, and 
 became into four heads. The name of the first, 
 Pishon ; it surroundeth the whole country of 
 Havilah, where is the gold, and gold of that land 
 is good ; there is the bedolach and the stone sho- 
 har. And the name of the second river, Gihon ; 
 it. surroundeth the whole country of Cu3h. And 
 the name of the third river, Hiddekel ; it is that 
 which goetli easterly to Assyria. And the fourth 
 river, it is the Phrat.’ 
 
 Upon this description, we shall offer our senti- 
 ments in the shortest manner that we can. 
 
 I. It is given in that simple, artless, childlike 
 
 style which characterizes the whole of the \ rime- 
 val Hebrew Scriptures. This is the style which 
 was alone adapted to the early stages of th« 
 human history. Our whole race had to pass 
 through a long succession of trying and training 
 circumstances, which formed truly the collective 
 education of mankind. The communications o< 
 knowledge must have been made and recorded 
 in such terms and phrases as the men of the age 
 could at the first understand ; and which yet 
 should possess a suggestive and attractive cha- 
 racter, which would gradually capacitate for 
 higher and more spiritual disclosures. (See the 
 observations on the modes of divine manifestation 
 to the first human beings, in the article Adam, 
 vol. i. p. 60.) If it were objected, that thus ‘ the 
 revelation would be clothed in the imagery of 
 gross and sensible objects, with the imperfections 
 and misconceptions under which those objects ap* 
 peared to men possessing only the rude idejrs of 
 primeval state of society,’ and this would of ne- 
 cessity produce a rude and imperfect language 
 [Anthropomorphism], we reply, that the spirit 
 of the objection would require ‘ that the terms 
 and style of the revelation should have been in 
 the most pure and abstract kind of phrase that 
 human diction could afford, the most nearly 
 approaching to the spirituality of the Divine na- 
 ture and the majesty of eternal things ; and this 
 would be equivalent to saying, that it ought to 
 liave anticipated by many centuries the progress 
 of man as an intellectual and social being ; that 
 it ought to have been written, not in the language 
 of shepherds and herdsmen, but in that of moral 
 philosophers and rhetoricians; not in Hebrew, 
 but in Greek or English. It would also follow, 
 that a revelation so expressed would have been 
 unintelligible to the ages and generations of pri- 
 mitive time, and to the generality of mankind in 
 all times’ (Pye Smith, On Scripture and Ge 
 ology, p. 242). 
 
 Upon this principle w r e understand the ex- 
 pression, ‘ the Lord God planted,' caused to grow, 
 placed ; he, the supreme and omnipotent cause, 
 produced those effects, in ways, immediate ot 
 mediate, the most worthy of his perfections. 
 
 II. The situation of Eden : though DHplD is 
 literally from the east, it answers to our phrase 
 on the east or eastwards , precisely as the Latin 
 ab occasu. The supposed station-point we cannot 
 suppose to be any other than Palestine. In every 
 country, the region of the rising sun must always 
 be pre-eminent, on account of the beauty and 
 majesty of the sky ; and hence it is a natural 
 representative of excellence : and this most in- 
 teresting of regions, the birthplace of mankind, 
 did lie eastward from the land of the Israelites. 
 Also, the earliest traditions of human and divine 
 knowledge were associated with the splendours of 
 the east. 
 
 Upon the question of its exact geographical 
 position dissertations innumerable have been 
 written. Many authors have given descriptive 
 lists of them, with arguments for and against 
 each. The most convenient presentation of then- 
 respective outlines has been reduced to a tabu- 
 lated form, with ample illustrations, by the Rev. 
 N. Morren, annexed to his Translation of the 
 younger Rosenmiiller’s Biblical Geography of 
 Central Asia , pp. 91 — 98, Edinb. 1836. He 
 reduces them to nine principal theories. But the 
 
PARADISE. 
 
 PARADISE. 
 
 
 (act is that not one of them answers to all the 
 conditions of the problem. We more than douht 
 the possibility of finding any locality that, will 
 do so. That Phrat is the Euphrates, and Hid- 
 dekel the Tigris, is agreed, with scarcely an ex- 
 ception ; but in determining the two other rivers, 
 great diversity of opinion exists ; and, to our ap- 
 prehension, satisfaction is and must remain un- 
 attainable, from the impossibility of making the 
 evidence to cohere in all its parts. It has been 
 remarked that this difficulty might have been 
 expected, and is obviously probable, from the 
 geological changes that may have taken place, 
 and especially in connection with the deluge. 
 This remark would not be applicable, to the ex- 
 tent that is necessary for the argument, except 
 upon the supposition before mentioned, that the 
 earlier parts of the book of Genesis consist of pri- 
 meval documents, even antediluvian, and that 
 this is one of them. There is reason to think 
 that since the deluge the face of the country can- 
 not have undergone any change approaching to 
 what the hypothesis of a postdiluvian composition 
 would require. But we think it highly probable 
 that the principal of the immediate causes of the 
 deluge, the 1 breaking up of the fountains of the 
 great deep,’ was a subsidence of a large part or 
 parts of the land between the inhabited tract 
 (which we humbly venture to place in E. long, 
 from Greenwich, 30° to 90°, and N. lat. 25° to 
 40°) and the sea which lay to the south ; or 
 an elevation of the bed of that sea [Deluge]. 
 Either of these occurrences, produced by volcanic 
 causes, or both of them conjointly or successively, 
 would be adequate to the production of the awful 
 deluge, and the return of the waters would be 
 effected by an elevation of some part of the dis- 
 trict which had been submerged; and that part 
 could scarcely fail to be charged with animal 
 remains. Now the recent geological researches 
 of Dr. Falconer and Capt. Cautley have brought 
 m to light bones, more or less mineralized, of the 
 giraffe ( Camelopardalis ,) in the Sewalik range of 
 hills, which seems to be a branch of the Hima- 
 laya, westward of the river Jumna. But the 
 giraffe is not an animal that can live in a moun- 
 tainous region, or even on the skirts of such a 
 region ; its subsistence and its safety require ‘ an 
 open country and broad plains to roam over.’ 
 (Falconer and Cautley, in Proceed. Geol. Soc ., 
 Nov. 15, 1843). The present position, therefore, 
 of these fossil remains ( — ‘ of almost every large 
 pachydermatous genus, such as the elephant, 
 mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, sus (swine), 
 horse, & c.’ ib ., also deer and oxen) — lodged in 
 ravines and vales among the peaks, at vast eleva- 
 tions, leads to the supposition of a late elevation 
 of extensive plains. 
 
 Thus we seem, to have a middle course pointed 
 out between the two extremes ; the one, that by 
 the deluge, the ocean and the land were made to 
 exchange places for permanency ; the other, that 
 very little alteration was produced in the con- 
 figuration of the earth’s surface. Indeed, such 
 alteration might not be considerable in places 
 very distant from the focus of elevation; but 
 near that central district it could not but be very 
 great. An alteration of level, five hundred times 
 less than that effected by the uptlnow of the Hi- 
 malayas, would change the beds of many rivers, 
 fcnd quite obliterate others. 
 
 We therefore decline to enter into disquisitions, 
 interminable and surely disappointing, upon the 
 rivers Pishon and Gihon, and the countries of 
 Havilah and Cush. Etymological similarities 
 afford no sate ground for conclusions; for many 
 names of close resemblance are to be found in 
 the Asiatic languages, but of which the natural 
 history and collateral circumstances are incom- 
 patible with other parts of this (as we think) ante- 
 diluvian fragment of topography. Also Gihon 
 certainly, and probably Pishon, were used in the 
 ancient Oriental languages as appellatives, sepa- 
 rate or prefixed, signifying a stream in general ; 
 as the old British Avon, which has the same 
 meaning, has become the proper name of several 
 rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland. 
 
 III. We venture to give a summary of this de- 
 scription. It was a tract of country, the finest ima- 
 ginable, lying probably between the 33rd and the 
 37th degree of N. latitude, of such moderate ele- 
 vation, and so adjusted, with respect to mountain 
 ranges and water-sheds and forests, as to preserve 
 the most agreeable and salubrious conditions of 
 temperature and all atmospheric changes. Its 
 surface must therefore have been constantly di- 
 versified by hill and plain. From its hill-sides, 
 between the croppings out of their strata, springs 
 trickled out, whose streamlets, joining in their 
 courses, formed at the bottom small rivers, which 
 again receiving other streams (which had in the 
 same way flowed down from the higher grounds), 
 became, in the bottom of every valley, a more 
 considerable river. These valleys inosculated, 
 as must consequently their contained streams ; 
 wider valleys or larger plains appeared ; the river 
 of each united itself with that of its next neigh- 
 bour ; others contributed their waters as the aug- 
 menting stream proceeded ; and finally it quitted 
 the land of Eden, to continue its course to some 
 sea, or to lose its waters by the evaporation of the 
 atmosphere or the absorption of the sandy desert. 
 In the finest part of this land of Eden, the Cre- 
 ator had formed an enclosure, probably by rocks 
 and forests and rivers, and had filled it with every 
 product of nature conducive to use and happi- 
 ness. Due moisture, of both the ground and the 
 air, was preserved by the streamlets from the 
 nearest hills, and the rivulets from the more dis- 
 tant ; and such streamlets and rivulets, collected 
 according to the levels of the surrounding coun- 
 try (‘ it proceeded from Eden’) flowed off after- 
 wards in four larger streams, each of which 
 thus became the source of a great river. 
 
 This metaphrase deviates from what is com- 
 monly thought to be the meaning of the original, 
 but not, we think, from its true signification and 
 intention. 
 
 1. It is a metonymy occurring probably, 
 though not very frequently, in all languages, that 
 a collective noun is sometimes used when the 
 idea is compound and distributive. The usage 
 is recognised in the Hebrew language, by Geseniua 
 in his Lehrgebdude, p. 525; Ewald, Gramm. 
 § 346 ; and Nordheimer, Gramm. § 738 — 750. 
 This kind of synthesis would be likely to find 
 place in a primitive and consequently very simple 
 language. The multitude of droppings and 
 tricklings, rills and streamlets, having one bene- 
 ficial design, and ever tending to confluence^ 
 would, in the mind of a primeval writer, readily 
 coalesce into a singular term, a rivei We hav« 
 
472 
 
 PARADISE. 
 
 PARADISE. 
 
 *n appropriate example in Ps. lxv. 10, where the 
 aggregate of showers is called ‘ the river of God, 
 full of water.’ The principle applies equally to 
 
 iV-D and THl It is therefore no unwarrantable 
 
 liberty to understand by the ‘ river’ a number of 
 rills and rivulets dispersed throughout .he ground, 
 and flowing into one channel about the issue into 
 the external country. If the water entered the 
 garden as a river properly, that is in one body, 
 it could not ‘ water the garden* without artificial 
 appliances; and it would have divided the gar- 
 den, making one part inaccessible from the other, 
 without a boat or a bridge. 
 
 2. That a river should be ‘ divided into four 
 heads,’ or sources of new rivers, is naturally im- 
 possible. If to a running stream, small or large, 
 two or more channels be presented, it will not 
 divide itself distributivelv, but will pour its 
 whole mass of water into the deepest channel : it 
 will ever seek the lowest bottom. We must 
 therefore understand the passage as saying that, 
 from four different collections of rills, which had 
 flowed down different declivities in the same 
 neighbourhood, the sources were formed of four 
 rivers which in their progress became great and 
 celebrated. To controvert this reasoning it would 
 not be sufficient to adduce the division of a great 
 river into branches as it approaches the sea, and 
 meets an extensive swamp or flat shore, as in 
 the deltas of the Rhine (forming, with many in- 
 ferior streams, the Leek and the W aal), the Po, 
 the Nile, the Ganges, and many others. The 
 soft and almost horizontal level causes the watei 
 to cease flowing, or nearly so, .and the vast extent 
 of mud or sand permits branches of the stream to 
 take place when some small change of the surface 
 gives occasion. But the rivers of Paradise must 
 have been in high ground, and have had a con- 
 siderable fall. It is possible, indeed, that rocky 
 obstacles might exist, connected backwards with 
 a mountainous country, presenting their heads 
 against, the stream, and thus separating it, as islets 
 are formed in the higher course of the Rhine. 
 But the conditions necessary to derive four great 
 rivers out of one, in this way, are scarcely con- 
 ceivable as occurring in one place. The origin 
 of two or more rivers from different fountains in 
 the same locality of high ground, but on different 
 levels, and then pursuing different courses, is not 
 an unexampled phenomenon. The Rhine and the 
 Rhone rise but about eight English miles from 
 each other; and, which applies to the case directly 
 before us, the sources of the Euphrates and the 
 Tdgris , on the eastern frontier of Armenia, so far 
 as they can be followed up, are ou\y fifteen miles 
 apart. 
 
 Here, then, in the south of Armenia, after the 
 explication we have given, it. may seem the most 
 suitable to look for the object of our exploration, 
 the site of Paradise. From this opinion few, 
 we think, will dissent. 
 
 But the stringent difficulty is to find any two 
 rivers that will reasonably answer to the predi- 
 cates of the Pishon and the Gihon ; and any 
 countries which can be collocated as Havilah 
 and Cush. The latter name, indeed, was given 
 by the Hebrews and other Orientals to several ex- 
 tensive countries, and those very distant both 
 from Armenia and from each other. As for Ha- 
 vilah, we have the name again in the account of 
 
 the Dispersion of the Descendants of Noah (ch. 
 x. 29), but whether that was the same as this 
 Havilah, and in what part of Asia it was, we 
 despair of ascertaining. Relaud and others, the 
 best writers upon this question, have felt them- 
 selves compelled to give to thest 4 names a compre- 
 hension which destroys all preciseness. So, like- 
 wise, the meaning of the two names of natural 
 products can be little more than matter of con- 
 jecture ; the bedolach and the stone shoham. The 
 former word occurs only here and in Num. xi. 7. 
 The Septuagint, our oldest, and best authority 
 with regard to terms of natural history, renders 
 it, in our passage, by anthrax, meaning probably 
 the ruby, or possibly the topaz; and in Numbers 
 by crystallos, which the Greeks applied no: 
 merely to rock-crystal, but to any finely trans- 
 parent mineral. Any of the several kinds of 
 odoriferous gum, which many ancient and mo- 
 dern authorities have maintained, is not likely ; 
 for it could not be in value comparable to gold. 
 The pearl is possible, but not quite probable ; for 
 it is an animal product, and the connection seems 
 rather to confine us U. minerals ; and pearls, 
 .though translucent, are not transparent as good, 
 crystal is. Would not the diamond be an ad- 
 missible conjecture? The shoham occurs in ten 
 other places, chiefly in the book of Exodus, and 
 in all those instances our version says onyx; but 
 the Septuagint varies, taking onyx, sardius, sar- 
 donyx, beryl, prase-stone, sapphire, and smarag- 
 dus, which is a green-tinctured rock-crystal. The 
 preponderance seems to be in favour of onyx, one 
 of the many varieties of banded agate; but the 
 idea of value leads us to think that the emerald 
 is the most probable. There are two remarkable 
 inventories of precious stones in Exod. xxxix. 10- 
 13, and Ezek. xxviii. 13 ; which may be profit- 
 ably studied, comparing the Septuagint with the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 A nearer approach to the solution of our pro- 
 blem, we cannot hope to make. 
 
 A gentleman to whom high respect is due, the 
 late Mr. Granville Penn, proposes to sweep away 
 the difficulties by denying the authenticity of the 
 passage, verses 11 to 14 (Comparative Estimate 
 of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies , p. 418). 
 We think the reply sufficient, that the passage 
 cannot he regarded as an interpolation without 
 violating all the principles of just criticism. 
 
 The numerous attempts of modern German 
 writers to resolve this part and all the rest of the 
 Mosaic Archaeology into what they call a Mythic. 
 Philosopheme (an allegory made up of tradition 
 and fancy), would require a large space to detail 
 and examine them. They are full of arbitrary 
 assumptions and inconsistencies; their tendency 
 and design are to undermine all the facts of su- 
 pernatural revelation, to destroy the authority of 
 the Mosaic and the prophetical Scriptures, and 
 consequently of the Christian, and thus event- 
 ually to supersede all religion that rests upon any 
 other ground than egotistical reasonings and ro- 
 mantic fancies. They form a great part of a 
 multifarious scheme of infidelity and pantheism, 
 which requires to be met by the proofs of the 
 existence of a personal, intelligent, and efficient 
 God, and the evidences that he has bestowed 
 upon man a positive manifestation of his author 
 rity and his love. 
 
 A learned and apparently pious writer, in 
 
PARADISE. 
 
 PARAN. 
 
 473 
 
 Ine first, volume of a Theological Commentary 
 upon the OLl Testament (Kiel, 1S43, the only 
 part yet published), Dr. M. Baumgarten, has 
 proposed to eliminate the perplexities in a new 
 way. Admitting the impossibility of finding 
 any place, in the present condition of the earth, 
 that will answer to the description, yet believing 
 that it was realized at the time, he conceives that 
 it pleased the Author of revelation to combine 
 with the historical fact, a symbolical and pro- 
 phetical intention. We shall conclude this article 
 by citing a passage from that work : — 
 
 ‘ Amidst all this litigation of contending and 
 contradictory opinions, it has been altogether 
 overlooked, that we ought to inquire for what 
 reason this remarkably circumstantial description 
 was given : for it is not the manner of the Holy 
 Scriptures to communicate minute particulars 
 for the gratification of useless curiosity. The 
 word of tJod never loses sight of its chief object ; 
 and it puts all its minor parts into connection 
 with that. The question then is, What connection 
 does the description of Paradise hold with the 
 rest of the history ? That the mention of the 
 river, flowing out of Eden, hath its proper and 
 important place, is plain from the purpose ascribed 
 to it — the watering of the garden , the impartaticn 
 of life and fertility, that it might be sufficiently 
 adapted for the abode of the first human crea- 
 tures. But what now must be the design of the 
 branches of the river, which are expressly pointed 
 out as not belonging to the garden? It evidently 
 must be the same as in the first case, the watering 
 of some ground ; and that ground can be no 
 other than the countries through which those 
 derived streams are declared to flow. Here then 
 we are met with the particulars stated concerning 
 Havilah and the other geographical names. The 
 four branches go out into the country of gold, of 
 precious stones, and of aromatics : they go out 
 into the countries in which men first formed com- 
 munities and founded mighty kingdoms, the lands 
 of Cush, Assyria, and Babylon. Thus the great 
 river which comes from the east, and has its rise 
 . in Eden, and thence immediately waters the gar- 
 den, is that which pours its waters into the prin- 
 cipal countries of the world, as the streams of life 
 to the nations. The number also of both the 
 streams and the countries claims consideration ; 
 it is four. Bahr (in his work on Symbols , vol.i. 
 p. 155-174) has shown that this number was the 
 symbolical sign of proportion and order ; and 
 was consequently regarded as a designation of 
 the world, considered as a work of order and 
 proportional arrangement — the proper idea of 
 the Greek kSct/aos. At a later period, we find 
 the Scripture assigning foxir as the number of 
 the great monarchies of the world (Dan. vii.). 
 The description must therefore be understood as 
 directing us far forward into the future, and as 
 giving a prophetic intimation of its own meaning. 
 The life of the human race began in Paradise; 
 but from thence it. was to diffuse itself into all 
 other regions, and bring the morning-beam of 
 divine light, which enlightened man in the gar- 
 den, to be enjoyed over the whole earth. And 
 indeed those countries are the most immediately 
 pointed out, winch held ready their fulness and 
 power, and as it were kept in their view the com- 
 ing of their Lord, in order to do him homage 
 f Ma tt. ’i, 1 1). But now, with respect to the geo- 
 
 graphical question, it should not be forgotten that, 
 between the commencement of history and our 
 times, there lies a great revolution, the Deluge. 
 It cannot be supposed that such a mighty shock 
 of the whole terrestrial globe could do otherwise 
 than greatly disfigure the earth’s surface. It might 
 indeed be thought that this consideration would 
 justify an entire relinquishment of attempts to 
 collate the description with now existing locali- 
 ties. But, on the other hand, it should be con- 
 sidered that the Deluge did not take away the 
 identity of the earth : and that the special names, 
 as Phrat and Assur, without doubt have theii 
 reference to the earth’s subsequent condition. 
 The two names Phrat and Hiddekel appear to 
 determine explicitly the tract of country through 
 which they flow ; and consequently we may be led 
 to conceive of the whole matter thus: that from 
 the region of Armenia a river flowed, and then 
 divided itself into four branches, of which the two 
 eastern corresponded to the rivers afterwards de- 
 nominated the Euphrates and the Tigris, and the 
 two western had their course through Arabia; but 
 that country (Arabia), in some following age, was 
 elevated (by volcanic action) above the original 
 river-bed. Prof. Ritter (of the University of 
 Berlin, the father of what may be called a new 
 science, Comparative Geography , and which he 
 has happily combined with Ethnography) has 
 remarked that, even within the modern period, 
 the Euphrates has not inconsiderably changed its 
 course. (See his Geography in relation to Nature 
 and the History of Mankind , vol. ii. p. 121, 1st. 
 ed.) In the following times of history, we have 
 seen how the river of mankind from the moun- 
 tains of Armenia poured itself into the plains of 
 the Tigris and the Euphrates. The tribes of men 
 went forth into the regions of the streams of Para- 
 dise, acquired power and gathered riches. But 
 of gold they made gods, decked them with jewels, 
 and brought incense to the things which have 
 noses and smell not. Their power rebelled against 
 Ggd and his people, and by the rivers of Baby- 
 lon the children of Israel sat down and wept. 
 Thus, in the world’s history, has the track of the 
 four branch rivers maintained itself, but, by the 
 intrusion of sin, the glorious future of the pri- 
 meval Paradise has been changed into a mourn- 
 ful present.’ Theolog. Comment, zum A. Testam. 
 vol. i. p. 39). 
 
 We have thought it but fair to put our readers 
 into possession of this interpretation, presenting 
 the passage as, though literally true, yet having 
 an allegorical and prophetic intention. It is in- 
 genious and striking ; but what we want is some 
 solid ground of evidence. — J. P. S. 
 
 PARAN (f“)&$!3 ; Sept. &apar), a name which 
 seems to be applied in Scripture to the whole of 
 the desert region extending from the frontiers of 
 Judah to the borders of Sinai. At least, as we 
 find it in the south of this region, bordering Sinai 
 (Num. x. 12), and in the north bordering on 
 Kadesh (Num. xiii. 26, and elsewhere), it seems 
 easier to suppose that Paran was the name of the 
 whole region marked by these limits, than that 
 there were two opposite districts bearing the same 
 name. Under this view the difficulty of rightly 
 appropriating the name is obviated, seeing that 
 all the separate allocations which different 
 writers have sought for it meet in the somewhat 
 
474 
 
 PARMENAS. 
 
 PARTRIDGE. 
 
 extensive district which we suppose it to nave 
 embraced. The name is still preserved in that 
 of Wady Feiran , a valley of the lower Sinai, 
 through which lay the road which appears to have 
 l>een taken by the Israelites in their march to the 
 upper region. In this valley there are ruins of a 
 town, and indeed of more than one, with towers, 
 aqueducts, and sepulchral excavations ; and here 
 Ruppell found the remains of a church, which he 
 assigns to the fifth century ( Reise in Nubien, 
 p. 263; Burckhardt, Syria, p. 616). This was 
 the Pharan or Faran which had a Christian po- 
 pulation, and was the seat of a bishopric so early 
 as a.d. 400 (Oriens Christ, col. 735; Reland, 
 Palcest. pp. 219, 220, 22S). The city is described, 
 under the name of Feiran, by the Arabian his- 
 torian Edrisi, about a.d. 1150, and by Makriri 
 about ad. 1400. The description of the latter 
 is copied by Burckhardt. He mentions it as 
 having been a city of the Amalekites ; and the 
 history of the Hebrew pilgrimage renders it ex- 
 tremely probable that, the Amalekites were ac- 
 tually stationed in this valley, from which they 
 came forth to attack the Israelites, when encamped 
 near it at Rephedim (Exod. xvii. 8). We thus 
 perceive the ground on which Jerome proceeded 
 in stating that the desert of Paran joined on 
 Horeb (O no mast. s. v. $apav, Faran; Xuprif}, 
 Choreb). Wady Feiran does actually join upon 
 Mount Serbal ; and hence it might seem that 
 Jerome regarded this as the Horeb of Scripture. 
 
 PARCHMENT. [Writing.] 
 
 PARLOUR. [House.] 
 
 PARMENAS (Tlapyevds), one of the seven first 
 deacons of the church formed at Jerusalem (Acts 
 vi. 5). Nothing more is known of him ; but the 
 Roman martyrologies allege that he suffered mar- 
 tyrdom under Trajan. 
 
 PARTHIA (llapO'ia, Ptol., Tlapdvala, Strabo 
 and Arrian), the country of the Parthians (ndp- 
 6oi ), mentioned in Acts ii. 9, as being with their 
 neighbours, the Medes and Elamites, present at 
 Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The persons 
 referred to were Jews from Parthia, and the pas- 
 sage is a strong evidence showing how widely 
 spread were members of the Hebrew family in the 
 first century of our era. The term originally re- 
 ferred to a small mountainous district lying to 
 the north-east of Media. Afterwards it came to 
 be applied to the great Parthian kingdom, into 
 which this province expanded. Parthia Proper, 
 or Ancient Parthia, lying between Aria and Hyr- 
 cania, the residence of a rude and poor tribe, and 
 traversed by bare mountains, woods, and sandy 
 steppes, formed a part of the great Persian mo- 
 narchy, being a dependency on the satrapy of Hyr- 
 cania. Its inhabitants were of Scythian origin. 
 They formed a part of the army of Xerxes, and 
 were found in (hat of the last Darius. In the 
 breaking up of the kingdom of Alexander the 
 Parthians took sides with Eumenes, and became 
 subject to Antigonus and the Seleucidse, About 
 256 years before Christ Arsaces rose against, the 
 Syro-Macedonian power, and commenced a new 
 dynasty in his own person, designated by the title 
 of Arsacidse. This was the beginning of the 
 great Parthian empire, which extended itself in 
 the early days of Christianity over all the pro- 
 vinces of what had been the Persian kingdom, 
 having the Euphrates for its western boundary, 
 
 by which it was separated from the dominions ot 
 Rome. It was divided into eighteen provinces 
 Now at peace, now in bitter hostilities with Rome, 
 now the victor and now the vanquished, tlie 
 Parthians were never subjugated by the Romans. 
 
 At length Artaxerxes founded a new dynasty. 
 Representing himself as a descendant of the an- 
 cient Persian kings, and calling upon the Per- 
 sians to recover their independence, he raised a 
 large army, defeated the Parthians in a great 
 battle, succeeded to all the dominions of the 
 Parthian kings, and founded the new Persian 
 empire, to the rulers of which is commonly given 
 the name of the Sassatiidae. The government of 
 Parthia was monarchical; but as there was no 
 settled and recognised line of succession, rival 
 aspirants were constantly presenting themselves, 
 which weakened the country with internal broils, 
 especially as the Romans saw it to be their inte- 
 rest to foster dissensions and encourage rivalries, 
 and led eventually to the overthrow of the dynasty 
 in the case of the successful aspirant Artaxerxes 
 During the Syro-Macedonian period the Parthian 
 and Jewish history kept apart in separate spheres, 
 but under the Romans the Parthians defended 
 the party of Antigonus against Hyrcanus, and 
 even took and plundered Jerusalem (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xiv. 13. 3 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 13). The geography 
 of Parthia may be studied, besides the ancient 
 authorities, in Cellar. Notit. ii. 700; Mannert, v. 
 102.- J. R. B. 
 
 PARTRIDGE (Nip, hr a, kora, kora; 1 
 Sam. xxvi. 20 ; Jer. xvii. 11 ; Sept. irepSif ; Yulg. 
 perdiz, Ecclus. xi. 31). Late commentators state 
 that there are four species of the tetrao (grouse) of 
 Linnaeus abundant in Palestine ; the francolin 
 (T. framolinus), thekatta (7! alchata ), the red- 
 legged or Barbary partridge ( T. petrosus), and 
 the Greek partridge ( T. saxatilis). In this now 
 obsolete classification there are included not less 
 than three genera, according to the more correct 
 systems of recent writers, and not one strictly a 
 grouse occurs in the number, though the real T. 
 Ur off alius, or cock of the woods, is reported to fre- 
 quent Asia Minor in winter, and in that case is 
 probably no stranger in Libanus. There is, how- 
 ever, the genus Pteroc/es y of which the P. alchata 
 is the katta,_ganga, cata, and pin-tailed grouse of 
 authors, a species very common in Palestine, and 
 innumerable in Arabia; but it is not the only one, 
 for the sand* grouse of Latham (P. arenarim ) 
 occurs in France, Spain, Barbary, Arabia, Persia, 
 and on the north side of the Mediterranean, or all 
 round Palestine. P. Arabicus , and prd bably ^ 
 
PARTRIDGE. 
 
 PASIIUR. 
 
 *75 
 
 pxustus, or the Arabian and singed gangas, occur 
 equally in the open districts of the south, peopling 
 the desert along with the ostrich. All are distin- 
 guished from other genera of Tetraonida by their 
 long and powerful wings, enabling them to reach 
 water, which they delight to drink in abundance; 
 and by this propensity they often indicate to the 
 thirsty caravan in what direction to find relief. 
 They feed more on insects, larvae, and worms than 
 on seeds, and none of the species having a perfect 
 hind toe that reaches the ground, they run fast : 
 these characteristics are of some importance in 
 determining whether they were held to be really 
 clean birds, and consequently could be the selav 
 of the Israelites, which our versions have rendered 
 ‘quail* [Quail; Unclean Birds], 
 
 The Francolin forms a second genus, whereof 
 F. vulgaris , or the common tree-partridge, is the 
 Syrian species best known, though most likely 
 not the only one of that country. It is larger than 
 the ganga; the male is always provided with one 
 pair of spurs (though others of the genus have two), 
 and has the tail longer than true partridges. 
 This spe'.ies is valued for the table, is of handsome 
 pli/*»/,ge, and common from Spain and France, 
 on brfi i sides of the Mediterranean, eastward to 
 
 446. 'Partridge of Syria. Francolinus Vulgaris.] 
 
 The partridge is a third genus, reckoning in 
 Syria the two species before named, both red- 
 legged and furnished with orange and black cres- 
 cents on the sides; but the other markings differ, 
 
 and the Barbary species is smaller than the Greek. 
 They are inferior in delicacy to the common par- 
 
 tridge, and it is probable that Perdix rufa, and 
 the Caspian partridge, both resemlling the former 
 in many particulars, are no strangers in Syria. 
 
 The expostulation of David with Saul, where 
 he says, ‘ The king of Israel is come out to seek a 
 flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge on the 
 mountains,’ is perfectly natural ; for the red-legged 
 partridges are partial to upland brushwood, which 
 is not an uncommon character of the hills and 
 mountains of Palestine ; and the koria sitting on 
 her eggs and not hatching them (Jerem. xvii. 11), 
 we take to allude to the liability of the nest being 
 trodden under foot, or robbed by carnivorous ani- 
 mals, notwithstanding all the care and interesting 
 manoeuvres of the parent birds to save it or the 
 brood ; for this genus is monogamous, nestles on 
 the ground, and both male and female sit and 
 anxiously watch over the safety of their young. 
 This explanation renders it unnecessary to advert 
 to exploded notions drawn from the ancients. 
 The little regard paid to specific and generic 
 identity by the Rabbinical and Arabian writers is 
 exposed in Bochart’s comment, and is manifested 
 constantly in the # colloquial terminology of the 
 East, where cognate languages express very differ- 
 ent objects by words really or apparently the same. 
 
 mp kore , is, we think, derived from the voice 
 of a bird, and more than one species of bustard h 
 thereby indicated in various tongues to the extre- 
 mity of Africa and of India ; among which Otis 
 cory and Otis Arabs are so called at this day, 
 although the first mentioned resides on the plains 
 of Western India, the second in Arabia. We take 
 both these, however, to be the same species. ‘ Cory’ 
 is likewise applied in Caflfrariatoa bustard, which 
 from an indigenous word has been converted 
 by the Dutch into knorhaan. Notwithstanding 
 the pretended etymology of the word, by which it 
 is made to indicate a long beak, none of the genus, 
 not even Otis Denhami (a large bird of Northern 
 Africa), has it long, it, being, in fact, middle-sized 
 in all. Thus it would appear that the type of the 
 name belongs to Otis, and it might be maintained 
 that species of that genus were known to the He- 
 brews, by their name fcOp kora or koria, were it 
 not for the fact that birds bearing this name were 
 hunted by the Hebrews, which could not well have 
 been the case had they not included other genera ; 
 for bustards, being without a hind toe, were con- 
 sidered unclean, while partridges, having it, were 
 clean. The ganga or katta, being provided with 
 a small incomplete one, may have offered an in- 
 stance where the judgment of the priesthood must 
 have decided. We give figures of both Franco- 
 linus vulgaris and Pteroclcs alchata. — C. H. S. 
 
 PARVAIM (D^V)Q ; Sept. apovl/n' ), a region 
 producing the finest gold (2 Chron. iff. 6). There 
 is very strong reason to conclude, with Bochart, 
 that it is the same with Ophir. Castell, however, 
 identifies it with Barbatia on the Tigris, which is 
 named by Pliny (Hist. Nat.v i. 32); and Gese* 
 nius, seeking the root of the name in the Sanskrit 
 ptirva, ‘ before,’ i. e. ‘ eastern,* concludes it to bt 
 a general term, corresponding to our Levant, 
 meaning east country ; so that ‘ gold of Parvaim’ 
 means Eastern gold. 
 
 1. PASHUR ("Vin^ip ; Sept. $aurovp, 4>a<r- 
 <rov£), son of Immer, a priest, and chief overseer 
 of the Temple, who smote Jeremiah and put him 
 in the stocks for his prophecies of captivit) and 
 
476 
 
 PASHUR. 
 
 PASSOVER. 
 
 ruin ; on which the prophet was commissioned to 
 declare that he should be one of those to go into 
 exile, and that he and all his friends should die 
 in Babylon, and be buried there (Jer. xx. 1-6). 
 
 2. PASHUR, son of Melchiah, a high officer 
 of king Zedekiah, and one of those at whose in- 
 stance Jeremiah was cast into prison (Jer. xxi. 1 ; 
 xxxviii. 1-6). A descendant of his is mentioned 
 among the new colonists of Jerusalem after the 
 captivity (Neh. xi. 12). 
 
 PASSOVER (nDS ; ndaxa ; pascha, a pass- 
 ing over, sparing , or protection ). The Passover, 
 like the sabbath and other institutions, had a 
 two- fold reference — historical and typical. As a 
 commemorative institution it was designed to 
 preserve amongst the Hebrews a grateful sense of 
 their redemption from Egyptian bondage, and of 
 the protection granted to their first-born on the 
 night when all the first-born of the Egyptians 
 were destroyed (Exod. xii. 27) ; as a typical 
 institute its object was to shadow forth the great 
 facts and consequences of the Christian Sacrifice 
 (1 Cor. v. 7). That the ancient Jews understood 
 this institution to prefigure the sufferings of the 
 Christ is evident, not only from the New Testa- 
 ment, but from the Mishna, where, among the 
 five things said to be contained in the great Hal- 
 lel (a hymn composed of several psalms, and 
 sung after the paschal supper), one is, the suffer- 
 ings of Messiah, for which they refer to Ps. cxvi. 
 (Pesachini, f. 119). 
 
 The word Passover has three general accept- 
 ations in Scripture. 1st. It denotes the yearly 
 solemnity celebrated on the 14th day of Nisan or 
 A bib, which was strictly the Passover of the 
 Lamb , for on that day the Israelites were com- 
 manded to roast the lamb and eat it in their own 
 houses ; 2nd. It signifies that yearly festivity, 
 celebrated on the 15th of Nisan, which may be 
 called the Feast of the Passover (Deut. ;«.vi. 2; 
 Num. xxviii. 16, 17); 3rd. It denotes the whole 
 solemnity, commencing on the 1 4th, and ending 
 on the 21st day of Nisan (Luke xxri. 1), though, 
 in strictness of speech, the Passover and the 
 nr^n sn, feast of unfermented things, are 
 distinct institutions. The Passover was to be 
 kept on the eve of the 14th of the first month 
 (Abib), in which, although unfermented things 
 were enjoined to be eaten with the lamb, yet the 
 feast of unleavened bread did not commence until 
 the following morning, continuing seven clays, of 
 which the first and last only were sabbaths (Lev 
 xxiii. 5-8), the first probably in commemoration 
 of the commencement of their march out of 
 Egypt, the last of their passage through the Red 
 Sea [Festivals]. The paschal lamb, in the 
 age following the first institution of the Pass- 
 over in Egypt, and after the settlement of the 
 Hebrews in Palestine, could only be killed by 
 the priests in the court of the temple (Deut. xvi. 
 5-7; 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-11; Lev. xvii. 3-6), 
 whence the owner of the lamb received it from 
 the priests and ‘ brought it to his house in Jem - 
 Salem, and roasted it, and ate it in the evening ’ 
 (Maimonides, Corban Pesach, c. i. § 6) ; and it 
 was thus that Christ kept the Passover, eating it 
 in a chamber within Jerusalem (Luke xxii. 7- 
 11) ; but the feast of unfermented things (JYlVO, 
 Exod. xii. 15) the Jews thought themselves bound 
 to keen in every place in which they might dwell. 
 
 if they could not visit Jerusalem ; ‘ the eating of 
 it,’ says Maimonides, * depended not. upon the 
 Passover, for it was a commandment by itself’ 
 ( Chometz Vematzah, § 6). As, however, from 
 the evening of the 14th to the 21st day of Abib 
 or Nisan (April), all ferment was banished from 
 the habitations of the Hebrews, both institutions 
 thus received a common name (1 Cor. v 5, 7, 8, 
 13).* Hence the 14th of Abib may with pro- 
 priety, as it is in some passages, be called the 
 first day of unfermented things, since the ferment 
 was removed on the 14th before evening. Thus, 
 while Deut. xvi. 8 mentions only six days of 
 unfermented bread, Josephus once, assigns eight 
 ( Antiq . ii. 15. 1), and in other places seven 
 (Antig iii. 10. 5; ix. 13. 3). Comp. Num. 
 xxviii. 16-18; Matt. xxvi. 17. 
 
 On the 10th of the month Abib, the master of 
 a family separated a ram or a goat of a year eld, 
 without blemish (Exod. xii. 1-6; 1 Pet. i. 19), 
 which was slain on the 14th day, between the two 
 evenings , before the altar (Deut. xvi. 
 
 2, 5, 6).f Originally the blood was sprinkled 
 
 * The Rabbins enumerate four degrees of pre- 
 paration for the feast of unfermented things. ( 1.) 
 Expurgatio fermenti, the cleansing of all their 
 household utensils, lest any taint of ferment might 
 be attached to them, which process of purification 
 was effected two or three days before the Passover. 
 (2.) Inquisitio fermenti , the searching after fer- 
 ment or leaven throughout, all their houses, even 
 to the mouse-holes, the Mishna expressly enjoin- 
 ing the cellar to be searched. This search was 
 made with a wax candle on the night preceding 
 the Passover. (3.) Conflagratio fermenti , or 
 burning of the ferment, which took place about 
 noon. (4.) Then followed the last degree, Execratio 
 
 fermenti, jtftn the cursing or annulling of 
 
 the ferment in this form : ‘ All manner of fer- 
 ment, or whatsoever fermented thing is in my 
 possession, whether seen of me or not seen, cleansed 
 of me or not cleansed, let it all be scattered, 
 annulled, and accounted as the dust of the earth ’ 
 (Vide Chometz Vematzah, ii. 2; Buxtorf, Synag. 
 Jud. p. 12; Scaliger, De Emend. Temp . ; Prole - 
 gom ; Fagius, in Exod. xii.). 
 
 f The Jewish day had twelve hours (John xi. 
 9), counting from sunrise, about six of the clock 
 of our time. The ninth hour for three in the 
 afternoon) was the hour of prayer, when they 
 went into the temple, at. the daily evening sacri- 
 fice (Acts iii. 1). This was the ordinary time 
 for the Passover, as appears from the Babylonian 
 Talmud. ‘ The daily evening sacrifice was killed 
 at the eighth hour and a-half, and it was offered 
 up at. the ninth hour and a-half. In the evening of 
 the Passover it was killed at. the seventh hour and 
 a-half, and offered at. the eighth hour and a-half’ 
 ( Pesachim , c. 5). The reason of this obviously is, 
 because the priests had first to kill the daily 
 sacrifice, and then to slay the Passover and eat 
 it ; and also to rest on the evening prior to the 
 sabbath. Thus in the evening of times (Heb. i. 
 2; 1 Pet. i. 19-20), or last days, about the same 
 hour of the day when the paschal lamb was of- 
 fered in the temple, did Christ die on Calvary, 
 so that the substance and the shadow corresponded 
 (Mark xv. 25-33). Calmet, in a very elaborate 
 dissertation, contends, with many of the ancient* 
 
PASSOVER. 
 
 PASSOVER. 
 
 477 
 
 in the posts of the door (Exod. xii. 7), but after- 
 wai ds the priests sprinkled the blood upon the 
 bottom of the altar (comp. Deut. vi. 9 ; 1 Pet. 
 i. 2; Heb. viii. 10; ix. 13, 14). The ram or 
 kid was roasted in an oven (D’TD) whole, with 
 two spits made of pomegranate wood thrust through 
 it, the one lengthwise, the other transversely 
 (crossing the longitudinal one near the tore-legs), 
 tlius forming a cross ( Pesachim , c. 3). This mode 
 of roasting is expressed in Arabic by the verb 
 
 .La ; ‘ to crucify’ (Jahn’s Bib. Antiq. § 1 42). 
 
 Thus roasted with tire, as an emblem of purifica- 
 tion, it was served up with a bitter salad [Me- 
 KOiiiivi] unpickled, indicative of the bitterness 
 of their bondage in Egypt, and with the flesh of 
 the other sacrifices (Deut. xvi. 2-6). What of 
 the flesh remained uneaten was to be consumed 
 with fire, lest it should see corruption (comp. 
 Exod. xii. 10; Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27). Not 
 fewer than ten, nor more than twenty persons, 
 were admitted to this sacred solemnity. At its 
 first observance the Hebrews ate the Passover with 
 loins girt about, sandals on their feet, staves in 
 their hands, and in haste, like travellers equipped 
 and prepared for immediate departure (Exod. xii. 
 11); but subsequently the usual mode of re- 
 clining was adopted, in token of rest and secu- 
 rity (John xiii. 23). Several of these rites are 
 therefore omitted by Moses in repeating the laws 
 of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 5-8 ; Num. ix. 2-11; 
 xxviii. 16, 17 ; Deut. xvi.). The Rabbins enu- 
 merate the following particulars as peculiar to its 
 original observance : — l. The eating of it in their 
 houses dispersed in Egypt; 2. The taking up of 
 the paschal lamb from the tenth day; 3. The 
 charge to strike the blood on the door-posts ; 4. 
 The eating of it in haste (Bab. Talmud, Pesachim , 
 c. 9 ; Maim. Corban Pesach. c. 10, § 15). But 
 the command not to break a bone of tire offering 
 was always observed (John xix. 36). 
 
 Considering the condition of the Hebrews in 
 Egypt, and that the country was not celebrated 
 for its wines, though it had its vineyards (Ps. 
 lxxviii. 47; cv. 33; Gen. xl. 11). it seems pro- 
 bable that water was the general drink at the 
 original institution, though some of the more 
 wealthy might have wine. In this case, we ap- 
 prehend, it would be such as Pharaoh is repre- 
 sented as drinking (Gen. xl. 11), which is 
 called by Herodotus (ii. 37) oivos agireXiva, 
 and which, in Exod. xxii. 29; xxix. 40, under 
 the names of tears , and wine, is ap- 
 
 pointed amongst the offerings. As wine, then, 
 afterwards formed part of their oblations, and 
 was consumed in their sacred feasts, it would 
 thus naturally become introduced into that of the 
 Passover. The wine used would of course be 
 unfermented, but it is not certain that it was 
 always the fresh expressed juice or ‘ pure blood 
 of the grape 1 (Deut. xxxii. 14); for the Mishna 
 states that the Jews were in the habit, of using 
 boiled wine. 1 They do not boil the wine of the 
 heave-oftering, because it diminishes it,' and 
 consequently thickens it, thus rendering the 
 mingling of water with it when drunk necessary ; 
 but it is immediately added, * Rabbi Yehudah 
 
 that our Saviour did not celebrate the Passover 
 the last year of his life, or, at least, that the Jews 
 telebrated it on Fnday, the day of Christ’s death. 
 
 permits this, because it improves it' ( Teroomoth 
 Perek , c. xi.). Independent of this, however, we 
 may consider it certain, that on the special occa- 
 sion of the Passover, when all fermented things 
 were so cautiously banished, this practice of boil- 
 ing the wine would be often resorted to as a well- 
 known means of destroying the fermenting prin- 
 ciple, and securing the purity of the wine [W ink]. 
 Though the Rabbins have made many burden- 
 some and unauthorized additions to the simple 
 laws of the Bible, their writings still illustrate 
 our subject to a very great extent, and, with 
 reference to some of the chief ceremonies of the 
 Passover, demonstrate that our Lord's practice 
 corresponded with theirs.* One of the ordinances 
 of the Hilchoth Chometz (whereby are typified 
 the four blessings expressed in Exod. vi. 6, 7) is, 
 that ‘ all persons, whether men or women, are 
 bound on this night to drink four cups of wine, 
 and this number is not to be diminished 1 (c vii.). 
 Besides these four cups, wine was also drunk 
 during the supper. Such a quantity of wine of 
 the modern kind (about two and a half pints 
 English), exclusive of water, drunk by each 
 person present, would have transformed this 
 sacred festival into a sad scene of revelry and 
 drunkenness, which, considering the grave and 
 temperate habits of the ancient Jews, is a sup- 
 position we are not warranted to make. Fer- 
 mented wine was in fact excluded by a general 
 law [Leaven], which appears to ha,ye been well 
 understood. This is evident from many facts. 
 The Mishna enumerates three species of drink, 
 the use of which would violate the Passover : 
 viz. ‘ the cutach of Babylon, the shekar of the 
 Medes, and the chometz of Idumsea ’ ( Pes . c. iii.). 
 Maimonides and Bartenora, in their comments, 
 say that water and the juices of fruits were al- 
 lowed to be drunk at the Passover by the ancient 
 Jews, who held an hypothesis that the water of 
 fruits did not ferment ! The former says, ‘ The 
 juice of fruits does not leaven, but putrefies : and 
 the liquor of fruits are wine, and milk, and 
 honey, and oil-olive, and the juice of apples and 
 pomegranates, and such like. But if any water 
 be mixed with them they do ferment 1 ( Chometz 
 Vematzah, c. v. § 1). Again : * Paste that is 
 kneaded in the liquor of fruits, if they boil it in 
 the liquor of fruits, or fry it in a pan in oil, it 
 is lawful, for the liquor of fruits ferments not 1 
 (ibid.). These statements serve to prove that, in 
 the judgment of the ancient Jews, both the letter 
 and spirit of the law extended to the prohibition 
 of everything known to be fermented. The later 
 Jews, as well as some of the earlier, may have 
 held erroneous chemical hypotheses on this sub- 
 ject, but one thing is certain, that our Lord , in 
 observing the law, did not err in its application 
 He employed the : fruit of the vine,’ 'TS, 
 
 'yevv^ga rrjs ayireXuv. The oral law, however, 
 clearly indicates the kind of wine used by the 
 Jews on this occasion : ‘ Whosoever has not got 
 wine transgresses an injunction of the Rabbins, 
 
 * The Jewish writings of course vary much in 
 value, according as they approach to, or recede 
 from, the primitive ages. The Mishnical doctors 
 must be distinguished from their more modern 
 commentators, the Gemarists, who, like anno* 
 tators in general, often obscure a subject, as well 
 as sometimes explain one. 
 
478 
 
 PASSOVER. 
 
 PASSOVER. 
 
 for they have said that there is to be no diminu- 
 tion from the four cups. And, if necessary, he 
 must sell what he has, in order to keep the in- 
 junction of the wise men. He is not to depend 
 upon the broad, for if he fulfil the command 
 concerning one cup, he has not fulfilled that con- 
 cerning the three. Therefore let him sell what 
 he has, and furnish the expense, until he pro- 
 cure (D'plDV IX |") wine or raisins ’ (Arbah 
 Turim. Orach Chayim , p. 483). This accords 
 with the practice of the modern Jews. ‘They are 
 forbidden to drink any liquor made from grain ’ 
 (clearly because such drinks are always fer- 
 mented), ‘ or that lias passed through the process 
 of fermentation. Their drink is either pure water, 
 or raisin-wine prepared by themselves ’ (Allen's 
 Modern Judaism , p. 394, 1830). Hyam Isaacs 
 says, ‘ Their drink during the time of the feast 
 is either fair water or raisin-tome prepared by 
 themselves, but no kind of leaven must be mixed’ 
 (' Ceremonies , §c. of the Jews, p. 98).* 
 
 The Ceremonies practised at the eating of the 
 Paschal Supper, as described in the Jewish ritual 
 
 FIDD by man TDD, and other books, will illus- 
 trate many circumstances alluded to by the 
 Evangelists in their account of the last Passover 
 kept by tbe Saviour. Since the destruction of 
 Jerusalem the Jews can sacrifice no paschal 
 lamb, and only observe the parts of the feast which 
 relate to the bread, herbs, and wine. Assuming 
 that the Mishna pretty correctly details the cus- 
 toms of the Hebrews in the days of Christ, the 
 following summary will exhibit such parts of the 
 ceremonies observed by the ancient Jew’s as ap- 
 pear to throw light upon the Gospel narratives. 
 
 * Professor Moses Stuart has the following in- 
 teresting remarks on the subject of the Passover- 
 wine : ‘ Perhaps, however, the usage which was 
 carried so far by the Jews, arose mainly from 
 strict regard to the supposed real meaning of the 
 command in Exod. xii. 15; xiii. 3, 7, al., which 
 
 is not expressed by bread (fTDn D!"6), but by 
 declaring that they should not eat f’DI"!, i. e. any- 
 thing fermented. Now as the word trans- 
 
 lated eating , is, in cases without number, em- 
 ployed to include a partaking of all refreshments 
 at a meal, that is, of the drinks as well as tbe 
 food, tjie Rabbins, it would seem, interpreted the 
 command just cited as extending to the wine , as 
 well as the bread , of the Passover.’ ‘ The Rab- 
 bins, therefore, in order to exclude every kind 
 of fermentation from the Passover, taught the 
 Jews to make a wine from raisins or dried grapes 
 expressly for that occasion, and this was to be 
 drunk before it had time to ferment.’ ‘ When 
 the Jewish custom began of excluding fermented 
 wine from the Passover- feast is not known. That 
 the custom is very ancient, that it is even now 
 almost universal, and that it has been so for time 
 whereof tbe memory of man runneth not to the 
 contrary, I take to be facts that cannot be fairly 
 controverted.’ ‘ I cannot doubt that in its 
 
 widest sense, was excluded from the Jewish Pass- 
 over, when the Lord's Supper was first instituted; 
 for I am not able to find evidence to make me 
 doubt that the custom among the Jews of ex- 
 cluding fermented wine as well as bread is older 
 than the Christian era’ (Dr. Robinson’s Biblio- 
 theca Sacra, pp. 507, 508, New York, 1843). 
 
 After the Paschal Supper had been prepared, 
 and the washings or purifications usual at feast! 
 performed, the master of tbe family (or most 
 eminent guest) proceeded to tbe giving of thanks. 
 Sitting down with the company, he took a cup- 
 ful of wine in his right hand, with which be 
 began tbe consecration, saying, ‘ Blessed be Thou, 
 O Lord our God, tbe King of the universe, who 
 hast created the frttit of the vine' (|D3n HD). H* 
 then drank the first cup of wine, and his example 
 was followed by each person present. Tnis 
 thanksgiving was called {"H HDT3, the blessing 
 of the u-ine (Luke xxii. 17). He then blessed 
 for the washing of hands, and washed. A table 
 was next brought in furnished, having upon it 
 bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and the sauce 
 called nonn charoseth (or rather a sort of wine 
 or fruit cake composed of raisins, dates, figs, &c., 
 stamped or pressed together, a species of J 71 ¥D, 
 so as to resemble clay, the Rabbins deeming it a 
 memorial of the Jews having wrought therein), 
 also the body of the paschal lamb, and tbe flesh 
 of the chagigah, or feast- offering, which is for the 
 14th day of N isan (Deut. xvi. 2). Then he began 
 t.o bless God who created the fruit of the earth , 
 taking an herb and first dipping it in tbe sauce 
 or paste, eating it, with all who lay at the table 
 around him, none eating less than the size of an 
 olive. The table was now removed from before 
 him only who made the declaration nTjn hag- 
 gadah, or showing forth (1 Cor. xi. 26) of their 
 deliverance out of Egypt, as commanded m 
 Exod. xii. 17 ; xiii. 8. Then the second cup of 
 wine was filled, and the son or other young per- 
 son asked, according to Exod. xii. 26, ‘ What 
 mean ye by this service 1 ?’ He who presided 
 would then respond, according to a prescribed 
 fotm or liturgy, ‘ How different is this rtigbt from 
 all other nights! For all other nights we wash 
 but once, but this night twice. All other nights 
 we eat leavened bread, or unleavened, but these 
 nights unfermented only. All other nights we 
 eat flesh, roasted, baked, or boiled, but this night 
 roasted only. All other nights we eat of any 
 other herbs, but this night only bitter herbs. All 
 other nights we eat either sitting or lying, but this 
 night lying only.’ Then the table was again 
 placed before him, and he said, ‘ This Passover 
 which we eat is in respect that the Lord passed 
 over the houses of our fathers in Egypt.’ Then, 
 holding up the bitter herbs, he would say, ‘ These 
 bitter herbs that we eat are in respect that the 
 Egyptians made the lives of our fathers bitter in 
 Egypt.’ Then, holding up the unleavened bread 
 in his hand, he saith, ‘ This unleavened bread 
 which we eat is in respect that the dough of our 
 fathers had not time to be leavened, when the 
 Lord appeared unto them and redeemed them 
 out of the hand of the enemy ; and they baked 
 unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought 
 out of Egypt ’ (Exod. xii. 39). Then he said, 
 ‘ Therefore are we bound to confess, to praise, to 
 laud, to glorify, to honour, to extol, to magnify, 
 and to ascribe victory to Him who did unto our 
 fathers and unto us all these signs, and who 
 brought us forth from servitude to freedom, from 
 sorrow to joy, from darkness to marvellous light, 
 and we say before Him, Halleluyah ! &c.’ Psalms 
 cxiii. and cxiv. were then repeated. Then they 
 blessed the Lord who had redeemed them and 
 their fathers out of Egypt, and preserved them 
 
PASTURAGE. 
 
 PATARA. 
 
 47$ 
 
 snto that night, to eat unleavened bread and 
 bitter herbs. The second cup of wine, after the 
 usual blessing, was then drunk. He next blessed 
 for the washing of hands, and washed a second 
 time (John xiii. 4, 5, 12). Then he took two 
 cakes, and he < brake’ one of them, using both 
 hands, and pronouncing the consecration in these 
 words, ‘ Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, the 
 King of the universe, wh bringest forth food out 
 of the earth’ (Psalm civ. 14). This was called 
 
 Dr6n i"D“Q, the blessing of the bread ; and he 
 who pronounced the blessing the breaker 
 
 (Luke xxii. 19). He then distributed a piece of 
 the bread to each person around him, blessing 
 God who commanded to eat unleavened bread 
 and bitter herbs, and saying, ‘ This is the bread 
 of affliction which our fathers did eat in the land 
 of Egypt.’ [This form of speech was followed by 
 the Saviour (Luke xxii. 19), when he gave to the 
 bread a new reference, saying, ‘ This is my body,’ 
 i. e. a sign of it.] Then all ate, such of them as 
 chose dipping their portion into the charoseth 
 (John xiii. 26). The master next blessed God 
 who commanded the eating of the sacrifice, and 
 he ate of the flesh of the feast-offering : then he 
 blessed God who commanded the eating of the 
 Passover, and he ate of the body of the paschal 
 lamb. After this the company sat long at supper, 
 each person eating and drinking as much as he 
 required, religious discourse being generally car- 
 ried on during the meal. Afterwards they ate of 
 the flesh of the Passover, if only a piece the size 
 of an olive, but tasted no other food afterwards, so 
 that it might be the end of their supper, and the 
 taste of. it remain in the mouth. After this, he 
 lifted up his hands, and blessed the third cup of 
 wine in the usual form, and the wine was drunk, 
 each person, in these ceremonies, repeating the 
 words of the master, and following his example 
 in eating and drinking. This cup was pro- 
 perly the cup of benediction, HDlin D'D (Matt, 
 xxvi. 27 ; 1 Cor. x. 16), with which the Saviour 
 commended the mysteries of his blood to his 
 disciples. After this third cup was drunk, thanks- 
 giving was continued for the food of which they 
 had partaken, for the deliverance of their fathers 
 from Egyptian servitude, for the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, and for the law given to Moses. Hence 
 the propriety of the Saviour selecting this cup as 
 the sign of ‘the new covenant in his blood’ 
 (Luke xxii. 20). A fourth cup was then filled, 
 the praise of the song pronounced, which is, ‘ All 
 thy works praise thee, O Lord, &c.’ (Psalm 
 cxlv. 10), and the usual blessing on the wine. 
 After the fourth cup the Jews tasted nothing that 
 light, save water, unless they chose to fill a fifth 
 cup, for ^vaich they must say the Great Hallel 
 (Psalm cxxxvi.), ‘ Confess ye to the Lord, for he 
 is good, for his mercy endureth for ever ; and 
 other hymns. No fourth cup seems to have been 
 drunk by our Lord or his disciples, though hymns 
 were sung at the close of the repast (Matt. xxvi. 
 30 ; Mark xiv. 26).— F. R. L. 
 
 PASTURAGE. In the first period of their 
 history the Hebrews led an unsettled pastoral life, 
 ?uch as we still find among many Oriental tribes. 
 One great object of the Mosaical polity was to 
 turn them from this condition into that of fixed 
 cultivators of the soil. Pasturage was, however. 
 
 only discouraged as a condition life unfriendly 
 to settled habits and institutions, and not as a 
 pursuit connected with agriculture. Hence, al- 
 though in later times the principal attention of 
 the Hebrews was given to agriculture, the tending 
 of sheep and cattle was not at any time neglected. 
 
 The shepherds who move about with their flocks 
 from one pasture-ground to another, according to 
 the demands of the season, the state of the herbage, 
 and the supply of water, are called nomades — that 
 is, not merely shepherds, but xcandering shep- 
 herds. They feed their flocks on the ‘ commons,’ 
 or the deserts and wildernesses, which no settled 
 or cultivating people have appropriated. At 
 first, no pastoral tribe can have any particular 
 property in such tracts ground in preference to 
 another tribe ; but, in the end, a particular tract 
 becomes appropriated to some one tribe, or section 
 of a tribe, either from long occupation, or from 
 digging wells therein. According to the ideas of 
 the East, the digging of a well is so meritorious 
 an act, that he who performs it acquires a property 
 in the waste-lands around. In the time of the 
 patriarchs, Palestine was but thinly peopled by 
 the Canaanites, and offered many such tracts of 
 unappropriated grounds fit for pasturage. In 
 these they fed their flocks, without establishing 
 any exclusive claims to the soil, until they pro- 
 ceeded to dig wells, which, being considered as an 
 act of appropriation, was opposed by some of the 
 inhabitants (Gen. xxi. 25, 26). After the con- 
 quest of Canaan, those Israelites who possessed 
 large flocks and herds sent them out, under the 
 care of shepherds, into the ‘ wildernesses,’ or com- 
 mons, of the east and south, where there are rich 
 and juicy pasturages during the moist seasons of 
 the year (1 Sam. xvii. 28 ; xxv. 4-15 ; 1 Chron. 
 xxvii. 29-31; Isa. Ixv. 10; Jer. 1. 39). The 
 nomads occupy, successively, the same stations 
 in the deserts every year. In summer, when the 
 plains are parched with drought, and every green 
 herb is dried up, they proceed northwards, or into 
 the mountains, or to the banks of rivers ; and ir. 
 winter and spring, when the rains have re-clothed 
 the plains with verdure, and filled the water- 
 courses, they return. When these pastors remove, 
 they strike their tents, pack them up, and convey 
 them on camels to the next station. Neaijly all 
 the pastoral usages were the same, anciently, as 
 now. The sheep were constantly kept in the 
 open air, and guarded by hired servants, and by 
 the sons and daughters of the owners. Even the 
 daughters of emirs, or chiefs, did not disdain to 
 tend the sheep (Gen. xxiv. 17-20 ; xxix. 9 ; Exod. 
 
 11. 16). The principal shepherd was responsible 
 for the sheep intrusted to his care, and if any were 
 lost he had to make them good, except in certain 
 cases (Gen. xxxi. 39-; Exod. xxii. 12; Amos iii. 
 
 12. ) Their services were often paid by a certain 
 proportion of the young of the flock (Gen. xxx. 
 30). On the more dangerous stations, towers 
 were erected, from which the approach of enemies 
 might be discovered. These were called the 
 Towers of the Flock (Gen. xxv. 21 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxvi. 10 ; Micah iv. 8.) 
 
 PATARA (riarapa), a port of Lycia in Asia 
 Minor, where Paul, on his voyage to Jerusalem, 
 changed his ship for one bound to Phoenicia (Acta 
 xxi. 1, 2). Patara was at the mouth of the river 
 Xanthus, and had a famous temple and oracle of 
 
480 
 
 PATHROS. 
 
 PATHOS. 
 
 Apollo (Strabo, xiv. 665 ; Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 28 J 
 Mela, i. 15; Herod, i. 182). 
 
 PATHROS, a, name given to Egypt, particu- 
 larly Upper Egypt, by the prophet Ezekiel (ch. 
 xxix. 14: xxx. 14) [Egypt]. 
 
 PATHOS (nctT/ios), a rocky and bare island 
 of the j'Egean Sea, about fifteen miles in cir- 
 cumference, ami reckoned as one of the Sporades 
 (Plin Hist. Nat. iv. 23; Strabo, x. 480). On 
 account of its stern and desolate character, the 
 island was used, under the Roman empire, as a 
 place of banishment, which accounts for the exile 
 of John thither ‘for the testimony of Jesus’ (Rev. 
 i. 9) [John]. He was here favoured with those 
 visions which are contained in the Apocalypse, 
 and to which the place owes its Scriptural in- 
 terest. The external aspect oi the island, as 
 viewed from the sea, and the associations con- 
 
 nected with it, are neatly indicated by the Scot- 
 tish Deputation ( Narrative , p. 326): — ‘ We saw 
 the peuks of its two prominent hills, but oui 
 course did not lie very near it. Still it was in- 
 tensely interesting to get even a glance of that 
 memorable spot, where the beloved disciple saw 
 the visions of God ; the spot, too, where the 
 Saviour was seen, and his voice heard, for the 
 last time till he comes again. John's eye often 
 rested on the mountains and the islands among 
 which we were passing, and on the shores and 
 waves of this great sea; and often, after the vision 
 was passed, these natural features of his place of 
 exile would refresh his spirit, recalling to his 
 min i how ‘ he stood on the sand of the sea’ (Re*, 
 xiii. 1), and how he had seen that ‘every island 
 fled away, ami the mountains were not found 1 
 (Rev. xv i. 29). 
 
 448. [Patmos.] 
 
 On approaching the island the coast is found 
 to be high, and to consist of a succession of capes, 
 which form so many ports, some of which are 
 excellent. The only one in use is, however, a 
 deep bay, sheltered by high mountains on every 
 side but one, where it is protected by a projecting 
 cape. The town attached to this port is situated 
 upon a high rocky mountain, rising immediately 
 from the sea ; and this, with the Scala below 
 upon the shore, consisting of some shops and 
 houses, forms the only inhabited site of the island. 
 The best and most recent account of this island is 
 that of Schubert in his Jleise nach Morganland, 
 iii. 424-442. 
 
 Patmos is deficient of trees, but abounds in 
 flowering plants and shrubs. Walnuts and other 
 fruit trees are grown in the orchards; and the 
 wine of Patmos is the strongest and best fla- 
 voured of any in the Greek islands. Maize 
 and barley are cultivated, but not in a quantity 
 sufficient for the use cf the innabitants, and for 
 
 the supply of their own vessels and others which 
 often put in at the great harbour for provisions. 
 The island now bears the names of Patino and 
 Palmoaa, and the inhabitants do not exceed 4000 
 or 5000, many of whom are emigrants from the 
 neighbouring continent. About half way on 
 which, whereon the town is built, is shown a 
 natural grotto in the rock, where St. John is 
 supposed to have seen his visions, and to have 
 written the Revelation. In and around it is a 
 small church, connected with which is a school 
 or college, where the ancient Greek literature is 
 said to be well taught and understood. On 
 the top of the mountain, and consequently in the 
 middle of the town, is a monastery, which, from 
 its situation, has a very majestic appearance. 
 It was built by Alexius Comnenus, and in the 
 library are a great many printed books and 
 manuscripts. The latter have been examined 
 and described by Dr. Clarke and Professor Car- 
 lifle. See also Turner, Journal of a Tour, iii. 
 
481 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 98*101, and Schubert, Jleise ins Morgenland , iii. 
 424 - 434 . 
 
 PAVEMENT. [Gabbatha.] 
 
 PAVILION. l Tknt.] 
 
 PAUL (riauAffr), originally Saul 
 'S.avXos, asked for), was a native of Tarsus, a city 
 of Cilicia (Acts xxii. 3, &c.), and was of Jewish 
 descent, of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. iii. 5). 
 From his father he inherited the rights of Roman 
 citizenship, which had probably been earned by 
 some of his ancestry through services rendered to 
 the Roman state (Lardver, Works . i. 228. ed. 
 1788, 8vo; Grotius, ad Act. xxii. 28). The sup- 
 position that he enjoyed them in virtue of being a 
 native of Tarsus is not well founded ; for though 
 that city had been created by Augustus an urbs 
 Wbera (Dion. Chrysost. ii. 36, ed. Reiske; Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. v. 27), it does not follow from this that 
 all its natives enjoyed the privilege of Roman 
 citizenship ; and besides, from Acts xxi. 39, com- 
 pared with xxii. 24, 27, it may be inferred that, 
 as the chief captain knew Paul to be a native of 
 Tarsus and yet was not aware of his Roman 
 citizenship, the latter of these was not necessarily 
 associated with the former. From his receiving 
 the name Saul it has been supposed that he was 
 the first-born son of his parents, and that they had 
 long desired and often asked for such a favour 
 from God ; that he was not their only child, how- 
 ever, appears from the mention made (Acts xxiii. 
 16) of his ‘sister's son. 1 Whether Andronicus, 
 Junia, and Herodion, whom he terms, in the 
 Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 7, 1 1), a'vyyeueis p.ov, 
 were of the number of his blood relations, or only 
 belongeddo the same tribe with him, is a question 
 an which learned men have taken different sides 
 (comp. Lardner, Works, vi. 235; Estius, Comm, 
 in loc.). 
 
 At that time Tarsus was the rival of Athens and 
 Alexandria as a place of learning and philoso- 
 phical research (Strabo, xiv. 5 ) ; but to what 
 extent the future ‘ Apostle of the Gentiles 1 enjoyed 
 tl^e advantage of its schools we have no means of 
 accurately determining. Attempts have been made 
 to show from his writings that he was familiar 
 with Greek literature, and Dr. Bentley has not he- 
 sitated to affirm that ‘as Moses was learned in ail 
 the wisdom of the Egyptians, so it is manifest 
 from this chapter alone (Acts xxvii.), if nothing 
 else had been now extant, that St. Paul was a great 
 master in all the learning of the Greeks ’ ( Boyle 
 Lectures , Serm. iii. sub. init.). An authority like 
 that of Bentley in a question of Greek literature 
 is not to be lightly set aside ; yet on referring to the 
 evidence which has been furnished both by himself 
 and others in support of the opinion to which he 
 has lent his sanction, it will not be found, we 
 mink, such as to justify the strong and decided 
 language he has employed. This evidence consists, 
 (1) of a few supposed references, in the discourse 
 alluded to by Dr. Bentley, to certain dogmas of 
 the Greek philosophers ; but even supposing the 
 Apostle to have had these in his eye, it will not 
 follow that he must have studied the writings in 
 which these dogmas were unfolded and defended, 
 because he might have learned enough of them to 
 guide him to such references, as by the supposition 
 he makes in that discourse, from those controver- 
 sial encounters with ‘ the philosophers of the Epi- 
 cureans and of the Stoics,’ which we are told he 
 VOL. 11 . 32 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 had in the market-place of Athens, previous to the 
 delivering of his oration on the Areopagus ; (2) of 
 three quotations made by him from Greek poets, 
 one from the Phaenomena (ver. 5) of his country- 
 man Aratus (Acts xvii. 28), one from a lost play 
 of Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33), and one from Epi- 
 menides (Tit. i. 12), all of which, however, bear 
 the general character of gnomes or proverbs, and 
 might consequently find their way to the Apostle 
 merely as part of the current coin of popular con- 
 versation, without his having once visited the 
 treasury .whence they were originally drawn ; and 
 (3) of certain similarities of idea and expression 
 between some passages of the Apostle and some 
 that are found in classic authors (Horne's Intro- 
 duction, iv. 343); but none of which are of such 
 a nature as to necessitate the conclusion that 
 the coincidence is more than purely accidental. 
 It must be allowed, however, that the mere cir- 
 cumstance of having spent his early years in such 
 a city as Tarsus could not but exert a very power- 
 ful influence on the mind of such a man as Paul, 
 in the way of sharpening his faculties, refining his 
 tastes, and enlarging the circle of his sympathies 
 and affections. ‘ If, even to the meanest citizen, 1 
 as Eichhorn remarks, ‘ such a circumstance af- 
 fords — unless he be by nature utterly unobservant 
 — much information which otherwise he could 
 not have obtained, and in consequence of this a 
 certain activity of mind, how much greater may 
 not its effect be supposed to have been on a great 
 mind like that of Paul. To his birth and early 
 residence in Tarsus may be traced the urbanity 
 which the Apostle at no time laid aside, and of 
 which he was frequently a perfect model, many 
 insinuating turns which he gives to his epistles, 
 and a more skilful use of the Greek tongue than 
 a Jew bom and educated in Palestine could well 
 have attained’ ( Einleit . ins N. T. iii. 5). 
 
 But whatever uncertainty may hang over the 
 early studies of the Apostle in the department of 
 Greek learning, there can be no doubt that, being 
 the son of a Pharisee, and destined, in all proba- 
 bility, from his infancy to the pursuits of a doctor 
 of Jewish law, he would be carefully instructed 
 from his earliest years in the elements of Rabbi- 
 nical lore. It is probable also that at this time 
 he acquired his skill in that handicraft trade by 
 which in later years he frequently supported him- 
 self (Acts xvii. 3 ; l Cor. iv. 12, &c.) ; for it was 
 a maxim among the Jews, that ‘ he who does not 
 teach his son a trade, teaches him to steal.’ This 
 trade is described by Luke as that of a au^voivoios, 
 a word regarding the meaning of which there has 
 been no small difference of opinion. Luther 
 makes it ‘ carpet-maker ;’ Morns (in Act. xviii. 
 3) and others, ‘ maker of mats or mattresses 
 Michaelis ( Einl . ins N. T. § 216) and Ilaenlein 
 ( Einl . ins N. T. iii. 301), 4 tool-maker;’ Chrysos- 
 tom and others, ‘ worker in leather ’ ( = ctkvto- 
 t6/xos ); Hug (Introd. p. 505, Fosdick.'s Trans.) 
 and Eichhorn (Einl. ins N. T. iii. 8), ‘ maker of 
 tent-cloth ;’ but most critics agree with our trans- 
 lators in rendering it ‘ tent-maker ’ (comp. Kui- 
 noel, Dindorf, Ilosenmuller, Olsiiausen, in loc. ; 
 Winer, Realworterb. Art. ‘Paulus;’ Schleusner, 
 in voc.). 
 
 At the proper age (supposed to be after he was 
 fourteen years old), the Apostle proceeded io 
 Jerusalem, to prosecute his studies in the learning 
 of the Jews. Here he became a student under 
 
PAUL. 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 482 
 
 Gamaliel, a distinguished teacher of the law, and 
 who is supposed to be the person of that name who 
 is celebrated in the writings of the Talmudists as 
 one of the seven teachers to whom the title ‘ Rab- 
 ban ’ was given (Lightfoot, Horcc Uebr. in Act. 
 v. 34 ; Neander, Apostol. Zeitalter , u. s. w. s. 62 ; 
 Otlio, Lex. Rabbinico-Phil.s.v. ‘Rabbi’). Besides 
 acquaintance with the Jewish law, and a sincere 
 conviction of the supreme excellence of Judaism, 
 Gamaliel appears to have possessed a singularly 
 calm and judicious mind, and to have exercised 
 a freedom of thought as well as pursued a range 
 of study very unlike what was common among 
 the party to which he belonged (Acts v. 34 — 39 ; 
 comp. Neander, loc. cit.). How much the in- 
 structions and the example of such a teacher may 
 have influenced the mind of Paul in a direction 
 favourable to the course he was subsequently 
 called to pursue, it is easy for us to imagine, 
 though from the absence of all testimony on the 
 subject it is not competent for us to affirm. 
 
 We now approach the period in Paul's history 
 when he becomes a prominent figure on the page 
 of the sacred historian, and when, consequently, 
 the facts of his life can be more confidently nar- 
 rated. The points about which differences of 
 opinion chiefly exist relate to the chronology of 
 the events recorded concerning him. On such 
 questions our limited space forbids us to enter, and 
 therefore, contenting ourselves with a general re- 
 ference to the article Acts of the Apostles, in 
 this work, where the reader will find the dates 
 assigned to each event of prominent importance in 
 the Apostle’s life, by Ussher, Pearson. Michaelis, 
 Hug, Haenlein, Greswell, and Anger, respec- 
 tively, we shall proceed to narrate briefly the 
 Apostle's history, without any attempt to ascer- 
 tain the year either of his own life or of the 
 Christian era when each event occurred. 
 
 He is introduced to our notice by the sacred 
 historian for the first time in connection with the 
 martyrdom of Stephen, in which transaction he 
 was, if not an assistant, something more than a 
 mere spectator. He is described as at this time 
 ‘ a young man ’ (pec mas) ; but this term was 
 employed with so much latitude by the Greeks, 
 that it is impossible from the mere use of it, to 
 determine whether the party to whom it was ap- 
 plied, was under thirty, or between that and forty. 
 The probability is, that Paul must have reached 
 the age of thirty at least; for, otherwise, it is not 
 likely that he would have shared the counsels of 
 the chief priests, or been intrusted by them with 
 the entire responsibility of executing their designs 
 against the followers of Jesus, as we know was 
 the case (Acts xxvi. 10, 12). For such a task 
 he showed a painful aptitude, and discharged it 
 with a zeal which spared neither age nor sex 
 (Acts viii. 1-3; xxvi. 10, 11). But whilst thus, 
 in his ignorance and unbelief, he was seeking to 
 be ‘ injurious’ to the cause of Christ, the great 
 Author of Christianity was about to make him a 
 distinguished trophy of its power, and one of the 
 most devoted and successful of its advocates. 
 Whilst journeying to Damascus, with a commis- 
 sion from the high priest, to arrest and bring back 
 as prisoners to Jerusalem the Christians who had 
 escaped thither from the fury of their persecutors, 
 and when he had almost completed his journey, 
 he was suddenly arrested by a miraculous vision 
 of Christ, who addressing him from heaven, de- 
 
 manded the reason of his furious zeal, in tne 
 remarkable words, ‘ Saul, Saul, why pereecuresc 
 thou me?’ Struck to the ground by the sudden- 
 ness and overwhelming splendour of the vision, 
 and able only to ask by whom it was he was thus 
 addressed, he received for answer, ‘ I am Jesus of 
 Nazareth whom thou persecutest ; but arise, and 
 go into the city, and it shall be told thee what to 
 do.’ This command the confounded and now 
 humble zealot immediately rose to obey, but as 
 the brilliancy of the light which had shone 
 around him had dazzled him to blindness, he had 
 to be led into the city by his attendants. Here 
 he remained for three days and nights in a state 
 of deep mental conflict and dejection, tasting 
 neither meat nor drink, until a person of the 
 name of Ananias appeared at the command of 
 Christ to relieve his distress, and to admit him 
 into the Christian fraternity by baptizing him 
 into the name of the Lord (Acts ix. 1-18). 
 
 Respecting the character of this transaction 
 different opinions have been entertained; some 
 regarding the whole narrative as a mere myth ; 
 others maintaining that the events may be ex- 
 plained on natural principles (such as a severe 
 storm of thunder and lightning, by which Saul 
 was blinded and terrified, and which he, ‘accord- 
 ing to the faith of the ancients, viewed as an 
 omen whereby lie was warned to desist from tne 
 persecuting design with which he had com- 
 menced his journey to Damascus’ (Eichhorn, 
 Einleit. iii. 12); whilst others regard the whole 
 as having been a mere vision which passed before 
 ‘ the inner consciousness ' of Saul. Such su]>- 
 positions, however, are utterly irreconcilable with 
 the authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 with the references to this period of his life by 
 the Apostle himself in his Epistles (comp. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 8 ; ix. 1 ; Gal. i. 1 ; Neander, Apostol. 
 Zeitalter. s. Ill If.; Olshausen, on Acts ix. 
 1-19; Lyttleton’s Observations on the Conver- 
 sion and Apostleship of St. Paul). 
 
 Immediately on his conversion to Christianity 
 Saul seems to have gone into Arabia, where he 
 remained three years (Gal. i. 11-17); and where 
 he, in all probability, was chiefly occupied, by 
 meditation and study, in preparing himself for 
 the great work to which he had been called. 
 Here also we may venture to suppose he received 
 that Gospel which afterwards he preached ‘ by 
 revelation’ from Christ (Gal. i. 12). Neander 
 (l. c. s. 121) and Anger (JDe Tempp. in Actis 
 App. Ttatione , p. 123) have endeavoured to show 
 that Paul went into Arabia to preach the Gospel ; 
 but the reasons they adduce have little weight, 
 (comp. Olshausen, on Acts ix. 20-25). 
 
 Returning from Arabia to Damascus the Apostle 
 commenced his public efforts in the service of 
 Christ, by boldly advocating in the synagogues 
 of the Jews the claims of Jesus to be venerated as 
 the Son of God. At first astonished, the Jews 
 were afterwards furiously incensed at this change 
 in the opinions and conduct of Saul, and in con- 
 sequence of their attempts upon his liberty and 
 life, he was obliged to make his escape from 
 Damascus. This he effected with difficulty by 
 the aid of the Christians, some of whom let him 
 down in a basket from the window of a dwell- 
 ing erected upon the outer wall of the city 
 (Acts ix. 21, & c. ; 2 Cor. xi. 32). After thif 
 he went up to Jerusalem (for tne first time afte* 
 
PAUL. 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 463 
 
 bis conversion), where, on the testimony of Bar- 
 baras, he was acknowledged as a Christian 
 brother, and admitted by the Appstles to that 
 place in their fraternity which had been assigned 
 to him by Christ. From Jerusalem he was soon 
 driven by the hostility of the Jews ; when, after 
 visiting Caesarea, he went to his native town 
 Tarsus, where he abode several years (Acts ix. 
 26-30). From this retreat he was summoned by 
 Barnabas, who, having been appointed by the 
 Apostles at Jerusalem to visit the church at 
 Antioch, where accessions had been made to the 
 number of the followers of Jesus from among the 
 Gentiles as well as the Jews, and finding the 
 need of counsel and co-operation in his work, 
 went to Tarsus to procure the assistance of Saul 
 (Acts xi. 22-25), After residing and labouring 
 for a year in Antioch, these two distinguished 
 servants of Christ were sent up to Jerusalem with 
 certain contributions which had been made 
 among the Christians at Antioch, on behalf of 
 their brethren in Judea, who were suffering from 
 the effects of a dearth (Acts xi. 27-30). This, as 
 commonly received, was the Apostle’s second 
 visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. 
 
 Having discharged this commission they re- 
 turned to Antioch, accompanied by John Mark, 
 the nephew of Barnabas, and were shortly after- 
 wards despatched by that church, in obedience to 
 an injunction from heaven, on a general mis- 
 sionary tour. In the course of this tour, during 
 the earlier part only of which they were accom- 
 panied by Mark, in consequence cf his shrinking 
 from the toils and dangers of the journey and 
 eturning to Jerusalem, they visited Seleucia, 
 Cyprus, Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia, 
 Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia 
 (in the former of which the fickle populace, 
 though at first they had with difficulty been pre- 
 vented from offering them divine honours, were 
 almost immediately afterwards, at the instigation 
 of the Jews, led to stone the Apostle until he was 
 left for dead) ; and then they returned by way of 
 Attalia, a city of Pamphylia, by sea to Antioch, 
 where they rehearsed to the church all that God 
 had done by them (Acts xiii.-xiv.). This formed 
 the Apostle’s first great missionary tour. 
 
 In the narrative of this journey, given by Luke, 
 the historian, without assigning any reason for so 
 doing, drops the name Saul and. adopts that 
 of Paul, in designating the Apostle. It is pro- 
 bable from this, that it was during this journey 
 that the Apostle’s change of name actually took 
 place. What led to that change we can only 
 conjecture ; and of conjectures on this point there 
 has been no lack. Jerome and Augustine, whom, 
 among recent writers, Olshausen follows, ascribe 
 the change to the conversion of Sergius Paulus, 
 whose name the Apostle assumed in commemora- 
 tion of so important an event. Chrysostom, fol- 
 lowed by Theophylact and Theodoret, imputes it 
 to the Apostle’s determination that, as Peter had 
 two names, he would not, even in this respect, 
 
 ‘ be behind the chiefest of the apostles.’ Nice- 
 phorus ( Hist. Eccles. ii. 37) thinks he received the 
 name as a sort of nickname from the Romans, on 
 account of his diminutive stature ; Paulus , quasi 
 Pusillus. Lightfoot, Hammond, and others, sup- 
 pose that from his birth the Apostle had the two 
 names, the one in virtue of his Hebrew descent, 
 the other in virtue of his Roman citizenship, and 
 
 that r.e used the one among the Jews, but adopted 
 the otner when he came to labour cfiiefiy among 
 Gentiles. But the most probable opinion is that 
 of Beza, Grotius, Doddridge, Kui'noel, &c., that 
 as the Romans and Greeks were in the habit of 
 softening the Hebrew names in pronunciation, 
 and accommodating their form to that of the 
 Latin or Greek (comp. Jason for Jesus, Silvanus 
 for Silas, Pollio for Hillel, &c.), they substituted 
 
 Paulus for and the Apostle henceforward 
 
 adopted the substituted name as his usual desig- 
 nation. 
 
 Not long after Paul and Barnabas had returned 
 to Antioch, they were deputed by the church 
 there again to visit Jerusalem, to consult the 
 Apostles and elders upon the question, which 
 certain members of the church at Jerusalem had 
 raised in that at Antioch, whether converts from 
 heathenism required to be circumcised, and so 
 become Jews before they could be saved? The 
 Apostle on this occasion visited Jerusalem for the 
 third time after his conversion; and after the 
 question had been settled by the parties in that 
 city with whom the power to do so lay, he 
 and his companion returned to Antioch. After 
 restoring peace to the church there Paul proposed 
 to Barnabas to undertake another missionary tour, 
 to which the latter cordially assented ; but, un- 
 happily, on the very eve of their departure, a con- 
 tention arose between them, in consequence of 
 Barnabas being determined to take with them his 
 nephew John Mark, and Paul being equally de- 
 termined that one, who had on a former occasion 
 ingloriously deserted them, should not again be 
 employed in the work. Unable to come to an 
 agreement on this point they separated, and Paul, 
 accompanied by Silas, commenced his second 
 missionary journey, in the course of which, after 
 passing through Syria and Cilicia, he revisited 
 Lystra and Derbe. At the former of these places 
 he found Timothy, whom he associated with 
 Silas, as the companion of his further travels, after 
 he had been ordained by the Apostle and the 
 presbytery of the church of which he was a 
 member (1 Tim. iv. 14). Paul then passed 
 through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, and, 
 avoiding Asia strictly so called, and Bithynia, 
 he came with his companions by way of Mysia 
 to Troas, on the borders of the Hellespont. Hence 
 they crossed to Samothracia, and thence to 
 Neapolis, and so to Philippi, whither he had 
 been summoned in a vision by a man of Mace- 
 donia saying, ‘ Come over and help us.’ After 
 some time spent in this city they passed through 
 Amphipolis and Apollonia, cities of Macedonia, 
 and came to Thessalonica, where, though they 
 abode only a short time, they preached the Gospel 
 with no small success. Driven from that city 
 by the malice of the Jews, they came by night to 
 Berea, another city of Macedonia, where at first 
 they were favourably received by the Jews, until 
 a party from Thessalonica, which had followed 
 them, incited the Bereans against them. Paul, 
 as especially obnoxious to the Jews, deemed it 
 prudent to leave the place, and accordingly re- 
 tired to Athens, where he determined to await 
 the arrival of Silas and Timothy. Whilst resid- 
 ing in this city, and observing the manners and 
 religious customs of its inhabitants, his spirit was 
 stirred within him, when he saw how entirely ther 
 
184 
 
 PAUL 
 
 PAUI 
 
 were immersed in idolatry ; and unable to refrain, 
 he commenced in the synagogues of the Jews, and 
 in tne market-place, to hold discussions with all 
 whom he encountered. This led to his being 
 taken to the Areopagus, where, surrounded by 
 perhaps the shrewdest, most polished, most acute, 
 most witty, and most scornful assemblage that 
 ever surrounded a preacher of Christianity, he, 
 with exquisite tact and ability, exposed the folly 
 of their superstitions, and unfolded the character 
 and claims of the living and true God. For the 
 purpose of more effectually arresting the attention 
 of his audience, he commenced by referring to an 
 altar in their city, on which he had read the 
 inscription ayvwrrcp 0ey, to an unknown God; 
 and, applying this to Jehovah, he proposed to 
 declare to them that Deity, whom thus, without 
 knowing him (ayyoovyres), they were worshipping. 
 Considerable difficulty has been found by many 
 interpreters to reconcile this with the fact, that no 
 mention is made by the classic authors of any 
 altar in Athens bearing this inscription, whilst we 
 are informed by Pausanias (Attic, i. 4; Eliac. 
 
 v. 14) and Philostratus ( Vit. Apollonii Tyan., 
 
 vi. 3), that there were several altars inscribed 
 ayvaxrrois Oeoiis, in the plural ; and different 
 suppositions have been made to account for the 
 Apostle's language (Kuinoel, in Act. xvii. 23). 
 But why should we not receive the Apostle's own 
 testimony on this subject, as reported by the in- 
 spired historian? It is certain that no one is in 
 circumstances to affirm that no altar existed 
 in Athens bearing such an inscription at the 
 time Paul visited that city ; and when, there- 
 fore, Paul, publicly addressing the Athenians, 
 says he saw such an altar, why should we hesi- 
 tate for a moment to take his words for what they 
 literally mean? Besides, there is nothing in 
 what Pausanias and Philostratus affirm that 
 appears incompatible with Paul’s assertion. It 
 is to be observed that neither of them says there 
 were altars, on each of which the inscription was 
 in the plural number, but only there were ‘altars 
 of gods called unknown ’ (fSupol Oewu ovopa- 
 ^Ofxevoiv ayvcl'OTcov) ; so that for aught that 
 appears to the contrary, each altar might bear 
 the inscription which Paul says he saw upon one. 
 
 On being rejoined by Timothy (1 Thess. iii. 1 ), 
 and perhaps also by Silas (comp. GreswelPs 
 Dissertations , ii. pp. 31, 32), tine Apostle sent 
 them both back to Macedonia, and went alone to 
 visit Corinth, whither they soon after followed 
 him (Acts xviii. 5). Here he abode for a year and 
 a half preaching the Gospel, and support ing him- 
 self by his trade as a tent-maker, in which he was 
 joined by a converted Jew of the name of Aquila, 
 who, with his wife Priscilla, had been expelled 
 from Rome by an edict of the emperor, forbidding 
 Jews to remain in that city. Driven from 
 Corinth by the enmity of the Jews, he, along with 
 Aquila and Priscilla, betook himself to Ephesus, 
 whence, after a residence of only a few days, he 
 went up to Jerusalem, being commanded by God 
 to visit that city, at the time of the approaching 
 passover. His visit on this occasion — the fourth 
 since his conversion — was very brief ; and at the 
 close of it he went down to Antioch, thereby com- 
 pleting his second great apostolic tour. 
 
 At Antioch he abode for some time, and then, 
 accompanied, as is supposed, by Titus, he com- 
 menced another extensive tour, in the course of 
 
 which, after passing through Phrygia and Ga- 
 latia, he visi.ed Ephesus. The importance of 
 this city, in relation to the region of Hither Asia, 
 determined him to remain in it for a considerable 
 time ; and he accordingly continued preaching 
 the Gospel there for three years, with occasional 
 brief periods of absence, for the purpose of visiting 
 places in the vicinity. With such success were 
 his efforts crowned, that the gains of those who 
 were interested in supporting the worship of 
 Diana, the tutelar goddess of the city, began to be 
 seriously affected; and at the instigation of one of 
 these, by name Demetrius, a silversmith, who had 
 enjoyed a lucrative traffic by the manufacture of 
 what appear to have been miniature representa- 
 tions of the famous temple of Diana (vaovs apyv 
 povs ’Ap-re/iiSoy, comp. Kuinoel, in Act. xix. 24 ; 
 Neander, Apost. Zeit. s. 350), a. popular tumult 
 was excited against the Apostle, from the fury of 
 which he was with difficulty rescued by the 
 sagacity and tact of the town-clerk, aided by 
 others of the chief men of the place, who appear 
 to have been friendly towards Paul. By thi 3 
 occurrence the Apostle’s removal from Ephesus, 
 on which, however, he had already determined 
 (Acts xix. 21), was in all probability expedited; 
 and, accordingly, he very soon after the tumult 
 went by way of Tioas to Philippi, where he 
 appears to have resided some time, and from 
 which, as his head quarters, he made extensive 
 excursions into the surrounding districts, pene- 
 trating even to Illyricum, on the eastern shore of 
 the Adriatic (Rom. xv. 19). From Philippi he 
 went to Corinth, where he resided three months, 
 and then returned to Philippi, having been frus- 
 trated in his design of proceeding through Syria 
 to Jerusalem by the malice of the Jews. Sailing 
 -from Philippi, he came to Troas, where he abode 
 seven days ; thence he journeyed on foot to Assos , 
 thence he proceeded by sea to Miletus, where ho 
 had an affecting interview with the elders of the 
 church at Ephesus (Acts xx. 17, ff‘.) ; thence he 
 sailed for Syria, and, after visiting several inter- 
 mediate ports, landed at Tyre ; and thence, aftei 
 a residence of seven days, he travelled by way ol 
 Ptolemais and Caesarea to Jerusalem. This con 
 stituted his fifth visit to that city after his con 
 version. 
 
 On his arrival at Jerusalem he had the morti- 
 fication to find that, whilst the malice of hi* 
 enemies the Jews was unabated, the minds 
 many of his brother Christians were alienated 
 from him on account of what they deemed his too 
 lax and liberal notions of the obligations of the 
 Mosaic ritual. Tfo obviate these feelings on their 
 part, he, at the suggestion of the Apostle James, 
 joined himself to four persons who had taken on 
 them the vows of a Nazarite, and engaged to pay 
 the cost of the sacrifices by which the Mosaic 
 ritual required that such should be absolved 
 from their vows. With what success this some- 
 what questionable act of the Apostle was attended, 
 as respects the minds of his brethren, we are not 
 informed, but it had no effect whatever in se- 
 curing for him any mitigation of the hatred with 
 which he was regarded by the unconverted Jews; 
 on the contrary, his appearance in the temple so 
 much exasperated them, that, before his vow wax 
 accomplished, they seized him, and would have 
 put him to death had not Lysias, the commander 
 of the Roman cohort in the adjoining citadel, 
 
PAUL. 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 485 
 
 brought sellers to his rescue. Undei the protec- 
 tion of Lysias, the Apostle addressed the angry 
 mob, setting forth the main circumstances of his 
 life, and especially his conversion to Christianity, 
 and his appointment to preach the Gospel to the 
 Gentiles: Up to this point they heard him pa- 
 
 tiently ; but no sooner had he insinuated that the 
 Gentiles were viewed by him as placed on a par 
 with the Jews, than all their feelings of national 
 bigotry burst forth in a tempest of execration and 
 fury against the Apostle. Lysias, ignorant of what 
 Paul had been saying, from his having addressed 
 the people in Hebrew, and suspecting from these 
 vehement demonstrations of the detestation in 
 which he was held by the Jews that something 
 flagrantly vicious must have been committed by 
 him, gave orders that he should be examined, and 
 forced by scourging to confess his crime. From 
 this indignity Paul delivered himself by asserting 
 his privileges as a Roman citizen, whom it was 
 not lawful to bind or scourge. Next day, in the 
 presence of the Sanhedrim, he entered into a de- 
 fence of his conduct, in the course of which, 
 having avowed himself a believer in the doctrine 
 of a bodily resurrection, he awakened so fierce a 
 controversy on this point between the Pharisees 
 and the Sadducees in the council, that Lysias, 
 fearing he might be torn to pieces among them, 
 gave orders to remove him into the fort. From a 
 conspiracy into which above forty of the Jews had 
 entered to assassinate him he was delivered by the 
 timely interposition of his nephew, who, having 
 acquired intelligence of the plot, intimated it first 
 to Paul, and then to Lysias. Alarmed at the 
 serious appearance which the matter was assuming, 
 Lysias determined to send Paul to Caesarea, where 
 Felix the procurator was residing, and to leave 
 the affair to his decision. At Caesarea Paul and 
 his accusers were heard by Felix ; but though the 
 Apostle’s defence was unanswerable, the procu- 
 rator, fearful of giving the Jews offence, declined 
 pronouncing any decision, and still retained Paul 
 in bonds. Some time after he was again sum- 
 moned to appear before Felix, who, along with his 
 wife Drusilla, expressed a desire to hear him ‘ con- 
 cerning the faith in Christ;’ and on this occasion 
 the faithful and fearless Apostle discoursed so 
 pointedly on certain branches of good morals, in 
 which the parties he was addressing were noto- 
 riously deficient, that Felix trembled, and hastily 
 sent him from his presence. Shortly after this 
 Felix was succeeded in his government by Porcius 
 Festus, before whom the Jews again brought their 
 charges against Paul ; and who, when the cause 
 came to be heard, showed so much of a disposition 
 to favour the Jews, that the Apostle felt himself 
 constrained to appeal to Caesar. To gratify King 
 Agrippa and his wife Bernice, who had come to 
 Caesarea to visit Festus, and whose curiosity was 
 excited by what they had heard of Paul, he was 
 again called before the governor and £ permitted 
 to speak for himself.’ On this occasion he reca- 
 pitulated the leading points of his history, and 
 gave such an account of his views and designs, 
 that a deep impression was made on the mind of 
 Agrippa favourable to Christianity and to the 
 Apostle ; so much so that, but for his having ap- 
 pealed to Caesar, it is probable he would have 
 been set at liberty. His cause, however, having 
 by that appeal been placed in the hands of the 
 »m*^ror, it was necessary that he should go to 
 
 Rome, and thither accordingly Festus sent him. 
 His voyage was long and disastrous. leaving 
 Caesarea when the season was already considerably 
 advanced, they coasted along Syria as far as Sidor:, 
 and then crossed to Myra, a port of Lycia ; thence 
 they sailed slowly to Cnidus; and thence, in con- 
 sequence of unfavourable winds, they struck across 
 to Crete, and with difficulty reached a port on the 
 southern part of that island called ‘ The Fair 
 Haven,’ near the town of Lasea. There Paul 
 urged the centurion, under whose charge he and 
 his fellow- prisoners had been placed, to winter ; 
 but the place not being very suitable for this pur- 
 pose, and the weather promising favourably, this 
 advice was not followed, and they again set sail, 
 intending to reach Phcenice, a port in the same 
 island, and there to winter. Scarcely had they 
 set sail, however, when a tempest arose, at the 
 mercy of which they were driven for fourteen 
 days in a westerly direction, until they were cast 
 upon the coast of Malta, where they suffered ship- 
 wreck, but without any loss of life. Hospitably 
 received by the natives, they abode there three 
 months, during which time Paul had a favourable 
 opportunity of preaching the Gospel, and of show- 
 ing the power with which he was endued for the 
 authentication of his message by performing many 
 miracles for the advantage of the people. On the 
 approach of spring they availed themselves of a 
 ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the 
 island, and set sail for Syracuse, where they re- 
 mained three days ; thence they crossed to Rbe- 
 ginm, in Italy; and thence toPuteoli, from which 
 place Paul and his companions journeyed to 
 Rome. Here he was delivered by the centurion 
 to the captain of the guard, who permitted him 
 to dwell in his own hired house under the sur- 
 veillance of a soldier. And thus he continued for 
 two years, ‘ receiving all that came to him, preach- 
 ing the kingdom of God, and teaching those things 
 which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all 
 confidence, no man forbidding him ’ (Acts xxi. 17 ; 
 xxviii. 31). 
 
 At this point the evangelist abruptly closes his 
 narrative, leaving us to glean our information 
 regarding the subsequent history of the Apostle 
 from less certain sources. Tradition stedfastly 
 affirms that he suffered martyrdom at Rome, anil 
 that the manner of his death was by beheading 
 (Tillemont, Memoires , i. p. 324) ; but whether 
 this took place at the close of the imprisonment 
 mentioned by Luke, or after a second imprison- 
 ment incurred subsequent to an intervening period 
 of freedom and active exertion in the cause of 
 Christianity, has been much discussed by modern 
 writers. The latter hypothesis rests chiefly on 
 some statements in Paul's second Epistle to 
 Timothy, which it is deemed impossible to recon- 
 cile with the former hypothesis. The consideration 
 of these belongs properly to the literary history of 
 that Epistle [Second Epistle to Timothy], 
 and we shall not therefore enter upon them here. 
 Suffice it to remark that, though the whole sub- 
 ject is involved in much obscurity, the prepon- 
 derance of evidence seems to be in favour of the 
 supposition of a second imprisonment of the 
 Apostle. The testimonies of some of the later 
 fathers in support of this supposition cannot, how- 
 ever, be allowed much weight, for they all rest 
 upon Eusebius, and he rests upon a mere ‘rumour 1 
 (his words are \6yos e^et, Hist. Eccles . ii. 2%\ 
 
483 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 PAUL. 
 
 and upon the Apostle’s expressions in the second 
 Epistle to Timothy. More weight is due to the 
 testimony of Clemens Romanus, because of his 
 proximity in time to the Apostle, and of his resi- 
 dence at Rome ; but all the information he fur- 
 nishes bearing on this question is that' Paul, 
 ‘ after having proclaimed the Gospel both in the 
 east and in the west and taught righteous- 
 
 ness to the whole world, and having come to the 
 boundary of the west (rep/xa rfjs Svtrecos), and 
 having testified before the rulers (or having suffered 
 martyrdom by order of the rulers, fxaprvprjcras 
 iirl t uv fiyov l u4v ojj/), thus left the world and went 
 to the holy place ’ (Ep. i. ad Cor. c. 5). By ‘ the 
 boundary of the west 1 it is affirmed, on the part 
 of the advocates of a second imprisonment of the 
 Apostle, that Clement means Spain, or perhaps 
 the extreme west part of Spain ; and as Paul 
 never visited this during the portion of his life of 
 which we have record in the New Testament, it 
 is inferred that he must have done so at a subse- 
 quent period after being liberated from imprison- 
 ment. But this is not very cogent reasoning; for 
 it is still open to question whether by rb rep/xa 
 rijs dvcrecas Clement really intended to designate 
 Spain. We may give up at once the opinion of 
 Hemsen, that the place referred to is Ulyricum, 
 as fanciful and untenable ; nor do we feel in- 
 clined to contend strenuously for Rome a3 the 
 place intended, though this is not altogether im- 
 probable ; but it is not so easy to get over the 
 suggestion that Clement means nothing more by 
 the phrase than simply the western part of the 
 Roman empire, without intending to specify any 
 one place in particular. It is to be observed that 
 his language is, through the whole sentence, vague 
 and exaggerated, as when, for instance, he affirms 
 that Paul ‘ had taught righteousness to the whole 
 world ;’ and, in such a case, it is attributing too 
 much to his assertion to insist upon understanding 
 it of some definite locality. Besides, the use of 
 i\du)v by Clement would seem to intimate that he 
 was himself residing at the place or in the region 
 which was present to his mind while writing as 
 the terminus ad quem of the Apostle’s journey- 
 ings ; and, moreover, if by the succeeding clause 
 we understand him as alluding to Paul’s having 
 suffered martyrdom by order of the emperor 
 (which is the rendering usually given by those who 
 adduce the passage as favouring the hypothesis of- 
 a second imprisonment), does it not appear to 
 follow that the rep/xa rrjs 5 vaews was the place 
 where that occurred? Both these suggestions are 
 in favour of Rome, or of the West generally, as 
 the place referred to by Clement ; and adopting 
 this interpretation of his words, the inferential 
 evidence tfyey have been supposed to yield in 
 favour of the hypothesis that the Apostle enjoyed 
 a period of labour, and suffered a second impri- 
 sonment subsequent to that mentioned by Luke, 
 is of course destroyed. 
 
 If, on the evidence furnished by the allusions 
 in the Second Epistle to Timothy, we adopt the 
 supposition above stated, it will follow that Paul, 
 during the interval between his first and second 
 imprisonments, undertook an extensive apostolic 
 tour, in the course of which he visited his former 
 scenes of labour in Asia and Greece, and perhaps 
 also fulfilled his purpose of going into Spain (Rom. 
 xv. 24-28). He probably also visited Crete and 
 Dalmatia (comp. Greswell, vol. ii. pp. 78-100). 
 
 In the apostle's own writings one or two inci- 
 dents of his life are alluded to of which no notice 
 has been taken in the preceding sketch of his 
 history, in consequence of the obscurity in which 
 they are involved, in some cases as to the time 
 when they occurred, and in others as to the nature 
 of the event itself. These are his visit to Jerusalem, 
 mentioned Gal. ii. 1 ; his rapture into the third 
 heavens (2 Cor. xii. 1-4) ; the thorn in the flesa 
 with which he was afflicted after that even» 
 (ver. 7); and his fighting with wild beasts at 
 Ephesus, mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 32. As to the 
 first of these it does not readily synchronize witn 
 any visit of the apostle to Jerusalem noticed 
 by Luke. That it was anterior to the visit men- 
 tioned in Acts xv. is evidenced by the entire dis- 
 crepancy of the two narratives (comp. Tate’s 
 Continuous History of St. Paul, p. 141); and 
 that it was the same as the visit mentioned in 
 Acts xi. 30, is rendered doubtful by the circum- 
 stance that on the occasion referred to by the 
 apostle, Titus accompanied him and Barnabas to 
 Jerusalem, whereas it would appear from the nar- 
 rative of Luke as if Paul and Barnabas were 
 without any companion when they went up with 
 the alms for the poor saints (comp. Acts xi. 30, 
 and xii. 25). We are strongly inclined, there- 
 fore, to suppose that during the interval whicn 
 elapsed between what are commonly reckoned as 
 the apostle’s second and third visits to Jerusalem 
 (an interval of about, five years), a short visit was 
 paid by him and Barnabas, along with Titus, of 
 a private nature, and probably with a view of 
 consulting the apostles resident at Jerusalem, as 
 to the proper treatment of Gentile converts (Gal. 
 ii. 2-10). 
 
 As respects the rapture into the third heavens, 
 one tiling appears very certain, viz., that those are 
 mistaken who attempt to identify this with the 
 vision on the road to Damascus which led to tne 
 apostle’s conversion. The design, character, and 
 consequences of the one are so different from those 
 of the other, that it is surprising any should have 
 imagined the two events were the same (Neander, 
 Apostol. Zeitalter, i. 115). It is not improbable 
 that the oirraaia of which Paul writes to the Corin- 
 thians was the same as the eKaracris referred to by 
 him in the recapitulation of the events of his life 
 in his address to the Jews as recorded in Acts xxii. 
 17. When in an ecstasy or trance an individual 
 might be well described as dp-irayeis, for all out- 
 ward perception was suspended, and the whole 
 mind was wrapt in contemplation of the objects 
 presented in the vision. 'The date, moreover, 
 which the apostle assigns to the event, mentioned 
 in the Epistle to tl?e Corinthians, agrees very 
 closely with that of the event mentioned in the 
 Acts. The latter, Paul says, occurred when he 
 was in Jerusalem for the first time after his con- 
 version : the former, he says, took place ‘ about 
 fourteen years’ before the time of his writing the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Now, ac- 
 cording to almost all the chronologers, a space of 
 fourteen years intervened between the apostle’s 
 first visit to Jerusalem and his writing that 
 epistle; so that it is highly probable that the 
 vision referred to in the two narratives is the same. 
 
 What ‘ the thorn in the flesh’ was with which 
 the apostle was visited after his vision, has proved 
 indeed a qucestio vexata to interpreters (Cf. Poli 
 Synops. Crit. in loc.). The conclusion to wh ; cb 
 
PEACOCK. 
 
 PEACOCK. 
 
 48? 
 
 Neander has come on this subject appears to tns 
 much the most judicious. ‘ We must regard it 
 as something entirely personal, affecting him not 
 as an apostle, but as Paul ; though, in the absence 
 of any information as to its characteristics, it 
 would be foolish to decide more precisely what 
 it was’ ( Apostol . Zeit. i. 228). 
 
 Respecting the apostle’s fighting with wild 
 beasts at Ephesus, the question is whether this 
 should be understood literally of an actual expo- 
 sure in the theatre to the assault of savage beasts, 
 or figuratively of dangers to which he was exposed 
 from the attacks of savage men. It is no objec- 
 tion to the literal interpretation that Luke has not 
 noticed any such event in his narrative; for from 
 Rom. xvi, 4, we find that the apostle must have 
 encountered many deadly perils at Ephesus of 
 which no notice is taken by Luke. As little 
 force is there in the objection that Paul, as a 
 Roman citizen, could not legally be subjected Jo 
 such a punishment ; for however his privileges in 
 this respect may have availed him on some occa- 
 sions, we know that they did not on all, else he 
 would not have endured the indignity of being 
 scourged, as he was at Philippi (Acts xvi. 23), 
 and, according to his own testimony, often besides 
 (2 Cor. xi. 24, 25). Tradition is in favour of the 
 literal interpretation (Nicephori Hist. Ecclcs. 
 ii. 6. 25) ; and no exegesis of the whole clause 
 seems better than that of Theodoret : Kara avQpw- 
 iriuov Xo'yicry.'bv Qyp'aav iyero/J-rju fiopd, aXXa irapa- 
 SSgcos ecwOrjv; for it is far from improbable that 
 the furious mob might have raised the cry ‘Ad 
 leones' against the apostle, and that some unex- 
 pected interposition had saved him from the fear- 
 ful doom. To interpret this statement of his treat- 
 ment at the hands of Demetrius, is absurdly to 
 make him refer to an event which at the time he 
 was writing had not occurred. 
 
 On the writings of the apostle Paul, see the 
 articles in this work under the titles of his dif- 
 ferent epistles. 
 
 Pearson, Annales Paulini, 4to. Lond. 1688, 
 translated by J. M. Williams, 12mo. Cambridge, 
 1 826 ; J. Lange, Comment. Hist. Hermeneut. 
 de Vita et Epistolis Ap. Pauli , 4to. Halae, 1718 ; 
 Macknight, Translation of the Apostolical Epis- 
 tles, , vol. vi. 8vo., vol. iv. 4to. ; Lardner, TVoi’hs, 
 vol. vi. 8vo., vol. iii. 4to; More, Essay on St. 
 Paid, 2 vols. ; 1 ate, Continuous History of St. 
 Paul (prefixed to a new edition of Paley’s Horae 
 Paulinas ), 8vo. Lond. 1840; Schrader, Her Ap. 
 Paulus, 3 th, 8vo. Leip. 1830 ; Hemsen, Her 
 Ap.Paulus, 8vo. G6t,t. 1830; Tholuck, Vermischte 
 Schriften , bd. ii. (translated in the Edinburgh 
 Biblical Cabinet , vol. xxviii.). — W. L. A. 
 
 PEACOCK. It is a question, perhaps, more 
 of geographical and historical than of Biblical 
 interest to decide whether thukyim (1 Kings 
 
 x. 22) and thukyim (2 Chron. ix. 21) 
 
 denote peacocks strictly so called, or some other 
 species of animal or bird ; for on the solution of 
 the question in the affirmative depends the real 
 direction of Solomon’s fleet; that is, whether - , 
 after passing the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, it 
 proceeded along the east coast of Africa towards 
 Sofala, or whether it turned eastward, ranging 
 along the Arabian and Peisian shores to the 
 Peninsula of India, and perhaps went onwards to 
 Ceylon, and penetrated to the great Australian, 
 w; ev«n to the Spice Islands. Bochart, unable to 
 
 discover a Hebrew root in Thukyim, r*.ther 
 arbitrarily proposes a transposition of letters by 
 which he converts the word into Cuthyim, de- 
 noting, as lie supposes, the country of the Cuthei y 
 which,- in an extended sense, is applied, in con- 
 formity with various writers of antiquity, to Media 
 and Persia; and Greek authorities are cited to 
 show that peacocks abounded in Babylonia, &c. 
 This mode of proceeding to determine the species 
 and the native country of the bird is altogether 
 inadmissible, since Greek writers speak of Persian 
 peacocks at a much later period than tire age of 
 Solomon ; and it is well known that they were suc- 
 cessively carried westward till they passed from 
 the Greek islands into Europe, and that, as Juno’s 
 birds, the Romans gradually spread them to Gaul 
 and Spain, where, however, they were not common 
 until after the tenth century. But even if pea- 
 cocks had been numerous in Media and northern 
 Persia at the time in question, how were they to 
 be furnished to a fleet which was navigating 
 the Indian Ocean, many degrees to the south of 
 the colder region of High Asia ? and as for 
 the land of the Cuthei, or of Cush, when it 
 serves their purpose, writers remove it to Africa 
 along with the migrations of the Cushites. The 
 Thukyim have been presumed to derive their ap- 
 pellation from an exotic word implying ‘ tufted ’ 
 or ‘ crested,’ which, though true of the peacock, is 
 not so obvious a character as that afforded by its 
 splendid tail ; and therefore a crested parrot has 
 been supposed to be meant. Parrots, though many 
 species are indigenous in Africa, do not appear 
 on the monuments of Egypt ; they were un- 
 known till the time of Alexander, and then both 
 Greeks and Romans were acquainted only with 
 species from Ceylon, destitute of crests, such as 
 Psittacus Alexandri ; and the Romans fora long 
 time received these only by way of Alexandria, 
 though in the time of Pliny others became 
 known. Again, the pheasant has been proposed 
 as the bird intended; but Phas. Colchicus, 
 the only species known in antiquity, is likewise 
 without a prominent crest, and is a bird of 
 the colder regions of the central range of Asiatic 
 mountains. Following a line of latitude, it gra- 
 dually reached westward to High Armenia and 
 Colchis, whence it was first brought to Europe by 
 Greek merchants, who frequented the early empo- 
 rium on the Phasis. The centre of existence of 
 the genus, rich in splendid species, is in the woody 
 region beneath the snowy peaks of the Himalayas, 
 reaching also eastward to northern China, where 
 the common pheasant is abundant but not, we 
 believe, any where naturally in a low latitude. 
 Thus it appears that pheasants wert not the birds 
 intended by the Hebrew Thukyim , although all 
 versions and comments agree that after the Cebi, 
 or apes (probably Cercopithecus Entellus, one of 
 the sacred species of India), some kind of remark- 
 able bird is meant ; and none are more obviously 
 entitled to the application of the name than the 
 peacock, since it is abundant in the jungles of 
 India, and would be met with both wild and do- 
 mesticated, by navigators to the coasts from Gam- 
 boge to Ceylon, and would better than any of the 
 others bear a long sea voyage in the crowded ships 
 of antiquity. Moreover, we find it still deno- 
 minated Togei in the Malabaric dialects of the 
 country, which may be the source of Thuki, as 
 well as of the Arabic Tawas and Armenian Taut. 
 
488 
 
 PEACOCK. 
 
 PEGANON. 
 
 With regal d to the objection, that the long ccel- 
 iat«d feathers of the rump, and not those of the 
 tail, as is commonly believed, are the most con- 
 spicuous object offered by this bird, it may be an- 
 swered, that if the name Togei be the original, it 
 may not refer to a tuft, or may express both the 
 erectile feathers on the head of a bird and those 
 about the rump or the tail ; and that those of the 
 peacock have at all times been sought to form arti- 
 ficial crests for human ornaments. One other 
 point remains to be considered; namely, whether 
 the fleet went to the East, or proceeded southward 
 along the African shore? No doubt, had the Phoe- 
 nician trade guided the Hebrews in the lust men- 
 tioned direction, gold and apes might have been 
 obtained on the east coast of Africa, and even some 
 kinds of spices in the ports of Abyssinia; for all 
 that region, as far as the Strait of Madagascar, was 
 at that early period in a state of comparative afflu- 
 ence and civilization. But in that case a great 
 part of the commercial produce would have been 
 obtained within the bovders of the Red Sea, and 
 beyond the Straits ; the distance to be traversed, 
 therefore, being but partially affected by the mon- 
 soons, never could have required a period of three 
 years for its accomplishment ; and a prolonged 
 voyage round the Cape to the Guinea and Gold 
 Coast is an assumption so wild, that it does not 
 merit serious consideration ; but intending to pro- 
 ceed to India, the fleet had to reach the Straits of 
 Bab-el-Mandeb in time to take advantage of the 
 western monsoon ; be in port, perhaps at or near 
 Bombay, before the change; and after the storms 
 accompanying the change, it had to proceed during 
 the eastern monsoon under the lee of the land to 
 Coodramalli, or the port of Palesimundus in Ta- 
 probana, on the east coast of Ceylon ; thence to the 
 Coromandel shore, perhaps to the site of the present 
 mins of Mahabalipuram ; while the return voyage 
 would again occupy one year and a half. The ports 
 of India and Ceylon could furnish gold, precious 
 6tones, eastern spices, and even Chinese wares ; 
 for the last fact is fully established by disco- 
 veries in very ancient Egyptian tombs. Silks, 
 which are first mentioned in Proverbs xxxi. 22, 
 could not have come from Africa, and many 
 articles of advanced and refined social life, not 
 the produce of Egypt, could alone have been 
 derived from India [Ophiu]. 
 
 Though in this short abstract of the arguments 
 respecting the direction of Solomon's fleet, there 
 may be errors, none, we believe, are of sufficient 
 weight to impugn the general conclusion, which 
 supports the usual rendering of Thukyim by 
 ‘peacocks;’ although the increase of species in 
 the west does not appear to have been remarkable 
 till some ages after the reign of the great Hebrew 
 monarch, when the bird was dedicated to Juno, and 
 reared at first, in her temple at Samos. There are 
 only two species of true peacocks, viz., that under 
 consideration, which is the Pavo cristatus of Linn.; 
 and another, Pavo Muticus, more recently dis- 
 covered, which differs in some particulars, and ori- 
 ginally belongs to Japan and China. Peacocks bear 
 the cold of the Himalayas : they run with great 
 swiftness, and where they are, serpents do not 
 abound, as they devour the young with great 
 avidity, and, it is said, attack with spirit even the 
 Cobra di Capsllo when giown to considerable size, 
 arresting its progress and confusing if by the ra- 
 bidity and variety of their evolutions around it, 
 
 till exhausted with fatigue it is struck on the head 
 and dispatched. 
 
 A detailed description of a species so well 
 known, we deem superfluous. — C. H. S. 
 
 PEARLS. It is doubtful that pearls are men- 
 tioned in fhe Old Testament. The word 5^23* 
 gabish, rendered ‘pearl’ in Joh xxviii. 18, ap- 
 pears to mean crystal ; and the word D'O’ODi 
 peninim, which our version translates by ‘rubies,' 
 is now supposed to mean coral [Coral], But in 
 the New Testament, the pearls (/xapyap'iTrjs) ate 
 repeatedly mentioned. In Matt. xiii. 45, 46, a 
 merchant (travelling jeweller) seeking goodly 
 pearls , finds one pearl of great price, and to he 
 able to purchase it, sells all that he has — all the 
 jewels he had previously secured. In 1 Tim. ii. 
 9, and Rev. xvii. 4, pearls are mentioned as the 
 ornaments of females; in Rev. xviii. 12-16, 
 among costly merchandize ; and Rev. xxi. 12, 
 the twelve gates of the heavenly Jerusalem are 
 ‘twelve pearls.’ These intimations seem to in- 
 dicate that pearls were in more common use 
 among the Jews after than before the captivity, 
 while they evince the estimation in which they 
 were in later times held (Plin. Hist. Nat. ix. 54; 
 xii. 41; Gillian, Anim. x. 13; comp. Ritter, 
 Erdkunde , ii. 164). The island of Tylos (Bah- 
 rein) was especially renowned for its fishery of 
 pearls (Plin. vi. 32; comp. Strabo, xvi. p. 767; 
 Athen. iii. 93); the Indian ocean was also known 
 to produce pearls (Arrian, Indica, p. 194 ; Plin. 
 ix. 54; xxxiv. 48 ; Strabo, xv. p. 717). Heertn 
 feels assured that this indication must be under- 
 stood to refer to the strait between Taprobana, or 
 Ceylon, and the southernmost point of the main- 
 land of India, Cape Comorin, whence Europeans, 
 even at present, derive their principal supplies of 
 these costly natural productions. This writer 
 adds, ‘ Pearls have at all times been esteemed one 
 of the most valuable commodities of the East. 
 Their modest splendour and simple beauty appear 
 to have captivated the Orientals, even more than 
 the dazzling brilliancy of the diamond, and have 
 made them at all times the favourite ornament 
 of despotic princes. In the West, the passion for 
 this elegant luxury was at its height about the 
 period of the extinction of Roman freedom, and 
 they were valued in Rome and Alexandria as 
 highly as precious stones. In Asia this taste was 
 of more ancient date, and may be traced to a 
 period anterior to the Persian dynasty ; nor has it 
 ever declined. A string of pearls of the largest 
 size is an indispensable part of the decorations of 
 an Eastern monarch. It was thus that Tippoo 
 was adorned when he fell before the gates of his 
 capital ; and it is thus that the present ruler of 
 the Persians is usually decorated (. Ideen , i. 2- 
 224). 
 
 PEGANON (- nriyavov ). The word rue occurs 
 only in Luke xi. 42. ‘ But woe unto you, Phari- 
 sees ! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of 
 herbs, and pass over judgment,’ &c. In the pa- 
 rallel passage, Matt, xxiii. 23, dill (aurjdov), trans- 
 lated anise in the English Version, is mentioned 
 instead of rue. Both dill and rue were cultivated 
 in the gardens of Eastern countries in ancient 
 times as they are at the present day. Dioscorides 
 describes two kinds, Trriyavov opeivov, Ruta mon- 
 tana , and nryyavov Kyirevror, Ruta hortensis. 
 ‘ Ex hortensi autem esui magis idonea, quae juxta 
 
PEKAH, 
 
 PELICAN. 
 
 489 
 
 8 wkj pi ivenit.’ These are considered by botanists 
 to be distinct species, and are called respectively, 
 the first, Ruta montana , which is common in the 
 south of Europe and the north of Africa ; the other 
 is usually called Rata graveolens, and by some 
 R. hortensis , which is found in the south of 
 Europe, and is the kind commonly cultivated in 
 gardens. Rue was highly est eemed as a medi- 
 . cine, even as early as the time of Hippocrates. 
 Pliny says, ‘ Rue is an herbe as medicinable as 
 the best. That of the garden hath a broader leafe, 
 and brauucheth more than the wild, which is 
 more hotte, vehement, and rigorous in all opera- 
 tions ; also that is it sowed usually in Februarie, 
 when the western wind, Favonius, bloweth. 
 Certes we find, that in old time rue was in some 
 great account, and especiall reckoning above 
 other hearbs : for I read in auncient histories, That 
 Cornelius Cethegus, at what time as he was chosen 
 Consull with Quintius Flaminius, presently 
 upon the said election, gave a largesse to the 
 people of new wine, aromatized with rue. The 
 fig-tree and rue are in a great, league and amitie, 
 insomuch as this herb, sow and set it where you 
 will, in no place prospered) better than under that 
 tree; for planted it may be of a slip in spring’ 
 (Hollands Pliny, xix. c. viii.). That it was em- 
 ployed as an ingredient in diet, and as a condi- 
 ment, is abundantly evident from Apicius, as 
 noticed by Celsius, and is not more extraordinary 
 than the fondness of some Eastern nations were 
 of assafoetida as a seasoning to food. That one 
 kind was cultivated by the Israelites, is evident 
 from its being mentioned as one of the articles of 
 which the Pharisees paid their tithes, though they 
 neglected the weightier matters of the law. Ro- 
 senmiiller states that in the Talmud ( Tract She - 
 biith, cap. ix., 6 1) the rue is indeed mentioned 
 amongst kitchen herbs ( asparagus portulacce et 
 coriandro) ; but, at the same time, it is there ex- 
 pressly stated, that it is tithe free, it being one of 
 those herbs which are not cultivated in gardens, 
 according to the general rule established in ihe 
 Talmud.’ Celsius long previously observed with 
 reference to this fact: 1 Cum autem dicunt ibi- 
 dem, rutam a decimatior.e immunem esse, osten- 
 dunt, quantum recesserint a consuetudine ma- 
 jorum, quos decimas ex ruta separasse, ipsum 
 affirmat os veritatis’ (Hierobot. ii. p. 253) — 
 
 J. F. R. 
 
 PEKAH open-eyed; Sept. 4>a/cee), the 
 
 officer who slew Pekahiah and mounted the throne 
 in his stead (b.c. 758), becoming the eighteenth 
 king of Israel. He reigned twenty years. Towards 
 the close of his life (but not before the seventeenth 
 year of his reign) he entered into a league with 
 Rezin, king of Damascene-Syria, against Judah ; 
 and the success which attended their operations 
 induced Ahaz to tender to Tiglath-pileser, king of 
 Assyria, his homage and tribute, as the price of his 
 aid and protection. The result was that the kings 
 of Syria and Israel were soon obliged to abandon 
 their designs against Judah in order to attend to 
 their own dominions, of which considerable parts 
 were seized and retained by the Assyrians. Israel 
 lost all the territory ea$t of the Jordan, and the two 
 and a half tribes which inhabited it were sent into 
 exile. These disasters seem to have created such 
 popular discontent as to give the sanction of public 
 opinion to ihe conspiracy headed by Hoshea, in 
 
 which the king lost his life (2 Kings xv. 25, «$. ; 
 xvi. 5, sq. ; Isa. vii. ; viii. 1-9; xvii. 1-Ii). 
 
 PEKAHIAH (?Tni2D, Jehovah has opened hi* 
 eyes; Sept. Qaicealas, ^aiceias), son and successor 
 of Menahem, king of Israel, who began to reign 
 in b.c. 760. He patronized and supported the 
 idolatry of the golden calves ; and after an un- 
 distinguished reign of two years, Pekah, one (/his 
 generals, conspired against him, and with the aid 
 of Argob and Arish, and fifty Gileadites, slew him 
 in the haram of his own palace (2 Kings xv. 
 22-25). 
 
 PELEG, son of Eber, and fourth in descent 
 from Shem. His name, means division , and is 
 said to have been given him ‘ because in li is days 
 the earth was divided’ (Gen. x. 25 ; xi. 16) ; con- 
 cerning which see Nations, Dispersion ok. 
 
 PELICAN. kaath; Syriac, Jcaha ; 
 
 Arabic and Talmuds, huh and kill. 
 
 The name kaath is supposed to be derived 
 from the action of throwing up food, which the 
 bird really effects when discharging the contents 
 of the bag beneath its bill. But it may be sug- 
 gested, as not unlikely, that all the above names 
 are imitative of the voice of the pelican, which, 
 although seldom heard in captivity, is uttered 
 frequently at the periods of migration, and is 
 compared to the braying of an ass. It may be 
 likewise that this characteristic has influenced 
 several translators of the Hebrew text in substi- 
 tuting on some, or on all occasions, where kaath 
 occurs, bittern for pelican, but we think without 
 sufficient reason [Kephod ; Bittern]. Kaath 
 is found in Lev. xi. 18; Deut. xiv. 17 ; Ps. cii. 6 ; 
 Isa. xxxiv. 11 ; Zeph. ii. 14. 
 
 Pelicans are chiefly tropical birds, equal or 
 superior in bulk to the common swan : they have 
 powerful wings ; fly at a great elevation ; are par- 
 tially gregarious ; and though some always remain 
 in their favourite subsolar regions, most of them 
 migrate in our hemisphere with the northern spring, 
 occupy Syria, the lakes and rivers of temperate 
 Asia, and extend westward into Europe up the 
 
 Danube into Hungary, and northward to some 
 rivers of southern Russia. They likewise frequent 
 salt-water marshes, and tne shallows of harbours, 
 but seldom alight on the ope'h sea, though they 
 are said to dart down upon fish from a consider- 
 able height. 
 
 The face of the pelican is naked ; the bill long, 
 
490 
 
 PENIEL. 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 broad, and flat, is terminated by a strong crooked 
 and crimson-coloured nail, which, when fish is 
 pressed out of the pouch, and the bird is at rest, 
 is seen reposing upon the crop, and then may be 
 fancied to represent an ensanguined spot. This 
 may have occasioned the fabulous tale which repre- 
 sents the bird as wounding her own bared breast to 
 revive its young brood ; for that part of the bag 
 which is visible then appears like a naked breast, 
 all the feathers of the body being white or slightly 
 tinged with rose colour, except the great quills, 
 which are black. The feet have all the toes 
 united by broad membranes, and are of a nearly 
 orange colour. Pelicanus o?iocrotalus , the species 
 here noticed, is the most widely-spread of the 
 genus, being supposed to be identical at the Cape 
 of Good Hope and in India, as well as in western 
 Asia. It is very distinctly represented in ancient 
 Egyptian paintings, where the birds are seen in 
 numbers congregated among reeds, and the natives 
 collecting basketfuls of their eggs. They still 
 frequent the marshes of the Delta of the Nile, and 
 the islands of the river high up the country, and 
 resort to the lakes of Palestine, excepting the 
 Dead Sea. With regard to the words ‘ of the 
 wilderness or desert/ often added to the pelican’s 
 name in consequence of their occurrence in Ps. cii. 
 6, there is not sufficient ground to infer from them 
 any peculiar capability in the genus to occupy re- 
 mote solitudes ; for they live on fish, and generally 
 nestle in reedy abodes; and man, in all re- 
 gions, equally desirous to possess food, water, and 
 verdure, occupies the same localities for the same 
 reasons. We think the Psalmist refers to one 
 isolated by circumstances from the usual haunts 
 of these birds, and casually nestling among rocks, 
 where water, and consequently food, begins to 
 fail in the dry season, as is commonly the case 
 eastward of the Jordan — such a supposition offering 
 an image of misery and desolation forcibly appli- 
 cable to the context. — C. H. S. 
 
 PELITHITES. [Cherethites and Peli- 
 
 THITES.] 
 
 PEN. [Writing.] 
 
 PENIEL (i?X'J3,/ace of God ; Sept. E?5o$ 
 ©eou), or Penuel, a place beyond the Jordan, 
 where Jacob wrestled with the angel, and ‘called 
 the name of the place Peniel ; for I have seen 
 God face to face, and my life is preserved ’ (Gen. 
 xxxii. 30). There was in after-times a fortified 
 town in this place, the inhabitants of which ex- 
 posed themselves to the resentment of Gideon, 
 for refusing succour to his troops when pursuing 
 the Midianites (Judg. viii. 8). The site is not 
 known ; but it must have been at some point 
 on or not far from the north bank of the Jabbok. 
 Men of this name occur in 1 Chron. iv. 4 ; viii. 
 25. 
 
 PENINNAH (H3J3, coral ; Sept. $evvdva), 
 one of the two wives of Elkanah, the father of 
 Samuel (1 Sam. i. 2). 
 
 PENNY. [Drachma; Denarius.] 
 
 PENTATEUCH is the title given to the 
 five books of Moses. The Jews usually call the 
 Pentateuch iTTirin, the law ; or, more fully, 
 mjnn win r\mn, the five-fifths of the law. 
 This title again has been abbreviated into 
 for the whole, and for a single book of 
 
 Pentateuch. In Greek its usual appellations 
 
 are b v6/j.os, and n eyrdreoxos- The word rcOx 0 * 
 occurs in the later Alexandrian writers in the 
 signification of volumen. The division into five 
 books is alluded to in the works of Josephus and 
 Philo. _ It seems that this division was first made 
 by the Alexandrian critics. In Jewish writers 
 are found statements indicating that the Penta- 
 teuch was formerly divided into seven portions 
 (comp. Jarclii, ad Proverb, ix. 1 ; ibique Breit- 
 haupt). 
 
 In the Jewish canon the Pentateuch is kept 
 somewliat. distinct from the other sacred books ot 
 the Old Testament, because, considered with re- 
 ference to its contents, it is the book of books ot 
 the ancient covenant. It is the basis of the reli- 
 gion of the Old Testament, and of the whole 
 theocratical life. The term law characterizes the 
 principal substance of the Pentateuch, but its real 
 kernel and cential point is the foundation of the 
 Jewish theocracy, the historical demonstration ot 
 that peculiar communion into which the God of 
 heaven and earth entered with one chosen people, 
 through the instrumentality of Moses ; the pre- 
 paration for, and the development of, that com- 
 munion ; the covenant relation of Jehovah and 
 Israel, from its first rise down to its complete ter- 
 mination. In considering the Pentateuch, the first 
 question which arises is — Who was its author ? 
 It is of great importance to hear first, what the 
 book itself says on this subject. The Pentateuch 
 does not present itself as an anonymous produc- 
 tion. It is manifestly intended and destined to 
 be a public muniment for the whole people, anil 
 it does net veil its origin in a mysterious ob- 
 scurity ; on the contrary the book speaks most 
 clearly on this subject. 
 
 According to Exod. xvii. 14, Moses was com- 
 manded by God to write the victory over the 
 Amalekites in the book (“I3D3). This passage 
 shows that the account to be inserted wa3 in- 
 tended to form a portion of a more extensive work, 
 with which the reader is supposed to be acquaint- 
 ed. It. also proves that Moses, at an early period 
 of his public career, was filled with the idea oi 
 leaving to his people a written memorial of the 
 Divine guidance, and that he fully understood 
 the close and necessary connection of an authori- 
 tative law with a written code, or It is, 
 
 therefore, by no means surprising that the observ- 
 ation repeatedly occurs, that Moses wrote down 
 the account of certain events (Exod. xxiv. 4, 7 ; 
 xxxiv. 27, 28; Num. xxxiii. 2). Especially 
 important are fine statements in Deut. i. 5 ; 
 xxviii. 58. In Deut. xxxi. 9, 24 (30) the whole 
 work is expressly ascribed to Moses as the author, 
 including the poem in Deut. xxxii. It may be 
 made a question whether the hand of a later writer, 
 who finished the Pentateuch, is perceptible from 
 ch. xxxi. 24 (comp, xxxiii. 1, and xxxiv.), or 
 whether the words in xxxi. 24-30 are still the 
 words of Moses. In the former case we have two 
 witnesses, viz. Moses himself, and the continuator 
 of the Pentateuch ; in the latter case, which seems 
 to us the more likely, we have the testimony ot 
 Moses alone. 
 
 Modern criticism has raised many objections 
 against these statements of the Pentateuch rela- 
 tive to its own origin. Many critics suppose 
 that they can discover in the Pentateuch indica* 
 tions that the author intended to make himself 
 known as a person different from Moses. The 
 
PENTATEUCH. 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 491 
 
 most important objection is the following : that 
 the Pentateuch, speaking of Moses, always uses 
 the third person, bestows praise upon him, and 
 uses concerning him expressions of respect. The 
 Pentateuch even exhibits Moses quite objectively 
 in the Messing recorded in Dent, xxxiii. 4, 5. 
 
 To this objection we reply, that the use of the 
 third person proves nothing. The later Hebrew 
 writers also speak of themselves in the third per- 
 son. We might adduce similar instances from 
 the classical authors, as Caesar, Xenophon, and 
 others. The use of the third person, instead of the 
 first, prevails also among Oriental authors. In 
 addition to this we should observe, that the na- 
 ture of the book itself demands the use of the 
 third person, in reference to Moses, throughout 
 the Pentateuch. This usage entirely corresponds 
 with the character both of the history and of the 
 law contained in the Pentateuch. By the use of 
 the word I, the objective character of this history 
 would have been destroyed, and the law of Jehovah 
 would have been brought down to the sphere of 
 human subjectivity and option. If we consider 
 that the Pentateuch was destined to be a book of 
 divine revelation, in which God exhibited to his 
 people the exemplification of his providential 
 guidance, we -cannot expect that Moses, by whom 
 the Lord had communicated his latest revelations, 
 should be spoken of otherwise than in the third per- 
 son. In the poetry contained in Deut. xxxiii. 4, 
 Moses speaks in the name of the people, which he 
 personifies and introduces as speaking. The ex- 
 pressions in Exod. xi. 3, and Num. xii. 3 and 7, 
 belong entirely to the context of history, and to 
 its faithful and complete relation ; consequently 
 b is by no means vain boasting that is there ex- 
 pressed, but admiration of the divine mercy glori- 
 fied in the people of God. In considering these 
 passages we must also bear in mind the far greater 
 number of other passages which speak of the 
 feebleness and the sins of Moses. 
 
 It is certain that the author of the Pentateuch 
 asserts himself to be Moses. The question then 
 arises, whether it is possible to consider this asser- 
 tion to be true — whether Moses can be admitted 
 to be the author? In this question is contained 
 another, viz. whether the Pentateuch forms such a 
 continuous whole that it is possible to ascribe it 
 to one author ? This question has been principally 
 discussed in modern criticism. In various man- 
 ners it has been tried to destroy the unity of the 
 Pentateuch, and to resolve its constituent parts 
 into a number of documents and fragments (comp, 
 here especially the article Genesis). Eichhorn 
 and his followers assert that Genesis only is com- 
 posed of several ancient documents. This assertion 
 is still reconcileable with the Mosaical origin of 
 the Pentateuch. But Vater and others allege that 
 the whole Pentateuch is composed of fragments ; 
 from which it necessarily follows that Moses was 
 not the author of the whole. Modern critics are, 
 however, by no means unanimous in their opinions. 
 The latest writer on this subject, Ewald, in his 
 history of the people of Israel ( Geschichte des Volkes 
 Israel, vol. i. Gottingen, 1843), asserts that there 
 were seven different authors concerned in the Pen- 
 tateuch. On the other hand, the internal unity of 
 the Pentateuch has been demonstrated in many 
 able essays. The attempts at division are espe- 
 cially supported by an appeal to the prevailing use 
 of the different names of God in various por- 
 
 tions of the work ; but the arguments derived 
 from this circumstance have been found insuffi- 
 cient to prove that the Pentateuch was written by 
 different authors (comp, again the articles Ge- 
 nesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deu- 
 teronomy). 
 
 The inquiry concerning the unity of the Pen- 
 tateuch is intimately connected with its histo- 
 rical character. If there are in the Penta- 
 teuch decided contradictions, or different con- 
 tradictory statements of one and the same fact, 
 not only its unity but also its historical truth 
 would be negatived. On the* other hand, if 
 the work is to be considered as written by Moses, 
 the whole style and internal veracity of the Pen- 
 tateuch must correspond with the character of 
 Moses. Considerate critics, who are not under 
 the sway of dogmatic prejudices, find that the 
 passages which are produced in order to prove 
 that the Pentateuch was written after the time of 
 Moses, by no means support such a conclusion, 
 and that a more accurate examination of the con- 
 tents of the separate portions discovers many ves- 
 tiges demonstrating that the work originated in 
 the age of Moses (compare here again the articles 
 on the separate books). 
 
 The general arguments for and against the au- 
 thenticity of the Pentateuch, which are here still 
 to be considered separately, are the following : — 
 
 The history of the art of writing among the 
 Hebrews has often been appealed to in order to 
 disprove the authenticity of the Pentateuch. It 
 is true that in our days no critic of good repute 
 for learning, ventures any longer to assert that the 
 art of writing was invented subsequent to the 
 Mosaical age (Ewald’s Geschichte des Volkes 
 Israel, p. 64, sq.) ; but it is questioned whether 
 the Hebrews were acquainted with that art. Such 
 a doubt proceeds from erroneous ideas concerning 
 the condition of this people, and concerning the 
 civilization necessarily imparted to them in Egypt. 
 The reality of this civilization is proved by indu- 
 bitable testimony. It is said that a work of such 
 extent as the Pentateuch was beyond the means 
 of the primitive modes of writing then existing. 
 But various testimonies, not merely in the Penta- 
 teuch itself, but also derived from other sources, 
 from the period immediately subsequent to that of 
 Moses, prove that a knowledge of the art of writing 
 was widely diffused among the Hebrews (comp. 
 Judges viii. 14). And if there was any knowledge 
 of this art, its application would entirely depend 
 upon the particular circumstances of a given pe- 
 riod. Some writers seem to entertain the opinion 
 that the materials for writing were yet, in the days 
 of Moses, too clumsy for the execution of larger 
 works. This opinion is refuted by the fact, that the 
 Hebrews became acquainted, just in the Mosaical 
 period, with the use of very good materials for 
 writing, such as papyrus, byssus, parchment, &c. 
 (comp. Herodotus, v. 58). There are, indeed, 
 mentioned in the Pentateuch some more solid 
 materials for writing, such as tables of stone 
 (Exod. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18, xxxiv. 1, &c.) ; but 
 this does not prove that in those days nothing was 
 written except upon stone. Stone was employed, 
 on account of its durability, for specific purposes. 
 
 The language of the Pentateuch has also been 
 the subject of many discussions. It has frequently 
 been urged that it differs less from that of the later 
 books of the Old Testament than might have been 
 
492 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 expected if this work proceeded from Moses. In 
 this objection the characteristic stability of the 
 Oriental languages has been overlooked. The 
 Oriental languages are not, in the same degree as 
 the Occidental, in a state of development anti con- 
 stant change. It is also overlooked that the Penta- 
 teuch itgelf, by its high authority, exerted a con- 
 stant influence upon the whole subsequent religi- 
 ous literature of the Hebrews. And we do not 
 know any other literature of the ancient Hebrews 
 except the religious. In addition to this we must 
 observe that, nev ertheless, the style of the Penta- 
 teuch has its distinctive features of antiquity. 
 
 The Pentateuch contains a number of charac- 
 teristic GRAMMATICAL FORMATIONS*, Such are, 
 for instance, the use of the pronoun fcOH as a 
 feminine also, the form for ; DflJ ; 
 
 the forms of the imperatives in Gen. iv. 23, Exod. 
 ii. 20, the word *“|JD as a feminine for mjD. 
 
 The Pentateuch contains also words which do 
 not occur in the other parts of the Old Testament, 
 such as |'D, species ; to curse , for ; 
 
 3BO, lamb, for ^23 ; KDH and 85^1 in the sig- 
 nification of property. 
 
 There occur also characteristic phrases, as, 
 their shade (D^¥) is departed from them ; 
 i.e. they are defenceless (Num. xiv. 9) ; he 
 teas gathered to his people, VDJJ; the agree- 
 able odour, or sioeet savour, of the sacrifice, 
 nrron nn ; to cover the eye of the earth, 
 |'V (Exod. x. 5, 15; Num. xxii. 5, 11, 
 
 &cA 
 
 Others have vainly endeavoured to find in the 
 Pentateuch, and especially in Deuteronomy, 
 vestiges of a later style. The instances produced 
 by the opponents of the Mosaical origin of the 
 Pentateuch do not stand examination, and are, 
 therefore, unable to counterbalance the weight of 
 argirnent deducible from the antique expressions 
 in the Mosaical writings. 
 
 Lastly, the historical contents of the Pentateuch 
 are of very great importance in our present inquiry, 
 because they constantly bear testimony in favour 
 of its age and authenticity, and lead to the follow- 
 ing important results. We find, in later times, 
 no period which we could deem capable of pro- 
 ducing the Pentateuch as a whole: for this rea- 
 son, the opponents of its authenticity are obliged 
 to ascribe the different, portions of the work to 
 widely different periods. If we allow that the 
 apostles were such persons as they assert them- 
 selves to be, we must admit also that the very 
 frequent apostolical allusions to the Pentateuch 
 are a high sanction to the work ; and we cannot 
 overlook the fact, that every opinion which, wit h 
 greater or less decision, finds in the Pentateuch 
 a work of fraud, enters into an unavoidable con- 
 flict with the New Testament itself. 
 
 In the remote times of Jewish and Christian 
 antiquity, we find no vestiges of doubt as to the 
 genuineness of the Mosaical books. The Gnostics, 
 indeed, opposed the Pentateuch, but attacked it 
 merely on account of their dogmatical opinions 
 concerning the Law, and Judaism in general; 
 consequently they did not impugn the authenti- 
 city, but merely the divine authority, of the Law. 
 Heathen authors alone, as Celsus and Julian, 
 represented the contents of the Pentateuch as 
 being mythological, and paralleled them with 
 Pagan mythology. 
 
 In the middle ages, but not earlier, we find 
 some very concealed critical doubts in the works 
 of some Jews — as Isaac Ben Jasos, who lived 
 in the eleventh century, and Aben Ezra. After 
 the reformation, it was sometimes attempted to 
 demonstrate the later origin of the Pentateuch. 
 Such attempts were made by Spinoza, Richard 
 Simon, Le Clerc, and Van Dale ; but these critics 
 were not unanimous in their results. Against 
 them wrote Heidegger ( Exercitationes Biblicce, 
 i. 246, sq.) ; Witsius ( Miscellanea Sacra, i 
 103, sq.) ; and Carpzov ( Introductio , i. 38, sq.). 
 
 In the period of English, French, and German 
 deism, the Pentateuch was attacked rather by 
 jests than by arguments. Attacks of a more 
 scientific nature were made about the end of the 
 eighteenth century. But Ihese were met by such 
 critics as John David Michaelis and Eichhom, 
 who energetically and effectually defended the 
 genuineness of the Pentateuch. These critics, 
 however, on account of their own false position, 
 did as much harm as good to the cause of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 A new epoch of criticism commences about 
 the year 1805. This was produced by Yater’s 
 Commentary and De Wette’s Beitrdge zur Ein - 
 leitung in das alte Testament. Vater embodied 
 all the arguments which had been adduced 
 against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and 
 applied to the criticism of the sacred books the 
 principles which Wolf had employed with re- 
 ference to the Homeric poems. lie divided the 
 Pentateuch into fragments, to each of which he 
 assigned its own period, but referred the whole 
 generally to the age of the Assyrian or Babylo- 
 nian exile. Since the days of Vater, a series of 
 the most different hypotheses has been produced 
 by German critics about the age of the Penta- 
 teuch, and that of its constituent sections. No 
 one critic seems fully to agree with any other; 
 and frequently it is quite evident that the opinions 
 advanced are destitute of any sure foundation — 
 that they are quite arbitrary, and produced by 
 merely subjective motives. We will illustrate 
 this by a few examples relative to the Pentateuch 
 as a whole. 
 
 Schumann makes Ezra the author of the law. 
 According to A. T. Hartmann the separate por- 
 tions of the law sprang up gradually, some of 
 them as late as the exile ; but he does not show 
 by what circumstances they were combined into 
 a whole. According to Dr. Ammon, the Penta- 
 teuch was planned by Moses ; was gradually 
 continued down to the times of Solomon; was 
 entirely forgotten during the period of idolatry ; 
 was rediscovered under the reign of Josiah ; and 
 was then retouched, and edited under the name of 
 Moses. Von Bohlen urges the fact mentioned in 
 the second Book of Kings (ch. xxii.), as if it 
 were explanatory of the origin of Deuteronony; 
 but he considers some portions to be of a much 
 later origin. He asserts that the Pentateuch was 
 partly written after the exile, that it was gradually 
 developed, and was brought to a conclusion in the 
 age of Christ. According to the latest statements 
 of De Wette, in his Einleitung in das alte Tes- 
 tament, § 157, sq., the Elohim portions were 
 written in the age of Samuel and Saul, the Je- 
 hovah portions nearly about the same period, but 
 Deuteronomy much later, under Josiah. Ewald 
 assigns seven authors to the Pentateuch, wno, how- 
 
PENTECOST. 
 
 PERES. 
 
 ever, wrote in very different periods. The first, 
 he supposes, wrote in the days of Samson ; the 
 second in the reign of Solomon ; the third in the 
 reign of Elijah, &c. 
 
 The critical doubts respecting the authenticity 
 of the Pentateuch have produced in modern times 
 several works in defence of its genuineness ; such 
 as Kanne's Biblischer Untersuchungen, 2 vols., 
 1820; the observations by Jahn, Rosenmuller, and 
 Bleek ; Ranke's Untersuchungen iiber den Pen- 
 tateuch, 2 vols. ; Hengstenberg's Beitrdge zur 
 Einleitung, vols. 2 and 3 ; Havemick’s Ein- 
 leitung in das alte Testament , vol. 1 ; Drechsler, 
 Ueber die Einheit und Authentic der Genesis ; 
 Konig’s Alt-testamentliche Studien, 2d number ; 
 Sack's Apolegetik, &c. 
 
 The most important commentaries and exege- 
 iical aids for the explanation of the whole Penta- 
 teuch, and its constituent parts, are the follow- 
 ing : — Calvini Bonfrerii Pentateuchus Commen- 
 tario hrustratus, 1625; Marckii Commentarius 
 in prcecipuas quasdam Pentateuchi partes, 1721 ; 
 Clerici Commentarius, 1710; Gerhardi Com- 
 mentarius in Genes in, 1693 ; Mexcevi Commen- 
 tarius in Genesin, 1593; Vater, Commentar 
 iiber den Pentateuch, 1802, sq., 3 vols.; Ro- 
 senmulleri Scholia, 3d ed., 1821, sq. : Schu- 
 mann, Pentateuchus IJebraice ct Graece, tom. 1, 
 1829; Von Bolden, Die Genesis ubersetzt und, 
 erklart, Konigsberg, 1825 ; Tiele, Das erste 
 Buck Mosis, l$c., 1st vol., 1836; Tucb, Com- 
 mentar iiber die Genesis, 1838, &c. The follow- 
 ing are the principal English works on the Penta- 
 teuch : — Ainsworth, Annotations on the Five 
 Books of Moses, 1699 ; Kidder, Commentary 
 on the Five Books of Moses, 1713; Parker, 
 Bibliotheca Bibiica, 1720, 1735 ; Jamieson, Cri- 
 tical and Practical Exposition of the Penta- 
 teuch, 1748; Robertson, Clavis Pentateuchi , 
 1770; Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 1815. 
 
 — H. A. C. H. 
 
 PENTECOST (net'-nj/cocTT^), the name (signi- 
 fying fiftieth) given in the New Testament to the 
 Feast of Weeivs, or of Ingathering, which was 
 celebrated on the fiftieth day from the festival of 
 unleavened bread, or the Passover ; or seven 
 weeks from the 16th day of Nisan. It was a 
 festival of thanks for the harvest, and com- 
 menced immediately after the Passover [Fes- 
 tivals]. It was one of the three great yearly 
 festivals, in which all the males were required to 
 appear before God at the place of his sanctuary. 
 Josephus states that in his time great numbers of 
 Jews resorted from every quarter to Jerusalem to 
 keep this festival (Antiq. xiv. 13, 4; xvii. 10, 2; 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 3, 1). This testimony affords 
 interesting corroboration of Acts ii. 1, 9-11 ; xx. 
 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 8, in which the same fact appears. 
 The commencement of the Christian church on 
 the day of Pentecost, preceded as it was by our 
 Lord's ascension, attached a peculiar interest to 
 this season, and eventually led to its being set 
 apart for the commemoration of these great events. 
 It was not, however, established as one of the 
 great festivals until tire fourth century. The com- 
 bination of two events (the Ascension and 
 the descent of the Holy Ghost) in one festival 
 has a parallel in the original Jewish feast, which 
 is held to have included the feast of first-fruits, 
 and of the delivering of the law (Exod. xxiii. 16 ; 
 Lev xxiii. 14-21; Num. xxviii. 26). Indeed, 
 
 493 
 
 this festival in some respects beats a close analogy 
 to the Jewish one; and is evidently little more 
 than a modification of it. The convert s of that day, 
 on which the Holy Ghost descended, were the 
 first fruits of the Spirit. Jerome (Ad Tabiol, 
 § 7) elegantly contrasts this with the giving of 
 the law on Mount Sinai : £ Utraque facta est 
 quinquagessimo die, a Paschate ; illo, inSina; 
 luEC, in Sion. Ibi tense motu ccntremuit mons ; 
 hie, domus apostolorum. Ibi, inter fiammas ig- 
 nium et micantia fulgura, turbo ventorum, et 
 fragor tonitruorum personuit; ; hie, cum igne- 
 arum visione linguarum sonitus pariter de ccelo, 
 tanquam spiritus vehementis adversit. Ibi, clangor 
 buccinae, legis verba perstrepuit ; hie, tuba evan- 
 gelica apostolorum ore intonuit.’ This festival 
 became one of the three baptismal seasons (Tertull. 
 De Baptis. c. 19 ; Hieron., in Zach. xiv. 8) ; and 
 it derives its name of Whitsunday, or white- 
 Sunday, from so many being clad in white on 
 this the day of their baptism. 
 
 1. PEOR (“liyS ; Sept, keycap), a mountain 
 in the land of Moab (Num. xxiii. 28). Eusebius 
 places it between Livias and Esbus, over against 
 Jericho; which shows that it was not supposed to 
 be east of the Dead Sea, as usually stated ( Ono - 
 mast. s. v. ’ApafiwO Mcoct/3). It has not in modem 
 times been recognised. 
 
 2. PEOR, an idol [Baal-Peor]. 
 
 PERES (DAS, in our versions £ ossifrage ’ 
 
 Lev. xi. 13 ; Deut. xiv. 12). Although Neser 
 is unquestionably the Hebrew name of the eagle, 
 a genus so conspicuous, and to this moment so 
 common in Palestine, probably possessed more 
 than one designation in the national dialects of the 
 country, and un<£er the term ossifrage it would 
 indicate the great sea eagle. But Peres is by 
 other translators referred to a hawk, which they 
 denominate Accipiter, although before scientific 
 ornithology had defined it to mark a particular 
 species, it had, as in antiquity, been generalized 
 and understood to mean any predaceous bird, 
 vElian notices Accipitres equal in size to eagles, 
 and these included both the ospray and ossifrage. 
 But these names have received specific determi- 
 nations only since ornithologists have more strictly 
 distinguished genera and species ; for originally 
 they were identical; our ospray being derived 
 from the French Orfrai, which is itself a mere 
 euphonious pronunciation of ossifrage, introduced 
 during the polishing of Gallo-Frankish into the 
 modern idiom. Their scientific application, how- 
 ever, has been referred to two birds ; osprey being 
 the Pandion Halia'etus, ‘ the fishing hawk,’ and 
 ossifrage the Aquila Ossifraga of Brisson, or ‘ great 
 sea eagle’ of Pennant; authors having even pre- 
 tended that fragments of bones have been found in 
 the stomach of the last mentioned. If this fact were 
 proved, it would justify the denomination of ossi- 
 frage, or ‘ bone- breaker;’ but the dispensation of 
 faculties in nature always indicates a purpose, 
 which in the case of the Pandion , living as it does 
 exclusively upon fish, appears inapplicable ; for 
 theirs are not the bones understood by the name, 
 and such as the bird accidentally swallows are 
 small and without nutriment. With regard to the 
 sea eagle, which subsists mostly on the same diet, 
 or on carrion, and only by chance on birds, whose 
 bones in all genera are very hard, destitute of mar- 
 row, and likewise without nutritious matter, the 
 
494 
 
 PERES. 
 
 PERFUMES. 
 
 case is nearly the same. Finally, breaking the 
 bones must be effected by the beak, which is strong 
 indeed, but only formed to strike, tear, or hold, not 
 to masticate ; and if the bones are broken for that 
 purpose, where are they to be found ? in the crop, 
 the succentorial ventricle, or in the gizzard? — 
 organs in birds of prey far from vigorous, or so 
 well defined as they are in other orders of the 
 class, part icularly in Gallinacese. Thus, there is in 
 nature no such bird as one that breaks the bones of 
 warm-blooded animals in order to swallow them ; 
 consequently, no identification can he made with 
 any of the sea eagles. But when we place toge- 
 ther Peres, a name derived from a root denoting 
 ‘ to crush ’ or ‘ break,’ and find that by tire Greek 
 name (prjirq (Phene'), the Hellenic nations called 
 the Dimmer Gey er of the Swiss, which Savigny 
 ( Oiseaux d'Egypte et de Syrie) has proved to 
 be the ossifrage of the Romans ; then it becomes 
 an immediate question, why such a denomination 
 should have been bestowed. The answer is, we 
 think, satisfactory ; for constituting the largest 
 flying bird of the old continent, and being a 
 tenant of the highest ranges of mountains in 
 Europe, western Asia, and Africa, though some- 
 times feeding on carrion, and not appearing to 
 take up prey like eagles in the talons, it pursues 
 the chamois, young ibex, mountain deer, or mar- 
 mot, among precipices, until it drives, or by a 
 rush of its wings, forces the game over the brink, 
 to be dashed to pieces below, and thus deservedly 
 obtained the name of bone-breaker. 
 
 The species in Europe is little if at all inferior in 
 size to tne Condor of South America, measuring 
 Jrom the point of the bill to the end of the tail four 
 feet two or three inches, and sometimes ten feet in 
 ihe expanse of wing; the head and neck are not, 
 like those of vultures, naked, but covered with 
 whitish narrow feathers ; and there is a beard of 
 bristly hair under the lower mandible : the rest 
 of the plumage is nearly black and brown, with 
 
 450. [Gj-paetos Barbatus.] 
 
 some whitish streaks on the shoulders, and an 
 abundance of pale rust colour on the back of the 
 neck, the thighs, vent, and legs ; the toes are short, 
 and bluish, and t ae claws strong. In the young the 
 nead and neck are black, and the species or variety 
 of Abyssinia appears to be rusty and yellowish on 
 vne neck and stomach. It is the griffon of Cuvier, 
 
 Gypaetos barbatus of nomenclators, and y pinp at 
 the Seventy. The Arabs, according to Bruce, 
 use the names Abou-Duch’n and Nisser-Werk, 
 which is a proof that they consider it a kind of 
 eagle, and perhaps confound this species with the 
 great sea eagle, which has likewise a few bristles 
 under the throat ; and commentators, who have 
 often represented Peres to be the black vulture, 
 or a great vulture, were only viewing the Gypaetos 
 as forming one of the order Accipitres , according 
 to the Linnaean arrangement, where Vultur bar - 
 bat us ( Syst . Nat.) is the last of that genus, al- 
 though in the 13th edition (by Grnelin), we find 
 the name changed to Falco barbatus, and located 
 immediately before F. Albicilla, or the sea eagle, 
 showing that until a still more accurate classifi- 
 cation placed the species in a separate genus, 
 ornithologists had no determined idea of the true 
 place it should occupy, and consequently by 
 what generical appellation it was to be distin- 
 guished. — C. H. S. 
 
 PEREZ-UZZAH, a place in the neighbour- 
 hood of Jerusalem, which obtained this name 
 (meaning c breach of Uzzah’) from the judgment 
 indicted upon Uzzah for rashly handling the ark 
 (2 Sam. vi. 8 ; 1 Chron. xiii. 11). 
 
 PERFUMES. In the article Anointing we 
 have noticed the use of perfumes in Eastern coun- 
 tries ; and in the botanical articles all the aro- 
 matic substances mentioned in Scripture are 
 carefully examined. Here, therefore, we have 
 only to add a few remarks, which the scope oi 
 those articles does not embrace. 
 
 The practice of producing an agreeable odour 
 by fumigation, or burning incense, as well as tha. 
 of anointing the person with odoriferous oils and 
 ointments, and of sprinkling the dress with fra 
 grant waters, originated in, and is confined to, 
 warm climates. In such climates perspiration is 
 profuse, and much care is needful to prevent the 
 effects of it from being offensive. It is in this ne- 
 cessity we may find the reason for the use of per- 
 fumes, particularly at weddings and feasts, and 
 on visits to persons of rank ; and in fact on most 
 of the occasions which bring people together with 
 the intention of being agreeable to one another. 
 
 The ointments and. oils used by the Israelites 
 were rarely simple, but were compound of various 
 ingredients (Job xli. 22; comp. Plin. Hist. Nat. 
 xxix. 8). Olive oil, the valued product of Pa- 
 lestine (Deut. xxviii. 40 ; Mic. vi. 15), was 
 combined with sundry aromatics, chiefly foreign 
 (1 Kings x. 10; Ezek. xxvii. 22), particularly 
 bosem, myrrh, and nard [see these words]. Such 
 ointments were for the most part costly (Amos 
 vi. 6), and formed a much-coveted luxury. The 
 ingredients, and often the prepared oils and resins 
 in a state fit for use, were obtained chiefly in 
 traffic from the Phoenicians, who imported them 
 in small alabaster boxes [Alabaster], in 
 which the delicious aroma was best preserved. 
 A description of the more costly unguents is 
 given by Pliny (j Hist. Nat. xiii. 2). The pre- 
 paration of these required peculiar skill, and 
 therefore formed a particular profession. The 
 Cmp“l rokechim of Exod. xxx. 25, 35 ; Neh. 
 iii. 8 ; Eccles. x. 1, called ‘ Apothecary’ in the 
 Auth. Vers., was no other than a maker of per- 
 fumes. So strong were the better kinds of oint- 
 ments, and 60 perfectly were the different com- 
 ponent substances amalgamated, that they have 
 
PERFUMES. 
 
 PERGAMOS. 
 
 495 
 
 Wra known to retain their scent several hundred 
 yet^s. Out of the alabaster vases in the museum 
 at dTTnwick Castle contains some of the ancient 
 Egy t 4ian ointment, between two and three thou- 
 sand years old, and yet its odour remains (Wil- 
 kinson, Anc. Egyptians, ii. 314). 
 
 The ‘ holy anointing oih’employed in the 
 sacerdotal unction, was composed of two parts 
 ‘ myrrh’ [Mur], two parts ‘ cassia’ [Kiddah], 
 one part ‘ cinnamon’ [KinnamonJ, one part 
 ‘ sweet calamus’ [Kaneh Bosem], compounded 
 4 according to the art of the perfumer,’ with a suffi- 
 cient quantity of the purest olive oil to give it the 
 proper consistence (Exod. xxx. 23, 25). It was 
 strictly forbidden that any perfume like this, that 
 is, composed of the same ingredients, should be 
 used for common purposes, or indeed made at all 
 (xxx. 32, 33); and we cannot but admire the 
 course adopted in order to secure the object con- 
 templated by the law. The composition was not 
 preserved as a secret, but was public y declared 
 and described, with a plain prohibitii . to make 
 any like it. Maimonides says that dc ,btless the 
 cause of this prohibition was, that there might be 
 no such perfume found elsewhere, and conse- 
 quently that a greater attachment might be in- 
 duced to the sanctuary ; and also, to prevent the 
 great evils which might arise from men esteeming 
 themselves more excellent than others, if allowed 
 to anoint themselves with a similar oil ( More 
 Nevochim , ch. xx.). The reasons for attaching 
 such distinction to objects consecrated by their 
 holy appropriations, are too obvious to need 
 much elucidation. 
 
 The prodigious quantity of this holy ointment 
 made on the occasion which the text describes, 
 being no less than 750 ounces of solids com- 
 pounded with five quarts of oil, may give some 
 idea of the profuse use of perfumes among the 
 Hebrews. We are, indeed, told by the Psalmist 
 (cxxxiii. 2), that when the holy anointing oil 
 was poured upon the head of Aaron, it flowed 
 down over his beard and dress, even to the skirts 
 of his garments. This circumstance may give 
 some interest to the following anecdote, which 
 we translate from Chardin ( Voyages , iv. 43, edit. 
 Langles). After remarking how prodigal the 
 eastern females are of perfumes, he gives this 
 instance : * I remember that, at the solemnization 
 of the nuptials of the three princesses royal of 
 Golconda, whom the king, their father, who had 
 no other children, married in one day, in the 
 year 1679, perfumes were lavished on every in- 
 vited guest as he arrived. They sprinkled them 
 upon those who were clad in white ; but gave 
 them into the hands of those who wore coloured 
 raiment, because their garments would have been 
 spoiled by throwing it over them, which was done 
 in the following manner. They threw over the 
 body a bottle of rose-water, containing about half 
 a pint, and then a larger bot tle of water tinted with 
 saffron, in such a manner that the clothes would 
 have been stained with it. After this, they rubbed 
 die arms and the body with a liquid perfume 
 of Jadanum and ambergris, and they put round 
 the throat a thick cord of jasmine. I was thus 
 perfumed with saffron in many great houses of 
 this country, and in other places. This attention 
 and honour is a universal custom among the 
 women who have the means of obtaining this 
 Suxury.’ 
 
 PERGA (II epyri'), a town of Pampliylia, in 
 Asia Minor, situated upon the river Cestrus, sixty 
 stades from its estuary. On a hill near the town 
 9tood a celebrated temple of Artemis, at which 
 the inhabitants of the surrounding country held, 
 a yearly festival in honour of the goddess. Perga 
 was originally the capital of Pampliylia; but 
 when that province was divided into two, Side 
 became the chief town of the first, and Perga of 
 the second Pampliylia (Strabo, xiv. p. 667 ^ 
 Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 28; Pomp. Mela, i. 14; 
 Cic. Very’, i. 30). The apostle Paul was twice 
 at this place (Acts xi ii. 13; xiv. 25). In the 
 first instance he seem3 to have landed at Perga, 
 and the Cestrus was then, in fact, navigable to 
 the town, although the entrance to the river is now 
 impassable, having long been closed by a bar. 
 The site has been established by Col. Leake, a3 
 that where extensive remains of vaulted and 
 ruined buildings were observed by General 
 Kohler on the Cestrus, west of Stavros. It i3 
 called by the Turks Eski-kalesi. 
 
 PERGAMOS (Tlepyayos), or Pergamum, a 
 town of the Great Mysia, the capital of a king- 
 dom of the same name, and afterwards of the 
 Roman province of Asia Propria. The river 
 Caicus, which is formed by the union of 
 branches meeting thirty or forty miles above i 
 m'oulli, waters an extensive valley not exceeded 
 in natural beauty and fertility by any in the 
 world. In this valley, in N. lat. 39° 4', E. long. 
 27° 12', stood Pergamos, at the distance of about 
 twenty miles from the sea. It lay on the north 
 bank of the Caicus, at the base and on the de- 
 clivity of two high and steep mountains, on one 
 of which now stands a dilapidated castle. About 
 two centuries before the Christian era, Pergamos 
 became the residence of the celebrated kings of 
 the family of Attains, and a seat of literature 
 and the arts. King Eumenes, the second of the 
 name, greatly beautified the town, and increased 
 the library of Pergamos so considerably that the 
 number of volumes amounted to 200,000. As 
 the papyrus shrub had not yet begun to be ex- 
 ported from Egypt, sheep and goat skins, cleaned 
 and prepared for the purpose, were used for 
 manuscripts ; and as the art of preparing them 
 was brought to perfection at Pergamos, they, from 
 that circumstance, obtained the name of perga- 
 mena, or parchment. The library remained at 
 Pergamos after the kingdom of the Attali had 
 lost its independence, until Antony removed it 
 to Egypt, and presented it to Queen Cleopatra. 
 (Pliny, Hist. Nat. iii. 2 ; Plutarch, Antonf). 
 The valuable tapestries, called in Latin aulaea, 
 from having adorned the hall of King Attalus, 
 were also wrought in this town. The last king of 
 Pergamos bequeathed his treasures to the Romans, 
 who took possession of the kingdom also, and 
 erected it into a province under the name of Asia 
 Propria (Martial, Epig. ix. 17). Pergamos re- 
 tained under the Romans that authority over the 
 cities of Asia, which it had acquired under 
 the successors of Attalus, and it still preserves 
 many vestiges of its ancient magnificence. Re- 
 mains of the Asclepium and of some other tem- 
 ples, of the theatre, stadium, amphitheatre, and 
 several other buildings, are still to be seen. Even 
 now, Pergamos, under the name of Bergamo, is a 
 place of considerable importance, containing- 3 
 
196 
 
 PERGAMOS. 
 
 population estimated at 14,000, of whom about 
 3000 are Greeks, 300 Armenians, and the rest 
 Turks (Macfarlane’s Visit). The writer just 
 cited says, ‘ The approach to this ancient and 
 decayed city was as impressive as well might 
 be. After crossing the Caicus, I saw, looking 
 over three vast tumuli, or sepulchral barrows, 
 similar to those of the plains of Troy, the Turkish 
 city of Pergamos, with its tall minarets and taller 
 cypresses, situated ou the lower declivities and 
 
 PERSIANS 
 
 at the foot of the Acropolis, whose bold gray brow 
 was crowned by the rugged walls of a barbarous 
 castle, the usurper of the site of a magnificent 
 Greek temple.' The town consists for the most 
 part of small and mean wooden houses, among 
 which appear the remains of early Christian 
 churches, showing ‘like vast fortresses amid vast 
 barracks of wood.’ None of these churches have 
 any Scriptural or Apocalyptic interest connected 
 with them, having been erected ‘ several centuries 
 
 401. [Pergamos.] 
 
 after the ministry of the apostles, and when 
 Christianity was not a humble and despised 
 creed, but the adopted religion of a vast empire.’ 
 The Pagan temples have fared worse that these 
 Christian churches. ‘The fanes of Jupiter and 
 Diana, of vEsculapius and Venus, are prostrate in 
 t lie dust; and where they have not been carried 
 away by the Turks, to cut. up into tombstones or 
 to pound into mortar, the Corinthian and Ionic 
 columns, the splendid capitals, the cornices^ and 
 pediments, all in the highest ornament, are thrown 
 into unsightly heaps.’ 
 
 In Pergamos was one of ‘ the seven churches 
 ,of Asia,’ to which the Apocalypse is addressed. 
 This church is commended for its fidelity and 
 firmness in the midst of persecutions, and in a 
 city so eminently addicted to idolatry. ‘ I know,’ 
 it is said, ‘ thy works, and where thou (liveliest, 
 even whtre Satan's seat is ’ (Rev, ii. 13). Now 
 there was at Pergamos a celebrated and much 
 frequented temple of ./Esculapius, who probably 
 there, as in other places, was worshipped in the 
 form of a living serpent, fed in the temple, and 
 considered as its divinity. Hence ^Esculapius 
 was called the god of Pergamos, and on the coins 
 struck by the town, vEsculapius appears with a rod 
 encircled by a serpent (Berger, Thesaur., i. 492). 
 As the sacred writer mentions (Rev. xii. 9) the 
 great dragon a&d the old serpent, there is reason 
 
 to conclude that when he says in the above pas- 
 sage, that the church of" Pergamos dwelt ‘ where 
 Satan's seat is,’ he alludes to the worship of the 
 serpent, which was there practised (Rosenmuller, 
 Bib. Geog. iii. 13-17 ; Macfarhme, Visit to the 
 Seven Apocalyptic Churches, 1 S32 : Arundell’s 
 Asia Minor, ii. 302-7; Leake's Geog. of Asia 
 Minor, pp. 265, 266 ; Richter, Wallfahrten, p. 
 4SS, sq. ; Schubert, Rcisc ins Morgenland ; Mis - 
 sionary Herald for 1839, pp. 22S-30). 
 
 PERIZZITE 0-nQ ; Sept, tepefcos), a Ca- 
 naanitish tribe inhabiting the mountainous region 
 which they eventually yielded to Ephraim and 
 Judah (Josh. xi. 3; xvii. 15; Judg. i. 4, 5). 
 They were kindred to the Cariaanites strictly 
 so called (Exod. xxiii. 23; Judg. i. 45): 
 sometimes Canaanites and Perizzites are put for 
 all the other tribes of Canaan • (Gen. xiii. 7; 
 xxxiv. 30); while in other [daces the Perizzites 
 are enumerated with various other tribes of the 
 same stock (Gen. xv. 20; Exod. iii. S, 17 ; Dent, 
 vii. 1, &c.). A residue of the Perizzites still 
 remained in the time of Solomon, and were by 
 him subjected to bond-service (1 Kings ix. 20). 
 
 PERSIANS, the name of a people and nation 
 which occurs only in the later periods of th« 
 biblical history, and then for the most part is 
 conjunction with the Medes [Mhues"] — a con 
 
PERSIANS. 
 
 PERSIANS. 
 
 490 
 
 function which tends to con firm the truth of the 
 •acred records, since the most respectable histo- 
 rical authorities have found reason to conclude 
 that the Medes and Persians were in truth but 
 one nation, only that at an earlier period the 
 Medes, at a later period the Persians, gained the 
 upper hand and bore sway. This ascendancy, in 
 the case of the Persians, as generally in the an- 
 cient Asiatic governments, was owing to the cor- 
 rupting and enervating influence of supreme and 
 despotic power on the one side, and on the other 
 to the retention on the part of mountaineers, or of 
 tribes seated remotely from the centre of the em- 
 pire, of primitive simulicity, — in laborious lives, 
 hard fare, and constant exposure, which create pa- 
 tient endurance, athletic strength, manly courage, 
 independence : qualities which in their turn refuse 
 or throw off a yoke, and convert a subject into a 
 conquering and ruling nation. At what precise 
 time this great change was brought about in re- 
 gard to the Medes and Persians, we are not in a 
 condition to determine historically. With Cyrus 
 the elder, however, begins (bc. 558) the domina- 
 tion of the Persian dynasty which held rule over 
 Media as well as Persia. Whether Cyrus came 
 to the throne by inheritance, as the son-in-law of 
 Cambyses II., according to Xenophon, or whether 
 he won the throne by vanquishing Astyages, the 
 last Median king, agreeably to the statements of 
 Herodotus, is one of those many points connected 
 with early eastern history, which, for want of do- 
 cuments, anil in the midst of historical discre- 
 pancies, must remain probably for ever uncertain. 
 Meanwhile the existence of Cyrus and the great 
 tenor of his influence remain the same, though on 
 this and on other points historians give irrecon- 
 cilable statements ; — a remark which we make the 
 rather because a certain school of modem theology 
 has attempted to destroy the general historical 
 credibility of the Gospels, on the ground that the 
 several narrators are found to disagree. 
 
 The most interesting event to the theologian in 
 the history of Cyrus, is the permission which he 
 gave (b.c. 536) to the captive Jews to return to 
 their native land. After a prosperous reign of the 
 unusual length in Asiatic monarchies of thirty 
 years, Cyrus was gathered to his fathers (b.c. 529). 
 He was succeeded by Cambyses (b.c. 529), who, 
 according to Herodotus, reigned seven years and 
 five months. Then came (b.c. 522) Smerdis, 
 nominally brother of Cambyses, but in reality a 
 Magian ; and as the Magi were of Median blood, 
 this circumstance shows that, though the Medes 
 had lost the sovereignty, they were not without 
 great power. Smerdis being assassinated (b.c. 
 521), Darius Hystaspis was elected king. He 
 favoured the Jews, and permitted them to resume 
 and complete the building of their temple, which 
 had been broken off by reason of jealousy on the 
 part of the heterogeneous populations of Samaria 
 (Ezra iv. 2; 2 Kings xvii. 24), and the influence 
 which they exerted at the Persian court (Ezra 
 iv. 11). The last monarch had for successor 
 Xerxes (b.c. 485), who is probably the Ahasuerus 
 of Esther and Morel ecai. Alter a reign of twenty 
 years, Xerxes was murdered by Artabanus, who, 
 however, enjoyed his booty only for the short pe- 
 riod of seven months. The next in order was 
 Artaxerxes (I.) Longimanus (b.c. 465), who en- 
 joyed his power for the surprisingly long period of 
 forty years, and then quietly handed the sceptre 
 voi.n. 33 
 
 over to his son Xerxes II. (b.c. 424), who reigned 
 but two months. He was followed by his step- 
 brother Sogdianus (b.c. 424), whose rule came to 
 an end in seven months; thus making way for 
 Darius Nothus, whose reign lasted nineteen years. 
 Artaxerxes (11.) Mnemon next *ook the throne 
 (b.c. 404), and is reported to have reigned forty 
 or forty-three years (J)iod. Sicul. xiii. 108; xv. 
 93). His successor was Artaxerxes Ochus (b.c. 
 304), who occupied the throne for twenty-six years. 
 Then came Arses (b.c. 338), reigning three years. 
 At last Darius Codomannus (b.c. 335) ascended 
 the throne. Rut the valour, hardihood, and dis- 
 cipline which had gained the dominion, and which, 
 as the length of several reigns in the succession 
 shows, had sustained it with a firm and effectual 
 hand, were almost at an end, having been suc- 
 ceeded by the effeminacy, the luxuriousness, and 
 the vices which had caused the dissolution of 
 earlier Asiatic dynasties, and among them that 
 of the Medes, which the Persians had set aside. 
 When this relaxation of morals has once taken 
 place, a dynasty or a nation only waits for a 
 conqueror. In this case one soon appeared in the 
 person of Alexander, misnamed the Great, who 
 assailing Darius on several occasions, finally over- 
 came him at Arhela (b.c. 330), and so put a period 
 to the Persian monarchy alter it had existed for 
 219 years. On this the country shared the fate 
 that befell the other parts of the world which the 
 Macedonian madman had overrun ; but, more 
 fortunate than that of other eastern nations, the 
 name of Persia and of Persians has been pre- 
 served even to the present day, as the representa 
 tive of a people and a government. 
 
 The event's which transpired during this sue: 
 cession of Persian kings, so far as they are con- 
 nected with the biblical history, may be thus, 
 briefly narrated : — Cyrus, having conquered Ba- 
 bylon, permitted the Jews to quit their captivity, 
 and return into Palestine, affording them aid for, 
 the reconstruction of their national house of wor- 
 ship. Under Cambyses, who invaded Egypt and. 
 became master of the land, adversaries of the Jews 
 tried to render them objects of suspicion at the 
 court; which intrigues, however, had full effect- 
 only in the reign of his successor, Smerdis, who. 
 issued a decree expressly commanding the build- 
 ing of the temple to cease (Ezra iv. 21) ; in which,, 
 prohibition Smerdis, as he was of the Magian tribe,, 
 and therefore of the priestly caste, may have been 
 influenced by religious considerations. A milder 
 and more liberal policy ensued. Darius, having 
 by search in the national records ascertained wbar- 
 Cyrus had done towards the Jews, took off' the 
 prohibition, and promoted the rebuilding of the 
 temple. Darius Hystaspis was distinguished for 
 great enterprises, as well as liberal ideas. He 
 carried the renown of the Persian arms to India, 
 Libya, and Europe, and began the Persian attempt 
 to subjugate Greece. What Xerxes undertook, 
 and what success he had in his warlike under- 
 takings against Greece, is known to all. His 
 conduct towards the Jews, as well as his own 
 despotism and luxuriousness, are exhibited in the 
 book of Esther with great force as well as truth. 
 Artaxerxes Longimanus led an army hito Egypt,, 
 which had rebelled against its Persian masters. 
 He was compelled to makepeace with the Greeks. 
 Palestine must have suffered much by the passage 
 of troops through its borders, on their way from 
 
 2 * 
 
4 93 
 
 PERSIANS. 
 
 PERSIANS. 
 
 Persia to Egypt ; the new colony at Jerusalem 
 began to sink, when the monarch permitted Nehe- 
 miah to proceed with lull powers to the Jewish 
 capital, in order to strengthen the hands of his 
 brethren. Darius Nothus had to tight on all sides 
 of his kingdom, and made Phoenicia the scene of 
 a war against the combined forces of Egypt and 
 Arabia. Even Artaxerxes Mnemon, though long 
 busied with his arms in other parts, did not lose 
 sight of Egypt, which hail thrown off his yoke, 
 and sent new Persian armies into the vicinity of 
 Palestine. In consequence, the Jews had much 
 to endure from the insolence of a Persian general, 
 namely, Bagoses, who polluted the temple, and 
 1 punished the Jews seven years’ (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xi. 7, 1). Ochus followed the plan of his father, 
 subdued the revolted Phoenicians, and again fell 
 upon Egypt. The remaining period of the Persian 
 dominion over the Jews passed away peaceably 
 (Winer, Real-lVort. ; Joseph. Antiq., lib. xi. ; 
 Jahn, Archiiol. ii. 1, 231-312; Schlosser, Alten 
 Welt , i. 242, sq. ; J. G. Eichhorn, Geschichte 
 Der Alt. Welt, i. 80, sq.). 
 
 The biblical books, Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, 
 and Ezra, combine to present a true as well as 
 high idea of the Persian court and government. 
 We will give a few particulars from Esther, a 
 book of deep and vivid interest, not only in its 
 etory, but also, and by no means less, in the 
 indirect history (as it may lie termed) which it 
 contains regarding the (perhaps) most splendid do- 
 minion that ever existed upon earth. The extent 
 .of the government was from India to Ethiopia, 
 including 127 provinces. The empire was under 
 the control of vassal princes and nobles, ‘ the 
 power of Persia and Media,' under whom were 
 governors of various ranks, and officers for every 
 sjjecies of duty. It was specially the duty of 
 seven ministers of state (‘ chamberlains’) to serve 
 in the immediate presence of the monarch. Other 
 officers, however high in rank, were admitted to 
 the royal person only through the barriers of a 
 strict! y-obser.eil ceremonial. Even the prime 
 minister himself, and the favoured concubine who 
 was honoured with the title of queen, durst come 
 no nearer than the outer court, unless, on making 
 *!<eii appearance, the king extended towards them 
 his sceptre of gold. The gorgeousness of the court 
 dazzles the mind, and surpasses imagination. 
 When the king sat upon his throne, his chief 
 vizier and his beloved queen on either side, with 
 rows of princes and nobles, like lessening stars, 
 running in a line of fire-points from the monarch, 
 the sun in whose light they shone, and in whose 
 warm smile they were happy, feasting a hundred 
 and fourscore days with his great men, in a hall 
 and a palace of which the praise is too little to 
 
 say that they were not unworthy the grandeur of 
 the monarch on an occasion when ‘ he shewed the 
 riches of his glorious kingdom, and the honour of 
 his excellent majesty — or when the stately auto- 
 crat, relaxing in a measure the rigour of his great- 
 ness, and descending from his god-like throne to 
 a nearer level with ordinary mortals, ‘ made a 
 feast unto the people, both unto great and small, 
 seven days in the court of the garden of the 
 palace,’ where were white, green, and blue pavi- 
 lions, fastened with cords of line linen and purple 
 to silver rings and pillars of marble; couches, 
 gold and silver, upon a tesselated pavement of red 
 and blue, white and black marble ; and drink 
 was served all around in golden vessels of curious 
 fabric and divers shapes; and wine in abundance, 
 whose worth had gained for it the name of Royal, 
 of which each person by express ordinance drank 
 what he pleased ; — or when, at the end of these 
 seven days of popular enjoyment, the king feasted 
 with Vasliti, the queen, at a banquet for the women 
 in her own palace, when the monarch commanded 
 his seven high officers of state to bring Vashti the 
 queen before the king with the crown royal, to 
 show the people and the princes her beauty, for 
 she was fair to look on ; — or, finally, when a fa- 
 vourite servant, being clothed in the royal apparel, 
 and set upon the horse that the king rode upon, 
 with the crown royal upon his head, was con- 
 ducted by the hand of one of the king’s most 
 noble princes through the highways of the glitter- 
 ing city, while heralds proclaimed before the re- 
 splendent retinue, ‘Tims shall it be done to the 
 man whom the king delighteth to honour ;’ — then 
 blazed forth the glory of the Persian greatness, in 
 pomp and splendour correspondent with the bril- 
 liancy of the heavens and the luxuriance of the 
 earth under which and on which these luminaries 
 shone. Nor, in the midst of all this outward 
 pomp, were there wanting internal regulations 
 fitted to sustain and give effect to the will of the 
 monarch and his council. A body of law was 
 in existence, to which additions were constantly 
 made by omnipotent decrees issued by the king. 
 These rescripts were made out by officials, a 
 body of men who are designated royal scribes or 
 secretaries ; and being drawn up in the pre- 
 scribed form, were copied and translated for 
 ‘ every people after their language.’ Being then 
 ‘sealed with the king's ring,’ the letters were sent 
 ‘ by post,’ ‘on horseback and on mules, cameb 
 and young dromedaries,’ to the king’s lieutenants, 
 and to the governors over every province, and to 
 the rulers of every people of every one of the 127 
 provinces. History, a? well as law, received dili- 
 gent and systematic attention. ‘A book of records 
 of the chronicles’ was kept, in which the events of 
 each reign were entered, probably under the super- 
 vision of the learned caste, the Magi. This book 
 the monarch used to consult on occasions of im- 
 portance and perplexity, partly for instruction, 
 partly for guidance; so that the present was mo- 
 delled after the past, and the legislation and the 
 conduct of the king formed one entire and, to some 
 extent, consistent whole. Whence it appears that 
 though the monarch was despotic, he was not 
 strictly arbitrary. Aided by a council, controlled 
 by a priesthood, guided by the past as well as in- 
 fluenced by the present, the king, much as he may 
 have been given up to his personal pleasures, must 
 yet have had a difficult office to fill, and heavy 
 
PERSIANS. 
 
 PERSIANS. 
 
 499 
 
 duties to discharge. Rulers are generally insecure 
 in proportion to the degree of their despotism ; and 
 80 we find, from the plot against the life of Aha- 
 suerus (Xerxes, b.c. 485-465), which Mordecai 
 discovered and made known, that even the re- 
 cesses of a palace did not protect the kings of 
 Persia from the attempts of the assassin. In the 
 punishment, however, which fell upon the wicked 
 Haman, we see the summary means which the 
 Persian monarchs employed for avenging or de- 
 fending themselves, as well as the unshared and 
 unqualified power which they held over the life 
 of their subjects even in the highest grades. In- 
 deed it is not possible to read the book of Esther 
 without fancying more than once that you are in 
 the midst of the court of the Grand Seignior. Not 
 least among the causes of this illusion is what is 
 narrated in regard to the harem of Xerxes. The 
 women, it seems, had a palace of their own, and 
 dwelt there apart from the king, who piid them 
 visits of ceremony. This their abode, and they 
 themselves, were under the care of a royal cham- 
 berlain, whose power in the harem was supreme, 
 and who had abundance of resources for increas- 
 ing the state and promoting the comfort of those 
 who pleased him ; nor may he have been without 
 an influence in determining the king in his choice 
 of his favourite mistress. To supply the harem, 
 officers were appointed in the several provinces, 
 whose duty it was to find out and procure for the 
 monarch the fairest maidens in the world. Each 
 of these, after she had been in the women’s house 
 a twelvemonth, and had gone through a certain 
 course of preparation, visited the king- for one 
 night in turn ; but she came in unto the king no 
 more except the king delighted in her, and that 
 she were called by name, in which case she be- 
 came queen. ‘ And the king loved Esther above 
 all the woman, and die obtained grace and favour 
 in his sight more than all the virgins ; so that he 
 set the royal crown upon her head, and made her 
 queen instead of Vashti.’ 
 
 453. [Ancient Persian guards.] 
 
 The greatness of the power of the chief viziers 
 of the Persian monarchy is illustrated in t)ie re- 
 corded acts of Haman and Mordecai. The mode 
 of delegating power was by presenting to the en- 
 trusted person the royal signet, which appears to 
 have licensed him to do what he would, by such 
 means as he pleased. 
 
 The great influence which Esther and Mordecai 
 possessed with Xerxes is attributable to the noble 
 qualities, both of mind and body, for which the 
 Hebrew race were, and still are, conspicuous. 
 These qualities won the heart and gained the 
 
 favour of the king, and thereby proved instru* 
 mental in saving the Jews scattered throughout 
 the empire from the bloody slaughter which Ha- 
 man had designed should take place every where 
 on the same day. Nor is it improbable that to 
 influences connected with the same high qualities 
 the decree may have been owing by which Cyrus 
 set the people of the captivity free, that they might 
 return home and build again the walls of Jeru- 
 salem. Cyrus, it is true, may have bad some 
 regard to justice; he may have thought it prudent 
 to send away from his country at least the best of 
 these highly-endowed men ; he may not have been 
 unwilling to see Jerusalem rise again into power, 
 and prove a friendly barrier against Egypt; but. 
 the munificent manner in which the Jews were 
 dismissed seems to betoken the agency of some 
 personal influence, if not of some personal affec- 
 tion. Nehemiab (xiii. 6 ; comp. ii. 1, sq.) 
 speaks expressly of a favour which he obtained 
 of Artaxerxes (Longimanus, b.c. 465), or Xerxes 
 II. (b.c. 421), after an interview of several days. 
 By no means inconsistent with this personal fa- 
 vour, nor improbable in themselves, are the 
 religious considerations by which the Scriptural 
 writers represent Cyrus as being actuated in 
 setting the Jews at liberty. The religion of the 
 Persians was in its essential and primitive form mo- 
 notheistic, and must therefore have been anything 
 but alien, in spirit at least, to that of ‘die Hebrews. 
 Nor is there anything extravagant in assuming 
 that, so great a prince as Cyrus, who covdd scarcely 
 have yielded to the luxurious eft'eminacy in which 
 his successors indulged, and whose mind must 
 have been elevated as well as powerful, under- 
 stood in a measure, and highly appreciated, the, 
 excellences of the Mosaic religion; while the 
 same general feeling which directed the storm of 
 the Persians against the polytheistic temples of 
 Greece, may have prompted an earlier and better 
 sovereign to liberate the Jews, and bring about 
 the restoration of the monotheistic worship on 
 Mount Zion. Certainly the terms are distinct 
 and emphatic in which Cyrus is made to speak 
 in our sacred books ; nor do we see any reason to 
 suppose that a Jewish colouring has been given 
 to these passages, or to question that we have in 
 them a faithful translation of the original state 
 documents (Ezra i. 1-4; i. 7-11 ; vii. 23; viii. 
 22). The two last passages here referred to would 
 seem 1o justify the inference that the favour of 
 the Persian government was owing not merely to 
 general religious 1 influences, but also to specific 
 instances of good and ill connected with the will 
 of the Almighty ; probably national reverses, 
 more or less directly and believingly ascribed to 
 God, may have been in operation to aid the 
 restoration of the temple worship. 
 
 A general impression prevails that, to use the 
 words of Winer ( Real-Worterb . s. v. ‘ Persien ’), 
 ‘ no edict published bearing the king’s signature 
 could be revoked, 7 so that the ‘ laws of the Medcs 
 and Persians 7 altered not in the sense of being di- 
 minished or reformed. Winer refers, as an autho- 
 rity, to Esth. i. 19 ; yet this book contains a strik 
 ing fact which proves the contrary ; for the decree 
 which Haman had got promulgated for the de- 
 struction of the Jews was superseded by another 
 procured by the influence of Esther and Mor- 
 aecai, and this other of so decided a character as 
 to give the Jews in all the provinces of the empira 
 
200 
 
 PERSIANS. 
 
 PERSIANS. 
 
 tbe power of assaulting and slaying their enemies. 
 In truth, the words ‘that it be not altered ’ seem, 
 at least. in the period to which the biblical records 
 refer, to signify little more than the general sta- 
 bility of the law, and the certainty of its penalties. 
 
 The extraordinary power entrusted to the Jews 
 serves to show that the social constitution of the 
 Persian empire was open to the greatest abuses. 
 What could be worse than for the government 
 itself to let loose on society a scattered horde of 
 people, trembling for their lives, yet united in the 
 strong bonds of religious fellowship? They would 
 want no encouragement, if only relieved of the 
 penalties commanded by the decree of Hainan, 
 to do all they could privately ‘ to be ready to 
 avenge themselves on their enemies' (Estli. viii. 
 -3) ; but when couriers came riding post into all 
 parts where they were, bearing the royal behests 
 to the effect that, on the very day on which they 
 themselves expected unsparing slaughter, they 
 were allowed not only * to stand for their life,’ 
 but ‘to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish all 
 the jiower of the people and province that would 
 assault them, both little ones and women, anil to 
 take the spoil of them for a prey’ (Esth. viii. 11), 
 then, we may well believe, a dreadful vengeance 
 would be taken, and frightful disorder caused, 
 the possibility of which in any social condition is 
 a proof that the first principles of justice are not 
 understood ; and the actual existence of which 
 shows that, whenever occasion required, they were 
 recklessly set at. nought. 
 
 On the religion of the ancient Persians we refer 
 to the articles Medes and Magi, from whom the 
 Persians received their religion, as well as the 
 constitution of their social state. If, indeed, the 
 Persians, as a separate tribe in the general govern- 
 ment of the Medes, succeeded in getting the upper 
 hand of their effeminate masters, and wresting the 
 sceptre from their enfeebled hands, the Medes were 
 not without a recompense in that they perpetuated, 
 eyen by the instrumentality of their conquerors, 
 most of the higher appliances and effects of civi- 
 lization to which in the course of ages they had 
 given birth, and which have in all ages consti- 
 tuted the true honour of men and the best treasure 
 of states. In truth, in this matter the relation into 
 which the Persians entered with the Medes is that 
 which must exist where the rough, untamed energy 
 of a half- barbarous race comes down on the culti- 
 vated plains of a high but decaying civilization ; 
 and that which, in its chief features, may be seen 
 in the relation which the Romans bore to the 
 Greeks, and which the Northmen in their turn 
 bore to the Romans : 
 
 ^Greecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes 
 
 Intulit agresti Latio.’ 
 
 The oldest Persians were, however, fire-wor- 
 shippers — a species of idolatry which is least 
 removed from monotheism, and also least unpar- 
 donable in such a clime as that of Persia. That 
 such a worship is not incompatible with the 
 esoteric recognition of one intelligent Creator is 
 obvious, for the fire may have been regarded, and 
 doubtless by the wise and philosophic was re- 
 garded, as merely symbolical of the Great Power 
 which, as imaged in the sun, quickens, vivifies, 
 and blesses all things. But even so pure and lofty 
 a form of symbolical worship tended to corruption; 
 arid though we are unable to t *ace the steps of the 
 
 progress, yet we know that, it did gradually, in the 
 case of the Persians, lead first to dualism, and then 
 to gross idolatry (Bauei Symbol, u. My t hoi. i. 
 323, sq.). 
 
 The name ‘Persia’ is not found in the oldet 
 records of the Bible, but after the Babylonish 
 
 period it (DIQ) occurs frequently (2Chron. xxxvi. 
 
 20, 22; Ezra iv. 5, sq. ; vi. 14, sq, ; Esth. i. 3; 
 viii. 10; 1 Macc. i. 1), meaning the great Persian 
 kingdom founded by Cyrus, which in the period 
 of its highest glory comprised all Asiatic coun- 
 tries from the Mediterranean to the Indus, from 
 the Black and Caspian Sea to Arabia and the 
 Indian Ocean. This vast empire was divided into 
 many provinces or satrapies, one of which was 
 Persia (properly so called), or Persis (Farsistan), 
 which on the north was separated from Media by 
 the range of mountains denominated Parchratras, 
 on the west bordered on Susiana (Khusistan), on 
 the south reached to the Persian Gulf, and on the 
 east, was bordered by Carmania (Kirman). The 
 country that lies along the sea is a sandy plain, 
 which the heat and Ast:.,»us winds render unfit 
 for human abodes (Plin. Hist. Nat. xii. 20). The 
 interior is crossed by rocky mountains, whose sum- 
 mits are covered with snow the greater part, of the 
 year. This mountain chain renders the north of the 
 country rough and unfruitful, so that herdsmen 
 and nomads alone dwell there. In the inter- 
 mediate parts, however, are found many well- 
 watered valleys and plains, which yield to few 
 in fruitfulness and mildness of climate (Strain), 
 xv. p.727 ; Ptolem. vi. 4 ; Mannert, Geog. ii. 497). 
 The inhabitants of this province of Persis were 
 connected by blood with the Medes, and were 
 divided into many tribes and clans (Herod, i. 
 125), three of which were noble, the Pasargadae, 
 the Maraphii, and the Maspii. The Pasargadai 
 held the pre-eminence; of which tribe was Cyrus, 
 a circumstance to which he in part owed his power 
 and influence. 
 
 The Persian language was diverse from the 
 Shemitic, and connected with the Indo-Germanic 
 tongues, of which the Sanscrit may he considered 
 as the eldest branch (Adelung, Mithridat. i. 255, 
 sq. ; O. Frank, De Persidis Lingua et Genio , 
 Norim b., 1809 ; Wahl, Gesch. d. Morgenliind 
 Sprache u. Literatur , p. 129, sq.). 
 
 The residences of the monarchs of the immense 
 country denominated Persia were various. Pasar- 
 gada, with its royal tombs, was most ancient. 
 Persepolis rose not very far from it, and became 
 a treasure-city. After the overthrow of the Baby- 
 lonian kingdom, Cyrus, while preserving a regard 
 for the more ancient cities of the empire, seems to 
 have thought Babylon a more suitable place for 
 the metropolis of Asia ; but as it might not be 
 politic, if it were possible, to make a s’ range place 
 the centre of his kingdom, he founded a new city, 
 Susa, where he was still on Persian ground, and 
 yet. not far distant from Babylon. There was also 
 Ecbatana, the Median capital. These several 
 royal abodes seem to have been occupied by the 
 later monarchs, according as the season of the 
 year called for a colder, warmer, or milder 
 climate. 
 
 We have before seen that the Persian monarchy 
 had its chronicles. These may have been con- 
 sulted by our classical authorities, but are wholly 
 lost to us. We are therefore thrown on two foreign 
 
PESTILENCE. 
 
 sources of information regarding the Persian his- 
 tory : I. Tlie Jewish, to lie elicited chiefly from 
 the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, of 
 which something has been said. 2. Grecian 
 writers. Of these, Ctesias availed himself of the 
 Persian annals, but we have only extracts from 
 his work in Photius. Herodotus appears also to 
 have consulted the native sources of Persian his- 
 tory. Xenophon presents us with the fullest ma- 
 terials, namely, in his Anabasis, his llellenica , 
 and especially in his Cyropeedia , which is an 
 imaginary picture of a perfect prince, according 
 to Oriental conceptions, drawn in the person of 
 Cyrus the elder. Some of the points in which the 
 classical authorities disagree may be found set 
 forth in Eichhorn's Gesch. der A. Welt , i. 82, 83. 
 A representation of the Persian history, according 
 to Oriental authorities, may be found in the Hal- 
 lische Ailgemeine Weltgeschichte, th. iv. Avery 
 diligent compilation is that of Brissonius, De 
 Regno Persarum , 1591. Consult especially 
 Heeren’s Ideen , i. 1 ; and his Handbuc/i der G. 
 d. S. Allerth ., i. 102. A full and valuable list 
 of the older authorities in Persian affairs may be 
 seen in the Bibliotheca Historica of Meusellius, 
 vol. i., pt. ii., p. 28, sq. — J. R. B. 
 
 PESTILENCE. The terms pestilence and 
 plague are used with much laxity in our Auth. 
 Version. The latter, however, which generally 
 represents the Hebrew is by far the wider 
 term, as we read of ‘ plagues of leprosy,’ ‘ of hail,’ 
 and of many other visitations. Pestilence is em- 
 ployed to denote a deadly epidemic, and is the 
 word by which "CH (Sept. Odvaros, and occa- 
 sionally A oi.fjt6s) is translated. In our time, how- 
 ever, both these terms are nearly synonymous ; 
 hut plague is, by medical writers at least, restricted 
 to mean the glandular plague of the East. There 
 is indeed no description of any pestilence in the 
 Bible, which would enable us to form an adequate 
 idea of. its specific character. Severe epidemics 
 are the common accompaniments of dense crowd- 
 ing in cities, and of famine ; and we accordingly 
 often find them mentioned in connection (Lev. 
 xxvi. 25 ; Jer. xiv. 12; xxix. 18; Matt. xxiv. 7 ; 
 Luke xxi. 11). But there is no better argument 
 for believing that ‘ pestilence ’ in these instances 
 means the glandular plague, than the fact of its 
 being at present a prevalent epidemic of the East. 
 It is also remarkable that the Mosaic law, which 
 contains such strict rules for the seclusion of lepers, 
 should have allowed a disease to pass unnoticed, 
 which is above all others the most deadly, and, at 
 the same time, the most easily checked by sanatory 
 regulations of the same kind.* The destruction 
 of Sennacherib's army (2 Kings xix. 35) has also 
 been ascribed to the plague. But — nor to insist 
 on the circumstance that this awfully sudden 
 annihilation of 185,000 men is not ascribed to 
 any disease, but to the agency of an angel (since 
 
 * Michaelis endeavours to explain why the Law 
 contained no ordinances about the plague, by 
 irguirig that, on account of the sudden appearance 
 and brief duration of the disease, no permanent 
 enactments could have been efficient, in mode- 
 'ating its ravages, but only such preventive mea- 
 frires as varied according to the ever-varying cir- 
 cumstances of the origin and course of its visita- 
 tions (Mos. Recht. iv. 290). 
 
 PESTILENCE. 401 
 
 such passages as 2 Sam. xxiv. 15, 16, weaken this 
 objection, and even Josephus understood the cause 
 to be a pestilence, Aniiq. x. 1. 5) — it is impossible 
 that such a mortality could have been produced, 
 in one night, by a disease which spread itself by 
 contagion, like the Oriental plague ; and the same 
 remark applies, though in a less degree, to the 
 three days’ pestilence in the reign of David (2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 13). Those who entertain the common opi- 
 nion about the means by which the destruction of 
 Sennacherib's army was effected, regard the illness 
 of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 1-11) as connected, 
 both as to time and cause, with that event; and 
 consider his ‘ boil ’ especially to afford direct evi- 
 dence that he suffered from the plague. The boil 
 would have certainly been a most characteristic 
 symptom, if we had the least indication that his 
 disease was pestilential ; but we have no evidence 
 whatever that, any epidemic prevailed at that time 
 at Jerusalem. 
 
 The glandular plague, like the small-pox, is in 
 eruptive fever, and is the most virulent and most 
 contagious disease with which we are acquainte K 
 The eruption consists of buboes, carbuncles, ar j 
 petechiae. Buboes are inflamed and swollen 
 glands ; and the glands so affected are generally 
 those of the groin, axilla, neck, and the parotid 
 glands. More frequently there are two, three, or 
 even four, such tumours. They sometimes sub- 
 side of themselves ; or, what is more commonly 
 the case, they suppurate : and as this process sel- 
 dom commences before the disease has taken a 
 favourable turn, it is regarded as the cause, bul 
 more correctly as a sign, of approaching recovery 
 A carbuncle is an inflammation of the skin, 
 giving rise to a hard tumour, with pustules (X 
 vesicles upon it. It resembles a common boil, 
 but differs from it in this important respect. The 
 carbuncle becomes gangrenous throughout its 
 whole extent, so that when the eschar separates 
 a large deep ulcer is left. Under the term 
 petechiae are included evanescent spots and streaks 
 of various hues, from a pale blue to a deep purple, 
 which give a marbled appearance to the skin. 
 When such livid streaks occur in the face, they 
 disfigure the countenance so much that a patient 
 can haidly be recognised by his friends. The 
 disease varies so considerably in its symptoms and 
 course, that it is impossible to give one description 
 that will suit even the majority of cases. Some- 
 times the eruption does not appear at all, and 
 even the general symptoms are not of that violence 
 to lead an ignorant person to suspect the least 
 danger. The patient, is suddenly attacked with a 
 loss of strength, a sense of confusion, weight in the 
 head, oppression at the heart, and extreme dejec- 
 tion of spirits. Such cases sometimes teiminate 
 fatally within twenty -four hours, and occasionally 
 on the second or third day. Generally, however, 
 the patient is attacked with shivering or coldness, 
 which is soon followed by fever, giddiness, pain 
 in the head, occasionally also by vomiting. 
 Buboes and carbuncles in most cases make their 
 appearance on the first day : and successive erup- 
 tions of them are not unusually observed during 
 the course of the disease. There is a peculiar 
 and characteristic muddiness of the eye, which 
 has been described by Dr. Russell as a muddiness 
 and lustre slrangely blended together. The fever 
 remits every morning, and increases during the 
 day and night. The vomiting then increases j 
 
502 
 
 PESTILENCE. 
 
 PETER. 
 
 ttie tumours become painful ; and the patient 
 wanders, and is inclined to stupor. On the morn- 
 ing of the third day, in favourable cases, a sweat 
 breaks out, which produces great relief, and some- 
 times even proves critical. The exacerbation on 
 the fourth day is more severe than on the pre- 
 ceding ones, and continues intense until it is ter- 
 minated by the sweat on the morning of the fifth 
 day, which leaves the patient weak, but in every 
 respect relieved. After this, the exacerbations 
 become slighter and slighter ; and the buboes ad- 
 vancing favourably to suppuration, little or no 
 fever remains after the beginning of the second 
 week. In other cases, again, the symptoms are 
 far more urgent. Besides vomiting, giddiness, 
 and headache, there is also diarrhoea at the out- 
 break of the fever. During the night the patient 
 becomes delirious or comatose. The pulse is full 
 and strong ; and though the tongue is not dry, 
 the thirst is excessive. The fever abates some- 
 what on the succeeding morning, but the pulse is 
 frequent, the skin hot and dry, and the patient 
 dejected. As the second day advances, the vomit- 
 ing and diarrhoea become urgent, the eyes are 
 muddy, expression of countenance confused, the 
 pulse quick, and sometimes low and fluttering, 
 external heat moderately feverish, or occasionally 
 intense in irregular flushings. There is pain at 
 the heart, burning pain at the pit of the slomach, 
 and incessant restlessness. When to these symp- 
 toms are joined faltering of the tongue, or loss of 
 speech, and the surface of the body becomes cold 
 or covered with clammy sweats, death is inevi- 
 table, although it may still be at some distance. 
 When the patient has been much weakened by 
 the vomiting, diarrhoea, or haemorrhage, the third 
 day proves fatal ; but more commonly the disease 
 is prolonged two or three days longer. In this 
 form of plague, buboes appear on the second or 
 third day, and sometimes later; but whether they 
 advance towards suppuration, or not, they seem to 
 have no effect in hastening or retarding the ter- 
 mination of the disease. Lastly, in some cases, 
 the eruption of buboes and carbuncles constitute 
 the principal symptoms of the disease ; and pa- 
 tients are so little indisposed, that they are able 
 to go about the streets, or attend to their usual 
 avocations, if not prevented by the inflammation 
 of inguinal tumours. 
 
 Respecting the causes and origin of plague 
 nothing is known. There cannot be the slightest 
 doubt that it is propagated by absolute contact 
 with, or a very near approach to, the bodies or 
 clothes of persons infected ; but we are entirely at 
 a loss to know how it is generated afresli* Ex- 
 tremes of temperature have a decided effect in 
 putting a stop to it ; but Dr. Russell observed 
 that, in the year 1761, the plague at Aleppo 
 was mild, in 1762 it was severer, and in 1763 
 it was very fatal ; and yet there was no appre- 
 ciable difference in the respective seasons of 
 these years. In Egypt, the plague commences 
 in autumn, and is regularly put an end to by 
 the heats of summer ; and it is even asserted 
 that contaminated goods are also disinfected at 
 this time. 
 
 In Europe, the plague disappeared during the 
 winter. This was remarked in all the epidemics, 
 ♦aicept that from 1636 to 1648, called the Great 
 Plague, on account of its long duration ; but even 
 ia this instance it abated considerably (luring the 
 
 winter. It was a common superstition that the 
 plague abated on St. John’s day. 
 
 The most fatal, and at the same time the most 
 general epidemic, was that which ravaged Asia, 
 Africa, and the whole of Europe, in the fourteenth 
 century. It was called by the northern European 
 nations £ the Black Death,’ and by the Italians 
 ‘ la Mortilega Grande,’ or the great mortality. 
 According to Dr. Hecker, not less than twenty-five 
 millions perished by it in the short space of three 
 years, from 1347 to 1350. Since the commence- 
 ment of this century, Europe has been free from 
 the plague, with the exception of two or three 
 instances. It occurred at Noja, in the kingdom 
 of Naples, in 1815 and 1816 ; at the Lazaretto of 
 Venice, in 1818 ; in Greiffenberg, in Silesia, in 
 1S19. It has not been seen in Great Britain since 
 the great epidemic of 1665, which is stated to 
 have carried oil' eight thousand in one week. Qua- 
 rantine was first performed in one of the islands 
 near Venice, in 1485. Persons who had been 
 cured of plague in the Lazaretto on one of the 
 adjoining islands were sent there, and all those 
 with whom they had had intercourse, where they 
 were detained forty days. This period was pro- 
 bably fixed upon on account of some medical 
 hypothesis. The fortieth day was regarded as the 
 last day of ardent diseases, and that which sepa- 
 rated them from chronic. Forty days constituted 
 the philosophical month of alchymists. Theolo- 
 gical, and even legal derivations, have been also 
 given. The forty days of the flood; Moses’ so- 
 journ on Mount Sinai ; our Lord’s fast ; and, 
 lastly, what is called the ‘ Saxon term ’ (Sachsische 
 Frist), >vvhich also lasts forty days. Bills of health 
 were probably first established in 1507, by a coun- 
 cil of health established at Venice during a fatal 
 plague that visited Italy for five years ; but they 
 were not generally used until 1665. It is to these 
 great measures that Europe is indebted for its 
 present immunity from this terrible scourge ; ami 
 it cannot be doubted that, but for the callous in- 
 difference of the Orientals (whicli proceeds from 
 their fatalism, love of gain, and ignorance), the 
 same measures would be adopted in the East, with 
 the same success. ( Hecker ’s Ilist. of the Epi- 
 demics of the Middle Ages ; Dr. Brown, art. 
 ‘ Plague,’ in Cyclop, of Pract. Med. ; Dr. Rus- 
 sell, Hist, of Aleppo.) — W. A. N. 
 
 PETER (n erpos ; Aram., ; originally 
 Simkon or Simon, heard) was a native 
 
 of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and was the son of a 
 certain Jonas, or John ; whence he is named on 
 one occasion in the Gospel history Simon Bar- 
 jona, that is, son of Jona (Matt. xvi. 17). Along 
 with his brother Andrew, he followed the occu- 
 pation of a fisherman on the sea of Galilee. It 
 is probable that, before they became known to 
 Christ, they were both disciples of John the Baptist. 
 That Andrew was so we are expressly informed 
 by the evangelist John ; and as his brother seems 
 to have been much of the same mind with him 
 on religious matters, it is extremely likely that 
 he was so likewise. Their becoming known to 
 Christ was owing to John’s pointing him out on 
 the day after his baptism to Andrew and another 
 disciple (probably the evangelist John), %s i the 
 Lamb of God;’ on which they immediately fol- 
 lowed Christ, and spent some time in receiving 
 his .instructions. Shortly after this, Andrew find 
 
PETER. 
 
 PETER. 
 
 003 
 
 mg Simon, carried him to Christ, who, or. re- 
 ceiving him as his disciple, bestowed upon him 
 that surname by which he has since that time 
 been most commonly designated : ‘ When Jesus 
 beheld him he said, Thou art. Simon the son of 
 Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by 
 interpretation a stone (7rerpos).’ After this inter- 
 view the two brothers seem to have returned to 
 their usual occupation for a season, as we have an 
 account in Matthew (iv. 18-20) of their being 
 summoned from that occupation by Christ on a 
 subsequent occasion, posterior to his temptation 
 in the wilderness, and to the commencement of 
 his public ministry as a religious teacher. From 
 this time forward they were his devoted and ad- 
 miring followers. In the course of the evangelical 
 history several anecdotes of Peter are incidentally 
 recorded, for the purpose, doubtless, principally 
 of illustrating the character and teaching of our 
 Lord, but which tend also to throw light upon the 
 history and character of hjs attached disciple. 
 Such are the accounts furnished by the evangelists 
 of his walking upon the agitated waters of the sea 
 of Galilee to meet his master (Matt. xiv. 22, ff. ; 
 Mark vi. 45, ff.) ; of his bold and intelligent 
 avowals of the undoubted Messiahship of Jesus, 
 notwithstanding the difficulties which he, along 
 with the rest of the disciples, felt in reconciling 
 what they saw in him with what they had fondly 
 expected the Christ to be (Matt. xvi. 13-20); of 
 his rash but affectionate rebuke of bis Lord for 
 speaking of suffering and death as in prospect for 
 him, and as forming a necessary part of his me- 
 diatorial work (Matt. xvi. 21-23); of his conduct 
 in first rejecting, with an earnestness bordering on 
 norror, the offer of Christ to wash bis feet, and 
 then, when the symbolical nature of that act had 
 been explained to him, his over-ardent zeal that 
 not his feet only, but also bis hands and his head, 
 might be washed (John xiii. 4, ff.) ; of his bold 
 and somewhat vaunting avowal of attachment to 
 his Master, and his determination never to forsake 
 him, followed by his disgraceful denial of Jesus in 
 the hour of trial (John xiii. 36, 37 ; Mark xiv. 
 29, &c.); of his deep and poignant contrition for 
 this sin (Matt. xxvi. 75) ; and of his Lord’s ample 
 forgiveness of his offence, after he had received 
 from him a profession of attachment as strong 
 and as frequently repeated as his former denial of 
 him (John xxi. 15-18). From these notices it is 
 easy to gather a tolerably correct conception of the 
 predominating features of the apostle’s character 
 up to this period. He seems to have been a man 
 of undoubled piety, of ardent attachment to his 
 Master, and of great zeal for what he deemed his 
 Master’s honour ; but, at the same time, with a 
 mind rather quick than accurate in its apprehen- 
 sions, and with feelings rather hasty in their im- 
 pulse than determined and continuous in their 
 exercise. Hence his readiness in avowing his 
 opinions, and his rashness in forming them ; and 
 lienee also the tendency which beset his honest 
 openness to degenerate into bravado, and Lis de- 
 terminations of valour to evaporate into cowardice 
 at appalling forms of danger. His fall, however, 
 and his subsequent restoration, connected as these 
 were with the mysterious events of his Master's 
 crucifixion and resurrection, and with the new 
 light which had by them been cast around his 
 character and work, produced a powerful change 
 for the better upon the apostle's mind. From this 
 
 time forward he comes before us under a new 
 aspect. A sober dignity and firmness of purpose 
 have displaced his former hasty zeal ; sagacity 
 and prudei ce characterize Lis conduct ; and whilst 
 his love to his Master shows no symptom of abate- 
 ment, it displays itself rather in active labour and 
 much-enduring patience in his service, than in 
 loud protestations or extravagant exhibitions of 
 attainment. In the subsequent Scripture history 
 he is presented to us as the courageous herald of 
 the kingdom of Christ, by whose mouth the first 
 public declaration of salvation through the cru- 
 cified Jesus was made to die people ; by whose 
 advice and counsel the early churches were planted 
 and governed; and by whom the prejudices of 
 Judaism were first fairly surmounted, and the 
 Gospel preached in all its universal freeness to 
 the Gentile world. The Acts of the Apostles con- 
 tain recitals of many interesting incidents which 
 befell him whilst engaged in those efforts. Of 
 these, the chief are his imprisonment and trial 
 before the Sanhedrim for preaching Christ, and 
 his bold avowal of his determination to persist in 
 that work (Acts iv. 1-22): his miraculously in- 
 dicting the punishment, of death on the infatuated 
 couple who had dared to try an experiment upon 
 the omniscience of the Holy Ghost (v. 1-11); his 
 visit to Samaria, and rebuke of Simon Magus, 
 who deemed that. the miracles of the apostle were 
 the result of some deep magic spell of which he 
 had not yet become possessed, and which, conse- 
 quently, be was desirous of purchasing from Peter 
 (viii. 14-24); the vision by which he was taught 
 that the ancient ritual distinctions between clean 
 and unclean bad been abolished, and thereby pre- 
 pared to attend on the summons of Cornelius, to 
 whom he preached the Gospel (x. 1- 48) ; his ap- 
 prehension by Herod Agrippa. and his deliverance 
 by tlie interposition of an angel, who opened for 
 him the doors of his prison, and set him free 
 (xii. 3-19) ; and his address to the council at 
 Jerusalem, on the occasion of a request for advice 
 and direction being sent to the church there by 
 the church in Antioch, in which he advocated the 
 exemption of Gentile converts from the ceremonial 1 
 institutes of the law of Moses fxv. 6-11). In all 
 these incidents we trace the evidences of his mind 
 huviug undergone an entire change, both as to its 
 views of truth and impressions of duty, from what 
 is displayed by the earlief events of his history. 
 On one occasion only do we detect something of 
 his former weakness, and that, strangely enough, 
 in regard to a matter in which he had been the 
 first of the apostles to perceive, and the first to 
 recommend and follow, a correct course of pro- 
 cedure. The occasion referred to was his with- 
 drawing, through dread of the censures of his 
 Jewish brethren, from the Gentiles at Antioch, 
 after having lived in free and friendly intercourse 
 with them, and Lis timidly dissembling his con- 
 victions as to the religious equality of Jew and 
 Gentile. For this Paul withstood him to the face, 
 and rebuked him sharply, because of tlie injury 
 which his conduct was calculated to produce to 
 the cause of Christianity. With this single ex- 
 ception, however, his conduct seems to have been 
 in full accordance with the name which his 
 Master had prophetically bestowed on him when 
 he called him Simon the Rock, and with the 
 position which Paul himself assigns to him, at 
 the very time that he recounts his tempore ry 
 
504 rETER. 
 
 dereliction, as one of ‘ the Pillars of the Church’ 
 (Gal. ii. 9, 14). 
 
 Thus far we are enabled, from the inspired do- 
 tumerits, to trace the history of this apostle ; but 
 for what remains we must be indebted to evidence 
 of a less explicit and certain character. Eccle- 
 siastical tradition asserts that he performed an 
 extensive missionary tour throughout those dis- 
 tricts, to the converts in which his epistles are 
 addressed. ‘ Peter,’ say* Origen, ‘ appears to have 
 preached to the Jews in the dispersion, in Pontus, 
 Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia’ (In 
 Genesin, tom. iii. ; Euseb. Hist. Eccies. iii. 1,4). 
 This tradition, however, though deriving some 
 countenance from 1 Pet. v. 13, is very uncer- 
 tain ; even Origen, in adducing it. speaks doubt- 
 ingly (/re/c7?/>ux e; ' ai eoncev). The fact that no 
 allusion appears in his epistles to any personal 
 acquaintance on the part of the apostle with those 
 to whom they are addressed, militates strongly 
 against its authenticity. Another tradition re- 
 
 { lorts the apostle as having towards the close of 
 iis life visited Rome, become bishop of the 
 church in that city, and suffered martyrdom in 
 the persecution raised against the Christians by 
 Nero. The importance of these points in con- 
 nection with the claims urged by the Catholics 
 on behalf of the supremacy of the pope, has led 
 to a careful and sifting examination of the accu- 
 racy of this tradition ; the result of which seems 
 to be, that whilst it is admitted as certain that 
 Peter suffered martyrdom, in all probability by 
 crucifixion (Tertullian, De Prcescript., 38; Lac- 
 tantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum , c. ii.), and 
 as probable that this took place at Rome, it. has, 
 nevertheless, been made pretty clear that he never 
 was for any length of time resident in that city, 
 and morally certain that he never was bishop of 
 the church there (Barrow, On the Pope's Supre- 
 macy ; Works , vii. 207, ff , Loud. 1S31 ; Cave’s 
 Life of St. Peter , 6 11; Campbell, Eccies. Hist. 
 lect. xii. ; Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanz. tmd Leit. 
 u.s.w.,ii. 474; Winer, Real- Worterb., in ‘Petrus,’ 
 &c.). By some an attempt has been made to ob- 
 tain the support of the apostle’s own testimony in 
 favour of his having at one period resided at Rome, 
 by interpreting the words, ‘ the church that is at 
 Babylon,' the salutations of which he sends to 
 those to whom he wrote his first epistle, as apply- 
 ing to the church at Rome; an attempt which 
 Dr. Campbell justly stigmatizes as ‘ poor, not to 
 call it ridiculous.’ Even if we admit that at the 
 time when this epistle was written it was under- 
 stood amongst the Christians that Babylon wa3 
 the prophetical name for Rome — an admission, 
 however, which is entirely unsupported by evi- 
 dence— it would remain unexplained why the 
 apostle, i#> such a mere matter-of-fact affair as 
 the communication of the friendly salutations of 
 one church to another, should have employed the 
 obscure and symbolical language of prophecy, 
 when his meaning could have been so much more 
 distinctly conveyed by a simple statement. This 
 would be the more inexplicable, that the style 
 of Peter is remarkably plain and perspicuous 
 throughout the entire epistle. It seems much 
 more consistent, therefore, with rational principles 
 }f interpretation, to understand the statement, lite- 
 rally of the Assyrian Babylon, >n which city, as 
 we learn from Josephus, there was a great multi- 
 tude of Jews (*i/6a aal irXridos i)v 'lovbaiuu, 
 
 PETER. 
 
 Antiq. xv. 2. 2; see also c. 3. 1), and to whicht 
 consequently, it is probable that, at some period 
 of his life ‘the apostle of the circumcision’ (Gal. 
 ii. 8) must have paid a visit. Some have sug- 
 gested that Babylon in Egypt is probably in- 
 tended ; but this is set aside by the fact, that at 
 this time the Egyptian Babylon was nothing 
 more than a Roman fort (Strabo, xvii. 1). 
 
 The assertion that Peter was bishop of Rome 
 is connected with another, by which the claims of 
 the papacy are sought to be established, namely, 
 that to him was conceded a right of supremacy 
 over the other apostles. In support of this, an 
 appeal is made to those passages in the Gospels, 
 where declarations supposed to imply the bestowal 
 of peculiar honour and distinction on Peter are 
 recorded as having been addressed to him by our 
 Lord. The most important of these are : ‘ Thou 
 art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church ’ 
 (Matt. xvi. 18); and, ‘Unto thee will I give the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ &c. (Matt. xvi. 
 19). At first sight these passages would seem to 
 bear out the assumption founded on them ; but, 
 upon a more careful investigation, it will be seen 
 that this is rather in appearance than in reality. 
 The force of both is greatly impaired for the pur- 
 pose for which Catholics produce them, by the 
 circumstance, that whatever of power or authority 
 they may be supposed to confer upon Peter, must 
 be regarded as shared by him with the other 
 apostles, inasmuch as to them also are ascribed 
 in other passages the same qualities and powers 
 which are promised to Peter in those under con- 
 sideration. If by the former of these passages we 
 are to understand that the church is built upou 
 Peter, the apostle Paul informs us that it is not 
 on him alone that it is built, but upon all the 
 apostles (Ephes. ii. 20); and in the book of Reve- 
 lation we are told, that on the twelve foundations 
 of the New Jerusalem (the Christian church) are 
 inscribed ‘ the names of the twelve apostles of the 
 Lamb ’ (xxi. 14). As for the declaration in the 
 latter of these passages, it was in all its essential 
 parts repeated by our Lord to the other disciples 
 immediately before his passion, as announcing a 
 privilege which, as his apostles, they were to pos i 
 sess in common (Matt, xviii. IS; John xx. 23) 
 It is, moreover, uncertain in what sense our Lord 
 used the language in question. In both cases his 
 words are metaphorical ; and nothing can be more 
 unsafe than to build a theological dogma upon 
 language of which the meaning is not clear, and 
 to which, from the earliest ages, different inter- 
 pretations have been affixed. And, finally, even 
 granting the correctness of that interpretation 
 which Catholics put. upon these verses, it will not 
 bear out the conclusion they would deduce from 
 them, inasmuch as the judicial supremacy of 
 Peter over the other apostles does not necessarily 
 follow from his possessing authority over the 
 church. On the other side, it is certain that there 
 is no instance on record of the apostle’s having 
 ever claimed or exercised this supposed power ; 
 but, on the contrary, he is oftener than once repre- 
 sented as submitting to an exercise of power upon 
 the part of others, as when, for instance, he went 
 forth as a messenger from the apostles assembled 
 in Jerusalem to the Christians in Samaria (Acts 
 viii. 14), and when he received a rebuke from 
 Paul, as already noticed. This circumstance is 
 so Altai, indeed, to the pretensions which have 
 
PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 be«ti Urged in favour of his supremacy over the 
 otaer apostles, that from a very early age attempts 
 lave been made to set aside its force, by the 
 hypothesis that it is not of Peter the apostle, 
 but of another person of the same name, that Paul 
 speaks in the passage referred to (Euseb. Hist. 
 Eccles. i. 13). This hypothesis, however, is so 
 plainly contradicted by the words of Paul, who 
 explicitly ascribes apostleship to the Peter of 
 whom he writes, that it is astonishing how it could 
 have been admitted even by the most blinded 
 zealot (vers. 8, 9). Whilst, however, it is pretty 
 well established that Peter enjoyed no judicial 
 supremacy over the other apostles, it would, per- 
 haps, be going too tar to aflirm that no dignity or 
 primacy whatsoever was conceded to him on the 
 part of his brethren. His superiority , in point of 
 age, his distinguished personal excellence, his re- 
 putation and success as a teacher of Christianity, 
 and the prominent part which lie had ever taken 
 in his Master s affairs, both before his death and 
 after his ascension, furnished sufficient grounds 
 for his being raised to a position of respect, and of 
 moral influence in the chinch and amongst his 
 brother apostles. To this some countenance is 
 given by the circumstances that lie is called ‘ the 
 first’ (- Trpuros ) by Matthew (x. 2), and this ap- 
 parently not merely as a numerical, but as an 
 honorary distinction ; that when 'the apostles are 
 mentioned as a body, it is frequently by the phrase, 
 ‘ Peter and the eleven,’ or, ‘ Peter and the rest of 
 the apostles,’ or something similar ; and that when 
 Paul went up to Jerusalem by divine revelation, 
 it was to Peter particularly that the visit was paid. 
 These circumstances, taken in connection with the 
 prevalent voice of Christian antiquity, would seem 
 to authorize the opinion that Petei occupied some 
 such position as that of npoecrTcbs, or president in 
 the apostolical college, but without any power or 
 authority of a judicial kind over his brother 
 apostles (Campbell, Eccles Hist., lect. v. and xii. ; 
 Barrow, ubi sup., &c. ; Eichhorn, Einleit. iii. 
 599; Hug, Introd. p. 635, Fordick’str. ; Horne, 
 Introd., iv. 432; Lardner, Works, vols. iv. v. 
 vi., ed. 1788; Cave, Antiquitates Apostoliccc, 
 &c.).— W. L. A. 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. Of the seven 
 Catholic Epistles, there are two ascribed to St. 
 Peter. The first of these is one of the o/jloXo- 
 yov/ieva, or those universally received in the early 
 church. The second ranks among the avTite- 
 y6peva, or controverted [Antii.egomena]. 
 
 Genuineness of the First Epistle. — The ex- 
 ternal evidence in favour of the genuineness of 
 this Epistle is complete. ‘ One Epistle of Peter,’ 
 says Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3), ‘ called the 
 first, is universally received;’ and Origen had 
 before this time observed, that ‘Peter . . . has 
 left one Epistle acknowledged to be his.’ It is 
 cited by Irenaeus (Adv. Ilcer iv. 9, 2): ‘ Peter 
 says in bis Epistle, In whom , though now ye see 
 him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy un- 
 speakable axid fidl of glory ’ (i. 8. And again 
 he cites 1 Pet. ii. 16) ; also, fry Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus (Strom, i. 3) : ‘ Peter in the Epistle says,’ 
 &c. ; and by Tertullian (Scorp. c. 12), ‘ Peter says 
 to the inhabitants of Pontus’ (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 20). 
 Dr. Lardner observes (Hist. Apost. c. ix.) that 
 ‘ it seems to be referred to by Clement of Rome 
 in his first Epistle.’ Eusebius notices its citation 
 by Polycarp (comp. Polycarp, c. i. with 1 Pet. 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. SGt 
 
 i. 8) ; and also by Papias ; ( IJist. Eccles. iii. 33). 
 
 ‘ In fact,’ says l)e Wette ( ' Einleitung, § 1 73), ‘ if 
 we except its omission in the ancient catalogue 
 in Muratori, and its rejection by t lie Paulicians 
 it has been never called in question.’ l)e Wette 
 himself, who never omits an opportunity of raising 
 a doubt, contents himself with observing that ‘as 
 its contents are really apostolic, any doubts 
 arising from the absence of any known personal 
 relationship between the author and those to whom 
 the Epistle was addressed, or any peculiarity of 
 doctrinal phraseology, find no favour or recog- 
 nition.’ He adds that the second Epistle, even 
 though not genuine, bears testimony (iii. 1) to the 
 genuineness of the first. 
 
 The internal evidence is equally complete. 
 The author calls himself the Apostle Peter (ch. 
 i. 1), and the whole character of the Epistle shows 
 that it proceeds from a writer who possessed great 
 authority among those whom he addresses, who 
 were most probably composed chiefly of Jewish 
 Christians. The writer describes himself as ‘an 
 elder,’ and ‘a witness of Clnist’s sufferings’ (v. 
 1). The vehemence and energy of the style are 
 altogether appropriate to the warmth and zeal of 
 Peter’s character, and every succeeding critic, 
 who has entered into its spirit, has felt impressed 
 with the truth of the observation of Erasmus,, 
 ‘that this Epistle is full of apostolical dignity 
 and authority, and worthy of the prince of the 
 apostles.’ 
 
 The only indication as to the place from whence 
 this letter was addressed to the five provinces, is 
 contained in ch. v. ver. 13: ‘She in Babylon, 
 elected with you (y iv BafUvXuvi owe/cAe/CT^), sa- 
 luteth you.’ For whether ‘ she in Babylon’ refers 
 to the church or to an individual (in which latter 
 case Peter’s wife is the person generally believed 
 to be referred to), the letter must have been 
 written in, or at least in the neighbourhood of, 
 Babylon. But where Babylon was, or whether it 
 was the celebrated city of that name on the 
 Euphrates, as has been maintained by Beza, 
 Lightfoot, Basnage, De Wette, Neander, and a 
 host of learned men, is a question wliich has 
 never been, and probably never will be, decided. 
 It has been maintained, as an objection to the 
 supposition that Babylon on the Euphrates was 
 meant, that, there were no Jews residing there at 
 the date of this Epistle, inasmuch as they had all 
 been expelled from that, city in the latter part of 
 the reign of Caligula, with the exception of such 
 as were permitted to remain on account of con- 
 nection, or other special reasons (Hug’s Introduc- 
 tion')', while those in Seleucia, or New Babylon, 
 were soon after massacred, or fled to Ctesiphon, on 
 the other side of the river. Hug, who still main- 
 tains that Babylon on the Euphrates is intended, 
 conceives that the crefiSpevoi, or ‘ pious,’ were the 
 persons to whom the apostle’s injunctions were 
 addressed, and who -'ere numerous in the East. 
 There is certainly no authority from ecclesiastical 
 history for supposing that Peter was ever at Ba- 
 bylon ; but this silence proves nothing, for there 
 are fourteen years of the apostle's life concerning 
 which we have no information. But this mention 
 of Babylon by St. Peter has led to the belief that 
 he may have paid a visit to the Parthians (De 
 Wette, l. c .), of which, however, there is no other 
 indication among the ancients. 
 
 Babylon in Egypt, near Memphis, has be«n com- 
 
506 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 jectured by Pearson, Le Clerc, and others, to have 
 been the scene of Peter’s labours ; but neither for 
 this is there any evidence, and it seems to have 
 been a very insignificant place, for Strabo de- 
 icribes it only as a frontier garrison, occupied by 
 one of tire Roman legions quartered in Egypt. 
 
 Although the ancient Syrian writers conceived 
 the Babylon mentioned by St. Peter to have been 
 a city in the East, the Greek and Latin fathers 
 Held the uame of Babylon here to have been, as 
 in the Apocalypse, a metonymy for Rome. This 
 was the prevailing opinion in the time of Eusebius, 
 who observes (Hist. Eccles. ii. 15) that Peter ‘is 
 said to have composed his first Epistle at Rome, 
 which he indicates in calling it figuratively Ba- 
 bylon.’ This opinion is repeated by Jerome (De 
 Vir. Jllustr. cap. \ iii.) CEcumenius (ii. p. 256), 
 and Bede (Expos. 1 Pet. v. It). It has been, as 
 is observed by Lardner and Michaelis, received 
 by most members of the church of Rome, but 
 certainly not, as Mr. Horne supposes (Introd. vol. 
 
 ii. c. iv. 6 3), after Macknight (On the Epistles ), 
 by all the learned of that communion ; for, among 
 others, Erasmus (Comment.), Du Pin (Canotiof 
 Scripture), and Hug (In rod.), contend against 
 Rome in favour of Babylon in Mesopotamia. 
 That Rome was meant has been maintained also 
 by Grotius, Whitby, Macknight, and Lardner. 
 Perhaps the strongest objection to this hypothesis 
 arises from the consideration that the use of a 
 mystical name is unsuited to the character of an 
 epistolary writing, although adapted to the sym- 
 bolical and poetical style of the apocalypse. It 
 is, however, certain that arcana nomina were 
 sometimes used by the early Christians. Louis 
 Capell favours the idea of a mystical name, but 
 he stands alone in considering Jerusalem to be 
 the place indicated. It may be added that there 
 is independent authority for believing that Peter 
 was at Rome, but none that he was ever either in 
 Assyria or Egypt. 
 
 Age of the Epistle. — The Epistle must have been 
 written before a.d. 67-68, the year of St. Peter’s 
 martyrdom. Lardner places the date in a.d. 63 or 
 61, chiefly from the fact that an earlier date than 
 a.d. 63 cannot Ire assigned for his arrival at Rome. 
 Hug and De Wette (Introductions), and Neamler 
 (Hist, of the Planting of the Christian Church ), 
 find an indication of the true date in the Neronic 
 persecution, to which the Epistle manifestly re- 
 fers. The Christians were now suffering perse- 
 cutions as Christians , and according to the 
 popular belief, of which Tacitus informs us Nero 
 took advantage, they were punished as evildoers 
 (tnalefci, Tacitus; kcucottoioi, 1 Pet. ii. 12). 
 
 Hug fixes the date in the eleventh year of Nero’s 
 reign, or a.d. 65, a year after t be conflagration of 
 the city, and five before the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem. Lardner supposes that Peter’s first Epistle 
 could not have been written from Rome before 
 the death of St. Paul, a.d. 66, as it is difficult to 
 ’account for St. Paul’s silence respecting him if 
 Peter was at Rome at the date of any of his 
 epistles from that city. Others, however, as 
 Bishop Sherlock, consider that the first Epistle 
 was written about; a.d. 60. It is at the same 
 time certain that Peter had read several of St. 
 Paul’s Epistles, as he adopts expressions, and 
 gometimes whole phrases, from the Epistles to the 
 Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, Thes- 
 salonians, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy (comp. 
 
 especially, 1 Pet. ii. 13, with 1 Tiir. ii. 2*4; ii. 
 IS, with Eph. vi. 5; 1 Pet. i. 1, with Eph. i. 4-7 , 
 
 i. 3, witli Eph. i. 3 ; i. 14, with Rom. xii. 2; ii. 
 
 1, with Col. iii. 8, and Rom. xii. 1 ; ii. 6-10, 
 with Rom. ix 32; ii. 13, with Rom. xiii. 1-4. 
 
 ii. 16, with Gal. v. 13; ii. IS, with Eph. vi. 5, 
 
 iii. 1, with Eph. v. 22; iii. 9, with Rom. xii. 17 ; 
 
 iv. 9, with Philipp, ii. 14 ; iv. 10, with Rom. xii. 
 6, &c. ; v. 1, with Rom. viii. 18; v. 5, with 
 Eph. v. 21 ; v. 8, with 1 Thess. v. 6; v. 14, with 
 1 Cor. xvi. 20). There is, observes Hi:g(/«£i'od.) f 
 evidence of more than accidental relationship even 
 in the deviation of expression, in which, however, 
 there is no essential difference. The similarity 
 in thought and expression, and even in their verj 
 plan (Hug, l. c.), are indeed most striking, and 
 this circumstance has been well accounted for by 
 the fact that Peter had not himself visited the 
 Asiatic provinces, and had, therefore, reference 
 to the Epistles of his esteemed colleague for the 
 general condition of the inhabitants, their manner 
 of life, their virtues and their failings, and their 
 civil and domestic relations. There are also 
 some passages identical with those in the Epistle 
 of St. James (comp. 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, with Jatne3 i. 
 
 2, 3 ; i. 21, with James i. 10 ; ii. 1, with James 
 i. 21 ; iv. 8, with James v. 20; and v. 5, with 
 Jaimes iv. 6). This latter passage is, indeed, 
 a citation from Prov. iii. 34 ; but the iden- 
 tity of the conclusions drawn by each renders it 
 improbable that Jiere was a merely accidental 
 coincidence. It is also remarkable that in 1 Pet. 
 iv. 8, and James v. 20, there occurs (in each) the 
 same citation from Prov. x. 12. These resem- 
 blances, however, involve important consequences. 
 If the Epistle of James was the first in order of 
 time [James], its right to a place in the canon 
 is providentially confirmed by the high and un- 
 exceptionable authority of St. Peter. 
 
 Object and Contents of Peter s First Epistle. 
 — To afford consolation to the persecuted appears 
 to have been the main object of this Epistle. To 
 this the moral instructions are ’subsidiary (Hug’s 
 Introd.). The exhortations to a pure conscience, 
 to rebut, the calumnies of the time by their inno- 
 cence, to abstain from violent disputes, to pay 
 respect to the existing authorities, to exercise in- 
 creasing love and fidelity, were exhortations all 
 given with a view to alleviate their fate, or enable 
 them to bear it. The repeated leferences to the 
 example of Jesus in his death and sufferings, are 
 designed to strengthen them for the endurance of 
 calamities. The exhortation to the slaves, too, 
 has reference to the unhappy days, in which, for 
 real or imaginary wrongs and hardships, they 
 frequently became the accusers and betrayers of 
 their masters. The following is a summary of 
 the contents : — 
 
 The salutation and introduction, in which 
 the inhabitants of the five provinces who were 
 purchased by the sufferings of Christ, are exhorted 
 to prepare themselves for a reward higher than the 
 enjoyments of this fleeting life (i.1-13). They are, 
 therefore, recommended to lay aside anything 
 which could render them unworthy of Christ, the 
 centre of their hopes, their pattern and their 
 Saviour, and.so to reuulate their conduct to thei.< 
 superiors that none should be able to reproach 
 them as ‘ evildoers.’ These precepts were to ex* 
 tend to slaves, to whom the meek and suffering 
 Jesus should be an example. Women, too, wer* 
 
PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 to render their submissive noiseless virtue their 
 chiefest ornament, and men should cherish and 
 honour them. All should be full of sympathy 
 and love, and 'mutual indulgence. Their inno- 
 cence should be so marked as to shame the 
 calumniator, and they should make preparation 
 f ur the approaching catastrophe, when they should 
 have an opportunity of imitating Jesus in their 
 sufferings : hoping for them all to have no other 
 reproach than that of being his disciples. The 
 presbyters are enjoined to watch over their flocks, 
 and the subordinate to pay them respect, and all 
 should be on the watch, and lay aside their 
 worldly cares. All these exhortations are enforced 
 by the example of Christ, and by the- punishment 
 of the disobedient in the days of Noah, those spirits 
 in prison to wdiom Christ went and preached (iii. 
 19, 20). 
 
 The Second Epistle ok St. Peter [Anti- 
 legomena] has been the subject of more discus- 
 sion than any other book in the New Testament, 
 and its genuineness has been contested by not a few 
 of the ablest critics. Our space will not allow 
 us to notice in detail all the objections which 
 have been raised against it, but it will be our 
 duty to state the most important. Its genuine- 
 ness, the date of its composition, and its cha- 
 racteristics, are so Ultimately connected, that we 
 3hall pursue a different method in treating of this 
 Epistle from that which we have adopted in regard 
 to other books. 
 
 The author of the first epistle refers (1 Pet. v. 
 12) to a former letter, now no longer extant, which 
 has been generally concluded to be a private com- 
 munication, as the present is expressly called the 
 Second Epistle (2 Pet. iii. 1). The first writer 
 who has expressly named it is Origen ( Homily 
 on Joshua ), who speaks of the two Epistles of 
 Peter. lie also cites the second epistle in his 
 fourth homily on Leviticus, ‘ Petrus dicit, con- 
 sortes , inquit, facti estis divince natures'' (2 Pet. 
 i. 4), anti gives it the name of Scripture (‘as the 
 Scripture says in a certain place, the dumb ass , 
 replying with a human voice , reproved the mad- 
 ness of the Prophet,' alluding to 2 Pet. ii. 16 ; 
 Opp. ii. p. 321). At the same time he observes 
 {ap. Euseb. vi. 25) that ‘ Peter has left one acknow- 
 ledged Epistle, and perhaps a second, for this is 
 contested.’ Firmilian, Bishop of Cappadocia, also 
 (Ep. ad Cyprian.') speaks of Peter's epistles in a 
 passage referring evidently to the second. Earlier 
 allusions have been supposed to exist in the Shep- 
 herd of Hennas ( Vision iii. 7), ‘ reliquerunt viam 
 suam veram’ (2 Pet. ii. 15). and Vision iv. 3, ‘ ef- 
 fugistis. saeculum hoc’ (2 Pet. ii. 20). Clemens 
 Romanus has also been thought by some to have 
 referred to this epistle, in the passages, ‘ saved 
 Noah, the eighth preacher of righteousness’ (see 
 2 Pet. ii. 6). and ‘ by hospitality and piety Lot was 
 delivered from Sodom, when the whole region was 
 destroyed by lire and brimstone, the Lord thereby 
 making it manifest that he does not forsake those 
 who trust in him, but those that turn aside he 
 appoints to punishment and torment’ (2 Pet. ii. 
 6, 7, 9). 
 
 Irenseus (a.d. 178) is supposed by some to 
 allude to 2 Pet. iii. 8, ‘The day of the Lord is 
 as a thousand years;’ as is also Justin Martyr, 
 who cites the same passage in an earlier part of 
 iii© same century. But others have supposed that 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 507 
 
 the allusion here is to Ps. xc. 4. Eusebius observes 
 (Hist. Eccles. vi. 14) that ‘Clement, of Alex- 
 andria (a.d. 192-217) wrote, in his 'Hirorv-naffeis 
 (‘Adumbrations "), commentaries on the canonical 
 epistles, and also on the antilegomena, that is. 
 Jude and the other Catholic epistles, together 
 with that of Barnabas, and the so-called Revela- 
 tion of Peter.’ Cassiodorus, however, who pub- 
 lished a Latin translation of the Adumbrations 
 ( De Insiit. div. leg. c. 8), seems to confine the 
 explications of Clement to 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, 
 and James. 
 
 Although we do not know by whom the col 
 lection of Catholic Epistles, as distinct from the 
 Pauline, was made, yet there can he no reason- 
 able doubt that such collection, including all the 
 Antilegomena, existed before the close of the 
 second century. It was well known in the time 
 of Origen, and is referred to by Eusebius as gene- 
 rally received in his time (Hist. Eccles. ii. 23), for 
 he expressly calls St. James’s ‘ the first of the seven 
 Catholic epistles.’ Eusebius at the same time 
 informs us of the doubts which had been raised 
 before his time in regard to our epistle: — ‘That 
 called the Second Epistle of Peter, as we have 
 been informed, has not been received as a part ol 
 the New Testament. Nevertheless, appearing to 
 many to be useful, it has been carefully studied 
 with the other Scriptures’ (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3). 
 Tiie next writers who refer to the doubt** respect- 
 ing our epistle, are Didymus, the blind teacher 
 of Alexandria, in the fourth century, and his 
 pupil St. Jerome. The former acquaints U3 
 (Comment.) that ‘ it should not be concealed 
 that the present epistle was considered spurious 
 (falsatam esse), and that although published, it 
 was not in the Canon.’ And Jerome observes 
 (De vir. illustr.), that ‘ Peter wrote two epistles 
 called Catholic, the second of which had been 
 denied by many (or most, plerique) to be his, 
 because of the difference of style.’ And again, 
 ‘ Paul had for his interpreter Titus, and Peter 
 had Mark, .... the two epistles attributed to 
 Peter differ in both style and character, and the 
 structure of their language ; from which we must 
 of necessity suppose that he made use of two dif- 
 ferent interpreters.’ It may be here observed that 
 the Fathers supposed that such of the sacred 
 writers as did not understand Greek (among 
 whom they reckoned St. Peter) dictated in their 
 native language to an amanuensis, who wrote 
 down in Greek what they had uttered in Hebrew. 
 Silas, or Silvanus, has been conjectured to have 
 acted in this capacity to St. Peter in the writing 
 of his first epistle (1 Pet. v. 2). Finally, St. 
 Gregory the Great observes, towards the close 
 of the sixth century, that there were some who 
 asserted that ‘Peter’s second epistle, in which 
 Paul’s epistles were commended, was not his.’ 
 ‘ Before the fourth century,’ observes the Roman 
 Catholic Professor Hug, ‘ Christian writers with 
 perfect freedom advocated or denied the autho- 
 rity of certain writings of the New Testament 
 according as their judgment dictated.’ We find, 
 however, that before the close of the fourth cen- 
 tury the doubts had subsided, and this epistle 
 was received as genuine by St. Athanasius, St. 
 Cyril, St. Epiphanius, S'. Jerome, and St. Au- 
 gustine, and by Rufinus. Gregory Nazianzen 
 alone considers it doubtful whether three or seven 
 Catholic epistles ought to be used. The only 
 
508 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 dissentient voicea, after this period, were pro- 
 bably Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Cosmas lu- 
 dicopleustes [Antii.kgomkna j, the latter on 
 dogmatical rather than critical grounds, as the 
 destruction of the world by (ire clashed with his 
 jpinions. It is enumerated in the canon of Lao- 
 dicea (a.d. 360 ?), and in the 85th apostolical ca- 
 non, and was final ly adopted bv the councils of 
 Hippo anil Carthage, which included among the 
 canonical books all those which are now com- 
 monly received, making no distinction, however, 
 between the acknowledged and controverted books 
 of the New Testament, or between the canonical 
 and deuterocanonical of the Old. 
 
 Although before this period certain books were 
 rejected from the defect of historical evidence, or 
 from internal grounds of suspicion, an undevi- 
 ating uniformity now took place, and no contro- 
 versy was raised resjiectiug any of the books of 
 the New Testament until the inquiring age which 
 ushered in the Reformation. We now find Eras- 
 mus denying the genuineness of our epistle. Al- 
 though Luther does not appear to have had any 
 doubts of its genuineness, he revived the ancient 
 distinction in regard to the books both of the Old 
 and New Testament, — separating the apocryphal 
 books of the Old Testament from the canonical, 
 and in the enumeration of the books leaving the 
 antilegomena of the New without any numbers 
 attached to them ; and in the Lunenberg edition of 
 Luther's Bible, published in 1614 (68 years alter 
 Luther’s death), these hooks are headed by the 
 words, ‘Apocrypha of the New Testament ’ [An- 
 r i i.ego m kn a] . Our epistle was called in question 
 by Calvin (Comm, in Ep. Cath.), who observes, 
 that ‘ notwithstanding some affinity in style, the 
 discrepancies between it and the former are such 
 as to indicate that they had not the same author.’ 
 It was, however, received by all the Reformed 
 Confessions, as well as by the Council of Trent. 
 It lias been since that period rejected by Grotius 
 (. Annot .), Scaliger ( Scaligeriana , ii. p. '22}, Sal- 
 masius (De Episc. ,p. 145), Semler ( Praf. ), 
 Eichhorn ( Einleit .), Schmidt ( Einleit .), Walker 
 ( Clavis ), Schott ([sag.). Guericke ( Beitrage , p. 
 176, note). Credncr (Einleit.), J)e Wette (Ein- 
 leit.), Ullmann, to some extent (Der 2 Brief Pet.), 
 and Neander (Hist, of the Planting, #<?.). Among 
 its numerous defenders it will he sufficient to men- 
 tion the names of Michaelis (Marsh’s transl., vol. 
 vi.), Lardner ( l.c .) Pott. (Proleg.), Augusti (Ein- 
 leit.), Flatt (Progr.), Dalil (Dissert.), Bertholilt 
 (Einleit. vol. vi.), who. however, rejects the second 
 chapter; Nietzche (Dissert.) and Olshausen 
 (Opusc. Academ .), with the learned Roman 
 Catholics Hug ( Introd.) and Feilmoser : the latter, 
 however, fluctuates in his opinion (Einleit. p. 527). 
 
 Before proceeding to consider the grounds for 
 and against the rejection of this epistle, it may be 
 useful to inquire into its internal structure and 
 contents. 
 
 The writer designates himself here as the apostle 
 Peter (Simon, or, according to some MSS., Symeon 
 Peter, 2 Pet. i. 1 ; comp. Acts xv. 14 ; John’s 
 Gospel, passim ) more clearly than in the first 
 epistle; as personally known to Jesus (i. 14); as 
 a beloved brother of Paul (iii. 15) ; and as the au- 
 thor of the first epistle (iii. 1). It is addressed to 
 the same persons with the first, whom he presup- 
 poses to be acquainted with the writings of St. Paul 
 (iii. 15 ; comp. Rom. ii. 41. Neander (Planting of 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 the Church ) asserts that the readers apjieai to have 
 been personally instructed by the a|*>stle, whiok 
 implies a relationship in which the utitWir did not 
 stand to the readers of the first epistle. He refers 
 to his approaching death (i. 14). The main object 
 is the refutat ion of erroneous teachers. He, there- 
 fore, as an eye-witness of the acting and teaching 
 of Jesus, is enabled to give them more accurate 
 instruction than those who would mislead them. 
 He exhorts them to advance in the knowledge and 
 doctrine of Jesus, by addin* to their faith forti- 
 tude (aperr )v), and every other excellent quality. 
 He denounces (ch. ii.) punishment against false 
 teachers, by examples drawn from the disobedient 
 angels, the world before the Hood, and Sodom and 
 Gomorrah. He inveighs against those teachers 
 for resigning themselves to impurity, and speak- 
 ing evil of God and angels, whereas angels have 
 not ventured to do this even of Satan. He com- 
 pares them to the false prophet Balaam, and to 
 clouds filled with wind. lie rebukes those 
 mockers who doubted of the coming of Christ, 
 which was only delayed in mercy, but predicts 
 the dissolution of tiie world by fire, and warns 
 them to keep themselves in readiness for the new 
 heavens and the new earth. 
 
 We have already seen that the main reasons 
 which induced many of the ancients to reject this 
 epistle arose from the difference in style and 
 structure between the first and second epistle. 
 The ancients have, however, not entered info 
 detail in the examination of this subject, a task 
 which has been left to their more critical suc- 
 cessors. It is said, for instance, to he distin- 
 guished by a different usus loqucndi, as by the. 
 word coot rjp, frequently applied to our Lord, 
 -trapouaia, day of the Lord, or of judgment; and 
 instead of ‘revelation,’ knowledge (yvucris and 
 ixiyvuais) is said to be enforced with peculiar 
 prominence. The Christian religion is called ‘ the 
 way of truth, and of righteousness’ (ii. 2, 21). 
 It contains a surprising multitude of a-jral- A eyo- 
 yeua, instead of the very few found in the firs*, 
 epistle. A remarkable difference has been ob- 
 served in respect to the appellations of our Sa- 
 viour, who is in the first epistle generally •called 
 simply Christ or Jesus Christ; but the word 
 Kvplos, which in the first epistle often occurs, and 
 is always applied (with one exception only, i. 3) 
 to God the Father, is applied in the second in 
 almost every place to Christ. Its application in 
 all other passages in the first epistle is confined 
 also to citations from the Old Testament, except 
 in ii. 13, where the Vulgate reads Deum. It 
 is peculiar to the first epistle to subjoin to the 
 terms God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, 
 epithets designed to exalt the glory of the divi- 
 nity. The second epistle has no quotations from 
 the Old Testament, — in which the first abounds, 
 and is remarkable for clothing its sentiments in 
 the language of the Old Testament. I)e Wette 
 furnishes as instances of repetition, indicating a 
 carelessness of style in the author of the second 
 epistle, 2 Pet. i. 3, 4, where occur SeS uprpxeros, 
 and SeSwprjTdL, and Sia is several times repeated ; 
 2 Pet. ii. 1-3, in which diru'Aeia occurs three 
 times ; 2 Pet. ii. 7, 8, in which 8i/caios occurs as 
 many times; and 2 Pet. iii. 12-14, in which 
 there is a similar repetition of moaSdKeiv. The 
 first epistle is also said to be .emurkable for a 
 frequent and peculiar use of the particle &>$, of 
 
PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 which the second furnishes but, one example (i. 
 19). Olshausen adds, that in the second epistle 
 the subjects proceed in regular order, and uninter- 
 ruptedly, while the first is remarkable for detached 
 and independent sentences (see 1 Pet. i. 3-12). 
 
 But in compensation for these differences, the 
 resemblances, are remarkably striking. One of 
 the most obvious of these is the reference in both 
 to the deluge, and the number of persons saved, 
 the first epistle mentioning eight persons (1 Pet. 
 iii. 20), and the second speaking of Noah the 
 eighth , oySoov Nwe biKaLocrvyrjs K7}pvKa (2 Pet. 
 
 ii. 5). Some, however, here connect Noah with 
 the following words, via., Noah, the eighth 
 preacher of righteousness , com paring it with the 
 parallel passage in Jude, ‘Enoch, the seventh from 
 Adam,’ the Jews having various ways of enume- 
 rating the good men who lived before Abraham 
 iXllmann, Der zioeite Brief P.). 
 
 There are some words used in a peculiar 
 reuse by the author of each epistle, as diroQtais 
 (1 Pet. iii. 21 ; 2 Pet. i. 14) ; aperg (1 Pet. ii. 
 0; 2 Pet. i. 3); a warptyeodai (1 Pet. i. 17); 
 aua(Trpo(pg (1 Pet. i. 15; ii. 12; iii. 1. 17); 
 dfiatgos and acrmXos (1 Pet. i. 19; 2 Pet. ii. 
 13); 7 ropeveadcu (l Pet. iv. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 10; 
 
 iii. 3); emdopia (1 Pet. i. 14; 2 Pet. ii. 10; 
 iii. 3); 6 Kaheoas (1 Pet. i. 15; ii. 9, 21); 
 and 15'tos (l Pet. ii-i. 1,5; 2 Pet. i. 20 ; ii. 16, 
 22; iii. 16). Some critics have, indeed, vindi- 
 cated the genuineness of the epistle principally 
 on the ground of resemblance in both sentiment 
 and diction. Of these it will be sufficient for our 
 purpose to refer to Hug and Michaelis. The 
 former of these observes that the resemblance 
 between the two is ‘ so thorough as to denote an 
 identity of authorship’ (Fosdick’s transl.) ; and 
 Michaelis had before this asserted (/. c.) that the 
 agreement between them appeared to him to be 
 such, ‘ that if the second was ntft written by St. Pe- 
 ter, the person who forged it not only possessed the 
 power of imitation in a very unusual degree, but 
 understood likewise the design of the first epistle, 
 with which the ancients do not appear to have 
 been acquainted.’ The principal difference of 
 style, however, is found in the second chapter, the 
 character of which is totally unlike anything 
 contained in the first epistle. The resemblance, 
 indeed, between this chapter and the short epistle 
 jf St. Jude is so striking, that it has been at all 
 lines perceived that one must have at least read, 
 If not copied from the other. 
 
 All those theologians who have disputed the 
 genuineness of Peter’s second epistle, have main- 
 tained that its writer adopted the sentiments and 
 language of Jude, and this opinion is favoured even 
 by many of the modern advocates of its genuine- 
 ness, including Olshausen and Hug. But which of 
 the two wrote first is, notwithstanding, a question 
 impossible to decide. ‘ St. Jude’s Epistle is so 
 like the second chapter of St. Peter’s Second 
 Epistle,’ says Bishop Sherlock, * the figures and 
 images in both are so much the same, .... 
 that it ha3 been commoidy thought that St. Jude 
 copied after St. Peter’s Epistle.’ This was the more 
 generally received opinion, and was held among 
 the ancients by CEcumenius (ii. p. 633), and 
 maintained at the time of the Reformation by 
 Luther, who observes, in his Preface, that ‘ no one 
 can deny that Jude's Epistle is an extract or 
 copy flora St Peter’s Second Epistle, as the very 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 509 
 
 words are nearly the same .... and allegeth 
 stories which have no place in Scripture’ [Enoch ; 
 Jude] ; see also Edinburgh Reviciv, Oct. 1834, 
 and the extract from it in Mr. Ward’s Ideal of a 
 Christian Church , 1814, p. 175, where Luther is 
 reproached for maintaining this opinion. It wa3, 
 however, adopted by Mill ( Proleg .). Michaelis 
 (Introd.)* Storr (Opuse.), Haenlein ( Einleit.), 
 Dahl (De avdevTia Ep. Petr, poster, et Jud.), 
 Wetstein (Test. Nov.), and among the Roman 
 Catholics by Du Pin and Calmet. One set of 
 critics have supposed that, one of the writers of 
 these epistles had intended to illustrate at large 
 what the other had briefly stated ; others, that one 
 sought to abridge what the other had stated dif- 
 fusely. The former of these views is maintained 
 by Hug and Olshausen. The latter writer founds 
 his view on the fact that Peter does not give the 
 minute statements found in Jude, especially in 
 regard to the history of angels ; in which pas 
 sages Jude alone goes into details, while Peter 
 advances a general historical fact, — which he con- 
 ceives to be characteristic of a later composition. 
 
 Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, adopted • 
 middle course. Perceiving that the argument 
 from the style affected only the second chapter, 
 which ‘abounds in pompous words and expres- 
 sions,’ and that the style of this chapter differed 
 as much from the rest of the second epistle as it 
 does from the first, he conceived that neitner 
 writer borrowed from the other, but that each 
 made use of a common document. The expla- 
 nation of St. Jerome, that Peter used two different 
 interpreters, the bishop entirely rejects, as, if this 
 were the case, the diffeteiice of style would have 
 appeared in the whole epistle, and not in the 
 second chapter only. The bishop conceives that 
 notwithstanding the remarkable resemblance be- 
 tween both, there is sufficient variation to prove 
 that the one was not a mere transcriber of the other’s 
 thoughts or language. ‘ St. Peter has an instance 
 not to be found in Jude ; and St. Jiule has an in- 
 stance not to be found in Peter : St. Jude quotes 
 the prophecy of Enoch, of which St. Peter says no- 
 thing ; St. Peter refers to the preaching of Noah, of 
 which St. Jude says nothing, although both relate 
 to one and the same thing, the destruction of the 
 old world.’ The circumstance that each quotes 
 from a common Hebrew document will, in his 
 lordship's judgment, account not only for the 
 difference in style between Peter's two epistles, 
 but for that which exists between the second 
 chapter and the first and third of Peter’s second 
 epistle. The bishop at the same time admits 
 that there are some instances of agreement which 
 cannot possibly be drawn from any Jewish book 
 (as 2 Pet. ii. 1-13, comp, with Jude 4-12; and 
 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3, with Jude 17, 18). He therefore 
 supposes that Jude had both the Second Epistle 
 of Peter and the old Jewish book before him. 
 Herder supposes tins lost book to have been the 
 Zendavesta of Zoroaster. The strongest objection 
 to Bishop Sherlock’s ingenious conjecture will be 
 found in the fact that the resemblance to the 
 epistle of St. Jude is not confined to the second 
 chapter of Peter's Second Epistle, but will be 
 found equally str.king in the third chapter, 
 amounting, in the originals, although not in the 
 English authorized version, nearly to identity of 
 expression (comp. 2 Pet. iii. 2, 3, pvriodrjvai r£> 
 irpoeipr]p.4vuv fafiarwy ti rb riv ayicay vootpip 
 
5.0 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 ko2 T7/S T Q}V d^O(TT<i\CO^ Tjfl WV ivToXrjs TOV KVp'tOV 
 
 xal (rooTTjpos’ tovto irpurov yivaxrKovres, on iXev- 
 aovrai eV eVxarcov twi/ ppepwv iv ip.TraiyiJ.ovfj 
 epiraiKTat Kara, ras Iblas iiriOoplas avrcov, &c., 
 with Jude 17, IS, pvfi<r9r)T€ rwv fr^pdrcnv rwv 
 Trpoeip7\/j.evcav inrb twv diroaroX^v tov Kvpiov 
 Tjpwv 'lr}(rov Xpurrov, oti eXeyov vpiv '6ri, eV’ ecr- 
 X& T ov xp& vov iXevffovrat ipiraiKTai Kara ras 
 eavrcov ijriQvpias . &c. A late eminent critic, 
 perceiving that the opponents of thg epistle were 
 induced by this resemblance of the second 
 epistle to St. Jude to deny its genuineness, main- 
 tained that this resemblance was accidental, and 
 has endeavoured to show that the secopd chapter 
 i3 an interpolation, and that without it there is a 
 closer connection between the first and third 
 chapters (Bertholdt, Einleitung in die Schriften 
 des A. wul N. Test.). But it has been satisfac- 
 torily shown in reply, that though the second 
 chapter has no necessary connection with either 
 the first or third, yet there are references in 
 the third chapter to matters propounded iri the 
 second. Bertholdt conceives that the argument 
 against the epistle, founded on the difference of 
 style, is met by adopting his view, as the first 
 and third chapters agree in style with the first 
 epistle. Olshausen maintains, in reply to this, 
 that the circumstance of Peter's having appro- 
 priated a great part of Jude's epistle, will of itself 
 account for the difference of style in the second 
 chapter ; and that there is no discrepancy between 
 the style of the first and second epistles of Peter, 
 which is not common to every part of the second 
 epistle, or strikingly peculiar to the first and third 
 chapters. The hypothesis of Bertholdt, even if 
 true, would not remove the difficulties, as many 
 of the circumstances which have been supposed 
 to militate against the genuineness of the epistle 
 are found in the first, and still more in the third 
 chapter. It would be doing an unnecessary vio- 
 lence to our epistle, in direct opposition to all 
 external testimony. 
 
 Ullmann proceeded one step farther. ‘ Not long 
 since,’ says Hug, ‘ the Second Epistle of Peter 
 met with an opponent, who menaced its dismem- 
 berment, and maintained his right to do this 
 violence with learning and acuteness.’ He sepa- 
 rates it into three distinct portions, which happen 
 to correspond with the present division into chap- 
 ters. The first chapter he ascribes to Peter, and 
 considers it to be one of his epistles, the conclusion 
 of which was early lost. To this precious relic 
 some unknown person, to effect a well-meant 
 purpose, has added the two next chapters, for 
 which the Epistle of Jude afforded him mate- 
 rials. The object of this writer, as well as of 
 Bertholdt, is to vindicate the genuineness of part 
 of the epistle, by rejecting those parts which are 
 beset with greatest difficulties. 
 
 But while Ullmann, the divine alluded to 
 (Der zxceite Brief Pet. krit. untersucht , 1821), 
 clearly shows that Bertholdt's hypothesis merely 
 lessens, without removing the difficulty, his own 
 solution of the remaining objections, which con- 
 sists simply in cutting the knot, has not been such 
 as to satisfy any reasonable mind. He argues 
 from a resemblance in style between St. Peter's 
 first epistle, and the first chapter of the second, 
 and particularly from the use in each of certain 
 word# in a peculiar sense, a3 aperij, airiQems, 
 &c , that these portions emanated from the 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 same writer, ana further maintains that then 
 is no coherence between the first chapiter and the 
 remaining portions of the epistle. But it has 
 been shown that this incoherence exists only in 
 the fancy of the learned German, as the first 
 chapter (4, 16, 17) is but a preface to the re- 
 futation of erroneous opinions in the second 
 (Hug's Tntrod.)‘, and, further, from a comparison 
 of -the first with the third chapter, that there a-e 
 sufficient resemblances of expression to show that 
 the whole epistle had an identical origin (Olshau- 
 sen, De Integritate et authent. post. Pet. ep.). 
 
 But although neither these resemblances be- 
 tween the Epistles of Peter and Jude, nor the 
 difference in style between the First and Second 
 Epistles of St. Peter, are of themselves sufficient 
 to destroy tire genuineness of St. Peter's enistle 
 vet they would doubtless have some weight in 
 affecting it, if supported by other internal marks 
 of spuriousness. We shall therefore now consider 
 whether such marks actually exist, and shall 
 mention the principal indications which have 
 had weight in the minds of some learned men 
 against the authority of our epistle. In the first, 
 place, anachronisms have been pretended to be 
 discovered which remove the epistle from the 
 apostolic age and place it in the second century. 
 The first, who imagined that he discovered an 
 indication of this nature was the illustrious Gro- 
 tius, who, conceiving that, the errors of the Car- 
 pocuatians, a sect which originated in the second 
 century, were those against which the second and 
 third chapters were directed, ascribed the author- 
 ship of the epistle, not to Simon or Simeon Peter, 
 but to Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, the successor 
 of St. James. This opinion, however, whicn 
 assumes upon mere conjecture that the name 
 Peter (i. 1), the words our beloved brother (iii. 
 15), and the 16th, 17th, and 18th verses of the 
 first chapter, were interpolated by those who 
 wished to have the epistle pass for Peter's, 
 has been long exploded (see especially Nietzch, 
 Epist. Petri posterior auctori suo imprimis 
 cont. Grotium vindicata , Leips. 1785), and Bert- 
 hold, Einleitung , vol. vi. p. 310, sq.). Nietzch 
 has shown that the representation of the heretics 
 described by Peter does not accord with the Car- 
 pocratians. It is as probable that the Gnostics 
 were the heretics aimed at, the seeds of whose 
 heresies were doubtless sown in the apostolic age. 
 ‘This second Epistle’ (iii. 1), in the opinion of 
 Grotius, refers to the third chapter only, the two for- 
 mer chapters forming a distinctand previous letter. 
 
 The doubts respecting the coming of Christ, 
 expressed in 2 Pet. iii. 4, have also been consi- 
 dered as indicating a later age than the apostolic, 
 and it has been asserted by the opponents of the 
 genuineness of our epistle, that sufficient time 
 had not elapsed during St. Peter’s lifetime for the 
 application* of the expression ‘our fathers have 
 slept.’ This passage is also one of those adduced 
 by Ullmann ( l . c .) against the genuineness of the 
 third chapter. Olshausen has replied to this ob- 
 jection by maintaining that the scoffers referred 
 to were not believers, but gnostic heretics, who 
 ridiculed the faith of true Christians in relation to 
 the return of Christ. 
 
 But a still more remarkable anachronism ha* 
 been pretended to be discovered in 2 Pet. iii. 15, 
 16, where Paul is said ‘ in all his epistles . . 
 which the unlearned aj/J unstable de wrest as they 
 
511 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 do the other Scriptures' ( ras honras ypa<pds), &c. 
 — thus both attributing a collection of the Pauline 
 epistles to a period within the lifetime of their 
 author, and applying the term Scriptures, which 
 is exclusively applied by the New Testament 
 writers to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, to 
 the Epistles of St. Paul. Now it is well known 
 that there was no collection of St. Paul's epistles 
 completed before the second century, and that to 
 no part of the New Testament, was the term Scrip- 
 tures applied until near its close [Scripture, 
 Holy]. In respect, to the former part, of this objec- 
 tion, however, it has been well shown by August! 
 ( Commentar iiber die Cathol. Brief.) that Peter 
 loes not here refer to all the epistles of St. Paul, but 
 that the word all is to be taken relatively, and re- 
 ferred to the more important epistles, which were 
 most probably widely diffused in the lifetime of 
 the apostle. To the reasoning derived from the 
 phrase 1 the other Scriptures ,’ wherein the word 
 Xonrds with the article is said by Ullmann to indi- 
 cate things of a like nature, more than one reply 
 has been given. It has been shown that things of 
 a different nature are sometimes referred to by this 
 phrase (comp. Luke xviii. 9 ; Acts v. 13 ; Ephes. ii. 
 3 ; and iv. 17, if (lie reading be correct). Another 
 interpretation of the words has therefore been pro- 
 posed, viz., that the word ‘scriptures ’ here has no 
 reference to the sacred writings, but to books in 
 general, or such writings as were used by the parties 
 referred to. Olshausen, however, has given an in- 
 terpretation, by which he conceives the serious diffi- 
 culties by which this passage is beset may be wholly 
 removed. He supposes that the words, ‘ in which 
 are some things hard to be understood,’ relate to 
 the epistles which Paul had sent to the readers of 
 Peter's epistle, and that, the other scriptures are 
 the other eptstles of St. Paul, just before named, 
 iraaai imaToXal (all his epistles). This expla- 
 nation seems much more satisfactory than that 
 of Storr (De Cath. Epist. Occas. et Consil.), 
 who conceives that "other scriptures’ mean other 
 passages in the same epistles of St. Paul, as 
 ypeuprf signifies a passage in Mark xv. 28, Luke 
 iv. 21, where, however, it means a particular pas- 
 sage, but not any passage indiscriminately. 
 
 An objection of quite a different character has 
 been derived from 2 Pet. iii. 2, already referred 
 to ; in our English Version, ‘ the commandment 
 of us the apostles of the Lord.’ But the order 
 of the words in our Greek copies will not bear 
 his rendering : to answer our Version, we must 
 ead pfjLwv t&v ’ Arcoarihoov. These words, there- 
 fore, ‘ our apostles,’ as the words must be 
 translated, would seem to separate the writers 
 from the apostles. Bishop Sherlock proposes that 
 the sentence be transposed, and that the word 
 rux&v be placed after Kvplou, as in the parallel 
 passage in Jude 17, when the whole sentence 
 would run thus, ual rrjs roiv 'AttocttoAcjov eyroXrjs 
 tou uvpiov r\pS>v Kal (Ttorripos, ‘ the command- 
 ment of the apostles of our Lord and Saviour;’ 
 a reading supported by the yEthiopic, and which 
 Olshausen also favours, observing that ‘ there are 
 as many genitives as there are words, and 
 these not following each other in proper order.’ 
 But there is no necessity for having recourse' t6 ! 
 conjecture, if we adopt the reading of the Alex- 
 andrine, the Vatican, the Ephrem, and other 
 manuscripts, which instead of rjpwu have vpwy. 
 According to this reading there is no further dif- 
 
 PETER, EPISTLES OF. 
 
 ficulty, and the sentence will stand thus: ‘the 
 word spoken by the holy prophets and your 
 apostles, the commandment of ths Lord and 
 Saviour.’ This reading is also confirmed by the 
 Vulgate, which has ‘et. apostolormn veslrorum, 
 praeceptorum Domini et Salvatoris.’ The Syriac 
 also reads, ‘the commandment of our Lord and 
 Saviour, which through the apostles,’ 
 
 On another alleged anachronism, brought for- 
 ward by Neamler {Hist, of the Planting , §c.), 
 founded on ihe phrase ‘ the holy mount’ (2 Pet. i. 
 18), we shall merely observe that this might with 
 as much force fie adduced as an argument against, 
 our epistle being a work of the second century. 
 
 An objection has been also taken from Peter's 
 referring to the aqueous origin of the earth and 
 its destruction by tire, which Ullmann and others 
 consider mythical in their character. But. so 
 far from this being the case in regard to the origin 
 of the earth, it completely coincides with the 
 Mosaic cosmogony ; and as to the destruction of 
 the world by fire, although nowhere else alluded 
 to in the New Testament, it is not only intimated 
 by the prophets, but is in strict accordance with 
 the physiological conclusions of the science of 
 modem geology. If Wetstein's interpretation be 
 well founded, and if the writer made use of these 
 strong figures to indicate the Roman v^ar, and the 
 destruction of the Jewish state and city, instead of 
 forming an objection, they will furnish an addi- 
 tional and powerful argument in favour of the 
 early date, and consequently of the genuineness 
 of our epistle. 
 
 It is fully conceded that there is no other book 
 in the New Testament against whose authority so 
 many arguments can be adduced as against this 
 epistle. One of the most impartial as well as 
 ablest critics of modem times, after weighing 
 them all, comes to the conclusion that neither its 
 genuineness nor its spuriousness can be demon- 
 strated by undoubted arguments; but, while he 
 admits that unfriendly critics will see occasion 
 for doubt, yet, relying on subjective grounds, he 
 is persuaded of the authenticity of the epistle, 
 and that the arguments which go to disprove 
 its genuineness are not of sufficient weight to 
 establish its spuriousness, or cause it to be 
 ‘ stricken from the number of inspired books/ 
 This is in accordance with the decision which 
 he has formed of the sacred books, and whifjh 
 consists (1 ) of those whose genuineness and author- 
 ship can be determined ; (2) of those whose spuri- 
 ousness can be shown, of which there are none; 
 (3) of those whose author is uncertain, but whose 
 authenticity is clear, viz., Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 
 John, and Jude ; and (4), those whose authenticity 
 or spuriousness cannot be positively ascertained. 
 These are, in his estimation, 1 and 2 Timothy, 
 Titus, and 2 Peter. To these he adds the Apo- 
 calypse, as being a work of a peculiar kind, but 
 of whose genuineness he entertains no doubt 
 (Olshausen, ut supra ) . 
 
 The authorship of other portions of the sacred 
 writings may indeed be rendered uncertain, without 
 throwing any doubts on their right to a place in the 
 canon, as in the instance of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews. No one contesls the right, of the Epistles of 
 Jude or of James to their present, position in the 
 canon, although it is uncertain whether their au 
 thors were the apostles of those names or the br« 
 thren of our Lord. But it is La otherwise with tb« 
 
51* 
 
 PETRA. 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 Epistle of St. Peter. As Calvin lias observed, 
 
 ‘ If it is to be received as canonical, Peter must 
 
 have been its author ; for any other one to 
 
 have personated the apostle would have been a 
 deception unworthy the Christian name. 1 It has 
 been indeed maintained that some well-meaning 
 individual may have personated Peter, either to 
 intimate that a reconciliation had taken place 
 between him and St. Paul, to strengthen the 
 minds of the Gentiles who doubted the coming 
 of Christ, or the more easily to gain advantage 
 over the heretics. But although it may be true 
 that some writers have through modesty (see 
 Lee's Dissertation upon 2 Esdras ; Laurence’s 
 Ascensio Vatis Isaice, p. 178; and the Rev. W. 
 Mascall’s Preface to the Ancient Liturgy of the 
 Church of England, 1844) used another’s name 
 and prefixed it to their work, we are convinced, 
 with Olshausen, from the internal structure of our 
 epistle, that it would not have been possible to 
 have found a pious man the bold and unblushing 
 inventor of a literary artifice so manifest as the 
 author in question must have been if lie had dis- 
 honestly assumed the character of Peter. We 
 must also bear in mind how cautious and discri- 
 minating were the Fathers of the Church, who 
 first admitted this book into the cation. Nor 
 were they strangers to the application of the 
 higher criticism, while they had opportunities of 
 adducing external evidence, which is not within 
 our reach. ‘Higher criticism, 1 says Hug, ‘is 
 still open to us, and I even entertain the hope of 
 drawing from it manifest proofs of the genuine- 
 ness of some of these epistles, particularly those 
 of James and Jmle, and the Second of St. Peter. 1 
 Its apostolical character is confessed. ‘ In the 
 two epistles of Peter,’ says Priest ley, ‘ many atten- 
 tive readers have observed that there is a 
 
 peculiar dignity and energy, exceeding any thing 
 in the writings of Paul, and worthy of the prince 
 of the apostles' {Hist, of Christian Church, i. 141; 
 see also Wright’s Seiler, p. 513). 
 
 By those who acknowledge its genuineness 
 its date is generally fixed about the year a.d. 65, 
 or not long before Peter’s death, which they deduce 
 from 2 Pef. i. 14. W etstein concludes from 2 Pet. 
 iii. that it must have been written before the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, in which case none will 
 allege that any hut. Peter could have been its 
 author. If it were proved that Peter had Jude’s 
 epistle before him, this must have been written not 
 long before the same period, which agrees with 
 the time assigned by l)r. Lardner, between 64 
 and 66 [Jude]. But if Jude certainly quoted 
 the hook of Enoch, and if the result of the inves- 
 tigation of Liicke, who concludes that this book 
 was written in the first century, at the time of 
 the Jewish war, and probably after the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, be correct, this circumstance would 
 of itself, cccteris paribus, settle the question in 
 favour of the priority of St. Peter's second epistle 
 [Jude]. Bishop Sherlock maintains that there 
 are no less than five years intervening between 
 the date of the two epistles of Peter (see Dissert- 
 ation oi' the Authority of the Second Epistle of 
 fit. Peter ).—W. W. 
 
 PETRA (called by the earlier Greek writers 
 flerpa or 7) n erpa, but by the later at Tier pat) 
 was the capital of the Nabathaean Arabs in the 
 land of Edom, and seems to have given name to 
 the kingdom and region of Arabia Petrcea. As 
 
 there is mention in the Old Testament of a 
 stronghold which successively belonged to the 
 Amorites (Judg. i. 36), tbe Edomites (2 Kings 
 xiv. 7) and the Moabites (Isa. xvi. 1, comp, in 
 Heb. eli. xlii. 11), and bore in Hebrew the name 
 
 of Selah, which lias the same meaning as 
 Petra in Greek, viz., ‘a rock, 1 that circumstance 
 lias led to the conjecture that the Petra of the 
 Nabatliaeans had been the Selah of Edom. But 
 the consideration of that point in a work of this 
 nature falls more naturally under the Bible liead 
 of Sei.ah, to which article accordingly the 
 reader is referred; and there likewise the question 
 will lie disposed of as to whether (on the suppo- 
 sition of Petra being the Selah of Scripture) its 
 site is to be identified with that of the modern 
 Kerek, or with the locality of the far-famed Wady 
 Musa [Arabia; Idumaea; Ne3aiotii]. — N.M. 
 
 PHARAOH (riina t Sept. Zapata), the ge- 
 neral title of the kings of Egypt in the Old 
 Testament, and found only there and in the 
 writers who have drawn from that source. It 
 often stands simply like a proper name (Gen. xii. 
 15; xxxvii. 36; xl. 2, sq. ; xliv. 1, sq. ; and so 
 generally throughout the Pentateuch, and also in 
 Cant. i. 9; Isa. xix. 11; xxx. 2). ‘King of 
 Egypt 1 is sometimes subjoined to it. (1 Kings 
 iii. 1; 2 Kings xvii. 7; xviii. 2l); and some- 
 times also the more specific designation, or real 
 proper name of the monarch is indicated, as Pha- 
 raoh Neclio (2 Kings xxiii. 33), Pharaoh Hophra 
 (Jer. xliv. 30). Josephus intimates that the word 
 signifies ‘the king 1 in the Egyptian language 
 {Antiq. viii. 6. 2), This is apparently confirmed 
 by our finding the word ‘ king 1 written in the 
 dialect of Memphis, O'Y'JOO ouro, and with the 
 masculine article TIO'PpO piouro (Jablonsky, 
 Opusc. i. 374; Peyron, Lex. Copt., p. 150). The 
 idea has, however, been more recently started that 
 Pharaoh corresponds to the Egyptian C |j-J0hf 
 phra, ‘ the sun, 1 which is written as an hierogly- 
 phic symbol over the titles of kings (Rosellini, 
 Monument. Storici. i. 117; Lipsius, Lettre d 
 Rosellini , p. 25 ; Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians, iv. 
 287). It. seems to us that this explanation might 
 be admitted without, contradicting the other, see- 
 ing that it is not. only possible, but highly pro- 
 bable, that the Egyptians should make the name 
 of the suu a royal title, and that, at length custom 
 rendered it equivalent to ‘ king. 1 The practice 
 of ancient, and, indeed, modern Oriental kings, of 
 associating (lie idea of their own dignity wi(4i the 
 glory of the sun, is well-known. 
 
 PHARAOH-HOPHRA. [IIophra.] 
 
 PH ARAOH-N ECHO. TN echo.] 
 
 PHARISEES (in the Talmud The 
 
 name denotes those who are separated, i.e. from 
 ordinary persons, of course, by the correctness of 
 their opinions and the holiness of their lives. They 
 were a Jewish sect who had the dominant influ- 
 ence in the t ime of our Lord, to whose faults the 
 overthrow of the state may be attributed, and wh« 
 have to bear the awful burden of having crucified 
 the Lord and giver of life. 
 
 A full and accurate knowledge of the Pharisees 
 is even more important to the reader of the New 
 Testament than of the two other leading philo- 
 sophical schools, because our Lord’s doctrine has 
 an immediate reference to their several opinions* 
 
PHARISEES. 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 because these opinions constituted the source of the 
 power which was arrayed against him, and because, 
 absurdly enough, it has been asserted (as what 
 paradox has not?) that Jesus did but borrow from 
 these schools what suited his purpose, so that his 
 system is nothing more than an heterogeneous 
 compound of old Jewish doctrines, dressed up 
 anew in order to serve a new purpose (Hennell’s 
 Enquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity ; 
 London, 183S). 
 
 The force of character which Moses possessed, 
 the wisdom he displayed, and the excellence of his 
 institutions in general, are seen in the fact that 
 for many centuries after his death no sect arose 
 among the Jews. Such was the deep impression 
 which he made on the Hebrew nation that, they 
 ever after retained it, and only under peculiar cir- 
 cumstances allowed any disturbing and effacing 
 influences to affect it. So long as the culture of 
 the nation flowed on in its own original and proper 
 channel, the Jewish religion was free from even a 
 trace of sectism. But when foreign influences 
 came into immediate contact and entered into 
 close union with Mosaism, then the grounds were 
 laid for diversities of opinion, and ere long, as a 
 natural consequence of diverse currents of impulse, 
 there came into existence different parties, agree- 
 ing in scarcely more than one thing, namely, 
 they were all of a religious description. 
 
 The precise period when the Pharisees appeared 
 as a sect, history does not supply us with the means 
 of determining. That they, however, as well as 
 their natural opponents, the Sadducees, existed in 
 the priesthood of Jonathan, in the interval, that is, 
 between 159 and 144 before Christ, is known from 
 Josephus, who ( Antiq . xiii. 5) makes mention of 
 them as well as of the sect of the Essenes. The 
 terms he employs warrant the conviction that they 
 were then no novelties, but well known, well de- 
 fined, and two established religious parties. But 
 from the time of Jonathan to that of Ezra (about 
 460 b.c.), there had taken place no great forma- 
 tive event such as could of itself cause so great a 
 change in the Hebrew system as was the rise of 
 these sects ; whereas the influences to which the 
 Israelites had been subject in the Medo- Persian 
 dominions, and the necessarily somewhat new 
 direction which things took on the rebuilding of 
 the Temple and the restoration of the civil and 
 religious polity, could hardly fail, considering the 
 distance from Moses at which these changes tap- 
 per >d, arid the great extent to which the people 
 had lost even the knowledge of the institutions and 
 language of their forefathers, to lead to diversities 
 of views, interests, and aims, whence sects would 
 spring as a natural if not inevitable result. There is, 
 therefore, good reason to refer the origin of the Phari- 
 sees to the time of the return from tire Babylonish 
 capt’vity, a period which constitutes a marked 
 epoch, as dividing the Hebraism of the older and 
 purer age from the Judaism of the later and more 
 corrupt times. Nor, did our space allow, should we 
 find it difficult to trace the leading featuies of the 
 Pharisaic character back to those peculiar opinions 
 and usages wdth which the old Israelitish type of 
 mind had been made familiar, and at the same time 
 corrupt, in the Persian empire. Nor are we aware 
 that any solid objection can be taken to this refer- 
 ence of the rise of the Pharisees, provided it is un- 
 derstood that we do not suppose that they sprang 
 forth, as Minerva in the legend, complete at once. 
 
 VOL. 8X« 34 
 
 M3 
 
 These sects lay in embryo among the Jews while 
 scattered over the provinces of Persia, were brougat 
 forth at the rebuilding- of the Temple, and grew 
 continually in strength till the days of Christ and 
 the overthrow of Jerusalem — division in this, as in 
 all other cases, proving weakness, and issuing in 
 ruin. The Mosaic institutions were in themselves 
 sharply defined and strongly sanctioned, nor could 
 there well originate in them any important differ- 
 ences, still less any sects. But in Persia the scat 
 tered Jews were subjected to new and impure cur- 
 rents of opinion, which would do something to over- 
 flow and overlay the primitive doctrines and usages. 
 Here, then, was at once a soil for sectism. Puri- 
 tans would spring up wishing to preserve or restore 
 the original form of doctrine and worship. They 
 naturally called forth defenders of things as they 
 were. But in the disputes which would hence arise, 
 appeal must be made to reason, for the voice of pro- 
 phecy was extinct, the divine oracles were silent; 
 there remained only the Scriptures and the inter- 
 pretation of them by meansof tradition — aquestion- 
 ed instrument — and reason, to which all were, in 
 the nature of the case, compelled to appeal. But 
 when there is a general appeal 1o reason in reli- 
 gious questions, then philosophy is born in the 
 church, and may be expected to take the several 
 directions into which the diversities of formation 
 and complexion urge the mind of man to run. 
 Accordingly it is the name philosophy which 
 Josephus gives to the three leading sects — ‘the Jews 
 had three sects of philosophy ’ (Antiq. xviii. 1,2; 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 12). This philosophical tendency 
 would, in process of time, be strengthened by 
 the influence of the Western world, whose phi- 
 losophy was cultivated and spread in the East, 
 and particularly at Alexandria. Unlike the 
 philosophy of the Greeks, however, which had 
 scarcely anything but a human ground on which 
 to stand and labour, the Jewish sects made « 
 divine revelation the object of their philosophical 
 research, and so were saved from the grosser errors 
 and absurd wanderings into which the Gieek 
 schools were led while in pursuit of the airy 
 visions of their own heated brain. 
 
 There is a tendency in all institutions to grow 
 in process of time. Perhaps the tendency to grow 
 corrupt is not less certain. In the rich and teenr 
 ing soil of Persia, Hebraism could do no other thar 
 become rank. Accretions woidd also be made 
 and those in great number. But every accretion 
 would, of course, have the sanction which belonged 
 to the primitive form. There never could be any 
 corruption of religion, did not each new opinion oi 
 practice contrive to get to its behalf the sanction 
 of the old and recognised type. Corruptions dc 
 not come as corruptions. Accretions fasten lliem- 
 selves on to an ancient institution, and are then 
 defended as old ; or they spring out of the body 
 of the institution itself, and then appear a natural 
 offshoot. Any way the old sanctions and perpe- 
 tuates the new. 
 
 Thus the very soil in which Hebraism lay 
 during the captivity, was fitted to produce the phi- 
 losophy of the Pharisees, which was essentially 
 conservative and aggregative. It, in all times 
 and cases, kept the old, howsoever abundant it 
 became, and did not reject the new, provided its 
 nature and tendency were to add anil not to take 
 away. Hence theirs was a system of positive be- 
 liefs, distinguished rather by its exuberance than 
 
514 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 its purity, retentive of what was established, vene- 
 rating past ages, decrying novelties though having 
 its very essence in novelties, and excluding all 
 reform as hostile alike to God and man. This 
 tendency to aggregation on the part of the Phari- 
 sees is well described by Tertullian (De Prtescrip. 
 c. 45) : ‘ Pharisaeos qui additamenta quaedam 
 legi adstruendoa Judaeisdivisi sunt,' — making the 
 very ground of their separation and the reason of 
 their name to lie in the additions which they 
 made to the ancient law. This same characteristic 
 is found recognised by Josephus, when he ascribes 
 to them the preservation, if not the invention, of 
 tradition. 
 
 But as we think it more for tne reader’s in- 
 struction to lay before him the very words in 
 which this sect is described, than to give a philo- 
 sophical account of the rise and connection of their 
 principles, to which of necessity our own views 
 would impart a colouring, we shall proceed to 
 transcribe a nearly literal translation of the most 
 important passages in question. 
 
 ‘ The Pharisees have delivered to the people a 
 great many observances by succession from their 
 fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses, 
 and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject 
 them, and say that we are to esteem those observ- 
 ances to be obligatory which are in the written 
 word, but are not to observe what are derived from 
 the tradition of our forefathers. Hence great dis- 
 putes. The Sadducees are able to persuade none 
 but the rich, and have not the populace obsequi- 
 ous to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude 
 on their side.’ ‘ The Pharisees are not apt to be 
 severe in punishments’ (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 10. 
 5 and 6 ; Epiphan. Heer. 15). 
 
 ‘The Pharisees live meanly and despise deli- 
 cacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of 
 reason, and what that prescribes to them as good 
 they do. They also pay respect to such as are 
 in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict 
 them in anything which they have introduced ; 
 and when they determine that all things are done 
 by fate, they do not take away from men the 
 freedom of acting as they think fit, since their no- 
 tion is that it hath pleased God to make a consti- 
 tution of things whereby what he wills is done, 
 but so that the will of man can act virtuously or 
 viciously. They also believe that souls have an 
 immortal vigour in them, and that under the 
 earth there will be rewards or punishments, accord- 
 ing as men have # lived virtuously or viciously in 
 this life. The latter are to be detained in an ever- 
 lasting prison ; but the former shall have power to 
 revive and live again : on account of which doc- 
 trine they are able greatly to persuade the body 
 of the people : and whatsoever is done about divine 
 worship, prayers, and sacrifices, is performed ac- 
 cording to their directions, insomuch that the cities 
 gave great attestations to them on account of their 
 entire virtuous conduct’ (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1. 
 3 > 
 
 ‘ The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most 
 skilful in the exact interpretation of the laws. 
 They ascribe all to Fate (or Providence) and to 
 God, and yet allow that to act what is right or the 
 contrary is for the most part in the power of man. 
 They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that 
 the souls of good men only are removed intoother 
 bodies, and that the souls of bad men are subject 
 eternal punishment. Moreover, the Pharisees are 
 
 friendly to one another, and are for tue exercise 
 of concord and regard for the public ’ (Joseph, 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14). 
 
 ‘ The Pharisees are a sect of Jews which appear 
 to be more pious than others, and to expound the 
 laws more accurately. These Pharisees artfully 
 insinuated themselves into her (Queen Alexan- 
 dra’s) favour by little and little, and became the 
 real administrators of public affairs ; they banish - 
 ed and restored whom they pleased ; they bound 
 and loosed at their pleasure ; they had the enjoy- 
 ment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses 
 and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra. 
 She was a sagacious woman in the management ot 
 great affairs, and became not only very powerful 
 at. home, but terrible also to foreign potentates ; 
 while she governed other people, the Pharisees go- 
 verned her. She was so superstitious as to comply 
 with their desires, and accordingly they slew whom 
 they pleased’ (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 5. 2, 3). 
 
 ‘ There was a certain sect that were Jews, who 
 valued themselves highly upon the exact skill 
 they had in the law of their fathers, and made men 
 believe they were highly favoured by God, by 
 whom this set of women were inveigled. These 
 are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, 
 who were able to make great opposition to kings ; a 
 cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a 
 pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Ac- 
 cordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave 
 assurance of their good will to Caesar and to the 
 king’s government, these men did not swear, being 
 about 6000 ; and when the king imposed a fine 
 upon them, Plneroras’ wife paid it. In order tc 
 requite this kindness, since they were believed tc 
 have a foreknowledge of things to come by divine 
 inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed 
 that Herod’s government should cease, and that 
 th'e kingdom should come to her and Plneroras, and 
 to their children ; so the king Herod slew such of 
 the Pharisees as were principally accused, and all 
 who had consented to what the Pharisees had fore- 
 told’ (Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 2. 4). 
 
 ‘ The Pharisees say that some actions, but not 
 all, are the work of fate (el/j.ap/xevT ]') ; that some of 
 them are in our own power, and that they are 
 liable to fate, but are not caused by fate ’ (Joseph. 
 Antiq . xiii. 5. 9). 
 
 ‘ The sect of the Pharisees are supposed to excel 
 others in the accurate knowledge of the laws of 
 their country ’ (Joseph. Vita, § 38). 
 
 ‘ The Pharisees have so great a power over the 
 multitude that when they say anything against 
 the king or against the high-priest, they are gene- 
 rally believed’ (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 10. 5). 
 
 ‘ The bodies of all men are mortal, and are cre- 
 ated out of corruptible matter ; but the soul is ever 
 immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that in- 
 habits our bodies ’ ( De Bell. Jud. iii. 8. 5). 
 
 ‘ Being now nineteen years old, I began to 
 conduct myself according to the rule of the sect 
 of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of 
 Stoics, as the Greeks call them’ (Joseph. Vita , 
 
 As Josephus himself was a Pharisee, many par- 
 ticulars respecting them may be gathered in his 
 works on occasions when he is speaking in his 
 own person or avowedly delivering an opinion. A 
 remarkable instance presents itself in the Jewish 
 War (iii. 8. 5), being an address delivered to his 
 soldiers, when in extremities, against self-destrue- 
 
PHARISEES. 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 513 
 
 nrn. We shall transcribe only such parts as bear 
 on our subject : ‘ He is equally a coward who will 
 not die when he is obliged to die, and he who will 
 die when he is not obliged so to do.’ ‘ Self-murder 
 is a crime most remote from the common nature 
 of all animals, and an instance of impiety against 
 God our Creator.’ ‘ The bodies of all men are 
 mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter ; 
 but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of 
 the divinity that inhabits our bodies. If any one 
 destroys or abuses a trust he hath received from a 
 mere man, he is esteemed wicked and perfidious; 
 but then if any one cast out of his body this divine 
 depositum, can we imagine that He who is thereby 
 affronted will not take cognizance of it?’ ‘ Do 
 not you know that those who depart out of this 
 life according to the law of nature, and pay 
 that debt when he that lent life is pleased to re- 
 quire it back again, enjoy eternal fame? that 
 their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a 
 most holy place in heaven, from whence in the 
 revolution of ages they are again sent into pure 
 bodies, while the souls of those whose hands have 
 acted madly against themselves are received by the 
 darkest place in Hades ?’ In the third section of 
 the same chapter Josephus claims for himself skill 
 in the interpretation of dreams as being means by 
 which God presignified events. This power, and his 
 acquaintance with the prophecies contained in the 
 sacred books, prompted and enabled him to address 
 ‘ a secret prayer to God ’ for aid and support : he 
 thus gives other reasons for so doing, ‘as being a 
 priest himself, and of the posterity of the priests ; 
 and just then was he in an ecstasy and set before 
 himself the tremendous images of the dreams 
 he had lately had.’ His liability to, and belief in, 
 dreams are exemplified by a passage in his life 
 (§ 42) : ‘Wonderful it was what a dream I saw 
 that very night ; for when I had betaken myself 
 to my bed, grieved and disturbed at the news that 
 had been written to me, a certain person seemed to 
 stand by me, who said,’ &c. 
 
 Josephus held worthy opinions on religious 
 liberty. Having prevented Jews from compelling 
 some heathens to submit to be circumcised, he 
 adds, ‘ Every one ought to worship God according 
 to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained 
 by force ; and these men, who have fled to us for 
 protection, must not be so treated as to repent of 
 their coming hither ’ ( Vita, § 23). 
 
 There is another source of our knowledge of the 
 Pharisees — the books of the New Testament. The 
 light in which they here appear varies, of course, 
 with the circumstances to which its origin is due. 
 The reader has just had before him the account, of 
 a friend and an adherent, an account which, there- 
 fore, we may believe, is conceived and set forth in 
 the most favourable manner. The Gospels present 
 the character of the Pharisees in a darker hue, in- 
 asmuch as here a higher standard is brought into 
 use, a loftier morality is the judge. To pass on 
 to < lie views given in the New Testament. The 
 high repute in which the Pharisees were held, as 
 expositors of the national laws, whether civil or 
 religious, may be seen in John vii. 48 ; Acts xxii. 
 3 ; the casuistry which they employed in expound- 
 ing the Scriptures, in Matt. ix. 34 ; xv. 5 ; 
 xxiii. 16 ; Mark vii. 7, sq. ; their excessive zeal 
 in proselytism, Matt, xxiii. 15 ; yet their conceal- 
 ment of light and hindrance of progress, Matt, 
 xxiii. 13; their inordinate regard for externals, 
 
 and oppressive but self-sparing rule, Matt, xxiii. 
 3, sq., 25 ; their affectation of grandeur and 
 distinction, Matt, xxiii. 5, sq. ; their shocking 
 hypocrisy, Matt, xxiii. 14, 27, sq. ; their stand- 
 ing on inconsiderable points, while they neglected 
 such as were of consequence, preferring ceremo- 
 nial rites to justice and charity, Matt, xxiii. 24 ; 
 xii. 2-7; Luke vi. 7; John ix. 16, sq. ; Mark 
 vii. 1 ; the display which they affected even in 
 works of religion, Matt. vi. 1, sq. ; xxiii. 0; 
 their pride and self-gratulation as assuredly, and 
 before others, religious men, Luke xviii. 9, sq. ; 
 their regard to tradition, Matt. xv. 2 ; Mark vii. 
 3 ; they formed schools, which had masters and 
 disciples, Matt. xxii. 16; Luke v. 33; agreeably 
 with their general doctrines, they regarded the act 
 rather than the motive, Luke xi. 39; xviii. 11, 
 sq. ; and were given to fasts, prayers, washing, 
 paying of tithes, alms, &c., Matt. ix. 14; xxiii. 
 15, 23; Luke xi. 39, sq. ; xviii. 12; exhibiting 
 themselves t® the people, in order to gain their 
 favour, as self-denying, holy men, zealous for 
 God and the law, a kind of Jewish stoics, Matt, 
 ix. 11 ; Luke v. 30 ; vi. 2; Matt, xxiii. 5, 15, 29 : 
 while in reality they were fond of the pleasures 
 of sense, and were men of lax morals, Matt. v. 20 ; 
 xv. 4, 8; xxiii. 3, 14, 23, 25; John viii. 7. At 
 an early period they determined in the Sanhe- 
 drim to withstand and destroy Jesus, instigated 
 doubtless by the boldness with which he taught 
 the necessity of personal righteousness and pure 
 worship (Matt. xii. 14). 
 
 In regard to the opinions of the Pharisees, the 
 New Testament affords only fragments of inform- 
 ation, which are, however, in accordance with the 
 fuller particulars furnished by Josephus. From 
 Acts xxiii. 6, 8, we learn that they believed in 
 the existence of higher created beings than man, 
 doubtless the good and bad spirits of the Chaldee 
 philosophy. The same places also instruct us 
 that they held a resurrection of the dead' (comp. 
 Matt. xxii. 24, sq.). 
 
 It thus appears that the Pharisees were in ge- 
 neral a powerful religious party, or rather the 
 predominant influence, in the Jewish state, who 
 aspired to the control of the civil and religious 
 institutions, affected popularity among the peo- 
 ple, exerted influence in the councils of kings, 
 queens, and people of rank ; were the recognised 
 teachers and guides of the national mind, proud 
 of their orthodoxy, pluming themselves on their 
 superior sanctity, practising austerities outwardly, 
 but inwardly indulging their passions, and de- 
 scending to unworthy and shameful acts; and 
 withal of narrow spirit, contracted views, seeking 
 rather their own aggrandisement than the public 
 good, of which they used the name merely as a 
 pretext and a cover. 
 
 In order to draw a full and complete picture 
 we ought to combine and blend together the ac- 
 counts contained in Josephus and those contained 
 in the New Testament, which, it is important to 
 observe, so entirely agree that they supplement 
 and illustrate each other, these making up for the 
 defects of those, or unfolding more fully features 
 of which the first give a bare outline or only a 
 single feature ; so that, while there is no contra- 
 diction, no incompatibility between the two, they 
 appear obviously to have been taken from the 
 same subject and from actual life ; whence, we 
 conceive, arises a very strong corroboration of the 
 
516 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 PHARISEES. 
 
 Historic credibility of the New Testament nar- 
 ratives. A difference of colouring is indeed ob- 
 servable between the picture given in Josephus 
 and that found in the Evangelists : yet the reader 
 will hardly need any aid to enable him to see 
 Dow the qualities spoken of by the first passed 
 and degenerated into those, so many of which 
 were strongly condemned by our Lord. ‘ Many 
 circumstances concurred to bring about this cor- 
 ruption. The Pharisees held anxiously to the 
 decisions of the holy writings and the older Jew- 
 ish teachers. Thus their whole system was built 
 upon authority, and their morality was changed 
 into a casuistry, like that of the Jesuits. To 
 every event that happened they knew how to 
 apply either a passage of the sacred books or an 
 explanation of the same, or a corollary, an in- 
 ference, an arbitrary extension or restriction. On 
 this account nothing is more pitiable or more 
 ridiculous than their exegetical theology, whence 
 their system of morality became uncertain and 
 unconnected, without general principles, life, and 
 spirit. Tims arbitrariness ami ingenuity, instead 
 of reason and solidity, were applied to morals; 
 and to a party which assumed, and by its nature 
 must assume, dominion over the minds of men, 
 the temptation was often too great to accommo- 
 date their principles to the passions of men, and 
 to use for the same purpose their casuistry, de- 
 pendent on authority, which so easily lent itself 
 to this end. The persecutions of Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes, the opposition of the Sadducees, bound 
 them only the morfi to their old precepts and 
 method of teaching, and filled them with an 
 ever-living opposition to every Gentile doctrine 
 and custom. They considered themselves the 
 more as the only genuine and pure Israel itish 
 teachers of religion ; they preserved the reverence 
 for the holy books, which had been of old widely 
 spread among the people ; and, aided by their 
 principles, which were in fact very rigid, they 
 could not fail to gain with the people a repu- 
 tation for superior holiness. The greater this 
 reputation became, the greater was the temptation 
 to hypocrisy. The more rigorous were their prin- 
 ciples, the more difficult was it to act entirely 
 up to them, and the easier were they led to ob- 
 serve that with a holy appearance they could 
 attain the power of imposing on the mass of the 
 people and of ruling over them. This dominion 
 of the Pharisees over the minds of the people was 
 nourishment for their pride, and incent ive enough 
 to use it for selfish purposes. Like cunning 
 priests and Jesuits, they played with forms and 
 phrases, they seized a place in the hearts and 
 consciences of men, corrupted them even by 
 means of pious instruction, led them whither they 
 would have them go, acquired many a fair prize, 
 and became rulers of an earthly kingdom of 
 darkness’ (Staudlin, Sittenlekre , i. 431). 
 
 Even were there discrepancies, however marked, 
 on minor points between our Lord and Josephus, 
 yet the general type and the leading features of 
 the character are in so striking a manner the 
 same, that it is impossible not to feel that if 
 Josephus is true the Gospel- history cannot be 
 false; a consideration which acquires strength, 
 and reaches to a moral certainty, when the subject 
 is considered to which their accounts relate, the 
 admitted independence of the authorities, and 
 especially the incidental and implicatory m nner 
 
 in which most of the information in the New 
 Testament presents itself, and some of that which 
 is found in Josephus. The line of argument 
 might be still further extended did our space 
 allow us to trace the development of the Pharisaic 
 influence on through the primitive Christian age 
 down to later periods, as it would appear that 
 Rabbinism was but an unfolding of Pharisaism, 
 the full and swelling stream of corrupt doctrines, 
 views, and practices, of which the rivulets run up 
 to the days of Christ, and stretch back to those of 
 Ezra, till they are lost in the fountain-head — the 
 .eligious philosophy of a debased Zoroasterrsm. 
 And from the contrast which presents itself be- 
 tween this gross earthly system — a system imbued 
 throughout, with selfishness — and the pure, benign, 
 heavenly doctrine and life of Christ, there arises 
 (to our mind) an irresistible proof not only that 
 our Lord did not and could not derive anything 
 from the Pharisees, but that no less clearly is his 
 spirit from above than is theirs from beneath — in 
 all which no credit is taken for the bold, manly, 
 noble, and self-forgetful manner in which he un- 
 masked their hypocrisy, laid open their hollow- 
 ness, condemned their pretensions, and withstood 
 and strove to nullify their influence. It is to unite 
 the hawk and the dove, to bring into one darkness 
 anil light, to expect figs from thistles, if we will 
 persist in maintaining that Jesus and the Phari- 
 sees had any essential and peculiar features in 
 common — we say essential and peculiar features, 
 because such only are of any value in the argu- 
 ment, since even the Pharisees, aS men and 
 monotheists, doubtless bad some good traits, and 
 possessed some scattered rays of truth. 
 
 Indeed we are not to suppose that there were 
 no individuals in the body free from its prevail- 
 ing vices. There did not fail to he upright and 
 pure-minded men, who united inward piety to 
 outward correctness of conduct, and were indeed 
 superior to the principles of their sect; such was 
 Nicodemus (John iii. 1); such also Gamaliel 
 may have been (Acts v. 34; comp. Berach. xiii. 2; 
 Sofa, xx. 3 ; Babyl. Sota , xxii. 2). Of men of 
 this kind many were led to embrace the Gospel 
 (Acts xv. 5). 
 
 In general, however, their power was all di- 
 rected against Jesus and his work. With what 
 force they must have acted appears obvious from 
 the preceding remarks. Nor is the reader to 
 imagine that they were merely a few learned 
 men, congregated together in the capital, engaged 
 in learned pursuits or religious practices, and in 
 consequence leaving our Lord at liberty to pur- 
 sue his ordinary duties up and down the land. 
 The capital was doubtless their head-quarters, 
 hut they pervaded the entire country in consider- 
 able numbers (six thousand are referred to above), 
 and were therefore present in all parts to with- 
 stand the publication of the Gospel of that king- 
 dom every feature of which they hated (Luke v. 
 17); and as they constituted a large portion of 
 the Sanhedrim Acts v. 3 f ; xxiii. 6, sq.), and had 
 an almost unlimited influence with the people, 
 great indeed was the power which they wielded 
 in their conflict with the infant church. Perhaps 
 there never was an instance in any social con- 
 dition in which the elements of power supplied 
 by religion, politics, high life, and bumble con- 
 dition were move thoroughly or more densely 
 combined in order to oppose and destroy th« 
 
PHARISEES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 51J 
 
 y«mg power of new ideas and lofty aims. The 
 victory, however, was for man, because it was 
 also of God. Darkness, indeed, prevailed for 
 three days, covering 1 the land, and casting a thick 
 shadow over the world. But the sun of righteous- 
 ness arose, and still shines. 
 
 Pharisaism, how compact soever might be its 
 appearance outwardly, and as against a common 
 enemy, had its own internal dissensions. The 
 question of more or less of moderate or extreme 
 views, of what on one side would be called tem- 
 porising and on the other consistency, agitated 
 this school as it has agitated most others. In the 
 age of our Lord there were two leading parties, 
 that of Hillel and that of Schainmai, the former 
 representing a moderate Pharisaism, the latter 
 •' the straitest sect,’ to which Paul had probably 
 belonged. 
 
 Those who may wish, to prosecute the study of 
 the subject now treated of with more minuteness 
 and particularity, will do well to consult, Triwn 
 Scriptorum Illust. de tribus Judceorum Seeds 
 Syntagma, in quo 7?. Serarii , J. Drusii , J. Sca- 
 ligeri opuscula cum aliis exhibehtur ; J. Iri- 
 glandius, Diatrib. de Secta Kara; ovum adj., 
 Delphis, 1703; Buddei Hist. Eccles. ii. 074, sq. ; 
 Flatf, Ueber die Lehre der Pharisaen in Paidus 
 Memorab. ii. 157, sq. ; Paidus, Meletemata De 
 Rep. Mortuor., Jenae, 1796. The valuable piece 
 before referred to, namely, Trium Seri]) tor., &c., 
 may be found in Ugolini’s Thesaurus , vol. xxii. 
 In the same work (vol. xxii.) may also be found 
 other sources of information, namely, Carpzov, 
 Appar. p. 173, sq. ; the treatises by J. Schmid, 
 H. O.pitz, and others. Much solid information 
 may be found in Sfaudlin’s Sittenlehre Jesu, 
 i. 417, sq. See also Beer, Gesch. Lehren in 
 Meinung. alter relig. Sect, der Juden , Briinn, 
 1822. Some of the extracts from Josephus show 
 
 clearly that the Greek philosophy had an influ- 
 ence on the doctrines of the Pharisees. Consult 
 Tholuck, Comm, deviquam Grceca Philosop/iia 
 in Theologiam turn Muhamedanor. turn Judceor. 
 exercuerit , Hamb. 1835-7. — J. R. B. 
 
 PHARPAR, one of the rivers of Damascus 
 [Abana. and Pharpar]. 
 
 PHEBE. [Phckbe.] 
 
 PHENICE (4>oiVi£), a city on the south-east 
 of Crete, with a harbour, in the attempt to reach 
 which the ship in which Paul voyaged as a 
 prisoner to Rome, was driven out of its course, 
 and eventually wrecked (Acts xxvii. 12). 
 
 PHICOL mouth of all , i. e. all-com- 
 
 manding'), the proper, or more probably, the titu- 
 lar name of the commander of the troops of 
 Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar. If the 
 Abimelech of the time of Isaac was the son of the 
 Abimelech of the time of Abraham, we may con- 
 clude that the Phicol who attended on the second 
 Abimelech was the successor of the one who was 
 'present with the first at the interview with Abra- 
 ham (Gen. xxi. 22 ; xxvi. 26). But the whole 
 subject of these interviews is beset with diffi- 
 culties [Abimelech ; Abraham; Isaac]. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA (<f>iAa5eA<£eta), a city of 
 Lesser Asia, and one of the seven containing the 
 Christian churches to which the Apocalyptic ad- 
 monitions were addressed. The town stood about 
 twenty-five miles south-east from Sardis, in N. 
 lat. 32 J 28', E. long. 28° 30', in the plain of 
 Hermus, about midway between the river of that 
 name and the termination of Mouut Tmolus. 
 It was the second In Lydia (Ptolem. v. 2; Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. v. 30), and was built by King Attains 
 Philadelphia, from whom it took its name. Is, 
 b c. 133 the place passed, with the dominion in 
 which it lay, to the Romans. The site is re- 
 
 [Pfnladelptiia. i 
 
918 PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO. 
 
 puted by Strabo (xiii. p. 628) to have been 
 very liable to earthquakes ; but it continued a 
 place of importance and of strength down to the 
 Byzantine age ; and of all the towns in Asia 
 Minor it withstood the Turks the longest. It 
 v/as taken by Bajazet I. in a.d. 1392. 
 
 Philadelphia still exists as a Turkish town, 
 under the name of Allah Shehr, ‘ city of God,’ 
 i. e. High-town. It covers a considerable ex- 
 tent of ground, running up the slopes of four 
 hills, or rather of one hill with four flat summits. 
 The country, as viewed from these hills, is ex- 
 tremely magnificent — gardens and vineyards lying 
 at the back and sides of the town, and before it 
 one of the most extensive and beautiful plains 
 of Asia. The town itself, although spacious, is 
 miserably built and kept, the dwellings being 
 remarkably mean, and the streets exceedingly 
 filthy. Across the summits of the hill behind 
 the town and the small valleys between them 
 runs the town wall, strengthened by circular and 
 square towers, and forming also an extensive and 
 long quadrangle in the plain below. The mis- 
 sionaries Fisk and Parsons, in 1822, were in- 
 formed by the Greek bishop that tire town con- 
 tained 3U00 houses, of which he assigned 250 to 
 the Greeks, and the rest to the Turks. On the 
 same authority it is stated that there are five 
 churches in the town, besides twenty others which 
 were too old or too small for use. Six minarets, 
 indicating as many mosques, are seen in the 
 town; and one of these mosques is believed by 
 the native Christians to have been the church in 
 which assembled the primitive Christians ad- 
 dressed in the Apocalypse. There are few ruins ; 
 but in one part there are still found four strong 
 marble pillars, which supported the dome of a 
 church. The dome itself has fallen down, but 
 its remains may be observed, and it is seen that 
 the arch was of brick. On the sides of the pil- 
 lars are inscriptions, and some architectural or- 
 naments in the form of the figures of saints. One 
 solitary pillar of high antiquity has been often 
 noticed, as reminding beholders of the remark- 
 able words in the Apocalyptic message to the 
 Philadelphian church : — * Him that overcometh 
 will I make a pillar in the temple of my God ; 
 and he shall go no more out’ (Rev. iii. 12) (Smith, 
 Sept. Ecclesiarum A sice, p. 13S; Arundel 1, 
 Seven Churches ; Richter, Wahlfahrten, p. 518 ; 
 Schubert, Morgenlcinde , i. 353-357 ; Missionary 
 Herald , 1821, p. 253 ; 1839, pp. 210-212). 
 
 PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO. That this 
 epistle was written by the apostle Paul is the 
 constant tradition of the ancient Church. It. is 
 expressly cited as such by Origen ( Homil . XIX. 
 in Jerem., tom. i. p. 185, ed. Huet..); it is re- 
 ferred to as such by Tertullian (Nov. Marc. 
 v. 21); and both Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 
 25) and Jerome (Proem, in Ep. ad PJiilem. tom. 
 iv. p. 442) attest its universal reception as such 
 in the Christian world. The latter, indeed, in- 
 forms us that some in his day deemed it unworthy 
 of a place in the canon, in consequence of its 
 being occupied with subjects which, in their esti- 
 mation, i: did not become an apostle to write 
 about, save as a mere private individual ; but 
 this he, at the same time, shows to be a mistake, 
 and repudiates the legitimacy of such a standard 
 for estimating the genuineness or. authority of any 
 aook. It was a.so admitted as canonical by 
 
 PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO. 
 
 Marcion (Hieronvm. 1. c.). That this epi»,l« 
 should not. have been quoted by several of the 
 Fathers who have quoted largely from the other 
 Pauline epistles (e. y. Irenaeus, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, and Cyprian), may be accounted for 
 partly by the brevity of the epistle, and partly by 
 their not having occasion to refer to the subjects 
 of which it treats. Paley has adduced the un- 
 designed coincidences between this epistle and 
 that to the Colossians with great force, as evincing 
 the authenticity of both (Horce Paulina , c. 14); 
 and Eich horn has ingeniously shown how a person 
 attempting, with the epistle to the Colossians 
 before him, to forge such an epistle as this in the 
 name of Paul, would have been naturally led to 
 a very different arrangement of the historical cir- 
 cumstances and persons from what we find in the 
 epistle which is extant (Einleit. ins N. T. iii. 
 3D2). 
 
 This epistle was evidently written during the 
 apostle's imprisonment (ver. 9, 10), and, as we 
 have already endeavoured to show [Colossians, 
 Epistle to the], during his two years’ impri 
 sonment at Rome. It was occasioned by his 
 sending back to Philemon his runaway slave 
 Onesimus, who, having found his way to Rome, 
 was there, through the instrumentality of the 
 apostle, converted to Christianity ; and, after 
 serving Paul for a season, was by him restored to 
 his former master, without whose consent the 
 apostle did not feel at liberty to retain him. 
 The epistle commences with the apostle’s usual 
 salutation to those to whom he wrote; after whicti 
 he affectionately alludes to the good reputation 
 which Philemon, as a Christian, enjoyed, and to 
 the joy which the knowledge of this afforded him 
 (ver. 1-7). He then gently and gracefully intro- 
 duces the main subject of his epistle by a refer- 
 ence to the spiritual obligations under which 
 Philemon lay to him, and on the ground of which 
 he might utter as a command what, he preferred 
 urging as a request. Onesimus is then intro 
 duced ; the change of mind and character he had 
 experienced is stated ; his offence in deserting his 
 master is not palliated; his increased worth and 
 usefulness are dwelt upon, and his former master 
 is intreated to receive him back, not. only without 
 severity, but with the feeling due from one 
 Christian to another (ver. 8-16). The apostle 
 then delicately refers to the matter of compensa- 
 tion for any loss which Philemon might have 
 sustained either through the dishonesty of Onesi- 
 mus, or simply ' through the want of his service ; 
 and though he reminds his friend that, he might 
 justly hold the latter his debtor for a much larger 
 amount (seeing he owed to the apostle his own 
 self), he pledges himself, under his own hand, to 
 make good that loss (ver. 17-19). The epistle 
 concludes with some additional expressions of 
 friendly solicitude ; a request that Philemon would 
 prepare the apostle a lodging, as he trusted soon 
 to visit him ; and the salutations of the apostle 
 and some of the Christians by whom he was sur- 
 rounded at the time (ver. 20-25). 
 
 This epistle has been universally admired as a 
 model of graceful, delicate, and manly writing. 
 ‘ It is a voucher,’ says Eichhorn, ‘ for the apostle’s 
 urbanity, politeness, and knowledge of the world. 
 His advocacy of Onesimus is of the most ir.sinu* 
 ating and persuasive character, and yet without 
 the slightest perversion or concealment of any 
 
PIIXLETUS. 
 
 PHILIP. 
 
 519 
 
 fact. The errors of Onesimu3 are admitted, as 
 was necessary, lest the just indignation of his 
 master against him should be roused anew ; but 
 they are alluded to in the most admirable man- 
 ner : the good side of Onesimus is brought to 
 view, but in such a way as to facilitate the 
 friendly reception of him by his master, as a con- 
 sequence of Christianity, to which he had, during 
 his absence, been converted ; and his future 
 fidelity is vouched for by the noble principles of 
 Christianity to which he had been converted. 
 The apostle addresses Philemon on the softest 
 side: who would wilfully refuse to an aged, a 
 suffering, and an unjustly imprisoned friend a 
 request ? And such was he who thus pleaded for 
 Onesimus. The person recommended is a Chris- 
 tian, a dear friend of the apostle’s, and one who 
 had personally served him : if Philemon will 
 receive him kindly, it will afford the apostle a 
 proof of his love, and yield him joy. What need, 
 then, for long urgency ? The apostle is certain 
 that Philemon will, of his own accord, do even 
 more than he is asked. More cogently and more 
 courteously no man could plead ’ ( Einleit . ins 
 N. T., iii. 300). 
 
 Of separate commentaries on this Epistle, the 
 following is nearly a complete list: — Henr. 
 Hummel, Explanatio Ep. Ap. Pauli ad Philem., 
 Tiguri, 1670, fob; Lebr. Ch. Gottlieb. Schmid, 
 Pauli Ap. ad Philem. Ep. Gr. et Eat. Illustr. et 
 ut Exemplum Humanitatis Pauli Proposita, 
 Lips. 1786, 8vo. ; Konrad Rudolf Hagenbaeh, 
 Pauli Ep. ad Philem. Interpretatus est, Basil, 
 1829, 4to. ; W. Attersol, Commentary upon the 
 Ep. to Philem ., Lond. 1633, 4to. ; Bp. Smal- 
 ridge, Saint Paul's Ep. to Philemon Explained 
 {Sermons, Oxf. 1724, fol., Serm. 39).— W. L. A. 
 
 PHILETIJS, an apostate Christian, mentioned 
 by Paul, in connection with Hymenseus, 2 Tim. 
 ii. 17 [HymehjEUs]. 
 
 1. PHILIP (4>iAt7r7ros), one of the twelve 
 apostles. He was of Bethsaida, ‘ the city of 
 Andrew and Peter’ (John i. 44). He became one 
 of the disciples of John the Baptist, and was in the 
 neighbourhood where John was baptizing, at the 
 time of our Lord’s baptism. Andrew and John, 
 who were also disciples of the Baptist, heard the 
 testimony concerning Jesus which the latter gave, 
 and thenceforth attached themselves to him as 
 the promised Messiah. Through Andrew his 
 brother, Simon (Peter) was brought to Christ ; and 
 as on the next (lay Philip unhesitatingly accom- 
 panied Jesus when called to follow him, it is pro- 
 bable that his townsmen had previously spoken to 
 him of Jesus as the long-expected Saviour (John 
 i. 35-44). Philip was thus the fourth of the 
 Rpostles who attached themselves to the person of 
 Jesus — of those ‘who left all and followed him.' 
 The first act of Philip was to bring to the Lord 
 Nathanael, who is supposed to have also become 
 an apostle under the name of Bartholomew (John 
 i. 45-51), Little more is recorded of Philip 
 in the Scriptures; but it is remarkable that 
 when Christ beheld the five thousand people 
 whom he afterwards fed witli five loaves and two 
 fishes, he singled out Philip for the question, 
 * Whence shall we buy bread that these may 
 eat V It is added, ‘ This he said to prove him, for 
 he himself knew what he would do.’ Bengel and 
 others suppose that this was because the charge of 
 providing food had been committed to Philip, 
 
 while Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsueatia 
 rather suppose it was because this apos le was weak 
 in faith. The answer of Philip agrees veil enough 
 with either supposition, ‘Two hundred penny- 
 worth of bread is not sufficient for them, lhat every 
 one of them may take a little’ (John vi. 1 - 7 ). But 
 it is well to compare this with John xiv. 8, where 
 the inappropriate remark of Philip, ‘ Lord, show 
 us the Father, and it sufficed) us,’ evinces that he 
 experienced in a degree beyond his brother apostles, 
 the difficulty which they generally felt in raising 
 themselves above the things of sense. 
 
 Intermediately, we find recorded the applica- 
 tion to Philip of certain ‘ Greeks’ (proselytes of 
 the gate) at Jerusalem, who wished to be in- 
 troduced to Jesus, of whom they had heard so 
 much. Knowing that his master was not for- 
 ward to gratify mere curiosity, Philip was un- 
 certain whether to comply with their wish or not, 
 but first consulted Andrew, who went with him 
 to mention the circumstance to Jesus (John xii. 
 21, 22). This incident, although slight, is indi- 
 cative of character, as we feel sure that some of the 
 other apostles, Peter for instance, would at once 
 have complied with or declined this applica- 
 tion on their own responsibility. The sacred his- 
 tory only adds to these facts, that Philip was 
 present with the other apostles at the religious as- 
 sembly following the Lord’s resurrection (Acta 
 i. 13). 
 
 The ancient commentators attribute to Philip 
 the request of ‘ one of the disciples ’ to Christ, 
 ‘ Suffer me first to go and bury my father’ (Matt, 
 viii. 21 ; Luke ix. 59); but there seems no war- 
 rant for this; and it is not likely that it would 
 have been overlooked by John in his account of 
 Philip’s call to the apostleship. 
 
 The later traditions concerning this apostle are 
 vague and uncertain ; but there is nothing im- 
 probable in the statement that he preached the Gos- 
 pel in Phrygia (Theodoret, in Ps. cxvi.; Niceph. 
 Hist. Eecles. ii. 39), and that he met his death at 
 Hierapolis in Syria (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 31 ; 
 v. 24). The further statement, that Philip was 
 married and had daughters (Euseb. u. s. ; Clem. 
 Alex. Strom, iii. 192 ; Niceph. ii. 44), very pro- 
 bably arose from confounding him with Philip 
 the Evangelist (Acts xxi. 8). 
 
 2. PHILIP, one of the seven first deacons 
 (Acts vi. 5) ; also called an ‘ Evangelist’ (xxi. 8), 
 which denotes one of those ministers of the pri- 
 mitive church, who, without being attached to 
 any particular congregation, preached the Gospel 
 from place to place (Eph. iv. 11 ; 2 Tim. iv. 5). 
 Being compelled to leave Jerusalem by the per- 
 secution which ensued on Stephen's death, Philip 
 was induced to take refuge in Samaria. He 
 there came to a city where Simon Magus was 
 held in high reverence through the wonders which 
 he wrought. But the substantial and beneficent 
 miracles which were performed by Philip in the 
 name <3f Jesus, drew away their attention from 
 the impostor, and prepared their minds for the re- 
 ception of the Gospel. Simon himself seems to 
 have regarded him as in league with some super- 
 human being, and looking upon baptism as the ini- 
 tiatory rite of a compact through which he might 
 obtain the same powers, lie solicited and obtained 
 baptism from the Evangelist [Simon Magus]. 
 After Peter and John had come to Samaria to 
 complete and carry on the work which Philip had 
 
320 
 
 PHILIP. 
 
 been the means of commencing, the Evangelist 
 himself was directed by a divine impulse to pro- 
 ceed towards Gaza, where he met the treasurer of 
 Candace, queen of Ethiopia [Candace ; Ethi- 
 opia], by whose conversion and liaptism he be- 
 came the instrument of planting the first seeds 
 of the Gospel in Ethiopia (Acts viii. 1-39). Phil ip 
 then retraced his steps, and after pausing at 
 Azof us, preached the Gospel from town to town 
 till lie came to Caesarea (ver. 40). At this place 
 he seems to have settled ; for when Paul was on 
 his last journey to Jerusalem, he and his party 
 were entertained in the house of Philip, on which 
 occasion it is mentioned that he had ‘ four 
 daughters, virgins, who did prophesy* (Acts xxi. 
 9), or, who were endued with the faculty of speak- 
 ing under divine inspiration, and of predicting 
 future events, together with other supernatural 
 gifts vouchsafed to the primitive Christians, in 
 accordance with the prophecy hi Acts ii. 18. 
 With this fact the Scriptural history of Philip 
 closes, and the traditions which refer to his sub- 
 sequent proceedings are uncertain and conflict- 
 ing. The Greek martyrologies make him to have 
 been bishop of Tralles, in Lydia; but the Latins 
 make him end his days in Caesarea ( Acta Sand. 
 ad 6 Juni); but in all old accounts Philip the 
 Apostle and Philip the Evangelist are much con- 
 founded. 
 
 3. PHILIP, son of Herod the Great, and 
 te! rarch of Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis 
 (Luke iii. 1) [Heuodian Family]. 
 
 •1. PHILIP, called by Josephus Herod, son 
 of Herod the Great, and first' husband of Herodias 
 [Heuodian Family]. 
 
 PIIILIPPI ($'i\nriroi), a city of the procon- 
 s lar Macedonia, situated eastward of Amphi- 
 polis, Within the limits of ancient Thrace (Acts 
 xvi. 12 ; xx. 6 ; Phil. i. 1). It was anciently 
 called Kprjvtfies, from its many fountains; but 
 having been taken and fortified by Philip of 
 Macedon, he named it, after himself, Philippi. 
 In the vicinity were mines of gold and silver; 
 and the spot eventually became celebrated for the 
 battle in which Brutus and Cassius were de- 
 feated. Paul made some stay in this place on 
 his first arrival in Greece, and here founded the 
 church to which he afterwards addressed one of 
 bis epistles. It was here that the interesting cir- 
 cumstances related in Acts xvi. occurred ; and 
 the city was again visited by the Apostle on his 
 departure from Greece (Acts xx. fij. In the 
 former pissage (xvi. 12) Philippi is called a 
 colony (koAcouui), ami this character it had in 
 fact, acquired through many of fhe followers of 
 Antony having been colonized thither by Au- 
 gustus (Dion. Cass, xlvii. 432). The fact that 
 Philippi was a colony was formerly disputed ; 
 but its complete verification has strongly attested 
 the minute accuracy of the sacred narrative. 
 Jt is there also said to have been TTpccrij rrjs 
 aepfios t rjs MaKebovias tt6\i9, ‘ a chief city of 
 this part of Macedonia ’ — not the capital, for that 
 was Amphipolis (Livy, xlv. 29). Others explain 
 the word irpcirri with reference to geographi- 
 cal position, i. e. the first city as one comes 
 from the East ; but it has been well objected that 
 Paul had just landed at Neapolis, which is still 
 further to the East (comp. Diod. Sic. xvi. 8 ; 
 Strabo, vii. p. 511 ; also Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Geog. 
 iii. 393). The site has not been much visited by 
 
 PHILIPPI ANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 
 
 travellers ; but an interesting account of it may 
 be found in the American Missionary Herald \ 
 by the missionaries Dwight and SchautHer, who 
 were there in 1834. The plain in which the ruins 
 of Philippi stand is embraced by the parallel 
 arms of mountains extended from the Necrokop, 
 which pour into the plain many small streams, 
 by which it is abundantly watered and fertilized. 
 The acropolis is upon a mount standing out into 
 the plain from the north-east, and the city seeme 
 to have extended from the base of it to the south 
 and south-west. The remains of the fortress upon 
 the top consist of three ruined towers and con- 
 siderable portions of walls, of stone, brick, and 
 very hard mortar. The plain below does not 
 now exhibit anything but ruins — heaps of stone 
 and rubbish, overgrown with thorns and briars; 
 but nothing of the innumerable busts and statues, 
 thousauds of columns, and vast masses of classic 
 ruins, of which the elder travellers speak. Ruins 
 of private dwellings are still visible ; also some- 
 thing of a semi-circular shape, probably a forum 
 or market-place, 4 perhaps the one where Paul 
 and Silas received their undeserved stripes.’ The 
 most prominent of the existing remains is the 
 remainder of a palatial edifice, the architecture 
 of which is grand, and the materials costly. The 
 pilasters, chapiters, & c., are of the finest white 
 marble, and the walls were formerly encased 
 with the same stone. These marble blocks are 
 gradually knocked down by the Turks, and 
 ‘ wrought into their silly grave-stones.’ The tra- 
 vellers were informed that many of the ruins are 
 now covered by stagnant water, at the bottom of 
 which they may be seen ; but they did not visit 
 this spot. 
 
 PII I LIPPI ANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 01 
 
 this part of the Apostle Paul’s writings the 
 authenticity has never been questioned. Pro- 
 fessing to be written by that distinguished servant 
 of Christ, it bears on every part of it the impress 
 of his peculiar style, manner of thought, and form 
 of doctrine; and the internal evidence of authen- 
 ticity arising from the incidental allusions in it 
 to persons and circumstances is very strong 
 ( Ilorce Paulince , c. 7). It is referred to formally 
 and expressly by Polycavp, in hi? Epistle to the 
 Philippians (§ 3, § II), besides being repeatedly 
 quoted by him. It. is quoted by the churches at 
 Vienne and Lyons, in their letter to the churches 
 in Asia and Phrygia, preserved by Eusebius 
 (Hist. Eccles., v. 2; by Irenseus (Cont. Ilcer., iv. 
 18, § 4) ; by Clement, of Alexandria (Pcedag. lib. 
 i. ]>. 107 ; Strom , iv. p. 511 ; Admon. ad Gentes , 
 p. 56); by Tertullian { De Resur. Carnis , c. 23); 
 by Origen (Cont. Cels ., lib. iii. p. 122, ed. Spen- 
 cer ; et scepiss.) ; by Cyprian (Lib. Testim., iii. 
 39), and by many of the later Fathers. 
 
 From allusions in the epistle itself, it is evi- 
 dent that it was written at Rome during the 
 period of the apostle’s two years imprisonment in 
 that city, and in all probability towards the close 
 of that period (i. 13, 14, 23, 26; ii. 18, 25). It. 
 seems to have been composed on the occasion of 
 the return to Philippi of Epaphroditus, a member 
 of the church in that place, who had been de- 
 puted to Rome with a pecuniary contribution 
 from the churcn in aid of the apostle. Full of 
 gratitude for this work of friendly remembrance 
 and regard, Paul addressed to the church in 
 Philippi this epistle, in which, besides expressing 
 
521 
 
 PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 
 
 nis thanks for their kindness, he pours out a flood 
 af eloquence and pathetic exhortation, suggested 
 partly by his own circumstances, and partly by 
 what li*i had learned of their state as a church. 
 That state appears to have been on the whole very 
 prosperous, as there is much commendation ot the 
 Philippians in the epistle, and no censure is ex- 
 pressed in any part of it either of the church as a 
 whole, or of any individuals connected with it. 
 At the same lime the apostle deemed it necessary 
 to put them on their guard against the evil in- 
 fluences to which they were exposed from Juda- 
 izirig teachers, and false professors of Christianity. 
 These cautions he interposes between the exhort- 
 ations suggested by his own state and by the 
 news he had received concerning the Philippians, 
 with which his epistle commences and with which 
 it closes. We may thus divide the epistle into 
 three parts. In the first of these (i., ii.), aftei 
 the usual salutation and an outpouring of warm- 
 hearted aflectiou towards the Philippian church 
 (i. 1-11), the apostle refers to his own condition 
 as a prisoner at Rome; and lest they should be 
 cast down at the thought of the unmerited indig- 
 nities he had been called upon to sutler, he assures 
 them that these had turned out rather to the 
 furtherance of that great cause on which his 
 heart was set and for which he was willing to live 
 and labour, though, as respected his personal 
 feelings, he would rather depart and be with 
 Christ, which he deemed to be ‘ far better’ 
 (12-24). He then passes by an easy transition to 
 a hortatory address to the Philippians, calling 
 upon them to maintain steadfastly their profes- 
 sion, to cultivate humanity and brotherly love, 
 to work out their own salvation with fear and 
 trembling, and concluding by an appeal to their 
 regard for his reputation as an apostle, which 
 could not but be affected by their conduct, and 
 a reference to his reason for sending to them 
 Epaphroditus instead of Timothy, as he had ori- 
 ginally designed (i. 25 ; ii. 30). In part, second 
 he strenuously cautions them, as already observed, 
 against Judaizing teachers, whom he stigmatizes 
 as ‘dogs' (in reference probably to their im- 
 pudent, snarling, and quarrelsome habits), ‘ evil- 
 workers/ and ‘ the concision by which latter 
 term he means to intimate, as Theophylact re- 
 marks (in loc.), that the circumcision in which 
 the Jews so much gloried had now ceased to 
 possess any spiritual significance, and was there- 
 fore no better than a useless mutilation of the 
 person. On this theme he enlarges, making re- 
 ference to his own standing as a Jew, and inti- 
 mating, that if under the Christian dispensation 
 Jewish descent and Jewish privileges were to go 
 for anything, no one could have stronger claims 
 on this ground than he; but at the same time 
 declaring, that however he had once valued these, 
 he now counted them 4 all but lost for the excel- 
 lency of the knowledge of Christ’ (iii. 1-12). A 
 eference to his own sanctified ambition to ad- 
 vance in the service of Christ leads him to exhort 
 the Philippians to a similar spirit; from this he 
 passes to caution them against unnecessary con- 
 tention, and against those who walk disorderly, 
 concluding by reminding them of the glorious 
 hopes which, as Christians, they entertained (ver. 
 13-21). In the third part we have a series of 
 admonitions to individual members uf the church 
 *t Philippi (iv. 1-3), followed by some general 
 
 PHILISTINES. 
 
 exhortations to cheerfulness, moderation, prayer, 
 and good conduct (ver. 4-9) ; after which come a 
 series of allusions to the apostle's circumstances 
 and feelings, his thanks to the Philippians foi 
 their seasonable aid, and his concluding bene« 
 dictions and salutations (ver. 10-23). 
 
 Heinrichs has advanced the opinion, that of 
 these three parts of this epistle the first belongs to 
 a different composition from tire other two (Nov. 
 Test. Koppan. vol. vii. pt. ii. p. 31). It is not 
 worth while to recapitulate his reasonings in 
 support of this notion ; they have been fully exa- 
 mined and sufficiently refuted by Krause (An 
 Epist. Pauli ad Phil, in duas Epistolas .... 
 dispescenda sit ? Dis. crit. exeget. llegiom. 
 1811), and Schott. (Isagoge in N. T. § 70). 
 
 This epistle is written throughout in a very 
 animated and elevated style. It is full of the 
 most sublime thoughts and the most affectionate 
 exhortations. It resembles more the production 
 of a father addressing his children, than that of 
 an apostle laying down authoritatively what, is 
 to he received and followed. The whole of it 
 shows, as Theophylact observes, how very much 
 he loved and estimated those to whom it was 
 addressed, £>v evtKcv aTravrcov <r<p6fipa (piXiav 
 avrovs teal Tip.Gov cpalverai (Proem, in Ep. ad 
 Phil.). 
 
 Uf separate commentaries upon this epistle, a 
 considerable number lias appeared, especially on 
 the continent. Of these the chief are the follow- 
 ing : M. H. Schotanus, Analys. et Comment, in 
 Ep. Pauli ad Phil., cum observationibus et earum 
 usibus, Franc. 1637, 4to. ; J. Gottfried Am 
 Elide, Pauli Ep. ad Phil. Gr. ex recens. Gries- 
 bachii ; Nova vers. Lat. et annot. perpet. Must., 
 Yitemb. 1798, 8vo. ; (7. F. H. Rheinwald, Com- 
 mentar. vb. d. Brief Pauli an die Philipp., 
 Berlin, 1827, Svo. ; Konrad Steph. Matthies, 
 Erlddrung cl. Brief es Pauli an d. Phil., Greifs- 
 wold, 1835, 8vo. ; Hermann Gustav. Holemann, 
 Comment, in Ep. ad Phil., Lips. 1839; Wessel 
 Alb von Hengel, Comment, perpetuus in ep. 
 Pauli ad Phil., Amstel, 1839; A. Rilliet, Com- 
 mentaire sur VEpitre de l' Apotre Paid aux 
 Phil., Geneva, 1841, 8vo. In English the works 
 of Pearce and Ferguson may be mentioned. — 
 
 W. L. A. 
 
 PHILISTINES ; Sept. urnelp, 
 
 and 3 A\\6(f)v\oi ; Joseph. UaXurrlvoi, Antiq. v. 1. 
 18), a tribe which gave its name to the country 
 known as Palestine, though it occupied only a 
 portion of the southern coast, namely, that which 
 was bounded on the west by the hill country of 
 Ephraim and Judah, and on the south extended 
 from Joppa to the borders of" Egypt, thus touching 
 on the Israelite tribes Dan, Simeon, and Judah. 
 Indeed the portions of Simeon and Dan covered 
 a large part of Philistia, but its possession by the 
 Israelites was disputed, and was never entirely 
 achieved. This country was originally held by 
 the Avims, who were destroyed and their land 
 seized by the Caphtoiims, coining forth out of 
 Caphtor (Deut. ii. 23). In Jer. xlvii. 4 the Phi- 
 listines are denominated 4 the remnant of the 
 country (or isle) of Caphtor.’ In Amos ix. 7 , 
 the Divine Being asks, 4 Have I not brought the 
 Philistines from Caphtor?’ The Caphtorim and 
 the Philistim are also associated together as kin- 
 dred tribes in the genealogical list of nation* 
 
522 
 
 PHILISTINES. 
 
 PHILISTINES. 
 
 given in Gen. x. 11, both being des endunts of 
 Mizruira. This last passage would be more 
 strictly in agreement with the others if the words 
 * out of whom came Philistim ’ were placed im- 
 mediately after Caphtorim. Where then is Caph- 
 tor ? Where are we to look for the Caphtorim ? 
 There, wherever it was, are the Philistines to be 
 originally found. Caphtor has been thought to 
 be Cappadocia; so is it rendered by the Targums, 
 as well as by the Syriac and Vulgate translations 
 (‘ Palaesthinos reliquias insulae Cappadociae ’). 
 Bertheau, however, decides that Caphtor is Crete, 
 on several grounds (Bertheau, Znr Geschichte 
 der Isrcieliten, 1842; see also Die Phonizier, von 
 Movers, 1841 ; anti Kan dan, von C. von Lengerke, 
 1844). In Jer. xlvii. 4, Caphtor is named : 
 the word may indicate a coast, but leads the 
 mind most forcibly to think of an island. The 
 Philistines, in 1 Sam. xxx. 14, 16, are termed 
 Cherethites (Ezek. xxv. 16 ; Zeph. ii. 5), THD, 
 an adjective, which itself might be put into the 
 English letters Cretans, and is derived from the 
 proper name n~0, or Crete. Since the appear- 
 ance of Lakemacher's Observat. Philol. (ii. 11, 
 sq.), and Calmet's Biblical Researches, the word 
 Kreti has been considered to prove that the Phi- 
 listines were wanderers from Crete, which recent 
 scholars have confirmed. Thus Hitzig ( Die 12 
 Klcinen Propheten ) says, on Zeph. ii. 5, the Phi- 
 listines were offsprings of Barbarians, who dwelt 
 of old in Crete (Herod, i. 173), and thence 
 passed to different parfs of the continent (Amos 
 ix. 7 ; comp. Tuch’s Commentar zur Genesis , 
 p. 243). 
 
 Greeks and Romans support this view. Tacitus 
 (Hist. v. 2) relates that inhabitants of Palestine 
 came thither from Crete. He uses indeed the 
 name Jews ; but as the Philistines gave their 
 name to Palestine, the heathen historian was not 
 likely to make any exact distinction in the case, 
 and may be understood to mean the Philis- 
 tines, as inhabitants of Palaestina or Philistia. 
 Stephen of Byzantium, under the word rd£a, 
 states that this city, Gaza, was properly called 
 Minoa, from Minos, king of Crete, who came to 
 Gaza with his brothers Acakos and Rhadaman- 
 thus, and named the place after himself (comp. 
 Kreta, von Karl Hoeck, ii. 368). Sfephanus 
 Byzant. adds that the Cretan Jupiter (Zeus Kpr]- 
 Tayevrjs) was honoured in Gaza. From other 
 writers it appears that the Cretan Jupiter bore the 
 name of Marna in this Philistine city, where he 
 was chief of eight principal gods, and had a 
 splendid temple consecrated to his service. The 
 authorities for this statement may be found in 
 Movers’ Die Phonizier, p. 662. Marna seems 
 only another name for Malchan, Baalan, or 
 Baalti, denoting the protecting deity of the city. 
 
 The Philistines are represented in the Old 
 Testament as foreign immigrants. The ordinary 
 translation of their name in the Septuagint is 
 A.Kh6(pv\oi, men of another tribe. The root 
 
 , whence Philistine, denotes a wanderer, one 
 
 from a foreign land, and was probably given by 
 the Hebrews to the foreign immigrants who called 
 themselves Cretans. If so, the Philistines did not 
 belong to any of the aboriginal stems. That they 
 were not a portion of the Hebrew race appears 
 from the fact that they were uncircumcised. In 
 1 Sam. xvii, 26, Goliath of Gath is derisively 
 
 denominated ‘ this uncircumcised Philistine 
 (comp. 2 Sam. i. 20). Yet tl*> Philistines be. 
 longed to the Shemitic family. The names oi 
 their cities and their proper names are of Shemitic 
 origin. In their intercourse with the Israelites 
 there are many intimations that the two used a 
 common language. How is this, if they were 
 immigrants in Palestine? This difficulty is re- 
 moved by supposing that originally they were in 
 Palestine, being a part of the great Shemitic 
 family, went westward, under pressure from the 
 wave of population which came down from the 
 higher country to the sea-coast, but afterwards 
 returned eastward, back from Crete to Palestine ; 
 so that in Amos ix. 7 it is to be understood that 
 God brought them up to Palestine, as he brought 
 the Israelites out of Egypt — back to their home. 
 This view the passage undoubtedly admits ; but 
 we cannot agree witli Movers in holding that it 
 gives direct evidence in its favour, though his 
 general position is probably correct, that the Phi- 
 listines first quitted the mainland for the neigh- 
 bouring islands of the Mediterranean sea, and 
 then, after a time, returned to their original home 
 (Movers, pp. 19, 29, 35). Gieek writers, however, 
 give evidence of a wide diffusion of the Shemitic 
 race over the islands of the Mediterranean. Thu- 
 cydides says (i. 8) that most of the islands were 
 inhabited by Carians and Phoenicians. Of Crete 
 Herodotus (i. 173) declares that Barbarians had, 
 before Minos, formed the population of the island. 
 There is evidence in Homer to the same effect 
 (Od. ix. 174; comp. Strabo, p. 475). Many proofs 
 offer themselves that, before the spread of the 
 Hellenes, these islands were inhabited by Shemi- 
 tic races. The worship observed in them at this 
 time shows a Shemitic origin. The Shemitics 
 gave place to the Hellenics — a change which 
 dates from the time of Minos, who drove them 
 out of the islands, giving the dominion to his son. 
 The expelled population settled on the Asiatic 
 coast. This evidence, derived from heathen 
 sources, gives a representation which agrees with 
 the Scriptural account of the origin, the westerly 
 wandering, and return eastwards of the Philistines. 
 But chronology creates a difficulty. Minos lived 
 probably about the year b.c. 1300. According to 
 the Old Testament the Philistines were found in 
 Palestine at an earlier period. In Gen. xx. 2 ; xxvi. 
 1 ; we find a Philistine king of Gerar. But this 
 king (and others) may have been so termed, not 
 because he was of Philistine blood, but because 
 he dwelt in the land which was afterwards called 
 Philistia. And there are other considerations 
 which seem to show that Philistines did not oc- 
 cupy this country in the days of Abraham (con 
 suit Bertheau, p. 196). It is, however, certain 
 that the Philistines existed in Palestine in the time 
 of Moses, as a brave and warlike people (Exod. 
 xiii. 17) — a fact which places them on the Asiatic 
 continent long before Minos. This difficulty 
 does not appear considerable to us. There may 
 have been a return eastwards before the time of 
 Minos, as well as one in his time; or he may 
 have merely put the finishing stroke to a return 
 commenced from some cause or other — war, over- 
 population, &c. — at a much earlier period. The 
 information found in the Bible is easily under 
 stood on the showing, that in the earliest ages 
 tribes of the Shemitic race spread themselves 
 over the west, and, becoming inhabitants of the 
 
PHILISTINES. 
 
 PHILISTINES. 
 
 523 
 
 islands, gave themselves to navigation. To these 
 tribes the Philistines appear to have belonged, 
 who, for what reason we know not, left Crete, and 
 settled on the coast of Palestine. But in Gen. x. 
 13, 14, the Philistines are derived from Mizraiin, 
 that is, from Egypt.., Hov/ is this ? Movers holds 
 that Phoenician invaders were the Hyksos of 
 Egyptian hietory, whence the Philistines would, 
 in relation to their stay and dominion in Egypt, 
 be spoken of as of Egyptian origin. Bertheau, 
 however, condemns this view as too complicated, 
 and states it as his opinion that the Philistines, 
 as dwellers in Crete, were reckoned as belonging 
 to Egypt (see also Ewald, Geschichte , i. 289; 
 Lengerke, Kandan, p. 195, sq.). 
 
 If now we follow the Biblical accounts we find 
 the history of the Philistines to be in brief as fol- 
 lows. They had established themselves in their 
 land as early as the time of Abraham, when they 
 had founded a kingdom at Gerar (Gen. xxi. 32; 
 xx vi. 1). When the Israelites left Egypt they 
 were deterred by fear of the power of the Philis- 
 tines from returning by the shortest road — that 
 which the caravans still take — because it lay 
 through the country of the Philistines (Exod. 
 xiii. 17). In the time of Joshua (xiii, 3) the 
 Philistines appear in a league of five princes 
 (D'OID, which may be a Philistine corruption 
 from governors of so many tribes or petty 
 
 states — ‘ all the borders of the Philistines from 
 Sihor which is before Egypt even unto the bor- 
 ders of Ekron northward counted to the Catiaan- 
 ites.’ Joshua appears to have thought it prudent 
 to attempt nothing for the dispossession of the 
 Philistines, and he therefore had no hostile re- 
 lations with them ; for the division of Philistia 
 among the tribes was nothing more than a pro- 
 spective but unfulfilled arrangement (Josh. xv. 
 45; xix. 43). The days of the Judges, however, 
 brought conflicts between the Israelites and the 
 Philistines, who dwelt wide over the land, and 
 even exercised dominion over their Hebrew neigh- 
 bours (Judg. iii. 31; x. 7; xiii. 1; xiv. 2, 4, 5 ; 
 xv. 11). 
 
 In the time of Eli the Philistines succeeded in 
 getting the ark into their possession (1 Sam. iv.); 
 but a defeat which they suffered under Samuel 
 put an end to their dominion, after it had lasted 
 forty years (1 Sam. vii.). This subjection of the 
 Israelites began after the death of Jair, and con- 
 tinued to the termination of the period embraced 
 in the book of Judges. Within this space of time 
 fall the life and the heroic actions of Samson. 
 Notwithstanding the total defeat which the Phi- 
 listines had undergone, and the actual termination 
 of their political supremacy, they continued to be 
 troublesome neighbours. ‘ There was sore war 
 against the Philistines all the days of Saul’ (1 
 Sam. xiv. 52) ; a conflict which was carried on 
 with various success, and in which the king found 
 great support in the prudent bravery of his son 
 Jonathan and the high courage of David (1 Sam. 
 xiii. 4 ; xiv. ; xvii. 18 ; xix. 8 ; xxiii. 28). Even 
 after his separation from Saul David inflicted 
 many blows on the Philistines (1 Sam. xxiii.), 
 but soon saw himself obliged to seek refuge in 
 Gath (1 Sam. xxvii.), and was in consequence 
 near making common cause with them against 
 Saul (1 Sam. xxix.), who met with his death at 
 their hands while engaged in battle (1 Sam. xxxi.). 
 They also raised their arms against David, when 
 
 he had become king of all Israel, but were several 
 times beaten by that brave monarch (2 Sam v. 
 17, sq. ; viii. 1). ‘ Mighty men,’ performing 
 
 valorous deeds in imitation of David’s rencontre 
 with Goliath, gave the king their, support against 
 this brave and persevering enemy (2 Sam. xxiii. 
 8, sq.). Solomon appears to have been undis- 
 turbed by the Philistines, but they had settle- 
 ments in the land of Israel under the early 
 Ephraimitic kings (1 Kings xv. 27 ; xvi. 15). 
 To Jehoshaphat they became tributary (2 Chron. 
 xvii. 11). Untftr Jehoram, however, they, in 
 union with the Arabians, fell on Jerusalem, and 
 carried off the king's substance, as well as his 
 wives and children (2 Chron. xxi. 16). On 
 the other hand, in the reign of king Jehoash, 
 their city Gath was taken by Hazael, king of 
 Syria, who also threatened Jerusalem (2 Kings 
 xii. 17). But in the time of Ahaz they revolted, 
 and carried with them a part of western Judah, 
 having ‘ invaded the cities of the low country 
 and of the south of Judah, and taken Beth- 
 shemesh and Ajalon,’ &c. (2 Chron. xxviii. 18; 
 comp. Isa. xiv. 29). Hezekiah in the first years 
 of his reign obtained some advantages over them 
 (2 Kings xviii. 8). Soon, however, Assyrian 
 armies went against Philistia, and, with a view 
 to an invasion of Egypt, got into their power the 
 strong frontier-fortress of Ashdod (Isa. xx. 1), 
 which at a later time Psammetichus took from 
 them, after a siege of twenty-nine years (Herod, 
 ii. 157). In consequence of the hostile relations 
 between Assyria and Egypt, Philistia suffered 
 for a long period, as the troops of the former 
 power took their way through that land, and 
 Pharaoh-Necho captured the stronghold Gaza 
 (Isa. xlvii. 1). The same was done by Alexander 
 the Great in his expedition to Egypt. On the 
 destruction of the Jewish state, the Philistines, 
 like other neighbouring peoples, acted ill towards 
 the Jews, having ‘taken vengeance with a de- 
 spiteful heart’ (Ezek. xxv. 15). Many of those 
 who returned from the captivity ‘had married 
 wives of Ashdod, and their speech spoke half in 
 the speech of Ashdod’ (Neh. xiii. 23, sq.) 4 In 
 the Maccabaean period the Philistines were Syrian 
 subjects, and had at times to suffer at the hands 
 of the Jews (1 Macc. x. 86; xi. 60, sq.). King 
 Alexander (Balas) gave Jonathan a part of their 
 territory, Accaron, with the borders thereof in 
 possession (1 Macc. x. 89). The Jewish monarch 
 Alexander Janmeus overcame and destroyed Gaza 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 3. 3; De Bell. Jud. i. 4. 2). 
 By Pompey Azotus, Jamnia, and Gaza were united 
 to the Roman province of Syria {Antiq. xiv. 4. 4) ; 
 but Gaza was given by Augustus to King Herod 
 {Antiq. xv. 7. 3). 
 
 The Philistine cities were greatly distinguished. 
 Along the whole coast from north to south there 
 ran a line of towns — in the north the Phoenician, 
 in the south the Philistine — which were powerful, 
 rich, and well-peopled. The chief cities of the 
 Philistines were five — Gaza, Ashdod, Askalon, 
 Gath, and Ekron (Josh. xiii. 3; Judg. iii, 3). 
 Several of these Palestinian cities flourished at 
 the same time; and though now these, now those 
 cities gained at different periods pre-eminence in 
 power, wealth, and population, aud though some did 
 not vise till others had declined or perished, yet is 
 it true that from the earliest times till the century 
 after Christ a number of important towns esistsd 
 
PIliLOLOGUS. 
 
 524 
 
 on the narrow strip of land which borders the 
 Mediterranean sea, such as was never seen in any 
 other part of the world, the Ionian coast of Asia 
 Minor not excepted. 
 
 The greatness of these cities was mainly owing 
 to commerce, for the coast of Palestine was in 
 t.ie earliest ages exclusively in possession of the 
 trade \r hich was carried on between Europe and 
 Asia, besides a great transit trade, they had 
 internal sources of wealth, being given to agri- 
 culture (Judg. xv. 5). In the time of Saul they 
 were evidently superior in the aits of life to the 
 Israelites; for we read (1 Sam. xiii. 20) that the 
 latter were indebted to the former for the utensils 
 of ordinary life. Their religion was not essen- 
 tially different from that of the Phoenicians. The 
 idol which they most reverenced was Astarte, 
 the Assyrian Semiramis, or Derketo, who was 
 also honoured as Dagon, in a very ancient temple 
 at Askalon and at Gaza, also at Ashdod (Movers, 
 p. 5S9, sq. ; Lengerke, Kanaan, p. 200 ; Herod 
 i. 105 ; Judg. xvi. 23 ; l Sam. v. 1, sq. ; 1 Mace, 
 x. 83). This was a species of tish- worship, a 
 remnant of which may still be found in the 
 special care taken of certain holy fish in some 
 parts of Syria (Niebuhr, Reise, ii. 167 ; Burck- 
 hardt, i. 278, 521). In Ekron Baal-zebub had 
 liis chief seat. Priests and soothsayers were 
 numerous (1 Sam. vi. 2). Their magicians were 
 in repute (Isa. ii. 6), and the oracle of Baal- 
 zebub was consulted by foreigners (2 Kings i. 2). 
 They had the custom of carrying witli them in 
 war the images of their gods (2 Sam. v. 21). 
 Tradition makes the Philistines the inventors of 
 the bow and arrow. — J. R. B. 
 
 PHILOLOGUS (in\6\oyos), one of the Chris- 
 tians at Rome to whom Paul sent his salutations 
 (Rom. xvi. 15). Dorotheus makes him one of the 
 seventy disciples, and alleges that he was placed 
 by the apostle Andrew as bishop of Sinope, in 
 Pontus. But tins seems altogether improbable. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY, GREEK. It cannot be ex- 
 acted, that within the limits of a brief article, 
 in a work of this nature, and of the size to 
 which it is limited, we should enter into an histo- 
 rical, critical, or even popular account of Greek 
 philosophy ; nor that the subject, however in- 
 teresting in itself, should be introduced at all, 
 farther tlvan will minister to the right understand- 
 ing and reception of Scriptural truth. In the 
 articles Gnosticism and Logos we have shown 
 that a knowledge of Greek philosophy throws 
 light on one of the most recondite doctrines of 
 Christianity, bringing us acquainted witli expres- 
 sions and opinions current throughout, the civilized 
 world during the rise anil progress of Christianity, 
 and showing how these modes of expression came 
 to be adopted by the first converts to Christianity, 
 and afterwards to be employed by St. John in 
 his Gospel. Indeed, if a knowledge of the sacri- 
 ficial language of tire Jews throws light upon 
 Christ's mission, in so far as its object was to put 
 an end to the numerous sacrifices and ceremonial 
 ministrations of the Jewish priesthood, it is jiot 
 iess evident that a knowledge of the philosophical 
 language of the -Greeks will throw light upon the 
 first use amongst the Christian converts, and 
 upon the subsequent adoption by St. John into 
 hi* Gospel, and by St. Paul into his Epistles, of 
 the remarkable language employed to describe the 
 suasion and the nature of Christ, But not only 
 
 PHILOSOPHY, GREEK. 
 
 may a knowledge of ancient learning, and mor* 
 especially of ancient philosophy, supply valuablt 
 assistance for the better understanding of Christian 
 doctrines ; but we may derive from such know- 
 ledge the fullest and clearest proofs of the benefi*, 
 conferred by Christianity on tjie progress of prin* 
 ciple and civilization : and we may add, that we 
 have a direct warrant from St. Paul to employ 
 ancient learning, and more especially Greek phi- 
 losophy, in rendering to the Christian religion the 
 services we have specified. 
 
 Perhaps there does not occur in the Christian 
 record a more striking and important passage 
 than that whioh we shall quote from the Epistle 
 to the Romans : that Epistle which; for its general 
 and paramount interest (being equally addressed 
 to Gentile, Jew, and Christian), has been placed 
 first of the Epistles. Indeed, the Epistle to the 
 Romans proves, by the plainest facts, that Christi- 
 anity was absolutely necessary for the removal of 
 the most intolerable evils that ever oppressed the 
 world. The Apostle of the Gentiles, having in 
 the opening chapter given a fearful picture of the 
 vices and crimes of Rome, the truth of which is 
 fully established by the writings of Tacitus and 
 Suetonius, Martial ami the Roman satirists 
 (and in the next chapter, ii. 17, he charges the 
 same neglect of moral duty, under pretence of 
 a sounder faith, upon the Jews), proceeds to 
 address Gentile and Jew in a strain of manly and 
 noble eloquence, which, if we estimate the mag- 
 nitude of the interests, individual and domestic, 
 private and public, religious, moral, and political, 
 which then depended and still depends on the 
 understanding and reception of Christianity in 
 its truth and power, must be allowed to leave 
 every other example of reasoning and eloquence 
 far behind if. The words of St. Paul, following 
 his exposure of the wickedness of Rome (of 
 heathen vices as the direct consequences of heathen 
 superstitions) are contained in Rum. i. 21, 24-26, 
 28. 29, &c. 
 
 The Christian minister has in his spiritual 
 armoury no weapon of keener edge or of finer 
 temper, whether for laving bare the hidden secrets 
 of the heart, or for unfolding the mystery of salva- 
 tion in Jesus Christ. VVhat man, however igno- 
 rant, careless, or vicious he may be, does not find 
 bis inmost conscience respond to the words, ‘and 
 thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which 
 do such things and doest. the same, that thou shalt 
 escape the judgment of God 1 ?’ What resister of 
 the truth, whether by open scoffing or secret disobe- 
 dience, does not find himself pricked to the heart 
 by the words, ‘ them that are contentious, and do not 
 obey the truth?’ What sanctimonious hypocrite, 
 rigid dogmatist, or fierce persecutor, does not find 
 the hollowness and perilousness of his pretence in 
 the words, 1 not the hearers of the law are just 
 before God, but the doers of the law shall be jus- 
 tified?’ What catholic-minded, sincere-hearted, 
 rightly-conducted Christian does not find comfort 
 in the words, ‘ but glory, honour, and peace, to 
 every man that worketh good.’ What man faint- 
 ing by the way will not take courage from the 
 words, * to those who by patient continuance in 
 well doing seek for glory, and honour, and im- 
 mortality, eternal life.’ What Antinomian pro- 
 fessor of faith, as an excuse for disobedience, does 
 not feel his hepe fail him as he reads the words, 
 ‘ not the hearers of the law are jast before God 
 
PHILOSOPHY, GREEK. 
 
 but the doers of the law shall be justified,’ — or 
 should he attempt to escape the plain meaning of 
 the passage by the plea that he is neither Jew nor 
 Gentile, how will he escape from words addressed 
 in the same spirit of making obedience the test of 
 faith — ‘ What shall we say then? Shall we con- 
 tinue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid 
 — Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves 
 servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye 
 obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience 
 unto righteousness?’ Lastly, who does not feel 
 his faith, hope, and charity enlarged, as he reads 
 the following catholic extension of justice, and 
 mercy, and truth, published by the Apostle to the 
 Gentiles — ‘ Glory, and honour, and peace, to 
 every man that worketh good, of the Jew first, and 
 also of the Gentile. 1 
 
 The Protestant will not fail to remark that the 
 preaching of St. Paul exhibits a far more catholic 
 spirit than the narrower and more sectarian views 
 of St. Peter. Indeed, the word Catholic might 
 with much greater fitness be applied to the teach- 
 ing of the great Apostle to the Gentiles, than to 
 the teaching of the apostle whose Judaizing spirit 
 sought to narrow the grace of God, and to impose 
 the yoke of the ceremonial law, and to keep up 
 the power of the priesthood. And if any one of 
 the apostles is to be selected as the patron saint 
 of the whole catholic church, surely that apostle 
 should be the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Or, 
 if the Church of Rome claims to be the Catholic 
 Church, there seems an especial reason for her 
 adopting the really catholic views of Christi- 
 anity which were addressed by St. Paul to the 
 Romans. 
 
 We have found it impossible to refer to the 
 above striking and important passage from St. 
 Paul’s Epistle to the Romans without being led 
 into a few remarks upon its general scope and mean- 
 ing. But the view on which we would especially 
 insist, as the subject of our present article, is, that 
 theologians have in this passage, as they have in 
 many other passages closely connected with it, a 
 warrant for bringing ancient history, literature, 
 and philosophy, and especially the philosophy of 
 Greece, to bear upon the rise and progress, the 
 object and end of Christianity. For assuredly 
 every passage in the New Testament which 
 relates to the superstition of the Gentiles, the 
 immoralities of the Gentiles, the opinions of the 
 Gentiles, and the knowledge of the Gentiles, must 
 derive evidence and explanation from Gentile 
 history, literature, and philosophy; just as pas- 
 sages which have reference to the Jews must 
 derive evidence and explanation from Jewish his- 
 tory, literature, and philosophy. The latter is 
 more especially the case with passages in the New 
 Testament, which relate to the termination of 
 sacrifice and the priesthood ; whilst, the former 
 applies more especially to passages which relate 
 to the word of God and the Christian ministry. 
 It might, indeed, be supposed from the opinions 
 and conduct of some Christians in all ages (who 
 have all but. adduced their ignorance in proof of 
 the soundness of their faith), that the oft-quoted 
 words of the learned, as well as pious, Apostle to 
 the Gentiles, ‘after that, in the wisdom of God, 
 the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased 
 God by the foolishness of preaching to save them 
 that believe’ (1 Cor. i. 12), contained a warrant, 
 on the we hand, for preaching without knowledge, 
 
 PHILOSOPHY, GREEK. 525 
 
 and on the oilier hand, for faith without obedi* 
 ence. If we inquire into the real meaning of 
 those remarkable words, we shall find it closely 
 connected with our present subject, and directly 
 opposed to the unlearned and unwise meaning 
 which has been deduced from it, by what, may bo 
 called the pride of ignorance, as a warrant for 
 presumption. Indeed, it is not a little remark- 
 able, that few passages require more real learning 
 and true wisdom for their sound interpretation, 
 than that which has been so often and so hastily 
 quoted as a warrant for a contempt of all learning. 
 Let us endeavour to understand the real meaning 
 of the passage : and, in order to do so, let us 
 return to our former quotation. 
 
 In the first chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, the necessity of a great religious change, 
 preparatory to a great moral change — a change of 
 faith and worship, preparatory to a change ir. 
 principles and conduct — is fully and plainly made 
 out. The Apostle to the Gentiles was about to 
 build upon the Jewish Scriptures, but, for the 
 edification of the whole world, a purer faith and 
 a more reasonable service than Jew or Gentile 
 had yet known. The moral ruin of the Jewish 
 temple had already taken place — ‘ Behold, thou 
 art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and 
 makest thy boast of God ; and knowest his will, 
 and approvest the things that are more excellent, 
 being instructed out of the law ; and art con- 
 fident that thou thyself art* a guide to the blind, a 
 light of them which are in darkness, an instructor 
 of the foolish, a teacher of babes; which hast the 
 form of knowledge and of the truth in the law ; — 
 Thou, therefore, which teachest another, teach est 
 thou not thyself? Thou that preachest, A man 
 should not steal, dost thou steal ? Thou that 
 sayest, A man should not commit adultery, dost 
 thou commit adultery?, Thou that abhorrest 
 idols, dost thou commit sacrilege ? Thou that 
 makest thy boast of the law, through breaking 
 the law dishonourest thou God’ (Rom. ii. 21)? 
 On the other hand, the ruins of Gentile temples, 
 Egyptian, Greek, and Roman, still witness the 
 truth of St. Paul’s words to the same effect — 
 ‘ When they knew God, they glorified him not as 
 God, but became vain in their imaginations, and 
 their foolish heart was darkened. Professing 
 themselves to be wise, they became fools, and 
 changed the glory of the incorruptible God into 
 an image made like to corruptible man, and to 
 birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 
 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleau- 
 ness.’ 
 
 It is impossible to over-estimate the importance 
 of this lesson, or the plainness of the evidence; 
 the lesson , that corruption of religion implies cor- 
 ruption of morals; the evidence, the phenomena 
 of the civilized world at that, great period of 
 history. Respecting the religious and moral 
 corruptions of ibe Jews at that period, our present 
 argument does not require us to say more. Lei 
 us then turn to the corruptions of the heathens. 
 Those who are acquainted with the progressively- 
 increasing profligacy of the heathen world, as ex- 
 hibited in Greek and Roman history and literature, 
 are aware that the picture drawn by St. Paul is 
 fully borne out by facts. The sanctity and purity 
 of the domestic hearth were undei mined; the 
 roof-tree virtues, which are a nation’s strength, 
 had given way ; and the vast edifice of Greek 
 
526 PHILOSOPHY, GREEK. 
 
 science and Roman power was tottering to its 
 fall. That this is no exaggerated statement, we 
 appeal to Plato, Aristophanes, and Lucian, to 
 Tacitus, Martial, Ovid, and the Roman satirists. 
 Indeed, the summary given by the Roman His- 
 torian of a somewhat earlier period, points to the 
 same conclusion : — ‘ Labante deinde paulatim 
 disciplina, velut desidentes, primo mores sequatur 
 animo ; deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, turn 
 ire cceperint praecipites : donee ad haec tempora, 
 quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus, 
 perventum est ’ (Liv. Preef.'). In that state of 
 unprinciple and indiscipline, Roman civilization 
 was unable to resist the attacks which her vices 
 had provoked. The close connection between licen- 
 tiousness and blood-guiltiness was never so 
 strikingly manifested as in the frightful exhibi- 
 tions which formed ‘a Roman holiday’ in the 
 amphitheatre. Woman must have lost all the 
 best attributes of her nature and her character 
 before she could sit and applaud at such a scene. 
 If, casting from us every poor and petty jealousy, 
 sexual, and sectarian, and philosophical, we con- 
 trast that scene of woman’s debasement with 
 those happier scenes where thousands of our 
 countrywomen have met in hall and temple, 
 and even in the open air, to give freedom to 
 the slave, and remember that these are as cer- 
 tainly direct consequences of Christianity, as 
 those were direct consequences of heathen super- 
 stition (unless, indee^, St. Paul’s unanswerable 
 argument, and the concurrent testimony of ancient 
 and modern history, are false instead of true), 
 assuredly we have before us proofs of a great 
 religious and moral and political advance in the 
 situation and character of women ; and the cause, 
 as well as the effect, is plainly before us. 
 
 W e speak of a great and notorious fact, when 
 we say that there was not a hope that sanctity, 
 and purity, and love, would be restored to the 
 character of woman, and by her means to the 
 domestic hearth, — and by the domestic hearth to 
 the councils of legislators, and the acts of nations, 
 — that there was not a hope that woman would 
 resume, or rather, would assume, her true position 
 in society, till heathen superstitions and heathen 
 rites were superseded by a holier faith and a purer 
 worship. Nor is the fact less notorious or less 
 important, that it was the religion of Christ 
 which, by superseding those heathen superstitions 
 and heathen rites by a holier faith and a purer 
 worship, did, at the same time, and as a direct 
 consequence, raise woman to her true position in 
 society. It is, we repeat, matter of fact that the 
 religion of Christ restored sanctity, and purity, 
 and love to the domestic hearth, making those 
 three Christian graces, if we may be allowed that 
 expression, the best ornaments of the female cha- 
 racter, and giving Christian love and Christian 
 charity an influence which has at once softened 
 and purified the heart. And, were it possible that 
 the ill-directed ingenuity which has laboured for 
 the downfall of religion on the continent, should 
 get footing in this country, we persuade ourselves 
 that it would be resisted effectually by our 
 countrywomen, who might plead that the best 
 graces of their character, — graces which have 
 made them eminent amongst the women of Europe, 
 need we add, of the world, — their sanctity, their 
 purity, and their affection, have been inspired, 
 wd disciplined, and directed by the religion of 
 
 PHILOSOPHY, GREEK. 
 
 Christ. Now, as there cannot be a greater ^ ii 
 to society than the corruption of women, nor a 
 greater good than female virtue, so there cannot 
 be a more important evidence respecting the value 
 of Christianity in the progress of civilization, 
 than this proof which ancient history and lite- 
 rature supply ; first, of the moral degradation 
 produced by heathen superstition ; and, secondly, 
 of the moral cure wrought by Christianity. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Romans, it is the object of 
 St. Paul to prove, both to Jew and Gentile, that 
 the moral world, though it had the law of Moses 
 and the philosophy of Greece, was so sunk in 
 superstition, sin, and crime, that the whole body 
 of society was corrupt, and that there was nut a 
 hope of cure till the sources of corruption, whether 
 in the pharisaical observances of the Jew, or in 
 the profligate superstitions of the Gentile, were 
 sujierseded by a purer faitli and a sounder worship. 
 St. Paul contends that neither the law of Moses, 
 nor the philosophy of Greece, was able to raise 
 Jew or Gentile from the bondage of sin and 
 death ; and he challenges the religious and the 
 moral, and, we may add, the political facts of 
 those times, to prove the truth of his assertion. 
 His object was not to depreciate either the Mosaic 
 law or the Greek philosophy, the authority of the 
 one, or the morality of the other, but to show that so 
 long as the pharisaical observances of the Jew, and 
 the profligate superstitions of the Gentile, remained 
 in force, neither religion nor philosophy could pre- 
 vent the world from sinking deeper and deeper into 
 pollution. The Apostle of the Gentiles allows 
 that ‘ they knew God,’ but he contends that 
 ‘they glorified Him not as God ;’ and, therefore, he 
 asserts, ‘ God gave them up to lasciviousness he 
 allows, ‘ that some amongst them, though they 
 had not the law, did by nature the things con- 
 tained in the law,’ but he contends that the prin- 
 ciples and conduct of such men were but an oasis 
 in the midst of a howling wilderness, for that the 
 mass of men were given up ‘ to vile affections.’ 
 
 It is impossible to deny that in the Greek phi- 
 losophy we find the rise and progress of a specu- 
 lative knowledge of God of no common character 
 or measure ; but it is just as impossible to deny 
 that though the nations, amongst which a few 
 such burning and shining lights had arisen, might 
 be said ‘ to know God,’ it was notorious that 
 ‘ they glorified Him not as God.’ It is by 
 following out St. Paul’s argument, and by ex- 
 amining the truth of his statements, that we feel 
 all the necessity of an abolition of heathen super- 
 stitions, and the establishing of a better faith, 
 before sound principles and right conduct could 
 be understood and practised by the mass ol 
 mankind, though they had been conceived by a 
 few philosophers. 
 
 If to this evidence of the necessity of a change 
 of faith and worship for the salvation of the 
 ancient world, proving that without such change 
 the religious, and moral, and political reforma- 
 tions which were required, were quite unattain- 
 able, — if, to this evidence, we add proofs of the 
 religious, moral, and political reformation which 
 Christianity actually introduced, — and if, to this 
 two-fold evidence respecting the necessity of a 
 change of faith, and the efficacy of the change to 
 Christianity, we add the evidence of the actual 
 effects of Christianity in our own times, freedom 
 to the slave, knowledge to the ignorant, and civi- 
 
PHINEHAS. 
 
 ligation to the heathen (for though these benefits 
 have been wrought by politicians, it has been in 
 compliance with a motive and a zeal which as- 
 suredly were not supplied by worldly wisdom or 
 worldly justice), — and if, to this three-fold evi- 
 dence, we add present indications, that still 
 higher religious, and moral, and political effects 
 will be wrought out by Christianity — we have in 
 this four-fold evidence a body of proof respecting 
 the usefulness of Christianity exactly fitted for 
 the wants of the time. — J. P. P. 
 
 PHINEHAS (DHPS, mouth of brass ; Sept, 
 son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron 
 the high priest. An incident which illustrates 
 the zealous and somewhat passionate character of 
 Phinehas, occurred before the Israelites entered 
 the Promised Land. The Israelites we’-e en- 
 camped in the plains of Moab, and were lament- 
 ing the sin into which they had been seduced by 
 the Midianites, when a prince of Judah named 
 Zimri was beheld conducting a woman ofMidian 
 named Cozbi to his tent. The licentious effron- 
 tery of this act kindled the wrath of Phinehas, 
 who hastened after them into the tent, and trans- 
 fixed them both with his javelin (Num. xxv. 7, 
 sq.) This bold act pointed out Phinehas to 
 Moses as a proper person to accompany as priest 
 the expedition which was immediately after sent 
 forth, under the command of Joshua, against the 
 Midianites, and by which the cause of the de- 
 luded Israelites was abundantly avenged (Num. 
 xxxi. 6, sq.) After the conquest of the Promised 
 Land, when the warriors of the two and half 
 tribes beyond the Jordan were permitted to return 
 to their homes, Phinehas was at the head of the 
 deputation sent after them to inquire and remon 
 strate concerning the altar which, on their way, 
 they had set up on the bank of the Jordan ; and 
 it was he doubtless who pronounced the forcible 
 address to the supposed offenders. He was cer- 
 tainly the first to express his satisfaction and joy 
 at the explanation which was given, and which, 
 with a lightened heart, he bore back to the tribes 
 assembled at Shiloh (Josh. xxii. 5, sq.). 
 
 It appears that while his father lived Phinehas 
 filled the post of superintendent or chief of the 
 «.«Levites, probably after Eleazar became high priest 
 (Num. iii. 32; 1 Chron. ix. 20). At the death 
 of his father, he succeeded to the pontificate 
 (Josh. xxiv. 33) ; but the only case in which he 
 appears officially in the Bible, is in connection 
 with the unhappy circumstances recorded at the 
 end of the book of Judges, in which he comes 
 forward as high priest to consult Jehovah. This 
 mention of his name enables us to conclude that 
 the chronological place of these occurrences would 
 be rather towards the beginning than at the latter 
 end of the book in which they are found [Judges ; 
 Priest]. 
 
 2. PHINEHAS, son of Eli the high priest, and 
 brother of Hophni [Ei.i ; Hophni; Samuel]. 
 
 PHLEGON ($\eya>v), one of the Christians 
 of Rome to whom Paul sent his salutations (Rom. 
 xvi. 14). The legend ( op . Dorotheas) makes 
 him to have been one of the seventy disciples, and 
 bishop of Marathon. 
 
 PHCEBE ( 4 * 01 / 377 ), a deaconess of the church 
 at Cenchreae, recommended to the kind atten- 
 tion of the church of Rome by St. Paul, who had 
 received liospitable treatment from her (Rom. 
 
 PHOENICIA. 527 
 
 xvi. 1). It is probable that she was the bearer of 
 the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 PHOENICIA, and the PHOENICIANS. The 
 Greeks called those merchants who came from 
 that coast of the Mediterranean Sea which runs 
 parallel with Mount Lebanon, Golvuccs. This 
 name probably arose from the circumstance that 
 the chief article of the commerce of these mer- 
 chants was <\>oiv6s, purple. The word <poiv6s means 
 bloodied, and is probably related to tySros, mur 
 der . This derivation of the name is alluded to 
 by Strabo (i. p. 42), Strabo, however, maintains 
 that the Phoenicians were called QoIvikos, because 
 they resided originally on the coasts of the Red 
 Sea. Reland, in his Palccstina ex Monument is 
 Veteribus Ilhistrata, derives the name from 
 <polvi£, palm-tree. Bocliart, in his Canaan (i. 
 1), derives it from the Hebrew pjy sons of 
 Anakm 
 
 The country inhabited by the Phoenicians was 
 called by the Greeks QoivIki 7 , and by the Romans 
 Phoenice. In Cicero (De Fin. iv. 20) there oc- 
 curs the doubtful reading Phoenicia. (Compare 
 the Vulgate in Num. xxxiii. 51.) However, this 
 latter form of the name has come into general 
 use. (Compare Gesenii Monumenta Phoenicia , 
 Lips. 1837, p. 338; Forbiger, Ha?idbuch der 
 alien Geographie, Lips. 1842-44, p. 659, sq.) 
 
 This name was used by the ancients sometimes 
 in a wider, sometimes in a narrower sense. Phoe- 
 nicia, in its widest signification, embraces the 
 whole coast of the Mediterranean situated between 
 the river Orontes and Pelusium. (Compare 
 Strabo, xvi. p. 754, sq.) When Ptolemaeus and 
 Strabo speak of Phoenicia in a more restricted 
 sense, they mention the river Eleutheros as its 
 northern boundary ; and Ptolemaius states also 
 that Dora, situated to the south of the promon- 
 tory Carmel, and north of the river Chorseus, 
 was the most southern of the maritime towns ol 
 Phoenicia. The accounts contained in the Old 
 Testament agree with these statements, since the} 
 mention the town of Aradus ("IVIN), situated a 
 short distance north of the river Eleutheros, as 
 being the most northern town of those maritime 
 colonies which had proceeded from Sidon, and 
 Dor as being the most southern maritime town 
 belonging to the Canaanites, which the Israelites 
 had not been able to conquer. (Compare Gen. x. 
 18; Jos. xvii. 12,13.) However, it appears that 
 at a later period the tribe of Manasseh was in 
 possession of this town. (Compare 1 Kings iv. 
 11; 1 Chron. vii. 29). The towns Dor and Acco 
 (Ptolemais) were mercantile places of less im- 
 portance than Tyre and Sidon, and are conse- 
 quently not often mentioned. Hence arises the 
 fact that the territory of Sidon is sometimes spoken 
 of as if it were the most southern part of Phoe- 
 nicia. For this reason we, also, in speaking of 
 Phoenicia, mean only that slip of the coast which 
 is bounded towards the east by Mount Lebanon, 
 which is about twelve miles wide, and extends 
 about one hundred miles from north to south, be- 
 tween the river Eleutheros and the promontory 
 Carmel. The Israelites called this slip J.V33, the 
 netherlands, or loivlands , in contradistinction to 
 the neighbouring mountains. (Compare Forbiger, 
 Handbuch der alten Geographie , Lips. 1842-44, 
 vol. ii. p. 659, sq.) 
 
 Phoenicia is situated between about lat. 33® 
 and 35° N., and under long. 33° E, The whol« 
 
528 
 
 PHOENICIA. 
 
 PHOENICIA, 
 
 of Phoenicia is situated at the western declivity of 
 Mount Lebanon. Compare the article Libanus 
 
 Phoenicia was distinguished by the variety of its 
 vegetable productions. This variety was occa- 
 sioned by the great diversity of climate produced 
 by the diversity in the elevation of the soil. The 
 Lebanon is said to bear winter on its head, 
 spring on its shoulders, autumn in its lap, and tc 
 have summer at its feet. The fertility of Phoe- 
 nicia is increased by the numerous streams whose 
 springs are in Mount Lebanon. Even in the 
 ■Song of Solomon we read the praises of the spr ing 
 of living waters which flows down from Lebanon. 
 The dense population assembled in the great, mer- 
 cantile towns greatly contributed to augment by 
 artificial means the natural fertility of the soil. 
 The population of the country is at present very 
 much reduced, but there are still found aqueducts 
 and artificial vineyards formed of mould carried 
 up to the terraces of the naked rock. Ammianus 
 Marcellinus says, Phoenice regio plena gra- 
 tiarum et venustatis, urbibus decorata magnis et 
 pulchris — Phoenicia is a charming and beau- 
 tiful country, adorned with large and elegant 
 cities. Even now this country is among the most 
 fertile in Western Asia. It produces wheat, rye, 
 and barley, and, besides the more ordinary fruits, 
 also apricots, peaches, pomegranates, almonds, 
 citrons, oranges, figs, dates, sugar-cane, and grapes, 
 which furnish an excellent wine. In addition to 
 these products, it yields cotton, silk, and tobacco. 
 The country is also adorned by the variegated 
 flowers of oleander and cactus. The higher re- 
 gions are distinguished from the bare mountains 
 of Palestine by being covered with oaks, pines, 
 cypress-trees, acacias, and tamarisks ; and above 
 all by majestic cedars, of which there are still a 
 few very old trees, whose stems measure from 
 thirty to forty feet in circumference. The inha- 
 bitants of Sur still carry on a profitable traffic 
 with the produce of Mount Lebanon, namely, 
 wood and charcoal. Phoenicia produces also 
 flocks of sheep and goats; and innumerable 
 swarms of bees supply excellent honey. In the 
 forests there are bears, wolves, panthers, and 
 jackals. The sea furnishes great quantities of 
 fish, so that Sidon, the most ancient among the 
 Phoenician towns, derived its name from fishing. 
 Concerning the natural geography of Phoenicia, 
 compare especially the works ol'Forbiger, Raumer, 
 and Robinson; also Winer, vol. ii. p. 30. 
 
 The inhabitants of Phoenicia might at the first 
 view appear to have derived their origin from the 
 same source (pre-Abrahamite) as the Hebrews; 
 for they spoke the same language. The Plue- 
 nician proper names of persons and places occur- 
 ring in the Old Testam<*ct may be explained 
 
 from the Hebrew. For instance, Mel- 
 
 chizedek, king of righteousness (Gen. xiv. 18); 
 
 'UK, Abimelech,/a<Aer of the king (Gen. 
 xx. 2) ; “)¥, rock, the Hebrew name for Tyre. 
 The Phoenician inscriptions on monuments and 
 coins exhibit also the characteristics of the Hebrew 
 dialect in contradistinction to the Aramaean and 
 Arabic. There are slight deviations from the an- 
 cient classical Hebrew, which may easily be ex- 
 plained from the circumstance that the most 
 ancient Phoenician inscriptions now extant are 
 Dot older than the fourth century before Christ. 
 The most ancient Phoenician inscriptions are 
 
 those on the Cilician coins. (Compare Gesenh.a, 
 Geschichtc der Hebriiischen Sprache tend Sc/in ft, 
 Leipz. 1815, p. 16, sq. ; and Gesenii Monu - 
 menta Phoenicia , p. 335, sq.) 
 
 In the Old Testament the Phoenicians and 
 Canaanites are, however, described as descending, 
 not from Shem, but from Ham. Herodotus, also, 
 on the authority of some Persian historians, states 
 that the Phoenicians came as colonists to 1 he Syrian 
 coasts from the Erythraean Sea. He even appeals 
 to the statement of the Phoenicians themselves 
 (vii. 89). from which it appears that they resided 
 originally on the shores of the Erythraean Sea; 
 which sea, in its larger signification, extended from 
 the eastern shores of Egypt to the western shores of 
 India. Strabo relates in his sixteenth book (p. 766), 
 that in the Persian Gulf were two islands; one 
 of which was called Tyros or Tylos, and the other 
 Aradus, on which were found temples similar to 
 those of the Phoenicians, and inhabitants, who 
 stated that, the Phoenicians went out from them 
 as colonists. An island, south of the Bahrein 
 Islands, st ill bears the name of Arad. (Compare 
 Niebuhr’s Beschreibung von Arabien.) Jus 
 tinus also (xvi. 3) furnishes a similar account 
 of the origin of the Phoenicians. These are the 
 authorities by which most antiquarians have been 
 induced to consider the Phoenicians as colonists 
 from the Persian Gulf. Hamaker, however, in 
 his Miscellanea Phoenicia (Lugduni Batavorum, 
 1828, p. 172, sq.), asserts that the Phoenicians 
 came from the Arabian Gulf ; and Hengstenberg 
 ( De Jlebtis Tyriomm, Berolini, 1S32, p. 93) 
 maintains that the Phoenicians came into their 
 country immediately after the dispersion of man- 
 kind. However, they are not mentioned in 
 Genesis among the inhabitants of Palestine. 
 
 The first Phoenician colony was Sidon, which is 
 therefore called in Genesis (x. 15) the first-born 
 of Canaan. But soon other colonies arose, like 
 Arka (Gen. x. 17), Aradus, and Smyrna (Gen. 
 x. 18), &c., whose power extended beyond the 
 Jordan, and who drove out before them the earlier 
 inhabitants of Palestine. Hence it arose that the 
 appellation, ‘the land of Canaan,’ was transferred 
 to the whole of Palestine, although it is by no 
 means a country of a low level, but is full of 
 high elevations. However, the Canaanites, in t 
 stricter sense, were the people who resided in the; 
 lower regions along the coast, and on the bank* 
 of' the Jordan. 
 
 When the Israelites conquered the country, the 
 Canaanites on the Phoenician coast, who resided 
 in powerful maritime towns, preserved their inde- 
 pendence, and were called Canaanites in parti- 
 cular. Thus we read, in Isa. xxiii. 11, 
 Canaan, in the signification of Phoenicia. The 
 same word has also this meaning in the inscrip- 
 tions on the Phoenician coins. In the Septuagint 
 the Hebrew is frequently translated (poll'll 
 
 In Job xl. 30, A. V. xli. 6, the word '3^32 mean 
 a merchant , because the Phoenicians were the 
 most important of all mercantile nations. 
 
 The Carthaginians, as Phoenician colonists, 
 maintained, even in the days of St. Augustine, 
 that they were Canaanites. In Greek writers also 
 occurs the natne f° r Phoenicia (comp. Gesenii 
 Thesaurus Linfuae Hebraicee, Lipsiae, 1839, tom 
 ii. p. 696, and Gesenii Monumenta Phoenicia , 
 p. 270, sq.). The d^ilect of the Israelites perhaps 
 resembled more the Aramaean, and that of tiy 
 
PHOENICIA. 
 
 PHOENICIA. 
 
 529 
 
 Pbosnicians more the Arabic ; but this difference 
 was nearly effaced when both nations resided in 
 the same country, and had frequent intercourse 
 with each other. Concerning the original country 
 of the Phoenicians and their immigration into Ca- 
 naan, compare especially Bertheau, Zur Geschickte 
 der Israeliten, pp. 152-1 S6, Gottingen, 1810; 
 and Leugerke’s Iianaan , Volks und Religions - 
 geschichte Israels, vol. i. p. 182, sq., Konigsberg, 
 1844. 
 
 During the period of the conquest of Canaan 
 by the Israelites, the Phoenicians possessed the 
 following towns, which we will enumerate suc- 
 cessively, in the direction from south to north : — 
 Dora OH, Josh. xi. 2 ; xvii. 11, sq.) ; Plolemais 
 ()yj, Judg. i. 33); Ecdippa '(I'DX, Josh. xix. 
 29) ; Tyre ("11 ¥, J° s h- 29) ; Sarepta (flSHl?, 
 
 1 Kings xvii. 9, sq. ; Luke iv. 26) ; Sidon (}1T¥, 
 Gen. x. 15); Berytus (iUVnill, Ezek. xlvii. 16; 
 
 2 Sam. viii. 8); Byblus Josh. xiii. 5); 
 
 Tripolis, Simyra ('"ID^H, Gen. x. 18); Arka 
 Cpiyn, Gen. x. 17); Simna ('D'Dil, Gen. x. 
 16); Aradus (Hn^H, Gen. x. 18). Compare 
 the respective articles on these towns. Sidon is 
 the only Phoenician, town mentioned in Homer 
 (see Iliad, vi. 239 ; xxiii. 743 ; Odyss. xv. 415 ; 
 xvii. 424). 
 
 The Phoenicians in general are sometimes called 
 vSidonians (comp. Gesenii Monumenta Phoenicia, 
 ii. 267, sq. ; Thesaurus Lingua Ilebraica, under 
 the word jIT*^). Justinus (xviii. 3) alludes to 
 the etymology of this name : ‘ Condita urbe quam 
 a piscium ubertate Sidona appellaverunt ; nam 
 piscem Phoenices Sidon vocabant,’ — a city being 
 built which they called Sidon, from the abundance 
 erf fishes ; for the Phoenicians call a fish sidon. 
 This statement, is not quite correct. But the root 
 T)Y, which in Hebrew means only to catch beasts 
 and birds, can also be employed in Arabic when 
 the catching of fishes is spoken of. This root 
 occurs also in the Aramaic, in the signification of 
 both hunting and fishing (compare the article 
 Zidon). 
 
 Heeren, in his work, On the Commerce and 
 Politics of the Ancients, vol. i. part ii. p. 9, Got- 
 tingen, 1824, justly observes that the numerous 
 towns whicli were crowded together in the narrow 
 space of Phoenicia covered almost the entire coast, 
 and, together with their harbours and fleets, must 
 have presented an aspect which has scarcely ever 
 been equalled, and which was calculated to im- 
 press every stranger on his arrival with the ideas 
 of wealth, power, and enterprise. 
 
 We have no continuous history of the Phoeni- 
 cians. The sources of such a history, as well as 
 the works proceeding from them, have been lost. 
 Josephus states that there were kept in various 
 Phoenician towns, collections of public docu- 
 ments and annals. Menander of Ephesus derived 
 his information from such annals when he wrote, 
 in Greek, a history of Tyre (compare Josephus, 
 Contra Ap. 1. 17, 18). Dias, also, a native Phoe- 
 nician, wrote, in Greek, a history of Tyre. Of 
 these two works, only a few fragments have been 
 preserved (compare Joseph. Antiq., viii. 5. 3 ; xiii. 
 1 , sq. ; ix. 14. 2 ; Cont. Ap. i. 77, sq. ; Theophil. 
 Ad Autol. iii. 22; Sync. Chron. p. 182). Philo 
 of Byblus translated and re-modelled, during 
 the reign of Hadrian, a history of Phoenicia and 
 Egypt, said to be composed by Sanchoniathon, 
 
 VOX- X*. 
 
 b.c . 1250. From this woiit Porpliyiius, in lhe 
 fourth century after Christ, borrowed come co»- 
 mogonical arguments, which have been preserved 
 in Eusebii Preparatio Evangelica (i. 10). The 
 nature of these fragments is such, that they cannot 
 throw much light upon Phoenician history. Theo- 
 dotus, Hesycrates, and Moschos, are mentioned 
 as authors on Phoenicia, by Tatianus (Cont. 
 Graces, § 37) : their works are likewise lost. 
 Gesenius mentions, in his Monumenta Phoenicia 
 (p. 363, sq.), some later Phoenician authors, who 
 do not touch upon historical subjects. Our 
 knowledge of Phoenician history is . consequently 
 confined to occasional notices in the Hebrew ami 
 classical authors of antiquity. This deficiency 
 of historical information arises also from the cir- 
 cumstance that the facts of Phoenician history 
 were less connected than the events in the history 
 of other nations. The Phoenicians never formed 
 one compact body politic, and consequently did 
 not always gradually advance in their political 
 constitution and in the extent of their power. 
 Every town endeavoured to advance its commerce 
 in its own way. Thus there constantly entered 
 into the life of the Phoenicians new elements, 
 which disturbed a gradual historical progress 
 Phoenicia was a country favourable to the growth 
 of maritime towns, but did not afford room for 
 great political events. The history of the Phoe 
 nicians is that of their external commerce. 
 
 A mercantile nation cannot bear despotic 
 government, because the greatest external liberty 
 is requisite in order constantly to discover new 
 sources of gain, and to enlarge the roads of com- 
 merce. The whole of Phoenicia consisted of the 
 territories belonging to the various towns. Each 
 of these territories had its own constitution, and 
 in most of them a king exercised supreme power. 
 We hear of kings of Sidon, Tyre, Aradus, and 
 Byblus. It seems that alter Nebuchadnezzar hail 
 besieged Tyre in vain, the royal dignity ceased 
 for some time, and that there existed a kind of re- 
 publican administration, under sujfetes or judges. 
 The regal power was always limited by the ma- 
 gistracy and the priesthood. The independent 
 Phoenician states seem to have formed a con- 
 federation, at the head of which stood for some 
 time Sidon, and at a later period Tyre. Tripoli i 
 was built conjointly by the various states in order 
 to form the seat, of their congress. The smaller 
 states were sometimes so much oppressed by 
 Tyre, that they preferred rather to submit to ex- 
 ternal enemies (compare Heeren’s Ideen , & c., p. 
 1 5, sq. ; Beck’s Anleitung zur yenaueren 
 Kenntniss der Welt- und V biker- Geschichte, p. 
 252, sq., and 581, sq.). 
 
 The position of Phoenicia was most favourable 
 for the exchange of the produce of the East and 
 West. The Libanus furnished excellent timber 
 for ships. Corn was imported from Palestine. 
 Persians, Lydians, and Lycians, frequently served 
 as mercenaries in the Phoenician armies (Ezek. 
 xxvii. 10, 11). Phoenicia exported wine to 
 Egypt (Herod, iii. 5, 6). Purple garments were 
 best manufactured in Tyre (Amat.i, Be Resti- 
 tutione Purpurarum , 3d edit., Casenae, 1784). 
 Glass was made in Sidon and Sarepta (compare 
 Heeren, p. 86, sq. ; Beck, p. 593, sq.). In Phoe- 
 nicia was exchanged the produce of all known 
 countries. After David had vanquished the 
 Edomites and conquered the coasts of the Reel 
 
530 
 
 PHOENICIA. 
 
 PHOENICIA. 
 
 Sea, King Hiram of Tyre entered into a con- 
 federacy with Solomon, by which he ensured for 
 his people the right of navigation to India. The 
 combined fleet of the Israelites and Phoenicians 
 sailed from the seaports of Ezion-geber and Elath. 
 These ports were situated on the eastern branch 
 of the Red Sea, the Sinus jElaniticus, or Gulf 
 of Akaba. Israelitish-Phcenician mercantile ex- 
 peditious proceeded to Ophir, perhaps Abhira, 
 situated at Ihe mouth of the Indus (compare 
 Lassen’s Indische A Iterthumskunde, i. 537, sq., 
 Bonn, 1844). It seems, however, that the Indian 
 coasts in general were also called Ophir. Three 
 years were required in order to accomplish a mer- 
 cantile expedition to Ophir and to return with 
 cargoes of gold, algum-wood, ivory, silver, mon- 
 keys, peacocks, and other Indian produce. Some 
 names of these products are Indian transferred 
 
 into Hebrew, as almuggim ; Sanscrit 
 
 valgu , or, according to the Decanic pronuncia- 
 tion, valgum ; D'OrTfC* shen-habbim (ivory) ; 
 Sanscrit ibha ; ?]lp, koph (fape) ; Sanscrit kapi ; 
 
 tukkiyim (peacock); Sanscrit cilchi, ac- 
 cording to the Decanic pronunciation (compare 1 
 Kings ix. 27 ; x. 11, 22) [Commerce ; Ophir]. 
 
 It seems, however, that these mercantile expe- 
 ditions to India were soon given up, probably on 
 account of the great difficulty of navigating the 
 Red Sea. King Jehoshaphat endeavoured to 
 recommence these expeditions, but his fleet was 
 wrecked at Ezion-geber (1 Kings xxii. 49). 
 Abcut b c. 616 or 601, Phoenician seamen un- 
 dertook, at the command of Pharaoh-Necho, a 
 voyage of discovery, proceeding from the Red 
 Sea round Africa, and returning after two years 
 through the columns of Hercules to Egypt (Herod, 
 iv. 42). The 27th chapter of Ezekiel mentions 
 the commerce by land between India and Phoe- 
 nicia. The names of mercantile establishments 
 on the coasts of Arabia along the Persian Gulf 
 have partly been preserved to the present day. 
 In these places the Phoenicians exchanged the 
 produce of the west for that of India, Arabia, and 
 Ethiopia. Arabia especially furnished incense, 
 gold, and precious stones. The Midianites (Gen. 
 xxxvii. 28) and the Edomites (Ezek. xxvii. 16) 
 effected the transit by their caravans. The forti- 
 fied Idumaean town Petra contained probably the 
 storehouses in which the produce of southern 
 countries was collected. From Egypt the Phoe- 
 nicians exported especially byssus (Ezek. xxvii. 7) 
 for wine. According to an ancient tradition, the 
 ■tyrant of Thebes, Busiris, having soiled his hands 
 with the blood of all foreigners, was killed by the 
 Tyrian Hercules. This indicates that Phoenician 
 colonists established themselves and their civiliza- 
 tion successfully in Upper Egypt, where all 
 strangers usually had been persecuted. 
 
 At a later period Memphis was the place where 
 most of the Phoenicians in Egypt were established. 
 Phoenician inscriptions found in Egypt prove 
 that even under the Ptolemies the intimate con- 
 nection between Phoenicia and Egypt still existed 
 (compare Gesenii Monumenta Phoenicia , xiii. 
 224, sq.). 
 
 From Palestine the Phoenicians imported, be- 
 sides wheat, especially from Judsea, ivory, oil, 
 and balm ; also wool, principally from the neigh- 
 bouring nomadic Arabs. Damascus furnished 
 wine (Ezek. xxvii. 5, 6, 17, 18, 21), and the 
 
 mountains of Syria wood. The tribes about 
 the shores of the Caspian Sea furnished slaves 
 
 and iron ; for instance, the Tibaraeans (^OlT. 
 Tubal), and Moschi (^D Meshech). Horse- 
 men, horses, and mules, came from the Armenians 
 (nD“)3n Togarmah). See Heeren, pp. 86-130. 
 
 The treasures of the East were exported from 
 Phoenicia by ships which sailed first to Cyprus, 
 the mountains of which are visible from the 
 Phoenician coast. Citium was a Phoenician co- 
 lony in Cyprus, the name of which was trans- 
 ferred to the whole of Cyprus, and even to some 
 neighbouring islands and coasts called 
 (Gen. x. 4 ; Isa. xxiii. 1, 12). Hence also DTlil., 
 the name of a Canaanitish or Phoenician tribe 
 (Gesen. Mon. Phcen., p. 153). Cyprus was subject 
 to Tyre up to the time of Alexander the Great. 
 There are still found Phoenician inscriptions 
 which prove the connection of Cyprus with Tyre. 
 At Rhodes (D'OTl) also are found vestiges of 
 Phoenician influence v . From Rhodes the moun- 
 tains of Crete are visible. This was of great 
 importance for the direction of navigators, before 
 the discovery of the compass. In Crete, and also 
 in the Cycladic and Sporadic Isles, are vestiges of 
 Phoenician settlements. On the Isle of Thasos, 
 on the southern coast of Thrace, the Phoenicians 
 had gold mines ; and even on the southern shores 
 of the Black Sea, they had factories. However, 
 when the Greeks became more powerful, the Phoe- 
 nicians sailed more in other directions. They 
 occupied also Sicily and the neighbouring islands, 
 but were, after the Greek colonization, confined 
 to a few towns, Motya, Soloes, Panormus (Thuc. 
 vi. 2). The Phoenician mercantile establishments 
 in Sardinia and the Balearic Isles could scarcely 
 be called colonies. 
 
 Carthage was a Phoenician colony, which pro- 
 bably soon became important by commerce with 
 the interior of Africa, and remained connected 
 with Tyre by means of a common sanctuary. 
 After Phoenicia had been vanquished by the 
 Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, the settle- 
 ments in Sicily, Sardinia, and Spain came into 
 the power of Carthage. The Phoenicians had for 
 a long period exported from Spain gold, silver, 
 tin, iron, lead (Ezek. xxxviii. 13), fruit, wine, oil, 
 wax, fish, and wool. Their chief settlement was 
 Tarshish, subjection , from the root 
 
 he vanquished , subjected. The Aramaeans pro- 
 nounced it I^mn ; hence the Greek Tartessos. 
 Teis was probably only the name of a town situ- 
 ated to the west of the pillars of Hercules (Calpe 
 and Abyla, now Gibraltar and Ceuta), and even 
 more west than Gades, at the mouth of the Baetis 
 (Herod, iv. 62 ; Scymnus Chius, v. 161, sq.). 
 This river was also called Tartessus (Arist. Me- 
 teor. i. 13; Paus. vi. 19, 3; Strabo, iii. p. 148). 
 At a later period the town of Tartessus obtained 
 likewise the Phoenician name Carteja, from H*lp, 
 toion (Strabo, iii. p. 151). 
 
 There are other names of towns in Snain which 
 have a Phoenician derivation ; Gades, Til, septum , 
 fence (comp. Gesen. Mon. Phcen. p. 304, sq. 349); 
 
 Malaga, rbl2, on account of much salt-fish thence 
 exported ; or, according to Gesenius {Mon. Phoen. 
 
 p. 3 12, sq., and 353), from officina 
 
 fabrorum , iron-works, pr manufactory of other 
 metals, on account of the mines to be found there ; 
 
PHOENICIA. 
 
 Belon, rkvx civitas , city (Gesen. Mon. Phoen. 
 p. 311, sq., aiul 348), 
 
 The voyage to Tarshish was the most import- 
 ant of those undertaken by the Phoenicians. 
 Hence it was that 'their largest vessels were all 
 called ships of Tarshish, although they sailed 
 iu other directions (1 Kings x. 22). 
 
 It appears, also, that the Phoenicians exported 
 tin from the British Isles, and amber from 
 the coasts of Prussia. Their voyages on the 
 western coasts of Africa seem to have been merely 
 voyages of discovery, without permanent results. 
 The Spanish colonies were, probably, the prin- 
 cipal sources of Phoenician wealth, and were 
 founded at a very remote period. The migration 
 of the Phoenician, Cadmus, into Boeotia, like- 
 wise belongs to the earlier period of Phoenician 
 colonization. Homer seems to know little of the 
 Sidonian commerce ; which fact may be explained 
 by supposing that the Phoenicians ayoided all col- 
 lision and competition with the increasing power 
 of the Greeks, and preferred to direct their voyages 
 into countries where such competition seemed to 
 be improbable. 
 
 Phoenicia flourished most in the period from 
 David to Cyrus, b.c. 1050-550. In this period 
 were founded the African colonies, Carthage, 
 Utica, and Leptis. These colonies kept up a 
 frequent intercourse with the mother country, but 
 'were not politically dependent. This preserved 
 Phoenicia from the usual stagnation of Oriental 
 states. The civilization of the Phoenicians had a 
 great influence upon other nations. Their voyages 
 are described in Greek mythology as the expedi- 
 tions of the Tyrian Hercules. The course of the 
 Tyrian Hercules was not marked like that of 
 other conquerors — viz. Medes and Assyrians — by 
 ruined cities, and devastated countries, but by 
 flourishing colonies, by agriculture, and the arts 
 of peace (comp. Heeren, pp. 24-80, and Movers, 
 Die Phcenieier, i. pp. 12-55.) 
 
 According to the Phoenician religion, the special 
 object of worship was the vital power in nature, 
 which is either producing or destroying. The pro- 
 ductive power of nature, again, is either procreative, 
 masculine , or receptive, feminine. These funda- 
 mental ideas are represented by the Phoenician 
 gods, who appear under a great variety of names, 
 because these leading ideas may be represented 
 in ©any different ways. Compare Movers, U li- 
 ter suchungen iiber die Religion und die Gott- 
 heiten der Pheenicier, Bonn, 1841 ; Stahr, Die 
 Religions systeme der Ileidnischen Vol/cer des 
 Orients, Berlin, 1836, pp. 376-448; Selden, 
 De Diis Syris. 
 
 We need not here enter into details concerning 
 the Phoenician gods, as the principal of them have 
 been noticed under their names [Baal, Ashto- 
 retk]. It suffices to state generally, that the 
 procreative principle was worshipped as Baal, 
 
 lord, and as the sun. The rays of the sun 
 are, however, not only procreative, but destruc- 
 tive; and this destructive power is especially re- 
 presented in the Ammonitish fire-god Moloch. 
 Thus Baal represented both the generative and 
 destructive principles of nature; in which latter 
 capacity the Hebrews worshipped him by human 
 sacrifice (± Kings xviii. 28 ; Jer. xix. 5). He was 
 the tutelary god of Tyre, and hence had the name 
 
 Melkar, lYlp^O, equivalent to Melech-kereth 
 
 PHYLACTERY 531 
 
 mp “J^D, ‘ king of the city,’ whom the Greeks 
 called the Tyrian Hercules. 
 
 Of Baaltis, or Astarte, which are usually iden- 
 tified, although they seem to have been originally 
 different, we shall here add nothing to what has 
 been already stated under Ashtoketh. 
 
 Besides these principal deities, the Phoenicians 
 worshipped seven kabirim, Q'TOD, mighty ones, 
 whose numbers corresponded with the seven 
 planets. These kabirim were considered as pro- 
 tectors of men in using the powers of nature, 
 especially navigation. With these seven kabirim 
 was associated Esmun the 
 
 eighth ), representing the sky full of fixed stars, 
 surrounding the seven planets, the refreshing air 
 and the warmth of life. Esmun was called by 
 the Greeks 5 AcrKhipTrios . Many Phoenician names 
 are compounded with Esmun. Hence we infer 
 that he was frequently worshipped (comp. Gesen. 
 Mon. Phoen. p. 136, sq.).— G. B. 
 
 PHRAT. [Euphrates.] 
 
 PHRYGIA ($pvyia), an inland province of 
 Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia 
 and Galatia, on the east by Cappadocia and Ly- 
 caonia, on the south by Lycia, Pisidia, and 
 Isauria, and on the west by Caria, Lydia, and 
 Mysia. In early times Phrygia seems tc have 
 comprehended the greater part of the peninsula 
 of Asia Minor. It was subsequently divided 
 into Phrygia Major on the south, and Phrygia 
 Minor or Epictetus ( acquired ) on the north-west. 
 The Romans divided the province into three dis- 
 tricts : Phrygia Salutaris on the east, Phrygia 
 Pacatiana on the west, and Phrygia Katakekau- 
 mene (the burnt ) in the middle. The country, 
 as defined by the specified limits, is for the most 
 part level, and very abundant in corn, fruit, and 
 wine. It had a peculiar and celebrated breed of 
 cattle, and the fine raven black wool of the sheep 
 around Laodicea on the Lycus was in high re- 
 pute. The Maeander and the Hermus were its 
 chief rivers. The Phrygians were a very ancient 
 people, and are supposed to have formed, along 
 with the Pelasgi, the aborigines of Asia Minor. 
 Jews from Phrygia were present in Jerusalem at 
 the Feast of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10), and the pro- 
 vince was afterwards twice traversed by St. Paul 
 in his missionary journeys (Acts xvi. 6; xviii. 
 23). The cities of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and 
 Colossae, mentioned in the New Testament, be- 
 longed to Phrygia, and Antioch *in Pisidia was 
 also within its limits (see the names). Rosen- 
 miiller, Bibl. Geog. iii. 43-45; Winer, Real-wcr- 
 terbuch; Leake, Geog. of Asia Minor. 
 
 PHUL. [Pul.] 
 
 PHUT (D-1S ; Sept. 4>oo 5), a son of Ham (Gen. 
 x. 6), progenitor of an African people of the same 
 name, sometimes rendered ( Libya ’ (Jer. xlvi. 9 ; 
 Ezek. xxvii. 10 ; xxx. 5 ; xxxviii. 5; Nah. iii. 9) 
 [Nations, Dispersion op]. 
 
 PHYLACTERY (< pvAaKTripia , called in 
 Rabbinical Hebrew tephelin ), strips of 
 
 parchment inscribed with particular passages of 
 Scripture (Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Exod. xiii. 
 1-10, 11-16). They were folded up and en- 
 closed in a small leather box, and worn upon the 
 forehead nearly between the eyes, or upon the left 
 arm near to the heart, being attached by straps 
 of leather (Joseph. Antiq. iv. 8, 13 ; Hieron. in 
 Ezek. xxiv. 17). They were considered as thus 
 
PHYSIC, PHYSICIANS. 
 
 &32 
 
 reminding Ihe wearers to fulfil the law with the 
 bead and heart (comp. Rosenm uller in Exod. 
 
 xiii. 9) ; and they were also regarded as amulets, 
 protecting the wearer from the powers of evil, 
 especially demons (Targ. in Cant. via. 3). On 
 this notion was founded the Greek name of cpv- 
 \a.KTT)piov, which means a ‘ safeguard.’ These ap- 
 pendages were used during the stated prayers, and 
 only by men. The whole observance is founded 
 on the authority of the texts which are written 
 on the strips of parchment, as Exod. xiii. 16 : 
 ‘ It shall be for a token upon thine hand, and 
 for frontlets (lYlDDlD, bands, fillets) between 
 thine eyes;’ which, although in all probability 
 only figurative expressions, have been literally 
 understood, and acted upon by the Jews since 
 the Exile. In existing usage the skin employed 
 in making the phylacteries is prepared with much 
 care, and the writing traced with minute accu- 
 racy and neatness. The Hebrew ritualists give 
 very exact and numerous directions on this sub- 
 ject, which are required to be closely observed. 
 The case itself is composed of several layers of 
 parchment or of black calf-skin. The phylac- 
 teries for the head have four cavities, in each 
 of which is put one of the four texts to which 
 we have referred ; but the phylacteries for the arm 
 have only one cavity, containing the same texts 
 all written on one slip of parchment. Lightfoot 
 thinks it not unlikely that our Saviour himself 
 wore the Jewish tephelin or phylacteries, as well 
 as the zizith or fringes, according to the custom 
 of his nation ; and that in Matt, xxiii. 5, our 
 Lord condemns not the wearing of them, but the 
 pride and hypocrisy of the Pharisees in making 
 them broad and visible, to obtain respect and re- 
 putation for wisdom and piety (7/or. IIeb. ad 
 Matt, xxiii. 5). Maimonides, Yad Hacash. pp. 
 2, 3 ; Carpzov, Apparat. p. 190, sq. ; Beck, 
 Dissert, de usu Phylacterior. ; Ugolino, De Phy - 
 lacter. Hebrceor., in Thesaurus , tom. xxi. ; Bux- 
 torf. Synag. p. 179, sq. ; Townley, Reasons for 
 the Laws of Moses, p. 350). 
 
 PHYSIC; PHYSICIANS. There can be 
 no question that the Israelites brought some 
 knowledge of medicine with them from Egypt, 
 whose physicians were celebrated in all antiquity. 
 To the state of medical knowledge in that country 
 there are indeed some allusions in Scripture, as 
 contained in the notice of the corps of physicians 
 in the service of Joseph (Gen. 1. 2) ; of the use 
 of artificial help and practised midwives in child 
 
 PHYSIC, PHYSICIANS. 
 
 birth (Exod. i. 16); and of the copious materia 
 medica, the ‘ many medicines,’ which their me* 
 dical practice had brought into use (Jer. lxvi. 1 1). 
 On the strength tf these notices, and in the ab- 
 sence of equally detailed information respecting 
 the state of medicine amohg the Hebrews, it 
 has become usual to bring under the present 
 head all that Wilkinson and others tell us re- 
 specting the medical service of the Egyptians • 
 but, in truth, all this has little connection with 
 the Hebrews, and tends nothing to the illustra- 
 tion of Scripture, except in the particular in- 
 stances to which we have referred ; for nothing 
 can be more manifest than that the state of me- 
 dicine was very different among the Egyptians 
 from what it was among the Hebrews. It is, 
 therefore, better to bring together the few facts 
 which are really available, than to occupy our 
 space with irrelevant matter. This will embrace 
 so much of the Egyptian matter as is properly 
 applicable to the subject. 
 
 In Gen. 1. 2, it is said that Joseph ‘commanded 
 his servants, the physicians, to embalm' his 
 father; and the physicians embalmed Irsael.' 
 By this we are not to understand that all the 
 physicians of Joseph took part in the operation. 
 The command must be considered as addressed 
 to those among them to whom this business be- 
 longed. It seems rather remarkable to find in 
 the household of Joseph a considerable number of 
 physicians. Warburton ( Divine Legation , b. 
 iv. 3 - 83) compares with this account what 
 Herodotus (ii. 84) says of the Egyptian phy- 
 sician : ‘ The medicine practice is divided among 
 them as follows: each physician is for one kind 
 of sickness, and no more; and all places are 
 crowded with physicians : for there are physi- 
 cians for the eyes, physicians for the head, phy- 
 sicians for the teeth, physicians for the stomach, 
 and for internal diseases.’ Therefore, remarks War* 
 burton* it ought not to appear strange that Joseph 
 had a considerable number of family physicians 
 ‘ Every great family, as well as every city, must 
 needs, as Herodotus expresses it, swarm with the 
 faculty. A multitude of these domestics would 
 now appear an extravagant piece of state even in 
 a first minister, but we see it could not be other- 
 wise, when each distemper had its proper phy- 
 sician.’. The renown of the Egyptian physicians, 
 in ancient times, may be sufficiently illustrated 
 by the fact that Cyrus had a physician sent him 
 from Egypt, and Darius always had Egyptian 
 physicians at his court (Herodot. iii. 1. 129). 
 On this subject see Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 57 ; xxvi. 
 3; xxix. 30; Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians , iii. 
 390-394 ; Hengstenberg, D. Bucher Moses u. 
 Aefyyten, pp. 70, 71 ; Sprengel, Gescht. d. Alte 
 Welt., i. 62. 
 
 In the early stage of medical practice atten- 
 tion was confined among all nations to surgical 
 aid and external applications: even down to a 
 comparatively late period outward maladies 
 appear to have been the chief subjects of medical 
 treatment among the Hebrews (Isa. i. 6; Ezek. 
 xxx. 21 ; 2 Kings viii. 29; ix. 15); and although 
 they were not altogether without remedies for in- 
 ternal or even mental disorders (2 Chron. xvi. 
 12; 1 Sam. xvi. 16), they seem to have made 
 but little progress in this branch of the healing 
 art. The employment of the physician was, 
 however, very general both before and after tbs 
 
PI-BESETH. 
 
 PHYSIC, PHYSICIANS. 
 
 exile (2 Chron. xvi. 12; Jpr. viii. 22; Siraoh 
 xxxviii. 1 ; Mark v. 26 ; comp. Luke iv. 23; v. 
 31 ; viii. 43). 
 
 The medicines most in use were salves, par- 
 ticularly balms (Jer. viii. 21; xlvi. 11; comp. 
 Prosper Alpinus, Med. AEgypt., p. 118), plas- 
 ters or poultices (2 Kings xx. 7 ; comp. Plin. 
 xxiii. 63), oil-baths (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 
 33.5; ii. 21. 6; T. Bab. tit. Berachoth, i. 2), 
 mineral baths (Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 6, 5 ; Vita, 
 16; De Bell. Jud. i. 33. 5; ii. 21. 6; comp. 
 John v. 2, sq.), river bathing (2 Kings v. 10). 
 Of remedies for internal complaints, some notion 
 may be formed from the Talmudical intimations 
 of things lawful and unlawful to be done on the 
 Sabbath day. They were mostly very simple, 
 such as our old herbalists would have been dis- 
 posed to recommend. For instance : — ‘ It is un- 
 lawful to eat Greek hyssop on the Sabbath, 
 because it is not food tit for healthy people ; 
 but man may eat wild rosemary, and drink 
 Him DlDltf (“ bloom of the herbs some plant 
 regarded as an antidote against pernicious li- 
 quids) ; a man may eat of any kind of food as 
 medicine, and drink any kind of herbage, except 
 
 water of dekalim ( i . e. “ water of trees,” 
 
 that is, from a spring between two trees, the first 
 draught of which was believed to promote diges- 
 tion, the second to be laxative, and the third an 
 emetic); arid of D'TpJJ DID cos ikkarim (a 
 mucilage or ointment of pulverized herbs and 
 gum in wine), as these are only remedies for the 
 jaundice ; but a man may drink the water of 
 dekalim for thirst, and may anoint himself with 
 the oil • of ikkarim , but not as a remedy. He 
 who has the toothaclre must not rinse his teeth 
 with vinegar, but he may wash them as usual 
 (i. e. dip something in vinegar, and rub them), 
 and if he gets cured, he does get cured. He who 
 has pains in his loins must not rub them with 
 wine or vinegar ; he may, however, anoint them 
 with any kind of oil, except rose-oil. Princes 
 may anoint (dress) their wounds with rose-oil, as 
 they are in the habit of anointing themselves on 
 other days ’ ( T. Bab. tit. Sabbath, fol. 110; comp. 
 Lightfoot, Hor. blebr. in Matt. v. 26). 
 
 Amulets were also much in use among the 
 Jews ; the character of which may be shown from 
 the same source : — ‘ It is permitted [even on the 
 Sabbath] to go out with the egg of a grasshopper, 
 or the tooth of a fox, or the nail of one who has 
 been hanged, as medical remedies’ (T. Bab. tit. 
 Sabbath, fol. 4. 2). Strict persons, however, dis- 
 countenanced such practices as belonging to ‘ the 
 ways of the Amorites.’ Enchantments were also 
 employed by those who professed the healing art, 
 especially in diseases of the mind; and they were 
 much in the habit of laying their hands upon the 
 patient (2 Kings v. 11; Joseph. Antiq. ii. 5). 
 
 The part taken by the priest in the judgment 
 on leprosy, &c., has led to an impression, that the 
 medical art was in the hands of the Levitical 
 body. This may in some iegree be true ; not 
 because they were Levites, but because they, more 
 than any other Hebrews, had leisure, and some- 
 times inclination for learned pursuits. The acts 
 prescribed for the priest by the law do not, how- 
 ever, of themselves, prove anything on this point, 
 its the inspection of leprosy belonged rather to 
 sanitary police than to medicine — although it 
 
 533 
 
 was certainly necessary that the inspecting priest 
 should be able to discriminate, according to the 
 rules laid down in the law, the diagnosis of the 
 disease placed under his control (Lev. xii. 13; 
 xiv. 15). The priests themselves were apt tc 
 take colds, &c., from being obliged to minister 
 at all times of the year with naked feet; whence 
 there was in latter times a medical inspector 
 attached to the temple to attend to their com- 
 plaints (Kail, De Morbis Sacerdot. V. T.; Light- 
 foot, p. 781). 
 
 Of anatomical knowledge some faint traces 
 may be discerned in such passages as Job ix. 8, sq. 
 It does not appear that the Hebrews were in the 
 habit of opening dead bodies to ascertain the 
 causes of death. We know that the Egyptians 
 were so, and their practice of embalmment must 
 have given them much anatomical knowledge 
 (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, iii. 392). But to the 
 acquisition of such knowledge there were great 
 obstacles among a people to whom simple con- 
 tact with a corpse conveyed pollution. Besides 
 the authorities cited, see F. Bonier, Dissert, de 
 Statu Medicines ap. Vett. Ebr., 1755 ; Sprengel, 
 De Medicina Ebrceor., 1789 ; Mead, Medica 
 Sacra, 1755; Schmidt, Bibl. Medic.; Norberg, 
 De Medicina Arabum, in Opusc. Acad, iii, 404, 
 sq. ; see also Diseases of the Jews, and the 
 names of diseases in the present work. 
 
 PI-BESETH (HDD '13 ; Sept. BobBaaros ), a 
 city of Egypt, named with several others in Ezek. 
 xxx. 17. According to the Septuagint., which is 
 followed by the Vulgate, it is the same with Bu- 
 bastus, which was the principal town of the Nomos 
 Bubastites (Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 9 ; Ptol. iv. 5). 
 Bubastus itself is evidently a corruption of Pi-bast, 
 Pi being the Egyptian article ; and Pi-beseth 
 seems also to be manifestly no other than a corrupt 
 reading of the same Egyptian name (Wilkinson’s 
 Modern Egypt, i. 427). That name was derived 
 from the goddess Bubastis (Copt. Pascht ), whom 
 the Greeks identified with their Artemis. A great 
 festive pilgrimage was yearly made to her temple 
 in this place by great numbers of people (Herod, 
 ii. 5-9). Bubastus is described with unusual mi- 
 nuteness by Herodotus (ii. 137, 138); and Wil- 
 kinson assures us that the outlines of his account 
 may still be verified. The city was taken by 
 the Persians, who destroyed the walls (Diod. Sic. 
 xvi. 51) ; but it was still a place of some con- 
 sideration under the Romans, It was near Bu- 
 bastus that the canal leading to Arsinoe (Suez) 
 opened to the Nile (Herod, ii. 138) ; and although 
 the mouth was afterwards often changed and taken 
 more southward, it has now returned to its first 
 locality, as the present canal of Tel-el-Wadee 
 commences in the vicinity of Tel Basta. This Tel 
 Basta, which undoubtedly represents Bubastus, 
 is in N. lat. 30° 36'; E. long. 31° 33. The site 
 is occupied by mounds of great extent, which 
 consist of the crude brick houses of the town, with 
 the usual heaps of broken pottery. The temple, 
 of which Herodotus states that, although others in 
 Egypt were larger and more magnificent, none 
 were more beautiful, is entirely destroyed ; but 
 the remaining stones, being of the finest red gra- 
 nite, confirm the historian's testimony (Wilkinson, 
 Modern Egypt „ i. 300, 427-429; Ritter, Erd- 
 ku7ide t i. 825). 
 
 PIGEON. [Dove; Tuktle*Dovk.| 
 
5 H PI-HAHIROTH. 
 
 PI-14 AHIROTH (n'"l , ’nn *3), a place near 
 the northern end of the Gulf of Suez, east of Baal- 
 xephon (Exod. xiv. 2, 9 ; Num. xxxiii. 7). The 
 Hebrew signification of the words would be equi- 
 valent to ‘ mouth of the caverns but it is doubt- 
 less an Egyptian name, and as such would signify 
 a ‘ place where grass or sedge grows.’ Jablonsky, 
 Opusc. i. 447 ; ii. 159, comp. Gesen. Thesaur. 
 s. v. [Exodus]. 
 
 PILATE, PONTIUS, was the sixth Roman 
 Procurator of Judaea (Matt, xxvii. 2 ; Mark xv. 1 ; 
 Luke iii. 1 ; John xviii.-xix.), under whom our 
 Lord taught, suffered, and died (Acts iii. 13 ; iv. 
 27; xiii. 28 ; 1 Tim. vi. 13; Tacit. Annal. xv. 
 44). The testimony of Tacitus on this point is 
 no less clear than it is important ; for it fixes be- 
 yond a doubt the time when the foundations of 
 our religion were laid. The words of the great 
 historian are : Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Ti- 
 berio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pi- 
 latum supplieio aflectus est. — ‘ The author of that 
 name (Christian) or sect was Christ, who was ca- 
 pitally punished in the reign of Tiberius by Pon- 
 tius Pilate.’ 
 
 Pilate was the successor of Valerius Gratus, 
 and governed Judaea, as we have seen, in the 
 reign of Tiberius. He held his office for a period 
 of ten years. The agreement on this point between 
 the accounts in the New Testameut and those 
 supplied by Josephus, is entire and satisfactory. 
 It has been exhibited in detail by the learned, ac- 
 curate, and candid Lardner (vol. i. 150-389, 
 Lond. 1827). 
 
 Pilate's conduct in his office was in many re- 
 spects highly culpable. Josephus has recorded 
 two instances in which Pilate acted very tyran- 
 nically (Antiq. xviii. 3. 1 ; comp. De Bell. Jud. ii. 
 9. 2, sq.) in regard to the Jews. ‘ But now Pilate, 
 the Procurator of Judaea, removed the army from 
 Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters 
 there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he 
 introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the 
 ensigns, and brought them into the city ; whereas 
 our law forbids us the very making of images ; 
 on which account the former procurators were 
 wont to make their entry into the city with such 
 ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was 
 the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, 
 and set them up there : which was done without 
 the knowledge of the people, because it was done 
 in the night-time; but, as soon as they knew it, 
 they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and inter- 
 ceded with Pilate many days, that he would re- 
 move the images ; and when he would not grant 
 their requests, because this would tend to the in- 
 jury of Caesar, while they yet persevered in their 
 request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to 
 have their weapons privately, while he came and 
 sat upon his judgment-seat ; which seat was so 
 orcpared in the open place of the city, that it con- 
 cealed the army that lay ready to oppress them : 
 and, when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave 
 a signal to the soldiers to encompass them round, 
 and threatened that their punishment should be 
 no less than immediate death, unless they would 
 leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. 
 But they threw themselves on the ground, and 
 laid their necks bare, and said they would take 
 their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom 
 of their laws should be transgressed ; upon which 
 
 PILATE, PONTIUS. 
 
 Pilate was deeply qffected with their resolution 
 to keep their laws inviolable, and presently com- 
 manded the images to be carried back from Je- 
 rusalem to Caesarea.’ 
 
 ‘ But Pilate undertook to bring a current of 
 water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacreo 
 money, and derived the origin of the stream from 
 a distance of 200 furlongs. However, the Jews 
 were not pleased with what had been done about 
 this water ; and many ten thousands of the people 
 got together, and made a clamour against him, 
 and insisted that he should leave off that design. 
 Some of them also used reproaches, and abused 
 the man, as crowds of such people usually do. 
 So he habited a great number of his soldiers in 
 their Habit, who carried daggers under their gar- 
 ments, and sent them to a place where they might 
 surround them. He bid the Jews himself go 
 away ; but they boldly casting reproaches upon 
 him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had 
 been beforehand agreed on, who laid upon them 
 much greater blows than Pilate had commanded 
 them, and equally punished those that were tu- 
 multuous and those that were not ; nor did they 
 spare them in the least; and since the people 
 were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared 
 for what they were about, there were a great num- 
 ber of them slain by this means, and others of 
 them ran away wounded. And thus an end was 
 put to this sedition.’ 
 
 ‘ We have,’ says Lardner, ‘another attempt of 
 Pilate’s of the same nature, mentioned in the 
 letter which Agrippa the Elder sent to Caligula, 
 as this letter is given us by Philo. In some 
 particulars it has a great resemblance with the story 
 Josephus has told of Pilate's bringing the en- 
 signs into Jerusalem, and in others it is very dif- 
 ferent from it ; which has given occasion to some 
 learned men to suppose that Philo lias been mis- 
 taken. For my own part, as I make no doubt 
 but Josephus’s account of the ensigns is true, so 
 I think that Philo may also be relied on for the 
 truth of a fact he has mentioned, as happening in 
 his own time in Judaea, and, consequently, I 
 judge them to be two different facts.’ 
 
 Agrippa, reckoning up to Caligula the several 
 favours conferred on the Jews by the Imperial 
 family, says : 1 Pilate was procurator of Judaea. 
 He, not so much out of respect to Tiberius as a 
 malicious intention to vex the people, dedicates 
 gilt shields, and places them in Herod’s palace 
 within the holy city. There was no figure upon 
 them, nor any thing else which is forbidden, ex- 
 cept an inscription, which ex preyed these two 
 things — the name of the person who dedicated 
 them, and of him to whom they were dedicated. 
 When the people perceived what had been done, 
 they desired that this innovation of the shields 
 might be rectified ; that their ancient customs, 
 which had been preserved through so many ages ; 
 and had hitherto been untouched by kings and 
 emperors, might not now be violated. He re- 
 fused their demands with roughness, such was his 
 temper, fierce and untractable. They then cried 
 out, Do not you raise a sedition yourself ; do not 
 you disturb the peace by your illegal practices. 
 It is not Tiberius’s pleasure that any of our laws 
 should be broken in upon. If you have received 
 any edict, or letter from the emperor to this pur- 
 pose, produce it, that we may leave you, and de- 
 pute an embassy to him, and entreat him to »► 
 
PILATE, PONTIUS. 
 
 535 
 
 voke his orders. This put him out of all temper ; 
 for he wus afraid that if they should send an em- 
 bassy, they might discover the many maladmi- 
 nistrations of his government, his extortions, his 
 unjust decrees, his inhuman cruelties. This re- 
 duced him to the utmost perplexity. On the one 
 hand he was afraid to remove things that, had 
 been once dedicated, and was also unwilling to 
 do a favour to men that were his subjects ; and, 
 on the other hand, he knew very well the inflexible 
 severity of Tiberius, The chief men of the na- 
 tion observing this, and perceiving that he re- 
 pented of what he had done, though he endea- 
 voured to conceal if, wrote a most humble and 
 submissive letter to Tiberius. It is needless to 
 say how he was provoked when he read the ac- 
 count of Pilate’s speeches and threatenings, the 
 event showing it sufficiently. For he soon sent a 
 letter to Pilate, reprimanding him for so audacious 
 a proceeding; requiring, also, that the shields 
 should be removed. And, accordingly, they were 
 carried, from the metropolis to Caesarea by the sea- 
 side, called Sebaste, from your great grandfather, 
 that they might be placed in the temple there con- 
 secrated to him, and there they were reposited.’ 
 
 To the Samaritans, also, Pilate conducted him- 
 self unjustly and cruelly. His own misconduct 
 led the Samaritans to take a step which in itself 
 does not appear seditious or revolutionary, when 
 Pilate seized the opportunity to slay many of the 
 people, not only in the fight which ensued, but 
 also in cold blood after they had given themselves 
 up. ‘ But when this tumult was appeased, the 
 Samaritan Senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, 
 now President of Syria, and accused Pilate of the 
 murder of those who had been slain. So Vitellius 
 sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the 
 affairs of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to go to 
 Rome to answer before the emperor to the accusa- 
 tions of the Jews. Pilate, when he had tarried 
 ten years in Judaea, made haste to Rome, and 
 this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which 
 he durst not contradict*; but before he could get 
 to Rome, Tiberius was dead ’ (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xviii. 4. 2). This removal took place before the 
 Passover, in a.d. 36, probably about September 
 or October, a.d. 35 ; Pilate must, therefore, as 
 he spent ten years in Judaea, have entered on 
 his government about October, a.d. 25, or at least 
 before the Passover, a.d. 26, in the twelfth year of 
 Tiberius’s sole empire (Compare Lardner, i. 
 391, sq. ; Winer, Real-ivorterb.). 
 
 To be put out of his government by Vitellius, 
 on the complaints of the people of his province, 
 must have been a very grievous mortification to 
 Pilate; and though the emperor was dead before 
 he reached Rome, he did not long enjoy such im- 
 punity as guilt permits ; for, as Eusebius ( Chron . 
 p. 78) states, he shortly afterwards made away 
 with himself out of vexation for his many mis- 
 fortunes ( TTouciXais Trepitrecruv <rv/x(p6pais). 
 
 It is a matter of considerable importance in re- 
 gard to the exposition of the New Testament, to 
 define accurately what relation the Jews stood in 
 during the ministry of Christ in particular to their 
 Roman masters. Lardner has discussed the ques- 
 tion with a learning and ability which have ex- 
 hausted the subject, and he concludes that the 
 Jews, while they retained for the most part their 
 laws and customs, both civil and religious, un- 
 touched, did not tossess the power of life and 
 
 PILATE, PONT -US. 
 
 death, which was in the hands of tne Roman 
 Governor, and was specifically held by Pilate. 
 Pilate, indeed, bore the title of Procurator, and 
 the Procurator, as being a fiscal officer, had not 
 generally the power of life and death. ' But,’ 
 says Lardner (i. comp.pp. 83-164), ‘Pilate, though 
 he had the title of Procurator, had the power of a 
 President. The Evangelists usually give Pilate, 
 Felix, and Festus, the title of Governor, a general 
 word, and very proper, according to the usage of 
 the best writers, and of Josephus in particular, in 
 many places.’ According to the Evangelists, the 
 Jewish council having, as they pretended, con- 
 victed Jesus of blasphemy, and judged him guilty 
 of death, led him away to Pilate, and seem to 
 have expected that he should confirm their sen- 
 tence, and sign an order that Jesus should be pu- 
 nished accordingly. Indeed, the accounts found 
 in the Gospels and in other authorities, touching 
 the civil condition of the Jews at this time, are in 
 strict agreement. We proceed to mention an- 
 other instance of accordance, which is still more 
 forcible, as being on a very minute point. 
 
 From Matt, xxvii. 19, it appears that Pilate 
 had his wife (named probably Procla, or Claudia 
 Procula) with him. A partial knowledge of Ro- 
 man history might lead the reader to question the 
 historic credibility of Matthew in this particular. 
 In the earlier periods, and, indeed, so long as the 
 Commonwealth subsisted, it was very unusual for 
 the governors of provinces to take their wives with 
 them (Senec. De Controv. 25), and in the strict 
 regulations which Augustus introduced he did not 
 allow the favour, except in peculiar and specified 
 circumstances (Sueton. Aug. 24). The practice, 
 however, grew to be more and more prevalent, 
 and was (says Winer, Real-wort, in ‘ Pilate’) 
 customary in Pilate's time. It is evident from 
 Tacitus, that at the time of the death of Augustus, 
 Germanicus had his wife Agrippina with him in 
 Germany ( Annal . i. 40, 41 ; comp. iii. 33-59; 
 Joseph. Antiq. xx. 10. 1 ; Ulpian, iv. 2). In- 
 deed, in the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, 
 Germanicus took his wife with him into the East. 
 Piso, the Prefect of Syria, tobk his wife also along 
 with him at the same time (Tacit. Annal. ii. 54, 
 55). ‘ But,’ says Lardner ( i. 152), ‘nothing can 
 
 render this (the practice in question) more ap- 
 parent than a motion made in the Roman Senate 
 by Severus Caesina, in the fourth consulship of 
 Tiberius, and second of Drusus Caesar (a.d. 21), 
 that no. magistrate to whom any province was as- 
 signed, should be accompanied by his wife, ex- 
 cept the Senate’s rejecting it, and that with some 
 indignation’ (Tacit. Annal. iii. 33, 34). The fact 
 mentioned incidentally, or rather implied, in Mat- 
 thew, being thus confirmed by full and unques- 
 tionable evidence, cannot fail to serve as a cor- 
 roboration of the evangelical history. 
 
 Owing to the atrocity of the deed in which 
 Pilate took a principal part, and to the wounded 
 feelings of piety with which that deed has been 
 naturally regarded by Christians, a very dark idea 
 has been formed of the character of this Roman 
 governor. That character was undoubtedly bad; 
 but moral depravity has its degrees, and the cause 
 of religion is too sacred to admit any spurious aid 
 from exaggeration. It is therefore desirable to 
 form a just conception of the character of Pilate, 
 and to learn specifically what were the vices 
 under which he laboured. For this purpose a 
 
536 PILATE, PONTIUS. 
 
 bvief outl ine of the evangelical account seems 
 necessary. The narratives on which the follow- 
 ing statement is founded may be found in John 
 xviii., xix. ; Matt, xxvii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke 
 xxiii. 
 
 Jesus having been betrayed, apprehended, and 
 found guilty of blasphemy by the Jewish Sau- 
 nedrim, is delivered to Pilate in order to undergo 
 the punishment of death, according to the law in 
 that case provided. This tradition of Jesus to 
 Pilate was rendered necessary by the fact that the 
 Jews did not at that time possess on their own 
 authority the power of life and death. Pilate 
 could not have been ignorant of Jesus and his pre- 
 tensions. . He might, had he chosen, have imme- 
 diately ordered Jesus to be executed, for he had 
 been tried and condemned to death by the laws 
 of the land ; but he had an alternative. As the 
 execution of the laws, in the case at least of ca- 
 pital punishments, was in the hands of the Roman 
 Procurator, so without any violent straining 
 might his tribunal be converted into a court of 
 appeal in the last instance. At any rate, remon- 
 strance against an unjust verdict was easy and 
 proper on the part of a high officer, who, as having 
 to inflict the punishment, was in a measure re- 
 sponsible for its character. And remonstrance 
 might easily lead to a revision of the grounds on 
 which the verdict had been given, and thus a 
 cause might virtually be brought, denovo, before 
 the Procurator : this took place in the case of our 
 Lord. Pilate gave hkn the benefit of a new 
 trial, and pronounced him innocent. 
 
 This review of the case was the alternative that 
 lay before Pilate, the adoption of which speaks 
 undoubtedly in his favour, and may justify us in 
 declaring that his guilt, was not of the deepest dye. 
 
 That the conduct of Pilate was, however, highly 
 criminal cannot be denied. But his guilt was 
 light in comparison of the criminal depravity 
 of the Jews, especially the priests. His was 
 the guilt of weakness and fear, theirs the guilt of 
 settled and deliberate malice. His state of mind 
 prompted him to attempt the release of an ac- 
 cused person in opposition to the clamours of a 
 misguided mob; theirs urged them to compass 
 the ruin of an acquitted person by instigating the 
 populace, calumniating the prisoner, and terrify- 
 ing the judge. If Pilate yielded against his 
 judgment under the fear of personal danger, and 
 so took part in an act of unparalleled injustice, the 
 priests and their ready tools originated the false 
 accusation, sustained it by subornation of ppr- 
 jury, and when it was declared invalid, enforced 
 their own unfounded sentence by appealing to 
 the lowest passions. Pilate, it is clear, was ut- 
 terly destitute of principle. He was willing, in- 
 deed, to do right, if he could do right without 
 jersonal disadvantage. Of gratuitous wickedness 
 le was perhaps incapable, certainly in the con- 
 demnation of Jesus he has the merit of being for 
 a time on the side of innocence. But he yielded 
 to violence, and so committed an awful crime. 
 In his hands was the life of the prisoner. Con- 
 vinced of his innocence he ought to have set him 
 at liberty, thus doing right regardless of conse- 
 quences. But this is an act of high virtue which 
 we hardly require at the hands of a Roman 
 governor of Judaea ; and though Pilate must 
 bear the reproach of acting contrary to his own 
 declared convictions, yet he may equally claim 
 
 PILATE, PONTIUS. 
 
 some credit for the apparently sincere efforts which 
 he made in order to defeat the malice of the Jews 
 anti procure the liberation of Jesus. 
 
 If now we wish to form a judgment of Pilate’s 
 character, we easily see that he was one of that large 
 class of men who aspire to public offices, not from 
 a pure and lofty desire of benefiting the public 
 and advancing the good of the world, but from 
 selfish and personal considerations, from a love 
 of distinction, from a love of power, from a love 
 of self-indulgence; being destitute of any fixed 
 principles, and having no aim but office and in- 
 fluence, they act right only by chance and when 
 convenient, and are wholly incapable of pursuing 
 a consistent course, or of acting with firmness and 
 self-denial in cases in which the preservation of 
 integrity requires the exercise of these qualities. 
 Pilate was obviously a man of weak, and there 
 fore, with his temptations, of corrupt character. 
 The view given in the Apostolical Constitutions 
 (v. 14), where unmanliness (avai'dpta) is ascribed 
 to him, we take to be correct. This want of 
 strength will readily account for his failing 1o 
 rescue Jesus from the rage of his enemies, and also 
 for the acts of injustice and cruelty which lie prac- 
 tised in his government — acts which, considered 
 in themselves, wear a deeper dye than does the 
 conduct which he observed in surrendering Jesus 
 to the malice of the Jews. And this same weak- 
 ness may serve to explain to the reader how much 
 influence would be exerted on this unjust judge, 
 not only by the stern bigotry and persecuting 
 wrath of the Jewish priesthood, but specially by 
 the not concealed intimations which they threw 
 out against Pilate, that, if he liberated Jesus, he 
 was no friend of Tiberius, and must expect to 
 have to give an account of his conduct at Rome. 
 And that this was no idle threat, nothing beyond 
 the limits of probability, Pilate’s subsequent 
 deposition by Vitellius shows very plainly; nor 
 could the procurator have been ignorant either of 
 the stern determination of the Jewish character, 
 or of the offence he had by his acts given to the 
 heads of the nation, or of the insecurity, at that 
 very hour, when the contest between him and the 
 priests was proceeding regarding the innocent 
 victim whom they lusted to destroy, of his own 
 position in the office which he held, and which, 
 of course, he desired to retain. On the whole, 
 then, viewing the entire conduct of Pilate, his 
 previous iniquities as well as his b’earing on the 
 condemnation of Jesus — viewing his own actual 
 position and the malignity of the Jews, we cannot, 
 we confess, give our vote with those who have 
 passed the severest condemnation on this weak 
 and guilty governor. 
 
 That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius 
 of the condemnation and punishment of Jesus 
 Christ, is likely in itself ; and becomes the more 
 likely, if the view we have given of Pilate's cha- 
 racter is substantially correct, for then the go- 
 vernor did not regard the case of Jesus as an 
 ordinary, and therefore inconsiderable one, but 
 must have felt its importance alike in connection 
 with the administration of justice, the civil and 
 religious character of the Jews, and therefore with 
 the tenure of the Roman power. The voice of 
 antiquity intimates that Pilate did make such a 
 report ; the words of Justin Martyr are : ‘ That 
 these things were so done you may know from the 
 Acts made in the time of Pontius Pi-ate ’ (AgcL 
 
537 
 
 PILATE, PONTIUS. 
 
 L76). A similar passage is found a little further 
 on in the same work. Now, when it is considered 
 that Justin’s Apology was a set defence of Chris- 
 tianity, in the shape of an appeal to the heathen 
 world .hrough the persons of its highest func- 
 ^"xavries, it must seem very unlikely that the 
 words would have been used had no such docu- 
 ments existed ; and nearly as improbable that 
 tnose Acts would have been referred to had they 
 not been genuine. Tertullian also uses language 
 equally decisive ( Apol . v. 21). Eusebius gives a 
 still fuller account (Hist. Eccles. ii. 2). These 
 important passages may be found in Lardner (vi. 
 606, seq.^. See also Old’s Acta Pilati , or Pi- 
 late's report (vii. 4), long circulated in the early 
 church, being received without a suspicion 
 (Chrysost. Horn. viii. in Pasch. ; Epiphan. Hoer. 
 1. 1 ; Euseb. i. 9 and 11 ; 9, 5, and 7). There can 
 be little doubt that the documents were genuine 
 (Hencke, Opusc. Acad. p. 201, sq.). Such is the 
 opinion of Winer (Real-worterb.). Lardner, who 
 has fully discussed the subject, decides that ‘ it 
 must, be allowed by all that Pontius Pilate com- 
 posed some memoirs concerning our Saviour, and 
 sent them to the emperor ’ (vi. 610). Winer adds, 
 
 ‘ What we now have in Greek under this title 
 (Pilate’s Report ), see Fabricii Apocr. i. 237, 239 ; 
 iii. 456, as well as the two letters of Pilate to 
 Tiberius, are fabrications of a later age.’ So 
 Gardner : c The Acts of Pontius Pilate, and his 
 letter to Tiberius, which we now have, are not 
 genuine, but manifestly spurious.’ We have not 
 space here to review the arguments which have 
 been adduced in favour of and against these docu- 
 ments ; but we must add that we attach some 
 importance to them, thinking it by no means 
 unlikely that, if they are fabrications, they are 
 fabricated in some keeping with the genuine 
 jieces, which were in some way lost, and the 
 .oss of which the composers of our actual pieces 
 sought as well as they could to repair. If this 
 view can be sustained, then the doctfments we 
 have may serve to help us in the use of discretion 
 to the substance of the original Acts. At all 
 events, it seems certain that an official report 
 was made by Pilate ; and thus we gain another 
 proof that e these things were not done in a 
 corner.’ Those who wish to enter into this sub- 
 ject should first consult Lardner (nt supra), and 
 tire valuable references he gives. See also J. Gr. 
 Altman, De Epist. Pil. ad Tiber. Bern. 1755; 
 Van Dale, De Orac. p. 609, sq. ; Schmidt, 
 Einleitung ins N. T., ii. 219, sq. Of especial 
 value is Hermansson, De Pontio Pilat., Upsal, 
 1624 ; also Burger, De Pontio Pilat., Misen. 1782. 
 
 On the general subject of this article, the reader 
 may refer to Germar, Docetur ad loca P. Pilati 
 facinora, ccet., Thorun, 1785 ; J. M. Muller, 
 De P. Christum servandi Studio , Hamb. 1751 ; 
 Niemeyer, Charakt. i. 129, sq. ; Paul us, Com- 
 ment. iii. 697, sq. ; Liicke, On John XIX. ; 
 Gutter, De Con jug is Pilati Somnio, Jen. 1704; 
 Kluge, De Somnio Uxoris Pilati, Hal. 1720 ; 
 Herbart, Exatnen Somnii Ux. Pil., Oldenb. 1735; 
 Schuster’s Urtheil iib. Pilatus, in Eichhorn’s 
 Biblioth. d. Bibl. Liter, x. 823, sq. ; Olshausen, 
 Comment, ii. 453, sq. ; Mounier, De Pilati in 
 Causa Servat. agendi ratione, 1825. Hase, in 
 his Leoen Jesu , p. 245, affords valuable literary 
 references on this, as on so many other New Tes- 
 tament subjects. — J. R. B. 
 
 PINNACLE. 
 
 PINE TREE. [Oren.] 
 
 PINNACLE. In the account of our Lord’t 
 temptation (Matt. iv. 5), it is stated that the devil 
 took him to Jerusalem, ‘ and set him on a pinnacle 
 of the temple ’ (eVl rb TTTepvyiov rov Upov). The 
 part of the temple denoted by this term has been 
 much questioned by different commentators, and 
 the only certain conclusion seems to be that it 
 cannot be understood in the sense usually at- 
 tached to the word (i. e. the point of a spiral orna- 
 ment), as in that case the article would not have 
 been prefixed. Grotius, Hammond, Doddridge, 
 and others, take it in the sense of balustrade or pin- 
 nated battlement. But it is now more generally 
 supposed to denote what was called the king's 
 portico, which is mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. 
 xv. 11. 5), and is the same which is called in 
 Scripture ‘ Solomon's porch.’ Of this opinion 
 are Wetstein, Kuinoel, Parkhurst, Rosenmiiller, 
 and others [Tempee]. Krebs, Schleusner, and 
 some others, however, fancy that the word signi- 
 fies the ridge of the roof of the temple; and Jo- 
 sephus (Antiq. xv. 11.5) is cited in proof of this 
 notion. But we know that iron spikes were fixed 
 all over the roof of the temple, to prevent the holy 
 edifice from being defiled by birds ; and the pre- 
 sence of these spikes creates an objection, although 
 the difficulty is perhaps not insuperable, as we 
 are told that the priests sometimes went to the top 
 of the temple (Middoth. ch. 4 ; T. Bab. tit. Taa - 
 nith, fol. 29). Dr. Bloomfield asks : ‘ May it 
 not have been a lofty spiral turret, placed some- 
 where about the centre of the building, like the 
 spire in some cathedrals, to the topmost look-out 
 of which the devil might take Jesus V (Recens. 
 Synopt. in Matt. iv. 5). We answer, no : steeples 
 do not belong to ancient or to Oriental architec- 
 ture, and it is somewhat hazardous to provide oi)6 
 for the sole purpose of meeting the supposed oc- 
 casion of this text. 
 
 Lightfoot, whose opinion on this point is enti- 
 tled to much respect, declares his inability to 
 judge, whether the part denoted should be con- 
 sidered as belonging to the holy fabric itself, or to 
 some building within the holy circuit. If the 
 former, he can find no place so fitting as t'he top 
 of the or porch of the temple; but if the 
 
 latter, the royal porch or gallery (<rroa /3 acnAmi )) 
 is the part he would prefer. He adds that above 
 all other parts of the temple, the porch thereof, 
 and indeed the whole pronaos, might not unfitly 
 be called rb 7 Trepvyiov rod iepov, the wing (for 
 that is the literal meaning) of the temple , ‘ be- 
 cause like wings it exfended itself in breadth on 
 each side, far beyond the breadth of the temple. 
 If therefore the devil had placed Christ on the 
 very precipice of this part of the temple, he may 
 well be said to have placed him “ upon the wing 
 of the temple;” both because this part was like a 
 wing to the temple itself, and because that preci- 
 pice was the wing of this part’ (Hor. Hebr. ad 
 Matt. iv. 5). With regard to the other alterna- 
 tive, it is only necessary to cite the description of 
 Josephus to show that the situation was at least 
 not inappropriate to Satan’s object : ‘ On the 
 south part (of the court of the Gentiles) was the 
 (TToa fiacriKucfi, iC the royal gallery,” that may be 
 mentioned among the most magnificent things 
 under the sun ; for above the profoundest depth 
 of the valley, Herod constructed a gallery of a 
 
PIRATHON. 
 
 53 S 
 
 vast height, from the top of wliicn if any one 
 looked down, onoTotiiviav ovk e^iKovp'unjs rr\s 
 fyews els ageTpyrov rbv fiuQov, “he would become 
 dizzy, his eyes being unable to reach so vast a 
 depth.” 1 
 
 PINON. [Punon.] 
 
 PIPE. [Musical Instruments.] 
 
 PIRATHON (fmjns ; Sept., Josephus, and 
 1 Macc. ix. 50, $apa6d>v), a town in the land of 
 Ephraim, to which Ahdon, judge of Israel, be- 
 longed, and in which he was buried (Judg. xii. 
 13. 15). Josephus names it twice ( Antiq . v. 7, 
 13; xiii. 1.3); and in the last instance coincides 
 with 1 Macc. ix. 50, in ranking it among the 
 towns whose ruined fortifications were restored by 
 Bacchides, in his campaign against the Jews. 
 
 PISGAH (HSpS ; Sept. <£a<ryd), a mountain 
 ridge in the land of Moab, on the southern border 
 of the kingdom of Sihon (Num. xxi. 20 ; xxiii. 
 14 ; Deut. iii. 27 ; Josh. xii. 3). In it was Mount 
 Nebo, from which Moses viewed the Promised 
 Land before he died (Deut. xxxiv. 1) [Nebo]. 
 
 PISHTAH. Reference was made to this article 
 from Flax ; but, as it is desirable to consider it in 
 connection with Shesh, both substances will be 
 treated of under that head. 
 
 PISIDIA (ilnriSia), a district of Asia Minor, 
 lying mostly on Mount Taurus, between Pam- 
 pliylia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. Its chief city 
 was Antioch, usually called Antioch in Pisidia, 
 to distinguish it from the metropolitan city of the 
 same name [Antioch, 2]. 
 
 PITCH. [Asphaltum.] 
 
 PITDAH (rnpp ; Sept. roirdCiov), a pre- 
 cious stone ; one of those which were in the breast- 
 plate of the high-priest (Exod. xxviii. 17), and 
 the origin of which is referred to Cush (Job 
 xxviii. 19). It is, according to most ancient 
 versions, the topaz (totvol(iov, Joseph. T6ira(os), 
 which most of the ancient Greek writers describe 
 as being of a golden yellow colour (Strabo, xvi. 
 p. 770); Diod. Sic. iii. 39), while Pliny (Hist. 
 Nat., xxxvii. 32) states its colour to be green. 
 Relying on this last authority, several modern 
 authors have asserted that the ancient gem thus 
 named was no other than the modern crysolite. 
 But this notion has been confuted by Bellarmann 
 (Urim and Thummim , p. 39), who shows that 
 the hues ascribed by the ancients to the topaz, are 
 found in the gem toVvhich the moderns have ap- 
 plied that name. This is a precious stone, hav- 
 ing a strong glass lustre. Its prevailing colour 
 is wine-yellow of every degree of shade. The 
 dark shade of this colour passes over into carna- 
 tion red, aid sometimes, although rarely, into 
 lilac ; the pale shade of the wine-yellow passes 
 into greyish; and from yellowish - white into 
 greenish- white and pale green, tincal and cela- 
 don-green. It may thus be difficult to determine 
 whether the pitdah in the high-priest’s breast- 
 plate was the yellow topaz ; but that it was a 
 topaz there is little reason to doubt. 
 
 It is clear that the stone was highly prized by 
 the Hebrews. Job declares that wisdom was 
 more precious than the pitdah of Cush (Job 
 xxviii. 19); and as the name Cush includes 
 Southern Arabia, and the Arabian Gulf, the in- 
 timation coincides with the statement of Pliny 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 and others, that the topazes known to them i am* 
 from the Topaz island in the Red Sea (Pliny, 
 Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 8 ; comp. vi. 29 ; Diod. Sic. 
 iii. 30 ; Strabo, xvi. p. 770), whence it was pro- 
 bably brought, by the Phoenicians. In Ezek. 
 xxviii. 13, the pitdah is named among the pre- 
 cious stones with which the king of Tyre was 
 decked. 
 
 If may be added that Bolden seeks the origin 
 of the Hebrew word in the Sanscrit language, 
 in which pita means ‘ yellowish,’ ‘ pale ;’ and, as 
 Gesenius remarks, the Greek rond^ior itself might 
 seem to come from the Hebrew mtDS, by trans- 
 position into mSD (see Thesaurus, p. 1 101 ; 
 Braunius, DeVestitu, p. 508 ; Hofmann, Mineral., 
 i. 337 ; Pareau, Comment, on Job, p. 333 ; Ritter, 
 Erdkunde , ii. 675). 
 
 PI THOM (DhS) ; Sept. UeiQdop), one of the 
 ‘ treasure-cities ’ which the Israelites built in the 
 land of Goshen ‘lor Pharaoh’ (Exod. i. 11) 
 [Egypt ; Goshen]. The site is by general con- 
 sent identified with that of the Patumos (ndTou- 
 pos) of Herodotus (ii. 158). Speaking of the 
 canal which connected the Nile with the Red 
 Sea, this author says, ‘ The water was admitted 
 into it from the Nile. It began a little above 
 the city Bubastis [Pi-beseth], near the Arabian 
 city Patumos, but it discharged itself into the 
 Reel Sea.’ According to this, Patumos was si- 
 tuated on the east side of the Pelusiac arm of the 
 Nile, not far from the canal which unites the 
 Nile with the Red Sea, in the Arabian part of 
 Egypt. The Itinerarium of Antoninus furnishes 
 a further limitation. It cannot be doubted that 
 the Thum (Qovp) which is there mentioned is 
 identical with Patumos and Pi thorn. The Pi is 
 merely the Egyptian article. Now this Thum 
 was twelve Roman miles distant from Heroopolis, 
 the ruins of which are found in the region of the 
 present Abu-Keisheid. All these designations 
 are appropriate if, with the scholars who accom- 
 panied the French expedition, we place Pithom 
 on the site of the present Abhaseh, at the entrance 
 of the Wady Fumilat, where there was at all 
 times a strong military post. (Hengstenberg, Die 
 Bucher Moses und Aegypten ; Du Bois Ayme, 
 in Dcscript. dc VEgypte, xi. 377 ; xviii. 1, 372; 
 Champollion, VEgypte sous les Pharaons , i. 
 172; ii. 58). 
 
 PLANE-TREE. [Armon.] 
 
 PLAGUE. [Pestilence.] 
 
 PLEDGE. [Loan.] 
 
 PLOUGH. [Agriculture.] 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW ; the poetry which is 
 found in the Bible, and which, rich and multi- 
 farious as it is, appears to be only a remnant of a 
 still wider and fuller sphere of Shemitic literature. 
 The New Testament is intended to be comprised 
 in our definition, for, besides scattered portions, 
 disjecti membra poetae, which, under a prosaic 
 form, convey a poetic thought, the entire book of 
 the Apocalypse abounds in poetry. 
 
 The term ‘ Biblical poetry ’ may find little 
 acceptance in the ears of those who have identified 
 poetry with fiction, fable, and profane delights, 
 under the impression that as such things are of 
 the earth earthy, so religion is too high in its 
 character, and too truthful in its spirit, to admit 
 into its province mere creations of the hrnruui 
 
POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 fancy. B it whatever opinion may he entertained 
 of the character and tendency of poetry in gene- 
 ral, the pretry of the Hebrews is, as we shall 
 presently remark more at length, both deeply 
 truthful, and earnestly religious ; nor are we 
 without a hope, that by the time the reader has 
 arrived at the end of this article, he will then, 
 if he is not before, be of the opinion that the 
 poetry which we are about to consider was, and 
 is, an eminently worthy channel for expressing 
 and conveying the loftiest and holiest feelings of 
 the human heart. Meanwhile we direct attention 
 to a fact — there is poetry in the Bible. In one 
 sense the Bible is full of poetry ; for very much of 
 its contents which is merely prosaic in form, rises, 
 by force of the noble sentiments which it enun- 
 ciates, and the striking or splendid imagery with 
 which these sentiments are adorned, into the 
 sphere of real poetry. Independently of this 
 poetic prose, there is in the Bible much writing 
 which has all the ordinary characteristics id’ 
 poetry. This statement the present article will 
 abundantly establish. But even the unlearned 
 reader, when once his mind has been turned to 
 the subject, can hardly fail to recognise at once 
 the essence, if not somewhat of the form, of poetry 
 in various parts of the Bible. And it is no slight 
 attestation to the essentially poetic character of 
 Hebrew poetry that its poetical qualities shine 
 through the distorting coverings of a prose trans- 
 lation. If, however, the reader would at once 
 satisfy himself that there is poetry in the Bible, 
 let him turn to the book of Job, and after having 
 examined its prose introduction, begin to read 
 the poetry itself, as it commences at the third 
 verse of the third chapter. 
 
 Much of the Biblical poetry is, indeed, hidden 
 from the ordinary reader by its prose accompani- 
 ments, standing, as it does, undistinguished in 
 the midst of historical narrations. This is the 
 case with some of the earliest specimens of He- 
 brew poetry. Snatches of poetry are discovered in 
 the oldest prose compositions. Even in Gen. iv. 
 23, sq., are found a few lines of poetry, which 
 Herder incorrectly terms ‘ the song of the sword,’ 
 thinking it commemorative of the first formation 
 of that weapon. To us it appears to be a frag- 
 ment of a longer poem, uttered in lamentation for 
 a homicide committed by Lamech, probably in 
 self-defence. It has been already cited in this 
 work [Lamech]. Herder finds in this piece all 
 the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. It is, he 
 thinks, lyrical, has a proportion between its several 
 lines, and even assonance ; in the original the 
 first four lines terminate with the same letter, 
 making a single or semi-rhyme. 
 
 Another poetic scrap is found in Exod. xxxii. 
 18. Being told by Joshua, on occasion of descend- 
 ing from the mount, when the people had made 
 the golden calf, and were, tumultuously offering 
 it their worship — 
 
 ‘ The sound ol war is in the camp 
 Moses said 
 
 ‘Not the sound of a shout for victory, 
 
 Nor the sound of a shout for falling; 
 
 The sound of a shout for rejoicing’ 
 
 Jo I hear. 
 
 The correspondence in form in the original 
 is here very exact and striking, so that it is 
 difficult to deny that the piece is poetic. If so. 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 539 
 
 are we to conclude that the temperament of the 
 Israelites was so deeply poetic that Moses and 
 Joshua should find the excitement of this occasion 
 sufficient to strike improvisatore verses from their 
 lips ? Or have we here a quotation from some 
 still older song, which occurred to the minds of 
 the speakers by the force of resemblance? Other 
 instances of scattered poetic pieces may be found 
 in Num. xxi. 14, 15; also v. 18; and v. 27 ; 
 in which passages evidence may be found that 
 we are not in possession of the entire mass of 
 Hebrew, or, at least, Shemitic literature. Fur- 
 ther specimens of very early poetry are found in 
 Num. xxiii. 7, sq. ; xviii. sq. ; xxiv. 3, 15. 
 
 The preceding will suffice to satisfy the reader 
 that there is poetry in the Bible. With this as a 
 fact it is the business of the theologian to deal, 
 whether the fact be or be not in accordance with 
 any preconceived ideas of fitness and propriety. 
 We must take the Bible as we find it; and so 
 taking it, endeavour to understand its claims, 
 and form a just appreciation of its merits. 
 
 The ordinary train of thought and feeling pre- 
 sented in Hebrew poetry is entirely of a moral or 
 religious kind ; but there are occasions when other 
 topics are introduced. The entire Song of Solo- 
 mon the present writer is disposed to regard, on 
 high authority, as purely an erotic idyll, and con- 
 sidered as such it possesses excellences of a very 
 high description. In Amos vi. 3, sq. may be seen 
 a fine passage of satire in a denunciation of the 
 luxurious and oppressive aristocracy of Israel. 
 Subjects of a similar secular kind may be found 
 treated, yet never without a moral or religious 
 aim, in Isa. ix. 3; Jer. xxv. 10; xlviii. 33; 
 Rev. xviii. 22, sq. But, independently of the 
 Song of Solomon, the most worldly ode is perhaps 
 the forty-fifth Psalm, which Herder and Ewald 
 consider an epithalamium. The latter critic, in 
 the account which he gives of it, states that it 
 was sung during the time when the new queen 
 was led in pomp to take her seat in her husband's 
 palace. 
 
 The literature of the Bible, as such, is by no 
 means adequately appreciated in the minds of 
 many. Owing, in part, to the higher claims 
 of inspiration, its literary merits have not re- 
 ceived generally the attention which they deserve, 
 while the critical world, whose office it is to take 
 cognizance of literary productions, have nearly 
 confined their attention to works of profane 
 authors, and left the Biblical writings to the 
 exclusive possession of the religious public. This 
 severance of interests is to be regretted as much 
 for the sake of literature as of religion. The Bible 
 is a book — a literary production — as well as a re- 
 ligious repository and charter ; and ought, in con- 
 sequence, to be regarded in its literary as well as 
 in its religious bearings, alike by those who cul- 
 tivate literature and by those who study religion. 
 And when men regard and contemplate it as it 
 is, rather than as fancy or ignorance makes it, 
 then will it be found to present the loftiest and 
 most precious truths enshrined in the noblest 
 language. Its poetry is one continued illustra- 
 tion of this fact. Indeed, but for the vicious 
 education which the first and most influential 
 minds in this country receive, Biblical literature 
 would long ere now have held the rank to which it 
 is entitled. What is the course of reading through 
 which oar divines, our lawyers, our statesmen, ouv 
 
540 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 philosophers, are conducted ? From early you'.k 
 up to manhood it is almost entirely of a heathen 
 complexion. Greek and Latin, not Hebrew, engage 
 die attention ; Homer and Horace, not Moses and 
 Isaiah, are oar class-books, skill in understanding 
 which is made the passport to wealth and dis- 
 tinction. Hence Hebrew literature is little known, 
 and falls into a secondary position. Nor can a 
 due appreciation of this priceless book become 
 prevalent until, with a revival and general spread 
 of Hebrew studies, the Bible shall become to us, 
 what it was originally among the Israelites, a 
 literary treasure, as well as a religious guide. 
 Nor, in our belief, can a higher service be ren- 
 dered either to literature or religion than to 
 make the literary claims of the Bible understood 
 at the same time that its religious worth is duly 
 and impressively set forth. The union of litera- 
 ture and religion is found in the Bible, and has, 
 therefore, a divine origin and sanction. Those 
 who love the Bible as a source of religious truth, 
 should manifest their regard both towards the 
 book and towards Him whose name and impress 
 it bears, by carefully preserving that union, and 
 causing its nature, requirements, and applications 
 to be generally understood. No better instrument 
 can be chosen for this purpose than its rich, varied, 
 and lofty poetry. 
 
 There is no poetic cyclus that can be put into 
 comparison with that of the Hebrews but the cyclus 
 of the two classic nations, Greece and Rome, and 
 that of India. In form and variety we grant that 
 the poetry of these nations surpasses that of the 
 Hebrews. Epic poetry and the d'rama, the two 
 highest styles so far as mere art is concerned, were 
 cultivated successfully by them, whilst among the 
 Israelites we find only their germs and first rudi- 
 ments. So in execution we may also admit that, 
 in the higher qualities of style, the Hebrew litera- 
 ture is somewhat inferior. But the thought is more 
 than the expression ; the kernel than the shell ; and 
 in substance, the Hebrew poetry far surpasses every 
 other. In truth, it dwells in a region to which other 
 ancient literatures did not, and could not, attain, 
 a pure, serene, moral, and religious atmosphere — 
 thus dealing with man in his highest relations, 
 first anticipating, and then leading onwards, mere 
 civilization. This, as we shall presently see more 
 fully, is the great characteristic of Hebrew poetry ; 
 it is also the highest merit of any literature, a 
 merit in which that of the Hebrews is unap- 
 proached. To this high quality it is owing that 
 the poetry of the Bible has exerted on the loftiest 
 interests and productions of the human mind, for 
 now above two thousand years, the most decided 
 and the most beneficial influence. Moral and 
 religious truth is deathless and undecaying ; and 
 so the griefs and the joys of David, or the far- 
 seeing warnings and brilliant pourtrayings of 
 Isaiah, repeat themselves in the heart of each 
 successive generation, and become coexistent with 
 the race of man. Thus of all moral treasuries 
 the Bible is incomparably the richest. Even for 
 forms of poetry, in which it is defective, or al- 
 together fails, it presents the richest materials. 
 Moses has not, as some have dreamed, left us an 
 epic poem, but he has supplied the materials out 
 of which the Paradise Lost was created. The 
 sternly sublime drama of Samson Agonistes 
 constructed from a few materials found in a 
 chapter or tv/o which relate to the least cultivated 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 period of the Hebrew republic. Indeed, m.ist of 
 the great poets, even of modern days, from Tas*o 
 down to Byron, all the great musicians, and nearly 
 all the great painters, have drawn their best and 
 highest inspiration from the Bible. This is a fact 
 as creditable to religion as it is important to 
 literature, of which he who is fully aware, will 
 not easily be turned aside from faith to infidelity 
 by the shallow sarcasms of a Voltaire, or the low 
 ribaldry of a Paine. That book which has led 
 civilization, and formed the noblest minds of our 
 race, is not destined to be disowned for a few real 
 or apparent chronological inaccuracies ; or be- 
 cause it presents states of society and modes of 
 thought, the very existence of which, however half- 
 witted unbelief may object, is the best pledge of 
 its reality and truth. The complete establish- 
 ment of the moral and spiritual pre-eminence of 
 the Bible, considered merely as a book, would 
 require a volume, so abundant are the materials. 
 
 It may have struck the reader as somewhat 
 curious that the poetical pieces of which we 
 spoke above should, in the common version of the 
 Bible, be scarcely, if at all, distinguishable from 
 prose. We do not know whether there is any- 
 thing extraordinary in this. Much of classical 
 poetry, if turned into English prose, would lose 
 most of its poetic characteristics ; but, in general, 
 the Hebrew poetry suffers less than perhaps any 
 other by transfusion into a prosaic element : to 
 which fact it. is owing that the Book of Psalms, 
 in the English version, is, notwithstanding its 
 form, eminently poetic. There are, however, 
 cases in which only the experienced eye can trace 
 the poetic in and under the prosaic attire in 
 which it appears in the vulgar translation. Nor, 
 until the subject of Hebrew poetry had been long 
 and well studied, did the learned succeed in de- 
 tecting many a poetic gem contained in the Bible. 
 In truth, poetry and prose, from their very nature, 
 stand near to each other, and, in the earlier stages 
 of their existence, are discriminated only by faint 
 and vanishing lines. If we regard the thought, 
 prose sometimes even now rises to the loftiness 
 of poetry. If we regard the clothing, the simpler 
 form of poetry is scarcely more than prose ; and 
 rhetorical or measured prose passes into the do- 
 main of poetry. A sonnet of Wordsworth could 
 be converted into prose with a very few changes ; 
 a fable of Krummacher requires only to be dis- 
 tributed into lines in order to make blank verse, 
 which might be compared even with that of 
 Milton. Now in translations, the form is for the 
 most part lost ; there remains only the substance, 
 anil poetic sentiment ranges from fhe humblest 
 to the loftiest topics. So with the Hebrew poetry 
 in its original and native state. Whether in •ts 
 case poetry sprang from prose, or prose lio* ' 
 poetry, they are both branches of one tree, a iu 
 bear in their earlier stages a very close resem- 
 blance. The similarity is the greater in the lite- 
 rature of the Hebrews, because their poetic forms 
 are less determinate than those of some other na- 
 tions : they had, indeed, a rhythm ; but so had their 
 prose, and their poetic rhythm was more like that 
 of our blank verse than of our rhymed metre, Of 
 poetical feet they appear to have known nothing, 
 and, in consequence, their verse must be lest 
 measured and less strict. Its melody was rather 
 that of thought than of art and skill — spontaneous* 
 like their religious feelings, and therefore deep and 
 
POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 impressive, but, less subject to law, and escaping 1 
 from the hard limits of exact definition. Rhyme, 
 
 ? ropevly so called, is disowned as well as metre 
 r et hebrew verse, as it had a kind of measured 
 tread, so had it a jingle in its feet, for several 
 lines are sometimes found terminating with the 
 *ame letter. In the main, however, it3 essential 
 form was in the thought. Ideas are made to 
 recur under such relations that the substance 
 itself marks the form, and'the two are so blended 
 into one that their union is essential to constitute 
 poetry. It is, indeed, incorrect to say that ‘the 
 Hebrew poetry is characterized by the recurrence 
 of similar ideas ’ (Latham’s English Language, 
 p. 372), if by this it is intended to intimate that 
 such a peculiarity is the sole characteristic of 
 Hebrew poetry. One, and that the chief, charac- 
 teristic of that poetry, such recurrence is; but 
 there are also characteristics in form as well as in 
 thought. Of these it may be sufficient to mention 
 the following : — (1) There is a verbal rhythm, in 
 which a harmony is found beyond what prose 
 ordinarily presents ; but as the true pronunciation 
 of the Hebrew has been long lost, this quality 
 can be oidy imperfectly appreciated. (2) There 
 is a correspondence of words, i. e. the words in one 
 verse, or member, answer to the words in another ; 
 for as the sense in the one echoes the sense in the 
 other, so also form corresponds with form, and 
 word with word. This correspondence in form 
 will fully appear when we give instances of the 
 parallelism in sentiment.; meanwhile, an idea of 
 it may be formed from these specimens : 
 
 ‘ Why art thou cast down, O my soul? 
 
 And why art thou disquieted in me ?’ 
 
 Ps. xliii. 5. 
 
 ‘ The memory of the just is a blessing ; 
 
 But the name of the wicked shall rot.’ 
 
 Prov. x. 7. 
 
 ‘ He turneth rivers into a desert, 
 
 And water-springs into dry ground.’ 
 
 Ps. cvii. 33. 
 
 In the original this similarity in construction is 
 more exact and more apparent. At the same 
 time it is a free, and not a strict correspondence 
 that prevails ; a correspondence to be caught and 
 recognised by the ear in the general progress of 
 the poem, or the general structure of a couplet or 
 a triplet, but which is not of a nature to be exactly 
 measured or set forth by such aids as counting 
 with the fingers will afford. ,(3) Inversion holds 
 a distinguished place in the structure of Hebrew 
 poetry, as in that of every other; yet here again 
 the remark already made holds good ; it is only 
 a modified inversion that prevails, by no means 
 (in general) equalling that of the Greeks and 
 Romans in boldness, decision, and prevalence. 
 Every one will, however, recognise this inversion 
 in the following instances, as distinguishing the 
 passages from ordinary prose : 
 
 4 Amid thought in visions of the night, 
 
 When deep sleep falleth upon men, 
 
 Fear and horror came upon me.’ Job iv. 13. 
 
 * To me men gave ear and waited, 
 
 To my words they made no reply.’ 
 
 Job xxix. 21. 
 
 ’ For three transgressions of Damascus, * 
 
 And for four will I not turn away its punish- 
 ment ’ Amos i. 3. 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 * His grave was appointed with the wicked, 
 
 And with the rich man was his sepulchre.’ 
 
 Isa. liii. 9. 
 
 (4) The last verbal peculiarity of Hebrew poetry 
 which we notice is, that its language betrays an 
 archaical character, a licence, and, in general, a 
 poetic hue and colouring which cannot be con- 
 founded with the simple, lowly, and unrhyth- 
 mical diction of prose. The formation of a poetic 
 diction is, in any nation, dependent on the posses- 
 sion, by that nation, of a poetical temperament, 
 as much as of a poetical history. Wherever these 
 two elements are found, the birth of poetry and 
 the formation of a poetical language are certain. 
 Great events give rise to strong passions, and 
 strong passions are the parents of noble truths; 
 which, when they spring from and nestle in a 
 poetic temperament, cannot fail to create for 
 themselves an appropriate phraseology, in which 
 the tame and quiet march of prose is avoided, 
 and all the loftier figures of speech are put into 
 requisition. For a time, indeed, the line of de- 
 markation between the diction of prose and that 
 of poetry will not be very strongly marked ; for 
 poetry will predominate, as in men’s deeds so in 
 their words, and, if they as yet have any, in their 
 literature. Soon, however, the passions grow cool, 
 enthusiasm wanes, 'a great gulf opens between the 
 actual and the ideal — the ideal having ceased to 
 be actual in ceasing to be possible, — and a sepa- 
 rate style of language for prose and poetry be- 
 comes as inevitable as the diversity of attire in 
 which holy and ordinary days have their respective 
 duties discharged. 
 
 In no nation was the unkn of the two requisites 
 of which we have spoken found in fuller measure 
 than among the Hebrews. Theirs was eminently 
 a poetic temperament ; .their earliest history was 
 an heroic without ceasing to be an historic age, 
 whilst the loftiest of all truths circulated in their 
 souls, and glowed on and started from their lips. 
 Hence their language, in its earliest stages, is 
 surpassingly poetic. Let the reader peruse, even 
 in our translation, the first chapters of Genesis, or 
 parts of the Book of Job, and he cannot but per- 
 ceive the poetic element in which these noble 
 compositions have almost their essence. And 
 hence the difficulty of determining, with accuracy, 
 the time when a poetic diction, strictly so termed, 
 began to make its appearance. Partially, such a 
 diction must be recognised in the earliest speci- 
 mens we have of Hebrew poetry, nor is it hard to 
 trace, if not in words, yet in colouring and man- 
 ner, signs of this imaginative dress ; but the pro- 
 cess was not completed, the diction was not 
 thoroughly formed, until the Hebrew bard had 
 produced his highest strains, and tried his powers 
 on various species of composition. The period 
 when this excellence was reached was the age of 
 Solomon, when the rest, peace, opulence, and 
 culture which were the fruits of the lofty mind 
 and proud achievements of David, had had time 
 to bring their best fruits to maturity — a ripeness 
 to which the Israelite history had in various ways 
 contributed during many successive generations. 
 
 The chief characteristics, however, of Hebrew 
 poetry are found in the peculiar form in which it 
 gives utterance to its ideas. This form has received 
 the name of ‘parallelism.’ Ewald justly pre- 
 fers the term ‘thought-rhythm,’ since the rhythm, 
 the music, the peculiar flow and harmony of tiie 
 
542 POETRY, HEBREW. POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 verse and of the poem, lie in the distribution of 
 the sentiment in such a manner that the full im- 
 port does not come out in less than a distich. It 
 is to this peculiarity, which is obviously in the 
 substance and not the mere form of the poetry, 
 that the translation of the Psalms in our Bibleg 
 owes much of its remarkable character, and is 
 distinguished from prose by terms clearly and 
 decidedly poetic ; and many though the im- 
 perfections are which attach, some almost neces- 
 sarily, to that version, still it retains so much of 
 the form and substance, of the simple beauty, and 
 tine harmony of the original Hebrew, that we giye 
 it a preference over most poetic translations, and 
 always feel disposed to warn away from this 
 holy ground the rash hands that often attempt, 
 with no fit preparation, to touch the sacred harp 
 of Zion. 
 
 Those who wish to enter thoroughly into the 
 subject of Hebrew rhythm, are referred to the 
 most recent and best, work on the subject, by the 
 
 earned Hebrew scholar, Ewald, who has trans- 
 lated into German all the poetical books of the 
 Old Testament (D/e Poet. Pitcher des Alten 
 Bundes , 1835-9, 4 vols. 8vo., vol. i. pp. 57 — 92). 
 A shorter and more simple account will better 
 suit these pages ; which we take in substance 
 from Gesenius ( Ilebraischcs Lesebuch , 1 7th edit., 
 by De Wette, Leipzig, 1844). The leading prin- 
 ciple is, that a simple verse or distich consists, 
 both in regard to form and substance, of two cor- 
 responding members : this has been teamed He- 
 brew rhythm or Parallelismus membrorum. 
 Three kinds may be specified. There is first the 
 synonymous parallel is yi ; which consists in this, 
 that the two members express the same thought in 
 different words, so that sometimes word answers to 
 word : for example — 
 
 ‘ What is man that thou art mindful of him, 
 And the son of man that thou carest for him !’ 
 Ps. viii. 4. 
 
 There is in some cases an inversion in the second 
 line — 
 
 ‘ The heavens relate the glory of God, 
 
 And the work of his hands the firmament de- 
 clares.’ Ps. xix. 2. 
 
 1 He maketh big messengers the winds, 
 
 His ministers the flaming lightning.’ Ps. civ. 4. 
 
 Very often the second member x-epeats only a part 
 of the first — . 
 
 ‘ Woe to them that join house to house, 
 
 That field to field unite.’ Is. v. 8. 
 
 Sometimes the verb which stands in the first mem 
 ber is omitted in the second — 
 
 ‘ O God, thy justice give the king, 
 
 Axxd thy righteousness to the king’s son.’ 
 
 Ps. lxxii. 1. 
 
 Or the verb may be in the second member — 
 
 ‘ With the jawbone of an ass heaps upon heaps, 
 With the jawbone of an ass have I slain a 
 thousand men.’ Judg. xv. 16. 
 
 The second member may contain an expansion of 
 me first — 
 
 i Give to Jehovah, ye sons of God, 
 
 Give to Jehovah glory and praise.’ Ps. xxix. 1. 
 Indeed foe varieties are numerous, since the syno- 
 nymous parallelism is very frequent. 
 
 The second kind is the antithetic , in which the 
 first member is illustrated by some opposition cf 
 thought contained in the second. This less cus- 
 tomary kind of parallelism is found mostly in 
 the Proverbs — 
 
 i The full man treadeth the honeycomb undei 
 foot. 
 
 To the hungry every bitter thing is sweet.’ 
 
 Prov. xxvii. 7. 
 
 Under this head comes the following, with other 
 similar examples — 
 
 ‘ Day to day uttereth instruction, 
 
 And night to night sheweth knowledge.’ 
 
 The third kind is denominated the synthetic: 
 probably the term epithetic would be more appro- 
 priate, since the secoiid member not being a mere 
 echo of the first, subjoins something new to it, 
 while the same structure of the verse is preserved ; 
 thus — 
 
 ‘ He appointed the moon for seasons ; 
 
 The sun knoweth his going down.’ Ps. civ. 19. 
 
 ‘ The law of Jehovah is perfect, reviving the soul ; 
 The precepts of Jehovah are sure, instructing 
 the simple.’ Ps. xix. 7. 
 
 This correspondence of thought is occasionally 
 found in Greek and Latin poetry, particularly in 
 the interlocutions of the eclogues of Theocritus 
 and Virgil. The two following distichs are spe- 
 cimens of the antithetic parallelism : 
 
 i Datn. Triste lupus stabulis, maturis frugibus 
 imber, 
 
 Arboribus venti ; nobis Amaryllidis irae. 
 
 Men. Dulce satis humor, depulsis arbutus 
 hsedis, 
 
 Lenta salix foeto pecori ; mild solus 
 Amyntas.’ 
 
 Pope's writings present specimens which may be 
 compared with the antithetical parallelism. In 
 his Rape of the Lock , passages of the kind abound. 
 We opened his Essay on Criticism, and the first 
 lines our eye fell on were these — 
 
 ‘ A little learning is a dang’rous thing : 
 
 Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring : 
 There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain 
 And drinking largely sobers us again.’ 
 
 So in his Messiah , where he was likely to copy 
 the form in imitating the spirit of the original — 
 ‘ The lambs with wolves shall graze the verdant 
 mead, 
 
 And hoys in fiow’ry bands the tiger lead ; 
 
 The steer and lion at one crib shall meet, 
 
 And harmless serpents lick the pilgrim’s feet.’ 
 
 This correspondence in thought is not, however, of 
 universal occurrence. We find a merely rhyth- 
 mical parallelism in which the thought is not re- 
 peated, but goes forward, throughout the verse, 
 which is divided midway into two halves or a 
 distich — 
 
 i The word is not upon the tongue, 
 
 Jehovah thou knowest it altogether.’ 
 
 Ps. cxxxviii. 4. 
 
 ‘ Gird as a man thy loins, 
 
 I will^sk thee; inform thou me.’ Jobxxxix. 3. 
 Here poetry distinguishes itself from prose chiefly 
 by the division into two short equal parts. This 
 
POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 peculiarity of poetic diction is expressed by the 
 word ^DT, which properly denotes dividing the 
 matter, and so speaking or singing in separated 
 portions. Among the Arabians, who, however, 
 have syllabic measure, each verse is divided into 
 two lremistichs by a caesura in the middle. 
 What is termed ‘ service metre’ in English versi- 
 fication, is not unlike this in the main : it is the 
 ‘ common metre’ of the Psalm-versions, and of or- 
 dinary hymn books, though in the latter it is ar- 
 ranged in four lines — 
 
 4 But one request I make to him | that sits the 
 skies above, 
 
 That I were fairly out of debt | as I were out 
 of love.’ Suckling. 
 
 The simple two-membered rhythm hitherto de- 
 scribed prevails, especially in the book of Job, 
 the Proverbs, and a portion of the Psalms ; but 
 in the last, and still more in the Prophets, there are 
 numerous verses with three, lour, or yet more 
 members. 
 
 In verses consisting of three members (tristicha) 
 sometimes all three are parallel — 
 
 < Happy the man who walketh not in the paths 
 of the unrighteous, 
 
 Nor standeth in the way of sinners, 
 
 Nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers.’ Ps. i, 1. 
 
 Sometimes two of the members stand, opposed to 
 the third — 
 
 4 To all the world goes forth their sound, 
 
 To the end of the world their words; 
 
 For the sun he places a tabernacle in them.’ 
 
 Ps. xix. 4. 
 
 Verses of four members contain either two simple 
 parallels — 
 
 ‘ With righteousness shall he judge the poor, 
 And decide with equity for the afflicted of the 
 people ; 
 
 He shall smite the earth with the rod of his 
 mouth ; 
 
 With the breath of his lips shall he slay the 
 wicked.’ Isa. xi. 4. 
 
 Or the first and third answer to each other ; also 
 the second and fourth — 
 
 4 That smote the people in anger 
 With a continual stroke ; 
 
 That lorded it over the nations in wrath 
 With unremitted oppression.’ Isa. xiv. 6. 
 
 If the members are more numerous or dispropor- 
 tionate (Isa. xi. 11), or if the parallelism is imper- 
 fect or irregular, the diction of poetry is lost and 
 prose ensues; as is the case in Isa. v. 1-6, and 
 frequently in the later prophets, as Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that each poem consists 
 exclusively of one sort of verse ; for though this 
 feature does present itself, yet frequently several 
 kinds are found together in one composition, so 
 as to give great ease, freedom, and capability to 
 the style. We select the following beautiful 
 specimen, because a chorus is introduced — 
 
 david’s lament over saul and Jonathan. 
 
 The Gazelle, O Israel, has been cut down cn 
 thy heights ! 
 
 Chorus. How are the mighty fallen! 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 543 
 
 Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets 
 of Ascalon, 
 
 Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, 
 Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult, 
 
 PI ills of Gilboa, no dew nor rain come upon 
 you, devoted fields ! 
 
 For there is stained the heroes’ bow, 
 
 Saul’s bow, never anointed with oil. 
 
 From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the 
 mighty, 
 
 The bow of Jonathan turned not back, 
 
 And the sword of Saul came not idly home. 
 
 Saul and Jonathan ! lovely and pleasant in life ! 
 And in death ye were not divided ; 
 
 Swifter than eagles, stronger than lions! 
 
 Ye daughters of Israel ! Weep for Saul ; 
 
 He clothed you delicately in purple, 
 
 He put ornaments of gold on your apparel. 
 Chorus. How are the mighty fallen in the midst 
 of the battle ! 
 
 O Jonathan, slain in thy high places ! 
 
 I am distressed for thee, brother Jonathan, 
 
 Very pleasant wast thou to me, 
 
 Wonderful was thy love, more than the love 
 of woman. 
 
 Chorus. How are the mighty fallen, 
 
 And the weapons of war perished ! 
 
 We have chosen this ode not only for its sin- 
 gular beauty, but also because it presents another 
 quality of Hebrew poetry — the strophe. In this 
 poem there are three strophes marked by the re- 
 currence three times of the dirge sung by the 
 chorus. The chorus appears to have consisted of 
 three parts, corresponding with the parties more 
 immediately addressed in the three several por- 
 tions of the poem. The first choral song is sung 
 by the entire body of singers, representing Israel ; 
 the second is sung by a chorus of maidens ; the 
 third, by first a chorus of youths in a soft and 
 mournful strain, and then by all the choir in full 
 and swelling chorus. But in order to the readeris 
 fully understanding with what noble effect these 
 4 songs of Zion’ came on the souls of their hearers, 
 an accurate idea must be formed of the music of 
 the Hebrews [Music]. Referring to the articles 
 which bear on the subject, we merely remark that 
 both music and dancing were connected with 
 sacred song in its earliest manifestations, though 
 it was only at a comparatively late period, when 
 David and Solomon had given their master-powers 
 to the grand performances of the temple-service, 
 that poetry came forth in' all its excellence, and 
 music lent its full aid to its solemn and sublime 
 sentiments. 
 
 Lyrical poetry so abounds in the Bible, that 
 we almost forget that it contains any other spe- 
 cies. Doubtless lyrical poetry is the earliest, no 
 less than the most varied and most abundant. 
 Yet the lyrical poetry of the Israelites contains 
 tokens of proceeding from an earlier kind. It 
 is eminently sententious — brief, pithy, and strik- 
 ing in the forms of language, and invariably 
 moral or religious in its tone. Whence we 
 infer that it had its rise in a species of poetry 
 analogous to that which we find in the book 
 of Proverbs. Read the few lines addressed by 
 Lamech to his wives : do they not bear a corre- 
 spondence with the general tone of the Proverbs? 
 
644 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 We do not by this intend to intimate that the 
 book so called was the earliest poetic production 
 of the Hebrew muse. In its actual form it is of 
 a much later origin than many of the odes. Yet 
 the elements out of which it was formed may 
 have existed at a very early day. Indeed the Ori- 
 ental genius turns naturally to proverbs and sen- 
 tentious speeches. In its earliest, its most purely 
 native state, the poetry of the Easterns is a string 
 of pearls. Every word has life ; every propo- 
 sition is condensed wisdom ; every thought is 
 striking and epigrammatic. The book of Pro- 
 verbs argues the influence of philosophy. Early 
 jwetry is too spontaneous to speak in this long 
 retinue of glittering thoughts. But Eastern ima- 
 ginations may at first have poured forth their 
 creations, not in a continued strain, but in showers 
 of broken light, on which the lyrist would seize 
 to be worked as sparkling gems into his odes. It 
 is however certain that a general name for poetic 
 
 language, signifies also a saying, a proverb, 
 
 a comparison, a similitude. The last is indeed 
 the primary signification, showing that Hebrew 
 poetry in its origin was a painting to the eye; in 
 other words, a parable, a teaching by likenesses, 
 discovered by the popular mind, expressed by 
 the popular tongue, and adopted and polished by 
 the national poet. And as a sententious form 
 of speech may even by its very condensation be- 
 come dark, so that the wisdom which it contains 
 may have to be patiently and carefully sought 
 
 for, what was # ^S^?D may become hidden know- 
 ledge, and pass into HYTI, a secret or a riddle ; 
 which, as being intended to baffle and so to de- 
 ride, may in its turn be appropriately termed 
 riS'ta, deri sion, satire, or irony. 
 
 Lyrical poetry embraced a great variety of 
 topics, from the shortest and most fleeting effusion, 
 as found in specimens already given, and in Ps. 
 xv., cxxxi., cxxxiii., to the loftiest subjects treated 
 in a full and detailed manner ; for instance, De- 
 borah’s song (Judg. v.), and Ps. xviii. and lxviii. 
 It ran equally through all the moods of the human 
 soul, nothing being too lowly, too deep, or too high 
 for the Hebrew lyre. It told how the horse and his 
 Egyptian rider were sunk in the depths of the Sea ; 
 it softly and sweetly sang of the benign effects of 
 brotherly love. It uttered its wail over the corpse 
 of a friend, and threw its graceful imagery around 
 the royal nuptial couch. Song was its essence. 
 Whatever its subject, it forewent neither the lyre 
 nor.the voice. Indeed its most general nair.e, 
 signifies ‘song;’ song and poetry were the 
 same. Another name for lyrical poetry is “VtfDfD, 
 which the Seventy render ^aA.^ios, ‘psalm,’ and 
 which from its etymology seems to have a refer- 
 ence not so much to song as to the numbers into 
 which the poet by his art wrought his thoughts 
 and emotions. The latter word describes the 
 making of an ode, the former its performance on 
 the lyre. Another general name for lyrical poetry 
 
 is which is applied to poems of a certain 
 
 kind(Ps. xxxii., xlii., xlv.,lii., lv., Ixxiv., lxxviii., 
 lxxxviii., cxlii.), and appears to denote an ode 
 lofty in its sentiments and exquisite in its execu- 
 tion. Under these general heads there were seve- 
 ral species, whose specific differences it is not easy 
 to determine. 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW 
 
 1. nVnn, ‘a hymn,’ or ‘ psalm of ][ raise." 
 The word is used as a title only to one •psalm 
 (cxlv.), but really . describes the character of 
 many, as may naturally be expected when we 
 consider the origin of the ode as springing from 
 victory, deliverance, the reception of bounties, 
 and generally those events and occasions which 
 excited joy and gladness in the soul, and were 
 celebrated with music, often accompanied by 
 dancing in the public assemblies of the people, 
 or after a more sacred manner, in the solemn 
 courts of the temple. To this class of joyous 
 compositions belong the lofty hymns which com- 
 memorated great national events, such as the de- 
 liverance from Pharaoh (Exod. xv., Judg. v., Ps. 
 xviii., lxviii.), which were appointed for set holy- 
 day seasons, . and became a part at once of the 
 national worship and of the best national property. 
 Other songs of this kind were used on less distin- 
 guished occasions, and by individuals on present- 
 ing their tbank-otferings, and were pitched at a 
 lower key, being expressive rather of personal 
 than general emotions (Ps. xxx., xxxii., xli., 
 cxxxviii. ; Isa. xxxviii.). There are occasionally 
 briefer songs of victory, sung by the general con- 
 gregation in the temple, as Ps. xlvi. and xlviii. 
 
 2. HPp, Qpr)pos, ‘ a dirge,’ or ‘ song of sorrow,’ 
 
 companied by exclamations of grief, as 16$, 'IX, 
 or very often by O how ! and distinguished 
 
 from songs of joy by mournful strains of music, 
 The Hebrew heart was as much open to sorrow 
 as to joy, tender and full as were its emotions, 
 and simple as was the ordinary mode of life, 
 Adversity and bereavement were therefore keenly 
 felt, and as warmly and strikingly expressed. 
 Indeed so great was the regard held due to the 
 dead, that mourners did not consider their own 
 sorrow sufficient, but used to engage others to 
 mourn for their lost friends, so that in process 
 of time there arbse a profession whose business 
 it was to bewail the departed. In Amos v. 16. 
 these persons are named as 'fD 'ITD', those wh<j 
 are skilful in wailing (Jer. ix. 17). Distin- 
 guished heroes, and persons who were tenderly 
 beloved, found in the sorrowful accents of the 
 Hebrew muse, the finest and most lasting memo- 
 rial (2 Sam. i. 17 -"2S ; iii. 33, 34). From 1 Sam. 
 i. 18, it appears that these dirges ( neniec ) were 
 taught to the children of Israel ad perpetuam rei 
 memoriam ; and so heroic deeds lived through 
 successive generations on the lips of the people, 
 whose hearts were thus warmed with emulation, 
 while they were softened with gentleness and love. 
 In this class of lamentations may be ranked the 
 songs of sorrow over the misfortunes of Israel, 
 such as Ps. xliv., lx., lxxiii., which seem to have 
 borne the general name of 4 a weeping and wail- 
 ing ’ (Jer. vii. 29; ix. 9). In the same class 
 stand lamentations poured forth on The desecration 
 or destruction of the holy city (Jer. ix. xix.;Ezek. 
 xxvii. xxxii. ; Isa. i. xxi.). Jeremiah has put toge- 
 ther and united in one book, executed with great 
 skill and presenting an altogether unique speci- 
 men of writing, which indeed could have had its 
 birth nowhere but in a Hebrew soul, all possible 
 lamentations and wailings on the ruin and fall 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
 3. jPUfc? is found only as the title of a poem 
 (Ps. vii.), and once in the plural (Hab. iii. 1), as 
 a description of this species of poetry in general. 
 The word is not easy to understand. The Sej> 
 
POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 tuagint render it by a general term which 
 
 seems^to betray their own ignorance. It had 
 doubtless a specific meaning. The root de- 
 notes bewilderment, so that the term may indicate 
 a sort of ‘litbyrambic poetry — poetry in which 
 the emotions are put forth in wild confusion be- 
 tokening an agitated, confused, and worried state 
 of mind. This description corresponds with the 
 character of the two compositions to which the 
 epithet is applied in Ps. vii. and Hab. iii. That 
 the melody employed in singing these pieces an- 
 swered, in wild hurrying confusion, to the train of 
 the thought may be conjectured naturally, and 
 inferred with good reason, from the heading of 
 Habakkuk iii. 
 
 4. rtefl, ‘prayer,’ is the name of certain odes 
 in the titles given to Ps. xvii., lxxxvi., xc., cii., 
 cxlii. ; Hab. iii. In Psalm cii. and in Hab. 
 iii. it seems not to denote the ode so much as 
 the general tendency of the sentiment of the 
 poet, and in the other headings it may import 
 merely the use to which these compositions may 
 be applied. It is not therefore so much a term 
 of art as a term of religion. Yet may it be ap- 
 plied to compositions in general, designed for use 
 in divine worship whatever their form or strain, 
 inasmuch as it regards in a general way the re- 
 ligious element, which constituted their essence; 
 and accordingly it is found in Ps. lxxii. 20 ap- 
 plied as a general name to an entire collection 
 of the poems of David — ‘ the prayers of David, 
 the son of Jesse, are ended.’ 
 
 In these four classes we have not pretended to 
 exhaust all the species and forms which lyric 
 
 g ietry took, but merely to present the chief facts. 
 
 especting other kinds, little need be said, as the 
 lyrical comprehends the greatest and best, part of 
 Hebrew poetry, nor are learned men so much of 
 one mind regarding the compositions to which we 
 allude. 
 
 Dramatic poetry in the sense in which the 
 phrase is applicable to productions such as those 
 of Euripides, Shakspeare, or Schiller, had no 
 place in the literature of the Hebrews. This de- 
 fect may be owing to a want of the requisite lite- 
 rary cultivation. Yet we are not willing to as- 
 sign this as the cause, when we call to mind the 
 high intellectual culture which the Hebrews 
 evinced in lyric and didactic poetry, out of which 
 the drama seems naturally to spring. We rather 
 look for the cause of this in the earnest nature of 
 the Hebrews, and in the solemnity of the subjects 
 with which they had to do in their literary pro- 
 ductions. Nor is it. any objection to this hypo- 
 thesis that the drama of modem times had its 
 birth in the religious mysteries of ths middle 
 iges, since those ages were only secondary in re- 
 gard to religious truth, stood at a distance from 
 the great realities which they believed and dra- 
 matized ; whereas the objects of faith with the 
 Israelites were held in all the fresh vividness of 
 primitive facts and newly-recognised truths. Ele- 
 ments however for dramatic poetry and first rudi- 
 mental efforts are found in Hebrew ; as in the 
 Song of Solomon, in which several dramatis per- 
 sonae will be discovered speaking aiid acting, by 
 the diligent and unprejudiced reader. Evvald 
 asserts that the poem is divisible into four acts. 
 In the book of Job, however, the dramatic element 
 of the Hebrew muse i? developed in a more 
 vol. u . 36 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 marked form, and a more decided degree. Her* 
 the machinery and contrivances of the -drama, 
 even to the plot and the Deus Vindex, lie paten; 
 to a reader of ordinary attention. For epic poetry 
 the constituent elements do not appear to have 
 existed during (lie classic period of the Hebrew 
 muse, since epic poetry requires an heroic age, 
 an age, that is, of fabulous wonders and falsely 
 so called divine interpositions. But among the 
 Israelites the patriarchal, which might have been 
 the heroic age, was an age of truth and reality ; 
 and it much raises the religious and historical 
 value of the biblical literature, that neither the 
 singular events of the age of the patriarchs, nor 
 the wonderful events of the age of Moses, nor the 
 confused and somewhat legendary events of the 
 age of the Judges, ever degenerated into mytho- 
 logy, nor passed from the reality which was their 
 essence, into the noble fictions into which the 
 imagination, if unchastened and unchecked by 
 religion, might have wrought them; but they re- 
 tained through all periods their own essential 
 character of earnest, lofty, and impressive realities. 
 At a later period, when the religion of Moses had, 
 during the Babylonish captivity, iteen lowered by 
 the corruptions of the religion of Zoroaster, and an 
 entirely new world of thought introduced, based 
 not on reality but fancy, emanating not from the 
 pure light of heaven but from the mingled lights 
 and shadows of primitive tradition and human 
 speculation, — then there came into existence 
 among the Jews the elements necessary for epic 
 poetry ; but the days were gone in which the 
 mind of the nation had the requisite strength and 
 culture to fashion them into a great, uniform, and 
 noble structure; and if we can allow that the 
 Hebrews possessed the rudimental outlines of the 
 epic, we must seek for them not in the canonical 
 hut the apocrynhal books ; and while we deny 
 with emphasis that the term Epos can be applied, 
 as some German critics have applied it, to the 
 Pentateuch; we can find only in the book of 
 Judith, and with rather more reason in that, of 
 Tobit, anything which approaches to epic poetry. 
 Indeed fiction, which if it is not the essence, enters 
 for a very large share into both epic and dramatic 
 poetry, was wholly alien from the genius of the 
 Hebrew muse, whose high and noble function was 
 not to invent but to celebrate the goodness o4 
 God, not to indulge the fancy but to express the 
 deepest feelings of the soul, not to play with 
 words and feign emotions, but to utter profound 
 truth and commemorate real events, and pour 
 forth living sentiments. 
 
 These remarks imply that art, though subordi- 
 nate, was not neglected, as indeed is proved by 
 the noble lyrics which have come down to us, and 
 in which the art is only relatively small and low, 
 that is, the art. is inconsiderable and secondary, 
 merely because the topics are so august, the sen- 
 timents so grand, the religious impression so pro- 
 found and sacred. At later periods, when the 
 first fresh gushing of the muse had ceased, art in 
 Hebrew, as is the case in all other poetry, began 
 to claim a larger share of attention, and stands 
 in the poems for a greater portion of their merit. 
 Then the play of the imagination grew predomi- 
 nant over the spontaneous outpourings of the soul, 
 and among other creations of the fancy alphabets* 
 cal poems were produced, in which the matter ia 
 artistically distributed sometimes under two-and 
 
POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 twenty heads or divisions, corresponding with the 
 number of the Hebrew letters. This is of course 
 • peculiarity which cannot be preserved in any 
 ordinary prose translation; but it is indicated in 
 Psalm c\ix., as found in the common bibles ; 
 and other specimens may be seen in Ps. ix., x., 
 xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii. 
 
 If, now, from these details we consider for a 
 moment what are the essential peculiarities of 
 Hebrew poetry, we find we have to offer to the 
 reader's attention the following observations. 
 
 The source of all true poetry is in the human 
 mind. Even where there is a divine inspiration, 
 this higher element must enter into the soul of 
 man, and, blending with its workings, conform 
 also to its laws. But every thought is not poetical. 
 Thought and emotion become poetical only when 
 they rise to the ideal . Poetry, in its source, Is 
 thought which ascends to a high if not perfect (rela- 
 tively) conception of moral and spiritual realities. 
 Mere intensity is not poetry, any more than 
 strength of muscle is beauty. Still less is passion 
 either poetry or eloquence, as Blair teaches. 
 Passion is of a suspicious origin, and represents 
 the soul as being mastered ; whereas in all true 
 poetry the soul is a sovereign. There may be in- 
 tensity in poetry, however, and the soul, when in 
 a poetic state, may be impassioned; but these 
 are only accidents — results, not causes, ensuing 
 (sometimes) ffom the ideal conceptions which for 
 the time being constitute the soul, and make up 
 consciousness. Hence all true poetry is religious ; 
 for religion is the contemplation of the highest 
 perfection as at once holy, lovely, honourable, 
 formative and guiding, the object, of adoration, the 
 fountain of law, the source of obligation. But in the 
 Hebrew poetry, the religion which constituted its 
 essence had attributes of truth and reality such as 
 ■no other poetry ever did or could possess. The 
 intimate relation in which the nation of Israel, and 
 the still more intimate relation in which distin- 
 guished individuals of that nation, stood to the 
 Deity, made the religious the predominant ele- 
 ment, and gave to that element a living and 
 quickening fire as from heaven, which burnt from 
 the first with the true vestal purity, and on to the 
 last with more than vestal constancy and dura- 
 tion. A divine and imperishable power was thus 
 the chief constituent of Hebrew poetry: divine 
 truth, divine energy, divine life, are all found in 
 the earliest productions of Hebrew song. Its 
 chief characteristic — that by which, more than 
 any other thing, it is contradistinguished from the 
 poetry of all other nations — is its pure and rich 
 ■religious element. 
 
 But this divine power lay not merely in the 
 truths conveyed nor in the facts commemorated 
 by the songs of Zion, but equally in the strong, 
 deep, and overflowing emotions with which the 
 Hebrew harp thrilled sometimes to ecstasy. The 
 origin of this religious sensibility is to be chiefly 
 looked for in the Hebrew temperament, which was 
 and is peculiarly rich in all the sentiments of the 
 heart, so that devotion was as natural — as much 
 a necessity of the character of the Israelites — as 
 domestic affection. It is in the main owing to the 
 religious and devotional qualities of Hebrew poetry 
 that the Book of Psalms, still, after the lapse of so 
 many centuries, and the rise and fall of so many 
 modes of thought, and forms of social life, holds 
 an empire over the heart of man, far wider, deeper, 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 and moie influential than what any other influ- 
 ence has possessed, save only that which is anc 
 will ever be exercised by ‘ David's greater son.' 
 
 Nor is the wonder at all diminished when we 
 learn that the Hebrew was an essentially national 
 muse. There is no poetry which bears a deeper 
 or broader stamp of the peculiar influences under 
 which it was produced. It never ceases to be 
 Hebrew in order to become universal, and yet it 
 is universal while it is Hebrew. The country, the 
 clime, the institutions, the very peculiar religious 
 institutions, rites and observances, the very sin- 
 gular religious history of the Israelites, are all 
 faithfully and vividly reflected in the Hebrew 
 muse, so that no one song can ever be mistaken 
 for a poem of any other people. Still it remains 
 true that, the heart of man, at least the heart of all 
 the most civilized nations of the earth, has been 
 moved and swayed, and is still pleasingly and 
 most beneficially moved and swayed by the strains 
 ot Biblical poesy. Others may, but we cannot, 
 account for this indubitable fact, without ad- 
 mitting that some specially divine influence was 
 in operation amidst the Jews. 
 
 Its originality is also a marked cnaracferistic of 
 Hebrew poetry. Homer had his teachers, but 
 who taught Moses ? Yet ‘ the divine spng of 
 Troy ’ is less divine than the ode of triumph over 
 Pharaoh. The Hebrew poetry is original in this 
 sense, that it is self-educed and self developed. 
 It is an indigenous plant in Palestine. Like 
 Melchizedek, it is, in regard to an earlier culture, 
 dirarcop, apL^rcnp, ay ev ea\6yr}T os ; and if we can- 
 not s;^y that it has strictly p.j)re apx)]v 7]p.epciv, 
 there is no danger in predicting- of it, fx-pre far/s 
 t4\os yueVet tepevs els rb dir/ve/ces (Heir, 
 
 vii. 3). 
 
 Connected with its originality, as, in part, its 
 cause, is the fact that the Hebrew Muse stood 
 nearer than any other to the first days and the 
 earliest aspects of creation, ‘ when the morning 
 stars sang together, and all the sons of God 
 shouted for joy ’ (Job xxxviii. 7). Those stars 
 that Muse saw in the maiden purity of their ear- 
 liest radiance ; that song thesame Muse heard when 
 first it struck the canopy of heaven and was rever- 
 berated to earth. The rose of Sharon blushed with 
 its first loveliness on her glad sight, and the dews 
 of Hermon were first disturbed by her unsandalled, 
 feet. Tims there is a freshness as of morn about 
 all her imagery. In her best days there were no 
 stock figures of speech, no loci communes , nor 
 universal recipes lor forming poetry. Not even 
 at second hand did she receive her stores, but she 
 took what she had out of the great treasure-house 
 of nature, and out of the fulness of her own heart. 
 To be a master, therefore, to other poesies is the 
 divine right and peculiar function of the Hebrew 
 muse, Other hards may borrow and imitate ; the 
 poetry of the Bible copies nature and creates. 
 
 Hence there is a spontaneousness in its poetry. 
 Open the Psalter at anyplace; you find streams 
 pouring forth like the brooks and waterfalls that 
 trickle and gush down the hills of Palestine after 
 the latter rain. Nature you behold at work. All 
 therefore is ease, and, as ease, so grace. There is 
 no constraint, no effort, no affectation. The heart 
 itself speaks, and it speaks because it is full and 
 overflowing. 
 
 If we add that simplicity is another marked 
 character of Hebrew poetry, we do little more thaw 
 
547 
 
 POETRY, HEBREW. 
 
 POL. 
 
 state that which is already implied. But such is 
 its simplicity that it seems never to have known, 
 in its age of purity, anything of the artificial 
 distinctions by which critics and rhetoricians have 
 mapped out the domain of poesy and endea 
 voured to supply the deficiencies of fancy by the 
 laborious efforts of varied culture. Hebrew 
 poetry was the voice of man communing with 
 God, and thought as little of the one as of the 
 other of the two purposes which Horace ascribes to 
 
 artistic poets — 
 
 ‘Aut prodesse volunt ant delectare poetae.’ 
 
 It was, indeed, wholly unconscious of anything 
 but the satisfaction of a high and urgent want, 
 which made worship a necessity, and devotion a 
 delight. A striking confirmation of these facts is 
 found in the circumstance that among the earliest 
 of the ‘ sweet singers of Israel,’ women are found. 
 The great event which Moses, in his sublime tri- 
 umphal ode, had celebrated, was forthwith taken up 
 by Miriam, whose poetic skill could not be sin- 
 gular, as she is described by a general name, and 
 was supported by other females ; ‘ And Miriam 
 the prophetess, the sister of Aaron ’ (a remarkable 
 family was that of Amram, ‘Aaron, and Moses, 
 and Miriam their sister,’ Num. xxvi. 59), ‘took 
 a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went 
 out after her with timbrels, and with dances, and 
 Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord,’ &c. 
 (Exod. xv. 20, sq. ; see also Judg. v. 1 ; xi. 34 ; 
 xxi. 21 ; 1 Sam. xviii. 7 ; Ps. lxviii. 25Y 
 
 Were it a matter to be determined by autho- 
 rity, we could easily prove that the Hebrew poetry 
 is written in hexameters and pentameters. Jose- 
 phus more than once asserts that the triumphal 
 ode of Moses was written in hexameter verse 
 (Antiq.' ii. 16. 4.; iv. 8. 44); and in Antiq. vii. 
 12. 3, he expressly says, ‘And now David, being 
 freed from wars and dangers, composed songs and 
 hymns to God, of several sorts of metre ; some of 
 those which he made were trimeters and some 
 were pentameters ;’ in which statement he is as 
 much in error in regard to the verse as he is in 
 regard to his implication that David wrote his 
 Psalms at some one set period of his life. Not 
 improbably Josephus was influenced in this repre- 
 sentation regarding the alleged metres by his Grae- 
 cising propensities, by which he was led to assi- 
 milate the Hebrew laws and institutions to Gre- 
 cian models, with a false view of thus gaining 
 honour to his country, and by reflection, to him- 
 self as well. Even in his day the true pronun- 
 ciation of the Hebrew was lost, so that it was easy 
 to make this or that assertion on the subject of its 
 versification. Certainly all the attempts to whieli 
 these misstatements of Josephus (see also Euseb. 
 Prcep. Ev. xi ; Hieron. Prcef. ad Chron. ; Eu- 
 seb. p. 1 ; Isidor. Orig. i. 38) chiefly led, have 
 utterly failed ; and whatever the fact may be, 
 whether or not these poems were written in stricter 
 measure than the doctrine of this article supposes, 
 we are little likely to form an exact idea of the 
 Hebrew measures unless we could raise David 
 from the sleep of centuries; and at a time when, 
 like the present, it is beginning to be felt that there 
 has been far too much dogmatizing about even the 
 classical versification, and that speculation and 
 fancy have outstripped knowledge, we do not ex- 
 pect to find old attempts to discover the Hebrew 
 hexameters and pentameters revived. Those who 
 may wish to pursue the suty set in its details are 
 
 referred to the following works : Carpzov, Tntrod, 
 in V. T. ii. England has the credit of opening 
 a new path in this branch by the publication of 
 Bishop Lowth's elegant and learned Preelectionea 
 de Sacra Poesi Ilebrceorum, Oxon. 1753 ; which 
 may be found also in Ugolini, Thesaur. xxxi. ; 
 the editions having Michaeliss Notes et Epimctra 
 are to be preferred ; that of Oxon. 1810, i3 good : the 
 work was translated into English by Gregory. On 
 the didactic poetry of the Hebrews the reader may 
 consult Umbreit, Sprache Sal. Einleitung ; Rhode, 
 De Vet. Poetar. Sapientia Gnom. Ilebr ceor. imp. 
 et Grcecor. Havn. 1800; Unger, De Parabolar. 
 Jesu natura, &c. Leips. 1828. Le Clerc, in his 
 Biblioth. Univers. ix. 226, sq., has given what is 
 worth attention ; see also I list. Abregee de la 
 poesie chez les Ilebr. in the History of the Aca- 
 demy of Inscriptions, tom. xxiii. 92, sq. But the 
 work which has, next to that of Lowth, exerted the 
 greatest influence, is a posthumous and unfinished 
 piece of the celebrated Herder, who has treated the 
 subject with extraordinary eloquence and learn- 
 ing : Von Geist der Ebriiischen Poesie , 1782, to 
 be found in his collected writings ; also Tiibing. 
 1805; and Carlsrube, 1826 ; see also Giigler, Die 
 IJeil Kunst der Ilebr aery Landshut, 1814; and 
 B. F. Guttenstein, Die Poet. Literar. alten Isra- 
 eli. t.y Mannh. 1835. The subject of metre has 
 been skilfully handled by Bellermann, Versuch 
 iiber d. Metrik der Hebrder. Berl. 1813. Much 
 useful information may be found in De Wette’s 
 Einleitung in d. A. Test., Berlin, 1840, translated 
 into English by Theodore Parker, Boston (U. 8.), 
 1843. In Wellbeloved’s Bible translations of 
 the poetical portions may be found, in which 
 regard is paid to rhythm and poetical form; a 
 very valuable guide in Hebrew poetry, both for 
 form and substance, may be found in Noyes's 
 Translation of Job, Cambridge (U. S.), 1827 ; 
 of the Psalms, Boston (U. S), 1831 ; and of the 
 Prophets, Boston (U. S.), 1833; but the best, 
 fullest, and most satisfactory work on the subject 
 is by Ewahl, Die Poet. Bucher des Alten Bundes, 
 4 vols. 8vo. Gottingen, 1835-9. — J. R. B. 
 
 POL (^IS) occurs twice in Scripture, and no 
 doubt signifies ‘ beans,’ as translated in the Auth. 
 Version. The first occasion is in 2 Sam. xvii. 
 28, where beans are described as being brought 
 to David, as well as wheat, barley, lentils, &c., 
 as is the custom at the present day in many parts 
 of the East when a traveller arrives at a vil- 
 lage. So in Ezekiel iv. 9, the prophet is directed 
 to take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, &c., and 
 make bread thereof. This meaning of pol is con- 
 firmed by the Arabic ^ fool , which is the same 
 
 word (there being no pe in Arabic), and is applied 
 to the bean in modern times, as ascertained by 
 Forskal in Egypt, and as we find in old Arabic 
 works. The common bean, or at least one of its 
 varieties, has been employed as an article of diet 
 from the most ancient times, since, besides the 
 mention of it in Scripture, we find it noticed by 
 Hippocrates and Theophrastus, under the names 
 of Kvapos eWrivucSs, to distinguish it from Kvapoa 
 atyvirrios, the Egyptian bean, or bean of Pytha- 
 goras, which was no doubt the large farinaceous 
 seed of Nelumbium speciosum. Beans were 
 employed as articles of diet by the ancients, as 
 they are by the moderns ; and are considered to give 
 
548 
 
 PONTUS. 
 
 POTSHERD. 
 
 rise to flatulence, but otherwise to be wholesome 
 and nutritious. ‘ Melangee a la quantite d’une 
 livre sur dix douze de larine de froment., elle 
 fournit un assez bon pain, et donne de la con- 
 sistance a la pate lorsqu’elle est trop molle.’ So 
 Pliny : ‘ Inter legumina maximus honos fab* : 
 quippe ex qua tentatus etiam sit panis. Frumento 
 etiam miscetur apud plerasque gentes.’ Beans 
 are cultivated over a great part of the old world, 
 from the north of Europe to the south of India; 
 in the latter, however, forming the cold-weather 
 cultivation, with wheat, peas, &c. They are ex- 
 tensively cultivated in Egypt and Arabia. Mr. 
 Kitto states that the extent of their cultivation in 
 Palestine he had no means of knowing. In Egypt 
 they are sown in November, and reaped in the 
 middle of February (three and a half months in 
 the ground) ; but that in Syria they may be had 
 throughout the spring. The stalks are cut down 
 with the scythe ; and these are afterwards cut and 
 crushed, to fit them for the food of camels, oxen, 
 and goats. The beans themselves, when sent to a 
 market, are often deprived of their skins. Basnage 
 reports it as the sentiment of some of the Rabbins, 
 that beans were not lawful to the priests, on ac- 
 count of their being considered the appropriate 
 food of mourning and affliction ; but he does 
 not refer to the authority ; and neither in the 
 sacred books nor in theMishna can be found any 
 traces of the notion to which he alludes. So far 
 from attaching any sort of impurity to this legume, 
 it is described as among the first-fruit offerings ; 
 and several other articles in the latter collection 
 prove that the Hebrews had beans largely in use, 
 after they had passed them through the mill 
 (Phys. Hist, of Palestine, cccxix.). — J. F. R. 
 POLLUX. [Castor and Poij.ux.] 
 POLYGAMY. [Marriage.] 
 POLYGLOTT. [Versions.] 
 POMEGRANATE. [Rimmon.J 
 PONTIUS PILATE. [Pii.ate.] 
 
 PONTUS (FIoetos), the north-eastern province 
 of Asia Minor, which took its name from the sea 
 [Pontus Euxinus] that formed its northern fron- 
 tier. On the east it was bounded by Colchis, on 
 the south by Cappadocia and part of Armenia, 
 and on the west by Paphlagonia and Galatia. 
 Ptolemy ( Geog. v. 5) and Pliny (Hist. Nat. 
 vi. 4) regard Pontus and Cappadocia as one pro- 
 vince ; but Strabo (Gcoy. xii. p. 541) rightly dis- 
 tinguishes them, seeing that each formed a dis- 
 tinct government with its own ruler or prince. 
 The family of Mithridates reigned in Ponlus, 
 and that of Ariarathes in Cappadocia. The two 
 countries were also separated naturally from each 
 other by the Lithrus and Ophlimus mountains. 
 The kingdom of Pontus became celebrated under 
 Mithridates the Great, who waged a long war with 
 the Romans, in which he was at length defeated, 
 and his kingdom annexed to the Roman empire 
 by Pompey (Appian, Mithrid. p. 121). That 
 Jews had settled in Pontus, previous to the time 
 of Christ, is evident from the fact, that strangers 
 from Pontus were among those assembled at 
 Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts ii. 9). 
 Christianity also became early known in this 
 country, as the strangers ‘ in Pontus * are among 
 those to whom Peter addressed his first epistle 
 (l Pet. i. 1). Of this province Paul’s friend, 
 Aquila, was a native (Acts xviii. 2). The prin- 
 cipal towns of Pontus were Amasia, the ancient 
 
 metropolis, and the birth place of the geographer 
 Strabo, Themiscyra, Cerasus, and Trapezus ; 
 which last is still an important town under the 
 name of Trebizond (Cellarius, Notit. ii. 287; 
 Mannert. vi. 350 ; Rosenmiiller, Biol. Geog. 
 iii. 5-9; Encyclop. Method. Sect. Geog. Ancienne, 
 art. ‘ Pontos ’). 
 
 POPLAR. [Libneh.] 
 
 PORCIUS FESTUS. [Festus.] 
 POSSESSION. [Demoniacs.] 
 
 POTIPHAR pat?1Q, contract, of JT0 
 Potipherah, which see ; Sept, Tlerecppris), an officer 
 of Pharaoh, probably the chief of his body-guard 
 (Gen. xxxix. 1). Of the Midianitish merchants 
 he purchased Joseph, whose treatment by him is 
 described under that head. The keeper of the 
 prison into which the son of Jacob was eventually 
 cast treated him with kindness, and confided to 
 him the management of the prison ; and this 
 confidence was afterwards sanctioned by the ‘cap- 
 tain of the guard* himself, as the officer respon- 
 sible for the safe custody of prisoners of slate. 
 It is sometimes denied, but more usually main- 
 tained, that this ‘ captain of the guard ’ was the 
 same with the Potiphar who is before designated 
 by the same title. We believe that this ‘captain 
 of the guard ’ and Joseph's master were the same 
 person. It would be in accordance with Oriental 
 usage that offenders against the court, and the 
 officers of the court, should be in custody of 
 the captain of the guard ; and that Potiphar 
 should have treated Joseph well after having cast 
 him into prison, is not irreconcilable with the 
 facts of the case. After having imprisoned 
 Joseph in the first transport of Ids choler, he 
 might possibly discover circumstances which 
 led him to doubt his guilt, if not to be convinced 
 of his innocence. The mantle left in the hands 
 of his mistress, and so triumphantly produced 
 against him, would, when calmly considered, 
 seem a stronger proof of guilk against her than 
 against him : yet still, to avoid bringing dishonour 
 upon his wife, and exposing her to new tempta- 
 tion, he may have deemed it more prudent to be- 
 stow upon his slavefhe command of the state pri- 
 son, than to restore him to his former employment. 
 
 POTIPHERAH (jn? n?i3),- the priest of 
 On, or Heliopolis, whose daughter Azer ath be- 
 came the wife of Joseph [Azenath]. The name 
 is Egyptian, and is in the Sepfuagint accommo- 
 dated to the analogy of the Egyptian language, 
 being in the Cod. Vatican. Tlerecppri : Alex, rier- 
 T€(pprj, al. nevT6<t>p}), UevTctypi ; which corresponds 
 
 to the Egyptian TTCTG-ti^pK , qui Solis est, 
 i. e. Soli proprius (Cham poll ion, Precis , Tabl. 
 General, p. 23). The name is found written in 
 various forms on the monuments, which are copied 
 by Gesenius in his Thesaurus , p. 1094, from 
 Rosellini, Monum. Storici, i. 117. 
 
 POTSHERD. Potsherd is figuratively used 
 in Scripture to denote a thing worthless and in- 
 significant (Ps. xxii. 15 ; Prov. xxvi. 23; Isa. 
 xlv. 9). It may illustrate some of these allusions 
 to remind the reader of the fact, that the sites 
 of ancient towns are often covered at the surface 
 with great quantities of broken pottery. The {ire- 
 sent writer has usually found this pottery to be 
 of coarse texture, but coated and protected witn 
 a strong and bright-coloured glaze, mostly bluish 
 
POTTER. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 549 
 
 green, and sometimes yellow. Tiese fragments 
 give to some of the most venerable sites in the 
 world, the appearance of a deserted pottery rather 
 than of a town. The fact is, however, that they 
 occur only upon the sites of towns which were 
 built with crude brick ; and this suggests that 
 the heaps of ruin into which these had fallen 
 being disintegrated, and worn at the surface by 
 the action of the weather, bring to view and 
 leave exposed the broken pottery, which is not 
 liable to be thus dissolved and washed away. 
 This explanation was suggested by the actual 
 survey of such ruins ; and we know not that a 
 b-rder has yet been offered in any other quarter. 
 It is certainly remarkable that of the more mighty 
 cities of old time, nothing but potsherds now re- 
 mains visible at the surface of the ground. 
 
 Towns built with stone, or kiln-burnt bricks, 
 do not exhibit this form of ruin, which is, there- 
 fore, not usually met with in Palestine. 
 
 POTTER. The potter, and the produce of 
 his labours, are often alluded to in the Scriptures. 
 The fragility of his wares, and the ease with 
 which they are destroyed, supply apt emblems of 
 the facility with which human life and power 
 may be broken and destroyed. Jt is in this 
 figurative use that the potter’s vessels are most 
 frequently noticed in Scripture (Ps. ii. 9 : Isa. xxx. 
 >4 Jer. xix. 1 1 ; Rev. ii. 27). In one place, the 
 
 power of the potter to form with his clay, by the 
 impulse of his will and hand, vessels either for 
 honourable or for mean uses, is employed with 
 great force by the apostle to illustrate the abso- 
 lute power of God in moulding the destinies of 
 men according to his pleasure (Rom. ix. 21). 
 The first distinct mention of earthenware vessels 
 is in the case of the pitchers in which Gideon's 
 men concealed their lamps, and which they broke 
 in pieces when they withdrew their lamps from 
 them (Judg. vii. Iff, 19). Pitchers and bottles 
 are indeed mentioned earlier; but the ‘bottle’ 
 which contained Hagar’s water (Gen. xxi. 14, 
 15) was undoubtedly of skin ; and although 
 Rebekah’s pitcher was possibly of earthenware 
 (Gen. xxiv. 14, 15), we cannot be certain that it 
 was so. 
 
 The potter’s wheel is mentioned only once in 
 the Bible (Jer. xviii. 2) ; but it must have been 
 in use among the Hebrews long before the time of 
 that allusion j for w< now know that it existed in 
 
 Egypt before the Israelites took refuge in that 
 country (Wilkinson, Anc. Egijpt. iii. 165). The 
 processes employed by the Hebrews were pro- 
 bably not in any way dissimilar to those of the 
 Egyptians, fiom whom the use of the wheel may 
 be supposed to have been adopted. There is the 
 greater probability in this, as the materials, forms, 
 and manufacture of earthenware vessels are still 
 very similar throughout Western Asia — and are 
 also the same which were anciently in use. This 
 we know from the comparison of ancient paint- 
 ings and sculptures with modem manufactures, as 
 well as from the vast quantit ies of broken pottery 
 which are found upon the sites of ancient cities. 
 The ancient potters ‘ frequently kneaded the clay 
 with their feet, and after it had been properly 
 worked up, they formed it into a mass of con- 
 venient size with the hand, and placed it on the 
 wheel, which, to judge from that represented in 
 the paintings, was of very simple construction, 
 and turned with the hand. The various forms 
 of the vases were made out by the finger during 
 the revolution ; the bandies, if they had any, 
 were afterwards affixed to them ; and the devices 
 and other ornamental parts were traced with a 
 wooden or metal instrument, previously to their 
 being baked. They were then suffered to dry, 
 and for this purpose were placed on planks of 
 wood ; they were afterwards arranged with great 
 care on trays, and carried, by means of the 
 usual yoke, borne on men’s shoulders, to the 
 oven’ (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyptians , iii. 163-167). 
 
 POTTER'S-FIELD. [Aceldama.] 
 
 FRjETORIUM (Tlpaircapiop). This word de- 
 notes the general’s tent in the field, and also the 
 house or palace of the governor of a province, 
 whether a praetor or not. In the Gospels it is ap- 
 plied to the palace built by Herod the Great, at 
 Jerusalem, and which eventually became the 
 residence of the Roman governors in that city 
 (Matt, xxvii. 27 ; Mark xv. 16 ; John xviii. 
 28, 38 ; xix. 9). In the two first of these texts 
 it may, however, denote the court in front of 
 the palace, where the procurator’s guards were 
 stationed [Jerusalem]. Herod built another 
 palace at Caesarea, and this also is called the Prae- 
 torium iu Acts xxiii. 35, probably because it had, 
 in like manner, become the residence of the 
 Roman governor, whose head-quarters were at 
 Caesarea. In Philipp, i 13, the word denotes the 
 Praetorian camp at Rome, i. e. the camp or 
 quarters of the Praetorian cohort at Rome. 
 
 PRIEST, HIGH PRIEST, &c. priest ; 
 Sept. Tepeus; Vulg. sacerclos ). The English 
 
 word is generally derived from the New Testa- 
 ment term presbyter [elder], the meaning of 
 which, is, however, essentially different from that 
 which was intended by the ancient terms. It. 
 would come nearer, if derived from irpo'Lcrrppi or 
 ir poiar apou, ‘ to preside,’ &c. It would then cor- 
 respond to Aristotle's definition of a priest, reap 
 nphs robs Oeovs icvpios , ‘ presiding over things re- 
 lating to the gods’ (Polit. iii. 14), and with the 
 very similar one in Heb. v. 1 ; ‘ every high-priest 
 taken from among men, is constituted on the be- 
 half of men, witli respect to their concerns with 
 God T« irpbs rbv ®e6v), that he may present 
 both gifts and sacrifices for sins.’ It. would then 
 adequately represent the kpevs (d if pa ftefav) off 
 
PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 950 
 
 the Greeks, and the sacerdos ( a sacris faciundis ) 
 of the Latins. The primitive meaning of the 
 Hebrew word is not easily determined, because 
 the verb, in its radical form, nowhere occurs. 
 Gesenius observes : ‘ In Arabic it denotes to pro- 
 phesy, to foretel as a soothsayer, and among the 
 heathen Arabs tl e substantive bore the latter sig- 
 nification; also that of a mediator or middle 
 person , who intevposed in any business, which 
 seems to be its radical meaning, as prophets and 
 priests were regarded as mediators between men 
 and the Deity. In the earliest families of the 
 race of Shem, the offices of priest and prophet 
 were undoubtedly united ; so that the word ori- 
 ginally denoted both, and at last the Hebrew 
 idiom kept one part of the idea, and the Arabic 
 another ’ ( Hebraisches und Chaldaiseh.es Hand- 
 zoorterbuch, Leipz., 1823). It is worthy of remark, 
 that all the persons who are recorded in Scrip- 
 ture as having legally performed priestly acts, 
 but who were not strictly sacerdotal, come under 
 the definition of a prophet, viz., persons who re- 
 ceived supernatural communications of know- 
 ledge generally, as Adam, Abraham (Gen. xx. 
 7), Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Samuel, Elijah 
 (comp. Luke i. 70). The primary meaning 
 of the Hebrew word is regarded by Kimchi, 
 Castell, Giggeius, Ernesti, Simonis, Tittmann, 
 and Eichhorn, to be, the rendering of honourable 
 and dignified service, like that of ministers of 
 state to their sovereign. Nearly similar is the 
 idea adopted by Cocceius and Schultens, viz., 
 drawing near, as to a king or any supreme au- 
 thority. The following definition of a priest may 
 be found sufficiently comprehensive : — A man who 
 officiates or transacts with God on behalf of others, 
 statedly, or for the occasion. 
 
 It will now be attempted to trace the Biblical 
 origin and development of the subject, for which 
 purpose the inquiry will be pursued upon the 
 plan of Townsend’s Historical and Chronological 
 Arrangement of the Scriptures, London, 1827, 
 notwithstanding the doubts which may be enter- 
 tained respecting the true chronological order of 
 certain books and passages. We accede to the 
 Jewish opinion, that Adam teas the first priest. 
 The divine institution of sacrifices, immediately 
 after the fall, seems connected with the event, that 
 ‘ the Lord God made coats of skins to Adam and 
 his wife, and clothed them ’ (Gen. iii. 21), that is, 
 with the skins of animals which had been offered in 
 sacrifice (for the permission to eat animal food was 
 not given till after the Deluge (comp. Gen. i. 29 ; 
 ix. 3), expressive of their faith in the promise of the 
 victorious yet suffering ‘seed of the woman’ 
 (ver. 15) : and judging from the known custom 
 of his immediate descendants, we infer that 
 Adam, now also become the head and ruler of the 
 woman (ver. 16), officiated in offering the sacri- 
 fice as well on her behalf as his own. Judging 
 from the same analogy, it seems further probable, 
 that Adam acted in the same capacity on behalf 
 of his sons, Cain and Abel (and possibly of their 
 children), who are each said to have ‘ brought’ his 
 respective offering, but not to have personally 
 presented it (iv. 3-5). The place evidently 
 thus indicated, would seem to have been the 
 situation of ‘ the cherubim,’ at the east of the 
 garden of Eden (iii. 24), called ‘ the face’ (iv. 
 14 ), and ‘ the presence of the Lord ’ (ver. 1 6 ; 
 4omp. Hebrew of Exod. xxxiv. 24 ; Lev. ix. 5), and 
 
 from which Jehovah conferred with Cain (ver. 9) t 
 circumstances which, together with the name of 
 their oflering, Hn^D, which, sometimes at least, in« 
 eluded bloody sacrifices in after times (1 Sam. ii. 
 17 ; xxvi. 19; Mai. i. 13, 14), and the appropriation 
 of the skins to the offerer (comp. Lev. vii. 8), would 
 seem like the rudiments of the future tabernacle 
 and its services, and when viewed in connection 
 with many circumstances incidentally disclosed 
 in the brief fragmentary account of things before 
 the Exodus, such as the Sabbath (Gen. ii. 2, 3), the 
 distinction observed by Noah, and his burnt-offer- 
 ings upon the altar of clean and unclean beasts 
 (viii. 20), the prohibition of blood (ix. 4), tithes 
 (xiv. 20), priestly blessing (ver. 19), consecra- 
 tion with oil, and vows (xxviii. 18-22), the Levi- 
 rate law (xxxviii. 8), weeks (xxix. 27), distinc- 
 tion of the Hebrews by their families (Exod.ii.l), 
 the office of elder during the bondage in Egypt 
 (iii. 16), and a place of meeting with Jehovah 
 (v. 22; comp. xxv. 22) — would favour the sup- 
 position that the Mosaic dispensation, as it is 
 called, was but an authoritative re-arrangement 
 of a patriarchal church instituted at the fall. The 
 fact that Noah officiated as the priest of his family, 
 upon the cessation of the Deluge (b.c. 2347) is 
 clearly recorded (Gen. wiii. 20), where we have 
 an altar built, the cererrronial distinctions in the 
 offerings already mentioned, and their propitiatory 
 effect, ‘ the sweet savour,’ all described in the words 
 of Leviticus (comp. i. 9; xi. 47). These acts of 
 Noah, which seem like the resumption rather than 
 the institution of an ordinance, were doubtless 
 continued by his sons and their descendants, as 
 heads of their respective families. Following 
 our arrangement, the next glimpse of the subject 
 is afforded by the instance of Job (b.c. 2130), who 
 ‘rent and sanctified his children’ after a feast 
 
 they had held, and offered burnt-offerings, nby, 
 ‘ according to the number of them all,’ and ‘ who 
 did this continually,’ either constantly, or after 
 every feast (i. 5). A direct reference, possibly 
 to priests, is lost in our translation of xii. 19, ‘he 
 leadeth princes away spoiled,’ D’OPD ; Sept. 
 tepeTs ; Vulg. sacer dotes ; a sense adopted in Dr. 
 Lee’s Translation , Loud. 1837. May not the 
 difficult passage, xxxiii. 23, contain an allu- 
 sion to priestly duties ? A case is there supposed 
 of a person divinely chastised in order to im- 
 prove him (xix. 22) : ‘ If then there be a mes- 
 senger with him,’ which means priest 
 
 (Eccles. v. 6 ; Mai. ii. 7), ‘ an interpreter,’ 
 or mediator generally (2 Chron. xxxii. 31 ; Isa. 
 xliii. 27) ; ‘ one among a thousand,’ or of a family 
 (Judg. vi. 15), ‘ my family,’ literally ‘my thou- 
 sand’ (comp. Nuno. i. 16), ‘ to show to man his 
 uprightness,’ or rather ‘ duty’ (Prov. xiv. 2), part 
 -of the priest’s office in such a case (Mai. ii. 7 ; 
 comp. Deut. xxiv. 8), then, such an individual 
 ‘ is gracious,’ or rather will supplicate for him, 
 and saith, ‘ Deliver him from going down into 
 the pit,’ or grave, for ‘ I have found a ransom,’ a 
 cause or ground in him for favourable treatment, 
 namely, the penitence of the sufferer, who conse- 
 quently recovers (xxv. 29). The case of Abra- 
 ham and Abimelech is very similar (Gen. xx. 
 3-17), as also that of Job himself, and his three 
 misjudging friends, whom the Lord commands to 
 avert chastisement from themselves, by taking to 
 him bullocks and rams, which he was to offer fat 
 
PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST, 
 
 651 
 
 them as a burnt-offering, and to pray for them 
 (xlii. 8). The instance of Abram occurs next in 
 historical order, who, upon his first entrance into 
 Canaan, attended by his family (b.c. 1921), ‘built 
 an altar, and called upon the name of the Lord ’ 
 (Gen. xii. 7, 8). Upon returning victorious from 
 tie battle of the kings, he is congratulated by 
 Melchizedek, the Canaanitish king of Salem, and 
 ‘priest of the most High God’ (xiv. IS). For 
 the ancient union of the royal and sacerdotal 
 offices, in Egypt and other countries, see Wilkin- 
 son’s Manners and Customs of the Ancient 
 Egyptians, Loud. 1842, i. 245. Abram next 
 appears entering into covenant with God as the 
 head and representative of his seed ; on which oc- 
 casion those creatures only are slain which were 
 appointed for sacrifice under the law (xv. 9-21). 
 Isaac builds an altar (b.c. 1804), evidently as the 
 head of his family (Gen. xxvi. 25) ; his younger 
 son Jacob offers a sacrifice, J"QT (xxxi.-54), and 
 ‘ calls his brethren to eat of it’ (comp. Lev. vii. 
 15); builds an altar at Shalern (xxxiii. 20), 
 makes another by divine command , and evidently 
 as the bead of his household, at Bethel (xxxv. 1-7), 
 and pours a drink-offeriiig, TD3 (comp. Num. xv. 
 7, &c.), upon a pillar (ver. 14). Such was the 
 state of the institution we are considering during 
 the patriarchal times. It henceforth becomes con- 
 • nected with Egypt, and materially modified in 
 consequence, 'lire marriage of Joseph (b.c. 1715) 
 incidentally discloses the existence of priests in 
 that country ; for it is recorded that ‘ Pharaoh gave 
 Joseph to wife a daughter of Potipherah, priest of 
 On ’ (xli. 45). The priests of Egypt had evidently 
 been endowed with lands by the Egyptian kings ; 
 for when the reigning Pharaoh, by the advice of 
 Joseph, took all the land of the Egyptians in lieu 
 of corn (xlvii. 20), the priests were not compelled 
 to make the same sacrifice of theirs (ver. 22) ; 
 nor was the tax of the fifth part of the produce 
 entailed upon it (ver. 26). as on that of the other 
 people (ver. 24). They seem also to have had a 
 public maintenance besides (ver. 22 ; Herod, ii. 
 37). It may be serviceable, in the sequel, if we 
 advert at this point to some of the numerous and 
 truly important points of resemblance between 
 the Egyptian and Jewish priests, vrz., that the 
 sacerdotal order constituted one of the four prin- 
 cipal castes, of the highest rank, next to the king, 
 and from whom were chosen his confidential and 
 responsible advisers (comp. 2 Sam. viii. 18; 
 1 Chron. xviii. 17; Isa. xix. 11; Diodorus, i. 
 73) ; they associated with the monarch, whom 
 they assisted in the performance of his public 
 duties, to whom they explained from the sacred 
 books those lessons which were laid down for his 
 conduct. Each deity had several priests, and a 
 high-priest (Herod, ii. 37); the latter, of what- 
 ever deity, held the first and most honourable 
 station. The minor priests were divided into 
 various grades, having distinct offices, as well as 
 the scribes and priests of the kings. The same 
 office usually descended from father to son, but 
 was sometimes changed. They enjoyed important 
 privileges, which extended to their whole family. 
 They were exempt from taxes. Wine was allowed 
 to them only in the strictest moderation, and entire 
 abstinence from it was required during the fasts, 
 which were frequent (Plut. Be Isid. § 6). Each 
 grade of the priests was distinguished by its pecu- 
 liar costume. The high-priests, who, among other 
 
 official Udies, anointed the king, wore a mantV 
 made of an entire leopard-skin ; as did the king, 
 when engaged in priestly duties. The under- 
 dresses of priests, of all orders, were made of 
 linen, and they were not allowed to wear woollen 
 in a temple (Herod, ii. 81). The undeniable 
 similarity between the dresses of the Egyptian and 
 Jewish priests will be hereafter illustrated. Be- 
 sides their religious duties, the priests fulfilled 
 the offices of judges, legislators, and counsellors 
 of the king, and the laws forming part of their 
 sacred books could only be administered by mem- 
 bers of that order (Wilkinson, i. 237, 257-282). 
 
 In returning to the biblical history, we next 
 find Jethro, priest of Midian, the father-in-law 
 of Moses, possibly a priest of the true God (Exod. 
 iii. 1), and probably his father in the same 
 capacity (ii. 16). In Exod. v. 1, 3, the whole 
 nation of the Israelites is represented as wishing 
 to sacrifice and to hold a feast to the Lord. The 
 first step, though very remote, towards the forma- 
 tion of the Mosaic system of priesthood, was the 
 consecration of the first-born, in memory of the 
 destruction of the first-born of Egypt (xiii. 2, 14- 
 16) ; for, instead of these, God afterwards took the 
 Levites to attend upon him (Num. iii. 12). As 
 to the popular idea, both among Jews and Christ- 
 ians, that the right of priesthood was thus trans- 
 ferred from the first-born generally to the tribe of 
 Levi, or rather to one family of that tribe, we 
 consider, with Patrick, that it is utterly ground- 
 less ( Commentary on Exod. xix. 22; Num. iii, 
 12; see Campeg. Vitringa, Qbserv. Sacra?, ii. 
 33 ; Outram, Be Sacrificiis, i. 4). The substance 
 of the objections is, that Aaron and his sons were 
 consecrated before the exchange of the Levites 
 for the first-born, that the Levites were after- 
 wards given to minister unto them, but had no- 
 thing to do with the priesthood, and that the pecu- 
 liar right of God in the first-born originated in 
 the Exodus. The last altar, before the giving of 
 the law, was built by Moses, probably for a me- 
 morial purpose only (xvii. 15 ; comp. Josh. xxii. 
 26, 27). At this period, the office of priest was 
 so well understood, and so highly valued, that 
 Jehovah promises as an inducement to the Israel- 
 ites to keep his covenant, that they should be to 
 him ‘ a kingdom of priests’ (xix. 6), which, among 
 other honourable appellations and distinctions 
 originally belonging to the Jews, is transferred to 
 Christians (1 Pet. ii. 9). The first introduction of 
 the word priests, in this part of the history, is 
 truly remarkable. It occurs just previous to 
 the giving of the law (b.c. 1491), when, as part of 
 the cautions against the too eager curiosity of the 
 people, lest they should ‘break through unto the 
 Lord and gaze ’ (Exod. xix. 21), it is added, ‘ and 
 let the priests which come near unto the Lord 
 sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break through 
 upon them ’ (ver. 22). Here, then, priests are 
 incontestably spoken of as an already existing 
 order, which was now about to be remodified. 
 Nor is this the last reference to these ante-Sinaitic 
 priests. Selden observes that the phrases ‘ the 
 priests the Levites ’ (Deut. xvii. 9), and ‘ the 
 priests the sons of Levi ’ (xxi. 5), and ever> 
 the phrase, ‘the Levites alone’ ^xviii. 6, comp. 
 1), are used to include all others who had been 
 priests before God took the sons of Aaron pecu- 
 liarly to serve him in this office {Be Synedr. ii. 
 8, pp. 2, 3). Aaron is summoned at this junc 
 
552 
 
 PRIES'!. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 tcrc to go up with Moses unto the Lord on Mount 
 Sinai (Exod. xix. 21). Another remarkable cir- 
 cumstance is then recorded. Moses, now acting as 
 ‘ mediator/ and endued with an extraordinary 
 commission, builds an altar under the hill, and 
 semis ‘ young men of the children of Israel, who 
 ottered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offer- 
 ings of oxen unto the Lord’ (xxiv. 5). Various in- 
 terpretations are given to the phrase ‘ young men 
 but, upon a view of all the circumstances, we in- 
 cline to think that they were yoang laymen, pur- 
 posely selected by Moses for this act, in order to 
 form a complete break between the former priest- 
 hood and the new, and that the recommencement 
 and re-arrangement of the priesthood under divine 
 authority might be made more palpably distinct. 
 In the same light we consider the many priestly 
 acts performed by Moses himself, at this parti- 
 cular time, as in ch. xxix. 25; xl. 25, 27, 29; 
 like those of Gideon, Judg. vi. 25-27 ; of Samuel, 
 1 Sam. vii. 9 ; of David, 1 Chron. xxi. 26. Yet 
 these especial permissions, upon emergencies and 
 extraordinary occasions, had their limits, as may 
 l»e seen in the fate of ‘ the men of Bethshemesh/ 
 1 Sam. vi. 19 ; and of Uzzah, 2 Sam. vi. 7. 
 
 The designation and call of Aaron and his sons 
 to the priesthood are commanded in Exod. xxviii. 
 1 ; and holy garments to be made for Aaron, ‘ for 
 glory and for beauty’ (ver. 2), and for his sons (ver. 
 40), by persons originally skilful, and now also in- 
 spired for the purpose (ver. 3), the chief of whom 
 were Bezaleel and Aholiab (xxxi. 2-6). As 
 there were some garments common both to the 
 priests and the high-priest, we shall begin with 
 those of the former, taking them in the order in 
 which they would be put on. 1. The first was 
 ‘ linen-breeches/ or drawers (xxviii. 
 42; Sept. Trepi(TKe\rj \Lva\ Vul g.femmalia linea). 
 These were to be of fine twined linen, and to 
 reach from the loins to the middle of the thighs. 
 According to Josephus, whose testimony, however, 
 of course, relates only to his own time, they reached 
 cnly to the middle of the thigh, where they were 
 tied fast ( Antiq . iii. 7. 1). Such drawers were 
 worn universally in Egypt. In the sculptures and 
 
 paintings of that country, the figures of workmen 
 and servants have no other dress than a short kilt 
 st apron, sometimes simply bound about the loins 
 
 and lapping over in front • other figures have 
 short loose drawers; while a third variety of this 
 article, fitting closely and extending to the knees, 
 appears in the figures of some idols, as in No. 457 
 This last sort of drawers seems to have been pe- 
 culiar in Egypt to the gods, and to the priests, 
 whose attire was often adapted to that of the idols 
 on which they attended. The priests, in common 
 with other persons of the upper classes, wore 1 he 
 drawers under other robes. No mention occurs 
 of the use of drawn s by any other class of persons 
 in Israel except the priests, on whom it was en- 
 joined for the sake of decency. 2. The coat ol 
 fine linen or cotton, fOrD (Exod. xxxix. 27). 
 tunica byssina. This was worn by men in ge- 
 neral (Gen. xxxvii. 3) ; also by women (2 Sam. 
 xiii. 18; Cant., v. 3), next to the skin. It was 
 to be of woven work. Josephus states that it 
 reached down to the feet, and sat close to the 
 body ; and had sleeves, which were tied fast to the 
 arms ; and was girded to the breast a little above 
 the elbows by a girdle. It had a narrow aperture 
 about the neck, and was tied with certain strings 
 hanging down from the edge over the breast and 
 back, and was fastened above each shoulder 
 (Antiq. iii. 7. 2). But this garment, in the case 
 of the priests and high-priest, was to be broidered 
 (xxviii. 4), r»3rD, 4 a broidered coat,' 
 
 by which Gesenius understands a coat of cloth 
 worked in checkers or cells. Braunius compares 
 it to the reticulum in the stomach of rumi- 
 nant animals (De Vestitu, i. 17). The Sept, 
 gives x L ' TU>v icoa-vyfiurii, which seems to refer to 
 the tassels or strings; Vulg. tinea stricta, which 
 seems to refer to its close fitting. 3. The girdle, 
 (xxviii. 40); Sept, (dovrj ; Vulg. baltetis. 
 This was also worn by magistrates (Isa. xxii.21). 
 The girdle for the priests was to be made of fine 
 twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, 
 of needlework (xxxix. 29). Josephus describes 
 it as often going round, four fingers broad, but so 
 loosely woven that it might be taken for the skin 
 of a serpent; and that it was embroidered with 
 flowers of scarlet, and purple, and blue, but that 
 the warp was nothing but linen. The beginning of 
 its circumvolution was at the breast ; and when 
 it had gone often round, it was there tied, and 
 hung loosely down to the ancles while the priest 
 was not engaged in any laborious service, for 
 in that position it appeared in the most agree- 
 able manner to the spectators ; but when he was 
 obliged to assist at the offering of sacrifices, and 
 to do the appointed service, in order that he might 
 not he hindered in his operations by its motion, 
 he threw it to the left hand, and bore it on his 
 right shoulder (Antiq. iii. 7. 2). The mode of its 
 hanging down is illustrated by the cut No. 460, 
 where the girdle is also richly embroidered ; while 
 the imbricated appearance of the girdle, Dp" 
 may be seen very plainly in No. 457. The 
 next cut, No. 458, of a priestly scribe of ancient 
 Egypt, offers an interesting specimen of both tunic 
 and girdle. Other Egyptian girdles may be seen 
 under Abnf.t. 4. The bonnet, cap, or turban, 
 HJQllD (xxviii. 40); Sept. KibapLs; Vulg. tiara. 
 The bonnet was to be of fine linen (xxxix. 28). 
 In the time of Josephus it was circular, covering 
 about half the head, something like a crown 
 made of thick linen swathes doubled round many 
 times, and sewed together, surrounded by a linen 
 cover to hide the seams of the swathes, and sat so 
 
 
553 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 close that it would not fall off when the body was 
 bent down {Antiq. iii. 7. 3). The dress of the 
 high-priest was precisely the same with that of 
 the common priests in all the foregoing particukirs; 
 
 in addition to which he had (1) a robe, 
 (xxviii. 4), iroS^pyj, tunica. This was not a 
 mantle, but a second and larger coat without 
 aleeves ; a kind of surtout worn by the laity, 
 
 especially persons of distinction (Job i. 20; ii. 
 12, by kings; 1 Sam. xv. 27 ; xviii. 4; xxiv. 
 5, 12). . This garment, when intended for the 
 high-priest, and then called 
 4 the robe of the ephod/ was to be of one entire 
 piece of woven work, all of blue, with an aperture 
 for the neck in the middle of the upper part, 
 having its rim strengthened and adorned with a 
 border. The hem had a kind of fringe, composed 
 of tassels, made of blue, purple, and scarlet, in 
 the form of pomegranates ; and between every two 
 pomegranates there was a small golden bell, so 
 
 that there was a bell and a pomegranate alter- 
 nately all round (xxviii. 31-35). The use of 
 these bells may have parfly been, that by the 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 high-priest shaking his garment at the time of 
 his offering incense on the great day of expiation, 
 See., the people without might be apprised of it, 
 and unite their prayers with it (comp. Ecclus. 
 xlv. 9 ; Luke i. 10 ; Acts x. 4 ; Rev. viii. 3 f 4), 
 Josephus describes this robe of the ephod as 
 reaching to the feet, and consisting of one entire 
 piece of woven-work, and parted where the lrands 
 came out (John xix. 23). He also states that it 
 was tied round with a girdle, embroidered with 
 the same colours as the former, with a mixture of 
 gold interwoven (Antiq. iii. 7. 4). It is highly 
 probable that this garment was also derived from 
 Egyptian usage. There are instances at Thebes 
 of priests wearing over the coat a loose sleeveless 
 robe, and which exposes the sleeves of the inner 
 tunic. The fringe of bells and pomegranates 
 seems to have been the priestly substitute for the 
 fringe bound with a blue riband, which all the 
 Israelites were commanded to wear. Many traces 
 of this fringe occur in the Egyptian remains. 
 The use assigned to it, 4 that, looking on this 
 fringe they should remember the Lord’s com- 
 mandments/ seems best explicable by the sup- 
 position that the Egyptians had connected some 
 superstitious ideas with it (Num. xv. 37-40). 
 (2.) The ephod, eircapis, superhumerale 
 
 (Exod. xxviii. 4). This was a short cloak covering 
 the shoulders and breast. It is said to have beeu 
 
 460. [Ephod and girdle.j 
 
 worn by Samuel while a youth ministering before 
 the Lord (1 Sam. ii. 18); by David, while en- 
 gaged in religious service (2 Sam. vi. 14); and 
 by inferior priests (1 Sam. xxii. 18). But in all 
 these instances it is distinguished as a linen ephod, 
 and was not a sacred but honorary vestment, as 
 the Sept, understands it in 2 Sam. vi. 14, (TToXrji 
 e|ctAA.oy ; but the ephod of the high-priest was 
 to be made of gold, of blue, of purple, of scarlet, 
 and fine twined linen, with cunning work, 
 Though it probably consisted of one piece, woven 
 throughout, it had a back part and a front part, 
 united by shoulder-pieces. It had also a girdle : 
 or rather strings went out from each side and tied 
 it to the body. On the top of each shoulder was 
 to be an onyx stone, set in sockets of gold, each 
 having engraven upon it six of the names of the 
 children of Israel, according to the precedence of 
 
PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 '64 
 
 birth, to memorialize the Lord of the promise? made 
 to them (Exod. xxviii. 6-12, 29). Josephu3 gives 
 sleeves to the ephod ( Aniiq . iii. 7. 5). It may be 
 considered as a substitute for the leopard-skin worn 
 by the Egyptian high-priests in their most sacred 
 duties, as in No. 460, where the ephod appears no 
 less plainly. In other figures of Egyptian priests, 
 the shoulder-pieces are equally apparent. They 
 are even perceptible in No. 457. The Egyptian 
 ephod is, however, highly charged with all sorts 
 of idolatrous figures and emblems, and even with 
 scenes of human sacrifices. The Sept, rendering 
 of D5?n, * cunning work,’ is tpyou vcpavrbv irot- 
 k<Atou, ‘woven-wcrk of the embroiderer,’ a word 
 which especially denotes a manufacturer of tissues 
 adorned with figures of animals (Strabo, xvii. 
 p. 5»74, Sieb.). Then came (3) the breastplate, 
 jfcJTI, 7 r epuTTiffQiov ; Vulg. rationale ; a gorget, ten 
 inches square, made of the same sort of cloth as 
 the ephod, and doubled so as to form a kind of 
 pouch or bag (Exod. xxxix. 9), in which was to 
 be put the Urim and Thummim, which are 
 also mentioned as if already known (xxviii. 30). 
 The external part of this gorget was set with four 
 rows of precious stones ; the first row, a sardius, a 
 topaz, and a carbuncle ; the second, an emerald, 
 a sapphire, and a diamond ; the third, a ligure, 
 an agate, and an amethyst ; and the fourth, a 
 beryl, an onyx, and a jasper, — set in a golden 
 socket. Upon each of these stones was to be en- 
 graven the name of one of the sons of Jacob. In 
 the ephod, in which there was a space left open 
 sufficiently large for the admission of this pec- 
 toral, were four rings of gold, to which four others 
 at. the four corners of the breastplate corresponded ; 
 die two lower rings of the latter being fixed inside. 
 It was confined to the ephod by means of dark 
 blue ribands, which passed through these rings; 
 and it was also suspended from the onyx stones on 
 the shoulder by chains of gold, or rather cords of 
 twisted gold threads, which were fastened at one 
 end to two other larger rings fixed in the upper 
 comers of the pectoral, and by the other end 
 going round the onyx stones on the shoulders, 
 and returning and being fixed in the larger ring. 
 The breastplate was further kept in its place by 
 a girdle, made of the same stuff, which Josephus 
 
 asys was sewed to the breastplate, and which, 
 when it had gone once round wus ned again 
 
 upon the seam and hung down. It appear* i* 
 No. 463. Here is another adaptation and correction 
 ot the costume of the higher Egyptian priests, 
 who wore a large splendid ornament upon the 
 breast, often a winged scarabams, the emblem of 
 the sun, as in the cut No. 461, which exhibits 
 the connecting ring and chain to fasten it to the 
 girdle. 4. The remaining portion of dress pecu- 
 liar to the high-priest was the mitre, DQ3VO, 
 KiSapis, cidaris (xxviii. 4). The Bible says 
 nothing of the difference between this and 
 the turban of the common priests. It is, however, 
 called by a different name. It was to be of fine 
 linen (ver. 39). Josephus says Jt was the same 
 in construction and figure with that of the 
 common priest, but that above it there was 
 another, with swathes of blue, embroidered, and 
 round it was a golden crown, polished, of three 
 rows, one above another, out of which rose a cup 
 of gold, which resembled the calyx of the herb 
 called by Greek botanists, hyoscyatnus. lie ends 
 a most laboured description by comparing the 
 shape of it to a poppy (iii. 7.6). Upon comparing 
 his account of the bonnet of the priests with the 
 mitre of the high -priests, it would appear that the 
 latter was conical. The cut, No. 462, presents 
 the principal forms of the mitres worn by the 
 
 ancient priests of Egypt, and affords a substantial 
 resemblance of that prescribed to the Jews, 
 divested of idolatrous symbols, but which were 
 displaced to make way for a simple plate of 
 gold, bearing the inscription, ‘Holiuess to Je- 
 hovah.’ This pV, TrzTaXov, lamina, extended 
 from one ear to the other, being bound to the 
 forehead by strings tied behind, and further 
 secured in its position by a blue riband attached 
 !o the mitre (Exod. xxviii. 36-39; xxxix. 30; 
 Lev. viii. 9). Josephus says this plate was pre- 
 served tohis own day (Antiq. viii. 3-8; see Reland, 
 De Spot. Templi, p. 132). Such was the dress ot 
 the high-priest. : see a description of its magnifi- 
 cence in corresponding terms in Eccles. 1. 5-16 
 Josephus had an idea of the symbolical import 
 of the several parts of it. He says, that being 
 made of linen signified the earth; the blue de 
 noted the sky, being like lightning in its pome- 
 gvanatec, and in the noise of its bells resembling 
 thunde 1 *. The ephod showed that God had made 
 the universe of four elements, the gold relating tc 
 the splendour by which aii tilings are enlightened 
 The breast-pl&le in the middle of the ephod re- 
 sembled the earth, which has the middle plac* 
 
PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 555 
 
 rf the world. The girdle signified the sea, which 
 goes round tne world. The sardonyxes declare 
 the sun and moon. The twelve stones are the 
 twelve months or signs of the zodiac. The mitre 
 is heaven, because blue (iii. 7. 7). He appears, 
 however, to have had two explanations of some 
 things, one for the Gentiles, and another for the 
 Jews. Thus in this section, he tells his Gentile 
 readers that the seven lamps upon the golden 
 candlesticks referred to the seven planets ; but to 
 the Jews he represents them as an emblem of the 
 seven days of the weelc (De Bell. Jud. vii. 5. 5 ; 
 Whiston’s notes in loc.). The magnificent dress 
 of the high-priest was not always worn by him. 
 It was exchanged for one wholly of linen, and 
 therefore white, though of similar construction, 
 when on the day of expiation he entered into the 
 Holy of Holies (Lev. xvi. 4, 23) ; and neither he 
 nor the common priests wore their appropriate 
 dress, except when officiating. It was for this 
 reason, according to some, that Paul, who had 
 been long absent from Jerusalem, did not know 
 that Ananias was the high-priest (Acts xxiii. 5). 
 In Ezek. xlii. 14; xliv. 17-19, there are direc- 
 tions that the priests should take off their garments 
 when they had ministered, and lay them up in 
 the holy chambers, and put on other garments ; 
 but these directions occur in a visionary repre- 
 sentation of a temple, which all agree has never 
 been realized, the particulars of which, though 
 sometimes derived from known customs, yet at 
 other times differ from them widely. The gar- 
 ments of the inferior priests appear to have been 
 kept in the sacred treasury (Ezra ii. 69 ; Neh. 
 vii. 70). 
 
 The next incident in the history is, that 
 Moses receives a command to consecrate Aaron 
 and his sons to the priests’ office (Exod. xxviii. 
 41), with the following ceremonies. They were 
 to be washed at the door of the tabernacle of 
 the congregation (xxix. 4), where the altar of 
 burnt offering stood (xl. 6, 29). Aaron was then 
 robed in his pontifical garments (vers. 4-6), and 
 anointed with a profusion of oil (ver. 7) ; whence 
 he was called ‘ the priest that is anointed’ (Lev. 
 iv. 3, &c. ; Ps. cxxxiii. 2). This last act was 
 the peculiar and only distinguishing part of 
 Aaron’s consecration ; for the anointing of his 
 sons (xxx. 30) relates only to the unction 
 (xxix. 31), by a mixture made of the blood of 
 the sacrifice and of the anointing oil, which was 
 sprinkled upon both Aaron and his sons, and upon 
 their garments, as part of their consecration. 
 Hence then Aaron received two unctions'. In 
 after-times the high-priest took an oath (Heb. 
 vii. 23) to bind him, as the Jews say, to a strict 
 adherence to established customs (Mishna, tit. 
 Yoma , i. 5). The other details of this ceremony 
 of consecration are all contained in one chapter 
 (Exod. xxix.), to which we must be content to 
 refer the reader. The entire ceremony lasted seven 
 days, on each of which, all the sacrifices were re- 
 peated (Lev. viii. 33), to which a promise was 
 added, that God would sanctify Aaron and his 
 sons, that is, declare them to be sanctified, which 
 be did, by the appearance of his glory at their 
 first sacrifice, and by the fire which descended 
 and consumed their burnt-offerings (Lev. ix. 23, 
 24). Thus were Aaron and his sons and their 
 descendants separated for ever, to the iffice of the 
 priesthood, from all other Israelites. There was 
 
 consequently no need of any further consecration 
 for them or their descendants. The first-born 
 son of Aaron succeeded him in the office, and the 
 elder son among all his descendants; a rule 
 which, though deviated from in after times, was 
 ultimately resumed. The next successor was to 
 be anointed and consecrated in his father’s holy 
 garments (ver. 29), which he must wear seven 
 days when he went into the tabernacle of the 
 
 463. [High-priest.] 
 
 congregation to minister (ver. 30 ; comp. Num.xx. 
 26-28 ; xxxv. 25), and make an atonement for 
 all things and persons (Lev. xvi. 32-34), and for 
 himself (comp. ver. 11), besides the offering (vi. 
 20-22). The common priests were required to 
 prove their descent from Aaron. No age was 
 prescribed for their entrance on their ministry, or 
 retirement from it. 
 
 We shall now give a summary of the duties 
 and emoluments of the high-priest and common 
 priests respectively. Besides his lineal descent 
 from Aaron, the high-priest was required to be 
 free from every bodily blemish or defect (Lev. 
 xxi. 16-23); but though thus incapacitated, yet, 
 his other qualifications being sufficient, he might 
 eat of the food appropriated to the priests (ver. 22). 
 He must not marry a widow, nor a divorced 
 woman, or profane, or that had been a harlot, but 
 a virgin Israelitess (ver. 14). In Ezekiel's vision a 
 general permission is given to the priests to marry 
 a priest’s widow (xliv. 22). The high-priest might 
 not observe the external signs of mourning for any 
 person, or leave the sanctuary upon receiving in- 
 telligence of the death of even father or mother 
 (ver. 10-12; comp. x. 7). Public calamities 
 seem to have been an exception, for Joacim the 
 high-priest, and the priests, in such circumstances 
 ministered in sackcloth with ashes on their 
 mitres (Judith iv. 14, 15 ; comp. Joel i. 13). 
 He must not eat auything that died of itself, or 
 was torn of beasts (Lev. xxii. 8) ; must wash 
 his hands and feet when he went into the taber* 
 nacle of the congregation, and when he cam* 
 near to the altar to minister (Exod. xxx. 19-21) 
 
ft56 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 At first Aaion was to burn incense on the golden 
 altar every morning when he dressed the lamps, 
 and every evening when he lighted them, but in 
 later limes the common priest performed this 
 duty (Luke i. 8, 9) ; to offer, as the Jews un- 
 derstand it, daily, morning and evening, the pecu- 
 liar meat-offering he offered on the day of his 
 consecration (Exod. xxix.) ; to perform the cere- 
 monies of the great day of expiation (Lev. xvi.) ; 
 to arrange the shew-bread every Sabbath, and to eat 
 it in the holy place (xxiv. 9) ; must abstain from 
 the holy things during his uncleanness (xxii. 
 1-3); also if he became leprous, or contracted 
 uncleanness (ver. 4-7). If lie committed a sin of 
 ignorance he must offer a sin-offering for it (iv. 3- 
 13); and so for the people (ver. 1 2-22) ; was to eat 
 the remainder of the people’s meat-offerings with 
 the inferior priests in the holy place (vi. 16) ; to 
 judge of the leprosy in the human body or 
 garments (xiii. 2-59) ; to adjudicate legal ques- 
 tions (Dent. xvii. 12). Indeed when there was 
 no divinely inspired judge, the high-priest was 
 the supreme ruler till the time of David, and 
 again after the captivity. He must be present 
 at the appointment of a new ruler or leader 
 (Num. xxvii. 19), and ask counsel of the Lord 
 for the ruler (ver. 21). Eleazar with others dis- 
 tributes the spoils taken from the Midianites 
 (Num. xxxi. 21, 26). To the high-priest also 
 belonged the appointment of a maintenance from 
 the funds of the sanctuary to an incapacitated 
 priest (1 Sam. ii. 36, margin). Besides these 
 duties, peculiar to himself, he had others in 
 common witli the inferior priests. Thus, when the 
 camp set forward, ‘ Aaron and his sons’ were to take 
 the tabernacle to pieces, to cover the various 
 portions of it in cloths of various colours 
 (iv. 5-15), and to appoint the Levites to their 
 services in carrying them ; to bless the people in 
 tire form prescribed (vi. 23-27), to be responsible 
 for all official errors and negligences (xviii. 1), and 
 to have the general charge of the sanctuary (ver. 5). 
 
 Emoluments of the Iiigh-Priest. — Neither the 
 high-priest nor common priests received ‘ any in- 
 heritance’ at the distribution of Canaan among 
 the several tribes (Num. xviii. 20 ; Deut. xviii. 
 1, 2), but were maintained, with their families, 
 upon certain fees, dues, perquisites, &c., arising 
 from the public services, which they enjoyed as 
 a common fund. Perhaps the only distinct pre- 
 rogative of tire high-priest was a tenth part of the 
 tithes assigned to the Levites (Num. xviii. 28; 
 comp. Neh. x. 38) ; but Josephus represents this 
 also as a common fund ( Antiq . iv. 4. 4). 
 
 Duties of the Priests. — Besides those duties 
 already mentioned as common to them and the 
 high-priests, they were required to prove their de- 
 scent from Aaron, to be free from all bodily defect 
 or blemish (Lev. xxi. 16-23) ; must not observe 
 mourning, except for near relatives (xxi. 1-5) ; 
 must not marry a woman that had been a harlot, 
 or divorced, or profane. The priest’s daughter 
 who committed whoredom was to be burnt, as 
 rofaning her father (xxi. 9). The priests were to 
 ave the charge of the sanctuary and altar (Num. 
 xviii. 5). The fire upon the altar, being once- 
 kindled (Lev. i. 7), the priests were always to 
 keep it burning (vi. 13). In later times, and 
 upon extraordinary occasions, at least, they flayed 
 (he burnt-offerings (2 Chron. xxix. 34), and killed 
 tne Passover (Ezra vi. 20). They were to receive 
 
 the blood of the burnt-offerings in basins (Exod. 
 xxiv. 6), and sprinkle it round about the altar, 
 arrange the wood and the fire, and to burn the 
 parts of the sacrifices (Lev. i. 5-10). If the 
 burnt sacrifice were of doves, the priest was to nij 
 off the head with his finger-nail, squeeze out the 
 blood on the edge of the altar, pluck off the fea- 
 thers, and throw them with the crop into the ash- 
 pit, divide it down the wings, and then com- 
 pletely burn it (ver. 15-17). He was to offer a 
 lamb every morning and evening (Num. xxviii. 
 3), and a double number on the Sabbath (ver. 9), 
 the burnt-offerings ordered at the beginning of 
 months (ver. 11), and the same on the Feast of 
 Unleavened Bread (ver. 19), and on the day of the 
 First Fruits (ver. 26) ; to receive the meat-offering 
 of the offerer, bring it to the altar take of it a 
 memorial, and burn it upon the altar (Lev. ii.); 
 to sprinkle the blood of the peace-offerings upon 
 the altar round about, and then to offer of it a 
 burnt-offering (iii.) ; to offer the sin-offering for 
 a sin of ignorance in a ruler or any of the com- 
 mon people (iv. 22-25); to eat the sin-offering in 
 the holy-place (vi. 26 ; comp. x. 16-1 S) ; to offer 
 the trespass-offering (ver. 6-19; vi. 6, 7), to 
 sprinkle its blood round about the altar (vii. 2), 
 to eat of it, &c. (ver. 6) ; to eat of the shew-bread 
 in the holy place (xxiv. 9) ; to offer for the puri- 
 fication of women after child-birth (xii. 6, 7); 
 to judge of the leprosy in the human body 
 or garments; to decide when the leper u'as 
 cleansed, and to order a sacrifice for him (xiv. 
 3, 4) ; to administer the rites used at. pronouncing 
 him clean (ver. 6, 7); to present him and his 
 offering before the Lord, and to make an atone- 
 ment for him (ver. 10-32); to judge of the leprosy 
 in a house (xiv. 33-47), to decide when it wasclean 
 (ver. 48), and to make an atonement for it (ver. 
 49-53) ; to make an atonement for men cleansed 
 from an issue of uncleanness (xv. 14, 15), and 
 for women (ver. 29, 30); to offer the sheaf of 
 First Fruits (xxiii. 10, 11); to estimate the com- 
 mutation in money for persons in cases of a sin- 
 gular or extraordinary vow (xxvii. 8), or for any 
 devoted unclean beast (ver. 11, -12), or for a house 
 (ver. 14), or field (xviii. 23); to conduct the 
 ordeal of the bitter water (Num. v. 12-31) [Jea- 
 i.ousy, VVateii oe] ; to make an atonement for 
 a Nazarite who had accidentally contracted un- 
 cleanness (vi. 13) ; to offer his offering when the 
 days of his separation were fulfilled (ver. 14, 16) ; 
 to blow with the silver trumpets on all occasions 
 appointed (vi. 13-17), and ultimately at morning 
 and evening service (1 Chron. xvi. 6); to make 
 an atonement for the people and individuals in 
 case of erroneous worship (Num. xv. 15, 21, 25, 
 27) (see Out ram, De Sacrifciis, c. xiv. 2); to 
 make the ointment of spices (1 Chron. ix. 30) ; 
 to prepare the water of separation (Num. xix. 
 1-11); to act as assessors injudicial proceedings 
 (Deut. xvii. 9; xix. 7); to encourage the army 
 when going to battle, and probably to furnish the 
 officers with the speech (ver. 5-9); to superintend 
 the expiation of an uncertain murder (xxi. 5), 
 and to have charge of the law (xxxi. 9). 
 
 The emoluments of the priests were a » fol- 
 lows : — 1. Those which they might eat only at 
 the sanctuary ; viz., the flesh of the sin-offering 
 (Lev. vi. 25, 26), and of the trespass-offering 
 (vii. 1,6); the peace-offerings of the congregation 
 at Pentecost (xxiii. 19, 20); the remainder of 
 
PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST 
 
 557 
 
 die omer or *heaf of the first-fruits of barley 
 harvest (ver. 10), and the loaves offered at wheat 
 harvest (ver. 17); the shew-bread (xxiv. 9); 
 the remainder of the leper’s log of oil (xiv. 10, 
 &c.); the remnants of the meat-offerings (vi. 16). 
 2. Those which might be eaten only in the camp 
 in the first instance, and afterwards in Jerusalem, 
 viz., the breast and right shoulder of the peace- 
 offerings (vii. 31, 34) ; the heave-offering of the 
 sacrifice of thanksgiving (ver. 12-14); the heave- 
 offering of the Nazarite's ram (Num.vi. 17, 20); 
 the firstling of every clean beast (xviii. 15); what- 
 soever was first ripe in the land (ver. 13). 3. 
 
 Those due to them only from inhabitants of the 
 land; viz., the first-fruits of oil, wine, wheat 
 (ver. 12) ; a cake of the first dough made of any 
 kind of grain (xv. 20); the first fieece (Deut. 
 xviii. 4). 4. Those due to them everywhere 
 
 within and without the land ; viz., the shoulder, 
 two cheeks and maw, of an ox or sheep, ottered in 
 sacrifice (ver. 3) ; the redemption of man and 
 of unclean beasts (Num. xviii. 15); of the first- 
 ling of an ass (Exod. xxxiv. 20) ; the restitution 
 in cases of injury or fraud when it could not be 
 made to the injured party or nis kinsman (Num. 
 v. 8) ; all devoted things. 5. The skins of the 
 burnt offerings (Lev. vii- 8), which Philo calls a 
 very rich perquisite (De Sacerd. Honor, p. 833, 
 ed. 1340). Many of these dues were paid in 
 money. The priests might also incidentally pos- 
 sess lands (1 Kings ii. 26 ; Jer. xxxii. 7, 8) ; and 
 they most likely shared in occasional donations 
 and dedications (Num. xxxi. 25-29, 50-51 ; 2 
 Sam. viii. 11, 12; 1 Chron. xxvi. 27, 28). Their 
 revenues were probably more extensive than they 
 appear, owing to the ambiguity with which the 
 term Levite is often used. If the regular and 
 ascertained incomes of the priests seem large, 
 amounting, as it has been computed, to one-fifth 
 of the income of a Jew (comp. Gen, xlvii. 24), 
 it must be considered that their known duties were 
 multifarious and often difficult. Michael is calls 
 them ‘ the literati of all the faculties.’ The next 
 event in the history of the subject is the 'public 
 consecration of Aaron and his sons(B.c. 1490), ac- 
 cording to the preceding regulations (Lev. viii.). 
 At their first sacerdotal performances (ix.) the 
 Divine approbation was intimated by a super- 
 natural fire which consumed their burnt-offering 
 (ver. 24). The general satisfaction of the people 
 with these events was, however, soon dashed by 
 the miraculous destruction of the two elder sous 
 of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange 
 fire (x. 1), probably under the influence of too 
 much wine, since the prohibition of it to the priests 
 when about, to enter the tabernacle seems to have 
 originated in this event (ver. 9). Moses forbade 
 Aaron and his sons to uncover their heads, or to 
 rend their clothes on this occasion ; but the whole 
 house of Israel were permitted to bewail the visi- 
 tation (ver. 6). The inward grief, however, of 
 Eleazav and Itbamar caused an irregularity in 
 their sacerdotal duties, which was forgiven on 
 account of. the occasion (ver. 16-20). Aaron 
 now appears associated with Moses, and the lead- 
 ing men of the several tribes, in taking the na- 
 tional census (Num. i. 3, &c.), and on other 
 grand state occasions (xxvi. 2,3; xxxi. 13-26; 
 xxxii. 2 ; xxxiv. 17). The high-priest appears 
 ever after as a person of the highest consequehce. 
 Ths dignity of tne priesthood soon excited the 
 
 emuiaHon of the ambitious ; hence the penalty 
 of death was denounced against the assumption 
 of it by any one not belonging to the Aavonic 
 family (ver. 10), and which was soon after mi- 
 raculously inflicted upon Korah, Dathan, and 
 Abiram for this crime (xvi. 40), Its restriction 
 to that family was further demonstrated by the 
 blossoming of Aaron’s rod (xvii. 5, 8; comp, 
 xxviii. 5-7). The death of Aaron (b.c. 1452) in- 
 troduces the installation of bis successor, which 
 appears to have simply consisted in arraying him 
 in his father's pontifical garments (xx. 28). Thus 
 also Jonathan the Asmona3an contented himself 
 with putting on the high-priest’s habit, in order 
 to take possession of the dignity (1 Macc. x. 21 ; 
 comp. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 3) The high 
 esteem in which the priesthood was neld may be 
 gathered from the fact that it was promised in 
 perpetuity to Phinehas and his family as a re- 
 ward for his zeal (xxv. 13). At the entrance into 
 Canaan the priests appear hearing the ark of the 
 Lord, at the command of Joshua (iii. 6), though 
 this was ordinarily the duty of the Levites. It 
 was carried by the priests on other grand occa- 
 sions (2 Chron. v. 4, 5, 7). At the distribution 
 of the land the priests received thirteen cities out 
 of the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin 
 (xxi. 4). The first idolatrous priest in Israel 
 was a man consecrated by his own father to 
 officiate in his own house (b.c. 1413) ; he also af- 
 terwards consecrated a Levite to the office (Judg. 
 xvii. 5-13). This act seems like a return to the 
 ancient rites of Syria (ver. 5 ; comp. x. 6 ; Gen. 
 xxxi. 19, 30 ; Hosea iii. 4). This Levite became 
 afterwards the idolatrous priest; of the whole tribe 
 of Dan (Judg. xviii. 19), and his successors long 
 held the like office in that tribe (ver. 30). The 
 abuse of the sacerdotal office in Shiloh is evinced 
 by the history of Eli the high-priest, and his two 
 sons, Hophni and Phinehas (b.c. 1 156). Accord- 
 ing to Josephus Eli was not of tire posterity of Elea- 
 zar, the first-born son of Aaron, but of the family 
 of Itbamar; and Solomon took the office of high- 
 priest away from Abiatbar, a descendant of ltha- 
 mar, and conferred it upon Zadok, who descended 
 from Eleazar (1 Kings ii. 26, 27 ; Antiq. v. 11. 
 5; viii. 1.3). The sons of Eli introduced a 
 new exaction from the peace-offering, of so much 
 as a fiesh-hook with three teelh brought up ; for 
 which and other rapacities (1 Sam. ii. 12-17) 
 their death was threatened (ver. 34), and inflicted 
 (iv. 11). The capture of the arlt of God by tike 
 Philistines (b.c. 1116) affords us an insight into 
 the state of sacerdotal things among that people 
 (1 Sam. v.), viz., a temple (ver. 2), priests (ver. 
 5) who are consulted respecting the disposal of 
 the ark (vi. 2, 3). Ahiah, the great-grandson of 
 Eli, succeeded to the high priesthood (b.c. 1083) 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 3) ; he asks counsel of God for Saul, 
 but it is not answered (ver. 37); is succeeded in 
 office by his brother Ahimelech (xxi. 1-9). Saul 
 appears to have appointed Zadok, of the family 
 of Eleazar, to the high priesthood, and who, with 
 his brethren the priests, officiated before the ta- 
 bernacle at Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi. 39). David, 
 at his elevation to the throne, sent for all the 
 priests and Levites to bring the ark of God to 
 Jerusalem (b.c. 1051) (1 Chron. xiii. 2, 3 ; comp, 
 the Psalm be wrote on the occasion, cxxxii. 9-16}, 
 At this period, therefore, there were two high* 
 priests at Jerusalem (1 Chron. xv. 1 1 ; xviii. 16 ). A 
 
558 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 peculiar use of the Hebrew word signifying priest 
 occurs in 2 Sam. viii. 18, ‘ and David's sons were 
 chief rulers ;’ Sept. avXupxai , ‘cham- 
 berlains;’ Vulg. sacerclotes. The writer of the 
 First book of Chronicles, however, did not choose 
 to give the name to any but a priest, and renders it 
 ‘ the sons of David were chief (or heads) on the 
 side of the king’ (xviii. 17). The word seems, 
 however, certainly applied to some persons who 
 were not priests (1 Kings iv 5, ‘ principal officer;’ 
 Sept, ircupos ; Alex, lepevs eraupos ; Vulg. sa- 
 cerdos ; comp 2 Sam. xx. 26 ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 5 ; 
 Ps. xcix. 6). These ‘sons of David’ were, there- 
 fore, probably ecclesiastical counsellors, or chief 
 church lawyers. During the reign of David, 
 both Zadok and Abiatliar steadily adhered to his 
 interests, accompanied him out of Jerusalem when 
 he fled before Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 24), and, 
 after having at his desire returned to Jerusalem 
 (ver. 29), still maintained private correspondence 
 with him (ver. 35), and ultimately negotiated hia 
 restoration (xix. 11). David introduced the divi- 
 sion of the priests into twenty-four classes or 
 courses by lot (1 Chron. xxiv.), b.c. 1015. He ap- 
 pointed sixteen courses of the descendants of 
 Eleazar, under as many heads of their families, 
 and eight of those of Ithamar (ver. 4). This dis- 
 tribution took place in the presence of the king, 
 the princes, Zadok, and the principal priests and 
 Levites. The first, of these courses was that which 
 had Jehoiarib at the head of it (ver. 7). It was 
 reckoned the most honourable. Josephus values 
 himself on his descent from it (Vita, § l). 
 Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, de- 
 scended from it (1 Macc. ii. 1). Abijuh was 
 the head of the eighth course (ver. 10), to which 
 Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, belonged 
 (Luke i. 5). All these courses were placed under 
 the jurisdiction of the high-priest, called Aaron, 
 on this occasion (ver. 19). Each course served 
 a week, alternately, under a subordinate prefect 
 (2 Kings xi. 5, 7) ; and in the time of Zacharias, 
 at least, the duties of each individual seem to 
 have been determined by lot (Luke i. 9); but all 
 attended at the great festivals (2 Chron. v. 1 1 ). 
 This arrangement continued till the time of Jo- 
 sephus (Antiq. vii. 14. 7). At the close of 
 David’s life, Abiathar sided with Adonijah in his 
 effort to gain the throne ; but Zadok adhered to 
 Solomon (1 Kings i. 7, 8), and anointed him 
 king (ver. 39). Accordingly, when Solomon be- 
 came established in the government, he deposed 
 Abiathar (ii. 26), and put Zadok in his place; 
 who appears to have been anointed to the office 
 (1 Chron. xxix. 22), owing to the interruption 
 already alluded to, which had taken place in the 
 proper succession of the high-priesthood. Frequent 
 references to the priests occur in the Psalms 
 written upon the dedication of the temple (b.c. 
 
 1 064) (see Ps. cxxxv. 1, 19, &c.). The priests were 
 now installed in their offices (2 Chron. viii. 14, 15). 
 At the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam 
 (b.c. 975), all the priests repaired to him to Jeru- 
 salem (2 Chron. xi. 13), and there continued 
 their services in the legal manner (xiii. 11). On 
 the other hand, Jeroboam, now become king of 
 Israel, deposed them from their office in his domi- 
 nions, and consecrated priests of his own idol- 
 atrous worship (xi. 15), persons of the lowest 
 class, not of the sons of Levi (1 Kings xii. 31) ; 
 
 ' whosoever would he conse vated him ’ (xiii. 33)* 
 
 provided that the candidate could only bring a. 
 young bullock and seven rams for the purjHJse 
 (2 Chron. xiii. 9). It was during this depressh® 
 of the true religion and worship that Jehoshaphv 
 king of Judah, made the celebrated attempt to 
 restore and confirm it in his own dominions, re* 
 corded in 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9. For this purpose he 
 sent priests and Levites, who ‘ took with them the 
 book of the law,’ under the convoy of certain 
 princes, to teach its contents throughout all the 
 cities of Judah. This, which seems the nearest 
 approach of any on record to teach the people 
 by the priests or Levites, really amounts to no 
 more than the declaring the obligations of the law 
 by the appointed expositors of its requirements 
 (comp. Dent. xvi. 18; xvii. 9-13; xxiv. 8; 
 xxxiii. 10; Ezek. xliv. 23, 24; Hagg. ii. 11-13; 
 Hosea iv. 6; Mi call iii. 11; Mai. ii. 6-9; and 
 even Neh. viii. 7-9). It may be collected from 
 this incident, that the Scriptures were not then in 
 common circulation (for the deputation ‘took the 
 book of the law with them’), and that there was 
 then no religious instruction in synagogues (Cam- 
 pegius Vitringa, Synag. Vet. pt. ii. lib. i. c. 9). 
 Although the priests, bv the ceremonies they per- 
 formed, no doubt incidentally revived religious 
 principles in the minds of the people, yet they 
 were never public teachers of religion in the cus- 
 tomary sense of the words. Those of the prophets 
 who collected assemblies on the sabbaths and new 
 moons, approached the nearest of any to religious 
 teachers under the Gospel (comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 30, 
 31; Jahn, Biblischcs Archdol. § 371, 372). Je- 
 hoshaphat shortly afterwards (b.c. 897) established 
 a permanent court at Jerusalem, composed of 
 priests and Levites, and of the chief of the Fathers 
 of Israel, for the decision of all causes, with the 
 high-priest presiding over them in regard to eccle- 
 siastical concerns (2 Chron. xix. 8-11). About 
 120 years after, Jehu destroyed all the priests of 
 Baal, and extirpated bis worship from Israel 
 (2 Kings x. 15-29). The account, of this inci- 
 dent. affords additional illustration of the general 
 resemblance observable between idolatrous worship 
 and that of the true God, viz., ‘ prophets of Baal,’ 
 ‘ priests,’ ‘ servants ’ who waited on the latter in 
 the capacity of Levites, ‘a solemn assembly,’ ‘ a 
 temple’ for the god, ‘sacrifices,* ‘ burnt-offerings, ’ 
 ‘ vestments for the priests l About b.c. 884 the 
 high-priest Jehoiada recovers the throne of Judah 
 for its youthful heir Joash ; and, after a long life 
 of influence and usefulness, dies, aged 130 years, 
 and is buried in the royal sepulchre at Jerusalem 
 (2 Kings xi. 12; 2 Chron. xxiii. ; xxiv. 15, 16). 
 During this reign the priests were empowered, 
 under royal authority, to raise money for the 
 repair of the temple, but at last forfeited this 
 commission by their negligent discharge of it 
 (2 Kings xii. 4-12). At the public humiliation 
 for the famine, ordered by the prophet Joel (b.c. 
 787), a form of prayer is delivered for the use of 
 the priests (ii. 17; comp. Hosea xiv. 2). 
 
 Some time between b.c. 787 and 765, the attempt 
 of Uzziah, king of Judah, to burn incense in the 
 temple, calls forth the resistance of the high-priest 
 Azariah and eighty of the priests, and ends with 
 the king becoming leprous for life f2 Chron. xxvi. 
 16, 21). The ignorance and depravity of the idol- 
 atrous priests of Israel at this period are vividly 
 described (Hosea iv. 6-8 ; vi. 9). These prieefc 
 are called D'HDS (2 Kings xxiii. 5 ; Hosea x. 5 , 
 
PRIEST. 
 
 PRIEST. 
 
 559 
 
 Efeph. i. 4), from the Syr. the idolatrous 
 
 priests of Palestine being, as might be expected, 
 derived from Syria. Tiie abandoned character of 
 the priests of Judah nearly at the same period is 
 described, Is. xxviii. 7, 8 ; Micah iii. 11. In the 
 reign of Ahaz, king of Judah (b.c. 739), a flagrant 
 violation of divine commands is permitted by 
 Urijah the high-priest, by the introduction info the 
 temple of an altar similar to one which the king 
 had seen at Damascus (2 Kings xvi. 10-16; comp. 
 Exod. xxvii. 1, 2). The prophecy of Hosea, ad- 
 dressed to the priests (v. 1, &c.), is referred to this 
 period. Better things marked the reign of Heze- 
 kiah, who reinstated the priests in their office 
 (2 Chron. xxix. 4); they restore the Passover 
 (xxx.), and are reinstated in their revenues (xxxi. 
 4-10), are also properly provided for in their own 
 cities (ver. 15), and have the care of their gene- 
 alogies restored (ver. 16-21), b.c. 726. During the 
 captivity of the ten tribes , at least one priest was 
 sent back from Assyria to teach the Assyrian 
 colonists in Samaria ‘ the manner of the God of 
 the land ’ (2 Kings xvii. 27) ; but the colonists 
 themselves also appointed priests for this purpose 
 (ver. 32). Josiah, king of Judah, degrades idol- 
 •atry by burning the bonesof its priests upon their 
 altars (2 Chron. xxxiv. 5), expels some of the 
 survivors (2 Kings xxiii. 8), yet affords some of 
 them an allowance (ver. 9), but puts others to 
 death (ver. 20). Jeremiah, a sacerdotal prophet, 
 flourishes b.c. 630 : he is informed that his commis- 
 sion was partly directed against the priests of 
 Judah (i„ 18), whose degeneracy is adverted to 
 (ii. 8), and even idolatry (ver. 26, 27). In his 
 time the office of second priest, or sagan, as he is 
 called- by the Jews in later times, is referred to 
 (Jer. Iii. 24 ; 2 Kings xxv. 18). This was a sort 
 of deputy, or vice high-priest , whose duty it was 
 to officiate for his superior in case of sudden ill- 
 ness, &c. Many references to the depravity of 
 llie priests mark this period (2 Chron. xxxvi. 14 ; 
 iri. 13 ; Ezek. xxii. 26), in which they were 
 joined by the prophets (Jer. v. 31; viii. 10; 
 xxvi. 8; Lam. iv. 13). Jeremiah records the 
 attempt of a false prophet, Shemaiah, the Nehe- 
 tamite, to induce Zephaniah , the second priest, 
 to assume the office of high-priest, at Jerusalem 
 during the captivity of Judah (b.c. 597). He pre- 
 dicts the restoration of the sacerdotal office 
 (xxxiii. 18, 21). About this time Seraiah, the 
 high -priest, and his sagan Zephaniah, were carried 
 to Babylon, and put to death (2 Kings xxv. 
 18, 20). Jeremiah describes the miseries of the 
 priests at this period (Lam. i. 4, 19). At the decree 
 of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem (b.c. 536), some 
 of the priests in exile at Babylon, with the Fathers 
 and Levites, avail themselves of the royal permis- 
 sion to return (Ezra i. 5). These belonged to 
 four of the courses which retained the names of 
 their original heads (comp. ii. 36-39 ; 1 Chron. 
 xxiv. 7, 18, 14; 1 Chron. ix. 12), amounting in 
 all to 4289 priests, besides others who could not 
 produce their genealogy, and whom ‘ the governor ’ 
 would not allow to eat the priests’ portion till 
 their claim should be verified by a priest with 
 Brim and Thummim (ver. 61-64). These were 
 followed by a second company (vii. 7). The 
 proportion of the priests who returned seems large 
 in comparison with the number of the people who 
 returned, and who scarcely amounted to 50,000. 
 
 Some of the Fathers who returned presented a hun- 
 dred priests’ garments (Ezra ii. 69). The priests 
 were restored to theircities (ver. 70) ; the servicewas 
 restored (iii. 3-5); and, under Joshua, the son of 
 Josedech, the temple was rebuilt (Hagg. i. 1) and 
 dedicated (b.c. 519). The priests who had married 
 strange wives were compelled to separate from 
 them (Ezra x. 18-22). Ezra the scribe publicly 
 reads the law (Nell. viii. 4), and the priests trans- 
 late the passages read into the Aramaean dialect 
 (ver. 7). They revive the Feast of Tabernacles 
 (ver. 13-18), and the chief of them sign the 
 covenant of the Lord as representatives of the rest 
 (ix. 38, &c.). At the distribution of the inha- 
 bitants, 1760 priests remained at Jerusalem 
 (1 Chron. ix. 13). In Nell. xii. 10, 11, an ac- 
 count is given of the succession of the high-priests 
 from the return of the captivity to Jaddua, or 
 Jaddus, who held an interview with Alexander 
 the Great. Thus, as Grotius observes, ‘ the 
 Scripture history ends where the very light of 
 times, viz., the affairs of Alexander, begin, 
 from which time profane history becomes clear.’ 
 Then follows a list of all those chief of the 
 priests who officiated in the lifetime of Jehoia- 
 kim, son of Joshua, either as assistants or suc- 
 cessors of their fathers (ver. 12). Again, however, 
 the negligence and wickedness of the restored 
 priests are complained of by Malachi (i. 6-13). 
 A heavy threatening is denounced against them 
 (ii. 1-9). The fault of Eliashib, the high-priest, in 
 the misappropriation of a sacred storehouse to the 
 use of one of his relations (Neh. xiii. 4-10), and 
 whose family was much corrupted (ver. 28, 29), 
 closes the information furnished by the canonical 
 books of the Old Testament. The high-priesthood 
 and government of Judaea continued in the lineage 
 of Eleazar, son of Aaron (subject, however, to the 
 Persians), in the family of Josedech, by which it 
 was transmitted down to Onias III. He was 
 supplanted by Jason, his brother, as Jason was by 
 his brother Menelaus ; at whose death Alcimus, 
 of a different family, was put into the office by 
 the king of Syria. In the year b.c. 152, Alexan- 
 der, king of Syria, bestowed it upon the heroic 
 general Jonathan (1 Macc. x. 18-20), who be- 
 longed to the class Jehoiarib (ii. 1), and in 
 whose family it became settled, and continued for 
 several descents till the time of Herod, who took 
 the liberty to change the incumbents of the office 
 at his pleasure, — a liberty which the Romans ex 
 ercised without restraint, so that at last the office 
 was often little more than annual. At the entrance 
 of the Christian history, we are met with the 
 priest Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, of the 
 course of Abia,and married to a daughter of Aaron 
 (Luke i. 5). ‘ The chief priests,’ mentioned in 
 
 Matt. ii. 4, and elsewhere, so frequently, included, 
 beside the high-priest properly so called and then 
 in office, all that had already held it, who, for the 
 reason just mentioned, were numerous, and the 
 chiefs of the twenty-four courses, who also enjoyed 
 this title. The acting high-priest also usually 
 had for his coadjutor some influential senior who 
 had previously filled the station. Hence the asso- 
 ciation of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke iii. 2). 
 Josephus speaks of many contemporary high- 
 priests ( Vita, §38) ; and alludes to the influence 
 they possessed (De Bell. Jud. iv. 3, 6, 7, 9) ; and 
 as even wearing the archieratical robe (10). By 
 virtue of his office, the high-priest Caiaphas i» 
 
660 
 
 PRIMOGENITURE. 
 
 PROCHORUS. 
 
 said 1o have prophesied (John xi 51). He ap- 
 pears as chairman of the Sanhedrim at our Lord's 
 trial (Matt. xxvi. 57). The chief priests appear 
 as assessors in the court (ver. 59). The common 
 priests still retain the exercise of their ancient 
 functions, in judging of the leprosy, & c. (Mark i. 
 44). Christians are figuratively called priests 
 (Rev. i. 6 ; xx. 0). The student will observe the 
 important distinction, that the term lepevs is 
 never applied to the pastor of the Christian 
 chui'ch; with which term the idea of a sacrifice 
 was always connected in ancient times. Thus 
 Hesychius, T epevet, acjvifci. 'lepevs, 6 oia. Ovcricdv 
 uayrevopevos. W e submit the follow ing inferences 
 from the foregoing particulars to the judgment, of 
 the reader. The patriarchal form of the priest- 
 hood was of divine origin, and the purest. Tim 
 was carried at the dispersion of the nations into 
 every part of the globe, and became everywhere 
 corrupted in some degree, and ultimately even 
 among the ancient Canaauites. Hence the un- 
 questionable resemblances to it traceable in tJie 
 religions of all nations. The legation of Moses 
 was directed to the revival of all the important 
 truths comprised in the early revelations, and 
 which were shrouded under the system of Egypt. 
 Hence it was proper that he should become 
 ‘ learned in all the wisdom 1 of that country. In 
 the accomplishment of this mission, Moses re- 
 tained also such innocent adaptations to the old 
 system as were required by the fixed associations 
 of the people whom he was destined to deliver. 
 Among these adaptations we incline to consider 
 the peculiar office of the high-priest, of which we 
 find no rudiments in the patriarchal church. Nor 
 does the use and illustration made of that office 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews disturb our view, 
 because the same writer finds more points of re- 
 semblance between the performances of Christ 
 and the priesthood of the patriarchal Melchizedek 
 than between the office of Aaron ami that of 
 Christ (ch. vii. ; see Jer. vii. 21-23). The resem- 
 blances between the religious customs of the 
 ancient Egyptians and those of the Jews are 
 numerous, decided, peculiar, and most important. 
 Besides those laid before the reader in this article, 
 we refer him to the articles Aiuc, Cherubim, &c., 
 but especially to Kitto’s 1‘ictorial History of 
 Palestine , London, l £44, which contains all the 
 most valuable illustrations of this nature derived 
 from the best and most modern works on Egypt. 
 To this work the reader is indebted for the valu- 
 able cuts which have been now submitted to his 
 consideration. For the similarity in the religion 
 of ancient Greece, see Potter's Arcliceologia, vol. 
 i. p. 202, Lond. 1775 ; of ancient Rome, Adam’s 
 Antiquities, p. 293 , § ministri sacrorum, Edin. 
 1791. For particular topics, Kiesling, De Le- 
 gibns Mos. chua Sacerd. Vitio Corporis labo - 
 r antes ; T. C. ICall, De Morbis Sacerdot. V. T. 
 epc ministerii eor. conditione oriundis , Hafn. 
 1745; Jablonskii Pantheon, pro leg. § 29, 41, 43; 
 Munch, De Matrimonio Sacerd. V. T. cum fdiab . 
 Sacer. Nonmh. 1747; Krumbholz, Sacer. Ileb. 
 ebendas. For the theology of the subject, Dr T - 
 P. Smith's Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priest 
 hood of Christ, London, 1842; Wilson on the 
 same subject. — J. F. D. 
 
 PRIMOGENITURE (.Tim ; Sept, n pea. 
 rarduia, Gen. xxv. 31, 34; xxvii. 36; Dent. 
 
 xxi. 17; 1 Chron. v. 1) [see Birthright] 
 
 It occurs in the New Testament only in Hen 
 xii. 16. Tlpcordroicos, always rendered ‘ first 
 bom’ in the English version, is found in the Sept 
 in Gen. iv. 4, Dent. xxi. 17, and several othei 
 passages of the Old Testament, as the representa- 
 tive of the Hebrew T2D, signifying ‘one whe 
 openeth the womb,’ whether an only child, oi 
 whether other children follow. ‘ Primogenitm 
 est, non post quern alii, sed ante quern nullus 
 alius genitus’ (Pareus). UpcordroKos is found 
 nine times in the New Testament — viz. Matt. i. 
 25 (if the passage he genuine, and not introduced 
 from the parallel passage in Luke) ; Luke ii. 7 ; 
 Rom. viii. 29; Col. i. 15, 18; Heb. i. 6 ; xi. 28; 
 xii. 23; Rev. i. 5. Except in the Gospels, and 
 Heb. xi. 28, the word always bears a metaphor- 
 ical sense in the New Testament, being generally 
 synonymous with heir or lord, and having, in 
 Heb. i. 6, an especial reference to our Lord’s 
 Messianic dignity. In Heb. xii. 23, ‘the assem- 
 bly of the first-born,’ it seems to be synonymous 
 with ‘elect,’ or ‘dearly beloved,’ in which sense 
 it is also used on one occasion in the Old Testa- 
 ment (Jer. xxxi. 9). Jn the fourth century, 
 Helvidius, among the Latins, and Kunomius 
 among the Greeks, wished to attach a significa- 
 tion to TTpurdroKos in Matt. i. and Luke ii., 
 different from the Old Testament usage, main- 
 taining, in order to support their novel hypo- 
 thesis — (viz. that Joseph and Mary had children 
 after the birth of our Lord) — [Jude], that the 
 word rcpondroKos, by reason of its etymology, 
 could not he applied to an only child. Jerome 
 replied to the former by appealing to the usage of 
 the word in the Old Testament, (adv. Helvid. in 
 Matt. i. 9). 'Die assertion of Eunomius was 
 equally refuted by the Greek falhers, Basil (Horn, 
 in Nat.), Theophylact (in Luc. ii.), and Damas- 
 cenus (De fid. Orthod. 1. iv.). In reference to 
 this controversy, Drnsius (Ad. difflciliora loea 
 Num. cap. 6) observes: ‘ Sic sane Christus vocatm 
 npccrdroKos, licet, mater ejus nullos alios postea 
 liberos habuerit. Notet. hoc juventus propter 
 Helvidium, qui ex ea voce inferebat Mariam ex 
 Josepho post Christum natum plures filios su9- 
 cepisse.’ ‘Those entitled to the prerogative’ 
 [viz. of birthright], observes Campbell (On the 
 Gospels ), ‘were invariably denominated the first- 
 born, whether the parents haddssue afterwards or 
 not.’ Eunomius further maintains, from Col. i. 15, 
 that our Lord was ‘a creature;’ but Lis argu- 
 ments were replieil to by Basil and Theophylact. 
 Some of the Fathers referred this passage to 
 Christ’s pre-existence, others to his baptism. Jn 
 Isa. xiv. 30, the ‘first-born of the poor’ signifies 
 the poorest of all; and in Job xviii. i 3, the ‘ first- 
 born of death’ m-ans the most terrible of deaths. 
 See Suicer’s Thesaurus ; Leigh’s Critica Sacra; 
 Wahl's Claris Philolog. ; Rose s edition of 
 Pai khurst’s Lexicon ; and Cnuleus Concordance. 
 
 W. W. 
 
 PRISCA. [Priscilla.] 
 
 PRISCILLA (UpicrKiWa), or Prisca (TlplxT- 
 Ha), wife of Aquila, and probably, like. Phoebe, a 
 deaconess. She shared the travels, labours, and 
 dangers of her husband, and is always named 
 along with him (Rom. xvi. 3 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 19 ; 2 
 Tim. iv. 19) [Aquila]. 
 
 PRISON. [Punishment.] 
 
 PRIZE. [Games.] 
 
PROCHORUS. 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 56 i 
 
 PROCIIORUS (TJpJxopos), one of the seven 
 drat deacons of the Christian church (Acts vi. 5). 
 Nothing is known of him. 
 
 PROCONSUL, a Roman officer appointed to 
 the government of a province with consular au- 
 thority. He was chosen out of the body of the 
 senate; and it was customary, when any one’s 
 consulate expired, to send him as a proconsul into 
 some province. He enjoyed the same honour with 
 the consuls, but was allowed only six lictors with 
 the fasces before him. 
 
 The proconsuls decided cases of equity and 
 justice, either privately in their palaces, where 
 they received petitions, heard complaints, and 
 granted writs under their seals; or publicly in 
 the common hall, with the formalities generally 
 observed in the courts at Rome. These duties 
 were, however, more frequently delegated to their 
 assessors, or other judges of their own appointment. 
 As the proconsuls had also the direction of justice, 
 of war, and of the revenues, these departments 
 were administered by their lieutenants, or legati , 
 who were usually nominated by the senate. The 
 office of the proconsuls lasted generally for one 
 year only, and the expense of their journeys to 
 and from their provinces was defrayed by the 
 public. After the partition of the provinces be- 
 tween Augustus and the people, those who pre- 
 sided over the provinces of the latter were espe- 
 cially designated proconsuls, for whom it appears 
 to have been customary to decree temples (Suet. 
 Aug.'). Livy (viii. and xxvi.) mentions two other 
 classes of proconsuls : those who, being consuls, 
 had their office continued beyond the time ap- 
 pointed by law ; and those who, being previously 
 in a private station, were invested with this honour 
 either for the government of provinces, or to com- 
 mand in war. Some were created proconsuls by 
 the senate without being appointed to any province, 
 merely to command in the army, and to take 
 charge of the military discipline ; others were 
 allowed to enter upon their proconsular office 
 before being admitted to the consulship, but 
 having that honour in reserve. 
 
 When the Apostle Paul was at Corinth, he was 
 brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, 
 one of the provinces of Greece, of which Corinth 
 was the thief city, and arraigned by the Jews as 
 one Who * persuadeth men to worship God contrary 
 to the law’ (Acts xviii. 13); but Gallio refused 
 to act as a judge of such matters, and ‘ drave them 
 from the judgment-seat ’ (ver. 16). — G. M. B. 
 
 PROGNOSTICATORS. The phrase ‘monthly 
 prognosticators’ occurs in the Authorized Version 
 of Isa. xlvii. 13, where the prophet is enumerating 
 the astrological superstitions of the Chaldaeans. 
 In the later Hebrew, Htn denotes a ‘ seer,’ or 
 \ prophet ;’ and to express the sense in which 
 it is employed in this text, a better word than 
 prognosticator could not well be chosen. The 
 'original, D'QDIDH CTfl, might perhaps be more 
 exactly rendered, as by Dr. Henderson, ‘ prognos- 
 ticators at the new moons.’ It is known that the 
 Chaldaian astrologers professed to divine future 
 events by the positions, aspects, and appearances 
 of the stars, which they regarded as having great 
 influence on the affairs of men and kingdoms; 
 and it would seem, from the present text, that 
 they put forth accounts of the events which might 
 be expected to occur from month to month, like 
 
 von. ii. 37 
 
 our old almanac-makers. Some carry the analogy 
 further, and suppose that they also gave monthly 
 tables of the weather ; but such prognostications 
 are only cared for in climates where the weather is 
 uncertain and variable ; while in Chaldaea, where 
 (as we know from actual experience) the seasons 
 are remarkably regular in their duration and 
 recurrence, and where variations of the usual 
 course of the weather are all but unknown, nc. 
 prognosticator would gain much honour by fore 
 telling what every peasant knows. 
 
 PROPHECY. The principal considerations 
 involved in this important subject may be ar- 
 ranged under the following heads : — 
 
 I. The nature of Prophecy, and its position 
 in the economy of the Old Testament. — The 
 view commonly taken of the prophets is, that they 
 were mere predictors of future events ; but this 
 view is one-sided and too narrow, though, on the 
 other hand, we must beware of expanding too 
 much the acceptation of the term prophet. Not 
 to mention those who, like Hendeweik, in the 
 introduction to his Commentary on the Prophet 
 Isaiah, identify the notion of a prophet with that 
 of an honest and pious man, the conception of 
 those is likewise too wide who place the essential 
 feature of a prophet in his divine inspiration. 
 That this does not meet the whole subject, appeals' 
 flora Num. xii. 6, sq., where Moses, who enjoyed 
 divine inspiration in its highest grade, is repre- 
 sented as differing from those called prophets in 
 a stricter sense, and as standing in contrast with 
 them. Divine inspiration is only the general 
 basis of the prophetic office, to which two mare 
 elements must, be added : — * 
 
 1. Inspiration was imparted to the prophets in< 
 a peculiar form. This appears decisively from 
 the passage in Numbers above cited, which states- 
 it as characteristic of the prophet, that he obtained, 
 livine inspiration in visions and dreams, conse- 
 quently in a state extraordinary and distinguished, 
 from the general one. This mode was different* 
 from that in which inspirations were conveyed to 
 Moses and the apostles. The same thing is shown 
 Oy the names usually given to the prophets, viz., 
 D'JO and D'm, seers , and from this that all pro- 
 phecies which have come down to us have a poeti- 
 cal character, which points to an intimate affinity, 
 between prophecy and poetry ; a subject further 
 illustrated by Steinberk, in his work, Per Bidder 
 ein Seher, Leipzig, 1836; though the materials 
 which he gives are not sufficiently digested. Tlai 
 prophetical style differs from that of books pro- 
 perly called poetical, whose sublimity it all but 
 outvies, only in being less restrained by those ex-- 
 ternal forms which distinguish poetical language 
 from prose, and in introducing more frequently 
 than prose does plays upon words and thoughts. 
 This peculiarity may be explained by the practi- 
 cal tendency of prophetical addresses, which 
 avoid all that is unintelligible, and studiously, 
 introduce what is best calculated for the moment 
 to strike the hearers. The same appears from, 
 many other circumstances, e. g. the union of 
 music with prophesying, the demeanour of Saul 
 when among the prophets ( 1 Sam. x. 5), Balaam's 
 description of himself (Num. xxiv. 3) as a ; 
 man whose eyes were opened, who saw the vision, 
 of the Almighty, and heard the words of God,, 
 the established phraseology to denote the inspiring; 
 impulse, viz., * the hand of the Lord was strong 
 
PROPHECY 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 bioori liim ’ fE/.ek. iii. 14, comp. Isa. vlii. 11.; 3 
 Rings iii. 15). &c. All these fuels prove that 
 there essentially belonged to prophecy a state of 
 mind worked up — a state of being beside one's 
 self— an ecstatic transport, in which ideas were 
 immediately imparted from Heaven. Acute re- 
 marks on the subject will be found in the works 
 of Novalis (vol. ii. p. 472, sq.), from which we 
 give the following passage : v It is a most ar- 
 bitrary prejudice to suppose that to man is denied 
 the power of going out of himself, of being endued 
 with a consciousness beyond the sphere of sense : 
 he may at any moment place himself beyond the 
 reach of sense (ein iibersinnlichcs Wesen sci/n ), 
 •else he would be a mere brute, not a rational free- 
 man of the universe. There are, indeed, degrees 
 an the aptitude for revelations; one is more qua- 
 lified for them than another, and certain disposi- 
 tions are particularly capable of receiving such 
 ■revelations ; besides, on account of the pressure of 
 sensible objects on the mind, it is in this state 
 •difficult to preserve self-possession. Neverthe- 
 less there are such states of mind, in which its 
 powers are strengthened, and, so to speak, armed.’ 
 The state of ecstacy, though ranking high above 
 <t!»e ordinary sensual existence, is still not the 
 highest, as appears from Num. xii., and the ex- 
 ample of Christ, whom we never find in an ecsta- 
 ■tical state. To the prophets, however, it was in- 
 dispensable, on account of the frailty of them- 
 selves and the people. The forcible working upon 
 them by the Spirit of God would not have been 
 required, if their general life had already been 
 altogether holy; for which reason we also tind 
 ecstacy to manifest itself the stronger the more the 
 general life was ungodly ; as, for instance, in 
 Balaam, when the Spirit of God came upon him 
 (Num. xxiv. 4, 16), and in Saul, who throws 
 himself on the ground, tearing his clothes from 
 his body. With a' prophet whose spiritual at- 
 tainments were those of an Isaiah, such results 
 are not to be expected. As regards the people, 
 their spiritual obtuseness must be considered as 
 very great, to have rendered necessary such vehe- 
 ment excitations as the addresses of the prophets 
 caused. Thus it appears that prophecy has a 
 predominant place in the Old Testament. Under 
 the New Testament it. could take only a subordi- 
 nate place; although even then it could not be 
 dispensed with, and hence we find it in the apos- 
 tolic age. It had to prepare the soil on which 
 the peculiar gifts of the New Testament might 
 .flourish, and the lower the church's state, the more 
 it resemlrfed that of the Old Testament, the greater 
 •the need of this. It had also to counteract the 
 .risk of barrenness and inefficiency to which the 
 unexciting form of the New Testament system 
 was exposed. To the church in the present day one 
 could wish a copious supply of the prophetic gifts ! 
 
 2. Generally speaking, every one was a prophet 
 to whom God communicated his mind in this 
 jjeenliar manner. Thus, e. g. Abraham is called 
 a prophet (Gen. xx. 7), not, as is commonly 
 thought, on account of general revelations granted 
 him by God, but because such as he received were 
 in the special form described ; as indeed in chap, 
 xv. it is expressly stated that divine communica- 
 tions were made to him in visions and dreams. 
 The body of the patriarchs are in the same manner 
 called prophets (Ps. cv. 15). When the Mosaic 
 economy had been established, a new element 
 
 was added ; the prophetic gift was after that 
 time regularly connected with the prophetic office^ 
 so that the latter came to form part of the idea o? 
 a prophet. Thus Daniel's work was not place*! 
 in the collection of prophetical books, because, 
 though eminently endowed with prophetic gifts, 
 he still had not filled the prophetic office. Speak- 
 ing of office, we do not of course mean one con- 
 ferred by men, but by God ; the mission to Israel, 
 with which the certainty of a continued, not tem- 
 porary, grant of the domim prophelieum was con- 
 nected. 
 
 That the Lord would send such prophets was 
 promised to the people by Moses, who by a special 
 law (Deut. xviii. 1) secured them authority and 
 safety. As his ordinary servants and teachers, 
 God appointed the Priests : the characteristic 
 mark which distinguished the prophets from them 
 was inspiration; and this explains the circum- 
 stance that, in times of great moral and religious 
 corruption, when the ordinary means no longer 
 sufficed to reclaim the people, the number of pro- 
 phets increased. The regular religious instruction 
 of the people was no part of the business of the 
 prophets ; their proper duty was only to rouse and 
 excite. The contrary, viz., that part of the regular 
 duty of the prophets was to instruct the people, is 
 often argued from 2 Kings iv. 23, where it is said 
 that the Shunamite on the sabbaths and days of 
 new moon used to go to the prophet Elisha; but 
 this passage applies only to the kingdom of Israel, 
 and admits of no inference with respect to the 
 kingdom of Judah. As regards the latter, there 
 is no proof that prophets held meetings for in- 
 struction and edification on sacred days. Their 
 position was here quite different from that of the 
 prophets in the kingdom of Israel. The agency 
 of the prophets in the kingdom of Judah was only 
 of a subsidiary kind ; these extraordinary mes- 
 sengers of the Lord only filled there the gaps left 
 by the regular servants of God, the priests and 
 the Levites ; the priesthood never became there 
 utterly degenerate, and each lapse was followed 
 by a revival of which the prophets were the vi- 
 gorous agents ; the divine election always vindi- 
 cated itself, and in the purity of the origin of 
 the priesthood lay the certainty of its continued 
 renewal. On the contrary, the priesthood in the 
 kingdom of Israel had no divine sanction, no pro- 
 mise ; it was corrupt in its very source : to reform 
 itself would have been to dissolve itself; the 
 priests there were the mercenary servants of the 
 king, and had a brand upon their - own consciences. 
 Hence in the kingdom of Israel the prophets were 
 the regular ministers of God ; with their office all 
 stood or fell, and hence they were required to dc 
 many things besides what the original conception 
 of the office of a prophet implied — a circumstance 
 from the oversight of which many erroneous no- 
 tions on the nature of prophecy have sprung. 
 This led to another difference, to which we shall 
 revert below, viz., that in the kingdom of Judah 
 the prophetic office did not, as in Israel, possess a 
 fixed organization and complete construction. 
 
 In their laljours, as respected their own times, 
 the prophets were strictly bound to the Mosaic 
 law, and not allowed to add to it or to 
 diminish ought from it; what was said in this 
 respect to the whole people (Deut. iv. 2; xiii. 1) 
 applied also to them. We find, therefore, pro* 
 phecy always takes its ground on the Mcaaic 
 
PROPHECY. 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 law, to which it. refers, from which it derives its 
 sanction, and with which it is fully impressed and 
 saturate;!. There is no chapter in the prophets in 
 which there are not several references to the law. 
 The business of the prophets was to explain it, to 
 lay it to the hearts of the people, and to preserve 
 vital its spirit. It was, indeed, also their duty to 
 point to future reforms, when the ever-living spirit 
 of the law would break its hitherto imperfect form, 
 and make for itself another : thus Jeremiah (iii. 
 16) foretells days when the ark of the covenant 
 shall be no more, and (ch. xxxi. 31) days when a 
 new covenant will be made with the house of 
 Israel and with the house of Judah. But for 
 their own times they never once dreamt of alter- 
 ing any, even the minutest, and least; essential pre- 
 cept, even as to its form ; how much less as to its 
 spirit, which even the Lord himself declares 
 (Matt. v. 18) to be immutable and eternal. The 
 passages which some interpreters have alleged as 
 opposed to sacrifices as instituted by the Mosaic 
 law, have been misunderstood ; they do not de- 
 nounce sacrifices generally, but only those of the 
 Canaanites, with whom sacrifice was not even a 
 form of true worship, but opposed to the genuine 
 and spiritual service of God. 
 
 As to prophecy in its circumscribed sense, or the 
 foretelling of future events by the prophets, some 
 expositors would explain all predictions of special 
 events ; while others assert that no prediction con- 
 tains anything but general .promises or threaten- 
 ings, and that the prophets knew nothing of the 
 particular manner in which their predictions might 
 he realised. Both these classes deviate from the 
 correct view of prophecy ; the former resort often 
 to the most arbitrary interpretations, and the lat- 
 ter are opposed by a mass of facts against which 
 they are unable successfully to contend ; e. g 
 when Ezekiel foretells (cb. xii. 12) that Zedekiah 
 would try to break through the walls of the city 
 and to escape, but that he would be seized, 
 blinded, and taken to Babylon. The frailty of 
 the people, under the Old Testament, required 
 external evidence of the real connection of the 
 prophets with God, and the predictions of parti- 
 cular forthcoming events were to them arj/xeia, 
 signs. These were the more indispensable to them, 
 because the ancients generally, and the Orientals 
 in particular, showed the greatest tendency to- 
 wards the exploration of futurity, which tended 
 to foster superstition and forward idolatry. AH 
 other methods of knowing future events by necro- 
 mancy, conjuration, passing through the fire, &c., 
 having been strictly forbidden (Deut. xviii. 10, 
 11 ). it might be expected that the deep-rooted, 
 craving for the knowledge of forthcoming events 
 would be gratified in some other and noblei 
 manner. The success of a prophet depended on 
 the gift of special knowledge of futurity ; this it is 
 true was granted comparatively to only few, but 
 in the authority thus obtained all those shared 
 who were likewise invested with the prophetic 
 character. It was the seal impressed on true 
 prophecy, as opposed to the false. From 1 Sarn. 
 ix. 6, it appears that, to inspire uncultivated 
 minds with the sense of divine truths, the pro- 
 phets stooped occasionally to disclose things of 
 common life, using this as the means to reach a 
 higher mark. On the same footing with definite 
 predictions stand miracles and tokens, which pro- 
 mts of the highest rank, as Elijah and Isaiah, 
 
 5&S 
 
 volunteered or granted. These also were requisite 
 to confirm the feeble faith of the people 5 bui 
 Ewald justly remarks, that with the true prophet* 
 they never appear as the chief point ; they only 
 assist and accompany prophecy, but are not its 
 object, not the truth itself, which supersedes them as 
 soon as it gains sufficient strength and influence. 
 
 Some interpreters, misunderstanding passage* 
 like Jer. xviii. 8 ; xxvi. 13, have asserted, with l)r, 
 Koster (p. 226, sq.), that all prophecies were con- 
 ditional ; and have even maintained that their 
 revocability distinguished the true predictions 
 ( Weissagung) from soothsaying ( W cihrsagung'). 
 But beyond all doubt, when the prophet denounces 
 the divine judgments, he proceeds on the assump- 
 tion that the people will not repent, an assumption 
 which he knows from God to be true. Were the 
 people to repent, the prediction would fail ; but 
 because they will not, it is uttered absolutely. It 
 does not follow, however, that the prophet's war n- 
 ings and exhortations are useless. These serve 
 ‘ for a witness against them and besides, amid 
 the ruin of the mass, individuals might be saved. 
 Viewing prophecies as conditional predictions 
 nullifies them. The Mosaic criterion (Deut. 
 xviii. 22), that he was a false prophet who pre- 
 dicted c things which followed not nor came to 
 pass/ would then he of no value, since recourse 
 might always he had to the excuse, that the case 
 had been altered by the fulfilling of the condition. 
 The fear of introducing fatalism, if the pro- 
 phecies are not taken in a conditional sense, is 
 unfounded ; for God’s omniscience, his foreknow- 
 ledge, does not establish fatalism, and from divine 
 omniscience simply is the prescience of the pro- 
 phets to he derived. The prophets feel themselves 
 so closely united to God, that the words of Je- 
 hovah are given as their own, and that to them 
 is often ascribed what God does, as slaying and 
 reviving (Hos. vi. 5), rooting out nations and re- 
 storing them (Jer. i. 10; xviii. 7 ; Ezek. xxxii. 
 1 8 ; xliii. 3); which proves their own consciousness 
 to have been entirely absorbed into that of God. 
 
 The sphere of action of the prophets was abso- 
 lutely limited to Israel, and there is only one case 
 of a prophet going to the heathen to preach 
 among them, that of Jonah sent to Nineveh. He 
 goes, however, to Nineveh to shame the Hebrews 
 by the reception which he meets with there, and 
 acting upon his own nation was tlius even in this 
 case the prophet’s ultimate object. Many pre- 
 dictions of the Old Testament concern, indeed, 
 the events of foreign nations, but they are always 
 uttered and written with reference to Israel, and 
 the prophets thought not of publishing them 
 among the heathens themselves. The conversion 
 of the pagans to the worship of the true God was 
 indeed a favourite idea of the prophets; but the 
 Divine Spirit told them, that it was not to be 
 effected by their exertions, as it was connected 
 with extensive future changes, which they might 
 not forestall. 
 
 It needs hardly to be mentioned that before a 
 man could be a prophet he must be converted. 
 This clearly appears in the case of Isaian, * whose 
 iniquity was taken away, and his sin purged/ 
 previous to his entering on his mission to the 
 people of the covenant. For a single momentary 
 inspiration, however, the mere beginning of spiri- 
 tual life sufficed, as instanced in Balaam sxi 
 Saul. 
 
564 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 The most usual appellation of a prophet io 
 6P33. and Exod. iv. 1-17 is the classical passage 
 as to the meaning of this word. There God says 
 to Moses, ‘ Aaron shall he thy unto the 
 
 people, anil thou slialt he unto him instead of 
 God.’ The sense is : Aaron shall speak what 
 thou shalt communicate to him. This appella- 
 tion implies, then, the prophet's relation to God : 
 he speaks not of his own accord, but what the 
 Spirit puts into his mouth. This accords also 
 with the etymology of the word, as signifies 
 in the Arabic produrit, and next, proiulit verba, 
 nunciavit , indicavit. Thus N’QJ is an adjective 
 of passive signification ; he who has been divinely 
 inspired, who has received from God the revela- 
 tions which he proclaims : it is of the form 
 which cannot be proved ever to have an active 
 signification ; and hence the common opinion that 
 signifies originally a speaker , which has 
 recently been again set up by Dr. Ewald (p. 6), 
 cannot be maintained. While this name refers 
 to divine inspiration, the others are derived from 
 the particular form in which this was communi- 
 cated to the prophets. These names are HTH and 
 uNl, differing only in the former being more 
 poetical and solemn. From 1 Sam. ix. t>, some 
 expositors have inferred that the name N'123 sprang 
 up after the age of Samuel, and that, before this 
 the name HfciT had been exclusively in use. But 
 that this view is wrong has been proved in Hengs- 
 fenberg's ‘Contributions towards an Introduction 
 to the Old Testament’ (Beitrdge zur Einleitung 
 vis A. T., vol. iii. p. 3J5). Other names, as 
 ‘ man of God,’ &c., do not belong to the prophets 
 as such, but only i.u so far as they are of the 
 number of servants and instruments of God. 
 
 II. Duration of the Prophetic office. — A1 
 though we meet with cases of prophesying as 
 early as the age of the patriarchs, still the roots of 
 prophetism among Israel are properly fixed in the 
 Mosaic economy. Moses instilled into the con- 
 gregation of Israel those truths which form the 
 foundation of prophecy, and thus prepared the 
 ground from which it could spring up. In the 
 time of Mose3 himself we find prophesying 
 growing out of those things which through him 
 were conveyed to the minds of the people. 
 The main business of Moses was not that of a 
 prophet ; but sometimes he was in the state of 
 prophetic elevation. In such a state originated 
 his celebrated song (Deut. xxxii.), which Eicli- 
 horn justly calls the Magna Chartaof prophecy ; 
 and Iris blessings (Deut. xxxiii.). Miriam, the 
 sister of Aaron, is called a prophetess (Exod. xv. 
 20; comp. Num. xii. 2, G), when she took a 
 timbrel and sang to the Lord, who had over- 
 thrown the enemy of the children of Israel. The 
 seventy elders are expressly stated to have been 
 impelled by the spirit of God to prophesy. In 
 the age of the Judges, prophecy, though existing 
 only in scattered instances, exerted a powerful 
 influence. Those who would deny this, in spite 
 of the plain evidence of history, do not consider 
 that the influential operation of prophets, flourish- 
 ing ip later times, requires preparatory steps. 
 k Now only,’ says Ewald justly, ‘ we are able to 
 perceive how full of strength and life was the 
 ground in which prophecy, to attain such an 
 eminence, must have sprung up.’ The more con- 
 spicuous prophetic agency begins with Samuel, 
 
 and the prophets’ soi.ools which he founded 
 From this time to the Babylonian exile, there 
 happened hardly any important event in which 
 the prophets did not appear as performing the 
 leading part. But although the influential ope- 
 ration of the prophets begins with Samuel, none 
 of the prophets up to the year b.c. 800 left, any 
 written prophecies. This was certainly not a 
 mere accident. Only when the more important 
 and extensive divine judgments approached, it be- 
 came necessary, by their announcement, to arouse 
 the impious from their slumber of listlessness, and 
 to open to the faithful the stores of consolation and 
 hope. Before this time, the living oral speech of 
 the prophets was the most important thing; but 
 now, when the Lord revealed to them more exten- 
 sive prospects, when their calling was not restricted 
 to present events merely, but forthcoming mo- 
 mentous changes were conveyed to their notice 
 and consideration, their written words became 
 equally important. About a hundred years after 
 the return from the Babylonian exile, the pro- 
 phetic profession ceased. The Jewish tradition 
 uniformly states that Haggai, Zechariah, and 
 Malachi were the last prophets. In the first book 
 of the Maccabees (ch. ix. 17) the discontinuance 
 of the prophetic calling is considered as forming 
 an important era in Jewish history ; while at the 
 same time an expectation of the renewal in future 
 ages of prophetic gifts is avowed (iv. 46 ; xiv. 41). 
 After the Babylonian exile the sacred writings were 
 collected, which enabled every one to find the way 
 of salvation; but the immediate revelations to 
 the people of Israel were to cease for awhile, in 
 order fo raise a stronger longing for the appear- 
 ance of the Messiah, and to prepare fo r him a wel- 
 come reception. For the same reason the ark of 
 the covenant had been taken away from the people. 
 The danger of a complete apostacy, which in 
 earlier times might have been incurred by this 
 withdrawal, was r.ot now to be apprehended. The 
 external worship of the Lord was so firmly esta- 
 blished, that, no extraordinary helps were wanted. 
 Taking also into consideration the altered cha- 
 racter of the people, we may add that the time 
 after the exile was more fit to produce men learned 
 in the law than prophets. Before this period, the 
 faithful and the unbelieving were strongly opposed 
 to each other, which excited the former to great 
 exertions. These relaxed when the opposition 
 ceased, and pious priests now took the place of 
 prophets. The time after the exile is characterized 
 by weakness and dependance; the people looked 
 up to the past as to a height which they eouM 
 not gain ; the earlier writings obtained uncon- 
 ditional authority, and the disposition for receiving 
 prophetic gifts was lost. 
 
 III. Manner of Life of the Prophets . — The 
 prophets went about poorly and coarsely dressed 
 (2 Kings i. 8), not as a mere piece of asceticism, 
 but that their very apparel might teach what the 
 people ought to do; it was a ‘sermo propheticus 
 realis.’ Compare 1 Kings xxi. 27, where Ahab 
 does penance in the manner figured by the pro- 
 phet : * And it came to pass, when Ahab hearo 
 these words, that he rent his clothes, and put sack- 
 cloth upon his flesh, and fasted.’ Generally the 
 prophets were not anxious of attracting notice by 
 ostentatious display; nor did they seek worldly 
 wealth, most of them living in poverty. an«<: 
 even want (l Kings xiv. 3; % Kings iv. 1, 
 
PROPHECY 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 38, 42 ; vi. *>). The decay of the congregation 
 of God deeply chagrined them (comp. Micah vii. 
 1, aiid many passages in Jeremiah). Insult, 
 persecution, imprisonment, and death, were often 
 the reward of their godly life. The author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews says (ch. xi. 37) : 
 * They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were 
 tempted, were slain with the sword : they wandered 
 about in sheep-skins and goat skins, being desti- 
 tute, afflicted, tormented’ (comp. Christ’s speech, 
 Matt, xxiii. 29, sq. ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, sq.). The 
 condition of the prophets, in their temporal humi- 
 liation, is vividly representeu m tne lives of Elijah 
 and Elisha in the books of the Kings; and Jere- 
 miah concludes the description of his sufferings in 
 the 20th chapter, by cursing the day of his birth. 
 Repudiated by the world in which they were 
 aliens, they typified the life of Him whose ap- 
 pearance they announced, and whose spirit dwelt 
 in them. They figured him, however, not only 
 in his lowness, but in his elevation. The Lord 
 stood by them, gave evidence in their favour by 
 fulfilling their predictions, frequently proved by 
 miracles that they were his own messengers, or 
 retaliated on their enemies the injury done them. 
 The prophets addressed the people of both king- 
 doms : they were not confined to particular 
 places, but prophesied where it was required. 
 For this reason they were most numerous in 
 capital towns, especially in Jerusalem, where 
 they generally spoke in the temple. Sometimes 
 their advice was asked, and then their prophecies 
 take the form of answers to questions submitted 
 to them (Isa. xxxvii., Ez. xx., Zech. vii.). But 
 much more frequently they felt themselves in- 
 wardly moved to address the people without their 
 advice having been asked, and they were not 
 afraid to stand forward in places where their ap- 
 pearance, perhaps, produced indignation and 
 terror. Whatever lay within or around the sphere of 
 religion and morals, formed the object of their care. 
 They strenuously opposed the worship of false gods 
 (Isa. i. 10, sq.), as well as the finery of women 
 (Isa. iii. 16, sq.). Priests, princes, kings, all 
 must hear them — must, however reluctantly, 
 allow them to perform their calling as long as 
 they spoke in the name of the true God, and as 
 long as the result did not disprove their pretensions 
 to be the servants of the invisible King of Israel. 
 (Jer. xxxvii. 15-21). There were institutions for 
 training prophets; the senior members instructed 
 a number of pupils and directed them. These 
 schools had been first established by Samuel (1 
 Bam. x. 8; xix. 19); and at a later time there 
 were such institutions in different places, as 
 Bethel and Gilgal (2 Kings ii. 3; iv. 38; vi. 1). 
 The pupils of the prophets lived in fellowship 
 united, and were called ‘sons of the prophets;’ 
 whilst the senior or experienced prophets were 
 considered as their spiritual parents, and were 
 styled fathers (comp 2 Kings ii. 12; vi. 21). 
 Samuel, Elijah, and Eli ilia, are mentioned as prin- 
 cipals of such institutions. From them the Lord 
 generally chose his instruments. Amos relates 
 of himself (vii. 14, 15), as a thing uncommon, 
 that he had been trained in no school of pro- 
 phets, but was a herdsman, when the Lord took 
 him to prophesy unto the people of Israel. At 
 the same time, this example shows that the be- 
 stowal of prophetic gifts was not limited to the 
 «choo! \f the prophets. Women also might come 
 
 6di 
 
 forward as prophetesses, as instanced in Miriam, 
 Deborah, and Huhlah, though such cases are of 
 comparatively rare occurrence. We should also 
 observe, that only as regards the kingdom of 
 Israel we have express accounts of the continu- 
 ance of the schools of prophets. What is re- 
 corded of them is not directly applicable to the 
 kingdom of Judah, especially since, as stated 
 above, prophecy had in it an essentially different 
 position. We cannot assume that the organiza- 
 tion and regulations of the schools of the prophet* 
 in the kingdom of Judah should have been as 
 settled and established as in the kingdom of 
 Israel. In the latter, the schools of the prophets 
 had a kind of monast ic constitution : they were not 
 institutions of general education, but missionary 
 stations; which explains the circumstance that they 
 were established exactly in places which were the 
 chief seats of superstition. The spiritual fathers 
 travelled about to visit the training schools ; the 
 pupils had their common board and dwelling, 
 and those who married and left, ceased not on 
 that account to be connected with their col- 
 leges, but remained members of them. The 
 widow of such a pupil of the schools of prophets, 
 who is mentioned in 2 Kings iv. 1, sq., considered 
 Elisha as the person bound to care for her. The 
 offerings which, by the Mosaic law, were to be 
 given to the Levites, were by the pious of the 
 kingdom of Israel brought to the schools of the 
 prophets (2 Kings iv. 42). The prophets of the 
 kingdom of Israel stood in a hostile position to 
 the priests. These points of difference in the 
 situation of the prophets of the two kingdoms 
 must not be lost sight of; and we further add, 
 that prophecy in the kingdom of Israel was much 
 more connected with extraordinary events than in 
 the kingdom of Judah : the history of the latter 
 offers no prophetical deeds equalling those of 
 Elijah and Elisha. Prophecy in the kingdom 
 of Israel not being grounded on a hierarchy 
 venerable for its antiquity, consecrated by divine 
 miracles, and constantly favoured with divine 
 protection, it needed to be supported more power- 
 fully, and to be legitimized more evidently. In 
 conclusion, it may be observed, that the expression 
 ‘schools of the prophets’ is not exactly suited 
 to their nature, as general instruction was not 
 their object. 1 he so-called prophets’ schools were 
 associations of men endowed with the spirit of 
 God, for the purpose of carrying on their work, 
 the feeble powers of junior members being di- 
 rected and strengthened by those of a higher class. 
 To those who entered these unions the Divine 
 Spirit had been already imparted, which was the 
 imperative condition of their reception. 
 
 IV. Symbolic Actions of the Prophets . — 
 In the midst of the prophetic declarations sym- 
 bolic actions are often mentioned, which the pro- 
 phets had to perform. The opinions of interpreters 
 on these are divided. Some asse’t that they 
 always, at least generally, were really done; 
 others assert that they had existence only in the 
 mind of the prophets, and formed part of their 
 visions. The latter view, which was espoused 
 by Calvin, is proved to be correct by a considerable 
 number of such symbolic actions as are either 
 impossible, or inconsistent with decorum. Thus 
 Hosea relates (i. 2-11) of himself ‘ that the Lord 
 had ordered him to take a wife of whoredom*, 
 for the land had committed great whoredom, d*> 
 
PROPHECY. 
 
 666 
 
 parting from the Lord ;’ and that he then had 
 taken Gomer, by whom he had several children. 
 That this is not to be taken as a real fact, is 
 proved by Hengstenberg’s (Christoloyie, vol. iii.); 
 where it. is shown that the prophet intended only 
 symbolically to depict the idolatrous disposition of 
 his nation. Another symbolic action of Jeremiah 
 prefigures the people’s destruction. He says 
 (xiii. 1-10) he had beeu by the Lord directed to 
 get a linen girdle, to put it on his loins, to under- 
 take a long tour to the Euphrates, and to hide 
 the girdle there in a hole of the rock. He does 
 so, returns, and after many days the Lord again 
 orders him to take the girdle from the place 
 where it was hidden, but ‘ the girdle was marred 
 aniLgood for nothing.’ In predicting the destruc- 
 tion of Babylon and a general war (xxv. 12-38), 
 he receives from the Lord a wine-cup, to cause a 
 number of kings of various nations, among 
 whom the sword would be sent, to drink from it 
 till they should be overcome. He then goes with 
 this cup to the kings of Egypt, Arabia, Persia, 
 Media, and many other countries. When the 
 prophet Ezekiel receives his commission and 
 instructions to prophesy against the rebellious 
 people of Israel, a roll of a book is presented to 
 him, which he eats by the direction of the Lord 
 (Ezek. ii. 9 ; iii. 2, 3). He is next ordered to lie 
 before the city of Jerusalem on his left side three 
 hundred and ninety days ; and when he had ac- 
 complished them, on his light side forty days. He 
 must not turn from one side to the other, and he is 
 ordered to bake with dung of man the bread which 
 he eats during this time (Ezek. iv. 4, 8, 12). Isaiah 
 is ordered to walk naked and barefoot, for a sign 
 upon Egypt and Ethiopia (Isa. xx. 2,3). Many 
 other passages of this kind might be adduced 
 from the books of the prophets, which compel us 
 to admit that they state internal, not external 
 facts. This may also further be supported by 
 other reasons. In the records of the prophets, 
 their seeing the Lord, hearing him speak, and 
 addressing him, are, no doubt, inward acts. 
 Why, then, not likewise their symbolic representa- 
 tions P The world in which the prophets moved 
 was quite different from the ordinary one; it was 
 not the sensible, but the spiritual world. Vision 
 and symbolic action are not opposed ; the 
 former is the general class, comprehending the 
 latter as a species. We must, however, not refer 
 all symbolic actions to internal intuition; at 
 least, of a false prophet we have a sure example 
 of an externally performed symbolic action (1 
 Kings xxii. 11), and the false prophets always 
 aped the true ones (comp. Jer. xix. 1, scp). In- 
 ward actions were sometimes, when it was pos- 
 sible and proper, materialized by external per- 
 •formance; they are always at the bottom, and 
 form the regular, natural explanation of the 
 symbolic actions of the prophets. To attain the 
 intended object, external performance was not 
 always required ; the internal action was nar- 
 rated, and committed to writing. It made a naked 
 statement more intuitive and impressive, and by 
 presenting the subject in a concentrated form, it 
 was preferable to external performance, which 
 could only take place when the sphere of internal 
 action was circumscribed, and did not extend 
 over long periods of time. 
 
 V. Criteria by which True and False Pro- 
 phets were distinguished . — As Moses had foretold. 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 a host of false prophets arose in later times arncng 
 the people, who promised prosperity without re- 
 pentance, and preached the Gospel without the law. 
 The writings of the prophets are full of complaints 
 of the mischief done by these impostors. Jeremiah 
 significantly calls them ‘ prophets of the deceit 
 of their own heart ;’ i. e. men who followed the 
 suggestions of their own fancy in prophesying 
 (Jer. xxiii. 26 ; comp. ver. 16, and ch. xiv.- 14). 
 All their practices prove the great influence which 
 true prophet ism had acquired among the people 
 of Israel. But how were the people to distinguish 
 true and false prophets ? In the law concerning 
 prophets (Deut. xviii. 20 ; comp. xiii. 7-9), the 
 following enactments are contained. 
 
 1. The prophet tv ho speaks in the name of 
 other Gods — i. e. professes to have his revelations 
 from a God different from Jehovah — is to be con- 
 sidered as false, and to be punished capitally ; 
 and this even though his predictions should come 
 to pass. 
 
 2. The same punishment is to be inflicted on 
 him who speaks in the name cf the true God, 
 but tohose predictions are not accomplished. 
 
 These enactments established a peculiar right 
 of the prophets. Pie who prophesied in the name 
 of the true God, was, even when he foretold cala- 
 mity, entitled to be tolerated, until it happened 
 that a prediction of his failed of accomplish- 
 ment. He might then be imprisoned, but could 
 not be put to death, as instanced in Jeremiah 
 (xxvi. 8-16), who is apprehended and arraigned, 
 but acquitted : ‘ Then said the princes and the 
 people unto the priests and the prophets, This 
 man is not worthy to die, for he has spoken to 
 us in the name of the Lord our God.’ Ahab is 
 by false prophets encouraged to attack Ramoth- 
 gilead, but Micaiah prophesied him no good; on 
 which the king becomes angry, and orders the pro- 
 phet to be confined (1 Kings xxii. 1-2^.) '• ‘ Take 
 Micaiah and put him in prison, and feed him with 
 bread of affliction, and with water of affliction, 
 until I come in peace.’ Micaiah answers (ver. 28) 
 
 ‘ If thou return at all in peace, the Lord has not 
 spoken by me.’ Until the safe leturn of the 
 king, Micaiah is to remain in prison; after that, 
 he shall be put to death. The prophet agrees to it, 
 and the king goes up to Ramoth-gilead, but is 
 slain in the battle. 
 
 3. From the above two criteria of a true pro- 
 phet, flows the third, that his addresses must be 
 in strict accordance with the lato. Whoever de- 
 parts from it cannot be a true prophet, for it 
 is impossible that the Lord should contradict 
 himself. 
 
 4. In the above is also founded the fojnth crite 
 l ion, that a true prophet must not promise pro 
 sperity without repentance ; and that he is a 
 false prophet, ‘of the deceit of his own heart,’ 
 who does not reprove the sins of the people, and 
 who does not inculcate on them the doctrines of 
 divine justice and retribution. 
 
 In addition to these negative criteria, there 
 were positive ones to procure authority to true 
 prophets. First of all, it must be assumed that 
 the prophets themselves received, along with the 
 divine revelations, assurance that these were really 
 divine. Any true communion with the Holy 
 Spirit affords the assurance of its divine nature,- 
 and the prophets could, therefore, satisfy them- 
 selves of their divine mission. The v e was Whi.ig 
 
PROPHECY. 
 
 PROPHECY. 
 
 637 
 
 Id mislead and delude them in this respect, for 
 temporal goods were not, bestowed upon them with 
 the gift of prophesying. Their own native dis- 
 nosition was often much averse to this calling, 
 and could be only conquered by the Lord forcibly 
 impelling them, as appears from Jer. xx. 8, 9: 
 
 ‘ Since 1 spake, the word of the Lord was made 
 a reproach unto me, and a derision daily. Then 
 1 said, I will not. make mention of him, nor speak 
 any more in his name : but bis word was in mine 
 heart as a burning tire shut up in my bones, and I 
 was weary with forbearing, and 1 could not stay.’ 
 Now, when the prophets themselves were convinced 
 of their divine mission, they could in various ways 
 prove it to others, whom they were called on to 
 enlighten. 
 
 (a.) To those who had any sense of truth, the 
 Spirit of God gave evidence that the prophecies 
 were divinely inspired. This testimonium spi- 
 ritus sancti is the chief argument for the reality 
 of a divine revelation, and he who is susceptible 
 of it does not, indeed, disregard the other proofs 
 suiting the wants of unimproved minds, but lays 
 less stress on them. 
 
 (5.) The prophets themselves utter their firm 
 conviction (hat they act and speak by divine au- 
 thority, not of their own accord ; (com}), the often 
 recurring phrase iTlrP DiO, Jer. xxvi. 12, &c.) 
 Their pious life bore testimony to their being 
 worthy of a nearer communion with God, and 
 defended them from the suspicion of intentional 
 deception ; their sobriety of mind distinguished 
 them from all fanatic?, and defended them from 
 the suspicion of self-delusion ; their fortitude in 
 suffering for truth proved that they had their 
 commission from no human authority. 
 
 (c.) Part of the predictions of the prophets 
 referred to proximate events, and their accom- 
 plishment was divine evidence of their divine 
 origin. Whoever had been once favoured with 
 such a testimonial, his authority was established 
 for his whole life, as instanced in Samuel. Of 
 him it is said (1 Sam. iii. 19) : ‘ The Lord was witli 
 him, and let none cf his words fall to the ground 
 (i.e. fulfilled them) ; and all Israel knew (from this) 
 that. Samuel was established to be a prophet of the 
 Lord.’ Of the divine mission of Isaiah no doubt 
 could be entertained after, for instance, bis pro- 
 phecies of the overthrow of Sennacherib before 
 Jerusalem had been fulfilled. The credentials of 
 the divine mission of Ezekiel were certified when 
 his prediction was accomplished, that Zedekiah 
 should be brought to Babylon, but should not see 
 ir, for the king was made prisoner and blinded 
 (Ezek. xii. 12, 13) ; they were further confirmed 
 by the fulfilment of his prediction concerning the 
 destruction of the city (Ezek. xxiv.). Jeremiah's 
 claims were authenticated by the fulfilment of his 
 prediction that Shallum, the son of Josiah king 
 of Judah, should die in his prison, and see his 
 native country no more (Jer. xxii. 1 1, 12). 
 
 (cf.) Sometimes the divine mission of the pro- 
 phets was also proved by miracles, but this oc- 
 curred only at important crises, when the exist- 
 ence of the kingdom of Israel was in jeopardy, 
 as in the age of Elijah and Elisha. Miracles 
 are mentioned as criteria of true prophets (Deut. 
 xiii. 2), still with this caution, that they should 
 not be trusted alone, but that the people should 
 inquire whether the negative criteria were extant. 
 
 (e.) Those prophets whose divine commission 
 
 had been sufficiently proved, bore testimony to th« 
 divine mission of others. It has been observed above, 
 that there was a certain gradation among the pro- 
 phets ; the principals of the colleges of prophets 
 procured authority to the * sons ’ of prophets. 
 Thus the deeds of Elijah and Elisha at the same 
 time authenticated the hundreds of prophets 
 whose superiors they were. Concerning the rela- 
 tion of the true prophets to each other, the passage 
 2 Kings ii. 9 is remarkable ; Elisha says to 
 Elijah, ‘ I pray thee, let a double portion of thy 
 spirit be upon me.’ Here Elisha, as the first-born 
 of Elijah in a spiritual sense, and standing to him 
 in the same relation as Joshua to Moses, asks for 
 a double portion of bis spiritual inheritance, 
 alluding to the law concerning the hereditary right 
 of the lawfully-begotten first-born son (Deut. xxi. 
 17). This case supposes that other prophets also 
 of the kingdom of Israel took portions of the ful- 
 ness of the spirit of Elijah. It is plain, then, that 
 only a few prophets stood in immediate commu- 
 nion with God, while that of the remaining was 
 formed by mediation. The latter were spiritually 
 incorporated in the former, and on the ground of 
 this relation, actions performed by Elisha, or 
 through the instrumentality of one of his pupils, 
 are at once ascribed to Elijah, e. g. the anointing 
 of Hazael to be king over Syria (1 Kings xix. 
 15; comp. 2 Kings viii. 13); the anointing of 
 Jehu to be king over Israel (1 Kings xix. 16, 
 comp. 2 Kings ix. 1, sq.); the writing of the letter 
 to Joram, &c. Thus in a certain sense it may be 
 affirmed, that Elijah was in his time the only 
 prophet of the kingdom of Israel. Similarly 
 of Moses it is recorded, during his passage 
 through the desert, that a portion of his spirit was 
 conveyed to the seventy elders. The history of 
 the Christian church itself offers analogies; look, 
 e. g. at the relation of the second class reformers 
 to Luther and Calvin. 
 
 VI. Promulgation of the Prophetic Declara- 
 tions. — Usually the prophets promulgated their 
 visions in public places before the congregated 
 people. Still some portions of the prophetic books, 
 as the entire second part of Isaiah and the descrip- 
 tion of the new temple (Ezek. xl.-xlviii.), pro- 
 bably were never communicated orally. In 
 other cases the prophetic addresses first delivered 
 orally were next, when committed to writing, re- 
 vised and improved. Especially the books of the 
 lesser prophets consist, for the greater part, not 
 of separate predictions, independent of each other, 
 but form, as they now are, a whole, that is, give 
 the quintessence of the prophetic labours of their 
 authors. In this case it is certain that the authors 
 themselves caused the collection to be made. But 
 it is so likewise in some cases where their books 
 really consist of single declarations, and in others 
 it is at least highly probable. Further particulars 
 concerning the manner in which prophetic rolls 
 were collected and published, we have only re- 
 specting Jeremiah, who, being in prison, called 
 Baruch, ‘to write from his mouth his predictions, 
 and to read them in the ears of the people ’ (Jer. 
 xxxviii. 4-14). There is evidence to prove that 
 the later prophets sedulously read the writings o! 
 the earlier, and that, a prophetic canon existed be- 
 fore the present was formed. The predictions ot 
 Jeremiah throughout rest on the writings of earlier 
 prophets, as Kuper has established in his Jeremiai 
 librorum sacrorum inierpres atque vindex, Her- 
 
PROPHECY. 
 
 PROSELYTE. 
 
 068 
 
 lin, 1537. Zechariah explicitly alludes to writ- 
 ings of former prophets ; ‘ to the words which the 
 Lord has spoken to earlier prophets, when Jeru- 
 ta.em was inhabited and in prosperity ’ (Zech. 
 i. 4; vii. 7, 1*2). In all probability we have 
 complete those predictions which were commit- 
 ted to writing; at least the proofs which Dr. 
 Ewald gives (p. 43, sq.) for his opinion, of pro- 
 phecies having been lost, do not stand trial. The 
 words ‘ a» the Lord hath said,’ in Joel ii. 32, refer 
 to the predictions of Joel himself. In Isa. ii.arul 
 Micah iv. nothing is introduced from a lost pro- 
 phetic roll, but Isaiah borrows from Micah. 
 Hosea alludes (ch. viii. 12), not to some unknown 
 work, but to the Pentateuch. In Isa. xv. and xvi. 
 the prophet repeats, not. another’s prediction, but 
 his own, previously delivered, to which he adds a 
 supplement. Obadiah and Jeremiah do not avail 
 themselves of the written address of a former pro- 
 phet, but Jeremiah makes the prophecy of Oba- 
 diah the groundwork of his own. The opinion 
 that in Isa. 1\ i. 10 ; lvii. 1 1, there was inserted, un- 
 altered, a long remnant of an older roll, is founded 
 on erroneous views respecting the time of its com- 
 position. The same holds good of Isa. xxiv., 
 where Ewald would find remnants of several 
 older rolls. The very circumstance, that in the 
 prophets there nowhere occurs a tenable ground 
 for maintaining that they referred to rolls lost 
 and unknown to us, but that they often allude to 
 writings which we know and possess, clearly 
 proves that there is no reason for supposing, with 
 Ewald, that a great number of prophetic compo- 
 sitions has been lost, ‘ and that of a large tree, only 
 a few blossoms have reached our time.’ In conse- 
 quence of the prophets being considered as organs 
 of God, much care was bestowed on the preserva- 
 tion of their publications. Ewald himself cannot 
 refrain from observing (p. 56), ‘ We have in Jer. 
 xxvi. 1-19 a clear proof of the exact knowledge 
 which the better classes of the people had of all 
 that had, a hundred years before, happened to a 
 prophet, of his words, misfortunes, and accidents.’ 
 
 The collectors of the Canon arranged the pro- 
 phets chronologically, but considered the whole 
 of the twelve lesser prophets as one work, which 
 they placed after Jeremiah and Ezekiel, inasmuch 
 as the three last lesser prophets lived later than 
 they. Daniel was placed in the Hagiographa, 
 because he had not filled the prophetic office. 
 The collection of the lesser prophets themselves 
 was again chronologically disposed ; still Hosea 
 is, on account of the extent of his work, allowed 
 precedence before those lesser prophets, who, ge- 
 nerally, wore his contemporaries, and also before 
 those who flourished at a somewhat earlier period. 
 
 On the general subject of prophecy no com- 
 prehensive or altogether satisfactory treatise has 
 yet been produced. Some good remarks will be 
 found in t he essay of John Smith, On Prophecy 
 (Select Discourses , disc. vi. p. 181, 8vo. ed. 
 Loud. 1821), which was translated into Latin 
 and reprinted at the end of Le Clerc's Com- 
 mentary on the Prophets, Amsterdam, 1731. 
 1 1 contains interesting passages on the nature of the 
 predictions in the Old Testament, extracted from 
 Jewish authors, of whom Maimonides is the most 
 distinguished. Of less importance is the essay 
 of Hermann Witsius, De Prophetia et Prophetis, 
 m vol. ». of his Miscellan. Sacra , Utrecht, 1692, 
 pj». 1-392 ; he digresses too much and needlessly 
 
 from the main question, and says little applicahli 
 to the point ; but he still supplies some useful 
 materials. The same remark also applies in sub- 
 stance to Ivnibbe’s History of the Prophets. 
 Some valuable remarks, but much more that is 
 arbitrary and untenable, will be found in Cel- 
 sius's Hypomnemata ad Theologiam Prophet ., 3 
 vols. Lips. 1761. In the Treatise on Prophecy , 
 inserted by Jahn in his Introduction to the Old 
 Testament , he endeavours to refute the views of 
 the Rationalists, but does not sift the subject to the 
 bottom. Kleuker’s work De Nexu Proph. inter 
 utrumque Focdus, possesses more of a genuine 
 theological character. The leader of the Ration- 
 alists is Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the Old 
 Testament , and in his dissertation, De Prophet. 
 Poe . Hebr. Their views on this subject are 
 most fully explained by Knobel, in his Pro - 
 phetismus der Hebrcecr vollstandig dargestellt , 
 Breslau, 1837, 2 vols. : the work contains, however, 
 little original research, and is valuable only as a 
 compilation of what the Rationalists assert con- 
 cerning prophecy. The work of Ivoster, Die Pro - 
 pheten des A. und N. T., Leipzig, 1838, bears a 
 higher character : on many points he approaches 
 to sounder views ; but he is inconsistent and waver- 
 ing, and therefore cannot be said to have essen- 
 tially advanced the knowledge of this subject. 
 Of considerable eminence is the treatise by 
 Ewald on prophecy, which precedes his work on 
 the prophets, published in 1840 at Stuttgart. But 
 to the important question, whether the prophets 
 enjoyed supernatural assistance or not"/ an ex- 
 plicit answer will here be sought for in vaii: 
 His view of the subject is in the main that of the 
 Rationalists, though he endeavours to veil it: 
 the Spirit of God influencing the prophets is in 
 fact, only their own mind worked up by circum- 
 stances ; their enthusiasm and eestaey are made 
 to explain all. Finally, the work of Hollmann, 
 Weissagung und Erfullung im A. und N. T ., 
 Nordlingen, 1841, vol. i., is chargeable with spu- 
 rious and affected originality : his views are often 
 in their very details forced and strained; and it 
 is to be regretted that the subject has by this 
 work gained less than from the author's talent 
 might have been expected. 
 
 English works on Prophecy, besides those of 
 Smith and Knibbe above mentioned : — Sherlock, 
 Discourses on the Use and Intent of Prcphecy, 
 8vo. 1755 ; Hurd, Introd. to the Study of the 
 Prophecies , &c. Svo. 1772; Apthorp, Discourses 
 on Prophecy, 2 vols. Svo. 1786 ; Davison, Dis- 
 courses on Prophecy, in which are considered its 
 Structure , Use, and Inspiration, 8vo. 1821; 
 Smith ( J. Pye), Principles of Interpretation as 
 applied to the Prophecies of Holy Scripture , 
 Svo. 1 829 ; Brooks, Elements of Prophetical 
 Interpretation, 12mo. 1837; Hi»ne, Introduc- 
 tion, vol. ii. p. 534 ; iv. p. 140; Alexander, Con- 
 nection of the Old and New Testaments, Lect. 
 iv.-vii. pp. 168-382, 8vo, 1841. — E W. H. 
 
 PROSELYTE (irpoogMnos), the name applied 
 in the New Testament and the Septuagint to con- 
 verts from heathenism to Judaism ( TTpoo-rjAvros * oi 
 e| eQv&v -7rpo(r€\T]\v96res Kcd Kara tovs Belovs 
 TToXiTevopevoi v6pous, Suidas, in voc .). In the Old 
 Testament such persons are called D'U, strangers 
 advenes, and settlers, incolee. For thi 
 
 reception and treatment of these, provision was 
 made in tne law of Moses (Exod. xii. 48 ; Lev 
 
PROSELYTE. 
 
 PROSELYTE. 
 
 56* 
 
 xvii. 8; Mum. xv. 15, &c.) ; and tlie whole 
 Jewish state was considered as composed of the 
 two classes, Jews, and strangers within their gates, 
 or proselytes. In later years this distinction wa^ 
 observed even to the second generation ; a child 
 of pure Jewish descent on both sides being desig- 
 nated nny p nay, *e Ppcuos <=£ 'Eppatuu (Phil. 
 
 iii 5), whilst the son of a proselyte was denomi- 
 nated *73"p ; and if both parents were proselytes 
 he was styled by the Rabbins, 3233, a contrac- 
 tion for mrpi “irp ( Pirkc Avoth , cap. 5). 
 
 It has been customary to make a distinction 
 between two classes of Jewish proselytes, the one 
 denominated proselytes of the gate, and the other 
 proselytes of the covenant, or of righteousness. 
 Under the former have been included those con- 
 verts from heathenism who had so far renounced 
 idolatry as to become worshippers of the one God, 
 and to observe, generally, what have been called 
 the seven Noanhic precepts, viz., against idolatry, 
 profanity, incest, murder, dishonesty, eating blood, 
 or things strangled, and allowing a murderer to 
 live, but; had not formally enrolled themselves in 
 the Jewish state. The latter is composed of those 
 who had submitted to circumcision, and in all 
 respects become converts to Judaism. The accu- 
 racy of this distinction, however, has been called 
 in question by several, especially by Lardner, 
 whose arguments appear decisive of the question 
 ( Works , vol. vi. pp. 522-533 ; vol. xi. pp. 313-324, 
 8vo. edit. 1788). That there were, in later times 
 especially, many among the Jews who had re- 
 nounced the grosser parts of heathenism without 
 having come over entirely to Judaism, is beyond 
 all doubt; but that these were ever counted pro- 
 selytes admits of question. Certain it is that 
 the proselytes mentioned in the New Testament 
 were all persons who had received circumcision, 
 and entered the pale of the Jewish community ; 
 they were persons who, according to the phrase- 
 ology of the Old Testament, had become Jews 
 (D’HIVriD, Esth. viii. 17 ; Lardner, loc. cii.). 
 It is probable that the distinction above men- 
 tioned was introduced by the later Rabbins for 
 the sake of including among the conquests of 
 their religion those who, though indebted probably 
 to the Jewish Scriptures for their improved faith, 
 were yet not inclined to submit to the ritual of 
 Judaism, or to become incorporated with the 
 Jewish nation. That this, however, was not. the 
 ancient view is clearly apparent from a passage 
 in the Babylonian Gemara, quoted by Light foot 
 ( Ilor. Heb. et Talm. in Matt. iii. 6), where it is 
 said expressly that ‘No one is a proselyte until 
 such time as he has been circumcised.’ Fiirst, 
 himself a Jew, confirms our suggestion ; for in a 
 note upon the word “73, in his Concordantice 
 Libb. V. T., he says : ‘ Judeei, interpretations magis 
 dogmatica quam historica, de eo interpretantur 
 qui superstitiones barbaras repud iavit.’ 
 
 The rites by which a proselyte was initiated 
 are declared by the Rabbins to- have been, in the 
 case of a man, three, viz., circumcision, baptism , 
 
 and a free-will sacrifice n^D n 
 
 imp bw DW n&Yinm); in the case of a 
 woman the first was of necessity omitted. As to 
 lie first and last of these, their claim to be regarded 
 is accordant with the ancient practice of the Jews 
 has been on all hands admitted without scruple ; 
 Wt it has been matter of keen question whether 
 
 the second can be admitted to have been practised 
 before the Christian era. The substance of much 
 learned discussion on this head we shall attempt 
 summarily to state. 
 
 There is no direct evidence that tln3 rite was 
 practised by the Jews before the second or third 
 century of the Christian era ; but the fact that it 
 was practised by them then necessitates the in- 
 quiry : when and how did such a custom arise 
 among them 1 ? That they borrowed it from the 
 Christians is an opinion which, though supported 
 by De VVette (in his Treatise De Morte Christi 
 expiatorid ), cannot be for a moment admitted by 
 -any who reflect on the implacable hatred with 
 which the Jews for many centuries regarded 
 Christianity, its ordinances, and its professors. 
 Laying aside this view, there are only two others 
 which have been suggested. The one is that prose- 
 lyte baptism was practised among the Jews from 
 a period long anterior to the birth of Christ ; the 
 other is that the custom of baptizing proselytes 
 arose gradually out of (he habit which the Jews 
 had of purifying by ablution whatever they 
 deemed unclean, and came to be raised for the 
 first time to the importance of an initiatory ordi- 
 nance after the destruction of the temple service, 
 and when, in consequence of imperial edicts, it 
 became difficult to circumcise converts. This 
 latter opinion is that of Sehneckenburger ( Ueb. das 
 Alter d. Jud. Prosely-tentaufe, Berlin, 1828), and 
 has been espoused by several eminent German 
 scholars. To us, however, it appears exceedingly 
 unsatisfactory. The single fact adduced in sup- 
 port of it, viz., the difficulty of circumcising 
 converts in consequence of the imperial edicts 
 against proselytism is a singularly infelicitous 
 piece of evidence ; for, as the question to be solved 
 is : how came the later Rabbins to prescribe both 
 baptism and circumcision as initiatory rites for 
 proselytes? — it is manifestly absurd to reply that 
 it was, because they could only baptise and could 
 not circumcise : such an answer is a contradic- 
 tion, not a solution of the question. Besides, this 
 hypothesis suggests a source of proselyte baptism 
 which is equally available for that which it is 
 designed to supersede ; for, if the practice of bap- 
 tizing proselytes on their introduction into Juda- 
 ism had its rise in the Jewish habit of ablution, 
 why might not this have operated in the way sug- 
 gested, two hundred years before Christ, as well 
 as two hundred years after Christ? And in fine, 
 this hypothesis still leaves unremoved tire master 
 difiicult.y of that side of the question which it is 
 designed to support, viz., the great improbability 
 of the Jews adopting for the first time subsequently 
 to the death of Christ, a religious rite which was 
 well known to be the initiatory rite of Christianity. 
 Assuming that they practised that rite before, we 
 can account for their not giving it up simply be- 
 cause the Christians had adopted it ; but, trace it 
 as we please to Jewish customs and rites, it seems 
 utterly incredible that after it had become the 
 symbol and badge of the religious party which 
 of all others, perhaps, the Jews most bitterly 
 hated, any consideration whatever should have 
 induced them to begin to practise it. On the 
 other hand we have, in favour of the hypothesis 
 that proselyte baptism was practised anterior te 
 the time of our Lord, some strongly corroborative 
 evidence. We have, in the first place, the unani- 
 mous tradition of the Jewish Rabbins, who impute 
 
#70 
 
 PROSELYTE. 
 
 PROSEUCHA. 
 
 to the practif e an antiquity commensurate almost 
 with diat of their nation. 2dly. We have the 
 fact tha. the baptism of John the Baptist was not 
 regarded by the people as aught of a novelty, nor 
 was represented by him as resting for its authority 
 upon any special divine revelation. 3dly. We 
 have the fact that the Pharisees looked upon the 
 baptism both of John and Jesus as a mode of pro- 
 selyting men to their religious views (John iv. 
 1-3), and that the dispute between the Jews and 
 some of John’s disciples about purifying was ap- 
 parently a dispute as to the competing claims of 
 John and Jesus to make proselytes (John' iii. 
 2) sq.). 4thlv. We have the fact, that on the 
 day of Pentecost Peter addressed to a multitude 
 of persons collected from several different and 
 distant countries, Jews and proselytes, an ex- 
 hortation to ‘Repent and be baptized* (Acts 
 ii. 38), from which it may be fairly in- 
 ferred that they all knew what baptism meant, 
 and also its connection with repentance or a 
 change of religious views. 5thly. We have the 
 fact, that according to Josephus, the Essenes were 
 in the habit, before admitting a new convert into 
 their society, solemnly and ritually to purify him 
 with waters of cleansing ( De Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7), 
 a statement which cannot be understood of their 
 ordinary ablutions before meals (as Mr. Stuart 
 proposes in his Essay on the Mode of Baptism, 
 p. 67); for Josephus expressly adds, that even 
 after this lustration two years had to elapse be- 
 fore the neophyte enjoyed the privilege of living 
 with the Proficients. And, Gthly. We have the 
 mode in which Josephus speaks of the baptism of 
 John, when, after referring to John's having ex- 
 ported the people to virtue, righteousness, and 
 godliness, as preparatory to baptism, he adds, 
 ‘ For it appeared to him that baptism was ad- 
 missible not when they used it for obtaining for- 
 giveness of some sins, but for the purification of 
 the body when the soul had been already cleansed 
 by righteousness ’ (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2) ; which 
 seems to indicate the conviction of the his- 
 torian that John did not introduce this rite, but 
 only gave to it a peculiar meaning. A passage 
 has also been cited from Arrian’s Discoitrses 
 of Epictetus (ii. 9), in which, after stating 
 that some who called themselves Jews yet 
 played a double part, he adds, ‘ But if any one 
 assume the condition (or endure the suffering, 
 QMaXafiri rb vaOos) of one who has been baptized 
 and convicted (ypyperov, instead of which some 
 have conjectured that -tt epippypei/ou, circumcised, 
 is the true reading), then is lie indeed a Jew, and 
 is called such.’ Were one sure that in this 
 passage Arrian did not confound Jews with 
 Christians, his testimony would be of great value 
 in regard to the antiquity of Jewish baptism ; 
 but the doubt attaching to this point, and the 
 general obscurity of the passage (which we have 
 translated somewhat differently from the usual 
 rendering; but as the words seem to us to require), 
 make it unsafe to lay much stress upon it. 
 
 On these grounds we adhere to the opinion that 
 proselyte baptism was known as a Jewish rite 
 anterior to the birth of Christ. The reader will 
 find the whole subject amply discussed in the 
 following works : Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. 
 ii. 2; Otho, Lex. llab. p. 65; Light foot, Ilor. 
 Heb . it Talm. in Matt. iii. G; Danz in Meus- 
 chenii Nov. Test, ex Talm. lllust. p. 233 sq., 
 
 287 sq. ; Witsius, Occon. Foed. iv. 15 ; Kuinoe’i, 
 Conun. in Libros N. T. IJistor. ap. Matt. iii. 6, 
 and Dr. Halley’s recent volume on the Sacra* 
 me?its, Lond. 1844, p. 114 If., all of whom con- 
 tend for the antiquity of Jewish proselyte bap- 
 tism, whilst the following take the opposite side: 
 WernsdorlT, Controv. de Bapt. Recent. § 18; 
 Carpzov, Apparat. p. 47 sq. ; Paulus, Comment. 
 i. 279; Bauer, Gottesdienst. Verfassung der 
 Alien Heb. ii. 392; Schneckenburger, Lib. 
 suj). cit. : and Moses Stuart, do. (American 
 Bib Rep. No. X.). 
 
 From the time of the Maccabees the desire to 
 make proselytes prevailed among the Jews to a 
 very great extent, especially on the part of the 
 Pharisees, whose intemperate zeal for this object 
 our Lord pointedly rebuked (Matt, xxiii. 15). 
 The greater part of their converts were females, 
 which has been ascribed to the dislike of the 
 males to submit to circumcision. Josephus tells 
 us that the Jews at Antioch were continually 
 converting great numbers of the Greeks (De Bell. 
 Jiul. vii. 3. 3), and that nearly all the women at 
 Damascus were attached to Judaism ( Ibid . ii. 
 20. 2; comp. Antiq. xvii. 11 ; xx. 2; De Bell. 
 Jud. 2. 18, &c. ; Tacit. Hist. 5. 5 ; Dion Cass. 
 37. p. 21). 
 
 On the subject of this article generally, besides 
 the works of Carpzov, Bauer, and Otho, already 
 referred to, the reader may consult Jahn, Archae - 
 ologie, iii. 215 ff. ; Lensden, Phil. Hcbr. Mixt. 
 p. 142 sq. ; Alting, Diss. de Proselytis, Thes. 
 27 sq. ; Horne's Introduction, vol. iii. p. 265 ff. — 
 
 W. L. A. 
 
 PROSEUCHA (Trpocrevxv), a word signifying 
 ‘prayer,’ and always so translated in the Auth. 
 Version. If is, however, applied, per meton., to a 
 place of prayer, — a place where assemblies for 
 prayer were held, whether a building or not. 
 In this sense it seems also to be mentioned in 
 Luke vi. 12, where it is said that our Saviour 
 went up into a mountain to pray, and continued 
 all night eu rij tt pocrevxfi too 0eoo, which can 
 hardly bear the sense our translators have put 
 upon it, ‘ in prayer to God.’ This is admitted 
 by Whitby and others, who infer, from the use of 
 parallel phrases, such as ‘the mount of God,' 
 ‘ the bread of God,’ ‘ the altar of God,’ ‘ the 
 lamp of God,’ &c., which were all things con- 
 secrated or appropriated to the service of God, 
 that the phrase npoaevxfi rod 0eou might here 
 signify ‘an oratory of God,* or a place that was 
 devoted to his service, especially for prayer. In 
 the same sense the phrase must, still more cer- 
 tainly, be understood in Acts xvi. 13. where we 
 are informed that Paul and his companions, on 
 the sabbath day, went out of the city, by the river 
 side, ou evopi^ro rpocrevxv which the 
 
 Auth. Vers, renders * where prayer was wont to 
 be made.* But (he Syriac here has, ‘ because 
 there was perceived to be a house of prayer; 
 and the Arabic, ‘ a certain place which was sup- 
 posed to be a place of prayer' In both these ver- 
 sions due stress is laid upon ov iuopt^tro, where 
 there was taken, or supposed to be; or where, 
 according to received custom, there was; orwheie 
 there was allowed by law, — a proseucha, or oratory ; 
 and where, therefore, they expected to meet an 
 assembly of people. Bos contends (Exercit, 
 Philol. in loc.), however, that the word ivcpf- 
 £er o is redundant, and that the passage o igh! 
 
PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 (imply to be, ‘ where there was a proseucha 
 hut in this he is ably opposed by Eisner ( Obscrv. 
 Sacr. in loc.). 
 
 That there really were such places of devotion 
 among the Jews is unquestionable. They were 
 mostly outside those towns in which there were no 
 synagogues, because the laws or their admi- 
 nistrators would not admit any. This was, per- 
 haps, particularly the case in Roman cities and 
 colonies (and Philippi, where this circumstance 
 occurred, was a colony) ; for Juvenal (Sat. iii. 296) 
 speaks of proseuchae, not synagogues, at Rome : 
 
 ‘ Ede, ubi consistas ; in qua te quaero prosu- 
 cha !’ 
 
 They appear to have been usually situated near 
 a river, or the sea-shore, for the convenience of 
 ablution (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 10, 23). Josephus 
 rejieafedly mentions proseuchae in his Life, and 
 speaks of the people being gathered els ri;v tt pocr- 
 ei'XV (Vita, § 44, 46). Sometimes the pros- 
 eucha was a large building, as that at Tiberias 
 {l. c. § 54), so that the name was sometimes 
 applied even to synagogues (Yitringa, Synag. Vet. 
 p. 119). Proseu chse are frequently mentioned as 
 buildings by Philo, particularly in his oration 
 against Flaccus, where he complains that the 
 TTpoaevxa.'i of the Jews were pulled down, and that 
 no place was left them in which to worship God 
 and pray for Caesar (Philo, in Flacc. Opera , 
 ]>. 752). But, for the most part, the proseuchae 
 appear to have been places in the open air, in a 
 grove, or in shrubberies, or even under a tree, al- 
 though always, as we may presume, near water, 
 for the convenience of those ablutions which with 
 the Jews always preceded prayer, as, indeed, they 
 did among the pagans, and as they do among the 
 Moslems at the present day. The usages of the 
 latter exhibit something answering to the Jewish 
 proseuchae, in the shape of small oratories, with a 
 niche indicating the direction of Mecca, which is 
 often seen in Moslem countries by the side of a 
 spring, a reservoir, or a large water-jar, which is 
 daily replenished for the use of travellers (Whitby, 
 De J)ieu, Wetstein, Kuinoel, on Acts xvi. 13 ; 
 Jennings's Jewish Antiquities , pp. 379-382 ; 
 l'rideaux’s Connection , ii. 556). 
 
 PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF. That Solo- 
 mon was the author of the Book of Proverbs 
 ha3 never been questioned. Some have indeed 
 thought that he composed a part only of the 
 Proverbs included in that book, and collected 
 the others from various sources. It is probable, 
 indeed, that he availed himself of any sayings 
 already current which he regarded as useful and 
 important. Whether he ever made any collec- 
 tion of his proverbs in writing is, however, doubt- 
 ful. From the twenty-fifth chapter to the end, 
 we are expressly informed, was written out and 
 added to the previous portion, by order of King 
 Hezekiah. The divine authority of the book is 
 sufficiently proved by the quotations made from 
 it in the New Testament (Rom. xii. 16; Heb. 
 xii. 5, 6 ; l Pet. iv. 8; 1 Tiiess. v. 15). Each of 
 the books attributed to Solomon is sui generis, 
 both as to matter and manner. In reference to 
 the remarkable poem called ‘ The Song of Solo- 
 mon,’ this is evident at a glance. Ecclesiastes, 
 abounding in seeming contradictions, proposing 
 the most startling paradoxes, and holding alter- 
 nately the language of the Epicurean and the 
 
 PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF. 571 
 
 Stoic, has proved scarcely less a stone of stum- 
 bling to the commentators. Tliebook of Proveibs, 
 if less obscure than these two, is not less strikingly 
 marked by peculiarities of form and diction, and 
 not less worthy of attentive study. 
 
 It has in all ages, indeed, been regarded as a 
 great storehouse of practical wisdom. The early 
 fathers were accustomed to call it iravapKeros 
 cro<pia. Modern writers have been equally filled 
 with admiration of the profound knowledge Oi 
 human nature displayed in it, its accurate deli- 
 neations of character, and the wonderful richness 
 and appropriateness of its instructions. ‘ Truly,’ 
 says one of the most eminent men of our age, 
 ‘ in all points of prudence, public and private, 
 we may accommodate to the Royal Preacher 
 his own words (Eccles. ii. 12), What can the 
 man say that cometh after the king ? Even 
 that which hath been said already .’ . 
 
 The Hebrew word rendered proverb, p&D 
 maushal , is derived from a root which means, 
 1. to resemble , to compare ; 2. to mile; and sig- 
 nifies primarily a similitude or comparison of 
 two objects. Many of the proverbs of Solomon 
 are of this nature, e.g.x. 26 ; xxv. 11, 12, 13, 14, 
 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28. Hence the meaning of 
 the word may have been gradually extended so 
 as to embrace any apophthegm or brief pithy 
 saying. Ur we may consider this meaning to 
 have been derived from the other signification of 
 
 , viz., to rule; whence authoritative maxims. 
 
 The idea of resemblance, however, seems to be 
 the prominent one, and may refer to the figura- 
 tive style common in proverbs, even when no 
 direct comparison is instituted. And as highly 
 figurative language belongs to poetry, it came to 
 pass that maushal was used to indicate any com- 
 position expressed in a highly ornamented and 
 poetic style. Thus the prophecy of Balaam is 
 called maushal (Num. xxiii. 7). 
 
 The characteristics of the proverbial style (iv 
 the more restricted sense of the word) are, accord- 
 ing to Bishop Lowth, 1. Brevity; 2. Obscurity; 
 3. Elegance. The first of these is, however, the 
 only one that can be considered at all universal. 
 Many of the Proverbs of Solomon can hardly lay 
 claim to elegance, according to the most liberal 
 application of the term, and comparatively few 
 of them are at all obscure as to meaning. The 
 same remark applies with even greater force to 
 the proverbs of every day life, e. g. Time and tide 
 wait for no man. Ilaste makes waste. We must 
 make hay while the sun shines. A fool and 
 his money are soon parted. We should be rather 
 inclined to name, as a characteristic of the pro 
 verb, a pointed and sometimes antithetical form 
 of expression ; and this, in addition to brevity or 
 sententiousness, constitutes perhaps the only uni- 
 versal distinction of this species of composition. 
 Conciseness indeed enters into the very essence of 
 the proverb ; and this fact is probably indicated 
 by the word itself; proverbia, for, or instead of 
 words, i. e. one word for many. 
 
 We were about to adduce examples from the 
 book of Proveibs, of these tw 1 excellencies — sen- 
 tentiousness and point — but it is impossible to 
 select, where almost every verse is an illustration. 
 Nor should it be forgotten that the structure of 
 the Hebrew language admits of a much higher 
 degree of excellence in this particular than is 
 
572 PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 possible in the English tongue. We give two 
 examples taken at random. ‘ A man's heart 
 deviseth his way : but the Lord directeth his 
 steps.' Here are twelve words; in the original 
 seven only are employed. ‘ When a man's 
 ways please the Lord , he maheth even his enemies 
 to be at peace with him .’ Eighteen words ; in 
 the He I >re w eight. 
 
 From what has been said of the characteristics 
 of the proverbial or parabolic style, it is obvious 
 that it possesses peculiar advantages as a medium 
 of communicating truth. The proverb once heard 
 remains fixed in the memory. Its brevity, its 
 appositeness, its epigrammatic point, often aided 
 by antithesis or paronomasia, not only ensure its 
 remembrance, but very probably its recurrence 
 to the mind at the very time when its warning 
 voice may be needed. It utters in a tone of 
 friendly admonition, of gentle remonstrance, of 
 stern reproof, or of vehement denunciation, its 
 wholesome lesson in the ear of the tried, the 
 tempted, and the guilty. Such words are em- 
 phatically ‘ as goods and as nails fastened in a 
 sure place.’ 
 
 Another reason why the mode of conveying 
 truth by apophthegms is peculiarly fitted to im- 
 press the mind, is the same which explains the fact, 
 that, mere outline sketches, executed with grace 
 and spirit (Retzsch’s for instance), please more 
 than finished and elaborate drawings, viz., they 
 leave more to the imagination. No man likes to 
 have everything done for him. The exercise of 
 the imagination, kindled by the lips or the pencil 
 of genius, creates a far higher pleasure than arises 
 from merely beholding what another has wrought. 
 It is because the proverb exerts this awakening 
 effect on the mind’ because it suggests more than 
 it expresses, that it pieases. 
 
 The same effect is produced by the obscurity 
 observable in some ] roverbs ; an obscurity con- 
 sequent in part on their seutentiousuess, and in 
 part on their figurative dress. It is true that 
 obscurity may become a source of annoyance 
 instead of pleasure ; but this is only when it exists 
 in such a degree as to baffle the efforts made to 
 dispel it. When the difficulty is one which a 
 slight exertion of thought and ingenuity is suffi- 
 cient to surmount, it attracts rather than repels. 
 
 The advantages above specified apply to the 
 proverbial mode of writing in any age and among 
 any people. But Solomon must have had other 
 reasons for selecting it, peculiar to the age and 
 cp \ntry in which he lived. The Hebrews have 
 been called a nation of children. The mode of 
 teaching by aphorisms is especially adapted to 
 men in an early stage of culture, who have not 
 yet learned to arrange and connect their various 
 knowledges into a system. The deductions of 
 their experience lie in their minds in the form of 
 detached and disconnected maxims. Not being 
 able to trace the philosophical connection between 
 different facts, and caring not to investigate 
 causes, they are more impressed by the bold 
 assertion, the energetic command, or the brief 
 warning, than by amplified and elaborate dis- 
 courses. Accordingly we find this mode of writ- 
 ing employed in the most remote ages ; and wise 
 sayings, maxims, apophthegms, constitute a large 
 part of the early literature of most nations. Espe- 
 cially is this true of the Oriental nations. The 
 fomlness of the people of the East for parables, 
 
 PROVERBS. THE BOOK OF. 
 
 enigmas, allegories, and pithy sayings, has itself 
 become a proverb. It is recorded as a proof of 
 the wisdom of Solomon, that ‘ he spoke three 
 thousand proverbs' (1 Kings iv. 32); and Solo- 
 mon himself says, that in his time, such sayings 
 formed the chief study of the learned. A wis«* 
 man will seek 
 
 4 To understand a proverb and the interpretation j 
 The words of the wise and their dark sayings.’ 
 
 Recent travellers in the East assure us that 
 this reverence for proverbs still exists there ; and 
 that nothing gives a man so much advantage in 
 an argument as the ability to quote one of them 
 on his side. We may therefore conclude that the 
 wise king could have found no better mode of 
 impressing truth on the minds of his countrymen 
 than the one he has here chosen. 
 
 Let us examine more particularly the.style 
 and contents of the book. As to its style we find 
 it to be marked by those characteristics which 
 distinguish the poetry of the Hebrews from their 
 prose compositions. Of these, one of the most 
 obvious and important is what, since Bishop 
 Lowtli s day, has been termed Parallelism. This 
 consists in a certain resemblance or correspond- 
 ence, either as to thought or form, or both, be- 
 tween the members a period. The two most 
 simple kinds of parallelism, and the only two we 
 shall notice here, are when the period contains 
 hut two members, and the last either repeats the 
 thought contained in the first, or presents an anti- 
 thetical assertion, beginning generally with the 
 adversative but. The first kind of parallelism is 
 called by Lowtli synonymous , the second anti- 
 thetic. The following passage is a beautiful ex- 
 ample of Synonymous Parallelism : — 
 
 ‘My son, if thou wilt receive my words, 
 
 And hide my commandments with thee; 
 
 So that thou incline thine ear to wisdom, 
 
 And apply thy heart to understanding; 
 
 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, 
 
 And liftest up the voice for understanding; 
 
 If thou seekest her as silver, 
 
 And searchest for her as for hid treasures; 
 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the 
 Lord, 
 
 And find the knowledge of God.’ 
 
 Prov. ii. 1 - 5 . 
 
 As an instance of Antithetic Parallelism, take 
 these verses. 
 
 ‘ The fear of the Lord prolongeth days ; 
 
 But the years of the wicked shall he shortened. 
 The hope ol the righteous shall be gladness; 
 But the expectation of the wicked shall perish. 
 The way of the Lord is strength to the upright ; 
 ik.t destruction shall be to the workers of 
 iniquity.’ Prov. x. 27-29. 
 
 It will he perceived that there is a continuity 
 in the former of these passages, which does not 
 belong to the latfer. In fact the first nine 
 chapters of the book of Proverbs are remarkably 
 distinguished from the remainder, and consti- 
 tute a sort, of proem or exordium to the work. 
 This portion was probably committed to writing, 
 while the disconnected aphorisms which compose 
 the greater part of the remaining portion were only 
 uttered. It is a continuous discourse, written in 
 the highest style of poetry, adorned with apt and 
 beaut, ilul illustrations, and with various afcd 
 striking figures. The personification of YVisdoJH 
 
PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF. 
 
 those chapters is universally regarded as one of 
 ;he most beautiful examples of Prosopopeia to be 
 found in the Bible, and possesses an indescrib- 
 able grace and majesty. What can be finer than 
 the passage (oh. viii. 22-31), where many eminent 
 critics are ot opinion that the Son ot God is to 
 be understood as speaking. In the next chapter 
 the word Wisdom has a feminine termination ; 
 and Wisdom and Folly are personified as fe- 
 males. The contrast between their respective 
 pretensions and invitations may be made more 
 evident than it is in our version by arranging the 
 passages in apposition to each other. 
 
 Wisdom hath builded her house, 
 
 She hath hewn out her seven pillars, 
 
 She hath killed her beasts, 
 
 She hath mingled her wine, 
 
 She hath also furnished her table, 
 
 She hath sent forth her maidens, 
 
 She crieth upon the highest places of the city , 
 
 ■ Whoso is simple let him turn in hither.’ 
 
 To him who wanteth understanding she saith : 
 
 Come, eat of my bread; 
 
 And drink of the wine I have mingled. 
 Forsake the foolish and live ; 
 
 And go in the way of understanding ; 
 
 For by me thy days shall be multiplied, 
 
 And the years of thy life shall be increased 
 Folly is clamorous; 
 
 She is simple and knoweth nothing. 
 
 She sitteth at the door of her house, 
 
 On a seat in the high places of the city, 
 
 To call passengers who go right on their ways ; 
 
 ‘ Whoso is simple let him turn in hither.’ 
 
 To him who wanteth understanding she saith : 
 
 ‘ Stolen waters are sweet, 
 
 And bread eaten in secret is pleasant.’ 
 
 But he knoweth not that the dead are there, 
 And that her guests are in the depths of the 
 grave. 
 
 At the tenth chapter a different style com- 
 mences. From ch. x. to ch. xxii. 17. is a series 
 of pithy disconnected maxims, on various sub- 
 jects, and applicable to the most diverse situa- 
 tion. From ch. xxii. 17 to ch. xxv. a style re- 
 sembling that of the exordium, though inferior in 
 elegance and sublimity, prevails; and at the 
 hventy-fiffh chapter the separate maxims recom- 
 mence. These compose the remainder of the book, 
 with the exception of the thirtieth chapter, which 
 is ascribed to Agur, and the thirty-first, which is 
 said to be the advice given to king Lemuel by 
 nis mother. Who these persons are is not known. 
 The supposition that Lemuel is another name of 
 Solomon does not appear to be supported by proof. 
 
 The thirtieth chapter affords an example of 
 another species of writing, closely allied to the 
 proverb, and equally in favour among the Ori 
 entals. It is that of riddles or enigmas, designed 
 to exercise the wit and ingenuity of the hearer, 
 and to impart instruction through the medium of 
 amusement. Of this kind is the riddle proposed 
 'ay Samson (Judg. xiv. 12-18). The seventeenth 
 chapter of Ezekiel contains a very beautiful 
 riddle or parable, in which the king of Babylon 
 •s spoken of under the figure of a great eagle 
 with spreading wings. Marry of the symbolical 
 acta enjoined by God upon the prophets, which 
 perhaps apjear to modern readers of Scripture 
 
 PROVERBS, THE BOOK OF. 573 
 
 extremely childish and ridiculous, are of the 
 same nature ; and thus, however unsuited to our 
 times, were perfectly well adapted to impress and 
 interest the Hebrews (e. g. Jer. xiii. l-l 1 ; 
 xviii. 1-6; xxiv. l-l 0). Sometimes these riddles 
 assumed the form of a brief narration, and were 
 called fables or parables. See the beautiful fable 
 related by Jotham to the men of Shechem ; and 
 the touching story of the one ewe-lamb of the 
 poor man, by which Nathan reproved David. 
 
 But to return to Agur and Ins riddles. The 
 introductory verses at first view appear obscure, 
 from the absence of any apparent connection with 
 what follows. But the explanation given by 
 Herder appears satisfactory. ‘ The sage Agur,’ 
 he says, ‘ is to discourse lofty sentiments to his 
 pupils ; but he begins with modesty, that too 
 exalted wisdom may not be expected from him.’ 
 How shall he who confesses that he is not versed 
 in human wisdom, he supposed to possess that 
 knowledge which belongs to the holy ? Wisdom 
 for man consists in obeying ‘every word of God ’ 
 (ver. 5). We subjoin Herder's version of one 
 of these riddles, with the accompanying remarks. 
 
 FOUR SMAI.I, BUT VERY ACTIVE THINGS. 
 
 Four things are liltle on the earth, 
 
 But wiser than the wisest. 
 
 The ant race are a people without strength, 
 Yet they prepare their meat in summer 
 The conies are a feeble race, 
 
 Yet build their houses in the rocks* 
 
 The locusts have no king to rule them, 
 
 Yet all of them go forth by bands; 
 
 The lizard, — one may seize it with his hand, 
 And yet it dwells in royal palaces. 
 
 The whole comparison was perhaps made on 
 account of the last, where an animal of that sort 
 (which, in warm climates, lives in the walls, and 
 is very annoying) made its appearance; for the 
 Orientals are fond of such conceits and involved 
 propositions, especially in company, and they 
 often, indeed, assemble for the purpose of enjoy- 
 ing them. 
 
 The concluding chapter, containing the coun- 
 sels addressed to King Lemuel by his mother, 
 needs no elucidation. It presents a beautiful 
 picture of female excellence in an age and coun- 
 try where modesty, industry, submission, and the 
 domestic and matronly virtues, were esteemed the 
 only appropriate ornaments of woman. 
 
 If we turn our attention to the maxims which 
 compose the greater part of the book of Proverbs, 
 we shall find enough to excite our wonder and 
 admiration. Here are not only the results of the 
 profoundest human sagacity, the counsels and 
 admonitions of the man who excelled in wisdom 
 all who went before, and all who came after him, 
 but of such ,a man writing under divine inspira- 
 tion. And 1 how numerous, how various, how 
 profound, how important are his instructions ! 
 
 These directions are adapted to the wants of 
 every class and rank of men, and to every 
 relation of life. The rich and the poor, the 
 learned and the ignorant, the master and the 
 servant, the monarch and the subject, may here 
 find the counsels they need. ‘ Apples of gold in 
 baskets of silver’ are fit emblems of such prudent 
 and wholesome counsels, clothed in such an at- 
 tractive garb. 
 
 [The boundless variety of these instructions 
 
574 
 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 has indeed ltd some authors (such as De Wette, 
 Introduction , $ 281), who look too much to the 
 human sources of the Sacred Scriptures, to allege 
 that there is much in this book too remote from the 
 experience of Solomon for him to have been the 
 author. The writer just cited says : ‘ These pro- 
 verbs, judging from their number and variety, 
 seem rather the productions of a whole nation 
 than of a single man. Many of them relate to 
 private and rustic life; with one of which Solo- 
 mon was not sufficiently acquainted, and in the 
 other he could not participate.’ So again with 
 reference to the introduction contained in the nine 
 first chapters, the same writer says : — ‘ Their 
 didactic and admonitory tone, and their strict 
 injunction of chastity, agree better with the 
 character of a teacher of youth, a prophet, or 
 priest, than a king like Solomon.’ This is surely 
 precarious reasoning; for a state life is often 
 better described by a keen observer than by one 
 who is actually subject to its conditions. It is, 
 however, not necessary to contend that the whole 
 of the Proverbs were by Solomon ; and De Wette 
 himself is constrained to admit that a large share 
 in the composition of the Proverbs must be 
 ascribed to the wise king, ‘especially in the first 
 part,’ i. e. ch. i. — xxii. 16. There is, in fact, no 
 person historically known to us from Scripture 
 to whom, taken as a whole, they could with 
 equal reason be ascribed, even apart from the 
 express declarations of the book itself (ch. i. 1 ; 
 x. I ; xxv. 1). In one remarkable passage of 
 Scripture, Solomon is said to have ‘ uttered three 
 thousand proverbs’ (1 Kings iv. 32), a large 
 proportion of which may be presumed to have 
 been preserved in the present book. Indeed, it has 
 been often supposed that this very statement has 
 express reference to the proverbs contained in it. 
 On the authority of this conclusion, Jerome 
 ( Prcefat . in Prov.) erroneously states the number 
 if the proverbs to be three thousand. 
 
 The literature of the book of Proverbs is con- 
 tained chiefly in the following works (besides the 
 preliminary dissertations in the various Com- 
 mentaries) : — Melanchthon, Explicatio Prow. 
 1555 ; Mercer, Comment, in Prow. Salom. ; 
 Geiero. Prow. Salom. 1669 ; Schultens, Pro- 
 verbia Salom. 1748 ; Hirfz, Vollst. Erkliir. der 
 Spr'uche Salo?n. 1768; Hunt, Observations on 
 the Book of Proverbs, 1775 ; Hodgson, On the 
 Book of Proverbs , 1778; Jager, Obscrvait. hi 
 Prow. Salom. Versionem Alexand. 1788; Law- 
 son, Exposition of Proverbs , 1821 ; Umbreit, 
 Philol. Krit. u. Philosoph. Comm. u. d. Spr'uche 
 Salom. 1 826. There are also translations, mostly 
 with note*, by J. D. Michaelis, 1778; Doeder- 
 lein, 1786; Streunsee, 1783; Kleuker, 1786; 
 Reichard, 1790 ; Ziegler, 1791; Muntinghe, 
 1800, 1802; Dahler, 1810; Holden, 1819; 
 Gramberg, 1828; Bockel, 1829; and Ewald.. in 
 bis Poetischen Bucher, vol. iv.] — L. P. H. 
 
 PROVIDENCE. The word Providence is 
 derived from the Latin ( providentia , pro-videre ), 
 a;»d originally meant foresight. The correspond- 
 ing Greek word ( irpovoia ) means forethought. 
 By a well-known figure of speech, called meto- 
 nymy, we use a word denoting the means by 
 which we accomplish anything to denote the end 
 accomplished ; we exercise care over anything 
 by means of foresight, and idicate that care by 
 the word foresight. On the same principle the 
 
 word Providence is used to signify the care God 
 takes of the universe. As to its inherent nature. 
 it is the power which God exerts, without inter - 
 mission, in and upon all the works of his hands. 
 In the language of the schoolmen, it is a con- 
 tinual creation ( creatio continud). But defined 
 as to its visible manifestations, it is God’s pre- 
 servation and government of all things. As a 
 thing is known by its opposites, the meaning of 
 Providence is elucidated by considering that it 
 is opposed to fortune and fortuitous accidents. 
 
 Providence, considered in reference to all things 
 existing, is termed by Knapp universal ; in re- 
 ference to moral beings, special ; and in reference 
 to holy or converted beings, particular. Every- 
 thing is an object of Providence in proportion to 
 its capacity. The disciples, being of more value 
 than many sparrows, were assured of greater pro- 
 vidential care. By Providence being universal 
 is intended, not merely that it embraces classes 
 of objects or greater matters, but that nothing is 
 too minute or insignificant for its inspection. To 
 Providence considered in this relation the term 
 particular is also commonly applied. 
 
 Providence is usually divided into three divine 
 acts, preservation, co-operation, and government. 
 1. By preservation is signified the causing of 
 existence to continue. 2. Co-operation is the act 
 of God which causes the poxoers of created things 
 to remain in being. It is not pretended that the 
 existence and the powers of things are ever sepa- 
 rated, but only that they are distinguishable in 
 mental analysis. Co-operation varies with the 
 nature of the objects towards which it is exer- 
 cised. 3. Government, as a branch of Providence, 
 is God's controlling all created things so as to 
 promote the highest good of the whole. To this 
 end every species of being is acted upon in a way 
 conformable to its nature ; for instance, inani- 
 mate things by the laws of physical influence, 
 brutes according to the laws of instinct, an«i 
 free agents according to the laws of free agency. 
 Moreover, as Providence has respect to the nature 
 which God has been pleased to assign to its 
 various objects, so, in common with every other 
 divine act, it is characterized by divine per- 
 fections. It displays omnipresence, omniscience, 
 omnipotence, holiness, justice, and benevolence. 
 
 It has been sometimes contended that Pro- 
 vidence does not extend to all things, or to un- 
 important events, and chiefly for four reasons. 
 Such an all-embracing Providence, it is said, 
 would (1.) be distracting to the mind of God; 
 or (2.^ would be beneath his dignity; or (3.) 
 would interfere with human freedom ; or (4.) 
 would render God unjust in permitting evil to 
 exist. In reply to these objections against a Pro- 
 vidence controlling all things without exception, 
 it may be observed that the third and fourth 
 suggest difficulties which press equally, in fact, 
 upon all hypotheses, not only as to Providence, 
 but as to creation, and which shall be more fully 
 explained in the sequel. 
 
 As to the first objection, that the minutiae of 
 the creation are so multifarious as to confuse the 
 mind of God, we are content to let it refute itself 
 in every mind which has any just sense of the 
 divine knowledge and wisdom. The second ob- 
 jection, that some things are beneath God’s no- 
 tice, if it be not a captious cavil, must result 
 from pushing too far the analogy between earthly 
 
PROVIDENCE. 
 
 PROVIDENCE, 
 
 575 
 
 Icings and the King of kings. It is an imper- 
 fection in human poten fates that they need vice- 
 gerents; let us not then attribute such a weakness 
 to God, fancying him altogether such a one as 
 ourselves. Again, it is to this day doubtful whe- 
 ther the microscope does not display the divine 
 perfections as illustriously as the telescope; there 
 is therefore no reason to deny a Providence over 
 animalcula which we admit over the constellated 
 heavens. What is it that we dare call insignifi- 
 cant ? The least of all things may be as a seed 
 cast into the seed-field of time, to grow there and 
 bear fruits, which shall ^e multiplying when time 
 shall be no more. We cannot always trace the 
 connections of things, — we do not ponder those we 
 can trace, — or we should tremble to call anything 
 beneath the notice of God. It has been eloquently 
 said that, where we see a trifle hovering uncon- 
 nected in space, higher spirits can discern its 
 fibres stretching through the whole expanse of 
 lie system of the world, and hanging on the 
 ;*motest limits of the future and the past. 
 
 In reference to the third and fourth objections 
 before mentioned, namely, that an all-embracing 
 Providence is incompatible with divine justice 
 and human freedom, it should be considered 
 that, in contemplating God’s Providence, the 
 question will often arise, why was moral evil 
 allowed to exist? But as this question meets us 
 at every turn, and, under different forms, may 
 be termed the one and the only difficulty in 
 theology, it must often be considered in the pro- 
 gress of this work, and may therefore require the 
 less notice in the present article. We should in 
 all humility preface whatever we say on the per- 
 mission of evil with a confession that it is an 
 inscrutable mystery, which our faith receives, but 
 which our reason could not prove either to be or 
 not to be demanded by the perfections of God. 
 But, in addition to the vindication of God’s ways 
 which may be found in the overruling of evil for 
 good, the following theories deserve notice : — 
 
 1. Occasionalism, or the doctrine that God is 
 the immediate cause of all men’s actions. It is 
 so called, because it maintains that men only 
 furnish God an occasion for what he does. It 
 degrades all second causes to mere occasions, and 
 turns men into passive instruments. 
 
 2. Mechanism. Many, alarmed at the conse- 
 quences which occasionalism would seem to in- 
 volve, have embraced an opposite scheme. They 
 criticise the definition of the laws of nature on 
 which Emmons builds, and contend that occa- 
 sionalism derives all its plausibility from adroitly 
 availing itself of the ambiguities of language. 
 They would have us view the creation as a species 
 of clock, or other machine, which, being once 
 made and wound up, will for a time perform its 
 movements without the assistance or even pre- 
 sence of its maker. But such reasoners press too 
 far the analogy between the Creator and an arti- 
 san. So excellent a man as Baxter was misled 
 by this hypothesis, which evidently is as deroga- 
 tory to God as occasionalism is fatal to the moral 
 agency of man. 
 
 3. The authors of the third scheme respecting 
 the mode in which Providence permits sin sought 
 to be ‘eclectics,’ or to find a path intermediate 
 between mechanism and occasionalism. In their 
 judgment man is actuated by God, and yet is at 
 the same time active himself. God gives men 
 
 the powers. of action, and preserves these powers 
 every moment, but he is not the efficient cause 
 of free actions themselves. This, they say, is 
 involved in the very idea of a moral being, 
 which would cease to be moral if it were sub- 
 jected to the control of necessity, and not suffered 
 to choose and to do what it saw to be best ac- 
 cording to the laws of freedom. But it is asked, 
 why did God create men free, and therefore 
 fallible ? It were presumption to think of an- 
 swering this question adequately. It belongs lo 
 the deep things of God. But, among the possible 
 reasons, we may mention, that if no fallible 
 beings had been created, there could have been 
 no virtue in the universe ; for virtue implies pro- 
 bation, and probation a liability to temptation 
 and sin. Again, if some beings had not become 
 sinful, the most glorious attributes of God would 
 never have been so fully exerted and displayed. 
 How could his wisdom and mercy and grace 
 have been adequately manifested, except by suf- 
 fering a portion of his creatures to become such 
 as to demand the exercise of those attributes ? 
 How else could he have wrought the miracle of 
 educing good from .evil ? In this connection we 
 may allude to the 3rd chapter of Romans, where, 
 as in other passages, it is declared, that the good 
 which evil may be overruled to produce, cannot 
 palliate, much less excuse, the guilt of sinners, 
 or of those who say, ‘ let us do evil that good 
 may come.’ 
 
 Among the proofs of divine Providence may 
 be reckoned the following: — 
 
 One argument in proof of Providence is ana- 
 logous to one mode of proving a creation. If we 
 cannot account for the existence of the world 
 without supposing its coming into existence, or 
 beginning to be ; no more can we account for the 
 world continuing to exist, without supposing it 
 to be preserved ; for it is as evidently absurd to 
 suppose any creature prolonging as producing ifs 
 own being. 
 
 A second proof of Providence results from the 
 admitted fact of creation. Whoever has made 
 any piece of mechanism, therefore takes pains to 
 preserve it. Parental affection moves those who 
 have given birth to children to provide for their 
 sustentation and education. It is both reasonable 
 and Scriptural to contemplate God as sustaining 
 the universe because he made it. Thus David, 
 having premised that the world was made by 
 God, immediately descends to the course of his 
 Providence (Ps. xxiii. 6 ; comp. ver. 13). The 
 creation also evinces a Providence by proving 
 God’s right to rule, on the admitted principle 
 that every one may do what he will with his own 
 
 A third proof of Providence is found in the 
 divine perfections. Since, among the divine per- 
 fections, are all power and all knowledge, the 
 non-existence of Providence, if there be none, 
 must result, from a want of will in God. But no 
 want of will to exercise a Providence can exist, 
 for God wills whatever is for the good of the 
 universe, and for his own glory ; to either ot 
 which a Providence is clearly indispensable. 
 God therefore has resolved to exercise his power 
 and knowledge so as to subserve the best ends 
 with his creation. ‘ He that denies Providence, 
 says Charnock, ‘ denies most of God’s attributes ; 
 he denies at least the exercise of them ; he denies 
 his omniscience, which is the eye of Providence ; 
 
576 
 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 mercy anil justice, which are the arms of it; 
 power, which is its life and motion; wisdom, 
 which is the rudder whereby Providence is steered ; 
 and holimss, which is the compass and rule of 
 its motion.’ This argument for a Providence 
 might be made much more impressive, did our 
 limits allow us to expand it, so as to show, step 
 by step, bow almost every attribute, if not di- 
 rectly, yet by implication, demands that God 
 put forth an unceasing sovereignty over all his 
 works. 
 
 A fourth proof of God’s Providence appears 
 in the order which prevails in the universe. We 
 say the order which prevails, aware of the occa- 
 sional apparent, disorder that exists, which we 
 have already noticed, and shall soon treat of 
 again. That summer and winter, seed-time and 
 harvest, cold and heat, day and night, are fixed 
 by a law, was obvious even to men who never 
 heard of God’s covenant with Noah. Accord- 
 ingly the ancient Greeks designated the creation 
 by a word which means order (icScr/AOs)- But 
 our sense of order is keenest where we discern it 
 in apparent confusion. The motions of the hea- 
 venly bodies are eccentric and intervolved, yet 
 are most regular when they seem most lawless. 
 They were therefore compared by the earliest 
 astronomers to the discords which blend in a 
 harmony, and to the wild starts which often 
 heighten the graces of a dance. Modern astro- 
 nomy has revealed to us so much miraculous 
 symmetry in celestial phenomena, that, it shows 
 ns far more decisive proofs of a Ruler seated on 
 the circle of the heavens, than were vouchsafed 
 to the ancients. Moreover, many discover proofs 
 of a Providence in such tacts as the proportion 
 between the two sexes, the diversities of the coun- 
 tenance, as well as human nature and the nature 
 of all things continuing always the same; since 
 such facts show that all things are controlled by 
 an unchanging power. 
 
 An objection to proofs of Providence, derived 
 from the order of the universe, is thought to spring 
 from the seeming disorders to which we cannot 
 shut our eyes. Much is said of plagues and earth- 
 quakes, of drought, flood, frost, and famine, with 
 a thousand more natural evils. But it deserves 
 consideration whether, if there were no Provi- 
 dence, these anomalies would not be the rule 
 instead of the exception ; — whether they do not 
 feelingly persuade us that the course of nature is 
 upheld by a power above nature, and without 
 which it would fall to nothing; — whether they 
 may not be otherwise necessary for more im- 
 portant ends than fall within the scope of our 
 knowledge. 
 
 A fifth proof of a Providence is furnished by 
 the fact that so many men are here rewarded and 
 punished according to a righteous law. The 
 wicked often feel compunctious visitings in the 
 midst of their sins, or smart under the rod of 
 civil justice, or are tortured with natural evils. 
 With the righteous all things are in general re- 
 versed. The miser and envious are punished as 
 soon as they begin to commit their respective 
 sins ; and some virtues are their own present 
 reward. But we would not dissemble that we 
 are here met with important objections, although 
 infinitely less, even though they were unanswer- 
 able, than beset such as would reject the doctrine 
 of Providence. It is said, and we g v ant, that 
 
 the rghteous are trodden under foot, and the 
 vilest men exalted ; that the race is not to tho 
 swift, nor the battle to the strong; that virtue 
 starves, while vice is fed ; and that schemes for 
 doing good are frustrated, while evil plots sue* 
 ceed. But we may reply, 1. The prosperity of 
 the wicked is often apparent, and well styled a 
 shining misery. Who believes that Nero en- 
 throned was happier than Paul in chains ? 
 2. We are often mistaken in calling such or such 
 an afflicted man good, and such or such a prosper- 
 ous man bad. 3. The miseries of good men are 
 generally occasioned by their own fault, since they 
 have been so fool-hardy as to run counter to the 
 laws by which God acts, or have aimed at cer- 
 tain ends while neglecting the appropriate means 
 4. Many virtues are proved and augmented by 
 trials, and not only proved, but produced, so that 
 they would have had no existence without them. 
 Many of David’s noblest qualities would never 
 have been developed but for the impious attempts 
 of Saul. Job's integrity was not only tested, but 
 strengthened, by Satan's being permitted to sift 
 him as wheat. Patience, experience, and hope 
 were brought as ministering angels to men, of 
 whom the world was net worthy, through trials 
 of cruel mockings and scourgings. 5. The un- 
 equal distribution of good and evil, so far as it 
 exists, carries our thoughts forward to the last 
 judgment, and a retribution according to the 
 deeds done in the body, and can hardly fail of 
 throwing round the idea of eternity a stronger air 
 of reality than it might otherwise wear. All per- 
 plexity vanishes as we reflect that, ‘ He cometh to 
 judge the earth.’ 6. Even if we limit our views 
 to this world, but extend them to all our ac- 
 quaintance, we cannot doubt that the tendencies , 
 though not always the effects, of vice are to 
 misery, and those of virtue to happiness. These 
 tendencies are especially clear if our view em- 
 braces a whole lifetime, and the clearer the longer 
 the period vre embrace. The Psalmist (Ps. lxxiii.) 
 was at first envious at the foolish, when he saw 
 the prosperity of the wicked ; but as his views 
 became more comprehensive, and he understood 
 their end, his language was, ‘ How are they 
 brought into desolation as in a moment! thev 
 are utterly consumed with terrors!’ The pro- 
 gressive tendency of vice and virtue to reap each 
 its appropriate harvest is finely illustrated by 
 Bishop Butler — best of all perhaps in his picture 
 of an imaginary kingdom of the good, which 
 would peacefully subvert all others, and fill the 
 earth. Indeed, as soon as we leave what is im- 
 mediately before our eyes, and glance at the 
 annals of the world, we behold so many mani 
 festations of God, that we may adduce as 
 
 A sixth proof of Providence the facts of his 
 tory. The giving and transmission of a revela- 
 tion, it has been justly said, — the founding of 
 religious institutions, as the Mosaic and the Chris- 
 tian, — the raising up of prophets, apostles, and 
 defenders of the faith, — the ordering of particular 
 events, such as the Reformation, — the more re- 
 markable deliverances noticed in the lives of 
 those devoted to the good of the world, &c. — all 
 indicate the wise and benevolent care of God 
 over the human family. But the historical proof 
 of a Providence is perhaps strongest where the 
 wrath of man has been made to praise God, or 
 where efforts to dishonour God have been cop 
 
PROVIDENCE. 
 
 trained fo do him honour. Testimony in favours 
 of piety has fallen from tlie impious, and iias had 
 a double value, as coining lVom the unwilling. 
 They who have fought against the truth have 
 been used by God • as instruments of spreading 
 the knowledge of it, awakening an interest in it, 
 or stimulating Christians to purify it from human 
 additions, and to exhibit its power. The sci- 
 entific researches also with which infidels have 
 wearied themselves to overthrow a revelation have 
 proved at last fatal to their darling scepticism. 
 Too many histories, like Gibbon’s, have been writ- 
 ten as if there were no God in the heavens, sway- 
 ing the sceptre of the earth. But a better day is 
 approaching ; and it is exhilarating to observe 
 that Alison, the first British historian of the age, 
 writes in the spirit which breathes in the histo- 
 rical books of the Bible, where the free actions 
 of man are represented as inseparably connected 
 with the agency of God. If we may judge of the 
 future by the past, as the scroll of time unrolls, 
 we, or our posterity, and some think glorified 
 spirits in a yet higher degree, shall see more and 
 more plainly the hand of God operating, till 
 every knee shall bow. Judgments, now a great 
 deep, shall become as the light that goeth forth. 
 The tides of ambition and avarice will all be 
 seen to roll in subserviency to the designs of God. 
 To borrow the illustration of another, ‘ We shall 
 behold the bow of God encircling tfee darkest 
 storms of wickedness, and forcing them to mani- 
 fest his glory to the universe.’ 
 
 As a seventh ground for believing in Provi- 
 dence, it may be said that Providence is the ne- 
 cessary basis of all religion. For what is religion % 
 One of the best definitions calls it the belief in a 
 superhuman Power, which has great influence in 
 human affairs, and ought therefore to be wor- 
 shipped. But take away this influence in human 
 affairs, and you cut off all motive to worship. 
 To the same purpose is the text in Hebrews : * He 
 that cometh to God must believe that he is, and 
 Jut he is a rewarder of such as diligently seek 
 nim.’ If then the religion sentiments thrill us 
 not in vain, — if all attempts of all men to com- 
 mune with God have not always and everywhere 
 been idle, — there must be a Providence. 
 
 In the eighth place, we may advert for a mo- 
 ment to the proof of Providence from the com- 
 mon consent of mankind, with the single ex- 
 ception of atheists. The Epicureans may be 
 classed with atheists, as they are generally thought 
 to have been atheists in disguise, and a god after 
 their imaginations would l>e, to all intents and 
 purposes, no god. The Stoics were also atheists, 
 believing only in a blind fate arising from a per- 
 petual concatenation of causes contained in na- 
 ture. The passages acknowledging a Providence 
 in Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, and all the ancient 
 moralists, are numerous and decisive, but too 
 accessible or well known to need being quoted. 
 
 the last place, the doctrine of Providence 
 *s abundantly proved by the Scriptures. Some- 
 times it is declared that the Most High ruleth in 
 the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever 
 he will ; as much as to say that nothing can 
 withstand his power. Again, lest; we may think 
 some things beneath his notice, we read that ht 
 numberelh the hairs of our heads , careth for 
 lilies, and disposeth all the lots which are cast. 
 The care of God for man is generally argue* 
 troL. ix. 38 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 677 
 
 a fortiori, from his care for inferior creature*. 
 One Psalm (xci.) is devoted to show the provi- 
 dential security of the godly : another (xciii.) 
 shows the frailty of man ; and a third (civ.) ttte 
 dependence of all orders in creation on God s 
 Providence for food and breath. In him, it is 
 elsewhere added, we live, and move, and have 
 our being. He, in the person of Christ, sustaineth 
 all things by the word of his power, and from 
 him cometh down every good and perfect gift. 
 But nowhere perhaps is a Providence so pointedly 
 asserted and so sublimely set forth as in some of 
 the last chapters of Job; and nowhere so va- 
 riously, winningly, and admirably exhibited as 
 in the history of Joseph. 
 
 The principal writers on this important subject 
 are : — Gomarus, Explicatio Doct. Orthod. de 
 Providentia, 1597 ; Sander, Ueber die Vorse- 
 hung, 1780; Bormann, Die Christl. Lehre d. 
 Vorsehung, 1820; Feldmann, Moira, oder ii. d. 
 Gotti. Vorsehung , 1830 ; Leibnitz, Essais de 
 Theodicte, 1840 ; Rougemont, Du Monde dans 
 ses Rapports avec Dieu, 1311 ; and the Treatises 
 and Discourses on Providence by Charnock, 
 Flavel, Hopkins, Hunter, Sherlock, and Fawcett. 
 — J. D. B. 
 
 PRUNING-HOOK. [Vine.] 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. This collection of 
 sacred poetry received its name, "VaX/Aol, in con - 
 sequence of the lyrical character of the pieces of 
 which it consists, as intended to be sung to stringed 
 and other instruments of music. The w r ord (from 
 to touch or strike a chord) is thus aptly de- 
 fined by Gregory of Nyssa(7Vac£. ii. in Psalmos , 
 cap, 3) : \f/aAjuJs ianv rj bia rov boyavov rov 
 povcriKov peAwhia. Another name, Psalter , was 
 given to this book from the Greek \f/a\TT]piou, the 
 stringed instrument to which its conteuts were 
 
 originally sung. The Hebrew title (Rab- 
 
 binic form, with H elided, D^n or j^n) signifies 
 hymns or praises, and was probably adopted on 
 account of the use made of the collection in divine 
 service, though only a part can be strictly called 
 songs of praise, not a few being lamentations and 
 prayers. There is evidently no proper correspond- 
 ence between the titles in the two languages, 
 though each is suitable. The word answering to 
 D^nn is vpvoi, and not ipuAyoi, which rather 
 corresponds to D'llDTp, lyrical odes , — a name 
 which, though so plainly appropriate, does not 
 appear to have been generally given to the book, 
 at least so far as the Hebrew usage can now be 
 ascertained. This is the more singular, inasmuch 
 as no fewer than sixty-five of the songs distinctly 
 bear the title of Tl DID, while only one (Ps. cxlv. 1) 
 
 is styled That the name D'H'lDtfcD did, 
 
 however, obtain in ancient times, rather than the 
 
 present title D^nn, may be presumed from the 
 use of -tyaApoi in the Septuagint and the New 
 
 Testament, and of in thePeshito. 
 
 In Ps. lxxii. 20 we find all the preceding com- 
 positions (Ps. i. -lxxii.) styled Prayers of David, 
 because many of them are strictly prayers, and 
 all are pervaded by the spirit and tone of suppli- 
 cation. 
 
 All the best judges, as Lowth, Herder, De Wette, 
 Ewakl, Tholuek, and others, pronounce the pc<?try 
 
578 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 of the Psalms to be of the lyric order. ‘ They 
 are,’ says De Wette ( Einlcitung in die Psalmen ,* 
 }>. 2), ‘ lyric in the proper sense ; for among the 
 Hebrews, as among the ancients generally, poetry, 
 singing, ami music were united, and the inscrip- 
 tions to most of the Psalms determine their con- 
 nection with music, though in a way not always 
 intelligible to us. Also as works of taste these 
 compositions deserve to be called lyric. The 
 essence of lyric poetry is the immediate expres- 
 sion of feeling; and feeling is the sphere in which 
 most of the Psalms move. Pain, grief, fear, hope, 
 ioy, trust, gratitude, submission to God, every- 
 thing that moves and elevates the heart, is ex- 
 pressed in these songs. Most of them are the 
 lively effusions of the excited susceptible heart, 
 the fresh offspring of inspiration and elevation of 
 thought; while oidy a few are spiritless imita- 
 tions and compilations, or unpoetic forms of 
 prayer, temple hymns, and collections of pro- 
 verbs.’ For fuller information on this subject see 
 POETHY. 
 
 Titles. All the Psalms, except thirty-four, 
 bear superscriptions. According to some there 
 are .only twenty-five exceptions, as they reckon 
 a title in all the Psalms which com- 
 mence with it. To each of these exceptions the 
 Talmud ( Eabyl . Cud. Avoda Sarah , fol. 21, 
 col. 2) gives the name NDIfV NTlDTD, Orphan 
 Psalm. 
 
 The authority of the titles is a matter of douht. 
 By most of the ancient critics they were considered 
 genuine, ami of equal authority with the Psalms 
 themselves, while most of the moderns reject them 
 wholly or in part. They were wholly rejected at 
 the close of the fourth century by Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, one of the ablest and most judicious 
 of ancient interpreters (Rosemnuller, Hist. Tnter- 
 pretationis Librorum Sacrorum, P. iii., p. 256). 
 On the other hand it deserves to he noticed that 
 they are received by Tholuck and Ilengstenberg 
 in their works on the Psalms. Of the antiquity of 
 the inscriptions there can he no question, for they 
 are found hi the Sept. They are -supposed to be 
 even much older than this version, since they were 
 no longer intelligible to the translator, who often 
 makes no sense of them. Their obscurity might, 
 however, have been owing not so much to their an- 
 tiquity as to the translator’s residence in Egypt, 
 and consequent ignorance of the Psalmody of the 
 Temple service in Jerusalem. At any rate the ap- 
 pearance of the titles in the Sept, can only prove 
 them to he about as ancient as the days of Ezra. 
 Then it is argued by many that they must be as 
 old as the Psalms themselves, since it is customary 
 for Oriental poets to [wefix titles to their songs. 
 Instances are found in Arabic poems, hut these 
 are very unlike the Hebrew inscriptions. Much 
 more important traces of the custom appear in Isa. 
 xxxviii. 9, in Hab. iii. 1, and in 2 Sam. i. 
 17, 18 (Tholuck ’s Psalnen, p. xxiv.). The 
 other instances commonly appealed to in Exod. 
 xv. 1, Deut. xxxi. 30, Judg. v. 1,2 Sain xxii. 1, 
 furnish no evidence, since tlrev are not proper 
 titles of the songs so much as brief statements 
 connecting them with the narrative. But in 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, and Nuin. xxiv. 3, there is strong 
 
 * Of this valuable Einlcitung a translation, 
 rather too free to he faithful, is given in the 
 American Biblical depository, vui. iii 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 proof of the usage, if, with Tholuck, we take th« 
 verses as inscriptions, and not as integral parts of 
 thesong8, which most hold them justly to he from 
 then- poetical form. 
 
 The following considerations militate against 
 the authority of the titles. 1. The analogy be- 
 tween them and the subscriptions to the Apos- 
 tolical Epistles. The latter are now universally 
 rejected: why not the former? 2. The Greek 
 and Syriac versions exhibit them with great and 
 numerous variations, often altering the Hebrew 
 (as in Ps. xxvii.), and sometimes giving a head- 
 ing where the Hebrew has none (as in Ps. xeiii.- 
 xcvii.). Would the ancient translators have 
 taken such liberties, or could such variations 
 have arisen, if the titles had been considered 
 sacred like the Psalms themselves? At any 
 rate the ex-istence of these glaring variations is 
 sufficient to induce a distrust of the titles in their 
 present form, even though they had been once 
 sanctioned by inspired authority. If ever Ezra 
 settled them, the variations in versions and ma- 
 nuscripts (Eiehhorn's Einlcitung, iii., pp. 490, 
 495) have tended since to make them doubtful. 
 3. The inscriptions are occasionally at variance 
 with the contents of the Psalms. Sometimes the 
 author is incorrectly given, as when David is 
 named over Psalms referring to the captivity, as 
 in Ps. xiv. 7 ; xxv. 22; li. 20, 21 ; lxix. 36. It 
 is not unlikely, however, as Tholuck thinks, 
 that these references to the exile were added 
 during that period to the genuine text of the 
 royal singer. Others, as Calvin ami Heng- 
 stenberg, with far less probability take these 
 passages in a figurative or spiritual sense. Also 
 Ps. cxxxix. cannot well he David’s, for its style 
 is not free from Chaldaisms. Then sometimes 
 flic occasion is incorrectly specified, as in Ps. 
 xxx , unless indeed this refers to the dedication 
 of the site of the Temple (1 Chron. xxii. 1), as 
 Rosenmiiller, Tholuck, and Ilengstenberg, think 
 after Venema. 
 
 On the whole, as the result of this investiga- 
 tion, it seems the part of sober criticism to receive 
 the titles as historically valid, except when we 
 find strong internal evidence against them. 
 
 The design of these inscriptions is to specify 
 either the author, or the chief singer (never the 
 latter by name, except in Ps. xxxix.), or the his- 
 torical subject or occasion, or the use, or the style 
 of poetry, or the instrument and style of music. 
 Some titles simply designate the author, as in Ps. 
 xxv., while others specify several of the above 
 particulars, as in Ps. li. The longest and fullest 
 title of all is prefixed to Ps. lx., where we have 
 the author, the chief musician (not by name), 
 the historical occasion (comp. 2 Sam. viii.\ the 
 use or design, the style of poetry, and the instru- 
 ment or style of music. It is confessedly very 
 difficult, if not impossible, to explain iff 1 the 
 terms employed in the inscriptions; and hence 
 critics have differed exceedingly in their conjec- 
 tures. The difficulty, arising no douht from 
 ignorance of the Temple music, was felt, it 
 would seem, as early as the age of the Sept. ; and 
 it was felt so much by the translators of our 
 Authorized Version, that they generally retained 
 the Hebrew words, even though Luther had set 
 the example of translating them to the best of his 
 ability. It is worth observing that the difficulty 
 appears to have determined Coverdale, 1535, tc 
 
PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 omit nearly all except names of authors ; thus, 
 in Ps. lx., which is lix. in his version, lie gives 
 only — a Psalme of David. 
 
 Of the terms left untranslated or obscure in 
 our Bible, it may be well to offer some explana- 
 tion in this place, taking them in alphabetical 
 order for the sake of convenience. On this sub- 
 ject most commentators offer instruction, but the 
 reader may especially consult Rosenmuller, 
 Scholia in Comp. Redacta , vol. iii. 14-22; De 
 Wette, Commentar uber die Psalmen, pp. 27-37, 
 and Ewald, Poet . Bucher , i. 169-1 SO, 195. 
 
 Aijeleth shahar, *in^n hind of the 
 
 morning, i. e. the sun, or the dawn of day. This 
 occurs only in Ps. xxii., where we may best take 
 it to designate a song, perhaps commencing with 
 these words, or bearing this name, to the melody 
 of which the psalm was to be sung. So most of 
 the ablest critics after Aben-Ezra. Yet Tholuck 
 and Hengstenberg, after Luther, suppose it to 
 denote the subject of the psalm, meaning David 
 limself, or typically the Messiah. 
 
 Alamoth , Ps. xlvi., probably signifies 
 
 virgins , and hence denotes music for female 
 voices, or the treble. So Gesenius, Tholuck, and 
 Hengstenberg, after Gusset, who, in Comment. 
 
 Ling. Hebr. sub voce explains it — vox 
 
 clara et acuta , quasi virginum (see below under 
 Sheminith ). _ . 
 
 Al-taschith, firiEyrrVx, destroy thou not , is 
 found over Ps. Ivii ., Iviii., lix., lxxv., and sig- 
 nifies, by general consent, some well-known ode 
 beginning with the expression, to the tune of 
 which these compositions were to be sung. 
 
 Degrees, rn/jttDn, appears over fifteen Psalms 
 (cxx.-cxxxiv.), called Songs of Degrees , and 
 has been explained in various ways, of which the 
 following are the chief. 1. The ancients under- 
 stood by it stairs or steps, as appears from the 
 Sept, version of the title, r&v ava^adpcSy, and 
 the Vulgate, carmen gracluum,,song of the steps ; 
 and in accordance with this, Jewish writers re- 
 late (Mishna, Sucah, cap. v. 4), that these Psalms 
 were sung on fifteen steps , leading from the court 
 of Israel to the court of the Avomen. This ex- 
 planation is now exploded, though Fiirst, in his 
 Concordance , sanctions it. 2. Luther, whom 
 Tholuck is inclined to follow, renders the title a 
 song in the higher choir , supposing the Psalms 
 to have been sung from an elevated place or as- 
 cent, or with elevated voice. 3. Gesenius and 
 I)e Wette fchink the name refers to a peculiar 
 rhythm in these songs, by which the sense 
 advances by degrees, and so ascends from clause 
 to clause. Thus in Ps. cxxi. : — 
 
 1 I will lift up rny eyes to the hills, 
 
 From whence comcth my help. 
 
 2. My help cometh from the Lord, 
 
 The maker of heaven and earth. 
 
 3. He will not suffer thy foot to he moved, 
 
 Thy keeper will not slumber: 
 
 4. Behold, he will neither slumber nor sleep, 
 
 The keeper of Israel. 
 
 5 Jehovah is thy keeper , 
 
 Jehovah, thy shade on thy right hand. 
 
 * * * * 
 
 1. Jehovah will keep thee from all evil, 
 
 He will keep thy soul : 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 579 
 
 9. Jehovah will keep thy going out and thy com- 
 ing in, 
 
 From this time even for evermore. 
 
 To this very itigenious and not improbable ex- 
 planation it is objected, that, this rhythm by gra- 
 dation (as De Wette calls it.) is not obvious in 
 the structure of all these songs, and therefore 
 could hardly suggest the name. 4. According 
 to the most prevalent and probable opinion, the 
 title signifies song of the ascents , or pilgrim song, 
 meaning a song composed for, or sung during the 
 journeyings of the people up to Jerusalem, whether 
 as they returned from Babylon, or as they statedly 
 repaired to the national solemnities. So Herder 
 ( Geist der Ebr. Poesie , ii. 353-357) and Ewald 
 (Poet. Biicher , i. 195). Journeys to Jerusalem 
 are generally spoken of as ascents, on account of 
 the elevated situation of the city and temple 
 (see Ezra vii. 9, and especially Ps. cxxii. 4). 
 This explanation of the name is favoured by the 
 brevity and the contents of these songs, and by 
 the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- 
 
 dotion, who render HISPID by drafidoeis. 
 
 Gittith, rvmn, appears over Ps. viii., lxxxi., 
 lxxxiv., and is of very uncertain meaning, though 
 not improbably it signifies an instrument or tune 
 brought from the city of Gath. So Rosenmuller, 
 De Wette, Ewald, Hengstenberg, and Tholuck. 
 In the opinion of not a few the word comes from 
 HU, tcine-press, and denotes either an instrument 
 or a melody used in the vintage. So the Sept, 
 renders it inrep twv Xrjrwr. The new Lexicons 
 of Gesenius and Fiirst give other explanations 
 [Musical Instruments]. 
 
 Iliggaion, is found over Ps. ix. 16, and 
 
 probably means either musical sound, according 
 to the opinion of most, and the Sept. <wStj ; or medi- 
 tation according to Tholuck and Hengstenberg 
 (see more below under Selah). 
 
 Jeduthun, prill', is found over Ps. xxxix., 
 Ixii., lxxvii., and is generally taken for the name 
 of choristers descended from Jeduthun, of whom 
 we read in l Cliron. xxv. 1, 3, as one of David’s 
 three chief musicians or leaders of the Temple 
 music. This use of the name Jeduthun for 
 Jeduthunites is just like the well-known use of 
 Israel for the Israelites. It is most probable that 
 in Ps. xxxix. Jeduthun himself is meant, and not 
 his family. So Rosenmuller and Hengstenberg 
 [Jeduthun]. 
 
 Jonath-elem-rechokim , d'pm njP, the 
 
 mute dove among strangers , found only over 
 Ps. lvi., may well denote the subject of the song, 
 viz., David himself, ‘ when the Philistines took 
 him in Gath or it is the name or commence- 
 ment of an ode to the air of which this psalm was 
 sung. , 
 
 Leannoth, rVl3J/7, in the title of Ps. lxxxviii. 
 means to sing, denoting that it was to be sung in 
 the way described. 
 
 Mahalath , rfcnD, occurs in Ps. liii. and 
 lxxxviii., and denotes, according to some, a sort 
 of flute, according to Gesenius in his last edition 
 of his Thesaurus, a lute, but in the opinion of 
 Fiirst, a tune , named from the first word of some 
 popular song. Upon Mahalath Leannoth, Ps. 
 lxxxviii.. is accordingly a direction to chaunt it 
 to the instrument or tune called mahalath. 
 
 Maschil, is found in the title of thirteen 
 
fttto PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 paalms. According to Gesenius, De Wette, and 
 others, it means a poem, so called either for its 
 skilful composition or for its wise and pious strain. 
 The common interpretation, which Tholuck and 
 Hengstenberg follow, makes it a didactic poem , 
 
 from to teach or make wise. There seems 
 
 very little to choose between the two opinions. 
 
 Michiam , DH3D, is prefixed to Ps. xvi., lvi.- 
 lx., ami is subject to many conjectures. Many, 
 after Aben-Ezra, derive it from DfD, gold , and 
 understand a golden psalm, so called either on 
 account of its excellence , or because written 
 in golden letters. Hengstenberg understands 
 mystery , and supposes that these Psalms, more 
 than others, have a deep or occult sense. Others, 
 after the Sept., which gives <TTT\\oypa<pia, fancy 
 that the woul means a poem engraved on a pillar 
 or monument. But the true explanation is most 
 likely that offered by Gesenius, De Wette, Rosen- 
 miiller, and Tholuck, who hold DD1DD to be only 
 another form of by the familiar interchange 
 
 of the kindred letters Q and 3, and to signify a 
 writing ox poem. It. is actually found in this form 
 over Hezekiah’s song in Isa. xxxviii. 9. 
 
 Muth-labben (Ps. ix.) presents a perfect riddle, 
 owing to the various readings of MSS., and 
 the contradictory conjectures of the learned. Be- 
 sides the common reading jY)D"^y, upon 
 
 death to the son, we have and f the 
 
 same word that is used in Ps. xlvi. (see above 
 Alamoth). Some explain it as the subject or 
 occasion of the song, but most refer it to the music. 
 Gesenius, in his last edition, renders it — with vir- 
 gins' voice for the boys, i. e. to be sung by a choir 
 of boys in the treble. 
 
 Neginoth, lYlPlD, P 3 . iv. and four others ; over 
 Ps. lxi. ncginah in the singular, though some 
 MSS. give neginoth here also. This name, from 
 to strike a chord, like \pa\ Ao?, clearly denotes 
 stringed instruments in general. 
 
 Nehiloth , (Ps. v.), comes most likely 
 
 from y?ri, to perforate , and denotes pipes or 
 flutes. Hengstenberg, however, fancies it means 
 
 lots or heritages , from , to possess, and points 
 
 out the subject of the Psalm. 
 
 Selah, n^D, is found seventy-three times in the 
 Psalms, generally at the end of a sentence or pa- 
 ragraph •, but in Ps. lv. 1 9 and lvii. 3 it stands in 
 the middle of the verse. While most authors 
 have agreed in considering this word as somehow 
 relating to the music, their conjectures about its 
 precise meaning have varied greatly. But at pre- 
 sent these two opinions chiefly obtain. Some, 
 including Herder, De Wette, and Ewald (Poet. 
 
 Biicher,'\. 179), derive it from n^D or ^D, to 
 raise, and understand a raising of the voice or 
 music ; other's, after Gesenius, in Thesaurus, de- 
 rive it from rbo, to be still or silent , and under- 
 stand a pause in the singing. So Rosenm filler, 
 Hengstenberg, and Tholuck. Probably selah was 
 used to direct the singer to be silent, or to pause a 
 little, while the instruments played an interlude 
 or symphony. In Ps. ix. 16 it occurs in the 
 expression higgaion selah, which Gesenius, with 
 much probability, renders instrumental music, 
 pause, i. e. let the instruments strike up a sym- 
 utooay, and let the singer pause. By Tholuck and 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 Hengstenberg, however, the two words are ren- 
 dered meditation , pause, i. e. let the singer medi- 
 tate or reflect while the music stops. 
 
 Sheminith, JVJ'Dfe? (Ps. vi. and xii.), means 
 properly eighth, and denotes either, as some think, 
 an instrument with eight chords, or, more likely, 
 music in the lower notes, or bass. So Gesenius, 
 De Wette, Tholuck, and Hengstenberg. This is 
 strongly favoured by 1 Chron. xv. 20, 21, where 
 the terms alamoth and sheminith clearly denote 
 different parts of music : the former answering to 
 our treble, and the latter to the bass, an octave 
 below. 
 
 Shiggaion, (Ps. vii.), denotes, according 
 to Gesenius and Ffirst, a song or hymn ; but 
 Ewald and Hengstenberg derive it from to 
 
 err or wander ; and hence the former understands 
 a song uttered in the greatest excitement, but the 
 latter, error or wandering , supposing that the 
 aberrations of the wicked are the subject of the 
 Psalm. According to Rosenmiiller, De Wette, 
 and Tholuck, it means a plaintive song or elegy. 
 
 Shushan, (Ps. lx.), and in plural sho- 
 
 shannim (Ps. xlv., lxix., lxxx.). This word com- 
 monly signifies lily, and probably denotes either 
 an instrument bearing some resemblance to a lily 
 (perhaps cymbal ), or a melody named lily for its 
 pleasantness. Hengstenberg contends that it ex- 
 presses the subject, i. e. some delightful theme. 
 Eduth, ]Yny, is joined to it in Ps. lx. and lxxx , 
 giving the sense lily of testimony, the name of a 
 tune, according to Tholuck ; or lily of song, ac- 
 cording to Gesenius, who understands a lyric 
 pipe. 
 
 Authors. — Many of the ancients, both Jews 
 and Christians, maintained that all the Psalms 
 were written by David : which is one of the 
 most striking proofs of their uncritical judg- 
 ment. So the Talmudists (Cod. Pesachim, c. x. 
 p. 117); Augustine, who is never a good critic 
 (De Civ. Dei, xvii. 14); and Chrysostom (Prol. 
 ad Psalmos ). But Jerome, as might be ex- 
 pected, held the opinion which now universally 
 prevails (Epist. ad Sophronium'). The titles 
 and the contents of the Psalms most clearly show 
 that they were composed at different and remote 
 periods, by several poets, of whom David was only 
 the largest and most eminent contributor. In 
 
 the titles the author is indicated by to, i. e. ‘ be- 
 longing to,’ prefixed to his name, hence called 
 lamed auctoris. Some suppose, without good 
 
 reason, that ^ prefixed to a musician’s name, e. g. 
 Asaph, indicates, not the author, but simply the 
 head singer. According to the inscriptions we 
 have the following list of authors : — 
 
 1. David, ‘the sweet Psalmist of Israel’ 
 (2 Sam. xxiii. 1). To him are ascribed seventy- 
 three Ps.alms in the Hebrew text (not seventy- 
 four, as De Wette and Tholuck state; nor seventy- 
 one, as most others have counted) ; and at least 
 eleven others in the Sept., namely, xxxiii., xliii., 
 xci., xciv.-xcix., civ., cxxxvii. ; to which may 
 be added Ps. x., as it forms part of Ps. ix. in tha* 
 version. From what has been advanced above 
 respecting the authority of the titles, it is obviously 
 injudicious to maintain that David composed all 
 that have his name prefixed in the Hebrew, or tj 
 suppose that he did not compose some of the eleven 
 ascribed to him in the Sept., and of the othera 
 which stand without any author’s name it all, 
 
PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 VFe cannot feel sure that Ps. cxxxix. is David’s, 
 for its Clialdaisms (ver. 2, 8, 16, 17) betray a 
 later age ; and Ps. oxxii. can scarcely be his, for 
 its style resembles the later Hebrew, and its de- 
 scription of Jerusalem can hardly apply to David s 
 time. Besides, it is worthy of notice that the 
 Sept, gives this and the other Songs of Degrees 
 without specifying the author. Of those which 
 the Sept, ascribes to David, it is not improbable 
 that Ps. xcix. and civ. are really his ; and of those 
 which bear no name in either text, at least Ps. ii. 
 appears to be David's. 
 
 When we consider David’s eminence as a poet, 
 and the delight he took in sacred song, we cannot 
 wonder that he should be the author of so many 
 of the Psalms, — no fewer, in all likelihood, than 
 half the collection : the wonder rather should be, 
 that we do not find more of his fine odes, for it 
 is certain he wrote some which are not in this 
 book ; see, in 2 Sam. i. 19-27, his lament over 
 Saul and Jonathan, and in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, his 
 last inspired effusion. 
 
 His character and merit as the father of Hebrew 
 melody and music — for it was in his hands and 
 under his auspices that these flourished most* — are 
 thus set forth by the Son of Sirach (ch. xlvii. 8-10), 
 ‘ In all his work he gave thanks. To the Holy 
 and Most High he sang songs with all his heart, 
 in words of praise (p-fipari 5d|?js), and he loved 
 his Maker. He set singers also before the altar, 
 and from their music (fx ov ) sweet melody re- 
 sounded. He gave splendour to the feasts, and 
 adorned the solemn times unto perfection (/ j.expi 
 (rwreXetas), in that they praised His holy name, 
 and the sanctuary pealed with music from early 
 morn.’ 
 
 David’s compositions are generally distin- 
 guished by sweetness, softness, and grace; but 
 sometimes, as in Ps. xviii., they exhibit the sub- 
 lime. His prevailing strain is plaintive, owing to 
 his multiplied and sore trials, both before and 
 after his occupation of the throne. How often was 
 he beset with dangers, harassed by foes, and chas- 
 tised of God! And, under these circumstances, 
 how was his spirit bowed down, and gave vent 
 to its plaints and sorrows on the saddened chords 
 of the lyre ! But in the midst of all he generally 
 found relief, and his sorrow gave place to calm con- 
 fidence and joy in God. What wonder, that a soul 
 so susceptible and devout as his should manifest 
 emotions so strong, so changeful, and so various, 
 seeing that he passed through the greatest vicissi- 
 tudes of life. God took him from the slieepfolds 
 to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance 
 (Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71). See Herder’s Geist der 
 Ebr. Poesie , ii. 297-301 ; and especially Tholuck 
 ( Psahnen , Einleitung, § 3), who gives a most 
 admirable exhibition of the Psalmist’s history and 
 services. 
 
 The example and countenance of the king na- 
 turally led others to cultivate poetry and music. 
 It appears from Amos vi. 5, that lovers of pleasure 
 took David’s compositions as a model for their 
 worldly songs : how much more would the lovers 
 of piety be induced to follow him by producing 
 sacred songs and hymns! The fine psalm in 
 Hab. iii. is an exact imitation of his style as seen 
 
 * It was he, as Herder observes, that collected 
 (he scattered wild field-flowers and planted them 
 as a royal parterre on Mount Zion. 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 511 
 
 in Ps. xviii. And the celebrated singers of his 
 day were men, like himself, moved by the divin* 
 afflatus not only to excel in music but also to 
 indite hallowed poetry. Of these Psalmists the 
 names of several are preserved in the titles. 
 
 2. Asaph is named as the author of twelve 
 Psalms, viz. 1., Ixxiii.-lxxxiii. He was one 
 of David’s chief musicians [Asaph], All the 
 poems bearing his name cannot be his ; for in Ps. 
 lxxiv., lxxix., and lxxx. there are manifest allu- 
 sions to very late events in the history of Israel. 
 Either, then, the titles of these three Psalms must 
 be wholly rejected, or the name must be here 
 taken for the ‘ sons of Asaph which is not impro- 
 bable, as the family continued for many genera- 
 tions in the choral service of the Temple. Asaph 
 appears from Ps. 1., lxxiii., and lxxviii., to have 
 been the greatest master of didactic poetry, excel- 
 ling alike in sentiment and in diction. 
 
 3. The sons of Kor ah was another family of cho- 
 risters (see Korah, at the end), to whom eleven 
 of the most beautiful Psalms are ascribed. The 
 authorship is assigned to the Korahites in general, 
 not because many of theifi could have been en- 
 gaged in composing one and the same song, but 
 because the name of the particular writer was 
 unknown or omitted. However, in Ps. Ixxxviii 
 we find, besides the family designation, the name 
 of the individual who wrote it, viz.— 
 
 4. Hemati was another of David's chief singers 
 (1 Cliron. xv. 19) : he is called the Ezrahite, as 
 being descended from some Ezrah, who appears to 
 have been a descendant of Korah ; at least Heman 
 is reckoned aKohathite (1 Chron. vi. 33-38), and 
 was therefore probably a Korahite ; for the Kohath- 
 ites were continued and counted in the line of 
 Korah; see 1 Chron. vi. 22, 37, 38 [Heman]. 
 Thus Heman was both an Ezrahite and of the «o- 
 of Korah. That Ps. Ixxxviii. was written by . 
 
 is not unlikely, though many question it. 
 
 5. Ethan is reputed the author of Ps. Ixxxix. 
 He also is called the Ezrahite, but this is either a 
 mistake, or he as well as Heman had an ancestor 
 named Ezrah, of whom nothing is known. The 
 Ethan intended in the title is doubtless the Levite 
 of Merari’s family whom David made chief mu- 
 sician along with Asaph and Heman (1 Chron. vi. 
 44 ; xxv. 1, 6). The Psalm could not, however, 
 lie composed by him, for it plainly alludes (ver. 
 38-44) to the downfall of the kingdom. 
 
 6. Solomon is given as the author of Ps. lxxii. 
 and cxxvii., and there is no decided internal evi- 
 dence to the contrary, though most consider him 
 to be the subject, and not the author, of Ps. 
 lxxii. 
 
 7. Moses is reputed the writer of Ps. xe., and 
 there is no strong reason to doubt the tradition. 
 But the Talmudists, whom Origen, and even Je- 
 rome, follow, ascribe to him also the ten succeed- 
 ing Psalms (xci.-c.), on the principle that the ano- 
 nymous productions belonged to the last-named 
 author. This principle is manifestly false, since 
 in several of these Psalms we find evidence that 
 Moses was not the author. In Ps. xcv. the forty 
 years’ wandering in the wilderness is referred tc 
 as past ; in Ps. xcvii. 8, mention is made of Zion 
 and Judah, which proves that it cannot be dated 
 earlier than the time of David ; and in Ps. xcix. 6, 
 the prophet Samuel is named, which also prove* 
 that Moses could not be the writer. 
 
 Jeduthun is sometimes, without just ground, 
 
582 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 held to be named as the author of Ps. xxxix. (see 
 above, under that head). Many conjectures have 
 been formed respecting other writers, especially of 
 the anonymous psalms. The Sept, seemingly 
 gives, as authors, Jeremiah (Ps. cxxxvii.), and 
 Haggai and Zechariah (Ps. cxxxviii.).* But these 
 conjectures are too uncertain to call for further 
 notice in this place. 
 
 The dates of the Psalms, as must be obvious from 
 what has been stated respecting the authors, are 
 very various, ranging from the time of Moses to 
 that of the Captivity — a period of nearly 1000 
 years. In the time of king Jehoshaphat (about 
 b.c. 896) Ps lxxxiii., setting forth the dangers 
 of the nation, as we read in 2 Chron. xx. 1-25, was 
 composed either by himself, as some suppose, or 
 mo3t likely, according to the title, by Jahaziel, 
 * a Levite of the sons of Asaph,’ who was then an 
 inspired teacher (see 2 Chron. xx. 14). In the 
 days of Hezekiah, who was himself a poet (Isa. 
 xxxviii. 9-20), we may date, with great proba- 
 bility, the Korahitic Psalms xlvi. and xlviii., 
 which seem to celebrate the deliverance from Sen- 
 nacherib (2 Kings xix. 35). In the period of the 
 Captivity were evidently written such laments as 
 Ps. xliv., lxxix., cii., and cxxxvii. ; and after its 
 close, when the captives returned, we must mani- 
 festly date Ps. lxxxv. and exxvi. Some have 
 maintained that several psalms, especially lxxiv., 
 were written even in the days of the Maccabees ; 
 but this is contrary to every probability, for, ac- 
 cording to all accounts, the Canon had been closed 
 before that time [Canon]. 
 
 Collection and Akuangement. — As the 
 Psalms are productions oT different authors iu 
 different ages, we are led to inquire how and 
 when they were collected. The book has been 
 styled by some moderns the Anthology of Hebrew 
 lyric ; poetry , as if it consisted of a selection of the 
 most admired productions of the sacred muse ; but 
 the name is not altogether appropriate, since seve- 
 ral pieces of the highest poetic merit, are, to our 
 knowledge, not included, namely, the songs of 
 Moses in Exod. xv. and Deut. xxxii. ; the song 
 of Deborah in Judg. v. ; the prayer of Hannah 
 in 1 Sam. ii. 1-10; and even David’s lament over 
 Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. i. 18-27. To these 
 may be added the song of Hezekiah in Isa. 
 xxxviii. 9-20 ; and the prayer of Habakkuk in 
 Hah. iii. The truth seems to be, as Ewald and 
 Tholuck maintain, that the collection was made 
 not so much with reference to the beauty of the 
 pieces as to their adaptation for devotional use in 
 public worship. This view sufficiently accounts 
 for omitting most of the above pieces, and many 
 others, as being either too individual or too secu- 
 lar in their application. It may account for 
 not including the lament over Jonathan, and for 
 the fact that only two of Solomon's compositions 
 (Ps. lxxii. and cxxvii.) are professedly given, 
 though ‘his songs were a thousand and five’ (1 
 Kings iv. 32, 33 ). His themes were secular, and 
 therefore not suitable for this collection. 
 
 When the Psalms were collected and by xvhom t 
 are questions that cannot be confidently answered. 
 The Talmudists most absurdly consideied David 
 the collector (Cod. Beracoth , c. i. p. 9). It is 
 
 * Hitzig (Comment, iiber die Psalmen) ascribes 
 to Jeremiah a large number of the elegiac or 
 plaintive psalms 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK CF. 
 
 certain that the book, as i f now elands, coui 1 mx 
 have been formed before the building of the second 
 temple, for Ps. exxvi. was evidently composed at 
 th?t period. In all probability it was formed 
 by Ezra and his contemporaries, about u.c. 459 
 (Ewald's Poet Bucher, ii. 205). But in the 
 arrangement of the book there is manifest proof of 
 its gradual formation out of several smaller collec- 
 tions, each ending with a kind of doxology. 
 
 The Psalter is divided in the Hebrew into five 
 books, and also in the Sept, version, which proves 
 the division to be older than n.c. 200. Some have 
 fancied that this five-fold division did not origi- 
 nally exist, but that it arose simply from a desire 
 to have as many parts in the Psalms as there are 
 in the law of Moses. But strong reasons demand 
 the rejection of such a fancy. Why should this 
 conformity to the Pentateuch be desired and 
 effected in the Psalms, and.not also in Proverbs 
 cr in the Prophets f The five hooks bear decided 
 marks of being not arbitrary divisions, but dis- 
 tinct and independent collections by various 
 hands. 
 
 The frst book (i.-xli.) consists wholly of 
 David’s songs, his name being prefixed to all ex- 
 cept i., ii., x., and xxxiii. ; and it is evidently 
 the first collection, having been possibly made in 
 the time of Hezekiah, who is known to have 
 ordered a collection of Solomon's proverbs (Prov. 
 xxv. 1), and to have commanded the Levites to 
 sing the words of David (2 Chron. xxix. 30). 
 
 The second book (xlii.-lxxii.) consists mainly 
 of pieces by the sons of Korah (xlii.-xlix.), and by 
 David (li -Ixv.), which may have been separate 
 minor collections. At the end of this book is 
 found the notice — ‘The prayers of David the son 
 of Jesse are ended and hence some have thought 
 that this was originally the close of a large collec- 
 tion comprising Ps. i.-lxxii. (Carpzov, Intro- 
 ductio, &c. ii. 107). But that the second was 
 originally distinct from the first book, is proven 
 by the repetition of one or two pieces ; thus Ps. 
 liii. is plainly the same as Ps. xiv., with only a 
 
 notable variation in the Divine name, God , d *r6a, 
 
 being used in the former wherever Lord , niH', is 
 found in the latter. So also Ps. lxx. is but a re- 
 petition of Ps. xl. 13-17, with the same singular 
 variation in the Divine name. It is not likely 
 that this collection was made till the period of the 
 Captivity, if interpreters are right in referring Ps. 
 xliv. to the days of Jeremiah. 
 
 The third 6ooA(lxxiii.lxxxix.) consists chiefly 
 of Asaph's psalms, but comprises apparently two 
 smaller collections, the one Asaphitic (lxxiii.- 
 lxxxiii.), the other mostly Korahitic (lxxxiv.- 
 lxxxix.). The collector of this book bad no in- 
 tention to bring together songs written by David, 
 and therefore he put the above notice at the end 
 of the second book (see De Wette’s Psalmen , 
 Einleitung, p. 21). The date of this collection 
 must be as late as the return from Babylon, for 
 Ps. lxxxv. implies as much. 
 
 The fourth book (xc.-cvi.) and the fifth (cvii.- 
 cl.) are made up chiefly of anonymous liturgic 
 pieces, many of which were composed for the ser- 
 vice of the second temple. In the last book we 
 have the Songs of Degrees (cxx.-cxxxiv.), which 
 seem to have been originally a separate collection. 
 The five books may, with some propriety, be thin 
 distinguished : the first Davidic, the second Ko- 
 
PSALMS, BOOK OF. 
 
 rahitic , the third Asaphitic, and the two remain- 
 ing Litui gic. 
 
 In the mode of dividing and numbering the 
 Psalm3, some Hebrew MSS. vary from the printed 
 text. In some, Ps. i. and ii. are given as one, 
 the first being reckoned as only introductory ; 
 which accounts for the various reading in Acts 
 xiii. 33. So also Ps. xlii. and xliii. are some- 
 times joined into one, as they evidently ought to 
 be. In the Septuagint also, which the Vulgate 
 follows, the arrangement varies from the common 
 order, for it joins Ps. ix. and x. together, and 
 thus its numbering falls one behind the Hebrew 
 as far as Ps. cxlvii., which it cuts into two at 
 ver. 12, and thus returns to the common enumera- 
 tion. There is also in the Sept, an apocryphal 
 Psalm, numbered cli., on David’s victory over 
 Goliath. 
 
 Various classifications of the Psalms have been 
 proposed (Carpzov, Introduction &c., ii. 132-134). 
 Tholuck would divide them, according to the 
 matter, into songs of praise , of thanksgiving , of 
 complaint , and of mstruction. De Wette suggests 
 another method of sorting them (. Einleitung , p. 3), 
 
 into — 1. Hymns (D'^nJI in the proper sense), as 
 
 viii. xviii. ; 2. National Psalms , as lxxviii. cv. ; 
 
 3. Psalms of Zion and the Temple , as xv. xxiv. ; 
 
 4. Psalms respecting the King , as ii. cx. ; 5. 
 Psalms of complaint , as vii. xxii. ; and 6. Re- 
 ligious Psalms , as xxiii., xci. It is obvious, 
 however, that no very accurate classification can 
 be made, since many are of diversified contents 
 and uncertain tenor. 
 
 Canonicity and Use. — The inspiration and 
 canonical authority of the Psalms are esta- 
 blished by the most abundant and convincing 
 evidence. They never were, and never can be, 
 rejected, except by impious impugners of all 
 divine revelation. Not to mention other ancient 
 testimonies [Canon], we find complete evidence 
 in the New Testament, where the book is quoted 
 or referred to as divine by Christ and his apostles 
 at least seventy times. No other writing is so 
 frequently cited; Isaiah, the next in the scale of 
 quotation, being cited only about fifty-five times. 
 Twice (Luke xx. 42 and Acts i. 20) we find dis- 
 tinct mention of the Book of Psalms (/3 ifiAos 
 ypaXpoor). Once, however (Luke xxiv. 44), the 
 name Psalms is used not simply for this book, 
 but for the Hagiographa, or the whole of the third 
 division of the Hebrew Scriptures [Hagio- 
 grapha], because in it the Psalms are the first 
 and chief part; or possibly, as Hitvernick suggests 
 (Einleitung , § xiv. p. 78), because the division 
 consists mainly of poetry. It deserves notice 
 that in Heb. iv. 7, where the quotation is taken 
 from the anonymous Ps. xc.v., the book is indi- 
 cated by David , most likely because he was the 
 largest and most eminent contributor, and also 
 the patron and model of the other Psalmists. For 
 the same reasons many ancient and modern 
 authors often speak of the book as the Psalms of 
 David (Carpzov, Introd. ii. 98), without intend- 
 ing to ascribe all the productions to him. 
 
 In every age of the church the Psalms have 
 been extolled for their excellence and their use 
 for godly edifying (Carpzov, l. c. pp. 109-116). 
 Indeed, if Paul’s estimate of ancient inspired 
 Scripture (2 Tim. iii. 15-17) can be justly applied 
 o any single book, that book must be the Psalms. 
 
 PSALMS, BOOK OF. 5*3 
 
 Even in the New Testament there is scarcely a 
 work of equal practical utility. Basil the Great 
 and Chrysostom, in their homilies (see Suieeri 
 Thes. Eccles. sub \j/aAp.Ss), expatiate most elo- 
 quently, and yet judiciously, on its excellence 
 The close of Basil’s eulogy is to this effect : ‘ In 
 it is found a perfect theology ( ivravOa evi 6eo\oyia 
 TeXeia ) ; prophecy of Christ’s sojourn in the flesh, 
 threatening of judgment, hope of resurrection, 
 fear of retribution, promises of glory, revelations 
 of mysteries, — all things are treasured in the book 
 of Psalms, as in some great and common store- 
 house.’ Among the early Christians it was cus- 
 tomary to learn the book by heart, that psalmody 
 might enliven their social hours, and soften the 
 fatigues and soothe the sorrows of life. They em- 
 ployed the Psalms not only in their religious as- 
 semblies, of which use we find probable mention in 
 1 Cor. xiv. 26, but also at their meals and before 
 retiring to rest, as Clement of Alexandria testifies : 
 Ouaia rep deoi if/aAjuol /cat vyvoi vapa ttjv eanaaiv, 
 7r po t e T?}s noiT-gs. Of their use at meals we find 
 an example also in the institution of the Lord’s 
 supper (Matt. xxvi. 30). 
 
 The great doctrines and precepts embodied in 
 the Psalms, what views they give of God and his 
 government, of man and his sinfulness, of piety 
 and morals, of a future state, and of the Messiah, 
 are most ably set forth by Tholuck in his Einlei- 
 tung, § 4. 
 
 It may be well here to notice what are called the 
 vindictive Psalms, namely, those which contain 
 expressions of wrath and imprecations against the 
 enemies of God and his people, such as Ps. lix., 
 lxix., lxxix., and which in consequence are apt 
 to shock the feelings of some Christian readers. 
 In order to obviate this offence, most of our pious 
 commentators insist that, the expressions are not 
 maledictions or imprecations, but simple declara- 
 tions of what will or may take place. But this 
 is ulterly inadmissible ; for in several of the most 
 startling passages the language in the original is 
 plainly imperative, and not indicative (see Ps. 
 lix. 14 ; lxix. 2;>, 28 ; lxxix. 6). The truth is, 
 that only a morbid benevolence, a mistaken phil- 
 anthropy, takes offence at these Psalms; for in 
 reality they are not opposed to the spirit of the 
 Gospel, or to that love of enemies which Christ 
 enjoined. Resentment against evil-doers is so 
 far from being sinful, that we find it exemplified 
 in the meek and spotless Redeemer himself (see 
 Mark iii. 5). If the emotion and its utterance 
 were essentially sinful, how could Paul (1 Cor. 
 xvi. 22) wish the enemy of Christ to be accursed 
 (dvadeya), or say of his own enemy, Alexander 
 the coppersmith, ‘ the Lord reward him according 
 to his works’ (2 Tim. iv. 14); and, especially, 
 how could the spirits of the just in heaven call on 
 God for vengeance (Rev. vi. 10)? See a good 
 article on this subject (The Imprecations in the 
 Scriptures ) in the American Bibliotheca Sacra 
 for February, 1844. 
 
 The following are among the chief and best 
 exegetical helps for explaining this book: — Poli 
 Synopsis ; Y enema, Comment, in Psalmos ; De 
 Wette’ s Commentar uber die Psalmen , 1836; 
 Rosenmiilleri Scholia in Epit. Redacta , vol. iii. ; 
 Maureri Comment. Crit. Grammaticus, vol. iii. ; 
 Ilitzig's Comment, und Uebersetzung ; Ewald's 
 Poet. Bucher , vol. ii. ; Tholuck 's Uebersetzung 
 und Ausltgung der Psalmen; and Hengsten 
 
584 
 
 PUBLICAN'. 
 
 PUBLICAN. 
 
 berg's C^mmentar ueber die Psalmen. The 
 works of Tlioluck ami Hengstenberg form to- 
 gether the very best helps, leaving nothing to be 
 desired by the critical and devout student of the 
 Psalms. 
 
 The principal English works on the Book of 
 Psalms are the translations (mostly with notes) 
 of Mudge, 1744 ; Edwards, 1755 ; Fenwick, 1759; 
 Green, 1762; Street, 1790; Wake, 1793; Geddes, 
 1807; Horsley, 1815; Fry, 1819; French and 
 Skinner, 1830 ; Noyes, 1831 (Boston, U.S ) ; Wal- 
 ford, 1837; Bush, 1838 (New York): and the 
 Commentaries of Ainsworth, 1639; Hammond, 
 1659; Merrick, 1768; Horne, 1771; and Dimock, 
 1791.— B. D. 
 
 PSALTERY. [Musicai. Instruments.] 
 PTOLEMAIS. [Accho.] 
 
 PTOLEMY. This common name of the 
 Greek kings of Egypt does not occur in the ca- 
 nonical Scripture, but is frequent in the books 
 of Maccabees and in Josephus (see the article 
 Egypt). 
 
 PUBLICAN (Gr. Te\wmris ; among the Ro~ 
 mans publicanus ), a person who farmed the 
 taxes and public revenues. This office was 
 usually held by Roman knights, an order instituted 
 as early as the time of Romulus, and composed 
 of men of great consideration with the govern- 
 ment, ‘ the principal men of dignity in their 
 several countries,’ who occupied a kind of middle 
 rank between the senators and the people (Joseph. 
 Antiy. xii. 4). Although these officers were, 
 according to Cicero, the ornament of the city and 
 the strength of the commonwealth, they did not 
 attain to great oflices, nor enter the senate, so 
 long as they continued in the order of knights. 
 They were thus more capable of devoting their 
 attention to the collection of the public revenue. 
 
 The publicans were distributed into three 
 classes : the farmers of the revenue, their partners, 
 and their securities, corresponding to the Man- 
 cipes, Socii, and Pra;des. They were all under 
 the Qusestores jErarii, who presided over the 
 finances at Rome. Strictly speaking, there were 
 only two sorts of publicans, the Mancipes and 
 the Socii. The former, who were generally of 
 flie equestrian order, and much superior to the 
 latter in rank and character, are mentioned by 
 Cicero with great honour and respect ( Orat . pro 
 Plancio, 9) ; but the common publicans, the col- 
 lectors or receivers of the tribute, as many of the 
 Socii were, are covered both by heathens and 
 Jews with opprobrium and contempt. 
 
 The name and profession of a publican were, 
 indeed, extremely odious among the Jews, who 
 submitted with much reluctance to the taxes 
 levied by the Romans. The Galileans or He- 
 rodians, the disciples of Judas the Gaulonite, 
 were the most turbulent and rebellious (Acts v. 
 37). They t’hougnt it unlawful to pay tribute, 
 and founded their refusal to do so on their 
 being the people of the Lord, because a true 
 Israelite was not permitted to acknowledge any 
 other sovereign than God (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2). 
 The publicans were hated as the instruments by 
 which the subjection of the Jews to the Roman 
 emperor was perpetuated ; and the paying of 
 tribute was regarded as a virtual acknowledgment 
 of his sovereignty. They were also noted for 
 their imposition, rapine, and extortion, to which 
 4iey weB perhaps, more especially prompted by 
 
 having a share In the farm of the tribute, ae 
 they were thus tempted to oppress the people with 
 illegal exactions, that they might the more 
 speedily enrich themselves. Theocritus consi- 
 dered the bear and the lion the most cruel 
 among the beasts of the wilderness ; and among 
 the beasts of the city the publican and the para 
 site. Those Jews who accepted the office of pub- 
 lican were execrated by their own nation equally 
 with heathens : ‘ Let him be unto thee as an 
 heathen man and a publican’ (Matt, xviii. 17). 
 It is said they were not allowed to enter the 
 temple or synagogues, to engage in the public 
 prayers, fill offices of judicature, or even give tes- 
 timony in courts of justice. According to the 
 Rabbins, it was a maxim* that a religious man 
 who became a publican was to be driven out of 
 the religious society (Grotius, ad Matt, xviii. ; 
 Lightfoot, Hot. Heb. ad Matt, xviii.). They 
 would not receive their presents at the temple any 
 more than the price of prostitution, of blood, or of 
 anything wicked and offensive. 
 
 There were many publicans in Judaea in the 
 time of our Saviour, of whom Zacchaeus was pro- 
 bably one of the principal, as he is called ‘ chief 
 among the publicans' (Luke xix. 2), a phrase sup- 
 posed to be equivalent to our Commissioner of the 
 Customs. Matthew appears to have been an in- 
 ferior publican, and is described as ‘ sitting at 
 the receipt of custom ’ (Luke v. 27). Jesus was 
 reproached by the Jews as the friend of publicans 
 and sinners, and for eating with them (Luke vii. 
 34) ; but; such was his opinion of the unbelieving 
 and self-righteous chiei-priests and elders who 
 brought these accusations, that he replied unto 
 them, 4 The publicans and the harlots go into the 
 kingdom of God before you’ (Matt. xxi. 31). 
 The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican who 
 went up in to the temple to pray (Luke xviii. 10) 
 is a beautiful illustration of the distinction between 
 hypocrisy and true piety. When Jesus visited 
 the house of Zacchaeus, who appears to have been 
 eminently honest and upright, lie was assured by 
 him that he was ready to give one half of his 
 goods to the poor ; and if he had taken anything 
 from any man by false accusation, to ‘ restore 
 him fourfold’ (Luke xix. 8 . This was in refer- 
 ence to the Roman law, which required that when 
 any farmer was convicted of extortion, he should 
 return four times the value of what, he had frau- 
 dulently obtained. There is no reason t.o suppose 
 that either Zacclneus or Matthew had been guilty 
 of unjust practices, or that there was any exception 
 to their characters beyond that of being engaged 
 in an odious employment. Some other exam- 
 ples of this occur. Suetonius ( Vesp.) mentions 
 the case of Sabinus, a collector of the fortieth 
 penny in Asia, who bad several statues erected to 
 him by the cities of the province, with this in- 
 scription, ‘ To the honest tax farmer.’ 
 
 It has been imagined by some commentators 
 that, by the Jewish laws, it was forbidden to pay 
 tribute ro foreigners, or to be employed as pub- 
 licans under them (Deut. xvii. 15) ; but publicans 
 that were Jews are so often mentioned in the New 
 Testament, that Dr. Lardner inclines to think the 
 Roman tribute was collected chiefly by Jews. He 
 conceives that in most provinces the natives were 
 employed in the towns as under-collectors, and 
 that the receivers-general, or superior officer*, 
 only were Romans. As the office was so ex- 
 
PUBUUS. 
 
 PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 58fl 
 
 Iremely odious, the Romans might deem it prudent 
 to employ come natives in collecting the taxes ; 
 and there is little doubt that in every district they 
 would find Jews willing to profit by the subjec- 
 tion of their country, and to accept appointments 
 from their conquerors. — G. M. B. 
 
 PUBLIUS (IIj7rAtoy), governor of Melita at 
 the time of Paul's shipwreck on that island (Acts 
 Kxviii. 7, 8). Paid having healed his father, pro- 
 bably enjoyed his hospitality during the three 
 months of his stay in the island. An inscription 
 found in Malta designates the governor of the 
 island by the same title (irpuros, ‘ first’ or ‘ chief ), 
 which Luke gives to Publius [Mki.it a]. 
 
 PUDENS (IIou57js), one of the persons whose 
 ?alutations Paul, writing from Rome, sends to 
 Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 21). Nothing is really 
 known of him ; but the martyrologies make him 
 to have been a person of figure at Rome, of the 
 senatorial order, and father of two pious virgins, 
 Praxis and Pudentia. Yet, by a strange incon- 
 gruity, he is also deemed to have been one of the 
 seventy disciples. A female disciple, of the name 
 of Claudia (KA.cu/5 la), is mentioned in the same 
 verse ; and as a poet of the time, Martial, speaks 
 of tire marriage of a Pudens and Claudia, the 
 same persons are supposed to be intended. But 
 this sort of identification requires little notice; 
 and if Pudens and Claudia were husband and 
 wife, it is unlikely that the apostle would have 
 interposed another name between theirs. 
 
 PUL, king of Assyria [Assyria]. 
 
 PULSE. [Pol.] 
 
 PUNISHMENTS. This subject is properly 
 restricted to the penalty imposed on the coinmis- 
 uon of some crime or offence against law. It 
 is thus distinguished from private retaliation or 
 revenge, cruelty, torture, popular violence, cer- 
 tain customs of war, &c. Human punishments 
 are such as are inflicted immediately on the 
 person of the offender, or indirectly upon his 
 goods, &c. For the leading points in the litera- 
 ture of the question concerning future and divine 
 punishment see Soul. Capital punishment is 
 usually supposed to have been instituted at the 
 deluge (Gen. ix. 5, 6) : ‘ At the hand of every 
 mans brother will I require the life of man: 
 whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his 
 blood be shed ; for in the image of God made he 
 man.* Arnheim, however, contends that the, 
 words must he rendered his kinsman , 
 
 or near relative (compare xiii. 8, DTIK D'tWX, 
 or margin), and thus explains the precept : if 
 D1KH, one stranger slay another, the kinsmen of 
 the murdered man are the avengers of blood ; but 
 if he be slain by one of his own kin- 
 
 dred, the other kinsmen must not spare the mur- 
 derer, for if they do, then divine providence will 
 require the blood — that is, will avenge it. Cer- 
 tainly capital punishment for murder was not 
 inflicted on Cain, who was purposely preserved 
 from death by divine interposition (iv. 14, 15^, 
 and was simply doomed to banishment from 
 the scene of his crime to a distant country, to a 
 total disappointment, in agricultural labour, and to 
 the life of a fugitive and a vagabond, far from the 
 manifested presence of the Lord (11, 14); although 
 the same reason existed in equal force in his case, 
 namely, the creation of man in the image of God. 
 We are inclined to regard the whole of the 
 blessing’ pronounced upon the Noachidce, includ- 
 
 ing this precept, as intended to encourage them t« 
 re-people the earth, by promises, &c., correspond 
 ing to the misgivings wliich were naturally 
 created by the catastrophe they had just escaped; 
 such as a continuation of the dread of man in the 
 inferior creatures, a reinstatement of man in do- 
 minion over them (comp. i. 28), an assurance of 
 God’s high regard for human life, notwithstand- 
 ing his late destruction of all hut themselves, 
 and the institution of the most natural and 
 efficient mode of preserving it, by assigning the 
 punishment of homicide to the nearest of kin, no 
 doubt, however, under the superintendence of the 
 head of every family, who appears to have been 
 the legislator till the reconstitution of things, spi- 
 ritual and civil, at Sinai, when this among other 
 ancient laws was retained, perhaps unavoidably, 
 but at the same time regulated (Num. xxxv. 
 9-34). This interpretation would account for 
 the custom of blood-revenge among all the an- 
 cient and Asiatic nations. Certainly those who 
 generalize this precept into an authority for ca- 
 pital punishment by courts of law in Christian 
 nations, ought, by parity of reason, to regard the 
 prohibition of blood (Gen. ix. 4) of equal obliga- 
 tion. The punishment of death appears among the 
 legal powers of Judah, as the head of his family, 
 and. he ordered his daughter-in-law, Tamar, ro be 
 burnt (xxxviii. 24). It is denounced by the king 
 of the Philistines, Abimelech, against those of his 
 people who should injure or insult Isaac or his 
 wife (xxvi. 11,29). Similar power seems to have 
 been possessed by the reigning Pharaoh in the 
 time of Joseph (xli. 13). 
 
 In proceeding to consider the punishments 
 enacted by Moses, reference will be made to the 
 Scriptures only, because, as Michaelis observes, 
 the explanation of the laws of Moses is not to 
 be sought in the Jewish commentators. Nor 
 will it be necessary to specify the punishments 
 ordered by him for different offences, which 
 will be found under their respective names 
 [Adui.tery, Idolatry, &c.]. The extensive 
 prescription of capital punishment by the Mosaic 
 law, which we cannot consider as a dead letter, 
 may he accounted for by the peculiar circum- 
 stances of the people. They were a nation of 
 newly-emancipated slaves, and were by nature 
 perhaps more than commonly intractable ; and if 
 we may judge by the laws enjoined on them, 
 whieh Mr. Hume well remarks are a safe index 
 to the manners and disposition of any people, we 
 must infer that they had imbibed all the dege- 
 nerating influences of slavery among heathens. 
 Their wanderings and isolation did not admit of 
 penal settlements or remedial punishments. They 
 were placed under immediate divine government 
 and surveillance. Hence, wilful offences evinced 
 an incorrigibleness, which rendered death the only 
 means of ridding the community of such trans- 
 gressors ; and which was ultimately resorted to 
 in regard to all individuals above a certain 
 age, in order that a better class might enter 
 Canaan (Num. xiv. 29, 32, 35). If capital 
 punishment in Christian nations be defended 
 from the Mosaic law, it ought in fairness to be 
 extended to all the cases sanctioned by that 
 law, and among the rest, as Paley argues, to the 
 doing of any work on the Sabbath-day (Me r 
 Phil., b. v. ch. 7). We have the highest au- 
 thority for saying, that the Mosaic law of divorce 
 
586 
 
 PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 PUNISHMENTS, 
 
 was a condescension to circumstances (Matt, 
 xix. 8)— a condescension which may have ex- 
 tended somewhat further. 
 
 Ti e mode of capital punishment, which con- 
 stitutes a material element in the character of any 
 law, was probably as humane as the circum- 
 stances of Moses admitted. It was probably re- 
 stricted to lapidation or stoning, which, by skil- 
 ful management, might, produce instantaneous 
 death. It was an Egyptian custom (Exod. viii. 
 26). The public effusion of blood by decapitation 
 cannot be proved to have been a Mosaic punish- 
 ment, nor even an Egyptian ; for, in the instance 
 of Pharaoh's chief baker (Gen. xl. 19), ‘ Pharaoh 
 shall lift up thine head from off' thee,’ the mar- 
 ginal rendering seems preferable, ‘ shall reckon 
 thee and take thine office from thee.’ He is said 
 to have been ‘hanged’ (xli. 13); which may pos- 
 sibly mean posthumous exposure, though no in- 
 dependent evidence appears of this custom in 
 ancient Egypt (Wilkinson’s Manners and Cus- 
 toms , vol. ii. p. 45). The appearance of deca- 
 pitation, ‘slaying by the sword,' in later times (2 
 Sam. iv. 8, 20, 21, 22 ; 2 Kings x. 6-8) has no 
 more relation to the Mosaic law than the decapi- 
 tation of John the Baptist by Herod (Matt. xiv. 
 8-12); or than the hewing to pieces of Agag before 
 the Lord by Samuel, as a punishment in kind (1 
 Sam. xv. 33) ; or than the office of the Chereth- 
 ites, MVO (2 Sam. viii. 18 ; xv. 18 ; xx. 7, 23), or 
 headsmen, as Gesenius understands by the word, 
 from m3, ‘ to chop off’ or ‘ hew down ’ (execu- 
 tioners belonging to the body-guard of the king) ; 
 whereas execution was ordered by Moses, probably 
 adopting an ancient custom, to be begun first by 
 the witnesses, a regulation which constituted a tre- 
 mendous appeal to their moral feelings, and after- 
 wards to be completed by the people (Deut. xiii. 
 10 ; xvii. 7; Josh. vii. 25 ; John viii. 7). It was a 
 later innovation that immediate execution should 
 be done by some personal attendant., by whom the 
 office was probably considered as an honour (2 
 Sam. i. 15; iv. 12). Stoning therefore was, pro- 
 bably, the only capital punishment ordered by 
 Moses. It is observable that neither this nor any 
 other punishment was, according to his law, at- 
 tended with insult or torture (comp. 2 Macc. vii ). 
 Nor did his laws admit of those horrible mutila- 
 tions practised by other nations. For instance, he 
 prescribed stoning for adulterers (comp. Lev. xx. 
 10 ; Ezek. xxiii. 25; xvi. 38, 40 ; John viii. 5); 
 but the Chaldseans cut. off the noses of such offend- 
 ers (Ezek. xxiii. 25). According to Diodorus, the 
 Egyptian monarch, Actisanes, punished robbers 
 in like manner, and banished them to the confines 
 of the desert, where a town was built called Rhi- 
 nocolura, from the peculiar nature of their punish- 
 ment, and where they were compelled to live by 
 their industry in a barren and inhospitable region 
 (i. 60). Mutilation of such a nature amounts to a 
 perpetual condemnation to infamy and crime. It 
 will shortly be seen that the lex talionis, ‘ an eye for 
 an eye,’ &c., was adopted by Moses as the principle, 
 but not the mode of punishment. He seems also 
 to have understood the true end of punishment, 
 which is not to gratify the antipathy of society 
 against crime, nor moral vengeance, which belongs 
 to God alone, but prevention. ‘ All the people shall 
 hear and fear, and do no more so presumptuously’ 
 ( Deut. xvii. 13 ; xxix. 20). His laws are equally 
 free from the characteristic of savage legislation, 
 
 that of involving the family of the offender m hu 
 punishment. He did not allow parents to be put 
 to death for their children, nor children for theii 
 parents (Deut. xxiv. 16), as did the Chaldaeans 
 (Dan. vi. 24), and the kings of Israel (comp. 1 
 Kings xxi. : 2 Kings ix. 26). Various punish- 
 ments were introduced among the Jews, or became 
 known to them by their intercourse with other 
 nations, — viz., precipitation , or throwing, or caus- 
 ing to leap, from the top of a rock : to which ten 
 thousand Idumaeans were condemned by Ama- 
 ziah, king of Judah (2 Clnon. xxv. 12). The 
 inhabitants of Nazareth intended a similar fate 
 for our Lord (Luke iv. 29). This punishment 
 resembles that of the Tarpeian rock among the 
 Romans. Dichotomy, or cutting asunder, appears 
 to have been a Babylonian custom (Dan. ii. 5; 
 iii. 29; Luke xii. 46; Matt. xxiv. 51); but 
 the passages in tiie Gospels admit of the milder 
 interpretation of scourging with severity, discard- 
 ing from office, &c. Beating to death , rvpira- 
 vKrpis, was a Greek punishment for slaves. It was 
 inflicted on a wooden frame, which probably de- 
 rived its name from resembling a drum or tim- 
 brel in form, on which the criminal was bound 
 and beaten to death (2 Macc. vi. 19, 2S ; comp, 
 v. 30). In Josephus ( de Macc.) the same in- 
 strument is called rpox^s, or ‘ wheel ’ (§ § 5, 9). 
 Hence to beat upon the tympanum, to drum to 
 death, is similar to ‘ breaking on the wheel’ (Heb. 
 xi. 35). David inflicted this among other cruel- 
 ties upon the inhabitants of Rabbath-ammon 
 (l Chron. xx. 3). Fighting xoith mild beasts 
 was a Roman punishment, to which criminals 
 and captives in war were sometimes condemned 
 (Adam, Roman Antiq., p. 344; 2 Tim. iv. 17; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xv. 32). Drowning with a heavy 
 weight around the neck, was a Syrian, Greek, 
 and Roman punishment. This, therefore, being 
 the custom of the enemies of the Jews, was 
 introduced by our Lord to heighten his ad- 
 monitions (Matt, xviii. 6). Josephus records 
 that the Galileans, revolting from their com- 
 manders, drowned t lie partizans of Ilerod (Antiq. 
 xiv. 15. 20). The Persians had a singular punish- 
 ment for great criminals. A high tower was 
 filled a great way up with ashes, the criminal 
 was thrown into it, and the ashes by means of 
 a wheel were continually stirred up and raised 
 about him till he was suffocated (2 Macc. xiii. 
 4-6. The lion's den was a Babylonian punish- 
 ment (Dan. vi.), and is still customary in Fez 
 and Morocco (see accounts of by Hoest. c. ii. 
 p. 77). Bruising and pounding to death in a 
 mortar is alluded to in Prov. xxvii. 22. For 
 crucifixion, see the Article. 
 
 Posthumous insults offered to the dead bodies 
 of criminals, though common in other nations, 
 were very sparingly allowed by Moses. He 
 permitted only hanging on a tree or gibbet; 
 but the exposure was limited to a day, and burial 
 of the body at night was commanded (Dent, 
 xxi. 22). Such persons were esteemed ‘ cursed 
 of God’ (comp. Josh. viii. 29 ; x. 26 ; 2 Sam. 
 iv. 12)— a law which the later Jews extended 
 to crucifixion (John xix. 31, &c. ; Gal. iii. 
 13). Hanging alive may have been a Canaan- 
 itish punishment, since it was practised by the 
 Gibeonites on the sons of Saul (2 Sam. xxi. 9). 
 Another posthumous insult in later times con- 
 sisted in heaping stones on the body or grave 
 
PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 5 87 
 
 of the executed criminal (Josh. vii. 25, 2G). To 
 ' make heaps' of houses or cities is a phrase de- 
 noting complete and ignominious destruction 
 (Isa. xxv. 2; Jer. ix. 11'). Burning the dead 
 body seams to have been a very ancient posthu- 
 mous insult. : it was denounced by Judah against 
 his daughter-in-law, Tamar, when informed that 
 she was with child (Gen. xxxviii. 24). Selden 
 thinks hat this means merely branding on the fore- 
 head (De Jure N. et G ., vii. 5). Moses retained 
 this ancient ignominy for two offences only, which 
 from the nature of things must have been com- 
 paratively rare, viz., for bigamy with a mother 
 and her daughter (Lev. xx. 4), and for the case 
 of a priest's daughter who committed whoredom 
 (xxi. 9). Though ‘burning' only be specified 
 in these cases, it may be safely inferred that the 
 previous death of the criminals, probably by 
 lapidation, is to be understood (comp. Josh. vii. 
 25). Among the heathens this merciful prelimi- 
 nary was not always observed, as for instance in 
 the case of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego 
 (Dan. iii.). 
 
 Among the minor corporal punishments or- 
 dered by Moses, was scourging; or the inflic- 
 tion of blows on the back of an offender with 
 a rod. It was limited by him to forty stripes, 
 a number which the Jews in later times were 
 so careful not to exceed, that they inflicted 
 but thirty-nine (2 Cor. xi. 24). It was to be 
 inflicted on the offender lying on the ground, in 
 the presence of a judge (Lev. xix. 20 ; Dent, 
 xxii. 18; xxv. 2, 3). We have abundant evi- 
 dence that it was an ancient Egyptian punish- 
 ment. Nor was it unusual for Egyptian super- 
 intendents to stimulate labourers to their work 
 by the persuasive powers of the stick. Women 
 received the stripes on the back, while sitting, from 
 the hand of a man ; and boys also, sometimes 
 with their hands tied behind them. The modern 
 inhabitants of the valley of the Nile retain the 
 predilection of their forefathers for this punish- 
 ment. The Moslem say ‘ Nezel min e'semma 
 e’neboot baraka min Allah:’ ‘ The stick came 
 down from heaven a blessing from God.’ Cor- 
 poral punishment of this kind was allowed by 
 Moses, by masters to servants cr slaves of both 
 sexes (Exod. xxi. 20). Scourging was common in 
 after times among the Jews, who associated with 
 it no disgrace or inconvenience beyond the phy- 
 sical pain it occasioned, and from which no 
 station was exempt (Prov. xvii. 26 ; comp. x. 13 ; 
 Jer. xxxvii. 15-20). Hence it became the sym- 
 bol for correction in general (Ps. lxxxix. 32). 
 Solomon is a zealous advocate for its use in edu- 
 cation (Prov. xiii. 24; xxiii. 13, 14; comp. 
 Eccles. xxx. 1). In his»opinion ‘ the blueness of 
 a wound cleanseth away evil, and stripes the 
 inward parts of the belly' (Prov. xx. 30). It was 
 inflicted for ecclesiastical offences in the syna- 
 gogue (Matt. x. 17 ; Acts xxvi. II). The Mosaic 
 law, however, respecting it, affords a pleasing 
 contrast to the extreme and unlimited scourging 
 known among the Romans, but which, according 
 to the Porcian law, could not be inflicted upon a 
 Roman citizen (Cicero, Pro Rabirio , 3 ; ad 
 Fan\il. x. 32 ; in Verrem , v. 53 ; comp. Acts xvi. 
 22-37 ; xxii. 25). Reference to the scourge with 
 scorpions, i. e. a whip or scourge armed with knots 
 or thorns, occurs in 1 Kings xii. 11. So in La- 
 tin, scorpio means ‘ virga nodosa vel aculeata.’ 
 
 Retaliation , the lex talionis of the LxHn«, and 
 the aurnrei rovdbs of the Greeks, is doubtless the 
 most natural of all kinds of punishment, and 
 would be the most just of all, if it could be in- 
 stantaneously and universally inflicted. Rut 
 when delayed it is apt to degenerate into revenge. 
 Hence the desirableness that it should be regu- 
 lated and modified by law. The one-eyed 
 man, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (xii.), com- 
 plained that if he lost his remaining eye, he 
 would then suffer more than his victim, who 
 would still have one left. Phavorinus argues 
 against this law, which was one of the twelve 
 tables, as not admitting literal execution, because 
 the same member was more valuable to one man 
 than another; for instance, the right hand of a 
 scribe or painter could not be so well spared as 
 that of a singer. Hence that law, in later times, 
 was administered with tlie modification, ‘Ni cum 
 eo pacet,’ except the aggressor came to an agree- 
 ment with the mutilated person, de talione redi- 
 menda, redeem the punishment by making com- 
 pensation. Moses accordingly adopted the prin- 
 ciple, but lodged the application of it in the 
 judge. ‘If a man blemish his neighbour, as he 
 hath done, so shall it be done to him. Life 
 for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for 
 wound, stripe for stripe, breach for breach’ (Exod. 
 xxi. 23-25 ; Lev. xxiv. 19-22). His system of 
 compensations, &c., occurs in Exod. xxi. He, how- 
 ever, makes wilful murder, even of a slave, always 
 capital, as did the Egyptians. Roman masters 
 had an absolute right over the life of their slaves 
 (Juvenal, vi. 219). The Egyptians doomed the 
 false accuser to the same punishment which he en- 
 deavoured to bring on his victim, as did Moses 
 (Dent. xix. 19). Imprisonment, not as a punish 
 ment, but custody, till the royal pleasure was 
 known, appears among the Egyptians (Gen. xxxix. 
 20, 21). Moses adopted it for like purposes (Lev. 
 xxvi. 12). In later times, it appears as a punish- 
 ment inflicted by the kings of Judah and Israel 
 (2 Chron. xvi. 10 ; 1 Kings xxii. 27 ; Jer. xxxvii. 
 21) ; and during the Christian era, as in the in- 
 stance of John (Matt. iv. 12), and Peter (Acts 
 xii. 4). Murderers and debtors were also com- 
 mitted to prison; and the latter ‘tormented’ till 
 they paid (Matt xviii. 30 ; Luke xxiii. 19). A 
 common prison is mentioned (Acts v. 18) ; and also 
 an inner prison or dungeon, which was sometimes a 
 pit (Jer. xxxviii. 6), in which were ‘stocks' (Jer. 
 xx. 2; xxix. 26; Acts xvi. 24). Prisoners are 
 alluded to (Job iii. 18), and stocks (xlii. 27). 
 Banishment was impracticable among the Jews. 
 It was inflicted by the Romans on John (Rev. i. 
 9). Cutting or plucking off the hair is alluded 
 to (Isa. 1. 6 ; Nehein. xiii. 25). Excision, or 
 ‘ cutting off from his people,’ is denounced against 
 the uncircumcised as eaily as the covenant with 
 Abraham (Gen. xvii. 14). This punishment is 
 expressed in the Mosaic law by the formulae — 
 ‘ that soul shall be destroyed from its people' 
 (Lev. x'ii. 20, 21); ‘from Israel’ (Exod. xii. 
 15); ‘from the midst of the congregation’ (Num. 
 
 xix. 20); ‘ it shall be destroyed’ (Lev. xvii. 14 ; 
 
 xx. 17); which terms sometimes denote capital 
 punishment (Exod. xxxi. 14; comp. xxxv. 2; 
 Num. xv. 32, &c.) [Anathema]. 
 
 Ecclesiastical punishments are prescribed, aa 
 might be expected, under a theocracy, but these 
 were moderate. Involuntary transgressions of the 
 
568 
 
 PUNON. 
 
 PURIM. 
 
 Le viticai law. whether of omission or commission, 
 were atoned for by a sin-offering (Lev. iv. 2, 
 &c. ; v. 1, 4-7). This head embraced a rash or 
 neglected oath, keeping back evidence in court 
 (Lev. iv. 2, &c. ; v. 1 ; iv 7), breach of trust, 
 ocncealment of property w.ien fomd, or theft, 
 even when the offender had already cleared him- 
 self by oath, but was now moved by conscience 
 to make restitution. By these means, and by the 
 payment of twenty per cent, beyond the amount 
 of his trespass, the offender might, cancel the crime 
 as far as the church was concerned (Lev. vi. 1-7 ; 
 Num. v. 6-10). Adultery with a slave was com- 
 muted from death to stripes and a trespass offering 
 (Lev. xix. 20-22). All these cases involved public 
 confession, and the expenses of the offering. 
 
 Future punishment. — Though the doctrine of 
 a future state was known to the ancient Hebrews, 
 yet temporal punishment and reward were the 
 immediate motives held out to obedience. Hence 
 the references in the Old Testament to punish- 
 ment in a future state are obscure and scanty. 
 See Hades; Heaven; Hki.i.. — J. F. D. 
 
 PUNON, one of the stations of the Israelites 
 in the desert [Wandering]. 
 
 PURIFICATIONS [Ablutions, Unclean- 
 ness]. 
 
 PURIM (D'H-IQ, Esther iii. 7 ; ix. 24, sq., 
 from “1-lS, supposed to be the Persic for a ‘ lot ’), a 
 celebrated Jewish festival instituted by Mordecai, 
 at the suggestion of Esther, in the reign of Aha- 
 suerus, king of Persia, to commemorate the deli- 
 verance of the Jews from the designs of Human 
 [Esther; Haman; Mordecai]. It derived its 
 name from the lots cast every day for twelve 
 months in presence of Haman, with the view of 
 discovering an auspicious day for the destruction 
 of all the Jews in the Persian dominions ; when 
 the lot fell on the 13th day of Adar (February and 
 part of March) [Festivals], 
 
 The celebration of this festival is next referred 
 to in 2 Macc. xv. 36, where it is denominated 
 Mordecai's day (tj MapSoxai’/c^ ripepa) [Macca- 
 bees]. It is also mentioned by Josephus ( Antiq . 
 xi. 6), who, having observed that the Jews in 
 Shushan feasted on the fourteenth day (of Adar), 
 and that which followed it, says, ‘ Even now all 
 the Jews in the habitable world keep these days 
 festival, and send portions one to another ;’ and 
 after referring to the deliverance of the Jews by 
 Divine protection, he adds, ‘ for which cause the 
 Jews keep the forementinned days, calling them 
 Phruraean days (ypepai (ppovpaiai ).’ It is dis- 
 puted whether the word employed by Josephus 
 (< ppovpalat ) arose from an error of transcription, 
 or whether the historian may not have confounded 
 the name Purim with D'Tn-D, which, according 
 to some, implies protection. The Talmud makes 
 frequent mention of this feast. In the Jerusalem 
 Megiltah (p. 704) it is observed that ‘ there were 
 seventy-five elders, above thirty of whom were 
 prophets, who made exceptions against the feast of 
 Purim ordained by Esther and Mordecai, as some 
 Kind of innovation against the law ’ (see Lightfoot, 
 on John x. 22). Maimonides remarks that it is 
 forbidden to weep or fast on this day. 
 
 It has been sharply contested whether there is 
 *ny reference in the New Testament to this feast. 
 It is recorded in St. John’s Gospel (v. 1), that 
 after these things was the feast of the Jews (j) koprr] 
 w TovSeuW)’, or rather, perhaps, a feast, as the 
 
 article is wanting in several manuscripts. It 
 been held by Out rein, Lamy, and Hug, and still 
 more recently by Tholuck and lucke, that the 
 feast of Purim is here meant. The reasons oa 
 which this opinion is grounded will be found 
 fully detailed in Hug’s Introd. (part ii. § 64), and 
 in Liicke’s Comment, on St. John's Gospel (see 
 the English translation of Lucke’s Dissertation 
 in the appendix to Tittmann's Meletemata Sacra y 
 or a Commentary on St. John's Gosj)cl, in Bib. 
 Cabinet , vol. xlv. Hengstenberg, on the other 
 hand ( Christology , vol. ii., ‘ On the Seventy 
 Weeks of Daniel,’ pp. 408-414, Engl, transl., 
 Washington (U. S.), 1839), opposes this hypothesis 
 by many ingenious arguments, andholds it to be 
 inconceivable that our Lord, ‘ who never men- 
 tions the book of Esther, whose apostles nowhere 
 appeal to it, should have sought this feast conse- 
 crated to the remembrance of an event described 
 in this book.’ Not that he wishes to ‘ impugn the 
 authority of the book of Esther, but because, in 
 regard to the true standard, its reference to Christ, 
 it undoubtedly holds the lowest place among all 
 the books in the Old Testament.’ It would appear 
 from this, that Professor Hengstenberg follows 
 Luther's ‘touchstone’ of canonicity [Deutf.ro- 
 canonical]. Those who do not consider Purim 
 to be the feast referred to in John v. 1, are di- 
 vided between the Passover, the Feast, of Dedi- 
 cation, and that of Pentecost : Hengstenberg, 
 with the majority of commentators, supports the 
 last. Lucke concludes his able dissertation 
 by observing that all sure grounds of deciding 
 between Purim and the Passover are wanting. 
 
 The particulars of the mode in which the Jews 
 observe this festival will be found detailed by 
 Buxtorf (Synag. Jud.) and Schikford (De Syna- 
 goga, in the Critici Sacri , vol. ii. p. 1185). We 
 shall select a few of the most striking. The book 
 of Esther, written on a separate roll of parchment, 
 called on this account Megillah Esther, or simply 
 Megillah, is read from beginning to end ; arid 
 even the reading of the law is on this day post- 
 poned to it. It may be also read in any language 
 which the reader understands. When Mordecai’s 
 name occurs, the whole congregation exclaim, 
 Blessed be Mordecai! and, on mention of that of 
 Haman, they say, May his name perish ! and 
 it is usual for the children to hiss, spring rattles, 
 strike the walls with hammers, and make all 
 sorts of noises. These noisy portions of the ce- 
 remony have, however, been long discontinued 
 in England, except in the synagogues of some 
 foreign Jews. The remainder of the day is spent 
 in festivity, in commemoration of Esther's feast ; 
 upon which occasion the Jews send presents to 
 each other, the men to the men, and the women 
 to the women. They also bestow alms on the 
 poor, from the benefit of which Christians and 
 other Gentiles are not excluded. Plays and 
 masquerades follow ; nor is it considered a breach 
 of the law of Moses on this occasion, for men and 
 women to assume the garb of the other sex. It 
 is even written in the Talmud (Tract. Megill. 
 vii. 2), that a man should drink until he cannot 
 discern the words ‘ Cursed be Haman ’ from 
 ‘ Blessed be Mordecai.’ But these injunctions are 
 certainly not considered as binding; and the 
 modern Jews, both at the feast of Purim and in 
 their general habits, are remarkable for tbe>r 
 temperance and sobriety Hatach (Esther it 
 
PURPLE. 
 
 PURPLE. 
 
 689 
 
 and v.) is considered by the Jews to be the same 
 with Daniel. Purim is the last festival in the 
 Jewish ecclesiastical year, being succeeded by the 
 next Passover. — W. W. 
 
 PURPLE, BLUE, CRIMSON, SCARLET. 
 1. Purple (JD31N) occurs in Exod. xxv. 4 ; xxvi. 
 3, 31, 36 ; xxvii. 16 ; xxviii. 5, 6, 8, 15, 33 ; xxxv. 
 6, 23, 25, 35 ; xxxvi. 8, 35, 37 ; xxxviii. 18, 23 ; 
 xxxix. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 24, 29; Num. iv. 13; 
 Judg. viii. 26; 2 Chron. ii. 7, 14; iii. U; 
 Est. i. 6; viii. 15; Prov. xxxi. 22; Cant. iii. 
 
 1 0 : vii. 5 ; Jer. x. 9 ; Ezek. xxvii. 7,16; Ecclus. 
 xlv. 10; Bar. vi. 12. 72; 1 Macc. iv. 23; viii. 
 14; x. 20, 62; 2 Macc. iv. 38; Mark xv. 17, 
 20; Luke xvi. 19; John xix. 2, 5; Acts xvi. 
 14; Rev. xvii. 4; xviii. 12, 16. Chald. jintf, 
 occurs in 2 Chron. ii. 7 ; fcOliHS'?, Dan. v. 7, 16, 
 29 ; Sept, and Greek Test., 7 ropcpvpa ; Vulg. pur- 
 pura. In many of these passages, the word trans- 
 lated ‘ purple' means ‘ purple cloth,’ or some other 
 material dyed purple, as wool, thread, &c. ; but 
 no reference occurs to the means by which the 
 dye was obtained, except in 1 Macc. iv. 23, where 
 we have tt op<pvpa OaWacrcrla , ‘ purple of the sea ’ 
 (comp. Diod. Sic. iii. 68 ; Joseph. De Bell. Jud. 
 v. 5. 4). There is, however, no reason to 
 doubt that it was obtained, like the far-famed 
 Tyrian purple, from the juice of certain species 
 of shell-fish. Different accounts are given by the 
 ancients respecting the date and origin of this 
 invention. Some place it in the reign of Phoenix, 
 second king of Tyre, b.c. 500. Others at the 
 time that Minos the First reigned in Crete, b.c. 
 1439, and consequently before the Exodus (Sui- 
 das, s. v. 'HpaKAr/s, tom. ii. p. 73). But the 
 person to whom the majority ascribe it, is the 
 Tyrian Hercules, whose dog, it is said, instigated 
 by hunger, broke a certain kind of shell-fish on 
 the coast of Tyre, and his mouth becoming 
 stained of a beautiful colour, his master was in- 
 duced to try its properties on wool, and gave his 
 first specimens to the king of Tyre, who admired 
 the colour so much that he restricted the use of it 
 by law to the royal garments (Pollux, Onom . i. 4 ; 
 Achilles Tatius, DeClitoph . ; Palsephat. in Chron. 
 Paschal., p. 43). It is remarkable, that though 
 the Israelites, as early as the first construction of 
 the tabernacle in the wilderness, appear to have had 
 purple stuff in profusion (Exod. xxv. 1-4), which 
 they had most likely brought with them out of 
 Egypt, yet no instance occurs in the pictorial 
 language of the Egyptians, nor in Wilkinson’s 
 Ancient Manners and Customs , of the actual 
 manufacture of dyeing either linen 01 woollen, 
 although dyes similar to the Tyrian were found 
 among them. These facts agree, at least, with 
 the accounts which ascribe the invention to the 
 earliest of these two periods, and the pre-eminent 
 trade in it to the Tyrians. The Greeks attributed 
 its first introduction among themselves to the 
 Phoenicians (Eurip. Phcen. 1497). Their word 
 fpolvi}; means both a ‘ Phoenician’ and ‘ purple.’ 
 The word vopcpipa is, according to Martinius, of 
 Tyrian origin. Though purple dyes were by no 
 means confined to the Phoenicians (comp. Ezek. 
 xxvii. 7, ‘purple from the isles of Elisha,’ supposed 
 to mean Elis, ‘ and from Syria,’ ver. 16), yet violet 
 purples and scarlet were nowhere dyed so well 
 os at Tyre, whose shores abounded with the best 
 xind of purples (Pliny, Hist. Nat. ix. 60, p. 524, 
 fd. Ilarduin), and who were supplied with the best 
 
 wool by die neighbouiing nomad* The dye 
 called purple by the ancients, and its various 
 shades, were obtained from many kinds of shell- 
 fish, all of which are, however, ranged by Pliny 
 under two classes : one called ‘ buccinum,’ be- 
 cause shaped like a horn, found, he says, in cliffs 
 and rocks, and yielding a sullen blue dye, which 
 he compares to the colour of the angry raging 
 sea in a tempest; the other called ‘purpura,’ or 
 ‘pelagia,’ the proper purple shell, taken by fishing 
 in the sea, and yielding the deep red colour 
 which he compares to the rich, fresh, and bright 
 colour of deep-red purple roses — >nigrantis rosae 
 colore sublucens’ — and to coagulated blood, and 
 which was chiefly valued. ‘ Laus ei summa in 
 colore sanguinis concreti’ ( Ibid . cap. 61, 62). It 
 is the Murex trunculas of Linnaeus and Lamarck 
 (see Syst. Nat. p. 1215, and Animaux sans Ver - 
 tebres , Paris, 1822, t. vii. p. 170). Both sorts 
 
 464. [Murex trunculus.] 
 
 were supposed to be as many years old as they 
 had spirals round. Michaelis thinks that So- 
 lomon alludes to their sha^pe, when he says (Cant, 
 vii. 5), ‘ The hair of thine head is like purple;’ 
 meaning that the tresses ( itAokiou necpaArjs, Sept. ; 
 comce capitis , Vulg.) were tied up in a spiral or 
 pyramidal form on the top. Others say that the 
 word ‘purple’ is here used like the Latin pur - 
 pureus , for beautiful, &c., and instance the ‘ pur- 
 purei olores,’ ‘ beautiful swans’ of Horace ( Carm . 
 
 iv. 1. 10), and the ‘purpureus capillus’ of Virgil 
 (Georg, i. 405); but these phrases are not pa- 
 rallel. The juice of the whole shell-fish was 
 not used, but only a little thin liquor called the 
 flower, contained in a white vein or vessel in the 
 neck. The larger purples were broken at the top 
 to get at this vein without injuring it, but the 
 smaller were pressed in mills (Aristot. Hist. An., 
 
 v. 13. 75 ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. ix. 60). The Murex 
 trunculus has been demonstrated to be the species 
 used by the ancient Tyrians, by Wilde, who 
 found a concrete mass of the shells in some cf the 
 ancient dye-pots sunk in the rocks of Tyre ( Nar- 
 rative , Dublin, 1840, vol. ii. p. 482). It is of 
 common occurrence now on the same coasts 
 (Kitto’s Physical History of Palestine , p. 418), 
 and throughout the whole of the Mediterranean, 
 and even of the Atlantic. In the Mediterranean, 
 the countries most celebrated for purples were 
 the shores of Peloponnesus and Sicily, and in 
 the Atlantic, the coasts of Britain, Ireland, 
 and France. Horace alludes to the African 
 (Carm. ii. 1.6. 35). There is, indeed, an es- 
 sential difference in the colour obtained from 
 the purples of different coasts. Thus the shells 
 
590 
 
 PURPLE. 
 
 PURPLE. 
 
 from the Atlantic are said to give the darkest 
 juice; those of the Italian and Sicilian coasts, a 
 violet or nurpiie ; and those of the Phoenician, a 
 crimson. It appears from the experiments of 
 Reaumur ana Duhamel, that the tinging juice 
 is perfectly white while in the vein ; but upon 
 being laid on linen, it soon appears first of a light 
 green colour, and if exposed to the air and 
 sun, soon after changes into a deep green, in a 
 few minutes into a sea green, and in a few more 
 into a blue : thence it speedily becomes of a 
 purple red, and in an hour more of a deep purple 
 red, which, upon being washed in scalding water 
 and soap, ripens into a most bright and beautiful 
 crimson, which is permanent. The ancients ap- 
 plied the word translated * purple,’ not to one 
 colour only, but to the whole class of dyes manu- 
 factured from the juices of shell-fish, as distin- 
 guished from the vegetable dyes ( colores herbacei ), 
 and comprehending not only what is commonly 
 called purple, but also light and dark purple, and 
 almost every shade between. Various methods 
 were adopted to produce these different colours. 
 
 Thus, a sullen blue was obtained from the 
 juice of the buccinum alone ; a plain red, yet 
 too deep and brown, from the pelagia; a dark 
 red by dipping the wool, &c., first in the juice 
 of the purpura, and then in that of the buc- 
 cinum : a violet (which was the amethyst colour 
 so much valued by the Romans) by reversing 
 the process ; and another, the most valued 
 and admired of all, the Tyriamethystus, by 
 again dipping the amethyst in the juice of the 
 pelagia. This Pliny calls dibapha Tyria; so 
 named he says, because ‘bis tincta’ (Hist. Nat. 
 ix. 39). No reference to this process occurs in 
 the Scriptures, but it is often alluded to in Ro- 
 man authors. Thus Horace (Epod. xii. 21) : Mu- 
 ricibus Tvriis iterafas vellera lanae. ‘The wools 
 with Tyrian purple double dyed.’ Other varieties 
 of colour may have been produced by the use of 
 various species of mollusca, and of those from 
 different coasts. The Phoenicians also understood 
 the art of throwing a peculiar lustre into this 
 colour, by making other tints play over it, and 
 producing what we call a shot colour, which 
 seems to have been wonderfully attractive (Pliny, 
 ix. 41). Purple was employed in religious wor- 
 ship both among Jews and Gentiles. It was 
 one of the colours of the cut tains of the tabernacle 
 (Exod. xxvi. 1) ; of the vail (31) ; of the curtain 
 over the grand entrance (36) ; of the ephod of the 
 high priest (xxviii. 5, 6), and of its girdle (8) ; of 
 (he breast-plate ( 15) ; of the hem of the robe of 
 the ephod (33) ; (comp. Ecelus. xlv. 10) ; of cloths 
 for divine service (Exod. xxxix. 1 ; comp. Num. 
 iv. 13); resumed when the temple was built (2 
 Chron. ii. 7, 14; iii. 14). Pliny records a similar 
 use of it among the Romans : ‘ l)iis advocatur 
 placandis' (Hist. Nat. ix. 60; Cicero, Epist. ad 
 Atticum, ii. 9). The Babylonians arrayed their 
 idols in it (Jer. x. 9; Baruch xii. 72). It was 
 at an early period worn by kings (Judg. viii. 
 26). Homer speaks as if it were almost peculiar 
 to them (II. iv. 144; 1 Macc. viii. 14). Pliny 
 says it was worn by Romulus and the succeeding 
 Kings of Rome, and by the consuls and first*, 
 magistrates under the republic. Suetonius re- 
 lates that Jufc'us Caesar prohibited its use bj 
 Roman subjects, except on certain days; anu 
 ‘nat Ne-o forbade it altogether, upon pain of death. 
 
 The use of it was bestowed by kings upon favo- 
 rites, &c. ; Josephus says by Pharaoh on Joseph 
 (Antiq. ii. 5. 7). It was given by Ahasuerus to 
 Mordecai (Esth. viii. 15); to Daniel by Belshazzar 
 (Dan. v. 7, 16, 29). It. was the dress of an ethnarcb 
 or prince, and as such given by Alexander to Jo- 
 nathan (1 Macc. x. 20, 62, 64, 65 ; comp. 2 Macc. 
 iv. 38). In the last chapter of the Proverbs it is 
 represented as the dress of a matron (ver. 22). It 
 was at one time worn by Roman ladies and rich 
 men (Livy, xxxiv. 7, and Valerius Max. ii. 
 1). See also the parable of the rich man and 
 Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19). In Esther i. 6, it ap- 
 pears as part of the royal furniture of Ahasuerus; 
 and in Cant. iii. 10, as the covering of the royal 
 chariot; and Pliny refers to its general use, not 
 only for clothes, but carpets, cushions, &c. (39). 
 The rohe in which the Praetorian guard arrayed 
 the Saviour, called xb-apvs koickIvtj by Matthew 
 (xxvii. 28), and wop<pvpa by Mark (xv. 17, 20), 
 and Ijiariov TTopcpvpovv by John (xix. 2), and which 
 appears to have been the cast-off sagum of one of 
 their officers, was no doubt scarlet — that is, proper 
 crimson , as will hereafter appear — of a deeper 
 hue and finer texture than the sagum or chlamys 
 of the common soldier, but inferior in both respects 
 to that, of the emperor, which was also of this 
 colour in the time of war, though purple during 
 peace. The adjectives used by the Evangelists 
 are, however, often interchanged. Thus a vest, 
 which Horace (Sat. ii. 6. 102) calls ‘ ruhro 
 cocco tincta,’ in 1. 106, he styles ‘ purpurea.’ 
 Braunius shows that the Romans gave this name 
 to any colour that had a mixture of red (De 
 Vestitu Sacerdotum, i. 1 4, Ludg. Bat. 1680). 
 Ovid applies the term purpureas to the cheeks 
 and lips (Amor. i. 3). In Acts x. 14, refer- 
 ence is found to Lydia, of the city of Thy- 
 atira, a seller of purple cloth. The manufac- 
 ture seems to have decayed with its native 
 city. A colony of Jews, which was established 
 at Thebes in Greece in the twelfth century, 
 carried on an extensive manufactory for dyeing 
 purple. It ultimately became superseded by the 
 use of indigo, cochineal, &c., whence a cheaper 
 and finer purple was obtained, and free from 
 the disagreeable odour which attended that de- 
 rived from shell-fish (Martial, i. 50. 32). The 
 method of the ancients in preparing and ap- 
 plying it, and other particulars respecting its 
 history, uses, and estimation, are most fully given 
 by Pliny (Hist.Nat. ix. 36-42). The best modern 
 books are Amati, De Restitutions Purpuramm , 
 3rd ed., Cesena, 1784; the treatise by Capelli, 
 De Antiqua et Nvpera Purpura, with notes ; 
 and Don Michaele Rosa, Dissertazione de/le 
 porpore , etc. 1768. See also Dictionnaire des 
 Sciences Naturelles, tom. xliii. p. 219, &c. ; Bo- 
 chart, edit. Rosenmiiller, tom. iii. p. 675, &c. ; 
 Heeren’s Historical Researches, translated, Ox- 
 ford, 1833, vol. ii. p. 85, &c. 
 
 2. Blue (n*?3n), almost constantly associated 
 with purple, occurs in Exod. xxv. 4 ; xxvi. 1, 4, 
 31,36; xxvii. 16; xxviii. 5 8, 15, 33, 37 ; xxxv. 
 25; xxxvi. 11; xxxix. 1-5, 22, 31; Num. iv. 
 
 6, 7, 9. 11, 12; xv. 38; 2 Chron. ii. 7, 14 ; Estlu 
 i. 6; viii. 15; Jer. x. 9; Ezek. xxiii. 6; xxvii. 
 
 7, 24 ; Sept, generally vaxirBos, vaicivBtvos , 
 and in Keel us. xl. 4 ; xlv. 10; 1 Macc. iv. 23; 
 and so Josephus, Philo, Aquila, SymmachuSj 
 
PURPLE. 
 
 PURPLE. 
 
 Theodofion, Vulgate, ami Jerome. This colour is 
 supposed to have been obtained from another 
 purple shell-fish of the Mediterranean, the conchy- 
 lium of the ancients, the Helix iantkina of Lin- 
 naeus (Syst. Nat. tom. i. part 7, p. 3645; and 
 see Forskal's Descriptio Animal, p. 127), called 
 by the ancient Jews. Thus the pseudo- 
 Jonathan, in Dent., xxxiii. 19, speaks of the Ze- 
 bulonites, who dwelt at the shore of the great sea, 
 and caught chilzon , with whose juice they dye 
 thread of a hyacinthine colour. The Scriptures 
 
 465. [Helix iantliina.] 
 
 alTb/d no clue to this colour; for the only pass- 
 ages in which it seems, in the English version, to 
 be applied to something that might assist our 
 conceptions, are mistranslated, namely, ‘ The 
 blueness of a wound’ (Prov. xx. 30), and ‘A 
 blue mark upon him that is beaten ’ (Ecclus. 
 xxiii. 10), there being no reference to colour in 
 the original of either. The word in the Sept, 
 and Apocrypha refers to the hyacinth ; but both 
 the flower and stone, so named by the ancients, 
 are disputed, especially the former. Yet it is used 
 to denote dark-coloured and deep purple. Virgil 
 speaks of ferrugineos hyacinthos , and Columella 
 compares the colour of the flower to that of 
 clotted blood, or deep, dusky red, like rust. ( De 
 Re Rtist. x. 305). Hesychius defines vauivfhvov’ 
 vTToyxXavi^ov, nopcpvpi^ou. It is plainly used in 
 the Greek of Ecclus. xl. 4 for the royal purple. 
 Josephus evidently takes the Heine'" word to 
 mean ‘sky-colour;’ for in explaining the colours 
 of the vail of the temple, and referring to the blue 
 (Exod. xxvi. 31), he says that it represented the 
 air or sky (De Bell. Jud. v. 4) : he similarly 
 explains the vestment of the high-priest (Antiq. 
 iii. 7. 7 ; and see Philo. Vita Mosis , iii. p. 148, 
 tom ii. ed. Mangey). These statements may be 
 reconciled by the fact, that in proportion as the 
 sky is clear and serene, it assumes a dark ap- 
 pearance, which is still more observable in an 
 eastern climate. The chief references to this colour 
 in Scripture are as follows: — The robe of the 
 high-priest’s ephocl was to be all of blue (Exod. 
 xxviii. 31) ; so the loops of the curtains to the 
 tabernacle (xxvi. 4) : the riband for the breast- 
 plate (xxviii. 28), and for the plate for the mitre 
 (ver. 37; comp. Ecclus. xlv. 10); blue cloths 
 for various sacred uses (Num. iv. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12) ; 
 the people commanded to wear a riband of blue 
 above the fringe of their garments (1S1 urn. xv. 38) ; 
 it appears as a colour of furniture in the palace 
 of Ahasuerus (Esth. i. 6), and put of the royal 
 apparel (viii. 15) ;' array of the idols of Babylon 
 (Jer. x. 9); of the Assyrian nobles, &c. (Ezra 
 xxiii. 6 ; see Braunius, De Vesti.u, &c., i. 9 and 
 13 ; Bochart, tom. iii. p. 670). 
 
 3. Crimson , occurs in 2 Chron. ii. 7- 
 
 1 . 4 ; iii. 14; Sept. kSkkivqs; Vulg. coccinum. 
 
 591 
 
 This word is by some supposed to signify another 
 kind of shell-fish, yielding a crimson dye, ec 
 called because found on the shore near Mount 
 Carmel. If so, those words (Cant. vii. 5), ‘ thine 
 head upon thee is like Carmel,’ may contain an- 
 other reference to the shape of some sort of pur- 
 pura (Bochart, vol. iii. p. 661, &c.). Gesenius 
 says it is a word belonging to later Hebrew, and 
 most probably of Persian or Armenian origin. 
 
 4. Scarlet , often associated with purple and 
 blue. The words so translated occur in the fol- 
 lowing forms: — 1. and alone, Gen. 
 
 xxxviii. 28-30; Josh. ii. 18-21 f 2 Sam. i. 24; 
 Prov. xxxi. 21 ; Cant. iv. 3; Jer. iv. 30; Sept. 
 kokklvou", Vulg. coccinum ; Isa. i. 18, tyoiviKov v, 
 coccinum. 2. njAm Exod. xxv. 4 ; xxvi. 
 1, 31,36; xxvii. 16; xxviii. 5, 6, 8, 15; xxxv. 
 6, 23, 25; xxxviii. 18, 23; xxix. 3 ; Num. iv. 
 8 ; k6kkivov and k6kkivov with dnr\ovv, k€kAcc<t- 
 fievor, kKwtov, b'.aveuri(rpevov ", Vulg. bis tinctus , 
 coccus bis tinctus , and vermiculus. 3. nj6m 
 '35?, Lev. xiv. 4, 6, 49, 51, 52; Num. xix. 6; 
 Sept, kokkivov, with h.ei<\w(rpevov, and k\cciTt6i/’, 
 vermiculus , coccus, and with bis tinctus. 4 
 alone, Isa. i. 8, k6kkivov, vermiculus; 
 Lam. iv. 5; Vulg. croceis ; Nah. ii. 3, coccineis. 
 In the New Testament, Matt, xxvii. 28 ; Heb. 
 ix. 19; Rev. xvii 3, 4; xviii. 12, 16; koickivos , 
 coccineus. The first of these words, '35?, i3 by 
 some derived from PI35?, ‘ to repeat,’ and is thus 
 interpreted to mean ‘ double dyed,’ bifiaepov, but 
 which Gesenius observes is applicable only to the 
 Tvrian purple (see Braunius, De Vest. i. 15, 
 § 214, p. 237 ; Bochart, Hieroz. i. 3. p. 525-7). 
 
 Gesenius prefers the Arabic root splenduit , 
 
 because scarlet garments were admired for their 
 brightness: but Jerome asserts that the word 
 means coccinum (Epist. ad Fabiolam ). It is 
 
 certain that denotes a worm, grub, or insect, 
 
 and the Sept, and Vulg. plainly understood by it 
 the coccus , from which the ancients procured a 
 blood red crimson dye, the coccus ilicis of Linnaeus, 
 
 class iv., tetragynia, the ^cyj kermez of the 
 Arabians, whence used to be derived the French 
 word cramoisi, and our crimson; but Kilian gives 
 carmensinum, because made from a worm, which, 
 in the Phoenician tongue, is called carmen. He- 
 sychius defines kSxkos’ e| ou (poivinovr fionTTercu rb 
 Xpcopa. It was (he female of this remarkable in- 
 sect that was employed ; and though supplanted 
 by the cochineal (cocctis cacti), it is still used for 
 toe purpose in India and Persia. It attains the 
 size and form of a pea, is of a violet black colour, 
 covered with a whitish powder, adhering to plants, 
 chiefly various species of oak, and so closely re- 
 sembling grains, that, its insect nature was not 
 generally known for many centuries. According 
 to Beckman, the epithet vermiculatus was ap- 
 plied to it during the middle ages, when this fact 
 became generally understood, and that hence is 
 derived the word vermilion. Hence the Hebrew 
 words mean both the coccus itself, and the deepi 
 red or bright rich crimson which was derived 
 from it (as in Cant. iv. 3, ‘thy lips are like a 
 thread of scarlet’); and so the word ‘ scarlet ’ sig- 
 n ijied in the time of our translators , rather than 
 the colour now called by that name, and which una 
 
PURPLE. 
 
 PUTEOLI. 
 
 unknown in the time of James I. This insect is 
 widely distributed over many of the south-eastern 
 countries of the ancient world. It occurs abun- 
 dantly in Spain (Kirby and Spence, Introduction 
 to Entomology, 1828, vol. i. pp. 310-20). It is 
 found on the quercus coccifera , or kermes oak. in 
 Palestine (Kitto's Physical History, p. 219). 
 Pliny speaks of the coccus as a red colour much 
 esteemed, which he distinguishes from purple 
 (Hist. Nat. ix. 65), and describes as a gay, red, 
 
 466. [Coccus ilijis, on i branch.] 
 lively bright, approaching the colour of fire (ibid. 
 • and xxi. 22). All the ancients concur in say- 
 ing that this dye was made from a sort of little 
 grains which were gathered from the holm-oak 
 (Theophrast. Hist. Plant, iii. 16 ; Pliny, xvi. 12 ; 
 Dioscorides, iv. 48 ; Pausan. x. 36). They not 
 only call them grains, but speak of them as the 
 vegetable productions of the oak itself, tv pivov 
 Kapiruu (Pint. Thes. p. 7) ; and Pliny (Hist. Nat. 
 xvi. 12) calls them cusculia, from the Greek koct- 
 KvWeiv, which signifies ‘ to cut little excrescences,’ 
 because they cut or scrape off these small grains 
 of the oak. Yet he was not entirely ignorant of 
 heir insect character, for he says, ‘ coccum ilicis 
 celerrimein vermiculum se mutans’ (xxiv. 4). It 
 seems, however, that the colour, thus obtained, 
 was not durable (xxii. 3). It was known at a 
 very early period in Canaan (Gen. xxxviii. 28); 
 if. was one of the colours of the high-priest’s ephod 
 (Exod. xxviii. 6), and of its girdle (ver. 8), of the 
 breastplate (ver. 15), and of cloths for sacred uses 
 (Num. iv. 8); it was used in cleansing the leper 
 (Lev. xiv. 4), to indicate, as Abarbanel thinks, 
 that a healthy complexion was restored to him. 
 It was the dress of females in the time of Saul 
 (2 Sam. i 24) ; of opulent persons in later times 
 (Lam. iv. 5) ; of the Babylonian and Median 
 soldiers, who also wore red shields (Nahum ii. 4 ; 
 comp. Scuta lectissimis coloribus distinguunt. 
 Tacit. Dc Mor. Germ. c. 6 ; and Philostratus, Epist. 
 ie Lacedremoniis. Three mistranslations of the 
 ord occur in our version, ‘ She is not afraid of 
 
 the snow for her household ; for all her household 
 are clothed with scarlet’ (Prov. xxxi. 21). Since 
 there is no connection between the colour and a 
 defence from the cold, it would be better ren- 
 dered, as in the margin, ‘double garments;’ Sept. 
 eVSeSo/xeVoi ; A’ulg. vestiti duplicibus. The next 
 verse of the Sept, begins Snraas xAcdpas iirolrjaf 
 rip avbpl avrijs. In Isa. i. 18, and Jer. iv. 30, 
 the word should be rendered ‘scarlet’ and not 
 ‘ crimson.’ The final reference to scarlet, is in 
 regard to Pagan Rome, which, like all cities, 
 is represented as a female; and since every- 
 body wore scarlet in Rome, and especially dur- 
 ing war, she is described as being arrayed ra 
 that colour. , r n Exod. xxxix. 3, it is said, ‘they 
 did beat, gold into their plates, and cut into 
 wires, to work in the blue, and in the purple, and 
 in the scarlet, and in the fine linen ;' which is 
 explained to mean that these five kinds, blue, 
 purple, scarlet, fine linen, and gold, were twisted 
 into one thread ; thus, a thread of gold with six 
 threads of blue, and so with the rest, after which 
 they twisted all these threads into one (Braunius, 
 i. 17. 26). It seems plain from Exod. xxxv. 
 25, that the blue, and purple, and scarlet, and 
 fine linen were spun by hand from wool al- 
 ready dyed of these colours. Wilkinson re- 
 marks that the colour was in like manner im- 
 parted by the Egyptians to the thread, &c., that 
 is, cloth was not dyed after being wove (Manners 
 and Customs, vol. iii.p. 125). It will have been 
 perceived that great difficulty attends the attempt 
 to determine the precise distinctions of colours 
 known to the ancients by the various preceding 
 names. The only possible method whereby they 
 could have conveyed them to our minds, would 
 have been by comparing them to the colours of 
 natural objects, whose appearance was immutable, 
 and whose identity was beyond question. Such 
 an attempt has been made by Bishop Wilkins in 
 his Peal Character. We may illustrate the utility 
 of these requisites by the colour blue, which is 
 defined to mean ‘ the colour produced or exposed 
 to the view by the blowing away, or clearing 
 away'’ or dispersing of the clouds’ (Enc. Metro- 
 politana'). But, as is well known, the shades 
 of ethereal blue vary in different countries, and 
 even in different altitudes of the same coun- 
 try. Hence the word blue, if illustrated by this 
 standard, would convey a different idea to the in- 
 habitants of different regions. It is most likely 
 that all our ideas of sensible impressions are liable 
 to errors of association. It is, however, satisfactory 
 to know, that like all other dubious matters, these 
 are of minor importance. We add a further re- 
 ference to Goguet’s Origin of Laws, Arts, ana 
 Sciences, vol. ii. p. 95, & c. Edin. 1764. — J. F. D. 
 
 PUTEOM ( UorioXoi ), a maritime town of 
 Campania, in Italy, on the north shore of the 
 bay of Naples, and about eight miles north-west 
 from the city of that name, where it still exists 
 under the name of Pozzuoli. It derived its name 
 from its tepid baths, whence the district in which 
 it exists is now called Terra di Lavoro. The 
 ancient Greek name of the place was AiKaiipxeia. 
 It was a favourite watering-place of the Romans, 
 as its numerous hot-springs were judged efficacious 
 for the cure of various diseases. It was also the 
 port where ships usually discharged their pas- 
 sengers and cargoes, partly to avoid doubling 
 the promontory of Circeium, and partly because 
 
QUAIL. 
 
 there was no commodious harbour nearer to Rome. 
 Hence the ship in which Paul was conveyed from 
 Melita, landed the prisoners at this place, where 
 the apostle staiil for a week (Acts xxviii. 13). 
 The harbour was protected by a celebrated mole, 
 tiie remains of which are still to be seen. 
 
 Q. 
 
 QUAIL (1%> selav ; Sept. bpTvyofxiirpa ; 
 Vulg., coturnix) occurs in Exod. xvi. 13 ; Num. 
 xi. 31, 32; Ps. cv. 4U. Quails form a subdivi- 
 sion of the Tetraonidce, or grouse family, being 
 distinguished from partridges by their smaller 
 size, finer bill, shorter tail, and the want, of a red 
 naked eyebrow and of spurs on the legs. There 
 are several species, whereof the common, now 
 distinguished by the name of Coturnix dactyli- 
 sonans, is abundant in all the temperate regions 
 of Europe and Western Asia, migrating to and 
 from Africa in the proper season. Thus it crosses 
 the Mediterranean and Black Seas twice a-year 
 in vast multitudes ; but being by nature a bird 
 of heavy flight, the passage is partially conducted 
 by way of intermediate islands, or through Spain; 
 and in the East, in still greater numbers, along 
 the Syrian desert into Arabia, forming, especially 
 at the spring season, innumerable flocks. They 
 alight exhausted with fatigue, and are then easily 
 caught. Guided by these facts, commentators 
 
 nave been led to identify the Hebrew with 
 the quail ; although other species of partridges, 
 and still more of Pterocles (‘ sand grouse ’), 
 abound in Western Asia; in particular Pterocles 
 Alchata , or Attagen , which is found, if possible, 
 in still greater numbers on the deserts, and has 
 been claimed by Hasselquist as the selav of Ex- 
 odus. But; the present Arabic name of the quail 
 is selwa ; and the circumstances connected with 
 the bird in question — found on two occasions by 
 the people of Israel in and around the camp so 
 abundantly as to feed the whole population in the 
 desert (Exod. xvi. 3-13), and at Kibroth-Hat- 
 taavah, both times in the spring — are much more 
 applicable to flights of quail alighting in an ex- 
 hausted state during their periodical migration, 
 than to the pterocles, which does not. proceed to 
 so great a distance, has very powerful wings, is 
 never seen fatigued by migration, is at all times 
 a tenant of the wilderness far from water, and 
 which, strictly taken, is perhaps not a clean bird, 
 all the species subsisting for the most part on 
 larvae, beetles, and insects. We regard these con- 
 siderations as sufficient to establish the accuracy 
 of the Authorized Version. 
 
 Of a bird so well known no figure or further 
 particular description appears to be necessary, 
 beyond mentioning the enormous flights which, 
 after crossing an immense surface of sea, are 
 annually observed at the spring and fall to take a 
 brief repose in the islands of Malta, Sicily, Sar- 
 dinia, Crete, in the kingdom of Naples, and about 
 Constantinople, where on those occasions there is 
 a general shooting-match, which lasts two ( or 
 three days. This occurs always in the autumn. 
 The birds, starting from the Crimea about seven 
 at night, and with a northerly wind, before dawn 
 accomplish a passage of above sixty leagues in 
 
 vol. t- 29 
 
 QUEEN. 5*3 
 
 breadth, and alight on the southern shore to feed 
 and re] lose. In the vernal season die direction 
 of the flight is reversed, and they arrive in similar 
 condition on the Russian coast. The same phe- 
 nomena occur at. Malta, &c. : and as giegariows 
 birds of passage are known to guide their course 
 by given landmarks, which they distinguish with 
 unerring precision, and which, unless they have 
 been driven out of their usual direction by storms 
 of wind, they invariably arrive at. or over, before 
 they take a new flight, so also quails congregate 
 in Arabia in numbers proportionate to the surface 
 of Western Asia, whither they are proceeding. 
 The providential nature of their arrival within 
 and around the camp of the Israelites, in order 
 that they might furnish meat to a murmuring 
 people, appears from the fact of its taking place 
 where it was not to be expected: the localities, 
 we presume, being out of the direction of the 
 ordinary passage; for, bad this not been the case, 
 the dwellers in that region, and the Israelites 
 themselves, accustomed to tend their flocks at no 
 great distance from the spot, would have regarded 
 the phenomenon as a well-known periodical occur- 
 rence. — C. H. S. 
 
 QUARTUS (Kovapros), a Christian, resident 
 at Corinth, and, from his name, apparently a 
 Roman, whose salutations Paul communicated to 
 the Church of Rome in his epistle thereto (Rom. 
 xvi. 23). In the old church books he is alleged 
 to have been one of the seventy disciples, which, 
 is altogether unlikely; and it is on the same 
 authority stated that he was eventually bishop of 
 the church at Berytus. 
 
 QUATERNION CrerpdSiov ), ‘a quaternion 
 of soldiers’ (Acts xii. 4), was a detachment of 
 four men, which was the usual number of a Ro- 
 man night watch. Peter, therefore, was guarded 
 by four soldiers, two within the prison, and two, 
 outside the doors ; and as the watch was usually 
 changed every three hours, it was necessary that 
 the ‘four quaternions’ mentioned in the text 
 should be appointed for the purpose tVeget. JJe 
 Re Milit. iii. 8 ; Philo, In Flacc ., p. 98). 
 
 QUEEN. The Hebrews had no word properly 
 answering to our term ‘queen,’ which is the femi- 
 nine of ‘ king ;’ neither had they the dignity which 
 that word denotes. The Hebrew word usually 
 translated ‘ queen ’ is il'TOS gebirah , which means 
 ‘ mistress,’ or ‘ lady,’ being the feminine of 
 gebir , ‘ master,’ or ‘ lord.’ The feminine is to be 
 understood by its relation to tie masculine; 
 which is not applied to kingly power, or to 
 kings, but to general authority and dominion. 
 It. is in fact the word which occurs twice with 
 reference to Isaacs blessing of Jacob: — ‘Be 
 lord over thy brethren ;’ and, ‘ I have made him 
 thy lord' (Gen. xxvii. 29 — 37). 
 
 The limited use which is made even r»f the 
 restricted term gebirah, is somewhat remarkable. 
 It is only employed twice with reference to the 
 wife of a king : in one of these two cases it is 
 applied to the wife of the king of Egypt, where 
 the condition of the royal consort was more 
 queenly than in Palestine (1 Kings xi. 19; comp. 
 Wilkinson, A. Egypt, ii. 59 ; iii. 64 ; v. 28) ; and; 
 in the other to Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, who, as 
 the daughter of a powerful king, appears to have 
 enjoyed peculiar privileges in her matjimoniaS 
 state (2 Kings x. 13). In two other places it is. 
 
594 
 
 QUEEN. 
 
 QUEEN. 
 
 not clear whether the king's wife or mother is in- 
 tended (Jer. xiii. 18 ; xxix. 2) ; and in the remain- 
 ing passages it is pointedly referred to the king’s 
 mother, in such terms as clearly show that the 
 state which she held was one of positive dignity 
 and rank (1 Kings xv. 13*, 2 Chron. xv. 16). 
 
 There is another word, skegol , also trans- 
 
 lated ‘queen,’ which simply denotes the king’s 
 ■vife or (in the plural) his wives, as distinguished 
 from his concubines. It occurs in Ps. xlv. 9; 
 Neb. ii. 6 ; Dan. v. 2 ; iii. 23. 
 
 The result of all inquiry into the subject seems 
 to show that among the Jewish kings the usages 
 bearing on this point, were not different from 
 those which are still exhibited in Western Asiatic 
 courts. Where woman never becomes the head 
 of the state, there can be no queen regnant ; and 
 where polygamy is allowed or practised, there 
 can be no queen consort. There will, however, 
 be a chief wife in the harem; and this is no 
 doubt the rank indicated in the Bible by the 
 words which we render ‘queen.’ This rank may 
 be variously acquired. The^rsi wife of the king, 
 or the first whom he took after his accession , usu- 
 ally obtained it; and if she is both of high birth 
 and becomes the mother of the first son, her posi- 
 tion is tolerably secure : but if she possesses neither 
 of these advantages, she may be superseded in her 
 position as head of the harem by a wife of higher 
 birth and connections, subsequently espoused ; or 
 by one who becomes the mother of the heir appa- 
 rent. The king, however, will sometimes act 
 according to his own pleasure in this matter, pro- 
 mote any favourite lady to this dignity, and also 
 remove her from it at his pleasure ; but more 
 generally he finds it convenient to follow the 
 established routine. The king of Egypt’s daugh- 
 ter was, doubtless, from her high rank, the chief 
 wife of Solomon ; as was Jezebel, for the same 
 reason, the chief wife of Ahab. In like manner 
 the high-born mother of Absalom was probably 
 the chief wife of David, although it is possible 
 that the mother of the eldest son Amnon at first 
 enjoyed that distinction, which, we may safely 
 presume, eventually devolved on Bathsheba, 
 after her son Solomon had been recognised as the 
 heir. 
 
 In one of Mr. Morier’s amusing books ( HajJi 
 Baba in England ) there is a passage which 
 strikingly illustrates this matter. The court of 
 Persia is there represented as being perplexed 
 how to answer a letter which, in ignorance of 
 Eastern customs, had been addressed by the 
 -queen consort of England ‘ to the queen of Persia.’ 
 The cause of the dilemma thus created was that 
 — ‘Although the shah’s principal wife is called 
 the banou harem, or head of the seraglio, yet her 
 situation in the state bears as little affinity to that 
 of the queen of England as one may say the she 
 buffalo kept in the enclosure for food and milk 
 nas to the cow fed and worshipped by the Hin- 
 doo as his god. Our shah can kill and create 
 banous at pleasure, whereas the queen of Eng- 
 land maintains her post till the hand of fate lays 
 her in the grave ’ (Comp. Chardin, Voyages , 
 edit. Langles, vi. ch. xii. ; Thornton's Turkey , 
 ii. 264-286.) 
 
 Very different whs, and is to this day, in 
 Western Asia, the position of the king’s mother, 
 wuose state is much the nearest to that of an 
 
 European queen of any with which the East n 
 acquainted. It is founded on that essential prin- 
 ciple of Oriental manners which in all cases con- 
 siders the mother of the husband as a far superior 
 person to his wife, and as entitled to more respect 
 and attention. This principle should be clearly 
 understood ; for it extends throughout the Bible, 
 and is yet entirely different from our own social 
 arrangements, under which the mother, as soon as 
 she becomes widowed, abandons her place as 
 head of the family to the daughter in-law. Mr 
 Urquhart has admirably illustrated and deve- 
 loped this principle in his Spirit of the East (ii. 
 
 387, sq.), and his remarks, although primarily 
 illustrative of Turkish manners, are, with some 
 unessential limitations, applicable to the ancient 
 and modem East. In p. 389 there is an anec- 
 dote of the present Ibrahim Pasha, who is repre- 
 sented as staying a whole week in the harem of 
 his mother, waiting to find a favourable opportu- 
 nity of pressing a request upon her; and when 
 admitted, kissing her feet, refusing to be seated, 
 and standing an hour and a half before her with 
 his arms crossed, without after all succeeding 
 in the suit which he — the conqueror of Syria anti 
 the victor of Konieh — preferred to an aged 
 woman. 
 
 The arrangement in the seraglios of the more 
 magnificent Hebrew monarchs was probably si- 
 milar to that of Turkey, with this difference, 
 that the chief women in the harems of the Jewish 
 sovereigns entered it as wives, and not as slaves. 
 
 The grand signior, from an indeterminate number 
 of female slaves, selects his favourites, who are 
 distinguished by the title of cadun , which, as it 
 means ‘ lady of the house,’ seems nearly equiva- 
 lent to the Hebrew gebirah. The number of 
 these is said to be limited to seven, and their 
 rank seems to correspond to that of the ‘wives’ 
 of the Hebrew seraglio, whose number was un- 
 limited. The mother of a boy is called has - 
 se7i.it, unless the boy die, in which case she de- 
 scends to her former rank. The caduns or wives 
 of a deceased or deposed sultan are all removed « ! 
 from the imperial harem to a separate palace, 
 with the single exception of the valide sultan, 
 the mother of the reigning sultan, who has her 
 liberty, a palace, and revenues to support a 
 Suitable establishment. But the hassekies, or 
 those who have a son living, are treated with | 
 marked respect, as in the natural course of events 
 they may become validt. The title of sultan 
 (for the Turkish has no distinction of gender), 
 though from courtesy it may be given to the 1 
 hassekies, is, strictly speaking, appropriate only 
 to the sovereign's mother, and to the sons and : 
 daughters of the imperial family (Thornton, ir. 
 
 276 ; Urquhart, ii. 433). This statement, espe- 
 cially the last point of it, strikingly illustrates the 
 view we have taken as to the more queenly position 
 of the king's mother than of his wife in the Jewish 
 and other Asiatic courts. It must be clearly 
 understood that this position is by no means 
 peculiar to the modern east, or to the Jews among 
 the ancient Orientals. Heeren, indeed, thinks 
 that the power of ‘ the queen-mother ’ was even 
 more considerable among the ancient Persians 
 than among the modern Turks (Hist. Researches, 
 i. 400) ; and the narratives of Herodotus and 
 Ctesias respecting the tyrannical influence ex 
 ercised by Parysatis, Amestris, and others, bea> 
 
RABBAH. 
 
 QUICKSAND. 
 
 ample testimon j to this fact. The careful reader 
 of Scripture will easily be able to trace the same 
 ideas respecting the position of the king's mother 
 among the Israelites. In how marked a manner 
 does the mother of Solomon come forward at the 
 end of her husband’s and the beginning of her 
 eon’s reign ! She takes an active part in securing 
 her son’s succession ; it is in the conviction of her 
 commanding influence that Adonijah engages 
 her to promote his suit, alleging ‘ he will not 
 pay thee nay ;’ and then, when Bathsheba appears 
 before her son, the monarch rises from his place, 
 advances to meet her, bows himself before her, 
 and seats her on the right hand of his throne 
 Kings i., ii.). That, the king’s mother possessed 
 high dignity is further evinced by the fact that 
 Asa found it necessary to remove his mother 
 Maachah ‘from being queen,’ on account of her 
 Abuse of the power which that character conferred 
 ■ 1 Kings xv. 13). Jezebel was, as already 
 dated, very powerful in the life-time of her hus- 
 band ; but it is only under her son that she is 
 called ‘ the queen * ( gebirah ) ; and the whole 
 •iistory of his reign evinces the important part 
 which she took in public affairs (2 Kings ix. 
 22, 30, 37 ; x. 13). Still more marked was the 
 influence which her daughter Athaliah exercised 
 in Judah during the reign of her son Ahaziah, 
 which was indeed such as enabled her at his 
 leath to set the crown on her own head, and to 
 present the anomaly in Jewish history of a reg- 
 nant queen (2 Kings xi.). 
 
 QUEEN OF HEAVEN. [Ashtoreth.] 
 QUEEN OF SHEBA. [Sheba.] 
 QUICKSAND (oVis). In Acts xxvii. 17, 
 it is mentioned that when the ship in which Paul 
 was embarked was driven past the Isle of Clauda 
 on the south, the mariners, as would now be said, 
 struck the sails and scudded under bare poles, 
 lest they ‘should fall into the quicksands.’ The 
 original word syrtis denotes a sandbank or shoal 
 dangerous to navigation, drawn , or supposed to be 
 drawn (from avpu, ‘ to draw ’) together by the cur- 
 rents of the sea. Two syrtes, or gulfs with quick- 
 rands, were particularly famous among the an- 
 cients.; one called Syrtis Major, between Gyrene 
 and Leptis, and the other, Syrtis Minor, near Car- 
 thage. Both then lay nearly to the south-west 
 of the west end of Cyprus, adjoining which, on 
 the south, lay the isle of Clauda. These Syrtes 
 were the great dread of those who navigated the 
 seas in which the vessel was driven, and one of 
 them was probably in this case the object of 
 alarm to the mariners. The danger was not so 
 imaginary in this case, we apprehend, as Dr. 
 Falconer (Dissert, on St. Paul’s Voyage , p. 13) 
 conceives. For the apprehension does not 
 appear to have been entertained till the ship 
 had been driven past the isle of Clauda ; which, 
 as we take it, is mentioned merely as the 
 last point of land which had been seen till the 
 ship was wrecked on the isle of Melita. The 
 position of that island must be regarded as in- 
 dicating the course in which they were driven; 
 and if that were Malta, it is clear that, had that 
 course not been arrested by the intermediate 
 shipwreck, they would in all probability have 
 been driven upon the Syrtis Minor, which we 
 may therefore conclude to have been the subject 
 of their apprehension. That apprehension only 
 becomes ‘ imaginary ’ when Meleda in the Ad- 
 
 696 
 
 riatic is taken, as Dr. Falconer himself takes it, 
 for the Melita of Scripture. It may therefore be 
 added to the arguments in favour of Malta, that 
 its identification with Melita gives reality to the 
 fear entertained by the mariners, which under the 
 other alternative must be supposed to have been 
 imaginary [Mai.ta]. 
 
 QUlVEli. [Armour, Arms.] 
 
 QUIRINUS. [Cyrenius.] 
 
 R. 
 
 R A AMAH (HDjn ; Sept. 'Peyga), a city of 
 the Cushites, or of Cushite origin (Gen. x. 7 ; 
 1 Clnon. i. 9 ; Ezelc. xxvii. 22). Its situation 
 is not. clearly known, but the 'Peyya with which 
 the Sept, identifies it was a city on the Persian 
 Gulf, mentioned by Ptolemy ( Geog . vi. 7), and 
 Stephan. Byzant. (See Bochart, Phaleg ;. iv. 5.) 
 
 RAAMSES. [Rameses.] 
 
 RABBAH (HID ; Sept. 'PafipdO). This name, 
 which properly denotes a great city or metro- 
 polis, is given in Scripture to the capital of the 
 Ammonites (Josh. xiii. 25 ; 2 Sam. xi. 1 ; xii. 
 27; 1 Chron. xx. 1; Jer. xlix. 3); the full 
 name of which, however, as given in Deut. iii. 
 11, appears to have been Rabbath-beni- Ammon. 
 It was in this place that the great iron bedstead 
 of Og king of Bashan was preserved (Deut. iii. 
 11). Here also, during the siege of the place by 
 Joab, the unsuspecting Uriah was slain, through 
 the contrivance of David, that he might possess 
 himself of his wife Bathsheba ; after which the 
 king went in person and took the city, the im- 
 portance of which is shown by the solicitude 
 of the monarch thus to appropriate to himself 
 the glory of its subjugation (2 Sam. xi., xii.). 
 After this Rabbah was included in the tribe of 
 Gad. After the separation of the ten tribes, 
 Rabbah, with the whole territory beyond the 
 Jordan, adhered to the kingdom of Israel, till 
 it was ravaged by the Assyrians under Tiglath- 
 pileser, and the inhabitants expatriated to 
 Media. The Ammonites then recovered posses- 
 sion of Rabbah and the other cities and territories 
 which had in former times been taken from them 
 by the Israelites (Jer. xlix. 3 ; Ezek. xxv. 2-5) 
 [Ammonites]. Some centuries later, when these 
 parts were subject to Egypt, Rabbah was restored 
 or rebuilt by Ptolemy Philadelphia, and called 
 by him Philadelphia (Euseb. Onomast. s. v. 
 'PaydO and ’A ggdv), and under this name it is 
 often mentioned by Greek and Roman writers 
 (Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 16; Ptol. Geog. v. 15), by 
 Josephus (De Bell. Jud. i. 6. 3 ; i. 19. 5 ; ii, 
 18. 1), and upon Roman coina (Eckhel, iii. 351 ; 
 Mionnet, v. 335), as a city of Arabia, Ccele- 
 syria, or Decapolis. The old name was not, 
 however, altogether superseded, for Polybius 
 (Hist. v. 7, 4) calls it 'PaPBardyai’a. 
 
 Rabbah appears to have consisted, like Aroer, 
 of two parts; the city itself, and ‘the city of 
 waters,’ or royal city, which was probably a 
 detached portion of the city itself, insulated 
 by the stream on which it wa3 situated. The 
 ‘ city of waters ’ was taken by Joab ; but agaii^t 
 
696 
 
 RABBI. 
 
 RAB-SHAKEH. 
 
 the city itself he was obliged to call for the assis- 
 tance of David with a reinforcement (2 Sam. 
 xii. 29). 
 
 The ancient name has been preserved among 
 the natives of the country. Almlfeda calls it 
 Amman , and by that name it is still known. 
 It was in ruins in his time ( Tab . Syr. p. 19). 
 Toe ruins stand about 19 miles south-east of 
 Szalt, in a long valley traversed by a stream, 
 the Moiet Amman., which at this place is arched 
 over, the bed as well as the banks being paved. 
 The ruins are extensive, but there remains no- 
 thing of much interest, excepting the theatre, 
 which is very large and perfect, and a small 
 odeum close to it. There are also an ancient 
 castle and some vestiges of Roman buildings and 
 of Christian churches. Tlie Prophet E/.ekiel 
 foretold that Rabbah should become ‘ a stable 
 for camels," and the country ‘ a couching place 
 for Hocks" (Ezek. xxv. 5). This has been lite- 
 rally fulfilled, and Burckhardt actually found 
 that a party of Arabs had stabled their camels 
 among the ruins of Rabbah. Too much stress 
 has however been laid upon this minute point by 
 Dr. Keith and others (Evidence from Prophecy , 
 p. 150). What the prophet meant to say was that 
 Ammon and its chief city should be desolate; 
 and he expressed it by reference to facts which 
 would certainly occur in any forsaken site in 
 the borders of Arabia ; and which are now con- 
 stantly occuring not in Rabbah only, but in 
 many other places. Seetzen, in Zach's Monat. 
 Corresp. xviii. p. 428; Burckhardt's Syria , 
 p. 356, sq. ; Irby and Mangles, Travels , p. 
 474. 
 
 The Rabbah of Josh. xv. 60 was in the tribe 
 of Judah. 
 
 RABBATH-AMMON. [Rabbah.] 
 RABBATH-MOAB. [Ait.] 
 
 RABBI ('P a##), a title of honour given to the 
 teachers of the law in the time of Christ, and for 
 which there is no exact equivalent in our language, 
 though perhaps in purport and usage it comes 
 near to ‘doctor’ or ‘master:’ a word combining 
 both these significations would fairly represent it. 
 In Matt, xxiii. S, 'Pa/3/3< is explained by Kadrj- 
 yrjTris, a leader, or guide (in the sense of a teacher 
 or master), and in John i. 39, by bidacr/caAos, a 
 teacher, or master. This, however, seems to have 
 been the acquired or conventional usage of the 
 term. The actual signification of HI rab in 
 Hebrew is ‘a great one,’ i. e. a chief, a master; 
 and would as a title be probably represented by 
 the ‘Excellenza’ of southern Europe, which is 
 perhaps as common as Rabbi was among the Jews. 
 It was there employed as a title in the Jewish 
 schools in a threefold form, indicating as many 
 degrees, which might without much impropriety 
 be compared, in the stricter sense, to the progres- 
 sive academical degrees of Bachelor, Master, and 
 Doctor. The lowest of these degrees of honour 
 was rab. This with the relative suffix became 
 '31, ‘Paj8£i, Rabbi, ‘ my master,’ which was of 
 higher dignity ; and beyond that was p"l Raban, 
 ‘great master;’ or with the suffix "Paji^ovi, Rab - 
 boni , ‘my great master,’ which was the highest 
 of all. It is not certain, however, that this gra- 
 duation of terms existed in the time of Christ. 
 The teachers and professors of the law were 
 distinguished by the title of Rabbi both by the 
 
 people arid by their own disciples (Mart, xxiii. 7) 
 Jesus was so called by his lisciples (Matt. xxvi. 
 25-49; Mark ix. 5; xi 2; John i. 38; iv. 31) 
 as well as by the peopie (Matt. x. 51 ; John 
 xx. 16). 
 
 RABBINICAL LITERATURE. [Kab- 
 bai.ah, Talmud.] 
 
 RABBONI ('PajS^ovt or 'P afiPocovl), the title 
 of highest honour applied by the Jews to the 
 teachers of the law [Rabbi]. In Mark x. 51 
 (translated ‘Lord’), John xx. 16, it is applied 
 to Christ; but, as it seems to us, rather in its 
 literal acceptation, than with reference to the 
 conventional distinction which it implied (if such 
 distinction then existed) in the Jewish schools. 
 There were but seven great professors, all of the 
 school of IT i 1 lei, to whom the title was publicly 
 given. There is some difference as to their names, 
 and even the Talmud varies in its statements. 
 But the only one there whose name occurs in 
 Scripture is Gamaliel, unless, indeed, as some 
 suppose, the aged Simeon, who blessed the infant 
 Saviour (Luke ii. 25), was the same as the Rab- 
 ban Simeon of the Talmud [Simeon]. 
 
 RAB SARIS (Dnp-nn ; Sept. 'Pa^'y), one of 
 the three Assyrian generals in command of the 
 army which appeared before Jerusalem (2 Kings 
 xviii. 17) [Rab-shaiceh]. The word means ‘ chief 
 of the eunuchs ;’ which could scarcely have been a 
 proper name ; but whether his office was really 
 that which the title imports, or some other great 
 court office, must be determined by the consi- 
 derations which have been offered under the article 
 Eunuch. The chief of the eunuchs is an officer 
 of high rank and dignity in the Oriental courts: 
 and his cares are not confined to the harem, but 
 many high public functions devolve upon him. 
 In the Ottoman Porte the Kislar Aga, or chief of 
 the black eunuchs, is one of the principal per- 
 sonages in the empire, and in an official paper of 
 great solemnity is styled by the sultan, the most 
 illustrious of the officers who approach his august 
 person, and worthy of the confidence of monarchs 
 and of sovereigns’ (D’Ohsson, Tab. Gen. iii. 308). 
 It is, therefore, by no means improbable that such 
 an office should be associated with a military 
 commission ; perhaps not for directly military 
 duties, but to take charge of the treasure, and to 
 select from the female captives such as might 
 seem worthy of the royal harem. 
 
 RAB-SHAKEH (nj?£hn ; Sept. ‘Pa^dt^y-. 
 This name is Aramaic, and signifies chief cup- 
 bearer . Notwithstanding its seemingly official 
 significance, it appears to have been used as a 
 proper name, as Butler with us ; for the person 
 who bore it was a military chief in high com- 
 mand, under Sennacherib king of Assyria. Yet it 
 is not impossible, according to Oriental usages, 
 that a royal cup-bearer should hold a military 
 command ; and the office itself was one of high 
 distinction. He is the last, named of three 
 Assyrian generals who appeared before Jeru- 
 salem ; and was the utterer of the insulting 
 speeches addressed to the besieged. ‘He stood 
 and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ lan- 
 guage;’ perhaps because he was the only one of 
 the three who could speak that language freely. 
 2 Kings xviii. 17, 19, 26, 28, 37 ; xix. 4, 8 ; Isa. 
 xxx vi. 2, 4, 12, 13, 22 ; ,xxxv i. 4, 8, 
 
R\CA. 
 
 RACK AM. 
 
 597 
 
 RACA ('Poicd), a word which occurs in Matt, 
 v. 22, and which remains untranslated in the 
 Authorized Version. It. is expressive of contempt, 
 from the Chaldee Kpn, and means an empty, 
 worthless fellow. Jesus, contrasting the law of 
 Moses, which could only take notice of overt acts, 
 with his own, which renders man amenable for 
 his motives and feelings, says in effect; ‘Whoso- 
 ever is rashly angry with his brother is liable to 
 the judgment of God ; whosoever calls his brother 
 Raca, is liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrim ; 
 but whosoever calls him fool (Moipe) becomes 
 liable to the judgment of Gehenna.’ To appre- 
 hend the higher criminality here attached to the 
 term fool, which may not at first seem very 
 obvious, it is necessary to observe that while 
 ‘raca’ denotes a certain looseness of life and 
 manners, ‘ fool ’ denotes a wicked and reprobate 
 person : foolishness being in Scripture opposed to 
 spiritual wisdom. 
 
 RACE. [Games.] 
 
 RACHAM (Dn"l ; Sept, kvkvov ; Vulg. por- 
 phyrio ; Lev. xi. 18 ; Deut. xiv. 17) isnowadmit- 
 ted to be the white carrion vulture of Egypt, Perc- 
 nopterus Neophron JEgyptiacus. It would lead us 
 beyond the limits prescribed to this article to enter 
 into a disquisition on the manners of cranes, storks, 
 swans, and pelicans, all in some degree confounded 
 in the mind of Orientals when they describe the 
 marvellous love, parental affection, and filial gra- 
 titude of birds : consequently they have names for 
 certain species which are claimed as derivatives 
 from roots expressive of the affections. For al- 
 though the incessant warfare of man upon brute 
 animals in their native haunts has, at least in the 
 populous west, well nigh obliterated all their 
 
 more generous instincts, and we are consequently 
 not well acquainted with the natural attributes 
 of their character, the swan alone can claim pre- 
 tension to an ultra- maternal feeling, from her 
 practice of supporting her young brood between 
 her wings when she gives them their first lesson 
 in swimming. All other tales of that nature 
 recorded in the poets and historians of antiquity 
 saay be regarded as absolute fictions ; and among 
 
 the rest, that in Horns Apollo, rej resenting the 
 Racham tearing the flesh of her thighs to feed her 
 young, is evidently an invention of the Egyptian 
 priesthood, fabricated in order to enhance the cha- 
 racter of a useful bird, which, notwithstanding 
 that it was sanctified in their mystical supersti- 
 tions, and protected by the king as ‘ Pharaoh’s 
 fowl’ (an ancient, appellation), is perhaps 1 lie most 
 revoltingly filthy bird in existence. With respect 
 to the original imposition of the name Racham, 
 as connected with any unusual affection for its 
 young, there is no modern ornithologist who assigns 
 such a quality to Percnopteri more fjian to other 
 birds, although it is likely that as the pelican 
 empties its bag of fish, so this bird may void the 
 crop to feed her brood. Gesner had already 
 figured ( De Aquila qnem Percnopterum vocant , 
 p. 199) the Barbary variety, and pointed out the 
 Racham of Scripture as the identical species, but 
 Bruce first clearly established the fact. The 
 Rachama of that writer is apparently the Ak- 
 bobha (‘ white father ’) of the Turks, and forms 
 one of a small group of Vulturidae, subgenerically 
 distinguished by the name of Percnopterus 
 and Neophron , differing from the other vultures 
 in the bill being longer, straight, more attenuated, 
 and then uncinated, and in the back of the head 
 and neck being furnished with longish, narrow, 
 suberectile feathers, but. like true vultures, having 
 the pouch on the breast exposed, and the sides of 
 the head and throat bare and livid. The great 
 wing-coverts are partly, and the quill-feathers en- 
 tirely, of a black and blackish ash-colour ; those 
 of the head, nape, smaller wing-coverts, body, 
 and tail, in general white, with tinges of buff and 
 rufous; the legs are flesh- colour, and rather long; 
 and the toes are armed with sharp claws. The 
 females are brownish. In size the species is 
 little bulkier than a raven, but it stands high on 
 the legs. Always soiled with blood and garbage, 
 offensive to the eye and nose, it yet is protected 
 in Egypt both by law and public opinion, for 
 the services it renders in clearing the soil of 
 dead carcases putrefying in the sun, and the 
 cultivated fields of innumerable rats, mice, and 
 other vermin. Pious Moslems at Cairo and 
 other places, bestow a daily portion of food upon 
 them, and upon their associates the kites, who are 
 seen hovering conjointly in great numbers about 
 the city. The Racham extends to Palestine in 
 the summer season, but becomes scarce towards 
 the north, where it is not specially protected ; and 
 it accompanies caravans, feasting on their leavings 
 and on dead camels, &c. 
 
 Gesner ’s figure represents the Barbary variety ; 
 but there are two other species besides, viz., the 
 Percnopterus Angolensis, and Percnopterus Hy- 
 poleuci(s, both similarly characterized by their 
 white livery, and distinguished from the Egyptian 
 by a different arrangement of colour, a shorter 
 bill, and more cleanly habits. 
 
 In our version the name of Gier-eagle is cer- 
 tainly most improper, as such a denomination 
 can apply only to a large species, and is most 
 appropriate to the bearded vulture of the Alps. 
 The Liimmer-geyer of the Swiss ( Gypaetus Bar- 
 batus ), which in the shape of varieties, or dis- 
 tinct species, frequents also the high snowy ranges 
 of Spain, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Crete, Abys- 
 sinia, Caffraria, Barbary, and most likely of 
 Libanus, was no doubt the bird intended by our 
 
RACHEL. 
 
 RAMAH. 
 
 translators to represent the Racham ; nor was the 
 application unreasonable, as will be shown in 
 Vulture. The Percnopterus is somewhat sin- 
 gularly classed both in Lev. and Deut., along 
 with aquatic l mis ; and it may be questioned 
 whether any animal will eat it, since, in the 
 parallel case of Vultur aura, the turkey-buzzard 
 or carrion-crow of America, we have found even 
 the ants abstaining from its carcase, and leaving 
 it to dry up in the sun, though swarming around 
 and greedy of every other animal substance 
 [Vulture], — C. H. S. 
 
 RACHEL (Snn, a exce ; Sept. 'Pax^A), one 
 and the most beloved of the two daughters of 
 Laban, whom Jacob married (Gen. xxix. 16, 
 seq.), and who became the mother of Joseph and 
 Benjamin, in giving birth to the latter of whom 
 she died near Bethlehem, where her sepulchre is 
 shown to this day (Gen. xxx. 22; xxxv. 16). 
 For more minute particulars see Jacob, with 
 whose history Rachel s is closely involved. 
 
 RAGUEL, or Reuel (^N-Ijn, friend cf God ; 
 Sept. ' Payovf }\ ). 1. A son of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 
 4, 10). 2. The father of Jethro (Exod. ii. 18; 
 Num. x. 29). Some confound him with Jethro; 
 but in the text last cited, he is called the father 
 of Hobab, who seems to have been the same as 
 Jethro. In the same passage, indeed, the daugh- 
 ters of the ‘ priest of Midian ’ relate to ‘ Reuel their 
 father ’ their adventure with Moses : which might 
 seem to support Lis identity with Jethro ; but it 
 is quite a Scriptural usage to call a grandfather 
 ‘ father,’ and a granddaughter, ‘ daughter ’ (Gen. 
 xxxi. 43 ; 2 Sam. xix. 25 ; 1 Kings xiv. 3 ; 
 xvi. 2; xviii. 3). The Targum in this place 
 reads, ‘They came to Reuel their father’s father.’ 
 [« ohab ] 3. Another person of this name 
 
 occurs in 1 Chron. ix. 8. 
 
 1. RAHAB pH - ]; Sept. ‘Pad#), a name, 
 signifying ‘sea-monster,’ which is applied as an 
 appellation to Egypt in Ps. lxxiv. 13, 14 ; 
 lxxxvii. 4 ; lxxxix. 10 ; Isa. li. 9 (and some- 
 times to its king, Ezek. xxix. 3; xxxiii. 3, comp. 
 Ps. lxviii. 31); which metaphorical designation 
 probably involves an allusion to the crocodiles, 
 hippopotami, and other aquatic creatures of the 
 Nile. 
 
 2. RAHAB, properly Rachab (Hirn, large ; 
 Sept. 'Paxa/3), a woman of Jericho who received 
 into her house the two spies who were sent by 
 Joshua into that city; concealed them under the 
 flax laid out upon the house-top, when they were 
 sought after ; and, having given them important 
 information, which showed that the inhabitants 
 were much disheartened at the miracles which 
 had attended the march of the Israelites, enabled 
 them to escape over the wall of the town, upon 
 which her dwelling was situated. For this im- 
 portant service Rahab and her kindred were 
 saved by the Hebrews from the general massacre 
 which followed the taking of Jericho (Josh. ii. 
 1-21 ; vi. 17; comp. Heb. xi. 31). 
 
 In the narrative of these transactions Rahab is 
 called n J IT zonah, which our own, after the 
 ancient versions, renders ‘ harlot.’ The Jewish 
 writers, however, being unwilling to entertain the 
 idea of their ancestors being involved in a dis- 
 reputable association at the commencement of 
 
 their great undertaking, chose to interpret fn* 
 word ‘ hostess,’ one who keeps a public house, as 
 if from |1T, ‘ to nourish ’ (Joseph. Antiq. v. 1 ; ii. 
 and vii. ; comp, the Targum, and Kimchi and 
 Jarchi on the text). Christian interpreters also 
 are inclined to adopt this interpretation for the 
 sake of the character of a woman of whom the 
 Apostle speaks well, and who would appear fmm 
 Matt. i. 4 to have become by a subsequent mar- 
 riage with Salmon prince of Judah, an ancestress 
 of Jesus. But we must be content to take facts 
 as they stand, and not strain them to meet diffi- 
 culties ; and it is now universally admitted by 
 every sound Hebrew scholar that PIDIT means 
 .‘ harlot,’ and not ‘ hostess.’ It signilies harlot 
 in every other text where it occurs, the idea 
 of ‘ hostess’ not being represented by this or 
 any other word in Hebrew, as the function 
 represented by it did not exist. There were 
 no inns; and when certain substitutes for inn? 
 eventually came into use, they were never, in 
 any Eastern country, kept by women. On the 
 other hand, strangers from beyond the river might 
 have repaired to the house of a harlot with- 
 out suspicion or remark. The Bedouins from 
 the desert constantly do so at this day in theii 
 visits to Cairo and Baghdad. The house of 
 such a woman was also the only one to which 
 they, as perfect strangers, could have had access, 
 and certainly the only one in which they could 
 calculate on obtaining the information they re- 
 quired without danger from male inmates. This 
 concurrence of analogies in the word, in the 
 thing, and in the probability of circumstances, 
 ought to settle the question. If we are concerned 
 for the morality of Rahab, the best proof of her 
 reformation is found in the fact of her subse- 
 quent marriage to Salmon : this implies her pre- 
 vious conversion to Judaism, for which inde*ed 
 her discourse with the spies evinces that she was 
 prepared. The Jewish writers abound in praises 
 of Rahab, on account of the great service she ren- 
 dered their ancestors. Even those who do not deny 
 that she was a harlot, admit that she eventually 
 became the wife of a prince of Israel, and that 
 many great persons of their nation sprang from 
 this union. The general statement is, that she 
 was ten years of age at the time the Hebrews 
 quitted Egypt, that she played the harlot during 
 all the forty years they were in the wilderness, 
 that she became a proselyte when the spies were 
 received by her, and that after the fall of Jericho 
 no less a personage than Joshua himself made her 
 his wife. She is also counted as an ancestress oi 
 Jeremiah, Maaseiah, Hanameel, Shallum, Ba- 
 ruch, Ezekiel, Neriah, Seriah, and Huldah the 
 prophetess. (See T. Babyl. tit. Megilla, lol. 14, 
 col. 2 ; Juchasin , x. 1 ; Shalshalet Iiakabala , 
 vii. 2; Abarbanel, Kimchi, &c., on Josh. vi. 25 ; 
 Mitzvoth Torch, p. 112; Lightfoot, Ilor. Heb. 
 ad Matt. i. 4 ; Meuschen, N. T. Talmud, p. 40.) 
 
 RAIN. See under the bead Climate , in art. 
 Palestine. 
 
 RAM. [Sheep. ) 
 
 RAMAH (HDl, a high place , height ; Sept. 
 "Papa), the name of several towns and villages 
 in Palestine, which it is not in all cases easy to 
 distinguish from one another. 
 
 1. RAMAH, a town of Benjamin (Josh, xviii, 
 25), in the vicinity of Gibeah and Geba (Judg, 
 
HAMAH. 
 
 K AMESES. 
 
 599 
 
 3rix. 13; Isa. x. 29; IIos. v. 8; Ezra ii. 26; 
 Neh. vii. 39, xi. 33) ; on the way from Jerusalem 
 to Bethel (Judg. iv. 5), and not far from the con- 
 fines of the two kingdoms (1 Kings xv, 17 ; xxi. 
 22). It is also mentioned in Jer. xxxi. 15 ; xl. 1. 
 Jerome places it six Roman miles north of Jeru- 
 salem, and Josephus, who calls it 4 P a/mOuv, 
 places it forty stadia from Jerusalem (Antiq. viii. 
 12. 3). In accordance with all these intimations, 
 at the distance of two hours' journey north of 
 Jerusalem, upon a hill a little to the east of the 
 great northern road, a village still exists under 
 the name of Er-Ram, in which we cannot hesi- 
 tate to recognise the representative of the ancient 
 llamah. This is one of the valuable identifica- 
 tions for which Biblical geography is indebted to 
 Dr. Robinson ( Researches , ii. 315-317). The 
 difficult text (Jer. xxxi. 15), ‘A voice was heard 
 in Ramah . . . Rachel weeping for her children,’ 
 which the Evangelist (Matt. ii. 8) transfers to 
 the massacre at Bethlehem, has been thought to 
 require a southern Ramah not far from that 
 place, near which indeed is Rachel's sepulchre. 
 But no such Ramah has been found ; and Dr. 
 Robinson thinks that the allusion of the prophet 
 was originally applicable to this Ramah. The 
 context refers to the exiles carried away captive 
 by Nebuzar-adan to Babylon, who passed by 
 way of Ramah, which was perhaps their rendez- 
 vous (Jer. xl. 1). As Ramah was in Benjamin, 
 the prophet introduces Rachel, the mother of that 
 tribe, bewailing the captivity of her descend- 
 ants. 
 
 2. RAMAH, of Samuel, so called, where the 
 prophet lived and was buried (1 Sam. i. 19; 
 ii. 11; vii. 17; viii. 4; xv. 34; xvi. 13, 19; 
 xviii. 19, 22, 23; xxv. 1 ; xxviii. 3). It is 
 probably the same with the Ramathaim-Zophim 
 to which his father Elkanah belonged (1 Sam. 
 i. 1, 19). The position of this Ramah was early 
 lost sight of by tradition, and a variety of opinions 
 have prevailed since the time of Eusebius and Je- 
 rome, who regard it as the Arimathea of the New 
 Testament, and place it near Lydda, where a Ra- 
 mah anciently existed. Hence some have held 
 the site to be that of the present Ramleh, which 
 is itself a modern town [Arimathea]. Many 
 writers have, however, been disposed to seek 
 Samuel’s Ramah in the Ramah of Benjamin 
 (Pococke, ii. 71, 72; Bachiene, i. 155; Raumer, 
 Paliist. p. 146 ; Winer, s. v.) ; but this was only 
 half an hour distant from the Gibeah where Saul 
 resided, which-does not agree with the historical 
 intimation (comp. 1 Sam. ix. 10). Again, gene- 
 ral opinion lias pointed to a place called Neby 
 Samuel, a village upon a high point two hours 
 north-west of Jerusalem, and which was, indeed, 
 also usually supposed to be the Ramah of Ben- 
 jamin, till Dr. Robinson established the separate 
 claims of er-Ram to that distinction. But this 
 appropriation does not agree with the mention of 
 Rachel's sepulchre in 1 Sam. x. 2, for that is 
 about as far to the south of Jerusalem as Neby 
 Samuel is to the north-west. The like objection 
 applies, though in a somewnat less degree, to 
 the modern Soba, west of Jerusalem, which 
 Robinson points out as possibly the site of Ra- 
 in at.liai m-Zophtm and Ramah ( Researches , ii. 
 330-334). The chief difficulties in connection 
 with this matter arise of course out of the account 
 given of Saul's journey after his father’s asses. 
 
 The city in which Saul found Samuel is not 
 named, hut is said to have been 4 in the land o 4 
 Zuph’ (1 Sam. ix. 5), and is assumed to have 
 been Ramah-Zojs/mn. In dismissing him from 
 this place, Samuel foretells an adventure that 
 should hefal him near Rachel’s sepulchre. Now, 
 as this sepulchre was near Bethlehem, and as 
 Saul s abode was in Benjamin, the southern border 
 of which is several miles to the north thereof, it 
 is manifest that if Saul in going home was to 
 pass near Rachel’s sepulchre, the place where 
 Samuel was must have been to dre south of it. 
 Gesenius contends that if we allow weight to the 
 mention of Rachel, we can only seek for this 
 Ramah in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem ; 
 where also Eusebius speaks of a Ramah. Not 
 far south-east of Bethlehem is the Jebel Fureidis, 
 or Frank Mount, which Robinson has identified 
 as the site of the ancient city and fortress of 
 Herod, called Herodium; and Gesenius contends 
 that if we fix heie the site of Ramah, all the cir- 
 cumstances mentioned in 1 Sam. ix. 10 ar* 
 sufficiently explained. But then the Ramah- 
 Zophim of 1 Sam. i. 1 must have been a differen: 
 place ( Thesaurus, p. 1276). To this Dr. Robin 
 sou himself, in his edition of Gesenius, objects 
 that the difference assumed in the last sentence Li 
 inadmissible. 4 Besides, no one who had see* 
 the Frank mountain would suppose for a moment 
 that a city ever lay upon it. Jt was indeed occu 
 pied by Herod's fortress; but the city Herodium 
 lay at its foot.’ He adds that r Eusebius, in the 
 passage referred to, obviously places Ramah of 
 Benjamin near Bethlehem, for the purpose of 
 helping out a wrong interpretation of Matt. ii. 18. 
 Another, and the most recent hypothesis in this 
 vexed question, would place this Ramah at a site 
 of ruins now called er-Rameh, two miles north 
 of Hebron ( Biblioth . Sacra, No. I. pp. 46-51). 
 But this also assumes that the Ramathaim-Zo- 
 phim, the place of the prophet's birth, was different 
 from the place of his residence and burial, con- 
 trary to the testimony of Josephus (Antiq. vi. 
 4, 6 ; vi. 13, 5), and to the conclusion deducible 
 from a comparison of 1 Sam. i. 1 with verses 
 3, 19. In the midst of all this uncertainty, Dr. 
 Robinson thinks that interpreters may yet be 
 driven to the conclusion that, the city where Saul 
 found Samuel (1 Sam. ix. 10), was not Ramah 
 his home. 
 
 3. RAMAH, a city of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 
 36). 
 
 4. RAMAH, a town of Gilead (2 Kings viii. 
 29), the name of which is given more fully in 
 Josh. xiii. 26, as Ramoth-Mizpeh. 
 
 RAMESES (Dppjn; Sept. 'P aneaarjj, an 
 Egyptian city in the land of Goshen, built, or at 
 least, fortified, by the labour of the Israelites (Gen. 
 xlvii. 11 ; Exod. i. 11 ; xii. 37; Num. xxxiii. 
 3-5). The name of the city seems to have been 
 sometimes given to the whole province (Gen. 
 xlvii. 11), by which it would appear to have 
 been the chief city of the district. It was pro- 
 bably situated on the water-shed between the 
 Bitter Lakes and the Valley of the Seven Wells, 
 not far from Heroopolis, but not identical with 
 that city (See Robinson's Bibl. Researches, i. 70, 
 547-550). In Exod. i. 11, the name is by« 
 difference in the points spelt Raamses. The 
 name means 4 son of the s in,* and was borne by 
 
RAMOTH, 
 
 RAVEN. 
 
 60£ 
 
 several of the ancient, kings of Egypt, one of whom 
 was probably the founder of the city. 
 
 RAMOTH (ninn or n'lDXT ; heights, pi. of 
 Ramah). There were several places of this 
 name, usually with some addition to distinguish 
 them from one another. 
 
 1. RAMOTH-GILEAD, called also Ramoth- 
 Mizpeh. or simply Ramoth, a town in Gilead, 
 within the borders of Gad (Josh. xiii. 26), which 
 belonged to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 38 ; 1 Chrou. 
 vi. 65, 80). It was one of the cities of refuge 
 (Deut. iv. 43 ; Josh. xx. 8), abd one of the 
 towns in which an intendant was stationed by 
 Solomon (1 Kings iv. 13). It was the last of 
 their conquests which the Syrians held ; and Ahab 
 was killed (1 Kings xxii. 1-37 ; 2 Chrou. xviii.), 
 and fourteen years after, his son Joram was 
 wounded (2 Kings viii. 28), in the attempt to 
 recover it. The strength of the place is attested 
 by the length of time the Syrians were enabled 
 to hold it, and by Ahab and Joram having both 
 been solicitous to obtain the aid of the kings of 
 Judah when about to attack it ; these being two of 
 the only three expeditions in which the kings of 
 Judah and Israel ever co-operated. It was here 
 also that Jehu was proclaimed and anointed 
 king (2 Kings ix. 1-6) ; but it is not very clear 
 whether the army was then still before the town, 
 or in actual possession of it. Eusebius (Ono- 
 mast. s. v.) places Ramoth-Gilead on the river 
 Jabbok, fifteen Roman miles west of Philadel- 
 phia (Rabbah). At about this distance, W.N.W. 
 from Philadelphia, and about eight miles south 
 of the Jabbok, are the ruins of a town, bearing 
 the name of Jelaad, which is merely a different 
 orthography of the Hebrew Gilead (Burck- 
 hardt, Sy?'ia, p. 348). Buckingham is, however, 
 move disposed to seek the site of Ramoth-Gilead 
 in a place now called Ramtha, or Rameza, 
 which is about twenty-three miles N.W.N. from 
 Philadelphia, and about four miles north of the 
 Jabbok, where he noticed some ruins which he 
 could not examine. As Ramoth in Gilead is 
 called sometimes Ramoth alone, but never Gilead 
 alone, the analogy of name is perhaps in favour of 
 the latter conclusion ; but the bearing and dis- 
 tance from Philadelphia are both in favour of the 
 other. We are not disposed to rely upon either 
 of these alternatives, although nothing better has 
 yet been offered. 
 
 RAMATH-LEHI. This name, which means 
 height of the jawbone, belonged to a place oa the 
 borders of Philistia, and is referred by the sacred 
 writer to the jaw-bone with which Samson 
 slaughtered the Philistines (Judg. xv. 17). 
 
 RAMOTH-NEGEB ( Ramoth of the south ' ), 
 a city in the tribe of Simeon (Josh. xix. 8 ; 
 1 Sam. xxx. 27). 
 
 RAMS’ HORNS. [Musical Instruments.] 
 
 RAMS’ SKINS, RED, as Dr. M. Harris quotes 
 »t (D'EHND my, oroth eylim mcadda- 
 
 mim ), occurs in Exod. xxv. 5, and xxxv. 7. 
 There is little doubt that the red rams’ skins here 
 noticed are to be understood us the produce of 
 the African Aoudad, the Ovis tragelaphus of na- 
 turalists, whereof the bearded sheep are a domes- 
 ticated race. The tragelaphus is a distinct species 
 of eheep, having a shorter form than the common 
 
 species, and incipient tear pits. Its normal colour 
 is red, from bright chestnut to rufous chocolate ; 
 which last is the cause of the epithet purple being 
 given to it by the poets. Far to the south, or with- 
 in the tropics, the species is densely clothed with 
 coarse short hair, but longer on the neck, and 
 pendant in great abundance beneath the throat. 
 From a specimen now living in our possession, 
 it has been observed that on the first approach of 
 autumn a very fine grey wool crops out everywhere 
 from beneath the hair. In Spain, and in the 
 islands of Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, and Crete 
 the most ancient zoology seems to have had 
 greater affinity to that of Afiica ihan of Europe. 
 Hence the Homeric purple sheep, and the Mus- 
 mon and Cervus Barbaras of the two first- men- 
 tioned islands. We agree with Dr. Mason Harris, 
 that the skins in question were most likely tanned 
 and coloured crimson ; for it is well known that 
 what is now termed red morocco was manufac- 
 tured in the remotest ages in Libya, especially 
 about the Tritonian Lake, where the original 
 aegis, or goat-skin breastplate of Jupiter and Mi- 
 nerva, was dyed bright red ; and the Egyptians 
 had most certainly red leather in use, for their 
 antique paintings show harnessmakers cutting it 
 into slips for the collars of horses and furniture 
 of chariots. — C. H. S 
 
 RAVEN (my oreb ; Chald. Nmty ; Syr. 
 
 : L at in, corvus; Sept. i<6pa£ ; also Luke 
 
 xii. 24, only). The Hebrew word occurs in Gen. 
 viii. 7 : Lev. xi. 15 ; Deut. xiv. 14 ; 1 Kings xvii 
 4-6 ; Job xxxviii. 41, &c. The raven is so gene- 
 rally confounded with the carrion crow, that even 
 in the works of naturalists the figure of the latter 
 has been sometimes substituted for that of the for- 
 mer, and the manners of both have been mixed up 
 together. They are, it is true, very similar, be- 
 longing to the same Linnaean genus, Corvus , and 
 having the same intensely black colour ; hut the 
 raven is the larger, weighing about three pounds; 
 has proportionably a smaller head, and a bill 
 fuller an(jl stouter at the point. Its black colour 
 is more iridescent, with gleams of purple passing 
 into green, while that of the crow is more steel- 
 blue ; the raven is also gi fted with greater sagacity ; 
 may be taught to articulate words; is naturally 
 observant and solitary ; lives in pairs ; has a most 
 acute scent ; and flies to a great height. Unlike 
 the crow, which is gregarious in its habits, the 
 raven will not even suffer its young, from the 
 moment they can shift for themselves, to remain 
 within its haunt; and therefore, though a bird 
 found nearly in all countries, it is nowhere 
 abundant. 
 
 Whether the raven of Palestine is the common 
 species, or the Corvus Montanus of Temminck, 
 is not quite determined ; for there is of the ravens, 
 or greater form of crows, a smaller group in- 
 cluding two or three others, all similar in man- 
 ners, and unlike the carrion crows ( Corvus 
 Corone , Linn.), which are gregarious, and seem- 
 ingly identical in both hemispheres. Sometimes 
 a pair of ravens will descend without fear among 
 a flight of crows, take possession of the carrion 
 that may have attracted them, and keep the crows 
 at a distance till they themselves are gorged. The 
 habits of the whole genus, typified by the name 
 oreb , render it unclean in the Hebrew law ; and 
 the malignant, ominous expression of the raven, 
 
REBEKAII. 
 
 RECENSION. 
 
 601 
 
 together with the colour of its plumage, powers of 
 voice, ami solitary hahits, are the causes of that 
 universal and often superstitious attention with 
 which mankind have ever regarded it. This bird is 
 die first, mentioned in the Bible, as being sent, forth 
 by Noah out of the ark on the subsiding of the 
 waters; and in 1 Kings xvii. 4, ravens bring flesh 
 and bread at morning and eve to the prophet 
 Elijah. Here the orebirn are manifestly true 
 ravens, whereof a pair would be sufficient to carry 
 the scanty meal of an Oriental abstemious man; 
 for, independently of the different mode of writing 
 the name, if the word had implied persons re- 
 siding at a village called Aorabi or Orbo, as pre- 
 sumed by some critics, there would have been no 
 miraculous interposition of the Lord to feed the 
 toncealed prophet, but a common, and on this 
 occasion merely a secret resolution on the part of 
 a few pious men, to give rood to a proscribed 
 person. 
 
 In the mythological history of the Gentiles, we 
 find the appellation of Ravens bestowed upon an 
 oracular order of priesthood. In Egypt, it seems, 
 (he temples of Ammon were served by such — 
 perhaps those priests that occur in the catacombs 
 playing on harps, and clothed in black. More 
 than one temple in Greece had similar raven 
 priests. It was the usual symbol of slaughter 
 among the Scandinavians; and a raven banner 
 belonged to the Danes, and also to the Saxons : 
 one occurs among the ensigns of the Normans in 
 the Bayeux tapestry ; and it. was formerly a custom 
 in the Benedictine abbeys on the continent to 
 maintain in a very large cage a couple of ravens, 
 where several are recorded to have lived above 
 fifty years. The Raven of the Sea, that ominous 
 bird in northern mythology, is properly the cor- 
 morant — the morvran of the Celtae. — C. H. S. 
 
 REBEKAH (nj?2T, « noosed cord; Sept. 
 'PefitKKa), daughter of Bethuel, and sister of La- 
 ban, who became the wife of Isaac, and the 
 mother of Jacob and Esau. Th particulars of 
 her history and conduct, as given in Scripture, 
 chiefly illustrate her preference of Jacob over 
 Esau, and have been related in the article 
 Jacob : see also Isaac. 
 
 RECENSION. After the critical materials 
 lying at the basis of the New Testament text had 
 accumulated in the hands of Mill and Wetstein, 
 they began to be surveyed with philosophic eye. 
 Important readings in different documents were 
 seen to possess resemblances more or less striking. 
 Passages were found to present the same form, 
 though the testimonies from which they were 
 singled out belonged to various times and coun- 
 tries. The thought suggested itself to Bengel, 
 that the mass of materials might be divided and 
 classified in conformity with such peculiarities. 
 The same idea also occurred to Sender. Both, 
 however, had but a feeble and dim apprehension of 
 the entire subject as it was afterwards disposed. 
 But, by the consummate learning and skill of 
 Griesbach, it was highly elaborated, so as to ex- 
 hibit a new topic for the philosophical acumen 
 and the historic researches of the erudite inquirer. 
 To the different phases of the text existing in the 
 MSS., quotations made by the fathers, and in the 
 ancient versions, tire name recension was given by 
 Griesbach and Sender. Yet the appellation was 
 fcot happily chosen. Family (which Bengel used), 
 
 class, or order , would have been much more a}>- 
 propriate. Recension ordinarily suggests me idea 
 of an actual revision of the text; but this is inap- 
 plicable to the greater part of Griesbach’s own 
 system. If, however, it be remembered that re- 
 cension simply denotes a certain class of critical 
 testimonies characterized by distinctive pecu- 
 liarities, it matters little what designation be em- 
 ployed ; though family is less likely to originate 
 misconception. 
 
 We shall first state the recension-systems of 
 Griesbach, Hug, Eichhorn, and §cholz ; then 
 the chief objections to which they are exposed; 
 concluding with some observations on the real 
 state of the question. As to the systems of Mi- 
 chael is and Nolan, it is unnecessary to allude to 
 them, since they are obviously incorrect. The 
 latter, indeed, never attracted notice in this or 
 any other country, having soon fallen into merited 
 neglect. 
 
 In Griesbach’s system there are three recensions : 
 1. The Occidental ; 2. The Alexandrine, or Ori- 
 ental ; 3. The Constantinopolitan, or Byzantine. 
 The first two are the most ancient, and are assigned 
 by him to the time in which the two collections 
 — svayyiXiov and 6 air6(TToXos , were made. The 
 Oriental, springing from the edition, as we should 
 say in regard f o a printed book, of the 6 a^aroXos, 
 selected readings most, conformable to pure Greek, 
 and made slight alterations in the text where the 
 language did not. appear to be classical. The 
 Occidental, based on the most ancient MSS., viz. 
 such as were made before the epistles had been 
 collected together, preserved with greater care than 
 the Oriental the Hebraisms of the New Testa- 
 ment, but made explanatory additions, and fre- 
 quently preferred a more perspicuous and easy 
 reading to another less facile. The Constantino- 
 politan arose from the intermingling of the other 
 two. A senior and a junior Constantinopolitan 
 are distinguished. The former belongs to the 
 fourth century, and is marked, to a still greater 
 extent than the Alexandrine, by its rejection of 
 readings that seemed less classical, as well as by 
 its reception of glosses ; the latter originated in the 
 fifth and sixth centuries, in consequence of the 
 labours of the learned men belonging to the Syrian 
 church. According to this system, the leading 
 characteristic of the Occidental recension is its 
 exegetical , that of the Oriental its grammatical 
 tendency ; while the Constantinopolitan bears a 
 glossarial aspect. 
 
 The Occidental recension is exhibited by eight 
 Greek MSS. of the Gospels, D. E. F. G. of the 
 Pauline epistles, the Latin versions made before 
 Jerome, the Sahidic and Jerusalem-Syriac ver- 
 sions, and by the quotations of Tertullian, of 
 Irenaeus as translated into Latin, of Cyprian, 
 Ambrose, and Augustine. 
 
 The Alexandrine recension is found in the do- 
 cuments B. C. L. in the Gospels, with three others, 
 in A. B. C. in the epistles, with three codices be- 
 sides ; in the Memphitic, Harclean or Philoxenian, 
 Ethiopic and Armenian versions ; and in the 
 writings of the fathers belonging to the Alexan- 
 drian school, especially those of Clement, Origen, 
 Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and 
 Isidore of Pelusium. 
 
 The senior Constantinopolitan is found in 
 A. E. F. G. H. S. of the Gospels, and in the 
 Moscow codices of Paul's epistles, in the Gothic 
 
602 
 
 RECENSION. 
 
 RECENSION. 
 
 and Sclavonic versions, in the quotations of the 
 fathers that lived during the fourth, fifth, and 
 sixth centuries in Greece, Asia Minor, and the 
 neighbouring countries ; while the junior Con- 
 stantinopolitan is exhibited by the greater num- 
 ber of those MSS. which were written since the 
 seventh century. 
 
 Somewhat different from Griesbach ’s system is 
 that of Hug, first, proposed in his Introduction to 
 the New Testament. 
 
 1. The koivi ) eK$oais, *. e. the most ancient 
 text, unrevised, conformed to no recension, exhi- 
 biting diversities of readings of mixed origin, but 
 containing particular glosses and interpolations 
 intended to explain the sense. This text is found 
 in five MSS. of the Gospels, in four of Paul’s 
 epistles, in the most ancient Latin versions and 
 in the Sahidic, in the oldest of the fathers down 
 to the time of Origen, and in Origen himself. 
 Such a phase of the text is seen till the middle 
 of the third century, and agrees with the Occi- 
 dental recension of Griesbach. In reference to 
 the old Syriac, Griesbach afterwards conceded to 
 Hug that, it approached nearer the Occidental 
 than the Alexandrian. 
 
 2. About the middle of the third century, 
 Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a re- 
 vision of the koiv )) cKSocris. Bur he was too fond 
 of such readings as contained purer and more 
 elegant Greek. To this Hesychian revision, which 
 obtained ecclesiastical authority only in Egypt, 
 belong B. C. L. of the Gospels, and A. B. C. of 
 the Epistles, the Memphitic version, with the 
 quotations of Athanasius, Macarius, and Cyril of 
 Alexandria. Thus the Hesychian recension of 
 Hug coincides with the Alexandrian ofGriesbaeh. 
 
 3. About the same time, Lucian, a presbyter of 
 Antioch in Syria, revised the koivt) enSoats as it 
 appeared in thePeshito, comparing different MSS. 
 current in Syria. In this way he produced a text 
 that did not wholly harmonize with the Hesychian, 
 because he was less studious of elegant Latinity. 
 This third form of the text is found in codd. 
 E. F. G. H. S. V. of the Gospels, in G. of Paul's 
 epistles, in the Moscow MSS., the Sclavonic and 
 Gothic versions, and the ecclesiastical writers of 
 those countries that adopted it, from the middle 
 of the third century. 
 
 4. A fourth form of the text he attributes to 
 Origen during his residence at. Tyre. This revi- 
 sion was based on the Vulgate edition current in 
 Palestine, and in many places differs both from 
 the Hesychian and Lucianian. It is found in 
 the codd. A. K. M. of the Gospels, in the Phi- 
 loxenian or Harclean Syriac, and in the writings 
 of Chrysostom and Thecdoret. Here Hug anil 
 Griesbach are at variance, the latter believing 
 the alleged Origenian recension to be nothing 
 more than a branch of the Constantinopolitan or 
 Lucianian. 
 
 Eichhorn’s system is substantially the same as 
 that of Hug, with one important exception. That 
 distinguished critic admitted a twofold form of 
 the text before it had received any revision ; the 
 one peculiar to Asia, the other to Africa. This 
 unrevised text may be traced in its two forms as 
 early as the second century. Hesychius revised 
 the first ; Lucian, the second. Accordingly, from 
 the conclusion of the third century, there was a 
 threefold phase of the text ; the African or Alex- 
 «4ndrian ; the Asiatic or Constantinopolitan ; and 
 
 a mixed form composed of the othe^ two. Eichhaa 
 denies that Origen made a new recension. 
 
 Scliolz makes only two classes or families ot 
 documents, the Alexandrian, which he also ab- 
 surdly calls the Occidental , and the Constantino- 
 politan, which, with equal perversity, he designates 
 the Oriental. The Occidental class of Griesbach 
 is thus merged into the Alexandrian. The Alex- 
 andrian embraces the MSS. that were made in 
 Egypt and Western Europe, most, of the Coptic 
 and Latin versions, the Ethiopic, and the eccle- 
 siastical writers belonging to Egypt and Western 
 Europe. To the Constantinopolitan he refers the 
 codices belonging to Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, 
 Eastern Europe, especially Constant inople, with 
 the Harclean or Philoxenian, the Gothic, Georgian, 
 and Sclavonic versions; as also the ecclesiastical 
 fathers of these regions. To the latter documents 
 he gives a decided preference, because of their 
 mutual agreement, and because they were written 
 with great care agreeably to the most ancient 
 exemplars ; whereas the Alexandrian were arbi- 
 trarily altered by officious grammarians. Indeed, 
 he traces the Constantinopolitan codices directly 
 to the autographs of the original writers of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 Rinck agrees with Scliolz in assuming two 
 classes of MSS., the Occidental and the Oriental ; 
 the former exhibited by A. B. C. D. E. F. G. in 
 the epistles; the latter, by MSS. written in the 
 cursive character. The occidental he subdivides 
 into two families, the African (A. B. C.) and the 
 Latin codices (D. E. F. G.). 
 
 Mattliaei, as is well known, rejected the entire 
 theory of recensions ; and Lachmann, the latest 
 editor of the Greek Testament, lias no regard to 
 such a basis for his new text. 
 
 It remains for us to make a few remarks on the 
 systems thus briefly ^stated. To Griesbach all 
 concede the praise of ingenuity anil acuteness. 
 His system was built up with great tact and 
 ability. However rigidly scrutinized, it exhibits 
 evidences of a most sagacious mind. But it. was 
 assailed by a host of writers, whose combined 
 attacks it could not sustain. In this country, 
 Dr. Laurence shook its credit. In Germany, 
 Micbaelis, Mattliaei, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, 
 Schulz, Scholz, Gabler, Schott, and others, have 
 more or less made objection to it. The venerable 
 scholar in his Old age himself modified it to some 
 extent, chiefly in consequence of Hug's investi- 
 gations. By far the ablest opponent of it is 
 Mr. Norton, who, after it bad been assailed by 
 others, finally stepped forth to demolish it beyonc 
 the possibility of revival. Bold indeed must be 
 the man who shall undertake to defend it after 
 such a refutation. The great point in which it 
 fails is, that the line of distinction between the 
 Alexandrian and Western classes cannot be 
 proved. Origen and Clement of Alexandria are 
 the principal evidences for the Alexandrian form 
 of the text, yet they coincide with the Western 
 recension. Griesbach’s allegations as to the origin 
 of the Eastern .and Western recensions are als' 
 visionary; while it is not difficult to see that tie 
 text followed by the old Syriac presents a formi- 
 dable objection to the whole scheme. 
 
 The system of Hug, in so far as it materially 
 differs from its predecessor, is as faulty as that of 
 Griesbach. It puts Clement and Origen in the 
 koivt] eKOocris. But Grigen employed an Ocoi 
 
RECENSION. 
 
 recension. 
 
 eoa 
 
 dental MS. only in his commentary on Matthew ; 
 in his commentary on Mark lie uniformly quotes 
 an Alexandrian codex ; and his usual text cer- 
 tainly agrees with the Alexandrian recension. As 
 to Clement, he frequently. agrees with the Alexan- 
 drian in opposition to the Western recension, and 
 therefore he cannot he properly reckoned as be- 
 longing to the latter, in a system where there are 
 two distinct recensions agreeing with the Occi- 
 dental and the Alexandrian. The Hesycnvan re- 
 vision does not seem to have had much authority, 
 or to have been widely circulated ev«n in the 
 country where it was made. Besides, the form of 
 the text ascribed to Hesychius appear*, to be older, 
 even as old as Clement's time. Hesychius, there- 
 fore, probably did nothing rro v s: „han revise the 
 Alexandrian recension. The historical basis on 
 which Lucian’s recension of d.e text rests is also 
 insecure. The MSS. which ne revised were not 
 numerous ; neither did they obtain authority. 
 The testimony of Jerhr^e, so far from supporting 
 Hug's view, goes irdhe^dy to refute it. Again, 
 it is very improbable that Origen undertook to 
 revise the r.o/vb The passage in Jerome 
 
 on which Hug founds this opinion does not really 
 support it. Toe Alexandrian father used copies 
 of the Nev* Testament selected with care and 
 Ringed from errors ; but he did not attempt in 
 <da ohl age the laborious task of making a peculiar 
 <evl«icn. Such are the chief objections that may 
 ce urged against the recension-system of this 
 tarlied critic. Unsustained by historical data, 
 jubsequent critics have refused to yield it their 
 ipprobatioti. Griesbac.ti, De Wette, Schott, and 
 Rinck, especially the last, have assailed it with 
 more or less ability ; while, in America, Mr. Nor 
 ton has also opposed it. with great plausibility. 
 In short, it cannot stand the test of an enlight- 
 ened, impartial examination. 
 
 With regard to Scholz’s system, it commends 
 itself to our approbation only in so far as it insists 
 upon two families of documents, the Alexandrine 
 and the Constantinopolitan. There is no definite 
 line of demarcation between the Alexandrian 
 and the Western, as was long since shown by 
 Laurence; although Tischendorf has recently 
 re-asserted it.. Egypt, and the Western world 
 were supplied with Biblical MSS. from Alex- 
 andria, come of them revised, others untouched 
 and unpurged by the hand of a corrector. Thus 
 the Alexandrian and Occidental MSS. of Gries- 
 bach were the productions of one country and 
 one age ; differing, indeed, from one another 
 in many respects, but that discrepancy owing to 
 the caprice of transcribers, and to the varying 
 tastes which they found it advantageous to please. 
 But although we look upon Scholz’s system as 
 simpler and better supported than any other, in so 
 far as it asserts no more than two families, yet it is 
 otherwise pressed by fatal objections. It is based on 
 assertions , instead of arguments solid and suffi- 
 cient. The framer of it has failed to prove that 
 the particular form of the text current during the 
 first three centuries in Asia Minor and Greece was 
 the same as that- exhibited by the Constantino- 
 politau manuscripts of a much later date. He 
 tias failed to show that the Byzantine family was 
 derived in a very pure state from the autographs 
 of the inspired writers. Besides, he is obliged to 
 admit, that the text which obtained at Constan- 
 tinople ii the reigns of Constantine and Con- 
 
 stans, was collated with toe Alexandrian, which 
 would naturally give rise to a commingling of 
 readings belonging to both. Eusebius states that, 
 at the request of Constantine, he made out fifty 
 copies of the New Testament for the use of the 
 churches at Constantinople; and as we know that 
 lie gave a decided preference to Alexandrian 
 copies, it cannot, be doubted that, he followed those 
 sanctioned by Origen’s authority. On the whole, 
 it can never be made out on historic grounds, that 
 the Constantinopolitan codices have descended 
 from the autographs in a pure stats. They differ, 
 indeed, in characteristic readings from the Alex 
 andrian, but that the preference should be given 
 to the former is a most questionable position. 
 Why should junior be set in value above much 
 older documents ? What good reason can be as- 
 signed for the predilection of Matthaei and Scholz? 
 None truly. Antiquity may be outweighed by 
 other considerations, and certainly the Alexan- 
 drine MSS. are neither faultless nor perfect; but 
 in the case of the Byzantine family there is no 
 sufficient ground for arbitrarily placing it above 
 the other. In the present day, numbers will not 
 be considered as decisive of genuine readings, in 
 opposition to weighty considerations founded on 
 antiquity ; and yet it is possible that numbers 
 may have had an undue influence on the mind 
 of Scholz. Such as desire to see a thorough re- 
 futation of the system may read Rinck s Lucu- 
 bratio Critica, &c., but especially TischendorPs 
 Preface to his edition of the Greek Testament, 
 where it is dissected with great ability, and the 
 foundation on which it professedly rests demon 
 strated to be feeble and futile. In fact, the his- 
 torical proofs of the industrious Scholz are no 
 better than lictions, winch genuine ecclesiastical 
 history will never sanction. 
 
 Perhaps the data are not sufficient to warrant or 
 support, any one system of recensions. Our know- 
 ledge of the maimer in which the text was early 
 corrupted, of the innumerable influences to which 
 it was exposed, the revisions it underwent in differ- 
 ent countries at different times, the modes in which 
 transcribers dealt with it, and of the principles, if 
 any such there were, on which they proceeded, is 
 too scanty to allow of any definite superstructure. 
 The subject, must, therefore, be necessarily in- 
 volved in obscurity. Its genius is such as to 
 give rise to endless speculation, without affording 
 solid satisfaction. It is vague and undefined, 
 awakening curiosity, but not. appeasing it with 
 conviction. Yet we are not disposed to reject the 
 entire system of classification as visionary and 
 fanciful. It is highly useful thus to arrange the 
 materials ; it saves a world of labour after the 
 distribution has once been made. The existence 
 of certain characteristic readings may be clearly 
 traced as pervading various memorials of the 
 text, however much we may speculate on their 
 causes. It is quite true, that in several cases it 
 is very difficult to distinguish the family to which 
 a particular reading belongs, because its charac- 
 teristics may be almost equally divided between 
 two classes. Or, they may be so slightly marked, 
 that it is almost impossible to detect the family 
 with which it should be united. The evidences 
 of its relationship may be so obscure as to render 
 the determination of its appropriate recension a 
 subtle problem. It is also unquestionab* , that 
 no one MS., version, or father, exliibits a recension 
 
504 
 
 RECENSION 
 
 RECIIABITES. 
 
 in a pure state ; but that each form of the text ap- 
 pears more or less corrupted. Add to these cir- 
 cumstances the frequent commixture of readings 
 from causes accidental or designed. Hence the 
 various attempts that have been made to rear up 
 systems have been unsatisfactory and unsuccess- 
 ful ; so much so, that we should not be surprised 
 to find the majority of the learned, at no great 
 distance of time, regarding them as airy and un- 
 substantial speculations k signifying nothing.’ The 
 intricacy of the subject may hereafter induce 
 critics to say in their haste that it is unworthy of 
 their serious attention. We have seen that Mat- 
 thaei cast aside the whole thing as a useless and 
 silly speculation. Professor Lee has employed 
 language equally strong, though not equally 
 scurrilous as that of Matthaei — language of the 
 same import, and tending to the same result. So 
 too, Granville Penn. We doubt, however, if the 
 learning or the sagacity of these English scholars 
 is of such a kind as to warrant in them the em- 
 ployment of terms so vehement. It is more 
 ominous for tire fate of the recension-system to 
 find it discarded in practice by Lachmann ; yet 
 when we consider that he has gone to the extreme 
 of resting on mere antiquity . sometimes on a single 
 testimony , he will not lie thought competent to do 
 away with the labours of so many eminent critics 
 who have preceded. In short, the theme is such as 
 to disallow a rigid division of t he critical materials 
 into peculiar families, or even a geographical dis- 
 tribution of them. The M S., numerous though 
 they be, are not sufficiently so to warrant sale 
 results, with the exception of a single class. As 
 regards versions, their testimony is rather indi- 
 rect ; and in the Scripture quotations made by 
 the fathers there is a fragmentary aspect. Both 
 these circumstances counterbalance most of the 
 advantages resulting from our ability to identify 
 versions and quotations, a priori, with some local 
 text. 
 
 The preceding observations may serve to account 
 for the varying, and, in some cases, contradictory 
 schemes of different critics. Some are inclined to 
 look for greater nicety and distinctness than others ; 
 and it may be presumed that they will find more 
 families in consequence of their mental bias ; 
 others, with less delicate perceptibility, will be 
 disposed to rest satisfied with classes more strongly 
 marked by the number of single documents they 
 embrace, or by the breadth of territory over which 
 they circulated. Thus there is no possibility of 
 arriving at mathematical precision or demonstra- 
 tive evidence, because the historic furniture is so 
 meagre as to afford room for almost boundless 
 speculation; while the commingling of all read- 
 ings in the progress of time has obliterated many 
 well-defined landmarks. 
 
 The term recension is sometimes applied to the 
 Old Testament as well as the New. There, all 
 the materials hitherto collated belong to one 
 recension or family, viz., the Masoretic. Some, 
 indeed, have divided them into Masoretic and 
 Ante-Masoretic ; but the existence of the latter is 
 fictitious. At present we know of no more than 
 one great family, though it is probable that par- 
 tial recensions of several portions of the Old Tes- 
 tament preceded the labours of the Masoretic 
 doctors. (Bengel's Int^oductio in Crisin N. T., 
 prefixed to his edition of the Greek Testament, 
 Tubingen, 1734, 4to.; Semlcr’s Vorbereitungen 
 
 zur Hermeneutik, Halle, 1760-69, 8vo. ; Grit®* 
 bach's Opuscida , as edited by Gabler, with the 
 Preface of the latter, Jena, 1821, 2 vols. 8vo. , 
 Griesbach's Commentarius Criticus in Textum 
 Grcecum, &c. Jena, 1811, 8vo. ; Griesbach’s Pro- 
 legomena to the second edition of his Greek Tes- 
 tament; Eichhorn's Einleitung , vol. iv., Got- 
 tingen, 1827, Svo. ; Bertholdt's Einleitung, vol. i. 
 Erlangen, 8vo. ; Schulz's Prolegomena to the 
 third edition of Griesbach, Berlin, 1827, Svo. ; 
 Hug’s Einleit. vol. i. Stuttgart, 18*26, Svo. ; Do 
 Wet.te s Einleit. in das Neues Testament , Berlin, 
 1842, Svo. ; Schott’s Tsagoge llistorico-Critica , 
 Jena, 1830, Svo. ; Matthaei, Ueber die Sogenann- 
 tem Recensionen , u.s. w. Leipzig, 1804, 8vo. ; 
 Schulz's Biblisch-Kritische lieise, u.s. w. Leipzig, 
 1823, 8vo. ; Schulz’s Prolegomena to the New 
 Testament ; Laurence’s remarks on Griesbach's 
 Systematic Classification of MSS., Oxford, 1814, 
 Svo ; llinck’s Lucubratio Criticain Acta Apost. 
 Epp. Cathol., et Paulin., u. s. w. Basel, 1830. 
 8vo. ; Tischendorf s Prolegomena to his edition 
 of the Greek Testament, Lipsiae, 1841, 8vo. ; 
 Reuss's Geschichte der Ileiligen Schriften Neuen 
 1'estaments, Halle, 1842, Svo. ; Guerike’s His- 
 torisc/i-Kritische Einleit. Leipzig, 1843, 8vo. ; 
 Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels , vol. i. Bos- 
 ton, 1837, 8vo. ; Davidson’s Lectures on Biblical 
 Criticism, Edinb. 1839, 8vo.) — S. D. 
 
 RECHAB (23^, rider ; Sept. ‘PTjxa#), son of 
 Hematli the Kenite, and probably a descendant of 
 Jethro [Krnites] : he is only known as the 
 father of Jonadab, the founder of the sect of 
 Recbabit.es, which took from him its name (2 Kit gs 
 x. 15 ; 1 Chron. ii. 55 ; Jer. xxxv. 6). 
 
 RECIIABITES. The tribe or family of 
 Kenites, whom Jonadab, the son of Rechab, si b- 
 jected to a new rule of life ; or rather bound to 
 the continued observance of ancient usages whi ;h 
 were essential to their separate existence, but 
 which the progress of their intercourse with towns 
 seemed likely soon to extinguish. By thus main- 
 taining their independent existence as a pastoial 
 people, they would keep themselves from being 
 involved in the distractions and internal wars of 
 the country, would be in no danger of becoming 
 objects of jealousy and suspicion to the Israelites, 
 and would be aide at all times to remove from a 
 country in which they were strangers. The 
 Rechabites found so much advantage in these 
 rules, that they observed them with great strict- 
 ness for about 300 years, when we first become 
 aware of their existence. Jeremiah brings some 
 Rechabites into one of the chambers of the 
 Temple, and sets before them pots full of wine, 
 and cups, saying, ‘ Drink ye wine ;’ on which it 
 is well observed by Gataker and others that the 
 prophet omits the usual formula, ‘Thus saith 
 the Lord,’ which would have constrained obe- 
 dience in men so pious as the Rechabites, even 
 at the expense of infringing their rule of life. 
 But now they answer, ‘ We will drink no wine; 
 for Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father, com- 
 manded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, 
 neither ye nor your sons for ever. Neither shall 
 ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, 
 nor have any : but all your days ye shall dwell 
 in tents, that ye may live many days in the land 
 where ye be strangers’ (Jer. xxxv. 6, 7). They 
 added that to the present time they had observed 
 
RECHABITES. 
 
 REEM. 
 
 SOS 
 
 these injunctions, although they had been con- 
 strained to take refuge in Jerusalem when the 
 Chaldeean armies swept the face of the land. 
 The Vulgate, by translating all the proper names 
 in 1 Chron. ii. 55, has given currency to an im- 
 pression that the Rechabites were employed in 
 some of the inferior offices of the temple; and has 
 led to the inference that they were taken as cap- 
 tives to Babylon, from which they returned, and 
 resumed their duties under the second temple, 
 Jabesh in Gilead being the chief place of their 
 residence. There is no shade of authority, beyond 
 this assumption of proper .names as appellatives, for 
 a statement every point in which is contrary to the 
 probabilities of the case. The Septuagint, though 
 
 { (rone to regard Hebrew proper names as appel- 
 atives, does not do so in this text, with the ex- 
 ception of Sopherites, which it renders by ‘ scribes/ 
 in which it is followed by the Auth. Version. 
 But there is no apparent ground for thus taking 
 one only as an appellative in a list of proper 
 names, unless an intelligible sense could not 
 be otherwise obtained. But the sense is better 
 with this also as a proper name than as an appel- 
 lative. We may then read, much as in Geddes’ 
 version, ‘But the Sopherite families who inha- 
 bited Jabesh, the Tirathites, the Shimathites, and 
 the Suchathites, were Kenites who came from 
 Hemath Abi-Beth-Rechab. 7 The translator re- 
 marks on the last words, ‘ I do not translate these 
 words, because I do not understand them/ There 
 is probably some corruption of the text. The 
 literal version would be, ‘ Hemath, father of the 
 house of Recliab.’ This Rechab was doubtless the 
 same from whom the Rechabites took their name; 
 and it appears to us that the text is far from 
 meaning to say that the families at Jabesh (whether 
 scribes’ or not) were Rechabites in the limited 
 sense; their residence at Jabesh being indeed con- 
 clusive against that notion : but that these fa- 
 milies were Kenites descended from the Hemath 
 who was also the progenitor of that Rechab from 
 whom the Rechabites took their name. We doubt 
 if a clearer explanation of this difficult text can 
 be obtained : and if so, it conveys no other in- 
 formation concerning the Rechabites than that 
 their progenitor was a .descendant of Hemath, 
 who was likewise the founder of other Kenite 
 families. 
 
 What eventually became of the Rechabites is 
 not known. The probability is that, when they 
 found themselves no longer safe among the 
 Hebrews, they withdrew into the desert from 
 which they at first came, and which was peopled 
 by men of similar habits of life, among whom, in 
 the course of time, they lost their separate exist- 
 ence. The various attempts to identify them 
 with the Assideans, mentioned in the books of 
 Maccabees (1 Macc. ii. 42; vii. 17; 2 Macc. 
 xiv. 6), and with the later Jewish sect of Essenes, 
 V ill not bear examination. We can as little 
 recognise as Rechabites the body of people in 
 Arabia of whom Benjamin of Tudela ( Itinerary , 
 i. 112-114, ed. Asher), Niebuhr, Wolf (Journals, 
 ii. 276, 331-334; iii. 17), and others, have given 
 hearsay accounts. The details, however, whether 
 correct or not, apply to Talmudical Jews more 
 than to Rechabites. They are described as living 
 in caverns and low houses, not in tents — and this 
 in Arabia, where Bedouin habits would cease to 
 *»e singular ; nor are any of the Rechabite rules 
 
 observable in them except that of refraining from 
 wine — an abstinence which ceases to he remark- 
 able in Arabia, where no one does drink wine,’ 
 and where, among the strongholds of Islam, it 
 could probably not be obtained without danger 
 and difficulty. There were large numbers of 
 Talmudical Jews in Arabia in the time of Mo- 
 hammed, and these supposed Rechabites are pro- 
 bably descended from a body of them, it is to 
 be hoped that some competent traveller will pene- 
 trate to the spot which they are said to inhabit, 
 and bring back some more satisfactory accounts 
 than we yet possess. (See Witsius, Dissert, de 
 Rechabitis, in Miscell. Sacra, ii. 176, sqq. ; 
 Carpzov, Apparat., p. 148; Cal met, Dissert . 
 sur les Rechabites , in Commentaire Litter al, vi. 
 18-21.) 
 
 RECORDER (Tplft ? Sept. auapupL-paicoov or 
 vTrofjLvrjfu.aTO'ypdcpos), the title of a high officer in 
 the court of the kings of Judah (2 Sam. viii. 16 , 
 1 Kings iv. 3 ; 2 Kings xviii. 18). As the idea 
 of memory, memorials, is prevalent in the etymo- 
 logy of the word, ‘remembrancer’ would perhaps 
 be a more exact translation of it. We have no 
 office with which it can be compared; for the 
 functions of the Master of the Rolls do not suffi- 
 ciently correspond with the title to warrant the 
 parallel which it might suggest. The Hebrew 
 mazkir seems to have been not only the grand 
 custodier of the public records, but to have kept 
 the responsible registry of the current transactions 
 of the government. This was an employment of 
 the very first rank and dignity in the courts cf 
 the ancient East. 
 
 RED SEA. [Sea.] 
 
 RED SEA, PASSAGE OF. [Exodus.] 
 
 REED. [Kaneh.] 
 
 REEM (D^l ; Sept, povoicepios ; Vulg. rhino- 
 ceros ; and in several versions of the Bible, uni- 
 corn. The radical meaning of the Hebrew wore 
 
 furnishes no evidence that an animal such as is 
 now understood by ‘unicorn’ was known to exist, 
 or that a rhinoceros is thereby absolutely indicated ; 
 
 469. [Horn of the unknown species of Rhinoceros, j 
 
 and there is no authority whatever for the infer- 
 ence that either was at any time resident in 
 Western Asia. The general structure and figura- 
 tive and symbolical character of the Hebrew, in 
 
6<W 
 
 REEM. 
 
 REEM, 
 
 common with all the Semitic languages, seem 
 more naturally to suggest that the word reem con- 
 veys an image of loftiness, exaltation, power, and 
 pre-eminence— -a form of expression of which there 
 are many parallel instances ; nor is the root con- 
 fined to the Hebrew, but. is found in the Sanscrit, 
 Etrusco-Latin, Erse, and Teothisc dialects. It 
 can be traced in the names Abram, Abraham, and 
 Ramah, in Rom and Roma : all bearing the 
 meaning of Robur, Valentia, &c. Ram, in Indian 
 mythology, one of the titles of Mahadeo, appears 
 in the compounds Rama-deva, Rama-Chandra, 
 and numerous other titles. It is found again in 
 •he Teothistic Ram ; the Ram being the opener of 
 he solar year, or first sign of the zodiac. These 
 igures, metaphorical and pictorial, while phonetic 
 vriting was as yet unknown or imperfect, were 
 ibundantly used in early antiquity, and often 
 •epresented very definite ideas in both cases ; but 
 more particularly when they were embodied in 
 sculptural forms, and were embellished with co- 
 lours ; for then a complex definition was attainable 
 by the assemblage of heterogeneous members and 
 tints to form one body ; such as serpents with 
 wings, with four legs, a row of teats, winged 
 quadrupeds, beasts with human heads, winged 
 globes entwined by serpents, &e., constituting by 
 their unnatural juxta-position complex, yet per- 
 fectly intelligible, abstractions. The ruins of 
 Persepolis, Nineveh, and the so-called Baby- 
 lonian cylinders, as well as the figures published 
 by Sir J. G. Wilkinson in his works on Egypt 
 offer numerous examples. So deeply rooted were 
 these notions in the Oriental mind, that we find 
 them spoken of as visible bodies in the prophetic, 
 and other parts of Scripture; and they even 
 occur among other symbols of the Evangelists. 
 In the poetical language of the Bible some of 
 these images stand at one time as typical of reali- 
 ties in nature, at others as symbolical of abstrac- 
 tions, and DX1 may be found in both characters. 
 Although the medallic history of the kings qf 
 Macedon (Havercampius, Gen. Hist, in the Dutch 
 language) furnishes no coins bearing a single- 
 horned goat, it is still asserted byMaillot and others 
 that such was to be found among their ensigns : 
 but this was most probably after the Macedonian 
 conquest ; for a single-horned ibex appears on the 
 bas-reliefs of Che-el-Miriar ; another occurs on a 
 cylinder ; and one cast in brass, supposed to have 
 been the head of a^Macedonian standard, was 
 found in Asia Minor, and presented to the Anti- 
 quarian Society of London. If mysterious names 
 were resolvable by the canons of pictorial defini- 
 tion, the practice of imagining horns to be affixed 
 to the most sublime and sacred objects would be 
 most evident from the radical meaning of the word 
 cherub, where the notion of horns is everywhere 
 blended with that of ‘ power and greatness ’ 
 [Cherubim]. There were also horns at the 
 corners of altars — the beast with ten horri3 in 
 Daniel, &c. (chap. vii.). In profane history we 
 have the goat-head ornament on the helmet of the 
 kings of Persia, according to Ammianus, more 
 probably Ammon horns : such Alexander the 
 Great had assumed ; and his successors in Egypt 
 and in Persia continued a custom, even now ob- 
 served by tne chief cabossiers of Ashantee, who 
 have a similar ram-head of solid gold on the front 
 of their plumy war-caps. Indeed, from early an- 
 tiquity, Greek %nd Ionian helmets were often 
 
 adorned with two horns; among others the head of 
 Seleucns I. (Nicator) appears thus on his coins: 
 the practice extended to metal horns being affixed 
 to the masks or chaffrons of war-horses (see coin 
 of Seleucus Nicatbr), and of elephants (Antiochus 
 Soter) ; and they form still, or did lately, a part 
 of the barbed horse-armour in Rajahstan. Triple- 
 horned and bicorned helmets are found on early 
 Gallic and Iberian coins ; they were again in use 
 during the chivalrous ages; but the most remark- 
 able, the horn of strength and dominion, is seen 
 elevated on the front of the helmet, impressed on 
 the reverse of the coins of the tyrant Tryphon, 
 who, in his endeavours to obtain Syria, was at 
 war with Antiochus Sidetes, during the oera of 
 the Maccabees, and was not likely to omit any 
 attribute that once belonged to its ancient kings 
 [Horn]. These examples, together with thecor- 
 nuted crown of Abyssinian chiefs, and the horned 
 female head-attire prized by the present genera- 
 tion in Libanus and Palestine, are sufficient to 
 show the extent and duration of a symbol, which, 
 it is evident, is implied in the word reem , in 
 several places of the Bible, notwithstanding that 
 literally it signifies also a real or fictitious crea- 
 ture, at one time alluded to as possessed of a 
 single horn, while in other instances this charac- 
 teristic is scarcely, or not at all, admissible. 
 
 Now this may be regarded as the natural con- 
 sequence of assuming as a typical form an animal 
 of a remote country, or a generic term for several 
 more or less different in their characters. In 
 profane history, from the time of Ctesias (b.c. 
 400) to the present day, India, the Himalayas, and 
 Tibet, are reported to have produced unicorns; 
 whereof the most recently pointed out was the 
 Cliiru of Bootan, a species of antelope with two 
 horns : and anciently ^Elian’s Cartazon was simi- 
 larly designated, though with a slight change of 
 letters, carcand, carcaddan (in Bocliart); karga- 
 dan , kargazan (in Wilson) ; al-eherchedcn (in Be- 
 lunensis) ; and all related to the Sanskrit kharga, 
 
 ‘ a horn ’ (?), being the Persian and Arabic names 
 for the true Monoceros, or Indian rhinoceros, which, 
 like the rest of the genus, is essentially a tropical 
 animal. For the Asiatic Rhinocerotes, consti- 
 tuting three species, belong all to the south-eastern 
 states of the continent and the Great Austral 
 islands ; and there is no indication extant that in 
 a wild- state they ever extended to the west of the 
 Indus. Early colonies and caravans from the 
 East most probably brought rumours of the power 
 and obstinacy of these animals to Western Asia, 
 and it might have been remarked that under ex- 
 citement the rhinoceios raises its head and horn oh 
 high, as it were in exultation, though it is mosf 
 likely because ihesense of smelling is more potent 
 in it than that of sight, which is only lateral, 
 and confined by the thickness of the folds of skin 
 projecting beyond the eye-balls. The rhinoceros 
 is not absolutely untameable — a fact implied even 
 in Job. Thus we take this species as the ori- 
 ginal type of the unicorn; but the active invention 
 of Arabic minds, accidentally, perhaps, in the first 
 instance, discovered a species of Oryx (generi- 
 cally bold and pugnacious ruminants), with the 
 loss of one of its long, slender, and destructivf 
 horns. In this animal the DfcO of the He- 
 
 brews and the far East became personified ; & 
 rim , being most probably an Oryx Leucoryx 
 
REEM. 
 
 REIIOBO AM. 
 
 607 
 
 «mce individuals of that species have been 
 repeatedly exnibited in subsequent ages as uni- 
 corns, when accident or ariitice had deprived them 
 of one of their frontal weapons, notwithstanding 
 that the rim is well known to Arabian hunters 
 as a two-horned animal. The spirit of appro- 
 priation in Persia and Macedonia, as we have 
 before noticed, was similarly engaged, and for the 
 same purpose an Ibex , Bouquet in, or mountain 
 goat was taken, but showing only one horn [Goat]. 
 In Africa, however, among three or four known 
 species of rhinoceros, and vague rumours of a Bi- 
 ^ ilcate species of unicorn, probably only the repe- 
 tition of Arabian reports, there appears to exist 
 between Congo, Abyssinia, and tho Cape, pre- 
 cisely the terra incognita of Africa, a real pachy- 
 dermous animal, which seems to possess the cha- 
 racteristics of the poetical unicorn. It is known in 
 Congo, according to Cavassi, quoted by Labat, 
 by the name of Abada ; it is the Nillekma and 
 Arase, that is, unicorn, in Kordofan, mentioned 
 by Riippell ; and appears again to be the South 
 African Ndzoo-dzoo, a one-horned horse-like beast 
 of considerable speed, and very destructive pro- 
 pensities, which Mr. Freeman was informed is by 
 no means rare about Makova. In the narratives 
 of the natives of the different regions in question 
 there is certainly both exaggeration and error ; 
 but they all incline to a description which would 
 make the animal indicated a pachyderm of the 
 rhinoceros group, with a long and slender horn 
 proceeding from the forehead, perhaps with an- 
 other incipient behind ir, and in general structure 
 so much lighter than other rhinocerotes, that it may 
 possibly be the link or intermediate form be- 
 tween these and the Equine genera. Sir J. Barrow, 
 in his Travels, has figured the head of such an 
 animal, copied by the artist Daniell from a Caflfre 
 drawing, sketched with coal on the surface of a 
 rock within a cave. Similar drawings are not un- 
 frequent, and we remember to have seen among the 
 papers of the same artist, in the hands of Instate bro- 
 ther, another drawing, likewise copied from a cave 
 in the interior of South Africa, and representing, 
 with exceedingly characteristic fidelity, a group of 
 Elands, Boselaphus Oreas, Hartebeest, Acronotus 
 Caarha, and Spring Bock, Antilope Euchore , 
 among which was placed, with head and shoulders 
 towering above the rest, a Bhinocerotine animal, 
 in form lighter than a wild bull, having an arched 
 neck and a long nasal horn protruding in the form 
 of a sabre. This drawing is no doubt still ex- 
 tant, and should be published; but in confirma- 
 tion of the opinion that truth exists to a certain 
 extent in the foregoing remarks, it may be ob- 
 served that we have seen, we believe in the British 
 Museum, a horn brought from Africa, unlike 
 those of any known species of rhinoceros : it is 
 perfectly smooth and hard, about thirty inches in 
 length, almost equally thick throughout, not three 
 inches in its greatest diameter, nor less than two 
 in its smaller, and rather sharp-pointed at top : 
 from the narrowness of the base, its great length 
 and weight, the horn must evidently stand move- 
 ably on the nasal bones, until excitement renders 
 the muscular action more rigid, and the coriaceous 
 Role which sustains it more firm — circumstances 
 which may explain the repeated assertion of 
 natives, that the born, or rather the agglutinated 
 hair which forms that instrument, is flexible. 
 
 This short review of the present state of our 
 
 knowledge respecting a physical unicorn, together 
 with the symbols that have emanated from one or 
 move of the foregoing sources, we trust ire suffi- 
 cient to explain the poetical bearings of most of 
 the Scriptural texts where the word DiO is intro- 
 duced : it shows when the texts clearly point to 
 a single-horned species; indicates when by a po- 
 etical figure human power and violence may be 
 personified under the character of an unicorn; 
 and, lastly, when the same word appears to denote 
 huge horned animals, as in the case of the bulls of 
 Bashan, where it is fair to presurne that not only 
 feral species of great fierceness would exist, but that 
 most likely an urus or a bison still resided in the 
 forests bordering on Libanus, while the lion was 
 abundant in the same locality ; for, notwith- 
 standing assertions to the contrary, the urus and 
 the bison were spread anciently from the Rhine to 
 China, and existed in Thrace and in Asia Minor; 
 while they, or allied species, are still found in 
 Siberia, and the forests both of northern and 
 southern Persia. Finally, though the buffalo 
 was not found anciently farther west than Ara- 
 chosia, the gigantic gaur. and several congeners, 
 are spread over all ihe mountain wildernesses of 
 India, and the SherifF-al-Wady ; and a further 
 colossal species roams with other wild bulls in 
 the valleys of Atlas. We figure Bibos cavifrons, 
 a species which is believed to be still found south- 
 west of the Indus, and is not remote from that 
 of the Atlas valleys. — C. H. S. 
 
 REFINER. [Metals.] 
 
 REFUGE, CITIES OF. [Cities of Re- 
 fuge.] 
 
 REHOB (Hirn ; Sept. 'Poo/3, 'PacjjS), called 
 also Beth-Rehob, a town on the northern border 
 of Palestine (Num. xiii. 22), not far from Dan 
 (Judg. xviii. 27-29). It was assigned to the 
 tribe of Asher (Josh. xix. 28), and was a Levitical 
 city (Josh. xxi. 31 ; 1 Chron. vi. 73). It does 
 not, however, appear that the Israelites ever had 
 it in actual possession (comp. Judg. i. 31 ; 2 
 Sam. x. 6, 8). 
 
 REHOB, the father of Hadadezer, king of 
 Zobah, in Syria (2 Sam. viii. 3). 
 
 REHOBOAM he enlarges the 
 
 people; Sept. 'Pofiodp), only son of Solomon, 
 born of an Ammonitess, called Naamah(l Kings 
 xiv. 21, 31). His reign commenced b.c. 975, 
 when he was at the age of forty-one, and lasted 
 seventeen years. This reign was chiefly re- 
 markable for the political crisis which gave 
 rise to it, and which resulted in the separation 
 of the previously single monarchy into two king- 
 doms, of which the smaller, which took the 
 name of Judah, adhered to the house of David. 
 All the points involved in this important event, 
 and its immediate results, have been considered 
 in the articles Israel, Jeroboam, Juoah, and 
 little remains to be added in this place. It is 
 highly probable, from the considerations adduced 
 in those articles, that the imprudent and imperious 
 answer of the misguided son of Solomon to the 
 public cry for redress of grievances, only precipi- 
 tated a separation which would in any case have 
 occurred, and could not have been long delayed. 
 The envy of Ephraim at the sceptre being in the 
 house of Judah naturally led to this result; and 
 the popular voice was, moreover, represented by 
 
608 
 
 REIIOBOTH. 
 
 REPHIDIM. 
 
 a man whose presence was an insult to Relioboam, 
 and whose interest and safety lay in widening the 
 difference, and in producing the separation. Al- 
 though this consideration may relieve Rehohoam 
 from the sole resp ►risibility of the separation, it 
 cannot excuse the unwise and foolish answer 
 which threatened a heavier yoke to those who 
 •ought to have their existing burdens lightened (l 
 Kings xii. 1-16). Rehohoam -at first thought of 
 nothing less than of bringing back the revolted 
 tribes to their obedience by force of arms ; but the 
 disastrous war thus impending was arrested by 
 the interference of a prophet (1 Kings xii. 21-24); 
 and the ample occupation which Jeroboam found 
 in settling his own power, left the king of Judah 
 some years of peace, which he employed in forti- 
 fying his weakened kingdom. Concerning this, 
 and the invasion of the land in the fifth' year of 
 Rehoboam's reign, by Shishak, king of Egypt, see 
 Judah. Kingdom ok. Jeroboam, king of Israel, 
 being in alliance with Egypt, not only escaped 
 this storm, but may possibly have instigated the 
 invasion as the most effectual means of weakening 
 his adversary. The treasures which David and 
 Solomon had laid up in, or lavished on, the 
 temple of God and the royal palaces, offered an 
 adequate temptation to the Egyptian king, and 
 they became bis prey. The brass with which 
 Rehohoam replaced the plundered gold of Solo- 
 mon, furnished no inapt emblem of the difference 
 between his own power and that of his glorious 
 predecessors ( 1 Kings xiv. 27). Idcdatry, and the 
 worshipping in high places, which had grown up 
 in the last years of Solomon, gained strength in 
 the early years of his son’s reign, and were not 
 discouraged by the example or measures of the 
 king (1 Kings xiv. 22-24) ; and it is probably 
 for the sake of indicating the influence of early 
 education, in producing this culpable indifference, 
 that it is so pointedly recorded in connection with 
 these circumstances, that his mother was Naamah, 
 an Ammonitess (2 Chron. xii. 13). The inva- 
 sion of the land by Shishak seems to have been 
 intended as a punishment for these offences, .and 
 to have operated for their correction ; which may 
 account for the peace in which the subsequent years 
 of this king's reign appear to have been passed. 
 
 REHOBOTH (JYQrn ; Sept. Evpvx^pia), a 
 name meaning ‘wide places, 1 or ‘ample room, 1 
 a s is indicated by Isaac in giving it to some of 
 the wells which lie dug in the south of Palestine 
 (Gen. xx vi. 22). 
 
 REHOBOTH-IR (“1^ ribh") ; Sept. ‘Po«- 
 &w9 ttoAis, Rehoboth-city ), a town of ancient 
 Assyria (Gen. x. 1 1), the site of which has not 
 been ascertained. 
 
 REHOBOTH-H ANNAH AR (“I PISH nhlT) ; 
 Sept. 'Poooficod rrjs tt apa TvoTap.6v), or, Rehoboth 
 of the river , the birth-place of one of the Edom- 
 itish kings, named Saul (Gen. xxxvi. 37). The 
 river is, doubtless, the Euphrates, and the place 
 is probably represented by the modern er-Rahabeh, 
 upon the west bank of that river, between Rakkah 
 and Anah (Rosenmiiller, Geog. ii. 365 ; W iner, 
 B. Real-worterb., s.v.). 
 
 REMPHAN, or Rephan ('P epupau, *P ecpav'), a 
 name quoted in Acts vii. 43, from Amos v. 26, 
 where the Septuagint has *P aupav, for the Hebrew 
 Ckiun. It is clear that, although thus 
 
 changing the letter 3 into V the Sept, held the 
 original to be a proper name, in which interpreta- 
 tion our own and most other versions have con- 
 curred. But this is by no means clear; for, ac- 
 cording to the received pointing, it. would better 
 read, ‘ Ye bore the tabernacle of your king (idol), 
 and the statue ( or statues) of your idols, the star 
 of your god, which ye make to yourselves;’ and 
 so the Vulgate, which has ‘ Imaginem idolorum 
 vestrorum. 1 According to this reading, the 
 name of the idol so worshipped by tie Is- 
 raelites is, in fact, not given, although the men- 
 tion of a star still suggests that some planet is 
 intended. Jerome supposes it may he Lucifer or 
 Venus. But the Syriac renders the Hebrew by 
 
 v oJ-:>, ‘ Saturn your idol,' who was 
 
 worshipped by the Semitic nations along with Mars 
 as an evil demon to be propitiated with sacrifices. 
 This now seems to he the general conclusion, 
 and Winer, indeed, treats the subject under 
 the head Saturn. It has been alleged, but not 
 satisfactorily proved, that Remplmn and Rephan 
 were Egyptian names of the planet Saturn. 
 They, indeed, occur as such in the Coptic- Arabic 
 Lexicon of Kireher (Liny. sEgypt. Restit ., p. 
 49; CEdip. JEgypti , i. 386); but Jablonsky has 
 long since shown that, this and other names of 
 planets in these lexicons are of Greek origin, and 
 drawn from the Coptic versions of Amos and 
 the Acts (Jablonsky, Remphan JF.gyptior., in 
 Opusc., ii. 1, sq. ; Schroeder, De Tabernac. Mo- 
 lochi et Stella Dei Remph., 1745 ; Mai us, Dis- 
 sert. de Kium et Remphan, 1763; Harenberg, 
 De Idolis Chiitm et Remphan , 1723 ; Wolf, 
 Dissert, de Chium et Remph., 1741; Gesenius, 
 Thesaurus, pp. 669, 670). 
 
 REPHAIM (DWl; Sept, ylyavres), an 
 ancient people of unusual stature, who, in the 
 time of Abraham, dwelt in the country beyond 
 the Jordan, in and about Ashtoreth-Karnaim 
 (Gen. xiv. 5). Subsequently, however, two of 
 their southern tribes, the Emim and Zarazum- 
 mim, were repressed and nearly annihilated by the 
 Moabites and Ammonites ; so that at the time of 
 the ingress of the Israelites under Joshua, none of 
 the Rephaim were left save in the dominion of 
 Og, king of Bashan, who was himself of this race 
 (Deut. iii. 11; Josh. xii. 4; xiii. 12). There 
 seems reason to think that the Rephaim wert 
 the most ancient or aboriginal inhabitants ct 
 Palestine prior to the Canaanites, by whom they 
 were gradually dispossessed of the regions west of 
 the Jordan, and driven beyond that river. Some 
 of the race remained in Palestine Proper so late 
 as the invasion of the land by the Hebrews, and 
 are repeatedly mentioned as ‘ the sons of Anak,’ 
 and ‘ the remnant of the Rephaim’ (Num. xiii. 
 28 : Deut. ix. 2 ; Josh. xv. 14), and a few fami- 
 lies existed in the land so late as the time of 
 David (2 Sam. xxi. 16). [Giants.] 
 
 REPHAIM, VALLEY OF, a valley be- 
 ginning adjacent to the valley of Hinnom, south- 
 west of Jerusalem, and stretching away sou*h 
 west on the right of the road to Bethlehem (Josh, 
 xv. 8; xvii. 5; x v iii. 6; 2 Sam. v. 18, 22), 
 This name corroborates the presumption that the 
 Rephaim were originally west of the Jordan. 
 
 REPHIDIM, a station oi the Israelites in pro- 
 ceeding to Sinai. [Sinai.] 
 
RESEN. 
 
 RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 609 
 
 RESEN (fpl ; Sept. Ao^), an ancient town 
 of Assyria, i| escribed as a great city lying be- 
 tween Nineveh and Calah (Gen. x. 12). Biblical 
 geographers have been disposed to follow Bochart 
 (. Phaleg . iv. 23) in finding a trace of the Hebrew 
 name in Larissa, which is mentioned by Xenophon 
 ( Anab . iii. 4. 9) as a desolate city on the Tigris, 
 several miles north of the Lycus. The resem- 
 blance of the names is too faint to support the 
 inference of identity ; but the situation is not irre- 
 concilable with the Scriptural intimation. Ephrem 
 
 Syrus ( Comment . in loc .) says that Rassa, 
 
 which he substitutes for Resen (the Peshito has 
 t-CO? Ressin), was the same as 
 
 Rish-Ain ( fountain-head ) ; by which Assemanni 
 understands him to mean, not the place in Me- 
 sopotamia so called, but another Rish-Ain in 
 Assyria, near Saphsaphre, in the province of 
 Marga, which he finds noticed in a Syrian 
 monastic history of the middle age (Assemauni, 
 Biblioth. Orient, iii. 2. p. 709). It is, however, 
 still uncertain if Rassa is the same with Rish- 
 Ain ; and whether it is so or not, a name so 
 exceedingly common (corresponding to the Arabic 
 Has -el -Ain) affords a precarious basis for the 
 identification of a site so ancient. 
 
 RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. After our 
 Lord had completed the work of redemption by 
 his death upon the cross, he rose victorious from 
 the grave, and to those who through faith in him 
 should become members of his body, e became 
 apxriybs rrjs C«7j$, ‘ the prince of life.’ 1 Since this 
 event, however, independently of its importance in 
 respect to the internal connection of the Christian 
 doctrine, was manifestly a miraculous occur- 
 rence, the credibility of the narrative has from 
 the earliest times been brought into question 
 (Celsus, apud Origen. cont. Cels. i. 2 ; Woolston, 
 Discourses on the Miracles , disc. vi. ; Chubb, 
 Posth. Works, i. 330 ; Morgan, The Resurrection 
 Considered , 1744). Others who have admitted 
 the facts as recorded to be beyond dispute, yet 
 have attempted to show that Christ was not really 
 dead ; but that, being stunned and palsied, he wore 
 for a lime the appearance of death, and was after- 
 wards restored to consciousness by the cool grave 
 and the spices. The refutation of these views may 
 be seen in detail in such works as Less, Ueber die 
 Religion , ii. 372; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte , 
 nebstAnhang, 1799; Doderlein, Fragmenteund 
 Antijragmente, 1782. The chief advocates of these 
 views are Paulus (Hist. Resurrect. Jes. 1795), 
 and, more recently. Henneberg ( Philol . Histor. 
 Krit. Commentar. iib. d. Gesch. d. Begrdbn. d. 
 Auferstehung u. Ilimmelfahrt Jesu, 1826). 
 
 Objections of this nature do not require notice 
 here ; but a few words upon the apparent discre- 
 pancies of the Gospel narratives will not be mis- 
 placed. These discrepancies were early perceived ; 
 and a view of what the fathers have done in the 
 attempt to reconcile them has been given by Nie- 
 meyer (De Evangelistarum in Nctrrando Christi 
 in Vitam reditu disscnsione, 1824). They were 
 first collocated with much acuteness by Morgan, 
 in the work already cited ; and at a later date, by 
 an anonymous wrter, whose fragments were edited 
 and supported by Lessing ; the object of which 
 geems to have been to throw uncertainty and doubt 
 
 VOL. XX. 40 
 
 over the whole of this portion of Gospel history. A 
 numerous host of theologians, however, rose to com- 
 bat and refute this writer’s positions ; among whom 
 we find the names of Doderlein, Less, Semler, Teller, 
 Maschius, Michaelis, Pleasing, Eichhorn, Herder, 
 and others. Among those wao have more recently 
 attempted to reconcile the different accounts is 
 Griesbach, who, in his excellent Prolusio de Fon~ 
 tibus unde Evangelistee suas de Resurrections 
 Domini narrationes hauserunt, 1793, remarks 
 that all the discrepancies are trifling, and not 
 of such moment as to render the narrative 
 uncertain and suspected, or to destroy or even 
 diminish the credibility of the Evangelists ; but 
 rather serve to show how extremely studious they 
 were of truth, ‘and how closely and even scru- 
 pulously they followed their documents.’ Gries- 
 bach then attempts to show how these discre- 
 pancies may have arisen ; and admits that, 
 although unimportant, they are hard to reconcile, 
 as is indeed evinced by the amount of contro- 
 versy they have excited. 
 
 Lately, Professor Bush has ingeniously main- 
 tained the opinion, that the body of Christ which 
 was raised was not the identical body which 
 was crucified, but another and spiritual body. 
 This view was forced upon him by the gene- 
 ral argument of his book (Anastasis ; or, the 
 Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body ra- 
 tionally and scripturally considered, 1845) ; but 
 it will not be readily admitted by those who 
 remember the fresh prints of the nails, and the 
 wound in the side of the risen Saviour, coupled 
 with his manifest anxiety to impress the fact of 
 his personal identity upon the minds of his dis- 
 ciples. It may indeed be asked, £ In what does 
 personal identity consist V but that is a question 
 we cannot here argue. 
 
 The three first Gospels agree in this, that the 
 women who went to the grave saw angels, by. 
 whom they were informed that Jesus had risen, 
 and who commanded them to give the apostles 
 immediate information of the fact. But as Mary 
 Magdalene was among there women according; 
 to these Gospels, there seems a striking contra- 
 diction to John’s narrative, which speaks of hex. 
 alone. The writers above named, however, har- 
 monise these accounts by supposing that Mary 
 did indeed set out for the sepulchre with the 
 other women ; but that running before them, and 
 finding the stone rolled away, she was overcome 
 by a sudden impulse of feeling, and hastened back 
 to communicate the intelligence to the apostles, 
 as related by John. In the meantime the oilier 
 women had arrived at the sepulchre, and there 
 witnessed what is recorded by the other. evangelists. 
 Mary Magdalene returns to the grave with Peter 
 avid John ; and after they had gone away hope- 
 less-, she coixtinued to stand weeping in the same 
 place ; and while thus engaged,, perceived the 
 angels, and immediately after our Lord himself. 
 From Him she receives the same commission 
 which the angels had previously given to the 
 other women, namely, to inform the apostles of his 
 resurrection. Matthew (xxviii. 9, 10) seems to 
 relate of all the women what strictly belongs to 
 Mary alone ; while Mark (xvi. 9) is more precise in 
 his account According to this mode of reconciling 
 the Gospe narratives, we are to suppose that the 
 other women were prevented from communicating 
 to the apostles what the angels had given them in 
 
610 RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 
 
 RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 
 
 charge ; and Hess renders it probable, on topo- 
 graphical grounds, that those who were returning 
 from the grave may have missed the apostles, who 
 were hastily approaching it. 
 
 If this explanation be admitted, the only re- 
 maining difficulty is that which arises from the 
 Gospel of Luke, which appears to state that the 
 apostles did not visit the sepulchre till all the 
 intelligence had been communicated to them by 
 the women (Luke xxiv. 9-12). We will not at- 
 tempt to get over this difficulty by rejecting the 
 verse which creates it (xxiv. 12), on the ground 
 of its being wanting in one Greek and some an- 
 cient Latin manuscripts ; but would rather sup- 
 pose that in this, as in some other passages, Luke 
 lias neglected the order of time, and inserted the 
 incident somewhat out of place. Besides the 
 works already referred to, see Sherlock, Trial of 
 the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus, 1729; 
 Benson's Life of Christ, p. 520, sq. ; West, On 
 the Resurrection ; Mack night’s Harmony of the 
 Gospels ; Lardner, Observations on Dr. Mack- 
 night's Harmony, 1764; Newcome’s Harmony 
 of the Gospels , 1778 ; Tholuck, Comment, zu 
 Johan, xx.; Neander, Das Leben Jesu, 1839; 
 Hase, Das Leben Jesu, 1840. Since the above 
 was in type we have seen an excellent paper by 
 Professor Robinson, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 
 Feb. 1845, in which the writer, with his usual 
 perspicuity, discusses the alleged discrepancies in 
 the Gospel narratives of ‘ The Resurrection and 
 Ascension of our Lord.’ 
 
 RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. This 
 expression is used to denote the revivification of 
 the human body after it has been forsaken by the 
 soul, or the re-union of the soul hereafter to the 
 body which it had occupied in the present 
 world. It is admitted that there are no traces of 
 such a doctrine in the earlier Hebrew Scripture. 
 It is not to be found in the Pentateuch, in the 
 historical books, or in the Psalms; for Ps. xlix. 
 15, does not relate to this subject; neither does 
 Ps. civ. 29, 30, although so cited by Theodoret 
 and others. The celebrated passage of Job xix. 
 25, sq., lias, indeed, been strongly insisted upon 
 in proof of the early belief in this doctrine; 
 but the most learned commentators are agreed, 
 and scarcely any one at the present day dis- 
 putes, that such a view of the text arises either 
 from mistranslation or misapprehension, and that 
 Job means no more than to express a confident 
 conviction that his then diseased and dreadfully 
 corrupted body should be restored to its former 
 soundness ; that he should rise from the depressed 
 state in which he lay to his former prosperity ; 
 and that God would manifestly appear (as was 
 the case) to vindicate his uprightness. That no 
 meaning more recondite is to be found in the 
 text, is agreed by Calvin, Mercier, Grotius, Le 
 Clerc, Patrick, Warburton, Durell, Heath, Ken- 
 nicott, Doderlein, Dathe, Eichhorn, Jahn, De 
 Wette, ami a host of others. That it alludes to 
 a resurrection is disproved thus : — 1. The supposi- 
 th-n is inconsistent with the design of the poem 
 and the course of the argument, since the belief 
 which it has been supposed to express, as con- 
 nected with a future state of retribution, would 
 in a great degree have solved the difficulty on 
 which the whole dispute turns, and could not 
 hut have been often alluded to by the speakers. 
 5. It is inconsistent with the connection of the 
 
 discourse the reply of Zopliar agreeing, not with 
 the jx>pu\ar interpretation, but with the other. 
 3. It is inconsistent with many passages in which 
 the same person (Job) longs for death as the end of 
 his miseries, and not as the introduction to a bettei 
 life (iii. ; vii. 7, 8 ; x. 20-22; xiv. ; xvii. II- 
 16). 4. It is not proposed as atopic of conso- 
 
 lation by any of the friends of Job; nor by 
 Elihu, who acts as a sort of umpire ; nor by the 
 Almighty himself in the decision of the contro- 
 versy. 5. The later Jews, who eagerly sought 
 for every intimation bearing on a future life 
 which their Scriptures might contain, never re- 
 garded this as such; nor is it once referred to 
 by Christ or his apostles. 
 
 Isaiah may be regarded as the first Scripture 
 writer in whom such an allusion can be traced. He 
 compares the restoration of the Jewish people and 
 state to a resurrection from the dead (ch. xxvi. 
 19, 20) ; and in this he is followed by Ezekiel at 
 the time of the exile (ch. xxxvii.). From these 
 passages, which are, however, not very clear io 
 their intimations, it may seem that in this, as in 
 other matters, the twilight of spiritual manifesta- 
 tions brightened as the day-spring from on high 
 approached; and in Dan. xii. 2, we at length 
 arrive at a clear and unequivocal declaration, 
 that ‘Those who lie sleeping under the earth shall 
 awake, some to eternal life, and others to ever- 
 lasting shame and contempt.’ 
 
 In the time of Christ, the belief of a resurrec- 
 tion, in connection with a slate of future retribu- 
 tion, was held by the Pharisees and the great body 
 of the Jewish people, and was only disputed by the 
 Sadducees. Indeed, they seem to have regarded 
 the future life as incomplete without the body ; 
 and so intimately were the two things — the future 
 existence of the soul and the resurrection of the 
 body — connected in their minds, that any argu- 
 ment which proved the former, they considered as 
 proving the latter also (see Matt. xxii. 3 1 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 32). This belief, however, led their coarse 
 minds into gross and sensuous conceptions of the 
 future state, although there were many among 
 the Pharisees who taught that the future body 
 would be so refined as not. to need the indulgences 
 which were necessary in the present life; ard 
 they assented to our Lord’s assertion, that the 
 risen saints would not marry, but would be as 
 the angels of God (Matt. xxii. 30 ; comp. Luke 
 xx, 39). So Paul, in 1 Cor. vi. 13, is conceived 
 to intimate that the necessit y of food for subsistence 
 will be abolished in the world to come. 
 
 In further proof of the commonness of a belief 
 in the resurrection among the Jews of the time of 
 Clirist, see Matt, xxii., Luke xx., John xi. 24, 
 Acts xxiii. 6-8. Josephus is not to be relied 
 upon in the account which he gives of the belief of 
 his countrymen ( Antiq . xviii. 2; De Bell. Jud., 
 ii. 7), as he appears to use terms which might 
 suggest one thing to his Jewish readers, and ano- 
 ther to the Greeks and Romans, who scouted the 
 idea of a resurrection. Many Jews believed that 
 the wicked would not be raised from the dead ; 
 but the contrary was the more prevailing opinion, 
 in which St. Paul once took occasion to express his 
 concurrence with the Pharisees (Acts xxiv. 15). 
 
 But although the doctrine of the resurrection 
 was thus prevalent among the Jews in the time 
 of Christ, it might still have been doubtful and 
 obscure to us, had not Christ given to it the aasio 
 
RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 
 
 REUBEN. 
 
 611 
 
 tion of his authority,- and declared it a constituent 
 part of his religion (e. g., Matt. xxii. ; John v., 
 viii., xi.). He and his apostles also were careful 
 to correct the erroneous notions which the Jews 
 entertained on this head, and to make the sub- 
 ject more obvious and intelligible than it had 
 ever been before. A special interest is also im- 
 parted to the subject from the manner in which 
 the New Testament represents Christ as the person 
 to whom we are indebted for this benefit, which, 
 by every variety of argument and illustration, 
 the apostles connect with him, and make to 
 rest, upon him (Acts iv. 2; xxvi. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. , 
 1 Thess. iv. 14, &c.). 
 
 The principal points which can be collected 
 from the New Testament on this subject are the 
 following : — 1. The raising of the dead is every 
 where ascribed to Christ, and is represented as 
 the last work to be undertaken by him for the 
 salvation of man (John v. 21 ; xi. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 
 22, sq. ; 1 Thess. iv. 15; Rev. i. 18). All the 
 dead will be raised, without respect to age, rank, 
 or character in this world (John v. 28, 29 ; Acts 
 xxiv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 22). 3. This event is to 
 
 take place not before the end of the world, or the 
 general judgment (John v. 21 ; vi. 39, 40 ; xi. 
 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22-28 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; Rev. xx. 
 11). 4. The manner in which this marvellous 
 
 change shall be accomplished is necessarily be- 
 yond our present comprehension ; and, therefore, 
 the Scripture is content to illustrate it by figura- 
 tive representations, or by proving the possibility 
 and intelligibility of the leading facts. Some of 
 the figurative descriptions occur in John v. ; Matt, 
 xxiv.; 1 Cor. 15. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Phil. iii. 
 2 1 . The image of a trumpet-call, which is re- 
 peated in some of these texts, is derived from the 
 Jewish custom of convening assemblies by sound 
 of trumpet. 5. The possibility of a resurrection 
 is powerfully argued by Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 32, 
 sq., by comparing it with events of common oc- 
 currence in the natural world. (See also ver. 12- 
 14, and compare Acts iv. 2.) 
 
 But although this body shall be so raised as to 
 preserve its identity, it must yet undergo certain 
 purifying changes to fit it for the kingdom of 
 heaven, and to render it capable of immortality 
 (1 Cor. xv. 35, sq.), so that it shall become a 
 glorified body like that of Christ (ver. 49 ; 
 Rom. vi. 9 ; Phil. iii. 21) ; and the bodies of 
 those whom the last day finds alive, will undergo 
 a similar change without tasting death (1 Cor. 
 xv. 51, 53; 2 Cor. v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 15, sq. ; 
 Phil. iii. 21). 
 
 The extent of change consistent with per- 
 sonal identity is so great, that its limits have 
 been variously estimated, and can never be in 
 this life clearly defined. We are, therefore, not 
 disposed to enter into the subject here. The plain 
 language of Scripture seems to suggest that it 
 will be so great, that the old body will have little 
 more relation to the new one than the seed has to 
 the plant. But that there is no analogy — that 
 the new body will have no connection with, and 
 no relation to the old ; and that, in fact, the re- 
 surrection of the body is not a doctrine of Scrip- 
 ture, — does not appear to us to have been satis- 
 factorily proved by the latest writer on the sub- 
 ject (Bush, Anastasis, 1845) ; and we think so 
 highly of his ingenuity and talent, as to be- 
 lieve that no one else is likely to succeed in 
 
 an argument in which he has failed (Knapp, 
 Christian Theology , translated by Leonard 
 Woods, D.D., § 151-153; Hody, On the Resur- 
 rection; Drew, Essay on the Resurrection oj 
 the Human Body ; Burnet, State of the Dead ; 
 Schott, Dissert, de Resurrect. Corporis , adv. 
 S. Burnetum , 1763 ; Teller, Fides Dogmat. 
 de Resurr. Carnis , 1766 ; Mosheim, De Christ. 
 Resurr. Mort., & c. in Dissertatt., ii. 526, sq. ; 
 Dassov., Diatr. qua Judocor. de Resurr. Mort. 
 sentent. ex plur. Rabbinis, 1675; Neander, All. 
 K. Geschichte, i. 3, pp. 1088, 10§6 ; ii. 3, pp. 
 1404-1410; Zehrt, Ueber d. Auferstehung d. 
 Todten, 1835). 
 
 REUBEN behold a son • Sept.'PoojSrjv), 
 
 eldest son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. xxix. 32; 
 xxxv. 23 ; xlvi. 8). His improper intercourse 
 with Bilhah, his father’s concubine wife, was an 
 enormity too great, for Jacob ever to forget, and 
 he spoke of it with abhorrence even on his dying 
 bed (Gen. xxxii. 22; xlix. 4). Yet the part taken 
 by him in the case of Joseph, whom he iutended 
 to rescue from the hands of his brothers and re- 
 store to his father, and whose supposed death he so 
 sincerely lamented, exhibits his character in an 
 amiable point of view (Gen. xxxvii. 21, 22, 29, 
 30). We are, however, to remember, that he, as 
 the eldest son, was more responsible for the safety 
 of Joseph than were the others ; and it would 
 seem that he eventually acquiesced in the decep- 
 tion practised upon his father. Subsequently, 
 Reuben offered to make the lives of his own sons 
 responsible for that of Benjamin, when it was 
 necessary to prevail on Jacob to let him go down 
 to Egypt (Gen. xlii. 37, 38). The fine conduct 
 of Judah in afterwards undertaking the same re- 
 sponsibility, is in advantageous contrast with this 
 coarse, although well-meant, proposal. For his 
 conduct in the matter of Bilhah, Jacob, in his 
 last blessing, deprived him of the pre-eminence 
 and double portion which belonged to his birth- 
 right, assigning the former to Judah, and the 
 latter to Joseph (Gen. xlix. 3, 4 ; comp. ver. 8-10 ; 
 xlviii. 5). The doom, ‘ Thou shalt not excel,’ 
 was exactly fulfilled in the destinies of the tribe 
 descended from Reuben, which makes no figure 
 in the Hebrew history, and never produced any 
 eminent person. At the time of the Exodus, 
 this tribe numbered 46,500 adult males, which 
 ranked it as the seventh in population ; but at the 
 later census before entering Canaan, its numbers 
 had decreased to 43,730, which rendered it the 
 ninth in population (Num. i. 21 ; xxvi. 5). The 
 Reubenitfcs received for their inheritance the fine 
 pasture land (the present Belka) on the east of 
 the Jordan, which to a cattle-breeding people, as 
 they were, must have been very desirable (Num. 
 xxxii. 1 sq. ; xxxiv. 14; Josh. i. 14; xv. 17). 
 This lay south of the territories of Gad (Deut. iii. 
 12, 16), and north of the river Arnon. Although 
 thus settled earlier than the other tribes, excepting 
 Gad and half Manasseh, who shared with them 
 the territory beyond the Jordan, the Reubenites 
 willingly assisted their brethren in the wars of 
 Canaan (Num. xxxii. 27, 29; Josh. iv. 12); 
 after which they returned to their own lands 
 (Josh. xxii. 15); and we hear little more of 
 them till the time of Hazael, king of Syria, 
 ■who ravaged and for a time held possession of 
 their country (2 Kings x. 33). The Reubenites* 
 
*12 REVELATION, BOOK OF. REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 ami the other tribes beyoml the river, were natu- 
 rally the first to give way before the invaders from 
 the East, and were the first of all the Israelites 
 sent into exile by Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, 
 b.c. 773 (1 Chron. v. 26). 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. The follow- 
 ing topics in relation to this book demand ex- 
 amination : — 
 
 I. The person by whom it was written. 
 
 II. Its canonical authority, genuineness, and 
 authenticity. 
 
 III. The time and place at which it was 
 written. 
 
 IV. Its unity. 
 
 V. The class of writings to which it belongs. 
 
 VI. The object for which it was originally 
 written. 
 
 VII. Its contents. 
 
 VIII. Some errors into which the interpreters 
 of it have fallen. 
 
 I. The author styles himself John, but not an 
 apostle (i. 4, 9 ; xxii. 8). Hence some have 
 attributed the book to another John, usually 
 designated the presbyter. Formerly, indeed, the 
 existence of such a person was unknown or 
 doubted, the historic grounds adduced in proof 
 of his separate individuality being impugned or 
 otherwise explained. (So Guerike in his Bei- 
 triige zur Historisch-kritiscken Einleit ., 1831, 
 8vo.) But this writer has repently revoked his 
 doubts, contented with affirming that the historic 
 basis on which the existence of the Ephesian 
 presbyter rests, is assuredly feeble. The chief 
 argument for believing that there was another 
 John besides the apostle, exists in a passage from 
 Papiasof Hierapolis, preserved in Eusebius (Hist. 
 Eccles. iii. 39). In this fragment, several of the 
 apostles, among whom is John, are mentioned ; 
 while, immediately after, the presbyter John is 
 specified along with Aristion. Thus the presbyter 
 is clearly distinguished from the apostle (see 
 Wieseler, in the Theol. Mitcirbeiten , iii. 4. 113, 
 sq.~). ■ In addition to Papias, Dionysius of 
 Alexandria (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 25), Euse- 
 bius himself (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39), and Jerome 
 (Catal. Scriptor. Ecclesiast.'), allude to the pres- 
 byter. We must therefore believe, with Liicke, 
 Bleek, Credner, Neander, Ilitzig, and, indeed, all 
 the ablest critics who have had occasion to speak 
 of this point, that there were two Johns : one the 
 apostle, the other the presbyter. 
 
 It has been much debated which of the two 
 wrote the book before us. On the continent the 
 prevailing current of opinion, if not in favour of 
 the presbyter, is at least against the apostle. In 
 England the latter is still regarded as the writer, 
 more perhaps by a kind of traditional belief, than 
 as the result of enlightened examination. 
 
 The arguments against assigning the author- 
 ship to the apostle John are the following. 
 
 1. The Apocalyptic writer calls himself John, 
 while the Evangelist never does so. So Dionysius 
 of Alexandria, as related by Eusebius (Hist. 
 Ecctes. vii. 25}. De Wette repeats the observa- 
 tion as deserving at least of attention. In addition 
 to this circumstance, it has been affirmed by 
 Ewald, Credner, and Hitzig, that in chaps, xviii. 
 20, and xxi. 14, the apostle expressly excludes 
 himself from the number of the apostles. 
 
 2. The language of the book is entirely dif- 
 ferent from that of the fourth Gospel and the three 
 
 epistles of John the Apostle. It is characterized 
 by strong Hebraisms and ruggednesses, by negli« 
 gences of expression and grammatical inaccura- 
 cies •, while it exhibits the absence of pure Greek 
 words, and of the apostle’s favourite expressions. 
 So De Wette. 
 
 3. The style is unlike that which appears in 
 the Gospel and epistles. In the latter, there is 
 calm, deep feeling ; in the Apocalypse, a lively, 
 creative power of fancy. In connection with this 
 it has been asserted, that the mode of representing 
 objects and images is artificial and Jewish. On 
 the contrary, John the son of Zebedee was an 
 illiterate man in the Jewish sense of that epithet; 
 a man whose mental habits and education were 
 Greek rather than Jewish, and who, in conse- 
 quence of this character, makes little or no use of 
 the Old Testament or of Hebrew learning. So 
 De Wette. 
 
 4. It is alleged that the doctrinal aspect of the 
 Apocalypse is different from that of the apostle’s 
 acknowledged writings. In the latter we find 
 nothing’' of the sensuous expectations of the Mes- 
 siah and the establishment of his kingdom or 
 earth, which are so prominent in the former 
 Besides, the views inculcated or implied respect- 
 ing spirits, demons, and angels, are foreign to 
 John. A certain spirit of revenge, too, flows and 
 burns throughout the Apocalypse, a spirit incon- 
 sistent with the mild and amiable disposition of 
 the beloved disciple. 
 
 Such are the arguments advanced by De Wette. 
 They are chiefly based on the investigations of 
 Ewald and Liicke. Credner, who speaks with the 
 same confidence respecting the non-apostolic origii. 
 of the book, has repeated, enlarged, and confirmee 
 them. It will be observed, however, that they are 
 all internal , and do no more than prepare tne 
 way for proving that John the Presbyter was the 
 writer. Let us glance at the external evidence 
 adduced for the same purpose. 
 
 In the third century, Dionysius of Alexandria 
 ascribed the book to John the Presbyter, not to 
 John the Apostle (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 25). 
 The testimony of this writer has been so often and 
 so much insisted on, that it is necessary to adduce 
 it at length. ‘ Some who were before us have 
 utterly rejected and confuted this book, criticising 
 every chapter, showing it to be throughout unin- 
 telligible and inconsistent ; adding, moreover, 
 that the inscription is false, forasmuch as it is 
 not John’s; nor is it a revelation which is hidden 
 under so obscure and thick a veil of ignorance ; 
 and that not only no apostle, but not so much as 
 any holy or ecclesiastical man was the author of 
 this writing; but that Cerinthus, founder of the 
 heresy called after him Cerinthian, the better to 
 recommend his own forgery, prefixed to it an 
 honourable name. For this (they say) was one of 
 his particular notions, that the kingdom of Christ 
 should be earthly ; consisting of those things 
 which he himself, a carnal and sensual man, 
 most admired, — the pleasures of the belly and of 
 concupiscence ; that is, eating and drinking and 
 marriage ; and for the more decent procurement 
 of these, leastings and sacrifices, and slaughters 
 of victims. But for my part, I dare not reject 
 the book, since many of the brethren have it in 
 high esteem : but allowing it to be above my 
 understanding, I suppose it to contain throughout 
 some latent and wonderful meaning; for thougk 
 
REVELATION. BOOK OF. 613 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 1 do not understand it, I suspect there must be 
 some profound sense in the words; not measuring 
 and judging these things by my own reason, but 
 ascribing more to faith, I esteem them too sublime 
 to be comprehended by me. Nor do I condemn 
 what I have not been able to understand ; but I 
 admire the more, because they are above my reach. 
 
 And having finished in a manner his 
 
 prophecy, the prophet pronounceth those blessed 
 that keep it, and also himself. For “ blessed is 
 every one,” says he, “ that keepeth the words of 
 the prophecy of this book ; and I John, who saw 
 and heard these things ” (Rev. xxii. 7, 8). I do 
 not deny then that his name is John, and that 
 'ids is John's book, for I acknowledge it to be the 
 work of some holy and divinely inspired person. 
 Nevertheless I cannot easily grant him to be the 
 apostle the son of Zebedee, brother of James, 
 whose is the Gospel inscribed according to John 
 and the Catholic epistle; for I conclude, from 
 the manner of each, and the turn of expression, 
 and from the conductor disposition) of the book, 
 as we call it, that he is not the same person. For 
 the Evangelist nowhere puts down his name, nor 
 does he speak of himself either in the Gospel or 
 in the epistle.’ Then a little after he says again, 
 
 ‘ John nowhere speaks as concerning himself nor 
 as concerning another. But he who wrote the 
 Revelation, immediately at the very beginning 
 prefixeth his name : *• the Revelation of Jesus 
 Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto 
 his servants things which must shortly come to 
 pass. And he sent and signified it by his angel 
 unto his servant John, who bare record of the 
 word of God, and his testimony, the things which 
 he saw ” (Rev. i. 1, 2). And then he writes an 
 epistle, “ John unto the seven churches in Asia. 
 Grace be unto you and peace ” (ver. 4). But the 
 Evangelist has not prefixed his name, no, not to 
 his Catholic epistle ; but without any circum- 
 locution begins with the mystery itself of the 
 divine revelation, “that which was from the be- 
 ginning, which we have heard, which we have 
 seen with our eyes ” (1 John" i. 1). And for the 
 like revelation the Lord pronounced Peter blessed, 
 saying, “ Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for 
 flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but 
 my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 17). 
 Nor yet in the second or third epistle ascribed to 
 John, though, indeed, they are but short epistles, 
 is the name of John prefixed ; for without any 
 name he is called the elder. But this other 
 person thought it not sufficient to name himself 
 once and then proceed, but he repeats it again, 
 “ I, John, who am your brother and companion in 
 tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of 
 Jesus Christ, was in the isle called Patmos for 
 the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. i. 9). And at the 
 end he says, “ Blessed is he that keepeth the say- 
 ings of the prophecy of this book; and I, John, 
 who saw and heard these things 55 (ch. xxii. 7, 8). 
 Therefore, that it was John who wrote these things, 
 ought to be believed because he says so. But 
 who he was is uncertain ; for he has not said, as 
 in the Gospel often, that he is “ the disciple whom 
 the Lord loved ;” t or that he is he “ who leaned 
 on his breast nor the brother of James ; nor that 
 he is one of them who saw and heard the Lord : 
 whereas he would have mentioned some of these 
 things if he had intended plainly to discover him- 
 self. Oi these things he says not a word : bat he 
 
 calls himself our “brother and companion, and 
 witness of Jesus,” and “ blessed,” because he saw 
 and heard those revelations. And I suppose 
 there were many of the same name with John the 
 apostle, who for the love they bore to him, and 
 because they admired and emulated him, and 
 were ambitious of being beloved of the Lord like 
 him, were desirous of having the same name: 
 even as many also of the children of the faithful 
 are called by the names of Paul and Peter. There 
 is another John in the Acts of the Apostles, sur- 
 named Mark, whom Paul and Barnabas took for 
 their companion : concerning whom it is again 
 said, “and they had John for their minister” (Acts 
 xiii. 5). But that he is the person who wrote 
 this book, I would not affirm. But I think that 
 he is another, one of them that belong to Asia ; 
 since it is said that there are two tombs at Ephesus, 
 each of them called John’s tomb. And from the 
 sentiments and words, and disposition of them, it 
 is likely that he is different (from him that wrote 
 the Gospel and Epistle). For the Gospel and 
 Epistle have a mutual agreement, and begin 
 alike. The one says, “ In the beginning was the 
 word ;” the other, “ That which was from the be- 
 ginning.” The former says, “ And the word was 
 made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld 
 his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the 
 Father.” The latter has the same with a slight 
 variation : “ That which we have heard, which we 
 have seen with our eyes, which we have looked 
 upon, and our hands have handled, of the word 
 of life. For the life was manifested.” He is uni- 
 form throughout, and wanders not in the least 
 from the points he proposed to himself, but prose- 
 cutes them in the same chapters and words, some 
 of which we shall briefly observe : for whoever 
 reads with attention will often find in both “ life ;” 
 frequently “ light,” the “ avoiding of darkness 
 oftentimes “ truth, grace, joy, the flesh and the 
 blood of the Lord ; judgment, forgiveness of sins, 
 the love of God toward us, the commandment of 
 love one toward another ; the judgment of this 
 world, of the devil, of anti-christ; the promise of 
 the Holy Spirit, the adoption of the sons of God, 
 the faith constantly required of us, the Father 
 and the Son,” every where. And, in short, through- 
 out the Gospel and Epistle it is easy to observe 
 one and the same character. But the Revelation 
 is quite different and foreign from these, without 
 any affinity or resemblance, not having so much 
 as a syllable in common with them. Nor does 
 the Epistle (for I do not here insist on the Gospel) 
 mention or give any hint of the Revelation, nor the 
 Revelation of the Epistle. And yet Paul, in his 
 Epistles, has made some mention of his Revela- 
 tions, though he never wrote them in a separate 
 book. Besides, it is easy to observe the difference 
 of the style of the Gospel and the Epistle from 
 that of the Revelation; for they are not only 
 written correctly, according to the propriety of 
 the Greek tongue, but with great elegance of 
 phrase and argument, and the whole contexture 
 of the discourse. So far are they from all bar- 
 barism or solecism, or idiotism of language, that 
 nothing of the kind is to be found in them ; for 
 he, as it seems, had each of those gifts, the Lord 
 having bestowed upon him both these, knowledge 
 and eloquence. As to the other, I will not deny 
 that he saw the Revelation, or that he had received 
 the gift of knowledge and prophecy. But I do 
 
614 REVELATION, BOOK OF. REVELATION, BOOK O*, 
 
 Dot perceive in him an accurate acquaintance 
 with the Greek language : on the contrary, he 
 uses barbarous idioms, and some solecisms, which 
 it is necessary that I should now show par- 
 ticularly, for I do not write by way of ridicule ; 
 let none think so. I simply intend to represent in 
 a critical manner the difference of these pieces.’ 
 
 Here are critical arguments which the mo- 
 derns have not failed to adduce and enlarge. Eu- 
 sebius expresses himself in an undecided way 
 respecting the Apocalypse (Hist. Eccles. iii. 21, 
 25), for which it is difficult to account., on the 
 supposition that prevalent traditiou attributed it 
 to the Apo§tle John. 
 
 Thus all the external evidence directly in 
 favour of John the Presbyter resolves itself into 
 the authority of Dionysius, who rested his proofs 
 not on the testimony of his predecessors, but on 
 internal argument. Eusebius speaks so hesi- 
 tatingly, that nothing can be determined with 
 respect to his real opinion. 
 
 On the whole, there is no direct evidence in 
 favour of the opinion that John the Presbyter wrote 
 the Apocalypse. Many internal considerations 
 have l>een adduced to show that John the Apostle 
 was not the author ; but no direct argument has 
 been advanced to prove that John the Presbyter 
 was the writer. Indeed, our existing accounts of 
 the presbyter are so brief, as to afford no data for 
 associating the writing of this book with his name. 
 All that we know from antiquity is, that both 
 Johns were contemporary, that they are called 
 disciples of the Lord, that they resided in Asia 
 Minor, and that their tombs were shown at Ephe- 
 sus. It is vain to appeal to the second and third 
 epistles of John for comparing the Apocalypse 
 with them, with Credner and Jachmann (Pelt’s 
 Mitarheiten , 1839), who think that they proceeded 
 from the presbyter; since, to say the least, the 
 hypothesis that these epistles were written by 
 John the Presbyter has not yet been established. 
 Still, however, notwithstanding this deficiency of 
 evidence, Bleek, Credner, and Jachmann, follow- 
 ing Dionysius, attribute the book to John the 
 Presbyter. 
 
 Others think that a disciple of John undertook 
 to write on a subject which he had received from 
 the apostle ; and that he thought himself justified 
 in introducing his instructor as the speaker, be- 
 cause he wrote in his manner. So Ewald, Liicke, 
 Schott, and Neander. 
 
 Hitzig has lately written a treatise to prove 
 that the writer is John Mark, the same from 
 whom the second Gospel proceeded. His argu- 
 ments are mainly based on parallelisms of lan- 
 guage and construction ( Ueber Johannes Marcus 
 and seine Schriften, oder welcher Johannes hat 
 die Offenbarung verfasst? Zurich, 8vo. 1843). 
 
 In stating the evidence in favour of the apostle 
 as the writer, we begin with the external. 
 
 Justin Martyr is the earliest writer who attri- 
 butes it to John the Apostle (Dial, cum Tryph.). 
 Rettig, indeed, has endeavoured to impugn the 
 genuineness of the passage containing this testi- 
 mony, but he has been well answered by Liicke, 
 and by Guerike (Tholuck’s Literarischer Anzei - 
 per, 1830). Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, 
 and Origen, ascribe it to the apostle; and, as De 
 Wette candidly remarks, the testimony of the 
 last two is the more important, as they were not 
 millennarians. When Irenaeus says that it was 
 
 written by John the disciple of the Lord, it 
 uncertain whether he meant the apostle or the 
 presbyter, although the former is far more >wo- 
 bable. 
 
 Let us now consider the internal evidence in 
 favour of John the Apostle, beginning with an 
 examination of the arguments adduced on the 
 other side by De Wette. These do not possess 
 all the weight that many assign to them. We 
 shall follow the order in which they have been 
 already stated. 
 
 1. We attach no importance to this circum- 
 stance. Why should not a writer be- at liberty 
 to name himself or not as he pleases ; above all, 
 why should not a writer, under the immediate 
 inspiration of the Almighty, omit the particulars 
 which he was not prompted to record? How 
 could he refrain from doing so? The Holy 
 Spirit must have had some good reason for lead- 
 ing the writer to set forth his name, although 
 curiosity is not gratified by assigning the reason. 
 The Old Testament prophets usually prefixed 
 their names to the visions and predictions which 
 they were prompted to record ; and John does 
 the same. But instead of styling himself an 
 apostle, which carries with it an idea of dignity 
 and official authority, he modestly takes to him- 
 self the appellation of a servant of Christ , the 
 brother and- companion of the faithful in tribu- 
 lation. This corresponds with the relation which 
 he sustained to Christ in the receiving of such 
 visions, as also with the condition of the Redeemer 
 himself. In the Gospel, John is mentioned as the 
 disciple whom Jesus loved, for then he stood in an 
 intimate relation to Christ, as the Son of man ap- 
 pearing in the form of a servant ; but in the book 
 before us, Christ is announced as the glorified 
 Redeemer who should quickly come to judgment, 
 and John is his servant , entrusted with the secrets 
 of his house. Well did it become the apostle tc 
 forget all the honour of his apostolic office, and 
 to be abased before the Lord of glory. The re- 
 splendent vision of the Saviour had such an effect 
 upon the seer, that he fell at his feet as dead ; and 
 therefore it was quite natural for him to be clothed 
 with profound humility, to designate himself the 
 servant of Jesus Christ, the brother and companion 
 of the faithful in tribulation. Again, in ch. xviii. 
 20, tire prophets are said to be represented as 
 already in heaven in their glorified condition, and 
 therefore the writer could not have belonged to 
 their number. But this passage neither affirms 
 nor necessarily implies that the saints and apostles 
 and prophets were at that time in heaven. Neither 
 is it stated that all the apostles had then been glo- 
 rified. Chapter xxi. 14 is alleged to be inconsis- 
 tent with the modesty and humility of John. This 
 is a questionable assumption. The official honour 
 inseparable from the person of an apostle was 
 surely compatible with profound humility. It 
 was so witli Paul; and we may safely draw the 
 same conclusion in regard to John. In describing 
 the heavenly Jerusalem it was necessary to intro- 
 duce the twelve apostles. The writer could not 
 exclude himself (see Liicke, p. 389 ; and Gue- 
 rike's Beitrdge , p. 37, sq.). 
 
 2. To enter fully into this argument would re- 
 quire a lengthened treatise. Let us briefly notice 
 the particular words, phrases, and expressions, to 
 which Ewald, LUcke, De Wette, and Crednei 
 specially allude. Much has been written by 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 Ewald concerning the Hebraistic character of 
 tiie language. The writer, it is alleged, strongly 
 imbued with Hebrew inodes of thought, frequently 
 inserts Hebrew words, as in iii. 11 ; ix. 11 ; xii. 9, 
 10 ; xix. 1, 3, 4, 6 ; xx. 2; xxii. 20 ; while the 
 influence of cabbalistic artificiality is obvious 
 throughout the entire book, and particularly in 
 i. 4, 5 ; iv. 2; xiii. 18 ; xvi. 14. The mode of 
 employing the tenses is foreign to the Greek lan- 
 guage, and moulded after the Hebrew (i. 7; ii. 5, 
 10, 22, 23, 27 ; iii. 9; iv. 9-11 ; xii. 2-4 ; xvi. 
 15, 21; xvii. 13, 14; xviii. 11,15; xxii. 7, 12). 
 So also the use of the participle (i. 16 ; iv. i, 5, 
 8 ; v. 6, 13 j vi. 2, 5 ; vii. 0, 10; ix. 1 1 ; x. 2 ; 
 xiv. 1, 14; xix. 12, 13; xxi. 14); and of the 
 infinitive (xii. 7). The awkward disposition of 
 words is also said to be Hebraistic ; such as a 
 genitive appended like the construct state ; the 
 stringing together of several genitives (xiv. 8, 10, 
 19 ; xvi. 19 ; xviii. 3, 14 ; xix. 15 ; xxi. 6 ; xxii. 
 18, 19); and the use of the Greek cases, which 
 are frequently changed for prepositions (ii. 10 ; 
 iii. 9 ; vi. 1, 8 ; viii. 7 ; ix. 19 ; xi. 6, 9 ; xii. 5 ; 
 xiv. 2, 7) ; incorrectness in appositions (i. 5 ; ii. 
 20; iii. 12; iv. 2-4; vi. 1 ; vii. 9; viii. 9; ix. 
 14; xiii. 1-3; xiv. 2, 12, 14, 20, &c.) ; a con- 
 struction formed of an avrds put after the relative 
 pronoun (iii. 8; vii. 2, 9; xiii. 12; xx. 8); 
 frequent anomalies in regard to number and 
 gender (ii. 27 ; iii. 4, 5 ; iv. 8 ; vi. 9, 10 ; ix. 13, 
 14; xi. 15; xiv. 1,3; xvii. 16; xix. 14 ; and 
 viii. 11 ; xi. 18 ; xv. 4 ; xvii. 12, 15 ; xviii. 14 ; 
 xix. 21; xx. 12; xxi. 4, 24 ; also xvi. 10 ; xix. 
 1, 8, 9. In addition to this it is alleged by 
 Credner, that the use made of the Old Testament 
 betrays an acquaintance on the part of the writer 
 with the Hebrew text (comp. vi. 13, 14 with Isa. 
 xxxiv. 4 ; xviii. 2 with Isa. xiii. 21, xxi. 9, 
 xxxiv. 14, Jer. 1. 39; xviii. 4, 5 with Jer. Ii. 6, 
 9, 45; xviii. 7 with Isa. xlvii. 7, 8 ; xviii. 21-23 
 with Jer. xxv. 10, li. 63, 64). In contrast with 
 all this, we are reminded of the fact that, ac- 
 cording to Acts iv. 13, John was an unlearned 
 and ignorant man. 
 
 The book is deficient in words and turns of ex- 
 pression purely Greek, such as iravTOTe, iru-nore, 
 ou5e7roTe; compound verbs, as dvayyeWeiv, Trapa- 
 Kag^dveiv, iirifiuWeiv ; the double negation ; the 
 genitive absolute ; the attraction of the relative 
 pronoun ; the regular construction of the neuter 
 plural with the verb singular (except viii. 3; ix. 
 20; xiv. 13; xviii. 24; xix. 14; xxi. 12); 
 anoveiv with the genitive. Favourite expressions, 
 such as occur in the Gospel and epistles, are sel- 
 dom found, as dedogai, Qeupeu, epyd^ogai, pygara, 
 iraAiv, (pure?!/, geveiv, Kadus, us (an adverb of 
 time), ovv, gey, gevroi, icScrgos, (pus, anona, 
 bo£d£e<rdai, vxpovadai, £ur] aluyios, dirdWvadai, 
 ouros ( tovto ) ‘Iva ; the historic present. There 
 are also favourite expressions of the writer of this 
 book, such as do not occur in John’s authentic 
 writings : oiKovgevy), virogovy, icpareiv rb cvoga, 
 T h p bibaxw, n ravTOKpdrup, 6ebs Kal irar^p, bvvagis, 
 kootos, iax v s> rtgi], ttput6tokos tuu veicpuv, y 
 dpxh tt ]SKnaeus rov 6eov, 5 apx^v tuv fia<n\euv 
 TTjsyrjs, cbSe in the beginning of a sentence. The 
 conjunction el, so common in the Gospel, does not 
 occur in the Apocalypse ; but only el pci], el Se pfi, 
 and ei tis. The frequent joining of a substantive 
 with gey as, as (puvq geya\y, dXiipis ueyaXy, cpdflos 
 ucyas,, ceicrgbs geyas, rather reminds one of Luke 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 613 
 
 than John; so frequent in the Gospel, is 
 
 not found in the Revelation ; and, on the contrary, 
 laxapds, which occurs seven times in the Apoca- 
 lypse, is foreign to the Gospel.- 
 
 The following discrepancies between the lan- 
 guage of the Gospel and that of the epistles have 
 been noticed : aXyOwds is used of God both in 
 the Gospel and Apocalypse, but in different senses ; 
 so also icbpios, and epyd^ogai', instead of 75e the 
 Apocalypse has only Idov ; instead of ’lepoaoXvga 
 only 'lepovcaXyg ; instead of eav ns, as in the 
 Gospel, d ns ; tt epl, so often used by John, occurs 
 only once in the Apocalypse, and that too in rela- 
 tion to place ; bxXos is used in the plural. Words 
 denoting seeing are differently used in the Gospel 
 and Apocalypse : thus, for the present we find in 
 the latter fiXeiveiv, Oeupeiy, Spay ; for the aorist of 
 the active elSov, /3A eireiv, and 8eupe?y ; for the 
 future birTecrOcu, and for the aorist of the passive 
 also oirreadai ; geveiv has a different meaning 
 from that which it bears in the Gospel ; instead 
 ot 6 dpxuv rov Kotrjuov, and 6 irov'qpos, we find 6 
 aaravds, d SidjBoXos, o Spd.Kuv 6 gey as. 
 
 Such is a summary statement of an argument 
 drawn out at great length by Lucke, De Wette, 
 Ewald, and Credner. 
 
 Some have attempted to turn aside its force by 
 resorting to the hypothesis that the book was 
 originally written in Hebrew, and then translated 
 into Greek. This, however, is contradicted by 
 the most decisive internal evidence, and is in 
 itself highly improbable. The Apocalyse was 
 written in the Greek language, as all antiquity 
 attests. How then are we to account for its 
 Hebraistic idioms and solecisms of language, its 
 negligences of diction, and ungrammatical con- 
 structions ? One circumstance to be taken into 
 account is, that the nature of the Gospel is widely 
 different from that of the Apocalypse. The latter 
 is a prophetic book — a poetical composition — 
 while the former, is a simple record in prose, ot 
 the discourses of Jesus in the days of his flesh. 
 It is apparent, too, that John in the Apocalypse 
 imitates the manner of Ezekiel and Daniel. Tire 
 New Testament prophet conforms to the diction 
 and symbolic features of the former seers. ‘If 
 the question should be urged, why John chose 
 these models? the obvious answer is, that he 
 conformed to the taste of the times in which he 
 lived. The numerous apocryphal works of an 
 Apocalyptic nature, which were composed nearly 
 at the same time with the Apocalypse, such as the 
 book of Enoch, the ascension of Isaiah, the Testa- 
 ment of the twelve patriarchs, many of the sibyl- 
 line oracles, the fourth book of Ezra, the Pastor 
 of Hermas, and many others which are lost — all 
 testify to the taste and feelings of the times when, 
 or near which, the Apocalyse was written. If this 
 method of writing was more grateful to the time 
 in which John lived, it is a good reason for his 
 preferring it.'* In consequence of such imitat ion, 
 the diction has an Oriental character; and the 
 figures are in the highest style of imagery pecu- 
 liar to the East. But it is said that John was an 
 illiterate man. Illiterate, doubtless, ne was as com- 
 pared with Paul, who was brought up at the feet 
 of Gamaliel ; yet he may have been capable of 
 reading the Old Testament books ; and ne was cer- 
 tainly inspired. Rapt in ecstasy, he saw wondrous 
 
 * Stuart, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, pp. 353, 354 
 
916 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 visions. He was in the Spirit. Ami when writing; 
 the things he beheld, his language was to be con- 
 formed to the nature of such marvellous revelations. 
 It. was to be adapted to the mysterious disclosures, 
 the vivid pictures, the moving scenes, the celestial 
 beings anti scenery of which he was privileged 
 to tell. Hence it was to be lifted up far above 
 the level of simple prose or biographic history, so 
 as to correspond with the sublime visions of the 
 seer. Nor should it be forgotten that he was not 
 in the circumstances of an ordinary writer. He 
 was inspired. How often is this fact lost sight 
 of by the German critics ! It is therefore need- 
 less to inquire into his education in the Hebrew 
 language, or his mental culture while residing in 
 Asia Minor, or the smoothness of the Greek lan- 
 guage as current in the place where he lived, 
 before and after he wrote the Apocalypse. The 
 Holy Spirit qualified him beyond and irrespec- 
 tive of ordinary means, for the work of writing. 
 However elevated the theme he undertook, he was 
 assisted in employing diction as elevated as 
 the nature of the subject demanded. We place, 
 therefore, little reliance upon the argument de- 
 rived from the time of life at which the Apo- 
 calypse was composed, though Olshausen and 
 Guerike insist upon it. Written, as they think, 
 twenty years before the Gospel or epistles, the 
 Apocalypse exhibits marks of inexperience in 
 writing, of youthful fire, and of an ardent tem- 
 perament. It exhibits the first essays of one ex- 
 pressing his ideas in a language to which he was 
 unaccustomed. This may be true; but we lay 
 far less stress upon it than these authors seem 
 inclined to do. The strong Hebraized diction of 
 the book we account for on the ground that the 
 writer was a Jew ; and, as such, expressed his 
 Jewish conceptions in Greek ; that he imitated 
 the later Old Testament prophets, especially the 
 manner of Daniel ; and that the only prophetic 
 writing in the New Testament naturally ap- 
 proaches nearer the Old Testament, if not in 
 subject, at least in colouring and linguistic 
 features. 
 
 These considerations may serve to throw light 
 upon the language of the book, after all the 
 extravagances of assertion in regard to anoma- 
 lies, solecisms, and ruggednesscs, have been fairly 
 estimated. For it cannot be denied that many rash 
 and unwarrantable assumptions have been made 
 by De Wette and others relative to the impure 
 Greek said to be contained in the Apocalypse. 
 Winer has done much to check such bold asser- 
 tions, but with little success in the case of those 
 who are resolved to abide by a strong and pre- 
 valent current of opinion. We venture to affirm, 
 without fear of contradiction, that there are books 
 of the New Testament almost as Hebraizing as 
 the Apocalypse; and that the anomalies charged 
 to the account of the Hebrew language may be 
 paralleled in other parts of the New Testament or 
 in classical Greek. What shall be said, for in- 
 stance, to the attempt of Hitzig to demonstrate 
 from the language of Mark’s Gospel, as compared 
 with that of the Apocalypse, that both proceeded 
 from one author, viz., John Mark ? This author 
 has conducted a lengthened investigation with 
 the view of showing that all the peculiarities of 
 language found in the Apocalypse are equally 
 presented in the second Gospel, particularly that 
 the Hebraisms of the me correspond with those of 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 the other. Surely this must lead to new investi* 
 gat ions of the Apocalyptic diction, and possibly 
 to a renunciation of those extravagant assertion* 
 so often made in regard to the harsh, rugged, 
 Hebraized Greek of the Apocalypse. Who ever 
 dreamed before of the numerous solecisms ol 
 Mark’s language ? and yet Hitzig has demon- 
 strated its similarity to the Apocalyptic as plau- 
 sibly as Ewald, Liicke, and others have proved 
 the total dissimilarity between the diction of tlie 
 Apocalypse and that of John’s Gospel. 
 
 The length allotted to this article will not 
 allow the writer to notice every term and phrase 
 supposed to be peculiar. This can only be done 
 with success by him who takes a concordance to 
 the Greek Testament in his hand, with the deter- 
 mination to test each example ; along with a 
 good syntax of classical Greek, such as Bern- 
 hardy's. In this way he may see whether the 
 alleged Hebraisms and anomalies have not their 
 parallels in classical Greek. Some of the alle- 
 gations already quoted are manifestly incorrect, 
 e. g. that aKovoo with the genitive is not found in 
 the Apocalypse. On the contrary, it occurs eight 
 times with the genitive. Other words are ad 
 duced on the principle of their not occurring so 
 frequently in the book before us as in the Gospel 
 and epistles. But by this mode of reasoning i 
 might be shown, that the other acknowledges 
 writings of the Apostle John, for instance his first 
 epistle, are not authentic. Thus p^para, one ot 
 the words quoted, though frequently found in the 
 Gospel, is not. in any of the three epistles ; there- 
 fore, these epistles were not written by John. It 
 is found once in the Apocalypse. Again, <pyd- 
 Copcu, which is found seven times in the Gospel, 
 and once in the Apocalypse, as also once in eacti 
 of the second and third epistles, is not in the first 
 epistle; therefore the first epistle proceeded from 
 another writer than the author of the second and 
 third. The same reasoning may be applied to 
 decDpect). Again, it is alleged that the regular 
 construction of neuters plural with singular verbs 
 is not found, with the exception of six instances. 
 To say nothing of the large list of exceptions, let 
 it be considered, that the plural verb is joined 
 with plural nouns where animate beings, espe- 
 cially persons, are designated. Apply now this 
 principle, which regularly holds good in classical 
 Greek, to the Apocalypse, and nothing peculiar 
 will appear in the latter. Should there still re- 
 main examples of neuters plural designating 
 things without life, we shall find similar ones in 
 the Greek writers. Another mode in which the 
 reasoning founded upon the use of peculiar terms 
 and expressions may be tested, is the following. 
 It is admitted that there are words which occur 
 in the Gospel and epistles, but not in the Apoca- 
 lypse. The adverb irdvrore is an example. On 
 the same principle and by virtue of the same 
 reasoning, it may be denied, as far as languagi 
 is concealed , that 1 Timothy was written by Paul, 
 because TrdvroTe, which is found in his othei 
 epistles, does not occur in it. In this manner 
 we might individually take up each word and 
 every syntactical peculiarity on which the charge 
 of harshness, or solecism, or Hebraizing has been 
 fastened. It is sufficient to state, that there are 
 very few real solecisms in the Apocalypse. Al- 
 most all that have been adduced may be paral- 
 leled in Greek writer*, or in those of the New 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 Testament. The words of Winer, a master in 
 tiiis department, are worthy of attention : ‘ The 
 solecisms that appear in the Apocalypse give the 
 diction the impress of great harshness, but they 
 are capable of explanation , partly from anaco- 
 luthon and the mingling of two constructions, 
 partly in another manner. Such explanation 
 should have been always adopted, instead of 
 ascribing these irregularities to the ignorance of 
 the author, who, in other constructions of a much 
 more difficult nature in this very book, shows 
 that he was exceedingly well acquainted with the 
 rules of grammar. For most of these anomalies 
 too, analogous examples in the Greek writers 
 may be found, with this difference alone, that 
 they do not follow one another so frequently as in 
 ihe Apocalypse’ ( Grammatik , funfte Auflage, 
 f.p. 273, 4). Should the reader not be satisfied 
 with this brief statement of Winer, he is referred 
 to his Exeget. Stuclien, i. 154, sq., where the 
 Professor enters into details with great ability. 
 
 The following linguistic similarities between 
 John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse deserve to be 
 cited : pera ravra, Apoc. i. 19 ; iv. 1 ; vii. 1, 9 ; 
 
 ix. 12; xv. 5 ; xviii. 1; xix. 1; xx. 3; Gosp. 
 iii. 22 ; v. 1, 14 ; vi. 1 ; vii. 1 ; xix. 38 ; xxi. 1 ; 
 papTvpia , Apoc. i. 2, 9 ; vi. 9 ; xi. 7 ; xii. 1 1, 17 ; 
 xix. 10 ; xx. 4. Gosp. paprvpe w or paprvpla, 
 
 i. 7, 8, 15, 19, 32, 34; ii. 25; iii. 11, 26, 28, 
 32, 33; iv. 3, 9, 44; v. 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 
 39; 1 Epist. i. 2: iv. 14 ; v. 6-11. 'Iv a, Apoc. 
 
 ii. 10, 21 ; iii. 9,' 11, 18; vi. 2, 4, 11 ; vii. 1, 
 
 &c. &c. Gosp. vi. 5, 7, 12, 15, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 
 40, 50; xi. 4, 11, 15, 16, 19, 31, 37, 42, 50, 52, 
 53, 55, 57 ; xii. 9, 10, 20, 23, 35, &c. 1 Epist. 
 
 of John, i. 3, 4, 9; ii. 1, 19, 27, 28. o\f/is, 
 Gosp. vii. 24 ; xi. 44. Apoc. i. 16. iriafeiv, 
 Apoc. xix. 20. Gosp. vii. 30, 32, 44 ; viii. 20 ; 
 
 x. 39; xi. 57; xxi. 3, 10. TTjpuv rov \6yov, 
 ras ivroAas, or some similar expression* Apoc. 
 
 iii. 8, 10; xii. 17; xiv. 12; xxii. 7, 9. Gosp. 
 
 viii. 51, 55; xiv. 15: xxiii. 24, &c. 6 vikccv, 
 Apoc. ii. 7, 11, 17, 26; iii. 5, 12, 21 ; xv. 2; 
 xxi. 7. Tiiis verb is quite common in the first 
 epistle, ii. 13, 14; iv. 4 ; v. 4, 5. Gosp. xvi. 33. 
 08c op £eo rjs, Apoc. xxi. 6 ; xxii. 17 ; comp. Gosp. 
 vii. 38. Compare also the joining together of the 
 present ki.d the future in Apoc. ii. 5 and Gosp. 
 xiv. 3. The assertion of the same thing posi- 
 tively and negativelv, Apoc. ii. 2, 6, 8, 13 ; iii. 
 8, 17, 21 ; Gosp. i. 3, 6, 7, 20, 48; iii. 15, 17, 
 20 ; iv. 42; v. 19, 24; viii. 35, 45 ; x. 28 ; xv. 
 5, 6, 7. 1 Epist. ii. 27, &c. In several places 
 
 in the Apocalypse Christ is called the Lamb; so 
 also in the Gospel, i. 29^ 36. Christ is called 
 6 \6yos rov ©coy, Apoc. xix. 3, and in the Gospel 
 of John only has he the same epithet, m ipeiv 
 c’k nv6s, Apoc. iii. 10. Gosp. xvii. 15. cnpaTTeiv, 
 Apoc. v. 6, 9, 12 ; vi. 4, 9 ; xiii. 3, 8 ; xviii. 24; 
 only in the 1st Epist. of John, iii. 12. ex* iv 
 uepos, Apoc. xx. 6. Gosp. xiii. 8. Trepinareiv 
 uerd nvos , Apoc. iii. 4. Gosp. vi 66. aKgvSca, 
 Apoc. vii. 15; xii. 12; xiii. 6; xxi. 3. Gosp. 
 i. 14. The expulsion of Satan from heaven 
 is expressed thus in the Apoc. xii, 9 : e/3A^0?j els 
 r)jv yyv ; in the Gosp. it is said, vvv 6 apx<ov 
 rod k6(TUov tovtov c/f/BA.Tjflfj'ferai efa, xii. 31. 
 (SeeScholz, Die Apokalypse des heilig. Johannes 
 ub»rsetzt K erkldrt, u. s. w. Frankfurt am Main, 
 1828, 8 vo.; Schulz, Ueber den Schriftsteller, Cha- 
 racter und Werth des Johannes , Leipzig 1803, 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. dl7 
 
 Sro. ; Donker Curtius, Specimen liermenejtico - 
 theologicum de Apocalypsi ab indole , doctrina 
 et scribendi genere Johannis Apostoli non abhor- 
 rente, Trajecti Batav. 1799, 8vo. ; Kolthoff, Apo - 
 calypsis Joanni Apostolo vindicaia, Hafniee, 
 1834, 8vo. ; Stein (in Winer and Engelhardt’s 
 Kritisch. Journal , v, i.), and the Jena Literatim * 
 Zeitung for April, 1833, No. 61). It is true, 
 that some of these expressions are said by Liicke, 
 De Wette, and Credner, to be used in a different 
 sense in the Apocalypse ; others not to be charac- 
 teristic, but rather accidental and casual ; others 
 not original, but borrowed. Such assertions, 
 however, proceed more from a priori assumption 
 than from any inherent truth they possess. In 
 regard to the charge of cabbalism, especially in 
 the use of numbers, it is easily disposed of. The 
 cabbala of the Jews was widely different from the 
 instances in the Apocalypse that have been quoted. 
 Perhaps John’s use of the number 666 comes the 
 nearest to one kind of the cabbala; but still it 
 is so unlike as to warrant the conclusion that 
 the apostle did not employ the cabbalistic art. 
 His mysterious indications of certain facts, and 
 the reasons of their being in some measure in- 
 volved in darkness, are explicable on other than 
 Jewish grounds. There is no real cause for 
 believing that the apostle had recourse to the 
 artificial and trifling conceits of the Rabbins. 
 In short, this argument is by no means con- 
 clusive. As far as the language is concerned 
 nothing militates against the opinion that the 
 Apocalypse proceeded from John, who wrote the 
 Gospel. The contrary evidence is not of such a 
 nature as to demand assent. When rigidly scru- 
 tinized, it does not sustain the conclusion so con- 
 fidently built upon it. 
 
 But it is also affirmed, that the doctrinal views 
 and jsentiments inculcated in the Apocalypse are 
 quite different from those found in the Gospel. 
 This may be freely allowed without* any detri- 
 ment to their identity of authorship. How slow 
 the Germans are in learning that a difference in 
 the exhibition of truths substantially the same, 
 is far from being a contradiction ! A difference 
 of subject in connection with a different, plan, 
 demands correspondent dissimilarity of treatment. 
 Besides, there must be a gradual development of 
 the things pertaining to the kingdom of God on 
 earth. Sensuous expectations of the Messiah, 
 such as are alleged to abound in the Apocalypse, 
 may be perfectly consistent with the spirituality 
 of Ids reign, though it appears to us that the re- 
 presentations so designated are figurative, sha- 
 dowing forth spiritual realities by means of out 
 ward objects. 
 
 But what is to be said of the pneumatological, 
 demonological, and angelogical doctrines of the 
 book? The object for which John’s Gospel was 
 primarily written did not lead the apostle to in- 
 troduce so many particulars regarding angels 
 and evil spirits. The intervention of good and 
 the malignant influence of evil spirits are clearly 
 implied in the Old Testament prophets, particu- 
 larly in Zechariah and Daniel. It is therefore 
 quite accordant with the prophetic, Hebraistic 
 character of the Apocalypse, to make angelic 
 agency a prominent feature in the book. And 
 that such agency is recognised in the Gospels, is 
 apparent to the most cursory reader. The special 
 object with which the fourth Gospel was written 
 
613 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 was different from that which prompted the com- 
 position of the Apocalypse, and therefore the 
 subject-matter of both is exceedingly diverse. 
 But still there is no opposition in doctrine. The 
 same doctrinal views lie at the foundation of all 
 the representations contained in them. In the 
 one, the Redeemer is depicted in his humble 
 career on earth ; in the other, in his triumphs as 
 a king — or rather, in the victorious progress of 
 tiis truth in the world, notwithstanding all the 
 efforts of Satan and wicked men to suppress it. 
 As to a spirit of revenge in the Apocalyptic writer, 
 it is not found. The inspired prophet was com- 
 missioned to pronounce woes and judgments as 
 soon to befal the enemies of Christ, in conse- 
 quence of their persevering, malignant efforts. 
 As well might an evil disposition be attributed 
 to the blessed Saviour himself, in consequence of 
 his denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. 
 The same John who wrote the Apocalypse says, 
 in the second epistle, ver. 10, ‘if there come any 
 unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him 
 not into your house, neither bid him God speed. 
 It must ever strike the simple reader of the Apo- 
 calypse as a positive ground for attributing the 
 authorship to John the Apostle, that he styles him- 
 self the servant of God by way of eminence, 
 which none other at that time would have ven- 
 tured to do; and that he employs the expression, 
 I John , after the manner of Daniel, as if he were 
 the only prophet and person of the name. Nor 
 can it be well believed that a disciple of the 
 apostle, or any other individual, should have pre- 
 sumed to introduce John as the speaker, thus de- 
 ceiving the readers. The apostle was well known 
 to the Christians of his time, and especially to 
 the Asiatic churches. He did not therefore think 
 it necessary to say John the Apostle for the 
 sake of distinguishing himself from any other. 
 (See Zullig's Die Offenbarung Johannis , Stutt- 
 gart, 1834, 8 vo. p. 136.) 
 
 To enter further into the allegations of such 
 critics as deny, on the ground of internal diver 
 sities between this writing and John's acknow- 
 ledged productions, that the apostle was the au- 
 thor, would be a work of supererogation. Even 
 Eichhom and Bertholdt made many good remarks 
 in reply, although they did not take the position 
 which they were warranted to assume. 
 
 In view of the whole question, we are disposed 
 to abide by the ancient opinion, that John the 
 Apostle wrote the Apocalypse. Ecclesiastica 1 
 tradition clearly favours this view ; while the in- 
 ternal grounds so carefully drawn out and earn- 
 estly urged by recent German critics, do not ap- 
 pear sufficiently strong to overturn it. When 
 such grounds are soberly examined, after being 
 divested of all the extravagance with which they 
 are associated ; when the nature of the subjects 
 discussed is seen to be such as the fourth Gospel 
 does not present ; an impartial critic will pro- 
 bably rest in the opinion that both writings pro- 
 ceeded from the same author. And yet there are 
 phenomena in the Apocalypse, as compared with 
 John's gospel, which strike the reader’s attention 
 and induce suspicions of a different origin. It 
 exhibits peculiarities of language and of symbols, 
 such as no other book exemplifies. In some re- 
 spects it is unique. Hence an air of plausibility 
 attaches to the arguments of recent German 
 writers; although it is preposterous to .ook for a 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 stereotyped uniformity in the writing* of lh* 
 same author. IIow different are the language 
 and representations that characterize some of 
 Paul's epistles, as compared with other* ! Place, 
 for example, the epistle to the Ephesians by the 
 side of tliat addressed to the Romans, and how 
 dissimilar are their features! 
 
 But the entire question of authorship so much 
 debated in Germany, is more curious than profit- 
 able. The book may not have been written by 
 an apostle, and yet be equal in authority to any 
 acknowledged production of an apostle. Luke 
 was only an Evangelist ; and yet his writings are 
 infallibly true and correct in every particular, 
 because they proceeded from the Holy Spirit. 
 The question whether the Apocalypse was written 
 by an apostle or not, is of trifling importance as 
 long as its inspiration is maintained. It will not 
 diminish the credit due to the work, though it be 
 assigned to the Presbyter John, or to a disciple of 
 the apostle, or to John Mark. If any imagine 
 that, in attempting to destroy the directly apos- 
 tolic authorship, they lessen the value or disturb 
 the canonical credit of the book, they are mis- 
 taken. We are glad to perceive that this view, 
 obvious as it is to the English mind, has not 
 escaped the perception of all Germans, though it 
 seems not to have been apprehended by many. 
 Tinius says : ‘There has been a needless strife 
 of argument. Do we not plainly see from the 
 Gospels of Mark and Luke, and from the apostolic 
 history of the latter, that a biblical book may be 
 esteemed canonical without having been written 
 by one of the twelve apostles'? The name of no 
 writer is associated with the epistle to the He- 
 brews, and yet it is justly held to be a Christian 
 production. Even Paul was only an extraordi- 
 nary apostle. In all, says he, works one and the 
 same spirit ; and he that is not against us, said 
 Jesus, is for us. Now the Apocalypse is not 
 against, but for Him, and for Christianity, to 
 preserve it. This indeed is its chief object ; con- 
 sequently, it is a Christian book, and has pro- 
 ceeded from the Spirit of God. Whoever wa* 
 the John of our book, lie was certainly a man oi 
 God, with a serious and honest intention in re- 
 gard to the cause of Jesus.’ (Die Offenbarung 
 Johannis , Leipzig, 1839, 8vo., Einleit. p. 37.) 
 
 The external evidence certainly preponderates 
 in favour of the apostle, since it may be fairly 
 presumed that the fathers who speak of it as the 
 writing of John , and as a divine writing , gene- 
 rally meant John the Apostle. But we attach lit tle 
 weight to the testimonies of the fathers, discordant 
 as these writers frequently are on topics that came 
 before them. In many cases they adopted vague 
 traditions, without inquiring whether such reports 
 rested on any good foundation. They were for 
 the most part incapable or undesirous of critical 
 investigations — investigations demanding acute- 
 ness and discrimination. Hence they commonly 
 followed their immediate predecessors, contented 
 in ecclesiastical matters to glide down the stream 
 of popular belief, without diligently inquiring 
 whether such belief were correct and scriptural. 
 A few noble exceptions there are; but how few, 
 in comparison of the undiscerning number who 
 appear to have possessed feeble abilities, while 
 they exercised small discernment in theological 
 matters ! 
 
 II. Its canonical authority , authenticity , and 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 genuineness. — (a.) External testimonies advevse 
 to its canonicity. (6.) Such as are favourable. 
 
 («). The Alogi or Antimontanists in the second 
 century, ascribed all John’s writings, including 
 the Apocalypse, to Cerinthus, as Epiphanius re- 
 lates. It is obvious that no weight can be attached 
 to these assertions. Caius of Rome, from opposi- 
 tion to Montanism, ventured to make the same 
 statement, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 
 iii. 28) : ’AA Xu Kal K ->ipiv9os 6 S’ air oKaXv^euv 
 us virb aTvoariXov geyaXov yeypayfxepuu, rerpa- 
 hoylas 7]fM v ws 6 ayyeXuv avru Sedeiyperas 
 i pevdouevos, iTrsurayei A 4yuv, ic. r. A. This pass- 
 age has given rise to much discussion, some 
 affirming that the revelations spoken of do not 
 mean the present Apocalypse of John, but in- 
 vented revelations bearing some resemblance to 
 it. We agree with Liicke and De Wette in their 
 view of the meaning, in opposition to Twells, 
 Paulus, Hartwig, and Hug. They refer if rightly 
 to our present book. The 85th of the ‘ Apostolic 
 Canons,’ which are supposed to belong to the 
 fourth century, does not mention the Apocalypse 
 among the apostolic writings. In the £ Constitu- 
 tions ’ also, which probably originated in Syria 
 and the adjacent regions, there is no notice of the 
 book. It has been inferred, from the circumstance 
 of the Apocalypse being wanting in the Peshito, 
 that it did not belong to the canon of the Syrian 
 church. It has also been thought that the theo- 
 logians of the Antiocheuian school, among whom 
 are Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mop- 
 suesfia, omitted it out of the catalogue of ca- 
 nonical writings. But in regard to the first, if we 
 rely on the testimony of Suidas, he received the 
 Apocalypse as divine ; and as to Theodoret, there 
 is no reason for assuming that he rejected it 
 (Liicke, p. 348). Probably Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia did not acknowledge it as divine. It 
 appears also to have been rejected by the theolo- 
 gical school at Nisibis, which may be regarded 
 as a continuation of the Antiochenian. Juuilius 
 does not mention it in his list of prophetic 
 writings. Cyril of Jerusalem has omitted it in 
 his Catecheses ; as also Gregory of Nazianzen, 
 and the 60th canon of the Laodicean Synod. 
 Amphilochius of Iconium says that some re- 
 garded it as a divine production, but that others 
 rejected it. Eusebius’ testimony respecting the 
 Asiatics is, that some rejected the Apocalypse, 
 while others placed it among the acknowledged 
 (bu.oXoyo’ugeva) books. Euthalius, when divid- 
 ing parts of the New Testament stichometrically, 
 says nothing whatever of the book ; and Cosmas 
 Indicopleustes excludes it from the list of the 
 canonical. In like manner Nicephorus, patriarch 
 of Constantinople in the ninth century, appears to 
 have placed it among the Antilegomena. The 
 witnesses already quoted to remove the authorship 
 from John the Apostle do not belong here, although 
 many seem to have entertained the opinion of 
 their present appropriateness. 
 
 At the time of the Reformation, the controversy 
 respecting the Apocalypse was revived. Erasmus 
 speaks suspiciously concerning it, while Luther 
 expresses himself very vehemently against it. 
 
 There are various and abundant reasons,’ says 
 he, ‘ why I regard this book as neither apostolical 
 nor prophetic. First, the apostles do not make use 
 of visions, but prophesy in clear and plain lan- 
 guage (as do Peter, Pau«, and Chuist also, in the 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. G16 
 
 Gospel) ; for it is becoming the apostolic office 
 to speak plainly, and without figure or vision, 
 respecting Christ and his acts. Moreover, it 
 seems to me far too arrogant for him to enjoin it 
 upon his readers to regard this his own work as 
 of more, importance than any other sacred book, 
 and to threaten that if any one shall take aught 
 away from it, God will take away from him his 
 part in the book of life (Rev. xxii. 19). Besides, 
 even were it a blessed thing to believe what is 
 contained in it, no man knows/wlmt that is. The 
 book is believed in (and is really just the same to 
 us) as though we had it not ; and many more 
 valuable books exist for us to believe in. But 
 let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. 
 My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production, 
 and this is reason enough for me why I should not 
 esteem it very highly.’ This reasoning is mani- 
 . festly so inconsequential, and tire style of cri- 
 ticism so bold, as to render animadversion unne 
 cessary. The names of Haffenreffer, Heerbrand, 
 and John Schroder, are obscure, but they are all 
 ranged against the book. With Sender a new 
 opposition to it began. That distinguished critic 
 was unfavourable to its authenticity. He was 
 followed by Qeder, Merkel, Michaelis, Heinrichs, 
 Bretschneider, Ewald, De Wette, Schott, Bleelc, 
 Liicke, Neander, Credner, E. Reuss, Hitzig, 
 Tinius, &c. It should, however, be distinctly 
 observed, that most of these recent critics go no 
 farther than to deny that John the Apostle was 
 the writer; which may certainly be done without 
 impugning its indirectly apostolic authority. 
 They do not exclude it from the canon as a 
 divinely inspired writing; although in attacking 
 its direct apostolicity , some may imagine that 
 they ruin its canonical credit. 
 
 ( b .) We shall now allude to the evidence in 
 favour of its canonicity. The earliest, witness for 
 it is Papias, as we learn from Andreas and 
 Arethas of Cappadocia, in their preface to Com- 
 mentaries on the Apocalypse. According to 
 these writers, Papias regarded it as an inspired 
 book. It. is true that Rettig ( Studien und 
 Kritiken , 1831), followed by Liicke, has endea- 
 voured to weaken their testimony ; but since the 
 
 { mblication, by Cramer, of an old scholion re- 
 ating to the words of Andreas, it is indubitable 
 that Papias’s language refers to the present Apo- 
 calypse of John ('Havernick's Lucubrationes 
 Critical ad Apoc. spectantes, Regiom. 1842, 8vo. 
 No. 1, p. 4, sq.). Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one 
 of the seven apocalyptic churches, wrote a work 
 exclusively on this book. Eusebius thus speaks 
 of his production (Hist. Eccles. iv. 26) : na\ rb 
 irepl rov diafl6\ov ical tt )s diroKaXvrpeus ’I uavvov. 
 From these words Semler endeavours to show 
 that the books concerning the devil and the 
 Apocalypse were one and the same, a conclusion 
 which, if it were valid, would go to weaken the 
 testimony. But Melito calls it the Apocalypse 
 of John, implying that he regarded it as such; 
 for had he suspected the book, Eusebius would 
 hardly have omitted that circumstance. Jerome, 
 in his catalogue of illustrious men, explicitly 
 distinguishes two works, one respecting the devil, 
 the other relative to the Apocalypse. Tneophilus, 
 Bishop of Antioch (Euseb. iv. 24), in his book 
 against Hermogenes, drew many proofs and argu- 
 ments from the Revelation ; so also Apollonius ot 
 Ephesus, according to the same ecclesiastical 
 
620 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 historian (v. 18). The testimony of Irenaeus is 
 most important, because he was in early life ac- 
 quainted with Polycarp, who was John’s disciple, 
 and because he resided in Asia Minor, where 
 John himself abode during the latter part of his 
 life. In one place he says, ‘ It was seen no 
 long time ago, but almost in our age, towards 
 the end of Domitian’s reign while he frequently 
 quotes it elsewhere as the Revelation of John , the 
 disciple of the Lord. It is true that De Wette 
 anu Credner seek to cast suspicion on this father’s 
 testimony, because he states that it was written 
 under Domitian, which they regard as incorrect ; 
 but this point shall be noticed hereafter. To 
 these may be added the testimony of the martyrs 
 at. Lyons, of Nepos (Euseb. vii. 23), Methodius 
 of Tyre, Didymus of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lac- 
 tantius, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil the Great, 
 Epiphanius of Cyprus, Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, 
 Rufinus the presbyter, Isidore of Pelusium, Hilary 
 of Poictou, Cyril of Alexandria, Arethas and An- 
 dreas of Cappadocia, the Synod of Hippo, a.d. 393, 
 canon 36, the Synod of Toledo, a.d. 633, the 
 third council of Carthage, a.d. 397, Victorin of 
 Pettaw in Pannonia, Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 Sulpicius Severus, Joh. Damascenus, CEcume- 
 nius, Amphilochius, Novatus and his followers, 
 the Manich^es, the Donatists, the Arians, the 
 latter Arnobius, Rhaban Maurus, Isidore of Spain, 
 Commodian, and others. 
 
 It has been disputed whether Chrysostom re- 
 jected the book or not. The presumption is in 
 favour of the latter, as Lucke candidly allows. 
 A similar presumption may be admitted in the 
 case of Theodoret, although nothing very decisive 
 can be aflirmed in relation to his opinion. Perhaps 
 some may be inclined to dispute the testimony of 
 Jerome in favour of the canonical authority, 
 because he says in his annotations on the 149th 
 Psalm, ‘ The Apocalypse which is read and 
 receiver! in the churches is not numbered among 
 the apocryphal books, but the ecclesiastical .’ ‘ In 
 the strict sense of the term,’ says Hug, * an 
 ecclesiastica scriptura is a book of only secondary 
 rank. It is well known that a contemporary of 
 Jerome divides the books of the Old and New 
 Testament, together with those which make any 
 pretensions to be such, into canonici , ecclesiastici, 
 et apocryphi. Now if Jerome affixed the same 
 meaning as this writer to the expression liber 
 ecclesiaslicus, we have here a very singular fact. 
 The Latins then placed this book in the second 
 class among the disputed books. Thus it will 
 have been assigned to each of the three classes. 
 But Jerome does not attach to this word the 
 strict signification which it bears with his con- 
 temporary ; for, in his Epistle to Dardanus, he 
 says, “ If the Latins do not receive the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, so, 
 with equal freedom, the Greek churches do not 
 receive John’s Apocalypse. I, however, ac- 
 knowledge both, for I do not follow the custom 
 of the times,, but the authority of older writers, 
 who draw arguments from both, as being 
 canonical and ecclesiastical writings, and not 
 merely as apocryphal books are sometimes used.” 
 Here Jerome has so expressed himself, that we 
 must believe he made no difference between 
 canonical and ecclesiastical, and affixed no 
 stronger signification to the one than to the other’ 
 (Hug’s Introd., tran.dn ;ed by Fosdick pp. 661-2). 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 It is also necessary to attend to the testimony n* 
 Ephrem definitely ascribing the Revelation tn 
 John the Theologian, in connection with th« 
 fact of the book’s absence from the Peshito, aifd 
 from Ebedjesu's catalogue of the books of Scrip- 
 ture received by the Syrians. Certainly its 
 absence from this ancient version does not prove 
 its want of canonicity ; else the same might be 
 affirmed of John’s two epistles, and that of Jude, 
 none of which is found in the same version. 
 Probably the Peshito was made, not., as Lucke 
 and others affirm, at the conclusion of the second 
 or commencement of the third century, but in 
 the first, before the Apocalypse was written. The 
 words of Assemanni, in relation to one of the 
 passages in which Ephrem attributes the Revelation 
 to John, are striking: ‘In hoc sermone citat s. 
 doctor Apocalypsin Johannis tanquam canoni- 
 cam Scripturam — quod ideo notavi, ut constaret 
 Svrorum atitiquissimorum de illius libri aucto- 
 ritate judicium’ (see IlUvernick, p. 8, sq.). 
 That the Syrian church did not reject the book, 
 may be inferred from the fact that the inscription 
 of the current Syriac version assigns it to John 
 the Evangelist. The witnesses already adduced 
 for ascribing the authorship to John the Apostle 
 also belong to the present place, since in attesting 
 the apostolic , they equally uphold the divine 
 origin of the book. 
 
 At the period of the Reformation, Flacius stre- 
 nuously upheld the authority of the Apocalypse, 
 and since his day able defenders of it have not 
 been wanting. Twells, C. F. Schmid, J. F. Reuss, 
 Knittel, Storr, Luderwald, Hartwig, Kleuker, 
 Herder, Donker Curtius, Hanlein, Bertholdt. 
 Eichhorn, Hug, Feilmoser, Kolthoff, Olshausen, 
 J. P. Lange (Tholuck’s Lit. Anzeig. 1838), 
 Dannemann, Havernick ( Evangel . Kirchenzeit , 
 1834, and Lucub. Critical), Guerike, Schnitzer 
 {Allgem. Liter aturzeit. 1841), Zeller ( Deutsche 
 Jahrb., 1841), and others. Most of these writers 
 seem to rest all the credit and authority of t.h« 
 book on the fact of its being written by John the 
 Apostle, while one or two of the later critics 
 attribute it to the apostle, for the sake of inva- 
 lidating and ruining the fourth Gospel. The 
 external evidence in favour of its authenticity 
 and genuineness is overwhelming. This is par- 
 ticularly the case in regard to the Latin church. 
 In the Greek, doubts were more prevalent, until 
 they were lost in the dark night, of the middle 
 ages. Montanism first aroused and drew atten- 
 tion to the question, for the adherents of that false 
 system based their tenets almost exclusively on 
 the Revelation. Hence we may account in some 
 degree for the sentiments of Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria, who contended against the millennarian 
 Nepos. 
 
 Thus the general tenor of the external evidence 
 is clearly in favour of the canonical authority, 
 while internal circumstances amply confirm it. 
 The style, language, and manner of the book, 
 cannot be mistaken. In dignity and sublimity 
 it is equal to any of the New Testament writings, 
 if not superior to them all. The variety and 
 force of the images impress the mind of every 
 reader with conceptions of a divine origin. 
 Surely no uninspired man could have written ifn 
 such a strain. 
 
 III. The time and place at which it was 
 written. — In ascertaining these points there ia 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 conaitbrable difficulty. The prevalent opinion 
 is, that the hook was written a.d. 96 or 97, at 
 Patmos or Ephesus, after Domitian's death, i. e. 
 under Nerva. So Mill, Le Clerc, Basnage, 
 Lardner, Woodhouse, and others. This is sup- 
 posed to be in accordance with the tradition, that 
 John was sent into Patmos towards the end of 
 Domitian’s reign, and that he there received the 
 Revelation, agreeably to the statement in ch. i. 9. 
 The fact that John was banished to Patmos is 
 attested by antiquity, and seems to be hinted 
 at in ver. 9, in which we must believe, in 
 opposition to Neander, that there is a necessary 
 reference to sufferings on account of the Gospel. 
 It is mentioned by Irenseus, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. 
 The time, however, is very differently stated. Eu- 
 sebius and. Jerome attribute the exile to Domitian ; 
 the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, Theophy- 
 lact, and the younger Hippolytus, assign it to 
 Nero ; Epiphanius to Claudius ; while Tertullian, 
 Clement, and Origen, give it no name. It has 
 been conjectured that Domitius (Nero) and 
 Domitian were early interchanged, and that even 
 he testimony of Iren sens refers rather to Domi- 
 tius (Nero) than to Domitian. The following 
 is the passage in question ; ouSe yap irpb ttoAXov 
 XpAvov ewpdQr], aWa crxeSbj' 67 rl r rjs fiperepas 
 yeveas, npos tm TeXet rrjs Aopenavov apxv s 
 ( Advers . Hcer. lib. v. p. 449, ed. Grabe). If 
 A openavov be an adjective formed from the 
 substantive A openos, it will mean ‘ belonging to 
 Domitius’ (seeGuerike, Historisch-Krit. Einleit. 
 pp. 285, 6). But whatever plausibility there be 
 in this conjecture (and there seems to be none), 
 the language of Tertullian, Clement, and Origen, 
 is more appropriate to Nero than to Domitian. 
 Besides, if Peter and Paul suffered from the 
 cruel tyrant, it is difficult to conceive how 
 John could have eluded notice or persecution. 
 Indeed early ecclesiastical tradition is as favour- 
 able to the assumption that John was sent into 
 banishment by Nero, as it is to the opinion that 
 he was exiled by Domitian. Thus Eusebius, 
 who in his Chronicon and Ecclesiastical History 
 follows Irenseus, in his Demon. Evangel., asso- 
 ciates the Patmos-exile with the death of Peter 
 and Paul who suffered under Nero. But we 
 are not left to external grounds on the question 
 before us, else the decision might be uncertain ; 
 for the tradition of the early church in regard to 
 the banishment of John is neither consistent nor 
 valuable : it will not stand the test of modern 
 criticism. Hence the view of those who think 
 that it was manufactured solely from chap. i. 9, 
 is exceedingly probable. Taken from such an 
 origin, it was shaped in various ways. The 
 passage in question certainly implies that John 
 bad been a sufferer for the Gospel’s sake, and 
 that he either withdrew to Patmos before the 
 fury of persecution burst upon him, or that he 
 was compelled to betake himself to that lonely 
 island in consequence of positive opposition. 
 The language of the fathers in x-ecording this 
 tradition also shows, that they did not carefully 
 distinguish between the time of writing the 
 visions and the time when they were received. 
 Sometimes it is said that the Apocalypse was 
 written in Patmos, but much more frequently it 
 is simply stated that revelations were there made 
 to the seer. 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 62 x 
 
 In the absence of definite external evidence, 
 internal circumstances come to our aid. These 
 show that Jerusalem had not been destroyed. 
 Had such a catastrophe already happened, it 
 would scarcely have been left unnoticed. An 
 event pregnant with momentous consequences to 
 the cause of truth and the fortunes of the early 
 church, would most probably have been men- 
 tioned or referred to. But there are distinct re- 
 ferences to the impending destruction of the city. 
 In chap. xi. 1, it is commanded to measure the 
 temple, obviously pre-supposing that it still 
 stood. In verse 2, the holy city is about to be 
 trodden by the Gentiles forty-two months ; and 
 in the 13th verse of the same chapter, the same 
 event is also noticed. Besides, the sixth emperor 
 was still sitting on the throne when the writer 
 was favoured with the visions (xvii. 10). Five 
 kings or emperors had already fallen, one was 
 then reigning, and the other had not come. The 
 most natural interpretation of the sixth king is 
 that which, beginning the series with Julius 
 Caesar, fixes upon Nero : so Bertholdt and 
 Koehler. Galba is of course the seventh, and 
 agreeably to the prophecy he reigned but seven 
 months. That such was the usual mode of com- 
 putation, Koehler has attempted successfully to 
 show from the fourth book of Ezra and Josephus's 
 Antiquities ; which is confirmed by Suetonius’s 
 Twelve Caesars, and by the Sibylline oracles, fifth 
 book.* W e are aware that Eichhorn reckons from 
 Augustus, and makes the sixth Vespasian — Otho. 
 Galba, and Vitellius being passed over ; anil 
 that Ewald, Liicke, and others, beginning also 
 with Augustus, make Galba the sixth, the em- 
 peror ‘ that is ;’ but it was contrary to the usua' 
 method of reckoning among the Jews and Romans 
 to commence with that emperor. Yet the opinion 
 that the sixth emperor was Nero, is liable to objec- 
 tion. The 8th and 1 1th verses appear to contradict 
 it, for they state that ‘ he was, and is not.'' It will 
 be observed that in these verses an explanation re- 
 specting the beast is given, couched in the language 
 of current report. The words amount to this — 
 ‘ The beast which thou sawest is the emperor, of 
 whom it is commonly believed that he shall be 
 assassinated, recover from the wound, go to the 
 East, and return from it to desolate the church 
 and inflict terrible punishments on his enemies 
 Nero is described, according to the common 
 belief — a belief that prevailed before his death.' 
 In chap. xiii. 3, it is not implied that Nero ivas 
 then dead, for the holy seer beheld things a 
 p eAXer yeueadai as well as things a den; and the 
 passage is descriptive of a vision , not explana- 
 tory of one previously pourtrayed. We conclude, 
 therefore, that the apostle saw the visions during 
 the reign of the bloody and cruel Nero. Still, 
 however, he may have written the book not at 
 Patmos, but immediately after his return to 
 Ephesus, if so be that he did return thither before 
 Nero ceased to live. It has been inferred that 
 the book was written after he had been in 
 Patmos, because kyev&ppv is used in chap. i. 
 9, 10. The use of this tense, however, by 
 no means militates against the view of those wlio 
 assert that he wrote as well as saw the visions in 
 Patmos, and consequently does not prove that 
 
 * See Liicke’s objections to this view, which 
 cannot be refuted here, at p. 251, notes 1 and 2. 
 
822 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 the book was written at Ephesus. The verb in 
 ver. 10 may aptly refer to the commencement of 
 that ecstatic state into which he was thrown lor 
 the purpose of receiving mysterious disclosures— 
 to the time when lie first began to be kv irrevpan ; 
 and in ver. 9 it may in like manner allude to 
 the commencement of his exile. In view of all 
 circumstances we are inclined to assume that 
 the Apocalypse was written during the reign of 
 Nero, when persecution had commenced , as many 
 passages imply, and, therefore, at Patmos. It 
 •weighs nothing with us that Eichhorn, Bleek, and 
 De Wette conjecturally assume that the place 
 mentioned in i. 9 may be a poetical fiction: 
 even Ewald opposes such a thought. 
 
 Before leaving this subject it is necessary to 
 glance at the circumstances supposed to show 
 th it the book was not written till after Nero’s 
 death. Tire general expectation of his return 
 (xvii. 11), and the allusions to the persecutions 
 of Christians under him (vi. 9 ; xvii. 6), as also 
 the pre-supposed fact of most of the apostles 
 being dead (xviii. 20), are stated by De Wette. 
 But in xvii. 11, the apostle merely describes 
 Nero according to the common report — a report 
 current before his death, the substance of which 
 was, that after reigning a while he should appear 
 again, and make an eighth, though one of the 
 seven. The passages, vi. 9 and xvii. 6, allude to 
 different events, the former to the souls of the 
 martyrs that had been slain by the Jeios , the 
 latter to the persecutions of imperial Rome 
 generically. According to the right reading of 
 xviii. 20, it does not imply that most of the 
 apostles were already dead. 
 
 In conformity with the testimony of Irenaeus, 
 ■understood in the ordinary acceptation, it has been 
 very generally believed that the book was written 
 under Domitian, a.d. 96 or 97. But the vague 
 report of the apostle’s banishment, current among 
 early writers in different and varying forms, 
 must not be allowed to set aside internal evidence, 
 especially the clearly-defined chronological ele- 
 ments of the xi. and xvii. chapters. 
 
 The arguments adduced in favour of Domi- 
 tian ’s reign are the following : — 
 
 1. Nero’s persecution did not reach the pro- 
 vinces. 2. The Nicolaitans did not form a sect 
 when the book was written, although they are 
 spoken of as such. 3. The condition of the 
 seven churches, as pourtrayed in the Apocalypse, 
 shows that they had been planted a considerable 
 time. 4. Mention is made of the martyr Antipas 
 at Pergamos, who could not have suffered death 
 in Nero’s reign, because the persecution did not 
 reach the provinces (Lenfant and Beausobre’s 
 Preface sur I'Apoc. de S. Jean , pp. 613-14; 
 and Vitringa, in Apoc ., cap. i. v. 2, p. 9-11). 
 
 1. In order to account for John’s banishment 
 to Patmos, it is not needful to believe that the 
 spirit of persecution raged at Ephesus. While 
 it was so active at Rome, we may \ airly infer 
 that the Christians in the provinces trembled for 
 their safety. Whatever affected the capital so 
 fearfully, would naturally affect the distant parts 
 of the empire to a greater or less extent; and 
 John’s retirement to Patmos does not necessarily 
 pre-suppose the horrors of fire and sword. The 
 storm was seen to lower; the heathen magistrates, 
 a3 well as the Jews, put forth their enmity in 
 various forms, even when the edicts of emperor* 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 forbade violence to the persons of Christians, and 
 the apostle in consequence withdrew for a time 
 from the scene of his labours. 
 
 2. The most probable interpretation is, that 
 Nicolaitans is a symbolic name signifying cor 
 rupters of the people , equivalent to Balaam in 
 Hebrew. It is true that Irenaeus speaks of such 
 a sect in his time, deriving the appellation from 
 the deacon Nicolaus (Acts ii.), and representing 
 the allusion in the Apocalypse as belonging to it. 
 The sect called the Nicolaitans, spoken of by 
 Clement, is probably not the same as that men- 
 tioned in the Apocalypse (Neander, Kirchcnge&ch 
 
 1. 2, p. 775, sq.). 
 
 3. A close examination of the language ad- 
 dressed to each of the seven churches will show 
 that it may have been appropriate in the year of 
 our Lord 68. It does not by any means imply 
 that there had been an open persecution in the 
 provinces. About a.d. 61 the church of Ephesua 
 is commended by Paul for their faith and lov< 
 (Eph. i. 15), which is quite consistent with Rev. ii 
 
 2, 3 ; while both are in agreement with the censure 
 that the members had left their first love. In the 
 lapse of a very few years, and especially in trying 
 circumstances, the ardour of their love had cooled 
 The patience for which they are oc mmended re- 
 fers, as the context shows, to the temptation? 
 which they suffered from wicked and corrupting 
 teachers, and the difficulties attendant upon th* 
 faithful exercise of discipline ?n the church 
 Similar was the case with the church at Smyrna 
 their tribulation having chief reference to th. 
 blasphemy of Satan’s synagogue. 
 
 4. In regard to Antipas nothing is known 
 He suffered at Pergamos, but under what empo- 
 ror, or in what circumstances, is uncertain. It 
 is not at all necessary to our hypothesis to assume 
 that he was put to death during Nero's perse- 
 cution. Individual Christians were put to dead, 
 even in the provinces before the time of Ne;c. 
 On the whole, we see no good ground for belifv 
 ing that the book was written in the time c 
 Claudius, or Galba, or Vespasian, or Domitian, 
 or Trajan, or Adrian, though all these have been 
 advocated ; nor is there sufficient reason for sepa- 
 rating the time of the writing from that of the 
 receiving of the visions. In view of all circum- 
 stances we assign it to the time of Nero, and the 
 locality of Patmos, A.D. 67 or 68. Sir Isaac 
 Newton long ago fixed upon the same date. 
 
 IV. Unity of the book. — A few writers have 
 thought that the Apocalypse was written at differ- 
 ent times by the same author, as Grotius, Ham- 
 mond, and Bleek ; or by different authors, as 
 Vogel. Such dismemberment h now abandoned. 
 Even De Wette allows that no rearouable doubts 
 can be entertained of its unity. The entire book 
 is so regular in its structure, so intimately con- 
 nected is one paragraph with another, that all 
 must have proceeded from the same writer. If 
 the nature of prophetic perspective be rightly un- 
 derstood, all will appear to be natural and easy. 
 John saw things past, present, and future at once. 
 He did not need to wait for the progress of events 
 • — for events were presented to his vision just as 
 the Spirit willed. Hence the present tense is so 
 much used in place of the future. The hypotheses 
 of Grotius, Vogel, and Bleek, have been refuted 
 by Liicke ; and that of Hammond requires not 
 now the like examination. 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 V. The class of writings to which it belongs. 
 • — Pareus seems to have bee<n th i first who started 
 the idea of its being a dramatic poem. The 
 same opinion was also expressed by Hartwig. But 
 the genius of Eichhorn wrought out the sugges- 
 tion into a theory pervaded by great symmetry 
 and beauty. Hence the opinion that it forms a 
 regular dramatic poem is associated with his 
 name alone. According to him the divisions 
 are : 1. The title, chap. i. 1-3. 2. The pro- 
 
 logue, i. 4 — iii. 22. 3. The drama, iv. 1 — xxii. 5. 
 Act 1. The capture of Jerusalem, or the triumph 
 of Christianity over Judaism, vii. 6 — xii. 17. 
 Act 2. The capture of Rome, or the triumph of 
 Christianity over Paganism, xii. 18 — xx. 10. 
 Act 3. The new Jerusalem descends from heaven, 
 or the felicity which is to endure for ever, xx. 11 — 
 xxii. 5. 4. The epilogue, xxii. 6-21 ; (a) of the 
 
 angel, xxii. 6; (b) of Jesus, xxii. 7-16; (c) ot 
 John, xxii. 16-20. The apostolical benediction, 
 xxii. 21. 
 
 As this theory is now abandoned by all exposi- 
 tors, it needs no refutation. It is exceedingly 
 ingenious, but without foundation. To represent 
 the book as made up of little else than sublime 
 scenery and fiction, is contrary to the analogy 
 of such Old Testament writings as bear to it 
 the greatest resemblance. Something more is 
 intended than a symbolic description of the tri- 
 umph of Christianity over Judaism and Pagan- 
 ism. The book contains historic narrative. It 
 exhibits real prophecies, which must have had 
 their accomplishment in distinct events and indi- 
 viduals. It consists of a prophetic poem. Its 
 diction is, with some exceptions, the diction of 
 poetry. It is not made up of a series of disjointed 
 visions ; it is regular in its structure and artificial 
 in its arrangement. According to the rules of 
 rhetoric, it nearly approaches an epopee. Those 
 who thoroughly examine it with a view to dis- 
 cover the arrangement and connection of parts 
 will observe unity and artificiality in the dispo- 
 sition of the whole. It bears an analogy to the 
 prophetic writings of the Old Testament, espe- 
 cially to those of Daniel. It is obvious, there- 
 fore, that a deep and thorough study of the Old 
 Testament prophets should precede the study of 
 the Apocalypse. If it bear a close resemblance 
 in many of its features to the inspired productions 
 of a former dispensation; if the writer evidently 
 imitated the utterances of Daniel, Ezekiel and 
 Zechariab ; if his language be more Hebraistic 
 than that of the New Testament generally, the 
 interpreter of the book should be previously qua- 
 lified by a familiar acquaintance with the sym- 
 bols, imagery, diction, and spirit of the Old Tes- 
 tament poets and prophets. 
 
 d I. The object for which it was originally 
 icritten.— The books of the New Testament, like 
 those of the Old, were designed to promote the in- 
 struction of God’s people in all ages. They were 
 adapted to teach, exhort, and reprove ail man- 
 kind. They do not belong to the class of ephe- 
 meral writings that have long since fulfilled the 
 purpose for which they were originally composed. 
 Their object was riot merely a local or partial 
 one. So of the Apocalypse. It is suited to all. 
 ‘ Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear 
 the words of this prophecy.’ But this general 
 characteristic is perfectly consistent with the fact 
 tn&l it arose out of specific circumstances, and 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. m 
 
 was primarily meant to subserve a definite end. 
 When first written, it was destined to suit the 
 peculiar circumstances of the early Christians. 
 The times were troublous. Persecution had ap- 
 peared in various forms. The followers of Christ 
 were exposed to severe sufferings for conscience 
 sake. Their enemies were fierce against them. 
 Comparatively few and feeble, the humble dis- 
 ciples of the Lamb seemed doomed to extinction. 
 But the writer of the Apocalypse was prompted 
 to present to them such views as were adapted to 
 encourage them to steadfastness in the faith — to 
 comfort them in the midst of calamity — and to 
 arm them with resolution to endure all the as- 
 saults of their foes. Exalted honours, glorious 
 rewards, are set before the Christian soldier who 
 should endure to the end. A crown of victory — 
 the approbation of the Redeemer — everlasting 
 felicity ; — these are prepared for the patient be- 
 liever. In connection with such representations, 
 the final triumph of Christianity and the Mes- 
 siah’s peaceful reign with his saints, form topics 
 on which the writer dwells with emphatic earnest- 
 ness (See chap. i. 1-3; ii. 1; iii. 22; xxii. 6, 
 7, 10-17). The suffering Christians of primitive 
 times may have sorrowfully thought that they 
 should never be able to stand the shock of their 
 bitter and bloody assailants, the power and policy 
 of the world being leagued against them— but 
 the statements of the writer all tend to the 
 conclusion that truth should make progress in 
 the earth, and the church, emerging out of all 
 struggles, wax stronger and stronger. If such be 
 the primary and principal aim of the book, it 
 follows that we should not look in it for a history 
 of the kingdoms of the world. To compose a 
 civil history did not comport with the writer’s 
 object. The genius of Christ’s kingdom is totally 
 different from that of the kingdoms of the world. 
 It advances steadily and silently, independently of, 
 and frequently in opposition to them. Hence the 
 Apocalypse cannot contain a history of the world. 
 It exhibits a history of the church , specially of 
 its early struggles with the powers of darkness 
 and the malice of superstition. This last remark 
 leads to another of chief importance to the inter- 
 preter of the book before us, viz., that it pinci- 
 pally relates to events past, present, and speedily 
 to happen in connection, with the Christian reli- 
 gion as viewed from the writer’s stand-point. 
 The glances at the past are brief, but references 
 to the circumstances of tne church at the time 
 are numerous and diversified, while rapidly 
 coming catastrophes and triumphs are pourtrayed 
 in full and vivid colours. Trials impending 
 over the church, and judgments over her enemh s, 
 in the time of the apostle, — these form the burden 
 of the prophecy. This conclusion is fully sus- 
 tained both by the prologue and epilogue, although, 
 strange to say, it has been overlooked by the ma- 
 jority of expositors. What language can be more 
 explicit than this: ‘Blessed is he that readeth, 
 and they that hear the words of this prophecy, 
 for the time is at hand.'' ‘ The revelation of 
 Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show 
 unto his servants things which must shortly come 
 to pass.* ‘ He which testifieth these things sairh, 
 Surely I come quickly . Amen, even so, come 
 Lord Jesus.’ 
 
 VII. Its contents. — The body of the work is 
 contained in chaps, iv.-xxii. 6, and is almost 
 
624 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 entirely a series of symbolic representations. To 
 this is prefixed a prologue (i.-iv). A brief epi- 
 logue is subjoined (xxii. 6-21)., The prologue is 
 of considerable length, embracing separate epistles 
 to the seven churches in Asia Minor. John had 
 lived and laboured for a time in the region where 
 these churches were planted. Probably he was 
 personally known to many of the believers of 
 which they were com}H)sed. Now that the other 
 apostles were dispersed or dead, the care of them 
 devolved upon himself. As their spiritual super- 
 intendent, he naturally felt the most intense and 
 lively interest in their growing prosperity and 
 steadfastness in the faith. The storm of persecu- 
 tion had fallen upon the apostles and believers at 
 Rome, striking fear into their brethren in the re- 
 mote provinces of the empire. It is highly pro- 
 bable, from other sources, that the Christians in 
 these regions had been already visited with such 
 trials (see 1st Ep. of Peter). After the prologue 
 or introduction, which is peculiarly fitted to ad- 
 monish and console amid suffering, we come to 
 the body of the work itself, commencing with the 
 fourth chapter. This may be appropriately di- 
 vided into three parts: (1.) iv.-xi. ; (2.) xii.-xix.; 
 (3.) xx.-xxii. o. The first narrates the fortunes 
 and fate of Christ’s followers to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, when the coining of the Saviour took 
 place. Here the triumph of Christianity over 
 Judaism is exhibited, as the conclusion demon- 
 strates. The following particulars are comprised 
 in this portion. 
 
 A vision of the divine glory in heaven, ana- 
 logous to the vision which Isaiah had, as re- 
 corded in the 6th chapter of his prophecies. 
 An account of the sealed book, with seven seals, 
 which none but the Lamb could open; and the 
 praises of the Lamb sung by the celestial inha- 
 bitants. The opening of the first six seals. Before 
 the opening of the seventh, 44,000 are sealed out 
 of the tribes of the children of Israel, and an 
 innumerable multitude with palms in their hands 
 are seen before the throne. After the opening of 
 the seventh, the catastrophe is delayed by the 
 sounding of seven trumpets, the first six of which 
 cause great plagues and hasten on the judgment. 
 Yet, before the last trumpet sounds, a mighty 
 angel, with a rainbow round his head, appears 
 with an open book in his hand, announcing that 
 the mystery of God should be finished when the 
 seventh angel should begin to sound. On this 
 he gives the book to the seer, commanding him to 
 eat it up, and to prophesy hereafter concerning 
 many people, countries, and kings. After this the 
 interior of the temple, with its Jewish worshippers, 
 is measured by the prophet, while the outer court 
 is excepted and given over to the heathen for the 
 grace of forty-two mouths. But, notwithstanding 
 the long-suffering mercy of God, the Jews con- 
 tinue to persecute the faithful witnesses, so that 
 they are punished by the fall of a tenth part of 
 the holy city in an earthquake. Hence 7000 men 
 perish, and the remainder, affrighted, give glory 
 to God. After this the seventh angel sounds, and 
 the Lord aj>pears, to inflict the final blow on 
 Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The catastrophe 
 takes place ; the heavenly choir gives thanks to 
 God for the victory of Christianity ; and the 
 temple of God is opened in heaven, so that he is 
 accessible to all, being disclosed to the view of 
 toe whole earth as their God. without the inter - 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 vention of priest or solemnity, as in the abrogated 
 economy. Tims the Jewish ritual is done away; 
 the Jews as a nation of persecutors are destroyed ; 
 and free scope is given to the new religion. 
 
 This portion, therefore, of the prophetic book 
 depicts the downfall of Jerusalem, and the triumph 
 of Christianity over Judaism. The Son of Man 
 came in fearful majesty to punish the guilty 
 nation, as had been predicted. 
 
 We are aware that some deny the existence of 
 a catastrophe in the 11th chapter. Schott says 
 that it is procrastinated, although the reader here 
 expects it. But Grotius long ago saw the point 
 in its true light, and remarked : ‘Solet apostolus 
 mala gravia brevibus verbis, sed ellicacibus prse- 
 tervehi, bona eloqui liberal iter.’ 
 
 The 24th chapter of Matthew, with the corre- 
 sponding paragraphs of the other two Gospels, 
 treats of the same subject, though in much briefej 
 compass. It may be regarded as the ground- 
 work of chaps, iv.-xi. of the Apocalypse, and 
 should be carefully compared by the interpreter. 
 
 The second division, chaps, xii.-xix., depicts 
 the sufferings inflicted on the church by the 
 heathen Roman power, and the triumph of Chris- 
 tianity over this formidable enemy also. Here 
 the writer has special reference to the cruel Nero, 
 as ch. xvii. 10, 11, which can only be consistently 
 interpreted of him , demonstrates. This part com- 
 mences with a description of the Saviour’s birth, 
 who is represented as springing from the theocracy 
 or theocratic church, and of Satan’s malignity 
 against him. Cast out of heaven by Michael and 
 the good angels, Satan turns his rage upon the 
 followers of Christ on earth. Hitherto there is no 
 account of the Romish persecuting power; and it 
 is an inquiry worthy of attention, why John com- 
 mences with the birth of the Saviour and Satan's 
 opposition to the early church, thus reverting to 
 a period prior to that which had been gone over 
 already. Why does not the seer carry on the 
 series of symbolic predictions from the destruction 
 of the Jewish power? Why does he not commence 
 at the point where, in the preceding chapter, he 
 had left off? The question is not easily answered. 
 It cannot well be doubted that the brief notice of 
 the Saviour’s birth, and of Satan’s unsuccessful 
 attempt upon heaven and the holy child, is merely 
 introductory to the proper subject. Perhaps John 
 carries the reader back to the origin of Chris- 
 tianity, when Satan was peculiarly active, in 
 order to link his malignant opposition as embodied 
 in the persecuting violence of heathen Rome, to 
 his unceasing attacks upon the truth even from 
 the very birth of Christ. This would serve to 
 keep up in the reader's recollection the memory 
 of Satan’s past opposition to religion, and also 
 prepare for a readier apprehension of symbols 
 descriptive of his further malevolence. The second 
 part therefore begins, properly speaking, with the 
 13th chapter, the I2th being simply preparatory. 
 
 A beast rises out of the sea with seven heads 
 and ten horns. To it the dragon gives power. 
 The heathen power of Rome, aided by Satan, 
 makes war upon the saints arid overcomes them. 
 Presently another beast appears to assist the 
 former, with two horns, as a lamb, but speaking 
 as a dragon. This latter symbolizes the heathen 
 priests assisting the civil power in its attempts to 
 crush the Saviour’s adherents. Then comes t!w 
 vision of the Lamb and the 144.000 elect i* 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 Mount Sion. Doubtless this vision is introduced, 
 at the present place to sustain and elevate the 
 hopes of the struggling Christians during the 
 dominance of this power. Such as had passed 
 triumphant through the fiery trials sing a new 
 song of victory, in the undisturbed possession of 
 everlasting happiness. Three angels are now in- 
 troduced with proclamations of the speedy down- 
 fall of heathenism, and of divine judgments on 
 the persecuting power. The first announces that 
 the everlasting Gospel should be preached; the 
 second, that the great city Rome is fallen. The 
 third speaks of tremendous judgments that should 
 befall those who apostatized to heathenism ; while, 
 on the other hand, a voice from heaven proclaims 
 the blessedness of such as die in the Lord. But 
 the final catastrophe is yet delayed : it is not fully 
 come. The Saviour again appears sitting on a 
 white cloud, with a sharp sickle in his hand. 
 Three angels also appear with sickles, and the 
 harvest is reaped. The catastrophe rapidly ap- 
 proaches. Seven angels are seen with seven vials, 
 which are successively poured out on the seat of 
 the beast. The first six are represented as tor- 
 menting and weakening the Roman power in 
 different ways, until it should be overthrown. 
 At last the seventh angel discharges his vial of 
 wrath, and heaven resounds with the cry, It is 
 done, while voices, thunders, lightnings, and a 
 mighty earthquake, conspire to heighten the terror 
 and complete the catastrophe. Rome is divided 
 into three parts ; the cities of the heathen fall ; 
 the islands flee away, and the mountains sink. 
 Men, tormented, blaspheme Gnd. After this, the 
 destruction of the Romish power is described more 
 particularly. The writer enters into detail. An 
 angel takes the seer to show him more closely the 
 desolation of the church's enemy. The Roman 
 power then reigning is indicated somewhat myste- 
 riously, though in such a way as would be intel- 
 ligible to the Christians whom John addressed. 
 This power is embodied and personified in Nero, 
 who, though. not named, is yet not obscurely de- 
 signated. He is the beast ‘ that was, and is not, 
 and yet is.’ ‘The srory that Nero was not really 
 dead, but had retired to the Euphrates, and would 
 return again from thence, appears here move fully 
 delineated by a Christian imagination. He is the 
 monster to whom Satan gave all his power, who 
 returns as Antichrist and the destroyer of Rome, 
 who will force all to worship his image. The 
 Roman empire at that time is set forth as the 
 representative of heathenism, and of ungodly 
 power personified ; and in this connection, under 
 the image of the beast with seven beads (the seven 
 emperors which would succeed one another till 
 the appearance of Antichrist), Nero is signified 
 as one of these heads (xiii. 3), which appeared 
 dead, but whose deadly wound was healed, c $p 
 that to universal astonishment he appeared alive 
 again. Nero, re-appearing after it had been be- 
 lieved that he was dead, is the beast ‘ which was, 
 and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless 
 pit — and yetis’ (Rev. xvii. 8), (Neander, History 
 of the Planting and Training of the Christian 
 Church, translated by Ryland, vol. ii. p. 58, 
 note). After this, Babylon or the Roman power, 
 is represented as fallen, and the few remaining 
 believers are exhorted to depart out of her. A 
 mighty angel casts a great stone into the sea, an 
 emblem of the min of that power. At the cata- 
 
 YOL. II. 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 624 
 
 stropht heaven resounds with praises. The mar- 
 riage supper of the Lamb is announced, and the 
 church is permitted to array herself in fine linen. 
 But the destruction is not yet completed. Another 
 act in the great drama remains. A battle is to be 
 fought with the combined powers of the empire. 
 Heaven opens. The conqueror on the white horse 
 appears again, and an angel calls upon the fowls 
 to come and eat the flesh of the Lord’s enemies, 
 for the victory is certain. Accordingly, the beast 
 and the false prophet are taken and cast alive into 
 the lake of fire and brimstone. The congregated 
 hosts are slain by the word of the Redeemer. 
 Such is the second great catastrophe, the fall of 
 the persecuting heathen power — the triumph of 
 Christianity over paganism. 
 
 The third leading division of the book reaches 
 from ch. xx. to xxii. 6, inclusive. This is the 
 only portion that stretches to a period far remote 
 from the time of the writer. It is added to com- 
 plete the delineation of Christ’s kingdom on earth. 
 Though his main design was accomplished in the 
 preceding chapters, John was reluctant, so to speak, 
 to leave the sublime theme without glancing at 
 distant times, when the triumphs of righteousness 
 should be still more marked and diffusive, when 
 Satan’s power should be remarkably restrained, 
 and the last great conflict of heathen and anti- 
 christian power with the Redeemer should ter- 
 minate for ever the church’s existence on earth : 
 ushering in the general judgment, the everlasting 
 woe of the wicked, and the glorified state of the 
 righteous. Here the writer’s sketches are brief 
 and rapid. But when we consider the place in 
 which they are introduced, the inconceivable na- 
 ture of the happiness referred to, and the ten- 
 dency of minds the most Christianized to attach 
 sensuous ideas to figures descriptive of everlasting 
 misery and endless felicity, their brevity is amply 
 justified. A glorious period now commences, but 
 how long after the preceding events is not affirmed. 
 That a considerable interval may be assumed we 
 deduce from the description itself. Satan is 
 bound, or his influences restrained, a thousand 
 years, throughout the seat of the beast. Chiis- 
 tianity is spread abroad and prevails in the Roman 
 empire. But after the thousand years are expired, 
 Satan is set free and begins again to practise his 
 deceptions. He incites Gog and Magog to battle. 
 The camp of the saints and the beloved city are 
 invaded by the assembled hosts. But fire from 
 heaven devours the adversaries, while the devil 
 is again taken and cast into the lake of fire. 
 After this (how long is unknown) comes the 
 general resurrection, the last judgment, and the 
 doom of the wicked. For the righteous a new 
 heaven and a new earth are prepared, in which 
 they shall be perfectly free from sin and cor- 
 ruption. With this the visions end, and an 
 epilogue closes up the book. 
 
 Froq^ the preceding outline it will be seen that 
 the body of the work consists of three leading 
 divisions, in which are pourtrayed the proceedings 
 of God towards the Jews ; the rise and progress of 
 the Christian church, till through much struggling 
 it possessed the Roman empire, partly by convert- 
 ing and partly destroying the heathen ; the mil- 
 lennium, succeeded by the resurrection and judg- 
 ment, and the glorious felicity of the saints in the 
 heavenly Jerusalem. 
 
 In this summary view of the contents, it has 
 
•25 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 been found inconvenient to introduce any filing 
 iu the way of exposition beyond general re narks 
 and hints. As to diversities of sentiment in regard 
 to the interpretation of ditVerent portions, our limits 
 will not admit of their statement, much less an 
 examination of their respective merit. 
 
 In opposition to the majority of German writers, 
 as Bleek, Schott, Liicke, Ewald, De Wette, and 
 others, the existence of a catastrophe at the ter- 
 ruination of the 11th chapter has been assumed. 
 A primary reason for so doing is the mention of 
 great thunderings (voices) in heaven (xi. 15), 
 which are always the emblems of fearful judg- 
 ments. Accordingly, in the parallel phrase 
 (x. 3), it is said that seven thunders uttered their 
 voices, denoting the signal and complete blow 
 about to be inflicted on Jerusalem — the destruc- 
 tion consummated in the third anil last woe 
 (xi. 14). In like manner, at the destruction of 
 heathen Rome there were ‘ voices and thunders 
 and lightnings’ (xvi. 18). It were useless to re- 
 count the different expositions of cli. xvii. 10. 
 We have adopted the only one that appears to 
 be tenable in connection with tiie surrounding 
 context. Lucke's view is the most plausible, 
 and has therefore gained the assent of Neander, 
 Reuss, and others. Hug's must be regarded as 
 unfortunate. 
 
 The position of the Millennium is a matter of 
 great difficulty. Professor Bush contends that it 
 should be regarded as commencing somewhere 
 between a.d. 395 and a.d. 450, and terminating 
 not far from the capture of Constantinople by the 
 Turks, a.d. 1453. Not very dissimilar is the 
 opinion of Hammond, viz., that the period in 
 question reaches from Constantine’s edict in 
 favour of Christianity to the planting of Moham- 
 medanism in Greece by Othman. In either case 
 the Millennium is past. 
 
 To the hypothesis so ably supported by Bush 
 we hesitate to accede, because the description 
 given in the 20th chapter is extravagantly figu- 
 rative as appropriated to any period of the church's 
 history already past; and also because his in- 
 terpretation of the dragon appears inconsistent 
 with the second verse of the 20th chapter. Ac- 
 cording to this ingenious writer, the dragon is the 
 mystic name of Paganism in its leading cha- 
 racter of idolatry and despotism combined, an 
 hypothesis apparently countenanced by the 12th 
 chapter, which the reader is requested to examine. 
 But it. will be observed, tli.it in the 20th chapter, 
 the beast and the false prophet are expressly dis- 
 tinguished from the dragon; so that by the dragon 
 Satan alone must be meant as distinct from the 
 civil and ecclesiastical power of heathen imperial 
 Rome. The beast had been already cast into 
 the lake before Satan was thrown into the same 
 place, and by the former is obviously meant the 
 civil despotism of Paganism. 
 
 In regard to the period described in Rev. xxi., 
 xxii., denoted by the new heavens and the new 
 earth , we are quite aware of the opinion main- 
 tained ry Hammond, Hug, Bush, and others, 
 viz., that it comprises an earthly flourishing 
 state of the church. Yet we must freely confess, 
 notwithstanding the very aide manner in which 
 it has been advocated by Bush, that there is a 
 degree of unsatisfactori ness about it. The paral- 
 lelism instituted between John’s description and 
 Isaiah liv. 11, 12; lx. 3-11 ; lxv. 17, 18, 19, 20, 
 
 REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 is striking, but not demonstrative of that for whicl* 
 it is instituted. The imagery indeed is substan- 
 tially the same, and probably the New Testa- 
 ment, seer imitated Isaiah; but the si rain of tbs 
 former rises far higher than the sublime vision 
 depicted by the ancient prophet. 
 
 VIII. Some errors into which the expounder* 
 of the book have fallen. — It would not be an easy 
 task to enumerate all the mistakes committed by 
 interpreters in the field of prophecy as unfolded 
 in the Apocalypse. We shall cursorily glanco 
 at a few in connection with their causes. 
 
 1. When the historic basis is abandoned, ima- 
 gination has ample range for her wildest extra- 
 vagances. The Apocalyptic visions are based 
 upon time and place — elements that ought never 
 to lie neglected by the exegetical inquirer. Thus 
 we are informed that the things must shortly 
 come to pass (i. 1), and that the time is at 
 hand (ver. 3). So also in chap, xxii., it is stated, 
 that the things must shortly he done (ver. 6), 
 while the Saviour affirms, ‘ Behold, I come 
 quickly’ (ver. 7, 20). These notices are significant 
 as to the period to which the visions principally 
 refer; and the coming of Christ, announced to 
 take place within a short time, denotes those re- 
 markable judgments which impended over his 
 enemies. There are also mentioned three cities 
 forming the theatre of the sublime and terrible 
 occurrences described. 1. Sodom, Egypt., de- 
 signated as the place where our Lord was cruci- 
 fied, and the holy city. This can mean none 
 other place than Jerusalem. 2. Babylon, built on 
 seven hills. This is Rome. 3. Tbe New Jeru- 
 salem. The first two are doomed to destruction. 
 They also depict Judaism and heathenism; fir 
 when the capitals fell, the empires sank into feeble- 
 ness and decay. The New Jerusalem, the king- 
 dom of the blessed, succeeds the two former as a 
 kingdom that shall never be moved. There are also 
 historic personages that appear in the hook. The 
 seven Roman emperors are mentioned, while Nero 
 in particular is significantly referred to. Now, 
 except the interpreter keep to historic ground, he 
 will assuredly lose himself in endless conjectures, 
 as is exemplified in a remarkable manner by tbe 
 anonymous author of Ilyponoia (New York, 1844, 
 8vu.), who supposes the book to be ‘an unveiling 
 of the mysterious truths of Christian doctrine, 
 with an exhibition of certain opposite errors — a 
 revelation made by Jesus Christ of himself — an 
 intellectual manifestation.’ 
 
 2. Others have fallen into grievous error by 
 seeking a detailed history of the church universal 
 in the Revelation. Some even find an epitome 
 of the church’s entire history in tbe Epistles to 
 the Seven Churches; others, in the rest of tbe 
 book ; others again in both. Agreeably to such 
 a scheme, particular events are assigned to par- 
 ticular periods, persons are specified, peoples are 
 characterized, and names assigned with the greatest 
 particularity. The ablest interpreters after this 
 fashion are Vitriuga, Mede, and Faber; lut the 
 entire plan of proceeding is inconsistent w th the 
 writer's original purpose, ar. l leads to eudless 
 mazes. 
 
 3. It is obvious that we should not look for a 
 circumstance, event, or person, corresponding to 
 every particular ir the visions of the seer. ‘ It is 
 unnecessary to remark,’ says Hug, ‘ that all the 
 particular traits and images in this large work 
 
REVELATION, BOOK OF. 
 
 ire by no means significant. Many are intro- 
 duced only to enliven the representation, or are 
 taken from the prophets and sacred books for the 
 purpose of ornament ; and no one who has any 
 judgment in such matters will deny that the work 
 5 8 extraordinarily rich and gorgeous for a pro- 
 duction of Western origin' (Fosdicks Transla- 
 tion , p. 668). 
 
 4. The principle of synchronisms has been 
 largely adopted by interpreters since the times of 
 Mede and Vitringa. For an explanation and 
 defence of such a system, we refer the reader to 
 Mede's Claris Apocalyptica (Works, fol. London, 
 1677, p. 41ff, sq.), where it is fully draw’ll out. 
 The method so ingeniously (Revised by this learned 
 writer has been followed by the great majority of 
 English expositors, especially by Faber in his 
 Sacred Calendar of Prophecy. In this way the 
 same events are said to be represented by a suc- 
 cession of different series of symbols, the symbols 
 being varied, but the things intended by them re- 
 maining the same. Instead, therefore, of the book 
 being progressive continuously, it is progressive 
 and retrogressive throughout. Such a plan, so 
 unlike that of the other prophetic books of Scrip- 
 ture, is repugnant to the sober sense of every in- 
 telligent student of the Divine word. It intro- 
 duces complication and enigma sufficient to 
 ensure its rejection. Not a hint is given by John 
 of any such method. It was left for the in- 
 genuity of after ages to decipher ; and when dis- 
 covered by the 1 father of prophetic interpretation,’ 
 as Mede is frequently called, it is difficult to be 
 understood even by the learned reader. There is 
 no good reason for supposing that the series of 
 events symbolized does not progress. The repre- 
 sentation is progressive, just as the events recorded 
 by history are progressive. 
 
 5. On the designations of time which occur 
 so frequently in the Apocalypse, this is not the 
 place to enlarge. The entire subject is yet un- 
 settled. Those who take a day for a year must 
 prove the correctness and Scriptural basis of such 
 a principle. This is quite necessary after the 
 arguments advanced by Maitland and Stuart to 
 show that a day means no more than a day, and 
 a year a year. We do not suppose that all, or 
 most of the numbers are to be taken arithmetically. 
 The numbers seven and three, especially, recur so 
 often as to suggest the idea of their being em- 
 ployed indefinitely for poetic costume alone. Yet 
 there may be special reasons in the context of 
 particular passages for abiding by the exact num- 
 bers stated.* 
 
 By far the greater number of works on the 
 Apocalypse are of no value, the authors having 
 failed to perceive the primary purpose of the 
 apostle. We shall only mention a few ; to enu- 
 merate all would be impossible. 
 
 («.) Works on the literature of the book. 
 
 (6.) Commentaries. 
 
 (a.) The best book on the literature of the 
 Apocalypse is that of Liicke, published in 1832. 
 It is both copious and excellent. In addition to 
 it may be mentioned the Introductions of Mi 
 
 * Against the view of Maitland and Stuart, 
 see Bilk’s First Elements of Sacred Prophecy 
 and Bush’s Hierophant ; compare also an article 
 in the Eclectic Review for December , 1814, by 
 the preserd writer. 
 
 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 627 
 
 chaclis, Haenlein, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, 
 Feilmoser, De Wette, Credner, Schott, Guerike ; 
 Bleek’s Beitriige zur Kritik der Offenbarung Jo- 
 hannis (in the Zeitschrift of Sclileiermacher, 
 De Wette, and Liicke, ii. 252, sq.) ; Kleuko-, 
 Ueber Ur sprung und Zweck der Offenbar. Jk. 
 hannis ; Steudel, Ueber die richtige A ujf as sung 
 der Apocalypse (in Bengel’s N. Archiv, iv. 2); 
 the Treatises of Kolthoff, Lange, and Dannemam#^ 
 already referred to; Knittel’s Beitriige zur Kritik 
 ilber Johannis Offenbarung ; Vogel's Commen- 
 tatio de Apoc. Johannis , pt. i vii. ; Neander’s 
 History of the Planting and Training of the 
 Christian Church; Olshausen's Proof of the 
 Genuineness of the Writings of the New Testa- 
 ment (translated by Fosdick, Andover, 1838); 
 Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History , 
 vols. i. and iii. 4to. edition; HSvernick in the 
 Evangelische Kirchenzeitung , and Lucubra- 
 tiones already quoted. 
 
 (6.) Pareus, Grotius, Vitringa, Eichhorn, Hein- 
 richs, Scholz, Ewald, Tinius, Bossnet, Alcassar, 
 Hentenius, Salmeron, Herrensclmeider, Hagen. 
 Of English works Lowman’s Commentary has 
 been highly esteemed, though his scheme is wrong. 
 Mede’s Claris and the Commentary attached to 
 it, have had great influence on subsequent writers ; 
 Faber’s Sacred Calendar of Prophecy is able and 
 ingenious, but radically wrong; Sir Isaac New- 
 ton’s Observations on the Apocalypse , and Bishop 
 Newton’s Remarks , are generally incorrect. Cun- 
 ninghame has written various treatises illustrative 
 of the Apocalypse, but his lucubrations are dark 
 and doubtful. Woodhouse’s Commentary is per- 
 vaded by commendable diligence and sobriety, 
 though he has greatly deviated from the right 
 mode of interpretation. We specially recom- 
 mend Hammond and Lee (.Six Sermons on the 
 Study of the Holy Scriptures, London, 1830, 
 8vo.), who have perceived the right principle lying 
 at the basis of a correct exposition ; to which may 
 be added the Latin Notes of Grotius, and the 
 perspicuous German Commentary of Tinius. 
 The latest and largest work on the Apocalypse that 
 has appeared in England is Elliott's Horce Apo - 
 calypticte, in 3 vols. 8vo , characterised by great 
 research and minute investigation, but proceeding 
 on principles essentially and fundamentally er- 
 roneous. 
 
 Valuable suggestions in regard to the interpre- 
 tation may be found in Stuart's Hints on the In- 
 terpretation of Prophecy ; Bush's Hierophant; 
 or, Monthly Journal of Sacred Symbols and Pro- 
 phecy ; as also in the various Introductions and 
 Treatises mentioned under (a.). — S. D. 
 
 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS [Apocry- 
 pha]. The Apocalyptic character, which is oc- 
 cupied in describing the future splendour of the 
 Messianic kingdom and its historical relations, 
 presents itself for the first time in the book of 
 Daniel,* which is thus characteristically distin- 
 guished from the former prophetical books. In 
 the only prophetical book of the New Testament, 
 the Apocalypse of St. John, this idea is fully 
 developed, and the several apocryphal revelations 
 are mere imitations, more or less happy, of these 
 two canonical books, which furnished ideas to a 
 
 * See the able remarks on the age of this book 
 in the Publication of the Chris ian AdvoccM 
 
 (W. H. Mill, D.D.) for 1841. 
 
628 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 numerous class of writers in the first ages of the 
 Christian church. The principal spurious reve- 
 lations extant have been published by Fabricius, 
 in his Cod. Pseudep. V.T., and Cod.Apoc. N. T . ; 
 and their character has been still more critically 
 examined in recent times by Archbishop Lau- 
 rence (who has added to their number!, by 
 Nitzsch, Bleek, and others; and especially by 
 Dr. Liicke, in his Einleitung in die Offenbarung 
 Johan, und die gesammte apocalyptische Litte- 
 ratur. To this interesting work we are in a 
 great measure indebted for much of the informa- 
 tion contained in the present article. 
 
 We shall first treat of the apocryphal reve- 
 lations no longer extant, which are the following, 
 viz. : — 
 
 1. The Apocalypse of Elias. 2. The Apoca- 
 lypse of Zephaniah. 3. The Apocalypse of Ze- 
 chariah. 4. The Apocalypse of Adam. 5. The 
 Apocalypse of Abraham. 6. The Apocalypse of 
 Moses. 7. The Prophecies of Hystaspes. 8. The 
 Apocalypse of Peter. 9. The Apocalypse of Paul. 
 10. The Apocalypse of Cerinthus. 11. The Apo- 
 calypse of Thomas. 12. The Apocalypse of the 
 proto-martyr Stephen. 
 
 The first three are referred to by St. Jerome 
 ( Ep . ad Pammach.), and cited as lost apocryphal 
 books in an ancient MS. of the Scriptures in the 
 Coislinian Collection (ed. Montfaucon, p. 194). 
 The Apocalypse of Adam , and that of Abraham, 
 are cited by Epiphanius ( H ceres . xxxi. 8) as 
 gnostic productions. The Apocalypse of Moses, 
 mentioned by Syncellus ( Chronog .) and Cedrenus 
 (Comp. Hist.), fragments of which have been 
 published by Fabricius ( ut supra), is conjectured 
 by Grotius to have been a forgery of one of the 
 jyicient Christians. 
 
 The Prophecies of Hystaspes were in use 
 among the Christians in the second century. 
 This was apparently a pagan production, but is 
 cited by Justin Martyr, in his Apology, as agree- 
 ing with the Sibylline oracles in predicting the 
 destruction of the world by fire. Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus (Strom. vi.)and Lactantius (histit. vii. 
 15) also cite passages from these prophecies, which 
 bear a decidedly Christian character. 
 
 The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned by 
 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 3. 25), and was cited 
 by Clement of Alexandria, in his Adumbrations, 
 now lost (Euseb. 1. c. vi. 14). Some fragments 
 of it have, however, been preserved by Clement, 
 in his Selections from the lost Prophecies of 
 Theodotus the Gnostic, and are published in 
 Grabe’s Spicilegium (vol. i. p. 74, sq.). From these 
 we can barely collect that this Apocalypse con- 
 tained some melancholy prognostications, which 
 seem to be directed against, the Jews, and to refer 
 to the destruction of their city and nation. This 
 work is cited as extant in the ancient fragment 
 of the canon published by Muratori, a document 
 of the second or third century, with this proviso, 
 that ‘some of us are unwilling that it be 
 read in the church as is perhaps the signifi- 
 cation of the ambiguous passage, ‘Apocalypsis 
 Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus; quam qui- 
 dam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.’ Eusebius 
 designates it at one time as ‘ spurious,’ and at 
 another as ‘ heretical.’ From a circumstance 
 mentioned by Sozomen (Hist. Eccles. vii. 19), 
 riz., that it was read in some churches in 
 Palestine on all Fridays in the year down to the 
 
 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 fifth century, Liicke infers that it was a Jewish- 
 Christian production (of the second centurv), and 
 of the same family with the Preaching of Peter. 
 It is uncertain whether this work is the same 
 that is read by the Copts among what they call 
 the apocryphal books of Peter. There was also 
 a work under the name of ‘he Apocalypse oj 
 Peter by his Disciple Clement , an account of 
 which was transmitted to Pope Honorius by 
 Jacob, bishop of Acre in the thirteenth century, 
 written in the Saracenic language ; but this has 
 been conjectured to be a later work, originating 
 in the time of the Crusades. 
 
 In the ancient Latin stichometry in Cotelerius 
 (Apostolic Fathers), the Apocalypse of Peter is 
 said to contain 2070 stichs, and that of John 1200. 
 It is cited as an apocryphal book in the Indiculus 
 Scripturarum after the Queestiones of Anastasias 
 of Nicaea, together with the Apocalypse of Ezra 
 and that of Paul. There is in the Bodleian 
 Library a MS. of an Arabic Apocalypse of Petei’ t 
 of which Nicoll has furnished an extract in his 
 catalogue, and which may possibly be a transla- 
 tion of the Greek Apocalypse. 
 
 The Apocalypse of St. Paid is mentioned by 
 Augustine ( Tract. 98 in Ev. Joan.), who asserts 
 that it abounds in fables, and was an invention 
 to which occasion was furnished by 2 Cor. xii. 
 2-4. This appears from Epiphanius (Hares. 
 xxxviii. 2) to have been an anti-Jewish Gnostic 
 production, and to be identical with the avafSan- 
 kov of Paul, used only by the anti-Jewish sect 
 of Gnostics called Cainites. It is said by Sc- 
 zomen (Hist. Eccles. vii. 19) to have been held re 
 great esteem. Jt was also known to Theophylae 
 and CEcumenius (on 2 Cor. xii. 4), and to Nice 
 phorus in the ninth century (Can, 3, 4). Whe 
 ther this is the same work which Du Pin (Proleg. 
 and Canon) says is still extant among the Copts 
 is rendered more than doubtful by Fabricius 
 (Cod. Apoc. ii. p. 954) and Grabe (Spicileg. i. 
 p. 85). The Revelation of St. Paul, contained in 
 an Oxford MS., is shown by Grabe (/. c.) to be 
 a much later work. Theodosius of Alexandria 
 ( , Ep<i>TT]p.aTa 7 repl irpoaabi&v) says that the Apo- 
 calypse of St. Paul is not a work of the apostle, 
 but of Paul of Samosata, from whom the Pauli- 
 cians derived their name. The Revelation of Paid 
 is one of the spurious works condemned by Pope 
 Gelasius, together with the Revelations of St. 
 Thomas and St. Stephen. 
 
 The Apocalypse of Cerinthus is mentioned by 
 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 28), and by Theodoret 
 (Fab. Hceret. ii. 3). Eusebius describes it as a re- 
 velation of an earthly and sensual kingdom of 
 Christ, according to the heresy of the Chiliasts. 
 
 Of the Revelations of St. Thomas and St. 
 Stephen, we know nothing beyond their con- 
 demnation by Pope Gelasius, except that Sixtus 
 of Sienr.a observes that, according to Serapion, 
 they were held in great repute by the Manichees ; 
 but in the works of Serapion which we now 
 possess there is no allusion to this. There is, how- 
 ever, an unpublished MS. of Serapion in the 
 Hamburg Library, which is supposed to contain 
 a more complete copy of his work 
 
 We now proceed to treat of the extant spurious 
 Revelations. 
 
 The Ascension and the Vision ok Isaiah 
 (' hvafiaTiKbv koX "O pour is 'Hcra'iov), although for a 
 long time lost to the world, w« a work well 
 
■REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. C2* 
 
 known to the ancients, as is indicated by the 
 allusions of Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, 
 and Epiplianius. The first of these writers (Dial, 
 s. Tryph. ed. Par. p. 349) refers to the account 
 therein contained of the death of Isaiah, who ‘ was 
 sawn asunder with a wooden saw a fact, he adds, 
 
 ‘ which was removed by the Jews from the sacred 
 text.’ Tertullian also (Dc Patientid ), among 
 other examples from Scripture, refers to the same 
 event; and in the next (the third) century Origen 
 (Epist. ad African.), after stating that the Jews 
 were accustomed to remove many things from 
 the knowledge of the people, which they neverthe- 
 less pieserved in apocryphal or -secret writings, 
 adduces as an example the death of Isaiah, ‘ who 
 was sawn asunder, as stated in a certain apocry- 
 phal writing, which the Jews perhaps corrupted 
 in order to throw discredit on the whole.’ In his 
 Comm, in Matt, he refers to the same events, ob- 
 serving, that if this apocryphal work is not of 
 sufficient authority to establish the account of the 
 prophet's martyrdom, it should be believed upon 
 the testimony borne to that work by the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xi. 37); in 
 the same manner as the account of the death of 
 Zechariah should be credited upon the testimony 
 borne by our Saviour to a writing not found in the 
 common and published books (rtolvois ual bedppev- 
 fievois fiifiAlois), but probably in an apocryphal 
 work. Origen cites a passage from the apocryphal 
 account of the martyrdom of Isaiah, in one of his 
 Homilies (ed. De la Rue, vol. iii. p. 108). The 
 Apostolical Constitutions also refer to the apocry- 
 phal books of Moses, Enoch, Adam, and Isaiah, 
 as writings of some antiquity. 
 
 The first writer, however, -who mentions the 
 Ascension of Isaiah by name is Epiphanius, in 
 the fourth century, who observes ( Hceres . xl.) 
 that the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah was ad- 
 duced by the Archonites in support of their opi- 
 nions respecting the seven heavens and their 
 archons or ruling angels, as well as by the 
 Egyptian Hieracas and his followers in con- 
 firmation of their heretical opinions respecting the 
 Holy Spirit, at the same time citing the passage 
 from the ’Ai'afiarucdv to which they refer (Ascens. . 
 of Isaiah, ix. 27, 32-36 ; xi. 32, 33). Jerome 
 also (in Esai. Ixiv. 4) expressly names the work, 
 asserting it to be an apocryphal production, ori- 
 ginating in a passage in the New Testament 
 (l Cor. ii. 9). St. Ambrose (Opp. i. p. 1124) cites 
 a passage contained in it, but only as a tradi- 
 tionary report, ‘ plerique ferunt ’ (Ascens. Is. v. 
 4-8) ; and the author of the Imperfect Work on 
 Matt., a work of the fifth century, erroneously 
 attributed to St. Chrysostom (Chrysost. Opp. 
 horn. 1.), evidently cites a passage from the same 
 work (Ascens. i. I, &c.). After this period all 
 trace of the book is lost until the eleventh cen- 
 tury, when Euthymius Zigabenus informs us that 
 the Messalian heretics made use of that ‘abo- 
 minable pseudepigraphal work, the Vision of 
 Isaiah.’’ It was also used (most probably in a 
 Latin version) by the Cathari in the West 
 (P. Moneta, Adv. Catharos, ed. Rich. p. 218). 
 The Vision of Isaiah is also named in a cata- 
 logue of canonical and apocryphal books in a 
 Paris MS. (No. 1789), after the Qucest. et Resp. 
 of Anastasius (Cotelerius, P. P. Apost. i. p. 197, 
 349). Sixtus of Sienna (Bibl. Sanct. 1566) 
 states that the Vision of Isaiah, as distinct from 
 
 the Anavasis (as he calls it), had been printed at 
 Venice. Referring to this last publication, the 
 late Archbishop Laurence observes that he had 
 hoped to find in some bibliographical work a 
 further notice of it, but that he had searched in 
 vain ; concluding at the same time that it must 
 have been a publication extracted from the 
 Ascension of Isaiah, or a Latin translation of 
 the Vision, as the title of it given by Sixtus was, 
 ‘ Visio admirabilis Esaiae prophetae in raptu 
 mantis, quae divinae Trinitatis arcana, et lapsi 
 generis humani redemptionem eontinet.’ Dr. 
 Laurence observes also that the mode of Isaiah's 
 death is further in accordance with a Jewish tra- 
 dition recorded in the Talmud (Tract Jebammoth , 
 iv.) ; and he supposes that Mohammed may nave 
 founded his own journey through seven different 
 heavens on this same apocryphal work. He shows 
 at the same time, by an extract from the Raboth , 
 that the same idea of the precise number of seven 
 heavens accorded with the Jewish creed. 
 
 There appeared now to be little hopes of re- 
 covering the lost Ascension of Isaiah, when Dr. 
 Laurence (then Regius Professor of Hebrew in 
 the University of Oxford) had the good fortune 
 to purchase from a bookseller in Drury Lane an 
 Ethiopic MS. containing the identical book, to- 
 gether with the canonical book of Isaiah and the 
 fourth (called in the Ethiopic the first) book of 
 Esdras. It is entitled the Ascension of the Pro- 
 phet Isaiah, the first five chapters containing the 
 martyrdom, and the six last (for it is divided in 
 the MS. into chapters and verses) the Ascension 
 or Vision of Isaiah. At the end of the canonical 
 book are the words, ‘ Here ends the Prophet 
 Isaiah after which follows ‘ The Ascension,’ &c., 
 concluding with the words, ‘ Here ends Isaiah 
 the Prophet, with his Ascension.’ Then follows 
 a postscript, from which it appears that it was 
 transcribed for a priest named Aaron, at the cost 
 of a piece of fine cloth, twelve measures long 
 and four broad. The Ascension of Isaiah was 
 published by Dr. Laurence at Oxford in 1S19, 
 with a new Latin and an English version. This 
 discovery was first applied to the illustration of 
 Scripture by Dr. Gesenius (Comm, on Isaiah). 
 Some time afterwards the indefatigable Dr. An- 
 gelo Mai (Nova Collect. Script. Vet. e Vat. Codd. 
 Rom. 1828) published two Latin fragments as 
 an appendix to his Sermon. Arian Fragment. 
 Antiquiss., which he conjectured to be portions 
 of some ancient apocryphal writings. Niebuhr, 
 however, perceived them to be fragments of the 
 Ascension and Vision of Isaiah; and Dr. Nitzsch 
 (Nachweisung zweyer Bruchstiicke, &c., irf tbe 
 Theolog. Stud, und Kritik. 1830) was enabled to 
 compare them with the two corresponding por- 
 tions ^ii. 14-iii. 12; vii. 1-19) of the Ethiopic 
 version. Finally, in consequence of the more 
 complete notice of the Venetian edition of the 
 Latin version given by Panzer (Annal. Typog. 
 viii. p. 473), Dr. Gieseler had a strict search made 
 for it, which was eventually crowned with suc- 
 cess, a copy being discovered in the Library at 
 Munich. This work, the date of whose impression 
 was 1522, contained also the Gospel of Nico- 
 demus, and the Letter of Lentulus to the Roman 
 Senate. The Latin version contains the Vision 
 only, corresponding to the last seven chapters of 
 the Ethiopic version. 
 
 The subject of the first nart is the martyrdom 
 
030 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 of Isaiah, who is here said to have been sawn 
 asunder in consequence of the visions which lie 
 related to Hezekiah, in the twenty-sixth year of 
 the reign of that monarch, ami which are recorded 
 in the first four chapters. These relate princi- 
 pally to the coining of ‘Jesus Christ the Lord’ 
 from the seventh heaven ; his being changed into 
 the form of a man ; the preaching of his twelve 
 apostles ; his final rejection and suspension on a 
 tree, in company with the workers of iniquity, 
 on the day before the Sabbath ; the spread of the 
 Christian doctrine ; the last judgment ; and his 
 return to the seventh heaven. Before this, how- 
 ever, the arch-fiend Berial is to descend on earth, 
 in the form of an impious monarch, the murderer 
 of his mother, where, after his image is worshipped 
 in every city for three years, seven months, and 
 twenty-seven days, he and his powers are to be 
 dragged into Gehenna. 
 
 The second portion of the work gives a prolix 
 account of the prophet's ascent through seven 
 heavens, each more resplendent and more glorious 
 than the other. It contains distinct prophetical 
 allusions to the miraculous birth of Christ of the 
 Virgin Mary at Bethlehem ; his crucifixion, re- 
 surrection. and ascension ; and the worship of ‘ the 
 Father, his beloved Christ, and the Holy Spirit.’ 
 The mode of the prophet's own death is also an- 
 nounced to him. The whole work, observes its 
 learned translator, is ‘singularly characterized by 
 simplicity of narration, by occasional sublimity 
 of description, and by richness as well as vigour 
 of imagination.’ Dr. Laurence conceives that 
 the writer had no design of imposing upon the 
 world a spurious production of Lis own as that 
 of the prophet's, but rather of composing a work, 
 avowedly fictitious, but accommodated to the 
 character, and consistent with the prophecies, of 
 him to whom it is ascribed. 
 
 As to the age of this work. Dr. Laurence sup- 
 poses, from the obvious reference to Nero, and the 
 }>erioil of three years, seven mouths, and twenty- 
 seven days, and again of three hundred and 
 thirty-two days, after which Berial was to be 
 dragged to Gehenna, that the work was written 
 after the death of Nero (which took place on the 
 9th June, a.d. G8), but before the close of the 
 year G9. Liicke, however ( Einleitung in die 
 OJfenbarung Johan.'), looks upon these numbers 
 as purely arbitrary and apocalyptical, and main- 
 tains that the dogmatical character of the work, 
 the allusion to the corruptions of the church, the 
 absence of all reference to the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem, and the Chiliastic view, all point to a 
 later period. All that can be considered as cer- 
 tain respecting its date is, that the first portion 
 was extant before the time of Origen, and the 
 whole before Epiphanius. It has been doubted 
 whether the work does not consist of two inde- 
 pendent. productions, which were afterwards united 
 into one, as in the Ethiopic version ; but. this is 
 a question impossible to decide in the absence 
 of the original. The Latin fragments discovered 
 by Mai correspond literally with the Ethiopic, 
 while they not oidy differ from the Venetian edi- 
 tion in single phrases, but the latter contains 
 passages so striking as to induce the supposition 
 vliat it is derived from a later recension of the 
 rriginal text. 
 
 The author was evidently a Jewish Christian, 
 u appears from the use made of the Talmudical 
 
 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 legend already referred to, as well as by his re> 
 presenting the false accuser of Isaiah as a Sama* 
 ritan. The work also abounds in Gnostic, Va* 
 lentinian, and Ophitic notions, such as the ac- 
 count of the seven heavens, and the presiding 
 angels of the first five, the gradual transmutation 
 of Christ until his envelopment in the human 
 form, and finally the docetic conception of his 
 history on earth. All this has induced Liicke 
 (ut sujyra) to consider the whole to be a Gnostic 
 production of the second or third century, of 
 which, however, the martyrdom was first written. 
 Dr. Laurence finds so strong a resemblance be- 
 tween the account of the seven heavens here, and 
 in the Testament of Levi ( Twelve Patriarchs ), 
 that he suspects the latter to ‘ betray a little 
 dagiarism.’ If this learned divine were right in 
 lis conjecture resjiecting the early age of this pro- 
 duction, it would doubtless afford an additional 
 testimony (if such were wanting) to the antiquity 
 of the belief in the miraculous conception and 
 the proper deity of Jesus, who is here called the 
 Beloved, the Lord, the Lord God, and the Lord 
 Christ. In respect, however, to another passage, 
 in which the Son and Holy Spirit are represented 
 as worshipping God, the learned prelate truly 
 observes that this takes place only in the character 
 of angels, which they had assumed. 
 
 Dr. Liicke observes that, the drapery only of 
 the apocalyptic element of this work is Jewish, 
 the internal character being altogether Christian. 
 But. in both form and substance there is an evi- 
 dent imitation, if not of the Apocalypse of St. 
 John, at least of the book of Daniel and of the 
 Sibylline oracles. The use of the canonical Apo- 
 calypse Liicke ( l . c. § 16) considers to be un- 
 deniable in viii. 45 (comp. Rev. xxii. 8 9* vii. 
 21-23; Rev. xix. 10). 
 
 Of the ancient Greek poems called tne Cubyi.- 
 i.ink Okaci.es (written in hexameter verse), there 
 was formerly a considerable number in use, of 
 which but few have descended to our times. 
 Servius, in the fifth century, mentions a hundred 
 books ( sermones , \6yoi ) ; and Suidas, who lived 
 most probably in the eleventh, speaks of twenty- 
 four books of the Chaldaean sibyls alone. But 
 eight only were known to the moderns, until 
 the recent discoveries of Angelo Mai, who has 
 recovered and jwiblished an eleventh, twelfth, 
 thirteenth, and fourteenth book from palimpsests 
 in the Ambrosian and Vatican libraries ( Script 
 Vet. Nov. Collect, vol. iii. p. 3). The first, eight 
 books have been shown to be the compositions of 
 various writers from the commencement of the 
 second century b.c. to a.d. 500. Of these, the 
 earliest in point of date is supposed to be the 
 third book, containing a series of connected pre- 
 dictions written by an Alexandrian Jew in the 
 time of the Maccabees, but containing heathen 
 poems of a still earlier period. The subject is 
 continued by another Alexandrian Jew, who 
 lived about forty years before the Christian era. 
 Notwithstanding the later Christian interpolations 
 by which this document has been disfigured, it 
 forms a valuable collection of Sibylline oracles 
 respecting the Messiah, anterior to the Christian 
 era. It concludes with another addition, written 
 partly in the third century and partly at a still 
 later period. But before this period, the fourth 
 and fifth books come in, the former of which wac 
 
REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 written by a Christian about a.d. 80 ; the latter 
 consist.? of several predictions, from various 
 authors, principally Egyptians, one of whom was 
 an Alexandrian Jew, who wrote in the middle of 
 the second tentury ; another portion is by a Jew 
 in Asia Minor, about a.d. 20 ; and certain parts 
 by anothei Jewish author, about a.d. 70. But 
 the whole book in its present form proceeds most 
 probably from the Jewish Christians residing at 
 Memphis in the commencement of Adrian's reign, 
 who collected the greater portion of the oracles of 
 the first part, and united them to the third and 
 fourth books. At least the yvhole three books 
 were formed into one collection in the middle of 
 the second century, and ascribed to one and the 
 same sibyl. But at the close of the next century 
 these books were completely separated, and were, 
 together with the subsequent books then written 
 (sixth, seventh, and eighth), each attributed to a 
 distinct prophetess. Of these, the earliest in point 
 of date is the eighth book, part of which was 
 composed about a.d. 170-180, and the entire 
 finished at the end of the third century, — when it 
 was united with the others, as we learn from Lac- 
 tant.ius. The seventh book , separate from its later 
 interpolations, was composed by a Judaizing 
 Christian in the third century. The sixth book 
 appears to have been written at the close of this 
 century by a Christian, for he speaks of Christ as 
 the second Adam. That part called the Acrostics 
 was constructed in the fourth century from earlier 
 Sibylline verses. Some portions of the eighth book 
 were probably written at. this period, and intro- 
 duced at a still later among the Sibylline oracles. 
 The latest of all are the first and second books , 
 written by one and the same author, who lived in 
 the West in the middle of the fifth century. 
 
 Of this motley group, the chief portions only 
 are of an Apocalyptic character, others being 
 purely epic, or in the form of hymns. The sibyl, 
 as the oracle of God, predicts the destruction of 
 paganism in its wars on both Judaism and Chris- 
 tianity. To this is annexed the Apocalyptic 
 consolation and encouragement, to the sufferer and 
 oppressed among God’s people. The poetic in- 
 terest, which is a characteristic of Apocalyptic 
 composition, both Jewish and Christian, is not 
 lost sight of. 
 
 There have been three distinct periods traced 
 in respect to the Sibylline Revelations. The first 
 is the Jewish, commencing at the Maccabaean 
 period. This, observes Liicke, ‘ belongs to the cycle 
 of Daniel’s Apocalypse.’ The second period is 
 the Jewish Christian, having a special relation to 
 the Antichristian character of the persecuting 
 Nero, with an admixture of Chiliastic elements. 
 The third period is free from Chiliasm, and be- 
 longs to the Christian character of the third cen- 
 tury, embracing a species of universal history in 
 the Sibylline form, concluding with the end of all 
 things at the final judgment. 
 
 It is impossible to deny the resemblance be- 
 tween the Apocalypse of John and the Sibylline 
 poems of the second period. ‘ Besides the Chili- 
 astic elements and the reference to the return of 
 Nero, it is common to both that the destruction 
 of Rome forms the g*and crisis of their predic- 
 tions, and that letters and cyphers are symbol- 
 ically employed. Bin, on the other hand, what 
 a difference ! The Sibylline oracles are cha- 
 racterized by a dry, monotonous series of mere 
 
 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 63! 
 
 predictlons, threatening?, and promises; while the 
 Apocalypse of John presents us with an all but 
 diamatic development of the kingdom of God in 
 a living picture. The most important portion fur 
 comparison with the Apocalypse is the contem- 
 porary first oracle of the fourth book. The later 
 pieces of this kind may have stood in conscious 
 relation with the Apocalypse, but this is incapable 
 of proof’ (Liicke, ut supra). 
 
 The books discovered by Angelo Mai are much 
 of the same character with the former, but have 
 less of the religious element. The eleventh book 
 contains a statement of Jewish, Greek, Macedo- 
 nian, and Egyptian history from the Deluge to 
 Julius Caesar. There are some single passages 
 which resemble the third book, but the author was 
 a different person, and was probably a Jew, who 
 lived a short time before the Christian era. 
 
 The twelfth book resembles the fifth in its com- 
 mencement., and contains the same series of Roman 
 emperors from Augustus, under whose reign the 
 appearance of Christ is prominently brought for- 
 ward. This series, which in the third book 
 ended with Hadrian, here proceeds as far as Alex- 
 ander Severus, passing over Sulpicius. Severus. 
 Its Christian origin is beyond question, and it 
 may have been written after the death of Severus, 
 .i d. 222. 
 
 The thirteenth book narrates, in the Sibylline 
 form, the wars of the Romans in the East to the 
 midule of the third century, probably com- 
 mencing where the former had ended. It is ol>- 
 servable that the author alludes to the mathe- 
 matical fame of Bostra. 
 
 The most prominent, feature of the fourteenth 
 book is the destruction and rebuilding of the city 
 of Rome, which is provisioned for a whole year 
 in expectation of a long period of adversity ; the 
 last prince df the Latin race appears and departs, 
 after whom comes a royal race of long duration. 
 The whole narration points to the period of the 
 migration and downfall of the Western empire. 
 The author doubtless was a Christian of the fifth 
 century. 
 
 The book called the Testaments ok the: 
 twelve Patuiauchs is an ancient Apocryphal 
 work (founded most probably on Gen. xlix. 1, sq.), 
 in which the twelve sons of Jacob are represented 
 as delivering their dying predictions and precepts 
 to their posterity. If we are to credit the authority 
 of a manuscript in the Bodleian library, this work 
 was originally written in Hebrew, and translated 
 into Greek by St. Chrysostom. But Dr. Grabe, 
 who first adduced this testimony, considers it very 
 doubtful. The author of the Latin version (from 
 the Greek) was Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of 
 Lincoln in the thirteenth century, with the assist- 
 ance of a Greek named Nicholas, Abbot of St. 
 Albans. The bishop’s attention was first directed 
 to it by Archdeacon John de Basingstoke, who 
 had seen the work during his studies at Athens. 
 This version, which was first printed from very 
 incorrect copies in 1483, and afterwards in 1532 
 and 1549, was reprinted in the Qrthodoxogra- 
 pha of Grynaeus, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. 
 A few specimens of the original were printed at 
 various times by Cotelerius ( Not . in Script. 
 Apostol.), Gale (Annot. in Ja/nblich.), and 
 Wharton (Auctarium) ; but it was reserved fox 
 the learned Dr. Grabe to give the entire ^ork ifi 
 
m RE VELA FLO NS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 the original Greek, in 1699, from a Cambridge 
 manuscript on vellum (the identical MS. used 
 by Robert of Lincoln for his translation), a copy 
 of which was made for him by the learned Dr. 
 John Mill, who collated it with a manuscript on 
 paper in the Bodleian, written a d. 1268, and 
 annexed to it various readings from other manu- 
 scripts. Dr. Grabe was the person who first divided 
 the work into chapters or paragraphs, with num- 
 bers prefixed. He added some valuable notes, 
 which, with the originals, were republished by 
 Fabricius in his Cod. Pseudep. V. T. 
 
 This work contains many beautiful passages, 
 and, while its form is that of a pretended pro- 
 phecy, bears indirect testimony to the facts and 
 books of the New Testament, the nativity, cruci- 
 fixion, resurrection, ascension, and unblemished 
 character of Jesus, ascribing to him such titles as 
 evidently show that his divinity was fully recog- 
 nised. The author testifies also to the canonical 
 authority of the Acts of the Apostles and St. 
 Paul’s Epistles, and seems especially to allude 
 to the four Gospels. The age of this Apocryphal 
 work is, therefore, of considerable importance in 
 sacred criticism. 
 
 Mr. William Whiston, who has given an 
 English translation of this work in his Authentic 
 Records , considers it to lie a genuine production, 
 and one of the concealed (as he interprets the 
 word Apocryphal) books of the Old Testament, 
 maintaining that if this, and the book of Enoch, 
 were not written after the destruction of Jerusalem 
 (which he holds to be a wild notion), they are of 
 necessity genuine and divine. Cave (Hist. Liter.) 
 was at first disposed to place the work in the year 
 a d. 192, but he subsequently regarded it as more 
 probably written near the commencement of the 
 second century. That the \vork was extant in 
 the time of Origen appears from his observation, 
 ‘ We find the like sentiment in another little 
 book, called the Testament of the twelve Patri- 
 archs, although it is not in the canon,’ viz., that 
 by sinners are to be understood the angels of 
 Satan ( Homil . in Jos. comp, with Testament. 
 Reuben., sect. 3). Jerome also observes that 
 there had been forged revelations of all the patri- 
 archs and prophets. Tertullian has also been 
 supposed to refer to it. It is cited by Procopius 
 of Gaza, about a.d. 520; and in the Stichometry 
 of Nicephorus (about a.d. 800) it is said to con- 
 tain in the Greek 5100, and in the Latin 4800, 
 sticks or verses [Verse]. Dr. Dodwell, from 
 its Hellenistic character, ascribes it to the first 
 century. The recent investigations of Dr. Nitzsch 
 (De Testamentis duodecim Patriarcharum, Wit- 
 tenb. 1810), however, seem to leave no doubt of 
 its having been the work of a Jewish Christian, 
 about the beginning of the second century. The 
 design of the writer was evidently to convert the 
 twelve tribes to the Christian faith. For this 
 object are introduced the Apocalyptic elements. 
 The time of Christ's appearance is predicted. 
 The Messiah is represented as both priest and 
 king, and with this view characterized as equally 
 sprung from the tribes of Judah and Levi. He 
 is to appear, after many calamities, as the com- 
 mon Saviour of Jews and Gentiles. It also con- 
 tains revelations purely Christian, as the ever- 
 lasting reign of Christ, the general resurrection, 
 and the last judgment. The Apocalypse of John 
 i« referred to, if not expressly cited; and the 
 
 REVELATIONS, SPURIOUS. 
 
 Apocalyptical portions have evidently this fo r 
 their groundwork, together with the book of 
 Daniei, and that of Enoch, which is expressly 
 cited as a work of authority (Levi, 2; Naph- 
 thali, 5), and is consequently an earlier produc- 
 tion. There was an altered and interpolated 
 English translation of this book, published (as a 
 genuine work of the twelve patriarchs) in Bristol 
 by Richard Day, in 1813. 
 
 The Fourth Book of Ezra (the frst accord 
 ing to the Ethiopic and Arabic) [Esdras] is. from 
 its Apocalyptic character, styled by Nicephorus 
 (Can. 3. 4) the Apocalypse of Ezra ( 5 A7ro/cdA.u^ts 
 'EaSpa). Its original language (according to 
 Liicke) was Greek, although it is at present, extant 
 only in a Latin, Ethiopic, and Arabic tiansla- 
 tion, of which the Latin is the most ancient. The 
 main body of the work, viz., chaps, iii.-xiv., con- 
 tains a connected revelation, which is partly an 
 open imitation of Daniel, and partly resembles 
 the New Testament Apocalypse. It contains a 
 mixture of Jewish and Christian elements. This 
 work, as has been formerly observed, was known 
 to Clemens Alexandrinus in the second century ; 
 and from the indication in the Introduction 
 (ch. iii. 1), ‘ In the thirtieth year of the de- 
 struction of the city I was in Babylon,’ Liicke 
 conjectures that the author may have written in 
 the thirtieth year after the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, or a.d. 100 : and this date is further confirmed 
 by the vision of the eagle (ch. xi. ; xii.), which 
 indicates the time of Trajan. He conceives the 
 author to have been evidently a Jew, who lived 
 out. of Palestine, probably in Egypt, but that the 
 variation in the several ancient versions of the 
 work prove it to have been interpolated by a 
 Christian hand. 
 
 The first two and last two chapters (found only 
 in the Latin, in most MSS. of which they form 
 distinct books, the first two chapters being gene- 
 rally named 2nd and 3rd, and the two last 5th 
 and sometimes 6th Esdras ; see Laurence’s 1 Ezra, 
 pp. 283-287) are the work of a Christian, and are 
 unconnected with the main body of the book. In 
 the two first the author has imitated the canonical 
 Apocalypse, and prefixed this portion as a kind 
 of preface to the work ; but there is no internal 
 character which can enable us to form any nearer 
 conjecture as to their date. The author of the 
 last two chapters (xv., xvi.) seems to have lived 
 in the third or fourth century, during the Decian 
 or Diocletian persecutions (chap. xv. 10). Rome, 
 the Apocalyptic Babylon of the author, ap- 
 proaches her downfall (xv. 43, sq.). Several 
 passages of the New Testament are evidently 
 alluded to (comp. 4 Ezra xvi. 29, sq. with Matt, 
 xxiv. 40, 41 ; xvi. 42 — 45, with 1 Cor. vii. 29, 
 30; xv. 8, 9, with Rev. vi. 10). The whole 
 chapter seems, indeed, to be an imitation of 
 Matt. xxiv. (comp, also 4 Ezra i. 30 with Matt, 
 xxiii. 37; ii. 11 with Luke xvi. 9; and ii. 12 
 with Re.v. xxii. 2 ; also ii. 42 with Rev. xiv. 1-3 ; 
 and ii. 18 with Rev. xxii. 1, 2). 
 
 The ancient romantic fiction, entitled the Shep- 
 herd of Hermas, is not without its Apoca- 
 lyptic elements. These, however, are confined t* 
 book i. 3, 4 ; but they are destitute of signification 
 or originality [Hebm vs]. 
 
REZEPH. 
 
 The Book, ov Enoch is one of the most curious 
 of the spurious revelations, resembling in its out- 
 ward form both the book of Daniel and the Apo- 
 calypse ; but it is uncertain whether this latter 
 work or the book of Enoch was first written 
 [Enoch]. Professor Moses Stuart ( Biblioth . 
 Sacra, No. 2, p. 363, 1843) is of opinion that, the 
 Rook of Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Testa- 
 ments of the Twelve Patriarchs, many of the Sibyl- 
 line Oracles, the fourth Book of Ezra, and the 
 Pastor of Hernias, were composed ‘ nearly at die 
 same time with the Apocalypse of St. John.’ 
 
 There was an Apocryphal Revelation op 
 St. John extant in the time of Theodosius the 
 Grammarian, the only one of the ancients who 
 mentions it, and who calls it a pseudepigraphal 
 book. It was not known what had become of it, 
 until the identical work was recently published 
 from a Vatican, as well as a Vienna manuscript, 
 by Birch, in his Auctarium , under the title of 
 * The Apocalypse of the Holy Apostle and Evan- 
 gelist John the Divine.’ From the silence of the 
 ancients respecting this work, it could scarcely 
 have been written before the third or fourth cen- 
 tury. Liicke has pointed out other internal marks 
 of a later age, as, for instance, the mention of in- 
 cense, which he observes first came into use in 
 the Christian church after the fourth century (al- 
 though here the author of the spurious book may 
 have taken his idea from Rev. v. 8; viii. 3) ; also 
 of images and rich crosses, which were not in use 
 before the ‘ fourth and fifth centuries.’ The name 
 patriarch, applied here to a dignitary in the 
 church, belongs to the same age. The time in which 
 Theodosius himself lived is not certainly known, 
 but he cannot be placed earlier than the fifth cen- 
 tury, which Liicke conceives to be the most pro- 
 bable age of the work itself. Regarding the 
 object and occasion of the work (which is a rather 
 servile imitation of the genuine Apocalypse), in 
 consequence of the absence of dates and of in- 
 ternal characteristics, there are no certain indica- 
 tions. Birch’s text, as well as his manuscripts, 
 abound in errors; but Thilo has collated two 
 Paris manuscripts for his intended edition (see 
 his Acta Thomce, Proleg. p. lxxxiii.). Assemann 
 {Biblioth. Orient, tom. iii. pt. i. p 282) states 
 that there is an Arabic version among the Vatican 
 MSS.— W. W. 
 
 REZEPH (?))n 5 Sept. 'Pooped), a city which 
 occurs among those subdued by the Assyrians (2 
 Kings xix. 12; Isa. xxxvii, 12). It is supposed 
 to be the same that Ptolemy mentions under the 
 name of 'P-rjaclixpa, as a city of Palmyrene ( Geog . 
 v. 15); and this again is possibly the same with 
 the Rasapha which Abulfeda places at nearly a 
 day’s journey west of the Euphrates. 
 
 REZIN (|'V1 5 Sept. 'P aaaadov), the last king 
 of Damascene-Syria, slain by Tiglath-pileser 
 (2 Kings xv. 37 ; xvi. 5-10 ; Isa. vii. 1 ; viii. 
 4-7) [Damascus]. 
 
 REZON (fin, prince ; Sept. 'Pa^wv), an offi- 
 cer of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, who established 
 the independence of Damascus, and made it the 
 seat of the kingdom of Damascene-Syria, so often 
 mentioned in the history of the Hebrew kingdoms 
 (1 Kings xi. 23, 24) [Damascus], 
 
 RHEGIUM ('Pi'iyiov), a city on the coast of 
 Italy, near its south-western extremity, opposite 
 
 RHODES. 633 
 
 Messina in Sicily (Acts xxviii. 13). It is now 
 called Reggio, and is the capital of Calabria. 
 
 RHQDA ('P65t], i. e. Rose), a servant maid 
 mentioned in Acts xii. 13. 
 
 RHODES ( c PJ5os), an island in the Mediterra- 
 nean, near the coast of Asia Minor, celebrated frcm 
 the remotest antiquity as the seat of commerce, na- 
 vigation, literature, and the art s, but now reduced to 
 a state of abject poverty by the devastat ions of war 
 and the tyranny and rapacity of its Turkish rulers. 
 It is of a triangular form, about forty-four leagues 
 in circumference, twenty leagues long from north 
 to south, and about six broad. In the centre is 
 a lofty mountain named Artemira, which com- 
 mands a view of the whole island ; of the 
 elevated coast of Carmania on the north ; the 
 Archipelago, studded with numerous islands, on 
 the north-west; Mount Ida, veiled in clouds, on 
 the south-west ; and the wide expanse of waters 
 that wash the shores of Africa on the south and 
 south-east. It was famed in ancient times, and is 
 still celebrated for its delightful climate, and the 
 fertility of its soil. The gardens are filled with 
 delicious fruit, every gale is scented with the most, 
 powerful fragrance wafted from the groves of 
 orange and citron-trees, and the numberless aro- 
 matic herbs exhale such a profusion of the richest 
 odours that the whole atmosphere seems impreg- 
 nated with spicy perfume. It is well watered by 
 the river Candura, and numerous smaller si reams 
 and rivulets that spring from the shady sides of 
 Mount Artemira. It contains two cities — Rhodes, 
 the capital, inhabited chiefly by Turks, and a small 
 number of Jews; and the ancient Lindus, now 
 reduced to a hamlet, peopled by Greeks, who are 
 almost all engaged in commerce. Besides these 
 there are five villages occupied by Turks and a 
 small number of Jews; and five towns and forty- 
 one villages, inhabited by Greeks. The whole 
 population was estimated by Savery at 36,500 ; 
 but Turner, a later traveller, estimates them only 
 at 20,000, of whom 14,000 were Greeks, and 6000 
 Turks, with a small mixture of Jews residing 
 chiefly in the capital. 
 
 The city of Rhodes is famous for its huge brazen 
 statue of Apollo, called Colossus, which stood at 
 the mouth of the harbour, and was so high that 
 ships passed in full sail between its legs. It was 
 the work of Chares of Lindus, the disciple of 
 Lysippus ; its height was 126 feet, and twelve years 
 were occupied in its construction. It was thrown 
 down by an earthquake, in the reign of Ptolemy 
 III., Euergetes, king of Egypt, after having stood 
 56 years. The brass of which it was com- 
 posed was a load for 900 camels. Its extremities 
 were sustained by sixty pillars of marble, and a 
 winding staircase led up to the top, from whence 
 a view might be obtained of Syria, and the ships 
 proceeding to Egypt, in a large looking-glass sus- 
 pended to the neck of the statue. There is not a 
 single vestige of this celebrated work of art now 
 remaining. 
 
 St. Paul appears to have visited Rhodes while 
 on his journey to Jerusalem, a.u. 58 (Acts xxi. 1), 
 
 The Sept, translators place the Rhodians among 
 the children of Javan (Gen. x. 4), and in this they 
 are followed by Eusebius, Jerome, and Isidore; but 
 Bochart maintains that the Rhodians are too mo- 
 dern to have been planted there by any immediate 
 son of Javan, and considers that Moses rather in* 
 
631 
 
 RIBLAH. 
 
 RIDDLE. 
 
 tended the Gauls on the Mediterranean towards 
 the mouth of the Rhone, near Maiseiiles, where 
 there was a district called Rhodanusia, and a city 
 of the same name. They also render Ezek. 
 xxvii. 15, ‘children of the Rhodians,’ instead of, 
 as in the Hebrew, • children of Dedan.’ Calmet 
 considers it probable that here they read ‘children 
 of Redan or Rodan,’ but that in Gen. x. 4, they 
 read ‘ Dedan,' as in the Hebrew. 
 
 The antiquities of Rhodes reach no farther bacic 
 than the residence of the knights of St. John of 
 Jerusalem. The remains of their line old fortress, 
 of great size and strength, are still to be seen; 
 the cells of the knights are entire, but the sanc- 
 tuary has been converted by the Turks into a 
 magazine for military stores. 
 
 In modern times Rhodes has been chiefly cele- 
 brated as one of the last retreats of this military 
 order, under whom it obtained great celebrity by 
 its heroic resistance to the Turks ; but in the 
 time of Solyman the Great a capitulation was 
 agreed upon, and the island was Anally surren- 
 dered to the Turks, under whom it has since con- 
 tinued. 
 
 It is now governed by a Turkish Pacha, who 
 exercises despotic sway, seizes upon the property 
 of the people at his pleasure, and from whose vigi- 
 lant rapacity scarcely anything can be concealed. 
 Under this iron rule the inhabitants are ground to 
 poverty, and the island is becoming rapidly depo- 
 pulated (Coronelli, Isolandi liodi (Jeograjica; 
 Clarke's Travels; Turner’s Journal; Schubert's 
 Reise ins MorgenL). — G. M. B. 
 
 RIBLAH (rta"} ; Sept. ’PafiXad/T), a town 
 on the northern border of Palestine, in the dis- 
 trict of Hamath, through which the Babylonians, 
 both in their irruptions and departures, were ac- 
 customed to pass (Nutn. xxxiv. 11; 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 33; xxv. 2G ; Jer. xxxix. 5; lii. 10). 
 This place is no where mentioned but in the 
 Bible. The Jewish commentators, exchanging 
 the ^ for "l, supposed it to denote Daphne or An- 
 tioch (Jerome, Onomast. s. v. ‘ Riblatha;’ and 
 on Ezek. xlvii.). This city, however, was too far 
 from Hamath to the north boundary of Palestine. 
 It is perhaps represented by the site called liibleh, 
 which Buckingham found thirty or forty miles 
 south of Hamath on the Orontes ( Arab Tribes, 
 p. 48 1). 
 
 RIDDLE (rn'n), literally, ‘something intri- 
 cate or complicated ;’ oXviypa. Gesenius de- 
 rives the Hebrew word from the Arabic J \ ^ 
 
 * to bend off, or tie in knots;’ and the immediate 
 etymology usually assigned to the Greek word is 
 alvicraopai, * to hint obscurely.’ The Hebrew 
 word (Judg. xiv. 12-19) properly means ‘ a riddle 
 or enigma; 'Sept. ^pdfiXp/aa ; Vulg . problcma and 
 propositio ; where Samson proposes to the thirty 
 young Philistines who attended his nuptials, an 
 enigma, derived from the circumstance of his 
 having lately found a swarm of bees and honey in 
 the skeleton of the lion, which he had killed some 
 months before, when he had come to espouse his 
 wife [Bee], This riddle or enigma, though un- 
 fair in regard to those who accepted the pledge to 
 unravej it, because they were ignorant of the par- 
 ticular fact by the knowledge of which alone it 
 could be explat led by them, nevertheless answers 
 to the approved definition of an enigma, as con- 
 
 sisting of an artful and abstruse pioposition, put 
 in obscure, ambiguous, and even contrary terms, 
 in order to exercise the ingenuity of others in find- 
 ing out its meaning. 
 
 The pleasure of the propounder is derived from 
 perplexing his hearers ; and theirs from overcom- 
 ing the difficulty, which is usually renewed by 
 their proposing another enigma. 
 
 This kind of amusement seems to nave neen 
 resorted to, especially at entertainments, in all 
 ages among different nations ; and has even been 
 treated as an art, and reduced to rules. The chief 
 writers on this curious subject are, Nic. Reusner 
 (. JEnigmatograph .) and F. Menestrier. 
 
 The principal rules laid down for the construc- 
 tion of an enigma are the following : that it must 
 be obscure, and the more obscure the better, pro- 
 vided that the description of the thing, however 
 covered and abstract, and in whatever remote or 
 uncommon terms, be really correct ; and it is 
 essential that the thing thus described be well 
 known. Sometimes, and especially in a witty 
 enigma, the amusement consists in describing a 
 tiling by a set of truisms, which tell their own 
 meaning, but which confound the heiv er, through 
 his expectation of some deep and difficult mean- 
 ing. The greater enigma is to be rendered 
 more intricate and knotty by a multitude of 
 words ; the lesser may consist of only one or two 
 remote words or allusions. 
 
 The speech <>f Lamech to nis wives Adah and 
 Zillah (Gen. xiv. 23, 24) is, possibly, an enig- 
 matic mode of communicating some painful in- 
 telligence. It is recorded (1 Kings x. 1) that the 
 queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon niTTQ ; 
 Sept. tv aivlypact ; Vulg. in cenigmatibus. Jose- 
 phus relates that Hiram, king of Tyre, tried the 
 skill of Solomon in the same way ; and quotes 
 Dius to attest, that Solomon sent riddles to Hiram, 
 and that the Tyrian king forfeited much money 
 to Solomon from his inability to answer them, but 
 redeemed it, upon a man of Tyre named Abdemon 
 being found able to solve them ( Antiq . viii. 5. 3). 
 The description of the Messiah under the name oJ 
 the Branch, “IV3, when considered in regard to the 
 occasion and context, may be considered as a spe- 
 cimen of the lesser enigma (see Lowth upon the 
 passage). ‘ The number of the beast ’ (ltev. xiii. 
 18), may be also considered as an enigma. The 
 other instances in which the Hebrew word is used 
 all exhibit more or less of the enigmatic character. 
 They are as follows, with the Sept, and Vulg. 
 readings: — Num. xii. 8, where it means ‘an 
 oracle or vision,’ 5 1 alviygaruv. non per cenigmata 
 et figures (Moses) dominion videt ; Ps. xlix. 5, 
 ‘a song,’ 'KpdfrXpp.a, propositio ; lxxviii. 2, ‘dark 
 sayings,’ Trpof3Xr)paTa, propositions ; Prov. i. 6, 
 ‘intricate proverbs,’ alviygara, cenigmata ; Ezra 
 xvii. 2, ‘ a parable,* Si-f]yvpa, Aq. ; alviyga cenigma , 
 Dan. viii. 23, ‘artifices;’ TTpo^Xyipara, proposi- 
 tiones r, cenigmata; Hab. ii. 6, ‘a song,’ -Kpi&Xpgo., 
 loquela cenigmatum. In the Apocrypha we find 
 (Wisd. xlrii. 15) TrapafioXcus alviy/ddrocv, cenig - 
 mala; in the New Testament (1 Cor. xiii. 12), 
 tv aii’iyuasri, in cenigmate, which Bretschneider 
 points out as a quotation of Num. xii. 8, and 
 where alvlypan is opposed to to d5os, ‘the clear 
 reality.’ The word enigma, taken in the exten- 
 sive meaning of its root, alvos, certainly applies to 
 an immense portion of the sacred writings, viz. aa 
 a narrative or tale, having an applica 'on to present 
 
RIMMON. 
 
 R1MMUN. 
 
 635 
 
 circumstances; Odyss. xiv. 508, a fable, bearing 
 moral instruction; Hes. Oper. 202, wliicli nearly 
 approaches to the nature of a parable [Parahle] ; 
 a pointed sentence, saying, or proverb (Theocritus, 
 xiv. 13) [Proverb ; Prophecy]. According 
 to Lennep, the word aHviypa, taken substantively, 
 means ‘ anything obscure.’ As specimens of the 
 enigmatical style in the Old Testament, Winer 
 points out Prov. xxx. 12-19; Isa. xxi. 12. In 
 the New we may adduce our Lord’s discourse 
 with Nicodemus (John iii. 3), and with the Jews 
 (vi . 5 1 , &c.), where the enigmatical style is adopted 
 for the purpose of engaging attention, in an unri- 
 valled manner (Winer, Bibl. Archaol . ; Stuck, 
 Antiq. Conviv. iii. 17). — J. F. D. 
 
 RIMMON (flft*)) is mentioned in numerous 
 places in the Old Testament, and is universally 
 acknowledged to denote the Pomegranate-tree and 
 fruit, being described in the works of the Arabs 
 by the name rooman. The pomegranate is a 
 native of Asia ; and we may trace it from Syria, 
 through Persia, even to the mountains of Northern 
 India. It is common in Northern Africa, and 
 was early cultivated in Egypt: hence the Israel- 
 ites in the desert complain (Num. xx. 5), ‘ It is 
 no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pome- 
 granates' Being common in Syria and Persia, 
 it must have early attracted the attention of 
 Eastern nations. In the present day it is highly 
 valued, and travellers describe the pomegranate as 
 being delicious throughout Persia. The late Sir 
 A. Burnes states that the famous pomegranates 
 without seeds are grown in gardens under the 
 snowy Bills, near the river Cabul. The bright 
 and dark-green foliage of the pomegranate, and 
 its flowers conspicuous for the crimson colour 
 both of the calyx and petals, must have made it 
 an object of desire in gardens; while its large 
 reddish-coloured fruit, filled with numerous seeds, 
 each surrounded with juicy pleasant-tasted pulp, 
 would make it still more valuable as a fruit in 
 warm countries. The pulpy grains of this fruit 
 are sometimes eaten by themselves, sometimes 
 sprinkled with sugar; at other times the juice is 
 pressed out and made into wine, or one of the 
 esteemed sherbets of the East. This seems also to 
 have been the custom in ancient times, for it is 
 said in Canticles, viii. 2, ‘ I would cause thee to 
 drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pome- 
 granate.’ The beauty of the fruit when burst- 
 ing and displaying the delicate colours of the 
 pulpy grains, seems to be referred to in the follow- 
 ing passage of the same book (vi. 7), ‘ As a piece 
 of pomegranate are thy cheeks (temples) within 
 thy locks ;’ so also the beauty of the flower-beds 
 when first opening made it an object of attraction 
 (vi. 11), ‘ I went into the garden of nuts, &c., to 
 see whether the pomegranates budded;’ and again 
 in vii. 12. Being valued as a fruit, and admired 
 as a flower, it was to be expected that it should 
 be cultivated in gardens and orchards; and to 
 this several passages refer, as Canticles iv. 1 3. In 
 other places it is enumerated with the more valued 
 and cultivateu trees of the country, such as the 
 vine, the fig-tree, the palm-tree, and the olive, as 
 in Joel i. 12; Hag. xi. 19. The pomegranate is 
 not likely to have been a native of Egypt; it 
 must, however, have been cultivated there at a very 
 early period, as the Israelites, when in the desert, 
 lamented the lo'is of its fruit. That it was pro- 
 
 duced in Palestine during the same early ages is 
 evident, from the spies bringing some back when 
 sent into Canaan to see what kind of a land it was; 
 for we are told that they ‘ came unto the brook of 
 Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with 
 one cluster of grapes, &c., and they brought of the 
 pomegranates, and of tiie figs.’ 
 
 The pomegranate was well known to the Greeks, 
 being the pod of Theophrastus, and of Dioscorides, 
 (i. 151). It was employed as a medicine by 
 Hippocrates, and is mentioned by Homer under 
 the name side, supposed to be of Phoenician origin. 
 Its English name is derived from the pomum 
 granatum (‘ grained apple’) of the Romans. Vari- 
 ous parts of the plant were employed medicinally, 
 as, for instance, the root, or rather its bark, the 
 flowers which are called kvtivos by Dioscorides, 
 and the double flowers fSaXavcrTiov ; also the rind 
 of the pericarp, called malicorium by the Romans, 
 and cridiov by Dioscorides. Some of the pro- 
 perties which these plants possess, make them 
 useful both as drugs and as medicines. We 
 have hence a combination of useful and orna- 
 mental properties, which would make the pome- 
 granate an object sure to command attention : 
 and these, in addition to the showy nature of the 
 flowers, and the roundish form of the fruit, 
 crowned by the protuberant remains of the calyx, 
 would induce its selection as an ornament to be 
 imitated in carved work. Hence we find fre- 
 quent mention of it as an ornament on the robes 
 of the priests (Exod. xxviii. 33; xxxix. 24); 
 and*also in the temple (1 Kings vii. 18, 20, 42 ; 
 2 Kings xxv. 17; 2 Chron. iii. 16; iv. 13). It 
 might, therefore, well be adduced by Moses among 
 the desirable objects of the land of promise 
 (Deut. viii. 8) : ‘a land of wheat, and barley, 
 and vines, and fig-tre~s, and pomegranates j a land 
 of oil-olive and honey.’ — J. F. R. 
 
 RIMMON, the name of several places in 
 Palestine, probably distinguished by the pre- 
 sence of pomegranate-trees. 
 
 1. A city of the tribe of Simeon, in the south 
 of Palestine (Josh. xv. 32 ; xix. 7 ; 1 Chron. iv. 
 32; Zech. xiv. 10). 
 
 2. A town on a high conical chalky rock or 
 peak, north-east of Gibeah and Michmash, near 
 the desert (Judg. xx. 45, 47; xxi. 13). The 
 Onomasticon places it fifteen miles north in Jeru- 
 salem, which corresponds to the situation of this 
 rock, which is still crowned by a village bearing 
 the name of Rummon : see Robinson’s Palestine , 
 ii. 113. Some suppose this the Rimmon men- 
 tioned in 1 Sam. xiv. 2. 
 
 3. A city of Zebulon (Josh. xix. 3; 1 Chron. 
 vi. 62). 
 
 4. A station of the Israelites after leaving 
 Sinai (Num. xxxiii. 19). 
 
 RIMMON, an idol worshipped by the Sy- 
 rians (2 Kings v. 18). As this name is found 
 nowhere but in the Bible, and there only in the 
 present text, nothing positive can be affirmed con- 
 cerning the power it symbolized. If it be referred 
 to the pomegranate, we may suppose that the fruit 
 had become the symbol of some mysterious pow- 
 ers in nature. But many commentators entitled 
 to respect, a» Le Clerc, Selden, Vitringa, and 
 Rosenmullei, would rather seek the signification 
 of the word in DDT ramam, ‘ the exalted ;’ in 
 which case we may take it to Irave been a name 
 
638 
 
 RIPHATH. 
 
 ROADS. 
 
 of eminence applied to the sun, or rather to some 
 idol under which the sun was represented. 
 
 RIPH *.TH (nan ; Sept. 'Picpdd ; in 1 Chron. 
 Diphath, naH), a northern people descended 
 from Gomer (Gen. x. 3). See Nations, Dis- 
 persion of. 
 
 RIVER. All the rivers mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture are in this work described under their respec- 
 ti-® names, except such as are included in the 
 article Palestine. The Nile is described un- 
 der Egypt ; and Gihon and Pison are consi- 
 dered under Paradise. 
 
 It may be desirable to discriminate the words 
 which are applied to different kinds of rivers in 
 Scripture. 
 
 ' "IN] and TIN] jeor, which appears to have 
 been of Egyptian origin, denotes a ‘fosse,’ or 
 ‘ rive- •’ (it. was expressed by ioro in the dialect of 
 Memphis, and by iero in that of Thebes, while it 
 appears as ior in the Rosetta inscription). This 
 name is applied exclusively in Scripture to ‘the 
 -iver of Egypt’ (DH^*D "IN'), excepting in Dan. 
 xii. 5, 6, 7, where it denotes another river. This 
 ‘ river of Egypt’ is undoubtedly the Nile ; and is 
 to be distinguished from the ‘ brook of Egypt,’ 
 mentioned below. 
 
 2. "irD nahar, is the word generally used to 
 express any river or perennial stream. It has at 
 this day the same application in Arabic, in 
 which language also, as in Hebrew, it includes 
 canals, as the ‘ Nahar&wan of Khuzistan ; and 
 the Scripture must mean the Euphrates and its 
 canals, where it speaks of ‘ the rivers ( 'naharoth ) 
 of Babylon’ (Ps. cxxxvii. 1). 
 
 3. ^*117, nachal, denotes a stream, brook, or 
 torrent, whether perennial or not, but mostly not, 
 as most of the brooks of Palestine are torrents, 
 (lowing only in winter [Palestine]. See a 
 picturesque allusion to such brooks in Job vi. 15. 
 When the word stands alone it seems to denote a 
 mere winter torrent, a permanent stream being in- 
 dicated by the addition of the word }jTN. ‘ peren- 
 nial,’ as in Ps. lxxiv. 15; Deut. xxxi. 4 ; Amos v. 
 24. A few brooks are specially designated, as 
 the Brook ok Willows (Isa. xv. 7), a stream 
 on the east of the Dead Sea, probably the present 
 Wady-el-Ahsy, which descends from the eastern 
 mountains, and enters the eastern end of the 
 Dead Sea ; the Arnon (see the word) ; the 
 Jaubok (which see); the Besou ( the cold), a 
 torrent emptying itself into the Mediterranean 
 near Gaza (1 Sam.xxx. 9, 10,21) : the Kidron, 
 the Kishon (see the two words); and the Kanah, 
 a stream on the borders of Ephraim and Manasseh 
 (Josh. xvi. 18; xvii. 9). ‘The Brook of 
 Egypt,’ mentioned in Num. xxxiv. 5; Josh, 
 xv. 4, 47 ; 1 Kings viii. 65 ; 2 Kings xxiv. 7 ; 
 Isa. xxvii. 12 ; which is also called simply ‘ the 
 brook’ (Ezek. xlvii. 19 : xlviii. 28), and described 
 as on the confines of Palestine and Egypt, is 
 unquestionably the Wady-el-Arish, near the vil- 
 lage of that name, which was anciently called 
 Rhhiocorura. The ‘ river (Jeor ) of Egypt’ is, 
 however, the Nile ; and it is unfortunate that the 
 two are not so well distinguished in the Authorized 
 Version as in the original. 
 
 The word nachal (bn: sometimes oo :urs in 
 the sense of the Arabic Wady, that is, a valley 
 
 watered by a brook or torrent. Such are the valley 
 of Eshcol (which see); the valley of Geuak 
 (G en. xxvi. 17); and as nachal signifies both a 
 brook and the valley in which it flows, the same 
 terms may be understood of either, as in the case 
 of the ‘ brook’ Zered in Deut. ii. 13, 14 ; which is 
 expressed by the same word as the ‘ valley* ot 
 Zered in Num. xxi. 12; and in some cases it is 
 difficult to say which is meant, as in Josh. xv. 
 7; xix. 14, comp. 11. The valley of Sorkk 
 (J udg. xvi. 4), so called probably from its vine- 
 yards, Eusebius and Jerome place north of Elen* 
 theropolis, and near to Zorah. The valley of 
 Shittim (‘acacias’) was in Moab, on the borders 
 of Palestine (Joel iv. 18; comp. Num. xxv. 1 ; 
 Josh. ii. 1 ; iii. 1 ; Mic. vi. 5). The valley of 
 Zered was in the territory of Moab, east of the 
 Dead Sea (Num. xxi. 12; Deut. ii. 13, 14), pro- 
 bably the same with ‘ the Brook of Willows.’ 
 
 RIZPAH (n5!»“], « coal ; Sept. ’Peatpa), a 
 concubine of Saul, memorable for the touching 
 example of maternal affection which she afforded, 
 in watching the dead bodies of her sons, and 
 driving the birds away from them, when they 
 had been gibbeted by the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 
 iii. 7 ; xxi. 8, 10, 1 1). 
 
 ROADS. In the East, where travelling is per- 
 formed mostly on some beast of burden, certain 
 tracks were at a very early period customarily 
 pursued ; and that the rather as from remote ages 
 commerce and travelling went on by means of 
 caravans, under a certain discipline, and affording 
 mutual protection in their passage from city to 
 city, ami from land to land. Now wherever such 
 a band of men and animals had once passed they 
 would form a track which, especially in countries 
 where it is easy for the traveller to miss his way, 
 subsequent caravans or individuals would natu- 
 rally follow ; and the rather inasmuch as the ori- 
 ginal route was not. taken arbitrarily, but because 
 it led to the first cities in each particular district 
 of country. And thus at a very early period 
 were there marked out on the surface of t he globe 
 lines of inter-communication, running from land 
 to land, and in some sort binding distant nations 
 together. These, in the earliest times, lay in the 
 direction of east and west, that being the line on 
 which the trade and the civilization of the earth 
 first ran. 
 
 The purposes of war seem, howevei*, to have 
 furnished the first inducement to the formation of 
 made, or artificial roads. War, we know, afforded 
 to the Romans the motive under which they formed 
 their roads ; and doubtless they found them not 
 only to facilitate conquest, but also to insure the 
 holding of the lands they had subdued : and the 
 remains of their roads which we have under our 
 own eyes in this island, show us with what skill 
 they laid out a country, and formed lines oi 
 communication. To the Romans, chiefly, was 
 Palestine indebted for such roads. 
 
 There seem, indeed, to have been roads of some 
 kind in Palestine at an earlier period. Language 
 is employed which supposes the existence of arti- 
 ficial roads. In Isa. xl. 3 are these words, ‘Pre- 
 pare ye the w? f of the Lord, make straight in the 
 desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall 
 be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall k# 
 made low ; and the crooked shall be made straight, 
 and the rough places plain.’ There cannot be a 
 
ROADS. 
 
 ROADS. 
 
 637 
 
 more graphic. description of the operations and re- 
 sults connected with the formation of a long and 
 important road. That this i3 the language of pro- 
 phet's inspiration affords no objection, but rather 
 confirms our view ; for poetry, as being an appeal 
 to widely-spread feelings, grounds itself, in such a 
 case as this, on fact; nor could such imagery as 
 ve find here have been employed, had arti filial 
 roads been unknown in Palestine. Nor is the 
 imagery unusual (comp. Isa. xi. 16 ; xix. 23 ; 
 xxxiii. 8; xxxv. 8; xlix. 11; lxii. 10). In 
 1 Sam. vi. 12 we read, ‘ The kine went along the 
 highway, lowing as they went, and turned not 
 aside to the right hand or to the left.’ In Num- 
 bers also (xx. 17), ‘ We will go by the king’s high- 
 way,’ &c. (xxi. 22 ; Deut. ii. 27 ; Lev. xxvi. 
 22). Whether or not these were roads in the mo- 
 dern acceptation of the term, we know from the 
 law regarding a free, open, and good passage to 
 the cities of refuge (see that article, and Deut. xix. 
 3, compared with Mishna, tit. Maccoth ), that the 
 minds of the Israelites were early familiarized with 
 the idea : 4 Thou shalt prepare thee a way,’ &c., 
 ‘that every slayer may flee thither.’ And, much 
 as we hesitate to differ from so high an authority, we 
 cannot agree with Winer (. Real-wort . in ‘Strasse’), 
 that this last cited passage stands alone ; for other 
 passages have been given which, when taken in 
 conjunction with it, seem to prove that to some ex- 
 tent artificial roads were known to the Hebrews 
 in the commencement of their commonwealth. 
 Indeed it is highly probable that the Hebrews had 
 become acquainted with roads during their sojourn 
 in E gy t, where, in the Delta especially, the nature 
 of the country would require roads and high- 
 ways to be thrown up and maintained. Josephus 
 (. Antiq . viii. 7. 4) expressly says, ‘Solomon did 
 not neglect the care of the ways, but he laid a 
 causeway of black stone (basalt) along the roads 
 that led to Jerusalem, both to render them easy for 
 travellers, and to manifest the grandeur of his 
 riches.’ Winer, indeed, remarks that Josephus's 
 roads find no support in the Bible. But al- 
 though these particular roads may not be men- 
 tioned, it does not hence follow that they did 
 not exist ; but mention is made, as we have 
 seen, of ways and highways in the Scriptural 
 authorities. To the Romans, however, Pales- 
 tine was greatly indebted for its roads. On 
 tins subject Reload ( Palcestina ) has supplied 
 useful information. In the East generally, and 
 in Palestine in particular, the Romans formed 
 roads, set up mile-stones, in imitation of what 
 they Lad done in Italy. These stones bore the 
 nuiuea <ry/j.eta, «rr and Kioues. From the fact 
 
 their existing in Palestine, Eusebius, in his 
 Gnomasticon, frequently uses the t etnas eV eWy 
 qiuGicp, and similar phrases. In Reland's time 
 •fragments of these mile-stones still remained. 
 
 For the merely internal, Palestinian roads, Re- 
 and may be consulted. He gives a list of them 
 iii. 2), which will supply the reader with the 
 equisite information, especially if studied under 
 die corrections supplied by recent travellers. 
 
 Our remarks will be confined to roads which 
 tonnected Palestine with other countries, since a 
 notice of the internal roads as well, if at all com- 
 plete, would require too much space. 
 
 The Phoenicians, as a mercantile people, main- 
 tained a connection not only with the West, by sea, 
 but also, overland, with the East. They had two 
 
 great commercial highways. One came out of 
 Arabia Felix, through Petia. The other struck 
 from the northern extremity of the Persian Gulf, 
 through Palestine, to Tyre. 
 
 The first road in Palestine which we mention 
 ran from Ptolemais, on the coast of the Mediter- 
 ranean, to Damascus. This road remains to the 
 present day. Beginning at Ptolemais (Acco), it 
 ran southward to Nazareth, and continuing south 
 and east, passed the plain of Esdraelon on the 
 north ; after which, turning north and east, it came 
 to Tiberias, where, running along the Sea of Ga- 
 lilee, it reachet Capernaum, and having passed 
 the Jordan somewhat above the last place, it went 
 over a spur of the Anti Libanus (Jebel Heish), 
 and keeping straight forward east by north, came 
 to Damascus. This road was used for the pur- 
 poses both of trade and war. In the history of the 
 Crusades it bears the name of Via Maris. It con- 
 nected Europe with the interior of Asia. Troops 
 coming from Asia over the Euphrates passed along 
 this way into the heart of Palestine. Under the 
 Romans it was a productive source of income. It 
 was on this road, not far from Capernaum, that 
 Jesus saw Matthew sitting ‘at the receipt of cus- 
 tom,’ and gave him his call to the apostleship. 
 
 Another road passed along the Mediterranean 
 coast southward into Egypt. Beginning at Pto- 
 lemais, it ran first to Caesarea, thence to Diospolis, 
 and so on through Ascalon and Gaza down into 
 Egypt. This was also an important line of com- 
 munication, passing as it did through cities of 
 great importance, running along the coast and 
 extending to Egypt. A glance at the map will 
 show how important it was for trade by land and 
 by sea, as well as for the passage of troops. A 
 branch of this road connected the sea with the me- 
 tropolis, leading from the same Caesarea through 
 Diospolis to Jerusalem. Down this branch Pau'. 
 was sent on his way to Felix (Acts xxiii. 23, 26). 
 The band went through Antipatris, and thence on 
 to Caesarea. 
 
 A third line of road connected Galilee with 
 Judaea, running through the intervening Samaria 
 (Luke xvii. 11 ; John iv. 4; Joseph. Antiq. xx. 
 6. 1 ; Vita , § 32). The journey took three days. 
 Passing along the plain of Esdraelon the traveller 
 entered Samaria at Ginea (Jenin), and was thence 
 conducted to Samaria (Sebaste), thence to She- 
 chem (Nablous), whence a good day’s travel 
 brought him to Jerusalem. This last part of the 
 journey has been described by Maundrell {Jour- 
 ney, p. 85, sq.). 
 
 In the time of the Romans there was also a road 
 from Jerusalem to the lake Gennesareth, through 
 Shechem and Scythopolis. The same road sent 
 a branch off at Scythopolis, in a westerly direc- 
 tion through Esdraelon to Csesarea ; and another 
 branch across the Jordan to Gadara, on to Damas- 
 cus, along which line of country there still lies a 
 road, southward of the sea of Galilee, to the same 
 celebrated city. 
 
 There were three chief roads running from Je- 
 rusalem. One passed in a north-easterly direc- 
 tion over the Mount of Olives, by Bethany, through 
 openings in hills and winding ways on to Jericho, 
 near which the Jordan was passed when travellers 
 took their way to the north, if they wished to pass 
 through Peraea : which was the road the Galilean 
 Jews, in coming to and returning from the festi- 
 vals in the capital, were accustomed to take, thuf 
 
63* 
 
 ROADS. 
 
 RODON. 
 
 avoiding the unfriendly territory of Samaria ; or 
 travellers turned their faces towards the south, if 
 they intended to go towards the Dead Sea. This 
 road was followed hy the Israelites when they 
 directed their steps towards Canaan. Through 
 Peraea the Syrian and Assyrian armies made their 
 hostile advances on Israel (2 Kings viii. 2S ; ix. 
 14 ; x. 32, sq. ; 1 Cliron. v. 26). 
 
 A second road led from Jerusalem southward 
 to Hebron, whence travellers went through the 
 wilderness of Judaea to Aila, as the remains of a 
 Roman road still show ; or they might take a 
 westerly direction on to Gaza, away which is still 
 pursued, and is of two days' duration. The ordi- 
 nary way from Jerusalem to Gaza appears, in the 
 Roman period, to have lain through Eleuthero- 
 polis and Ascalon. From Gaza through Rhino- 
 corura and Pelusium was the nearest road down 
 into Egypt from Jerusalem ( Antiq . xiv. 14. 2). 
 Along this road many thousand prisoners, made 
 by Vespasian in his capture of Jerusalem, were 
 sent to Alexandria in order to be shipped for Rome. 
 Of these two roads from Jerusalem to Gaza, one 
 went westward by Ramlah and Ascalon ; the 
 other southward by Hebron. This last road 
 Raumer ( Palastina , p. 191 ; see also his Beitrage, 
 published after Robinson’s work on Palestine, 
 namely, in 1843, correcting or confirming the 
 views given in his Palastina , 1838) is of opinion 
 was that which was taken by Philip (Acts viii. 
 26, sq.), partly because tradition states that the 
 eunuch was baptized in the vicinity of Hebron, 
 and this road from Jerusalem to Hebron runs 
 through the ‘desert’ Thekoa (Thecua) in the 
 Ono?nasticon. And here he finds the reason of the 
 angel's command to go ‘ towards the south for 
 Hebron lay south of Jerusalem ; whereas but for 
 this direction Philip might have gone westward 
 by Ramlah. Robinson, admitting that there is a 
 road from Jerusalem to Hebron, maintains (ii.640; 
 i. 320) that Philip went by a third road, which 
 led down Wady Musurr to Betogabra (Ehu- 
 theropolis), and thinks that he has found at Tell 
 el-Hasy the spot where the eunuch received bap- 
 tism. But, says Raumer ( Beitr’dge , p. 41), this 
 road ran in a south-westerly direction, and Philip 
 v/as commanded to go towards the south, for which 
 purpose he must have gone by Hebron. Raumer 
 then proceeds to confirm his original position. 
 Jerome, in his Life of Paula, testifies that a road 
 from Jerusalem to Gaza went through Hebron. 
 Paula travelled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, 
 which lay south of the city : ‘ When she reached 
 Befrdehem she quickened the pace of her horse and 
 took the old road which leads to Gaza.’ This road 
 conducted to Bethsur (a little north of Hebron), 
 
 ‘ where,’ says Jerome, ‘ while he read the Scrip- 
 tures, the eunuch found the Gospel fountain.’ 
 
 ‘ This,’ adds Raumer, ‘ is the same Bethsur of 
 which Jerome, in the Onomasticon , says, “ As 
 you go from Aelia to Hebron, at the twentieth 
 mile-stone, you meet Bethsoron, near wuich, at the 
 foot of a mountain, is a fountain bubbling out of 
 the soil. The Acts of the Apostles state that the 
 chamberlain of Queen Candace was baptized in 
 it by Philip.” From Bethsur Paula proceeded to 
 Hebron. The Itinerarium Hierosolymitanutn (of 
 the year 333) mentions Bethsur as the place where 
 the baptism was performed.’ 
 
 Raumer concludes by remarking — ‘ Robinson 
 rightly rejects tradition when it contradicts the 
 
 Sacred Scriptures, but he must also reject thoss 
 pretended scientific theories which contradict Hofy 
 Writ. Such hypotheses may easily become the 
 groundwork of scientific legends. To fix the bap- 
 tismal-place of the Chamberlain at Tel el-Hasy, 
 contradicts the Scripture; but Bethsur, which 
 has from the earliest ages been so accounted, agrees 
 with the passage in the Acts of the Apostles.’ 
 
 There only remains for us to mention wl at 
 Winer reckons the third of the three great roads 
 which ran from Jerusalem ; this third road went tc 
 the Mediterranean at Joppa (Jaffa), a way which 
 from the time of the Crusades has been taken by 
 pilgrims proceeding to tire Holy City from Egypt 
 and from Europe. 
 
 In addition to the works already referred to, see 
 De Wette, Archdologie ; Scholz, Archdologie; 
 Heeren, Idem , i. 740 ; Ritter, Erdkunde ; Crome, 
 Palastina, i. 8 ; Burckhardt, Syria, ii. 547 ; also 
 the article Geography. — J. R. B. 
 
 ROAST. [Food.] 
 
 RODON (|3d5o</), signifying ‘ rose,’ occurs 
 only in the Apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus 
 and the Book ofWisdom. In the English trans- 
 lation of the Hebrew Scriptures ‘ rose’ occurs also 
 in the Song of Solomon xi. 1, and in Isaiah xxxv. 
 1 ; but in neither of these passages is there any 
 proof that the word Chabbazzeleth ought to be 
 so rendered. Indeed by many the narcissus is 
 thought to be intended. In the books of the 
 Apocrypha written in Greek, the word pibov 
 may seem to indicate the same plant that it did 
 among the Greeks, namely, the rose. Thus in 
 Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 14, ‘ I was exalted like a 
 palm tree in Engaddi, and as a rose plant in 
 Jericho;' in xxxix. 13, ‘and bud forth as a rose 
 growing by the brook of the field and the high 
 priest’s ornaments are compared in 1. 8, to ‘ the 
 flowers of roses in the spring of the year.’ But 
 the passage in the Book of Wisdom (xi. 8), ‘ Let 
 us crown ourselves with roses ere they be with- 
 ered,’ is especially well-suited to the rose. But 
 roses have not been found by travellers in the 
 neighbourhood of Jericho ; they cannot be con- 
 sidered exactly as spring llowers ; nor do they 
 grow specially by the sides of brooks. 
 
 The rose was as highly esteemed among an- 
 cient, as it is among modern nations, if we may 
 judge fry the frequent references to it in the 
 poets of antiquity. As we know that, it con- 
 tinues to be the favourite flower of the Persians, 
 and is much cultivated in Egypt, we might ex- 
 pect more frequent mention of some of its nume- 
 rous species and varieties in the Jewish writings. 
 This, however, is not the case, and probably 
 arises from its being less common in a wild state 
 in a comparatively dry and warm climate like 
 that of Syria. It is, however, indigenous in some 
 parts. Monro, as quoted by Kitto in the Physical 
 History of Palestine, ‘ found in tiie valley of 
 Baalbec, a creeping rose of a bright yellow colour 
 in full bloom, about the end of May. About 
 the same time, on advancing towards Rama and 
 Joppa from Jerusalem, the hills are found to be 
 to a considerable extent, covered with white and 
 pink roses. The gardens of Rama itself abound 
 in roses of a powerful fragrance.’ Mariti, as 
 stated by Roseumuller, found the greatest quan- 
 tity of roses in the hamlet of St. Juhn, in the 
 desert of the same name. ‘ In this place the ro>«?- 
 plants form small forests in the gardens Tbf 
 
ItODC. N. 
 
 RODON. 
 
 630 
 
 greatest part of the roses reared there are brought 
 to Jerusalem, where rose-water is prepared from 
 them, of which the scent is so very exquisite, 
 that in every part of Lycia, and also in Cyprus, 
 it is in request above all other rose-waters.’ 
 Burckhardt was struck with the number of rose- 
 trees which lie found among the ruins of Bozra 
 beyond the Jordan. That, the rose was cultivated 
 in Damascus is well known. Indeed one species 
 is named Rosa Damascena from being supposed 
 to be indigenous there. * In the gardens of the 
 city roses are still much cultivated. Monro 
 says that, in size they are inferior to our damask 
 rose, and less perfect in form ; but that their odour 
 and colour are far more rich. The only variety 
 that exists in Damascus is a white rose, which 
 appears to belong to the same species, differing 
 onlv in colour ’ (Kitto, l. c. p. cclxxxiv.). 
 
 It is possible, however, that the common rose 
 may not be the plant meant in the above passages 
 of Ecclesiasticus, and that the name rodon may 
 have been used in a general sense, so as to 
 include some rose-like plants. We have an in- 
 stance of this, indeed, in the* oleander, of which 
 rhododendron, or rose-tree , was one of the ancient 
 names, and rhododaphne another. The former 
 name is now applied to a very different genus of 
 plants, but laurier-rose , the French translation 
 of rhododaphne, is still the common name in 
 France of the plant which used to be called rose 
 bay in this country, but which is now commonly 
 called oleander. Its long and narrow leaves are 
 like some kinds of willows, and in their hue and 
 leathery consistence have some resemblance to 
 the bay tree, while in its rich inflorescence it 
 may most aptly be compared to the rose. The 
 oleander is well-known to be common in the 
 south of Europe, by the sides of rivers and 
 torrents; also in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. 
 The present writer has seen it in similar situations 
 in the north of India, and nothing can be 
 conceived more beautiful than the rivulets at 
 the foot of the mountains, with their banks lined 
 with thickets of oleanders, crowned with large 
 bunches of roseate coloured flower®. Most tra- 
 
 vellers in Palestine have been struck with the 
 beauty of this plant. Of the neighbourhood of 
 Tripoli, Rauwolf says, ‘There also by the river's 
 side are found anthilis marina, &c., and oleander 
 with purple flowers by the inhabitants called 
 defle.' At the foot of Lebanon, again he says, 
 ‘ in the valley further down towards the water 
 grew also the oleander.’ It is mentioned as 
 a conspicuous object in similar situations by 
 Robinson and Smith. Mr. Kitto says, ‘Among 
 the plants in flower in April, the tleander 
 flourishes with extraordinary vigour, and in some 
 instances grows to a consideialde size by all the 
 waters of Palestine : when the shrub expands its 
 splendid blossoms the effect is truly beautiful. 
 Lord Lindsay speaks with rapture of the glorious 
 appearance which the groves of blooming olean- 
 ders make in this season, along the streams and 
 in the lone valleys of Palestine ’ (l. c. p. 
 ccxxxvii.). ‘ In the month of May,’ adds Mr. Kitto 
 (l. c. p. ccxliv.), ‘oleanders, continuing still in 
 bloom, are as much noticed in this as in the pre- 
 ceding month by travellers. Madox noticed in 
 this month that fine oleanders in full bloom were 
 growing all along the borders of the Lake of 
 Tiberias, mostly in the water. The same obser- 
 vation was made by Monro. The lake is here 
 richly margined with a )vide belt of oleanders, 
 growing in such luxuriance as they are never 
 known to do even in the most genial parts of 
 Europe.’ Such a plant could hardly escape 
 reference, and therefore we are inclined to think 
 that it is alluded to in the book of Ecclesiasticus 
 by the name p6dov. If this should not be con- 
 sidered sufficiently near to rhododaphne and 
 rhododendron, we may state that in Arabic 
 writers on Materia Medica, rodyon is given as 
 the Syrian name of the oleander. 
 
 The plant commonly called ‘ Rose of Jericho,’ 
 is in no way referred to in the above-quoted 
 passages. Dr. Lindley, in the Gardener* s^idhro- 
 nicle , ii. 362, has thus described it : ‘ the ana- 
 statica hierochuntica, or rose of Jericho of the 
 old herbalists, is not a rose at all, nor has it the 
 smallest resemblance to a rose, nor is it, as it is 
 often described to be, alive as sold in the shops. 
 It is a little grey-leaved annual, very common 
 in Palestine, and of which hundreds may be 
 gathered in full flower in June, by the sides of 
 the road over the Isthmus of Suez. It produces 
 a number of short, stiff, zigzag branches, which 
 spread pretty equally from the top of the root, 
 and, when green and growing, lie almost, flat 
 upon the ground, having the flowers and fruit 
 upon their upper side, it is, in fact, a crucife- 
 rous plant, nearly related to the common purple 
 sea-rocket, which grows on the coast of England, 
 and has a somewhat similar habit. When the 
 seed-vessels of this plant are ripe, the branches 
 die, and drying up, curve inwards, so as to form 
 a kind of ball, which then separates from the 
 roots, and is blown about on the sands of the 
 desert. In the cavity thus formed by the 
 branches, the seed-vessels are carefully guarded 
 from being so disturbed as to lose their contents. 
 In that condition the winds carry the anastatica 
 from place to place, till at last rain falls, or it 
 reaches a pool of water. The dry hard branches 
 immediately absorb the fluid, become softened, 
 relax, and expand again into the position they 
 occupied when alive; at the same time the seed 
 
640 
 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 vessels open, and the seeds fall out, when, the 
 place being suitable, they readily germinate, 
 and establish themselves as new plants.’ The 
 effe ts, therefore, are owing to the hygroscopic 
 properties of vegetable texture, which thus form 
 of the anastatica ‘ hygrometres naturels,’ accord- 
 ing to D’Arvieux. — J. F. R. 
 
 ROE [Antfj.ope; species Tsebi or DorcasJ. 
 ROLL. [Writing.] 
 
 ROMAN EMPIRE : the government of the 
 Remans as conducted by the emperors, of whom 
 Augustus was the first. The term may be taken 
 with some latitude of meaning, as representing 
 the Roman state since the Romans came into 
 contact with the Jews before the commencement 
 of the imperial sway. We have not, however, 
 the intention of entering into an account of the 
 rise, progress, and decline of the Roman power, 
 but merely to set forth a few of the more essential 
 facts, speaking a little less briefly of the relations 
 formed and sustained between the Romans and 
 the Jews. 
 
 The foundations of Rome lie in an obscurity 
 from which the criticism of Niebuhr has done 
 little more than remove the legendary charm. 
 Three tribes, however, formed the earliest popu- 
 lation, namely, the Ramnenses (probably Ro- 
 manenses, still further abbreviated into Ramnes), 
 the Titienses (shortened into Tities, from Titu* 
 Tatius, their head), and the Luceres (probably 
 an Etruscan horde, who migrated to Rome from 
 Solonium, under Lucumo). In order to in- 
 crease his population, and with a view to that 
 conquest which he afterwards achieved, and which 
 was only a small prelude to the immense do- 
 minion subsequently acquired, Romulus opened 
 in Rome an asylum, inviting thereto those who, 
 for whatever cause, fled from the neighbouring 
 cities. To Rome accordingly there flocked the 
 discontented, the guilty, the banished, and the 
 aspiring, freemen and slaves. Thus were laid 
 the foundations of the future mistress of the 
 world, according to the ordinary reckoning, 
 B.c. 753, the number of inhabitants at the first 
 not exceeding, it is supposed, four thousand 
 souls : what it arose to in the period of its greatest 
 extent we have scarcely the means of ascertain- 
 ing. Gibbon thus speaks ‘ The number of 
 subjects who acknowledged the laws of Rome, 
 of citizens, of provincials, and of slaves, cannot 
 now be tixed with such a degree of accuracy as 
 the importance of the object would deserve. We 
 are informed that when the Emperor Claudius 
 exercised the office of censor he took an account 
 of six millions nine hundred and forty-five thou- 
 sand Roman citizens, who, with the proportion of 
 women and children, must have amounted to 
 about twenty millions of souls. The multitude 
 of subjects of inferior rank was uncertain and 
 fluctuating. But after weighing with attention 
 every circumstance which could influence the 
 balance, it seems probable that there existed in 
 the time of Claudius about twice as many pro- 
 vincials as there were citizens, of eirher sex and 
 of every age, and that the slaves were at least 
 equal in number to the free inhabitants of the 
 Roman world. The total amount of this im- 
 perfect calculation would rise to about one hun- 
 dred and twenty millions of persons — a degree of 
 population which possibly exceeds that of modern 
 
 Europe, and forms the most numerous siafety tha^ 
 has ever been united under the same system of 
 government.’ 
 
 The government was at first kingly. Romulus, 
 the first monarch, was probably succeeded by six 
 others, during a period of 244 years, till in the 
 year b.c. 509, kingly government was abolished 
 when in the hands of Tarquinius Superbus, in 
 consequence of his arrogant and oppressive des- 
 potism. A consular form of government suc- 
 ceeded, which was at the first of an essentially 
 aristocratic character, but was compelled to give 
 way by degrees to popular influence, till men ot 
 plebeian origin made their way to the highest 
 offices and first honours in the state, when the 
 government became an oligarchy ; then fell into 
 anarchy, from which it was rescued by the strong 
 hand of Octavius Caesar, who became sole mastei 
 of the world by defeating Antony at Actium on 
 the 2nd of September, a.u. 723 (b.c. 31), though 
 
 471. [Roman Emperor and Empress. 
 
 it was not till the year 725 that the senate named 
 Octavius Imperator, nor till the year 727 that 
 he received the sacred title of Augustus. His 
 empire had for its limit the Euphrates on the 
 east, the cataracts of the Nile, the African deserts, 
 and Mount Atlas on the south, the ocean on the 
 west, and the Danube and the Rhine on the 
 north. 
 
 The subjugated countries that lay beyond the 
 limits of Italy were designated by the general 
 name of Provinces. The first provisions necessary 
 on the conquest of a country by the Roman arms 
 were made with a view to secure the acquisition 
 by the victorious general, in virtue of the power 
 and authority (imperium) intrusted to him by 
 the government at home. Accordingly the earliest 
 object of attention was the ordering of the mili- 
 tary power, and the procuring of suitable resources 
 for subsisting the troops. These arrangements, 
 however, were made not without a regard to the 
 pacific relations into which the conquerors and 
 the conquered had mutually entered. Acting 
 on the principle that all unnecessary evil was 
 gratuitous folly, the general availed aimself of 
 
ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 (he aid afforded l>y exis'ing institutions, and only 
 •entured to give displeasure by establishing new 
 ones in cases where the laws and customs of a 
 country were insufficient for his purposes The 
 civil government was, however, recognised, mo- 
 dified or remodelled by the conqueror, provision- 
 ally, and only until the Roman senate had made 
 its behests known. Ordinarily, however, the«gene- 
 ral who had conquered the province constituted 
 its government, in virtue of a law or decree of 
 the senate in which the constitution (forma pro- 
 vincise) was set forth and established, or the pro- 
 visional appointments already made were sanc- 
 tioned and confirmed. In order to complete these 
 structural arrangements, the general received spe- 
 cial aid from ten senators, appointed for the pur- 
 
 pose, whose counsel he was obliged to make use 
 of. In thus re-forming the legal and social life 
 of a province, the conquerors had the good sense 
 to act in general with prudence and mildness, 
 having regaid in their appointments to local pe- 
 culiari tie’s and existing institutions, so far as the 
 intended adjunction to the Romatl» power per- 
 mitted, in order to avoid giving the provincials 
 provocation for opposing their new masters. Under 
 ordinary circumstances the government of the 
 provinces was conducted by authorities sent for 
 the purpose from Rome. Augustus divided the 
 government of the provinces between himself and 
 the senate in such a manner that he assigned to 
 the senate the provinces which were so well se- 
 cured and obedient that they needed no army to 
 keep them in a'legiance to Rome ; while he kept 
 under his own hands, in virtue of his imperium 
 proconsulate, those that were more considerable 
 and more difficult to hold. The government of 
 the senatorial provinces lay between the consuls, 
 for whom, after they had completed their con- 
 sular office, two provinces were appointed ; the 
 other provinces were allotted to the praetors. 
 Suetonius adds ( Octav. 47) that Augustus some- 
 times made changes in this arrangement. Quaes- 
 tors, chosen by lot out of those who were named 
 for the year, went with the procqpisuls into the 
 provinces of the senate. Into the provinces of the 
 emperor legati, or lieutenants, were sent, with pro- 
 praetorial power, to act as representatives of their 
 voi, n. 42 
 
 a tv 
 
 master : they wore the sword as an index of mili- 
 tary authority, and had power of life and deatd 
 over the soldiers — two distinctions which were util 
 granted to the proconsuls, or governors of the sena- 
 torial provinces. The imperial lieutenants re- 
 mained many years in the provinces; until, in- 
 deed, it pleased the emperor to recall them. Quaes- 
 tors were not sent into t lie imperial provinces, hut 
 their place was supplied by 4 procurators/ called 
 at a later period ‘ rationales/ who were generally 
 taken from the equestrian order: they raised the 
 revenue for the imperial treasury, and discharged 
 the office of paymaster of the army. There was 
 also in the senatorial provinces a procurator, who 
 raised the income intended, not. for the treasury, 
 hut for the emperor's privy purse : the smaller 
 provinces, like Judaea, which belonged to Syria, 
 were altogether governed by such. 
 
 The proconsuls, propraetors, and propraetorial 
 lieutenants, when about to proceed into their se- 
 veral provinces, received instructions for their guid- 
 ance from the emperor ; and in cases in which 
 these were found insufficient, they were to apply 
 for special directions to the imperial head of the 
 state. A specimen of such application may be 
 found in Pliny’s letter to Trajan, with the .empe- 
 ror’s rescript, regardiugyjhe conduct which was to 
 be observed to wards the already numerous and 
 rapidly growing sect of Christians. Theadminis- 
 tration of justice, so far as it did not belong to the 
 province itself, was in the governor or lieutenants 
 assembled in a conventus ; an appeal lay from this, 
 court to the proconsul, and from him to Caesar. 
 Criminal justice was wholly in the hands of the 
 local governor, and extended not only over the 
 provincials, but the Roman citizens as well : in 
 important cases the governors applied for a deci- 
 sion to the emperor. As the Romans carefully 
 abstained from making any changes in religious 
 matters, so in Palestine the judging of crimes 
 against religion was left by them to the high-priest 
 and the Sanhedrim, even so far as condemnation 
 to death ; but the execution of the sentence de- 
 pended on the procurator (Joseph. Antiq. xx. 9. I j 
 Mark xiv. 53, 55, 62-65; John xviii. 31). The 
 Jews, at least during the time covered by (he 
 Gospels, enjoyed the free exercise of their religion. 
 They had their synagogues or temples of public 
 worship, where they served God without molesta- 
 tion, streaming thither at their great festivals from 
 all parts of the land, and making what offerings 
 or contributions they pleased. On these points 
 the testimony of Josephus is full and clear. The 
 Roman presidents did indeed depose and set up 
 high-priests as they pleased, but they confined 
 their choice to the sacerdotal race. In these inter- 
 ferences they seem to have been guilty of acts of 
 despotism, for which, as for other abuses of their 
 power, they were liable to be called to account 
 by an appeal of the injured to the Roman em- 
 peror, which was not often made in vain (Antiq. 
 xviii. 2 ; 5 and 3 ; xx. 4, 3 and 4). Dr. Lardner 
 has, in his own minute, accurate, and learned 
 manner, reviewed the civil condition of the Jews 
 during the time before referred to, dividing it into 
 four beads — 1. The period from the preaching of 
 John the Baptist to our Saviour's resurrection ; 2 
 Thence to the time of Herod the king, mentioned 
 Acts xii. ; 3. The reign of Herod; 4. From the 
 end of this reign to the conclusion of the evan- 
 gelical nistory ( Works, London, 1827, i. 37,sq.)i 
 
ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 »12 
 
 regard to the first period he concludes, after a 
 l*ng inquiry, that the Jews practised their own 
 religious rites, worshipped at the Temple and in 
 ♦heir synagogues, followed their own customs, and 
 lived very much according to their own laws. 
 They had their high- priests, council or senate, and 
 inflicted lesser punishments ; they could apprehend 
 men and bring them before the council : and if 
 a guard of soldiers was needful, could be assisted 
 by them upon asking the governor for them ; they 
 could bind men and keep them in custody ; the 
 council could summon witnesses, take examina- 
 tions, and, when they had any capital offenders, 
 carry them before the governor. This governor 
 usually paid a regard to what they offered, and, 
 if they brought evidence of the fact, pronounced 
 sentence according to their laws. He was theproper 
 judge in all capital causes. In the second period 
 the Scriptures do not make it clear that there was 
 any Roman officer in Judaea. In the main the con- 
 dition of the province was not dissimilar to what 
 it was in the first period. The case of Stephen, 
 who was stoned to death, may seem to be an ex- 
 ception ; but it may he considered as the result of 
 offended bigotry and of the outbreak of popular 
 fury. The facts connected witli the third period 
 offer no difficulty, ami may he found in Acts xii. 
 Every order and act of Herod, here mentioned — 
 his killing James with the sword, imprisoning 
 Peter with intent to bring him forth to the people, 
 commanding the keepers to be put. to death — are 
 undeniable proofs of his sovereign authority at this 
 time in Judifea. In the fourth period the main 
 thing is the treatment of Paul in Judaea, so far as 
 there is any appearance of legal procedure. The 
 case was this : a man was in danger of being 
 killed in a popular tumult in Jerusalem; a 
 Roman officer rescues him, takes him into his own 
 hands, and lodges him in a castle ; afterwards, 
 that his prisoner might he safer, lie removes him 
 to Caesarea, the residence of the governor, before 
 whom there are divers hearings. There was there- 
 fore at the time a Roman governor in Judaea. A 
 Jewish council also appears -one not void of au- 
 thority. The charge was of a religious nature, yet 
 is it heard before Felix and Festns, whose authority 
 is acknowledged on all sides. Paul appealed 
 to the Roman emperor. The general conclusion 
 is, that if causes of a religions nature did not ex- 
 clusively belong to the Romans, they had supreme 
 power over the Jews in civil matters. These de- 
 ductions, made from the Evangelists themselves, 
 Lardner corroborates by an appeal to independent 
 authorities, namely, the opinions of Roman law- 
 yers concerning the power of the governors of pro- 
 vinces ; the statements of historians relating to the 
 condition of Judaea in particular ; and similar in- 
 formation touching the state of the people in other 
 pro vinces. Before, however, we speak of the con- 
 nection in this period between Rome and Judaea, 
 we must go back a li*le in order to show under 
 what preliminary circumstances Judaea became a 
 part of the great Roman empire. The Romans 
 and Jews first came inlo political contact about 
 B.c. 161, when Judas Maccabaeus, being moved 
 by the great and widely-spread military re- 
 nown of the Romans, sent an embassy to Home, 
 and formed with them a treaty offensive and 
 defensive, tut with the special view of obtaining 
 help against ‘ the Grecians,’ that is, Demetrius, 
 king of Syria (1 Macc. viii. ; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 
 
 10. 6 ; Justin, xxxvi. 3). The contests, however, 
 which soon ensued in Syria, for the throne, gave 
 the Jews respite from their neighbours, and even 
 weight in the political scale, so that the treaty 
 was not much called into operation (1 Macc. 
 x. 11). Jonathan renewed and confirmed the 
 connection with the Romans (1 Macc. xii. ; Joseph. 
 Antiq. xiii. 5. 8) ; as did Simon, who ‘sent Nu- 
 menius to Rome with a great shield of gold, of a 
 thousand pounds weight, to confirm the league 
 with them’ (1 Macc. xiv. 24).; A very favour- 
 able f answer was returned in the name of ‘ Lucius, 
 consul of the Romans’ The Jews thus attained 
 the honour of being admitted into the rank of 
 friends (socii) of the Roman people — a dangerous 
 distinction, hut which seems to have had an im- 
 mediately beneficial influence in restraining the 
 Syrian kings, who at once recognised the high- 
 priest S mon (1 Macc. xiv. 38, sq. ; xiv. 16, sq.). 
 John Hyrcanus, the successor of Simon, aided by 
 these influences, was able to maintain himself as 
 an independent, prince during the conflicts which 
 continued in S^ria, and had occasion only once to 
 appeal to Rome, namely, on occasion of injury 
 inflicted on his country by Antioclms Sidetes : an 
 embassy was dispatched to the senate, the treaty was 
 renewed, and reparation, as well as immunity from 
 future injury, was readily promised (Antiq. xiii. 
 9. *2). The Romans gained a nearer and more de- 
 cided influence in Judaea through the conflicts for 
 power carried on between Hyrcanus II. and Aris- 
 tobulus II. Both these rivals sent an embassy to 
 Seamus, who had been detached by Pompey from 
 the army which he was leading against Tigranes 
 and had come into Syria. Each of them offered 
 Scaurus 400 talents. The bribe of Aristobulus 
 was accepted, and Scaurus, as the service to be 
 done for the payment, relieved Aristobulus by 
 compelling Aretas, who was in alliance with Hyr- 
 canus, to raise the siege of Jerusalem (Antiq. xiv. 
 2, 3). .Shortly after, Pompey himself came to 
 Damascus and marched over Coele-Syria, where 
 he was met by ambassadors from Hyrcanus and 
 Aristobulus. Pompey heard their rival claims, 
 and the appeal of the Jewish nation against 
 them, which alleged as their crime that they wished 
 to subvert the established form of government, 
 and each to make himself king of the Jews. The 
 Roman chief saw his opportunity, marched to 
 Jerusalem, and captured the city, making Hyrca- 
 lius high-priest and prince of the Jews, restricting 
 his territory, and imposing tribute (Antiq. xiv. 4. 
 4. ; Flor. iii. 5, 30 ; Tacit. Ilist. v. 9). This is the 
 event (b.c. 63) from which the loss of their liberty 
 by the Jews is to be reckoned. Henceforth they 
 formed a part of the province of Syria, under the 
 protection of whose president they were; and from 
 his avarice they had much to endure. The mo- 
 narchy had passed into a species of aristocracy, 
 which lasted for some time. But though the 
 Jewish people then became subject, to the Romans, 
 and from that time forward the rod of Heaven may 
 he said to have hung over the land, they yet en- 
 joyed many privileges, as well as the freedom of 
 their worship, under the mild government of these 
 masters. When Pompey captured Jerusalem, he 
 and some of his officers entered into the Temple, 
 and the most holy places of it, but they took no> 
 thing away. 
 
 Julius Caesar, whom political considerations led 
 into the East, confirmed Hyrcanus in the high* 
 
ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 643 
 
 oriesthood, and showed himself well-disposed to- 
 wards the Jews by several decrees, but associated 
 with Hyrcanus Antipater, an Idumaean, who, 
 under the title of procurator of Judaea, was in 
 reality the sole governor ( Antiq . xiv. 10. 10 ; 
 xiv. 8. 5). The jews were anew declared friends 
 of the Roman people, being in reality their sub- 
 jects. In the year b.c. 40, the Roman senate 
 declared Herod king of the Jews. Archelaus, 
 Herod’s son, being banished by Augustus (a.d. 
 6 or 7), Judaea was put under the immediate go- 
 vernment of Rome. Josephus says, ‘The domi- 
 nion of Archelaus being reduced to a province, 
 Coponius, a person of the equestrian order among 
 the Romans, is sent thither, invested by Caesar with 
 the power of life and death’ ( De Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 
 1). In his Antiquities (xvii. 13. 5) he adds, 
 ‘ Cyrenius also came into Judaea, it being annexed 
 to the province of Syria.’ The procurators, under 
 whom Judaea had now fallen, had their official 
 residence at Caesarea. When Cyrenius came into 
 Syria he took an account of the substance of the 
 Jews. At first they were unwilling to endure this 
 badge of subjection, but submitted with difficulty 
 {Antiq. xviii. 1. 1). From this time, however, 
 they continued tributary to Rome (Lardner, i. 
 80). In order to enforce the taxes and generally 
 aid. the procurator, a body of Roman soldiers 
 (a cohort) was put at his disposal, which had their 
 quarters permanently in the country, their head 
 station being at Caesarea. In Acts x. 1 mention 
 is made of the Italian band at Caesarea ; which was 
 so termed because composed of Italian soldiers, 
 while the other troops in Syria and Judaea consisted 
 of natives (Schwarz, De Cohorte Italica , Altorf, 
 1720). A portion of the troops was always sta- 
 tioned in Jerusalem at the Passover, in order to 
 aid in preserving the peace : they had f heir quar- 
 ters in the citadel Antonia, which commanded the 
 Temple, and so controlled the city {Antiq. xix. 9. 
 2; xx. 4.3; Acts xxi. 31, sq. *, xxii. 21; xxiii. 
 23). The first procurator entrusted with the 
 government of Judaea was Coponius; he was fol- 
 lowed by Marcus Ambivius ; then came Annius 
 Rufus, in whose time Augustus died, a.d. 14. 
 Tlfe next was Valerius Grains, who was ap- 
 pointed by Tiberius ; he continued in the province 
 eleven years, and was then succeeded by Pontius 
 Pilate, whose government lasted ten years. Lard- 
 ner is of opinion that Pontius Pilate left Judaea 
 before the Passover, a.d. 36. During the ensuing 
 four or live years it may be questioned whether 
 the Jews had a procurator residing amongst them 
 with power of life and death, as they had from 
 a.d. 7 to a.d. 36 or 37. They were, however, 
 subject to the Romans. Lardner inclines to the 
 opinion that they had no procurator residing 
 among them from the time of Pilate's removal to 
 Agrippa’s accession. During this time they were 
 immediately under the government, first of Vitel- 
 1 i us, and then of Petronius, presidents of Syria. 
 Hence some degree of license would be assumed 
 by the Jewish authorities; which was manifested in 
 their treatment of the first Christian missionaries, 
 as shown in the stoning of Stephen, and the perse- 
 cution which immediately broke out. In Acts ix. 
 31 a different state of things is recorded — ‘Then 
 had the churches rest throughout all Judaea, and 
 Galilee, and Samaria.’ This appears to have 
 arisen from the Jews taemselves being in distress. 
 In Alexandria their houses of prayer were all de- 
 
 stroyed. In the third year of Caligula, a.b. 39, 
 Petronius was sent into Syria with orders to setup 
 the emperor’s statue in the Temple at Jerusalem. 
 This rest of the churches seems to have reached 
 some way into Herod Agrippa's reign. When he 
 ascended the Jewish throne, as we have already 
 intimated, the Jews had a king of their own, but 
 he was a vassal king. 
 
 The Romans, during their dominion, introduced 
 info Judaea many of their manners and customs ; 
 their money became current ; their weights and 
 measures were adopted ; their mode of reckoning 
 time was employed. Yet none of these things ob- 
 tained more than partial prevalence. The Latin 
 language no longer remained unknown, especially 
 among the higher classes. In judicial proceed- 
 ings and public documents the Latin was used. 
 It must have been extensively spoken in Jerusalem, 
 since (John xix. 20) the title which bore the alle- 
 gation on which our Lord was ostensibly put to 
 death was written in Latin, as well as in Greek 
 and Hebrew (Yal. Max. ii. 2. 2). These three 
 tongues were indeed used, but in what proportion 
 cannot now be ascertained. Many Latinisms are 
 found in the diction of the New Testament, though 
 they may not be so numerous as was once sup- 
 posed (Olearius, De Stylo N. T. p. 368, «q. ; Georgi, 
 in the second part of his Hierocrit. N. T., Viterb. 
 1733; Michael is, Einleit. N. T., i. 173, sq. ; 
 Winer, Grammatik des Real Sprach., ed. Leip- 
 zig, 1844, Erst. Abschnitt). The language which 
 our Lord spoke has been much disputed. The 
 Latin (Wernsdorf, De Christo Latine Icquente'), 
 lias put in its claim. The Greek has done the 
 same (I). Diodati, De Christo Greece loquente, by 
 Dobbin, London, 1843). There can, however, be 
 little doubt that lie ordinarily employed the lan- 
 guage of the people, which was neither Greek nor 
 Latin, but Aramaic, a dialect of the Hebrew. 
 
 Not only in Judaea, but in other provinces of the 
 Roman empire, the Jews enjoyed full freedom of 
 worship, and were excused from military service 
 on the express ground of their religious observances 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 10 ; xix. 5. 3 ; Philo, De Leg. 
 p. 1036). In Alexandria special favour was shown 
 to the numerous Jews settled there, by their 
 Roman masters. 
 
 The right of citizenship is spoken of in Acts 
 xxii. 28, where we find the chief captain declar- 
 ing, in relation to Paul's claim of being a Roman, 
 ‘ With a great sum obtained I this freedom ’ 
 (• iroXLTeia , jus civitatis, civitas ). In the preceding 
 twenty-fifth verse we learn that it was unlawful to 
 scourge ‘ a man that was a Roman, and uncon- 
 demned.’ These statements are in strict accord- 
 ance with what we learn from independent sources 
 [Citizenship] (Sigonius, De Antiquo Jure Civ. 
 Rom., Paris, 1572); found also in Graevii The- 
 saurus, i. ; E. Spanheim, Orbis Rom., London, 
 1703; Cellarii Dissertalt. p. 715, sq. ; Fabric. 
 Bibliograph. Antiq. p. 724, sq.). On the general 
 subject of this article consult Eschenberg’s Clas- 
 sical Manual, § Roman Antiquities, Wiley and 
 Putnam, London, 1844 ; Rupert i’s Ilandbueh des 
 Romisch. Alterthiimer, Hanover, 1841 — a very 
 accurate and comprehensive manual, in two vo- 
 lumes, 8vo. ; Maillott and Martin, Recherches 
 sur les Costumes, les Mams, §c. des Anciens 
 Peoples. The first volume exhibits in detail th? 
 costume, manners, &c. of the Romans down to 
 the last emperors of Constantinople. The engrav 
 
644 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 
 
 ings are taken from medals and monuments. 
 Those who wish to study the morals of the Ro- 
 mans will find aid in Rupeiti (ut supra, 2 Ab- 
 theil, p. 25S, sq.); see also J. K. Unger, Sitten 
 und Gebrauche der Homer , Wien, 1805 ; see also 
 Arnold’s History of Rome. Much information 
 may he found by the English reader, on the state 
 of manners in the first centuries after Christ, 
 in the following fictions — Lockhart’s Valerius; 
 Bulwer's Pompeii; Ware's Palmyra; and in 
 Mil man’s History of Christianity. — J. R. B. 
 
 ROMANS, THE EPISTLE TO THE. 
 This epistle claims our interest more than the other 
 didactic epistles of the Apostle Paul, because it. is 
 more systematic, and because it explains espe- 
 cially that truth which became subsequently the 
 principle of the reformation, viz., righteousness 
 through faith. Melanchthon was so fond of this 
 epistle that he made it the subject of constant 
 lectures, and twice copied it out. with his own 
 hand, just as Demosthenes copied Thucydides 
 (comp. Strobel’s Litter argeschichte der loci Theo- 
 logici des Melanchthon, p. 13): in these lectures 
 he explained the leading dogmatical and ethical 
 ideas, i. e. the loci Theologici, which, at a later 
 period, gave rise to the dogmatical work bearing 
 this title. 
 
 At the period when the apostle wrote the Epistle 
 to the Romans, he had passed through a life full 
 of experience. About four years after the composi- 
 tion of this letter Paul calls himself UptafivTgs, 
 ‘ the aged’ (Philemon, ver. 9). Paul was at this 
 time between fifty and sixty years old. After 
 having spent two years and a half at Ephesus, he 
 planned a journey to Macedonia, Achaia, Jeru 
 6alem, and Rome (Acts xix. 21). Having sjient 
 about three montlrs in travelling, he arrived at 
 Corinth, where he remained three months (Acts 
 xx. 2) ; and during this second abode at Gorinth he 
 wrote the Epistle to the Romans (comp. 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 1 — 3, and 2 Cor. ix. with Rom. xv. 25). 
 Paul dispatched this letter by a Corinthian 
 woman, who was just then travelling to Rome 
 (xvi. 1), and sent greetings from an inhabitant of 
 Corinth (xvi. 23; comp. I Cor. i. 14). 
 
 The data in tire life of the apostle depend upon 
 the year in which his conversion took place. Con- 
 sequently we must have a settled opinion con- 
 cerning the date of this event before we speak 
 about the date of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 Tire opinions of the learned fluctuate concerning 
 the date of the conversion : some think that this 
 event took place as early as a.d. 31 or 41 ; but it 
 is by far more probable that the epistle was 
 written about the year 58 or 59. The congrega- 
 tion of Christians at Rome was formed at a very 
 early period, but its founder is unknown. Paul 
 himself mentions two distinguished teachers* at 
 Rome, who were converted earlier than himself. 
 According to Rom. i. 8, the Roman congrega- 
 tion had then attained considerable celebrity, as 
 their faith was spoken of throughout the whole 
 world. From chap. xvi. we learn that there were 
 a considerable number of Christian teachers at 
 Rome; from which we infer that the congregation 
 had existed there for some time; and it is most 
 likely thac the Jews at Rome were first converted 
 to Christianity. Under Augustus there were so 
 many Jews at Rome, that this emperor appointed 
 for them quarters beyond the Tiber. These Jews 
 comitfed mostly of free 1 men, whom Pompey had 
 
 ROM \NS, El ISTLE TO THR 
 
 carried to Rome as slaves : some of the early 
 Christians at Rome followed mercantile pursuits. 
 
 At the time when this epistle was written, ther# 
 were also Gentile Christians in the Roman church; 
 and from passages like xi. 13; xv. 1(5; i. 7 and 
 13, we learn that the Gentile Christians were then 
 mine numerous than the converted Jews. It ir 
 well known tlwit in those times many heathens 
 embraced Judaism (Tacitus, Annul, xv. 44; 
 Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96). These converts to 
 Judaism were mostly women. Such proselytes 
 formed at'that. period the point of coalescence for 
 the conversion of the Gentiles. Among the converts 
 from Judaism to Christianity, there existed in the 
 days of Paul two parties. The congregated 
 apostles had decreed, according to Acts xv., that 
 the converts from paganism were not bound fo 
 keep the ritual laws of Moses. There were, how- 
 ever, many converts from Judaism who were dis- 
 inclined to renounce the authority of the Mosaic 
 law, and appealed erroneously to the authority ol 
 James (Gal. ii. 9; comp. Acts xxi. 25): they 
 claimed also the authority of Peter in theii 
 favour. Such converts from Judaism, mentioned 
 in the other epistles, who continued to observe 
 the ritual laws of Moses, were not prevalent in 
 Rome : however, Dr. Baur of Tubingen sup- 
 poses that this Ebionitic tendency prevailed at 
 that, time in all Christian congregations, Rome 
 not excepted. He thinks that the converts 
 from Judaism were then more numerous than the 
 Gentile Christians, and that all were compelled 
 to submit to the Judaizing opinions of the ma- 
 jority (comp. Baur's Abhandlung iiber Zwcck 
 und Veranlassung des Rbmerbriefs , in der Tii - 
 binger Zeitschrift, 1836). However, we infer 
 from the passages above quoted, that the Gentile 
 Christ ians were much more numerous at Rome than 
 the converts from Judaism. Neander has also 
 shown that the Judaizing tendency did not prevail 
 in the Roman church (comp. Neander’s Pflaii- 
 zung der Christlichen Kirche, 3rd ed. p. 388). 
 This opinion is confirmed by the circumstance, 
 that, according to ch. xvi., Paul had many 
 friends at Rome. Dr. Baur removes this objec- 
 tion only by declaring ch. xvi. to be spurious. 
 He appeals to ch. xiv. in order to prove that there 
 were Ebionitic Christians at Rome: it appears, 
 however, that the persons mentioned in ch. xiv. 
 were by no means strictly Judaizing zealots, wish- 
 ing to overrule the Gentile Christians, but, on the 
 contrary, some scrupulous converts from Judaism, 
 upon whom the Gentile Christians looked down 
 contemptuously. There were, indeed, some dis- 
 agreements between the converts from Judaism and 
 the Gentile Christians in Rome. T his is evident 
 from ch. xv. 6 — 9, and xi. 17, 18 : these debates, 
 however, were not of so obstinate a kind as among 
 the Galatians ; otherwise the apostle could scarcely 
 have praised the congregation at Rome as he does 
 in ch. i. 8 and 12, and xv. 14. From ch. xvi. 17 — 
 20, we infer that the Judaizers had endeavoured 
 to find admittance, but with little success. 
 
 The opinions concerning the occasion and 
 object of this letter, differ according to the va- 
 rious suppositions of those who think that the 
 object of the letter was supplied by the occasion, 
 or the supposition that the apostle selected hi* 
 subject only after an opportunity for wiiting was 
 offered. In earlier times the latter opinion pra« 
 vailed, as, for instance, in the writings of Thoinai 
 
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 
 
 Aquinas, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin. In more 
 recent times the other opinion has generally been 
 advocated, as, for instance, by Hug, Eichhorn, and 
 Flatt. Many writers suppose that the debates 
 mentioned in ch. xiv. and xv. called forth this 
 epistle. Hug, therefore, is of opinion that the 
 theme of the whole epistle is the following — Jews 
 AND Gentiles HAVE EQUAL CLAIM TO THE 
 Kingdom ok God. According to Eichhorn, the 
 Roman Jews being exasperated against the dis- 
 ciples of Paul, endeavoured to demonstrate that 
 Judaism was sufficient for the salvation of man- 
 kind ; consequently Eichhorn supposes that the 
 olemics of St. Paul were not directed against 
 udaizing converts to Christianity, as in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, but rather against Ju- 
 daism itself. This opinion is also maintained by 
 De Wette ( Einleitung ins Neue Testament , 4th 
 ed. § 138). According to Credner {Einleitung. § 
 141), the intention of the apostle was to render the 
 Roman congregation favourably disposed before his 
 arrival in the chief metropolis and he therefore en- 
 deavoured to show that the evil reports spread con- 
 cerning himself by zealously Judaizing Christians 
 were erroneous. This opinion is nearly related to 
 that of Dr. Baur, who supposes that the real object 
 of this letter is mentioned only in ch. ix. to xi. 
 According to Dr. Baur, the Judaizing zealots 
 were displeased that by the instrumentality of 
 Paul such numbers of Gentiles entered the king- 
 dom of God, that the Jews ceased to appear as 
 the Messianic people. Dr. Baur supposes that 
 these Judaizers are move especially refuted in 
 ch. ix. to xi., after it has been shown in the first 
 eight chapters that it was in general incorrect to 
 consider one people better than another, and that 
 all had equal claims to be justified by faith. 
 Against the opinion that the apostle, in writing 
 the Epistle to the Romans, had this particular 
 polemical aim, it has bfeen justly observed by 
 Ruckert (in the second ed. of his Commentar .), 
 Olshausen, and De Wette, that the apostle himself 
 states that his epistle had a general scope. ■ Paul 
 says in the introduction that he had long enter- 
 tained the wish of visiting the metropolis, in order 
 to confirm the faith of the church, and to be himself 
 comforted by that faith (ch. i. 12). Hea,dds(i. 16), 
 that he was prevented from preaching in the chief 
 city by external obstacles only. He says that he 
 had written to the Roman Christians in fulfil- 
 ment of his vocation as apostle to the Gentiles. 
 The journey of Phoebe to Rome seems to have 
 been the external occasion of the epistle : Paul 
 made use of this opportunity by sending the sum 
 and substance of the Christian doctriuein writing, 
 having been prevented from preaching in Rome. 
 Paul had many friends in Rome who commu- 
 nicated with him ; consequently he was the more 
 induced to address the Romans, although he 
 manifested some hesitation in doing so (xv. 15). 
 These circumstances exercised some influence as 
 well on the form as upon the contents of the 
 letter; so that, for instance, its contents differ 
 considerably from the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 although this also has a general scope. The 
 especial bearings of the Epistle to the Romans are 
 particularly manifest in ch. xiii. to xvi ; Paul 
 shows to both Jews and Gentiles the glory of 
 Christianity as being absolute religion , and he 
 especially endeavours to confirm the faith of the 
 ;onverts from Judaism (iv.) ; Paul refers to the 
 
 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 645 
 
 circumstance that in Rome the number of Gen- 
 tile Christians was much greater than that of the 
 converted Jews, and he explains how this wai 
 consistent with the counsel of God. He endea- 
 vours to re-establish peace between the contend- 
 ing parties ; consequently he had to produce many 
 arguments which might be converted into pole- 
 mics (Polemik) against the Jews ; but it does by 
 no means follow that such polemics were the 
 chief aim of the apostle. 
 
 Contents of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 — It belongs to the characteristic type of St. 
 Paul’s teaching to exhibit the Gospel in its his- 
 torical relation to the human race, in the Epistle 
 to the Romans, also, we find that peculiar cha- 
 racter of St. Paul's teaching, which induced 
 Schelling to call St. Paul's doctrine a philosophy 
 of the history of man. The real purpose of the 
 human race is in a sublime manner stated by St. 
 Paul in his speech in Acts xvii. 26. 27 ; and he 
 shows at the same time how God had, by various 
 historical means, promoted the attainment of his 
 purpose. St. Paul exhibits the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation under the form of an institution for the 
 education of the whole human race, which should 
 enable men to terminate their spiritual minority, 
 and become truly of age (Gal. iii. 24, and v . 1-4). 
 In the Epistle to the Romans also, the apostle com- 
 mences by describing the two great divisions of the 
 human race, viz., those who underwent the pre- 
 paratory spiritual education of the Jews, and those 
 who did not undergo such a preparatory educa- 
 tion. We find a similar division indict ted by 
 Christ himself (John x. 16), where he speaks of 
 one flock separated by hurdles. The chief aim of 
 all nations, according to St. Paul, should be the 
 SiKaioavurj iv&niov tov 6eov , righteousness before 
 the face of God , or absolute realization of the 
 moral law. According to St. Paul, the heathen 
 also have their vigos, law. as well religious as 
 moral internal revelation (Rom. i. 19, 32 ; ii. i5). 
 The heathen have, however, not fulfilled that law 
 which they knew, and are in this respect like the 
 Jews, who also disregarded their own law (ii.). 
 Both Jews and Gentiles are transgressors, or by 
 the law separated from the grace and sonship of 
 God (Rom. ii. 12; iii. 20); consequently if 
 blessedness could only be obtained by fulfilling 
 the demands of God, no man could be blessed. 
 God, however, has gratuitously given righteous- 
 ness and blessedness to all who believe in Christ 
 (iii. 21 — 31); the Old Testament also recog- 
 nises the value of religious faith (iv.) : thus we 
 freely attain to , peace and sonship of God pre- 
 sently, and have before us still greater things, viz., 
 the future development of the kingdom of (Hod (v. 
 1-11). The human race has gained in Christ much 
 more than it lost in Adam (v. 12, 21). This doc- 
 trine by no means encourages sin (vi.) : on the 
 contrary, men who are conscious of divine grace 
 fulfil the law much more energetically than they 
 were able to do before having attained to this 
 knowledge, because the law alone is even apt to 
 sharpen the appetite for sin, and leads finally to 
 despair (vii.) ; but now we fulfil the law by means 
 of that new spirit which is given unto us, and the 
 full development of our salvation is still before 
 us(viii. 1-27). The sufferings of the present time 
 cannot prevent this development, and must rather 
 work for good to them whom God from eternity 
 
816 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 
 
 has viewed as faithful believers ; and nothing 
 can separate sfich believers from the eternal love 
 ?f God (viii. 2S-39). It causes pain to behold 
 the Israelites themselves shut out from salvation; 
 but they themselves are the cause of this seclusion, 
 because they wanted to attain salvation by their 
 own resources and exertions, by their descent 
 from Abraham, and by their fulfilment of the 
 law : thus, however, the Jews have not obtained 
 that salvation which God lias freely offered under 
 the sole condition of faith in Christ (ix.); the 
 Jews have not entered upon the way «f faith, 
 therefore the Gentiles were preferred, which was 
 predicted by the prophets. However, the Jewish 
 race, as such, has not been rejected ; some of 
 them obtain salvation by a selection made not 
 according to their works, but according to the 
 grace of God. If some of the Jews are left to 
 their own obduracy, even their temporary fall 
 serves the plans of God, viz., the vocation of the 
 Gentiles. After the mass of the Gentiles shall 
 have entered in, the people of Israel also, in their 
 collective capacity, shall be received into the 
 church (xi.). 
 
 On the authenticity and integrity of 
 the Epjstj.e to the Romans. — The authen- 
 ticity of this epistle has never been questioned. 
 The Epistle to the Romans is quoted as early as 
 the first and second century by Clemens Romanus 
 and Polycarp. Its integrity lias lately been at- 
 tacked by Dr. Baur, who pretends that chs. xv. 
 and xvi. are spurious, but only, as we have ob- 
 served above, because these chapters do not har- 
 monise with his supposition, that the Christian 
 church at Rome consisted of rigid Judaizers. 
 Schmidt and Reiche consider the doxology at the 
 conclusion of ch. xvi. not to be genuine. In this 
 dcxology the anacoloutliical and unconnected 
 style causes some surprise, and the whole has been 
 deemed to be out of its place (ver. 26 and 27). We, 
 however, observe, in reply to Schmidt and lleiche, 
 that such defects of style may be easily explained 
 from the circumstance, that the apostle hastened to 
 the conclusion, but would be quite inexplicable in 
 additions of a copyist who had time for calm con- 
 sideration. The same words occur in different 
 passages of the epistle, and it must be granted that 
 such a fluctuation sometimes indicates an interpo- 
 lation. In the Codex i., in most of the Codices 
 Minusculi, as well as in Chrysostom, the words 
 occur at the conclusion of ch. xiv. In the 
 Codices B.C.D.E., and in the Syrian transla- 
 tion, This doxology occurs at the conclusion of 
 ch. xvi. In Codex A it occurs in both places; 
 whilst in Codex D**, the words are wanting 
 entirely, and they seem not to fit into either of 
 the two places. If the doxology be put at the con- 
 clusion of ch. xiv., Paul seems to promise to 
 those Christians weak in faith, of whom he had 
 spoken, a confirmation of their belief. But. it 
 seems unfit (unpasseud) in this connection to call 
 the Gospel an eternal mystery, and the doxology 
 seems here to interrupt the connection between 
 chs. xiv. and xv. ; and at the conclusion of ch. xvi. 
 it seems to be superfluous, since the blessing had 
 been pronounced already in ver. 24. We, how- 
 ever, say that this latter circumstance need not 
 have prevented the apostle from allowing his 
 animated feelings to burst forth in a doxology, 
 especially at the conclusion of an epistle which 
 
 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 
 
 treated amply on the mystery of redemption. 
 We find an analogous instance in Ephes. xxi : i. 
 27, where a doxology occurs after the mystery i/f 
 salvation had been mentioned : we are therefore 
 of opinion that the doxology is rightly placed at 
 the conclusion of ch. xvi., and that. it. was in some 
 codices erroneously transposed to the conclusion 
 of ch. xiv., because the copyist considered the 
 blessing in xvi. 24 to be the real conclusion of the 
 Epistle. In confirmation of this remark we ob- 
 serve that, the same codices in which the doxology 
 occurs in ch. xvr. either omit -the blessing alto- 
 gether, or place it after the doxology. 
 
 Interpreters of the Epistle to tiik 
 Romans. — Chrysostom is the most important 
 among the fathers who attempted to interpret this 
 epistle; lie enters deeply, and with psychological 
 acumen, into the thoughts of the apostle, and ex- 
 pounds them with sublime animation. Among 
 the reformers Calvin is distinguished by logical 
 penetration and doctrinal depth. Beza is 
 distinguished by his grammatical and critical 
 knowledge. Since the period of rationalism the 
 interest about this epistle has been revived by the 
 Commentary of Tholuck, the first edition of 
 which appeared in 1824. No other book of the 
 New Testament has, since that, period, been ex- 
 pounded so frequently and so accurately. From 
 1824 to 1844, there have been published as many 
 as seventeen learned and critical commentaries 
 on it; and, in addition to these, several practical 
 expositions. In the Commentar von Riickert, 
 2d ed., 1839, 2 vols., we find copious criticisms 
 of the various interpretations, and a clear and 
 pleasing, although not always carefully weighed, 
 exposition. 
 
 The Commentar von Fritzsche, 1S36 to 1843, 
 3 vols., exhibits a careful critique of the text, com- 
 bined with philologicalWxplanation, but the true 
 sense of the apostle has frequently been missed. 
 The Commentar of Olshausen, 2nd ed., 1840, 
 generally contains only the author's own exposi- 
 tion, but presents a very pleasing development of 
 the doctrinal contents. De Wette manifests on the 
 whole a correct tact (3rd ed., 1841) ; however, his 
 book is too comprehensive, so that the contents of 
 the epist le do not make a clear impression. Latel j 
 there has been published in French also an inter- 
 pretation of the Epistle to the Romans, worked out 
 with much diligence and ingenuity, by Hugues 
 01 tram are ; the first part contains chs. i. to v. 
 11, and was published at Geneva, 1843. — A. T. 
 
 [The princij al English works on the Epistle to 
 the Romans are — Willet, Hexapla , or a Sixfold 
 Comment on the Epistle to the Romans , 1611 t 
 Taylor’s Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to 
 the Romans , 1747 ; Jones, The Epistle to the 
 Romans analyzed, from a development of the 
 circumstances by ivhich it was occasioned , 1801 , 
 Cox, Ilorce Romance , 1824 (translation with 
 notes) ; Turner, Notes on the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, New York, 1824 (exegetical, for the use of 
 students) ; Terrot, The Epistle of Paul to the 
 Romans, 1828 (Greek text, paraphrase, notes, 
 and useful prolegomena). Stuart’s Commentary 
 on the Epistle to the Romans, Andover, U. S., 
 1832, is undoubtedly the greatest work on this 
 Epistle which has been produced in the English 
 1 an gu agi^an d may be regarded as next in im- 
 portance to the admirable Commentary by tbg 
 
ROME. 
 
 ROME. 
 
 e« 
 
 WTiter of (he above article (Dr. Tholuck), a 
 translation of which, by the Rev. R. Menzies, has 
 been given in the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet . — 
 
 Ed.] 
 
 ROME, (he famous capital of the Western 
 World, and the present residence of (lie Pope, 
 stands on the river Tiber, about fifteen miles from 
 its mouth, in (he plain of what is now called the 
 Campagna ( Felix ilia Campania , Pliny, Ilist. 
 Nat. iii. 6), in lat. 4U 54' N., long. 12° 28' E. 
 The country around the city is not. a plain, but a 
 sort of undulating table-land, crossed by hills, 
 while it sinks towards the south-west, to the marshes 
 of Maremma, which coast the Mediterranean. 
 In ancient geography the country, in the midst of 
 which Rome lay, was termed Lat.ium, which, in 
 the earliest times, comprised within a space 
 of about four geographical square miles the 
 country lying between the Tiber and the Numi- 
 cius, extending from the Alban Hills to the sea, 
 having for its chief city Laurentum. Here, on the 
 Palatine Hill, was the city of Rome founded by 
 Romulus and Remus, grandsons of Numitor, and 
 sons of Rhea Sylvia, to whom, as the originatdls 
 of the city, mythology ascribed a divine parent- 
 age. The origin of the term Rome is in dispute. 
 Some derive it from the Greek 'Paynj, ‘strength,’ 
 considering that this name was given to the place 
 as being a fortress. Cicero (j)e Repub. ii. 7) 
 says the name was taken from that of its founder 
 Romulus. At first the city had three gates, ac- 
 cording to a sacred usage. Founded on the 
 Palatine Hill, it. was extended, by degrees, so as 
 to take in six. other hills, at the foot of which ran 
 deep valleys that, in early times, were in part 
 overflowed with water, while the hill-sides were 
 covered with trees. In the course of the many 
 years during which Rome was acquiring to 
 herself the empire of the world, the city under- 
 went great, numerous, and important changes. 
 Under its first kings it. must have presented a 
 very different aspect from what it did after it 
 had been beautified by Tarquin. The destruc- 
 tion of the city by (he Gauls (u.c. 365) caused 
 a thorough alteration in it. ; nor could the troubled 
 times which ensued have been favourable to its 
 being well restored. It was not till riches and 
 artistic skill came into the city on the conquest 
 of Philip of Macedon, and Antiochus of Syria 
 (u.c. 565), that there arose in Rome large hand- 
 some stone houses. The capture of Corinth con- 
 duced much to the adorning of the city : many fine 
 specimens of art being transferred from thence to 
 i he abode of the conquerors. And so, as the power 
 of Rome extended over the world, and her chief 
 citizens went into the colonies to enrich themselves, 
 did the master-pieces of Grecian art flow towards 
 the capital, together with some of the taste and skill 
 to which they owed their birth. August us, however, 
 it was, who did most for embellishing the capital 
 of the world, though there may be some sacrifice 
 of truth in the pointed saying, that he found 
 Rome built of brick, and left it marble. Subse- 
 quent emperors followed his example, till the 
 place became the greatest repository of architec- 
 tural, pictorial, and sculptural skill, that the 
 world has ever seen; a result (o which even 
 Nero’s incendiarism indirectly conduced, as af- 
 fording an occasion for the city’s being rebuilt 
 under the higher scientific influences of the times. 
 The site occupied by modern Rome is not pre- 
 
 cisely the same ns that which was at any period co- 
 vered by the ancient city : the change of locality 
 being towards the north-west, the city has par- 
 tially retired from the celebrated hills. About 
 two-thirds of the area within the walls (traced by 
 Aurelian) are now desolate, consisting of ruins, 
 gardens, and fields, with some churches, con- 
 vents, and other scattered habitat ions. Origin- 
 ally (lie city was a square mile in circumference. 
 In the time of Pliny the walls were nearly twenty 
 miles in circuit ; now, they are from fourteen 
 to fifteen miles round. Its original gales, three 
 in number, had increased in the time of the elder 
 Pliny to thirty-seven. Modem Rome has six- 
 teen gates, some of which are, however, built up. 
 Thirty-one great, roads centered in Rome, which, 
 issuing from the Forum, traversed Italy, ran 
 through the provinces, and were terminated only 
 by the boundary of the empire. As a starting 
 point a gilt pillar (Milliarium Aureum) was set 
 up by Augustus in the middle of the Forum. 
 This curious monument, from which distances were 
 reckoned, was discovered in 1823. Eight prin- 
 cipal bridges led over the Tilier ; of these three 
 are still relics. The four districts into which 
 Rome was divided in early times, Augustus 
 increased to fourteen. Large open spaces were 
 set apart in the city, called Campi, for as- 
 semblies of the people and martial exercises, as 
 well as for games. Of nineteen which are men- 
 tioned, the Campus Martius was the principal. 
 It was near the Tiber, whence it was called 
 Tibcrinus. The epithet Martius was derived 
 from the plain being consecrated to Mars, the god. 
 of war. In the later ages it was surrounded 
 by several magnificent structures, and porticos 
 were erected, under which, in bad weather, the 
 citizens could go through their usual exercises. 
 It was also adorned with statues and arches. 
 The name of Fora was given to places where 
 the people assembled for the transaction of busi- 
 ness. The Fora were of two kinds — fora venalia, 
 
 ‘ markets ;’ fora civil ia., ‘ law courts,’ &c. Until 
 the time of Julius Caisar there was but one of the 
 latter kind, termed by way of distinction Forum 
 Romanum, or simply Forum. It lay between 
 the Capitoline and Palatine Hills; it was eight 
 hundred feet wide, and adorned on all sides with 
 porticos, shops, and other edifices, on the erection 
 of which large sums had been expended, and the 
 appearance of which was very imposing, especi- 
 ally as it was much enhanced by numerous sta- 
 tues. In the centre of the Forum was the plain 
 called the Curtian Lake, where Curtins is said to 
 have cast himself into a chasm or gulf, which 
 closed on him, and so he saved his country. On 
 one side were the elevated seats or suggestus, a 
 sort of pulpits from which magistrates and orators 
 addressed the people — usually called Rostra, be- 
 cause adorned with the beaks of ships which had 
 been taken in a sea- fight from the inhabbants of 
 Antium. Near by was the part of the Forum 
 called the Comitium, where were held tl, 'assem- 
 blies of the people called Comitia Curiata. The 
 celebrated temple, bearing the name of Capitol 
 (of which there remain only a few vestiges), stood 
 on the Capitoline Hill, the highest of the seven : 
 it was square in form, each side extending about 
 two hundred feet, and the ascent to it was by a 
 flight of one hundred steps. It was one of the oldest, 
 largest, and grandest edifices in the city. Fouudetl 
 
ROME. 
 
 ROME. 
 
 84 * 
 
 by ‘jfarquinius Prisons, it was ai several times 
 enlarged and embellished. Its gates were of 
 bras*, and it was adorned with costly gildings ; 
 whence it is termed ‘ golden’ and ‘glittering,’ 
 aurea, fulgens. It enclosed three structures, the 
 temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in the centre, the 
 temple of Minerva on the right, and the temple 
 of Juno on the left. The Capitol also compre- 
 hended some minor temples or chapels, and the 
 Casa Romuli, or cottage of Romulus, covered 
 with straw. Near the ascent, to the Capitol was 
 the asylum [Cities ok Refuge]. VVe also 
 mention the Basilicae, since some of them were 
 afterwards turned to the purposes of Christian 
 worship. They were originally buildings of great 
 splendour, being appropriated to meetings ot the 
 6enate, and to judicial purposes. Here coun- 
 sellors received their clients, and bankers trans- 
 acted their business. The earliest churches, bear- 
 
 ing the name of Basilicae, were erected under Con 
 stantine. He gave his own palaee on the Caelian 
 Hill as a site for a Christian temple. Next in 
 antiquity was the church of St. Peter, on the 
 Vatican Hill, built a.d. 324, on the site and with 
 the ruins of temples consecrated to Apollo and 
 Mars. It stood about twelve centuries, at the 
 end of which it was superseded by the modern 
 church bearing the same name. The Circi were 
 buildings oblong in shape, used for public games, 
 races, and beast-fights. The Theatra were edifices 
 designed for dramatic exhibitions; the Amphi- 
 theatra (double theatres, buildings in an oval 
 form) served for gladiatorial shows and the fight- 
 ing of wild animals. That, which was erected by 
 the Emperor Titus, and of which there still exists 
 a splendid ruin, was called the Coliseum, from a 
 colossal statue of Nero that stood near it. With 
 an excess of luxury, perfumed liquids were con- 
 
 473 . [Roms.] 
 
 veyed in secret tubes round these immense struc- 
 tures, and diffused over the spectators, sometimes 
 from the statues which adorned the interior. In 
 the arena which formed the centre of the amphi- 
 theatres, the early Christians often endured mar- 
 tyrdom by being exposed to ravenous beasts. 
 
 The connection of the Romans with Palestine 
 caused Jews to settle at. Rome in considerable 
 numbers. On one occasion, in the reign of Tibe- 
 rius, when the Jews were banished from the city 
 by the emperor, for the misconduct of some mem- 
 bers of their body, not fewer than four thousand 
 enlisted in the Roman army which was then sta- 
 tioned in Sardinia (Sueton. Tib. 36 ; Joseph. Antiq. 
 xviii. 3. 4). These appear to have been emanci- 
 pated descendants of those Jews whom Pompey 
 had taken prisoners in Judaea, and brought captive 
 to Rome (Philo. De Leg. ad Cai.. p. 101 4). From 
 Philo also it appears that the Jews in Rome were 
 
 allowed the free use of their national worship, and! 
 generally the observance of their ancestral cus- 
 toms. Then, as now, the Jews lived in a part of 
 the city appropriated to themselves (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xiv. 10. 8), where with a zeal for which the na- 
 tion had been some time distinguished, they ap- 
 plied themselves with success to proselytising (Dion 
 Cass, xxxvii. 17). They appear, however, to 
 have been a restless colony ; for when, after their 
 expulsion under Tiberius, numbers bad returned 
 to Rome, they were again expelled from the 
 city by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25). The 
 Roman biographer does not. give the date of this 
 event, but Orosius (vii. 6) mentions the ninth 
 year of that emperor's feign (a i>. 50). The pre- 
 cise occasion of this expulsion history does nol 
 afford us the means of determining. The words of 
 Suetonius are, ‘ Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assi- 
 due tumultuantes, Romaexpulit’ — ‘ He expelled 
 
ROME. 
 
 ROME. 
 
 from Rome the Jews continually raising distur- 
 bances under the impulse of Chrestos.’ The 
 sausehere assigned for their expulsion is, that they 
 raised disturbances, an allegation which, at first 
 view, does not seem to point to a religious, still 
 less to a Christian, influence. And yet we must 
 remember that the words bear the colouring of 
 the mind of a heathen historian, who might easily 
 be led to regard activity for the diffusion of Chris- 
 tian truth, and the debates to which that activity 
 necessarily led, as a noxious disturbance of the 
 peace of society. The Epicurean view of 
 life could scarcely avoid describing religious 
 agitations by terms ordinarily appropriated to 
 martial pursuits. It must equally be borne in 
 mind that the diffusion of the Gospel in Rome — 
 then the very cetifie and citadel of idolatry — was 
 no holiday task, but would call forth on the part 
 of the disciples all the fiery energy of the Jewish 
 character, and on the part of the Pagans all the 
 vehemence of passion which ensues from pride, 
 arrogance, and hatred. Had the ordinary name 
 of our Lord been employed by Suetonius, we 
 should, for ourselves, have found little difficulty 
 in understanding the words as intended to be ap- 
 plied to Jewish Christians. But the biographer 
 uses the word Clirestus. The iis is a mere Latin 
 termination ; but what are we to make of the root 
 of the word, Chrest for Christ ? Yet the change 
 is in only one vowel, and Chrest, might easily be 
 used for Christ, by a Pagan writer. A slight, 
 difference in the pronunciation of the word as 
 vocalised by a Roman and a Jew, would easily 
 cause the error. And we know that the Romans 
 often did make the mispronunciation, calling 
 Christ Chrest (Tertull. Apol. c. 3 ; Lactant. 
 Inst. iv. 17; Just.. Mart. Apol. c. 2). The point is 
 important, and we therefore give a few details, 
 the rather that Lardner lias, under Claudius (vol. 
 i., 259), left the question undetermined. Now 
 in Tacitus ( Annul . xv. 44) Jesus is unquestion- 
 ably called Chrest (quos per ffagitia invisos vul- 
 gus Clnistianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus 
 Clirestus) in a passage where his followers are 
 termed Christians. Lucian too, in his Philopa- 
 tris, so designates our Lord, playing on the word 
 Xpr,<TT6s, whicl^in Greek, signifies ‘good:’ these 
 are his words : et rvxoi ye Xp-rjarbs Ka] ev eQveai, 
 k.t. A.., ‘ since a Chrest (a good man) is found 
 among the Gentiles also.’ And Tertullian (lit 
 supra) treats the difference as a case of ignorant 
 
 474. [Mamertine Prison ] 
 
 mispronunciation : * Christ! anus perperam Chres- 
 tianus pronunciatur a vobis, nam nominis certa est 
 ttotitia penes vos.’ .The mistake may have been the 
 
 more readily introduced from the f.ict that, while 
 Christ was a foreign word, Chrest, was customary . 
 lips therefore that had been used to Chrest would 
 rather continue the sound than change the vo- 
 calisation. The term Chrest occurs on inscrip- 
 tions (Ileumann, Sylloge Diss., i. 536), and 
 epigrams in which the name appears may be 
 found in Martial (vii. 55; ix. 28). In the same 
 author (xi. 91.) a diminutive from the word, 
 namely Chrestillus, may be found. The word 
 assumed also a feminine form, Cliresta, as found 
 in an ancient inscription — 
 
 ‘ Hoc, virtus, fatique decus et amabile nomen, 
 Dote pudicitiee, celebrata lahoribus actis 
 Vitae, Cliresta jacet condita nunc tumulo. 
 
 We subjoin a few lines from Martial (vii. 55): 
 Nulli muuera, Ckreste , si remiftis, 
 
 Nec nobis dederis, remiserisque, 
 
 Credam te satis esse Jibeyilem. 
 
 There can therefoie b£ little risk in asserlmg 
 that Suetonius intended to indicate Jesus Christ 
 by Clirestus ; and we have already seen that 
 the terms which he employs to describe the 
 cause of the expulsion, though peculiar, are not 
 irreconcilable with a reference on the part of the 
 writer to Christians. The terms which Suetonius 
 employs are accounted for, though they may not 
 be altogether justified by those passages in the Acts 
 of the Apostles, in which the collision between 
 the Jews who had become Christians, and those 
 who adhered to the national faith, is found to 
 have occasioned serious disturbances (Kuinoel, 
 Acts xviii. 2 ; Rorsal, De Christo per errorem in 
 Chrest. Comm. , Groning. 1717). This interpreta- 
 tion is confirmed by the fact that a Christian 
 church, consisting of Jews, Proselytes, and Pa- 
 gan Romans, had at. an early period been formed 
 in Rome, as is evident from the Epistle of Paul 
 to the Romans; which Christian community must 
 have been in existence a long time when Paul 
 wrote (about, a.d. 59) that epistle (see Rom. i. 8- 
 13); and Meyer (Commentar der Brief an die 
 Homer Einleit., § 2) is of opinion lhat the found- 
 ations of the Church in Rome may have been 
 laid even during the lifetime of our Lord. It is 
 also worthy of notice that Luke, in the book of 
 Acts (xviii. 2), when speaking of the decree of 
 Claudius as a banishment of all the Jews from 
 Rome, adverts to the fact as a reason why two 
 Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, whom vve know 
 (Rom. xvi. 3) to have been members of the Ro- 
 man church, had lately come from Italy: these 
 the apostle found on his arrival at Corinth in the 
 year a.d. 51. Both Suetonius and Luke, in 
 mentioning the expulsion of the Jews, seem to 
 have used the official term employed in the de- 
 cree ; the Jews were known to the Roman magis- 
 trate; and Christians, as being at first Jewish 
 converts, would he confounded under the general 
 name of Jews; but that, the Christians as well as 
 the Jews strictly so called were banished by Clau- 
 dius appears certain from the book of Acts; and, 
 independently of this evidence, seems very pro- 
 bable, from the other authorities of which men- 
 tion has been made. 
 
 The question, Who founded the church at 
 Rome? is one of some interest as between Catholic 
 and Protestant. The former assigns the honour 
 to Peter, and on this grounds an argument ir 
 favour of the claims of the papacy. There is. 
 
650 
 
 ROME. 
 
 ROSH. 
 
 hcwevei, no sufficient reason for believing that 
 Peter war* ever even so much as within the walls 
 of Rome. But we have no intention of en- 
 tering here on that disputed point, and content 
 ourselves with referring the reader to the most 
 recent, work on the subject which has come to our 
 knowledge, in which he will find the argument 
 well and learnedly handled (D. J. Kllendorf, 
 1st Petrus in Pom und Bischof der Romischen 
 Kirche gewesen ? Darmstadt, 1843). 
 
 Rome, as being their tyrannical mistress, was 
 an object of special hatred to the Jews, who 
 therefore denominated her by the name of Baby- 
 lon — the state in whose dominions they had en- 
 dured a long and heavy servitude (Schottgen, 
 Ilor. Ileb. i. p. 1125; Eiseumenger, Entdcckt 
 Judent/i. i. 1S00). Accordingly, Rome, under 
 the name of Babylon, is set forth in the Apoca- 
 lypse (xiv. 8; xvi. 19; xvii. 5; xviii. 2) as the 
 centre ami representative of heathenism ; while 
 Jerusalem appears as tne symbol of Judaism. 
 In ch. xvii. 9 allusion is clearly made to the Sep- 
 ticollis, the seven-hilled city — ‘ seven mountains 
 on which the woman sitteth.’ The description of 
 this woman, in whom the profligacy of Rome is 
 vividly personified, may be seen in ch. xvii. of 
 the Revelation. In ch. xiii. Rome is pictured 
 as a huge unnatural beast, whose name or num- 
 ber ‘ is the number of a man, and his number is 
 Xl <rr i' not improbably Aarhus, Latin, Roman. 
 This beast has been most variously interpreted. 
 The several theories serve scarcely more than to 
 display the ingenuity or the bigotry of their ori- 
 ginators, and to destroy each other. Miinter 
 (De occidto Urbis Roma: nomine, Ilafn. 1811,) 
 thinks there is a reference to the secret name of 
 Rome, the disclosure of which, it was thought, 
 would be destructive to the state (Plin. Ilist. Nat. 
 iii. 9 ; Macrob. Sat. iii. 5 : Plutarch, Qucest. Rom. 
 c. 6 1 ; Serv. ad AEn. ii. 293). Pliny’s words occur 
 in the midst of a long and picturesque account of 
 Italy. Corning in the course of it to speak of 
 Rome, he says, ‘ the uttering of whose other name 
 is accounted impious, and when it had been 
 spoken by Valerius Soranus, who immediately 
 suffered the penalty, it was blotted out with a 
 faith no less excellent than beneficial.’ lie then 
 proceeds to speak of the rites observed on the 1st 
 of January, in connection with this belief, in 
 aonour of Diva Angerona, whose image appeared 
 with her mouth bound and sealed up. This mys- 
 tic name tradition reports to have been Valencia. 
 
 The most recent view of the name of the 
 beast, from the pen of a Christian writer, we 
 find in Hgponoia, or Thoughts on a Spiri- 
 tual Understanding of the Apocalgpse, London, 
 1841. ‘ The number in question ^666) is ex- 
 
 pressed in Greek by three letters of the alpha- 
 bet ; Xi s ' x hundred; |, sixty; err, six. Let us 
 suppose these letters to be the initials of certain 
 names, as it was common with the ancients in 
 their inscriptions upon coins, medals, monuments, 
 Sic., to indicate names of distinguished charac- 
 ters by initial letters, and sometimes by an addi- 
 tional letter, where the initial might be considered 
 insufficient, as C. Caius, Cri. Cneus. The Greek 
 letter x (ch) is the initial of Xpiaris (Christ); the 
 letter £ is the initial of £uAov (wood or tree) ; some- 
 times figuratively put in the New Testament 
 for the Cross ; and in the Revelation applied to 
 the tree of life, the spiritual cross;. The last letter 
 
 r is equivalent to cr and r, but whether ai sot an 
 st, it is the initial of the word Satanas, Satan, or the 
 adversary. Taking the two first names in the 
 genitive, and the last in the nominative, we have 
 the following appellation, name, or title : Xpiaroi 
 ov aaravas, ‘‘the adversary of the cross ot 
 Christ,” a character corresponding with that of cer- 
 tain enemies of the truth, described by Paul, Phil, 
 iii. 19.’ The spiritual hy ponoia or underthought 
 embodied in this the author thus states : ‘ Any doc- 
 trine lending to represent the intervention of a 
 divine propitiation as unnecessary, or militating 
 with a belief and trust in the vicarious sacrifici 
 of Jesus, as the only hope of salvation, must be 
 an adversary of the cross of Christ ; of this elm 
 raefer we consider every principle of self-right 
 eousness,’ &c. (See Ansald, Dc Romana Tutelar 
 Dcor. evocatione, Brix. 1743; Plin. Hist. Nat. iii 
 9; Cellar. Rolit. i. p. 632. sq. ; Mannert. Geog 
 
 ix. 1. 5Sl,sq. ; Sachse, Versvch ein Hist. Topogt 
 Bsschreib. von Rom , Ilannov. 1812; Hilschet 
 De Chresto cujus mention, fecit Suet., Lips, 
 also Ernesti and Wolf, ad Sueion. ; Eichhorn, 
 Comm, in Apocal. p. 104, sq ). 
 
 ROOF. [House.] 
 
 ROOM. [House. 1 
 
 ROSE. [ Riiodon~] 
 
 ROSH (K^D and t?h) occurs in several places 
 of the Old Testament. The word is thought ori- 
 ginally to signify ‘poison,’ and is therefore sup- 
 posed to indicate a poisonous plant. But this has 
 not. yet been ascertained. Celsius begins his article 
 on Posh by stating that * Aben Ezra and the 
 Rabbins observe, that the word is written with 
 a vau iu Dent, xxxii. 32, and with an aleph 
 in all the other places, but incorrectly, ac- 
 cording to J. Gousset.’ It is sometimes trans- 
 lated gaily sometimes bitter or bitterness, but is 
 generally considered to signify some plant. This 
 we may infer from its being frequently men- 
 tioned along with launah or ‘wormwood,’ as in 
 Deut. xxix. 18, ‘lest there should be among you 
 a root that beareth gall ( rosli ) and wormwood 
 ( laanah ); so also in Jer. ix. 15; xxiii. 15; and 
 in Lament, iii. 19, ‘ Remembering mine affliction 
 and my misery, the %cornnvo9tl and the gall.' 
 That it was a berry-bearing plant, has been in- 
 ferred from Dent, xxxii. 32, ‘ For their vine is 
 of the vine of Sodom, and their grapes arc 
 grapes of gall (josh), their clusters are bitter.’ 
 In Jer. v iii. 14, ‘water of gall’ ( rosh ), i» 
 mentioned ; which may be either the expressed 
 juice of the fruit or of the plant, or a bitter in- 
 fusion made from it : ‘ aquae Rosch dicuntur, 
 quia sunt succus herhae, quam Rosch appellant.' 
 That if was a plant is very evident from Hosea 
 
 x. 4, where it is said * their judgment springeth up 
 as hemlock (rosh) in the furrows of the field.' 
 Here we observe that rosh is translated hemlock 
 in the Auth. Vers., as it. is also in Amos vi. 12, 
 
 ‘ For ye have turned judgment into gall (laanah, 
 
 ‘ wormwood ’), and the fruit of righteousness into 
 hemlock (rosh).' 
 
 Though rosh is generally acknowledged to 
 indicate some plant, yet a variety of opinions 
 have been entertained respecting its identifica- 
 tion: some, as the Auth. Vers, in Hosea x. 4, 
 and Amos vi. 12, consider cicuta or hemlock to 
 be the plant intended. Tremellius adopts this 
 as the meaning of rosh in ail the passages, and u 
 
ROSH. 
 
 ROTHEM. 
 
 651 
 
 followed by Celsius (' Hierobot ii. 49). Tlie 
 cicuta of the Romans, the icc&i/eiov of the Greeks, 
 is generally acknowledged to have been what we 
 now call hemlock, the conium maculatum of 
 botanists. There can be no doubt of its poison- 
 ous nature, ‘ Cicuta venenum est publica Athe- 
 niensium poena in visa’ (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxv. 
 13), There is, however, little or no pyoof adduced 
 that rosh is hemlock. Celsius quotes the descrip- 
 tion of Linnaeus in support of its growing in the 
 furrows of Helds, ‘ Frequens per Europam in rude- 
 ratis, juxta pagos, uvbes, in sepibus, aggeribus, 
 agris. 7 But it does not appear to be so common 
 in Syria. Celsius, however, adduces Ben Melech, 
 the most learned of Rabbins, as being of opinion 
 that rosh was conium or hemlock : ‘ Aquae Rosch, 
 virus; bar bare toxicum. Herba est, cujus suc- 
 cum bibendum porriguni illi, quern interimere 
 volunt.’ 
 
 But. there does not appear any necessity for our 
 considering rosh to have been more poisonous 
 than laanah or wormwood , with which it is asso- 
 ciated so frequently as to appear like a pro- 
 verbial expression (Deut. xxix. 18; Jer. ix. 15; 
 xxiii. 15; Lam. iii. 19; Amos vi. 12). Some 
 have erroneously translated it wormwood , from 
 which it is sufficiently distinguished in the above 
 passages. The Sept, translators render it agrostis, 
 intending some species of grass. Hence some have 
 concluded that it must be lolium temulentum , 
 or darnel, the zizanium of the ancients, which 
 is remarkable among grasses for its poisonous 
 and intoxicating properties. It is, however, rather 
 sweetish in taste, and its seeds being intermixed 
 with corn, are sometimes made into bread. It is 
 well known to grow in corn-fields, and would 
 therefore suit the jrassage of Hosea ; but it has not 
 a berry-like fruit, nor would it yield any juice : 
 the infusion in water, however, might be so under- 
 stood, though it would not be very bitter or dis- 
 agreeable in taste. Some have in consequence 
 thought that some of the solanece or litridce of 
 Linnaeus might be intended by the word rosh. 
 These are remarkable for their narcotic properties, 
 though not particularly bitter ; some of them have 
 berried fruits, as the belladonna, which, however, 
 is not indigenous in Palestine : but solamm ni- 
 grum, common nightshade, a small herbaceous 
 plant, is common in fields and road-sides from 
 Europe to India, and is narcotic like the others. 
 The henbane is another plant of this family', 
 which is possessed of powerful narcotic pro- 
 perties, and has been used in medicine from early 
 limes, both by the Greeks and Asiatics. But 
 no proof appears in favour of any of this tribe, 
 and their sensible properties are not so remark- 
 ably disagreeable as to have led to their being 
 employed in what appears to be a proverbial ex- 
 pression. Hiller, in his Hierophyticon (ii. 54), 
 adduces the centaury as a bitter plant, which cor- 
 responds widi much of what is required. Two 
 kinds of centaury, the larger and smaller, and 
 both conspicuous for their bitterness, were known 
 to the ancients. The latter, the Erythrcea cen- 
 taurium, is one of the family of gentians, and 
 still continues to be employed as a medicine on 
 account of its nitter and tonic properties. ‘ Hoc 
 centaurium inquit Plin. xxv. c. G, nostri lei 
 ten® vacant, propter amaritudinem summarn. Ea 
 non radici tantum inest, sed totam inficit plantam : 
 kdb© et^Germanis erdgall et Hispanic Heel di 
 
 iterra, et Gall is fiel de terre vocitatur.’ We 
 may also mention that an old name of this 
 centaury was ‘ Rha capitatum." From the ex- 
 treme bitterness of taste, from growing in fields, 
 and being a native of warm countries, some 
 plant like centaury, and of the tribe of gentians, 
 might answer all the passages in which rosh 
 is mentioned, with the exception of that (Deut. 
 xxxii. 32) where it is supposed to have a berried 
 fruit. Dr. Harris, quoting Blaney on Jerem. viii. 
 14, says, ‘ In Ps. lxix. 21, which is justly con- 
 sidered as a prophecy ot our Saviour's sufferings, 
 it is said, “ they gave me to eat,” which the 
 Sept have rendered %oAVj gall. And accord- 
 ingly it is recorded in the history, Matt, xxvii. 
 34, “ They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled 
 with gall, 7 ' v£os pera xohrjs. But in the parallel 
 passage (Mark xv. 123) it. is said to be “wine 
 mingled with myrrh,” a very bitter ingredient. 
 From whence I am induced to think that x<>A 7 j,and 
 perhaps may be used as a general name 
 
 for whatever is exceedingly bitter ; and, conse- 
 quently, when the sense requires, it may be put 
 specially for any bitter herb or plant, the infusion 
 of which mav be called 'D, “ Aquae 
 
 Rosch.” — J. F. R. 
 
 ROTHEM, written also Rotem (DJTY), oc- 
 curs in four passages of the Old Testament, in 
 all of which it is tianslated juniper in the Auth. 
 Vers., though it is now considered very clear that 
 a kind of broom is. intended. Celsius remarks 
 that the Sept, translators seem to have been un- 
 acquainted with the meaning of the word, as in 
 one passage they introduce it in Greek letters as 
 VaQap, &c., in another as meaning burning char- 
 coal, and in a third as roots of woods. Some 
 who have perceived that, some plant was intended, 
 have doubted about the genus, translating it 
 oak and terebinth, but more frequently juniper. 
 The last has been the most generally adopted 
 in modern versions; but travellers in the East 
 have met with a plant or plants, which by 
 the Arabs is called retem, ratam, rehtem, and 
 retem, varying a little perhaps in different dis- 
 tricts ; the variations being probably owing to 
 the modes of spelling adopled by different authors. 
 In the Arabic works on Materia Medica we have 
 
 the same word retem, signifying a kind 
 of bioom, and which, according to Celsius, is so 
 named from ^jj, ligando. The Moors, no 
 
 doubt, canied the word into Spain, as retama is 
 there applied to a species of genista or broom. 
 In Loudon’s Encyclopa-dia of Plants it is named 
 spartium monospermum, or white single-seeded 
 broom, and is described as a very handsome 
 shrub, remarkable for its numerous snow-white 
 fiowers. Osbeck remarks that it grows like willow- 
 bushes along the shores of Spain, as far as the 
 flying sands reach, wheie scarcely any other 
 plant exists, except the ononis serpens, or creeping 
 restharrow. The use of this slnub is very great 
 iir stopping the sand. The leaves and young 
 branches furnish delicious food* for goats. It con- 
 verts the most barren spot into a fine odoriferoi# 
 garden by its fiowers, which continue a long 
 time. It seems to shelter hogs and goats against 
 the scorching heat of the sun. The twigs are 
 used for tying bundles; anti all kinds of herbs 
 
ROTH EM. 
 
 RUBY. 
 
 
 that are brought to market are fastened together 
 with them. Forskal found it. in Arabia, and 
 Desfontaines in Barhary, on the sandy coast. 
 
 The Spaniards call it Retama, from the Arabic 
 name Retem. It is now referred by all 
 botanists to the genus Genista , and called 
 G. monosperma. It is described by De Can- 
 dolle as a branching and erect shrub, with 
 slender, wandlike, flexible branches ; leaves com- 
 paratively few, linear, oblong, pressed to the 
 branches, pubescent ; inflorescence in few flowered 
 lateral racemes; petals white, silky, neatly equal 
 to one another; legumes oval, inflated, smooth, 
 membranaceous, one to two seeded. It occurs 
 on the sterile shftres of Portugal, Spain, Barbary, 
 and Egypt. It Vas found by Forskal at Sue/., 
 and named by him Genista Spartium ? with 
 rcetcem as its Arabic name. Dove also found it 
 at Suez, and again in different parts of Syria. 
 Belon also mentions finding it in several places 
 when travelling in the East. Rurckhardtalso fre- 
 quently mentions the shrub rethem in the deserts 
 to the south of Palestine, and he thought it to be 
 the same plant as the Genista rcctaem of Forskal. 
 lie states that whole plains are sometimes 
 covered with this shrub, and that such places 
 are favourite places of pasturage, as sheep are re- 
 markably fond of the pods. Lord Lindsay again, 
 while travelling in the middle of the valleys of 
 Mount Sinai, says, ‘ The rattam a species of 
 broom, bearing a white flower, delicately streaked 
 with purple, afforded me frequent shelter from 
 the sun while in advance of the caravan.’ Mr. 
 Kitto on this well observes, ‘ It is a remarkable, 
 because undesigned, coincidence, that in travel- 
 ling to the very same Mount of Horeb, the 
 prophet Elijah rested, as did Lord Lindsay, 
 undei a rattam shrub.’ There can be no reason- 
 able doubt, therefore, that the Hebrew rothem de- 
 notes the same plant as the Arabic retem , though 
 it has been rendered juniper in the English, and 
 leveral other translations, as in 1 Kings xix. 4 ; 
 
 ‘but be (Elijah or Elias) himself went A day’s 
 journey into the wilderness, and came and sat 
 down under a juniper ( rothem ) tree,’ &c. ; ‘ And 
 as he lay and slept under a juniper tree,* 
 
 &c. In the other passages the meaning is not so 
 clear, and therefore different interpretations have 
 been given. Thus, Job (xxx. 4) says of the half- • j 
 famished people who despised him, ‘ who cut up 'J 
 mallows by the bushes, and juniper ( rothem ) 
 roots for their food/ Though the broom root J 
 may perhaps be more suitable for diet than the I 
 juniper , yet they are both too hitter and medicinal I 
 to he considered or used as nutritious, and, there- 3 
 fore, some say, that. ‘ when we read that rotem roots j 
 were their food, we are to suppose a great deal 
 more than the words express, namely, that their i 
 hunger was so violent, as not to tefrain even | 
 from these roots,’ which were neither refreshing 1 
 nor nourishing. Unsinus supposes, that instead of j 
 the roots of this broom, we are to understand a ; 
 plant which grows upon these roots, as well as 1 
 upon some other plants, and which is well known j 
 by the English name of broom-rape , the oro~ j 
 banclxe of botanists. These are someiimes eaten. ] 
 Thus Dioscorides (ii. U6) observes that, the oro - \ 
 
 banche , which grows from the roots of broom, 
 was sometimes eaten raw, or boiled like asparagus, j 
 Celsius again suggests an amendment in the sen- J 
 tence, and thinks that we should understand it to ! 
 mean that, the broom roots were required for fuel, \ 
 and not for food, as the Hebrew words signifying i 
 fuel and food, though very similar to each other, j 
 are very different in their derivation : ‘ Divers® 
 igitur sunt voces Laclimam , pan is eorum, et 
 Ladimam, ad calefaciendum se, script.ione licet ] 
 et literis atque punctis exacte couveniaut ;’ and 
 this sense is confirmed bv some of the Talmudical 
 writers, as R. Levi Ben Gerson, who commenting 
 on this passage says : 4 ut. sign i fleet, ad calefacien- 
 dum se : quia opus babe bant, quo calefierent, quod 
 versarentur in locis frigidis, sine ullo perfugio/ ■ 
 The broom is the only fuel procurable in many 
 of these desert situations, as mentioned by several 
 travellers. Thus Thevmot, ‘Puis nous nous 
 reposames en un lieu ou il y avoit un peu de 
 genets, car ils ne nous faisoient point reposer, 
 qu’en des lieux ou il y eut de quoi bruler, tant 
 pour se chauffer, que pour faire cube le cabve 
 et leur mafrouca/ In Ps. cxx. 4, David ob- 
 serves that the calumnies of his enemies were ] 
 ‘ like arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper ’ 
 (rothem). The broom, being, no doubt, very com- 
 monly used as fuel in a country where it is 
 abundant, and other plants scarce, might re- ;• 
 dily suggest itself in a comparison; but it is also 
 described as sparkling, burning and crackling 
 more vehemently than other wood. — J. F. R. 
 
 RUBY. The word rendered ‘ ruby’ in the 
 Authorized Version (Job xxviii. 18 ; Prov. iii. 
 
 15; viii. 11 ; xx. 15; xxxi. 10; Lam. iv. 7) is 
 rpJ'JS peninim, which appears rather to indicate 
 ‘ pearls.’ The ruby is, however, generally sup- 
 posed to be represented by the word 13*13 lead-hod, 
 which occurs in Ezek. xxvii. 6, and Isa. liv. 12, 
 where the Authorized Version renders it ‘agate/ 
 
 An Arabic word of similar sound ( kadskadsat ) 
 signifies ‘ vivid redness and as the Hebrew word 
 may he derived from a root of like significa- 
 tion, it is inferred that it denotes the Oriental 
 ruby, which is distinguished for its vivid red 
 colour, and was regarded as the most valuable ot 
 
RUTH. 
 
 RUTH. 
 
 653 
 
 precious stones next after the diamond. This 
 mode of identification, however, seems rather 
 precarious. The Greek translator of Ezek. xxvii. 
 16 , does not appear to have known what it meant, 
 for he preserves the original word ; and although 
 the translator of Isa. liv. 12 has jasper (Yao-ris), 
 he is not regarded as any authority in such 
 matters, when he stands alone. The ruby was 
 doubtless known to the Hebrews ; but it is by no 
 means certain that kad-kod was its name. Some 
 have supposed that the word mpN ekdach , which 
 from its etymology should signify a sparkling 
 flaming gem, is to be regarded as a species of 
 ruby. It occurs only in Isa. liv. 12; hence the 
 Septuagint makes it a carbuncle, as does the Au- 
 thorized Version. 
 
 RUFUS ('Povcpos'). A person of this name was 
 one of the sons of Simon the Cyrenian, who was 
 compelled to bear the cross of Christ (Mark xv. 
 21) : he is supposed to be the same with the Rufus 
 to whom Paul, in writing to the Romans, sends his 
 greeting in the remarkable words, * Salute Rufus, 
 chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine’ 
 (Rom. xvi. 13). The name is Roman; but the 
 man was probably of Hebrew origin. He is said 
 to have been one of the seventy disciples, and 
 eventually to have had charge of the church at 
 Thebes. 
 
 RUSH. [Agmon.] 
 
 RUTH (n*Tl ; Sept. 'P ou0), a Moabitisli 
 woman, brought, under peculiar circumstances, 
 into intimate relation with the stock of Israel, 
 and whose history is given in one of the books of 
 the sacred canon which bears her name. The 
 narrative that brings her into the range of inspired 
 story is constructed with idyllic simplicity and 
 pathos, and forms a pleasant relief to the sombre 
 and repulsive shades of the picture which the 
 reader has just been contemplating in tbe later 
 annals of the Judges. It is the domestic history 
 of a family compelled, hv the urgency of a famine, 
 to abandon the land of Canaan, and seek an asylum 
 in the territories of Moab.* Elimelech, the head 
 of the emigrating household, dies in the land of 
 his sojourn, where his two surviving sons ‘ took 
 them wives of the women of Moab ; the name of 
 die one was Orpah, and the name of the other 
 Ruth.’ On the death of the sons, the widowed 
 parent, resolving to return to her country and 
 kindred, the filial affection of the daughters-in-law 
 
 * The period to which this famine is to be re- 
 ferred is a greatly disputed point among commen- 
 tators. The opinion of Usher, which assigns it to 
 the age of Gideon, and which is a mean between 
 the dates fixed upon by others, carries with it the 
 greatest probability. The oppression of the Midi- 
 anites, mentioned in Judg. vi. 3-6, which was pro- 
 ductive of a famine, and from which Gideon was 
 instrumental in delivering his people, wasted the 
 land and destroyed its increase, ‘ till thou come 
 unto Gaza;’ and this embraced the region in 
 which Judah and Bethlehem were situated. The 
 territory of Judah was also adjacent to Moab, and 
 i removal thither was easy and natural. The 
 scourge of Midian endured, moreover, for seven 
 years ; and at the expiration of ten years after the 
 deliverance by Gideon was fully consummated, 
 Naomi re-emigrated to her native land. All the 
 circumstances comiined favour, mainly, the hy- 
 pothesis of Usher. 
 
 is put to a severe test, and Ruth determines at 
 all hazards to accompany Naomi. Sbe accord- 
 ingly arrives at Bethlehem with her mother, where, 
 in the extremity of want, she goes to glean after 
 the reapers in the harvest-field of Boaz, a wealthy 
 kinsman of her deceased father-in-law, Elimelech. 
 Attracted by her appearance, and informed of her 
 exemplary conduct, towards her mother-in-law, 
 Boaz hade her return from day to day, and 
 directed his servants to give her a courteous wel- 
 come. An omen so propitious could not but be 
 regarded as a special encomagemeut to both, and 
 Naomi therefore counselled Ruth to seek an op- 
 portunity for intimating to Boaz the claim she had 
 upon him as the nearest kinsman of her deceased 
 husband. A stratagem, which in other circum- 
 stances would have been of very doubtful pro- 
 priety, was adopted for compassing this object ; 
 and though Boaz entertained tbe proposal favour- 
 ably, yet he replied that there was another person 
 more nearly related to the family than himself, 
 whose title must first be disposed of. Without 
 delay he applied himself to ascertain whether the 
 kinsman in question was inclined to assert his 
 right — a right which extended to a purchase of 
 the ransom (at the Jubilee) of Elimeleclfs estate. 
 Finding him indisposed to 1 be measure, he obtained 
 from him a release, ratified according to the legal 
 forms of the time, and then proceeded himself to 
 redeem the patrimony of Elimelech, and espoused 
 the widow of his son, in order ‘ to raise up the 
 name of the dead upon his inheritance.’ From 
 this union sprang David, the illustrious king of 
 Israel, whose line the writer traces up, in conclu- 
 sion, through Boaz, to Pharez, son of Judah. 
 
 The Book ok Ruth is inserted in the Canon, 
 according to the English arrangement, between 
 the book of Judges and the books of Samuel, as 3 
 sequel to the former and an introduction to the 
 latter. Among the ancient Jews it was added to 
 the book of Judges, because they supposed that the 
 transactions which it relates happened in the time 
 of the judges of Israel (Judg. i. 1). Several of 
 the ancient, fathers, moreover, make but one book 
 of Judges and Ruth. But the modern Jews com- 
 monly place in their Lillies, afler the Pentateuch, 
 the five Megilloth — 1. The Song of Solomon ; 2. 
 Ruth ; 3. The Lamentations of Jeremiah ; 4. Ec- 
 clesiastes; 5. Esther. Sometimes Ruth is placed 
 the first of these, sometimes the second, and some- 
 times the fifth. 
 
 The true date and authorsl\jp of the book are 
 alike unknown, though the current of autho- 
 rity is in favour of Samuel as the writer. That 
 it was written at a time considerably remote 
 from tiie events it records, would appear from the 
 passage in ch. iv. 7, which explains a custom re- 
 ferred to as haviug been ‘ the manner in former 
 time in Israel, concerning redeeming and con- 
 cerning changing ’ (comp. Dent. xxv. 9). That 
 it was written, also, at least as late as the establish- 
 ment of David’s house upon the throne, appears 
 from the concluding verse — ‘And Obed begat 
 Jesse, and Jesse begat David.’ The expression, 
 moreover (ch. i. 1), ‘when the judges ruled/ 
 marking the period of tbe occurrence of the events, 
 indicates, no doubt, that in the writer’s days kings 
 had already begun to reign. Add to this what 
 critics have considered as certain Chaldaisms with 
 which the language is interspersed, denoting its 
 composition at a period considerably U ter tha^ 
 
RUTH. 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 U\ 
 
 that of the events themselves. Thus Eic.ihom 
 finds a Chaldaism or Syriasm in the use of N for 
 PI in KID. though the same form occurs elsewhere. 
 He adverts also to the existence of a superfluous 
 Yod in and WV (iii. 3), and 'fQDt? 
 
 (ver. 4). As, however, the language is in other 
 respects, in the main, pure, these few Chalda'sm3 
 may have arisen from a slight error of the copyists, 
 and therefore can scarcely he alleged as having 
 any special hearing on the era of the document. 
 The same remark is to he made of certain idiomatic 
 phrases and forms of expression which occur else- 
 where only in the hooks of Samuel and of Kings, 
 as — ‘ The Lord do so to me, and more also ’ (Ruth 
 i. 17; comj). 1 Sam. iii. 17; xiv. 44; xx. 23: 
 2 Sam. iii. 9. 35: xix. 13; 1 Kings ii. 23; xix. 
 2 ; xx. 10, 2 Kings vi. 31) ; ‘ 1 have discovered 
 to your ear,' for ‘ I have told you ’ (Ruth iv. 4 ; 
 comp. 1 Sam. xx. 2; 2 Sam. vii. 27). 
 
 The canonical authority of Ruth lias never hem 
 questioned, a sufficient confirmation of it being 
 found in the fact that Ruth, the Moahitess, comes 
 int& the genealogy of the Saviour, as distinctly 
 given hy the Evangelist (Matt. i. 6). The prin- 
 cipal difficulty in regard to the book arises, how- 
 ever. from this very genealogy, in which it is 
 stated that Boaz, who was the husband of Ruth, 
 and the great-grandfather of David, was the son of 
 Salmon by Rachab. Now, if by Rachab we sup- 
 pose to be meant, as is usually understood, Rahab 
 the harlot, who protected the spies, it is not easy 
 to conceive that only three persons — Boaz, Obed, 
 and Jesse, should have intervened between her and 
 David, a period of near 400 years. But the solu- 
 tion of Usher is not improbable, that the ancestors 
 of David, as persons of pre-eminent piety, were 
 favoured with extraordinary longevity. Or it 
 may be that the sacred writers have mentioned 
 in the genealogy only such names as were distin- 
 guished and known among the Jews. 
 
 The leading scope of the book has been variously 
 understood by different, commentators. Umbreit 
 ( Ueber Geist und Ziveck des Bitches Ruths , in 
 Theol. Stud, und Krit. for 1834, p. 308) thinks 
 it was written with the specific moral design of 
 showing how even a stranger, and that of the hated 
 Moabitish stock, might be sufficiently noble to 
 become the mother of the great king David, be- 
 cause she placed her reliance on the God of Israel. 
 Bertholdt regards the history as a pure fiction, de- 
 signed to recommend the duty of a man to marry 
 his kinswoman; while Eichhorn conceives that it 
 was composed mainly in honour of the house of 
 David , though it does not conceal the poverty of 
 the family. The more probable design we think 
 to he to pre-intimate, hy the recorded adoption of 
 a Gentile woman into the family from which 
 Christ was to derive his origin, the final reception 
 of the Gentile nations into the true church, as 
 fellow-heirs of the salvation of the Gospel. The 
 moral lessons which it incidentally teaches are of 
 the most interesting and touching character: 
 that private families are as much the objects of 
 divine regard as the houses of princes; that the 
 present life is a life of calamitous changes; that 
 a devout trust in an overruling Providence will 
 never fail of its reward; and that no condition, 
 however adverse or afflicted, is absolutely hopeless, 
 are truths that were never more strikingly illus- 
 trated than in the brief and simnle narrative 
 before us. — G. B. 
 
 s. 
 
 SABBATH. The original word (n2fc?) sig- 
 nifies simply rest, cessation from labour or em- 
 ployment. 
 
 The term, however, became appropriated in a 
 specific religious sense, to signify the dedication 
 of a precise portion of time to cessation from 
 worldly labour, and a peculiar consecration by 
 virtue of which a sanctity was ascribed to the 
 portion of time so set apart, just as a similar 
 sacred character was ascribed to consecrated 
 places, things, and persons: the violation of it 
 was analogous to sacrilege. 
 
 The character of the institution, as it existed 
 under the Mosaical law, is distinct and mani- 
 fest ; hut the subject, as a whole, embraces points 
 on which Christian opinion lias been considerably 
 divided. It will he our object briefly to exhibit 
 the different views which have been taken on 
 these points, and to indicate the materials hy 
 means of which the subject may be more fully 
 investigated. 
 
 Was there any Sabbath before the Law ? This 
 is a question which lies at the root of all the dif- 
 ferences of opinion which have been entertai'ned. 
 For the affirmative, it is alleged on the authority 
 of Gen. ii. 3, that the Sabbath was instituted hy 
 God in commemoration of his resting on the 
 seventh day from the work of creation, and given 
 to our first parents. 
 
 This text has indeed usually been regarded as 
 conclusive of the whole question : hut those who 
 nold that the institution of the Sabbath originated 
 under the Law, observe that this passage contains 
 no express command, addressed to any parties, 
 nor any specific mention of the nature of such 
 implied solemnization; still less any direct al- 
 lusion to rest from labour, or to religious worship. 
 
 It is also urged, that some of the ablest divines, 
 even of older times, regard the passage (Gen. ii. 
 3) as proleptical or anticipatory, and referring 
 to the subsequent institution recorded in Exodus. 
 They conceive that Moses, in recounting ibis de- 
 scription of the creation, had for at least one prin- 
 cipal object, the introduction of this sanction from 
 the received cosmogony, for the establishment of 
 the Sabbath among the Israelites : and that, as this 
 narrative was composed after the delivery of the 
 law for their special instruction, so this passage 
 was only intended to confirm more forcibly that 
 institution; or that it is to be understood as if 
 Moses bad said, ‘ God rested on the seventh day, 
 which he has since blessed and sanctified .’ 
 
 It is admitted that there is no other direct 
 mention of a Sabbath in the book of Genesis : but 
 there are traces of a period of seven days, wnich are 
 usually regarded as indicating the presence of a 
 Sabbath. Thus, in Gen. iv. 3, the words rendered 
 ‘ in process of time,’ have been held to signify ‘ the 
 end of days,’ and this supposed to mean a week, — 
 when the offerings of Cain and Abel were made, — 
 and thence the Sabbath. Again, they refer to the 
 periods of seven days, occurring in the history of 
 Noah (Gen. vii. 10; viii. 10); yet the term ‘week’ 
 is also used in tire contract between Jacob and 
 
SABBATH. 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 Lalian (Gen. xxix. 27, 28) ; and Job and his 
 friends observed the term of seven days (Job ii. 
 13) ; all of whicii, it. is alleged, goes to prove that 
 the blessing of a Sabbath was not withheld from 
 the primitive world. 
 
 The terms in which the appointment of the Sab- 
 bath to the Israelites is made before the delivery 
 of the rest of the law (Exod. xvi. 23), have also 
 been supposed to imply that it was not a new 
 institution, as also the use of the word ‘ remember,’ 
 introducing the injunction in the Decalogue. But, 
 on the other side, it. is answered that in giving 
 an injunction, the monitory word ‘remember’ is 
 as commonly used in reference to the future re- 
 collection of the precept, so given, as to anything 
 past. That there is nothing extraordinary in the 
 institution of one particular observance of the 
 law before the rest of it was delivered : the same 
 argument would show a previous obligation to 
 observe the Passover or circumcision. That with 
 regard to the reckoning of time by weeks, this 
 does not at all necessarily imply any reference to 
 a Sabbath. And that the employment of any 
 particular mode of reckoning by an historian , 
 is no proof that it was used by the people , or in 
 the times he is describing. 
 
 It is powerfully urged by the believers in a 
 primitive Sabbath, that we find from time im- 
 memorial the knowledge of a week of seven days 
 among all nations— Egyptians, Arabians, In- 
 dians — in a word, all the nations of the East, 
 have in all ages made use of this week of seven 
 days, for which it is difficult to account without 
 admitting that this knowledge was derived from 
 the common ancestors of the human race. 
 
 On the other side it is again denied that the 
 reckoning of time by weeks implies any reference 
 to a Sabbath* One of our own contributors, who 
 takes this view, remarks — 
 
 ‘The division of time by weeks, as it is one 
 of the most ancient and universal, so is it one 
 of the most obvious inventions, especially among 
 a rude people, whose calendar required no very 
 nice adjustments. Among all early nations the 
 lunar months were the readiest large divisions of 
 time, and though the recurrence of the lunar 
 ]>eriod in about 29^ days was incompatible with 
 any exact subdivision, yet the nearest whole num- 
 ber of days which could be subdivided into 
 shorter periods, would be either 30 or 28 ; of which 
 the latter would of course be adopted, as admit- 
 ting of division into 4, corresponding nearly to 
 those striking phenomena, the phases or quarters 
 of the moon. Each of these would palpably 
 correspond to about a week ; and in a period of 
 about 5^ lunations, the same phases would return 
 very nearly to the same days of the week. In 
 order to connect the reckoning by weeks with the 
 lunar month, we tind that all ancient nations 
 observed some peculiar solemnities to mark the 
 day of the new moon. Accordingly, in the 
 Mosaic law the same thing was also enjoined 
 (Num. x. 10; xxviii. 11, &c.), though it is 
 worthy of remark, that while particular observe 
 anccs are here enjoined, the idea of celebrating 
 the new moon in some icay is alluded to as if 
 already familiar to them. 
 
 ‘ In other parts of the Bible we find the Sabbaths 
 and new moons continually spoken of in conjunc- 
 tion ; as (Isa. i. 13, & c.) the division of time by 
 weeks prevailed all over the East, from the 
 
 €5o 
 
 earliest periods, among the Assyrians, Arabs, and 
 Egyptians ; — to the latter people Dion Cassius 
 ascribes its invention. It was found among the 
 tribes in the interior of Africa by Oldendorf 
 (.Tabu’s Arch. Bibl., art. ‘ Week’). The Peru- 
 vians counted their months by themoon, their half- 
 months by the increase and decrease of the moon, 
 and the weeks by quarters, without having any 
 particular names for the week days. Their cos- 
 mogony, however, does not include any reference 
 to a six days’ creation (Garcilasso de la Vega, 
 Hist, of the Incas, in Taylor’s Nat. Hist, of So- 
 ciety, i. 291). The Peruvians, besides this, have 
 a cycle o I nine days, the approximate third part 
 of a lunation ( ib . p. 292), clearly showing the 
 common origin of both. Possibly, also, the 
 “nundin^e‘ , of the Romans may have had a simi- 
 lar origin. 
 
 ‘ The Mexicans had a period of 5 days (Antonio 
 de Solis, Conquest of Mexico, quoted by Norman 
 on ‘ Yucatan,’ p. 185). They had also periods 
 of 13 days: their year was solar, divided into 
 18 months of 20 days each, and 5 added (Laplace, 
 Hist. d'Astron., p. 65). Some writers, as Acosta 
 and Baron Humboldt, have attributed the origin 
 of the week to the names of the primary planets 
 as known to the ancients. It is certain that the 
 application of the names of the planets to the 
 days originated "in the astrological notion, that 
 each planet in order presided over the hours ol 
 the day; this we learn expressly from Dion Cas- 
 sius (lib. xxvii.). Arranging the planets in the 
 order of their distances from the earth, on the 
 Ptolemaic system, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, 
 Venus, Mercury, the Moon, — then e. g. Saturn 
 presided over the 1st hour of Saturday; and as- 
 signing each planet to an hour in succession, the 
 22nd hour will fall to Saturn again, the 23rd to 
 Jupiter, the 24th to Mars; and thus the 1st hour 
 of the next day would fall to the Stm, and so on. 
 This mode of designation was adopted by the 
 Greeks and Romans from the East, and is found 
 among the Brahmins (see Useful Knowledge 
 Society’s Life of Galileo, p. 12; also Laplace, 
 Precis del' Hist, de VAstron., p. 16).’ 
 
 Those who take the view adverse to the existence 
 of a primitive Sabbath, regard it as a circum- 
 stance worthy of remark, that in the re-establish- 
 ment of the human race, after the Flood, we find 
 in Gen. ix. a precise statement of the covenant 
 which God is represented as making with Noah, 
 in which, while several particulars are adverted 
 to, no mention whatever is made of the Sabbath. 
 
 The early Christian writers are generally as 
 silent on this subject of a primitive Sabbath as on 
 that of primitive sacrifice [Sacrifice]. Such 
 examination as we have been able to institute, has 
 disclosed no belief in its existence, while some in- 
 dications are found of a notion that the Sabbath 
 began with Moses. Thus, Justin Martyr says, 
 that the patriarchs ‘ were justified before God not 
 keeping the Sabbaths:’ ami again, ‘ from Abraham 
 originated circumcision, and from Moses the Sab- 
 bath, and sacrifices and oiler ings/ &c. ( Dial . con. 
 Tryph ., 236. 261). Iremeus observes, ‘Abraham, 
 without circumcision, and without observance of 
 Sabbaths, believed in God,’ &c. (iv. 30). And 
 Tertullian expresses himself to the same effect 
 (Adv. Jud. ii. 4). While, on the other hand, 
 they regard the institution as wholly peculiar to 
 the Israelites. Justin Martyr, in particular, ex- 
 
556 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 presses htms?V pointedly to the effect that * it 
 was given to urn on account, of their lawlessness 
 ( avopiav ) an : hardness o*" heart ’ {Dial, cum 
 Tryph ., 235). 
 
 The Jewish Sabbath. — Under the Mosaic law 
 itself, the case is perfectly free from all doubt 
 or ambiguity. The Sabbath, as consisting in a 
 rigid cessation from every species of labour, was 
 enjoined expressly ‘ for a perpetual covenant 
 and as ‘ a sia*', between Got! and the children of 
 Israel Jot ever ’ (Exod. xxxi. 16). And the same 
 idea is repeated in many other passages; all 
 showing boto the exclusive announcement atnl 
 peculiar object, and application of the institution 
 to the people of Israel ; — as particularly Ezek. xx. 
 10; Nehem. ix. 13, & c. And this is further 
 manifest in the constant association of this ob- 
 servance with otheis of the like peculiar and posi- 
 tive nature, — as with reverencing the sanctuary 
 (Lev. xix. 30). keeping the ordinances (Ezek. 
 xlv. 17), solemnizing the new moons (Isa. i. 13; 
 Ixvi. 23), anil other feasts (Hos. ii. 11). And 
 obviously with the same view it was expressly 
 made one of the primary obligations of proselytes 
 who joined themselves to the Lord, as ‘ taking 
 hold of the covenant’ thereby (Isa. lvi. 6). 
 
 The degree of minute strictness with which it 
 was to be observed, is laid down in express literal 
 precepts, as against, kindling lire (Exod. xxxv. 4) 
 or preparing food (xvi. 5, 22). A man was put 
 to death for gathering sticks (Num. xv. 32). 
 Buying and selling were also unlawful (Neh. 
 x. 3.1). 
 
 To those a multitude of more precise in- 
 junctions were added by the traditions of the 
 Rabbis, such as the prohibition of travelling 
 more than twelve miles, afterwards contracted to 
 one mile, and called a Sabbath day's journey, 
 and not only bu ing and selling, but any kind 
 of pecuniary trai faction. even for charitable pur- 
 poses, or so mi; ill as touching money (see Vi- 
 ti inga, De Syria ;oga , translated by Bernard, p. 
 
 76 )« . 
 
 This will be ti ; place also to mention, how- 
 ever briefly, the extension of the idea of a seventh 
 period of rest, in t. ;e institution of the Sabbatical 
 Year ; or the inju let ion of a falloxo or cessation 
 of tillage for the and every seventh year. Not 
 only were the lal, )urs of agriculture suspended, 
 but even the spout mentis productions of the earth 
 were to be given to the poor, the traveller, and the 
 wild animals (see Lev. xxv. 1-7 ; Deut. xv. 1-10). 
 This prohibition, h nvever, did not extend toother 
 labours or trades, which were still carried on. 
 There was, howev ;r, in this year an extraordi- 
 dary time devoted :o the hearing of the law read 
 through (see Deut xxxi. 10, IS). As Moses pre- 
 dicted (Lev. xxvi. 34), this institution was after- 
 wards much neglec :ed (2 Chron. xxxvi. 21). 
 
 Closely connecht 1 with this was the observance 
 of the year followi tg seven Sabbatic years (i. e. 
 the fiftieth year) cai led the year of Jubilee; but 
 of this we have filly treated under the Art. 
 Jubii.ek. 
 
 The Christian Sibbath. — The question as to 
 the continued obligation of the Sabbath under 
 the Christian dispensation, is one on which great 
 difference of opinion has been entertained, not 
 only by Christian churches, but by theologians 
 of the same church. 
 
 Tbs Jewish proph its in several places describe 
 
 in lofty imagery a future condition of glory and 
 prosperity, connected with the reign of the pro- 
 mised Messiali. These predictions are in a great 
 degree conveyed under the literal representation 
 of temporal grandeur, to he attained by the 
 Jewish nation, and the restoration of their temple 
 and worship to the highest pitch of splendour 
 while proselytes should come in from all nations, 
 until the whole world should own its spiritual 
 sway (as Amos ix. 11; Mich. iv. 1; Zech. viii. 
 20). In the course of these representations refer- 
 ence is made tn 1 he observance of Sabbaths (Isa. 
 lvi. 6, 7 ; lxvi. 23). 
 
 In the interpretation of these passages some 
 difference of opinion has prevailed. The Jews 
 themselves have always understood them in their 
 strictly literal sense. Among Christians they 
 have been regarded as literally predicting some 
 future restoration of the people of Israel, or per- 
 haps as applying in a first or literal sense to the 
 temporal restitution of the Jews after the cap- 
 tivity (which was to a gieat degree fulfilled before 
 the coming of Christ), and the extraordinary ac- 
 cession of proselytes from all nations which had 
 at that period taken place, while in a second or 
 figurative sense they leler to the final extension of 
 Christ's spiritual kingdom over the whole world. 
 
 These passages have been adduced in proof of 
 the continued and permanent obligation of the 
 Sabbath under all circumstances of the church of 
 God; hut those who dispute tin's, call attention 
 to the fact that in these the Sabbath is always 
 coupled with other observances of the Mosaic 
 law; and they allege that if the whole descrip- 
 tion be taken literally, then by common consis- 
 tency the Sabbaths must be also taken literally 
 as applying to the Jews and the proselytes to their 
 religion : lfTigurativelv, the Sabbaths must by 
 parity of reason be t.ken figuratively also, as im- 
 plying spiritual rest, cessation from sin, and the 
 everlasting rest of the faithful. 
 
 The teaching of Christ, himself on this subject 
 was of precisely the same kind as on all othei 
 points connected with the law. He was address- 
 ing exclusively Jews living under that law still 
 in force. He censured the extravagant rigour 
 with which the Pharisees endeavoured to enforce 
 it ; he exhorted to a more special observance of 
 its weightier matters, and sought to lead his fol- 
 lowers to a higher and more spiritual sense of 
 their obligations ; hut he in no degree relaxed, 
 modified, or abrogated any portion of the Mosaic 
 code. On the contrary, expressly upheld its 
 authority, enlarging indeed on many precepts, 
 but rescinding none (Matt. v. 17, 18; xxiii. 1, 
 29 ; xvfii. 17, &c.). 
 
 So in regard to the more particular precept of 
 (he Sabbath, while lie reproved the excessive 
 strictness of the Pharisaical observance — and to 
 this end wrought, miracles upon it, and vindicated 
 works of mercy and necessity by reason of the 
 case, and instances from the Old Testament (as 
 in Matt. xii. 1; Luke xiii. 15; John v. 9, &c.) 
 — still he in no way modified or altered the obli- 
 gation beyond what the very language of the law 
 and the prophets clearly sanctioned. He used 
 indeed the remarkable declaration, ‘ The Sab- 
 bath was made for the man (Sia rbv &v6pamoy) t 
 not the man (6 &v6pa)iros'} for the Sabbath,’ which 
 is usually regarded as the most conclusive text 
 favour of the universal obligation of the Sabbath • 
 
SABBATH. 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 657 
 
 end it must have been so regarded by our trans- 
 lators, joeing that they omit the article. It is 
 commonly understood in the following sense: ‘ it 
 was made for man, not as he may be a Jew or a 
 Christian, but as man, a creature bound to love, 
 worsh’p, anil serve his God and maker, in time 
 and in eternity.’ To this it is answered, that 
 we must not overlook the article in the oiiginal, 
 where the man must mean ‘ those for whom it 
 was appointed,’ without specifying who they were, 
 much less implying man in general ; that ‘ the man 
 was not made for it,’ as manifestly implies that 
 it was not a duty of an essential and unchange- 
 able nature, such as those for which man is es- 
 pecially constituted and ordained — in other 
 words, that it was an institution enjoined by 
 way of adaptation to the case of those to whom 
 the precept was given. An intermediate view, 
 which lays no particular stress upon the definite 
 aiticle, is thus expressed in paraphrase by the 
 elder Rosernn filler {Scholia in Marc. ii. 27) : ‘ The 
 Sabbath is an institution for the recreation of man ; 
 but man was not therefore created that he might 
 on the seventh day rest from all anxious labour.’ 
 lie adds, ‘ This being the nature of the Sabbath, 
 what follows in verse 28 will hold true, that it is 
 in the power of the Messiah to dispense with its 
 observance.’ 
 
 In the preaching of the Apostles we find hardly 
 an allusion to the subject. Their ministry was 
 at first addressed solely to the Jews, or to those 
 who were at least proselytes. To these disciples, 
 in the first instance, they neither insisted on the 
 observance of the law, nor on any abrogation of 
 it; though at a later period we find St. Paul, 
 more especially, gradually and cautiously point- 
 ing out to them its transitory nature, and that 
 having fulfilled its purpose, it was to cease (e. g. 
 Heb. vii. 18). There is nothing to show directly 
 whether the obligation of the Sabbath did or did 
 not share in the general declaration ; and the af- 
 firmative or negative must be determined by the 
 weight of the arguments in behalf of the preser- 
 vation of the moral as distinguished from the 
 ceremonial law. It is however clear from several 
 passages in the New Testament, that it continued 
 to he observed as heretofore by these converts, 
 along with the other peculiarities of the law. Our 
 Saviour adds, ‘Therefore the Son of Man is Lord 
 even of the Sabbath-day which is on all hands 
 agreed to mean that he had power to abrogate it 
 partially or wholly, if he thought fit, and it is ad- 
 mitted that he did not then think fit to exercise it. 
 
 With regard, to the Gentile converts (who were 
 the more special objects of St. Paul's labours), 
 we find a totally different state of things prevail- 
 ing. They were taught at first the spiritual re- 
 ligion of the Gospel in all its simplicity. But 
 the narrow zeal of their Jewish brethren very early 
 led them to attempt the enforcement of the addi- 
 tional burden of the law upon these Gentile 
 Christians. The result was .the explicit aposto- 
 lic decree contained in Acts xv. 28. The omis- 
 sion of the Sabbath among the few things which 
 are there enforced upon them, is advanced by 
 those who doubt the abiding obligation of the in- 
 stitution, as a very strong circumstance in their 
 favour ; and the freedom of these converts from its 
 obligation is regarded by them as conclusively 
 j proved in Col. ii. 16, and clearly implied in 
 Uom. xiv 6, where the Sabbaths are said to be 
 
 rot. ii 43 
 
 placed in exactly the same predicament as new 
 moons, distinctions of meats, &c., and all ex- 
 plicitly declared to be shadows. It is also urged 
 that in the discourses of the apostles to the hea- 
 then recorded in the Acts, we find not ihe slight- 
 est allusion to any 'patriarchal obligations , of 
 which, if such had existed, it would have been ma- 
 nifestly necessary to have informed their hearers. 
 
 These last arguments appear to us to be the 
 strongest of any that have yet. been advanced in 
 favour of the view indicated ; nor do we see how 
 they can be met but by urging the distinction 
 between the moral and ceremonial law, and the 
 paramount obligation of the former, while the 
 latter is abrogated : for it will then follow, that 
 the whole moral law being of unchangeable obli- 
 gation, it was not necessary to specify the Sabbath 
 in particular, when the general obligation of the 
 whole was understood. This answer dors not. 
 however, meet the argument founded on Col. ii. 
 16, which is alleged to place the Sabbath under 
 the ceremonial law, if the distinction of the moral 
 and ceremonial divisions of the law be admitted. 
 That text is indeed of the utmost importance tc 
 the question ; of this the disputants on both sides 
 have been fully aware, and have joined issue 
 upon it. The view of those who are opposed to 
 the sabbatic obligation, has been already given : 
 that of the other side may be expressed in the 
 words of Bishop Horsley (Sermons, i. 357). ‘ From 
 this text, no less a man than the venerable Calvii* 
 drew the conclusion, in which he has been rashly 
 followed by other considerable men, that the 
 sanctification of the seventh day is no indispen- 
 sable duty of the Christian church; that it is 
 one of those carnal ordinances of the Jewish re- 
 ligion which our Lord had blotted out. The. 
 truth, however, is, that in the apostolical age, the 
 first day of the week, though it was observed with 
 great reverence, was not called the Sabbath-day,, 
 but the Lord’s day ; that the separation of the 
 Christian church from the Jewish communion, 
 might be marked by the name as well as by the 
 day of their weekly festival ; and the name of. 
 the sabbath-days was appropriated to the Satur- 
 days, and certain days in the Jewish church 
 which were likewise called Sabbaths m the law, 
 because they were observed with no less sanctity. 
 The sabbath-days, therefore, of which St. Paul in 
 this passage speaks, were not the- Sundays of the 
 Christians, but the Saturday and other sabbaths* 
 of the Jewish calendar. The Judaizing heretics, 
 with whom St. Paul was all- his life engaged, 
 were strenuous advocates for the observance of 
 these Jewish festivals in the Christian church ; 
 and his (St. Paul’s) admonition to the Colossians,. 
 is, that they should no-t be disturbed by the cen- 
 sures of those who reproached them for neglecting 
 to observe these sabbaths with Jewish ceremonies.’ 
 To the same effect, see Macknight and Bulkley,. 
 on Col. ii. 16. 
 
 The difference of opinion, then, is this, that 
 the passage is alleged, on one side, to abrogate 
 altogether the sabbatic observance; while on the 
 other it is contended, that it applies only to that 
 part of it which was involved in the ceremonial 
 law. 
 
 The question thus becomes further narrowed to: 
 the point, whether it is right or not to transfer to 
 the Lord’s day the name, the idea, and many of 
 the obligations of the Jewish Sabbath? The ne- 
 
558 
 
 8 YBBATH. 
 
 SABBATH. 
 
 gative is asserted by two very opposite parties; 
 by the Sabbatarians as a body, and by indivi- 
 duals in different denominations, who take their 
 stand upon the primitive determination of the 
 Sabbath to the seventh day, in commemoration 
 of the creation ; and who therefore hold that the 
 Saturday or seventh day must remain, to all time, 
 the day of rest, unless altered by an authority 
 equal to that, by which it. was established. They 
 deny that the authority for any such alteration 
 is to be found in the New Testament; for they 
 understand the passage above referred to (Col. 
 ii. 16), to apply not to the day, but to the ]>ocu- 
 liar observances which the Jewish law connected 
 with it (Rupp, Relig. Denom. pp. 86-91). The 
 right of thus transferring the idea of the Sabbath 
 to the Lord’s day, is also denied by those who 
 believe that the Sabbath was entirely a Mosaical 
 institution, and as such abrogated, along with the 
 ■whole body of the law, at the death of Christ, which 
 ■closed the old shadowy dispensation, and opened 
 the realities of the new. It is admitted that Christ, 
 himself did not abrogate it, though he asserted 
 bis right to do so; for the old dispensation sub- 
 sisted till his death. But being then abro- 
 gated, it is denied that it was re-enacted through 
 the Apostles, or that they sanctioned the transfer 
 ■of the Sabbatic obligations to the Sunday, al- 
 though the early Christians did, with 1 heir appro- 
 bation, assemble on that day — as the day on 
 which their Lord arose from the dead — for wor- 
 ship, and to partake in the memorials of his 
 love [Lord’s Day.]. 
 
 In answer to this, it is urged, that the transfer 
 nr change was made under the authority of the 
 Apostles. It is, indeed, allowed, that there is no 
 .express command to that effect.; but as it was 
 done in the apostolic age (which, however, the 
 .other side does not admit), the consent of the 
 Apostles is to be understood. More cogent, is the 
 .argument, that the day itself was not an essential 
 part of the original enactment, which ordains not 
 necessarily every seventh day, but one day in 
 seven, as holy time. In the primitive ages of 
 •man, the creation of the world was the benefac- 
 tion by which God was principally known, and for 
 which he was chiefly to be worshipped. The 
 Jews, in their religious assemblies, bad to com- 
 memorate other blessings — the political creation 
 of their nation out of Abraham's family, and 
 their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. 
 ■Christians have to commemorate, besides the 
 common benefit of the creation, the transcendant 
 blessing of our redemption, — our new creation to 
 the hope of everlasting life, of which our Lord’s 
 resurrection on the first day of the week was a 
 sure pledge and evidence. Thus in the progress 
 of ages, the Sabbath acquired new ends, by new 
 manifestations of the divine mercy ; and these 
 new ends justify corresponding alterations of the 
 original institution. Horsley, and those who 
 agree with him, allege, that upon our Lord’s 
 resurrection, the Sabbath was transferred in me- 
 mory of that event, the great foundation of the 
 Christian’s hope, from the last to the first day of 
 the week. ‘ Tlie alteration seems to have been 
 made by the authority of the Apostles, and to 
 have taken place the very day in which our Lord 
 arose ; for on that day the Apostles were assem- 
 bled ; and on that day sevennight they were 
 assembled again. The celebration of these two 
 
 first Sundays was honoured by our Lord’s pr» 
 sence. It was, perhaps, to set a mark of distinc- 
 tion upon this day in particular, that the inter- 
 vening week passed oil’, as it would seem, without 
 any repetition of his first visit to the eleven 
 Ajiostles. From that time, the Sunday was the 
 constant Sabbath of the primitive church. The 
 Christian, therefore, who devoutly sanctifies one 
 day in seven, although it he on the first day of 
 the week, not the last, as was originally ordained, 
 may rest assured, that he fully satisfies the spirit 
 of the ordinance ’ (Horsley, i. 334, 335; compare 
 Holden’s Christian Sabbath, pp. 286, 287). 
 
 In justification of the change, it has also been 
 well remarked, that the same portion of lime 
 which constituted the seventh day from the„crea- 
 tion could not. be simultaneously observed in all 
 parts of the earth, and that it is not therefore pro- 
 bable that the original institution expressed more 
 than one day in seven — a seventh day of rest after 
 six days of toil, from whatever point the enume- 
 ration might set out or the weekly cycle begin. I f 
 more had been intended, it would have been neces- 
 sary to establish a rule for the reckoning of days 
 themselves, which has been different, in different 
 nations ; some reckoning from evening to evening, 
 as the Jews do now ; others from midnight to mid- 
 night, &c. Even if this point were determined, 
 the difference of time produced by difference of 
 latitude and longitude would again ihrow the 
 whole into disorder ; and it is not probable that a 
 law intended to be universal would be fettered 
 with that circumstantial exactness which would 
 render difficult, and sometimes doubtful astrono- 
 mical calculations necessary in order to its being 
 obeyed according to the intentions of the lawgiver. 
 It is true that this very argument might he adduced 
 on the other side, to prove that the obligations of 
 the Sabbatic observance were originally limited 
 to the Jews. It is not, however, our object, nor 
 would it be possible, to exhaust all the arguments 
 which bear upon the subject. Enough has been 
 produced to indicate the bearings of the question, 
 and at the end of the article materials are fur- 
 nished for more minute inquiry. It appears to 
 us that great confusion and much injustice have 
 arisen from confounding the different shades of 
 opinion respecting the Sabbath. They might be 
 thus discriminated : — 
 
 1. Those who behave that the Sabbath is of 
 binding and sacred obligation, both as a primitive 
 institution and as a moral law of the Mosaical 
 code. These may be divided into : 
 
 a. Those who contend for the very day of the 
 Mosaical institution. 
 
 b. Those who believe the obligation to have 
 been transferred to the Jirst day by the Apostles. 
 
 2. Those who deny that the Sabbath was a 
 primitive institution, or that its obligation sur- 
 vived the Mosaical dispensation, but who never- 
 theless hold the observance of the Lord’s day as an 
 apostolical institution, deriving none of its autho- 
 rity or obligation from the Mosaical dispensation. 
 
 3. Those who both deny the permanent obli- 
 gation of the Sabbath, and that there is any obli- 
 gatory authority in the New Testament for the ob- 
 servance of even the Lord's day. These again 
 may be divided into two classes : — 
 
 a. Those who hold that, although not of divine 
 obligation, the observance of the first day of the 
 week as a day of rest from toil, and of spirit •ia’ 
 
SABBATH. 
 
 SABBATH-DAY’S JOURNEY. 659 
 
 tdificalion, is not only salutary 1 at necessary, 
 and is therefore in accordance w ifh the will of 
 God, and ought as such to be maintained. 
 
 b. Those who assert that, not being a matter of 
 positive injunction, it is not necessary or desirable 
 to observe the day at all on religious grounds. 
 But even these generally admit that it is com- 
 petent for human legislation to enact its ob- 
 servance as a day of rest, and iliat it then 
 becomes a duty to obey it as the law of the land, 
 seeing that it is not contrary to the will of God. 
 
 c. A mixed view of the subject, arisingout of the 
 two last, seems to be entertained by the Quakers, 
 and by individuals in different, denominations; 
 namely, that the authorized institution of Moses 
 respecting a weekly Sabbath, and the practice of 
 the first teachers of Christianity, constitute a 
 sufficient recommendation to set apart certain 
 times for the exercise of public worship, even 
 were there no such injunctions as that of Heb. x. 
 23. Community of dependence and hope dic- 
 tates the propriety of united worship, and worship, 
 to be united, must be performed at intervals pre- 
 viously fixed. But, it is urged, since the Jewish 
 Sabbath is abrogated, and since the assembling 
 together on the first day of the week is mentioned 
 as an existing practice in the New Testament, 
 but not enjoined as a positive obligation, it does 
 not appear why these periods should recur at 
 intervals of seven days any more than of five or 
 ten. Nevertheless, it is added, ‘the question 
 whether we are to observe the first day of the 
 week because it is the first clay , is one point — • 
 whether we ought to devote it to religious exer- 
 cises, seeing that it is actually set apart for the 
 purpose , is another. Bearing in mind then that 
 it is right to devote some portion of our time to 
 these exercises, and considering that no objection 
 exists to the day which is actually appropriated, 
 the duty seems very obvious — so to employ it’ 
 (Jonathan Dymond, Essays on the Principles of 
 Morality , i. 164-172). 
 
 This testimony in favour of the observance, 
 from one who utterly denies the religious obli- 
 gation of setting even one day in seven apart, 
 is not unlike that of Dr. Arnold, who seems to 
 have taken the view of the subject represented in 
 3, a. In a letter to Mr. Justice Coleridge, lie says : — 
 
 ‘ Although I think that the whole law is done 
 Away with, so far as it is the law given in Mount 
 Sinai, yet so far as it is the law of the Spirit, 1 
 hold it to be all binding ; and believing that our 
 need of a Lord’s day is as great as ever it was, 
 and that, therefore, its observance is God’s will, 
 and is likely, so far as we see, to be so to the end 
 of time; 1 should think it most mischievous to 
 weaken the respect paid to it’ ( Life and Corre- 
 spondence , i. 355). 
 
 We have entered into these details concerning 
 the differences of opinion on this important 
 subject — which concerns one-seventh of man’s life 
 — for the sake of defining the exact amount of 
 such differences, and of showing that pious men, 
 sincerely seeking the truth of God’s word, may on 
 the one hand conscientiously doubt the obligation 
 of a Christian Sabbath without deserving to be 
 stigmatised as Antinomians, scoffers, or profane ; 
 and on the other, may uphold it without being 
 regarded as Judaizers and formalists. A very 
 gratifying result which arises from the contem- 
 plation of these differences as to the nature and 
 
 extent of the obligation, will be found in the 
 clearer perception of the agreement to which they 
 all tend, in favour of the observance itself, as in 
 the highest degree conducive to the health of the 
 mind and the nourishment of the soul (Calvin, 
 Jnstit. Christ. Relig. lib. ii. ch. 8 ; Brerewood, 
 Treatise of the Sabbath ; Bp. Prideaux, Doc- 
 trine of the Sabbath ; A bp. Bramhall, Discourses 
 on the Controversy about the Sabbath ; Bp. 
 White, Treatise of the Sabbath Day ; Heylin, 
 History of the Sabbath ; Chandler, Too Sermons 
 on the Sabbath ; Wotton, On the Mishna, i. 205 : 
 Warburton, Divine Legation , iv. 36, note ; Watts’ 
 Perpetuity of the Sabbath ; Kennicott, Serm. 
 and Dialog, on the Sabbath ; Porteus, Sermons , 
 vol. i. serm. 9 ; Horsley's Sermons, u.s. ; Paley, 
 Natural and Political Philosophy , b. v. c. 7; 
 Holden’s Christian Sabbath ; Burnside, On the 
 Weekly Sabbath ; Binder’s Law of the Sabbath ; 
 Wardlap, Wilson, and Agnew, severally. On the 
 Sabbath; Modern Sabbath Examined, 1832; 
 Archbishop Wliately, Difficulties of St. Paul , 
 Essay v. note on Sabbath).* 
 
 SABBATH-DAY’S JOURNEY (o-aftSaVcu 
 SSbs, Acts i. 12), the distance which the Jews 
 were permitted to journey from and return to 
 their places of residence upon the Sabbath-day 
 (Exod. xvi. 29). The Israelites were forbidden to 
 go beyond the encampment (to collect manna) 
 upon the Sabbath-day; which circumstance seems 
 to have given rise to the regulation — which is not 
 distinctly enjoined in the law, although it might 
 be fairly deduced from the principle on which the 
 legislation concerning the Jewish Sabbath was 
 founded — that no regular journey ought to be made 
 on the Sabbath-day (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. S. 4). 
 The intention of the lawgiver in this respect was 
 also indicated by the direction, that beasts should 
 rest on the Sabbath-day (comp. ch. xxiv. 26). 
 The later Jews, as usual, drew a large number of 
 precise and minute regulations from these plain and 
 simple indications. Thus the distance to which 
 a Jew might travel was limited to 2000 cubits 
 beyond the walls of the city or the borders of his 
 residence, because the innermost tents of the 
 Israelites' camp in the wilderness are supposed to 
 have been that distance from the tabernacle (Josh, 
 iii. 4), and because the same distance beyond a 
 city fur a Sabbath-day’s journey is supposed 
 to be indicated in Num. xxxv. 4, 5 (Lightfoot, 
 llor. Heb. in Luke xxiv. 50 ; Acts i. 12) ; Targ. 
 on Ruth, i. 16; Jarchi on Josh. iii. 4; Oecum 
 on Acts i. 12). This also is the distance stated 
 in the Talmud (Tract. Erubin ), where the mode 
 of measuring is determined, and the few cases 
 are specified in which persons might venture to 
 exceed the distance of 2000 cubits. Some of 
 the Rabbins, however, distinguish a great (2800 
 cubits), a middling (2000 cubits), and a lesser 
 (1800 cubits) Sabbath-day’s journey. Epipha- 
 nius ( Haer . 66 82) estimates the Sabbath-day’s 
 journey by the Greek measure of six stades, 
 equal to 750 Roman geographical paces (1000 of 
 which made a Roman mile). In agreement with 
 
 * In this article the view of the subject ft) 
 which prevalent ideas are much opposed has been 
 furnished by a contributor (B. P.) ; and the 
 arguments which it appeared necessary to insert 
 on the other side have, with his concurrence, 
 been subjoined by the Editor. 
 
G&O 
 
 SACKCLOTH. 
 
 SACRIFICES. 
 
 this is the statement of Josephus (Bell. Jr*l. v. 
 2. 3), who makes the Mount of Olives to he fcbout 
 six stades from Jerusalem; and it. is the distance 
 between these two places which in Acts i. 12 is 
 given as a Sabbath-day's journey. It is true that 
 Josephus elsewhere determines the same dist.tuce 
 a3 live stades (Antiq. xx. 8. 6); but both rere 
 probably loose statements rather than measured 
 distances; and both are below the ordinary esti- 
 mate of 2000 cubits. Taking all circumsts.nces 
 into account, it seems likely that the ordinary 
 Sabbath-day's journey was a somewhat lonely 
 determined distance, seldom more than the vliole 
 and seldom less than three-quarters of a ge gra- 
 phical mile (Sehlen, De Jure Nat. ct Gem, iii. 
 9; Frischmuth, Dissert, de Itin. Sabbat. 1 >70; 
 Walt her, Dissert, de Itin. Sabbat.; both i> The- 
 saurus Theolog. Philoq., Amsterd. 1720). 
 
 SABBATIC YEAR I Jubilee.] 
 
 SAByEANS. [Sheba. 1 ] 
 
 SACHAPH. [Cuckoo; Gum,.] 
 
 SACKCLOTH. The Hebrew word fo» sack- 
 cloth, or sacking, is sak ; in the Sept, and 
 New Testament, craKnos ; and as it has been pre- 
 served in most languages (our own included) to 
 denote the same thing, much ingenious specula- 
 tion has been brought to bear upon it — chiefly as 
 a venerable monument of the primitive language, 
 from which it is supposed to have been derived by 
 all the nations in whose vocabularies it has been 
 found. 
 
 The sackcloth mentioned in Scripture was, a3 
 it is still in the East, a coarse black cloth, com- 
 monly made of hair (ltev. vi. 12), and was used 
 for straining liquids, for sacks, and for mourning 
 garments. In the latter case it was worn instead 
 of the ordinary raiment, or bound upon the loins, 
 or spread under the mourner on the ground (Gen. 
 xxxvii. 34 ; 1 Kings xxiii. 2 ; Isa. lviii. 5 ; Joel 
 i. 8; Jon. iii. 5) [Mourning]. Such garments 
 were also worn by prophets, and by ascetics gene- 
 rally (Isa. xx. 2; Zech. iii. 4; comp. 2 Kings i. 
 8; Matt. v. 4) [Prophecy]. 
 
 SACRIFICES. The sacrifices and other offer- 
 ings required by the Hebrew ritual have been enu- 
 merated under Offering ; and in this place it is 
 only requisite to offer a few remarks upon the great 
 and much controverted questions — Whether sacri- 
 fice was in its origin a human invention, or a 
 divine institution ; and whether any of the sa- 
 crifices before the law, or under the law, were 
 sacrifices of expiation. Eminent and numerous 
 are the authorities on both sides of these questions ; 
 but the balance of theological opinion preponde- 
 rates greatly for the affirmative in each of them. 
 On the latter point, however, most of those who 
 deny that there was any expiatory sacrifice be- 
 fore the law, admit its existence under the law : 
 and on the first, those who hold that sacrifice was 
 of Divine origin, but became much corrupted, 
 and was restored by the Mosaic law, do not in 
 substance differ much from those who hold it to 
 have been a human invention, formally recog- 
 nised, and remodelled by the law of Moses. 
 
 From the universality of sacrifice, it is ob- 
 vious that the rite arose either from a common 
 source, or from a common sentiment among na- 
 tions widely dispersed, and very differently con- 
 stituted. Remembering that Noah, the common 
 ancestor cf the post-diluvian nations, offered sa- 
 
 crifice, we are enabled to trace back the custom 
 through all nations to him ; and he doubtless 
 derived it through the antediluvian fathers, from 
 the sacrifices which the first, men celebrated, o: 
 which we have an example in that, of Abel. The 
 question concerning the divine or human origin 
 of sacrifices, therefore, centres upon the conclu- 
 sions which we may he able to draw from the 
 circumstances and preliminaries of that transac* 
 tion. Abel brought for sacrifice one of the lambs 
 of his flock, for he was a shepherd ; and with his 
 offering God was well pleased : Cain brought of 
 the fruits of the ground, for he was a husband- 
 man ; and with bis offering God was not well 
 pleased. Now out of ibis arise the questions — 
 Was this the first, animal sacrifice? and if it. was, 
 Was it offered by Abel from the spontaneous im- 
 pulse of his own mind, or by command from God? 
 and if not by divine command, How was it that 
 his offering was more acceptable than his bro- 
 ther's ? 
 
 That this was not the first sacrifice is held by 
 many ro be proved by the fact, that ‘ unto Adam 
 and bis wife the Lord made coats of skin, and 
 clothed them' (Gen. iii. 21); for, it is urged, that 
 as animal food does not. appear to have been used 
 before the deluge, it is not easy to understand 
 whence these skins came, probably before any 
 animal had died naturally, unless from beasts 
 offered in sacrifice. And if the first sacrifices had 
 been offered by Adam, the arguments for the di- 
 vine institution of the rite are of the greater force, 
 seeing that it was less likely to occur spontane- 
 ously to Adam than to Abel, who was a keeper of 
 sheep. Further, if the command was given to Adam, 
 and his sons had been trained in observance of 
 the rite, we can the better understand the merit of 
 Abel and the demerit of Cain, without further 
 explanation. Apart from any considerations 
 arising out of the skin-vestures of Adam and his 
 wife, it would seem that if sacrifice was a divine 
 institution, and, especially, if the rite bore a piacu- 
 lar significance, it would have been at once 
 prescribed to Adam, after sin had entered the. 
 world, and death by sin, and not have been post- 
 poned till his sons had reached manhood. 
 
 If animal sacrifice was the invention of Abel, 
 testifying his thanks to God, by offering that 
 which was most valuable to him, the question 
 comes, Where was the offence of Cain, and why 
 was his offering despised? It is suggested that 
 Abel brought the best of his flock, and Cain only 
 the refuse of his produce ; or, that. Abel believed, 
 and Cain disbelieved, that his offering would be 
 accepted. This latter explanation is thought to 
 i-e borne out by the allegation of the Apostle (Heb. 
 xi. 4), that it was ‘ by faith Abel offered to God a 
 more acceptable sacrifice than Cain.’ If, how- 
 ever, sacrifice had been divinely commanded, this 
 fa : 111 was that manifested in obeying the com- 
 mand; and if it was also piacular, it might be 
 even referred to a belief in the doctrine of atone- 
 ment. for sin, which the rite in that case must have 
 adumbrated. 
 
 One of the most recent writers on the subject, 
 the Rev. J. Davison, in his Inquiry into the Origin 
 and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice , adduces (on 
 the authority of Spencer and Outram) the consent 
 of the fathers in favour of the human origin of 
 primitive patriarchal sacrifice ; anc alleges, that 
 the notion of its divine origin is ‘ a mere modem 
 
SACRIFICES. 
 
 figment, excogitated in the presumptively specu- 
 lative age of innovating Puritanism.’ This as- 
 sertion has been ably, and we think successfully, 
 met by the Rev. G. S. Faber, iri hi3 Treatise on 
 the Origin of Expiatory Sacrifice. lie shows 
 that the onl y authorities adduced by Outram and 
 Spencer are Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, the au- 
 thor of the work called Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions and the author of the Questions and 
 Answers to the Orthodox , commonly printed 
 with the works of Justin Martyr. Of the early 
 theologians thus adduced, the three last are posi- 
 tive and explicit in their assertion; while the 
 sentiments of Justin Martyr are gathered rather 
 by implication than in consequence of any direct 
 avowal. He says, ‘as circumcision commenced 
 from Abraham, so the sabbath, and sacrifices , 
 and oblations, and festivals, commenced from 
 Moses;’ which clearly intimates that he consi- 
 dered primitive sacrifice as a human invention 
 until made by the law a matter of religious obli- 
 gation. The great body of the fathers are silent 
 as to the origin of sacrifice : but a considerable 
 number of them, cited by Spencer (De Legib. 
 Heb. p. 616, sq.), held that sacrifice was admitted 
 into the law through condescension to the weak- 
 ness of the people, who had been familiarised 
 to it in Egypt, and if not allowed to sacrifice to 
 God, would have been tempted to sacrifice to the 
 idols of their heathen neighbours. The ancient 
 writers who held this opinion are Justin Martyr, 
 Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril 
 of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Irenceus, 
 Jerome, Procopius, Eucherius, Anastasius, and 
 the author of the Apostolical Constitutions. Rut 
 out of the entire number, only the four already 
 mentioned allege incidentally the human origin 
 of primitive sacrifice : the rest are silent on this 
 point. Outram indeed ( De Sacrif. lib. i. cap. 1, 
 § 6, pp. 8, 9) thinks, that in giving this opinion, 
 they virtually deny the divine origin of sacrifice. 
 But it is fairly answered, that the assertion, be it 
 right or be it wrong, that sacrifice was introduced 
 into the law from condescension to the Egyptian- 
 izing weakness of the people, furnishes no legiti- 
 mate proof that the persons entertaining this opinion 
 held the mere human origi n of primitive patriarchal 
 sacrifice, and affords no ground for alleging the 
 consent of Christian antiquity in favour of that opi- 
 nion. Such persons could not but have known, 
 that the rite of sacrifice existed anterior to the rise 
 of pagan idolatry : and hence the notion which 
 they entertained leaves the question, as to the 
 primitive origin of sacrifice, entirely open, so far 
 as they are concerned. Paganism, whether in 
 Egypt or elsewhere, merely borrowed the rite 
 from pure Patriarchism, which already possessed 
 it : and unless a writer expressly declares such to 
 be his opinion, we are not warranted in conclud- 
 ing that he held the human origin of primitive 
 patriarchal sacrifice, simply because he conceives 
 that a system of sacrificial service had been 
 immediately adopted into the law from Paganism 
 out of condescension to the weakness of the people. 
 Besides, some of these very fathers held language 
 with respect to primitive sacrifice, not much in 
 favour of the interpretation which has on this 
 ground been given to their sentiments. Thus, 
 according to Cyril, ‘ God accepted the sacrifice 
 of Abel and rejected the sacrifice of Cain, because 
 w %s fitting that posterity should learn from 
 
 SACRIFICES. 662 
 
 thence, how they might blamelessly offer unto 
 God his meet and due honour.’ 
 
 If, then, these authorities he taken as neutral 
 on the question, with the four exceptions al- 
 ready indicated, we shall find whatever au- 
 thority we ascribe to these more than counter- 
 balanced by the testimony of other ancient wit- 
 nesses in favour of the divine origin of primitive 
 sacrifice. Philo-Judseus says, ‘ Abel brought 
 neither the same oblation as Cain, nor in the 
 same manner ; but instead of things inanimate, 
 he brought things animate ; and instead of later 
 and secondary products, he brought the older and 
 the first: for he offered in sacrifice from the first- 
 lings of his flock, and from their fat, according to 
 the most holy command (Kara rb Upwrarbv 
 5 i dr ay ga : — De Sacrif. Abel, et Cam. Opp. p. 
 145). Augustine, after expressly referring the 
 origin of sacrifice to the divine command, more 
 distinctly evolves his meaning by saying : ‘ The 
 prophetic immolation of blood, testifying from 
 the very commencement of the human race the 
 future passion of the Mediator, is a matter of 
 deep antiquity : inasmuch as Abel is found in 
 Holy Scripture to have been the first who offered 
 up this prophetic immolation * (Cont. Faust. 
 Munich. Opp. vi. 145). Next we come to Atha- 
 nasius, who, speaking of the consent of the Old 
 Testament to the fundamental doctrines of the 
 New, says: ‘ What Moses taught, these things hia 
 predecessor Abraham had preserved : and what 
 Abraham had preserved, with those things Enoch 
 and Noah were well acquainted ; for they made 
 a distinction between the clean and the unclean, 
 and were acceptable to God. Thus also in like 
 manner Abel bore testimony ; for lie knew ivhat 
 he had learned from Adam, and Adam himself 
 taught only what he had previously learned from 
 the Lord (Synod. Nicen. contr. Hcer. Arian. de- 
 er et., Opp. i. 403). Eusebius of Csesarea, in a 
 passage too long for quotation, alleges, that ani- 
 mal sacrifice was first of all practised by the 
 ancient lovers of God (the patriarchs), and that 
 not by accident, but through a certain divine con- 
 trivance, under which, as taught by the Divine 
 spirit, it became their duty thus to shadow forth 
 the great and venerable victim, really acceptable 
 to God, which was, in time then future, d^stinea 
 to be offered in behalf of the whole human race 
 ( Demonst . Evang. i. 8. pp. 24, 25). 
 
 These testimonies certainly vindicate the 
 opinion of the divine origin of primitive sacrifice 
 from the charge of being a modern innovation, 
 with no voice of antiquity in its favour. 
 
 Among the considerations urged in support of 
 the opinion, that sacrifice must have originated in 
 a divine command, it has been suggested as ex- 
 ceedingly doubtful, whether, independently ofsuch 
 a command, and as distinguished from vegetable 
 oblations, animal sacrifice, which involves the 
 practice of slaughtering and burning an innocent 
 victim, could ever, under any aspect, have been 
 adopted as a rife likely to gain the favour of God. 
 Our own course of scriptural education prevents 
 us, perhaps, from being competent judges on this 
 point : but we have means of judging how so sin- 
 gular a rite must strike the minds of thinking 
 men, not in the same degree prepossessed by 
 early associations. The ancient Greek masters of 
 thought init unfrequenily expressed their astonish- 
 ment how and upon what rational principles, go 
 
GS2 
 
 SACRIFICES. 
 
 SACRIFICES. 
 
 strange an institution as that of animal sacrifice 
 could ever have originated; for as to the notion 
 of its being pleasing to the Deity, such a thing 
 struck them as a manifest impossibility (Jamblic. 
 De Vit. Pythag. pp. 106-118; Porphyr. De A bstin. 
 p. 96; Theophrast. et Porphyr. apud Euseb. 
 Praep. Evang. pp. 90, 91). Those who do not 
 believe that sacrifices were of divine institution, 
 must dispose of this difficulty by alleging, that, 
 when men had come to slay animals for their 
 own food, they might think it right to slay them 
 to satisfy their gods: and, in fact, Grotius, who 
 held the human origin of sacrifices, and yet be- 
 lieved that animal food was not used before the 
 Deluge, is reduced to the expedient of contending 
 that Abel’s offering was not an animal sacrifice, 
 but only the produce — the milk and wool — of his 
 best sheep. This, however, shows that he believed 
 animal sacrifice to have been impossible before 
 the Deluge, without the sanction of a divine com- 
 mand, the existence of which he discredited. 
 
 A strong moral argument in favour of the 
 divine institution of sacrifice, somewhat feebly 
 put by Hallet {Comment, on Heb. xi. 4, cited by 
 Magee, On the Atonement ), has been reproduced 
 with increased force by Faber {Prim. Sacrifice , 
 p. 1 83). It amounts to this : — 
 
 Sacrifice, when uncommanded by God, is a 
 mere act of gratuitous superstition. Whence, on 
 the principle of St. Paid's reprobation of what he 
 denominates will-worship, it is neither acceptable 
 nor pleasing to God. 
 
 But sacrifice, during the patriarchal ages, was 
 accepted by God, and was plainly honoured with 
 his approbation. 
 
 Therefore sacrifice, during the patriarchal age, 
 could not have been an act of superstition uncom- 
 manded by God. 
 
 If, then, such was* the character of primitive 
 sacrifice ; that is to say, if primitive sacrifice was 
 not a mere act of gratuitous superstition uncom- 
 manded by God, — it must, in that case, in- 
 dubitably have been a divine, and not a human 
 institution. 
 
 If it be held that any of the ancient sacrifices 
 were expiatory, or piacular, the argument for their 
 divine origin is strengthened ; as it is hard to 
 conceive the combination of ideas under which 
 the notion of expiatory sacrifice could be worked 
 out by the human mind. This difficulty is so 
 great, that, the ablest advocates of the human 
 origin of primitive animal sacrifice, feel bound 
 also to deny that such sacrifices as then existed 
 were piacular. It is strongly insisted that the 
 doctrine of an atonement by animal sacrifice 
 cannot be deduced from the light of nature, or 
 from the principles of reason. If, therefore, the 
 idea existed, it. must either have arisen in the fer- 
 tile soil of a guessing superstition, or have been 
 divinely appointed. Now we know that God 
 cannot approve of unwarranted and presumptu- 
 ous superstition : if therefore he can be shown to 
 ba\e received with approbation a species of sa- 
 crifice undiscoverable by the light of nature, or 
 from the principles of reason, it follows that it 
 must have been of his own institution. 
 
 Here, however, the argument again divaricates. 
 Some are unable to see that piacular sacrifices 
 existed under, or were commanded by, the law of 
 Moses; while others admit this, but deny that 
 animal sacrifice, with an expiatory intent, existed 
 
 before the law. It appeals to us, that the differ 
 ence of opinion as to the existence of expiatory 
 sacrifice under the law, is move apparent thar 
 real, and arises from the different senses in winch 
 the term ‘expiatory sacrifice ' is understood. It 
 will often transpire, that those who deny its ex- 
 istence have an idea of such a sacrifice different 
 from that of the persons whom they think them- 
 selves opposing, but from whom they do not, in 
 fact, materially differ. In general, those who 
 do not admit the doctrine of the atonement 
 through the death of Christ, do not see that certain 
 sacrifices of the law were piacular : and on theii 
 own premises, they reason justly; for unless 
 expiatory sacrifice prefigured the atonement of- 
 fered by Jesus Christ, there appears no adequate 
 reason for the existence of expiatory sacrifice as a 
 divine institution, and it is difficult to believe 
 that it could (as piacular) have been a human 
 invention. In fact, apart from the doctrine of 
 the atonement, the subject, of expiatory sacrifice 
 ceases to be of any material interest. 
 
 The question, of the existence of expiatory sa- 
 crifice before the law, is more difficult, and is de- 
 nied by Outram, Ernesfi, Doederlin, Davison, 
 and many others, who believe that it was revealed 
 under the law ; as well as by those who doubt its 
 existence under the Mosaical dispensation. The 
 arguments already stated in favour of the divine 
 institution of primitive sacrifice, go equally to 
 support the existence of piacular sacrifice ; the 
 idea of which seems more urgently to have re- 
 quired a divine intimation. Besides, expiatory 
 sacrifice is found to have existed among all na- 
 tions, in conjunction with eucharistic and im- 
 petratory sacrifices ; and it lies at the root of the 
 principle on which human sacrifices were offered 
 among the ancient nations. The expiatory view 
 of sacrifice is frequently produced by heathen 
 writers : — 
 
 ‘ Cor pro corde, precor, pro fibra sumite fibras ; 
 
 Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.’ 
 
 Ovid. Fasti , vi. 161. 
 
 This being the case, it is difficult to believe but 
 that the idea was derived, along with animal 
 sacrifice itself, from the practice of Noah, and 
 preserved among his various descendants. This 
 argument, if valid, would show the primitive 
 origin of piacular sacrifice. Now there can be 
 no doubt that the idea of sacrifice which Noah 
 transmitted to the post-diluvian world, was tne 
 same that he had derived from his pious an- 
 cestors, and the same that was evinced by the 
 sacrifice of Abel, to which we are, by the course 
 of the argument, again brought back. Now 
 if that sacrifice was expiatory, we have reason 
 to conclude that it was divinely commanded . 
 and the supposition that it was both expiatory 
 and divinely commanded, makes the whole his- 
 tory far more clear and consistent than any other 
 which has been or can be offered. It amounts 
 then to this — that Cain, by bringing an eu- 
 charistic offering, when his brother brought one 
 which was expiatory, denied virtually that his 
 sins deserved death, or that he needed the blood 
 of atonement. Some go further, and allege that 
 in the text itself, God actually commanded Cain 
 to offer a piacular sacrifice. The argument does 
 not require this additional circumstance ; but if 
 is certainly strengthened by \ , Whet Coin U* 
 
SACRIFICE, HUMAN- 
 
 SADDUCEES. 
 
 663 
 
 came angry that Abel's offering was regarded 
 with Divine complacency, and his own refused, 
 God said to him, ‘Why art f.hou wroth; and 
 why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest 
 well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou 
 doest not well, sin lieth at the door.' Now the 
 word riMDn chattah , translated ‘sin,’ denotes 
 in the law a ‘sin-offering;’ and the won! 
 translated * lieth,’ is usually applied to the re- 
 cumbency of a beast. It is therefore proposed to 
 translate the clause, ‘ a sin-offering coucheth at 
 the door which by paraphrase would mean, ‘ an 
 animal fit for a sin offering is there, couching at 
 the door, which thou mayest offer in sacrifice, 
 and thereby render to me an offering as accept- 
 able as that which Abel has presented.’ 
 
 These are the principal considerations which 
 seem suitable to this place, on a subject to the 
 complete investigation of which many large vo- 
 lumes have been devoted. See Outram, De 
 Sacrificiis ; Sykes, Essay on the Nature, Origin, 
 and Design of Sacrifices; Taylor, Scripture 
 Doctrine of the Atonement , 1758; Ritchie, 
 Criticism upon Modern Notions of Sacrifices, 
 1761 ; Magee, Discourses on Atonement and 
 Sacrifices ; Davison, Inquiry, &c., 1825; Faber, 
 Primitive Sacrifices, &c., 1827. 
 
 SACRIFICE, HUMAN. The offering of hu- 
 man life, as the most precious thing on earth, 
 came in process of time to be practised in most 
 countries of the world. All histories and tra- 
 ditions darken our idea of the earlier ages with 
 human sacrifices. But the period when such 
 prevailed was not the earliest in time, though 
 probably the earliest in civilization. The prac- 
 tice was both a result and a token of barbarism 
 more or less gross. In this, too, the dearest object 
 was primitively selected. Human life is the 
 most precious thing on earth, and of this most 
 precious possession the most precious portion is 
 tlie life of a child. Children therefore were 
 offered in fire to the false divinities, and in no 
 part of the world with less regard to the claims 
 of natural affection than in the land where, at a 
 later period, ihe only true God had his peculiar 
 worship and highest honours. 
 
 It is under these circumstances a striking fact 
 that the Hebrew religion, even in its most rudi- 
 mental condition, should be free from the conta- 
 mination of human sacrifices. The case of Isaac 
 and that of Jephthah’s daughter cannot impair the 
 general truth, that the offering of human beings is 
 neither enjoined, allowed, nor practised in the Bi- 
 blical records. On the contrary, such an offering 
 is strictly prohibited by Moses, as adverse to the 
 will of God, and an abominat ion of the heathen. 
 
 ‘ Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through 
 the fire to Moloch : defile not yourselves with 
 any of these things’ (Lev. xviii. 21 ; see also 
 ch. xx. 2; Deut. xii. 31 ; Ps. cvi. 37 ; Isa. lxvi. 
 3; Jer. xxiii. 37). Yet in an age in which, like 
 the present, all manner of novelties are broached, 
 and, in some cases, the greater the paradox 
 broached with the more promptitude, and main- 
 tained with the greater earnestness, these very 
 clear positions have been withstood, and human 
 sacrifices have been charged confidently on the 
 Hebrew race. In the year 1842, Chillnny, pro- 
 fessor at Niirnberg, published a book (Die Men- 
 schenopfer der alien Ilebraer ), the object of 
 which was to prove that, as the religion of the 
 
 ancient Hebrews did not differ essentially from 
 that of the Ganaanites, so that Moloch, who had 
 been originally a god common to both, merely 
 in the process of time was softened down 4*ud 
 passed into Jehovah, thus becoming the national 
 deify of the people of Israel; so did. their altars 
 smoke with human blood, from the ’time of Abra- 
 ham down to the fall of both kingdoms of Judah 
 and Israel. In the same year appeared in Ger- 
 many another work, by Daumer ( Der Feucr und 
 Molochdienst der alien Hebrlier ), intended to 
 prove that the worship of Moloch, involving bis 
 bloody rites, was the original legal and orthodox 
 worship of the nation of Abraham, Moses, Samuel, 
 and David. To these works a reply was pul 
 forth in 1843, by Lowengard (Jehovah, nicht 
 Moloch, war der Gott der alten Ilebraer ), in 
 which he defends the worship of Jehovah from 
 the recent imputations, and strives, by distin- 
 guishing between the essential and the unessen- 
 tial, the durable and the temporary, to prepare 
 the way for a reformation of modern Judaism. 
 
 We do not think that it requires any deep re- 
 search or profound learning to ascertain from the 
 Biblical records themselves, that the religion of 
 the Bible is wholly free from the shocking abomi- 
 nations of human sacrifices ; and we do not there- 
 fore hesitate to urge the fact on the attention of 
 the ordinary reader, as not least considerable 
 among many proofs not only of the superior cha- 
 racter, but of the divine origin, of the Hebrew 
 worship. It was in Egypt where the mind of 
 Moses and of the generation with whom lie had 
 primarily to do, was chiefiy formed, so far as 
 heathen influences were concerned. Here offer- 
 ings were very numerous. Sacrifices of meat- 
 offerings, libations and incense, were of very early 
 date in the Egyptian temples. Oxen, wild goats, 
 pigs, and particularly geese, were among the ani- 
 mal offerings ; besides these there were presented to 
 the gods wine, oil, beer, milk, cakes, grain, oint- 
 ment, flowers, fruits, vegetables. In these, and 
 in the case of meat, peace and sin offerings (as well 
 as others), there exists a striking resemblance with 
 similar Hebrew observances, which may be found 
 indicated in detail in Wilkinson (Maimers and 
 Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, v. 358; sq. ; 
 see also ii. 378), who, in agreement with He- 
 rodotus, maintains, in opposition to Diodorus, 
 that the Egyptians were never accustomed to 
 sacrifice human beings : a decision which has a 
 favourable aspect on our last position, namely, 
 that the religion of the Israelites, even in its 
 earliest days, was unprofaned by human blood. 
 A remarkable instance of disagreement between 
 the observances of the Egyptians and the Jews, in 
 regard to sacrifices, is, that while the Egyptians 
 received the blood of the slaughtered animal into 
 a vase or basin, to be applied in cookery, the eat- 
 ing of blood was most strictly forbidden to the 
 -Israelites (Deut. xv. 23).- — J. R. B. 
 
 SADDUCEES : one of the three sects of Jewish 
 philosophers, of which the Pharisees and the 
 Essenes were the others, who had reached their 
 highest state of prosperity about the commence- 
 ment of the Christian era. 
 
 In every highly developed social system the ele - 
 ments are found to exist which led to the forma- 
 tion of the sect of Sadd-ucees. But these elements 
 were in fuller amplitude and more decided energy 
 among the post-exilian Jews than in most ancient 
 
664 
 
 SADDUCEES. 
 
 SADDUCEES. 
 
 nations. The peculiar doctrines and practices of 
 the Pharisees naturally begot the Sadduceean 
 system. The first embodied the principle of vene 
 ration, which looked on the past with so much 
 regard as to become enamoured of its forms as 
 well as its substance, its ivy as well as its columns, 
 its corruptions no less than its excellences, taking 
 and maintaining the whole with a warm but 
 blind and indiscriminate a flection ; the second, 
 alienated by the extravagances of the former, 
 were led to seize on the principle of rationalism, 
 and hence to investigate prevalent customs, and 
 weigh received opinions, till at. length investiga- 
 tion begot scepticism, and scepticism issued in the 
 positive rejection of many established notions and 
 observances. The principle of the Sadducee is 
 thus obviously an ofl'shoot from the rank growth 
 of conservatism and orthodoxy. Corruption brings 
 reform. And as it is not possible for the same 
 individuals, nor for the same classes of men, to 
 perform the dissimilar acts of conservatism and 
 reformation, so most there be, if Pharisees, Sad- 
 ducees also in society. It is for the good of men 
 that the latter should come into being, seeing that 
 the principle represented by the former arises, in- 
 evitably, in the actual progress of events. True 
 wisdom, however, consists in avoiding the extremes 
 peculiar to both, and aims to make man possessor 
 of all the good which the past can bestow and all 
 the good which the present can produce, uniting 
 in one happy result the benign results of conser- 
 vatism and improvement, retention of the past 
 and progress in the present. 
 
 It would he easy to show how the several par- 
 ticulars which were peculiar to the Sadducee 
 arose out of Pharisaic errors. As, however, we 
 wish to give to this necessarily brief notice an his- 
 torical character, we shall content ourselves with 
 one instance — the doctrine of tradition. By an 
 excessive veneration of the Mosaic institutions and 
 sacred hooks, the Pharisees had been led to regard 
 every thing which concerned them as sacred. 
 But if the text and the observance were holy, holy 
 also was that which explained their meaning cr 
 unfolded their hidden signification. Hence the 
 exposition of the ancients came to be received with 
 respect equal to that vv ith which the very words cf 
 the founders and original writers were regarded. 
 Tradition was engrafted on the vine of Israel. 
 But all exposition is relative to the mind of the 
 expositor. Accordingly various expositions came 
 into being. Every age, every doctor gave a new 
 exposition. Thus a diverse and contradictory, as 
 well as a huge, mass of opinions was formed, which 
 overlaid and hid the law of God. Then a true 
 reverence for that law identified itself with the 
 principle of the Sadducee. and the Pharisee was 
 made to appear as not only the author but the 
 patron and advocate of corruption. 
 
 The time when the sect of the Sadducees came 
 into existence, history does not define. From what 
 has been advanced it appears that they were pos- 
 terior to the Pharisees. And although so soon as 
 the Pharisaic elements began to become excessive, 
 there existed in Judaism itself a sufficient source 
 for Sadduceeism, yet, as a fact, we have no 
 doubt tiiat Grecian philosophy lent its aid to the 
 development of Sadduceeism. Whence we are 
 referred for the rise of the latter to the period when 
 the conquests and the kingdoms which ensued 
 fiorn the expedition of Alexander had diffused a 
 
 very large portion of Grecian civilization over 
 the soil of the East, and especially over Western 
 Asia. 
 
 As little is historically known respecting the 
 author of this sect ; there are various statements, 
 but their very variety shows that, nothing certain 
 is known. Tlw Rabbins have a story which 
 makes one Zadok, a pupil of Antigonus Jocko, 
 the founder; who, under the instructions of his 
 master, was, in company with one Baithos, a 
 fellow disciple, led to the conclusion that there is 
 no future life, and, of course, no retribution after 
 death (Pirke Aboth, i. 3). It has also been said, 
 that the name Sadducee is descriptive — 
 
 1 the just ones,’ that is, men who were just to the 
 law, to God as the author of the law and the 
 source of truth, just in their own conceptions and 
 their mode of thinking in contradistinction to the 
 excesses of the Pharisees; just every way in th* 
 sense in which our word just is sometimes used — 
 exact, without superfluities, the thing itself apart 
 from accessories, the truth and nothing but the 
 truth. Nor can it be denied that such a view of 
 the sect embodies their peculiar and fundamental 
 principle (Epiphan. Hares, i. II). A modern 
 critic, Koster (Studien und Kritiken, 1837, vol.i. 
 p. 164), deduces the word, as well as the doctrines 
 which it represents, from the Grecian stoics, which 
 is more ingenious than solid. 
 
 As may be inferred from wliat. has been ad- 
 vanced, the Sadducees stood in direct opposition 
 to the Pharisees. So they are described by Jose- 
 phus (Aniiq. xiii. 10. 6), and so they appear in the 
 New Testament. Hostile, however, as these two 
 sects were, they united for the common purpose of 
 opposing our Lord (Matt. iii. 7 ; xvi. 1,6, 11, 
 sq. ; xxii. 23, 34 ; Acts iv. 1 ; v. 17). in opposing 
 the Pharisees the Sadducees were led to impeach 
 their principal doctrines, and so to deny all the 
 ‘ traditions of the elders,’ holding that the law 
 alone was the written source of religious truth 
 ( Antiq . xviii. 1. 4). By more than one/Jonsi- 
 deration, however, it might be shown that they are 
 in error who so understand the fact now stated, as 
 if the Sadducees received no other parts of the 
 Jewish canon than the Pentateuch; for in truth 
 they appear 1o have held the common opinion 
 regarding the sacred books- — a fact of some con- 
 sequence, inasmuch as we thus gain the determina- 
 tion, on the point of the Jewish canon, of the cri- 
 tical scepticism of the day. The Sadducees 
 taught that the soul of man perished together with 
 his body, and that of course there was neither re- 
 ward nor punishment after death (Joseph. De Bell. 
 Jud. ii. 8. 14 ; comp. Matt. xxii. 23). Indeed they 
 appear to have disowned the moral philosophy 
 which obtrudes the idea of recompense. ‘ Be not 
 as those slaves ’ — so runs an injunction derived, 
 it is said, from Zadok himself — ‘ who serve their 
 master on this condition, namely, that they receive 
 a reward ; but let the fear of heaven be in you ’ 
 ( Pirke Aboth, i. 3, and Rabbi Nathan on the 
 passage). Were they consistent, in this view, they 
 may nave held high and worthy ideas of duty, its 
 source arid its motives ; ideas, however, which are 
 obviously more suited for men of cultivation like 
 themselves than for the great bulk of human 
 beings. And in views such as this may probably 
 be found a chief cause why they were far less 
 acceptable with the common people and far less 
 influential in the state than their rivals, the Ptta- 
 
SADDUCEES. 
 
 SALACH. 
 
 fisees. Tlie cold self-reliance and self sufficiency 
 which sits apart in the enjoyment- of the satisfac- 
 tions resulting from its own resources, and aims 
 at nothing beyond its own sphere and nothing 
 higher than its own standard, may possess pecu- 
 liar attractions for the philosophic few, or for the 
 contemptuous scoffer, but is too alien from ordi- 
 nary sympathies, and too unkindling and too 
 tranquil to find general acceptance in any con- 
 dition of society that the world has yet known. 
 
 It was a position with the Sadducees, that the 
 Scriptures did not contain the doctrine of a future 
 life. In this opinion they have had many fol- 
 lowers in modern times. Yet Jesus himself finds 
 a proof of that doctrine in ihe Pentateuch (Matt, 
 xxii. 31, 32), and the astonishment which his 
 teaching on the point excited seems to show that 
 it was not an ordinary inference of the llabbins, 
 but a new doctrine that Jesus then deduced : this 
 makes against the mode of interpretation which 
 would represent this as a sort of argumentum ad 
 hominem , a shaft from the quiver of Chiist's ene- 
 mies. That, however, the species of exegesis to 
 which this proof belongs prevailed among the Jews 
 in the time of our Lord there can be no doubt; for 
 from the period of the return from Babylon it bad 
 been gaining ground, was very prevalent in the 
 days of Christ, and abounds in the Talmudical 
 writings. Being, however, a kind of exegetical 
 spiritualism, it was disallowed by the Sadducees, 
 who accordingly rejected the doctrines which by 
 its means had been deduced from the sacred 
 writings. 
 
 Sadduceeism appears to have been to some ex- 
 tent a logically deduced and systematically 
 formed set of ideas. Making this life the term of 
 our being, and man his own beau ideal, it was 
 naturally led to assert for man all the attributes 
 that he could reasonably claim. Hence it taught 
 the absolute freedom of the human mind. The 
 words of Josephus are emphatic on this point : 
 ‘ The Pharisees ascribe all to fate and to God, but 
 the Sadducees take away fate entirely, and sup- 
 pose that God is not concerned in our doing or 
 not doing evil ; and they say that to act what is 
 good or what is evil is in man’s own choice ; and 
 that all ihings depend on our own selves’ (He 
 Bell.Jud. ii. 8, 14; Antiq. xiii. 5, 9). An inference 
 injurious to them has been deduced from this 
 position, as if they denied divine Providence alto- 
 gether ; but their recept ion of the canonical books, 
 and their known observance of the usages for 
 divine worship therein prescribed, are incompa- 
 tible with such a denial. Indeed we have here 
 the same difficulty which has presented itself over 
 and over again ten thousand times to thinking 
 minds, namely, how to unite in harmony the 
 moral freedom of man with the arrangements and 
 behests of the will of Him — 
 
 tfs ijBr] ra r’ 4'orra, ra r iaadgeva, irp6 r’ tovra. 
 
 As the Sadducees denied a future state, so also 
 they. were led to deny the existence of angels and 
 spirits (Acts xxiii. 8) ; for they appear to have con- 
 cluded that since there were no human spirits in 
 neaven, there could be no other beings in the in- 
 visible state but God. Yet if we allow the force 
 of this deduction, we cannot well understand how, 
 receiving as they did at any rate the five books of 
 Moses, they could bring themselves to disown 
 angel-existences, unless, indeed, it was under the 
 
 f>63 
 
 influence of a strong repellant influence winch 
 came from the extravagant notions entertained 
 on the point by their antagonists the Pharisees. It 
 must, however, he said that this denial, whence- 
 soever it came, shows how entirely theirs was a 
 system of negatives and of materialism; and 
 being such it could, with all its elevated moral 
 conceptions, do very little for the improvement of 
 individuals and the advancement of society. 
 
 A very natural consequence was, that their 
 doctrine held sway over but comparatively few 
 persons, and those mostly men distinguished by 
 wealth or station {Antiq. xviii. 1. 4; xiii. 10.6). 
 They were the freethinkers of the day, and free- 
 thinking is ordinarily the attribute only of the 
 cultivated and the fortunate. Least of all men 
 are those of a sceptical turn gregarious. They 
 stand on their own individuality ; they enjoy their 
 own independence; they look down on the vulgar 
 crowd with pity, if not with contempt. 'They may 
 serve quietly to undermine a social system, but 
 they rarely assume the proselyting character 
 which gave Voltaire and Diderot their terrible 
 power for evil.' It has been reserved for modern 
 infidelity to be zealous and enthusiastic. 
 
 What Josephus says of the repulsiveness of their 
 manners (. De Bell.Jud . ii. 8.14) is in keeping 
 with their general principles. A sceptical mate- 
 rialism is generally accompanied by an undue 
 share of self-confidence and self-esteem, which are 
 among the least sociable of human qualities. 
 
 The Sadducees, equally with the Pharisees, were 
 not only a religious but apolitical party. Indeed 
 as long as the Mosaic polity retained an influ- 
 ence, social policy could not be sundered from 
 religion ; for religion was everything. Accord- 
 ingly the Sadducees formed a part of the Jewish 
 parliament, the Sanhedrim (Acts xxiii. 6), and 
 sometimes enjoyed the dignity of supreme power 
 in the high-priesthood. Their possession of power, 
 however, seems to have been owing mainly to 
 their individual personal influence, as men of 
 superior minds or eminent position, since the 
 general current of favour ran adversely to them, 
 and their enemies, the Pharisees, spared no means 
 to keep them and their opinions in the back 
 ground. Accordingly in the Rabbinical writings 
 they are branded with the name of heretics, 
 
 (Othon. Lex. Babb. p. 270; see also Trigland, 
 Syntagma de Tribus Sect is ; Ugolini, Trihcere- 
 siam, in vol. xxii. of his Thesaurus ; Staudlin, 
 Gesch. der Sittenlehre Jesti, i. 443, sq. — J. R. B 
 SAIL. | Ship.] 
 
 SAIT. [Zait.] 
 
 SALACH OJ^, Lev. xi. 17 ; Deut. xiv. 17), in 
 common with the usual Greek version Karapdicrris, 
 is considered to have reference to darting, rushing, 
 or stooping like a falcon ; and accordingly ha3 
 been variously applied to the eagle, the jerfalcon, 
 the gannet, the great gull, and the cormorant. Of 
 the Hebrew Salach nothing is known but that it 
 was an unclean bird. The Greek (carapa/crijs , 
 associated with the last mentioned, though noticed 
 by several authors, is not referred always to the 
 same genus, some making it a minor gull, others a 
 diver. Cuvier considers Gesner to be right in con- 
 sidering it to denote a gull, and it might certainly 
 be applied with propriety to the black-back cc 
 gull, ‘ Laras marinus,’ or to the glaucous, ‘ Larus 
 glaucus but although birds of such powerful 
 
6G6 
 
 SALACH. 
 
 SALOME. 
 
 win »■ ami marine habitat are spread over a great 
 part of the world, it. does not appear that, if 
 Known at the extremity of the Mediterranean, 
 they were sufficiently common to have been 
 clearly indicated by either the Hebrew or Greek 
 names, or to have merited being noticed in the 
 Mosaic prohibition. Roth the above are in gene- 
 ral northern residents, being rarely seen even so 
 low as the Bay of Biscay, and the species now 
 called ‘ Lestris catara 'tes * is exclusively Arctic. 
 
 With regard to the cormorant, birds of that genus 
 are no doubt found on the coasts of Palestine, 
 where high cliffs extend to the sea-shore; such, for 
 example, as the ‘ Phalacrocorax pygmaeus but 
 all the species dive, and none of them rush Hying 
 upon their prey, thouglr that habit has been 
 claimed for them by commentators, who have 
 mixed up the natural history of ‘cormorants’ 
 with that of the ‘sula’ or ‘gannet,’ which really 
 darts from great elevations into the sea, to catch 
 its prey, rising to the surface sometimes nearly 
 half a minute after the plunge, as we ourselves 
 have witnessed. But the gannet (solan goose) 
 rarely comes farther south than the British Chan- 
 nel, and does not appear to have been noticed in 
 the Mediterranean. It is true that several other 
 marine birds of the north frecpient the Levant; 
 but none of them can entirely claim Aristotle 
 and Oppian’s characters of ‘ cataractes,’ for though 
 the wide throat and rather large head of the dwarf 
 cormorant may be adduced, that bird exceeds in 
 stature the required size of a small hawk ; and 
 fishes, it may be repeated, swimming and diving, 
 not by darting down on the wing, and is not suffi- 
 ciently numerous or important to have required the 
 attention of the sacred legislator. Thus reduced 
 to make a choice where the objections are less, 
 and the probabilities stronger, we conclude the 
 salach to have been a species of ‘ tern,’ considered 
 to be identical with the ‘ Sterna Caspica,’ so called 
 because it is found about the Caspian Sea ; but it 
 is equally common to the Polar, Baltic, and Black 
 Seas, and if truly the same, is not only abundant 
 for several months in the year on the coast of 
 Palestine, but frequents the lakes and pools far 
 ii?.and ; flying across the deserts to the Euphrates, 
 and to the Persian and Red Seas, and proceeding 
 up the Nile. It is the largest of the tern or sea- 
 swallow genus, being about the weight of a pigeon, 
 and near two feet in length, having a large black 
 naped head ; powerful, pointed crimson bill ; a 
 white and grey body, with forked tail, and wing3 
 greatly exceeding the tips of the tail : the feet, are 
 very small, weak, arid but slightly webbed, so 
 that it swims perhaps only accidentally, but 
 with sufficient power on land to spring up and 
 to rise from level ground. It flies with immense 
 velocity, darting along the surface of the sea 
 
 to snap at mollusca or small fishes, or wheel- 
 ing through the air in pursuit of insects; and 
 in calm weather, after rising to a great height, it 
 drops perpendicularly down to near the surface 
 of the water, but never alights except on land; 
 and it is at all times disposed to utter a kind of 
 laughing scream. This tern nestles in high cliffs, 
 sometimes at aveiy considerable distance from 
 the sea. ‘Sterna Nilotica* appears to be the 
 young bird, or one nearly allied. 
 
 Thus the species is not likely to have been un- 
 known to the Israelites, even while they were in 
 the desert; and as the black tern, ‘ Sterna nigri- 
 cans,’ and perhaps the ‘ Procellaria obscura’ of 
 the same locality, may have been confounded with 
 it, their number was more than sufficient to cause 
 them to be noticed in the list of prohibited birds. 
 Still the propriety of the identification of salach 
 with the ‘great tern.’ must in some measure rest 
 upon the assumption that the Greek naTapanTps 
 is the same. We figure one that was shot among 
 a flight of these birds, some distance up the river 
 Orontes.— C. H. S. 
 
 SAL A II (rfc>, a shoot} Sept, and New Test. 
 2aAa), a son, or grandson, of Arphaxad (Gen. x. 
 24; xi. 13; Luke iii. 35). 
 
 SALAM1S (2a\ajuls\ one of the chief cities of 
 Cyprus on the south-east coast of the islatid (Acts 
 xiii. 5). It was afterwards called Constantia, 
 and in still later times Famagusta [Cyprus]. 
 
 SALATHIEL. [Shealtiel.] 
 
 SALEM peace ; Sept. 2a\-i ?/*), the ori 
 
 ginal name of Jerusalem (Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. 
 vii. 1, 2), and which continued to be used poeti- 
 cally in later times (Ps. lxxvi. 2) [Jerusa- 
 i.km]. 
 
 SALIM (2a\eiV), a place near ^Enon, where 
 John baptized (John iii. 23). Jerome places it 
 eight Roman miles from Scythopolis (Bethshan), 
 which is the same distance southward that he and 
 Eusebius assign to ./Enon. Nothing is known 
 of this site. Some have been led by the name to 
 conceive that here, and not at Jerusalem, we 
 should seek the Salem of Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 
 18) [jEnon; Salem]. 
 
 SALLONIM. [Sii.i.on and Thorns.]" 
 
 SALMON Qftbp, clothed ; Sept, and New 
 Test. 'ZaXp.dov), the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 21 ; 
 Matt. i. 4, 5 ; Luke iii. 32), elsewhere called 
 Salmah, (Ruth iv. 20; 1 Chron. ii. 11). 
 
 SALMONE (2ctAjuwv?j), a promontory forming 
 the eastern extremity of the island of Crete (Acta 
 xxvii. 7). 
 
 SALOME (SaAwjUTj), a woman of Galilee, 
 who accompanied Jesus in some of his journeys, 
 and ministered unto him ; and was one of those 
 who witnessed his crucifixion and resurrection 
 (Mark xv. 40 ; xvi. 1). It is gathered, by com- 
 paring these texts with Matt, xxvii. 56, that she 
 was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of the 
 apostles James and John. 
 
 SALOME was also the name (though not 
 given in Scripture) of that daughter of Herodiaa, 
 whose dancing before her uncle and father-in-law, 
 Herod Antipas, was instrumental in procuring 
 the decapitation of John ihe Baptist [Hero- 
 di an Family; John the Baptist). 
 
SALUTATION. 
 
 SALT. 
 
 SALT was procured by the Hebrews 
 
 from two sources; first, from rock-salt, obtained 
 from hills of salt, which lie about, the southern ex- 
 tremity of the Dead Sea; and secondly, from the 
 waters of that -sea, which, overflowing the banks 
 yearly, and being exhaled by the sun and the heat, 
 left behind a deposit of salt both abundant and 
 good. In the same manner the Arabs of the present 
 day procure their supply of salt from the deposits 
 of the Dead Sea, and carry on a considerable trade 
 in that article throughout Syria. 
 
 The uses to which salt was anciently applied 
 were not dissimilar to those for which it serves at 
 present ; a fact which arises from the circumstance 
 that these uses depend on its essential qualities, 
 and on the constitution and wants of the human 
 frame. It is now known as a physiological fact, 
 that salt is indispensable to our health and vigour. 
 For this reason doubtless the use of it was pro- 
 videntially made agreeable to the palate. Inde- 
 jjendently of its services to man as an ingredient 
 in his food, salt is employed — 1, as a manure, 
 since when used in proper proportions, it en- 
 riches the soil ; and 2, as an antiseptic, as it 
 preserves flesh meat from corruption. From these 
 qualities severally result the applications of salt, 
 both natural and figurative, of which mention is 
 made in Scripture. 
 
 From Job vi. 6 it is clear that salt was used as 
 a condiment with food. Salt was also mixed 
 with fodder for cattle (Isa. xxx. 21), where the 
 marginal reading is preferable, ‘ savoury proven- 
 der.’ As offerings, viewed on their earthly side, 
 were a presentation to God of what man found 
 good and pleasant for food, so all meat-offerings 
 were required to be seasoned with salt (Lev. ii. 
 13 ; Spencer, De Legibus Rit. i. 5. 1). Salt, 
 therefore, became of great importance to Hebrew 
 worshippers; it was sold accordingly in the 
 Temple maiket, and a large quantity was kept 
 in the Temple itself, in a chamber appropriated 
 fo the purpose (Maii Diss. de Usu Salts Symbol, 
 in rebus Sacris , Giessen, 1692 ; Wokenius, De Sa- 
 litura oblationum Deo factar ., 1747 ; Joseph. 
 Antiq. xii. 3. 3 ; Middoth, v. 3 ; Othon. Lex. 
 Rabb. p. 66S). Jewish tradition agrees with 
 Ezekiel xliii. 24, in intimating that animal offer- 
 ings were sprinkled with salt (Joseph. Antiq. iii. 
 9. 1 ; Philo, ii. 255 ; Hottiuger, Jur. Ileb. Legg. 
 p. 168); as was certainly the case wilh the 
 Greeks and Romans (Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxi. 44 ; 
 Ovid, Fast. i. 337 ; Spencer, De Leg. Rit. iii. 
 
 2. 2 ; Lukemacher, Antiq. Grcec. Sacr. p. 350 ; 
 Hottinger, De Usu Salts in Cultu Sacro, Mar- 
 burg, 1708; Schickeelanz, De Salis usu in Sa- 
 crific. Servest. 1758). The incense, ‘ perfume,’ was 
 also to have salt as an ingredient (Exod. xxx. 35 ; 
 marginal reading ‘salted'), where it appears to 
 have been symbolical, as well of the divine good- 
 ness as of man’s gratitude, on the principle that of 
 every bounty vouchsafed of God, it became man 
 to make an acknowledgment in kind. 
 
 As salt thus entered into man’s food, so, to eat 
 salt with any one, was to partake of his fare, toshare 
 his hospitality ; and hence, by implication, to en- 
 joy nis favour, or to be in . his confidence. Hence, 
 also, salt became an emblem of fidelity and of inti- 
 mate friendship. At the present hour the Arabs 
 regard as their friend him who has eaten salt with 
 them, that is, has partaken of their hospitality 
 ^Niebuhr, Beschr. p. 48; Roseniniiller, Morgenl., 
 
 667 
 
 ii. 150) ; in the same way as, in Greece, those re- 
 garded each other as friends even to distant, gene- 
 rations, between whom the rites of hospitality had 
 been once exchanged. The domestic sanctity 
 which thus attached itself to salt was much en- 
 hanced in influence by its religious applications, so 
 that it beeame symbolical of the most sacred and 
 binding of obligations. Accordingly ‘ a covenant 
 of salt 1 nnn, was accounted a very solemn 
 bond (Num. xviii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 5 ; Lev. ii. 
 13) : a signification to which force would be given 
 by the preservative quality of salt (Bahrdt, De 
 Foedere Salis ; Zerbech, De Fosdere Salis). 
 
 But salt, if used too abundantly, is destructive 
 of vegetation and causes a desert. Hence arose 
 another class of figurative applications. Destroyed 
 cities were sown with salt to intimate that they 
 were devoted to perpetual desolation (Judg. ix. 
 45) ; salt became a symbol of barrenness (Deut. 
 xxix. 23; Zeph. ii. 9; Virg. Georg, ii. 238); 
 and ‘a salt land 1 (Jer. xvii. 6) signifies a sterile 
 and unproductive district (Job xxxix. 6 ; Alt- 
 mann, Meletem. Philolog. Exeg. i. 47). By ex- 
 posure to the influence of the sun and of the 
 atmosphere, salt loses its savoury qualities (Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. xxx i. 34; xxxi. 39; Maundrell, R, 
 162) ; whence the striking and forcible language 
 of our Lord in Matt. v. 13. 
 
 W e have reserved to the end reference to a sin- 
 gular usage among the Israelites, namely, wash- 
 ing new-born infants in salt water; which was 
 regarded as so essential that those could have 
 hardly any other than an ill fate who were de- 
 prived of the rite (Ezek. xvi. 4). The practice 
 obviously arose from a regard to the preserving, 
 the domestic, the moral, and the religious uses to 
 which salt was applied, and of which it became 
 the emblem (Richter, De Usu Salis apud Pris - 
 cos Profano et Sacro , Zettan, 1786). — J. R. B. 
 
 SALUTATION. The frequent allusion in 
 Scripture to the customary salutations of the Jews, 
 invests the subject with a higher degree of interest 
 than it might otherwise claim ; and it is therefore 
 fortunate that there are few Scriptural topics, 
 which can be better understood by the help of the 
 illustrations derivable from the existing usages of 
 the East. 
 
 Most of the expressions used in salutation, and 
 also those which were used in parting, implied, 
 that the person who employed them interceded foi 
 the other. Hence the word Tin bar ah, which 
 originally signified ‘to bless,’ meant also ‘to sa- 
 lute,’ or ‘ to welcome,’ and ‘ to bid adieu ’ (Gen. 
 xlvii. 8-11; 2 Kings iv. 29; x. 13; 1 Chron. 
 xviii. 10). 
 
 The forms of salutation that prevailed among 
 the Hebrews, so far as can be collected from 
 Scripture, are the following : — 
 
 1 . ‘ Blessed be thou oj the Lord,’ or equivalent 
 phrases. 
 
 2. The Lord be toith thee. 
 
 3. 1 Peace be unto thee,' or ‘ upon thee,* or 
 1 with thee.' In countries often ravaged, and 
 among people often ruined by war, ‘ peace ’ im- 
 plied every blessing of life; and this phrase 
 had therefore the force of ‘ Prosperous be thou.’ 
 This was the commonest of all salutations (Judg. 
 xix. 20 ; Ruth ii. 4 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 6; 2 Sam. xx. 
 9 ; Ps. cxxix. 8). 
 
 4. ‘ Live, my lord ’ ('JIN iTin\ was a com- 
 
668 
 
 SALUTATION 
 
 SALUTATION. 
 
 moa salutation among the Phoenicians, and was 
 also in use among" the Hebrews, but was by them 
 5 tdy addressed to their kings in the extended form 
 of ‘ Let the king live for ever!’ (1 Kings i. 31); 
 which was also employed in the Babylonian and 
 Persian courts (Dan. ii. 4 ; iii. 9; v. 10; vi. 7, 
 22 ; Neh. ii. 3). This, which in fact is no more 
 than a wish for a prolonged and prosperous life, 
 has a parallel in the customs of most nations, and 
 does not diil'er from the 1 Yivat !’ of the Latin ; the 
 
 ‘ Vive le Roi 1‘ of the French ; or our own ‘ 
 
 for ever !’ 
 
 5. Xcups, xa(peT€, joy to thee ! joy to you ! 
 rendered by Mail! an equivalent of the Latin 
 Ave ! Salve! (Matt, xxvii.29; xxviii. 9; Mark 
 xv. 18; Luke i. 28; John xix. 3). 
 
 The usages involved in these oral salutations, 
 seem not only similar to, but identical with, those 
 still existing among the Arabians. These indeed, 
 as now observed, go upon the authority of religious 
 precepts. But it is known that such enactments 
 of the Koran and its commentaries, merely em- 
 body such of the previously and immemorially 
 existing usages as the legislature wished to be 
 retained. Their most, common greeting, as among 
 the Jews, is, ‘Peace be on you!’ to which the re- 
 ply is, 1 On you be peace!’ to which is commonly 
 added, ‘aud the mercy of God, and his blessings !’ 
 This salutation is never addressed bv a Moslem 
 to one whom he knows to be of another religion; 
 and if he find that he has by mistake thus sa- 
 luted a person not of the same faith, he generally 
 revokes his salutation: so also he sometimes does 
 if a Moslem refuses to return his salutation, usu- 
 ally saying, ‘ Peace be on us, and on (all) the right 
 worshippers of God!’ This seems to us a striking 
 illustration of Luke x. 5, 6 ; 2 John xi. Va- 
 rious set compliments usually follow t his sal am ; 
 which, when people intend to be polite, are very 
 much extended, and occupy considerable time. 
 Hence they are evaded in crowded streets, and by 
 persons in haste, as was the case, for the same 
 reason doubtless, among the Jews (2 Kings iv. 
 29; Luke x. 4). Specimens of this conventional 
 intercourse are given by Lane (Mod. Egyptians , 
 i. 253), who says, that to give the whole would 
 occupy a dozen of his pages. There are set an- 
 swers, or a choice of two or three answers, to every 
 question ; and it is accounted rude to give any 
 other answer than that which custom prescribes. 
 They are such as those by which the Israelites 
 probably prolonged their intercourse. If one is 
 asked, ‘How is your health?’ he replies, ‘Praise 
 be to God!’ and it is only from the tone of his 
 voice that the inquirer can tell whether he is well 
 or ill. When one greets another with the common 
 inquiry, ‘ Is it well with thee ?’ (see 2 Kings iv. 
 25), the answer is, ‘ God bless thee 1’ or ‘ God 
 preserve thee!’ An acquaintance on meeting 
 another whom he has not seen for several days, or 
 for a longer period, generally says, after the salam, 
 ‘ Thou hast made us desolate by thy absence 
 from us ;’ and is usually answered, ‘ May God 
 not make us desolate by thy absence 1’ 
 
 The gestures and inflections used in salutation 
 varied with the dignity and station of the person 
 saluted ; as is the case with the Orientals at this 
 day. It is usual for the person who gives or returns 
 die salutation, to place at the same time his right 
 sand upon his breast, or to touch his lips, aud 
 then hi» forehead or turban, with the same hand. 
 
 This latter mode, which is fhe most respectful, is 
 often performed to a person of suj>erior rank, not 
 only at first, with the salam, but also frequently 
 during a conversation. In some cases the bod# 
 
 is gently inclined, while the right hand is laid 
 upon the left breast. A person of the lower or- 
 ders, in addressing a superior, does not always 
 give the salam, but shows his respect to high rank 
 by bending down his hand to the ground, and 
 then putting it to his lips and forehead. It is a 
 common custom for a man to kiss the hand of his 
 superior instead of his own (generally on the back 
 only, but sometimes on both back and front), and 
 then to put it to his forehead in order to pay more 
 particular respect. Servants thus evince their re- 
 spect towards their masters : when residing in 
 the East, our own servants always did this on 
 such little occasions as arose beyond the usage 
 of their ordinary service; as on receiving a pre- 
 sent, or on returning fresh from the public baths. 
 The son also thus kisses the hand of his father, 
 and the wife that of her husband. Very ofter*, 
 
 however, the superior does not allow this, but 
 only touches the hand extended to take his ; 
 whereupon the ot.her.puts the hand that has been 
 touched to his own lips and forehead. Thecuetcnri 
 of kissing the beard is etlil preserved, and follows 
 the first and preliminary gesture ; it usually take# 
 place on meeting a^ier an absence of some dura- 
 tion, and not as an every-day compliment. In Uni 
 case, the person who gives the kiss lays the righi 
 
SAMARIA. 
 
 SAMARIA. 
 
 fft>9 
 
 feand under >he beard, and raises it slightly to his 
 lips, or rather supports it while it receives his kiss. 
 This custom strikingly illustrates 2 Sam. xx. 9. 
 Tn Arabia Petraea, and some other parts, it is 
 more usual for persons to lay the right sides of 
 their cheeks together. 
 
 Among the Persians, persons in saluting under 
 the same circumstances, often kiss each other on 
 the lips; but if one of the individuals is of high 
 rank, the kiss is given on the cheek instead of the 
 lips. This seems to illustrate 2 Sam. xx. 9 ; 
 Gen. xxix. 11, 13; xxxiii. 4; xlviii. 10 — 12; 
 Exod. iv. 27 ; xviii. 7. 
 
 Another mode of salutation is usual among 
 friends on meeting after a journey. Joining 
 their right hands together, each of them compli- 
 ments the other upon his safety, and expresses his 
 wishes for his welfare, by repeating, alternately, 
 many times the words selamat (meaning ‘ I congra- 
 tulate you on your safety'), and teiyibeen (* I hope 
 you are well’). In commencing this ceremony, 
 which is often continued for nearly a minute 
 before they proceed to make any particular in- 
 quiries, they join their hands in the same manner 
 as i3 usually practised by us ; and at each al- 
 ternation of the two expressions, change the posi- 
 tion of the hands. These circumstances further 
 illustrate such passages as 2 Kings iv. 19 ; Luke 
 x. 4. Other particulars, more or less connected 
 with this subject, may be seen in Attitudes ; 
 Kiss. 
 
 SAMARIA watch-height ; 2 afidpeia ), 
 
 a city, situated near the middle of Palestine, 
 built by Omri, king of Israel, on a mountain or 
 bill of the same name, about b c. 925. It was 
 the metropolis of the kingdom of Israel, or of the 
 ten tribes. The hill was purchased from the 
 owner, Shen.er, from whom the city took its name 
 (1 Kings xvi. 23, 24). The site of the capital 
 was therefore a chosen one ; ami all travellers 
 agree that it would be difficult to find in the whole 
 land a situation of equal strength, fertility, and 
 beauty combined. ‘In all these particulars,’ says 
 Dr. Robinson, ‘ it lias greatly the advantage over 
 Jerusalem 1 {Bibl. Researches, iii. 148). Samaria 
 continued to be the capital of Israel for two cen- 
 turies, till the carrying away of the ten tribes by 
 Shalmaneser, about b.c. 720 (2 Kings xvii. 3, 5). 
 During all this time it was the seat of idolatry, 
 and is often as such denounced by the prophets, 
 sometimes in connection with Jerusalem. It was 
 ‘die seat of a temple of Baal, built by Ahab, and 
 
 destroyed by Jenu (1 Kings xvi. 32, 33; 2 Kings 
 x. 18-28). It was the scene of many of the acts 
 of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, connected with 
 the various famines of the land, the unexpected 
 plenty of Samaria, and the several deliverances 
 of the city from the Syrians. After the exile of 
 the ton tribes, Samaria appears to have continued, 
 for a time at least, the chief city of the foreigners 
 brought to occupy their place; although Shechem 
 soon became the capital of the Samaritans as a 
 religious sect. John Hyrcanus took the city after 
 a year’s siege, and razed it to the ground (Joseph. 
 Antiq., xiii. 10. 3 ; De Bell. Jnd., i. 2. 7). Yet it 
 must soon have revived, as it is not long after men- 
 tioned as an inhabited place i:i the possession of 
 the Jews. Pompey restored it to its former pos- 
 sessors ; and it was afterwards rebuilt by Gabinius 
 (Joseph. Antiq ., xiii. 5. 4 ; xiv. 4. 4; xiv. 5. 3). 
 Augustus bestowed Samaria on Herod ; who 
 eventually rebuilt the city with great magni- 
 ficence, and gave it the name of Sebaste (which 
 is the Greek translation of the Latin name or 
 epithet Augustus), in honour of that emperor 
 {Antiq., xv. 7. 3 ; De Bell. Jud., xv. 7. 7 ; xv. 
 8. 5). Here Herod planted a colony of 6000 
 persons, composed partly of veteran soldiers, and 
 partly of people from the environs ; enlarged the 
 circumference of the city; and surrounded it 
 with a strong wall twenty stades in circuit. In 
 the midst of the city — that is to say, upon the 
 summit of the hill — he left a sacred place of a 
 stade and a half, splendidly decorated, and here 
 lie erected a . temple to Augustus, celebrated for 
 its magnitude and beauty. The whole city was 
 greatly ornamented, and became a strong fortress 
 (Joseph. Antiq., xv. 8.5; De Bell. Jud., i. 21. 2; 
 Strabo, xvi. 2. 13). 
 
 Such was the Samaria of the time of the New 
 Testament, where the Gospel was preached by 
 Philip, and a church was gathered by the apostles 
 (Acts viii. 5, 9, sq.). Nothing is known of Sebaste 
 in the following centuries, except from the coins, 
 of which there are several, extending from Nero to 
 Geta (Eckhel, iii. 440; Mionnet, ,Mecl. Antiq., 
 v. 513). Septimius Severus appears to have esta- 
 blished there a Roman colony in the beginning of 
 the third century (Cellarius, Not. Orb., ii. 432). 
 Eusebius scarcely mentions the city as extant ; 
 but it is often named by Jerome and other writers 
 of the same and a later age (adduced in Reland's 
 Palcestina, pp. 979-981). Samaria was early an 
 episcopal see. Its bishop, Marius, or Marinus, 
 was present at the council of Nice in a.d. 325 ; 
 and Pelagius, the last of six others whose names 
 are preserved, attended the council of Jerusalem 
 in a.d. 536. The city, along with Nabulus, fell 
 into the power of the Moslems during the siege of 
 Jerusalem ; and we hear but little more of it till 
 the time of the Crusades. At what time the city of 
 Herod became desolate, no existing accounts state ; 
 but all the notices of the fourth century and later 
 lead to the inference lliaf its destruction had 
 already taken place. 
 
 The crusaders established a Latin bishopric at 
 Sebaste ; and the title was continued in tire Romish 
 church till the fourteenth century (Le Quien, 
 Oriens Christ, iii. 1290). Saladin marched 
 through it in a.d. 1184, after his repulse from 
 Kerak (Abulfed. Annul, a.ii. 580). Benjamin 
 of Tudela describes it as having been ‘ formerly 
 a very strong city, and situated on the mouKt, 
 
(70 
 
 SAMARIA. 
 
 SAMARIA. 
 
 in a fine country, richly watered, and surrounded 
 by gardens, vineyards, orchards, and olive groves.’ 
 He adds that no Jews were living there ( Itiner . 
 ed. Asher, p. 66). Phocas and Brocardus speak 
 only of the church and tomb of John the Baptist, 
 and of the Greek church and monastery on the 
 summit of the hill. Notices of the place occur 
 in the travellers of the fourteenth, sixteenth, 
 and seventeenth centuries; nor are they all so 
 meagre as Dr. Robinson conceives. That of 
 Morison, for instance, is full and exact ( Voyage 
 du Mont Sinai, pp. 230-233). Scarcely any 
 traces of the earlier or later Samaria could then 
 be perceived, the materials having been used by 
 the inhabitants for the construction of their own 
 mean dwellings. The then residents were an ex- 
 tremely poor and miserable set of people. In the 
 eighteenth century the place appears to have been 
 left unexplored ; but in the present century it has 
 often been visited and described. 
 
 480. [Samaria: Church of St. John.] 
 
 The Hill of Samaria is an oblong mountain of 
 considerable elevation, and very regular in form, 
 situated in the midst of a broad deep valley, the 
 continuation of that of Nabulus (Shechem), 
 which here expands into a breadth of live or six 
 miles. Beyond this valley, which completely 
 isolates the hill, the mountains rise again on 
 every side, forming a complete wall around the 
 city. They are terraced to the tops, sown in 
 grain, and planted with olives and figs, in the 
 midst of which a number of handsome villages 
 appear to great advantage, their white stone cot- 
 tages contrasting strikingly with the verdure of 
 the trees. ‘The Hill of Samaria’ itself is culti- 
 vated from its base, the terraced sides and sum- 
 mits being covered with corn and with olive- 
 trees. About midway up the ascent the hill' is 
 surrounded by a narrow terrace of level land, 
 like a belt; below which the roots of the hill 
 spread off more gradually into the valleys. 
 Higher up, too, are the marks of slight terraces, 
 once occupied, perhaps, by the streets of the 
 ancient city. The ascent of the hill is very steep, 
 arid the narrow footpath winds among the moun- 
 
 tains through substantial cottages of the modern 
 Sebustieh (the Arabic form of Sebaste), which 
 appear to have been constructed to a great extent 
 of ancient materials, very superior in siae a*'d 
 quality to anything which could at this day be 
 wrought into an Arab habitation. The first object 
 which attracts the notice of the traveller, aTid at 
 the same time the most, conspicuous ruin of the 
 place, is the church dedicated to John ihe Baptist, 
 erected on the spot which an old tradition fixed 
 as the place of his burial, if not of bis martyrdom. 
 It is said to have been built by Ihe Empress He-, 
 lena; but the architecture limits its antiquity to 
 the period of the crusades, although a portion of 
 the eastern end seems to have been of earlier date. 
 There is a blending of Greek and Saracenic styles, 
 which is particularly observable in the interior, 
 where there are several pointed arches. Others 
 are round. The columns follow no regular order, 
 while the capitals and ornaments present a motley 
 combination, not to be found in any church 
 erected in or near the age of Constantine. The 
 length of the edifice is 153 feet long inside, besides 
 a porch of 10 feel, and the breadth is 75 feet. 
 The eastern end is rounded in the common Greek 
 style; and vesting, as it does, upon a precipitous 
 elevation of nearly 100 feet immediately above 
 the valley, it is a noble and striking monument. 
 Within the enclosure is a common Turkish tomb ; 
 and beneath it, at a depth reached by 21 stone 
 steps, is a sepulchre, three or four paces square, 
 where, according to the tradition, John the Baptist 
 was interred after he had been slain by Herod. 
 This tradition existed in the days of Jerome; but 
 there is no earlier trace of it: and if Josephus is 
 correct in stating that John was beheaded in the 
 castle of Machaerus, on the east of the Dead Sea 
 (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2), his burial in Samaria is 
 very improbable. 
 
 On approaching the summit of the bill, the 
 traveller comes suddenly upon an area, once sur- 
 rounded by limestone columns, of which fifteen are 
 still standing and two prostrate. These columns 
 form two rows, thirty-two paces apvrt, while less 
 than two paces intervene between the columns. 
 They measure seven feet nine inches in circum- 
 ference; but there is no trace of the order of 
 their architecture, nor are there any foundations 
 to indicate the nature of the edifice to which they 
 belonged. Some refer them to Herod’s temple to 
 Augustus, others to a Greek church which seems 
 to have once occupied the summit of the hill. 
 The descent of the hill on the W.S.W. side brings 
 the traveller to a very remarkable colonnade, 
 which is easily traceable by a great number of 
 columns, erect or prostrate, along the side of the 
 hill for at least one-third of a mile, where it ter- 
 minates at a heap of ruins, near the eastern ex- 
 tremity of the ancient site. The columns are sixteen 
 feet high, two feet in diameter at the base, and one 
 foot eight inches at the top. The capitals have 
 disappeared ; but the shafts retain their polish, 
 and, when not broken, are in good preservation. 
 Eighty-two of these columns are still erect, and 
 the number of those fallen and broken must he 
 much greater. Most of them are of the lime- 
 stone common to the region ; hut some are of white 
 marble, and some of granite. The mass of ruins in 
 which this colonnade terminates toward the west 
 is composed of blocks of hewn stone, covering no 
 great area on the slope of the hill, many feet lowci 
 
SAMARITANS. 
 
 SAMARITANS. 
 
 671 
 
 chan the summit. Neither the situation nor extent 
 of this pile favours the notion of its having been a 
 palace; nor is it easy to conjecture the design of 
 the edifice. The colonnade, the remains of which 
 now stand solitary and mournful in the midst of 
 ploughed fields, may, however, with little hesita- 
 tion, be referred to the time of Herod the Great, 
 and must be regarded as belonging to some one 
 of the splendid structures with which he adorned 
 the city. In the deep ravine which bounds the city 
 on the north, there is another colonnade, not visited 
 by Dr. Robinson, but fully described by Dr. Olin 
 ( Travels , ii. 371-373). The area in which these 
 columns stand is completely shut in by hills, with 
 the exception of an opening on the north-east ; 
 and so peculiarly sequestered is the situation, that 
 it is only visible from a few points of the heights 
 of the ancient site, by which it is overshadowed. 
 The columns, of which a large number are entire 
 and several in fragments, are erect, and arranged 
 in a quadrangle, 196 paces in length, and 64 in 
 breadth. They are three paces asunder, which 
 would give 170 columns as the whole number 
 when the colonnade was complete. The columns 
 Tesernble in size and material those of the colon- 
 nade last noticed, and appear to belong to the 
 same age. These also probably formed part of 
 Herod’s city, though it is difficult to determine 
 the use to which the colonnade was appropriated. 
 Dr. Olin is poss'bly right in his conjecture, that 
 this was one of tne places of public assembly and 
 amusement which Herod introduced into his do- 
 minions (Robinson, Researches , iii. 136-149 ; 
 Olin, Travels, ii. 366-374; Buckingham, Tra- 
 vels in Palestine , pp. 512-517; Richardson, 
 Travels, ii. 409-413 ; Schubert, Morgenland, iii. 
 156-162; Raumer, Palastina, p. 158 ; Maun- 
 drell, Journey , pp. 78, 79). 
 
 SAMARITANS. In the books of Kings 
 there are brief notices of the origin of the people 
 called Samaritans. The ten tribes which re- 
 volted from Rehoboam, son of Solomon, chose 
 Jeroboam for their king. After his elevation 
 to the throne he set up golden calves at Dan 
 and Bethel, lest repeated visits of his subjects to 
 Jerusalem, for the purpose of worshipping the true 
 God, should withdraw their allegiance from him- 
 self. Afterwards Samaria, built by Omri, became 
 the metropolis of Israel, and thus the separation 
 between Judah and Israel was rendered complete. 
 The people took the name Samaritans from the 
 capital city. In the ninth year of Hosea, Samaria 
 was taken by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser, 
 who carried away the inhabitants into captivity, 
 and introduced colonies into their place from 
 Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and Sephar- 
 vaim. These new inhabitants carried along with 
 them their own idolatrous worship ; and on being 
 infested with lions, sent to Esarhaddon, king of 
 Assyria. A priest of the tribe of Levi was accord- 
 ingly dispatched to them, who came and dwelt in 
 Bethel, teaching the people how they should fear 
 the Lord. Thus it appears that the people were a 
 mixed race. The greater part of the Israelites had 
 been carried away captive by the Assyrians, in- 
 cluding the rich, the strong, and such as were able 
 to bear arms. But the poor and the feeble had 
 been left. The country had not been so entirely 
 depopulated as to possess no Israelite whatever. The 
 dregs of the popalac®, particularly those who ap- 
 peared incapable of active service, were not taken 
 
 away by the victors. With them, therefore, th« 
 heathen colonists became incorporated. But the 
 latter were far more numerous than the former, 
 and had all power in their own hands. The rem- 
 nant of the Israelites was so inconsiderable and 
 insignificant as not to affect, to any important 
 extent, the opinions of the new inhabitants. As 
 the people were a mixed race, their religion also 
 assumed a mixed character. In it the worship of 
 idols was associated with that of the true God. 
 But apostacy from Jehovah was not universal. 
 On the return of the Jews from the Babylonish 
 captivity, the Samaritans wished to join them in 
 rebuilding the Temple, saying, ‘ Let us build with 
 you ; for we seek your God, as ye do ; and we do 
 sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon, 
 king of Assur, which brought us u.p hither’ (Ezra 
 iv. 2). But the Jews declined the profi'ered assist- 
 ance ; and from this time the Samaritans threw 
 every obstacle in their way. Hence arose that 
 inveterate enmity between the two nations which 
 afterwards increased to such a height as to become 
 proverbial. In the reign of Darius Noth us, Ma- 
 nassas, son of the Jewish high-priest, married the 
 daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan governor ; 
 and to avoid the necessity of repudiating her, as 
 the law of Moses required, went over to the Sama- 
 ritans, and became high-priest in the temple which 
 his father-in-law built for him on Mount Gerizim. 
 From this time Samaria became a refuge for all 
 malcontent Jews; and the very name of each 
 people became odious to the other. About the 
 year b.c. 109, John Hyrcanus, high-priest of the 
 Jews, destroyed the city and temple of the Sama- 
 ritans ; but, b.c. 25, Herod rebuilt them at great 
 expense. In their new temple, however, the Sa- 
 maritans could not be induced to oiler sacrifices, 
 but still continued to worship on Gerizim. At 
 the present day they have dwindled down to a few 
 families. Shechem, now called Nabulus, is their 
 place of abode. They still possess a copy of the 
 Mosaic law. 
 
 A different account of the origin of this people 
 has been given by Hengstenberg, whom Hiiver- 
 nick and Robinson follow. According to this 
 learned* writer, all the inhabitants were carried 
 away into Assyria. None were left in the land by 
 the conquerors. Shalmaneser greatly weakened 
 the ten tribes, but did not extinguish the king- 
 dom of Israel, because at his invasion many of 
 the people took refuge in the most inaccessible 
 and retired parts of their country, or fled into 
 Judah. Afterwards they returned by degrees; 
 and when Esarhaddon came against them, they 
 were cairied away entirely. From the time of 
 Esarhaddon there were none but heathens in the 
 land. The Samaritans were wholly of heathen 
 origin. Hence they requested the Assyrian king 
 to send them an Israelite priest (JBeitriige zur 
 Einleit. ins alte Testam. i. 177 ; ii. 3, &c.). 
 Want of space prevents us from detailing the 
 grounds of this view, or from entering into its 
 refutation. It has been ably combated by Kalkar 
 (in Pelt's Mitarbeiten for 1840, drittes Heft , p. 
 21, &c.), to whom the reader is referred. We 
 cannot but reject the novel hypothesis, notwith- 
 standing the ability with which it has been put 
 forward. 
 
 With the remnant above referred to a corre- 
 spondence was formerly maintained by several 
 Ir&rned Europeans, but without leading to any iuv 
 
672 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 
 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 
 jiortant result. It was commenced by Joseph 
 Scaliger, 5n 1559; and resumed, after a century, 
 by several learned men in England, in 1675 ; and 
 bv the great Ethiopic scholar, Job Ludolf, in 1684. 
 The illustrious Orientalist, De Sacy, also held 
 correspondence with them. All their letters to 
 England and France, and all that was then known 
 respecting them, lie-published in a work entitled, 
 Correspondance des Samar itains, &c. in Notices 
 ct Extr. des MSS. de la Biblioth. du Roi, tom. 
 xii.). The best accounts of them given by modern 
 travellers are by Pliny Fisk ( American Mission- 
 ary Herald for 1824), who visited them in 1823 ; 
 and by Robinson and Smith, who visited them in 
 1 838 (see Biblical Researches and Travels in 
 Palestine , iii. 113-116 ).— S. I). 
 
 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. The Sa- 
 maritan Pentateuch was mentioned by ttie fathers 
 Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Procopius of 
 Gaza, Diodorus, Jerome, anti others. After it 
 had lain concealed for upwards of a Ihousand 
 years, its existence began to be doubted. At 
 length Peter Della Valle, in 1616, procured a 
 complete copy, which De Sancy, then French 
 ambassador at Const antinople, sent to the library 
 of the Oratoire at Paris, in 1623. It was first 
 described by Morin, and afterwards printed in the 
 Paris Polvglott. Not long after, Archbishop 
 Ussher procured six copies from the East; and so 
 great was I he number in the time of Kennicott, 
 that he collated sixteen for his edition of the He- 
 brew Bible. 
 
 In regard to the antiquity of the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, and the source from which the docu- 
 ment came, various opinions have been entertained. 
 
 1st. The hypothesis maintained by Ussher was, 
 that the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production 
 of an impostor named Dositheus, the founder of a 
 sect among the Samaritans, and who pretended to 
 be the Messiah. It is thought, that he compiled this 
 copy of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew and the 
 Septuagint, adding, expunging, and altering, ac- 
 cording to his pleasure. Ussher appeals to Origen 
 and Photius, whose testimony, however, when 
 examined, affords no evidence of the truth of this 
 s'atement. It is well known that the ‘Alexan- 
 drian Samaritans opposed Dositheus, and would 
 not have received such a compilation. Besides, 
 had lie corrupted any passages, it. is natural to 
 think that he would have perverted those relating 
 to the Messiah, that, they might be more easily 
 referred to himself. But places of this nature in 
 the Samaritan copies agree with the Hebrew ; and 
 we may be farther assured, that the Jews would 
 not have failed to mention such a fact as a just 
 ground of accusation against the Samaritans. 
 
 2ndly. Le Clerc and Poncet imagined, that 
 this copy of the law was made by the Israelitish 
 priest who was sent by the king of Assyria to in- 
 struct the new inhabitants in the religion of the 
 country. This is a mere hypothesis, unsupported 
 by historical testimony. It was not necessary for 
 the priest to compose a new system, but. to instruct 
 the people out of the Pentateuch as it then existed. 
 When the existing copy was sufficient for his 
 purpose, he would not have undertaken the labour 
 of preparing an entirely new work. 
 
 3rdly. It was the opinion of Hottinger, Pri- 
 deaux, Fitzgerald, and others, that Manasseh 
 transcribed one of Ezra's corrected copies which 
 be took with him from Jerusalem, into the old 
 
 character to which they were accustomed. In 
 proof of this hypothesis it has beet, affirmed, that 
 the variations in the Samaritan copy from the 
 Hebrew are such as were occasioned in the tran- 
 scription by mistaking letters similar in Hebrew, 
 but unlike in the Samaritan. This supposition 
 has been completely set aside by Kopp, in his 
 Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit ; and by II up- 
 feld, in his Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen, u. s. w. 
 ( Studien und Kritikch, 1830), in which it is 
 convincingly shown that, the present Hebrew 
 square character had no existence till long after 
 Ezra; and that; so far from owing its origin to 
 Chaldaea and having been introduced by Ezra, it 
 was merely the gradual work of time. When 
 Manasseh fled from Jerusalem, the Samaritan 
 and Hebrew characters must have been substan- 
 tially the same. 
 
 4t.hly. Others are of opinion that copies of the 
 Pentateuch must have been in the hands of Israel 
 from the time of Rehoboam, as well as among 
 Judah; that, they were preserved by the former 
 equally as by the latter. This hypothesis, first 
 advanced by Morin, has been adopted by Houbi- 
 gant, Cappellus, Kennicott, Miehaelis, Eichhorn, 
 Bauer, Bertholdt, Stuart, and others, and appears 
 to be the true one. The prophets, who frequently 
 inveigh against the Israelites for their idolatry and 
 their crimes, never accuse them of being destitute 
 of the law, or ignorant, of its contents. It is wholly 
 improbable, too, that the people, when carried 
 captive into Assyria, took with them all the copies 
 of the law. Thus we are brought to the conclu- 
 sion, that the Samaritan, as well as the Jewish 
 copy, originally flowed from the autograph of 
 Moses. The two constitute, in fact, different 
 recensions of the same wor/c, and coalesce in 
 point of antiquity. 
 
 If this account of the Samaritan codex be cor- 
 rect, it is easy to perceive the reason why the 
 Samaritans did not receive all the Jewish books 
 previously written. When the schism of the 
 tribes took place, the Pentateuch was commonly 
 circulated, and usually regarded as a sacred 
 national collection, containing all their laws and 
 institutions. Though David's Psalms and some 
 of Solomon’s compositions may also have been 
 written at that time; yet the former were chiefly 
 in the hands of the Levites who regulated the 
 Temple music, and were employed in the public 
 service of Jehovah ; while the latter were doubt- 
 less disliked by the ten tribes on account of their 
 author, who lived at Jerusalem, and were rare 
 from the non-transcription of copies. The pro- 
 phets must have been unwelcome to the Israelites, 
 because they uttered many tilings against them, 
 affirming that Jehovah could not be worshipped 
 with acceptance in any other place than Jeru- 
 salem. This circumstance was sufficient to prevent 
 that people from receiving any of the prophetical 
 writings till Ezra's time, when their hatred to him 
 and his associates was so great, that they would 
 not have admit ted any collection of the Scriptures 
 coming through such hands. Whatever other 
 books, besides the Pentateuch, were written in the 
 time of Rehoboam must have been comparatively 
 unknown to the mass of the people. This fact, in 
 connection with political considerations, was suf- 
 ficient to lead the Israelites to reject most, except 
 those of Moses. 
 
 Iii addition to the Pentateuch, the Samarltent 
 
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 
 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 673 
 
 tore the book of Joshua, but it did not always 
 form part of their canon. Their Joshua does not 
 appear to be the same as the Old Testament book. 
 On the contrary it must have been composed long 
 ■after, out of the inspired records of Joshua, Judges, 
 and Samuel, to which have been added fables and 
 Oriental traditions. Such a compilation can 
 have no claim to be regarded as the authentib 
 Jewish writing. 
 
 But, it may be asked, what is the reason why 
 this people have not the books of Joshua and 
 Judges, in addition to the Mosaic? The question 
 is of difficult solution. Hengstenberg affirms that 
 the problem is inexplicable on the common hypo- 
 thesis. If the people were a mixed race, he sup- 
 poses that no rational account can be given why 
 Joshua and Judges should not have been always 
 received by them along with the Pentateuch. 
 These books had been written and were current 
 among the people long before the separation of the 
 tribes. We do not see, however, that Hengsten- 
 berg ’s own view materially lessens the difficulty. 
 If the heathen Samaritans received the Pentateuch 
 from the kingdom of the ten tribes, or rather from 
 tnese tribes in Assyrian captivity, why did they 
 ask for no more than the Pentateuch, or why was 
 it alone sent to them ? 
 
 For the solution of the question it should be 
 considered, that the priests, or such as were in 
 possession of the sacred books, had been carried 
 away, together with the persons best acquainted 
 with such writings, who may be supposed to have 
 had the great majority of the copies then current. 
 The holy books, too, were not generally circu- 
 lated among the people, nrjany of whom, may have 
 jeen unable to read them. The lower orders in 
 particular were dependent for their religious in- 
 formation on the prophets and priests; for parents 
 had not fulfilled the Mosaic law in diligently 
 teaching their children. Besides, the same cir- 
 cumstance that led them fo reject the subsequent 
 books would incline them, at least, to reject 
 Joshua and Judges. There was in the latter too 
 much of the historical, and that closely connected 
 with the succeeding events of Jewish history, all 
 which centred in Jerusalem. Whatever copies, 
 therefore, of these historical books may have been 
 among the remnant, and these could have been 
 but few, were suffered to fall into neglect, so that 
 they became almost unknown when the heathen 
 majority introduced their idolatrous worship. It 
 was far more natural to stop with the Pentateuch 
 when it was deemed necessary to reject some 
 Jewish books, than to stop after Judges. In this 
 way their canon, imperfect as it would be, would 
 nave the appearance of greater completeness in 
 itself, than if they had arbitrarily and abruptly 
 ‘erminated it after Judges. In addition to these 
 remarks it may be affirmed with Hengstenberg, 
 that the Samaritans could not be contented with 
 the fact that Joshua and Judges contained nothing 
 which directly testified against them. Their pa- 
 triotic fabrications, if the phrase be allowable, 
 began with Joshua ; and had they admitted the 
 two books, they could have ventured to forge 
 nothing except what they should be able to prove 
 out of them. Hence it was thought more desir- 
 able to allow the few copies current among them 
 to go into oblivion in the first instance, while it 
 was afterwards deemed a politic measure not to 
 admit them at all into their canon. 
 
 voi- «. 44 
 
 It thus appears that the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 carinot be ascribed to a later period than that 
 of the schism between the tribes. All the argu- 
 ments adduced by Gesenius (in his Commentatio 
 de Ventatcuchi Samaritani Origine , Indole, et 
 Auctoritate ) are not sufficient to disprove it* 
 truth. For opposite and convincing statements 
 we refer to the last edition of Eichhorn’s Intro- 
 duction to the Old Testament , and Professor 
 Stuart’s review of Gesenius, in the second volume 
 of the American Biblical Repository. The name 
 Samaritan was first given to that mixed multitude 
 composed of the heathen introduced by Shalma- 
 neser into the kingdom of Israel, and of the lower 
 classes of the ten tribes which had not been car- 
 ried away. Whatever civil jealousies may have 
 previously existed between them and the Jews, 
 their religious animosities were first excited when 
 Ezra and his countrymen, returning from exile, 
 refused to allow their co-operation in building the 
 Temple. Subsequent events, far from allaying 
 their mutual hatred, only raised it to a higher 
 pitch, giving it that permanent, durable form in 
 which it was continued through succeeding cen- 
 turies. 
 
 With respect to the authority and value of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, there has been mucn va- 
 riety of sentiment. Gesenius, however, has very 
 ably shown that little value should be assigned to 
 the characteristics of its text. He has proved that 
 no critical reliance can be placed on it, and that 
 it is wholly unjustifiable to use it as a source of 
 correcting the. Hebrew text. He has divided the 
 various readings it exhibits into different classes, 
 under each of which numerous examples are ad- 
 duced. By a most minute investigation of par- 
 ticulars he has shown that it cannot be employed 
 in emendation, as Kennicott, Morin, and Bauer 
 supposed. This masterly dissertation has ruined 
 the credit of the Samaritan codex in the critical, 
 world. The purity of the Hebrew is not to be 
 corrupted by additions or interpolations from- 
 such a document. The original text of the Old, 
 Testament cannot be established by any weight 
 attaching to it. 
 
 The various peculiarities of the Samaritan text 
 have been divided into the following classes - 
 
 1. The first class consists of such readings as 
 exhibit emendations of a merely grammatical 
 nature. Thus in orthography the matres lectioni * 
 are supplied, the full forms of verbs substituted 
 for the apocopated, the usual forms of the pro- 
 nouns given instead of the unusual. In forming 
 a noun, the paragogic letters yod and raw affixed 
 to the governing noun are almost always omitted. 
 In construing a noun, the Samaritan transcribers 
 make frequent mistakes in relation to gender, by 
 changing nouns of the common gender into the 
 masculine, or into the feminine alone. In the 
 syntax of verbs the infinitive absolute is often 
 al tered. 
 
 2. The second class consists of glosses received 
 into the text. These glosses furnish explanations 
 of more difficult terms by such as are more intel- 
 ligible. 
 
 3. The third class comprehends those readings 
 in which plain modes of expression are substituted 
 in place of such as appeared difficult or obscure. 
 
 4. The fourth class consists of those readings 
 in which the Samaritan copy is corrected or 
 supplied from parallel passages, To this cla*» 
 
*74 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 
 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 
 belongs Gen. 1. 25, where the Samaritan adds with 
 you, reading — ‘ Ye shall carry up my bones with 
 you from hence.’ The addition is taken from 
 Exod. xiii. 19, and does not belong, as Gerard 
 thinks, to the present place. 
 
 5. The fifth class consists of larger additions or 
 repetitions respecting things said or done, which 
 are interpolated from parallel places and again 
 recorded in the same terms, so as to make the 
 readings in question. 
 
 6. Corrections framed to remove what, was 
 offensive in sentiment, or whatever conveyed ideas 
 improbable in the view of the correctors. Thus 
 in the antediluvian genealogies, none is repre- 
 sented by the Samaritan Pentateuch as having 
 begotten his first son after he is one hundred and 
 fifty years old. On the v contrary, in the post- 
 diluvian genealogies, none is allowed to have 
 begotten a son until after he is fifty years old. In 
 the former case, the Samaritan codex usually 
 takes a hundred years from the genealogies as 
 found in the Hebrew ; while in the latter one hun- 
 dred years are commonly added, at least to all 
 whom the Hebrew copy represents to have chil- 
 dren under fifty years of age, except to Nahor. 
 Such changes could not have been accidental. 
 They are manifestly the effect of design. To 
 this class belongs Gen. xxix. 3, 8: ‘And thither 
 were all the flocks gathered : and they rolled the 
 stone, & c. And they said, We cannot, until all 
 the flocks be gathered together, and till they roll 
 the stone, &c.’ Here the subject of the verb roll 
 is understood not expressed — ‘ the shepherds 
 roiled.' But because the preceding subject is all 
 the flocks, and therefore they are apparently said 
 to roll away the stone, and to water, the word 
 D'"n3?n, flocks , was altered into D'JHn, shep- 
 herds. The Sept, follows the reading of the Sa- 
 maritan ; and strange to say, Houbigant and 
 Kennicott contend that it is the true reading. It 
 is very usual with the Old Testament writers to 
 change the subject , and leave the new nominative 
 to be supplied from the context. As an example 
 of fhis Gesenius (p. 51) adduces Isa. xxxvi. 36. 
 
 7. The seventh class consists of those words and 
 forms of words in which the pure Hebrew idiom 
 is exchanged for that of the Samaritan. This 
 respects many cases of orthography, and some of 
 the forms belonging to verbs. 
 
 8. The eighth class embraces such passages 
 as contain alterations made to produce con- 
 formity to the Samaritan theology, worship, or 
 exegesis. Thus, where the Hebrew has a plural 
 verb with elohim , the Samaritan has substituted a 
 verb in the singular (Gen. xx. 13; xxxi. 53; 
 xxxv. 7; Exod. xxii. 9), lest there should be an 
 appearance of infringingon the divine unity. So 
 also voces honestiores have been put where there 
 was a fancied immodesty. To this head Gese- 
 nius has referred the notable passage in Deut. 
 xxvii. 4, where the Samaritans changed Ebal into 
 Gerizim, to favour their own temple built on the 
 latter mountain. Some, indeed, as Whiston and 
 Kennicott, have endeavoured to show that the cor- 
 ruption ought to be charged on the Jews ; but they 
 
 ■ have not been successful in recommending their 
 opinion to general acceptance. Various writers of 
 ability have refuted this notion, especially Ver- 
 gebuir (in the third of his Disscrtationes Philolog- 
 exeget. Leovard. et Francq. 1773, 4to), who com- 
 pletely set aside the attempted reasoning of 
 
 Kennicott. Of all the peculiar readings in thg 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, four only are considered 
 by Gesenius as preferable to the Hebrew, thesg 
 are Gen. iv. 8; xxii. 13; xlix. ii; xiv. 14 
 Perhaps even these should be reckoned infe* 
 rior to the corresponding Hebrew readings. We 
 shall notice them individually. 
 
 Gen. iv. 8 ; the Hebrew text, literally trans- 
 lated, reads thus — ‘ And Cain said to Abel his 
 brother ; and it came to pass when they were in the 
 field,’ &c. Here the Samaritan supplies what ap- 
 pears to be wanting by inserting the words ‘let ua 
 go into the field,’ ,Y1BM So also the Sep- 
 
 tuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions. Aquila 
 is doubtful. Perhaps, however, this clause waa 
 borrowed from 1 Sam. xx. 11. If the verb “1DN 
 be put absolutely for *131, the meaning will be 
 that Cain spoke to his brother Abel, viz. what 
 God had previously said to the former. 
 
 Gen. xxii. 13.; instead of “1PIN the Samaritan 
 reads THN : ‘ And Abraham lifted up his eyes 
 and looked ; and behold a ram caught,’ &c. in- 
 stead of ‘Behold a ram behind him,’ &c. The 
 Samaritan reading is sanctioned by the Septua* 
 gint and Syriac, and all the versions except 
 Jerome’s, by forty-two manuscripts, and two 
 printed editions. Onkelos, Saadias, and the Per- 
 sian have both readings together. This use, how- 
 ever. of the numeral adjective for the indefinite 
 article, belongs rather to the later than the earlier 
 Hebrew. In Exod. xxix. 3, the use of *inN is 
 scarcely similar, though quoted as such by Gese- 
 nius. On the whole we are inclined, with Nol- 
 dius and Ravius, to abide by the common read- 
 ing, notwithstanding the- circumstances adduced 
 against it by Gesenius. 
 
 Gen. xlix. 14 ; in this passage the Hebrew has 
 DU "IDII. the ass of a bone, i. e. ‘a strong ass.’ 
 Instead of DU the Samaritan has D'U ; the sense 
 is the same. 
 
 Gen. xiv. 14; instead of pUI the Samaritan 
 reads pUl. The meaning of the former is — -he 
 led forth his trained servants ; of the latter, he 
 surveyed or numbered. The former is equally 
 good as the laiter. 
 
 The Samaritan codex cannot be put in compa- 
 rison with the Hebrew. The difference between 
 the two recensions chiefly consists in additions to 
 the Samaritan text. An omission may be made 
 inadvertently, but an insertion evinces design. 
 When, therefore, we usually meet with words and 
 clauses in the Samaritan that are not found in the 
 Hebrew, it is much more probable that they 
 should have been inserted in the one, than pur- 
 posely omitted in the other. In all cases, perhaps, 
 the Samaritan should be placed below the Hebrew 
 in the value of its readings. Where other autho- 
 rities concur with the former against the latter, 
 there may be reason for following it ; but this does 
 not rest on tl.. ground that it is superior to the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 We might also mention, in favour of this esti- 
 mate of the two codices, the general character of 
 Israel and Judah. The one was far more wicked 
 than the other. Wickedness is usually associated 
 with forgetfulness or corruption of the inspired 
 writings, and inattention to their contents. 
 
 But the New Testament writers usually quote 
 from the Sept., which version agrees with the Sa- 
 maritan, in preference to the Hebrew codex. Does 
 
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 
 
 SAMOTHRACE. 
 
 
 not this attach a si\ perior value to the Samaritan? 
 In reply to such a question it may he observed, 
 v that the New Testament does not coincide with 
 the Samaritan and Septuagint in opposition to 
 the Hcbreio. There are indeed tioo , or, at the 
 most, three instances of this nature ; but the vari- 
 ation is so slignt in these, that, nothing can be built 
 upon it. There is one reading of the Samaritan 
 to which we deem it right to allude, because it is 
 generally preferred to the Hebrew. It is in Exod. 
 xii. 40 : ‘Now the sojourning of the children of 
 Israel, who dwelt, in Egypt, was 430 years.’ The 
 Samaritan has ‘The sojourning of the children of 
 Israel and of their fathers who dwelt in the land of 
 Canaan and in the land of Egypt was 430 years.’ 
 The Hebrews abode 215 years in Egypt ; and from 
 the call of Abraham to the exodus was 430 years. 
 This passage presents no real difficulty in the way 
 of chronology, although the Samaritan corrector 
 thought, that, as it stands in the Hebrew codex, it 
 is not true. Yet it is not said that the sojourning 
 of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years. 
 It is simply stated that their sojourning continued 
 for that period. The clause ‘ who dwelt in Egypt 
 is incidental, not essential to the sentence. The 
 sojourning of the Israelites in various places be- 
 ginning at the time when Abraham was called of 
 Jehovah, and ending with the departure of his 
 posterity out of Egypt, occupied 430 years. Had 
 the words stood thus, ‘the sojourning of the chil- 
 dren of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years 
 in that country ,’ there would have been a chrono- 
 logical difficulty. At present, however, there is 
 none. This example is discussed by Gesenius, 
 under the sixth class. 
 
 Thus the Samaritan Pentateuch is not a source 
 of emendation. Other independent authorities, 
 provided they be sufficient, may and ought to be 
 taken as means of emendation ; but this codex by 
 itself cannot be used in correcting the text, nor 
 can it be employed for the same purpose along 
 with versions or quotations manifestly borrowed 
 from it. 
 
 The utility of the copy consists in confirming 
 the authenticity of a reading when it agrees with 
 the Hebrew. In such a case there are two inde- 
 pendent witnesses. 
 
 It also dissipates the rigid notions entertained 
 by the Buxtorfs and others respecting the vowel- 
 points and letters. It proves that the points and 
 accents were not coeval with the consonants. 
 Besides the works referred to in the course of this 
 article, the reader may consult the Introductions 
 of Jahn, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, De Wette, and 
 Havernick ; Steudel’s treatise in Bengel’s Archiv. 
 iii. 326, sq. ; Mazade, Sur V Origine, V Age, 
 et VEtat Critique du Pent. Sam. Genf. 1830, 
 8vo; Tholuck's Lit. Anzeig. for 1833, p. 303, 
 sq. : Lees Prolegomena to Baxter's Polyglott ; 
 Professor Stuart, in the North American Review 
 for 1826, and Biblical Repository for 1832; and 
 Davidson's Lectures on Biblical Criticism 
 
 Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch. 
 — The author and date of this version are both 
 unknown. Probably it belongs to the first or 
 second century of the Christian era. It follows 
 the Hebraeo-Samaritan text word for word, gene- 
 rally furnishing the same additions and pecu- 
 liar it es as its parent exhibits. To this, however, 
 there ire several exceptions. Its agreement with 
 
 Onkelot is remarkable. Winer and De Wette, 
 however, deny that the translator used Onkelos, 
 becaus.e the hatred subsisting between the Jews 
 and Samaritans renders that circumstance im- 
 possible; yet it may be questioned whether the 
 national enmity was participated in by every 
 single individual of the Samaritans or of the 
 Jews. To say that it has been interpolated from 
 Onkelos will scarcely account for the peculiar 
 character of the version, although it is probable 
 that it has passed through several hands, and has 
 consequently been altered from its original form. 
 This version has been printed in the Paris and 
 London Polyglotts : more accurately in the latter 
 than in the former, but yet with many imperfec- 
 tions and errors. The Latin version in both is of 
 no utility. (Winer, De Versionis Pentateuchi 
 Samaritani Indole, Lips. 1817, 8vo. ; Walton's 
 Prolegomena; Gesenius, De Pent at. Samar. Ori- 
 gine, 8pc. p. 1 8 ; the Introductions of Eichhorn, 
 Bertholdt, Havernick, De Wette; and Davidson’s 
 Lectures on Biblical Criticism.) 
 
 Ti» ^a/nape it ikov. This name has been given 
 to the fragments of a supposed Greek version of 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is not certain, 
 however, whether they be the remains of an old 
 Greek translation, or glosses made upon the Sep- 
 tuagint by Origen. These fragments have been 
 collected by Morin, Hottinger, and Montfaucon, 
 out of the Greek fathers. It is probable that they 
 are the remains of a real Greek version from the 
 Samaritan, although from their paucity they are 
 of little use. (See the Introductions of Eich- 
 horn, Hltvernick, and De Wette ; Gesenius, De 
 Pentat. Samarit., 8$c. ; and Davidson’s Lectures 
 on Biblical Criticism.) — S. D. 
 
 SAMMINS. [Spices.] 
 
 SAMOS ( Xapos ), an island in the yEgean Sea, 
 near the coast of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and sepa- 
 rated only by a narrow strait from the promontory 
 which terminates in Cape Trogyllium. This 
 strait, in the narrowest part, is not quite a mile in 
 width (Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 34 ; Strabo, xiv. p. 
 634 ; comp. Leake’s map of Asia Minor). The 
 island is sometimes stated to have been famous 
 for its wines; but, in fact, the wine of Samos was 
 in ill repute. Strabo says expressly that the 
 island was ovk Rjolvos : it now, however, ranks 
 high among Levantine wines, and is largely ex- 
 ported, as are also grapes and raisins. The apostle 
 Paul touched at the island in his voyage from 
 Greece to Syria (Acts xx. 15). Samos con- 
 tained, some years ago, about 60,000 people, in- 
 habiting eighteen large villages, and about twenty 
 small ones. Vathi is the chief town of the island 
 in every respect, except that it is not the residence 
 of the governor, who lives at Colonna, which 
 takes its name from a solitary column (about fifty 
 feet high and six in diameter), a remnant of the 
 ancient temple of Juno, of which some insignifi- 
 cant remains are lying near. For further infor- 
 mation, see the travels of Pococke, Clarke, Dalla- 
 way, and Turner. 
 
 SAMOTHRACE (ZapoOpaicr)), an island in 
 the north-east part of the yEgean Sea, above the 
 Hellespont, with a lofty mountain, and a city of 
 the same name. It was anciently called Dar« 
 dana, Leucania, and also Samos; and to dis- 
 tinguish it from the other Samos, the name of 
 
676 
 
 SAMSON. 
 
 SAMSl N. 
 
 Thrace was added from its vicinity to that coun- 
 try. Hence Hdpos Qpaicps, and by contraction 
 "SaaodpaKTi, Samothrace. The island was cele- 
 brated for the mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine, 
 and was a sacred asylum (Diod. Sic. iii. 55 ; v. 
 47 ; Ptolem. Geog. v. 11 ; Plin. Hist. Nat. iv. 
 23). Paul touched at this island on his first 
 voyage to 'Europe (Acts xvi. 11). The island is 
 now called Samandrachi. It is hut thinly peo- 
 pled, and contains only a single village. The 
 mountain is described in the Missionary Herald 
 for 1836, p. 246; comp. Richter, Wallfahrt , p. 
 438, sq. 
 
 SAMSON Shimshon ; Sept. 2«/u \f/wr), 
 
 the name of the celebrated champion, deliverer, 
 and judge of Israel, equally remarkable for his 
 supernatural bodily prowess, his moral infirmi- 
 ties, and his tragical end. He was the son of 
 Manoali, of the tribe of Dan, and born a.m. 2S48, 
 of a mother whose name is no where given in the 
 Scriptures. The circumstances under which his 
 birth was announced by a heavenly messenger 
 gave distinct presage of an extraordinary cha- 
 racter, whose endowments were to be of a nature 
 suited to the providential exigencies in which he 
 was raised up. The burden of the oracle to his 
 mother, who had been long barren, was, that the 
 child with which she was pregnant was to be a 
 son, who should be a Nazarite from his birth, 
 upon whose head no razor was to come, and who 
 was to prove a signal deliverer to his people. She 
 was directed, accordingly, to conform her own 
 regimen to the tenor of the Nazarite law, and 
 strictly abstain from wine and all intoxicating 
 liquor, and from every species of impure food 
 [Nazarite], According to the ‘prophecy going 
 before upon him,’ Samson was born in the follow- 
 ing year, and his destination to great achieve- 
 ments began to evince itself at a very early age 
 by the illapses of superhuman strength which 
 came from time to time upon him. Those speci- 
 mens of extraordinary prowess, of which the slay- 
 ing of the lion at Timnath without weapons was 
 one, were doubtless the result of that special influ- 
 ence of the Most High which is referred to in Judg. 
 xiii. 25: — ‘And the spirit of the Lord began to 
 move him at times in the camp of Dan, between 
 Zorah and Eshtaol.’ The import of the original 
 word (DJ?D^) for moved is peculiar. As DJJQ, 
 the radical form, signifies an anvil , the metaphor 
 is probably drawn from the repeated and some- 
 what violent strokes of a workman with his ham- 
 mer. It implies, therefore, a peculiar urgency , 
 an impelling influence, which he could not well 
 resist in himself, nor others in him. But we do 
 not know that this attribute, in its utmost degree, 
 constantly dwelt in him. 
 
 As the position of the tribe of Dan, bordering 
 upon the territory of the Philistines, exposed them 
 especially to the predatory incursions of this people, 
 it was plainly the design of heaven to raise up a 
 deliverer in that region where he was most needed. 
 The Philistines, therefore, became very naturally 
 the objects of that retributive course of proceed- 
 ings in which Samson was to be the principal 
 actor, and upon which he could only enter by 
 seeking some occasion of exciting hostilities that 
 would bring the two peoples into direct collision. 
 Such an occasion was afforded by his meeting 
 with one of the daughters of the Philistines at 
 
 Timnath, whom he besought his parents to pr> 
 cure for him ir. marriage, assigning as a reason 
 that she 1 pleased him well,’ Heb. PTC* 
 
 Kin, She is right in mine eyes , where the original 
 for right is not an adjective, having the sense of 
 beautiful , engaging , attractive, but a verb, con- 
 veying, indeed, the idea of right, but of right 
 relative to an end, purpose, or object ; in other 
 words, of fitness or adaptation (see Gousset’s 
 Lexicon, s. v. ; and comp. 2 Sam. xvii. 4 ; 1 
 Kings ix. 12: 2 Chron. xii. 30; Num. xxviii. 
 27). This affords, we believe, the true clue to 
 Samson’s meaning, when he says, ‘ She is right in 
 mine eyes ;’ i. e. adapted to the end which I have 
 in view ; she may be used, she is available, for a 
 purpose entirely ulterior to the immediate con- 
 ned ion which I propose. That he entertained a 
 genuine affection for the woman, notwithstanding 
 the policy by which he was prompted, we may 
 doubtless admit; but that, he intended, at the 
 same time, to make this alliance subservient to 
 the great purpose of delivering his country from 
 oppression, and that in this he was acting under 
 the secret control of Providence, would seem to be 
 clear from the words immediately following, when, 
 in reference to the objection of his parents to such 
 a union, it is said, that they ‘ knew not that it was 
 of the Lord that he sought an occasion against 
 the Philistines.’ It is here worthy of note, that 
 the Hebrew, instead of ‘ against the Philistines,’ 
 has ‘ of or from the Philistines,’ clearly imply- 
 ing that the occasion sought should be one that 
 originated on the side of the Philistines. This 
 occasion he sought under the immediate prompt- 
 ing of the Most High, who saw fit, in this 
 indirect manner, to bring about the accom- 
 plishment of his designs cf retribution on his 
 enemies. His leading purpose in this seems to 
 have been to baffle the power of the whole Philis- 
 tine nation by the prowess of a single individual. 
 The champion of Israel, therefore, was not ap- 
 pointed so much to be the leader of an army, like 
 the other judges, as to be an army in himself. 
 In order then that the contest might be carried on 
 in this way, it was necessary that the entire oppo- 
 sition of the Philistines should be concentrated, as 
 far as possible, against the person of Samson. 
 This would array the contending parties in pre- 
 cisely such an attitude as to illustrate most sig- 
 nally the power of God in the overthrow of hia 
 enemies. But how could this result be brought 
 about except by means of some private quarrel 
 between Samson and the enemy with whom he 
 was to contend c l And who shall say that the 
 scheme now projected was not the very best that 
 could have been devised for accomplishing the 
 end which God had in view ? To what extent 
 Samson himself foresaw the issue of this transac- 
 tion, or how far he had a plan distinctly laid 
 corresponding with the results that ensued, it is 
 difficult to say. The probability, we think, is, 
 that he had rather a general strong impression, 
 wrought by the Spirit of God, than a definite con- 
 ception of the train of events that were to transpire. 
 It was, however, a conviction as to the issue suf- 
 ficiently powerful to warrant both him and his 
 parents in going forward with the measure. They 
 were, in someway, assured that they were engaged 
 in a proceeding which God would overrule to ths 
 furtherance of his designs of mercy to his people^ 
 and of judgment to their oppressors. 
 
SAMSON. 
 
 SAMSON. 
 
 From tliis point commences that career or 
 »chieven ients and prodigies on the part of this I3- 
 raelitish Hercules, which rendered him the terror 
 of his enemies and the wonder of all ages. At his 
 wedding-feast, the attendance of a large company 
 of paranymphs, or friends of the bridegroom, 
 convened ostensibly for the purpose of honouring 
 lis nuptials, but in reality to keep an insidious 
 jvatch upon his movements, furnished the occasion 
 of a common Oriental device for enlivening enter- 
 tainments of this nature. He propounded a 
 riddle, the solution of which referred to his ob- 
 taining a quantify of honey from the carcase 
 of a slain lion, and the clandestine manner in 
 which his guests got possession of the clue to the 
 enigma cost thirty Philistines their lives. The 
 next instance of his vindictive cunning was 
 prompted by the ill-treatment which he had re- 
 ceived at the hands of his father-in law, who, upon 
 a frivolous pretext, had given away his daughter 
 in marriage to another man, and was executed 
 by securing a multitude of foxes, or rather jackals 
 
 shualim), and, by tying firebrands to 
 
 their tails, setting fire to the cornfields of his 
 enemies. The indignation of the Philistines, on 
 discovering the author of the outrage, vented itself 
 upon the family of his father-in-law, who had 
 been the remote occasion of it, in the burning of 
 their house, in which both father and daughter 
 perished. This was a fresh provocation, for which 
 Samson threatened to be revenged ; and thereupon 
 falling upon them without ceremony he smote 
 them, as it is said, ‘ hip and thigh with a great 
 slaughter.’ The original, strictly rendered, runs, 
 ‘he smole them leg upon thigh’ — apparently a 
 proverbial expression, and implying, according to 
 Gesenius, that he cut them to pieces, so that their 
 limbs, their legs and thighs, were scattered and 
 heaped promiscuously _ together ; equivalent to 
 saying that he smote and destroyed them wholly, 
 entirely. Mr. Taylor, in his edition of Calmet, 
 recognises in these words an allusion to some 
 kind of wrestling combat , in which perhaps the 
 slaughter on this occasion may have commenced. 
 
 Having subsequently taken up his residence in 
 the rock Etam, he was thence dislodged by con- 
 senting to a pusillanimous arrangement on the 
 part of his own countrymen, by which he agreed 
 to surrender himself in bonds provided they would 
 not themselves fall upon him and kill him. He 
 probably gave into this measure from a strong 
 inward assurance that the issue of it would be, to 
 afford him a new occasion of taking vengeance 
 upon his foes. Being brought in this apparently 
 helpless condition to a place called from the event, 
 Lehi, a jaw , his preternatural potency suddenly 
 put itself forth, and snapping the cords asunder, 
 and snatching up the jaw-bone of an ass, he dealt 
 so effectually about him, that a thousand men were 
 slain on the spot. That this was altogether the 
 work, not of man, but of God, was soon demon- 
 strated. Wearied with his exertions, the illustrious 
 Danite became faint from thirst, and as there was 
 no water in the place, he prayed that a fountain 
 mi *ht be opened. His prayer was heard ; God 
 caused a stream to gush from a hollow rock hard 
 by, and Samson in gratitude gave it the name of 
 En-hakker , a word that signifies ‘ the well of him 
 that prayed,’ and which continued to be the de- 
 signation of the founta a ever after. The render- 
 
 677 
 
 ing in our version — ‘ God clave a hollow place in 
 
 the jaw’ — is unhappy, as the original is Lehi, 
 the very term which in the final clause is rendered 
 ‘ in Lehi.’ The place received its name from the 
 circumstance of his having then so effectually 
 wielded the jaw-bone (Tl^ Lehi). 
 
 The Philistines were from this time held in 
 such contempt by their victor, that he went 
 openly into the city of Gaza, where he seems 
 to have suffered himself weakly to be drawn 
 into the company of a woman of loose character, 
 the yielding to whose enticements exposed him to 
 the most imminent peril. His presence being 
 soon noised abroad, an attempt was made during 
 the night forcibly to detain him, by closing the 
 gates of the city and making them fast; but 
 Samson, apprised of it, rose at midnight, and 
 breaking away bolts, bars, and hinges, departed, 
 carrying the gates upon his shoulders, to the top 
 of a neighbouring hill that looks toward Hebron 
 
 (IVOn *03 by ; Sept. iirl irpocrdTrov t ov Xefip&v, 
 facing Hebron). The common rendering ‘ be- 
 fore Hebron’ is less appropriate, as the distance 
 between the two cities is at least twenty miles. 
 The hill lay doubtless somewhere between the 
 cities, and in full view of both. After this his 
 enemies strove to entrap him by guile rather than 
 by violence; and they were too successful in the 
 end. Falling in love with a woman of Sorek, 
 named Delilah, he became so infatuated by r his 
 passion, that nothing but his bodily strength could 
 equal his mental weakness. The princes of the 
 Philistines, aware of Samson’s infirmity, deter- 
 mined by means of it to get possession, if possible, 
 of his person. For this purpose they propose a 
 tempting bribe to Delilah, and she enters at once 
 into the treacherous compact. She employs all 
 her art and blandishments to worm from him the 
 secret of his prodigious strength. Having for 
 some time amused her with fictions, he at last, in 
 a moment of weakness, disclosed to her the fact 
 that it lay in his hair, which if it were shaved 
 would leave him a mere common man. Not that 
 his strength really lay in his hair, for this in fact 
 had no natural influence upon it one way or the 
 other. His strength arose from his relation to 
 God as a Nazarite, and the preservation of his 
 hair unshorn was the mark or sign of his Naza- 
 riteship, and a pledge on the part of God of the 
 continuance of his miraculous physical powers. 
 If he lost this sign, the badge of his consecration, 
 he broke his vow, and consequently forfeited the 
 thing signified. God abandoned him, and he 
 was thenceforward no more, in this respect, than 
 an ordinary man. His treacherous paramour 
 seized the first opportunity of putting his declara- 
 tion to the test. She shaved his head while he 
 lay sleeping in her lap, and at a concerted signal 
 he was instantly arrested by his enemies lying in 
 wait. Bereft of his grand endowment, and for- 
 saken of God, the champion of Israel could now 
 well adopt the words of Solomon ; — ‘ I find more 
 bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares 
 and nets, and her hands are bands ; whoso pleaseth 
 God shall escape from her ; but the sinner shall 
 be taken by her.’ Having so long presumptuously 
 played with his ruin, Heaven leaves him to him- 
 self, as a punishment for his former guilty indul- 
 gence. He is made to reap as he had sown, and 
 is consigned to the hands of his relentlesi foe*. 
 
678 
 
 SAMSON. 
 
 SAMUEL. 
 
 His punishment was indeed severe, though "he 
 Amply revenged it, as well as redeemed in a 
 measure his own honour, by the manner in which 
 ne mec his death. The Philistines having de- 
 prived him of sight, at first immured him in a 
 prison, and made him grind at the mill like a 
 slave. As*this was an employment which in the 
 East usually devolves on women, to assign it to 
 such a man as Samson was virtually to reduce 
 him to the lowest state of degradation and shame. 
 To grind corn for others was, even for a woman, 
 a proverbial term expressive of the most menial 
 and oppressed condition. How much more for 
 the hero of Israel, who seems to have been made 
 grinder-general for the prison-house ! 
 
 In process of time, while remaining in this 
 confinement, his hair recovered its growth, and 
 with it such a profound repentance seems to have 
 wrought in his heart as virtually re-invested him 
 with the character and the powers he had so cul- 
 pably lost. Of this fact his enemies were not 
 aware. Still exulting in their possession of the 
 great scourge of their nation, they kept him, like 
 a wild beast, for mockery and insult. On one of 
 these occasions, when an immense multitude, in- 
 cluding the princes and nobility of the Philistines, 
 were convened in a large amphitheatre, to cele- 
 brate a feast in honour of their god Dagon, who 
 had delivered their adversary into their hands, 
 Samson was ordered to be brought out to be made 
 a laughing-stock to his enemies, a butt for their 
 scoffs, insults, mockeries, and merriment. Se- 
 cretly determined to use his recovered strength 
 to tremendous effect, he persuaded the boy who 
 guided his steps to conduct him to a spot where 
 he could reach the two pillars upon whicli the 
 roof of the building rested. Here, after pausing 
 for a short time, while he prefers a brief prayer to 
 Heaven, he grasps the massy pillars, and bowing 
 with resistless force, the whole building rocks and 
 totters, and the roof, encumbered with the weight 
 of the spectators, rushes down, and the whole as- 
 sembly, including Samson himself, are crushed 
 to pieces in the ruin ! / 
 
 Thus terminated the career of one of the most 
 remarkable personages of all history, whether 
 sacred or profane. The enrolment of his name by 
 an apostolic pen (Heb. xi. 32) in the list of the 
 ancient worthies, ‘ who had by faith obtained an 
 excellent repute,’ warrants us undoubtedly in a 
 favourable estimate of his character on the whole, 
 while at the same time the fidelity of the inspired 
 narrative has perpetuated the record of infirmities 
 which must for ever mar the lustre of his noble 
 deeds. It is not improbable that the lapses with 
 which he was chargeable arose, in a measure, from 
 the very peculiarities of that physical tempera- 
 ment to which his prodigies of strength were 
 owing ; but while this consideration may palliate, 
 it cannot excuse the moral delinquencies into 
 which he was betrayed, and of which a just Pro- 
 vidence exacted so tremendous a penalty in the 
 circumstances of his degradation and death. 
 
 Upon the parallel between the achievements of 
 Samson and those of the Grecian Hercules, and 
 the derivation of the one from the other, we cannot 
 here enter. The Commentary of Adam Clarke 
 presents us with the results of M. De Lavour, an 
 ingenious French writer on this subject, from 
 which it will be seen that the coincidences are 
 extremely striking, and such as would perhaj\s 
 
 afford to most minds an additional proof of how 
 much the ancient mythologies were a distorted 
 reflection of the Scripture narrative. — G. B. 
 
 SAMUEL ; Sept. HafiovTi A), the lpst 
 
 of those extraordinary regents that presided over 
 the Hebrew commonwealth under the title of 
 Judges. The circumstances of his birth were 
 ominous of his future career. His father, El- 
 kanah of Ramathaim-Zophim, of Mount Ephraim, 
 * had two wives, the name of the one was Hannah, 
 and the name of the other Peninnah ; and Pe- 
 ninnah had children, but Hannah had no 
 children.’ The usual effect of polygamy was 
 felt in Elkanah’s household. The sterility of 
 Hannah brought upon her the taunts and ridicule 
 of her conjugal rival, who £ provoked her sore, to 
 make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her 
 womb’ (1 Sam. i. 6). The jealousy of Peninnah 
 was excited also by the superior affection which 
 was shown to Hannah by her husband. ‘ To 
 Hannah he gave a worthy portion ; for he loved 
 Hannah’ (i. 5). More especially at the period 
 of the sacred festivals did the childless solitude 
 of Hannah create within her the most poignant 
 regrets, when she saw her husband give portions 
 to all the sons and daughters of Peninnah, who, 
 exulting in maternal pride and fondness, took 
 advantage of these seasons to subject the favourite 
 wife to a natural feminine retaliation. Hannah’s 
 life was embittered, ‘ she wept and did not eat’ 
 (i. 7). On one of these occasions, during the 
 annual solemnity at Shiloh, whither Elkatiah's 
 family had travelled, ‘ to worship and to sacri- 
 fice,’ so keen was the vexation of Hannah, that 
 she left the domestic entertainment, went to the 
 tabernacle, and in the extremity of her anguish 
 implored Jehovah to give her a man-child, ac- 
 companying her supplication with a peculiar 
 pledge to dedicate this gift, should it be conferred, 
 to the service of Jehovah ; vowing to present the 
 child in entire unreserved consecration to the 
 Lord all the days of his life, and at the same 
 time to bind him to the special obligations and 
 austerities of a Nazarite. In her agony of earnest- 
 ness her lips moved, hut articulated no words, so 
 that Eli, the high priest, who had observed her 
 frantic appearance from his seat by a post of the 
 temple, ‘ thought she had been drunken,’ and 
 sharply rebuked her. Her pathetic explanation 
 removed his suspicion, and he gave her his solemn 
 benediction. Her spirit was lightened, and she 
 ‘ went her way.’ The birth of a son soon fulfilled 
 her hopes, and this child of prayer was named, in 
 memory of the prodigy, Samuei., heard of God. 
 In consequence of his mother’s vow, the boy was 
 from his early years set apart to the service of 
 Jehovah, under the immediate tutelage of Eli 
 His mother brought him to the bouse of the 
 Lord in Shiloh, and introducing herself to the 
 pontiff, recalled to his memory the peculiar cir- 
 cumstances in which he had first seen her. So 
 ‘ Samuel ministered before the Lord, being a 
 child, girded with a linen ephod’ (ii. 18). 
 
 The degeneracy of the people at this time was 
 extreme. The tribes seem to have administered 
 their affairs as independent republics, the national 
 confederacy was weak and disunited, and the 
 spirit of public patriotic enterprise had been worn 
 out by constant turmoil and invasion. Tiie 
 theocratic influence was also scarcely felt, it* 
 
SAMUEL. 
 
 peculiar ministers being withdrawn, and its ordi- 
 nary manifestations, except in the routine of the 
 Levitical ritual, having ceased ; 4 the word of the 
 Lord was precious in those days, there was no 
 open vision’ (iii. 1 ). The young devotee, 4 the 
 cliild Samuel,’ was selected by Jehovah to renew 
 the deliverance of his oracles. As he reclined in 
 his chamber adjoining the sacred edifice, the 
 Lord, by means adapted to his juvenile capacity, 
 made known to him his first and fearful com- 
 munication — the doom of Eli's apostate house. 
 Other revelations speedily followed this ; the 
 frequency of God’s messages to the young prophet 
 established his fame ; and the exact fulfilment of 
 them secured his reputation. The oracle of 
 Shiloh became vocal again through the youthful 
 fiierophant (iii. 19-21). The fearful fate pro- 
 nounced on the head and family of the pontificate 
 was soon executed. Eli had indulgently tole- 
 rated, or leniently palliated, the rapacity and pro- 
 fligacy of his sons. Through their extortions 
 and impiety 4 men abhorred the offering of the 
 Lord,’ and Jehovah’s wrath was kindled against 
 the sacerdotal transgressors. They became the 
 victims of their own folly ; for when the Philistines 
 invaded the land, an unworthy^ superstition among 
 the Hebrew host clamoured for the ark to be 
 brought into the camp and into the field of 
 battle. Hophrii and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, in- 
 dulging this vain and puerile fancy, accompanied 
 the ark as its legal guardians, and fell in the 
 terrible slaughter which ensued. Their father, 
 whose sin seems to have been his easiness of dis- 
 position, his passive and quiescent temper, sat 
 on a sacerdotal throne by the wayside, to gather 
 the earliest news of the battle, for his 4 heart 
 trembled for the ark of God;’ and as a fugitive 
 from the scene of conflict reported to him the sad 
 disaster, dwelling with natural climax on its 
 melancholy particulars — Israel routed and fleeing 
 in panic, Hophni and Phinehas both slain, and 
 the ark of God taken — this last and overpowering 
 intelligence so shocked him, that he fainted and 
 fell from his seat, and in his fall, from the 
 imbecile corpulence of age, 4 brake his neck and 
 died’ (iv. 18). When the feeble administration 
 of Eli, who had judged Israel forty years, was 
 concluded by his death, Samuel was too young 
 to succeed to the regency, and the actions of this 
 earlier portion of his life are left unrecorded. 
 The ark, which had been captured by the Philis- 
 tines, soon vindicated its majesty, and after being 
 detained among them seven months, was sent 
 back to Israel. It did not, however, reach Shiloh, 
 in consequence of the fearful judgment of Beth- 
 shemesh (vi. 19), but rested in Kirjath-jearim 
 for no fewer than twenty years (vii. 2). It is 
 not till the expiration of this period that Samuel 
 appears again in the history. Perhaps during the 
 twenty years succeeding Eli’s death, his authority 
 was gradually gathering strength, while the office 
 of supreme magistrate may have been vacant, 
 each tribe being governed by its own hereditary 
 phylarch. This long season of national humi- 
 liation was to some extent improved. 4 All the 
 house of Israel lamented after the Lord,’ and 
 Samuel, seizing upon the crisis, issued a public 
 manifesto, exposing the sin of idolatry, urging on 
 the people religious amendment, and promising 
 political deliverance on their reformation. The 
 people obeyed, the oracular mandate was effec- 
 
 SAMUEL. 678 
 
 tual, and the principles of the theocracy again 
 triumphed (vii. 4). The tribes were summoned 
 by the prophet to assemble in Mizpeh, and at this 
 assembly of the Hebrew comitia, Samuel seems 
 to have been elected regent (vii. 6). Some of 
 the judges were raised to political power, as the 
 reward of their military courage and talents, but 
 Samuel was raised to the lofty station of judge, 
 from his prophetic fame, his sagacious dispen- 
 sation of justice, his real intrepidity, and his 
 success as a restorer of the true religion. His 
 government, founded not on feats of chivalry or 
 actions of dazzling enterprise, which great emer- 
 gencies only call forth, but resting on more solid 
 qualities, essential to the growth and development 
 of a nation’s resources in times of peace, laid the 
 foundation of that prosperity which gradually 
 elevated Israel to the position it occupied in the 
 days of David and his successors. 
 
 This mustering of the Hebrews at Mizpeh on 
 the inauguration of Samuel alarmed the Philis- 
 tines, and their 4 lords went up against Israel.’ 
 Samuel assumed the functions of the theocratic 
 viceroy, offered a solemn oblation, and implored 
 the immediate protection of Jehovah. Pie was 
 answered with propitious thunder. A fearful 
 storm burst upon the Philistines, the elements 
 warred against them. 4 The Highest gave his 
 voice in the heaven, hailstones and coals of fire.’ 
 The old enemies of Israel were signally defeated, 
 and did not recruit their strength again during 
 the administration of the prophet-judge. The 
 grateful victor erected a stone of remembrance, 
 and named it Ebenezer. ^From an incidental 
 allusion (vii. 14) we learn too, that ahout this 
 time the Amorites, the Eastern foes of Israel, 
 were also at peace with them — another triumph of 
 a government 4 the weapons of whose warfare 
 were not carnal.’ The presidency of Samuel 
 appears to have been eminently successful. From 
 the very brief sketch given us of his public life, 
 we infer that the administration of justice occu- 
 pied no little share of his time and attention. 
 He went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, 
 Gilgal, and Mizpeh, places not very far distant 
 from each other, but chosen perhaps, as Winer 
 suggests, because they were the old scenes of 
 worship ( Real-wort ., ii. 444). 
 
 The dwelling of the prophet was at Ramah, 
 where religious worship was established after the 
 patriarchal model, and where Samuel, like Abra- 
 ham, built an altar to the Lord. Such procedure 
 was contrary to the letter of the Mosaic statute. 
 But the prophets had power to dispense with or- 
 dinary usage (De Wette, Bib. Dogmat. § 70 ; 
 Knobel, Tier Prophetism. d. Heb. i. 39 ; Koester, 
 Der Proph. d. A. & N. T. p. 52). In this case 
 the reason of Samuel’s conduct may be found in 
 the state of the religious economy. The ark yet 
 remained at Kirjath-jearim, where it had been 
 left in terror, and where it lay till David fetched 
 it to Zion. There seems to have been no place of 
 resort for the tribes, the present station of the ark not 
 having been chosen for its convenience as a scene 
 of religious assembly. The shrine at Shiloh, 
 which had been hallowed ever since the settle- 
 ment in Canaan, had been desolate from the date 
 of the death of Eli and his sons — so desolate as to 
 become in future years a prophetic symbol of 
 divine judgment (Jer. vii. 12-14; xxri. 6). In 
 such a period of religious anarchy and confusion, 
 
680 
 
 SAMUEL. 
 
 SAMUEL. 
 
 Samuel, a theocratic guardian, might, without any 
 violation of the spirit of the law, superintend the 
 mblic woiship of Jehovah in the vicinity of his 
 labitation (Knobel, Prophet, der Heb. ii. 32). 
 
 In Samuel's old age two of his sons were ap- 
 pointed by him deputy-judges in Beersheba. 
 These young men possessed not their father’s in- 
 tegrity of spirit, but ‘ turned aside after lucre, took 
 bribes, and perverted judgment ’ (1 Sam. viii. 3). 
 The advanced years of the venerable ruler himselt 
 and his approaching dissolution, the certainty that 
 none of his family could fill his office with advan- 
 tage to the country, the horror of a period of anar- 
 chy which his death might occasion, the necessity 
 of having some one to put an end to tribal jealou- 
 sies and concentrate the energies of the nation, 
 especially as there appeared to be symptoms of 
 renewed warlike preparations on the part of the 
 Ammonites (xii. 12) — these considerations seem to 
 have led the elders of Israel to adopt the bold 
 step of assembling at Ramah and soliciting 
 Samuel ‘ to make a king to judge them.’ The 
 proposed change from a republican to a regal 
 form of government displeased Samuel for various 
 reasons. Besides its being a departure from the 
 first political institute, and so far an infringement 
 on the rights of the divine head of the theocracy, 
 it was regarded by the regent as a virtual charge 
 against himself, and might appear to him as one 
 of those examples of popular fickleness and in- 
 gratitude which the history of every realm ex- 
 hibits in profusion. Jehovah comforts Samuel 
 In this respect by saying, ‘ They have not rejected 
 thee, but they have rejected me.’ Being warned 
 of God to accede to their request for a king, and 
 yet to remonstrate with the people, and set before 
 the nation the perils and tyranny of a monarchical 
 government (viii. 10), Samuel proceeded to the 
 election of a sovereign. Saul, son of Kish, ‘a 
 choice young man and a goodly,’ whom he had 
 met unexpectedly, was pointed out to him by 
 Jehovah as the king of Israel, and by the prophet 
 was anointed and saluted as monarch. Samuel 
 again convened the nation at Mizpeh, again with 
 honest zeal condemned their project, but caused 
 the sacred lot to be taken. The lot fell on Saul. 
 The prophet now formally introduced him to 
 the people, who shouted in joyous acclamation, 
 
 ‘ God save the king.’ 
 
 Not content with oral explanations, this last of 
 the republican chiefs not only told the people the 
 manner of the kingdom, ‘ but wrote it in a book 
 and laid it up before the Lord.’ What is here 
 asserted of Samuel may mean, that he extracted 
 from the Pentateuch the recorded provision of 
 Moses for a future monarchy, and added to it such 
 warnings, and counsels, and safeguards as his 
 inspired sagacity might suggest. Saul s first 
 battle being so successful, and the preparations 
 for it displaying no ordinary energy and prompti- 
 tude of character, his popularity was suddenly 
 advanced, and his throne secured. Taking ad- 
 vantage of the general sensation in favour of 
 Saul, Samuel cited the people to meet again in 
 Gilgal, to renew the kingdom, to ratify the new 
 constitution, and solemnly instal the sovereign 
 (xi. 14). Here the upright judge made a power- 
 ful appeal to the assembly in vindication of his 
 government. ‘ Witness against me before the 
 Lord, and before his anointed ; whose ox have I 
 mu t or wdose ass have I taken ? or whom have 
 
 I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or at 
 whose hand have I received any bribe to blind 
 mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you. 
 The whole multitude responded in unanimous 
 approval of his honesty and intrepidity (xii. 3, 4). 
 Then he, still jealous of God’s prerogative and 
 the civil rights of his people, briefly narrated 
 their history, showed them how they never wanted 
 chieftains to defend them when they served God, 
 and declared that it was distrust of God’s raising 
 up a new leader in a dreaded emergency that 
 excited the outcry for a king. In proof of this 
 charge — a charge which convicted them of great 
 wickedness in the sight of God— he appealed to 
 Jehovah, who answered in a fearful hurricane of 
 thunder and rain. The te-rrified tribes confessed 
 their guilt, and besought Samuel to intercede 
 for them in his disinterested patriotism. 
 
 It is said (vii. ID) that Samuel judged Israel 
 all the days of his life. The assertion may mean 
 that even after Saul’s coronation Samuel's power, 
 though formally abdicated, was yet actually felt 
 and exercised in the direction of state affairs 
 (Havernick, Einleit. in das A. T., § 166). No 
 enterprise could be undertaken without Samuel’s 
 concurrence. His was an authority higher than 
 the king’s. We find Saul, having mustered his 
 forces, about to march against the Philistines, 
 yet delaying to do so till Samuel consecrated the 
 undertaking. He came not at the time appointed, 
 as Saul thought, and the impatient monarch pro- 
 ceeded to offer sacrifice — a fearful violation of the 
 national law. The prophet arrived as the reli- 
 gious service was concluded, and rebuking Saul 
 for his presumption, distinctly hinted at the short 
 continuance of his kingdom. Again we find 
 Samuel charging Saul with the extirpation of the 
 Amalekites. The royal warrior proceeded on 
 the expedition, but obeyed not the mandate of Je- 
 hovah. His apologies, somewhat craftily framed, 
 for his inconsistencies, availed him not with the 
 prophet, and he was by the indignant seer 
 virtually dethroned. He had forfeited his crown 
 by disobedience to God. Yet Samuel mourned 
 for him. His heart seems to have been set on 
 the bold athletic soldier. But now the Lord 
 directed him to make, provision for the future 
 government of the country (xvi. 1). To prevent 
 strife and confusion it was necessary, in the cir- 
 cumstances, that the second king should be ap- 
 pointed ere the first sovereign’s demise. Samuel 
 went to Bethlehem and set apart the youngest of 
 the sons of Jesse, ‘ and came to see Saul no more 
 till the day of his death.’ Yet Saul and he met 
 once again at Naioth, in Ramah (xix. 24), when 
 the king was pursuing David. As on a former 
 occasion, the spirit of God came upon him as he 
 approached the company of the prophets with Sa- 
 muel presiding over them, and ‘ he prophesied and 
 lay down naked all that day and all that night.’ 
 A religious excitement seized him, the contagious 
 influence of the music and rhapsody fell upon his 
 nervous, susceptible temperament, and overpower- 
 ed him. At length Samuel died (xxv. 1), and 
 'all Israel mourned for him, and buried him in his 
 house at Ramah. The troubles of Saul increased, 
 and there was none to give him counsel and 
 solace. Jehovah answered him not in the ordi- 
 nary mode of oracular communication, ‘ by 
 dreams, Urim, or prophets.’ His chafed and 
 melancholy spirit could find nc rest, and r* 
 
SAMUEL. 
 
 *orted to the sad expedient of consulting ‘ a 
 woman that had a familiar spirit’ (xxviii. 3-7). 
 The sovereign in disguise entered her dwelling, 
 and he of whom the prot erb was repeated, ‘ Is Saul 
 also among the prophets ? ’ was found in consult- 
 ation with a sorceress. This is not the place to 
 enter into a discussion of this subject [Saul]. 
 We follow the inspired narrative, and merely say 
 that Saul strangely wished to see Samuel recalled 
 
 from the dead, that Samuel himself (NlPl 
 made his appearance suddenly, and, to the great 
 terror of the necromancer, heard the mournful com- 
 plaint of Saul, and pronounced his speedy deathon 
 an ignoble field of loss and massacre (Henderson, 
 On Divine Inspiration, p. 165 ; Hales’ Chronology, 
 vol. ii. p. 323 ; Scott, On the Existence of Evil 
 Spirits , &c., p. 232). 
 
 We have reserved a few topics for discussion, 
 that we might not interrupt the brief narrative. 
 It is almost superfluous to say that the derivation 
 of the prophet's name to which we have referred 
 is preferable to others which nave been proposed — * 
 
 such as DE2, name of God; asked 
 
 of God ; or Deus posuit. The opinion 
 
 was in former times very current, that Samuel 
 was a priest, nay, some imagine that he suc- 
 ceeded Eli in the pontificate. Many of the 
 fathers inclined to this notion, but Jerome affirms 
 (Advers. Jovin.) : Sa?nuel Propheta fuit. Judex 
 fuit , Levita fuit, non Pontifex, ne Sacerdos 
 quidem (Ortlob, Samuel Judex et Propheta non 
 Pont, aut Sacerd. Sacrificans ; Thesaurus Novus 
 Theol. Philol. Hasaei et Ikenii, i. 587 ; Selden, 
 De Success, ad Pontiff ., lib. i. c. ’ 4). That 
 Samuel was a Levite is apparent from 1 Chron. vi. 
 22-28, but there is no evidence of his being a 
 priest. The, sacerdotal acts ascribed to him 
 were performed by him as an extraordinary legate 
 of heaven. The American translator of De 
 Wette’s Introduction to the Old Testament (ii. 
 21) says he was a priest, though not of Levitical 
 descent, slighting ‘he information of Chronicles, 
 and pronouncing Samuel at the same time to be 
 only a mythical character. Samuel's birth-place 
 was Ratnathaim-Zophim ; the dual form of the 
 first term, according to some, signifying one of 
 the two Ramahs.to wit, that of the Zophites (Light- 
 foot, vol. ii. 162, ed. 1832); and the second term 
 (D'Dl^). according to others, meaning specula- 
 tores, i.e., prophets, and denoting, that at this place 
 was a school of the prophets — an hypothesis sup- 
 ported by the Chaldee paraphrast, who renders it, 
 
 ’ Elkanah a man of Ramatha, a disciple of the 
 
 prophets ’ (WXi: H^nD). Others find in the 
 dual form of DTlQ’l a reference to the shape of 
 the city, which was built on the sides of two hills ; 
 Hid in the word Zophim, see an allusion to some 
 watch-towers, or places of observation, which the 
 high situation of the city might favour (Clerici 
 Opera , in 175). Others again affirm that the word 
 is added because Ramah or Ramatha was 
 inhabited by a clan of Levites of the family of 
 (Calmet, sub voce). Winer asserts ( Real - 
 wort. art. ‘ Samuel ’) that the first verse of the 
 book declares Samuel, to be an Ephraimite 
 ('rnQfc$). This term, however, if the genealogy 
 in Chronicles remain undisturbed, must signify 
 Dot an Ephraimite by birth, but by abode, 4 domi- 
 cilii ratione non sanguinis ’ (Selden, l. <?.). We 
 
 SAMUEL. 681 
 
 find that the Kohathites, to whom Samuel be- 
 longed, had their lot in Mount Ephraim (Josh, 
 xxi. 5-20), where TH signifies, not the hill 
 
 of Ephraim, but the hill-country of Ephraim 
 (Gesenius, Thesaur. sub voce). The family of 
 Zoph, living in the lull-country of Ephraim, 
 might be termed Ephrathite, while their ancestor’s 
 name distinguished their special locality, as Ra- 
 mathaim-Zophim. The geography ol this place 
 has been disputed [Ramaii]. Eusebius and 
 Jerome confound it with Arimathea of the New 
 Testament ( Onomast . art. Armatha Sophim). 
 The Seventy render it ’A ppaQal/x 'S.uxplp., Cod. A., 
 or Cod. B. 'Appadal/n 2upd. For an account of 
 the place now and for long called Neby Samwel, 
 and the impossibility of its being the ancient. 
 Ramah, see Robinson’s Palestine, ii. 141 ; and for 
 an interesting discussion as to the site of Ramath- 
 Zophim, the latter name being yet retained in 
 the Arabic term S6bah, the curious reader may 
 consult the same work (ii. 830), or Robinson’s 
 Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 46. The hilly range of 
 Ephraim extended southward into other cantons, 
 
 while it bore its original name of D’HSW "IH ; and 
 so the inhabitants of Ramathaim-Zophim might 
 be termed Ephrathif.es, just as Mahlon and 
 Chilion are called ‘ Ephgathites of Beth-lehem- 
 judah’ (Ruth i. 2). 
 
 Specific data are not afforded us for deter- 
 mining the length of either Samuel's life or his 
 administration. Josephus mentions that he was 
 twelve years of age when his first oracle was com- 
 municated to him. As the calculation of the 
 duration of Samuel's life and government depends 
 upon the system of Chronology adopted, the 
 reader may turn to the article Judges, and to 
 the comparative chronological table which is 
 there given. 
 
 Samuel’s character presents itself to us as one of 
 uncommon dignity and patriotism. His chief 
 concern was his country’s weal. Grotius cx>m- 
 pares him to Aristides, and Saul to Alcibiades 
 ( Opera Theol. tom. i. p. 119). To preserve the 
 worship of the one Jehovah, the God of Israel, to 
 guard the liberties and rights of the people, to 
 secure them from hostile invasion and internal 
 disunion, was the grand motive of his life. His 
 patriotism was not a Roman love of conquest or 
 empire. The subjugation of other people was 
 only sought when they disturbed the peace of bis 
 country. He was loath indeed to change the 
 form of government, yet. he did it with con- 
 summate policy. First of all he resorted to the 
 divine modeof appeal to the Omniscient Ruler — 
 a solemn sortilege — and brought. Saul so chosen 
 before the people, and pointed him out to them as 
 peerless in his form and aspect. Then, waiting 
 till Saul should distinguish himself by some 
 victorious enterprise, and receiving him fresh 
 from the slaughter of the Ammonites, he again 
 confirmed him in his kingdom, while the national 
 enthusiasm, kindled by his triumph, made him the 
 popular idol. Samuel thus, for the sake of future 
 *peace, took means to show that Saul was both 
 chosen of God and yet virtually elected by the 
 people. This procedure, so cautious and so 
 generous, proves how little foundation there is foi 
 the remarks which have been made against Samuel 
 by some writers, such as Schiller (Neue Thalia , 
 iv. 94), Vatke (Bibl. Theol. p. 360), and the in- 
 
682 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 famous Wolfenbiittel Flagmen tist (p. 200, ed. 
 Schmidt). 
 
 The power of Samuel with God, as an interces- 
 sor for the people, is compared to that of Moses 
 (Jer. xv. 1 ; Ps. xcix. 6). He was the first of a 
 series of prophets that continued in an unbroken 
 line till the close of the Old Testament Canon 
 (Acts iii. 24 ; Augustin. De Civ. Dei , 1. xvii.). It 
 is in the days of Samuel that mention is first made 
 of the schools of the prophets. It is natural to 
 suppose that he was to some extent their originator. 
 In the prospect, of a regal form of government he 
 seem? to have made the prophetic office a formal 
 institute in the Jewish nation. These Acade- 
 mies were famous for the cultivation of poetry 
 and music, and from among their members God 
 might select his special servants (Gram berg, 
 Religions-id. ii. 264 ; Vit^inga, Synag. Vet. i. 
 2, 7 ; W erenfels, Diss. de Scholis Prophetar. ; De 
 Wette, Comm. lib. d. Psalm, p. 9). For a different 
 view of the schools see Tholuck's Literar. An- 
 zeiger , 1831, i. 38. We are informed (1 Chron. 
 ix. 22) that the allocation of the Levites 
 for the temple-service was made by David and 
 Samuel the seer, i. c., that David followed some 
 plan or suggestion of the deceased prophet. It 
 is stated also (xxvi. 28) that the prophet had 
 made some munificent donations to the tabernacle, 
 which seems to have been erected at Nob, and 
 afterwards at Gibeon, though the ark was in 
 Kirjath-jearim. Lastly (xxix. 29), the. acts of 
 David the king are said to be written in the book 
 of Samuel the seer. The high respect in which 
 Samuel was held by the Jewish nation in after 
 ages, may be learned from the eulogy pronounced 
 upon him by the son of Siracli (Eccles. xlvi. 
 13-20). His fame was not confined to Israel. 
 The remains of Samuel, according to Jerome 
 ( Advers . Vigil.), were, under tire emperor Ar- 
 cadius, brought with great pomp to Thrace 
 (D'Herbelot, Bill. Orient, pp. 735, 1021 ; Hot- 
 tinger, His tor. Oriental, i. 3). — J. E. 
 
 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. The two books 
 of Samuel were anciently reckoned as but one 
 
 among the Jews, “)DD. That they 
 
 form only one treatise is apparent from their 
 structure. The present division into two books, 
 common in our Hebrew Bibles since the editions 
 of Bomberg, was derived from the Septuagint 
 and Vulgate, in both which versions they are 
 termed the First and Second Books of Kings. 
 Thus Origen (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25), 
 in his famous catalogue of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 names the books of Samuel — PcunAeTuv itowtt] 
 Sevrepa, trap' aurois %v Sa/iovijA, 6 Qc6kAt)tos ; and 
 Jerome thus describes them ( Prolog . Galeatus), 
 
 * tertius sequitur Samuel, quern nos regum primum 
 - et secundum dicimus.’ Noffe of these titles, 
 ancient or modern, is very felicitous. To call 
 them Books of Samuel is, if we follow the analogy 
 of the phrases, Books of Moses, Book of Isaiah, 
 to assert the prophet to be their author, though a 
 great portion of the events recorded in them hap- 
 pened after his death. The title Books of Kings, 
 or Kingdoms, is by no means an accurate indi- 
 cation of their contents, as they refer only to two 
 monarchs, and the narrative does not even include 
 the death of David. But if they be named after 
 Samuel, as he was a principal agent in the events 
 recorded in taem, then the title is only appropriate 
 
 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 to a few of the introductory chapters. Jewish 
 opinion is divided on the reason of the Hebrew 
 name. It is affirmed in Baba Bat lira ffol. 15, 
 cap. i.), that Samuel wrote the book so called, ami 
 also Judges and Ruth ; and Abarbanel argues that 
 these compositions are named after Samuel be- 
 cause the events narrated in them may l>e referred 
 to him, either as a person or as a chief instrument, 
 for Saul and David, being both anointed by the 
 prophet, became ‘opus veluti manuum’ (Proof, 
 in lib. Sam. fol. 74, col. i.) The source of the 
 appellation, fiacriAeuv or f}a<riAeuov, Regum, is 
 to be found in the historic resemblance of the 
 books of Samuel to those which come after them, 
 and to which they serve as an introduction. On 
 the other hand, it was desirable to have short 
 names for the books of Scripture ; ami as Samuel 
 was a prophet, of such celebrity, and had such 
 influence in changing the form of government 
 under which the son of Kish and the son of Jesse 
 became sovereigns, it was natural to name after 
 him the biographical tracts in which the life and 
 times of these royal chieftains are briefly sketched : 
 especially as they at the same time contain 
 striking descriptions of the miracle of his own 
 birth, the oracles of his youth, and the impressive 
 actions of his long career. The selection of this 
 Jewish name might also be strengthened by the 
 national belief of the authorship of a large portion 
 of the work, founded on the language of 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 29. 
 
 Contents. — The contents of the books of Sa- 
 muel belong to an interesting period of Jewish 
 history. The preceding book of Judges refers to 
 the affairs of the republic as they were admi- 
 nistered after the Conquest, when the nation was 
 a congeries of independent cantons, sometimes 
 partially united for a season under an extraordi- 
 nary dictator. As, however, the mode of govern- 
 ment was changed, and remained monarchical till 
 the overthrow of the kingdom, it was of national 
 importance to note the time, method, and means 
 of the alteration. This change happening under 
 the regency of the wisest and best of their sages, 
 his life became a topic of interest. The first book 
 of Samuel gives an account of his birth and early 
 call to the duties of a seer, under Eli’s pontificate ; 
 describes the low and degraded condition of the 
 people, oppressed by foreign enemies ; proceeds 
 to narrate the election of Samuel as judge ; his 
 prosperous regency ; the degeneracy of his sons ; 
 the clamour for a change in the civil constitution ; 
 the installation of Saul ; his rash and reckless 
 character; his neglect of, or opposition to, the 
 theocratic elements of the government. Then 
 the historian goes on to relate God’s choice 
 of David as king; his endurance of long and 
 harassing persecution from the reigning sove- 
 reign ; the melancholy defeat and death of Saul 
 on the field of Gilboa ; the gradual elevation of 
 the man ‘according to Gods own heart’ to uni- 
 versal dominion ; his earnest efforts to obey and 
 follow out the principles of the theocracy ; his 
 formal establishment of religious worship at Jeru- 
 salem, now the capital of the nation ; and his 
 series of victories over all the enemies of Judaea 
 that were wont to molest its frontiers. The an- 
 nalist. records David’s aberrations from the path 
 of duty ; the unnatural rebellion of his soa 
 Absalom, and its suppression; his carrying into 
 effect a census of his dominions, and the Di- 
 
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 
 
 trine punishment which this act incurred ; and 
 concludes with a few characteristic sketches of 
 his military staff. The second book of Samuel, 
 while it relates the last words of David, yet stops 
 short of his death. As David was the real founder 
 of the monarchy and arranger of the religious 
 economy ; the great hero, legislator, and poet of 
 his country; as his dynasty maintained itself on 
 the throne of Judah till the Babylonian invasion ; 
 it is not a matter of wonder that the description 
 of his life and government occupies so large a 
 portion of early Jewish history. The books of 
 Samuel thus consist of three interlaced biographies 
 — those of Samuel, Saul, and David. 
 
 Age and AuthorshijJ. — The attempt to ascer- 
 tain the authorship of this early history is attended 
 with difficulty. Ancient opinion is in favour of 
 the usual theory, that the first twenty-four chap- 
 ters were written by Samuel, and the rest by 
 Nathan and Gad. Abarbanel, however, and 
 Grotius, suppose Jeremiah to be the author (Grot. 
 Prcef. in 1 Sam.). The peculiar theory of Jahn 
 is, that the four books of Samuel and Kings were 
 written by the same person, and at a date so recent 
 as the 30th year of the Babylonish captivity. His 
 arguments, however, are more ingenious than 
 solid ( Introduction , Turner’s Translation, § 46). 
 The fact of all the four treatises being named 
 Books of Kings, Jahn insists upon as a proof 
 that they were originally undivided and formed 
 a single work — a mere hypothesis, since the 
 similarity of their contents might easily give 
 rise to this general title, while the more 
 ancient appellation for the first two was The 
 Books of Samuel. Jahn also lays great stress on 
 the uniformity of method in all the books. But 
 this uniformity by no means amounts to any proof 
 of identity of authorship. It is nothing more 
 than the same Hebrew historical style. The more 
 minute and distinctive features, so far from being 
 similar, are very different. The books of Samuel 
 and Kings may be contrasted in many of those 
 peculiarities which mark a different writer : — - 
 
 1. In the books of Kings there occur not a few 
 references to the laws of Moses, while in Samuel 
 not one of these is to be found. 
 
 2. The books of Kings repeatedly cite au- 
 thorities, to which appeal is made, and the reader 
 is directed to the ‘ Acts of Solomon,’ ‘ the book of 
 the Chronicles of Kings,’ or ‘Judah.’ But in 
 the books of Samuel there is no formal allusion 
 to any such sources of information. 
 
 3. The nature of the history in the two works is 
 very different. The plan of the books of Samuel 
 is not that, of the books of Kings. The books of 
 Samuel are more of a biographical character, 
 and are more limited and personal in their view. 
 They may be compared to such a work as 
 Tytler’s Henry VIII., while Kings bears an 
 analogy to such general annals as are found in 
 Hume’s history of England. 
 
 4. There are in the books of Kings many 
 later forms of language. For a collection of 
 some of these the reader is referred to De Wette 
 ( Einleit . in das A. T. §. 185, note e). Scarcely 
 any of those more recent or Chaldaic forms oocur 
 in Samuel. Some peculiarities of form are noted 
 by De Wette (§. 180), but they are not so nume- 
 rous or distinctive as to give a general character 
 to the treatise (Hirzel, De Chaldaismi Bibl. 
 oripine, 1830). Many modes of expression, com- 
 
 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 683 
 
 mon in Kings, are absent from Samuel [Kings-. 
 Books ok]. 
 
 5. The concluding chapters of the second book 
 of Samuel are in the form of an appendix to the 
 work — a proof of its completeness. The connection 
 between Samuel and Kings is thus interrupted 
 It appears, then, that Samuel claims a distinct 
 authorship from the Books of Kings. Stiihelin, in 
 Tholuck’s Literar, Anz., 1838, supposes that the 
 division between the two treatises has not been 
 correctly made, and that the two commencing 
 chapters of 1 Kings belong to Samuel. This lie 
 argues on philological grounds, because the terms 
 
 'rnsni (i Kings i. 38), ^23 (i. 
 
 12), and HIS (i. 29), are found nowhere 
 in Kings but in the first two chapters, while they 
 occur once and again in Samuel. There is cer- 
 tainly something peculiar in this affinity, though 
 it may be accounted for on the principle, that 
 the author of the pieces or sketches which form 
 the basis of the initial portions of 1 Kings, not 
 only composed those which form the conclusion 
 of Samuel, but also supervised or published the 
 whole work which is now called by the prophet’s 
 name. 
 
 Thus the books of Samuel have an authorship 
 of their own — an authorship belonging to a very 
 early period. While their tone and style are very 
 different from the later records of Chronicles, 
 they are also dissimilar to the books of Kings. 
 They bear the impress of a hoary age in their 
 language, allusions, and mode of composition. 
 The insertion of odes and snatches of poetry, 
 to enliven and verify the narrative, is common 
 to them with the Pentateuch. The minute 
 sketches and vivid touches w r ith which they 
 abound, prove that their author ‘ speaks what he 
 knows, and testifies what he has seen.’ As if the » 
 chapters had been extracted from a diary, some 
 portions are more fully detailed and warmly 
 coloured than others, according as the observer 
 was himself impressed. Many of the incidents, 
 in their artless and natural delineation, would 
 form a fine study for a painter; so truly does 
 De Wette ( Einleit . § 178) remark, that the book 
 abounds in ‘lively pictures of character.’ 
 
 Besides, it is certainly a striking circumstance, 
 that the books of Samuel do not record David’s 
 death, though they give his last words — his last 
 inspired effusion (Havernick, Einleit. §. 167). We 
 should reckon it natural for an author, if ne had 
 lived long after David’s time and were writing 
 his life, to finish his history with an account 
 of the sovereign’s death. Had the books of Samuel 
 and Kings sprung from the same source, then 
 the abrupt conclusion of one portion of the work, 
 containing David’s life down to his last days, 
 and yet omitting all notice of his death, might 
 be ascribed to some unknown capricious motive of 
 the author. But we have seen that the two trea- 
 tises exhibit many traces of a different authorship. 
 What reason, then, can be assigned for the writer 
 of Samuel giving a full detail of David’s life, and 
 actions, and government, and yet failing to record 
 his decease? The plain inference is, that th« 
 document must have been composed prior to the 
 monarch’s death, or at least about that period. 
 
 If we should find a memoir of George the Third, 
 entering fully into his private and family history, 
 as well as describing his cabinets, councillor^ 
 
684 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 and parliaments, the revolutions, and wars, and 
 state of feeling under his government, and ending 
 with an account of the appointment of a regent, 
 and a reference to the king’s lunacy, our con- 
 clusion would be, that the history was composed 
 before the year 1820. A history of David, down to 
 the verge of his dissolution, yet not including that 
 event, must have been written before the monarch 
 4 slept with his fathers.’ We are therefore inclined 
 to think that the books, or at least the materials 
 out of which they have been formed, were con- 
 temporaneous with the events recorded ; that the 
 document out of which the sketch of David’s life 
 was compiled was composed and finished before 
 his death. 
 
 Against this opinion as to the early age of the 
 books of Samuel various objections have been 
 brought. The phrase ‘ unto this day’ is often em- 
 ployed in them to denote the continued existence of 
 customs, monuments, and names, whose origin has 
 been described by the annalist (1 Sam. v. 5 ; vi. 18; 
 xxx. 25). This phrase, however, does not always 
 indicate that a long interval of time elapsed 
 between the incident and such a record of its dura- 
 tion. It was a common idiom. Joshua (xxii. 3) 
 uses it of the short time mat Reuben, Gad, and 
 the half-tribe of Manasseh, had fought in concert 
 with the other tribes in the subjugation of Canaan. 
 So, again, he (xxiii. 9) employs it to specify the 
 time that intervened between the entrance into 
 Canaan, and his resignation of the command on 
 account of his approaching decease. Matthew, 
 in his Gospel (xxvii. 8, and xxviii. 15), uses it 
 of the period between the death of Christ and 
 the composition of his book. Reference is made - 
 in Samuel to the currency of a certain proverb 
 (1 Sam. x. 12), and to the disuse of the term 
 seer (1 Sam. ix. 9), but in a manner which by 
 no means implies an authorship long posterior to 
 the time of the actual circumstances. The pro- 
 verb, ‘ Is Saul also among the prophets?’ was one 
 which for many reasons would obtain rapid and 
 universal circulation : and if no other hypothesis 
 be considered satisfactory, we may suppose that 
 the remark about the term 4 seer ’ becoming 
 obsolete may be the parenthetical insertion of a 
 later hand. Or it may be that in Samuel’s days 
 the term fcfOJ came to be technically used in his 
 school of the prophets. 
 
 More opposed to our view of the age of these 
 books is the statement made in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6 — 
 
 ‘ Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto 
 this day’ — a form of language, according to De 
 Wette (§ 180), which could not have been em- 
 ployed before the separation of the nation into 
 the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Hilvernick 
 remarks, however (§ 169), that Ziklag belonged 
 first to Judah, and then to Simeon, ere it fell into 
 the hands of the Philistines ; and the expression de- 
 notes not that the city reverted to its former owners, 
 but that it became the property of David, and of 
 David’s successors as sovereigns of the territory 
 of Judah. Judah is not used in opposition to the 
 ten tribes; and the writer means to say that 
 Ziklag became a royal possession in consequence 
 of its being a gift to David, and to such as might 
 have regal power over Judah. The names Israel 
 and Judah were used in the way of contrast even 
 in David's time, as De Wette himself admits 
 (1 Sam. xviii. 16 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 ; v. 15 ; xix. 
 41 43; xx 2) 
 
 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF, 
 
 It is said in 1 Chron. xxix. 29, ‘ Now the acts 
 of David the king, first and last, behold, they are 
 written in the book of Samuel the seer, and iu 
 the hook of Nathan the prophet, and in the book 
 of Gad the seer.* The old opinion as to the 
 authorship of Samuel, to which we have already 
 alluded, was founded on this quotation. The 
 prophets were wont to write a history of their own 
 times. That Samuel did so in reference to the 
 great events of his life, is evident from the state- 
 ment that he ‘ wrote the manner of the kingdom 
 in a book, and laid it up before the Lord’ (1 Sam. 
 
 x. 25). The phrase, may not refer 
 
 to our present Samuel, which is not so compre- 
 hensive as this collection seems to have been. 
 It does not, like the treatise to which the author 
 of Chronicles refers, include ‘the acts of David, 
 first and last.’ 
 
 The annals which these three seers compiled 
 were those of their own times in succession 
 (Kleinert, Aechtheit d. Jes. Pt. I. p. 83); so 
 that there existed a history of contemporary events 
 written by three inspired men. The portion 
 written by Samuel might include his own life, 
 and the greater part of Saul’s history, as well as 
 the earlier portion of David’s career. Gad was 
 a contemporary of David, and is termed his seer. 
 Probably also he was one of his associates in 
 his various wanderings (1 Sam. xxii. 5). In 
 the latter part of David’s reign Nathan was a 
 prominent counsellor, and assisted at the coro- 
 nation of Solomon. We have therefore prophetic 
 materials for the books of Samuel. Havernick 
 (§ 161) supposes there was another source of in- 
 formation to which the author of Samuel might 
 resort, namely, the annals of David’s reign — a 
 conjecture not altogether unlikely, as may be 
 seen by his reference to 2 Sam. viii. 17, com- 
 pared with 1 Chron. xxvii. 24. The accounts 
 of David’s heroes and their mighty feats, with 
 the estimate of their respective bravery, have the 
 appearance of a contribution by Seruiah, the 
 scribe, or principal secretary of state. We do not 
 affirm that the various chapters of these books 
 may be definitely portioned out among Samuel, 
 Gad, and Nathan, or that they are a composition 
 proceeding immediately from these persons. We 
 hold them to be their production in the sense of 
 primary authorship, though, as we now have 
 them, they bear the marks of being a compilation. 
 
 Another evident source from which materials 
 have been brought, is a collection of poetic com- 
 positions — some Hebrew anthology. We have, 
 first, the song of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, 
 which is not unlike the hymn of the Virgin re- 
 corded by Luke. That song is by no means an 
 anachronism, as has been rashly supposed by 
 some critics, such as Hensler ( Erl'duter d. 1 B. 
 Sam. 12), and the translator of De W ette (ii. 222). 
 The latter considers it entirely inappropriate, and 
 regards its mention of King and Messiah , as be- 
 traying its recent and spurious birth. The Song 
 is one of ardent gratitude to Jehovah. It pourtrays 
 his sovereign dispensations, asserts the character of 
 his government to be, that he ‘ resisteth the proud, 
 and giveth grace to the humble,’ and concludes 
 with a prophetic aspiration, in pious keeping with 
 the spirit of the theocracy, and with the great pro- 
 mise, which it so zealously cherished (Hengsten- 
 berg, Die Authentic des Pentat. ii. 115). 2 Saas. 
 
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 68A 
 
 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 L l8, also contains an extract from the book of 
 Jaaher, viz. a composition of the sweet singer of 
 Israel, named ‘ the Song of the Bow.’ Besides, 
 there is the chorus of a poem which was sung on 
 David’s return from the slaughter of the Philistine 
 giant (1 Sam. xviii.7). There are also three hymns 
 of David (2 Sam. vii. 18-29), in which the king 
 offers up his grateful devotions to Jehovah (2 Sam. 
 xxii.) ; a triumphal ode, found with some altera- 
 tions in the 18th Psalm and in 1 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, 
 which preserves the last words of the ‘anointed of 
 the God of Jacob.’ To these may be added the 
 remains of a short elegy on the death of Abner 
 (2 Sam. iii. 33-4). Whether all these effusions, 
 as well as the lament over David and Jonathan, 
 were taken from Jasher, we know not. It may 
 be that they were drawn from this common source, 
 this national collection of the Hebrew muse. At 
 least, some critics, who compare the long hymn 
 found in 2 Sam. xxii., and which forms the 
 eighteenth psalm, and note the variations of the 
 text, are inclined to think that the one has not 
 been copied from the other, but that both have been 
 taken from a very old common source : a conjec- 
 ture far more natural than the ordinary hypothesis, 
 namely, that David either published a second 
 edition of his poem, or that the varies lectiones are 
 the errors of transcribers. At all events the com- 
 piler of the books of Samuel has evidently used as 
 one of his sources some collection of poetry* Such 
 collections often contain the earliest history of a 
 nation, and they seem to have abounded among 
 the susceptible people of the East. 
 
 Thus, from such sources, public and acknow- 
 ledged, has the compiler fetched his materials, in 
 the shape of connected excerpts. The last of the 
 prophetic triumvirate might be the redactor oi 
 editor of the work, and we would not date its 
 publication later than the death of Nathan, while 
 the original biographies may have been finished 
 at the period of David’s decease. But, after all, 
 certainty on such a subject is not to be attained. 
 We can hope only for an approximation to the 
 truth. Probability is all that we dare assert. 
 
 But in opposition to our hypothesis it has been 
 argued, that in these books there are traces of 
 several documents, which have been clumsily and 
 inconsiderately put together, not only by a late, 
 but a blundering compiler. The German critics 
 are fond of a peculiar species of critical chemistry, 
 by which they disengage one portion of a book 
 from the surrounding sections. They have ap- 
 plied it to Genesis, to the Pentateuch generally, 
 and to the books of Joshua and Judges. The 
 elaborate theory of Eichhorn on the present sub- 
 ject ( Einleit ., iii. p. 476), is similar to that 
 which he has developed in his remarks on 
 Chronicles, viz., that the basis of the second 
 book of Samuel was a short life of David, which 
 was augmented by interpolated additions. The 
 first book of Samuel is referred by him to old 
 written sources, but in most parts to tradition, 
 both in the life of Samuel and Saul. Bertholdt 
 ( Einleit . p. 894) modifies this opinion by affirm- 
 ing that in the first book of Samuel there are three 
 independent documents, chaps. i.*vii., viii.-xvi., 
 xvii .-xxx., containing respectively Samuel's his- 
 tory, Saul’s life, and David’s early biography ; 
 while in reference to the second book of Samuel, 
 he generally admits the conjecture of Eichhorn. 
 Gramberg {Die Chronik, vol. ii. p. 80) is in fa- 
 
 vour of two narratives, named by him A. and B., 
 and Stahelin partially acquiesces in his view. 
 Suca theories have nothing else to recommend 
 them but the ingenious industry which framed 
 them. It is said, however, that there are evident 
 vestiges of two different sources being used and 
 intermingled in Samuel ; that the narrative is 
 not continuous ; especially, that it is made up of 
 duplicate and contradictory statements. Such 
 vestiges are alleged to be the following: in 1 
 Sam. x. 1, Samuel is said to have anointed Saul, 
 whereas in x. 20-25 the prophet is described as 
 having chosen him by lot. The reason of this two- 
 fold act we have already given in our remarks 
 on Samuel in the preceding article. The former 
 was God's private election, the latter his public 
 theocratic designation. Again, it is affirmed that 
 two different accounts are given of the cause why 
 the people demanded a king, the one (l Sam. 
 viii. 5) being the profligacy of Samuel’s sons, and 
 the other (xii. 12-13) a menaced invasion of the 
 Ammonites. Both accounts perfectly harmonize 
 The nation feared the inroads of the children of 
 Ammon, and they felt that Samuel's sons could 
 not command the respect and obedience of tlx 
 various tribes. It was necessary to tell the old 
 judge that his sons could not succeed him ; foi 
 he might have pointed to them as future adviser* 
 and governors in the dreaded juncture. 
 
 The accounts of Saul’s death are also said ti. 
 differ from each other (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, and 
 2 Sam. i. 2-12). We admit the difference, the 
 first account being the correct one, and the second 
 being merely the invention of the cunning Ama- 
 lekite, who framed the lie to gain the favour of 
 Saul’s great rival, David. It is recorded that twice 
 did David spare Saul’s life (1 Sam. xxiv. and 
 xxvi.). The fact of the repetition of a similar deed 
 of generosity can never surely give the narrative 
 a legendary character. The miracle which mul- 
 tiplied the loaves and the fishes was twice wrought 
 by Jesus. The same remark may be made as to 
 the supposed double origin of the proverb, ‘ Is Saul 
 also among the prophets ?’ In 1 Sam. x 1 1 its 
 real source is given, and in xix. 24 another reasou 
 andoccasion are assigned for its national currency. 
 Especially has great stress been laid on what art 
 supposed to be different records of Davids intro 
 duct ion to Saul, contained in 1 Sam. xvi. 18-22, 
 and in the following chapter. That there is diffi- 
 culty here cannot be denied, but to transpose the 
 passages, on the supposition that David's eucountei 
 with Goliath was prior to his introduction to Saul 
 as musician, will not remove the difficulty. For if 
 Saul became so jealous of David's popularity as 
 he is represented, no one of his domestics would 
 have dared to recommend David to him as one 
 possessed of high endowments, and able to charm 
 away his melancholy. The Vatican MS. of the 
 Sept, omits no less than twenty-five verses in 
 these chapters. Yet the omission does not effect a 
 reconciliation. Some critics, such as Houbigant, 
 Michaelis, Dathe, and Kennicott, regard the en- 
 tire passage as an interpolation. We are inclined 
 to receive the chapters as they stand. David is 
 first spoken of as introduced to Saul as a min- 
 strel, as becoming a favourite of the sovereign, 
 and being appointed one of his aid-de-camps. 
 Now the fact of this previous introduction i3 al- 
 luded to in the very passage which creates the 
 difficulty ; for after, in minute Oriental fashion. 
 
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 <$86 
 
 (Ewahl, Komposition der Genes., p. 148) David 
 and his genealogy are again brought before the 
 reader, it is said, ‘ and David went and returned 
 from Saul to feed Ins father's sheep at Bethlehem.’ 
 The only meaning this verse can have, is, that 
 David's attendance at court was not constant, 
 especially as Saul's evil spirit may have left him. 
 The writer who describes the combat with Goliath 
 thus distinctly notices that David had already 
 been introduced to Saul; nay, farther, specific 
 allusion is again made to David’s standing at 
 court. ‘ And it came to pass on the morrow, that 
 the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he 
 ' prophesied in the midst of the house ; and David 
 played with his hand, as at other times* (1 Sam. 
 xviii. 10). The phrase, ‘ as at other times,’ must 
 refer to the notices of the former chapter. Yet, 
 after the battle, Saul is represented as being igno- 
 rant of the youth, and as inquiring after him. 
 And Abner the general declares that he does not 
 know the youthful hero. Can we imagine any 
 ordinary writer so to stultify himself as this author 
 is supposed to have done, by intimating that 
 David had been with Saul, and yet that Saul did 
 not know him ? No inconsistency must have 
 been apparent to the annalist himself. It is 
 therefore very probable that David had left Saul 
 for some time before his engagement with Goliath; 
 that the king’s fits of gloomy insanity prevented 
 him from obtaining correct impressions of David's 
 form and person, the period of David’s life, when 
 the youth passes into the man, being one which 
 is accompanied with considerable change of ap- 
 pearance. The inquiry of Saul is more about 
 the young warrior’s parentage than about himself. 
 It has sometimes struck us that Abner’s vehement 
 profession of ignorance is somewhat suspicious : 
 ‘ As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell ;’ — a 
 response too solemn for a question so simple. We 
 canliot pursue the investigation farther. We would 
 not in such a passage positively deny all difficulty, 
 like Hiivernick (§ 166) : we only venture to sug- 
 gest that no sane author would so far oppose himself 
 in a plain story, as some critics suppose the author 
 of Samuel to have done. Appeal has also been 
 made to David’s two visits to Achish, King of 
 Gath : but they happened in circumstances very 
 dissimilar, and cannot by any means be regarded 
 as a duplicate chronicle of the same event. 
 
 Lastly, attention is called to 1 Sam. xv. 35 
 where it is said, that * Samuel came no more to 
 see Saul again till the day of his death,’ as if the 
 statement were contradictory of xix. 24, where 
 Saul met with Samuel, and ‘lay naked all day 
 and all night before him/ De Wette’s translator 
 before referred to (vol. ii. p. 222) dishonestly 
 affirms that the first verse says, ‘ Samuel did not 
 see Saul till his death,’ that is, he never saw him 
 again ; whereas the language is, ‘ Samuel came no 
 more to see Saul,’ that is, no longer paid him any 
 visit of friendship or ceremony, no longer sought 
 him out to afford him counsel or aid. This decla- 
 ration cannot surely be opposed to the following 
 portion of the record, which states that Saul ac- 
 cidentally mot Samuel; for he pursued David 
 to Ramah, where the prophet dwelt, and so came 
 in contact with his former benefactor. May we 
 not therefore conclude that the compiler has not 
 Joined two narratives of opposite natures very 
 oosely together, or overlapped them in various 
 laces ; but Las framed ou of authoritative docu- 
 
 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. 
 
 ments a consecutive history, not dwelling on alt 
 events with equal interest, but passing slightl* 
 over some, and formally detailing others with 
 national relish and delight? 
 
 Scope. — The design of these books is not very 
 di fie rent from that of the other historical treatises 
 of the Old Testament. The books of Kings are a 
 history of the nation as a theocracy ; those of 
 Chronicles have special reference to the form and 
 ministry of the religious worship, as bearing upon 
 its re-establishment after the return from Babylon. 
 Samuel is more biographical, yet the theocratic 
 element of the government is not overlooked. It 
 is distinctly brought to view in the early chapters 
 concerning Eli and his house, and the fortunes ot 
 the ark ; in the passages which describe the change 
 of the constitution ; in the blessing which rested 
 on the house of Obed-Edom ; in the curse which 
 fell on the Bethshemites, and Uzzah and Saul, fox 
 intrusive interference with holy things. The book 
 shows clearly that God was a jealous God ; that 
 obedience to him secured felicity ; that the nation 
 sinned in seeking another king ; that Saul’s spe- 
 cial iniquity was his impious oblivion of his 
 station as only Jehovah’s vicegerent, for he con- 
 temned the prophets and slew the priesthood; and 
 that David owed his prosperity to his careful 
 culture of the sacred principle of the Hebrew 
 administration. This early production contained 
 lessons both for the people and for succeeding 
 monarchs, bearing on it the motto, ‘ Whatsoever 
 things were written aforetime were written for 
 our learning/ 
 
 Relation to Kings and Chronicles. — Samuel 
 is distinctly referred to in Kings, and also quoted. 
 (Compare 1 Sam. ii. 33 with 1 Kings ii. 26 ; 
 2 Sam. v. 5 with 1 Kings ii. 11 ; 2 Sam. vii. 12 
 with 1 Kings ii. 4, and 1 Chron. xvii. 24, 25). The 
 history in Kings presupposes that contained in 
 Samuel. The opinion ofEichhorn and Bertholdt, 
 that the author of Chronicles did not use our 
 books of Samuel, appears contrary to evident fact, 
 as may be seen by a comparison of the two his- 
 tories. Even Keil (Apologetischer Versuch iiber 
 die Chronih , p. 206) supposes that the chronicler 
 Ezra, did not use the memoirs in Samuel and 
 Kings ; but Movers ( Kritisch Untersuch. uber 
 die Bibl. Chronik) proves that these books were, 
 among others, the sources which the chronicler 
 drew from in the formation of a large portion of 
 his history. 
 
 Credibility. — The authenticity of the history 
 found in the books of Samuel rests on sufficient 
 grounds. Portions of them are quoted in the 
 New Testament (2 Sam. vii. 14, in Heb. i. 5 ; 
 1 Sam. xiii. 14, in Acts xiii. 22). References 
 to them occur in other sections of Scripture, es- 
 pecially in the Psalms, to which they often afford 
 historic illustration. It has been argued against 
 them that they contain contradictory statements. 
 The old objections of Hobbes, Spinoza, Simon, 
 and Le Clerc, are well disposed of by Carpzovius, 
 ( Introductio , p. 215). Some of these supposed 
 contradictions we have already referred to, and 
 for a solution of others, especially of seeming con- 
 trariety between the books of Samuel and Chro 
 nicies, we refer with satisfaction to Davidson's 
 Sacred Hermeneutics , p. 544, &c. Some of the 
 objections of Vatke, in his Bibl. Theol ., — cujuo 
 mentio est refutatio — are summarily disposed of 
 by Hengstenberg (Die Authentic des Pentat voL 
 
SANBALLAT. 
 
 SANDAL. 
 
 687 
 
 ti. p. 1 15\ who usually chastises such adversaries 
 wfon a whip of scorpions. Discrepancies in num- 
 bers, and sometimes in proper names, are the 
 most common ; and it is well known that textual 
 errors in numeration are both most frequently 
 and most easily committed. [David; Chro- 
 Nicr.Es; Saul.1 
 
 Commentaries. — Yictovini Strigelii Comm, 
 in quatuor Libr. Reg. et Paralipp ., 1621, folio ; 
 N. Serrarii Comm, in libr. Josuce, Jud., Ruth, 
 Reg., et Paralipp., 1609, folio; Seb. Schmidt, 
 In Lib. Sam. Comm. 1684-89, 4to ; Jac. Bon- 
 frerii Comm, in libr. quat. Reg., 8ic., 1613 ; 
 Clerici Comm, in libr. Sam.; Opera, T. ii.; 
 Jo. Drusii Annotat. in Locos diffic. Jos., Jud., 
 Sam., 1618; Hensler , Erlduterungen des I. B. 
 Sam. &c. 1795 ; Maurer, Comment. Critic, p. 1 ; 
 Exegetische Handbuch des A. T. st. iv. v. ; Chan- 
 dler’s Critical History of the Life of David . 
 2 vols. 1786.— J. E. 
 
 SANBALLAT (D^D ; Sept. 'ZavafraWdr), 
 a native of Horonaim, beyond the Jordan (Neb. 
 ii. 10), and probably also a Moabitish chief, whom 
 (probably from old national hatred) we find 
 united in council with the Samaritans, and active 
 in attempting to deter the returned exiles from 
 fortifying Jerusalem (Neh. iv. 1, sq. ; vi. 1, sq.). 
 Subsequently, during the absence of Nehemiah 
 in Persia, a son of Joiada, the high priest, was 
 married to his daughter (Neh. xiii. 28). Whether 
 Sauballat. held any public office as governor over 
 the Moabites, or over the Samaritans, the record 
 does not state. Such a character is usually 
 ascribed to him on the supposed authority of a 
 passage of Josephus, who speaks of a Sanballat, 
 a Cut bean by birth, who was sent by the last 
 Darius as governor of Samaria ( Antiq . xi. 7. 2). 
 The time assigned to this Sanballat is 120 years 
 later than that of the Sanballat of Nehemiah, 
 and we can only identify the one with the other 
 by supposing that Josephus was mistaken both in 
 the age and nation of the individual whom he 
 mentions. Some admit this conclusion, as Jose- 
 phus goes on to state how this person gave his 
 daughter in marriage to a son of the high-priest, 
 which high-priest, however, he tells us was Jaddua, 
 in accordance with the date he has given. The 
 son of the high-priest thus married to the daughter 
 of Sanballat was named Manasseh, and is further 
 stated by Josephus to have become the high-priest 
 of the schismatical temple, which his father-in-law 
 established for the Samaritans in Mount Gerizim 
 [Samaritans]. Upon the whole, as the account 
 in Josephus is so circumstantial, it seems probable 
 that, notwithstanding the similarity of name and 
 other circumstances, his Sanballat is not to be 
 understood as the same that obstructed the labours 
 of Nehemiah. It is just possible that the Jewish 
 historian, who does not mention this contemporary’ 
 of Nehemiah purposely, on account of some 
 similar circumstance, transferred the history and 
 name of Nehemiah’s Sanballat to fill up the ac- 
 count of a later personage, of whose name and 
 origin he may have been ignorant. But there is 
 much obscurity and confusion in that part of his 
 work in which he has lost the guidance of the 
 canonical history, and has not acquired that of 
 tine 1 rooks of Maccabees. 
 
 SANDAL ; Sept, and N. T., vtt65tjpm, 
 a avbdXiovj, a covering for the feet, usually de- 
 
 noted by the word translated * shoe * in th» 
 Authorized Version. It was usually a sole of 
 hide, leather, or wood, bound on to the foot by 
 thongs; but it may sometimes denote such shoes 
 and buskins as eventually came into use. Thus 
 the word inv6br]p.a, which literally means ‘what, 
 is bound under,’ i. e. the. foot, and certainly in 
 the first instance denoted a sandal, came to be 
 also applied to the Roman calctns, or shoe co- 
 vering the whole foot. Josephus (Dc Bell. 
 Jud. vi. 1-8) so uses it of the caliga, the thick 
 nailed shoe of the Roman soldiers. This word 
 occurs in the New Testament (Matt. iii. 11 ; x. 
 10; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 16; x. 4 ; John i. 27 ; 
 Acts vii. 33; xiii. 25), and is also frequently 
 used by the Sept, as a translation of the Hebrew 
 term ; but. it appears in most places to denote a 
 sandal. Hence the word rendered ‘ shoe-latchet * 
 (Gen. xiv. 23, and in most of the texts just cited), 
 means properly a sandal thong. 
 
 Ladies of rank appear to have paid great atten- 
 tion to the beauty of their sandals (Cant. vii. 1) ; 
 though, if the bride in that book was an Egyptian 
 princess, as some suppose, the exclamation, ‘ How 
 beautiful are thy feet with sandals, O prince's 
 daughter!’ may imply admiration of a luxury 
 properly Egyptian, as the ladies of that country 
 were noted for their sumptuous sandals (Wilkin- 
 son, Anc. Egypt, iii. 364). But this taste was 
 probably general; for, at the present day, the 
 dress slippers of ladies of rank are among the 
 richest articles of their attire, being elaborately 
 embroidered with flowers andother figures wrought 
 in silk, silver, and gold. 
 
 It does not seem probable that the sandals of 
 the Hebrews differed much from those used in 
 Egypt, excepting, perhaps, that from the greater 
 roughness of their country, they were usually of 
 more substantial make and materials. The 
 Egyptian sandals varied slightly in form : those 
 worn by the uppev classes, and by women, were 
 usually pointed and turned up at the end, like 
 our skates, and many of the Eastern slippers at the 
 
 481. [Ancient Egyptian Sandals.] 
 
 present day. They were made of a sort of woven 
 or interlaced work of palm-leaves and papyrus- 
 stalks, or other similar materials, and sometimes 
 ot leather; and were frequently lined with cloth, 
 on which the figure of a captive was painted ; 
 that humiliating position being considered suited 
 to the enemies of their country, whom they hated 
 and despised. It is not likeiy that the Jews 
 adopted this practice ; but the idea which it ex- 
 pressed, of treading their enemies under their feet 
 was familiar to them (Josh, x 24.) Those cf 
 
CSft 
 
 SANDAL. 
 
 SANHEDRIM. 
 
 the middle classes who ware in the habit of wear- 
 ing sandals, often preferred walking barefooted. 
 Shoes, or low boots, are sometimes found at 
 Thebes ; but these are believed by Sir J. G. Wil- 
 kinson to have been of late date, and to have 
 belonged to Greeks, since no persons are repre- 
 sented in the paintings as wearing them, except 
 foreigners. They were of leather, generally of 
 a green Colour, laced in front by thongs, which 
 passed through small loops on either side, and 
 were principally used, as in Greece and Etruria, 
 by women (Wilkinson, iii. 374-367). 
 
 482. [Greek and Homan Sandals.] 
 
 In transferring a possession or domain, it was 
 customary to deliver a sandal (Ruth iv. 7), as in 
 our middle ages, a glove. Hence the action of 
 throwing down a shoe upon a region or territory, 
 was a symbol of occupancy. So Ps. lx. 10: 
 ‘ Upon the land of Edom do I cast my sandal 
 t. e. I possess, occupy it, claim it as my own. 
 In Ruth, as above, the delivering of a sandal sig- 
 nified that the next of kin transferred to another 
 a sacred obligation ; and he was hence called 
 ‘ sandal-loosed.’ A sandal thong (Gen. xiv. 23), 
 or even sandals themselves (Amos ii. 6 ; viii. 6), 
 are put for anything worthless or of little value; 
 which is perfectly intelligible to those who have 
 witnessed the extemporaneous manner in which a 
 man will shape two pieces of hide, and fasten 
 them with thongs to the soles of his feet — thus 
 fabricating in a few minutes a pair of sandals 
 which would be dear at a penny. 
 
 It was undoubtedly the custom to take off the 
 sandals on holy ground, in the act of worship, 
 and in the presence of a superior. Hence the com- 
 mand to take the sandals from the feet under 
 such circumstances (Exod. iii. 5 ; Josh. v. 15). 
 This is still the well-known custom of the East — 
 an Oriental taking off his shoe in cases in which 
 a European would remove his hat. The shoes 
 of the modern Orientals are, however, made to 
 slip off easih . which was not the case with 
 sandals, that required to be unbound with some 
 trouble. This operation was usually performed 
 by servants ; aivl hence the act of unloosing the 
 sandals of another became a familiar symbol of 
 servitude (Mark i. 7 ; Luke iii. 16 ; John i. 27 ; 
 Acts xiii. 25)t So also when a man’s sandals 
 had been removed, they were usually left in 
 charge of a servant. In some of the Egyptian 
 paintings servants are represented with their 
 master's sandals on their arm : it thus became 
 
 another conventional mark of a servile coo* 
 dition, to bear tire sandals of another (Matt, 
 iii. 11). 
 
 SANHEDRIM, more properly Sanhbdrin 
 (PTJDJP* cvvfSpioi/'), the supreme judicial coun« 
 cil of the Jews, especially for religious affairs. 
 It was also called j'l n'2, House of Judgment ; 
 and in the Apocrypha and New Testament the 
 appellations yepovaia and irpea^vreptou seem also 
 to be applied to it (comp. 2 Macc. i. 10 ; iv. 44 ; 
 Acts v. 21 ; xxii. 5 ; 1 Macc. vii. 33 ; xii. 35^ 
 &c.). 
 
 This council consisted^ of seventy members. 
 Some give the number at seventy-two, but for 
 this there appears no sufficient authority. To 
 this number the high priest was added, * provided 
 he was a man endowed with wisdom ’ (iTH DK 
 nQ^rQ 'IfcO, Maimonid. Sanhed. c. 2). Re- 
 garding the class of the Jewish people from which 
 these were chosen, there is some uncertainty. 
 Maimonides ( Sanhed . c. 2) tells us, that this 
 council was composed ‘ of Priests, Levites, and 
 Israelites, whose rank entitled them to be as- 
 sociated with priests.’ Dr. Jost, the learned his- 
 torian of his nation, simply says : ‘the members 
 of the council were chosen from among the peo- 
 ple and more particularly in another place he re- 
 marks : ‘these judges consisted of the most eminent 
 priests, and of the scribes of the people, who were 
 chosen for life, but each of whom had to look to 
 his own industry for his support’ ( Geschichte der 
 Israeli ten seit der Zeit der Makkabder , th. i. 
 s. 49; iii. 86). The statement, in this latter 
 passage corresponds with the terms used in Matt, 
 ii. 4, where the council convened by Herod, in 
 consequence of what the wise men of the East 
 had told him, is described as composed of ‘all 
 the chief priests and scribes of the people ;’ the 
 former of whom Lightfoot ( Hot . Hob. et Talm. 
 in loc.) explains as the clerical , the latter as the 
 laical members of the Sanhedrim. In other 
 passages of the New Testament we meet with the 
 threefold enumeration, Priests , Elders , and 
 Scribes (Matt. xvi. 21 ; xxvi. 2, 57, &c.); and 
 this is the description which most frequent ly occurs. 
 By the first are to be understood, not such as had 
 sustained the office of high-priest, but the chief 
 men among the priests ; probably the presidents 
 of the twenty-four classes into which the priest- 
 hood was divided (1 Chrarn xxiv. 6 ; comp, the 
 use of the phrase D’OilDn in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 
 14). By the second, we are probably to under 
 stand the select men of the people — the Aider- 
 men, — persons whose ranker standing led to theii 
 being raised to this distinction. And by the last 
 are designated those, whether of the Levitical 
 family or not, who gave themselves to the ] ursuit 
 of learning, especially to the interpretation of 
 Scripture, and of the tradition* 1 of the fathers. 
 To this general description we may add what 
 Maimonides lays down as to the qualifications 
 required in those who were eligible to this office. 
 These were — 1. that they should possess much and 
 varied learning; 2. that they should be free from 
 every bodily defect, such as lameness, blindness, 
 &c. ; 3. that they should be of such age as should 
 afford them experience, and yet not exjjose them 
 to the feebleness of dotage ; 4. that they should 
 not be eunuchs ; 5. that they should be fathers , 
 6. that they should possess the moral qualities 
 
 I 
 
SANHEDRIM. 
 
 SANHEDRIM. 
 
 m 
 
 se> ftirth in Exod. xviii. 2! ; Dent. i. 13-16 
 (tanked, c. 2). A number of persons were al- 
 ways in the condition of candidates for admission 
 Into this honourable body, from among 1 whom 
 vacancies were supplied as they occurred. The 
 new member was installed by ihe imposition of 
 Sands, the company chauuting the words *Lo! 
 =a hand is upou-thee, and the power is given thee 
 ®f exercising judgment, even in criminal cases’ 
 ( Srmhed . c. 4). 
 
 ?n the council the office of president, belonged 
 to the high priest, if he was a member ol it ; 
 when be was not. it is uncertain whether a sub- 
 stitute was provided, or his place occupied bv the 
 oersnn next in rank. He bore the title of 
 chief oi president i and it was his prerogative to 
 jummon the council together, as well as to preside 
 oxer its deliberations. When he entered the 
 assembly, all the members rose and remained 
 standing until he requested them to sit. Next 
 in rank to him was the vice-president, who bore 
 the title of jH JT3 3K, Father of the House of 
 Judgment ; whose, duty it was to supply the place 
 of the president in case he should be prevented 
 by any acciuenta! cause from discharging his 
 duties himself. . When the president was present, 
 this officer sat at. his right hand. The third grade 
 of rank was that, of- the DDH, or sar/e, whose bu- 
 siness was to give counsel to the assembly, and 
 who was generally selected to his office on ac- 
 count of his sagacity and knowledge of the law ; 
 bis place was on the' left hand of the president. 
 'The assembly, when convened, sat in the form of 
 a semi-circle, or half-moon, the president occu- 
 pying the centre. At each extremity stood a 
 *crihe, whose duty it was to record the sentence 
 pronounced by the council. There were certain 
 officers,, called whose business seems to 
 
 have been somewhat analogous to that of our 
 policemen: they were armed with a baton, kept 
 order in the street, -and were under tbs direction 
 of the Sanhedrim. 
 
 The meetings of this council were usually held 
 in the morning. Their place of meeting was a 
 ball, close by the great gate of the temple, and 
 leading from the outer court of the women to the 
 holy place ; from its pavement of polished stone, 
 
 it was called F^Un A Talmudic 
 
 tradition affirms that, forty years before the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrim were com- 
 jxdled by the Romans to forsake this hall, and 
 amid their meetings in caves on thp east side of the 
 Still on which the temple stood; but as the 
 JVlischna is silent in regard to this, and as die 
 New Testament history seems inert ipatihle with 
 its truth, we must resolve this tradition into the 
 generalization of some solitary case into a regular 
 practice. In cases of urgency the Sanhedrim 
 *uight be convened in the house of the high priest 
 (Matt, xxv i. 3). 
 
 .The functions of the Sanhedrim were, accord- 
 ing to the Jewish writers, co-extensive w ;f b 
 <he civil and religious relations of the people. In 
 their hands, we are told, was jflaced the supreme 
 authority in all things; they interpreted the law. 
 
 # This must nut he confounded with the 
 *.iQ<S(TTfjcvTos, where Pilate sat in judgment on 
 Const, and which was evidently a place in his 
 own dwelling (John six. 13). 
 
 they appointed sacred rites, they imposed tri- 
 butes, they decreed war, they judged in capital 
 cases; in short, they engrossed the supreme au- 
 thority, legislative, executive, and judicial. In 
 this there is no small exaggeration; at least, 
 none of the historical facts which have come down 
 to ns confirm this description of the extent of the 
 powers of the Sanhedrim ; whilst some of these 
 facts, such as the existence of civil officers armed 
 with appropriate authority, seem directly opposed 
 to it. In the notices of thi3 body, contained in 
 the New Testament, we find nothing which wou’ 1 
 lead us to infer that their powers extended beyond 
 matters of a religious kind. Questions of blas- 
 phemy, of sabbath-breaking, of heresy, are those 
 alone whidh we find referred to their judicature 
 (comp. Matt., xxvi. 5 7-65 ; John v. 11, 18; Matt, 
 xii. 14, sq. ; Acts v. 17, sq., &c.). On those guilty 
 of these crimes they could pronounce sentence of 
 death ; but, under the Roman government, it. was 
 not competent, fur them to execute this sentence : 
 their power terminated with the pronouncing of a 
 decision, and the transmission of this to the pro- 
 curator, with whom it rested, to execute it or not 
 as he saw meet (John xviii. 31 ; Matt, xxvii. 1, 2). 
 Hence the unseemly readiness of this council to 
 call in the aid of the assassin for the purpose of de- 
 stroying those who were obnoxious to them (Acts 
 v. 33.; xxiii. 12-15). r f&e case of Stephen may 
 seem to furnish an objection to this statement ; 
 but as his martyrdom occurred at a time when the 
 Roman procurator was absent, and was altogether 
 a tumultuous procedure, it cannot be allowed ta> 
 stand for more than a casual exception to the 
 general rule. Josephus informs us, that after the* 
 death of Festus, and before the arrival of his sue-; 
 cesser, the high priest Ananus, availing himself 
 of the opportunity thus afforded, summoned a. 
 meeting of the Sanhedrim, and condemned Jams? 
 the brother of Jesus, with several others, to suffer 
 death by stoning. This licence, however, was 
 viewed with much displeasure by the new 
 procurator, Albinus, and led to the deposition of 
 Ananus from the office of high priest ( Aritiq . xx. 
 9. 1, 2). 
 
 At what period in the history of the Jews th& 
 Sanhedrim arose, is involved in much uncer- 
 tainty. The Jews, ever prune tu invest -with the* 
 honours of remote antiquity all the institutions of 
 .their nation, trace this council to the time3 of 
 Moses, and find the origin of it in the appoint- 
 ment of a body of elders as the assistants of 
 Moses in the discharge of his judicial functions- 
 (Num. xi. 16, 17). There is no evidence, how- 
 ever, that this was any other than a temporary 
 arrangement for the benefit of Moses ; nor do. 
 we, in the historical books of the Old Testament, 
 detect any traces whatever of the existence of 
 this council in the times preceding tha Babylonish- 
 captivity, nor in those immediately succeeding 
 the return of the Jews to their own land. The- 
 earliest mention of the existence of this council 
 by Josephus, is in connection with the reign, 
 of Hyrcanus II., b.c. 69 ( Antiq . xiv. 9. 3). 
 It is probable, however, that it existed before- 
 this time — that it arose gradually after the cessa-. 
 tion of the prophetic office in Juuah, in conse- 
 quence of the felt want of some supreme direction 
 ami judicial authority — that the number of its 
 members was fixed so as to correspond with thafe 
 of the council of elders appointed to assist Muses— ■* 
 
SAFPHIRA. 
 
 SARAH. 
 
 c?0 
 
 and that ii firs} assumed a formal and influential 
 existence in the later years of the Macedo-Grecian 
 dynasty. This view is confirmed by the allusions 
 mad'? to it in the Apocryplial books (2 Macc. K 
 3.0; iv; 44; xiv. 5; Judith xi. 14, &c.); and 
 perhaps, also, l>y the circumstance that the use of 
 tiie name ovvtdpioF, from which the Hebrews 
 formed their word t|aniiedrim, indicates a Mace- 
 donian origin (comp. Livy, xlv. 32). 
 
 The Talmudical writers tell us, that, besides 
 the Sanhedrim properly so called, there was in 
 every town containing not fewer than one hundred 
 nmi twenty inhabitants, a smaller Sanhedrim 
 j'TTHjD), consisting of twenty-three 
 members, before which lesser causes were tried, 
 and from the decisions of which an appeal lay to 
 the supreme council. Two such smaller councils 
 are said to have existed at Jerusalem. It is to 
 &h is class of tribunals that cur Lord is supposed 
 fo allude, under the term Kpltris, in Matt. v. 22. 
 f /There the number of inhabitants was under one 
 fmndred and twenty, a council of three adjudi- 
 cated in all civil questions. What brings insu- 
 perable doubt upon this tradition is, that Josephus, 
 tvho must from his position have been intimately 
 acquainted with all the judicial institutions of 
 Iris nation, not only does not mention these small- 
 er councils, but says, that the court next, below 
 She Sanhedrim was- composed of seven members. 
 Attempts have been made to reconcile the two 
 accounts, but without success; and it seems 
 flow very generally agreed, that the account of 
 Josephus is to t>e preferred to that of .t lie Mischna ; 
 End that, consequently, it is to the tribunal of 
 the seven judges that our Lord applies tlie term 
 Kptais, in the passage referred to (Tnuluck, Berg- 
 predigt, in loc., Eng. Truusl. vol. i. p. 241 ; Kui- 
 uoel, in loc.). 
 
 Comp. Otho, Lexicon Rahbinico-Philolog. in 
 voce ; Selden, be Syncdriia Vetentm Ebraiorum t 
 ii., 95, sq. ; Reland, Antiq. ii. 7 ; Jahn, Archev- 
 clogie, ii. 2. § 183; Pareau, Antiq. lleb . iii. 
 1.4; Lighffoot, Works, plur. locis ; Hartmann, 
 sLnqc Verbindung des Alien Test, miidem Neuen, 
 c. 166, fl’., &c.— YV. L. A.. 
 
 SAP PH IRA (2crr£ffp?j), the wife of Ananias, 
 and his accomplice in the sin for which he died 
 (Acts v. 1-10). Unaware of the judgment wfiich 
 !:*d befallen her husband, she entered the place 
 
 amt three hours after", probably to look for him; 
 anil being there interrogated by Peter, repeated and 
 resisted in the ‘lie unto the Holy Ghost,* which 
 kad destroyed her husband ; on which the grieved 
 apostle made known to her hb doom, and pro- 
 nounced her own— ‘ Behold, the feet cf those 
 -who have buried tliy- husband are at the door, 
 c.nd shall carry thee out.* On hearing these awful 
 words, she fell dead at his feet. The cooi ob- 
 stinacy of Sapphira in answering as she did the 
 questions which were probably designed to awaken 
 her conscience, deepens the shade of the foul 
 crime common to her and her husband ; and has 
 suggested to many the probability that the plot 
 was cf her devising, and that, like another Eve, 
 else drew her husband into it. But this is mere 
 •conjecture [Ananias]. 
 
 SAPPHIRE 0»Sp ; Sept, and N. T. adir- 
 &etpos),' a precious stone, mentioned in Exod. 
 sxiv. 10; xxyiii. 18; Job xxyiii. 13; Ezek, 
 ss,viii. 13; Rev, sxit 19 . Thai' which we call 
 
 sapphire is next in hardness and val .eto ttie dsa* 
 mom), and is mostly of a blue colour of various 
 shades. But the stone which Pliny describe 
 under the name of sapphire ( Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 
 39), in agreement with Theophrastus ( De I^avui. 
 23), is manifestly the lapis lazuli. It is opaque, 
 inclines often to the deep blue colour of tin? 
 violet, and has sometimes pebble-spots of a gol.Ien 
 yellow hue. This stone, however, is not suffi- 
 ciently valuable for Joh xxviii. 16; ami Pliny 
 says that it is * inutilis sc.uipiura?,* which does 
 not apply to the sapphir of Ex.id. xxviii. 18), 
 which was engraved. It seems, theiefure, likely 
 that, notwithstanding the classical appropriation 
 of the name to the lapis lazuli, the true sapphire, 
 or rather that which we call such, is the stone 
 mentioned in Scripture. It is often found ia 
 collections of ancient gem 9 . 
 
 SARABIM. [Thouns.] 
 
 SARAH (rne>, c princes3, a noble lady, being 
 the fem. of sn?*, *a prince/ ‘ a nob’ema« / Sept. 
 
 the wife of Abraham. # and mother o3 
 Isaac. She was at first called Sarai, the ety- 
 mology and signification of which are obscure. 
 Ewald ( Gram . § 324) explains it to mean con- 
 tentimis , quap-clsome (from (he root HAp), which 
 is perhaps' the most natural sense; and the mere 
 change of the name 1 6 one mure honourable, may 
 imply that there was something unpleasant in the 
 one previously borne (Gen. xvii. 5, sq.). Aa 
 Sarah never appears but in connection with some 
 circumstance in which her husband -was princi- 
 pally concerned, all the facts of her history have 
 already been given in the urticle Abkaham, ami 
 her conduct to Hagar is considered in the article 
 which bears her name. These facts being fami- 
 liar to the reader, a few supplementary remarks 
 on particular points are alone required in this 
 place. 
 
 There are two opinions with respect ro the 
 parentage of Sarah. Many interpreters suppose 
 that she was the daughter of Haran, the tides 
 son of Abraham’s father Terah (probably by a 
 former wife), and the same person with the Iscah 
 who is named as one of the daughters of Hararr 
 (Gen. xi. 29). In this case she was niece of 
 Abraham, although .only ten years younger than 
 her husband, and the sister of Milcali and of Lot. 
 The reasons for this conclusion are of much 
 weight. It is certain that Nahor, the surviving 
 brother of Abraham, married Milcali, the other 
 daughter of Karan, and the manner in which 
 Abraham’s marriage with Sarah is mentioned,, 
 would alone suggest tha‘ he took the remaining 
 daughter. 4 Abram and Nahor took them wives - 
 the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai ; and the name 
 of Nahor‘3 wife Milcali, the daughter of Haran, 
 the father of Milcali, and the father of Iscah' 
 (Gen. .xi. 29). Here most of the Jewish writers 
 say that Iscah is Sarai ; and without supposing 
 this to be the case, it is difficult to understand 
 for what reason it should -be so - fxiintedly noted 
 that Haran, who was the father of M ilcah, was aleo 
 the father of Iscah. Besides, it Sarai is not iscah, 
 no account is given by Mocesofher descent ; and 
 it can hardly be supposed that lie ^ouhl omit 
 it, as it must have been agreeable to a people 
 so careful of genealogy to know whence they were 
 descended, both bv the father and mother’s sida 
 
SABAH. 
 
 SARDIS. 
 
 Again. w.ieu Torah leaves Ur of tho Chaldees, it 
 is said that : Terah took Abram his son, and Lot 
 bis son's son, and Saras hi3 daughter-in-law, his 
 eim Abram’s wife; and they went forth,’ &c. 
 (Geu. xi..3l); on which Aben Ezra observes 
 that if Sarai had been (as some suppose) the 
 daughter of Terah and sister of Abram, the text 
 would doubtless have run: 4 Terah took Abram 
 liis son, and Sarai his daughter, the wife ol 
 Abram.’ The double relationship to Lot which 
 each an alliance would produce, may also help to 
 the better understanding of some points in the 
 connection between Lot and Abraham. Against 
 this view we have to produce the assertion of 
 Abraham himself, that Sarai woe his half-sister, 
 
 * the daughter of my father, but not the daughter 
 of my mother 1 (Gen. : xx. 12): but this is held 
 by'many to mean no more than that Karan her 
 father was hia h&lf-brother ; fer the colloquial 
 usage of the Hebrews in this matter, makes it 
 easy to understand that he might call a niece a 
 sister, and a grand-daughter a daughter. In 
 general discourse * daughter 1 comprised any and 
 every 'female' descendant, arid * sister ’ any and 
 every consanguineous relationship. 4 m ^ . 
 
 That Sarah had great beauty appears from 
 She precautions ’which Abraham took to guard 
 Isimself and her from the dangers it was likely to 
 ^occasion. And that his was not ton partial an 
 estimate of her attractions, »s evinced by the 
 transactions in Egypt and at Gerar (Gen. xii. 
 15 ; xxi. 2). In the former case the commenda- 
 tions which the princes 'of Pharaoh bestowed 
 upon the charms of the lovely stranger, has been 
 supposed by some to have been owing to the con- 
 trast which her fresh Mesopotamian complexion 
 offered to the dusky hue of their own beauties. 
 But so far as climate is concerned, the nearer 
 Syria could offer complexions as fair as hers; 
 and, moreover, a people trained by their habits 
 to admire ‘dusky 1 beauties, -were not likely to be 
 inordinately attracted by a fresh complexion. 
 
 It ia asked wnether Sarah was aware of the 
 intended sacrifice of Isaac, the son of her long- 
 deferred hojiea. The chronology is uncertain, and 
 does not decide whether this translation occurred 
 before or afler her death. She was probably alive; 
 and if so, we may understand from the 'precau- 
 tions employed by Abraham, that she wa 3 
 acquainted with the purpose of the journey to the 
 land of Moriah, and, indeed, that it was the object 
 of these precautions to keep from her knowledge a 
 matter which must so deeply wound her heart. 
 He could have the les3 difficulty in this, if his 
 faith was such as to enable him to believe that 
 he should bring back in safety the son he was 
 commanded to sacrifice (Hob. xi. IS). As, how- 
 ever, the account of her death immediately fol- 
 lows that of this sacrifice, some of the Jewish 
 writers imagine that the intelligence killed her, 
 and that Abraham found her dead on his return 
 ( Targ. Jonath and Jarchi on Gen. xxiii. 2 ; 
 Pirke Eiiezer. c. 52). But thore seems no au- 
 thority for such an inference. 
 
 Sarah is so rarely introduced, directly to our 
 notice, that it is difficult to estimate her elia- 
 xacter justly, for want of adequate materials. 
 She is eet-n only when 'her presence is. indispen- 
 sable; '.and then she appears with more of sub- 
 mission, ^nd of simplicity, than of dignity, and 
 Eaanitests an unwise but not unusual promptitude 
 
 m 
 
 in following her first thougnts, and .in proceeding 
 upon the impulse of her first emotions. U^»n 
 the whole, Sarah scarcely meets the idea the 
 imagination would like to form of the life-com- 
 panion of 60 eminent a person as Abraham. 
 Nevertheless, rve cannot fail to observe that she 
 was a most attached and devoted wife. Her hus- 
 band was the central object of all her thoughts ; 
 and he was not forgotten even in her first transports 
 of joy at becoming a mother (Gen. xxi. 7). Tina 
 is her highest eulogium. 
 
 Isaiah i3 the only prophet who names Sara_ 
 (ch. li. 2). St. Paul alludes to her hope of be- 
 coming a mother (Rom. iv; 19) ; and afterwards 
 : cites the .promise which she received (Rom. ix. 
 9) ; and Peter eulogises her submission to her 
 husband (l Pet. iii. 6). 
 
 SARDIS (gdpSzis), the capital of the ancient 
 kingdom of Lydia, situated at the foot of. Mount 
 Tmolus, In a fine plain watered by the river Pac- 
 ta! us. (Herod, vis. SI ; Xenophon, Cyrop. vir. 
 2-11; Pliny, Hist. Nat; Strabo, xiii. p. 625)=. 
 It is in N. lat. 38° 30'; E. long. 27° 57k Sardia 
 ra a great and ancient city, and from its wealth 
 and importance was the object of much cupidity 
 and of many sieges. When taken by Cyrus, 
 under Cnssus; its last king, who has become pro- 
 verbial for his riches, Sardis was one of the most 
 splendid and opulent cities of the East.. . Afler theisr 
 victory over Antiochus it passed to the Romans', 
 under whom it rapidly declined in rank and im- 
 portance. In the time of Tiberiu3 it was de- 
 stroyed by an earthquake (Strabo, xii. p. 579), bu£ 
 was rebuilt by order of the emperor (Tacit. A nnal- 
 ii. 47). The inhabitants of Sardis bore an ill 
 repute among the ancients for their voluptuous 
 habits of life. Hence, perhaps, the point of that 
 phrase in the Apocalyptic, message to the city — 
 ‘Thou hast a few names, even in Sardis, which 
 have not defiled their garments’ (Rev. iii. 4). The 
 place; that Sardis holds in this message, as one 
 of the ‘ Seven Churches of Asia, 1 is the source cf 
 the. peculiar interest with which - the Christian 
 reader regards it. From what is said it appears 
 that it had already declined much in real reli- 
 gion, although it still maintained the name and 
 external aspect of a Christian church, ‘ having a 
 name to live, while it was dead 1 (Rev. iii. 1). 
 
 Successive eaithquakes, and the ravages of tbs 
 Saracens and Turks, have reduced this once Sou* 
 risking city to a heap of ruins, presenting many, 
 remains of its former splendour. The habitations 
 of the living are confined to a few miserable 
 cottages, forming a village called Sart. This, 
 with the ruins, are still found on the true site of 
 Sardis,' at the foot of Mouht Tmolus, or Bouz-dag, 
 as the Turks call it. The ruins are chiefly those of. 
 '.the theatre, stadium, and of some churches. -There 
 are also two remarkable pillare, supposed to have 
 belonged to the temple of Cybele; and, if so, they, 
 ■ are among the oldest^ monuments now existing 
 in the world, the temple having been built only 
 300 years after that of Solomon. The acropolis 
 .seems well to define the site of the city. It is a 
 marked object, being a tall distorted rock of soft 
 sandstone, rent as if by an earthquake. A 
 countless number of sepulchral hillocks, beyond 
 ’ the Hermus, heighten the - deaolateuess of a spot 
 which the multitudes- lying there once made 
 busy by their living presence and pursuits. Sea 
 Smith, Hartley, Macisrlane, and Aiundell, seve- 
 
'SATAN.; 
 
 SAREPTA.- 
 
 Yatly, On the Seven Churches of Asia; ArunJell, 
 
 \ Discoveries in Asia Minor ; S'orch, Dissert, de 
 'Sept. Urb. Asia in Apocal. ; Richter, Wallfahr- 
 ■ten; Schubert, Morgenland, Ac. 
 
 ^ SARD I US. [Odem.] - 
 jSARDONYX. [Yaiiai.om.] 
 aSARKPTA ( 'S.dpcrvra . Luke -iv. 26; Hebrew, 
 r/.iirephath, a Phoenician town between 
 
 jTyiP an«l Salon, mentioned in l Kings xvii. 9, 
 .10; O'laii. xx. It is the place where Klijah went 
 lo dwell, and where he performed the miracle of 
 multiplying the barrel of meal and cruse of oil. 
 aoM where he raised the widow’s son to life. It 
 ®till subsists as a large village, under the name 
 'of Smafend. The crusaders made Sarepta a 
 ‘.Latin bishopric in the archiepiscopate of Sidon, 
 and elected near the port a small chapel over the 
 reputed site of Elijah’s miracle (Will. Tyr. xix. 
 i 1 ; Jacob de Vilnucus, ch. 44). it is clear that 
 Vht? Saiepta of the crusaders stood on the sea 
 shine ; anil, therefore, the present village hearing 
 the same name, which stands upon the adjacent 
 lulls, must have been of more recent origin. 
 £See Nan, jY ov. Voyage, p. 514 ; Pococke, ii. 85; 
 ‘Kohinson, Bib. Researches , tit. 413, 414; liau- 
 gnet.'*-J > a/ds/mfi, p. 140;. 
 
 "feSARGON, king of Assyria f Assyria], 
 
 SARON. [Sharon] 
 
 <SATAN. Tiie doctrineof Satan and of Satanic 
 fegenev is to he made out from revelation, and 
 prom reflection in agreement with revelation. 
 
 , Scripture Names or Titles of Satan .— Besides 
 Satan, he is called the Devil, the Dragon, the Evil 
 One, the Angel of the Bottomless Pit, the Prince 
 -of this World, the Prince of the Power of the Air, 
 ♦he God of thi9 World, Ajollyon, Abaddon, Be* 
 •mil, Beelzebub. Satan and Devil ate the names 
 [by which he is oftener distinguished than by any 
 ; 0 lner, the former being applied to him about forty 
 times, and the latter fcfewi fifty timew 
 
 Satan is the Hebrew word transferred ti 
 the English. It is derived from the verb 
 which means ‘to lie. in wait,’ ‘ to oppose/.**.® 
 be an adversary.* Hence the noun denotes, arj 
 adversary or opposer. The word in its generic 
 sense occurs in 1 Kings xi. 14 : ‘The Lord raised- 
 up an adversary (JD!!^) against Solomon,’ i. e. Ha” 
 dad the Edomite. In the 23rd verse the word oc 
 curs again, applied to Rezan. It is used in thief 
 same sense in I Sam. xxix. 4, where David i» 
 termed an adversary ; and in Num. xxii. 22, wher- j 
 the angel * stood in the way for an adversarj 
 (|L3w ; )to Balaam,’ i e. to oppose him when lie wei* 
 witli the princes of Moab. See also Ps. cix. C. 
 
 I: i Zech. iii. 1, 2, the word occurs in its specif t 
 sense as a proper name : ‘ And he showed me 
 Joshua the high-priest standing before the anger 
 of the Lord, and Satan standing at hu 
 
 right hand to resist ’ (1313^, ‘ to satanize him T ) 
 
 ‘ And the Lord said unto Satan The 
 
 Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.’ Here it is manifest 
 both from the context and the use of the article 
 that some particular adversary i3 denoted. 
 
 In the 1st and 2nd chapters of Job, the same list 
 of the word with the article occurs several time* 
 The events in which Satan is represented as the 
 agent confirm this view. He was a distinguished 
 adversary and tempter. See also 1 Cliron. xxi. 1. 
 When we pass from the Old to the New Testament, 
 tins doctrine of an invisible evil agent becomes 
 more clear. With the advent of Christ and the 
 ojeningof the Christian dispensation, the gieat 
 opposer of that kingdom, the partietdar adversaiy 
 and antagonist of the Saviour, would naturally 
 become more active and more known. The anta- 
 gonism of Satan and his kingdom to Christ anti 
 bis kingdom runs through the whole of the New 
 Testament, as will appear from the following 
 passages and their contexts; Matt. iv. 10 , xii.26; 
 Mat it iv, 15; Luke x. 18; xxii. 3, 31 ; Acta 
 
SATAN. 
 
 SATAN. 
 
 xs\i. 13; Rom. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. si. 14; Rev. 
 u. 13; xii. 9. Peter is ewes called Satan, be- 
 cause b is spirit and conduct, at a certain time, 
 were so much in opposition to the spirit and 
 intent of Christ, and so much in the same hue 
 of direction with the workings of Satan. This 
 is the only application of the word in the New 
 Testament to any but the prince of the apostate 
 angels. 
 
 Devil (AtaffoXas) is the more frequent term of 
 designation given to Satan in the New Testament. 
 Both Satan a^.d devil are in several instances ap- 
 plied to the same being (Rev. xii. 9). ‘ That old 
 eerpent, the devil and Satan.’ Christ, in the 
 temptation (Matt, iv.), in his repulse of the 
 tempter, calls him Satan ; while the evangelists 
 distinguish him by the term ‘ devil.’ Devil is the 
 translation of StSffoXos, from the verb StaffiW o>,‘ to 
 thrust through,’ ‘ to carry over,’ and, tropically, 
 * to inform against,’ ‘ v to accuse.’ He is also called 
 the accuser of the brethren (Rev. xii. 10). Tho 
 Hebrew term Satan is more generic than the 
 Greek Staff o\ot. The former expresses Ms cha- 
 racter 8.s an opposer of all good ; the latter denotes 
 more particularly the relation which he bears 
 to the saints, as their traducer and accuser. 
 £*iaj3oXo$ is the uniform translation which tho 
 Septuagint gives of the Hebrew tdtd, when used 
 with the article. Farmer says that the term Sa- 
 tan is not appropriated to one particular person 
 or spirit, but signifies an adversary or opponent 
 In general. This is to no purpose, since it is 
 also applied to the devil as an adversary in par- 
 ticular. There are four instances in the Hew 
 ‘Testament in which the' word Staff oXos is applied 
 to human beings. In three out of the four, it is 
 in the plural number, expressive of quality, and 
 not personality (1 Tim. "iii. 11 ; 2 Tim. ill. 8 ; 
 Tit. ii. 3). In the fourth instance (John vi. 70), 
 Jesu-3 says to his disciples, 4 Have not I chosen 
 you twelve, and one of you is a devil f (didffokos ). 
 This is ilia only instance in the New Testament 
 ef its application to a human being in the singular 
 siumlier; and here Dr. Campbell thinks it should 
 ssot be translated 4 devil.* The translation is, how- 
 ever, of no consequence, since ii is with the use of 
 Che original word that this article is concerned. 
 The obvious reasons for this application of otd- 
 CoA os to Judas, as an exception to the general 
 sule, go to confirm the rule. The rule is that, in 
 the New Testament usage, the word in the singular 
 number denotes individuality , and is applied to 
 Satan as a proper name. By the exception, it is 
 applied to Judas, from his resemblance to the 
 devil, as an accuser and betrayer of Christ, and 
 from his contributing to aid him in his designs 
 against Christ. With these exceptions, the usus 
 l&quendi csf the New Testament shows & AiaffoXos 
 to be a prof'er name, applied to an extraordinary 
 Being, whose influence upon the human race is 
 great and mischievous (Matt. iv. 1-11; Luke 
 viii. 12; John viii. 44; Acts xiii. 10; Eplies. vi. 
 II; 1 Pet. v. 8; 1 John iii. 8; Rev. xii. 9). 
 The term devil, which is in the New Testament 
 the uniform translation of 8idffoAos y is also fre- 
 quently the translation of Saty&v and oaipdi/iov. 
 Between these words and oidffoAos the English 
 Si’anslatorg have made no distinction The former 
 ere almost always used in connection with de- 
 moniacal possessions, and are applied to the poa- 
 segsinar spirits, but never -fo the .prince of those 
 Splits, ( ‘u Uis other hand, tilffQhos is cover 
 
 applied to the demons, but only to their prince; 
 thus showing that the one is used definitely aa a 
 proper name, while the others are used indefinitely 
 as generic terms. The sacred writers made a dis- 
 tinction, which in the English version is lost. 
 In this, our translators followed the German ver- 
 sion : teufel, like the term devil, being applied la 
 both StdffoAos and Saljxwv. 
 
 Personality of Satan . — We determine the per- 
 sonality of Satan by the same criteria that we use 
 in'determining whether Caesar and Napoleon were 
 real, personal beings, or the .person ifi cations oil 
 abstract ideas, viz., by the tenor of history con- 
 cerning them, and the ascription of j>ersonul attri- 
 butes to them. All the forms of personal agency 
 g.re made use of by the sacred writers in setting 
 forth the character and conduct of Satan. They 
 describe him as having power and dominion, 
 messengers arid followers. He tempts and resists ; 
 he is held accountable, charged with guilt ; is to 
 be judged, and to receive final punishment. On 
 the supposition that it was the object of the sacred 
 writers to teach the pro|)cr personality of Satan, 
 they could have found no mere express terms than 
 those which they have actually used. And on 
 the supposition that they did not intend to teach 
 such a doctrine, their use of language, incapable 
 of communicating any ether idea, is wholly inex- 
 plicable. To suppose that all this semblance of a 
 real, veritable, conscious moral agent, is only a 
 tjoye, a prosbpopeia, i3 to make the inspired pen- 
 men guilty of employing a figure in such a v/ay 
 that, by no ascertained laws of language, it 
 could be known that it was a, figure, — in such a 
 way that it could not be taken to be a figure, 
 without violence to all the rhetorical rules by 
 which they on other occasions are known to havu 
 been guided. A personification, protracted through 
 such a book as the Bible, even should we suppose 
 it to have been written by one person — never 
 dropped in the most simple and didactic portions 
 —never explained when the most grave and im- 
 portant truths are to be inculcated, and when mt-n 
 the most ignorant and prone to superstition are ft* 
 be the readers — a personification extending from 
 Genesis to Revelation, — this is altogether ano- 
 malous and inadmissible. But to suppose thaf 
 the several writers of the different books of tliar 
 Bible, diverse in their style and intellectual 
 habits, writing under widely differing circunv 
 stances, through a period of nearly two thousand 
 years, should each, from Moses to John, fall hit® 
 the use of tiie same personification, and follow 
 it, too, in a way so obscure and enigmatical, 
 that, not one in a hundred of their readers would 
 escape the error which they did not mean to 
 teach, or apprehend the truth which they wished 
 to set forth, — to suppose this, is to require men to 
 believe that the inspired writers, who ought t»‘ 
 have done the least violence to the common law?} 
 of language, have really done the most. Such 
 uniformity of inexplicable singularity, on the part 
 of such men as the authors of the several books of 
 the Bible, could be accounted for only on .tire 
 hypothesis that they were subject to an evil aa 
 well as a good inspiration. Oh the other hand, 
 such uniformity of appellations and imagery, and 
 such identity of characteristics, protracted through 
 such a series ui writings, go to confirm the received 
 doctrine of a real personality. 
 
 But.theic are other difficulties than these general 
 
SATAN - . 
 
 GS4- "SATAN 
 
 ones, by which ihe theory of personification ig 
 encumbered. This theory supjiasea the devil to 
 be ihe principle of evil. Let it be applied in the 
 interpretation of two or three passages of Scripture. 
 
 ‘ Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the 
 wilderness, to he tempted of the devil’ (Matt, 
 i v . 1-11). Was Jesus tempted by a real, personal 
 being?* or was it by the principle of evil ? If by 
 the latter, in whom or what did this principle 
 reside? Was it in Jesus? Then it could not be 
 true that in him was no sin. The very principle 
 of sin was in him, “which would have made him 
 tbs tempter of himself. This is bad hermeneutics, 
 producing worse theology. Let it also be remem- 
 bered that this principle of evil, in order to be 
 moral evil, must inhere in some conscious moral ^ 
 Ireing. Siri is evil, only as it implies the state or 
 action of some personal anti accountable agent. 
 Who was this agent of evil in the Temptation? 
 Was it to a mere abstraction that the Saviour 
 raid, ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Loid thy God 
 * Get thee behind me, Satan?" Or was it to a real 
 person, having desires and purposes and volitions, 
 — evil , because these desires and purposes and 
 volitions were evil? There is but one intelligible 
 answer to such questions. And that answer shows 
 how perfectly untenable is the position that the 
 devil, or Satan, is only the personification of evil. 
 Again : * He was a murderer from the beginning, 
 and abode not in the truth : he is a liar and the 
 father of it’ (John viii. 44). With what, pro- 
 priety could these specific acts of guilt be charged 
 upon an abstraction ? An abstraction a murderer ! 
 a liar! The principle of evil abode not in the 
 truth ! Seriously to affirm such things of the 
 mere abstraction of evil is a solemn fiction ; 
 •while, to assert them of a fallen angel, who 
 beguiled Kve by falsehood, and brought death 
 upon all the race of man, is an intelligible and 
 affecting truth. What necessity for inspired men 
 to write that the devil sinned from the beginning, 
 5f he be only the principle of evil ? What con- 
 sistency, on this hypothesis, in their saying that 
 he transforms himself into an angel of light, if he 
 has no volition, no purpose, no craft, no ends or 
 agency? If there are such things as personal 
 attributes, it must be conceded that, the sacred 
 writers do ascribe them to Satan. On any other 
 supposition, the writers of the Now Testament 
 could more easily be convicted of insanity than 
 believed to be inspired. The principle of inter- 
 jrretation by which the personality of Satan is 
 discarded, leads to the denial of the personality of 
 the Deity. 
 
 Natural History. — The class of beings to which 
 Satan originally belonged, and which constituted 
 a celestial hierarchy,* is very numerous: ‘Ten 
 thousand times ten thousand stood before him * 
 (Dan. vii. 10). They .were created and dependent 
 (John i. 3). Analogy leads to the conclusion, 
 that there are different grades among the angels 
 as among other races of beings. The Scrip- 
 t-lies warrant, the same. Michael is described 
 n3 one of the chief princes^Dan. x. 13); as chief 
 captaif. of the host of Jehovah (Josh. v. 14). 
 Similar distinctions exist among the fallen angels 
 <C»1. ii. 15; Eph. vi. 12). It is also reasonable 
 to suppose that 'they were created susceptible of 
 improvement in all respects, except moral purity, 
 aa they certainly were capable of apostacy. Aa 
 to t&£ time when they were brought into Ueljijp tli? 
 
 Bible is’silent; and where it is silent, we should 
 be silent, or speak with modesty. Some supjiosa 
 that they were called into existence after the crea- 
 tion of the world ; among whom is Dr. John Dick. 
 Others have supposed that they were created just 
 anterior to the creation of man, and for purposes 
 of a merciful ministration to him. It is more 
 probable, however, that as they were the highest 
 in rank among the creatures of God, so they we ra 
 the first in the order of tima; and that they may 
 have continued for ages in obedience to their 
 Maker, before the creation of man, or the fall of 
 the apostate angels. 
 
 The Scriptures are explicit as to-the apostacy 
 of some, of whom Satan was the chief and leader. 
 ‘ And the angels which kept not their first estate, 
 or principality, hut left their own habitation,’ &c. 
 (Jude, ver. 6). * For if God spared siot the angels 
 
 that sinned," &c. (2 Pet. ii. 4). Those who fol- 
 lowed Satan in his apostacy are described as 
 belonging to him. The company is called tire 
 devil and his angels (t<£ AicfloA^ «al rois cyyt- 
 A ois airrov, Matt. xxv. 4 1 ). The relation marked 
 here denotes the instrumentality which the devil 
 may have exerted in inducing those sailed his 
 angels to rebel against Jehovah and join them- 
 selves to his interests. How Satan and his fbr- 
 lowers, being created so high in excellence anti 
 holiness, became sinful and fell, is a question 
 upon which theologians have differed, hut which 
 they have not settled. The difficulty has seemed 
 to great to Schleiertnachcr and others, that they 
 have denied the fact of such an apostacy. They 
 have untied the knot, by cutting it. Still the* 
 difficulty remains. The denial of mystery is not 
 the removal of it. Even philosophy teaches us to 
 believe sometimes where we cannot understand. 
 It is here that the grave question of the introduc- 
 tion of evil first meets us. If we admit the fact, 
 of apostacy among the angeb, a3 by a fair inter- 
 pretation of Scripture we me constrained to do, 
 the admission of such a fact in the case of human 
 heing3 will follow more easily, they being the 
 lower order of creatures, in whom defection would 
 he less surprising. As to what constituted tha 
 first sin of Satan and his followers, there has 
 l»een a diversity of opinions. Some have supposed 
 that it wa3 the beguiling of our first parents - . 
 Others -have believed that the first sin of the 
 angels is mentioned in Gen. vi. 2. The sacreiL 
 writers intimate very plainly that the first trans- 
 gression was pride, and that from this sprang open 
 rebellion. Of a bishop, the apostle shys (I Tim. 
 iii. 6), * He must not be a novice, lest, being 
 puffed up with pride , he fall into the condemnation 
 of the devil.’ From which it appears that prida 
 was the sin of Satan, and that for this he was con- 
 demned. This, however, marks the quality of the: 
 sin, and not the act.. 
 
 In his physical nature, Satan is among tnose 
 that are termed spiritual beings ; notes excluding? 
 necessarily all idea of matter, but as opposed 
 rather to I he animal nature. It is Ihe rev evpar ik6s 9 
 in opposition to the t^vxaais- The good angels are 
 all ministering spirits, revevpara (Heb. i. 14). 
 Satan is one of the angels that kept not their first 
 principality. The fall produced no change in his 
 physical or metaphysical nature. Paul, in warn- 
 ing the Ephesians against the rviles of the devi] 
 (t«s ueOoSeias too SiaP6\ov), tells them (Ep's. 
 vj. J? # ' that they contended net against flesh 
 
SATAN. 
 
 aul brood, men; human enemies, but &giiinai 
 pr$hicl pal: ties and powers, against the rulers of 
 the darkness of tins world, against spiritual 
 wickedness in high places; rrpbs to irrcvfiarwcl 
 ri}s ircvTiplxs iv •. ois itrovpaviais, iu which the 
 contrast is between human and superhuman foes, 
 the ra nirzvuartKa being for ras Qvcreis nvevpia- 
 tikSs, or tix TrpeufiKTa, spiritual natures, or 
 spit its , in opposition to flesh and blood (Itosen- 
 inuller, in loc.). Satan is not pure spirit in the 
 cense that God is spirit, nor necessarily Co the 
 exclusion of body : but that body, if he has airy, 
 is ethereal, pneumatic, invisible. He is unlike 
 God, because finite and dependent ; ami, in bis 
 ethereal physical nature, and the rapidity with 
 which he ’moves unseen from place to place, be is 
 unlike to man. He is immortal, but not eternal ; 
 era ither omniscient nor omnipresent, but raised 
 high above the human race in knowledge and 
 power. The Persian mythology, in its early stage, 
 Sind, subsequently, the Gnostics and Manichearts, 
 ranked the evsl principle as coeval and co-ordi- 
 nate, or nearly so, with God, or the good principle. 
 The doctrine of the Jewish church always roads 
 him a dependent creature, subject to the control 
 of the Almighty. By she modifications which 
 Suraasier subsequently introduced, the Persian 
 imgelology came more nearly to resemble tiiat of 
 tlieJews. Some liave ascribed to Satan the power 
 of working miracles, contending that there are 
 two series of antagonist cal miracles running 
 through the Bible. To the miracles of Moses 
 were opposed those of the Egyptian magicians; 
 and to those of Ohrid and. Ins apostles, the signs 
 and wonders of false prophets and Antichrists — tbs 
 Divine and the Satanic. OLshausen maintains 
 this view; as do some of the. older commentators 
 ( Bib Use hen Commentary vol. i. p. 242). The evi- 
 dence in support of such a belief h&3 not been 
 cuSicienfc to procure for it general acceptance 
 (see Rosenmiiller and Calvin on Matt. xxiv. 
 21 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9; Hengstenberg’s Egypt and 
 the Books of Moses,' ah. iii. ; also llosenmuller and 
 Hush on Kxod., ch. yti.). With a substantial 
 presence in only one place at one time, yet, as 
 the head of a spir itual kingdom, be is virtually 
 irresent wherever his angels or servants are exe- 
 cuting his will. 
 
 His cl ai racier is evil, purely and entirely so 
 (I John iii. 8; John vili. 44). His character is 
 denoted by his titles, Satan, Adversary, Dial Kilos, 
 False Accuses*, Tempter, &c. All the represent- 
 ations of him in Scripture show him to have un- 
 EJissed and confirmed evil as the basis of his 
 Character, exhibiting itself in respect to God in 
 assuming to be his equal, and in wishing to 
 transfer the homage and service which belong 
 only to God to himself ; and in respect to men. 
 in efforts to draw them away from God and 
 attach them to his kingdom. The evil developes 
 itself in all possible ways and by all possible 
 means of opposition to God, and to those who are 
 striving to establish and extend his dominion. 
 Evil is so transcendent in him, that his whole 
 intellectual and moral nature is subordinated to 
 it. His character is symmetrical. It has a 
 dreadful consistency, from the concurrence in 
 evil, and subjection to it, of all the powers of his 
 Being. It is unique and complete in evil, made 
 so by the act of aposiacy, and continued so by 
 a jpsrliuacloua adherence to evil &) his good, 
 
 SATAN. G53 
 
 Qtter.stsdt gays that ‘ some angels are called evil, 
 not by reason of their essential constitution, but, 
 first, from an evil act, that is, apostacy from God , 
 secondly, from an habitual perverseness which 
 followed this act of apostacy; thirdly, on accoutre 
 of an irreclaimable persistency in evil.* Evil b 
 bis fixed 6tate, in which he is confirmed by the 
 invincibility of bis dispositions to sin — art invin- 
 cibility which no motives can ever overcome. 
 This confirmation of evil is denoted by the ever- 
 lasting chains of darkness in which the apostate 
 at: gels are reserved unto the judgment of the 
 great day (Jude, ver. 6). The immutability of hia 
 evil character precludes the idea of repentance, 
 and therefore the possibility of recovering J»race- 
 * He possesses 'an understanding which misappre- 
 hends exactly that which is most worthy to ba 
 known, to which the key fails without which 
 nothing can be understood in its true relations,— 
 ail understanding darkened, however deep it may 
 penetrate, however wide it may reach. He ig 
 thereby necessarily unblessed ; tom away from 
 the centre of life, yet without ever finding, it in 
 himself; from the sense of inward emptiness - , 
 continually driven to die exterior world, and yet 
 with it, .as with himself, in eternal contradiction ; 
 for ever fleeing from God, yet never escaping him ; 
 constantly labouring to frustrate his designs, yet 
 always conscious of bsuig obliged to promote 
 them ; instead of enjoyment in the contemplation 
 of his excellence, the never satisfied desire after 
 an object which it cannot attain ; instead of hope, 
 a perpetual wavering between doubt and de- 
 spair; instead of love, a powerless hatred agsinsS 
 God, against his fellow-beings, against himself* 
 (Twasten). 
 
 Agency ,— The agency of Satan extends to all 
 '.tint lie does or causes to ha done': * Qui tacit per 
 alium facit per se.’ To this agency the following 
 restrictions liave been generallysupposed to exist; 
 it ia limited, first, by the direct power of God | 
 he cannot transcend the power on which he is de- 
 pendent for existence ; - secondly, by the finitenesa 
 of his own created faculties ; — thirdly, by the esta- 
 blished connection of cause and effect, or the laws 
 of nature. The miracles, which he has been sup- 
 posed to have the power of working, are deno- 
 minated lying signs and wonders, eppeias aal 
 <ripa<n ij/cvdovs (2 Thess. ii. 9) \\ itii these re- 
 
 strictions, the devil goes about like a roaring lion. 
 
 H is ag.ncy is moral and physical. First, moral. 
 He beguiled our first parents, and thus brought 
 sin and death upon them and their posterity 
 (Gen. iii.). He moved David to number the 
 people (1 Chron. xxi. 1). He resisted Joshua 
 the high-priest (Zech. iii. 1). He tempted Jesus 
 (Matt, iv.) ; entered into Judas, to induce him 
 to betray his master .(Luke xxii. 3): instigated 
 Ananias and Sapphira to lie to the Holy Ghost 
 (Acts v, 3); hindered Paul and Barnabas on 
 their way to the Thessalonians (1 Thes<. ii. 18), 
 He is the spirit that now worketh in the children 
 of disobedience (Kph. ii.2); and he deceiveth tho 
 whole world (Rev. xii. 9). 
 
 The means which he uses are variously called 
 wiles, darts, depths, snares, all deceivableness’e£ 
 unrighteousness. He darkens the understandings 
 of men, to keep them in ignorance. He perverts 
 their judgments, that lie may lead them into error. 
 He insinuates evil thoughts, and thereby awakens 
 ia them unholy desires. . He eixitea them fra 
 
CSS SATAN. 
 
 pride, anger, and revenge ; to discontent, rs- 
 pinings. anil rebellion. He labours to prop up 
 false systems of religion, and to conr.pt and 
 overturn tlie true one. He came into most direct 
 and determined conflict with the Saviour in the 
 temptation, hoping lo draw him from liis allegiance 
 to God, and procure homage for himself : but lie 
 failed, in his purpose. Next, he instigated the 
 JewSilo put him to death, thinking thus to thwart 
 his designs and frustrate his plans. Here too he 
 failed, and was made to subserve the very ends 
 which he most wished to prevent. Into a similar 
 conflict does he come with all the saints, and 
 with like ultimate ill success. God uses his 
 temptations as the means of trial to his people, 
 and of strength hy trial, and points them out as a 
 motive to watchfulness and prayer. Such are the 
 nature and mode of his moral influence and 
 agency. 
 
 But his efforts are directed against the bodies 
 of men, as well as against their souls. That the 
 agency of Satan was concerned in producing 
 physical diseases the Scriptures plainly teach 
 fJobii. 7; Luke xiii. 16). Peter say3 of Christ, 
 that he went about doing good and -healing 
 [iii/xevos) all that were oppressed of the devil 
 (row Zia&6\ov) (Acts x. 33) Hymeneus and 
 Alexander were delivered to Satan, that they 
 might learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. i. 20); 
 where physical Buffering by the agency of Satan, 
 a.3 a divine chastisement, is manifestly intended. 
 
 Farmer seem3 to have been among the first in 
 modem times who adopted the rationalistic, or 
 accommodation principle of interpretation, upon 
 the subject of demoniacal possessions. Semlei 
 introduced Tils work on Demoniacs into Germany, 
 and the G erne an&j e o 1 ogi 3ta adopted substantially 
 liis view. For a rtffutation of this system of i:i»er- 
 |.t elation, see Twesten’s Dogmatik , Olahausen's 
 Commentary Storr and Flatt’s Biblical Tkeol., 
 and Appleton's Lectures ; and for a general state- 
 ment of the arguments on both sides see the articles 
 Demon; Demoniacs. 
 
 Whatever the demons may have been, they 
 were considered by the New Testament writers a 3 
 Ixdonging to the kingdom of Satan. They are 
 called unclean spirits, evil demons. They are 
 conscious of being under condemnation. (Matt, 
 viii. 23). Christ came to destroy the works cf 
 Satan ; and he refers to his casting out demons 
 by the finger of God as proof that he xvas exe- 
 cuting that work. And when charged with cast- 
 ing them out by the prince of demons, he meets 
 Use charge by the assertion that this would be 
 dividing the kingdom of Satan — Satan casting 
 out Satan, i. o. casting out lu3 own subjects; — 
 the irresistible inference from which is, that Satan 
 and the demons are one house, pertain to ens and 
 the' dame kingdom 
 
 It is of no avail that there are d ifficulf ies connected 
 with the agepey ascribed to Satan. Objections are 
 of little weight when hrought against well-authen- 
 ticated facts. Any objections ta’sed- against the 
 agency of Satan are equally valid against his 
 existence. If he exists, he must act; and if he 
 vs evil, bis agency must he evil. The fact of such 
 «*n agency being revealed, as it 13 , is every way as 
 consonant with reason and religious consciousness 
 £3 are the existence and agency cf good angels. 
 Weit'u *r reason nor consciousness could by fhem- 
 gelve* establish such a fact; but all the testimony 
 
 SAUL. 
 
 they &r£ capable of adducing ia in agreement wiit> 
 the Scripture representation on the subject. Sf 
 God communicates with good men without tbeii 
 consciousness, there is no apparent reason why 
 Satan may not, without their consciousness, com- 
 municate with had men. And if good men be- 
 come better by the influence of good beings, it is 
 equally easy to suppose that bad men may become 
 worse by the influence of evil beings. Such at* 
 influence no more militates against the benevo- 
 lence of God, than does the agency of wicked mm. 
 or the existence of moral evil in any form. Evil 
 agents are as really under the divine control as 
 are good agents. And out of evil, God will 
 cause good to come. He will make the wrath of 
 devils as well as of men to praise him, and the 
 remainder He will restrain. — E. A. L. 
 
 SAUL Sept, and New Test. 2aooA)L 
 
 son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was the 
 first king of the Israelites. The corrupt adminis- 
 tration of just ioe by Samuel's sons furnished ais 
 occasion to the Hebrews for rejecting that theo- 
 cracy, of which they neither appreciated toe 
 value, nor, through their unfaithfulness to it, en- 
 joyed the full advantages (1 Sam. viii.). An in 
 vasion hy the Ammonites seems also to have con- 
 spired with the cause just mentioned, and with a 
 love of novelty, in prompting the demand for u 
 king (l Sam. xii. 12) — an officer evidently alien 
 to the genius of the llieocracy, though contem- 
 plated as an historical certainty, and provided 
 for by the Jewish lawgiver (1 Sam. xii. 17-20; 
 Deut. xvii. 14-20; on which see Grotius's note; 
 also Da Jvrc Belli , &c. i. 4. 6, with the remarks 
 of Gronoviu3, who (as Puffendorf also does) con- 
 troverts the views of Grot! ns). An explanation of 
 the nature of this request, as not only an instance 
 of ingratitude to Samuel, but of rebellion against 
 Jehovah, and the delineation of the manner in 
 which their kings — notwithstanding the restric- 
 tions prescribed in the law — might be expected 
 to conduct themselves 0/?3n DE5 &D, SepK 
 SiKalotfAa tow fkurihews ; 1 Sam. viii. 11 ? x. 
 having failed to move the pe»plc from their reso- 
 lution, the Lord sent Saul, who had left home i » 
 quest of his father's asses, which had straypd, to 
 Samuel, who having informed Saul of the divine 
 purpose regarding him, and having at a feast 
 shown him a preference, which, no doubt, the 
 other guests understood, privately anointed bin'* 
 king, and gave him various tokens, by which he 
 might be assured that his designation was from* 
 Jehovah (1 Sarn. ix. x.). Moved by the autho- 
 rity of Samuel, and by the fulfilment of these 
 signs, Saul's reluctance to assume the office to 
 which he was called was overcome; which may lie 
 
 the meaning of the expression (I Sam. js. 
 
 9), though his hesitation afterwards ’returned (ver- 
 21, 22). On his way home, meeting a company 
 of prophets, he vm seised with the prophetic 
 afflatus, anti so gave occasion to a proverb after- 
 wards in use among the Jews, though else- 
 where a different origin is assigned to the caving 
 (1 Sam. xix, 24). Immediately after. Saul win? 
 elected at. Mizpab in a solemn assembly by the 
 detenni nation cf the miraculous lot — a method 
 cf election not confined to the Hebrews (A iris tot. 
 Polit. vi. 11; and Virg. JEn. ii. 4 Laocoon lectus 
 Neptuni eovte eacerdos'); and both previously to 
 that election (x. 16), and subsequently, when ia* 
 
SAUL. 
 
 suited by the worthless portion of the Israelites, he 
 showed that modesty, humility, and forbearance 
 which seem to have characterized him till cor- 
 rupted by the possession of power. The person 
 thus set apart to discharge the royal function, pos- 
 sessed at least those corporeal advantages which 
 most ancient nations desiderated in their sove- 
 reigns (the cl So? &%iqp rvpawiSos. Eurip.).- His 
 person was tall and commanding, and ha soots 
 showed that his courage was not inferior to his 
 etrengfb (1 Sam. ix. 1 ; x. 23) Hh belonging 
 to Benjamin also, the smallest of the tribes, 
 though of distinguished bravery, prevented the 
 mutual jealousy with which either of the two 
 great tribes, Judah and Ephraim, would have re- 
 garded a king chosen from the other: so that his 
 election was received with general rejoicing, and 
 e number of men, moved by the authority of Sa- 
 muel (x. 20), even attached themselves to him as 
 si body guard, or as counsellors and assistants. 
 In the mean time the Ammonites, whose invasion 
 «sid hastened the appointment of a king, having 
 besieged Jabesh in Gilead, and Nahash their 
 king having proposed insulting conditions to 
 them, the elders of that town, apparently not 
 aware of Saul's election (1 Sam. xi. 3), sent mes- 
 sengers through the land imploring help. Saul 
 acted with wisdom and promptitude, summoning 
 the people, en masse, to meet him at Bezek; and 
 Laving at the head of a vast multitude totally 
 routed the Ammonites (ver. 11), and obtained a 
 higher glory, by exhibiting a new instance of 
 clemency , whether dictated by principle or policy 
 — ‘Novum imperium inchoautibus utilia de- 
 mentis .fama' (Tac. Hist. iv. 63), 4 For lowliness is 
 young ambition’s ladder — he and the people be- 
 took themselves, under the direction of Samuel, to 
 Gilgal, there with solemn sacrifices to reinsfal 
 the victorious leader in his kingdom (1 Sam. xi.). 
 If the number set down in the Hebrew text, of those 
 who followed Saul (1 Sam. xi. 8), can be depended 
 cn (the Sept, more than doubles them, and Jose- 
 phus outgoes even the Sept.), it would appear 
 that the tribe of Judah was dissatisfied with 
 Saul’s election, for the soldiers furnished by the 
 cither tribes were 300,000, while Judah sent only 
 30,000; whereas the population of the former, 
 compared with (hat of Judah, appears, from other 
 'aasages, to have been as about five to three 
 2 Kings xxiv. 0), And yet it is strange that 
 litis remissness is neither punished (1 Sam. xi. 7) 
 uor noticed. At Gilgal Saul was publicly 
 anointed, and solemnly installed in the kingdom 
 by Samuel, who took occasion to vindicate the 
 purity of his own administration — which he vir- 
 tually transferred to Saul — to censure the people 
 for their ingratitude and impiety, and to warn both 
 them and Saul of the danger of disobedience to the 
 commands of Jehovah (I Sam. xii.). These were 
 the principal transactions that occurred during the 
 first year of Saul’s reign (which vve venture to 
 assign as (he meaning of the first clause' of chap. 
 
 xiii. bm? &3GP p, ‘ the son of a yea? 
 
 was Saul in his reigning’ — the emendation .of 
 Origen, ‘Saul was thirty years old/ which the 
 chronology contradicts, for he seems now to have 
 been forty years old, and the omission of tbs 
 whole first verse by the Sept., being evidently 
 (Arbitrary, and, therefore, inadmissible expedients 
 for solving a -difficulty) ; aiffi t he subse quent 
 
 SAUL. 697 
 
 events happened in the second year — which msy 
 be the meaning of the latter clause. 
 
 Saul's first trial and transgression , — The 
 restrictions on which he held the sovereignty Had 
 (1 Sam. x. 25) been fully explained a3 well to 
 Saul as to the people, so that he was not ignorant 
 of his true position as merely the lieutenant of Je- 
 hovah, king of Israel, who not only gave a'a the 
 laws, but whose will, in the execution of them, was 
 constantly to be consulted and complied with. 
 The first occasion on which his obedience to tliia 
 constitution was put to the test brought out those 
 defects in his character which showed his unfit- 
 ness for his high office, and incurred a threat of 
 that rejection which his subsequent conduct, con- 
 firmed (1 Sam. xiii. 13). Saul could not under- 
 stand his proper position, as only the servant of 
 Jehovah speaking through his ministers, or con- 
 fine himself to it; and in this respect he was not, 
 what David; with many individual and pri- 
 vate faults and crimes, was— -a man after G.od*a 
 own heart, a king faithful to the principles of the 
 theocracy. 
 
 Having" organized a small standing army, 
 part of which, under Jonathan, had taken a fort 
 of the Philistines, Saul summoned the people to 
 withstand the forces which their oppressors, novsr 
 alarmed for their dominion, would naturally as- 
 semble. But eci numerous a host came against 
 Saul, that the people, panic-stricken, fied to rocks 
 and caverns for safety — years of servitude having 
 extinguished their courage, which the want ot 
 arms, of which the policy of the Philistines hail 
 deprived them, still further diminished. Tbs 
 number of chariots, 30,000, seems a mistake ; un- 
 less we suppose; with Le Clerc, that they wera 
 not war-chariots, but baggage-waggons (an im- 
 probable supposition), bo that 3900 may be tha 
 true number. Apparently reduced to extremity, 
 and- the seventh, day being come, but not being 
 ended, the expiration of which Samuel had en- 
 joined him to wait, Saul at least ordered sacri- 
 fices to be offered — for the expression f 1 Sam. xii?. 
 9) does not necessarily imply tjiat fie intruded 
 into the priest’s office (2Sam.Vi. 13; 3 Kings 
 iii. 2-4), though that is the most obvious meaning 
 of the (ext. Whether that which Saul now dis- 
 regarded was the injunction referred to (1 Sam. 
 s. 8), or one subsequently addressed to him, this 
 is evident, that Saul acted in the full knowledge 
 that he sinned (xiii. 12) ; and his guilt, in <hat 
 act of conscious disobedience, was probably in- 
 creased by its clearly involving an assumption ol 
 authority to conduct the war according to lib own 
 judgment and will. Samuel having denounced 
 the displeasure of Jehovah and its consequences, 
 left him, and Saul returned to Gibeah (the ad- 
 dition made to the text of the Sept. ver. 15, 
 v/ here after * -froth Gilgal,’ the clause, ‘and Sha 
 rest of (he people went up after Saul to meet the 
 enemy from Gilgal to Gibeah,’ &c., being re- 
 quired apparently by the sense, which, probably, 
 has been the only authority for its insertion). Left 
 to himself, Saul’s errors multiplied apace. Jo- 
 nathan, having assaulted a garrison of the Phi- 
 listines (apparently at Michmash, ,1 Sam. xiv. 
 31, which, therefore, must have been situated near 
 Migron in Gibeah, ver. 1, and within sight of it 
 ver. 15), Saul, aided by a panic of the enemy 
 an earthquake, and the co-operation of his fugi- 
 tive soldiers, effected a great slaughter ; but by % 
 
CSS SAUL, 
 
 rasn and foolish denunciation, he (1) impeded his 
 success (ver. 30), (2) involved the people in a 
 violation of the law (ver. 33), and (3), unless pre- 
 vented by the more enlightened conscience of the 
 people, would have ended with putting Jonathan 
 to death for an act which, being done in invin- 
 cible ignorance, could involve no guilt. This 
 success against the Philistines was followed, not 
 only by their retirement for a lime within their 
 own territory, but by other considerable successes 
 against the other enemies of his country — Moab, 
 .Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah, the Amalek- 
 ites, and thePnilistines, all of whom he harassed, 
 l;ut did not subdue. These wars may have occu- 
 pied five or six years, till the tenth or eleveuth 
 year of Saul’s reign, rather than the sixteenth, as 
 marked in the Bible chronology. 
 
 Saul's second transgression . — Another trial 
 •was afforded Saul before his final rejection, the 
 command to extirpate the Amalekites, whose 
 fiostility to .the people of God was inveterate. 
 Deut. xxv. 18; Exod. xvii. 8:16; Num. xiv. 
 42*45; Judg. iii. 13; vi. 3), and who had not 
 by repentance averted that doom which had been 
 delayed 550 years (1 Sam. xiv. 48). They who 
 represent this sentence as unworthy of the God of 
 the whole earth, should ask on what principle the 
 execution of a criminal under human governments 
 can be defended ? If men judge that the welfare 
 cf society demands the destruction of one of their 
 fellows, surely God, who can better judge what the 
 interests of his government require, and has a more 
 perfect right to dispose of men’s lives, may cut off 
 by the sword of his servants the persons whom, 
 without any imputation of injustice, he might 
 destroy by disease, famine, or any such visitation. 
 It is more to our present purpose to remark, that 
 the apparent cruelty of this commission was not 
 the reason why it was not fully executed, as 
 Saul himself confessed when Samuel upbraided 
 lain, * I feared the people ahd obeyed their voice’ 
 (1 Sam. xv. 21). This stubbornness in persisting 
 to rebel against the directions of Jehovah was now 
 visited by that final rejection of his family from 
 succeeding bin) on the throne, which had before 
 been threatened (ver. 23; xiii. 13, 14). and which 
 -was now significantly represented, or mystically 
 predicted, by the rending of the prophet’s mantle. 
 After this second and flagrant disobedience, Saul 
 received no more public countenance from the 
 venerable prophet, who now left him to his sin3 
 and his punishment; ‘nevertheless, he mourned 
 for Saul,’ and the Lord repented that he had made 
 fjaul king (xv. 35). 
 
 Saul's conduct to David . — The denunciations 
 cf Samuel sunk into the heart of Saul, and pro- 
 duced a deep melancholy, which either really 
 tyas, or which his physicians (1 Sam. xvi. 14, 15 ; 
 comp. Gen. 1. 2) told him, was occasioned by an 
 evil spirit from the Lord ; unless we understand 
 the phrase fTH subjectively, as denoting the 
 condition itself of Saul's mind, instead of the 
 cause of that condition (Isa. xxix. 10; Num. v. 
 14; Rom. xi. 8). We can conceive that music 
 might afi’ect Saul’s feelings, might cheer his 
 despondency, or divert his melancholy-; but how 
 it should have the power to chase away a spi- 
 ritual messenger rvhom the Lord had sent to 
 chasten the monarch for his transgressions, is not 
 eo easily understood. Saul’s case must probably 
 
 judged of by the same principles as that of 
 
 SAUL 
 
 the demoniacs mentioned in the New Testament 
 [Demoniacs]. David was recommended to Saul 
 on account ol his skill as a musician ( I Sam. xvi. 
 16-23), though the narrative of his intru Juctiuj* 
 to Saul, his subsequently killing Goliath, Saul o 
 ignorance of David's person after he had been 
 his attendant and armour-bearer, with various 
 other circumstances in the narrative (1 Sam. xvi. 
 14-23; xvii. xviii. 1-4), present difficulties which 
 neither the arbitrary omissions in the Sept., nor 
 the ingenuity of subsequent critics, have suc- 
 ceeded in removing, and which have led many 
 eminent scholars to suppose the existence of ex- 
 tensive dislocations in this part of the Old Tes- 
 tament. Certainly the solutions offered by those 
 who would reconcile the narrative as it now stand* 
 in the Hebrew text, demand too much ingenuity, 
 and appear very unsatisfactory. That proposed 
 by Hales and others seems to be the most feasible, 
 which would place the passage, xvi. 14-23, after 
 xviii. 9; yet why should Saul’s attendants need 
 to describe so minutely a person whom he and 
 all Israel knew so well already ? Alsu, how can 
 we conceive that Saul should love so much (xvi. 
 21) a person against whom his jealousy and 
 hatred had been so powerfully excited as his pro- 
 bable successor in the kingdom ? (xviii. 9). Be- 
 sides, David had occupied already a much higher 
 position (xviii. 5) ; and, therefore, his being made 
 Saul’s armour-bearer must have been the very 
 opposite of promotion, which the text (xvi. 21) 
 supposes it was. 
 
 Though not acquainted with the unction ol 
 David, yet having received intimation that flu? 
 kingdom should be given to aiiother, Saul soon 
 suspected from Id's accomplishments, heroism,- 
 wisdom, and popularity, that David was his des- 
 tined successor ; and, instead of concluding that 
 his resistance to the divine purpose would only 
 accelerate his own ruin, Saul, in the spirit of 
 jealousy and rage, commenced a series of mur- 
 derous attempts on the life of hi3 rival, that 
 must have lost, him the respect and sympathy of 
 his people, which they secured for the object of 
 his malice and envy, whose noble qualities also 
 they both exercised and rendered more con- 
 spicuous. He attempted twice to assassinate him 
 with his own hand (xviii. 10, 11; xix. 10); he 
 sent him on dangerous military expeditions (xviii. 
 5, 13, 17); he proposed that David should mairy 
 first his elder daughter, whom yet he gave co 
 another, and then his younger, that the procuring 
 of the dowry might prove fatal to David ; and 
 then he sought to make his daughter an instru- 
 ment of her husband’s destruction ; and it seems 
 probable, that unless miraculously prevented, he 
 would have embrued his hands in the blood oft 
 the venerable Samuel himself (1 Sam. xix. 18), 
 while the text seems to intimate (xx 33) that 
 even the life of Jonathan was not safe liom ins 
 fury, though the subsequent context may war- 
 rant a doubt whether Jonathan was die par»y 
 aimed at by Saul. The slaughter of Ahiinelech 
 the priest (1 Sam. xxii.), under pretence of lua 
 being a partisan of David, and of eighty-tive 
 other priests of the house of Eli, to wtium nothing 
 could be imputed, as well as the whole inhabitaun? 
 of Nob, was an atrocity perhaps never exceeded ; 
 and yet the wickedness of the act was not greater 
 than its infatuation, for it must have inspired hw 
 subjects not only with abhorrence of their king *ts 
 
SAUL, 
 
 eu inhuman tyrant, but with honor of pirn as an 
 t upiou3 and sacrilegious monster. This crime 
 of Saul put David in possession of the sacred lot, 
 which Abiathar, the only surviving member of 
 Eli’s priestly family, brought with k him, arid by 
 which he was enabled to obtain oracles directing 
 aim in his critical affairs (xxii. 21-23; xxiii. 
 1 , 2 ). 
 
 Having compelled David to assume the posi- 
 tion of an outlaw, around whom gathered a num- 
 ber of turbulent and desperate characters, Saul 
 might persuade himself that he was justified in be- 
 dewing the hand of David's wife on another, and 
 in making expeditions to apprehend and destroy 
 him, A portion of the people were base enough 
 to minister to the evil passions of Saul (I Sam. 
 xxiii. 19; xxvi. 1), and others, perhaps, might 
 colour their fear by the pretence of conscience 
 (xxiii. 12). But his sparing Saul’s life twice, 
 when he was completely in I 113 power, must have 
 destroyed all colour of right in Saul’s conduct in 
 ihe minds of fcjse people, as it also did in his 
 own conscience (xxiv. 3-7 ; xxvi.) ; which two 
 passages, though presenting many points of simi- 
 larity, cannot be referred to the same occasion, 
 without denying to the narrative all historic accu- 
 racy and trustworthiness. 'Though thus degraded 
 and paralysed by the indulgence of malevolent 
 passions, Saul still acted with vigour in repelling 
 the enemies of his country, and in other affairs 
 ivherein his jealousy of David was not concerned 
 (xxiii. 27, 23). 
 
 -The Bible chronology, as does also Ussher, 
 dates David’s marriage with Michal, a.m. 249!, 
 the same year in which Goliath was slain. Hales, 
 with apparent reason, makes it five years later, 
 when David had attained the age ’of twenty-five. 
 The same year Mephibosheth was bom; which 
 teems to be alluded to in 2 Sam. iv. 4 ; and about 
 five years more appear to have elapsed before the 
 death of Saul. Samuel's death had taken place 
 not long before, as the statement in l Sam. xxviii.3 
 implies. Probably two years are sufficient to 
 allow time for the intermediate transactions 
 (1 Sam. xxv.-xxxi.), instead of four, as set down 
 in the Bible chronology. 
 
 Saul's third qr/ence and death . — The measure 
 of Saul's iniquity, now almost full, was completed 
 by an act of direct treason against Jehovah the 
 God of Israel (Exod. xxii. IS Ley. xix. 31 ; 
 2£%. 27 ; Deut. xviii. 10, 11). Saul, probably in 
 a fit of seal, and perhaps as some atonement for 
 h is disobedience in other respects, had executed 
 ihe penalty of the law on those who practised 
 necromancy and divination (1 Sam. xxviii. 3). 
 Now; however, forsaken of God, who gave him no 
 cracies, and rendered,, by a course of wickedness, 
 both desperate and infatuated, he requested his 
 attendants to seek him a woman who had a fami- 
 liar spirit (which is the loose rendering in tha 
 English Bible of the expression occurring twice 
 
 in ver. 7, .218$ tf a woman a mis- 
 
 tress of Ob;’ ‘ ha ben 3 Fythonem,* Vulg.), that he . 
 might obtain from her that direction which Je- 
 hovah refused to afford him. The question as ’to 
 the character of the apparition evoked by the 
 witch of Endor, falls more properly to be con- 
 ciuered under other articles [Divination; 
 Witch] 5 hut we may remark that the king 
 bimsslf manifestly both caw and conversed with 
 
 SAUL, CM 
 
 the phantom, whatever it was, which appeared h) 
 the form and spoke in the character of Samuel, 
 and that the predictions uttered by the spectre 
 were real oracles, implying distinct and certain 
 foreknowledge, as the event proved (see Hales, 
 vol. ii., who has discussed thh subject very judi- 
 ciously). 
 
 Assured of his own death the next day, and 
 that of his sons ; of the ruin of hb army, and the 
 triumph of his most formidable enemies, whose 
 invasion had tempted him to try this unhallowed 
 expedient, — all announced to him by that same 
 authority which had foretold his possession of the 
 kingdom, and whose words had never been falsi- 
 fied — Saul, in a state of dejection which could nut 
 promise success to his followers, met the enemy 
 next day in Giiboa, cn the extremity of the great 
 plain of Esdraelon ; and having seen the total rout 
 of his army, and the slaughter of his three eons, of 
 whom the magnanimous Jonathan was one ; and 
 having in vain solicited death from the hand o2 
 his armour-bearer (Doeg the Edomite, the Jews 
 say, ‘ A partner before of his master’s crimes, and 
 now of his punishment'), Saul perished at last by 
 his own hand. ‘ So Saul died for his transgression 
 which he committed against the word of the Lord, 
 which he kept not, and also for asking counsel o t 
 one that had. a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; 
 and inquired not of the Lord, therefore the Lord 
 slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David 9 
 (1 Chron. x. 13, 14) 
 
 When the Philistines came on the morrow 
 plunder the slain, they found Saul's body and 
 the bodies of his sons, which, having beheaded 
 them, they fastened to the wall of Bethshan ; but 
 the men of Jabesh-gilead, mindful of their forme? 
 obligation to Saul (1 Sam. xi.), when they heard 
 of the indignity, gratefully and heroically went 
 by night and carried them off, and buried them 
 under a tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days. 
 It 13 pleasing to think that even the worst men. 
 have left behind them those in whom gratitude 
 and affection are duties. Saul had those who 
 mourned him, as some hand was found to have 
 strewed flowers on the newly-made grave of Nero. 
 From Jabesh the bones of Saul and of his sons 
 were removed by David, and buried in Zelah, so 
 the sepulchre of Kish his father. 
 
 There is not in the sacred history, or in any 
 other, a character more melancholy to contem- 
 plate than that of Saul. Naturally humble and 
 modest, though of strong passions, he might bars 
 adorned a private station. In circumstances 
 which did not expose him to strong temptation* 
 he would probably have acted virtuously. But 
 his natural rashness was controlled neither by a 
 powerful understanding nor a scrupulous con- 
 science ; and the obligations of duty, and the ties 
 of gratitude, always felt by him too slightly, were 
 totally disregarded when ambition, envy, and 
 jealousy had taken possession of his mind. The 
 diabolical nature of/ these passions is seen, with, 
 frightful distinctness, in Saul, whom their in- 
 dulgence transformed into an unnatural anc? 
 blood-thirsty monster, who constantly exhibited 
 the moral infatuation, so common among those 
 who have abandoned themselves to sin, of th ink- 
 ing that the punishment of one crime may be 
 escaped by the perpetration of another. In him 
 also is seen that moral anomaly or contradic- 
 tion* which would he ircrf&Uc* did v/« x&l 
 
700 SCARLET. 
 
 so Owen witness if, of an individual pursuing ha- 
 bitually a coarse which his better nature pre* 
 r. ounces not only flagitious, but insane (1 Sam. 
 xxiv. 16-22). Saul knew that, that person should 
 l:s king whom yet he persisted in seeking to de- 
 strov, and so accelerated his own ruin. For it can 
 liardly be doubted that the distractions and dis- 
 affection occasioned hy Saul’s jiersecution of David 
 produced that weakness in his government which 
 encouraged the Philistines to make the invasion 
 in which himself and his sons perished. ‘ I gave 
 siieea king in mine anger, and took him away 
 in my wrath ’ (Kos. xii. 11). In the prolonged 
 troubles and disastrous termination of tins first 
 s-cign, the Hebrews were 'vividly shown how 
 vain was their favourite remedy for the mis- 
 chiefs of foreign invasion and intestine discord. 
 
 — R. L. 
 
 SCAPE-GOAT. [Goat, Scape.] 
 
 SCARLET. [Purple.] 
 
 SCEPTRE. The Hebrew word thus rendered 
 is I3?r,wl dch in its primary signification denotes 
 a stall' of wood (Ezek. xix. 1 1), about the height 
 of a man, which the ancient kings and chiefs bore 
 as an insigue of honour (Mart., i. 231, 243; ii. 
 185, sq. : Amos i. 5 ; Zech. x. II ; Ezek. xix. 
 11 ; VVisd. x. M; comp. Gen. xlix. 10; Num. 
 ■xx iv. 17; Isa. xiv. 5). As such it appears to 
 have originated in the shepherd’s staff, since the 
 first, kings were mostly nomade princes (Strabo, 
 xvi. 783 ; comp. Ps. xxix). There were, however, 
 come nations among wlnm the agricultural life 
 must have been the earliest known ; and we should 
 not among them expect to find the shepherd's 
 staff advanced to symbolical honour. Accord- 
 ingly, Diodorus Siculus (iii. 3) informs us, that 
 the sceptre of the Egyptian kings bore the shape of 
 a plough — a testimony confirmed by existing 
 monuments, in which the long staff which forms 
 the sceptre, terminates in a form obviously in- 
 tended to represent a plough. 
 
 A golden sceptre, that is, one washed or plated 
 with gold, is mentioned in Ezek. iv. 1 1 (comp. 
 Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 7, 13 ; Iliad , i. 15 ; ii. 268 ; 
 Odyss. xi. 91). Other decorations of Oriental 
 cceptres are noticed by Strabo (xvi. 746). In- 
 clining the sceptre was a mark of kingly favour 
 (Esth. iv. 11), and the kissing it a token of sub- 
 mission (Esth. v. 2). Saul appears to have car- 
 ried his javelin as a mark of superiority (1 Sam. 
 £iv. 10 ; xxii. 6). 
 
 SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. Before the exile, 
 €he Jews, like the ancient Romans, seem to have 
 had no notion whatever of public ami national 
 schools, since the sphere of our present elementary 
 knowledge, reading and waiting, was confined to 
 but a few. Children were Usually taught the sim- 
 ple doctrines of religion by their parents, by rneans 
 a;f aphorisms, sacred stories and rife3 (Dent. 'vi. 7, 
 20, sq ; xi. 19; Prov. vi. 20), while the children 
 of kings seerh to have had tutors of their own 
 {2 Sam. xii. 25). Even after the exile, national 
 instruction was chiefly limited to religion, as 
 might naturally be expected from a nation whose 
 political institutions were founded on theocratic 
 principles. 
 
 The question naturally suggests itself here, 
 How did it, then, happen that the Jews, con- 
 fad to eo small a territory in Syria, living coil; 
 
 SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. 
 
 tintially ‘solated and apart from other nations, 
 and not possessing in their own territory resources 
 of any kind for the advancement, of education, 
 should, nevertheless, have mustered such an host 
 of sages and learned men ? It must indeed perplex 
 those who are initiated in the Hebrew litera- 
 ture lo discover by what means learning, thought, 
 and inquiry were, under such circumstances, 
 fostered and cultivated : and it will be asked, 
 In what connection stood the so-called great sy- 
 nagogue , , under Ezra and Zerubahel, with the 
 schools of the prophets in previous times? And 
 how did John, the herald of Christ, and Paul the 
 Ajwstle, receive that education which made tbs 
 former the teacher of his own nation, and the 
 latter that of so many nations and ages ? The so- 
 lution of these questions we may find in the esta- 
 blishment of an institution among the later Is- 
 raelites, unique in its kind, and eventually brought 
 to a high degree of perfection ; namely, the pub- 
 lic meetings of the learned men, for the purposa 
 of expounding die sacred writings and of giv- 
 ing instruction in practical philosophy. We 
 shall bring together some of the scattered records 
 concerning this institution, to show its powerful 
 influence upon education in general. 
 
 For the later period of Jewish civilization, front 
 Ezra and Nehemiah to the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem by Titus, and the collection of the Talmud 
 in the second century after Christ, a great number 
 of philosophical and religious aphorisms are found 
 collected in the Talmud, as originating with 
 the men of those learned assemblies in various 
 epochs, and in which we may trace the spirit of 
 many passages even of the New Testament. 
 
 In the Babylon Talmud (Tr. Sanhedrin ) 
 those desirous of knowledge are exhorted to repair 
 to the learned meetings of certain celebrated 
 rabbics who taught in Lydda, Burin, Pekuny 
 Jabneh, Benebarak, Rome, Sikni, Zipporim, or 
 Nesibis; and in the land of captivity to the great 
 teacher in Beth-shaariin, and to the sages who 
 taught in the hall Gaazith. The Talmud also 
 mentions many other seals of the learned, such 
 as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Bet.hshan, Acco, Bet her; 
 Magdala, Ushah, Raccat (Tiberias), and Alex- 
 andria in Egypt. Jn Tiberias the most, learned 
 meii of the age assembled to compose that fa- 
 mous monument of Jewish learning, the Talmud 
 [Talmud]. Gamaliel (Paul's master) was head 
 of the learned assembly or college at Jabnel* 
 (Jamnia), which, it is stated, numbered not fewer 
 than 380 students. At Zipporirn in Galilee also; 
 where the celebrated R. Judah Hakkadosh passed 
 the latter part of his life, there is said to have 
 been several of these schools, and eminent teach- 
 ers, all of whom are mentioned by name In Tr. 
 Sanhedrin, we further read : ‘ There were three 
 teachers at Bether, and in Jabneh four — R. Klie- 
 zer, R. Akib.ih, R. Joshua, and R. Simon; the 
 last spoke in the presence of the others, although 
 lie still sat upon the ground’ — that is, he was pre- 
 sent as an auditor merely, although occasionally 
 allowed to act as a teacher. In the same tract it is 
 said — ‘ the meeting rests upon men ;* on which the 
 gloss is, * Wherever there are ten men whose occu- 
 pations do not prevent them front) devoting then 
 whole time to sacred learning, a house for thei?. 
 meetings must he built.’ lu the Jerusalem Talmud 
 (Tr. Chetnb.), a traditiou is alleged tlio* here had 
 been at Jerusalem 460 synagogues, each of which 
 
SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. 
 
 contained an. apartment for the reading of the law, 
 vuL another -for the rveeting of men for inquiry, 
 deep-re«earfth, and instruction. ,Snch a meeting- 
 Imp recalled by the Talmittlsst$ Reth-Midrash 
 (STUD H3), that is, an apartment where lectures 
 were given, or conversations held on various sub- 
 jects of inquiry. There were three of these meet- 
 ing-places in the Temple (Tr. Merjillah ), anti 
 in all of them it &as the custom for the students 
 to sit. on the floor, while the teachers occupied 
 raised seats (T. Hieros. Tr. Taanitli ) ; hence Paul 
 describes himself as having, when a student, ‘sat 
 at the feet of Gamaliel’ (Acts xxii. 3). 
 
 There are many hints in the Talmud which 
 throw light upon the manner of proceeding in 
 these assemblies. Thus, a student asked Gamaliel 
 whether the evening prayer was obligatory by the 
 law, or not. He answered in the affirmative; on 
 which the student informed him that R. Joshua 
 had told him it was not obligatory. ‘Well,' said 
 Gamaliel, ‘ when lie appears to-morrow in the 
 assembly, step forward and ask him the question 
 again.’ He did so, and the expected answer 
 raised a discussion, a full account, of which is 
 given. It. appeavs that these learned men deli- 
 vered their dicta and arguments in Hebrew to an 
 interpreter at their side, who then explained them 
 in the vernacular dialect to the audience. Thi 3 
 h flie explanation given of an anecdote, that a 
 celebrated teacher was unable to proceed for want 
 cf an interpreter, till Rabh volunteered his services 
 (Tr. Vomak). In such meetings there was one 
 who was recognised as president or chief professor, 
 and another as vice-president (Tr. Ilorayotk). 
 
 These teachers and professors, who were the 
 8 lawyers ’ and 8 doctors’ of t he .New Testament, 
 formed no mean opinion of their' own dignity and 
 importance, as indeed the Gospels evince. It is 
 said, ‘ A wisq man (more particularly a chief pro- 
 fessor) is cf more consequence than a king ; for 
 when the former die3 there is (often) no one to 
 replace him, but any one may replace the latter. 
 A wise man, even though a bastard, ranks even 
 above the high-priest, if the latter be one of the 
 unlearned.’ Even the students tinder these person- 
 ages claimed to be regarded with respect; they 
 were called the ‘holy people’ (^Vlp D]i), as 
 opposed to the masses, who are contemptuously 
 designated DI?, • people of the earth.’ 
 
 Philo {lie Vita CorJstnp.), speaking of the 
 meetings of the Essenes, who are supposed to have 
 observe the regulations of . the ancient prophets, 
 eays, 4 After the head teacher had finished his 
 exposition to the assembly, upon a proposed ques- 
 tion, he stands- up and begins losing (a hymn or 
 psalm), in which the choirs, join at certain inter- 
 vals; and the' audience listen quietly till the 
 repetition of the leading theme, when all join 
 in it. 
 
 Now the practices mentioned in the preceding 
 citations entirely correspond with the intimations 
 cf the New Testanient, and with them may be 
 taken into the series of facta illustrative of the 
 condition of learning and education and the mode 
 of instruction among the Jews, for the period 
 considerably before and long after the time of 
 Christ. The following passages in particular may 
 be indicated in this connection — Luke ii. 46; 
 Acts vi. 0, 10; xix. 8, 9; xxii. 3; 1 Cor. xiv. 
 26-33; 2 Tim. ii. 2. In the last but one of 
 these, it is true, the description applies to the 
 
 SCHOOLS. EDUCATION. 703 
 
 Christian assemblies; but, on comparing it with 
 the other passages, it will appear that the first 
 Christian teachers had retained many of the regu- 
 lations of the Jewish assemblies. The 'Apocryphal 
 books of the Old Testament, which belong to this 
 period, contain some curiort3 and distinct intima- 
 tions to the same purport, and illustrative of tiro 
 general subject. See in particular, Wisd. viii. 8, 
 10;. Si rack xxxv. 3, sq. ; xxxix. 2, 3; xlijV. 
 3-5 ; 1 Macc. v ii. 11:2 Macc. vi. 18. ' 
 
 From the above, and from sundry other pas- 
 sages of the game import, which we have hot 
 thought it necessary to produce, we may safely 
 draw the fol lowing conclusions,:- — 
 
 1. That soon after the Babylonian exile, as- 
 semblies of the learned not only existed, but 
 had increased to a considerable extent. 
 
 2. That these meetings took place not. only at 
 Jerusalem, but also in other places, remote from 
 the capital of Palestine, such as Galilee, the 
 frontiers of Idumaea, Lebanon, and even in heathen 
 countries. 
 
 3. That the meeting-places of the wise stood 
 mostly in connection with the synagogues; ani 
 that the wise or learned men usually met sum* 
 after divine worship anil reading were over, in the 
 upper apartment of the synagogues, in order to 
 discuss those matters which required more research 
 and inquiry. 
 
 4. That the Beih-3Iidra.sk was a place where 
 subjects of religious philosophy and various para- 
 doxes * from the moral and material world were 
 treated, serving as a sort of academical lectures 
 for those higher students who aspired to till in 
 time the place of teacher themselves. These in- 
 stitutions may therefore be fairly likened to the 
 academies, or learned societies, so famous in 
 ancient Greece and Rome. 
 
 5. That these assemblies of the wise were quite 
 different from those of the priests, who occupied 
 themselves merely with investigations on the reli- 
 gious rites and ceremonies, &c. ; as also from flics'*- 
 where civil laws were discussed, and law-suits da 
 tided, (p°1 IV2, Beth-din ,f ‘ court of judgment') ; 
 though many of the learned priest^ were no doubt 
 members of the literary assemblies, and probably 
 often proposed in the Betls-Midrash questions of a 
 character more suited to a eacred than to a phi- 
 losophical society. 
 
 6. That such societies (assemblies of the wise) 
 chose their own president from amongst the most 
 distinguished and learned of their members ; and 
 consisted of more or fewer members, but certainly 
 not less than ten, capable of partaking in a dis- 
 cussion on some proposed learned question. 
 
 It is perhaps worth notice that we may trace in 
 some of the fragments which have descended to 
 us from those assemblies, ten different speakers or 
 lecturers; see, ex. gr., Kceles. i. 3 to iv. 16, where 
 
 * Paradoxes, oi inquiries on such subjects 
 as concern the spirit of the philosophy of the 
 age, will surprise no one who sees in those assem- 
 blies something more than mere popular instruc- 
 tion. Nor do we lack in the New Testament 
 traces of esoteric and exoteric systems in teaching • 
 ex. or. Mark iv. 33, sq. 
 
 f This ia what i3 commonly called Sanhedrim, 
 and which, according to the Talmud, consisted 
 of a quorum of three, twenty-three, ox seven! v-c&a 
 persons [Sanhkorijs], 
 
SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. 
 
 fhe folWbg sections evidently Itear the character 
 t/f different sneakers ami different subjects : (1) 
 ch. i. 3-7; (2) 8 11 ; (3) ch. xk 2-23; (4) cl*, 
 iii. 1-8 ; (&) 0 15 ; (6) 16-22; (7) ch. iv. 1-6; 
 (8) 7-8; (9) 9-12; (10) 13-16. Again we can dis- 
 tinguish another assembly and different speakers 
 jut .he following verses of Eccles. ; (1) ch. viii. 8- 
 10 ; (2) 11-13; (3 >14, !5; (4) 16, 17; (5) ch. 
 is. 1 ; (6) 2-4; (7) X 4-6; (8) 7-10; (9) 11, 12; 
 30) 13; ch. x. 1 
 
 7. That the president or head of the assem- 
 bly usually brought forward the question o- 
 subject at issue very briefly, and sometimes even 
 in a very low voice, so as not to be heard by the 
 ivhole assembly, but only by those close at his 
 elbow, who then detailed and delivered it at largo 
 in a louder voice to the meeting. 
 
 Traces of the developed details of subjects thus 
 briefly proposed by the president cf the assembly, 
 cannot escape the eye of the inquiring reader of 
 Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom. Thus, in 
 the counter-songs in Ecclesiastes, perhaps the in- 
 troduction, the few laconic words, ‘ vanity of vani- 
 ties, all is vanity !’ constituted the sentence with 
 which the president opened the subject or question. 
 So also in the Book of Wisdom vi 22; ix. 17; 
 where perhaps the naked question, * What is 
 wisdom? whence dues it come?’ belonged to the 
 president, who in this brief manner opened the 
 subject, leaving the discussion and enlargement 
 to the other able members. Comp, also v. 23 
 with vi. 1-21 : and see l Cor. xiv. 27, 28. 
 
 8. That the pupils or students in those assem- 
 blies were not mete hoys coining to he instructed 
 in the rudiments of knowledge, but men or 
 youths of more or less advanced education, who 
 came thither either to profit by listening to the 
 learned discussions, or even to participate in them 
 themselves: thus paving the way and preparing 
 themselves for the office of the presidency at some 
 future time. 
 
 9. That these meetings were public , admitting 
 nny one, though not a member, and even allowing 
 him to propose questions. 
 
 10. That the subjects propounded in those 
 Assemblies were of a manifold character: (1) 
 eongs, in which the audience now and then 
 joined ; (2) counter-songs, in which several of the 
 learned members delivered their thoughts and 
 opinions on a certain proposed question ; (3) 
 adages; (4) solutions of obscure questions and 
 problems (aiyiypara). . 
 
 1 1. That the principal task of these assemblies 
 'Was to preserve the remains of the sages of olden 
 ^Urnes by collecting and writing them down. 
 
 This office probably procured for Ezra (the 
 president of such an assembly) the distinguished 
 title of "©ID, 4 scribe’ (Kara vii. 6, 11, 12). 
 
 12. That these assemblies and meetings were 
 stiil in existence in the times cf Christ and hi3 
 apostles.* 
 
 Comp, moreover, Matt. xi. 2, 9; xiii. 57; 
 xxi. 11 ; xxiii. 29-39 (v. 34 irpo<p7irai, eoipoi, and 
 ypapparcis stand a3 synonymous) ; Mark iv. 33, 
 
 u Even in the present day, indeed, an imitation 
 of these assemblies exists among all Jewish con- 
 gregation* throughout Poland and Germany, and 
 Id . bears the name cf Beih-Midrash , where 
 
 the rabbi cf the place lectures on the various sub- 
 jects cf ii -2 law. 
 
 SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. 
 
 34; vi. 59 ; Luke i. 76; xi. 1 ; John i. 30-41 . 
 iii. 25 ; Act9 iii. 22-25 ; xi. 27 ; xiii , ; xv. 32; 
 xxi. 9, 10. 
 
 Specimens c£ the matters discussed in those 
 assemblies in this latter period, arc found in the 
 Talmud, in the collections of Baruch and Jesus 
 (son of Sirach), and mere especially in the Book 
 of Wisdom. Perhaps some expressions cf John 
 the Baptist arm some speeches of Christ might 
 be compared with them. Even the frequent pas- 
 sages in the New TestaYnent, in which Christ aiq!, 
 the apostles warn the people against the sophis- 
 tries, subtleties, idle questions, and vain researches 
 of the so-called wise, show ustbot these important 
 institutions had greatly degenerated in the latter 
 part of the period under our notice (John x. 34 ; 
 xi. 34 ; xv. 23 ; Col. ii. 8; 1 Tim. i. 4, 6 ; iv. 7 ; 
 vi//!, 20 ; Tit. iii. 9). And so we find it in reality, 
 AvKeti we examine with attention the scanty ma- 
 terials ivhich exist for the history cf this time 
 (Ex. gr. T. Bab. Tr. Ilagigah). 
 
 The originally useful objects of this institution 
 were soon lost cigh$ cf in the ambitious views of 
 the sages cn whom its character depended to shine, 
 and to say something new and original, however 
 absurd and paradoxical, a mania visible already in 
 the second part, of the Book of Wisdom , and which 
 soon contributed and lent charms to the cabalistic 
 researches and interpretations, and art cf extra- 
 vagant speculation, which supplanted even in 
 the first period of our Christian era all other solid 
 researches among the Jews, and caused the down- 
 fall of those assemblies. 
 
 This mania of distinction also led to hantermgg. 
 and quarrels among the little Jewish academies 
 or literary societies, thu3 dividing them into va- 
 rious sects or parties. 
 
 The most violent of these schisms were those 
 which broke out between the Pharisees and Sad- 
 duceo3. The Pharisees soon obtained, it. is true, 
 the mastery over their opponents, but they them- 
 selves were also split into many parties by the 
 disputes between the school of the celebrated 
 teacher Hillel , and that of Shammai , the for- 
 mer advocating the right of the traditional law 
 evert in opposition to that of Moses, while the latte? 
 (like Christ) attached but little weight to tra- 
 ditions whenever they were, found to clash witlr- 
 the Mosaical law. These disputes between the' 
 various schools of the Jewish doctors at the close of 
 that period, were often carried net only to gross 
 personalities, but even to bodily assaults, and 
 murder (Tr. Sabbath and ShebuotK) ; and it had 
 at last become a proverb 4 that even Elijah the 
 Tishbite would not he able to reconcile the adhe- 
 rents of Hillel and Shammai What the ona 
 party permitted the other was sure to prohibit, 
 anil vice versa. The school cf Hillel, however, 
 had from an early period always numbered a iz&t 
 majority in its favour, so that the modern Jewish. 
 Rabbis are uniformly guided by the opinion of 
 that school in their decisions. 
 
 Now, as the Talmud contains (with the excep- 
 tion of a few genuine KHpiqJua from the treasures 
 of the early periods, .which are now and then found 
 in the heavy volumes of useless researches) for tho 
 rncst part only the opinions and disputes of those 
 echools concerning the traditional laws, glossed 
 over with cabalistic subtiltic-s. and sophistical spe- 
 culations, it is very natural that but little cf real 
 la teres 5 is to lie found i;: & 
 
SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. 
 
 Nevertheless some remnants of the researcher} 
 of the * Assemblies of the Wise’ from the earlier 
 periods, have also descended to tra its. the Book of 
 Wisdom, and in the collections of the son of 
 Si rad i, showing us those colleges in their dignified 
 and more pure aspect. From this source we may 
 collect the following intimations: — 
 
 1. That the object of these assemblies in the 
 earlier periods was chiefly to exercise the minds of 
 those who had devoted themselves to the higher 
 branches of studies, and furnish them with matter 
 for reflection and opportunities to develops their 
 thoughts; It is true that no specimens are extant 
 from that period exhibiting the solution of obscure 
 problems (filTH, abAyy.ara), which were admir- 
 ably calculated in that early stage of civilisation, 
 and in that climate, for the developemenf. of the 
 thinking faculties; yet there can be iio doubt, a3 
 we have shown above, that such had come under 
 their consideration. All that ha3 been preserved 
 ere. Songs, Counter-songs , and Adages . 
 
 2. That the Counters ongS, which seem to have 
 constituted the main debates in those assemblies, 
 were by no means founded on egotism, or a spirit of 
 contradiction, but simply qn the desire of mutual 
 information and instruction ; and it is manifest 
 in many of them that the authors . had truth for 
 iiheir object, both in advancing their own original 
 fcleas, and in refuting those of their colleagues. 
 
 3. That these discourses had at first assumed 
 ihe poetical tone so peculiar to that time and 
 Climate, when and where the song comprised all 
 mat can he said and thought; but that gradually 
 that tone was lowered to a poetical prose, traces 
 of which we still discover in many of the sayings 
 
 1. r the New Testament. 
 
 4. That these discourses treated of Subjects 
 hearing on religious philosophy, and the worship of 
 fSrod ; recommending virtue and morals^ exhorting 
 ro wisdom, laying down principles for practical^ 
 life, not emitting, however, still higher objects,, 
 such -as the imiriortality of the soul, and the con- 
 dition of the bad and good after death, &c. 
 
 In the middle period of the Jewish history of 
 civilization, from the time of Samuel to that of 
 Jeremiah and Ezra, these philosophic assemblies 
 occur under a double appellation ; 1, Schools of 
 the Prophets, in the first part of that period, and 
 
 2, Assemblies of the Wise, in the latter part. 
 
 Of the existence of such schools or meetings so 
 early as the time of Moses but. faint traces are 
 found, in comparing Exod. xviii. 13 — 26, with 
 Hjun?. xi. 24 — 29, where the eminent men whom 
 Moses used to consult on important a flairs re* 
 ceive the same designation (of ‘ prophets’) as the 
 members of the prophet-schools in the subsequent 
 ages But. in the time of Samuel we find more 
 distinct proofs of their existence (1 Sam. ix. 
 9; x. 5-11; xix. 18 sq. ; 1 Chiron. xxv. 6,7; 
 2 Kings ii. 3 ; iih 15, 16 ; iv. 18, 43 ; Isa. viii. 
 18-19; Prov. i. 2 6; xxv. ! ; Eccles. i. 2; xii. 8; 
 vii. 27 ; xii. 9-11). ' , 
 
 By paying a little attention to the passages 
 which we have quoted above regarding these as- 
 semblies in the two periods, the following results 
 may fairly be deduced from them 
 
 1. That, the schools of the prophets in the earlier 
 periods were identical with the assemblies of ike 
 w its of the later periods, both in design and form. 
 This will not appear doubt fu 3 when we trace 
 tke term ^23 ‘prophet’ fee its etymology— 
 
 SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. Tl 
 
 iruj out, inspired (sincere). ^ . Tims arc Miriam 
 (Exod. xv. 20) and Deborah (Judg. iv. 4) styled 
 f!&^33. ‘ prophetesses/ because they uttered in- 
 spired, enthusiastic songs. Al30 (l Kings xviii. 
 29) if is said that the priest3 of Baal 1&533JV1, 
 4 prophesied,’ ivhile in 1 Chr.xxv. 1 occurs the ex- 
 pression D'taam nnm owns, * to prophesy 
 with harps and psalteries,’ which ia illustrated 
 (ver. 6) by lTfl331 D^333 m ‘ for eong 
 
 with psalteries and harps* (ver. 7) by 
 instructed in song ;* eo that &Q3n, ‘ prophet,’ 
 (ver. 2, .3) may also be rendered singer, y 
 
 % That the places where these prophets or in- 
 spired singers (who among other people would 
 have been called thinkers or philosophers) met, 
 were Hamah (I Sam. six. 18-24), Bethel (2 Kings 
 ii. S), Jericho (ii. 5), Gslgal (iv. 38; vi. 1). By 
 comparing 1 Kings xviii. SO with 2 Kings ii. 25, 
 there seems to have been another such place some- 
 where in Mount Carmel. 
 
 3. That the schools of the prophets, or assem- 
 blies of the wise, were unions - of men| distin- 
 guished S>y learning and wisdom, or who strove 
 for that distinction, and were competent to appear 
 as public orators or singers, animated declama* 
 tion end song being identical in their origin. 
 
 4. That these institutions were chiefly in- 
 tended— 
 
 g* To rouse, develops, and strengthen the powers 
 of thought, by mutual instruction, comma-, 
 ideation, criticism, and controversy. 
 
 b. To hear public teachers, counsellors, and 
 leaders of the people and the monarchs. 
 
 c. To save from oblivion the sayings and 
 speeches of ancient times, by collecting them 
 in props? order ; and, 
 
 d. To rear from among them teachers and 
 
 writers for the public. t 
 
 5. That the subjects treated of in these schools 
 or assemblies , comprised everything that might 
 appear important to the philosophers of those times 
 and that country, and, more especially, songs 
 ef praise to Jehovah, observations on mats and 
 nature, exhortations to morality .and virtue, warn- 
 ings against idolatry and enmity towards the:? 
 fellow-citizens, &c. 
 
 6. That the foi'm of tnose discourses, in both 
 the schools of the prophets and assemblies of ik& 
 zoise, may be divided into— 
 
 * Quintilian observes, that m the early stages: 
 of civilization, the performers on musical instru- 
 ments (as such are first described the s prophets/ 
 l Sam. x.) were identical with wise men, inspired 
 singers, and seers. Quis ignorat musicen tantuni 
 jam illis antiquis tern pori bus, non studiimodo 
 verum etiam veneratioJiis habuisse, ut iidem 
 Musici et Vales et Sapientes judicarentur, (mit- 
 ts, m alios) Orpheus et Linus (Inst. i. 10). 
 
 f Even die Chaldee translates 1S533ri% s they 
 prophesied/ in 1 Sam. xix. 20, ‘ they sang songs 
 of praise.’ In the same sense must we also take 
 KpdiprfTeveii’, in I Cor. xi. 4, 5. 
 
 J That the so-called (sons) pupils of the pro- 
 phets were not boys, but grown men, is evident 
 from 1 Kings xx. 35, sq. ; 2 Kings ii. 15, 16; where 
 
 mention is made of fifty strong men (^-H *^S),th? 
 pupils of Uie prophets, who nad csevtal'led sf 
 J-ncho ; as also from 2 liisg? 43 
 
*S4 SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. SCHOOLS, EDUCATION. 
 
 a. Sayings of the wise. 
 
 ft. Songs and counter-songs (JYiiy? Fs. 
 
 lsxxviii. 1 ; Sept, arpctpal \6ycay, Prov. i. 
 3); containing thoughts leading to reflection 
 
 and further investigation 
 CKorcivbs \6yos). 
 
 c, Oiiscure questions (HITH, alviy/xaTa)} and 
 their solutions. 
 
 7. That the president of the assembly opened 
 the meeting with a sentence or question, which 
 wa3 left to the various speakers to develope or 
 discuss. 
 
 8. That the members of these literary unions 
 comprised also laymen — ex.gr. Saul and David 
 — though Levifcs were frequently not only mem- 
 bers but even founders of such schools — ex. gr. 
 Samuel, &c. To judge, however, from many 
 passages where censure is passed on the too strict 
 olwervance of outward ceremony as demanded 
 hy the priests, as also on their arrogance of de- 
 spotic power, it would seem that such unions 
 were just forming a sort of opposition to those 
 evils, trying to out-argue them, and shew.ng by 
 their own example, in the selection of a president 
 and other distinguished members, that more re- 
 
 434. [Turkish Sphool.] 
 
 ipect i3 due to personal merit than to hereditary 
 right, as advocated by the priests.* 
 
 Specimens cf the form and style of the objects 
 treated in those early periods in the schools of the 
 prophets, may probably be contained in the hymns 
 in many of the Psalms, assisted by a chorus, such 
 as Ps. viii., xlii., xiiii., xlix., civ. ; as also the coun- 
 ter-songs in Ps. lxxxviii., Ixxxix., lx., lxi., lxv., and 
 ciii. 1-1S; as also cxxxix., where three singers 
 r.eem to have performed successively, after the 
 fir. ale of the chorus. < Nor can we fail to discover, 
 in Canticles and proverbs, numerous passages be- 
 longing to those assemblies or schools at various 
 periods (vide the superscriptions of ch. x. v xxv., 
 xxx.,.andxxxi.). — E. M. N f 
 
 [It would appear that elementary instruction 
 among the mass of the people became more com. 
 mon_after the Exile than it had been previously^ 
 
 It, is a curious fact, that among the places 
 named as rendezvous for the sons of the prophets, 
 uot one Levitical town is found (comp. Josh. 
 £xi.-and_l Cbron. vi. 54, sq.\ though *uch places 
 may. seem to have. been the most appropriate for 
 literary purposes.. ~ V- 
 
 when the ability to read was regarded as a merle 
 of learning (Isa. xxix. 12); and in the time of 
 Christ reading and writing seem to have been at- 
 tainments common to every class above the very 
 lowest. We know that several of the apostles, 
 who were fishermen, could read and write, and 
 may assume that others of the same class of life 
 could do the same; yet they were certainly consi- 
 dered * unlearned’ men (Acts iv. 13). The state 
 of common education about that period appears to 
 us to have been in all probability as nearly as pos- 
 sible similar in almost every respect to that which 
 now prevails in Moslem countries. Here also a 
 further ami very striking resemblance arises out of 
 the prominence given to instruction in the sacred 
 books. Among Moslems persons quite unable to 
 read or write can nevertheless repeat, a large part, 
 and sometimes the whole, of the Koran by rote; 
 and there is reason to think that among the Jews a 
 similar acquaintance with the law, and with parfsoi 
 the psalms and prophets, as well as a general know 
 ledge of the historical and other Looks, existed by 
 means of oral instruction even among those who 
 had not learned to read and write. The Moslems 
 make it, indeed, their first object to instil into the 
 
SCRIBES. 
 
 amines of their children the principles of their 
 religion, and then submit them, if they can afford 
 the small expense, to the instruction of a school- 
 master. Most of the children of the higher and 
 middle classes, and many of the lower also, are 
 taught by the schoolmaster to read, and to recite the 
 whole or certain portions oi‘ the Koran by memory. 
 They afterwards learn the common rules of arith- 
 metic. Schools are numerous in every large town, 
 and there is one at least in every considerable 
 vil.age. There are also schools attached to mosques 
 and other public buildings, in which children are 
 instructed at a very trifling expense. The lessons 
 are generally written ujxm tablets of wood painted 
 •white, and when one is learnt, the tablet is washed 
 and another written. Writing is also practised 
 on the same tablet. The master and pupils sit 
 on the ground, and each hoy has a tablet in his 
 hand, or a copy of the Koran, or of one of its 
 thirty sections, on a kind of small desk of palm- 
 sticks. All who are learning to read recite their 
 lessons aloud at the same time, rocking their 
 bodies incessantly backwards and forwards: which 
 is thought to assist the memory. Boys who mis- 
 behave are beaten by the master on the soles of 
 the feet with a palm-stick. 
 
 It is to be observed that these schools teach 
 l'rttle more than reading and learning by heart, 
 the reading lessons being written on tablets not 
 by the boys themselves but by the master; 
 and one*who can read well, and recite a good 
 deal of the Koran, is considered to have had 
 a fair education. Those who learn to write are 
 such as are likely to require that art in the em- 
 ployments for which they are designed ; and as few 
 schoolmasters teach writing, they leam it of a. 
 person employed in the bazaars. 
 
 Some parents employ a master to teach their 
 boys at home; and those who intend to devote 
 themselves to a learned or religious life, pursue a 
 regular course of study in the colleges (Medras- 
 6eli — the same name as the Hebrew for similar 
 institutions) connected with the great mosques. 
 Females are seldom taught to read or write, or 
 even ro say tneir prayers ; but there are many 
 schools in which they are taught needlework, em. 
 broidery, &c. (Lane, Mod. Egypt, i. C2-f)9 ; 
 Schubert, Morgenlande , pp. 72-74). The Jews, 
 while they paid equal attention to their sacred 
 books, appear to have made, in the later Scriptural 
 times, writing more generally a part of common 
 education than the Moslems now do; and the 
 religious education of females was less neglected 
 by them, as appears in the case of almost every 
 woman named in the New Testament. In other 
 respects the state of things seems to have been very 
 •similar to the present.^ 
 
 BORISES PSP), a learned body of men, 
 otherwise denominated lawyers, whose influence 
 with the Jewish nation was very great at the time 
 when our Saviour appeared, 
 
 The genius of a social or religious system may 
 be ascertained even from the signification of the 
 names borne by its high functionaries. The title 
 Consul, which directs the thoughts to consultation 
 as t lie chief duty of the officer who bore it, could, 
 have had no existence in any of the Oriental 
 despotisms. Haruspices, soothsayers, determines 
 the degree of religious enlightenment to which 
 Rome,, the mistress of the world, Lad been able to 
 
 vol. ii, 45 
 
 SCRIBES’. 703 
 
 attain. The feudal designation Marshall (Master 
 of the Horse) jjoinfs to a state of society in which' 
 brute force had the mastery. Our Saxon title of 
 a ruler, namely, king (konig, that is, * the knower,* 
 4 the skilful man”), shows that the very basis of our 
 social institutions was laid in superior know- 
 ledge and ability, and not in mere physical pre- 
 eminence. In the same way the word 4 scribe* of 
 itself pronounces a eulogy on the Mosaic institu- 
 tions. Writers at an early period held a high 
 rank in the Hebrew polity, and in consequence 
 that polity must have been essentially of a libe- 
 ral character, and of a refining tendency. * Scribe,* 
 indeed, has reference to ‘law,’ and of itself i£ 
 suggests the idea ; and the social institution^ that 
 are founded on law, and not on force — on law-, 
 and hot on the will of one man — fake a high rank 
 even in their origin, and may presumably merit 
 high praise. 
 
 If now we, invert the remark, intimating that 
 law, as the foundation of social institutions, im- 
 plies scribes, we shall see at once that the learned 
 caste of which we speak must have taken their 
 rise contemporaneously \vith the commencement 
 of the Mosaic polity. In a system so complex as 
 was that polity, there were no means but repeated 
 transcripts which could make the law sufficiently 
 known for if to be duly observed by the- nation 
 at large. It is true that at first the function oil 
 the serine may have been ill-defined, and his 
 services have been only occasionally demanded; 
 but as the nation became settled in tfieir terri- 
 torial possessions, and the provisions of Moses 
 began to take effect, the scribe would be more 
 and move in demand, till at last the office became 
 a. regular and necessary part of social life, anti 
 grew finally into all the dignity, order, and co- 
 herence of a learned caste. And this growth 
 would be. accelerated or retarded in the same 
 manner and degree as the idea of law was 
 honoured, out. of which it sprang. In seasons ofi 
 national depression, when might prevailed againsf 
 right, law was silenced and scribes were oppressed^ 
 When, Innvever, the Mosaic law was honoured; 
 when, as in the reign of David, law had triumphed 
 over force, and laid the foundations of a flourish- 
 ing empire, then the scribe stood at the king’s 
 light hand, and the pen became at once the sym- 
 bol and the instrument of power. So, too, wheu 
 the exile, with its Weighty penalties, had fa-ught 
 the people to value, respect, and ohey,the law cl 
 God, the law of their forefathers, then the scribe 
 is raised to the highest offices of civil society, and 
 even an Ezra is designated by the name. 
 
 But law, in the Mosaic institutions, trad a 
 religious as well as a civil sanction. With tha 
 Hebrews, indeed, social was lost in religious life. 
 There was but one view of society, and of mail 
 individually, and that was the religious view^ 
 Education, politics, 'morals, even the useful arts^ 
 were only religion, in. different exercises and 
 ^manifestations. Hence writing was a sacred arr* 
 and writers (scribes) holy men; and that the 
 rather, because scribes were engaged immediately: 
 about the law, which was the written will of God, 
 and so the embodiment of all knowledge, truth 
 and duty. The scribes, therefore, were not only, 
 a learned but a sacred caste. 
 
 In the same manner may we learn what,, in 
 general, the functions of the scribes were. A 
 writer at the present day frequently used aa 
 
103 
 
 SCRIBES. 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 6ynonymou3 with an author, and an author is 
 necessarily a teacher. The scribes then hod the 
 care of the law ; it was their duty to make tran- 
 scripts of it ; they also expounded its difficulties, 
 and taught its doctrines, and so performed several 
 furfctims which are now distributed among dif- 
 ferent professions, being keepers of the records, 
 consuming lawyers, authorized expounders of holy 
 writ, and, finally, schoolmasters — thus blending 
 together in one character-- the several elements of 
 intellectual, moral, social, and religious influence. 
 It^ scarcely needs to be added that their power 
 was very great. 
 
 A few details drawn from individual passages- 
 of Scripture will confirm and enlarge these ob- 
 servations. So early a3 the events recorded in 
 .Irfdg. v. 14, we find mention of those ‘who 
 handle the. pen of the writer,’ as if the class of 
 ecribes were then well known. Zebulun seems 
 to have been famous as a school for scribes. 
 Among the high officers of the court of David 
 mention is made of *' Serai ah the scribe,’ as if he 
 stood on the Game footing in dignity as the chief- 
 priests and the generalissimo (2 Sam. viii. 16-18). 
 Ily comparing this with other passages (2 Kings 
 xxv. 19: 1 Chron. ii. 55; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 13; 
 1 Chron. xxvii. 32) we learn that in the time of 
 the kings the scribes constituted a learned, organ- 
 ized, much esteemed, and highly influential body 
 of men, recognised and supported by the state. 
 When, however, the regal power had been ov.er- 
 turned, and force of arms had been found insuf- 
 ficient to preserve the integrity of a nation that, 
 could not be wholly weaned from idolatry; and 
 when at length sorrow bad wrought what pros- 
 perity had failed to achieve, then in the downfall 
 of external pomp, and greatness, and the rise and 
 
 f iredomiuauce of God’s will, as enshrined in the 
 aw, the scribe rose to a higher eminence than 
 ever, and continued to hold his .lofty position, 
 with some slight variations, till letters were again 
 compelled to yield to arms, and the holy city 
 was trodden down by the hoof of heathen soldiery 
 (Ezra vii. 6, >11; Neb. viii. 1 ; xii. 26; Jer. viii. 
 8; xxxvi. 12,26; Ezek. ix. 2). And thus ‘ Cap- 
 tain Sword’ appeared to have gained a final 
 victory over ‘ Captain Pen ;’ hut the power of the 
 new knowledge which Jesn3, ‘the light of life,* 
 had recently brought into the world, soon altered 
 the face of society, and took the laurels from the 
 ensanguined hand that held them boastfully. 
 *Twas only for many-soul’d Captaiu Pen 
 To make a world of swordless men. f 
 
 In the New Testament the scribes are found as 
 a body-of high state functionaries, who, in con- 
 junction with the Pharisees and the high-priests, 
 constituted the Sanhedrim, and united all the 
 resources of their power and learning in order to 
 entrap and destroy the Saviour of mankind The 
 passages are so numerous as uot to need citation. 
 It mu y be of more service to draw the reader’s 
 attention to the great array of influence thus 
 brought to bear against ‘ the carpenter's sun.* 
 That. influence comprised, besides the supreme 
 power of the state, the first legal functionaries, 
 who watched Jesus closely iii order to detect him 
 in some breach of the law ; the recognised ex- 
 positors of duty, who lost no opportunity to take 
 exception to his utterances, to blame his conduct, 
 and misrepresent his morals ; also the acutest 
 intellects of the nation, who eagerly sought to 
 
 entangle him in the web of their sophistries, or to 
 confound him by their artful questions. Yet 
 even all these malign iufiueuces tailed. Jesus 
 was triumphant in argument; r.e failed only 
 when force interposed its revengeful arm. The 
 passage found in Luke xx. 19-47 is full of 
 instruction on this subject. At the close of this 
 striking Scripture our Lord thus describes these 
 men(ver. 46) : ‘Beware of the scribes, which desire 
 to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the 
 markets, and the highest seats in die synagogues, 
 and the chief rooms at feasts; which devour 
 widows’ houses, and for a 'show make long 
 pravprs.’ Their opportunity of assailing' our 
 Lord was the greater from their constant vigil- 
 ance. Winer (Real-wUrterb.) thinks that they, 
 in union with the high-priests, formed a kind of 
 t police, who were on duty in the Temple and the 
 synagogues (Luke XX. 1 ; Acts vi. 12). Nor 
 was their influence limited to the capital ; from 
 Luke v. 17, we learn that members of the body 
 were found in every town of Galilee and Judaea. 
 Like the learned castes of most nations, they were 
 attached to the traditions of the elders (Matt. xv. 
 
 1) ; had ample influence with the people (Luke 
 xx. 46) ; and though some of them belonged to 
 the free-thinking and self-satisfied Sadducees, they 
 were for the most part of the predominant sect of 
 Pharisees (Luke xi. 45; Acts xxiii. 9; Matf. 
 20; xii. 38; xv. 1). 
 
 It may serve to read a lesson to those wild 
 reason as if they had a right to expect to fina 
 every thing in Josephus, and who are ready 
 make his silence an argument conclusive agains^ 
 the evangelists, that very little appears in the 
 Jewish historian touching this class of men. Sp 
 his Antiquities (xvii. 6. 2) two are incidentally 
 mentioned as engaged in education, Judas and 
 Matthias, ‘ two of the most eloquent, men among 
 the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters 
 of the Jewish laws, men well beloved by the 
 people, because of the education of their youth : 
 for all those that were studious of virtue fre- 
 quented their lectures every day.’ This descrip- 
 tion calls to mind the sophists and philosophers 
 of Greece; indeed, tbesG same persons are termed 
 by- Josephus in another part (Do Bell. Jud. i. 33. 
 
 2) <To<pi(TTai. Hence, however, it. is clear that the 
 scribes were the Jewish schoolmasters as well as 
 lawyers. In this character they appear in the 
 Talmud. In the outer courts of the temple were 
 many chambers, in which they sat- on elevated 
 platforms to give their lessons to their pupils, 
 who sat on a lower elevation, and so at their feet. 
 Of these dignified instructors Gamaliel was one 
 (Acts v. 34); and before these learned doctors 
 was Jesus found when only twelve years old, 
 heaving and asking questions ad’tej..tbe manner iu 
 which instruction was communicated in these 
 class-rooms (Luke ii. 46; Acts xxii. 3; Light- 
 foot (Bores Hebr dices } pp. 741-31; Pirke Aboth, 
 v. 23).— J. R. B. 
 
 SCRIPTURE (HOLY), or Scriptures 
 (Holy), the term generally applied in the 
 Christian Church since the second century, to 
 detiote the collective writings of the Old ami 
 New "^Testaments [Bible]. The names Sa-ipture^ 
 or ‘writing’ (tj y$ta(p'}), 2 Pet. i. 20), Scriptures 
 (at* yocKbai, Matt. xxii. 29 ; Acts viii. 24), Holy 
 Scriptures (hpu ypdpfxara, 2 Tim. iii. 15), are 
 .tliose generally employed iu the New Testament 
 
SCRIPTURE, HOLY. SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 7DT 
 
 to denote exclusively the writings of tlie Old twenty-four bdo&S, "placing Ruth- and LamenTa-fl 
 [See pETfii, Episti.es ok]. About a.d. 180, tions among the Hagiographa. The other books* 
 die term Holy Scriptures (al aylai ypcupaij read in the churches, but not found in the Canon," 
 is used by Theophilus (Ad Autolyc. iii. 12) to as Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and The Shep4 
 include the Gospels. Irenacus (i». 27) calls the herd, he terms Apocrypha. With this* catalogue 
 whole collection of the books of the Old and MeW agrees his contemporary Rufinus, who accuses Je»' 
 Testament, the Divine Scriptures (8e?ai ypacpai), romc as we have already seen [Deuxerocangni* 
 ami the Lord's Scriptures (Dominica Scripturae, ' cal] of compiling, or rather plundering (com* 
 v, 20.2). By Clement of Alexandria (Strom, vii.) 1 pilaudi), the Scriptures, in consequence of the 
 they are called the Scriptures (ypcupal), and rejection by that Father of Susanna and the Bene* 
 the inspired Scriptures (al 8eoirv€v<rTot ypcupal-) dicite. Cyril of Alexandria divides thp canonical 
 From the end of the second and beginning of the books into five of Moses, seven other historical 1 , 
 third century, at which time a collection of the five metrical, and five prophetical 
 New Testament writings was generally received, With these catalogues the Jews also agree* 
 the term came into constant use, and was so ap- Josephus enumerates twenty-two cooks, five of 
 plied as to include all the books contained in the Moses, thirteen prophets, and four books of mora* 
 version of the Seventy, as well as those of the lity. The Prophets were divided by the ancieng 
 Hebrew canon [Deutbrocanonicai.]. l$- Jews into the early Prophets, viz., Joshua, Judges, 
 
 Contents of the Scriptures . — The Scriptures Samuel, and Kings— and the later Prophef% 
 are divided into the .books held sacred by the which were again subdivided info the greater* 
 Jews, and those held sacred both by Jews and <■ viz., Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; and the 
 Christians. The former are familiarly known by twelve lesser Prophets. The Talmud and the 
 the name of the Old Testament, and the latter modem Jews agree with Jerome’s division info 
 by that of the Neio [Bible]. The Old Testament, eight Prophets, and nine HagiogTapha ( Chetubim j. 
 according to the oldest catalogue extant in the The Canon of the Alexandrian version in* 
 Christian Church, that of Melifo, Bishop ot duties the other books, called ecclesiastical, whicf*. 
 Sardis in the second century, consists of the five we have already given in their order [Deuteko* 
 books of Moses, or the Pentaieuch (viz. Genesis, , canonical]. As the early Christians (who wer© 
 Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) ; not acquainted with Hebrew) received this vei> 
 Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; four books of Kings " si on, for which they had the sanction of its em* 
 and two of Paralipomena, (Chronicles); the ployinetit by the New Testament writers, and ‘a® 
 Psalms of David ; the Proverbs of Solomon, from if. flowed the old Latin, and several other 
 Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Job; the Prophets ancient versions, we must not be surprised a t 
 Isaiah and Jeremiah : the twelve Prophets; the, finding that all these books, being thus placed m 
 books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra, under which V the Bible without any mark of distinction, were 
 head Nehemiuh and Esther seem to be included received indiscriminately by the primitive Chris* 
 ^Eusebius, Hist.' Eccles. iv. 26). Origen, in ihe ; tians, and were, equally with the canonical, read 
 next century, reckons twenty-two hooks, calling | jn the churches. Jerome, in his Latin translation 
 them by their Hebrew names, which consisted ge-,f of the Bible from the Hebrew, in the fourth ceii* 
 nerallyof the initial word of the book, viz. Rresith \ tury, introduced a distinction by means of hi® 
 or Genesis; Walmoth, or Exodus; Waikra,. or prefaces, prefixed to each hook, which continued 
 Leviticus; Amraesphekodeim, or Numbers ; | to be placed, in all the MSS., and in the early; 
 EOahadehamn, or Deuteronomy ; Joshua ben | printed editions of Jerome's version, in the body 
 Nun; Sophetim, or Judges and Ruth ; Samuel ; | of the text, from which they were for the first tmVs£ 
 Wahammelecli Dal>id, or 3 and 4 Kings-; Dibre removed to the beginning or end of the Ribleafle?? 
 Hajammin, or Chronicles ; Ezra, which included" the decree of the Council of Trent in a d, 15d6> 
 Nehemiah; Sepher Thillim, or Psalms; Misloth, (See Rev. G. C. Gorham V' Letter to Van Ekr* 
 or Proverbs ; Koheleth, or Ecclesiastes ; Sir Hasi- § Loud. 1826). .Luther was the first who separated 
 rim,'or Canticles : Isaiah; Jeremiah, Lameufa-| these hooks from the others, and removed them v td,& 
 lions, and the Epistle; Daniel ; Ez< kiel ; Job; - place by themselves in his translation. Lonicer* 
 and Esther.; ‘ besides which,’ he adds, ‘ is Sarhath in his edition of the Septuagint, 1526, follow eddiis* 
 Sarbane El, or Maccabees.' He omits, perhaps example, f>ut gave so much offence by so dcinjj 
 by an oversight, the book of the twelve minor that they were restored to their places by Cephas 
 j rpphets.' To the books enumerated in the pre- \ laeus in 1529. They were however published irt at 
 ceding catalogue, Origen applies the term canon-* separate form by Plant in in 1575, and have beers 
 deal Scriptures in contradistinction to secret since that period omitted in many editions bf the 
 (apocryphal) and heretical books. He does not Septiiaginf. Although they were never received, 
 however include in these latter the deuterocanoni- into the canon either by the Palestinian or Alex-* 
 cal (iv Seirepcp, see Cyril of Jerus. Catech. iv. . amlrian Jews, yet they seem to have been by 
 36) or ecclesiastical books ; to which he also ap* the latter considered as an appendix to the canors 
 Julies the terms Scrijdnre, the Divine Word, and (De Wette, liinleitung ). There are, beside® 
 the Sacred Books (De Frincip. ii. 1 ; Opp. i. pp. these, many books cited which have long jsjuces 
 16jt9,&c. &c. ; Coni. Cels. viii. Opp. i. p. 778). perished, as the Book of Jasherf (Josh. £. I3J 
 
 J.ero’npe enumerates twenty-two books, viz. : , «r* — » — — — — . 
 
 1. TN Pentateuch, which he terms Thora , or * Mr. Gorhath is the* author pf the Historical 
 .the Lqw. 2. The eight Prophets, viz., Joshua; Examination of the book of ‘Enoch, r$|erv.e#t(3 
 Judges and Ruth; Samuel; Kings; Isaiah ; above in p. 172; note; '* 
 
 Jeremiah; Ezekiel; and the twelve Prophets. f The book of Jasner, published at New- 
 3. 'Nine Hagiographa, viz. Job; Psalms; Pro- in 1840, is not, as would appear from the Ape 1 
 (verbs ; Ecclesiastes ; Canticles; Daniel ; Chroni- pendix to Parker’s translation of De Wqtiit* 
 
 ; and Esther, $omsylje adds, numerate Ehtetol fprgery-B^ 
 
708 SCRIPTURE, HOLT. SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 2 Sam. i. 18) Hasher], and the Book of the 
 Wars of Jehovah (Num. xxi. 14). In regard 
 to the order of the books, the Talmudists and 
 the Masoretes, and even some MSS. of the latter, 
 differ 'from each other. The Alexandrian trans- 
 lators differ from both, and Luther’s arrange- 
 ment, which is generally followed by Protes- 
 tants, is made entirely according to bis own 
 judgment. The modern Hebrew Bibles are thus 
 arranged viz. five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, 
 two booKs of Samuel, two books of Kings. Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, twelve minor Prophets, 
 Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, 
 Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 
 Chronicles. The New Testament consists of four 
 Gospels, the Acts, Epistles of St. Paul, Catholic 
 Epistles, and the Apocalypse: these are differ- 
 ently arranged ih the Greek and Latin MSS. 
 All l, ese writings have Ircen considered in the 
 Christian church from the earliest period as di- 
 aHrnely inspired (OeSirveujToi, 2 Tim. iii. 14-16), 
 «.s no doubt the books of the Old Testament were 
 by the Jews (see Talmud, - passim; Philo, De Vit. 
 miosis, ii. ; Josephus, Cont. Apion, i. 3, and the 
 manner of their citation in the New Testament). 
 The early Christian writers also constantly main- 
 tain their inspiration (Justin Martyr. Second 
 Apology; Irenaeus, i. 4; Origen, irepl apx&v, 
 J?reef.), the only difference of opinion being as to 
 its limits. Some of the fathers maintain their 
 verbal inspiration, others only that of the thoughts 
 ©r . sentiments, or that the sacred writers were 
 merely preserved from error (Du Pin, On the 
 Canon). But the first controversy raised on this 
 •subject was in the sixteenth century, when the 
 theses of the Jesuits [see Maccabees], who had 
 maintained the lower notion of inspiration, were 
 condemned by the facultiesa>f Louvain and Douai. 
 Jahn observes ( lntrod ,) that on this subject the 
 entire Christian world was divided, and that the 
 condemnation of the theses was not sanctioned 
 l>v the Church er the Roman primate, and that 
 the Council of Trent' has pronounced no judg- 
 ment on the subject. Henry Holden, doctor of 
 the Sorbonne, .published his Analysis Fidei in 
 ’1652, in which he defended that notion of the 
 Fathers, which maintained only an exemption 
 from errors appertaining to doctrine. Jalm further 
 observes (/.V.) that most Protestants, until the 
 middle of the eighteenth century, defended the 
 most rigid notions of verbal inspiration ; but that, 
 from the time of Toellner and Semler, the idea of 
 inspiration was frittered away and eventually dis- 
 carded. The high notion of inspiration has been 
 recently revived amongst Protestants, especially 
 in the eloquent work of M. Gaussen of Geneva 
 ( Tkeopneustia 1842). The moderate view has 
 been that generally adopted by English divines 
 (Henderson, On Inspiration , Home's lntrod..; 
 Appendix to Vol. I.) 
 
 Some of the most important subjects connected 
 with the Holy Scriptures having been treated of 
 throughout this work, it may not prove unaccept- 
 
 a translation of the much more respectable 
 though also spurious) Book of Jasher, whicn we 
 have already referred to in p. 71 as published at 
 Naples in 1625. and written in excellent Hebrew, 
 before toe close of the 15ih century* "he 
 American Christian Examiner for M*y, 1840, 
 
 able to add a brief account of the text of the Bible, 
 and chiefly in respect to its external form. 
 
 I. The ilehrexo Text . — The text (textus). or that 
 portion which was composed by the original 
 authors, has descended to our times in MSS., the 
 oldest of which (in Hebrew), are written on skins 
 of animals, and date from the twelfth century. 
 They are written in the present square characters, 
 which subsequently to the exile superseded the old 
 character (see Jerome, Prolog. Gal ), somewhat 
 resembling the Samaritan, and still preserved 
 on the Maccabaean coins. The present characters 
 are a modification of the Aramaean, and not dis- 
 similar to those on the Palmyrene inscriptions. 
 The existing MSS. (except the Synagogue rolls) 
 are furnished with vowel and diacritical points, 
 and the words are separated from each other, 
 a practice which appears to have been but partially 
 observed in the more ancient writing (De Wette, 
 Einleitung). We have no data on which to form 
 a history of the text previous to that unkuowu 
 period after the Exile when the Canon was closed, 
 and the. separate books formed into a collected 
 whole. It is probable that the other sacred books; 
 as well as the Law, weie preserved in or by the 
 6ide of the ark. of the covenant (Deut. xxxj. 
 24-26); and we learn from Josephus (De j 'Bell. 
 Jud. vii. 5) that the Law (N 6pos) was among the 
 spoils of the Temple which graced the triumph of 
 Titus, who afterwards presented the sacred boohs 
 (f3ifl\ia lepa), upon his requesting them, to that 
 historian (Vita, ch. 75). From theperiod of the 
 return of the Jews from Babylon our information 
 is still but scanty, but we are in possession of 
 two important documents bearing on the history 
 of the text, viz., the Samaritan Pentateuch, and 
 the version of the Seventy. The former of these 
 was known to exist only from the citations of 
 Origen, Jerome, and many others among the 
 Fathers, * and was supposed to have been lost, 
 when a MS. of it, written in the thirteenth cen- 
 tury, was brought into Europe in a.d. 1616, and 
 was first published in the Paris Polyglott. This 
 work is supposed by some to have existed before 
 the separation of the Tribes, but is more generally 
 assigned to the period of the revolt of Manasseli, 
 who was contemporary with Nehemiah, although 
 Josephus places him in the reign of Alexander 
 the Great. The Pentateuch of the Seventy dates 
 from the commencement Of the third century 
 before Christ, and the remainder of the books 
 v/ere completed before the time of Sirach, who 
 lived about n.c. 130. [Sf.ptuagint.] These 
 .documents, although the work of inaccurate and 
 capricious, if- not sometimes ignorant translators, 
 and although the version of the Seventy has come 
 down to us in a very corrupted state, are notwith- 
 standing sufficiently close in their genera! resem- 
 blance to our Hebrew copies to show that the text 
 in use among the Jews long before the Christian 
 era, was essentially the game with that which is 
 now in our hands. 
 
 The Jews of Palestine and Babylon, both before 
 and at the period of the Christian era, were, how- 
 ever, still careful of the original text. This is 
 clear from the fact that the versions of Aquila 
 and other translators executed soon after the Chris- 
 tian era, adhere much more closely than that of the 
 Seventy to the present or Masfifretic text. Origen, 
 also, in the third century, and Jerome in toe 
 fpurth, used manuscript* wliith must ha»e been 
 
SCRIPTURE, HOLY. SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 709 
 
 iftif-arly Identical with our present copie?. _ i^owh 
 to this period the text was beyond question un- 
 furnished with points. or diacritical marks. 
 
 In the work called the Talmud, a digest of 
 Jewish laws compiled between the second and 
 sixth centuries, we find evident traces of an 
 anxiety to preserve an accurate text, and even 
 an enumeration of various readings in different 
 MSS., as well as of the words and letters 
 in *he Bible. When the Talmud was com- 
 pleted, the Masoretes of Tiberias commenced 
 their labours. The Masora (tradition) consisted 
 Df scattered annotations handed down by oral 
 tradition’ from the previous centuries. Tht 
 Masora was written at first in separate books, 
 but afterwards in the margin of manuscripts. 
 The Masoretes continued the labours of the 
 Talmudists, whom they imitated in counting 
 the words and 'letters, and constantly added 
 fresh annotations to the text until- the eleventh 
 century. The text of the early Masoretes, or 
 that of the sixth century, cannot now be separated 
 from that of the later. The emendations which 
 Ihey continued to make on the text were of 
 various kinds, critical, orthographical, and gram- 
 matical, founded partly on tradition, partly on 
 conjecture. Of the Maspretic text we now pos- 
 sess two recensions, both dating from the eleventh 
 century, namely, the western, or that of Rabbi ben 
 Asher, a native of Palestine, arid the eastern, or that 
 of Rabbi ben Naphlhali of Babylon. The variants 
 5n these texts amount to near a thousand. From 
 this period dates the completion of the system of 
 Vowel points. The earliest manuscripts are all 
 pointed, the unpointed having probably become 
 neglected; nor -has any portion ofjhe Hebrew 
 Bible, dating before the twelfth or the close of 
 the preceding century, descended to our times. 
 Our oldest MSS. of the Bible are those of the 
 Greek version, which exceed the Hebrew in an- 
 tiquity by seven hundred years, 
 v The Jews were not slow in taking advantage 
 ©f the new and beautiful invention which, in the 
 middle of the fifteenth century, superseded the 
 labours of the calligraphists. So early as 1477 
 the Psalter was printed at Bologna, in folio, but 
 without points except in a few passages, anil 
 without any accents except that which denoted 
 the. end of the verse (Sipk Pasuk ). The Penta- 
 teuch was printed at the same place, with points, 
 an 1482, folio. This was followed by Ruth, 
 Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Lamentations, and 
 from the press at Soncino, in 1486, there issued 
 the early and later prophets. At Soncino also; 
 in 1488, the entire Hebrew Bible was first 
 printed, which was followed by an edition at 
 Staples in 1491, and another at Brescia, by Rabbi 
 Cxerson, in 1494. This was succeeded by the He- 
 brew of the Complutensiau Polyglott in 1517, 
 and in the following year was published at 
 Venice Bomberg's first edition of his Rabbinical 
 Bible, 4 vols. tbl., edited by the learned Jew, 
 Felix Prateusis. This, and Robert Stephens’s 
 beautiful editions of 1539-1544, were derived 
 from Gerson’s, which was that used by Luther 
 for his German Bible. Sebastian Munster's edi- 
 tion (1536) was also of this family. 
 
 . jjotnlierg’s second edition (Venice, 1525), which 
 Was followed by several others, is the parent of 
 Stephens’s editions of 1544-46, and of our present 
 Hebrew Bibles. The Autwerp Polyglott (1569} 
 
 Shd Hulter’s edition (1587) contain a mixed 
 he Jaye and Walton have retained the text of thft 
 Antwerp Polyglott. Other accurate editions wer % 
 published by Buxtorf (1611 and 1618), and by 
 Athias (1661 and 1667), with a preface by 
 Leusden. Van der Hooght’s (1705) is a reprint 
 of the edition of Athias. Tlte various readings 
 are contained in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bom berg 
 and Buxtorf, and in the editions of Munster, Van 
 der Hooghf, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kenriicott, 
 Doederlein, Meisner, Jahn, and the Polygtottsi 
 All these editions represent the Masoretic recen- 
 sion, which, most probably, judging from flip 
 ancient translations, represented the text which 
 was received at the introduction of Christianity. 
 The early Protestant divines zealously contended 
 for the integrity of the text of the Masoretic 
 MSS., in opposition to the ante-Masoretic, or that 
 which was the basis of theSeptuagint (see Loscher, 
 De Cans. Ling. Heb . ,- Carpzov, Cut. Sacr. ; 
 Buxtorf, De Punst. Antiq. et Orig .') ; and not- 
 withstanding the learning and acumen with which' 
 they were opposed, it i.s now generally conceded 
 that the Protestants were right. They proceeded 
 •too far, however, when they Contended for the 
 antiquity, and even the divine origin of the vowel 
 points. ‘ The Protestants," says Jahn \ lulrod.\ 
 * who until the middle of the eighteenth century 
 maintained the perfect clearness of the sense of 
 Scripture, contended that the vowel points were 
 coeval with the consonants, in order, doubtless, 
 to obviate the notion that the Scriptures were at 
 one time less clear than at another. But sincts 
 their rejection of this dogma they agree with us 
 that the points are but a commentary of the 
 middle ages.’ Lo.uis Capell, an eminent French 
 Protestant divine, who had contended, in -oppo** 
 sition to the two Buxtorfs, against the antiquity 
 of the points, was unable to obtain a licence irs 
 France for the publication of his Arcanum Pune - 
 tationis, to which the Protestants of that day 
 Were warmly opposed, although their views were 
 contrary to the more correct judgment of Luther, 
 Calvin, and others among the early reformers; 
 The consonants alone are the true objects of sacred 
 criticism. 
 
 It was also contended that the sacred text, had 
 descended to us in a faultless state. But this 
 notion, against which the critical sceptics Capel?, 
 and, in more recent times, our own Kennicott, had 
 to contend (De Wette, § 81), and for which they 
 had to endure much obloquy, has been long ex- 
 ploded. Such was the force of prejudice, thaf 8 
 when Louis Capell in his Critica Sacra, had 
 formed a collection of various readings and errors 
 which he believed to have crept into the copies of 
 the Pible, the Protestants prevented the impression 
 of it, and it. was only after his son, John Capel?, 
 had joined the church of Rome, that he obtained 
 tire French king’s licence to print, it, in 1650* 
 The errors of transcribers, either from accident* 
 mistake, or design, the wish to correct seeming 
 difficulties, or the introduction bf scholia into the 
 text, abbreviations, &c., &c., are such as are com- 
 mon to all manuscripts, and the true text of th$ 
 Scriptures must be collected, as in similar case?, 
 and, so far as may lie, restored, from a comparison 
 of these, from parallel passages, ancient versions, 
 the Talmud, the Masora, and critical conjecture 
 f Criticism, Bibi.ica.i-]. The accusation some- 
 times mads against the Jews- of designedly falsifV* 
 
710 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 ing the text in their controversies with the early 
 Cnvistians is now generally considered to be 
 without foundation. 
 
 II. The Greek Text. — The Greek text, or that 
 of the New Testament, has been noticed under 
 another head [Recensions]. ‘The only certain 
 result,’ observes De VVette ( Einleitung ) ‘which 
 is derived ftom the enquiries that have been in- 
 Gtitufed into the history of the text, consists in 
 t\.e fact that ‘ certain MSS. and other critical 
 testimonies correspond according to a certain 
 analogy, and again diverge from each other. 
 The Alexandrian do tliia in the greatest degree, 
 although in these also are many commutations 
 and admixtures.’ 
 
 The text of the New Testament, observes the 
 came distinguished critic, as it is found in MSS. 
 from the fifth to the ' fifteenth century, is con- 
 fessedly free from * gross and palpable errors.’ 
 The vigilance produced by the constant contro- 
 versies between the catholics and the heretics 
 .feuded to maintain this purity (De YVette, l. c.). 
 This did not, however, preserve the text, from nu- 
 merous errors, which arose here, as well as in the 
 Old Testament, from the commutation of letters, 
 transposition of words, seeing ami hearing incor- 
 rectly, abbreviations,, reception into the text of 
 marginal glosses and parallel passages, and other 
 obvious causes. The text was also altered by 
 .attempts at making it clearer, and correcting what 
 appeared difficult or erroneous, as well as from 
 its litufgical use. The various readings arising 
 from these and other causes amounted in M ill's 
 edition' (1707) to thirty thousand. This circum- 
 stance at one time excited great alarm among 
 jpligious men, among whom was the amiable 
 Beivjel, and was the source of triumph to in- 
 fidels (Whitby’s Excanen var. lect. Joh. Millii; 
 Bentley’s Fhileleuiherua Lipsiensis, in reply to 
 Collins’s JDiacourae on Free-thinking ). Some 
 Roman-catholic .writers made use of the same fact 
 in order to prove the superior advantage of having 
 recourse only to the Latin ‘authentic* Vulgale 
 (Coppinger’s Reasons'), forgetting that the MSS. 
 of the Vulgate were liable to the same charge 
 [Vulgate.] Rut these delusions have . been 
 4ong since dissipated, and although the various 
 readings have, in consequence of the labours of 
 subsequent editors, increased to one hundred or 
 one hundred and fifty thousand, it is now gene- 
 rally felt that the greater part of the variations 
 are only similar to those in all other MSS. that 
 have been frequently copied; and that with the 
 exception of a few important passages they are of 
 no authority or cor.sequence ; * and that it is a 
 matter scarcely worth consideration, . as- regards 
 the study of our religion and its history, whether, 
 fe-fter making a very few corrections, we take the 
 received text formed as it was, or the very best 
 which the most laborious anil judicious criticism 
 might produce’ (Norton’s Genuineness of the 
 Gospels, vol. i. p. xl. ; see also Dr. W iseman’s 
 Features on the Connection between Science and 
 JLievp.aled Religion , Lect. x.). 
 
 The first portion of the Greek Testament that 
 -appeared after the invention of printing was the 
 Hymns of Zscharia? and Elizabeth, printed at 
 ^Venice in I486, and six first chapters of St. 
 ^ohns Gospel, which issued from the press of 
 ^Ahlus Manutius in 1504. But what has [>eeu 
 IgufT called the Received Text w as Elzevir's 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 reprint, in 1624, of Robert Stephens's thhd edi- 
 tion, or that of 1550, from which, however, it 
 differs in one hundred ami thirty places. We 
 shall here give a brief history of this edition, 
 which forms an epoch in Biblical Literature. 
 
 The first printed edition of the entire New 
 Testament was that of the Complutensian Poly* 
 glott, published at the munificent cost of the 
 celebrated Cardinal Ximenes. The New Testa- 
 ment, in this edition, was commenced in 1502, 
 and bears the date of 1514, but was not. published 
 until 1522, four years after the completion of the 
 entire Polyglott, The text of the New Testament 
 was not founded on very ancient manuscripts 
 The editors state in their preface that they have 
 placed ‘ the Latin version of St. Jerome between 
 the Hebrew and Greek, to represent the Synagogue 
 atid the Oriental church as the two thieves, and 
 Jesus, that is, the Roman or Latin church, ip the 
 midst ’ It was not, however, meant by this to dis- 
 parage the original texts, of which Ximenes in his 
 dedication speaks ‘in as high terms- as Luther 
 could have used’ (Marsh's Michaelis ). 
 
 Before this edition saw the light, and conse- 
 quently before he could have derived any aid 
 from it., Erasmus published his edition, which 
 issued from the press of Basel in 1516. This was 
 followed by the editions of 1519, 1522, 1527, and 
 1535. It wa3 in the edition of 4522 that he 
 inserted the disputed clause, 1 John v. 7 [John, 
 Epistles ok]. Erasmus's editions are chiefly 
 founded on four Basel cursive manuscripts, 
 B. vi. 27, B vi. 17, B. vi. 25, B. ix., and B. x. 
 20, none of which is older than the tenth century. 
 The first of these, which is the most ancient, and 
 contains the whole New Testament except the 
 Apocalypse, represents in the Acts and Epistles 
 what has been called by Griesbach and Scholz 
 the Constantinopolifan ; ami in the Gospels, which 
 are considered by Bengel the only correct por- 
 tion of the MS., it harmonizes with what is called 
 the Alexandrian recension. B. vi. 25, from which 
 the press was set, is an inporrect MS. of the pos- 
 , pels of tl.se (so called) Constantinopolitan recen- 
 sion. and of the fifteenth century. The other 
 MSS. contain only portions of the New Testa- 
 ment. He bad for the first edition hut one in- 
 complete MS. of part of the Apocalypse, part of 
 which he himself translated from the Latin, cor- 
 recting in his fourth edition (1527) from the 
 Complutensian text. 
 
 The Aldine edition (1518) was founded on the 
 text of Erasmus. This was followed by many 
 others, which it is unnecessary here to particu- 
 larize. 
 
 Iri 1546 appeared the first, or O mirificam edi- 
 tion, of Robert. Stephens, l6rrio. This principally 
 followed the Complutensian text, compared with 
 that of Erasmus. The second edition (1549) 
 gives nearly the same text. But the third edition 
 (in folio, 1550), which is the most beautiful of 
 all Stephens seditions, had for its basis Erasmuss 
 fifth edition, of which indeed it was little* more 
 . than a reprint. With this, however, he collated 
 fifteen MSS. in the Royal Library, together 
 with the Complutensian text, adding in tbs 
 margin their various readings. These MSS. 
 have’ been identified, one of them being tha 
 Cambridge MS. or Cod. .Be*ae (D), with another 
 uncial MS. of the ninth century, • still in tb* 
 Royal Library of Paris, Stephens's ftfqrth 
 
SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 t)on was published in 1551, and another by his 
 son Robert in 1569. 
 
 In respect to all these editions, observes Hug, 
 the editors seized upon the best MSS. in their 
 Vicinity, without the slightest knowledge of the 
 critrcal stores which were within their reach in 
 the obscurity of libraries, of tht various critical 
 pi leuomena occurring, in the N?w Testament, or 
 of the proper principles on which to proceed. 
 They acted \vifhout plan, took MSS. at hap- 
 hazard, and amended . them according to their 
 fancy. They belong therefore to the history of 
 Biblical literature and of the typography and 
 cultivation of the sixteenth cehtowy, but they are 
 of no use in the criticism of the N&V? Testament, 
 except in tracing hack to their origin the mis- 
 takes and false readings in our printed editions. 
 The other editions, for a considerable time after 
 this period, were little more than reprints of the 
 Stephaniau, Complutensiun, and Erasmian edi- 
 tions. The Complutensian was that adopted by 
 Plantin and the editor of the Paris and Antwerp 
 polyglotts ; the Erasmian by Cepbalseus and 
 others. The most distinguished of the Erasmian 
 are those of Boyard in 1543, and of Culinseus 
 in 1531, the latter with the aid (if some MSS. 
 in the Royal Library and that of St. Victor. 
 For the other editions see Hug’s Introd. § 57. 
 
 The first attempt, at a critical edition was by 
 the celebrated Theodore Beza, who used for this 
 
 urpose the collations tnp.de for Robert Stephens 
 
 y his son Hemy. His first edition .was pub- 
 lished in 1565, and his second in 1576, which 
 were followed by those of 1582, 1589, and 1598. 
 He made use of nineteen MSS. (including, 
 for his third edition, the Cambridge and Cler- 
 mont, both uncials), as well as an Arabic, and 
 the Syrian Peschito ‘version, which had been 
 |mblished by Widmanstadt in 1555. ‘It has 
 been Beza's lot to be frequently much com- 
 mended, and frequently much censured, both 
 with equal reason’ (plug's Introd.). No prin- 
 ciples, however, had yet been established for re- 
 ducing to practice his scanty materials. Beza’s 
 editions were the basis of Elzevir's, or the Textua 
 Receptus, the^ first edition of which was published 
 in 1624, and the second in 1633. In the preface 
 it is announced, * Textum hahea ab omnibus 
 KECEPTuni in quo nihil immutatum, autcor- 
 rupfum darnus,’ There were in all five editions 
 published from this ‘ infallible press,’ amounting 
 to 8000 copies. A new edition vvaa published, 
 with- marginal various readings by Curcellaeus, 
 in 1633, previous to which there was a splendid 
 reprint of it published by the Roman-eatbolic 
 editor J. Mornms, at Paris in 1628. This was 
 followed by the editions of Gerhard von Maestricht 
 and Boeder, in 1711, 1745 and 1760. Wal- 
 ton, however, in the P^olyglott, adhered to the 
 third edition of Stephens, adding the various 
 readings of the Codex Alexandrhms (1657). 
 
 Bishop Fell’s edition of 1625 prepared the way 
 for that of Dr. John Mill, the first truly critical 
 edition (1707), the basis of which was the third 
 of Stephens, whose text he adopted. He 
 furnished the various readings of many MSS. 
 hitherto uncollated, making use of all the 
 ancient versions and the citations of thb 
 fathers, He prefixed valuable Prolegomena, 
 lint only survived a few days the publication 
 cf wcik, which commenced an entirely nevy 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLT 721 
 
 era in fiacred criticism. A new edition wa9 
 published by Kiister, who himself collated for the 
 work the Codex Beemerianus of St. Paul’s Epistles 
 (1710). [See Vui.gate.] 
 
 The firpt of the Germans who engaged in tha 
 laudable undertaking of giving a more coirecf 
 text of the New Testament, was the excellent and 
 conscientious Bengel, a man of great genius isi 
 this department, who simplified criticism by 
 classifying all the manuscripts into two distincJ 
 families x the African and the Asiatic, to ydiich 
 Griesbach afterwards gave the name of recensions-. 
 The chief value of his work consists in hia 
 ‘ Apparatus,' for he made .no change in the 
 Texlus Receptus , and makes a merit of intro- 
 ducing no reading which had not been already 
 in print. His edition was printed at Tubingen 
 in 1734. 
 
 Our limits will not allow us to dwell on the pe- 
 culiar merits of John James Wetstein, whose splen- 
 did edition appeared in 1751. He collated all the 
 MSS. used by his predecessors, together with many 
 others, including C., or the Codex Ephrsemi. Hia 
 Prolegomena furnish a rich treasure to the Biblical 
 student. Herein be first denominated the various 
 MSS. by the letters of. the alphabet, by which 
 they are still known. He made, however, na 
 alteration in the old printed text. The first who 
 successfully entered this field was the celebrated 
 J J. Griesbach, whose edition, published in 1775- 
 1777, ushered in the ‘ golden age ’of criticism. 
 Whatever difference of opinion exists aa to the 
 correctness of his text, all are agreed in com- 
 mending his untiring zeal and strict conscien- 
 tiousness in this department. The various read- 
 ings which he had collected rendered his edition 
 the mo3t perfect of its kind which had yet ap- 
 peared. ‘With this work,’ observes Hug, ‘hu 
 adorned the evening of a laborious and praise- 
 worthy life, and left behind him an honourable 
 memorial which may perhaps be surpassed in 
 respect to the critical materials it contains (for 
 these are daily increasing), but hardly in regard 
 to elaborate and accurate criticism.’ The pecu- 
 liarity of Griesbach’s text (as distinct from hia 
 edition) consists in the preference he gives to what 
 he considers the Alexandrian or Oriental read- 
 ings. In this he has met with a Jealous antagonist 
 in the indefatigable Professor Scholz, of Bom?, 
 an eminent critic of the Roman church, who has, 
 in his edition of 1830-35, represented the so-called 
 Constantinopolitan or common text of the modern 
 MSS., to which he attaches a decided preference. 
 To the 674 MSS. of Griesbach he has added no 
 less than 667, which he has the honour of having- 
 first made known, but which he has but cursorily 
 and superficially inspected, rendering further in- 
 vestigation more indispensable than ever. The 
 Constantinopolitan text, which he merely assumes^ 
 from what he considers its internal excellence, as 
 well as llofn its being the public and authorized 
 text of the Greek, church, to correspond with the 
 autographs of the sacred writers, approaches to that 
 of Elzevir, from the accidental circumstance that 
 the earlier editors made use of materials chiefly 
 of this class. Many, who are disposed to adopt 
 his theory from its simplicity, and its satisfactory 
 explanation of the phenomena of the case, ara 
 unwilling to commit themselves to all hi® detail®. 
 An English- scholar and divine, the latest who haa- 
 tfeated of this subject, although disposed to favour 
 
7!2 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 Scfeolz’s theory', conceives that his historical de- 
 monstration of the truth of his system is likely to 
 cairy conviction to few who really know what 
 historical demonstration means, and that on the 
 point of internal evidence his edition is a decided 
 failure. He concludes his valuable observations 
 with expressing his regret that. Scholzs edition 
 should have been received in England with a 
 cb-gree of consideration to which it has ‘slender 
 claims. ‘I fully,’ he, adds, ‘admit the value of 
 this critic’s exertions as a collator of MSS. I 
 admire his diligence, and venerate his zeal. 
 His theory of recensions I conceive to approximate 
 •very near to the truth. But he seems disqualified 
 i>v a lack of judgment for the delicate task of 
 •selecting from the massof discordant readings the 
 ^genuine text of Holy Scripture* ( Supplement to 
 the Authorized English Version of the New Tes- 
 tament , by the Rev. F. H. Scrivener, M.A., 
 London, 1845). 
 
 An edition of Scholz’s text, nut without the appa 
 ratus, was published by Mr. Bagster, in his Ilex- 
 apla , in 4to., in 1841 ; end another neat edition 
 in 12mo., accompanied with the English version, 
 and the principal variations of Grieshach’s text 
 'without a date) in 1843. The anonymous editor 
 of this Testament lias, however, departed from 
 Scholz’s punctuation and divisions into para- 
 graphs. (Comp 1 Tim. iii. 13). 
 
 Scholz’s system of recensions has met with a 
 powerful antagonist in Tischendorf, in his Prole- 
 gomena to his portable and comprehensive edition 
 of the New Testament, published at Leipsic, in 
 1841. Tischendorf has furnished the Alexan- 
 drian text with the most remarkable various 
 readings, and an excellent critical apparatus. 
 His work is considered by De Wette to be hastily 
 executed. He was the first to apply the St. Gall 
 MS. to the criticism of the Gospels. The theories 
 and criticisms of Yafer,Tittmann, Lachmann and 
 others have been referred to in another article. 
 Lachmann rejects all former theories, and admits 
 no MS. which does not represent the text of 
 the first four centuries. He has added to his 
 edition a most valuable text of the Vulgate, 
 which he has formed for himself from two ancient 
 MSS. ; and agreeing with Eicbhorn and Dr. W ise- 
 man, that the first Lai in version was made in 
 Africa, he devotes a large share of attention to the 
 collection of its fragments. 
 
 We may now reasonably hope, from the vast 
 accession which is daily making to our stock of 
 materials, that we are approaching the means of 
 forming a more correct estimate of the true state 
 cf the text than it has been hitherto our lot to 
 enjoy. 
 
 We shall next treat of the division* and marks 
 cf distinction in the several books. 
 
 The divisions of the Hebrew text, as they are 
 1 now found in the printed Bibles, have descended 
 from a very remote antiquity. The sections 
 called paraskes (ni'BHS), or paragraphs, are 
 noticed hi the Talmud, and were therefore in 
 existence anterior to the times of the Masorefes, 
 whose textual labours, it will be recollected, com- 
 menced in the sixth century. Of these parashts 
 ( divisions ) the Pentateuch contains 669. They 
 p»re of two.sortsj greater and smaller, or open and 
 •hut paragraphs.:' The open paragraphs (niflinQ 
 petwhoth) are so culled because they commeucetl 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 thft line $ and tin* others niD’inD, or shut, because 
 they were separated within the line by a space or 
 break. They are also marked in the common 
 MSS. with the initials D or D, and tht. former by 
 a triple space. In the synagogue rolls they are dis- 
 tinguished by spaces merely (which was probably 
 the only aboriginal note of division), and not b,y 
 those initial letters, and ,they are in the Talmud 
 referred to Moses himself as their author- There 
 is a similar division, marked by spaces only, in 
 the Prophets and Chethuhhn , which are also re- 
 ferred to in the Talmud. These divisions (some- 
 times called pisqua) are found even in some of 
 the hymns which are stichometricully arranged, 
 viz. Judg. v.; 2Sam. xxii.; Exod. xv.; but they 
 are wanting in those contained in 1 Sam. xxiv. 
 and 2 Sam. i ; and they sometimes even occur in 
 the midd*e of the verse. Each separate psalm is 
 also called in the Talmud a parash , as well as 
 each portion of the cxixth Psalm. In the book 
 of Job the transitions from prose to verse, as well 
 as the commencement of Elihu’s speech, are mark- 
 ed in the MSS. by a larger space, and everywhere 
 else in the same book the change of speakers 
 is marked by a smaller (Hupfeld, Attafiirliche 
 Grammatik). In addition to these there are 
 found in the MSS. of the Pentateuch larger sec- 
 tions, of which there are fifty-four in number, and 
 of which one is read in the synagogues on every 
 Sabbath Day. These are sometimes called 
 sidarim (D'TIB) ; they are not mentioned in the 
 Talmud, and appear to have had their origin in tha 
 Masora. The smaller sections have been made 
 use of as far as possible for the purjnise of di- 
 viding the Sabbath lessons among several read- 
 ers. They have sometimes been considered aa 
 subdivisions of the larger sections. When the 
 Sabhath lessons coincide in their commencement 
 with th e par ashes, they are marked with a triple 
 B DS or D D D, according as these are open or 
 shut. There is one only (Gen. xlvii. 28) which 
 has no space before it. There is also another 
 division, into sidarim, found in the Rabbinical 
 Bible of Ben-cl aijim, printed in 1325, the num- 
 ber of which amounts in the whole Bible to 447. 
 There is some diversity in the MSS. in the use of 
 the initial letters for marking open and shut sec- 
 tions (see Leusden, Phil. Heb., diss. iv.), and there 
 are further divisions of the text marked by spaces 
 only, several of which are identical with the mo- 
 dern or Latin chapters of the thirteenth century. 
 These sections were divided into D'plDD, short 
 sentences, or verses , regulated by the sense 
 [Veh.se], and the number of sidarim or larger 
 sections in each book, together with the number of 
 verses in each, was noted at the end of the book in 
 the Masoretic copies. In Buxtorfs Rabbinical 
 Bible the number of verges is marked at the end 
 of each section. There is also, in the prophetical 
 books, a corresjwndiug division into, or rather 
 selection of, IVnOSn ( Haphtarotk ) or Sabbath 
 lessons, from a word nearly synonymous 
 
 with the Latin missa, or dismissal, because the 
 people were dismissed when these were read.' These 
 irniDSn are also mentioned in the Mishna 
 They are written each on a separate roll. 
 
 The divisions found in the MSS. of the an- 
 cient Greek, Latin, and other versions are. dif- 
 ferent from these, and mofe resemble me Am- 
 monio - Eusebian KeQahaia or capitula of the 
 MSS, of the Nevy Testament, which we filial! 
 
SCRIPTURE, HOLY. SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 713 
 
 ‘gjTcaently Tefer to. jVVe find traces of these in Job, the first of which is divided info fin chapters 
 the Old Testament in the Codex. Alexaridrinus, (K«pd\aia) ; the secopd into 56 ; the third into 93 ; 
 Inhere, however, they are confined to the former the fourth into 63 ; and Job into 32. These are all 
 part of Deuteronomy, and the middle^ of the » numbered in the margin ; and at the beginning of 
 V>ook of Joshua. Thus Deut. i. 9 is marked with | each hook (except Tobit and* Judith) is a table 
 
 6 S, denoting the second capitulum , commencing containing the numbers and the' few first words 
 
 with kolI eTn-e; the third capitulum commences 1 ' l of each Kt(pd\mor, thus shoiving the design and use 
 with our 19th verse; the fourth with our 40th ;|\of the enumeration. These, but no other books 
 the fifth with ch. ii. 1 ; the sixth with ch. ii. ver. . (except the Pentateuch, Joshua, v Judges, Ruth, 
 7; the'seventh with ver. 14, and the eighth with ipd Chronicles >?ave the Latin chapters, jjpdylia 
 rer. 24. The numbers are placed in the margin. Chronicles fhey are sometimes of/double length., 
 and the capitula commence theljne with a capital The Latin version of St. Jerome, as published 
 letter. That such divisions were very ancient is by Martianay, has a somewhat similar division 
 further evident from Tertullian (Scorpiac. 2), into sections, there designated tituli, capitula, and 
 *vho, after reciting Deut. xiii. 1-5, proceeds to breves. These are all of unequal anti arbitrary* 
 ^cite the passage commencing with the next verse, length, and at the commencement of each book is 
 .as ‘another 'chapter ’ (capitulum). And Jerome- a breviarium or index, referring to »he numbers 
 observes that a capitulum had ended in the Sept, of the tituli, capitula. and breves, and containing 
 'where it began in the Hebrew (in Mic. vi. 9 ; Soph, a short lemma or abstract of the contents of each, 
 mii. 11; and Queest. Heb. Gen. xxv. 13-18). These divisions are confined to the Pentateuch, 
 •Jti the Monument. Eccles. of Coteleriu3, Deut. Joshua, Samuel', and Kings, the two latter books 
 ,kxv. 8 is cited as the .ninetv-third capitulum; being furnished with titles only. Genesis, e. 
 from which it appears that there were more than ha3 46 breves, 70 capitula, and' 38 titles; and 
 .One hundred of these short sections in the book of Kings has 222 titles. Each of these has its argu- 
 •Deuteronomy. Exod. xx. 1 is, in the same docu- ment prefixed. These divisions generally com- 
 ment, cited as the sixty-third capitulum, and mence at* the same place, and are sometimes 
 xjt. 22 as the sixtv-eighth; also Lev. xxv. as the identical. Thus the first brevis in Genesis is 
 tiundred and twentieth, and Num. Xxxv. as the entitled, ‘ De lucis exordia, et divisione tenebra- 
 ihundred and thirty-seventh. This latter book, rum a luce, et secunda die’ [ch. i.' 1-5]; the first; 
 ‘therefore, vras divided into about one hundred capitulum , ‘ De die prime in quo lux facta est* 
 land forty chapters. [also vers. 1-5] ; and- the first tit-ulus, ‘ De crea- 
 
 •Jk in the Cod. Alex, the first number noted in ttone mundi et plasmate hominis’ [veis. i ; iiu 
 [Joshua is 12 ( 16 ), coinciding with our ch. ix 3;, 20]. Exodus contains 18 titles. 21 breves, and 
 the thirteenth commences with ch- x. 1 ; the Four- 138 capitula or chapters ; Leviticus 16 titles, 1(5 
 feeuth with ch. x. 16 ; the fifteenth with ch." x. 29 ; breves, and 88 chapters; Numbers 20 titles, 71- 
 the sixteenth) with ch. x. 31 ; the seventeenth breves, and 97 chapters; Deuteronomy 19 title?, 
 with ch. x. 34; the eighteenth with ch. x. 36; 142 breves, and 155 chapters; Joshua 11 titles, 
 
 and the nineteenth with ch. x. 38. The twen- 32 breves, and 110 chapters; Judges 8 titles, 18 
 lieth eqrresponds with the commencement of breves, and 50 chapters ; Samuel 137 titles, and 
 our chapter xi.; the twenty-second with our Kings 220. The books of Chronicles are divided 
 ch. xi. 16 ; the twenty-third with ch. xi. 21 ; into short sentences resembling our verses. 
 
 the twenty-fourm with ch. xii. 1 ; the twenty- In later manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate there 
 fifth with ch. xii. 4; the twenty-sixth with ch. xii, is found a continuous capitulation, carried 
 
 7 ; the twenty-seventh with ch. xiii. 1 ; the twenty- through the whole books, canonical and unca- 
 eighth 'number is omitted ; the twenty-ninth corre- -nonical. Of these the Charlemagne MS. is an 
 eponds with ch.xiii. 24; the thirtieth with ch, example. This valuable document, now the pro- 
 xiii. 29; the thirty-first with ch.xiv. 1 ; the thirty- perry of the British Museum, has the following 
 second with ch. xiv.'fi; the thirty-third with ch. divisions; — Genesis contains 82 capitula, Exodus 
 xviii. 1 ; the thirty-fourth number is omitted ; the 139, Numbers 74, Deuteronomy 45, Joshua 33, 
 thirty-fifth answers to ch. xviii. 8 ; the thirty-sixth .Judges 18 (Ruth is not capitulated), 1 Kings 
 is omitted; the thirty-seventh answers to our ch. contains 26, 2 Kings 18, 3 Kings 18, 4 Kings 
 xviii. 10; the thirty-eighth to ch. xix. 17; and 1.7. There is no capitulation of Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 here the numeration of this ancient codex. ends. Daniel, the minor prophets, nor Job, but the para- 
 The above comparison' will probably serve to graphs iu these hooks commence the line with 
 convey to the reader a correct view of the ancient rubricated capitals. The prayer of Jeremiah is 
 system of eapi filiation, which appears to he suffi- divided info sentences, numbered in the margin 
 cientiy unequal and arbitrary, some chapters with Greek letters ; and the numbers of the Psalms 
 being comparatively long, and others not exceed- are also attached in the margin, and each psalm 
 iug in length one of our present verses. The separated by the point "V. . The Proverbs are di~ 
 only other numbers in this codex are those of the vided into 59 chapters, but there are 60 noted 
 Decalogue, in Exod. xx., of which thedourth, fifth, in the table of contents. The 59th chapter is 
 and sixth commandments only (according to the entitled, Sacramentum de muliere forte, and the 
 Origenian or Greek division), are numbered, with 60th, Retributio de fructibus manuum. Ec clo- 
 the letters y, §, and e (3, 4, and 5), as in the siastes contains 31 chaipters; the Song of Solomon 
 Latin and Lutheran communions. In the V atican is not capitulated, but in the body of the text there’ 
 MS. there exist only the remains of a very obscure are rubricated titles, as Vox Kcclesise, Vox ami 
 division, which is confined to the four prophets corum, Vox Christi, &c. ; Wisdom has 48 capi» 
 (see Pref. to Roman ed.) [Decalogue]. - 4 , tula, and Ecclesiasticus 127. Toere is no divi- ■ 
 
 In the Aldine edition of the Septuagint and , siou whatever in Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemi'ah, 
 Greek Testament the qrily capitulated portions but there occur a few in the latter part of Esther, 
 &rs the books of Essra, Esther, Tobit, Judith, and with Jerome s notes, Commencing with a rubri 
 
714 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 cated capital. There are no divisions in Tobit or 
 Judith, except uurubricated paragraphs, and the 
 portion answering to our present 19th chapter of 
 Tobitj which commences with a red letter. 1 
 Maccabees contains 01 chapters, and 2 Macca- 
 Lees 55. 
 
 In 1 the New Testament Matthew contains 81 
 chapters, Mark 46,. Luke 73, John 3'i, and Acts 
 7-1. The Epistle of James has 20, 1 Peter 20, and 
 2 Peter 11, Rom. 51, l Cor. 62, 2 Cor. 28, Gal. 
 37, Eph. 31, Phil. 18, 1 Thess. 25, 2 Thcss. 8, 
 Coloss. 31, l Tim. 28, 2 Tim. Y5, Titus 10, 
 Piiilem. 4, Ileb. 38. After this follows the Epistle 
 to the Laodicean, which is not .. capitulated. 
 Then follows the Apocalypse, containing .22 chap- 
 ters. All the capitulated books are preceded by 
 the capitulation or table of the contents of each 
 chapter, except the Apocalypse, the table prefixed 
 to which contains, instead of such summary, the 
 few first words of each division. The Gospels are 
 marked with the Eusebian canons, and besides 
 the Ammotiian numbers, the initial of each evan- 
 gelist’s name referred to in the cations is attached. 
 The Pauline Epistles have also a canon prefixed 
 containing the parallel passages. This is probably 
 the canon which James Faber of Ktaples erro- 
 neously ascribed to Ammonius (Zucagni, Monti- 
 rtienta). 
 
 The Decalogue is divided according to the 
 Hieronymian (the same as the Greek) division, 
 with the number of each commandment prefixed, 
 and the table of contents contains the following 
 nummary : 
 
 Verba legi3 qnae precepit Dominus emtodire. 
 
 I. Non erunt tibi dii alii absque me. 
 
 II. Non facies tibi idolum rteque ullam simi 
 Htudirteirt. 
 
 III. - Non sumc3 nomen Domini tui in vanum.- 
 
 IV. In monte. babe diem Sabbatorum. 
 
 V. Hon ora patrem tuum et matrem. 
 
 VI. Non occides. VII. Non moechaberis. 
 
 VIII. Non lurtum facies. Villi. Non dices 
 
 falsum testimonium. 
 
 X. Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, 
 tieque aliquid ejus. 
 
 Later MSS. have -the tinmbew of the capi- 
 tula inserted in the boil y of the text; and alter 
 the invention of the Latin chapters, the num 
 hers of these latter are placed in the margin. 
 In one of those in the British Museum, Hail. 5021 
 (written on vellum in the 13th century), the ca- 
 pitulation of which is not completed. Genesis con- 
 tains about 70 chapters, Exodus 140, Leviticus 
 24, Numbers 72, Deuteronomy 156, Joshua 34, 
 Judges***. Ruth 4, 1 and 2 Kings ,96, 3 
 Kings 56, 4 Kings * * * *, 1 Chronicles * * * 2 
 Chronicles 20. Ezra 36, Judith 23, Esther 11, 
 Tobit 15, 1 Macc. 57, and 2 Macc. 56. 
 
 Divisions of the New Testament. The most 
 ancient MSS. of the New Testament which’ 
 have descended to our times also contain nume- 
 rous divisions of the text. Of these the most 
 ancient-marked by numbers, are the Amnionian 
 chapters, to which the Etisebian canons were after- 
 wards attached, — the larger chapters, pericopae, 
 cr titles, — the church-lessons, and other peculiar 
 divisions. Besides these are paragraphs marked 
 by capitals commencing the line, and slichome- 
 Srical tli visions or verses [Verse]. 
 
 Ketpd\aia, or chapfers. We find divisions 
 under this name extani; in the time of Tertulliau 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 (Ad XJxoy, 2; De Pudicit. xvi. ; and De Corn") 
 Christ, xix.), who calls by the name of capi- 
 tulum the phrasd ‘ non cx sanguine, neque es 
 voiuntate Viri* sed ex Deo nati sunt.’ They are 
 also mentioned in a.d. 200, by Dionysius o! 
 Alexandria (ap» Eusebium, Hist. Eccles. vii. 25), 
 who observes that some have attempted to refute 
 the Apocalypse, criticising every chapter, and pro- 
 nouncing it unintelligible (see Revelation ; also 
 Stuart’s Commentary on the Apocalyse, 1845, 
 § 17).* But. the earliest division of which we can 
 speak with historical accuracy is that of Ammo- 
 nius, the deacon of Alexandria, who published 
 hi3 Monotessaroii , or Harmony of the Gospels, in 
 the middle of the third century. Csesarius, the 
 brother of Gregory Nazianzen, observes of these 
 (Dial, i.), that there are four Gospels containing 
 1162 chapters; and Epiphanius (Ancor. c. 60) 
 makes the same enumeration. These divisions 
 are accurately marked in the margin of several 
 ancient M-SS. But the numeral notations 
 were adopted, not for the purpose of reference, 
 or of facilitating citation, according to the usaga 
 of modem times, but merely as a companion to 
 the author s harmony or abridgment of the Gos- 
 pels ; of these chapters St. Matthew’s Gospel 
 contains 355, Sf. Mark’s 235, St. Luke’s 342, 
 and St. John's 232. It has been supposed that: 
 this division was confined to Ammonius” own 
 copy, and not generally published (Mill's 
 Proleg .) ; but this copy happening to fall into 
 the hands of Eusebius of Caesarea, fie conceived 
 the idea of forming a perfect Diafessaron Ipy the 
 help of those divisions and fye numerals which 
 Ammonius had placed in thei margin tgjfhis copy 
 (See .Eusebius, Letter to Carpianus ). He for tips 
 purpose reduced all the chapfers to ten classes, and 
 arranged them in ten tables cr canons. Eusebius 
 made no new divisions, but confined himself to 
 those numbered by Ammonius. His N ten canons 
 thus contain — 1. The sections in which the four 
 Gospels agree ; 2. Those in winoh the first three 
 agree ; 3. Those in which Matthew, Luke, and 
 John agree ; 4. Those in which Mark and John 
 agree; 5. Those in which Matthew and Luke 
 
 agree; 6. Those in which Matthew and Mark 
 
 a^ree ; 7. Those in which Matthew and John 
 
 agree ; 8. Those in which Luke and Mark agree ; 
 9. Those in which Luke and John agree; 10. 
 Those which are peculiar to only one of the 
 Evangelists. He then placed additional numeral 
 letters, rubricated, in the margin of the Gospel 
 referring to each canon, viz., a to denote the firsS 
 canon. 6 the second, &c A single glance «,2 
 the page thus indicates how many of the Evan- 
 gelists agree in the subject of each chapter, ojsr 
 otherwise; eg. at Matt. iii. 6 (according to .ne 
 modern division), * and Jesus, being baptized, 
 went up out of the water,’ there will be found in 
 the margin, besides the Ammo'nian number tS, ob 
 xii’V^the numeral a signifying canon i., in run- 
 ning the eye down which the number of tha 
 chapter again occurs, on a line with which will 
 be perceived the corresponding chapter in the 
 three other Gospels, viz., Mark vi. ; Luke xi>»,.; 
 
 * This work, which we conceive to be the best 
 
 treatise on thq Apocalypse that has yet appeared 
 
 in' English, was published subsequently to tha 
 articles Revelation and Spurious RiTt&LV' 
 tions having gone to press. 
 
.SCRIPTURE, HOLY; 
 
 Jbnti 'xv. ; answering according to the modem 
 division to Mark i. 9 11, Luke iii. 21, 22, and 
 John i. 32-34. The groundwoik of thaw hole is 
 St. Matthew^ Gospel, the figures irt the margin 
 of which refer to the parallel passages ot the other 
 three Evangelists. 
 
 .'The Monotessaron of Ammonias is nfivvno longer 
 Wx’anf, but in the eighth century, Victor, bishop 
 ©f Capua, discovered what, he believed to be the 
 identical work, of which he made a Latin trans- 
 lation, attaching to it the Eusebian canons. 
 This work having long sunk into oblivion, was 
 discovered by Michael ' Mender, a printer at 
 Mayntz, in 1521. Wetstein, however, .main-'- 
 Stained that this could not have been the genuine^ 
 work of Ammonius, inasmuch' as, besides other* 
 reasons, the Latin has the four Gospels in one 
 canon, but Ammonius in four; the Latin only 
 indicating the parallel passages of the other 
 Gospels by numerals; the Latin also has the his-, 
 fory of the adulteress, which was not known to 
 Ammonius.- t* ' " . V 
 
 t Another ancient numerical division is that of 
 •the rlrKoi ( titles or inscriptions)' a. Iso called by 
 the name of pericopte ami chapters ( ice<pa\cua ). 
 These are distinct in their nature from the former 
 divisions, hnd like them, are confined to the four 
 Gospels. Of these divisions there are found in St. 
 Matthew’s Gospel 68, St. Mark’s *’6, St. Luke's 
 ,<^3, and St. John’s 18. They aia called titles , 
 inasmuch as there is a short title or summary of 
 the contents of each placed at the top or bottom. 
 <>f the page, together with a numerical reference in 
 die margin to each title ; and a table of the 
 titles with the number of each is prefixed to the 
 Gospels. . Thus the first chapter is entitled it tpl 
 vuv pj&ywv (of the wise men), the second, irepl vwv 
 Trcudlwv duaip-rjdfi/Tuu (of the slaughtered infants 
 &c. A chapter i(K€(pd\aiov), therefore, denotes a 
 larger section, when the table or index of the 
 chapter is prefixed to the MS., but the same 
 word, when the number is only inserted in the 
 margin, without reference to a table of contents 
 or an inscription at the top of the page, denotes 
 one of the smaller or Ammonian chapters (See 
 Simon’s Ilistoire Critique). 
 
 ; There is some difference of opinion as to the 
 age of these larger chapters, some ascribing them 
 to the third, others to the fifth or sixth cen- 
 tury. From the silence of Eusebiu9 respecting 
 them ( Letter to Carpianus ), it has been deduced 
 that he was unacquainted with them ; nor doe3 
 Chrysostom ever refer to them, but the titles ie- 
 Ceriing to the destruction of the Jews are cited 
 ,1 A r Athanasius in Ins third Orat. adv. Arianos. 
 {They could not have been designed fur arayt/iLaus 
 ©r church lessons; for, like the Ammonian chap- 
 iters, there is an immense irregularity in their 
 respective lengths, both the titles and the Am- 
 amdnian chapters containing a portion sometimes 
 exceeding an hundred, and at other times amount- 
 ing to but two or three or even one of our mo-, 
 «lern. verses. Neither could they have been de- 
 signed for the distinction of subjects; for although 
 the title of the chapter for the mo>t part expresses 
 4>ut one subject, the chapter itself contains seve- 
 ral, and even the Ammonian chapters sometimes 
 Contain several of the larger chapters or titles, or 
 parts of several. f?ti!i less was either division 
 ever desigred for th? purpose of reference or 
 ci ation, fob we never find a single instance of this 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. & 1 $ 
 
 . .„>«~ 
 
 ’ kind before Euthymius Eugabenus iri the 
 century, who cites passages which he ohse-ves arjtj 
 found.: in • the sixty-fifth , sixty-sixth , and sixtyl- 
 seventh chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and the 
 'eightieth of St. Luke’s. The chapters thus cited 
 are the titles , not the Ammonian chapters. Milt 
 (Proleg.), conceiving that no other object remains 
 to which these larger sections could be applied 
 except that of a harmony, refers them toTatbui the 
 Assyrian, who composed, a.d. 192, his harmony 
 of the Gospels entuled Diapente , probably be- 
 cause it included the Gospel of the Kbiunites. 
 This work was different in character from, the 
 -later harmony of Ammonius, being in the for pi 
 of a diatessaron compiled in the words of the 
 v, Evangelists. Of this work, which Tatian had 
 written for the benefit of his disciples, Thcodoret,* 
 bishop of Cyprus it* the fourth, century, Ibundj 
 two hundred copies read jn his churches. ‘ Mill; 
 conjectures that on occasion of this work. TafidtK 
 invented the larger chapters, which are tnarkech 
 in the inner margin of the MSS. with capital nu<*. 
 :i merals. We have already perceived that the first' 
 of these chapters in St. Matthew's Gospel com?) 
 i mences with the journey of the wise men (Muff.-| 
 ii.) ; Mark’s Gospel commences with i. 23, and: 
 Luke’s and John's each with our second chapter? 
 The omissions have been accounted for by sujj^ 
 posing that the author of these divisions left tliei 
 commencement vacant in. order to supply it witU 
 illuminated letters, and that although in the pre-j 
 sent MSS. the chapters are masked' with alphabet 
 tical letters in regular order, the -author added thei 
 titles or inscriptions only in the margin, but that? 
 subsequent transcribers transferred them ty thejtop- 
 and bottom of the page, placing the numerals by 
 • way of reference, which after the year a.I>. 5(>0. 
 were added in capital letters in the inner margin,- 
 (Mill's Prolog.). Others account for the omis- 
 sions by supposing that, the numerals were not’ 
 intended to denote chap. 1, 2, 3, &c., but rather 
 the place of chap. 1, 2, and 3; for as the fiist 
 section (or title) is placed at the end of the first, 
 chapter and the beginning of the second, the title 
 prefixed to chap. 2 must necessarily correspond 
 with A, and that piefixed to chap. 3 with B, \vhicl» 
 marks the second section (See KumpffiU3,'C’o/«* 
 rnentatio Critica). 
 
 We have observed that both these divisions are! 
 contained in most of the ancient MSS, Thus; 
 A, or the Alexandrian MS. (Brit. Mus.), has the 
 Ammonian chapters and numbers, and the Kusk- 
 bian canons, together willi the larger chapters or 
 titles, and the usual index of the larger chapters 1 
 at the commencement of the Gospels. This MS. 
 has, besides the numeral capitals, a peculiar, 
 mark (7) in Matthew and Mark 011 the left mar- 
 gin ; instead of which the titles are indicated by 
 a cross, wit lithe usual letter, rubricated, iu Luke' 1 
 and John/ it has the corresponding titles on the 
 top oft he page. 
 
 C, or the Codex Ephrssmi, has, a primd menu, 
 
 ' the Ammonian chapters, hut has not the Eusebian 
 canons. This circumstance was first noticed by 
 Tischendorf, all former writers having erroneously 
 stated that it contained the Eusebian canons andi 
 the titles, and all a primd manu. With respect to; 
 these latter, it is remarkable that although there is? 
 a catalogue of them piefixed to the Gospels (that; 
 ,to Matthew is lost), there is no indication of them/ 
 whatever in the test. Of this celebrated codea^, 
 
716 SCRIPTURE, KOLV. , 
 
 which had been partially collated by Wetsfein 
 and Griesbach, a beautiful and accurate fac- 
 simile was published by Tischeudorf at Leipsic, 
 in 1S43, with valuable Prolegomena. A great' 
 portion of the writing of this Palimpsest., which 
 liad been hitherto illegible, has been restored by 
 a chemical process (see Codex Ephrami Syri 
 Ilescriptus. Lipsia, 1S43, 4to.).* 
 
 D, or the Cou. Bezae, has also, but not a primd 
 tnanu, the Ammonian chapters and numerals only/ 
 •without' the Eusebian canons. Probably it was in- 
 Sernled by the copyist to add these. Bishop Marsh 
 { Notes to Mickaelis ) thinks that the division itself 
 was’ different from the Ammonian. Th's MS. 
 lias also the dvayruopara, or church lesson's, 
 marked in the margin, but not a primd tnanu. 
 Z, or the Dublin Palimpsest, corresponds with C 
 iu having the Ammonian sections without the 
 canons; it has the titles or larger chapters, of 
 which, however, but a few reminiscences have 
 escaped the ravages of time. There remains, in- 
 Jeed, but one of the Ansmonian numbers, viz., 
 in plate xxxiii., No. por], [ch. xvii.], and of the 
 titles, the No.- AZ at the same place ; in plate 
 xvii.. at the top of tne page, the twentieth title, 
 viz. ft . irepi too yevopevov ^paros vpb . . . ‘Icvar- 
 vTjt/'y and in plate li*. the title irepl rur 8etca' 
 •sapQivwv, but without the number; in plate lxvii. 
 the title tvttqs pvaTucis ; and iu plate lxiv. Uprijcus 
 Herpoi*. 
 
 i B, or the celebrated Vatican MS, contains 
 neither the Ammonian nor the larger chapters, 
 hut has divisions peculiar to itself, distinguished 
 only by red numerals in the margin ; of which 
 Matthew contains 170, Mark 72, Luke 152, and 
 John 80 ; Acts 79, James 9, 1 Peter 8, 1 John 
 II, and Jude 2. St. Paul’s Epistles in this MS. 
 have a peculiar and unique numeration, being 
 capitulated in one continued series, as if they 
 made one book. Tnere are ninety-three chap- 
 ters, of which fifty-nine extend to the close of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians; then Ephesians imme- 
 diately commences with cli. lxx., the ten omitted 
 numbers being applied to the margin of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, which is placed after those 
 »0 the Thessalonians. The last part. of Hebrews 
 is wantjng in this MS., together with the Epis- 
 tles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the 
 Apocalypse (Zaoagn?, Monumenta ). The Codex 
 Cyprins, and the Codex Hcgius 62 (Stephens's 7j), 
 Wli MSS. of the eighth century, have the Am- 
 inonio- Eusebian divisions, and the Kc<pd\cua, lung 
 before wliioh'period they had become firmly estar 
 blislieu, and were ado; ted into most Greek MSS., 
 as well as into the Latin version. They were in- 
 serted in the editions of Erasmus, and in Robert 
 Stephens's beautiful folio edition (1550). 
 
 There was an edition of St. Paul’s Epistles, 
 with capitular divisions, published at the desire 
 of a certain bishop in the fifth century by Eutha- 
 
 * Tischendorf discovered the remains of the 
 transverse line of the © in 02 pr ©2 (l Tim. iii. 
 15) in this MS., which had escaped the observa- 
 tion of Wetstein and Griesbach. He is, how- 
 ever, convinced that this, as-well as the mark of 
 abbreviation above the ©2, proceeded from the 
 second corrector, who lived iu the ninth century. 
 He is satisfied, from personal examination, that 
 b;, not 6els, was fi e original reading of the Codex 
 AJexan ’firms in the satrie passage,' ■ 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 Hue, the deacon, afterwards bishop of SulcO*- 
 Kuthalius was not himself the author, but, as he in* 
 forms us, a Syrian bishop, * one of the wisest, of the 
 fathers,’ who also wrote an €k0€<tm, or summary 
 of tire contents of each chapter. The anonymous 
 author is conjectured by Mill, with much pro-* 
 liability, to have heen no other than the celebrated 
 commentator, Theodore of Mopsuestia. This 
 edition had been completed on the 29th June, 
 a.d 396. The following are the divisions which 
 it contains -Romans 19 chapters, 1 Cor. 9, 2 
 Cor. II. Gal. 12, Eph. 10, Phil. 7, Col 10 I 
 Thess. 7. 2 Thess. 6, Heb. 22, 1 Tim 12, 2 Tim. 
 18, Titus 6, Philem. 2. Euthalius himself, at a 
 later period, published his sticbometrical edition, 
 of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, at the desire 
 of' Athanasius the younger, bishop of Alexandria, 
 in which he himself introduced a similar divi- 
 sion and summary of the contents of each chapter. 
 .The Acts contained 1 1 chapters, the Epistles of 
 Janies 6, 1 Peter 8, 2 Peter 4, 1 John 7, 2 anil 
 3 John 1 each, and Jude 4. Euthalius also sub- 
 divided his chapters by marking them with as- 
 terisks in rubric, and distinguished the chapters 
 by numeral letters, as .we still find them in MSS. 
 of the Eulhalian chapters. He also marked the 
 citations from the Old Testament by numerals, as 
 well as by including them in parentheses, and 
 placing the it erences to the books in the margin. 
 This edition of Euthalius was completed in the 
 year 458. 
 
 Another very ancient division, probably tho 
 most ancient of all, was that into church lessons, 
 dvayvdxrpaTa. It was prohably introduced iu 
 imitation of the divisions of the Law and the 
 Prophets, which were read in the first Christian 
 assemblies. Euthalius, in bis edition, has given 
 the division into church lessons as follows ; — Acts 
 contains 16 lessons,' James 2, 1 Peter 2, 2 Peter 
 
 1, 1 John 2, 2 John 1, 3 John f, Jude 1, Rom. 5, 
 
 1 Cor. 5, 2 Cor. 4, Gal. 2, Eph. 2, Phi 1 . 2, Col. 
 
 2, 1 Thess. I, 2 Thess. 1, Heb. 3, 1 Tim. 1, 2 
 Tim. 1, Titus 1, Philem. 2. These lessons, or 
 Pericopce , as they are called, in speaking of the 
 lessons of the prophets, by Justin Martyr (Dial. c. 
 Tryph.'), were regulated by the number of Sun- 
 days, to which the additional three were for the 
 festivals of Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas. 
 The Gospels had a similar division ; but, according 
 as church festivals increased, the number of church 
 lessons increased also, and these were therefore 
 proportionably brief. These divisions are the 
 foundation of our present Epistles 'and Gospels. 
 At the close of the fifth century, Lectionaries 
 were published in the Western Church, which were 
 divided into Episfolaria and Evangelaria,, gene- 
 rally in the order iu which the church lessons 
 were read ; but these books were not introduced 
 among the Greeks before the eighth century. 
 
 All these divisions (viz.,- the longer and shorter 
 chapters, and the church lessons) are marked in 
 the MSS. by a space or point, and sometimes by 
 both, in the middle of the line, and frequently by 
 commencing the line with a capital . letter ex- 
 tending into the margin. But the section itself, 
 in order to save parchment, often commences 
 with a small letter after a point or space in th® 
 middle of the line, the line still commencing 
 with a capital letter, which, therefore, is some- 
 timejs placed in the middle of a word. The 
 church lessons are also distinguish® 1 by the word 
 
SCRIPTURE. HOLY. 
 
 Apy*. or sometimes A, at the commencement, and 
 t4aos or T. at the end. At the close of the fifth 
 century, Andrew, bishop of Cappadocia, intro- 
 duced an imitation of the ancient capitular divi- 
 sions into the Apocalypse, distinguishing it into 
 twenty-four \6yoi , or sermones. and seventy-four 
 titles. The former were, except in two instances, 
 identical with our present chapters. 
 
 The ancient divisions are marked in some of 
 the early printed editions, especially those of 
 Erasmus and Robert Stephens. In the Aldine 
 edition of the New Testament, there is no capi- 
 ,«lar, nor any division whatever, of either the 
 Gospels or Acts, except occasionally short spaces 
 generally within t j>e line; but some of St. Paul’s 
 Epistles are divided into short chapters, with 
 numbers annexed, of which Romans contains 14, 
 
 1 Cor. 67, and 2 Cor. 26, where the numeration 
 and division cease. 
 
 But all these divisions were superseded in the 
 middle of the thirteenth century by the present 
 division into chapters, the origin of which is 
 involved in some obscurity. Inasmuch as in 
 some of the books of the New Testament, these 
 sections tally with some of the more ancient 
 divisions, Croius ( Observat .) is anxious to ascribe 
 to them all a more ancient date than is justi- 
 fied by the historical evidence. Among other 
 argu ofents, he adduces the index to each Gos- 
 pel ascribed to Theophylact, which contains the 
 present chapters, hut this index is evidently a 
 later addition. Bale, Bishop of Ossory, the 
 celebrated antiquarian, with great appearance of 
 probability ascribes these divisions to Stephen 
 Langfon, Archbishop of Canterbury in the thir- 
 teenth century (Hist. Eccles. Cent. xiii. c. 7, 10). 
 Geuebrard (Chron iv. p. 644) says that the au- 
 thors of our present chapters were the scholastics who 
 were perhaps the authors of tire Concordance as- 
 cribed 'to Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher, who at this 
 period (a.d. 1262) published his Biblia cum Pos- 
 tilla, wherein the Aerences are for the first time 
 made to these ’ivisions. It is certain that their 
 application to this Concordance brought them into 
 repute, and from this period we may date the prac- 
 tice of citing by chapters, which had been hitherto 
 done merely by a reference to the book (see Heb. 
 iv. 7), as was the custom of the fathers, or to the 
 subject, ©i some remarkable word therein, as 
 was the case with the Jews and Samaritans. 
 An example of this appears in Mark ii. 26, 
 where 1 Sam. xxi. xxii. is referred to as ‘ Abi- 
 athar,’ and xii. 26, ‘ the bush’ refers to Exod. 
 iii. ; also Rom. xi. 2, the word * Elias' refers to 
 1 Kings xvii. — xix. [See also Hagiograpjia.] 
 In this Concordance, however, there was no re- 
 ference to a division of verses , as Professor 
 Moses Stuart, supposes (Bib. Sac. No. 1^. 1843, 
 (>. 264). * The subordinate references were indi- 
 cated in Hugh's Bible by the capital letters 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, placed at equal distances 
 from each other in the margin when the chapters 
 were long, or by a proportionally lesser number 
 of capitals according to the size of the chapters. 
 The references to the verses by their number had 
 its origin at a much later -period, viz. in a.d. 
 1438-45, when Rabbi Nathan wrote his Con- 
 
 * Notice of Hahn’s ed. of Titmam ’s text of the 
 New Testament, stereotyped at New York, 1842, 
 under the care of Professor Robinson. 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 717 
 
 cordance to the Hebrew Bible, which he named 
 U'fO TND, the illuminator of the path, 
 
 DPI!/, the path of the world, and J71TT TluS. 
 the light sown. Those Jews whq wished to avail 
 themselves of this Concordance must have marked 
 the references thereto in their MSS. of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. Dean Prideaux observes that ‘ rbe 
 first publishing of Nathan's Concordance happen- 
 ing about the time that printing was invented 
 [1440], it hath since that, time undergone several 
 editions,’ and Mr. Horne (Introd.) follows Pn- 
 deaux in stating that Nathan, instead of adopting 
 the marginal letters of Hugo, marked every fifth 
 verse with a Hebrew numeral ; hut we conceive this 
 to he an error. Rabbi Nathan’s Concordance, which 
 was an adaptation of the Latin Concordance of 
 Peter Allot, was not printed before a.d. 1523 
 or 1524, when it issued from Bomberg’s press at 
 Venice. It afterwards indeed passed through 
 several editions, and was published in a Latin 
 translation by Anthony Reuchlin, in 1556, fid. 
 at the press of Henry Peter, in Basel. There is 
 also a translation in MS. by Nicholas Fuller, ii» 
 the Bodleian Library. Now in all these the 
 reference is to the chapter, and to each single 
 verse; or, as Nathan himself expressed it in Ins 
 preface, 4 As I obseived that the Latin translation 
 lias each book divided into a certain number of 
 sections and chapters, which are rot in our 
 [Hebrew] Bibles, I have therefore marked all the 
 verses, according to their numbers, together with 
 the number of each chapter; 1 have also marked 
 the numbers of the verses, as they exist in our 
 [Hebrew] Bibles, for the greater facility of finding 
 each passage referred to.’ We have examined 
 ourselves attentively all the early printed editions 
 of the Hebrew Bible, and while we find the 
 Latin chapters fharked with Hebrew letters in all 
 those editions, commencing with Bomherg’s of 
 1518 (for Jahn is mistaken in stating (Introd. §„ 
 102) that the chapters were first marked in Bom- 
 berg's edition of 1525), we yet find no edition of 
 the Hebrew Bible in which there is any reference 
 to the verses by their numbers before the edition of 
 the Pentateuch, ,Megilloth, and Haphtaroth, pub- 
 lished at Sabionetfa in Italy in 1557* 12mc>. In 
 thi3 edition every fifth verse is marked with a 
 Hebrew numeral, and De Rossi observes of it, 
 ‘ Me quidem judice prima omnium haec est editio, 
 saltern primorum una in quibus hoc obvium est* 
 ( Annales Typog. Sabionet., 1788). And every 
 fifth verse is equally marked throughout the wbol& 
 Bible in the edition of Plantin, printed in 1566; 
 Sebastian Munster, in bis edition (1534). marked 
 the number of the chapiers in Latin as well as 
 Hebrew numerals in the margin. The chapters 
 wene first separated in Hebrew in Plautin’s beau- 
 tiful edition of 1574. In this edition each, sepa- 
 rate vers’e of the first twelve chapters of Genesis is 
 also marked in the margin with an Arabic mime*- 
 ral, except the fifth verse, which is indicated as 
 befoie by a Hebrew letter, after which the Latin 
 numeration of verses is discontinued throughout 
 the whole of the Old Testament. Pagninus* 
 however, had long before, viz. in 1528, market! 
 all the verses in his translation of the Bible with 
 an Arabic figure in the margin opposite each 
 verse. Although this practice had, after Rol>ert 
 StepheTTs’s edition of the Latin Vulgate in 1555, 
 become general both in this and the modern ver- 
 sions, it was not until the ytsar 1661 that the whole 
 
718 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 Hebrew Bible was thus marked, when Athias 
 introduced the Arabic figures opposite each verse, 
 at the instigation of Leusden (see his Fhilol. Heb.) 
 in his accurate edition published at Antwerp in 
 that year. 
 
 The Latin chapters were not adopted by the 
 Greeks before the fifteenth century, when they 
 were first introduced by those Greeks who fled 
 into the west after the taking of Constantinople by 
 the Turks in 1453. It was in this century, and ge- 
 nerally in Italy, that most of the MSS. now extant 
 of the Greek Testament were written, and this fact 
 is of 'material importance in fixing the date of 
 MSS. Thus we have already observed [John, 
 Episti.ks ok] that the Codex Montfortiamis 
 (which most suppose to be the Cod. Britannicus 
 of Erasmus ; see Davidson’s Lectures on Bib - 
 : ical- Criticism) contains the Latin chapters; but 
 we are enabled to add, oh the authority of a letter 
 which we have received from Dr. Todd, the libra- 
 rian of Trinity College, Dublin, that these divi- 
 sions are not marked hv their number, but only 
 by a space left in the text for an initial letter, 
 which letter does not appear to. have been in any 
 one case inserted. ' The numbers of the chapters, 
 indeed, are added in a clumsv way by a recent 
 bartd, but the Eusebian numbers are marked rvith 
 Greek numerals in a coeval hand in good rubric 
 in the margin, as far as Matt, x., and in had red 
 ink as far as Luke xii., but thenceforward they 
 are discontinued. The paragraphs into which the 
 text of the New Testament has been divided by 
 Bengel, Vater, and others, are a decided improve* 
 ment on the Latin chapters. 
 
 Language of the Scriphires. The old Testa* 
 meut is written in Hebrew [Heuuew Language], 
 with the exception of part3 of the books of Ezra, 
 Nehemiah, and Daniel, which are in -Chaldee 
 [Chai.dee]. The New Testament is written in 
 Greek, or rather iu what has been called Hellen- 
 istic or Hebraizing Greek. The most Hebraizing 
 book i3 the Apocalypse, and the most correct 
 Greek the Episile to the Hebrews ; but the voice of 
 antiquity favours the opinion that this was, origin- 
 ally written in Hebrew or Aramaic ( Prcelectio 
 Theologica , auctore Gul. Hodge Mill, S. T. P., 
 1^43). A Hebrew original of St. Matthew's 
 Gospel ha9 been also contended for. 
 
 Polyglotts, &c. Among the most, useful 
 aids to the study of Biblical Literature must be 
 reckoned the diglc.tt, triglott, and polvglott edi- 
 tions. These are accurately described in Le 
 Lung’s Bibliotheca Sacra , and Simon's Histoire 
 Critique . We shall confine ourselves to a brief 
 notice of the Polyglotts. 
 
 Although the earliest specimen of a Polyglott 
 was ihat of a projected work of the celebrated 
 printer Aldus Manutius, of which one page only 
 was published, the first of this kind was the 
 Co M p lute ns i ^n Poi.YGi.oTT, entitled Biblia 
 Sacra Polygfatta, mine primum impresses &c., 
 comprised in 0 vols. fol. We are .indebted for this 
 work to the celebrated Cardinal, Statesman, and 
 General, Francis Ximene3 de Cisneros, who pub- 
 lished it at his own expense, at the cost of 50,000 
 ducats. It was commenced in 1502, completed 
 in 1517, and published in 1522. The editors were 
 /Eli us An trains, Ducas, Pincianus, Stunica, 
 Zamora, Corcipellus, and Johanpes de Vergera. 
 The jliree. lasj jvere originally Jetvs^ The first 
 
 SCRIPTURE, HOLY. 
 
 • 
 
 four volumes contain the Old Testament, with tho 
 Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, in three columns, the 
 Targum, and a Latin version of the same Tk« 
 fifth volume contains the Greek Testamer , with 
 the Latin Vulgate. The last volume consists of 
 Vocabularies, Indexes, &c. &c. The Greek Tes- 
 tament, as has been already observed [John a 
 Epistles], was finished in 1517; but- the MSS. 
 were modern, and not of much critical value. 
 ( See Dr. Bowring’s letter, Monthly Repository fot 
 1827, p. 572). There is little doubt that the 
 celebrated text of the three witnesses in this edi- 
 tion was translated from the Latin. There were 
 600'copies only printed of this splendid work, of 
 which three were on vellum. One of these was 
 sold in England, iu 1829, for 690 guineas. 
 
 The Antwerp Polyglott was published in 1569- 
 73. in 8 vols. fol., at the expense of Philip II., 
 ’King of Spain. It contains, in addition to the 
 Complutensian texts, a Chaldee Paraphrase, the 
 Syriac version, and the Latin translation of Arias 
 Montanus, which was a correction of that of Pag- 
 ninus. It also contains lexicons and grammars 
 of the various languages of the originals and ver- 
 sions. 
 
 The Paris Polyglott , in addition to the con- 
 tents of the former works, has a Syriac and Arabic 
 f version of both the Old 'and Kfew Testaments, 
 ! with the Samaritan Pentateuch, now published 
 : for the first time, and edited by J. Morions. This 
 Polyglott also contains the Samaritan version of 
 ■ the same. It was published in 1645, in 10 vols. 
 large folio. The editor of this valuable, but 
 unwieldy work, was Michael le Jay, who vvaa 
 ruined by the publication. 
 
 The London Polyglott , edited by Brian Wal- 
 ton, aftei wards Bishop of Chester, is much more 
 comprehensive than any of the former. It was 
 published in 1657, iu 6 vols. fol. The first vol., 
 besides prolegomena, contains the Pentateuch, 
 exhibiting on one page the Hebrew text, with the 
 interlinear Latin version of A. : as Montanus, the 
 Latin Vulgate of the Clementine edition, fheSep- 
 tuagint of the Roman edition, and the various 
 readings of the Cod. Alex., the Latin version of 
 Flaminius Nobilius, the Syriac, with a Latin 
 version, the Targum of Onkeloe, with a Latin ver- 
 sion, the Samaritan Pentateuch, with the Sama- 
 ritan version of the same, and a Latin translation 
 serving for both, ami the Arabic, with a Latin 
 version. The second volume comprises the his- 
 - torical hooks, with the Turgums of Jonathan. 
 The third volume contains the books from Job 
 to Malachi, and, besides t[ie versions in all the 
 former languages, the Psalms in Ethiopia and a 
 Latin translation. The fourth volume has all the 
 Dutero-canonical books in Greek, Latin, Arabic, 
 and Syriac ; the two Hebrew texts of Tobit 
 ' [Tobit], -and two Chaldee and'a Persian Targum 
 on the Pentateuch, with Latin versions. The fifth 
 l volume has the New Testament, with Ariaa 
 Montanns’s translation ; the Syriac, Persic, Latin 
 Vulgate, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. These, 
 with separate Latin versions of the oriental trans- 
 lations, are all given on one page. The sixth vo- 
 lume contains various readings and critical re- 
 marks. The whole of this stupendous labour was 
 completed in four year It was published by 
 subscription, under the patronage of Oliver Crom- 
 well, who died before its completion. This gave 
 occasion tofuv cancelling of two leaves of the pro* 
 
SCYTHIAN. 
 
 'SEA.' 119 
 
 face, in order to transfer to King Charles II. the 
 compliments addressed to Cromwell. There are, in 
 consequence, both Republican and Royal copies, 
 the former of which are the most scarce and valu- 
 able. For the variations between these, see But- 
 ler’s Horcs Biblicce and Adam Clark’s Succession 
 of Sacred Literature. _ This Polyglot! was ac- 
 companied by Castell s Heptaglott Lexicon , in 
 2 vols. fol. '■ * T ’ , i 
 
 Mr. Bagsfei-’s Tolyglott, fol., London, 1831, 
 contains in one volume the Hebrew text, the Sa- 
 maritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Yulgat®, and 
 Svriac versions, the Greek text of Mill in the 
 New Testament, together with Luther's German, 
 Diodati’s Italian, Gstervald's French, Scio's Spa- 
 
 nish, ipid the English authorized Tcrsiims of the 
 Bible. The quarto edition, part of the impressiott 
 of v which ty as destroyed' by fire, contains tha 
 Hebrew and Samaritan texts, the Greek text n# 
 the New Testament, with the Septuagint, Vulgate, 
 and English versions. There are’ valuable Prole- 
 gomena by Dr. Lee. 
 
 There are also Polyglot, ts of several portions of 
 the Bible, of which one o f the most valuable is 
 that r 'dished at Constantinople, in Hebrew, 
 Clmh, <■ Persian, and Arabic, in 1546. 
 
 For the interpunefion of the Bibie, see Vkksk. 
 
 For Writing Materials, see Writing. 
 
 Scripture Chronology, see Chronology * 
 
 — W. W. 
 
 i 485. [A Scythian Family.] 
 
 SCYTHIAN (%kv0 ??r). a name which occu.s 
 only in Col. iii. 11. It was anciently applied 
 sometimes to a particular people, and sometimes 
 to all the noma.de tribes which had their seat to 
 the nprth of the Black and Caspian seas, stretching 
 
 486. (I. A Scythian. 2. A Scythian General.] 
 
 indefinitely eastward into the unknown regions of 
 Asia. It had thus much the same latitude as 
 'Tartars,’ and was in like manner synonymous 
 with Barbarian, B dpfiapes. The name also occurs 
 & u 2 Macc. iv.. 47, and Joseph. Cont. Apion. ii. 37, 
 
 The Scythians were, in fact, the ancient represents? 
 tives of the modern Tartars, arid like them mpvecj^ 
 from, place to place in carts drawn by oxen, ft! 
 is. from this circumsfance that they, or a tribe 
 nearly-rallied to them, may be recognised on the 
 monuments of Egypt. About seven c.enturies be- 
 fore Christ, the Scythians irpvaded South-Western 
 Asia, and extended their, incursions as far as 
 Egypt (Herodot. i: 103). In doifig this they 
 could not but have touched on or passed through 
 Palestine: and it is even' supposed that Betlishan 
 derived its classical name of Scythopolis from 
 them. [Bkthshan]., It is singular, however, that 
 ,tlie Hebrew writers take no notice of this transac- 
 tion ; for we cannot admit that the prophecies f 
 Joel- and Zephaniah. have /inference to it, as .some 
 j writers have imagined, — »- 
 
 j|f SEA. ■ The term D' yam; or ‘sea,’ was used 
 by the Hebrew^ more extensively than w-ith us, 
 being applied generally to all large collections of 
 j water, as they. had not a set. of terms such as we 
 employ (^defectively, indeed) to discriminate the 
 
 r * The following important works on this sub- 
 ject have appeared since this article went to press : 
 A Chronological Introduction to., the History of 
 the Church , fyc., by the Rev. S. F. Jarvis, D.D., 
 Historiographer of the [Protestant Episcopal] 
 Church of the U. S.^and The Times of Daniit f 
 Chronological and Prbphetical 7 bv George, Duke 
 , of Manchester, London, 1845. 
 
720 
 
 SKA. 
 
 different kinds. ‘ Sea ’ fur large collections, and 
 * pool ’ for smaller, formed the extent of their 
 vocabulary; although, indeed, pools were distin- 
 guished into D3N agom , a natural pool nr pond 
 (Ps. cvii: 35 ; cxiv. 8 ; Isa. xxxv. 7 ; xli. 1 8, &c.), 
 and bereekuh, the same as the Arabic 
 
 beerkeh, an artificial pool or reservoir (2 Sam. ii. 
 
 ; iv. 12; Nah. ii. 9). The term ‘sea' is ap- 
 plied to various parts of the ocean, and also .to 
 lakes, for D' is used for these in Job xiv. 11. 
 
 1. The Mkditeruanean, being on the west, 
 and therefore behind a person facing the east, is 
 called in Scripture the Hinder Sea (plilNH D'H, 
 Dent. xi. 24; Joel ii. 2ft) that is, Western Sea; 
 and also, ‘the Sea of the Philistines' (Exod. 
 xxiii. 31), as that people possessed the 1 largest 
 proportion of its shore in Palestine. Being also 
 the largest sea with \yhich the Hebrews were ac- 
 quainted, they called it by pre-eminence, ‘ the 
 Great Sea' (Num xxxiv. 6, 7; Josh i. 4; ix. 
 1; Ezek. xlvii. 10, 15, 20); or simply ‘the sea’ 
 (Josh. xv. 47) 
 
 2. The Red Sea. — This gulf of the Jndian 
 Ocean is called in Hebrew D* Yam Snph 
 (Exod. x. 19; xiii. 18; Ps. cvi. 7, 9, 22), which 
 is also its Egyptian name, and is supposed to mean 
 ‘weedy sea' (Micliaelis v SM/)/j/. p. 1726; Jablonsky, 
 Opascul. i. 266). This designation has beeu by 
 some supposed to refer to the quantity of sea-weed 
 found in it. Rut Bruce, who ’traversed its whole 
 (extent, declares that, he never saw any sort of weed 
 in it, and gives it as his opinion that it i3 from 
 the large trees or plants of white coral, spiead every 
 where over the bottom of the sea, and greatly re- 
 sembling plants on land, that it derived its name. 
 It is also called ‘the Egyptian sea* (Isa. xi.; 15). 
 In other places, where the context plainly indi- 
 cates what sea is intended, it is called simply 
 * the sea.’ In the New Testament ii hears its usual 
 Greek name, g epvdpa dd\acroa ^Aets v ii. 36; 
 Heb. xi 29; also 1 Macc iv. 9; Herudot. i. 1 ; 
 Diod. Sic. iii. 18), whence our * Red Sea.’ How 
 it came by the nam<~of Red Sea is not agreed. 
 Frideaux assumes ( Connection, i. 14, 15) that the 
 ancient, inhabitants of the bordering countries 
 called it Yam Edom , or, 4 the sea of Edom’ (it is 
 never so called ui Scripture), as its north eastern 
 part washed the country possessed by the Edom- 
 ites. Now Eilom means red (Gen. xxv. 3Uj, and 
 the Greeks, who borrowed the name from the Phoe- 
 nicians, mistook it for an appellative' instead of a 
 proper name, and rendered it by ipvQpa. 6d\aacra, 
 that is, ‘the Red Sea. Some inhumation in cor- 
 rection of. this notion seems, however, to have 
 been afterwards acquired : for Strabo (xvi. p. 766), 
 Pliny (Hist. Nat. vi. 23), Mela (iii. 8), Agathar- 
 cides (p. 2 ed/Oxou.), Q. CiirMus.('viii. 9; x. 1), 
 Philostratus (iii 15), and others, distinctly admit 
 that trie Sea obtained this name, not from any 
 redness in its waters, but from a great king 
 called Erythrus, who reigned in the adjacent 
 country. The word Erythrus means the same in 
 the Greek that Edom does in the Phoenician and 
 Hebrew languages; Which seems to prove that this 
 king Erythrus was no other than Edom, whose 
 name was g<iveu to the country over which his 
 descendants reigned. This explanation seems 
 satisfactory ; but Prideaux, from whom we take 
 it, by a very strange confusion of ijfeas, in an im- 
 mediately preceding page (i. 10), ascribes the 
 ft&rne. Red .Sea, as applied to another part of the 
 
 SEA. 
 
 Eryf hr®an Sea, to * the wafers appearing ofa reddish 
 colour by reason of the fierceness of the sunbeams, 
 constantly beating upon it in that hot climate.* 
 Such a fancy needs no answer, as neither water 
 nor the rays of the sun are the more red for being 
 more hot. Others liaye conjectured that the Ara- 
 bian Gulf derived its name from the coral rocks 
 and reefs in which it abounds ; but the coral of 
 the Red Sea is white, not red. Jn so large a tract 
 of shore and water it would lie strange if some red 
 objects did not appear, and minds on the watch 
 fur some physical cause for the name would na- 
 turally refer to circumstances which would not 
 otherwise have engaged attention. Some of the 
 mountains that stretch along the western coast 
 have a singularly red appearance, looking, as 
 Bruce expresses it, as if {hey were sprinkled with 
 Tlavannal) or Brazil- snuff, or brick-dust; anil 
 from th is a notion is derived that these mountains, 
 presenting their conspicuous sides to the early na- 
 vigators of the sea, induced them to give it a 
 name from that predominant colour. Salt indi- 
 cates a fact which affords a basis for another con- 
 jecture as to the origin of the name. He says — 
 ‘ At one o’clock oil the 7th of February, the sea 
 fur a considerable distance around the snip became 
 su extremely red. . ,„As we were anxious to ascer- 
 tain the cause of this very singular appearance, a 
 bucket was let down into the water, by which we 
 obtained a considerable quantity of the substance 
 floating on the surface. It proved to be of a 
 jelly-like consistence, composed of a numberless 
 multitude of very small mqllusca, each of which 
 having a small red spot in the centre, formed, 
 when in a mass, a bright hotly of colour nearly 
 allied to that produced by a mixture of red lead 
 with water.’ This account has been more recently 
 confirmed by Ehrenberg. 
 
 The ancients applied the name of Erythraean, 
 Sea not only to the Arabian Gulf, but. to that 
 part of the Indian Ocean which is enclosed be- 
 tween the peninsulas of India and Arabia; but 
 iii modern usage I lie nameoflled Sea is restricted 
 to 'the Arabian Gulf, which enters into the land 
 from the Indian Ocean in a westerly direction, 
 and then, at the stiaits of Bab-el-Mamleb, turns 
 N.N.W., maintaining that direction till it makes 
 a nearapproach to the. Mediterranean, from which 
 its western arm is only separated by the isthmus 
 of Suez. ‘ It thus separates the western coast of 
 Arabia from the eastern coast of the north-eastern 
 parr of Africa. It is about 140U miles in length 
 from Suez to the straits, and on an average 150 
 miles in breadth. On approaching its northern 
 termination tire gulf divides into two branches, 
 which enclose between them the peninsula of 
 Sinai. The western arm, which terminates a little 
 above Suez, is far more extensive than the other, 
 and is that which was_cros$ed by the Israelites in 
 their escape from Egypt. An account of this im- 
 portant transaction lias been given under another 
 head [Exodus]. This arm, anciently called 
 Heroopoliticus Sinus, and now the Gulf of. Suez, is 
 190 miles long by an average breadth of 21 miles; 
 but at one part (Birk/et el-Faroun) it is as wide 
 as 32 miles. The eastern arm, which terminates 
 at Akahah, and bears the name of the Gulf of 
 Akabah, was anciently called ^Elaniticus Sinus, 
 from the port of /El ana, the Scriptural Elath, and 
 is about 112 miles long by ail average breadth of 
 ]5 miles. Towards its extremity were toe posts. 
 
SEA 
 
 SEA. 
 
 72, 
 
 ©f Etath anti Eziongeber, celebrated in the history 
 of the attempts made by the Hebrew kings to 
 establish a maritime traffic with the East [see the 
 several words] . 
 
 3. The Sea of Chinneueth, TYT}? (Num. 
 xxxiv. 11), called in the New Testament ‘ the Sea 
 of Galilee ' (Matt. iv. 18), the ‘Sea of Tiberias ’ 
 (John xxi. 1), and ‘the sea’ or ‘lake of Genne- 
 sareth ’ (Matt, xiv, 34 ; Mark vi. 53 ; Luke v. 17) ; 
 which last is but a variation of the Hebrew name. 
 
 This lake lies very deep, among fruitful hills and 
 mountains, from which, in the rainy season, many 
 rivulets descend : its shape will be seen from ihe 
 map. The Jordan enters it on the north, and 
 quits it on the south ; and it is said that the river 
 passes through it without the waters mingling. 
 Its extent has been greatly over -rated : Professor 
 Robinson considers that its length, in a straight 
 line, does not exceed eleven or twelve geographical 
 miles, and that its breadth is from five to six 
 miles. From numerous indications it is inferred 
 that the bed of this lake was formed by some 
 ancient volcanic eruption, which history has not 
 recorded : the waters are very clear and sweet, 
 and contain various kinds of excellent fish in 
 great abundance. It will be remembered that 
 several of the apostles were fishermen of this lake, 
 aud that it was also the scene of several transac- 
 tions in the life of Christ : it is thus frequently 
 mentioned in the New Testament, but very rarely 
 in the Old. The borders of the lake were in the 
 time of Christ well peopled, being covered with 
 numerous towns and villages ; but now they are 
 almost desolate, and the fish and water-fowl are 
 but little disturbed. 
 
 The best descriptions of the lake of Tiberias 
 are those of Burckhardt (Sijria, p. 332), Buck- 
 ingham ( Palestine , ch. xxvi.), Irby and Mangles 
 (p. 295), Jowett (pp. 172-176), Hardy (pp. 237- 
 241), Elliott (ii. 342-350), Schubert (iii 231- 
 240), Robinson (ii. 372-402), Olin (iii. 253, 
 261-265), Lord Nugent (Lands, Classical and 
 Sacred , ii. 209). 
 
 4. The Dead Sea, called in Scripture the 
 
 Salt Sea, r&DH (Gen. xiv. 3), the Sea of the 
 Plain , or the Arabah, n2“>y_n D) (Deut. iv. 40), 
 and the Eastern Sea, (Joel ii. 20 ; 
 
 Ezek. xlvii. 18; Zech. xiv. 8). It is not named 
 or alluded to in the New Testament. It is called 
 by Josephus (JDe Bell. Jud. iii. 10. 7) XifjLvr) 5 Acr- 
 (paXr'iTTjs, by which name, or in the Latin form 
 of Lacus Asphaltites, it was known to the classical 
 writers. This designation it obtained from the 
 large quantities of asphaltum which it afforded. 
 The Arabs call it Birket Lut, ‘ the Sea of Lot.’ 
 From its history and qualities, it is the most re- 
 markable of all the lakes of Palestine. It was 
 long assumed that this lake did not exist before 
 the destruction of Sodom and the other ‘ cities of 
 the plain’ (Gen. xix.); and that before that, time 
 the present bed of the lake was a fertile plain, in 
 which these cities stood. It was also concluded 
 that the river Jordan then flowed through this 
 plain, and afterwards pursued its course, through 
 the great valley of Arabah, to the eastern arm of 
 tire Red Sea. The careful observations of Pro- 
 fessor Robinson have now, however, rendered it 
 more probable that a lake which, as now, received 
 
 vol. u. 
 
 the river Jordan, existed here before Sodom was 
 destroyed; but that an encroachment of the 
 waters southward then took place, overwhelming 
 a beautiful and well-watered plain which lay on 
 the southern border of the lake, and on which 
 Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar 
 were situated. The promontory, or rather penin- 
 sula, towards the south, which is so distinct a 
 feature of this lake, probably marks the original 
 boundary of the lake in that direction, and shows 
 the point at which the waters broke into the plain 
 beyond. 
 
 The Dead Sea is about thirty-nine or forty 
 geographical miles long from north to south, and 
 nine or ten miles wide from east to west : it 
 lies embedded very deep between lofty cliffs on 
 the western side, which are about 1500 feet high, 
 and mountains on the eastern shore, the highest 
 ridges of which are reckoned to be from 2000 to 
 2500 feet, above the water. The water of the 
 lake is much salter than that of the sea. From 
 the quantity of salt which it holds in solution 
 it is thick and heavy, and no fish can live or 
 marine plants grow in it. The old stories about 
 the pestiferous qualities of the Dead Sea and its 
 waters are mere fables or delusions; the actual 
 appearances being the natural and obvious effects of 
 the confined and deep situation, the intense breat, 
 and the uncommon saltness of the waters* Lying 
 in its deep cauldron, surrounded by lofty cliffs of 
 naked limestone rock, exposed for seven or eight 
 months in the year to the unclouded beams of a 
 burning sun, nothing but sterility and solitude 
 can be looked for upon its shores ; and nothing, 
 else is actually found, except in those parts wb»* 
 there are fountains or streams of fresh water % ip, 
 all such places there is alertile soil and abundant, 
 vegetation. Birds also abound, and they are>. 
 observed to fly above and across the sea without 
 being, as old stories tell, injured or killed bv its. 
 exhalations. Professor Robinson was. five days, 
 in the vicinity of its shores, without being able, 
 to perceive that any noisome smell or noxious 
 vapour arose from the bosom of the lake. Its 
 coasts have always been peopled, and are so, 
 now; and although the inhabitants suffer from 
 fevers in summer, this is not more than might be 
 expected from the concentrated beat, of the climate 
 in connection with the marshes. The same efftfcts 
 might be experienced were there no lake, or wer® 
 the waters fresh instead of salt. 
 
 On the borders of this lake, is found much 
 sulphur, in pieces as large as walnuts, and even 
 larger There is also a black shining stone, 
 which will partly burn in the fire, and which 
 then emits a bituminous smell : this is the ‘ stink- 
 stone’ of Burckhardt. At Jerusalem it is made 
 into rosaries and toys, of which great quantities 
 are sold to the pilgrims who visit the sacred 
 places. Another remarkable production, from, 
 which, indeed, the lake takes one of its names, is . 
 the asphaltum, or bitumen. Josephus says, that 
 ‘the sea in many places sends up black masses . 
 of asphaltum, which float upon the surface, having 
 the size and shape of headless oxen ’ ( De Bell. Jud. 
 iv. 8, 4). From recent information it appears.. 
 that large masses are rarely found, and then 
 generally only after earthquakes. The substance ■ 
 is doubtless produced from the bottom of the sea, 
 in which it coagulates, and rises to the surface; 
 or possibly the coagulation may have been ancient. 
 
72'i 
 
 SEA, MOLTEN. 
 
 and the substance adheres to the bottom until de- 
 tached by earthquakes anil other convulsions, 
 when its buoyancy brings it to the surface. We 
 know that ‘the vale of Siddim 1 (Gen. xiv. 10) 
 was anciently ‘full of slime-pits,’ or sources of 
 bitumen ; and these, now under the water, pro- 
 bably supply the asphaltum which is found on 
 such occasions. 
 
 An admirable and very full account of the 
 Dead Sea is given by Dr. Robinson ( Bibl . Re- 
 searches , ii. 216-23S). See also Nau ( Nov . 
 Voyage, pp. 577-588), Morison ( Voyage, ch. xxx.), 
 Shaw (ii. 157-158), Hasselquist (pp. 130, 131, 
 284), Burckhardt. (Syria), Seetzen (in Zach's 
 Monat. Corresp. xviii. 410. sq.), Irby and Man- 
 gles (pp. 351-356 ; 446-459), Elliot (ii. 479-486), 
 Stephens (ii. ch. xv.), Paxton (pp. 150-163), 
 Sclmbert (iii. 84-94), Olin (ii. 231-245). 
 
 5. The. Lake Merom is named once only in 
 Scripture, where it. is called O'OIO 'Q, waters of 
 Merom (Josh. xi. 5, 7). By Josephus it is called 
 ■Semechonitis (Sc/iiexct wms, Antiq. v. 5. 1), and 
 at present bears the name of Huleh : this is the 
 uppermost and smallest of the three lakes on the 
 Jordan. It. serves as a kind of reservoir to collect 
 4hc waters which form that river and again to 
 .send them forth in a single stream. In the 
 sspring, when the waters are highest, the lake is 
 seven miles long and three and a half broad; but 
 in summer it becomes a mere marsh. In some 
 ^jarts it is sown with rice, and its reeds and 
 lushes afford shelter to wild hogs. (Pococke, ii. 
 |). 72 ; Burckhardt, Syria, p. 514 ; Richardson, ii. 
 415,416; Lindsay, ii. 91; Robinson, iii. 339- 
 342.) A full description of the three lakes of 
 the Jordan (Lake Huleh, Lake of Gennesareth, 
 and the Dead Sea) is given in Kitto’s Physical 
 History of Palestine, ch. vi. 
 
 SEA, MOLTEN D)). The immense 
 
 brazen reservoir which, with smaller lavers 
 [Laver], stood in the court of Solomon’s temple, 
 was thus, by hyperbole, denominated. It was of 
 a hemispherical figure, ten cubits in width, five 
 deep, and thirty in circumference. In 1 Kings 
 vii. 23, it is stated- to have contained 2000 baths, 
 equal to 16,000 gallons; but in 2 Citron, iv. 5, 
 it is said to have contained 3000 baths, and the 
 latter estimate is followed by Josephus. It was 
 probably capable of holding the larger quantity, 
 butdid not usually contain more than the smaller. 
 
 It was decorated on the upper edge with figures re- 
 sembling lilies in bloom, and was enriched with 
 various ornamental objects ; and it rested, or 
 seemed to rest, upon the backs of twelve oxen, 
 tuiee looking to the north, three to the east, three 
 
 SEAL. 
 
 to tne south, and throe to the west (1 Kings vi, 
 26 ; vii. 40-47 ; 2 Chron. iv. 3-5). The Jewish 
 writers state that this great basin was supplied 
 with water by a pipe J Yom the well of Etam, al. 
 though some few all ge that, it was filled by 
 the manual labour of the Gibeonites. It was, 
 according to the same accounts, kept constantly 
 flowing, there being spouts which discharged for 
 use from the basin as much water as it received 
 from the well of Etam. If this be correct, it. is not 
 improbable that the spouts discharged their water 
 through the mouths of the oxen — or, as some sup- 
 pose, through embossed heads in the sides of the ves- 
 sel. This is perhaps the largest vessel of molten 
 brass which was ever made — other large reser- 
 voirs, which might compete in dimensions with it, 
 being either of wood, marble, or sheet copper. 
 The Fountain of the Lions in the Moorish palace 
 (Alhambra), at Grenada, is of stone, and the ani- 
 mals which support it. are lions: but it supplies 
 some remarkable analogies to Solomon’s great 
 work, in imitation of which it is said to have been 
 constructed. The conception, and still more the 
 successful execution of this great work, gives a 
 very favourable idea of the state of the metal- 
 lurgical arts in the time of Solomon. 
 
 SEAL. There seem to have been two kinds 
 of seals in use among the Hebrews. A notion 
 appears to exist that all ancient seals, being signets, 
 were rings, intended to be worn on the hand. But 
 this was by no means the case; nor is it so now in 
 the East, where signet, rings are still, probably, 
 as common as they ever were in ancient times. 
 Their general use of seals was very, different from 
 ours, as they were employed not for the purpose 
 of impressing a device on wax, but in the place 
 of a sign manual, to stamp the name of the owner 
 upon any document, to which he desired to affix 
 it. The name thus impressed had the same legal 
 validity as the actual signature, as is still the 
 case in the East. This practice may be illustrated 
 by a circumstance which occurred in the last 
 days of George IV. When he became too ill to 
 affix his sign manual to the numerous docu- 
 ments which required it, a fac-simile was engraved 
 on a stamp, by which it was in his presence im- 
 pressed upon them. By this contrivance any 
 one may give to any paper the legal sanction of 
 his name, although he may be unable to write ; 
 and the awkward contrivance to which we resort 
 in such cases, of affixing a cross or mark with the 
 signature of an attesting witness, is unnecessary. 
 For this purpose the surface of the seal is smeared 
 with a black pigment, which leaves the figure of 
 the body of the seal upon the paper, in which the 
 characters appear blank or white. The characters 
 required are often too large or too many to be 
 conveniently used in a signet ring, in which case 
 they are engraved on a seal shaped not unlike 
 those in use among ourselves, which is carried in 
 the bosom, or suspended from the neck over t he 
 breast. This custom was ancient, and, no doubt, 
 existed among the Hebrews (Gen. xxxviii. 18; 
 Cant. viii. 6; Haggai ii. 23). These seals are 
 often entirely of metal — brass, silver, or gold; 
 but sometimes of stone set. in metal. As an ap- 
 pendage thus shaped might be inconvenient from 
 the pressure of its edges, the engraved stone was 
 sometimes made to turn in its metal frame, like 
 our swivel seals, so as to present a flat surface 
 
SEBAC. 
 
 SELAH. 
 
 733 
 
 to the bfdy. Very ancient Egyptian seals of 
 this kind have been found. 
 
 If a door or box was to be sealed, it was first 
 fastened with some ligament, over. which was 
 place.! some well compacted clay to receive the 
 impression of the seal. Clay was used because it 
 hardens in the heat which would dissolve wax ; 
 and this is the reason that wax is not used in the 
 East. A person leaving property in the custody 
 of strangers — say in one of the cells of a caravan- 
 serai — seals the door to prevent the place from 
 being entered without legal proof of the fact. 
 The simplicity of the Eastern locks, and the ease 
 with which they might be picked, render this 
 precaution the more necessary. We have some- 
 times seen a coarsely engraved and large wooden 
 seal employed for this purpose. There are dis- 
 tinct allusions to this custom in Job xxxviii. 14 ; 
 Cant. iv. 12. 
 
 Signet rings were very common, especially 
 among persons of rank. They were sometimes 
 wholly of metal, but often the inscription was 
 borne by a stone set in silver or gold. The im- 
 pression from the signet ring of a monarch gave 
 the force of a royal decree to any instrument to 
 which it was affixed. Hence the delivery or 
 transfer of it to any one gave the power of using 
 the royal name, and created the highest office in 
 the state (Gen. xli. 42; Esth. iii. 10, 12; viii. 2; 
 Jer. xxii. 24; Dan. vi. 10, 13, 17: comp. 1 
 Kings xxi. 8). Rings being so much employed 
 as seals, were called tabbaoth; which is 
 
 derived from a root signifying to imprint, and 
 also to seal. They were commonly worn as or- 
 naments on the fingers — usually on the little finger 
 of the right hand (Exod. xxxv. 22 ; Luke xv. 22 ; 
 James ii. 2). 
 
 SEASONS. [Palestine.] 
 
 SEBAC C]3p) occurs in two or three places 
 of the Old Testament, and is considered by some 
 to be the name of a particular plant, as the bramble, 
 smilax, jasmine, atriplex; by others it is sup- 
 posed to denote briars or thorns. Celsius, how- 
 ever, has shown that the meaning of the term is 
 perplexitas, ‘ id quod densum et intrieatum est 
 that it is especially applied to the branches of 
 trees, shrubs, and climbing plants, and is hence 
 rightly translated in the Auth. Vers., in Gen. 
 xxii. 13, ‘And Abraham beheld a ram caught in 
 a thicket ( sebac ) by his horns.’ So in Isa. ix. 18 ; 
 x. 34.— J. F. R. 
 
 SECUNDUS (Se/cowSos), a disciple of Thes- 
 salonica, who accompanied Paul in some of his 
 voyages (Acts xx. 4). 
 
 SEER. [Prophecy.] 
 
 SEIR hairy ; Sept. Hrjdp). 1. A phy- 
 
 larch or chief of the Horim, who were the former 
 inhabitants of the country afterwards possessed 
 by the Edomites. 
 
 2. Seir, Mount. The mountainous country 
 of the Edomites, extending from the Dead Sea to 
 the Elanitic Gulf. The name is usually derived 
 from the Seir above-mentioned, and as he was a 
 great chief of the original inhabitants, it is diffi- 
 cult to reject such a conclusion. Some, however, 
 as Gesenius, would rather regard Seir as an appel- 
 lative, and as denoting ‘ the shaggy mountain,’ 
 t. e. clothed or bristly with woods and forests ; but 
 this is not, in any marked way, a characteristic of 
 the lange in question. These mountains were 
 
 first inhabited by the Korim (Gen. xiv 6 ; 
 Deut. ii. 12); then by Esau (Gen. xxxii. 3; 
 xxxiii. 14, 16) and his posterity (Deut. ii 4, 19; 
 2 Chron. xx. 10). The northern part of them 
 now bears the designation of Jebal, and the 
 southern that of esh-Sherah, which seems no other 
 than a modification of the ancient name. In 
 modern times these mountains were first visited 
 and described by Burckhardt (Syria, p. 40), but 
 they have often since been visited by other tra- 
 vellers, among whom Dr. Robinson has perhaps 
 furnished the best description of them (Bib. Re- 
 searches, ii. 551, 552). At the base of the chain 
 are low hills of limestone or argillaceous rock; 
 then lofty masses of porphyry, which constitute 
 the body of the mountain ; above these is sand- 
 stone broken into irregular ridges and grotesque 
 groups of cliffs; and again, further back and 
 higher than all, are long elevated ridges of lime- 
 stone without precipices. Beyond all these 
 stretches off indefinitely the high plateau of the 
 great eastern desert. The height of the porphyry 
 cliffs is estimated by Dr. Robinson at about 2000 
 feet above the Arabah (the great valley between 
 the Dead Sea and Elanitic Gulf) ; the elevation 
 of Wadv Musa [Sei.ah] above the same is per- 
 haps 2000 or 2200 feet; while the limestone ridges 
 further back probably do not fall short of 3000 
 feet. The whole breadth of the mountainous 
 tract between the Arabah and the eastern desert 
 above does not exceed 15 or 20 geog. miles. 
 These mountains are quite different in character 
 from those which front them on the other (west) 
 side of the Arabah. The latter seem to be not 
 more than two-thirds as high as the former, and 
 are wholly desert and sterile; while those on the 
 east appear to enjoy a sufficiency of rain, and 
 are covered with tufts of herbs and occasional 
 trees. The valleys are also full of trees and shrubs 
 and flowers, the eastern and higher parts being ex- 
 tensively cultivated, and yielding good crops. The 
 general appearance of the soil is not unlike that 
 around Hebron ; though the face of the country 
 is very different. It is indeed the region of 
 which Isaac said to his son Esau : ‘ Behold, thy 
 dwelling shall be of the fatness of the earth, aifd 
 of the dew of heaven from above’ (Gen. xxvii. 39). 
 
 3. A mountain in the territory of Judah (Josh, 
 xv. 10). 
 
 SELAH. [Psalms.] 
 
 SELAH, or rather Sela (y|?p, * rock,’ with 
 the article in 2 Kings xiv. 7, ‘ the rock ;’ 
 
 Gr. 7) rierpa, Petra, which has the same significa- 
 tion as Selah ; sometimes plural, at Uerpcu), the 
 metropolis of the Edomites in Mount Seir. In 
 the Jewish history it is recorded that Amaziah, 
 king of Judah, ‘slew of Edom in the valley 
 of Salt ten thousand, and took Selah by war, and 
 called the name of it Joktheel unto this day’ 
 (2 Kings xiv. 7). This name ’seems however to 
 have passed away with the Hebrew rule over 
 Edom, for no further trace of it is to be found ; 
 and it is still called Selah by Isaiah (xvi. 1). 
 These are all the certain notices of the place in 
 Scripture ; for it may veil be doubted whether it 
 is designated in Judg i. 36 and Isa. xlii. 11, as 
 some suppose. We next meet with it as the 
 Petra of the Greek writers, which is merely a 
 translation of the native name Selah. The ear- 
 liest notice of it under that name by them is 
 
 3 a 2 
 
734 
 
 SELAH. 
 
 SELAH. 
 
 connected with the fact that Antigonus, one of 
 Alexander’s successors, sent two expeditions 
 against the Nabathaeans in Petra (Diod. Sic. 
 xix. 94-98). For points of history not imme- 
 diately connected with the city, see Edomites; 
 Nabathaeans. Strabo, writing of the Naba- 
 thaeans in the time of Augustus, thus describes 
 their capital : — 4 The metropolis of the Naba- 
 thaeans is Petra, so called ; for it lies in a place 
 in other respects plain and level, but shut in by 
 rocks round about, but within having copious 
 fountains for the supply of water and the irriga- 
 tion of gardens. Beyond the enclosure the re- 
 gion is mostly a desert, especially towards Judaea’ 
 ( Geog. xvi. p. 906). At this time the town had 
 become a place of transit for the productions of 
 the east, and was much resorted to by foreigners 
 (Diod. Sic. xix. 95 ; Strabo, l. c.). Pliny more 
 definitely describes Petra as situated in a valley 
 less than two miles (Roman) in amplitude, sur- 
 rounded by inaccessible mountains, with a stream 
 (lowing through it (Hist. Nat. vi. 28). About 
 th© same period it is often named by Josephus 
 as the capital of Arabia Petraea, with which 
 kingdom it passed under the immediate sway of 
 the Romans in the time of Trajan, whose succes- 
 sor Hadrian seems to have bestowed on it some 
 advantage, which led the inhabitants to give hi? 
 name to the city upon coins, several of which 
 are still extant (Mionnet, Med. Antiques, v. 587 ; 
 Eckhel, Doctr. Num. ii. 503). In the fourtn 
 century, Petra is several times mentioned by 
 Eusebius and Jerome; and in the Greek ecclesi- 
 astical Notitiae of the fifth and sixth centuries it 
 appears as the metropolitan see of the third Pa- 
 lestine (Reland, Talcest. pp. 215, 217) ; the last- 
 named of the. bishops is Theodorus, who was 
 present at the council of Jerusalem in a.d. 536 
 \Oriens Christ, iii. 725). From that time no* 
 the slightest notice of Petra is to be found in 
 any quarter; and as no trace of it as an in- 
 habited site is to be met with in the Arabian 
 writers, the probability seems to be that it was 
 destroyed in some unrecorded incursion of the 
 desert hordes, and was afterwards left unpeopled. 
 It is true that Petra occurs in the writers of 
 the era of the Crusades ; but they applied 
 this name to Kerek, and thus introduced a 
 confusion as. to the true Petra which is not even 
 now entirely removed. It was not until the re- 
 ports concerning the wonderful remains in Wady 
 Musa had been verified by Burckhardt, that the 
 latter traveller first ventured to assume the iden- 
 tity of the site with that .of the ancient capital of 
 Arabia Petraea. He expresses this opitiion in 
 a letter dated at Cairo, Sept. 12th, 1812, pub- 
 lished in 1819, in the preface to his Travels in 
 Nubia; but before its appearance the eminent 
 geographer, Carl Ritter, had suggested the same 
 conclusion on the strength of Seetzen’s intima- 
 tions ( Erdkunde , ii. 117). Burckhardt’s view 
 v/as more amply developed in his Travels in 
 Syria, p. 431, published in 1822, and received 
 the high sanction of his editor, Col. Leake, who 
 produces in support of it all the arguments which 
 have since been relied upon, namely, the agree- 
 ment of the ancient descriptions with this site, 
 and their inapplicability to Kerek ; the coinci- 
 dence of the ancient specifications of the distances 
 of Petra from the Elanitic Gulf and from the 
 4>cad Sea, which all point to Wady Musa, and 
 
 not to Kerek ; (hat Josephus, Eusebius,and Jerome 
 testify that the Mount Hor where Aaron died 
 was in the vicinity of Petra; and that to this 
 day the mountain which tradition and circum- 
 stances point out as the same, still rears its lonely 
 head above the vale of Wady Musa, while in 
 all (he district of Kerek there is not a single 
 mountain which could in itself be regarded as 
 Mount Hor; and even if there were, its position 
 would be incompatible with the recorded jour- 
 neyings of the Israelites (Leake’s Preface to 
 Burckhardt’s Travels in Syria , pp. vii.-ix. ; Ro- 
 binson’s Palestine , ii. 576-579 ; 653-659). 
 
 488. [Petra, from above the Amphitheatre ] 
 
 The ruined city lies in a narrow valley, sur- 
 rounded by lofty, and, for the most part, perfectly 
 precipitous mountains. Those which form its 
 southern limit are not so steep as to be impassable ; 
 and it is over these, or rather through Ihem, 
 along an abrupt and difficult ravine, that travel- 
 lers from Sinai or Egypt usually wind their labo- 
 rious way into the scene of magnificent desolat ion. 
 The ancient and more interesting entrance is on 
 the eastern side, through the deep narrow gorge 
 of Wady Syke. It is not easy to determine the 
 precise limits of the ancient city, though the pre- 
 cipitous mountains by which the site is encom- 
 passed mark with perfect distinctness the bound- 
 aries beyond which it never could have extended. 
 These natural barriers seem to have constituted 
 file real limits of the city ; and they give an ex- 
 tent of more than a mile in length, nearly from 
 north to south, by a variable breadth of about 
 half a mile. Several spurs from the surrounding 
 mountains encroach upon this area; but, with 
 inconsiderable exceptions, the whole is fit 
 for building on. The sides of the valley are 
 walled up by perpendicular rocks, from four 
 hundred to six or seven hundred feet high. The 
 northern and southern barriers are neither so lofty 
 nor so steep, and they both admit of the passage 
 of camels. A great many small recesses or side 
 valleys open into the principal one, thus enlarg- 
 ing as well as varying almost infinitely the out- 
 line. With only one or two exceptions, however, 
 they have no outlet, but come to a speedy and 
 abrupt termination among the overhanging cliffs, 
 as precipitous as the natural bulwark that bounds 
 the principal valley. Including these irregula- 
 rities, the whole circumference of Petra may be 
 four miles or more. The length of this irregular 
 outline, though it gives no idea of the extent of 
 the area within its embrace, is perhaps the b«< 
 
&ELAH. 
 
 SELAII. 
 
 725 
 
 treasure of the extent of the excavations. A 
 small stream, or rather mountain torrent, enters 
 the valley from ihe east through the Wady Syke, 
 and after a course of less than half a mile, passes 
 out nearly opposite to the point of entrance on the 
 western side. This pretty brook Hows with a 
 scanty stream within the gorge of Wady Syke, 
 but is usually quite dry after entering the valley. 
 Two smaller streams flow in the season ot rain 
 from the gorges of the northern mountain, and 
 join the principal torrent along courses nearly 
 at right angles with it. The bottom of this river, 
 as for distinction it may be called, was paved 
 for ihe better preservation of its water from waste 
 and filth, and its sides were faced with a wall of 
 hewn stone. Considerable remains of the wall 
 and pavement, and some large flagstones belong- 
 ing to a paved way that ran along the side ot the 
 river, still remain ; as do the foundations of several 
 bridges which spanned its channel. 
 
 The chief public buildings occupied the banks 
 of the river and the high ground further south, as 
 their ruins sufficiently show. One sumptuous 
 edifice remains standing, though in an imperfect 
 and dilapidated state. It is on the south side of 
 the river, near the western side of the valley, and 
 seems to have been a palace, rather than a temple. 
 It is called Pharaoh's house, and is thirty-four 
 paces square. The walls are nearly entire, and 
 on the eastern side they are still surmounted by a 
 handsome cornice. The front, which looks toward 
 the north, was ornamented with a row of columns, 
 foil* of which are standing. An open piazza, 
 behind the colonnade, extended the whole length 
 of the building. In the rear of this piazza are 
 three apartments, the principal of which is en- 
 tered under a noble arch, apparently thirty-five 
 or forty feet high. It is an imposing ruin, though 
 not of the purest style of architecture, and is the 
 more striking as the only edifice now standing 
 in Petra. 
 
 A little east of this, and in a range with some 
 of the most beautiful excavations in the mountain 
 on the east side of the valley, are the remains of 
 what appears to have been a triumphal arch. 
 Under it were three passages, and a number of 
 pedestals of columns, as well as other fragments, 
 would lead to the belief that a magnificent colon- 
 nade was connected with it. 
 
 A few rods south are extensive ruins, which 
 probably belonged to a temple. The ground is 
 covered with fragments of columns five feet in 
 diameter. Twelve of these, whose pedestals still 
 remain in their places, adorned either side of 
 this stately edifice. There were also four co- 
 lumns in front and six in the rear of the temple. 
 They are nrosti’ate on the ground, and Dr. Olin 
 counted thirty-seven massive frusta, of which one 
 of them was composed. 
 
 Still further south are other piles of ruins — 
 columns and hewn stones — parts no doubt of im- 
 portant public buildings. The same traveller 
 counted not less than fourteen similar heaps of 
 ruins, having columns and fragments of columns 
 intermingled with blocks of stone, in this part of 
 the site of ancient Petra. They indicate the 
 great wealth and magnificence of this ancient 
 capital, as well as its unparalleled calamities. 
 These sumptuous edifices occupied what may be 
 called the central parts of Petra. A large surface 
 on the north side of the river is covered with 
 
 substructions, which probably belonged to private 
 habitations. An extensive region still farther 
 north retains no vestiges of the buildings which 
 once covered it. The same appearances are ob- 
 servable in Thebes, Athens, and Rome. Public 
 wealth was lavished on palaces and temples, 
 while the houses of the common people were 
 slightly and meanly built, of such materials as a 
 few years, or at most a few centuries, were suffi- 
 cient to dissolve. 
 
 489. [Ruined Temple.] 
 
 The mountain torrents which, at times, sweep 
 over the lower parts of the ancient site, have un- 
 dermined many foundations, and carried away 
 many a chiselled stone, and worn many a finished 
 specimen of sculpture into unshapely masses. 
 The soft texture of the rock seconds the destruc- 
 tive agencies of the elements. Even the accu- 
 mulations of rubbish, which mark the site of all 
 other decayed cities, have mostly disappeared ; 
 and the extent, which was covered with human 
 •habitations can only be determined by the broken 
 pottery scattered over ihe surface, or mingled 
 with the sand — the universal, and, it would 
 seem, an imperishable memorial of populous 
 cities that exist, no longer. These vestiges, the 
 extent of which Dr. Olin took great pains to trace, 
 cover an area one-third as large as that of Cairo, 
 excluding its large gardens from the estimate, 
 and very sufficient, he thinks, to contain the whole 
 population of Athens in its prosperous days. 
 
 The attention of travellers has however been 
 chiefly engaged by the excavations which, having 
 more successfully resisted the ravages of tune, 
 constitute at present the great and peculiar at- 
 traction of the place. These excavations, whether 
 formed for temples, tombs, or the dwellings of 
 living men, surprise the visitor by their incredible 
 number and extent. They not only occupy the 
 front of the entire mountain by which the valley 
 is encompassed, but of the numerous ravines ana 
 recesses which radiate on all sides from this en- 
 closed area. They exist too in great numbers in 
 the precipitous rocks which shoot out from the 
 principal mountains into the southern, and still 
 more into the northern part of the site, and they are 
 seen along all the approaches to the place, which, 
 in the days of its prosperity, were perhaps 
 
726 
 
 SELAH. 
 
 SELAH. 
 
 suburbs of the overpeopled valley. Were these 
 excavations, instead of following all the sinuosi- 
 ties of the mountain and its numerous gorges, 
 ranged in regular order, they probably would 
 form a street pot less than five or six miles in 
 length. They are often seen rising one above 
 another in the face of the cl iff, and convenient 
 steps, now much worn, cut in the rock, lead in 
 all directions through the fissures, and along the 
 sides of the mountains, to the various tombs that 
 occupy these lofty positions. Some of them are 
 apparently not less than from two hundred to three 
 or four hundred feet above the level of the valley*. 
 Conspicuous situations, visible from below, were 
 generally chosen ; but sometimes the opposite 
 taste nrevailed, and the most secluded clitls, 
 fronting towards some dark ravine, and quite 
 hidden from the gaze of the multitude, were 
 preferred. The flights of steps, all cut in the 
 solid rock, are almost innumerable, and they 
 ascend to great heights, as well as in all direc- 
 tions. Sometimes the connection with the city is 
 interrupted, -and one sees in a gorge, or upon the 
 face of a cliff, fifty or a hundred feet above 
 him, a long series of steps rising from the edge 
 of an inaccessible precipice. The action of 
 •winter torrents and other agencies have worn the 
 easy ascent into a channel for the waters, and 
 thus interrupted the communication. 
 
 490. [Interior of a Tomb.] 
 
 The situations of these excavations are not 
 more various than their forms and dimensions. 
 Mere niches are sometimes cut in the face of the 
 rock, of little depth and of various sizes and 
 forms, of which it is difficult to conjecture the 
 object, unless they had some connection with 
 votive offerings and religious rites. B y far the 
 largest number of excavations were manifestly 
 .designed as places for the interment of the dead ; 
 and thus exhibit a variety in form and size, of 
 interior arrangement and external decorations, 
 adapted to the different fortunes of their occu- 
 pants, and conformable to the prevailing tastes 
 of the times in which they were made. There 
 are many tombs consisting of a single chamber, 
 ten, fifteen, or twenty feet square by ten or twelve 
 in height, containing a recess in the wall large 
 enough to receive one or a few deposits ; some- 
 times on a level with the fioor, at others one or 
 two feet above it, and not unfrequently near the 
 ceiling, at the height of eight or ten feet. Occa- 
 sionally oblong pits or graves are sunk in the 
 Becesses, or in the floor of the principal apartment. 
 
 Some of these are of considerdtle depth, but they 
 are mostly choked witli stones and rubbish, no 
 that, it is impossible to ascertain it. In these 
 plebeian tombs there is commonly a door of small 
 dimensions, and an absence of all architectural 
 decorations ; in some of larger dimensions there 
 are several recesses occupying two or three sides 
 of the apartment. These seem to have been 
 formed for family tombs, besides these una- 
 dorned habitations of the humble dead, there is a 
 vast number of excavations enriched with various 
 architectural ornaments. To these unique and 
 sumptuous monuments of the taste of one of the 
 most ancient races of men with whom history has 
 made us acquainted, Petra is indebted for its 
 great and peculiar attractions. This ornamental 
 Architecture is wholly confined to the front, while 
 the interior is quite plain ami destitute of all 
 decoration. Pass the threshold, and nothing is 
 seen but perpendicular walls, hearing the marks 
 of the chisel, without mouldings, columns, or 
 any species of ornament. But the exteriors of 
 these primitive and even rude apartments exhibit 
 some of the most beautiful and imposing results 
 of ancient taste and skill which have remained 
 to our times. The front of the mountain i3 
 wrought into facades of splendid temples, rivalling 
 in their aspect and symmetry the most celebrated 
 monuments of Grecian art. Columns of various 
 orders, graceful pediments, broad rich entabla- 
 tures, and sometimes statuary, all hewn-out of 
 the solid rock, and still forming part of the native 
 mass, transform the base of the mountain into a 
 vast splendid pile of architecture, while the over- 
 hanging cliffs, towering above in shapes as rugged 
 and wild as any on which the eye ever rested, 
 form the most striking and curious of contrasts. 
 In most, instances it is impossible to assign these 
 beaut iful blades to any particular style of archi- 
 tecture. Many of the columns resemble those of 
 the Corinthian order; but they deviate so far 
 both in their forms and ornaments from this ele- 
 gant model, that it would he impossible to rant 
 them m the class. A few are Doric, which are 
 precisely those that have suffered most from the 
 ravages of time, and are probably very ancient. 
 
 But nothing contributes so much to the almost 
 magical effect of some of these monuments as 
 the rich and various colours of the rock out of 
 which, or more properly in which, they are 
 formed. The mountains that, encompass the 
 vale of Petra are of sandstone, of which red is 
 the predominant hue. Their surface is a good 
 deal burned and faded by the elements, and is of 
 a dull brick colour, and most of the sandstone 
 formations in this vicinity, as well as a number 
 of the excavations of Petra, exhibit nothing re- 
 markable in their colouring which does not be- 
 long to the same species of rock throughout a 
 considerable region of Arabia Petrsea. Many of 
 them, however, are adorned with such a pro- 
 fusion of the most lovely and brilliant colours as 
 it is scarcely possible to describe. Red, purple, 
 yellow, azure or sky blue, black and white, are 
 seen in the same mass distinctly in successive 
 layers, or blended so as to form every shade and 
 hue of which they are capable — as brilliant and 
 as soft as they ever appear in flowers, or in the 
 plumage of birds, or in the sky when illuminated 
 by the most glorious sunset. The red perpetually 
 shades into pale, or deep rose Jr flesl colour, auii 
 
SELEUCIA. 
 
 SENNACHERIB. 
 
 Again approaches the lme ot the lilac or violet. 
 The white, which is often as pure as snow, is 
 occasionally just dashed, with blue or red. The 
 blue is usually the pale azure of the clear sky, or 
 of the ocean, but sonnet imes has the deep and 
 peculiar shade of the clouds in summer when 
 agitated by a tempest. Yellow is an epithet 
 often applied to sand and sandstone. The yellow 
 of the rocks of Petraea is as bright as that of 
 saffron. It is more easy to imagine than describe 
 the effect of tall, graceful columns, exhibiting- 
 these exquisite colours in their succession ot 
 regular horizontal strata. They are displayed 
 to still greater advantage in the walls and ceil- 
 ings of some of the excavations where there is a 
 slight dip in the strata. 
 
 We have thus endeavoured to give the reader a 
 general idea of this remaikable place. Detailed 
 descriptions of the principal monuments have 
 been furnished by Laborde ( Voyage en Arabia 
 Petrosa ), Robinson ( Biblical Researches), and 
 Olin (Travels in the East, from which the above 
 description lias been chiefly taken). Interesting 
 notices of Petra may also be found in the re- 
 spective Travels, Journeys, &c. of Burckhardt, 
 Macmichael, Irby and Mangles, Stephens, Lord 
 Lindsay, anil Schubert. 
 
 SELEUCIA (2eA evKeia), a city of Syria, 
 situated west of Antioch on the sea-coast, near 
 the mouth of the Orontes ; sometimes called Se- 
 leucia Pieria, from the neighbouring Mount 
 Pierus : and also Seleucia ad Mare, in order to 
 distinguish it from several other cities of the 
 same name, all of them denominated from Se- 
 leucus Nicanor. Paul and Barnabas on their 
 first journey embarked at this port for Cyprus 
 (Acts xiii. 4; see also 1 Macc. xi. 8; Joseph. 
 Antiq. xviii. 9. 8). 
 
 SENEH (HJD) occurs in the well known 
 passage of Exod. iii. 2, where the angel of the 
 Lord appeared unto Moses in a flaming Are, out, 
 of the midst of a bush ( seneh ), and the bush was 
 not consumed. It occurs also in vers. 3 and 4, 
 and in Dent, xxxiii. 16. The Septuagint trans- 
 lates seneh by the Greek word (iaTos, which 
 usually signifies the Rubus or Bramble ; so in 
 the New Testament /3 aros is employed when re- 
 ferring to the above miracle of the burning bush. 
 The monks of the monastery of St. Catherine, 
 on Mount Sinai, have a species of rubus planted 
 in their garden, near their Chapel of the Burning 
 Bush; but this cannot be considered as any proof 
 of its identity with the seneh. from the little atten- 
 tion which they have usually paid to correctness 
 in such points. Bove says of it, ‘ C'est une es- 
 pece de Rubus, qui est voisin de notre R. fiu- 
 ticosus.’ The species of rubus are not common 
 either in Syria or Arabia. Rubus sanclus , the 
 holy bramble, is found in Palestine, and is men- 
 tioned by Dr. Russell as existing in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Aleppo, and Hasselqnist found a 
 rubus among the ruins of Scamieretta, and ano- 
 ther in the neighbourhood of Seide. It is also 
 found among the ruins of Petra (?) (Calcott). 
 Celsius and others quote Hebrew authors as 
 stating that Mount Sinai obtained its name from 
 the abundance of these bushes {seneh), ‘ D ictus 
 est mons Sinai de nomine ejus.’ But no species 
 of rubus seems to have been discovered in a 
 wild state on this mountain. This was observed 
 
 727 
 
 by Pococke. lie found, however, on Mount Horeh 
 several hawthorn hushes, and says that the holy 
 hush was more likely to have been a hawthorn 
 than a bramble, and that this must have been the 
 spot where the phenomenon was observed, being 
 a sequestered place and affording excellent pas- 
 ture, whereas near the chapel of the holy bush 
 not a single her!) grows. Shaw states that the 
 Oxyacantha arabica grows in many places on 
 St. Catherine’s mountain. Bove says, on as- 
 cending Mount Sinai, ‘J’ai trouve eritre les 
 rocheis de granit un mespilus voisin de l’oxv- 
 aeantha.’ Dr. Robinson mentions it as called 
 zarur ; but it is evident that vve cannot have 
 anything like proof in favour of either plant. — 
 
 J. F. R. 
 
 SEN1R. [Hermon.] 
 
 SENNACHERIB, king of Assyria, who, in 
 the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah (b.c. 713), 
 came up against all the fenced cities of Judah, 
 and took them ; on which Hezekiah agreed to pay 
 the Assyrian monarch a tribute of three hundred 
 talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold. This, 
 however, did not satisfy Sennacherib, who sent 
 an embassy with hostile intentions, charging He- 
 zekiah with trusting on ‘ this bruised leed Egypt..’ 
 The king of Judah in his perplexity had recourse 
 to Isaiah, who counselled confidence and hope, 
 giving a divine promise of miraculous aid. 
 Meanwhile ‘ Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia,’ and of 
 Thebes in Egypt, had come out to fight against 
 the Assyrians, who had threatened Lower Egypt 
 with an invasion. On learning this, Sennacherib 
 sent another deputation to Hezekiah, who thereon 
 applied for aid to Jehovah, who promised to 
 defend the capital. ‘ And it came to pass that 
 night that the angel of the Lord went out and 
 smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred 
 fourscore and five thousand ; and when they 
 arose early in the morning, behold they were all 
 dead corpses’ (2 Kings xviii. 13, sq.). On this, 
 Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, and was shortly 
 after murdered by two of bis sons as lie was pray- 
 ing in the house of Nisroch his god (2 Kings xix. 
 36, sq. ; 2 Chron. xxxii. ; Isa. xxxvii.). 
 
 With this narrative other authorities (as given 
 in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egypt, i. 140, sq.) are 
 found to agree. The Tirhakah mentioned in tiie 
 Bible, as given above (2 Kings xix. 9), was king 
 of Upper Egypt at the time that Sethos. a priest 
 of Pthah, ruled the lower country (b.c. 710 to 
 689). During Tirhakah ‘s reign Sennacherib 
 threatened to invade Lower Egyj.t. Sethos, from 
 his sacerdotal predilections, was averse to the 
 soldiery, whom lie treated with indignity. They 
 therefore were ill-affected towards their priest- 
 king, whose dominions were consequently in 
 great danger of being overrun. Indeed the 
 troops refused to march against the enemy, when 
 their effeminate master retired to the shrine of 
 his god to bewail bis misfortunes. There sinking 
 into a profound sleep, he saw the Deity in a 
 dream, who promised him safety if he put him- 
 self at the head of his troops, and marched to 
 meet the enemy. Sellios thereupon proceeded to 
 Pelusium, the key of Lower Egypt, with an army 
 made up solely of tradesmen and artisans. The 
 promised assistance soon came. Tirhakah had 
 heard of the approach of Sennacherib, and at onoa 
 came down the country, entered FaleslinGj &ad 
 
728 
 
 SEORAH. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 defeated tlje Assyrian monarch, thus delivering 
 the territory of Sethos as well as that of Hezekiah. 
 The priests of Memphis, however, who were the 
 informants of Herodotus, gave this event a colour- 
 ing which suited their own purposes. According 
 to their account, the victory was owing to the 
 miraculous interposition of the god Pthah. Keep- 
 ing out of sight the effective aid rendered by 
 Tirhakah, these priests told Herodotus that when 
 the Assyrians and the feeble army of Sethos stood 
 over against each other, a prodigious number of 
 rats entered the enemy’s camp by night., and 
 gnawed in pieces their quivers and bows, as well 
 as the handles of their shields, so that the Assy- 
 rians in the morning finding themselves without 
 arms, fled in confusion, and suffered considerable 
 loss of men. In order to commemorate the event, 
 a marble statue of Sethos was erected in the 
 temple of Pthah, at Memphis, representing the 
 king, holding a rat in his h .nd, with this inscrip- 
 tion, ‘ Whoever thou art, learn from my fortune 
 to reverence the gods." 
 
 The rationalistic school would put these two 
 accounts on the same footing, and so reduce the 
 miracle of Scripture to a level with the fiction or 
 the legend recorded in Herodotus. A less pre- 
 judiced state of mind will think it very probable 
 that what is common in the two narratives rests 
 on, as it intimates, some extraordinary event, or, 
 in other words, some unusual and special display 
 of the power of Him whose will is law, and whose 
 •word is either life or death. A comparison of 
 the two narratives in the original sources and 
 statements would serve to illustrate the value, as 
 well as the credibility, of the Biblical records. — 
 
 J. 11. B. 
 
 SEORAH (rnyti\ said to be derived from 
 miffed, ‘hair 1 ), by some written also shoreh, de- 
 rives its name in Hebrew, according to Lexi- 
 cographers, from its long awns, or beards, as 
 they are also called, somewhat resembling hair. 
 The word is very similar to the Arabic shair, 
 which means the same tiling, and has already 
 been treated of under the head of Bari.ey. — 
 
 J. F. R. 
 
 SEPHAR ("IDD ; Sept. Sa^pa), ‘ a mounlain 
 of the east,’ a line drawn from which to Mesha 
 formed the boundary of the Joktanite tribes (Gen. 
 x. 30). The name may remind us of Saphar, 
 which the ancients mention as a chief place of 
 South Arabia. The excellent map of Berghaus 
 exhibits on the south-west point of Arabia a 
 mountain called Sabber, which perhaps supplies 
 the spot we seek. If this be the case, and Mesha 
 be (as usually supposed) the Mesene of the 
 ancients, the line, between them would intersect 
 Arabia from north-east to south-west. That 
 Sephar is called ‘ a mountain of the east,' is to be 
 understood with reference to popular language, 
 according to which Arabia is described as the 
 ‘ east country.’ See Baumgarten, Theolog. Com- 
 mentar zum A. T. i. 152. 
 
 SEPHARAD (TTDD : Sept.’EcppaGa), a region 
 to which the exiles from Jerusalem were taken 
 (Obad. 20). Most of the Rabbins regard Sepha- 
 rad as Spain, interpreting the whole passage with 
 reference to their present captivity or dispersion; 
 and so we find it in the Syriac and Chaldee. 
 Jerome inf'rnas us that the Hebrew who was his 
 
 instructor told him that Bosphorus was called Se- 
 pharad, whither Adrian is said to have sent the 
 Jews into exile. That the district Sepharad is to 
 be sought somewhere in the region of the Bos- 
 phorus, has lately been confirmed by a palaeogra- 
 phic discovery. In the celebrated cuneiform 
 inscription containing a list of the tribes of 
 Persia (Niebuhr, tab. 31, lett. i.), after Assyria, 
 Gorydene, Armenia, Cappadocia , and before 
 Ionia and Greece, is found the name CPaRaD, 
 as read both by Bournouf and Lassen ; and this 
 was recognized also by De Sacy as the Sephar of 
 Obad. 20. It was therefore a district of 
 Western Asia Minor, or at. least near to it 
 (Bournouf, Mem. stir Deux Inscr. Cuneif., 
 1836, p. 147 ; Gesenius, Thcsaitr. s. v.). 
 
 SEPHAR V AIM (D?V)pp ; Sept, 2e7r</>apoi>- 
 dip), a city of the Assyrian empire, whence 
 colonists were brought into the territory of Israel, 
 afterwards called Samaria (2 Kings xvii. 24; 
 xviii. 31; xix. 13; Isa. xxxvi. 19; xxxvii. 13). 
 The place is probably represented by Sipphara 
 in Mesopotamia, situated upon the east bank of 
 the Euphrates above Babylon. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. The oldest version of the 
 Old Testament in any language is the Greek 
 translation commonly called the Septuagint, 
 either because it was approved and sanctioned by 
 the Jewish Sanhedrim consisting of seventy-two 
 persons ; or rather from the Jewish account, which 
 states that so many individuals were employed 
 in making, it. The history of this version is ob- 
 scure. Few notices of its origin are extant; and 
 even such as do exist are suspicious and contra- 
 dictory. 
 
 The space allotted to the present article will only 
 allow the writer to touch upon the chief points 
 relating to the Septuagint. A radical and mi- 
 nute investigation, such as the subject now de- 
 mands, cannot therefore be expected. Results 
 alone must be briefly stated. 
 
 The oldest writer who makes mention of the 
 Septuagint is Aristobulus, an author referred to 
 by Eusebius ( Prcepar. Evangel.), and Clement of 
 Alexandria (Stromata). According to Eusebius, 
 he was a Jew, who united the Aristotelian with 
 the Jewish philosophy, and composed a commen- 
 tary on the law of Moses, dedicated to Ptolemy 
 Philometor. He is also mentioned in 2 Mace, 
 i. 10. Both Clement and Eusebius make him 
 contemporary with Philometor; for the passages 
 in their writings, in which they speak of him 
 under Philadelpnus, must either have been cor- 
 rupted by ignorant transcribers, or have been so 
 written by mistake (Valckenaer, §§ 10, 11; 
 Daehne, p. 81, sq.). His words relative to the 
 Septuagint are : p 8' oAp epppvela twv Sia rod 
 v6pov 'na.vrcav iiri rod irpoaayopevOei/Tos 4>iAa- 
 SeAipov fiacriAecos — Appprpiov rov QaAppecos irpay 
 par eva apeuov ra tt ept tovtcvv. The entire passage, 
 of which the preceding words form a brief por- 
 tion, has occasioned much conjecture and dis- 
 cussion. It is ,gi veil by Valckenaer, Thiersch, 
 and Frankel. It appears to us, that the words of 
 Aristobulus do not speak of any prior Greek 
 translation , as Hody supposes, or indeed of any 
 translation whatever. They rather refer to some 
 brief extracts relative to Jewish history, which 
 had been made from the Pentateuch into a lan- 
 guage commonly understood by the Jewi ia 
 
SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 SKPTUAG1NT. 
 
 729 
 
 Egypt, before the time of Demetrius. The entire 
 usw, 7 ) S’ o\r) kpgyveia ruv Sia rov vigov navruiv, 
 was first rendered into Greek under Philadelphus. 
 Hodv, and after him Eichhorn, conjectured that 
 the fragments of Aristobulus preserved by Euse- 
 bius and Clement were written in the second 
 century by another Aristobulus, a Christian ; and 
 that Aristobulus, the professed Peripatetic, was a 
 heathen. But the quotation of Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria ( contra Julianum , lit), vi.), to which they ap- 
 peal, was erroneously made by that father, as may 
 be seen by comparing it with Clement. Richard 
 Simon also denied the authenticity of Aristo- 
 bulus’s remains (Histoire Critique du V. T., p. 
 189). But Yalckenaer has sufficiently esta- 
 blished their authenticity. The testimony of Aris- 
 tobulus is corroborated by a Latin scholion re- 
 cently found in a MS. of Plautus at Rome, which 
 has been described and illustrated by Ritschl in 
 a little book entitled ‘ Die Alexandrinischen 
 Bibliotheken und die Sammlung der Rorrter- 
 ischen Gedichte naeh Anleitung eines Plautin- 
 ischen Scholium's , Berlin, 1838.' From the pas- 
 sage, of Aristobulus already quoted, it appears, 
 that in the time of Aristobulus, i. e. the begin- 
 ning of the second century b.c., this version was 
 considered to have been made when Demetrius 
 Phalereus lived, or in the reign of Ptolemy Soter. 
 Hody, indeed, has endeavoured to show that this 
 account contradicts the voice of certain history, 
 because it places Demetrius in the reign of Phil- 
 adelphus. But the version may have been be- 
 gun under Soter and completed under Philadel- 
 phus his successor. In this way may be recon- 
 ciled the discordant notices of the time when it 
 originated ; for it is well known that the Pales- 
 tinian account, followed by various fathers of the 
 church, asserts, that Ptolemy Soter carried the 
 work into execution ; while according to Aristeas, 
 Philo, Josephus, &c. &c., his son Philadelphus 
 was the person. Hody harmonises the discre- 
 pancy, by placing the translation of the Penta- 
 teuch in the two years during which father and 
 son reigned conjointly, 286 and 285 B.c. The 
 object of Demetrius, in advising Soter to have in 
 his library a copy of the Jewish laws in Greek, is 
 not stated by Aristobulus ; but Aristeas relates 
 that the librarian represented it tothekingasa 
 desirable thing that such a book should be de- 
 posited in ihe Alexandrian library. Some think 
 that a literary, rather than a religious motive, 
 led to the version. So Havernick. This, how- 
 ever, may be reasonably doubted. Hody, Sturz, 
 Frankel, and others, conjecture that the object 
 was religious or ecclesiastical. Eichhorn refers 
 it to private impulse ; while Hug takes the ob- 
 ject to have been political. It is not probable, 
 however, that the version was intended for the 
 king's use, or that he wished to obtain from it 
 information respecting the best mode of governing 
 a nation, and enacting \laws for its economic 
 well-being. The character and language of the 
 version unite to show that an Egyptian king, pro- 
 bably ignorant of Greek, could not have under- 
 stood the work. Perhaps an ecclesiastical motive 
 prompted the Jews, who were originally interested 
 in it; while Demetrius Phalereus and the king 
 miv have been actuated by some other de- 
 »ign. < 
 
 It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain, 
 whether Aristobulus 's words imply that all the 
 
 books of the Old Testament were translated into 
 Greek under Philadelphus, or simply the Penta- 
 teuch. Hody contends that rigos, the teim 
 used by Aristobulus, meant at that time the 
 Mosaic books alone ; although it was afterwards 
 taken in a wider sense, so as to embrace all the 
 Old Testament. Yalckenaer thinks that all the 
 books were comprehended under it. It is cer- 
 tainly more natural to restrict it to the Penta- 
 teuch. The Pentateuch, therefore, was completed 
 under Philadelphus. 
 
 The next historical testimony regarding the 
 Septuagint, is the prologue of Jesus the son of 
 Sirach. a document containing the judgment of a 
 Palestinian Jew concerning the version before 
 us. His words are these : ov g6vov ravra 
 aAAa feat avrhs 6 vogos /cal at 7 rpocprjrelai tea 1 to 
 Aonra run/ /3t/3AtW ov gikpav e%et ryv 8ia<popav 
 iv kavrois Xe-yogeva — ‘and not only these things, 
 but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest 
 of the books, have no small difference when they 
 are spoken in their own language.' Frankel has 
 endeavoured to throw suspicion on this passage, 
 as though it were unauthentic ; but his reasons 
 are extremely slender (p. 21, note w). It appears 
 from it, that the law, the prophets, and the other 
 books, had been translated into Greek in the 
 time of the son of Sirach, i. e. that of Ptolemy 
 Phvscon, 130 b.c. 
 
 The account given by Aristeas comes next 
 before us. This writer pretends to be a Gentile, 
 and a favourite at the court of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus, King of Egypt. In a letter addressed 
 to his brother Philocrates, he relates that Phila- 
 delphus, when forming a library at great expense, 
 was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to apply to 
 the Jewish high priest Eleazar for a copy of the 
 book containing the Jewish laws. Having pre- 
 viously purchased the freedom of more than a 
 hundred thousand captive Jews in Egypt, the 
 king sent Aristeas and Andreas to Jerusalem, 
 with a letter requesting of Eleazar sevenly-two 
 persons a# interpreters, six out of each tribe. 
 They were dispatched accordingly, with a mag- 
 nificent copy of the law ; and were received and 
 entertained by the king for several days, with 
 great respect and liberality. Demetrius led them 
 to an island, probably Pharos, where they lodged 
 together. The translation was finished in seventy- 
 two days, having been written down by Deme- 
 trius, piece by piece, as agreed upon alter mutual 
 consultation. It was then publicly read by 
 Demetrius to a number of Jews whom he had 
 summoned together. They approved of it; and 
 imprecations were uttered against any one who 
 should presume to alter it. The Jews requested 
 permission to take copies of it for their use; and 
 it was carefully preserved by command of the 
 king. The interpreters were sent home, loaded 
 with presents. Josephus agrees in the main 
 with Aristeas ; but Philo’s account differs in a 
 number of circumstances. Justin Martyr en- 
 deavoured to harmonise the various traditions 
 current in his day, but without success. Exagge- 
 rations and glaring falsehoods had been added to 
 the story of Aristeas, in the days of Justin and 
 Epiphanius, wh’cb these credulous men received 
 without hesitation and to which it is probable 
 they themselves contributed. The interpreters 
 are said to have been shut up in separate cells, 
 where they made separate versions, which wera 
 
730 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 fcurul on comparison to agree in every minute 
 particular. Hence they were looked upon as in- 
 spired, and their version as infallibly correct. 
 Most of the fathers received this tradition, and 
 the early Jewish abbins equally believed it. 
 Even Philo regarded the translators as inspired; 
 but it is evident that he was ignorant of Hebrew. 
 Jerome seems to have been the lirst who distinctly 
 rejected the story of their inspiration, although 
 he did not doubt the veracity of Aristeas, whose 
 simpler narrative makes no mention of inspira- 
 tion. Until the latter half of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, the origin of the Septuagint as given by 
 Aristeas, was firmly believed ; while the numerous 
 additions that had been made to the original 
 story, in the progress of centuries, were unhesi- 
 tatingly received as equally genuine. The story 
 was first reckoned improbable by L. Vives (in a 
 note to Augustine's De Cidtate Dei) ; then Sea- 
 liger asserted that it was written by a Jew : and 
 Richard Simon was too acute a critic not to per- 
 ceive the truth of Scaliger’s assertion. Hody 
 was the first who demonstrated with great learn- 
 ing, skill, and discrimination, that the narrative 
 could not be authentic. It is now universally 
 pronounced fabulous. 
 
 Tiie work of Aristeas, which was first pub- 
 lished in the original Greek by Simon Schard, 
 at Basel, 1561, 8vo„ and several times reprinted, 
 was also given by Hody in Greek and Latin, in 
 his book entitled De Bibliorum textibus origi- 
 nalibus , versionibus Greeds , et Latina Vulgata , 
 Oxonii, 1705, fol. The most accurate edition, 
 however, is that by Gallandi, in the Bibliotheca 
 Vet . Patrum , vol. ii. It was translated into 
 English bv Whiston, and published at London 
 in 1727, 8vo. 
 
 It is a difficult point to determine the extent to 
 which truth is mixed up w'ith fable in this an- 
 cient story. However absurd the traditions may 
 appear in the view of modern criticism, some 
 truth must lie at the basis of them. In separating 
 the true from the fabulous, it appeals to us that 
 Hody has not been successful. From the ex- 
 treme credulity manifested in the reception of the 
 fable, he has gone to the extreme of scepticism. 
 Yet he has been generally followed. That the 
 Pentateuch was translated a considerable time 
 before the prophets, is not warranted by the lan- 
 guage of Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertul- 
 lian, Epiphanius, and Hilary of Poitiers; al- 
 though we are aware that Aristeas, Josephus, 
 Philo, the Talmudists, and Jerome, mention the 
 law only as having been interpreted by the 
 seventy-two. Iiody thinks that the Jews first 
 resorted to the reading of the prophets in their 
 synagogues when Antiochus Epiphanes for- 
 bade the use of the law; and, therefore, that 
 the prophetic portion was not translated till 
 after the commencement of Philometor’s reign. 
 It is wholly improbable, however, that Anti- 
 ochus interdicted the Jews merely from reading 
 the Pentateuch (comp. 1 Macc. i. 41, &c. ; 
 and Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5 ; Frankel, pp. 
 48, 49). The interval between the translating 
 of the law and the prophets, of which many 
 speak, was probably very short. Hody’s proof 
 that the book of Joshua was not translated till 
 upwards of twenty yeai-3 after the death of Ptolemy 
 Lagi, founded upon the word yaur6s , is perfectly 
 nugatory ; although the time assigned cannot be 
 
 far from the truth. The epilogue to the book of 
 Esther does not state that this part of the Old 
 Testament was translated under Ptolemy Philo- 
 metor, or that it was dedicated to him. On tht 
 contrary, it. refers to a certain epistle containing 
 apocryphal additions to the canonical book of 
 Esther (Valckenaer, pp. 33, G3). It is a fruitless 
 task to attempt to ascertain the precise times a. 
 which separate portions of the version were made. 
 All that,can be known with any degree of proba- 
 bility is, that it was begun under Lagi, and 
 finished before the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy 
 Physcon. 
 
 It is obvious, from internal evidence, that there 
 W'ere several translators ; but certainly not se- 
 venty-two. Hody has endeavoured to parcel out 
 their version into small portions, assigning each 
 part to a separate person, and affirming that they 
 were put together in one cento without revision ; 
 but his notions of ligid uniformity in the trans- 
 lators are such as exclude perspicuity, freedom, 
 variety, and elegance. There is no ground for 
 believing that the Pentateuch proceeded from 
 more than one interpreter, who was unquestion- 
 ably the most, skilful ot all. The entire work was 
 made by five or six individuals at. least; and 
 must, consequently, be of unequal value. 
 
 In opposition to the Pseudo- Aristeas, we can- 
 not but maintain that, the translators were Alex- 
 andrian, not Palestinian Jews, The internal 
 character of the entire version, particularly of the 
 Pentateuch, sufficiently attests the fact. We 
 find, accordingly, that proper names, and terms 
 peculiar to Egypt are rendered in such a manner 
 as must have been unintelligible to a Greek- 
 speaking population other than the Egyptian 
 Jews. That the translators were Egyptians has 
 been proved to the satisfaction of all by Hody ; 
 although some of his examples, such as the words 
 yeveais and iirndSpopos, are not appropriate or 
 conclusive. Frankel supposes that the version 
 was made not only at different times, but at 
 different places. This is quite arbitrary. There 
 is no reason for believing with him, that differeni 
 books originated after this fashion, the impulse 
 having gone forth from Alexandria, and spread- 
 ing to localities where the Jews had settled, 
 especially Cyrene, Leontopolis, and even Asia 
 Minor. 
 
 Next to the Pentateuch, in point of' goodness, 
 is the version of the Proverbs. The translator of 
 Job, though familiar with the Greek poets, and 
 master of an elegant diction, was very imper- 
 fectly acquainted with Hebrew. The Psalms 
 and Prophets have been indifferently executed. 
 Jeremiah is best translated among the prophetic 
 books. Amos and Ezekiel stand in the next rank. 
 Isaiah met with a very incompetent translator. 
 The version of Daniel is the worst. The version 
 of Theodotion was very early substituted for it. 
 Michaelis and Bertholdt. conjecture that Daniel 
 was first translated after the advent of Christ. It 
 is certain that Jerome did not. know the reason 
 why Theodotion’s had been substituted in place 
 of that belonging to the Septuagint. Most of the 
 historical books are not well interpreted. 
 
 With regard to the external form of the MS., 
 or MSS. from which this version was made, it is 
 not difficult to see that the letters were substan- 
 tially the same as the present square characters 
 — that there were no vowel-points — that there wu 
 
SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT 
 
 oo separation into words ; no final h tters ; that 
 the letter & wanted the diacritic point ; and that 
 words were frequently abbreviated. The division 
 into verses and chapters is much later than the 
 age of (lie translators. Our present editions have 
 been printed in conformity with the division into 
 chapters made in the twelfth century; though 
 they are not uniform in this particular. Still, 
 however, many MSS. have separations in the 
 text. The Alexandrine codex is said by Grabe 
 to have one hundred and forty divisions, or as 
 they may be called, chapters , in the book of 
 Numbers alone (Prolegomena, c. i. § 7). 
 
 The titles given to the books, such as rejects, 
 See., could hardly have been affixed by the trans- 
 lators, since often they do not harmonise with the 
 version of the book itself to which they belong. 
 
 It has been inquired, whether the translator of 
 the Pentateuch followed a Hebrew or a Samaritan 
 codex. The Septuagint and Samaritan harmonise 
 in more than a thousand places, where they differ 
 from the Hebrew. Hence it has been supposed 
 that the Samaritan edition was the basis of the 
 version. Various considerations, have been ad- 
 duced in favour of this opinion ; and the names 
 of De Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hottinger, Hassen- 
 camp, and Eichhorn, are enlisted on its behalf. 
 But the irreconcilable enmity subsisting between 
 the Jews and the Samaritans, both in Egypt and 
 Palestine, effectually militates against it. Be- 
 sides, in the prophets and hagiographa the 
 number of variations from the Masoretic text is 
 even greater and more remarkable than those in 
 the Pentateuch ; whereas the Samaritan extends 
 no farther than the Mosaic i books. No solu- 
 tion, therefore, can be satisfactory, which will 
 not serve to explain at once the cause or causes 
 both of the differences between the Seventy and 
 Hebrew in the Pentateuch, and those found 
 in the remaining books. The problem can be 
 fully solved only by such an hypothesis as will 
 throw light on the remarkable form of the Sep- 
 tuagint in Jeremiah and Esther, where it deviates 
 most from the Masoretic MSS., presenting such 
 transpositions and interpolations as excite the 
 surprise of the most superficial reader. How, 
 then, is the agreement between the Samaritan 
 and Septuagint to be explained ? 
 
 Some suppose that the one was interpolated 
 fiom the other — a conjecture not at all probable. 
 Jalin and Bauer imagine that the Hebrew MS. 
 used by the Egyptian Jews agreed much more 
 closely with the Samaritan in the text and forms 
 of its letters, than the present Masoretic copies. 
 This hypothesis, however, even if it were other- 
 wise correct, would not account for the great 
 harmony existing between the Samaritan and 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Another hypothesis has been put forth by 
 Gesenius ( Commentatio de Pent. tSamar. orig., 
 indole , et auctor.), viz. that both the Samaritan 
 and Septuagint flowed from a common recension 
 (eKdoais) of the Hebrew Scriptures, one older 
 than either, and different in many places from 
 the recension of the Masoretes now in common 
 use. ‘ This supposition, 1 says Prof. Stuart, by 
 whom it is adopted, 4 will account for the differ- 
 ences and for the agreements of the Septuagint 
 and Samaritan. 1 
 
 The following objections have been made to 
 this ingenious and plausible hypothesis. 
 
 731 
 
 1. It assumes, that before the whole of ln< Old 
 Testament was written there had been a recension 
 or revision of several books. But t here is no 
 record or tradition in favour of the idea, that 
 inspired men applied a correcting hand in this 
 manner till the close of the canon. To say that 
 others did so, is not in unison with right notions 
 of the inspirat ion of Script ure, unless it be equally 
 affirmed that they corrupted, under the idea of 
 correcting , the holy books ’ 
 
 2. This hypothesis implies, that a recension 
 took place at a period comparatively early, be- 
 fore any books had been written except the 
 Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and the writings of 
 David and Solomon. It it lie improbable that a 
 revised edition was made betore the completion 
 of the canon, it is much more improbable that it 
 was undertaken when few books were written. 
 
 3. It supposes, that an older recension was still 
 current after Ezra had revised the whole collec- 
 tion and closed the canon. In making the 
 Septuagint version, it is very improbable that 
 the Jew's, who were the translators, followed a 
 recension far inferior in their estimation to the 
 copy of the sacred books corrected by Ezra. 
 This objection rests on the assumption that. Ezra 
 completed the canon of the Old Testament, hav- 
 ing been prompted, as well as inspired, toarrange 
 and revise the books of Scripture. Such is the 
 Jewish tradition ; and although a majority of 
 the German critics disallow its truth, yet it is 
 held by very aide and accomplished men. 
 
 Prof. Lee ( Prolegomena to Bagsters Poly- 
 glott ) accounts for the agreement between the 
 Septuagint and Samaritan in another way. He 
 conjectures that the early Christians interspersed 
 their copies with Samaritan glosses, which igno- 
 rant transcribers afterwards inserted in $ie text. 
 But he has not shown that Christians in general 
 were acquainted with the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 and its additions to the Hebrew copy ; neither 
 has lie taken into account tire reverence enter- 
 tained by the early Christians for the sacred 
 books. We cannot, therefore, attribute the least 
 probability to this hypothesis. 
 
 t Another hypothesis has been mentioned by 
 Frankel, viz. that the Septuagint flowed from a 
 Chaldee version, which was used before and after 
 the time of Ezra — a version inexact and para- 
 phrastic, which had undergone many alterations 
 and corruptions. This was first proposed by R. 
 Asaria di Rossi, in the midst of other conjectures. 
 
 Frankel admits tlfat the assumption of such a 
 version is superfluous, except in relation to the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, where much is gained by 
 it. This Chaldee version circulated in various 
 transcripts here and there; and as the same care 
 was not applied in preserving its integrity as was 
 exercised with respect to the original Hebrew, 
 the copies of it presented considerable differences 
 among themselves. Both the Greek version and 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch were taken from it. 
 Frankel concedes that this hypothesis is not satis- 
 factory with regard to the Septuagint, because 
 the mistakes found in that version must have 
 frequently originated in misunderstanding tne 
 Iiebreio text. There is no evidence, howeve-, 
 that any Targum or Chaldee version had been 
 made before Ezra's time, or soon after. Expla- 
 nations of the lessons publicly read by the Jews 
 were given in Chaldee, not regularly perhaps, or 
 
732 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 uniformly ; but it can scarcely be assumed that 
 a Chaldee version had been made out in writing, 
 and circulated in dilfereut. copies. Glosses, or 
 short expositions of words and sentences, were 
 furnished by the public readers for the benefit of 
 the people; and it is by no means improbable 
 that several of these traditional comments were 
 incorporated with the version by the Jewish 
 translators, to whom they were familiar. 
 
 In short, no hypothesis yet proposed commends 
 itself to general reception, although the Vorstu- 
 dien of Frankel have probably opened up the way 
 towards a correct solution. The great source 
 from which the striking peculiarities in the Se- 
 venty and the Samaritan flowed, appears to us 
 to have been early traditional interpretations 
 current among the Jews, targums , or para- 
 phrases — not written perhaps, but orally circu- 
 lated. Such glossarial versions, which must have 
 circulated chiefly in Palestine, require to be 
 traced back to an °arly epoch; to the period of 
 the second temple. They existed, in substance 
 at least, in ancient *times, at once indicating and 
 modifying the Jewish mode of interpretation. 
 The Alexandrian mode of interpretation stood 
 in close connection with the Palestinian; for the 
 Jews of Egypt looked upon Jerusalem as their 
 chief city, and the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem as 
 their ecclesiastical rulers. If, therefore, we can 
 ascertain the traditional paraphrases of the one, 
 those of the other must have been substantially 
 the same (see Gieseler’s Eccles. Hist., transl. by 
 Cunningham, vol. i. p. 30). 
 
 Tychsen ( Tentamen de variis codd. Heb. V. T. 
 MSS. gener.) thought that the' Septuagint was 
 made from the Hebrew transcribed into Hebrew- 
 Greek characters. It is almost unnecessary to 
 refer to such a notion. It never obtained general 
 currency, having been examined and refuted by 
 Dathe, Michaelis, and Hassencamp. 
 
 The Septuagint does not appear to have ob- 
 tained general authority as long as Hebrew was 
 understood at Alexandria. It is remarkable that 
 Aristobulus quotes the original, even where it 
 departs from the text of the Seventy. The ver- 
 sion was indeed spread abroad in Egypt, northern 
 Africa, and Asia Minor ; but it may be doubted, 
 whether it was ever so highly esteemed by the 
 Jews as to be publicly read in their synagogues, 
 in place of the original. The passages quoted 
 by Hody from the fathers go to prove no more 
 than that it was found in the synagogues. From 
 the 116 Novella of Justinian it would seem, that 
 some Jews wished the public interpreter, who 
 read the lessons out of the law and the prophets 
 in Hebrew, to give his explanations of them in 
 Greek ; while others desired to have them in 
 Chaldee. The reader, therefore, employed this 
 translation as explanatory of the sections recited 
 in the original. It cannot be shown that, after 
 the Septuagint had been made, the Jews com- 
 monly laid aside the original, and substituted 
 die Greek in the synagogue-service. Though 
 they highly esteemed the Greek, they did not 
 regard it as equal to the Hebrew. Philo and 
 Josephus adopted it; and it was universally re- 
 ceived by the early Christians. Even the Tal- 
 mudists make honourable mention of its origin. 
 It is true that the Talmud also speaks of it. as 
 an abomination to the Jews in Palestine; but 
 this refers to the second century and the time 
 
 following , not to the period immediately after the 
 appearance of Christ. 
 
 When controversies arose between Christians 
 and Jews, and the former appealed with irresist- 
 ible force of argument to this version, the latter 
 denied that it agreed with the Hebrew original. 
 Thus by degrees it became odious to the Jews — 
 as much execrated as it had before been com- 
 mended. They had recourse to the translation 
 of Aquila, who is supposed to have undertaken a 
 new work from the Hebrew, with the express ob- 
 ject of supplanting the Septuagint, and favouring 
 the sentiments of his brethren. 
 
 After the general reception qF the Septuagint 
 version,- numerous mistakes were made in the 
 transcription and multiplication of copies. In 
 the time of the early fathers its text, had already 
 been altered; and the Jews, in argument with 
 the Christians, commonly said, that such and 
 such things were not in the Hebrew original. 
 This affirmation was generally sufficient to si- 
 lence the professors of the Christian religion, who 
 were unable to follow their critical antagonists 
 into the Hebrew text. 
 
 In order to rectify the text of the Septuagint, 
 and to place Christians on even ground with 
 their Jewish opponents, Origen undertook to re- 
 vise it. After travelling about for twenty-eight 
 years in quest of materials, and meeting with six 
 Greek translations, — three belonging to Aqi^Ja, 
 Symmachus, and Theodotion respectively ; and 
 three anonymous — he began his great work, pro- 
 bably at Alexandria, and finished it, according 
 to the best accounts, at Tyre. Some think that he 
 published at first his Tetrapla, containing in four 
 columns the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, 
 Theodotion, and the Seventy. Thus the Tetrapla 
 was only preparatory to his projected emendation 
 of the Seventy. In an enlarged edition, he added 
 the Hebrew text in Hebrew and in Gieek letters; 
 and as the work then consisted of six columns, 
 it was termed Hexapla. Such is the opinion of 
 Hody, Montfaucon, and Bauer; but Eichhorn, 
 Eichstaedt, and Frankel, think that the Tetrapla 
 was not a distinct work preparatory to the Hex- 
 apla, but only an abridgment of the latter. In 
 some parts he used two other Greek versions 
 made by unknown authors, and occasionally a 
 third anonymous translation. Hence the names 
 Octaplu and Enneapla. Thus the different ap- 
 pellations by which the work is distinguished, 
 refer merely to the number of columns. The 
 following is their order : — 1. The Hebrew text in 
 its proper characters ; 2. The same in Greek 
 letters ; 3. Aquila ; 4. Symmachus ; 5. Sep- 
 tuagint ; 6. Theodotion; 7, 8, and 9. The three 
 anonymous Greek versions were called the fifth, 
 sixth, and seventh, in relation to the other four 
 (see a specimen of the Enneapla in Davidson’s 
 Bib. Criticism, p. 53). 
 
 Orvgen’s object in this laborious work was not 
 so much to correct the Septuagint, as to show 
 where and how it differed from the original 
 Hebrew. When he discovered a word in Hebrew, 
 or in the Greek versions, which was not in the 
 Seventy, he inserted it out of Theodotion. If 
 Theodotion wanted it also, he made up the defi- 
 ciency from Aquila, and occasionally from Sym- 
 machus. In every case, he put the name of the 
 translation from which a supplement was made, 
 with an asterisk at the commencement, and tw# 
 
SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 dots at the etu. . to show the extent of the sup- 
 plied marter. And where the Septuagint, as 
 compared with other Greek versions and the 
 original, seemed to be redundant, he did not ex- 
 punge the superfluity, but appended marks to 
 point out this particular. His recension is called 
 the Hexaplarian text, to distinguish it from 
 the text as it existed before, which has been styled 
 the common (kolut)) or ante- hexaplarian. 
 
 This great, work, consisting of about fifty vo- 
 lumes, is thought to have perished at Csesaxea, 
 when the town was sacked by the Saracens, a.d. 
 653. It was never transcribed. 
 
 In the beginning of the fourth century, Pam- 
 philus and Eusebius copied the column contain- 
 ing the text of the Seventy, with the passages and 
 scholia out of the other translators, and the criti- 
 cal marks used by Origen. It is to be regretted 
 that this copy was soon extensively corrupted. The 
 Hexaplarian text, coming through such a tran- 
 script, with fragments of the other versions, was 
 published by Montfaucon, at Paris, 1714, 2 vols. 
 fol. ; and afterwards reprinted, in an abridgment, 
 by Bahrdt, Leipzig, 1769-70, 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 At the beginning of the same century, Lucian, 
 a presbyter of Antioch, undertook to amend the 
 text of the Seventy, after the Hebrew original. 
 This recension was called the editio vulgata 
 (komi and also A ovniav6s), and became current 
 in various churches. Another revision was un- 
 dertaken about the same time by Hesychius, an 
 Egyptian bishop, which, according to Jerome, 
 was generally used in the churches of Egypt. 
 Hesychius and Lucian probably used the ver- 
 sions of Aquila, Symmacbus, and Theodotion, 
 not the Hebrew text; although Hody thinks 
 otherwise. From these three recensions all our 
 printed editions have been derived. In the two 
 great MSS. of the Seventy, the Vatican and Alex- 
 andrine, the basis of the former is the common, or 
 earlier text ; while the latter exhibits more of the 
 readings and interpolations of the Hexaplarian 
 text. Both have not been always kept distinct. 
 The Vatican text is far purer than the Alexan- 
 drine. It is free from the asterisks, obeli, and 
 other marks used by Origen, as well as the trans- 
 positions which he made. Besides, the Alexan- 
 drine has been very frequently conformed to the 
 Masoretic text, which must be considered as a 
 corruption. 
 
 All printed editions of the Septdagint may be 
 reduced to four ; viz., the Aldine, the Complu- 
 tensian, the Roman, and the Grabian. 
 
 The Aldine or Venetian appeared at Venice 
 in 1518, fol. The editor has not specified the 
 MSS. from which the text was taken. He merely 
 affirms that he collated many very ancient co- 
 pies, and was favoured with the advice of some 
 learned men. According to Walton, the text of 
 this edition is purer than the Complutensian, and 
 resembles most the Roman text. It has been 
 interpolated, however, in various instances, out of 
 Theodotion, Aquila, and the New Testament. 
 
 The Complutensian was published in 1522, as 
 a column of the Complutensian Polyglott. Per- 
 haps the text of it has been occasionally adapted 
 to that of the Masoretic Hebrew copies ; but cer- 
 tainly not to the extent assumed by Ussher, 
 Walton, and Hody. Most of its alterations , as 
 they are called in relation to the text of other 
 editions, were probably taken from Greek MSS. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 733 
 
 containing Origen’s improved Hexaplaric text, as 
 Simon believed. 
 
 The Roman edition appeared under the aus- 
 pices of Sixtus (he Fifth, in 1587, fol., superin- 
 tended by Cardinal Carafa. The text follows 
 closely the celebrated codex Vaticanus. Yet the 
 editors made alterations in the orthography, and 
 in particulars which they looked- upon as the 
 mistakes of copyists. Other MSS. were neces- 
 sarily used, since almost the entire book of 
 Genesis is wanting in cod. B., besides Psalms 
 105 — 138, and the books of the Maccabees. 
 
 The Grabian eJition appeared at Oxford, in 
 1707 and following years, 4 vols. fol., and 8 
 vols. 8vo., being prepared for the press by Dr. 
 Grabe, a learned Prussian, and published in part 
 by himself. This edition exhibits the text of the 
 Codex Alexandrinus, but not perfectly; since 
 Grabe altered and improved many places. 
 
 TheJatest and most splendid critical edition is 
 that begun in 1798 by Dr. Holmes, and finished 
 by Parsons, Oxford, 1798-1827, five vofe. folio, 
 with a large critical apparatus. The continuator 
 appears to have become weary of his task, for he 
 has only selected the readings most important in 
 his own judgment. The text is that of the 
 Roman edition. The work has not satisfied the 
 reasonable expectations of the learned ; and a 
 good edition is still a desideratum. The Roman 
 is still the best ; although no one edition should 
 be followed absolutely (see Credner’s Beitrage, 
 vol. ii. pp. 74-98). 
 
 The best Lexicon to the Septuagint is that of 
 Schleusner y published at Leipzig, in 1820/ in 
 five parts, and reprinted at Glasgow. The best 
 Concordance is that of Trommius , published at 
 Amsterdam, 2 vols. fol. 1718. 
 
 A great number of other versions have been 
 founded on the Seventy. 1. Various early Latin 
 translations, the chief of which was the Vttus 
 Itala ; 2. The Coptic and Sahidic, belonging to 
 the first and second centuries; 3. The Ethiopic, 
 belonging to the fourth century ; 4. The Arme- 
 nian, of the fifth century; 5. The Georgian, of 
 the sixth century; 6. Various Syriac versions, of 
 the sixth and eighth cent uries ; 7. Some Arabic 
 versions [Arabic Versions] ; 8. The Slavonic, 
 belonging to the ninth century. 
 
 Great value should unquestionably be attached 
 to this version. In the criticism and interpreta- 
 tion of the Old Testament, it holds a conspicuous 
 place. Yet most of the translators were incom- 
 petent. They often mistook the sense of the ori- 
 ginal. They indulged in many liberties with 
 regard to the text. They inserted glosses, and 
 paraphrased with unmeaning latitude. Their 
 errors are neither few nor small. It must be recol- 
 lected, however, that the text is in a state of irre- 
 mediable disorder. The labours of Origen, 
 however laudable the motive that prompted 
 them, introduced great confusion. On the whole, 
 the translation is free rather than literal. Figures, 
 metaphors, and anthropomorphic expressions are 
 frequently resolved. Still the document is im- 
 portant, not only in the criticism, but also in the 
 exposition of the Old Testament. 
 
 (For a more copious account of the Septuagint, 
 the reader is referred to Davidson's Lectures on 
 Biblical Criticism , and the books there specified 
 On the Pentateuch part of it, the best work is that 
 of Thiersch, De Pentatcuchi Versione Akxa*> 
 
731 
 
 SERAIAH. 
 
 SERAPHIM. 
 
 drina , libri tres , Erlangae, 1841, 8vo., in which 
 the character of the diction employed by the 
 translator is minutely and admirably investi- 
 gated. See also Toepler, De Pentateuchi inter- 
 pretation is Alexandrine indole critica et herme- 
 neutica, Hal. Sax. 1830, 8vo. ; Pliischke, Lee - 
 tiones Alexandrines et 'Hebraicce, $e. Bonn, 1837, 
 8vo. This writer would correct the present He- 
 brew text by the Seventy in many cases, although 
 the idea of doing so is preposterous. Vorstudien 
 zu der Septuaginta , von Dr. Z. Frankel; Leipzig, 
 1S41, 8vo. This is the most remarkable and 
 most important work on the Septuagint that 
 lias appeared for many years. Tire present is 
 only the first part of the first volume, and we are 
 unable to say whether more has been published. 
 Gfrorer, Ur chris tent ham, Th. i. B. ii., Stuttgart, 
 1S31, 8vo. ; Dahne, Judisch-Alexandrinische 
 Philosophie, Th. ii. Halle, 1831, 8vo. ; Fabricii 
 Bibliotheca Sacra , ed. Harless, vol. 3; Mi- 
 chaelis’s Oriental. Bibliothek , and Neue Orient. 
 Biblioth ; Eichhorn’s Allgem. Bibliothek and 
 Repertorium ; Studer, De Versionis Alexan - 
 drince origine, historia, usu, et abusu critico , 
 Bernae, 1823, 8vo. ; Grabe’s Prolegomena to his 
 edition of the Seventy; Holmes's Prcefatio to 
 his edition ; Credner’s Beitriige zur Einleitung , 
 u. s. w., 2 vols. 8vo. Halle, 1838, B. ii.; Atners- 
 foordt, Dissertatio de varus lectionibus Ilolmes- 
 innis , Lugd. Bat. 1815, 4to. ; Valckenaer, Dia- 
 tribe de Aristobulo Judceo , ed. Job. Luzae., Lugd. 
 Bat., 1806, 4 to.). — S D. 
 
 SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY. [CHRO- 
 NOLOGY.] 
 
 SEPULCHRE. [Burial.] 
 
 SERAIAH (fVX and -irPX, ‘ warrior of 
 Jehovah;’ Sept. Sapaias). There are several 
 persons of this name in Scripture. 
 
 1. Seraiah, the scribe or secretary of David 
 
 (2 Sam. viii. 17). This person’s name is in 
 other places corrupted intc^N'C^, Auth. Vers. 
 Sheva (1 Sam. xx. 25), Shisha (1 Kings 
 
 iv. 3), and Shavsha (1 Chron. xviii. 16). 
 
 2. Seraiah, the father of Ezra (Ez. vii. 1). 
 
 3. Seraiah, tine high priest at the time that 
 Jerusalem was taken by the Chaldaeans. He was 
 sent prisoner to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, who 
 put him to death (2 Kings xxv. 18; 1 Chron. 
 vi. 14 ; Jer. lii. 24 ; Ez. vii. 1). 
 
 4. Seraiah, son of Azriel, one of the persons 
 charged with the apprehension of Jeremiah and 
 Baruch (Jer. xxxvi. 26). 
 
 5. Seraiah, son of Neriah, who held a high 
 office in the court of King Zedekiah, the nature of 
 which is somewhat uncertain. In the Auth. Vers, 
 we have, ‘ This Seraiah was a quiet prince,’ 
 where the words rendered ‘quiet prince’ are 
 iirVDD which, according to Kimchi, means 
 ‘ a chamberlain,’ or one who attended the king 
 when he retired to rest ; but better, perhaps, 
 according to Gesenius, ‘chief of the quarters’ for 
 the king and his army, that is quarter -master- 
 general. This Seraiah was sent by Zedekiah on 
 an embassy to Babylon, probably to render his 
 submission to that monarch, about seven years 
 before the fall of Jerusalem. He was charged by 
 Jeremiah to communicate to the Jews already in 
 axile a book, in which the prophet had written out 
 oia prediction of all the evil that should come 
 
 upon Babylon. It is not stated how Seraiah ac- 
 quitted himself of his task ; but that he accepted 
 it at all, shows such respect for the prophet as 
 may allow us to conclude that, he would not 
 neglect the duty which it imposed. 
 
 6. Seraiah, son of Tanhumeth, an accomplice 
 of Ishmael in the conspiracy against Gedaliah 
 (2 Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xl. 8). 
 
 SERAH (HX*, ‘ abundance Sept. 2ctpa), 
 daughter of Asher, named among those who went 
 down into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 17; Num. xxvi. 
 46 ; 1 Chron. vii. 30). The mention of a female 
 in a list of this kind, in which no others of her 
 sex are named, and contrary to the usual practice 
 of the Jews, seems to indicate something extra- 
 ordinary in connection with her history or circum- 
 stances. This has sufficed to excite the ever 
 active imaginations of the Rabbins, and Serah 
 shares with the princess of Egypt who saved 
 Moses, with Jochebed his mother, and with De- 
 borah, the honour of occupying a prominent place 
 in their fables. 
 
 SERAPHIM (D'BX; Sept, Zepcupl/x), or 
 Seraphs, the plural of the word saraph^ 
 
 ‘ burning,’ or ‘ Hery :’ celestial beings described 
 in Isa. vi. 2-6, as an order of angels or 
 ministers of God, who stand around his throne, 
 having each six wings, and also hands and feet, 
 and praising God with their voices. They were 
 therefore of human form, and, like the Cherubim, 
 furnished with wings as the swift messengers of 
 God. Some have indeed identified the Cherubim 
 and Seraphim as the same beings, but under 
 names descriptive of different qualities; Se- 
 raphinv denoting the burning and dazzling ap- 
 pearance of the beings elsewhere described as 
 Cherubim. It would be difficult either to 
 prove or disprove this ; but there are differences 
 between the chcmibim of Ezekiel, and the sera- 
 phim of Isaiah, which it does not. appear easy to 
 reconcile. The ‘ living creatures ’ of the former 
 prophet had four wings; the ‘seraphim’ of the 
 latter, six ; and while the cherubim had four 
 faces, the seraphim had but one (comp. Isa. vi. 
 2,3; Ezek. i. 5-12). If the figures were in all 
 cases purely symbolical, the difference does not 
 signify ; and whether they were so, or not, must be 
 determined by the considerations which have been 
 indicated under Cherubim. 
 
 There is much symbolical force and propriety 
 in the attitude in which the Seraphim are described 
 as standing; while two of their wings were kept 
 ready for instant flight in the service of God, with 
 two others they hid their face, to express their 
 unworthiness to look upon the divine Majesty 
 (comp. Exod. iii. 6), and with two others they 
 covered their feet, or the whole of the lower part 
 of their bodies — a practice which still prevails in 
 the East, when persons appear in a monarch's 
 presence. It may be seen in the article Serpent, 
 that a species of serpent was called Saraph ; and 
 this has led some to conceive that the Seraphim 
 were a kind of basilisk-headed Cherubim (Bauer, 
 Theolog. A. T. p. 189); or else that they were 
 animal forms with serpents' heads, such as we find 
 figured in the ancient temples of Thebes (Gesen. 
 Comment, in Jes.). Ilitzig and others identify 
 the Seraphim with the Egyptiai Serapis ; for 
 although it is true that the worship of Serapis was 
 
SERPENT. 
 
 735 
 
 SERGIUS PAULUS. 
 
 not introduced into Egypt till the time of the 
 Ptolemies, it is known that this was but, a modi- 
 fication of the more ancient worship of Kneph,. 
 who was figured under the form of a serpent of 
 the same "kind, the head of which afterwards 
 formed the crest of Serapis. 
 
 SERGIUS PAULUS (Sepytos TlavXos), a 
 Roman proconsul in command at. Cyprus, who 
 was converted by the preaching of Paul and 
 Barnabas (Acts xiii. 7). The title given to this 
 functionary exhibits one of those minute accu- 
 racies which, apart from its inspiration, would 
 substantiate the sacred book as a genuine and 
 contemporary record. Cyprus was originally a 
 praetorian province ( aTparyyLKri ), and not pro- 
 consular ; but it was left by Augustus under 
 the Senate, and hence was governed by a pro- 
 consul (dvdviraTos'), as stated fry the Evange- 
 list (Acts xiii. 6, 8, 12; Dion Cass. liv. p. 
 523 ; Kuinoel, on Acts xiii. 7 ; see also the art. 
 Cyprus). Sergius is described by the Evangelist 
 as a ‘ discreet.’ or ‘ intelligent.’ man ; by which 
 we are probably to understand that he was a man 
 of large and liberal views, and of an inquiring 
 turn of mind. Hence he had entertained Ely- 
 mas, and hence also he became curious to hear the 
 new doctrine which the apostle brought to the 
 island. Nothing of his history subsequent to 
 his conversion is known from Scripture. There 
 is no reason to suppose that he abandoned bis 
 post as governor of Cyprus ; but the legends as- 
 sert that he did so, and followed Paul ; and that 
 eventually he went with the apostle into Spain, 
 and was left by him at Narbonne in France, of 
 which he became the bishop, and died there. 
 
 SERPENT (E£tn3 nachash). Systematical 
 nomenclators and travellers enumerate consi- 
 derably more than forty species of serpents in 
 Northern Africa, Arabia, and Syria. Of these it 
 is scarcely possible to point out with certainty a 
 single one named in the Bible, where very few de- 
 scriptive indications occur beyond what in scien- 
 tific language would now be applied generically. 
 It is true that, among the names in the list, several 
 may be synonyms of one ami the same species; 
 still none but the most recent researches give 
 characters sufficient to be depended upon, and as 
 yet nothing like a complete erpetology of the 
 regions in question has been established ; for 
 snakes being able to resist a certain degree of 
 cold, and also the greatest, heat, there are in- 
 stances of species being found, such as the hayes , 
 precisely the same, from the Ganges to the Cape 
 of Good Hope ; others, again, may be traced 
 from Great Britain to Persia and Egypt, as is 
 instanced in the common viper and its varieties. 
 Instead therefore of making vain efforts at iden- 
 tifying all the serpents named, it will be a 
 preferable course to assign them to their proper 
 families, with the exception of those that can lie 
 pointed out with certainty ; and in so doing 
 it will appear that even now species of import- 
 ance mentioned by the ancients are far from 
 being clearly established. Serpents may be di- 
 vided generally into two very distinct sections,— 
 the first embracing all those that are provided 
 with moveable tubular fan^s and poison-bags in 
 the upper jaw ; all regarded as ovoviviparous, 
 unsi called by contraction vipers ; they^bon- 
 atitute not quite one-fifth of the species hitherto 
 
 noticed by naturalists. The second section, much 
 more numerous, is the cohibrine , not so armed, 
 but not therefore always entirely innocuous, since 
 there may be in some cases venomous secretions 
 capable of penetrating into the wounds made by 
 their fixed teeth, which in all serpents are single 
 points, and in some species increase in size as 
 they stand back in the jaws. The greater part, 
 if not all, the innocuous species are oviparous, 
 including the largest or giant, snakes, and the 
 pelamis and hydrophis, or water-serpents, among 
 which several are venomous. 
 
 491. [1. Shephiplion : Cerastes. 2. Peten : ColuLe 
 
 Lehatina. 3. Python tigris Albicans; probably 
 Thaibanne.] 
 
 Scriptural evidence attests the serpent’s influ- 
 ence on the early destinies of mankind ; and this 
 fact may be traced in the history, the legends, and 
 creeds of most ancient nations. It is far from 
 being obliterated at this day among the pagan, 
 barbarian, and savage tribes of both continents, 
 where the most virulent and dangerous animals 
 of the viviparous class are not uncommonly 
 adored, but more generally respected, from motives 
 originating in fear; and others of the oviparous 
 race are suffered to abide in human dwellings, 
 and are often supplied with food, from causes 
 not easily determined, excepting that the ser- 
 pent is ever considered to he possessed of some 
 mysterious superhuman knowledge or power. 
 Hence, beside real species, ideal forms, taken from 
 the living, but combining other or additional pro- 
 perties, occur, at the most early periods, as me 
 taphorical types, in faille and history, and in the 
 hieroglyphics and religious paintings of many 
 nations. Such are the innumerable fables in 
 Hindu lore of Nagas and Naga Kings; the 
 primaeval astronomy which placed the serpent in 
 the skies, and called the milky way by the name 
 of Ananta and Sesha Naga ; the Pagan obscure 
 yet almost universal record of the deluge typified 
 by a serpent endeavouring to destroy the ark ; 
 which astronomy has likewise transferred to the 
 skies in the form of a dragon about to devour the 
 moon, when, in an eclipsed state, it appears in 
 the form of an amphipromnos or crescent -shaped 
 boat; and, strange as it may seem, lunar eclipses 
 still continue to be regarded in this character, 
 and to excite general apprehension in Central 
 Africa, as well as in China ; in the South Sea 
 Islands, as well as in America [Dragon]. The 
 nations of the North once believed in the Jar-* 
 munds Gander, or Kater serpent of the deep; 
 
736 
 
 SERPENT. 
 
 SERPENT. 
 
 and they, together with the Celts and Basques, 
 and all Asia, had legends of the Orm, the Paystha, 
 the dragon-guardian of riches, brooding on gold, 
 in caverns deep below the surface of the earth, 
 or lying iti huge folds on dreary and extensive 
 heaths. These fables were a residue of that 
 antique dragon worship which had its temples 
 from High Asia and Colchis to the north of 
 Great Britain, and once flourished both in Greece 
 and Northern Africa — structures with avenues of 
 upright stones of several miles in length, whereof 
 the ruins may still be traced at Carnak in Brit- 
 tany, Abury in Wiltshire, and Redruth in Corn- 
 wall — the two last mentioned more particularly 
 showing their connection with the circle consti- 
 tuting a form of the mundane egg, which again 
 was an emblem of the deluge and the ark. The 
 Hesperian, Colchian, and Lernaean dragons are 
 only Greek legends of the same doctrine, still 
 more distorted, and affording ample proof how 
 far the Pagan world had departed from the sim- 
 plicity of Scriptural truth, from the excessive use 
 of metaphorical descriptions and fanciful symbols. 
 In Egypt, the early centre of Ophiolatry, this 
 debasing service was so deeply rooted, that a 
 Christian sect of heretics, called Ophitae, or ac- 
 cording to Clemens Alexandrinus, Opliiani, arose 
 m the second century of our era. As an ema- 
 nation of the Gnostics their errors are particularly 
 noticed by Tertullian, and form a signal in- 
 stance of human perverseness ingeniously mis- 
 leading itself and others by the abuse of sym- 
 bols ; yet when the anguine type did not pass 
 into long distorted legends, it is evident, from 
 the brazen serpent raised by Moses in the wilder- 
 ness, that it was correctly appreciated by the 
 people as a sign, not m itself a power, of Divine 
 aid; and that its true symbolical meaning did 
 not even escape Pagan comprehension appears 
 from profane history, in Meissi, the good ser- 
 pent, being likewise properly understood by the 
 Egyptians, until idolatry distorted all the na- 
 tional reminiscences, and the promise of what 
 was not fully revealed till the Saviour appeared 
 on earth was obliterated. Ob. Oub, the Coptic 
 Hof, Obion in Kircher, was, however, the general 
 name for serpents in Egypt; and Kneeph, or 
 Cnuphis, or Jhh-Nuphi, the good genius, always 
 figured as the Nachash or Thermuth, is there- 
 fore the same as Naga Sahib, or lord-serpent 
 of India [Adder], and still a personification of 
 ttie vanquisher of the deluge — Vishnu, with many 
 others, being Pagan denominationsTtf Noah. In 
 this sense the good genius Cnuphis was a type 
 of the Saviour of men, and called by them the 
 spirit pervading nature, the creator from whose 
 mouth proceeded the mundane egg : being referred, 
 after the loss of the true interpretation, to any 
 typical form of the patriarch, the events of the 
 deluge and the creation, thus confounding the 
 operations of the Almighty with the ministry of 
 his servant. 
 
 There was, however, another idolized snake of 
 the great destroyer Python tribe, which devour 
 even each other; it is represented on Egyptian 
 monuments bearing a mummy figure on its tail, 
 and gliding over a seated divinily with an egg on 
 the head, while human sacrifice by decapitation is 
 performed before it. This serpent is so carefully 
 drawn that we recognise the Thaibanne, The- 
 itanus Ophites, which grows to twelve or more 
 
 feet in length, is still found in Upper Egypl^ 
 and is a congener, if not the same as Python 
 Tigris Albicans, the great snake even at present 
 worshipped in Cutch : it may be the Aphophia 
 of the Egyptians. To descant further on this 
 subject would lead us too far from our purpose; 
 but the Egyptian Python here noticed, changing 
 its character from being a type of the deluge to 
 that of an emblem of the ark carrying the spirit ol 
 human life within or upon it, was not without its 
 counterpart in England, where lately, in digging 
 out the deep black mud of a ditch, a boat-shaped 
 Python, carrying the eight Eones (?) or Noachidae, 
 has been discovered, with emblems that denote 
 them to be the solar regenerators of mankind. 
 Parts of these objects, in hard black wood, are 
 now in possession of Sir Samuel R. Meyrick. 
 
 Thus, as is ever the case in poly theisti cal 
 legends, the type disappears through multiplied 
 transitions and the number of other symbols 
 and personifications characterized by the same 
 emblem : it was so in this instance, when the 
 snake form was conferred also on abstractions 
 bearing the names of divinities, such as Ramio, 
 Hoph, Bai, Hoh or Hill, and others. 
 
 The asserted longevity of the serpent tribe may 
 have suggested the representation of the harmless 
 house-snake biting its tail as typical of eter- 
 nity ; and this same quality was no doubt the 
 cause why this animal, entwined round a stall’, 
 was the symbol of health, arid the distinctive 
 attribute of the classical ^Esculapius and Hygia. 
 There are species of this genus common to Pales- 
 tine and the southern parts of continental Europe ; 
 they were domesticated in Druidical and other 
 Pagan sanctuaries, and were employed for omens 
 and other impostures ; but the mysterious Ag or 
 Hagstone was asserted to be produced by the 
 venomous viper species. It is indeed with the 
 section of noxious serpents that Biblical research 
 has most to do. In the article Add hr we have 
 already noticed those of the present genus Haye, 
 the hooded snake, or Cobra de Capello, which in 
 one or more of its species is generically included 
 in the Hebrew DTD nachash , and 21DOV achsub , 
 the first being a general appellation, and the se- 
 cond probably confined to the Hayes proper, or 
 to one of the species or varieties. 
 
 CpD> saraph, the supposed winged serpent, we 
 take also to be a Haye. one of the more eastern 
 species or varieties, which have the faculty of ac- 
 tually distending the hood, as if they had wings at 
 the side of the head, and are the same as, or nearly 
 allied to, the well known spectacle-snake of India ; 
 and this interpretation seems to accord with the 
 words of Moses, han-nechaslum 
 
 has-seraphim (Num. xxi. 6). The serpent may 
 exhibit this particular state of irritation when it 
 stands half erect with its hood distended, or it 
 may be that variety which is possessed of this 
 faculty to the greatest extent. Naga Reflectrix, 
 the Pof or Spooch adder of the Cape colonists, is 
 reported by Dr. Smith to be scarcely distinct from 
 the Egyptian Naga Haye. With regard to the 
 faculty of flying, the lengthened form, the mus- 
 cular apparatus, the absence of air-cells, and the 
 whole osteological structure, are all incompatible 
 with flight or the presence of wings : hence Hero- 
 dotus, in his search for flying serpents at Buto, 
 may have observed heaps of exuviae of locusts 
 cast w shore by the sea — a phenomenon not uu- 
 
SERPENT. 
 
 SERPENT. 
 
 731 
 
 frequent on that coast — but most assuredly not. 
 heaps of bones and ribs of serpents. As for those 
 of Plutarch, they may have been noxious sand- 
 flies. Flying serpents are only found represented 
 in the symbolical pictures of Egypt, where they 
 occur with birds’ wings. Those of history, and 
 of barbarous nations excessively habituated to 
 figurative forms of speech, are various, some being 
 so called because of their rapid motion, others on 
 account of a kind of spring they are said to make 
 at their victims, and a third class because they 
 climb trees, and are reported to swing themselves 
 from thence upon their victims, or to other trees. 
 Now, many species of serpents are climbers ; many 
 hang by the tail from slender brandies of low 
 trees in highly heated glens, snapping at. insects 
 as they wheel around them ; but all are deli- 
 cately jointed ; and if any should swing further 
 than merely to change their hold, and should miss 
 catching a branch, they would most certainly be 
 dislocated, and, if not killed, very seriously in- 
 jured. From personal experiments we can attest 
 that serpents are heavy in proportion to their bulk, 
 and without the means of breaking tlieir fall ; 
 that few, large or small, could encounter the 
 shock of twelve or fourteen feet elevation without 
 fracturing many spinous processes of their verte- 
 brse, and avoid being stunned for a length of time, 
 or absolutely crushed to death. Being instinct- 
 ively conscious of the brittleness of their structure, 
 nearly all snakes are timid, and desirous of avoid- 
 ing a contest, unless greatly provoked. This 
 v emark applies, we believe, to all innoxious ser- 
 pents, the great boas perhaps excepted, and t© 
 most of the poisonous, exclusive of several species 
 of viper and cobra de capello. 
 
 Of the so-called flying, or rather darting ser- 
 pents, Niebuhr found, near Basra, a venomous 
 species called Heie Sursurie, and Heie Thiare, 
 that is, f flying serpent,’ because it was said to fling 
 itself from one tree to another. Admiral Anson 
 heard, at the island of Quibo, of snakes flying 
 without wings : we may notice the Acontias and 
 Prester, that fell like arrows from the tops of trees, 
 and the green yEtula of Ceylon, said to spring 
 from trees at the eyes of cattle — an accusation 
 repeated of more than one species in tropical 
 America. Next we have the Uler Tampang Hari, 
 seen in a forest near the river Pedang Bessie, 
 somewhere, we believe, in the Austral-Asian 
 islands, under circumstances that most certainly 
 require confirmation ; since this fiery serpent, so 
 called from the burning pain and fatal effect of 
 its bite, swung itself from one tree to another, 
 240 feet distant, with a declination to the horizon 
 of only about fifteen degrees ! 
 
 We find Leffah and Bsetan, both conjectured 
 to be the Saraph and Tsimmaon, without being 
 able to point out the species in natural history, 
 where, nevertheless, it seems most likely that va- 
 rieties or perhaps different species of the common 
 viper may be meant, as is likewise assumed of 
 Acontias and Prester, since that family, in hot 
 and dry climates, is far more virulently noxious 
 than in Europe. The Leffah, though little more 
 than a foot long, regarded by Shaw at least as 
 the most formidable serpent of Northern Africa, 
 rs one of this genus, and may be the 
 Ephoeh , Arabic Epha, and Persian Mar-iefy ; 
 but as there is some difference in dimensions 
 and markings, as well as a still greater extent 
 von. ii. 48 
 
 of region assigned to these, more than one specie* 
 of viper is most likely included in the above 
 names. But that the Ephoeh is a name of most 
 ancient date is plain from its being employed in 
 Job xx. 16, and Isaiah xxx. 6; while under the 
 form of exifiva, that is, ‘ viper,’ it occurs in the 
 New Testament, Matt. iii. 7 ; xii. 34 ; xxiii. 33 ; 
 Luke iii. 7 ; and Acts xxviii. 3. The last of 
 these texts confirms the common superstitious be- 
 lief of antiquity, which regarded the bite of one of 
 these serpents as a punishment directly inflicted 
 by Heaven. 
 
 fflD pethen (Deut. xxxii. 33; Job xx. 14, 16, 
 Ps. lviii. 4; xci. 13 ; Isa. xi. 8) is more properly 
 the Baetan of Forskal ; the Coluber (viper a) Lebe- 
 tina of Linn., and by him characterized as one foot 
 in length, the body spotted with black and white, 
 and oviparous (?), though excessively poisonous. 
 The learned author evidently never saw this spe- 
 cies in a living state, and appears to have derived 
 all he knew upon the subject from the literati of 
 Cyprus, who call it Asp, and the vulgar Kufi 
 (novcpTi), ‘deaf.’ Such an authority is of little 
 weight : a serpent of Cyprus may not belong to 
 Palestine or Egypt, and an oviparous species may 
 not be poisonous. It is referred to the Aspis of the 
 ancients, as to which it is still in dispute whether 
 it should be identified with Vipera Ammodytes , 
 Viper a Berus , or Vipera Prester , all ovovivi- 
 parous, and as such strikingly illustrative of the 
 words of Isaiah (lix. 5). It. may here be remarked 
 that the so-called ‘deaf adder’ (Ps. lviii. 5, 6) is 
 not without hearing, but is only not obedient to 
 the musical notes which the serpent-charmers 
 produce in order to make their captured snakes 
 vibrate in a particular erect posture as if they were 
 dancing ; and it is asserted of some, that while in 
 a free state they are actually enticed to come to 
 and follow the musician. 
 
 tzimmaon (Deut. viii. 15) appears to 
 be the ‘ Drought ’ of some versions, so called be- 
 cause of the intolerable thirst occasioned by its 
 bite. If this translation be correct, it will form in 
 modern nomenclature one of the genus Hurria, 
 and sub-genus Dipsas or Bongarus. But no species 
 of this division of snakes has yet been found in 
 Western Asia, albeit there are several in India; 
 and Avicenna locates the Torrida Dipsas in Egypt 
 and Syria ; whereupon Cuvier remarks that Ges- 
 ner’s figure of Dipsas belongs precisely to the sub- 
 genus here pointed out. As one of the Colubrine 
 family it should not be venomous ; but the last- 
 mentioned writer remarks that several of these are 
 regarded in their native localities with great 
 dread ; and on examination it is found that, al- 
 though they have no erectile tubercular fangs, 
 with a poison- bag at the roots, there is on the long 
 back teeth a groove, and a large gland at the 
 base of the maxilla, which it is not unlikely con 
 tains, in some at least, highly venomous matter. 
 It may be further observed, that when the Acon- 
 tias, or darting serpent, perhaps the Turreiki of 
 Shaw, is mentioned, it must be considered as be- 
 longing to the oviparous section, for a character- 
 istic of the venom snakes is to be slow in their mo- 
 tions, and to watch being attacked rather than to 
 court hostilities. This character may be sup- 
 posed to exist even in the tzepha , or 
 
 tziphoni, translated ‘ cockatrice’ in Prov. xxiii. 
 32, and Isa. xi. 8. This is an indefinite English 
 name, which belongs to no identified serpent, and 
 
738 
 
 SERUG 
 
 SEVEN. 
 
 now appears only in the works of ancient com- 
 pilers and heralds, where it is figured with a crest, 
 chough there is no really crested or frilled species 
 known to exist in the whole Ophidian order. 
 Crested serpents occur, it is true, on Greek and 
 Etruscan vases; but they are invariably mytholo- 
 gical representations, probably derived from de- 
 scriptive rumours of the hooded Nagas, Cerastes, 
 and perhaps Muraenae: the first of these having 
 what may be likened to a turbaned, the other to 
 a coronated head, and the third fins at the oper- 
 culum. But it is from the apparently crowned 
 form that the denominations of Basilisk and Re- 
 gal us were derived. There are, however, two very 
 distinct species of horned serpents in Egypt and 
 Northern Africa, probably extending to Syria 
 and Arabia. They are of different genera; for 
 the Cerastes, supposed to be the 
 
 shsphiphon of the Bible, is a viper 
 with two scales on the head, one above each eye, 
 standing erect somewhat in the form of horns. 
 This is a dangerous species, usually burrowing 
 in sand near the holes of jerboas, and occasionally 
 in the cattle paths ; for there are now few or no 
 ruts of cart-wheels, where it is pretended they 
 used to conceal themselves to assault unwary 
 passers. It is still common in Egypt and Arabia. 
 The other species is the Eryx Cerastes of Daudin, 
 also small, having no moveable poison-fangs, but 
 remarkable for two very long back teeth in the 
 lower jaw, which pass through the upper jaw, and 
 appear in the shape of two white horns above its 
 surface. It is known to the Egyptian Arabs by 
 the name of Harbagi, which may be a distortion 
 of Ovf3oitos in Horapollo, and is classed by Hassel- 
 quist among slow-worms, because in form the tail 
 dees not taper to a jioint. Its colours are black 
 and white marblings, and the eyes being lateral 
 and very near the snout, the species has an exceed- 
 ingly sinister aspect, which may be the cause of 
 the ancient opinion that the melekah, or 
 
 basilisk, for we take it for this species, killed with 
 its looks, and had a pointed crown on the head : 
 now serpents in the form of slow-worms, reputed 
 to kill by their sight, are evidently not rapid in 
 their movements. 
 
 In conclusion, we may observe again with refer- 
 ence to the figurative form of the Semitic tongues, 
 that the proper names of objects, and particularly 
 of animals, are very often descriptive of characters 
 which are not exclusively applicable to specific 
 individuals, and consequently that the same 
 sounds or names readily suggest themselves when 
 the property which distinguishes the appellative 
 term recurs in another object. Thus we have on 
 one or two occasions ‘young lions’ for ‘venom- 
 snakes,’ Tseboa (hyaenas) likewise for serpents, 
 probably because in the first case the idea of 
 slaughter or destruction is associated with both, 
 and because in the second the notion of striped 
 or varied is predominant. So also in Achsub, 
 either a serpent striking backwards, or a scorpion, 
 or a tarantula doing the same thing, may be under- 
 stood, from the same faculty being ascribed to 
 them all. — C. H. S. 
 
 SERVANT. [Slave.] 
 
 SERUG (ynb*, shoot, tendril ; Sept, and 
 New Test. Seooox)* 80,1 Reu, and father of 
 Nahor the grandfather of Abraham (Gen. xi. 20 ; 
 l Chron. i. 6). He was 130 years old at the 
 
 birth of Nahor, and died at the age of 330. 
 The name occurs in the genealogy of Christ 
 (Luke iii. 35). The Jewish traditions affirm 
 that Seiug was the first of his line who fell into 
 idolatry; and this seems to be sanctioned by, 
 and is probably built upon, the charge of idolatry 
 brought against Terah and the fathers beyond 
 the Euphrates in Josh. xxiv. 2. 
 
 SETH (H^, compensation ; Sept. 2^0), the 
 tnird son of Adam, to whom Eve gave this name 
 in consequence of regarding him as sent to re- 
 place Abel, whom Cain had slain (Gen. iv. 25, 
 26 ; v. 3, sq.). 
 
 SEVEN, &c. (Heb. whence the Greek 
 eTrrd, the aspirate breathing being substituted for 
 the sibilant letter, as in e£ for 5^^, &c., which, 
 however, appears again in the Latin septem, and 
 English seven). This word is used to express the 
 number 6 + 1. Thus Balaam said unto Balak, 
 ‘ Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here 
 seven oxen and seven rams ; and Balak and 
 Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a 
 ram ’ (Num. xxiii. 1, 2. Sept. e7rrd). The Vul- 
 gate reads, ‘ ^Edificamihi hie septem aras et para 
 totidem vitulos, ejusdem numeri arietes.’ (In the 
 New Test, see Matt. xv. 31-36; xxii. 25, &c.) 
 The Lexicons generally, both ancient and modern, 
 also assign to the word and its derivatives the 
 farther office of a round or indefinite number, to 
 express a small number, in the sense of several 
 (as we use ten or a dozen). Thus Suidas says, 
 ‘ fTTTa iirl ttAi'iOovs raTTerai.' And Gesenius 
 says the same; but his first reference under this 
 head to Gen. xli. 2, &c., is inappropriate ; for 
 there the word certainly denotes the particular 
 number, namely, the ‘ seven well-favoured kine 
 of Pharaoh's dream, which ate up the seven ill- 
 favoured, and the seven thin ears of corn which 
 ate up the seven good ones,’ and which are re- 
 spectively interpreted by Joseph to mean seven 
 years of plenty and seven years of famine, and are 
 recorded to have been numerically ful filled 
 (comp. 2-7; 25-30; 47-51). It appears to us pos- 
 sible to resolve all the other passages referred by 
 Gesenius and others to this class, into the idea 
 of sufficiency, satisfaction, fulness, completeness, 
 perfection, abundance, &c., intimated in the 
 Hebrew root from which the numeral in 
 
 question is derived. For instance, Gesenius refers 
 to l Sam. ii. 5, ‘ The barren hath bom seven,’ that 
 is. hath been blessed with an ample family (Vulg. 
 Steri 1 is peperit plurimos); to Isa. iv. 1, ‘ Seven 
 women shall take hold of one man,’ where the idea 
 seems to be that of abundance of females compared 
 with the men, so many of the latter having been 
 slain in the war (see Lowth in loe.) ; to Ruth iv. 
 15, ‘ Better to thee than seven sens,’ i. e. an. abund- 
 ance of them; to Prov. xxvi. 25. ‘There are seven 
 abominations in his heart,’ i. e. completeness of 
 depravity (comp. Prov. vi. 31), where the thief is 
 said to make a ‘ sevenfold,’ that is, complete resti- 
 tution (comp. Exod. xxii. 1-4). Thus also th» 
 phrase, ‘ To flee seven ways’ (Deut. xxviii. 7,, 
 denotes a total overthrow ; to ‘punish seven times’ 
 (Lev. xxvi. 24), to punish completely ; ‘ Six 
 and seven troubles,’ a very great and entire cala- 
 mity (Job v. 19); ‘ Give a portion to seven, also 
 to eight,’ be not only duly liberal, but abundant; 
 
 ‘ Silver purified seven times/ perfectly purified 
 (Psa. xii. 6); ‘Seven times a day do I prais# 
 
SEVEN, 
 
 SHARED. 
 
 739 
 
 thee,’ I fully perform the duty of thanksgiving 
 (Psa. cxix. 1G4). Rabbi Solomon, however, con- 
 tends for the literal interpretation of this passage, 
 which seems to have been acted upon by certain 
 Jews and Christians. Some of the Greek versions in 
 Montfaucon’s Hexapla render the Hebrew word by 
 irAeia rams, ‘often,’ ‘frequently.’ The above ex- 
 planation applies to Gesenius's instances of * poet- 
 ical fictions/ viz., Job’s seven sons and seven thou- 
 sand sheep (i. 2, 3), and the seven days and seven 
 nights during which his friends sat with him in 
 silence on the ground (ii. 13). The word is used 
 in the New Testament to express the same idea of 
 abundance or completeness ; thus, ‘ Mary Mag- 
 dalene, out of whom Jesus cast seven devils’ 
 (Mark xvi. S) ; where we must either suppose the 
 Evangelist to give by inspiration a numerical 
 statement, or that his words mean a most entire 
 case of extraordinary and not understood disease. 
 Our Lord’s comparison of the men of that genera- 
 tion to the case of the demon which had gone out 
 of a man, returning with seven other spirits more 
 wicked than himself, seems to mean that if Jesus 
 were to grant the sign demanded by the Pharisees, 
 no other result would ensue than a momentary 
 conviction, followed by consummate unbelief 
 (Matt. xii. 43). ‘ The seven spirits before the 
 throne’ would seem to be a periphrasis of perfec- 
 tion, denoting the Holy Spirit (Rev. i. 4). Mul- 
 tiples of this number convey the idea of super- 
 abundance. Thus, Gen. iv. 24, ‘ If Cain be 
 avenged sevenfold [that is abundantly], surely 
 Lamech seventy and sevenfold,’ whose guilt from 
 accidental homicide is so much less. Similar is 
 St. Peter’s question respecting the forgiveness of 
 injuries, and the answer he received. It is most 
 likely that the idea of sufficiency and complete- 
 ness became originally associated with the num- 
 ber seven, from the Creator having finished, com- 
 pleted, or made sufficient, all his work on the 
 seventh day; and that hence also it was adopted 
 as a sacred number, or a number chiefly employed 
 in religious concerns, in order to remind mankind 
 of the creation and its true author. Thus there were 
 seven offerings in making a covenant (Gen. xxi. 
 28) ; seven lamps in the golden candlestick (Exod. 
 xxxvii. 23); the blood was sprinkled seven times 
 (Lev. iv. 16, 17) ; every seventh year was sab- 
 batical, seven sabbaths of years in the jubilee (xxv. 
 
 8) ; seven trumpets, seven priests that sounded 
 them seven days round Jericho, seven lamps, 
 seven seals, &c. &e. We also find, as might na- 
 turally be expected, the number seven introduced 
 into forms of superstition, &c. Thus Samson 
 said, ‘ If they bind me with seven green withs, 
 if thou weavest the seven locks of my head/ from 
 which it may be inferred that the Nazarite bound 
 tip his hair in this number of curls or plaited locks 
 (Judg. xvi. 7-13). Balaam ordered seven altars 
 to be erected. It was considered a fortunate 
 number among the Persians (Esth. i. 10-14 ; ii. 
 
 9) . Cicero calls it the knot and cement of all 
 things, as being that by which the natural and 
 spiritual world are comprehended in one idea 
 (Tusc. Qncest. i. 10). Nor is this subject de- 
 void of practical utility. The references which 
 occur in the patriarchal history to the num- 
 ber seven, as denoting a week or period of seven 
 days, sufficiency, &c., and a sacred number, 
 afford a minute, indirect, but not an inconsider- 
 able argument, that the institution of the Sabbath 
 
 was both established and observed from fhe com- 
 mencement ; and not, as Paley thinks, during the 
 wandering in (he wilderness : an argument abun- 
 dantly confirmed by the regard to the seventh 
 day which has prevailed too far and wide among 
 various nations, to be attributed to their com- 
 paratively late intercourse with the .Tews (Jose- 
 phus, Cont. Ap. ii. 39). — J. F. I). 
 
 SHAALBIM (D^yt?, city of foxes ; Sept. 
 2aAa/3iV), called also Sha.ai.bin, a city of the 
 tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 42), but of which it could 
 not for a long while dispossess the Amorites 
 (Judg. i. 35). In the time of Solomon it was 
 the station of one of the twelve officers or intend- 
 ants appointed to regulate the collection of pro- 
 visions for the court (1 Kings iv. 9). One of 
 David's worthies belonged to this place (2 Sam. 
 xxiii. 32 ; 1 Chron. xi. 32). 
 
 SHAALIM (D^y.K', foxes region ; Sept. 
 2e*yaAi (u), a district named in 1 Sam. ix. 4 ; 
 probably that in which Shaalbim was situated. 
 
 SHAASHGAZ (WW 5 Sept. Tot), the appro- 
 priate name (meaning in Persian, servant of the 
 beautiful ) of a Persian eunuch, the keeper of the 
 women in the court of Ahasuerus (Esth. ii. 14). 
 
 SHADDAI ('l^ ; Sept, ttclvt oKparup; Vulg. 
 in Pentateuch, Omnipotens ), an epithet or name 
 applied to Jehovah, sometimes with (Gen. xvii. 
 1 ; Exod.vi. 3), and sometimes without (John v. 
 7 ; vi. 4 ; viii. 3, 13 ; Gen. xlix. 5 ; Ruth i. 20, 
 21, and elsewhere), the prefix El. In the 
 Authorized Version the name is given as Ei.-Shad- 
 dai where it first occurs; but is everywhere else 
 rendered by ‘Almighty/ which is the true signi- 
 fication, the word being a pluralis excellentiae 
 from the singular ‘ mighty/ ‘ powerful.’ 
 
 SHADRACH, one of the three friends of 
 Daniel, who were delivered from the burning, 
 fiery furnace [Abednego], 
 
 SHAIT. [Thorns.] 
 
 SHARED OB?9 occurs in several passages of 
 Scripture, and is generally acknowledged to 
 mean the almond; as in Gen. xliii. 11, where 
 Jacob desires his sons to take into Egypt of the 
 best fruits of the land almonds ( shakedim ), &c. 
 In Exod. xxv. 33, 34 ; xxxvii. 19, bowls are di- 
 rected to be made like unto almonds. In Num. 
 xvii. 8, the rod of Aaron is described as having 
 ‘ brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and 
 yielded almonds ’ ( shakedim ). The word occurs 
 in the singular in Eccles. xii. 5, and in Jer. i. 11. 
 In the article Luz, we have already slated, that 
 from the similarity of that word to the Arabic 
 Louz, there could be no doubt of the former having 
 the same meaning as the latter, both denoting the 
 almond. There is nothing remarkable in a tree 
 like this, so conspicuous from its early flowering, 
 showy appearance, and useful fruit, having two 
 names ; one (luz) applicable to the tree, and 
 the other ( shaked ) J to the fruit. Rosenmiiller 
 says, ‘ The difference between luz and shaked 
 seems to be, that the former word designates the 
 “ wild,” the latter the “ cultivated” tree.’ The 
 almond tree is said to be called shaked , because 
 it flowers earlier in the spring than other trees. 
 R. Solomon, on Eccles. xii. 5, as translated by 
 Celsius ( Hierobot . i. p. 297), says, ‘ Shaked est 
 
740 
 
 SHAKED. 
 
 SHAMIR. 
 
 arbor Amygdalarum, et sic dicitur, quia floves 
 mature profert ante omnes arbores.’ This is well 
 known to be the case even in this country. It was 
 observed by the ancients, as Pliny (Hist. Nat. xvi. 
 25) remarks, ‘ Kx his quae hyeme aquila exoriente 
 concipiunt, floret prima omnium Amygdala mense 
 Januario : Martio vero pomum maturat.’ The 
 name shaked is said to be derived ‘ a verbo 
 “IpCt shakad , assiduus et diligens fuit;* and 
 which is also translated ‘ to make haste/ ‘ to awake 
 
 early.’ As the almond tree is a native of Syria 
 and Palestine, and extends from thence to Aff- 
 ghanistan, and is not likely to have been indi- 
 genous in Egypt, almonds were very likely to 
 form part of a present from Jacob, even to the 
 great men of Egypt ; the more especially as the 
 practice of the East is for people to present 
 what they can afford in their respective stations. 
 The form of the almond would lead to its se- 
 lection for ornamental carved work, indepen- 
 dently of its forming an esteemed esculent, as 
 well as probably yielding a useful oil. In Eccles. 
 xii. 5, it is said, ‘The almond tree shall flourish, 
 .and the fruit of the caper [Abiyonah] droop, 
 because man goeth to his long home.’ This evi- 
 dently refers to the profuse flowering and white 
 appearance of the almond tree when in full bloom, 
 and before its leaves appear. It is hence adduced 
 as illustrative of the hoary hairs of age, in the 
 same way as the drooping of the fruit of the caper 
 seems to refer to the hanging down of the head 
 Mr. Kitto mentions the almond among the first 
 trees that flower in January. ‘ There are two 
 species of Amygdalus in Palestine ; the common 
 almond tree, and the peach tree, and both are this 
 month in blossom in every part of Palestine, on 
 both sides of the Jordan. It was doubtless from 
 this winter blossoming of the almond tree, not 
 less than from the snowy whiteness of the blos- 
 soms, that the hoary head of the aged man is, by 
 a beautiful metaphor, said in Scripture, to flourish 
 like the almond tree’ ( Physic. Hist, of Palestine). 
 
 SH ALISHA P^^;Sept. 2 e\ x d), a d*. 
 trict in the vicinity of the mountains of Ephraisc 
 (1 Sam. ix. 4), in which appears to have been 
 situated the city of Baal-Shalisha (2 Kings iv. 22). 
 This city is called by Eusebius Beth-Shalisha, 
 and is placed by him 15 miles from Diospoli* 
 (Lydda), towards the north. 
 
 SHALLUM (D>>^, retribution ; Sept. 2e\- 
 \ovfx), the fifteenth king of Israel. In the troubled 
 times which followed the death of Jeroboam II., 
 b.c. 772, his son Zechariah was slain in the 
 presence of the people by Shallum, who by this 
 act extinguished the dynasty of Jehu. Shallum 
 then mounted the throne (b.c. 771), but occupied 
 it only one month, being opposed and slain by 
 Menahem, who mounted the throne thus vacated 
 (2 Kings xv. 10-15). 
 
 2. A king of Judah, son of Josiah (Jer. xxii. 
 1 1), better known by the name of Jchoahaz [Jk- 
 hoaiiaz II.]. 
 
 3. The husband of Huldah the prophetess (2 
 Kings xxii. 14). Several other persons of this 
 name occur in Ezra ii. 42; vii. 2; x. 24, 42; 
 Neh. iii. 12; vii 45 ; 1 Chron. ii. 40. 
 
 SHALMANESER, king of Assyria [Assy- 
 ria]. 
 
 SHAMGAR (*7|tJ$ ; Sept. ZayeyAp), son o* 
 Anath, and third judge of Israel. It is not 
 known whether the only exploit recorded of him 
 was that by which his authority was acquired. It 
 is said that he ‘slew of the Philistines 600 
 men with an ox-goad’ (Judg. iii. 31). It is 
 supposed that he was labouring in the field, with 
 out any other weapon than the long stall' armed 
 with a strong point, used in urging and guid ing the 
 cattle yoked to the plough, when he perceived a 
 party of the Philistines, whom, with the aid of 
 the husbandmen and neighbours, he repulsed with 
 much slaughter. The date and duration of hi* 
 government are unknown, but may be probably 
 assigned to the end of that long period of repose 
 which followed the deliverance under Ehud. In 
 Shamgar’s time, as the song of Deborah informs 
 us (Judg. v. 6), the condition of the people was 
 so deplorably insecure that the highways were 
 forsaken, and travellers went through by-ways, 
 and, for the same reason, the villages were aban- 
 doned for the walled towns. 
 
 1. SHAMIR, a precious stone, named in Jer. 
 xvii. 1 ; Ezek. iii. 9 ; Zech. vii. 1 2. The Sept, 
 in Jer. xvii. 1, and the Vulgate in all the passages, 
 take it for the diamond. The signification of the 
 word, ‘ a sharp point,’ countenances this inter- 
 pretation, the diamond being for its hardness used 
 in perforating and cutting other minerals. In- 
 deed, this use of the shamir is distinctly alluded 
 to in Jer. xvii. 1, where the stylus pointed with it 
 is distinguished from one of iron (comp. Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 15). The two other passages 
 also favour this view by using it figuratively to 
 express the hardness and obduracy of the Israelites. 
 Our Authorized Version has ‘ diamond’ in Jer. 
 xvii. 1, and ‘ adamant’ in the other texts : but in 
 the original the word is the same in all. Bochart, 
 however ( Hieroz . iii. 843, sq.), rejects the usual 
 explanation, and comparing the word shamir 
 with the Greek ayipis or cryipis, conceives it te 
 mean ‘ emery.’ This is a calcined iron mixed with 
 siliceous earth, occurring in 1 vid scales of such 
 
SHAMIR. 
 
 SHAPHAN. 
 
 741 
 
 hardness that in ancient times, as at present, it 
 was used for polishing and engraving precious 
 stones, diamonds excepted (Hoffmann, Mineral, i. 
 561, sq.). Rosenmiiller is in favour of the dia- 
 mond in his Scholia ; but in his Alterthumskunde , 
 he takes up Bochart’s notion, and urges that if 
 the Hebrews had ;een acquainted with the dia- 
 mond, and the manner of working it, we should 
 doubtless have found it among the stones of the 
 high-priest’s breastplate ; and that, as the shamir 
 was not one of the stones thus employed, there- 
 fore it was not the diamond. But to this Winer 
 well answers, that it was perhaps not used be- 
 cause it could not be engraved on, or was possibly 
 not introduced until a later period. The argu- 
 ment drawn from the rarity of the word in the 
 Old Testament is of little weight, and there is no 
 necessity for seeking an Oriental origin of the 
 word apipis , or ground for considering it identi- 
 cal with shamir, as it may easily be traced from 
 the Greek itself. (See Passow, s. v. ; Eichhorn, 
 De Gemmis Sculpt. Hebr .) 
 
 2. SHAMIR, a city of Judah (Josh. xv. 48). 
 
 3. SHAMIR, a city in the mountains of 
 Ephraim, where Tola lived and was buried (Judg. 
 
 x. 1, 2). 
 
 4. SHAMIR [Thorns]. 
 
 SHAMMAH (i"IK)£2, astonishment ; 'Zapata), 
 one of the three chief of the thirty champions of 
 David. The exploit by which he obtained this 
 high distinction, as described in 2 Sam. xxiii. 
 11, 12, is manifestly the same as that which in 
 1 Chron. xi. 12-14, is ascribed to David himself, 
 assisted by Eleazar the son of Dodo. The in- 
 ference, therefore, is, that Shammah 's exploit lay 
 in the assistance which he thus rendered to David 
 and Eleazar. It consisted in the stand which the 
 others enabled David to make, in a field of len- 
 tiles, against the Philistines. Shammah also 
 shared in the dangers whicli Eleazar and Jasho- 
 beam incurred in the chivalric exploit of forcing 
 a way through the Philistine host to gratify 
 David’s thirst for the waters of Bethlehem 
 (2 Sam. xxiii. 16). 
 
 Other persons of this name occur. 2. A son 
 of Reuel (Gen. xxxvi. 13, 17). 3. A brother of 
 
 David (1 Sam. xvi. 9 ; xvii. 3), who is elsewhere 
 called Shimeah (2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32) and Shimma 
 (1 Chron. ii. 13). 4. One of David’s thirty 
 
 champions, seemingly distinct from the chief of 
 the same name (2 Sam. xxiii. 33). 5. Another 
 
 of the champions distinguished as Shammah the 
 Harodite ; he is called Shammoth in 1 Chron. 
 
 xi. 27, and Shamhuth in 1 Chron. xxvii. 8. 
 That three of the thirty champions should bear 
 the same name is somewhat remarkable. 
 
 SHAPHAN (|S&£), occurs in Lev. xl. 5 ; 
 Deut. xiv. 7 ; Ps. civ. 18 ; Prov. xxx. 26. Com- 
 mentators, in general, now conclude, on the most 
 satisfactory grounds, that those versions which 
 give Cony for the Hebrew Shaphan are incorrect; 
 but several still maintain that the species to which 
 Shaphan belongs ruminates, which is equally an 
 error. The Shaphan is, in truth, as Bruce justly 
 indicated, the 6ame as the Ashkoko, the Ganam, 
 not Daman, Israel, the Wabber of the Arabs, and 
 in scientific zoology is one of the small genus 
 Hyrax, distinguished by the specific name of 
 Syrian ( Syriacus ). In the upper jaw it has no 
 
 incisors, but two rather pointed tusks directed 
 downwards, with an open space between them ; 
 in the lower are four short, separated, roundish 
 incisors, pointing obliquely forward ; there are 
 six molars on each side, above and below, the 
 upper round on the surface, somewhat resembling 
 the human back teeth, and the lower more nar- 
 row, but neither composed of alternate laminae of 
 bony and enamel substance as in ruminants ; nor 
 is the jaw-bone articulated so as to admit freely 
 of a similar action ; finally, the internal structure 
 as well as the whole osteology represents that of a 
 rhinoceros in miniature, and has no appearance 
 of the complicated four-fold stomachs of rumi- 
 nants; therefore the hyrax is neither a rodent, like 
 hares and rabbits, nor a ruminant, but is anoma- 
 lous, and most nearly allied to the great Pachy- 
 derms of systematic zoology. Externally, the 
 hyrax is somewhat, of the size, form, and brownish 
 colour of a rabbit, and, though it has short round 
 ears, sufficiently like for inexact observers to mis- 
 take the one for the other. Navigators and colo- 
 nists often carry the local names of their native 
 land to other countries, and bestow them upon 
 new objects with little propriety : this seems to have 
 been done in the instance before us ; there being 
 reason to believe that the Phoenicians, on visiting 
 the western ' shores of the European side of the 
 Mediterranean, found the country, as other autho- 
 rities likewise assert, infested with rabbits or co- 
 nies, and that without attending to the difference 
 they bestowed upon them the Hebrew or Phoe- 
 nician name of Shaphan, applying it also to the 
 country itself by forming sphan, into iTOSS* 
 
 sphanih , which they intended should mean ‘ the 
 land of conies ;’ and from this misnomer ‘ Hispa- 
 nia” and our ‘ Spain ’ are presumed to be derived 
 
 The hyrax is of clumsier structure than the 
 rabbit, without tail, having long bristly hairs 
 scattered through the general fur; the feet are 
 naked below, and all the nails are fiat and rounded, 
 save those on each inner toe of the hind feet, which 
 are long and awl-shaped ; therefore the species 
 cannot dig, and is by nature intended to reside, 
 not, like rabbits, iu burrows, but in the clefts of 
 rocks. This character is correctly applied to the 
 Shaphan by David 
 
 Their timid gregarious habits, and the tender- 
 ness of their paws, make them truly ‘ the wise 
 and feeble folk ’ of Solomon ; for the genus lives 
 in colonies in the crevices of stony places in 
 Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Eastern Egypt, Abys- 
 sinia, and even at the Cape of Good Hope, where 
 one or two additional species exist. In every 
 locality, they are quiet, gentle creatures, loving 
 to bask in the sun, never stirring far from their 
 retreats, moving with caution, and shrinking from 
 the shadow of a passing bird ; for they are often 
 the prey of eagles and hawks ; their habits are 
 strictly diurnal, and they feed on vegetables and 
 
742 
 
 SHARAB. 
 
 SHEBA. 
 
 seeds.. It may lie that the peculiar structure of 
 their anterior teeth is convenient for stripping oft’ 
 the seeds of grasses and tritica, and that these in 
 part retained in the mouth cause a practice of 
 working the jaws, which, to common observers, 
 may appear to be chewing the cud. In hares 
 and rats a similar appearance is produced by a 
 particular friction of the incisois or nippers, which, 
 growing with great rapidity, would soon extend 
 beyond a serviceable length, if they were not kept 
 to their proper size by constant gnawing, and by 
 working the cutting edges against each other. 
 This action, observed in the motion of the lips of 
 most rodents, when in a state of rest, caused the 
 belief of rumination in the hare, though, like the 
 hyrax, all rodentia are equally unprovided with 
 the several stomachs, and want the muscular 
 apparatus necessary to force the food back into the 
 mouth for remastication at pleasure, which con- 
 stitute the leading peculiarities of the anatomical 
 structure of the ruminantia. But they may pos- 
 sess, in common with pachydermata, like the 
 liorse and hog, the peculiar aiticulation and form 
 of jaws which give them the power of grinding 
 their food, and laminated teeth, fitted for the 
 purpose. — C. H S. 
 
 SHAPHAN, the scribe or secretary of King 
 Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 3, 12; Jer. xxxvi. 10; 
 comp. Ezra viii. 11). Contemporary with him 
 was a state officer named Ahikam, constantly 
 mentioned as ‘ the son of Shaphan’ (2 Kings 
 xxii. 12; xxv. 22; Jer. xxvi. 21; xxxix. 14; 
 and perhaps xxxix. 3) ; but this Shaphan, the 
 father of Ahikam, can hardly be the same with 
 Shaphan the scribe, although the heedless reader 
 may be apt to confound them. 
 
 SHARAB (3"7p). This word properly means 
 ‘ heat of the sun,' as in Isa. xlix. 10. Hence it 
 is used to designate a phenomenon which is 
 frequent in Arabia and Egypt, and may be occa- 
 sionally seen in the southern parts of Europe; 
 called by the Aiabs Serab , and by the French 
 le Mirage , by which name it is also commonly 
 known in English. Descriptions of this illusion 
 are often given by travellers. It consists in the 
 presentation to the view of a lake or sea in the 
 midst of a plain where none in reality exists. It 
 is produced by the refraction of the rays of light, 
 during the exhalation of vapours, by the excessive 
 heat of the sun ; and it frequently exhibits, along 
 with the undulating appearance of water, the 
 shadows of objects within or around the plain, 
 ooth in a natural and in an inverted position. 
 The deception is most complete ; and to the 
 weary traveller who is attracted by it, in the 
 highest degree mortifying ; since, instead of re- 
 freshing water, he finds himself in the midst of 
 nothing but glowing sand. It is often used pro- 
 verbially, or for the sake of comparison, by the 
 Arabs, as in the Koran (Sur. xxiv. 39) : ‘ But as 
 for those who believe not, their works are like 
 the Serab of the plain : the thirsty imagines it to 
 be water, but when he reaches it lie finds it is 
 nothing.’ The same figure occurs in Isa. xxxv. 7 : 
 ‘The sharab shall become a lake,' i.e. the illu- 
 sive appearance of a lake in the desert shall be- 
 come a real lake of refreshing waters. See Ge- 
 senius and Henderson on Isaiah, and comp, the 
 descriptions and explanations in Kitto’s Physical 
 History of Palestine , pp. 147, 150, 151. 
 
 SHAREZER pYKTp, Persic, prints oj 
 fire ; Sept. 2 apaarap ), a son of Sennacherib, one 
 of those who slew his father (2 Kings xix. 37 ; 
 Isa. xxxvii. 38). Another person of this name 
 occurs in Zech. vii. 2. 
 
 SHARON (|W; Sept, ^dpwv), a level tract 
 along the Mediterranean, between Mount Carmel 
 and Caesarea, celebrated for its rich fields and 
 pastures (Josh. xii. 18 ; Cant. ii. 1 ; Isa. xxxii.. 
 9; xxxv. 2 ; lxv. 10; 1 Chron. xxvii. 9). See 
 the head ‘ Plains,’ in the art. Palestine. 
 
 SHAVE. [Beard; Hair; Mourning.] 
 
 SHAVEH (Hip ; Sept. 2aj8ti), a valley on 
 the north of Jerusalem, called also the King's 
 Dale (Gen. xiv. 17 ; comp. 2 Sam. xviii. 18). 
 
 SHAVEH- IvIRJATH AIM (Gen. xiv. 5), a 
 plain near the city of Kirjathaim, beyond Jordan, 
 which eventually belonged to Reuben (Num, 
 xxxii. 37; Josh. xiii. 19). 
 
 SHEALTIEL asked of God ; 
 
 Sept. 2aAa0t7?A.), the father of Zerubbabel (Ezra 
 iii. 2; Neh. xii. 1 ; Hag. i. 12, 14 ; ii. 2); called 
 also Salathiel (1 Chron. iii. 7). 
 
 SHEAR-JASHUB (3**5* TKp, the remnani 
 shall return ; Sept. 6 icaTa\ei<t>6el$ Tcurou/S), 
 son of the prophet Isaiah, who accompanied his 
 father when he proceeded to deliver to king 
 Ahaz the celebrated prophecy contained in 
 Isa. vii. (see verse 3). As the sons of Isaiah 
 sometimes stood for signs in Israel (Isa. viii. 18), 
 and the name of Maher-shalal-hash-baz was given 
 to one of them by way of prophetic intimation, 
 it has been conjectured that the somewhat re- 
 markable name of Shear-jashub intimated that 
 the people who had then retired within the walls 
 of Jerusalem should return in peace to their fields 
 and villages. But we cannot build on this, as it 
 is not distinctly stated that the name of Shear- 
 jashub was chosen, like that of his brother, with 
 any prophetic intention. 
 
 SHEBA, SEBA, SAB^EANS. As much 
 confusion has been introduced by the variety 
 of meanings which the name Sabceans has been 
 made to bear, it may be proper to specify in this 
 place their distinctive derivations and use. In 
 our Authorized Version of Scripture the term 
 seems to be applied to three different tribes. 1st. 
 To the Sebaiini (D^SD, with a samech), the 
 descendants of Sebaor Saba, son of Cush, who ul- 
 timately settled in Ethiopia (see the article Seba). 
 2nd. To the Shekalim (Q'&Op, with a shin), the 
 descendants of Sheba, son of Joktan, the Sabcei 
 of the Greeks and Romans, who settled in Arabia 
 Felix. They are the ‘Sabseans’ of Joel iii. 8, to 
 whom the Jews were to sell the captives of Tyre. 
 The unpublished Arabic Version, quoted by 
 Pocock, has 4 the people of Yemen.’ Hence they 
 are called 4 a people afar oft',’ the very designa- 
 tion given in Jer. vi. 20 to Sheba, as the country 
 of frankincense and the rich aromatic reed, and 
 also by our Lord in Matt. xii. 42, who says, the 
 queen of Sheba, or ‘the south,’ came, e/c rur 
 Trepdrav rr/s yns, ‘from the earth's extremes.' 
 3rd. To another tribe of Shebans (fc$3p, also with 
 a shin), a horde of Bedawee marauders in th* 
 days of Job (ch. i. 15); for whether we place the 
 
SHEBA. 
 
 SHECHEM. 
 
 m 
 
 land of Uz in Idumaea or in Ausitis, it is by 
 no means likely that the Arabs of the south would 
 extend their excursions so very far. We must, 
 therefore, look for t h is tribe in Desert Arabia ; and 
 it is singular enough, that besides the Seba of 
 Cush, and the Shaba of Joktan, there is another 
 Sheba, son of Jokshan, and grandson of Abraham, 
 by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 33); and his posterity 
 appear to have been ‘men of the wilderness,’ 
 as were their kinsmen of Midian, Ephah, and 
 Dedan. To them, however, the above- cited pas- 
 sage in the prophecy of Joel could not apply, 
 because in respect neither to the lands of Judah 
 nor of Uz could they be correctly described as 
 a people ‘afar off.’ As for the Sabaim ofEzek. 
 xxiii. 42 (which our version also renders by 
 ‘ Sabaeans’), while the Keri has D^DD, the Kethib 
 has i. e. ‘ drunkards,’ which better suits 
 
 the context. 
 
 Yet, as if to increase the confusion in the use 
 of this name of ‘ Sabaeans,’ it has also been ap- 
 plied — 4th. To the ancient star-worshippers of 
 Western Asia, though they ought properly to be 
 styled Tsabians, and their religion not Sabaism 
 but Tsabaism, the name being most probably de- 
 rived from the object of their adoration, fcOVj the 
 host, i. e. of heaven (sea an excursus by Gese- 
 nius in his translation of Isaiah, On the Astral 
 Worship of the Chaldceans ). 5th. The name of 
 Sabaeans, or .Saffians, has also been given to a 
 modern sect in the East, the Manda'ites, or, as 
 they are commonly but incorrectly called, the 
 ‘ Christians ’ of St. John ; for they deny the Mes- 
 siahship of Christ, and pay superior honour to 
 John the Baptist. They are mentioned in the 
 Koran under the name of Sabionna, and it is 
 probable that the Arabs confounded them with 
 the ancient Tsabians above mentioned. Norberg, 
 however, says that they themselves derive their 
 own name from that which they give to the Bap- 
 tist, which is Abo Sabo Zakrio /from Abo, ‘father;’ 
 'Sabo, ‘to grow old together;’ and Zakrio, e. g. 
 Zecharia. ‘ The reason they assign for calling 
 him Sabo is because his father, in his old age, 
 had this son by. his wife Aneschbat (Elizabeth), 
 she being also in her old age (see Nor berg’s Codex 
 Nasarceus, Liber Adami Apellatus , and Silvestre 
 de Sacy, in the Journal des Savans for 1»19). 
 
 Seba (fc$3D) was the eldest son of Cush (Gen. 
 x. 7 ; 1 Chron. i. 9), and gave name to the coun- 
 try of Seba or Saba, and to one of the tribes called 
 Sabaeans, not, however, the Shebaiim (with a 
 shm ), but the Sebaiim (with a samecK). There 
 seems no reason to doubt that their ultimate set- 
 tlement was in that region of Africa which was 
 known to the Hebrews as the land of Cush, and 
 to the Greeks and Romans as Ethiopia ; and the 
 Scriptural notices respecting them and their 
 country have been already anticipated in the 
 articles Cush and Ethiopia. If the kingdom 
 of Seba was the far-famed Meroe, and the king- 
 dom of Sheba the no less famous Yemen, then it 
 is with peculiar propriety that the king of African 
 Seba in the west, and the king of Asiatic Sheba 
 in the east, are represented by the Psalmist (Ps. 
 lxxii. 10) as bearing their united homage to the 
 ‘ great king of Judah.’ The commerce and 
 wealth of these Sabaeans of Ethiopia, as also their 
 gigantic stature, are allud’d to by the prophet 
 
 Isaiah (ch. xliii. 3: xlv. 14), and his testimony 
 is confirmed by the profane writers of antiquity. 
 The passages quoted, however, are the only places 
 in Scripture where the Sabaeans of Africa are ex- 
 pressly mentioned; for the Sabaeans of Job i. 15 
 were a tribe of Bedowees, or ‘men of the desert,’ 
 descended from Sheba, grandson of Keturah ; 
 and the Sabaeans of Joel iii. 8 were the posterity 
 of another Sheba, son of Joktan, in Arabia 
 Felix. There was, indeed, another Sheba, the 
 son of Raagmah and the grandson of Cush, and 
 consequently the nephew of the Seba who is the 
 subject of the present article, but his posterity 
 appear to have mingled with those of his uncle. 
 As for the ‘ Sabaeans ’ mentioned in our version at 
 Ezek. xxiii. 42, although the Keri reading be 
 D'frOD Sabaim , the Kethib has D'fcO'lD Sobeim , 
 ‘ drunkards,’ which gives a better sense ; besides 
 that, elsewhere the African Sabaeans are not styled 
 Sabaiim but Sebaiim, and the Arab Sabaeans, 
 Shebaiim. — N. M. 
 
 SHE BAT (LDpp' ; Sept. Safidr), the eleventh 
 month of the Hebrew year, from the new moon 
 of February to the new moon of March. The 
 name only occurs once in Scripture (Zech. i. 7), 
 and is the same which is given in the Arabic and. 
 Syriac languages to the same month. 
 
 SHKBNA (£03t£*, a youth ; Sept. 'Xofxvas), 
 the prefect of the palace to king Hezekiah (Isa. 
 xxii. 15); afterwards promoted to be scribe or 
 secretary to the same monarch, when his former 
 office was given to Eliakim (Isa. xxii. 15 ; xxxvi. 
 3; 2 Kings xviii. 26, 27 ; xix. 2). 
 
 SHECHEM (DD^; Sept. also r a 
 
 ^iKijua), a town of central Palestine, in Samaria, 
 among the mountains of Ephraim (Josh. xx. 7 ; 
 1 Kings xii. 25), in the narrow valley between 
 the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim (comp. 
 Judg. ix. 7; Joseph. Antiq. iv. 8. 44), and con- 
 sequently within the tribe of Ephraim (Josh. xxi. 
 20). It is in N. lat. 32° 17', E. long. 35° 20', 
 being thirty-four, miles north of Jerusalem and 
 seven miles south of Samaria. It was a very an- 
 cient place, and appears to have arisen as a town 
 in the interval between the arrival of Abraham in 
 Palestine and the return of Jacob from Padan- 
 aram, for it is mentioned oidy as a place, de- 
 scribed by reference to the oaks in the neigh- 
 bourhood, when Abraham came there on first 
 entering the land of Canaan (Gen. xii. 6). But, 
 in the history of Jacob it repeatedly occurs as a 
 town having walls and gates : it could not, how- 
 ever, have been very large or important, if we may 
 judge from the consequence which the inhabitants 
 attached to an alliance with Jacob, and from the 
 facility with which the sons of the Patriarch were 
 able to surprise and destroy them (Gen. xxxiii. 
 18, 19: xxxiv. 1, 2, 20, 24, 26;. After the 
 conquest of the country, Shechem was made a 
 city of refuge (Josh. xx. 7), and one of the Le- 
 vitical towns (Josh. xxi. 21), and during the 
 lifetime of Joshua it was a centre of union to the 
 tribes (Josh. xxiv. 1, 25), probably because it 
 was the nearest considerable town to the residence 
 of that chief in Timnath-serah. In the time of 
 the judges, Shechem became, the capital of the 
 kingdom set up by Abimelech (Judg. ix. 1, sq.), 
 but was at length conquered and destroyed by 
 
744 
 
 SHECHEM. 
 
 SHECHEM. 
 
 him (Judg. ix. 3 I). It must, however, have 
 been ere long rebuilt, for it had again become 
 of so much importance by the time of Reho- 
 boam’s accession, that he there gave the meeting 
 to the delegates of the tribes, which ended in the 
 separation of the kingdom (1 Kings xii. 10). 
 It was Shechem which the first monarch of the 
 new kingdom made the capital of his dominions 
 (1 Kings xii. 25; comp. xiv. 17), although later 
 iu his reign the pleasantness of Tirzah induced 
 him to build a palace there, and to make it the 
 summer residence of his court ; which gave it 
 such importance, that it at length came to be 
 regarded as the capital of the kingdom, till 
 Samaria eventually deprived it of that, honour 
 (1 Kings xiv. 7 ; xvi. 24; see Israel). She- 
 chem, however, still throve. It subsisted during 
 the exile (Jer. xii. 5), and continued for many 
 ages after the chief seat of the Samaritans and of 
 their worship, their sole temple being upon the 
 mountain (Gerizim), at whose foot the city stood 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xi. 8. 6 ; comp. John iv. 20 1 
 and see also the articles Ebal and Gerizim, 
 Samaritans). The city was taken, and the 
 temple destroyed, by John Hvrcanus, b.c. 129 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xiii. 9. 1 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 2. 6). 
 In the New Testament it occurs under the name 
 of Sycbar (Svxap’, John iv. 5), which seems to 
 have been a sort of nick-name (perhaps from 
 sheker, ‘ falsehood,’ spoken of idols in Hab. ii. 
 18; or from TDt? shikkor, ‘drunkard,’ in al- 
 lusion to Isa. xviii. 1, 7), — such as the Jews were 
 fond of imposing upon places they disliked; 
 and nothing could exceed the enmity which ex- 
 isted between them and the Samaritans, who pos- 
 sessed Shechem. Stephen, however, in his his- 
 torical retrospect, still uses the proper and an- 
 cient name (Acts vii. 16). Not long after the 
 times of the New Testament the place received 
 the name of Neapolis, which it still retains 
 in the Arabic form of Nabulus, being one 
 of the very few names imposed by the Romans 
 in Palestine which have survived to the present 
 day. It had probably suffered much, if it was 
 not completely destroyed, in the war with the 
 Romans, and would seem to have been restored or 
 rebuilt by Vespasian, and then to have taken this 
 new name ; for the coins of the city, of which 
 there are many, all hear the inscription, Flavia 
 Neapolis — the former epithet no doubt derived 
 from Flavius Vespasian (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 
 
 iii. 433 ; Mionnet, M€d. Antiq. v. 499). The 
 name occurs first in Josephus (De Bell. Jud. 
 
 iv. 8. 1), and then in Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 14), 
 Ptolemy (Geog. v. 16). There had already 
 been converts to the Christian faith at this place 
 under our Saviour, and it is probable that a 
 church had been gathered here by the Apostles 
 (John iv. 30-42; Acts viii. 25; ix. 31 ; xv. 3). 
 Justin Martyr was a native of Neapolis (Apolog. 
 ii. 41). The name of Germanus, bishop of Nea- 
 polis, occurs in a.d. 314 ; and other bishops con- 
 tinue to be mentioned down to a.d. 53 6, when 
 the bishop John signed his name at the synod of 
 Jerusalem (Reland, Palcest. p. 1009). When 
 the Moslems invaded Palestine, Neapolis and 
 other small towns in the neighbourhood were 
 subdued while the siege of Jerusalem was going 
 on (Abulfeda, Annal. i. 229). After the taking 
 of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, Neapolis and other 
 S>wns in the mountains of Samaria tendered their 
 
 submission, and Tancred took possession <.f them 
 without resistance (Will Tyr. ix. 20). Neapolis 
 was laid waste by the Saracens in a.d. 1113; 
 but a few years after (a.d. 1120) a council was 
 held here by king Baldwin II., to consult upon 
 the state of the country (Fulcher, p. 424 ; Will. 
 Tyr. xii. 13). Neapolis was not made a Latin 
 bishopric, but belonged probably to that ol 
 Samaria, and the property of it was assigned to 
 the abbot and canons of the Holy Sepulchre (Jac. 
 de Yitriacus, ch. lviii.). After some disasters in 
 the unquiet times which ensued, and after some 
 circumstances which show its remaining im- 
 portance, the place was finally taken from the 
 Christians in a.d. 1212, by Abu Ali, the col- 
 league of Sultan Bibars, and has remained in 
 Moslem hands ever since. 
 
 There is no reason to question that the presen* 
 town occupies the site of the ancient Shechem, 
 although its dimensions are probably more con- 
 tracted. The fertility and beauty of the deep 
 and narrow valley in which the town stands, 
 especially in its immediate neighbourhood, have 
 been much admired by travellers, as far exceed- 
 ing what they had seen in any other part of 
 Palestine. This valley is not more than 500 
 yards wide at the town, which stands directly 
 upon its water-shed, the streams on the eastern 
 part flowing off east into the plain, and so to- 
 wards the Jordan, while the fountains on the 
 western side send off a pretty brook down the 
 valley N.W. towards the Mediterranean. The 
 town itself is long and narrow, extending along 
 the N.E. base of Mount Gerizim, and partly 
 resting upon its declivity. The streets are narrow ; 
 the houses high, and in general well built, all of 
 stone, with domes upon the roofs as at Jerusalem. 
 The bazaars are good and well supplied. There 
 are no ruins which can be called ancient in this 
 country, but there are remains of a church of fine 
 Byzantine architecture, and a handsome arched 
 gateway, both apparently of the time of the first 
 crusades. These occur in the main street, through 
 the whole length of which a stream of clear 
 water rushes down — a rare circumstance in the 
 East. The population of the place is rated by 
 Dr. Olin at 8000 or 10,000, of whom 500 or 
 600 are Christians of the Greek communion, and 
 the rest Moslems, with the exception of about 130 
 Samaritans, and one-third that number of Jews. 
 The inhabitants bear the character of being an 
 unusually valiant as well as a turbulent race, and 
 some years since maintained a desperate struggle 
 against, the Egyptian government, in some bloody 
 rebellions (Robinson, Palestine , ii. 94-136 ; Olin, 
 Travels, ii. 339-365 ; Narrative of the Scottish 
 Deputation , p. 208-218; Schubert, Morgenland, 
 iii. 136-154 ; Winer, Real-wort. s. v. ; Lord 
 Nugent. Lands Classical and Sacred, ii. 172-180. 
 
 2. SHECHEM, son of Hamor prince of 
 the country or district of Shechem, in which 
 Jacob formed his camp on his return from Meso- 
 potamia. This young man having seen Jacob’s 
 daughter Dinah, was smitten with her beauty, 
 and deflowered her. This wrong was terribly 
 and cruelly avenged by the damsel’s uterine 
 brothers, Simeon and Levi, as described in the 
 article Dinah (Gen. xxxv.). It seems likely 
 that the town of Shechem, even if of recent 
 origin, must have existed before the birth of a 
 man so young as Hamor ’s son appears to have 
 
SHEEP. 
 
 SHEEP. 
 
 745 
 
 been ; and we may therefore suppose it a name 
 preserved in the family, and which both the town 
 and the princes inherited. Shechem's name is 
 always connected with that of his father Hamor 
 (Gen. xxxiii. 19 ; xxxv. ; Acts vii. 16). 
 
 SHEEP, nb seh, tzon , both it appears 
 
 occasionally used as a collective term, in- 
 cluding goats ; Arab, zain ; fcJOD kebes, a 
 lamb under a ^ear old ; ajil, the adult 
 
 ram, but originally applied also to the males of 
 
 other ruminants, such as deer, &c. ; rachal, 
 a female or ewe sheep — all referable to Hebrew 
 roots with apposite meanings, deserving the more 
 confidence since the earliest patriarchs of the 
 nation, being themselves shepherds and graziers, 
 had never at any time received this portion of 
 their domesticated cattle from foieign nations, 
 and therefore had indigenous names for them. 
 
 Domestic sheep, moreover, although commonly re- 
 garded as the progeny of one particular wild species, 
 are probably an instance, among many similar, 
 where the wisdom of Providence has provided 
 subsistence for man in different regions, by bestow- 
 ing the domesticating and submissive instincts 
 upon the different species of animals which the 
 human family might find in their wanderings ; for 
 it is certain that even the American argali can be 
 rendered tractable, and that the Corsican mttsmon 
 will breed with the qommon sheep. The normal 
 animal, from which all or the greater part of the 
 western domestic races are assumed to be de- 
 scended, is still found wild in the high mountain 
 regions of Persia, and is readily distinguished from 
 two other wild species bordering on the same 
 region. What breeds the earliest shepherd tribes 
 reared in and about Palestine can now be only 
 inferred from negative characters ; yet they are 
 sufficient to show that they were the same, or 
 nearly so, as the common horned variety of 
 Egypt and continental Europe : in general white, 
 and occasionally black, although there was on 
 the upper Nile a speckled race; and so early as 
 the time of Aristotle the Arabians possessed a 
 rufous breed, another with a very long tail, and 
 above all a broad-tailed sheep, which at present 
 is commonly denominated the Syrian. These 
 three varieties are said to be of African origin, 
 the red hairy, in particular, having all the cha- 
 racteristics to mark its descent from the wild 
 
 Ovis Tragelaphus or Barbatus or 
 
 Kebsch of the Arabian and Egyptian mountains 
 [Rams’ Skins, Red]. Flocks of the ancient 
 breed, derived from the Bedouins, are now extant 
 Syria, with little or no change in external cha- 
 
 racters, chiefly the broad-tailed an J the common 
 horned white, often with black and white about 
 the face and feet, the tail somewhat thicker and 
 longer than the European. The others are chiefly 
 valued for the fat of their broad tails, which 
 tastes not unlike marrow ; for the flesh of neither 
 race is remarkably delicate, nor are the fleeces 
 of superior quality. Sheep in the various con- 
 ditions of existence wherein they would occur 
 among a pastoral and agricultural people, are 
 noticed in numerous places of the Bible, and 
 furnish many beautiful allegorical images, where 
 purity, innocence, mildness, and submission are 
 pourtrayed — the Saviour himself being denomi- 
 nated ‘ the Lamb of God,’ in twofold allusion to 
 his patient meekness, and to his being the true 
 paschal lamb, ‘ slain from the foundation of the 
 world ’ (Rev. xiii, 8). The meaning of the He- 
 brew word ntt'5?p kesitah , occurring only in 
 Gen. xxxiii. 19, and Job xlii. 11, has, we think, 
 been contested with more earnestness than can- 
 dour, Bochart himself pointing to the Greek, 
 Onkelos, Syrian, Arabic, and Vulgate transla- 
 tions, where we find sheep or lambs — these autho- 
 rities being supported by the Chaldee. On the 
 other hand, the Rabbinical expounders have ren- 
 dered it money ; while in Costard’s dissertation on 
 the subject neither interpretation seems to him 
 satisfactory ; for he, in common with Bochart and 
 others, finding no Hebrew word or root to justify 
 the version sheep or lambs, would prefer money , 
 but that, according to him, there was none coined 
 till the era of Cyrus, and never any bearing the 
 impression of a lamb, &c. Now here we have 
 assumptions, and not proofs ; there is no reason 
 why sheep should not in the East, a land emi- 
 nently pastoral, have been an object of barter in 
 kind, and why in process of time the same word 
 should not have been applied to a piece of metal, 
 as pecus in Italy, which likewise at first denoted 
 sheep or ox, and subsequently a coin. There is 
 every reason to believe that metals, very an- 
 ciently, in the shape of mere rings or plates of a 
 given weight, represented the value of sheep 
 
 in a more convenient form. The Jewish 
 shakal , ‘ to weigh,’ indicates this early character 
 of money; and its use is plainly shown in Gen. 
 xxiii. 16, where Abraham, buying a field and 
 cave, weighs out four hundred shekels of silver, 
 a kind of current money, the medium of ex- 
 change between merchants, but not therefore coin, 
 which implies a characteristic impression on the 
 metal. In Gen. xxxiii. 19, Kesitah may be a 
 Canaanitish, or more properly a Scytbo-Chaldaic 
 designation of sheep in the time of Jacob, already 
 represented by silver, most probably cast in the 
 form of that animal, and of a standard weight, 
 for the Hebrews were riot as yet a people, and the 
 Egyptians cast their weights in metal shaped like 
 cattle, &c. ; and that Phoenicia, at a later period, 
 had sheep actually impressed on a silver coin, 
 is proved by that figured in the travels of Clarke. 
 It is a medal found in Cyprus, of irregular form, 
 with the impression of a ram recumbent on one 
 side, and on the other a sun-flower, Heliotropium 
 or Calendula, which occurs also on the peltae of 
 Amazons, and among Indian bas-reliefs. Two 
 Phoenician letters are visible at the sides of the 
 flower. But in Job xlii. 11, where Kesitah is 
 iendered in the Authorized Version by ‘ money,’ 
 
743 
 
 SHEKINAH. 
 
 SHEKINAH. 
 
 we flunk it may have designated ‘ sheep since 
 rings of gold, translated ‘ ear-rings,’ follow imme- 
 
 diately after; and it is now known that gold, 
 during the earlier ages, was in Egypt worked into 
 "ings, as an article of exchange, and is frequently 
 represented instead of money among the objects 
 of tribute. Rings were surely more likely to be 
 presented to Job as money, than as ornaments 
 for the ears. It would lead us beyond our limits 
 to show the probable affinity of Kesita and 
 Kebesch with ancient Scythian roofs, whereof 
 Kaisak, Kupjak, Kirtak, Kutschi, and even the 
 Persian and Turkish Kotsclikui and Dachkutch 
 are all mutations, having reference to ‘sheep’ or 
 ‘fleece.’ Kesitah was a foreign term, and might 
 perhaps be traced to the Pelhevi, or some other 
 more eastern language. — C. H. S. 
 
 SHEKEL. [Weights and Measures.] 
 
 SHEKINAH oi-Shechinah (fli'SEP), a term 
 applied by the ancient Jews, especially in the 
 Chaldee Targums, to that, visible symbol of the 
 divine glory which dwelt in the tabernacle and 
 temple. The word, though nowhere met with in this 
 form in the Scriptures, is a direct derivative from 
 the Hebrew root shukan, * to dwell,’ ‘ to dwell 
 in a tent or tabernacle,' which is of frequent occur- 
 rence in the sacred writers, and is used mainly to 
 imply the tabernacled presence and residence of 
 the Most High, by a visible symbol among the 
 chosen people. Though found in several connec- 
 tions where the sense of secular habitation is obvi- 
 ous, yet there can be no doubt that the dominant 
 idea is that of sacred indwelling, of which the fol- 
 lowing passages afford striking specimens : Kxod. 
 xxv. 8, ‘ Let them make me a tabernacle that 
 I may dwell (TODC*) among them.' Exod. 
 xxix. 45, ‘ And 1 will dwell (TUDfct) among the 
 children of Israel, and will be their God.’ Num. 
 v. 3, ‘ That they defile not their camps, in the 
 midst whereof I dwell (Tl^t?).’ Ps. lxviii. 16, 
 
 ‘ This is the hill which God delighfeth to dwell 
 in, yea, the Lord will dwell in it (pfcJN) for ever.’ 
 Ps. lxxiv. 2, * Remember-— this Mount Zion 
 wherein thou hast dxoelt (r)3D£2),’ It is -more 
 especially employed when the Lord is said to 
 * cause his name to dwell,' implying the stated 
 visible manifestation of his presence. Ezra vi. 
 12, ‘And the God that, hath caused his name to 
 dwell there (}"IQ5^ p&?, literally, hath shakinized 
 his name )’ (comp. Deut. xii. 11 ; xiv. 23; xvi. 
 6 ; xxvi. 2). It is emphatically employed in 
 speaking of the cloud of the divine glory dwell- 
 ing upon Mount Sinai; Exod. xxiv. 16, ‘And 
 the glory of the Lord abode (pty* 1 ) upon Mount 
 Sinai.’ The term shekinah (nPDI^) is defined 
 by Buxtorf (Lex. Talm. voc. p£t) as meaning 
 primarily habitation, or inhabitation, but as hav- 
 ing a dominant reference to the divine glory in 
 its outward visible manifestation. The term is 
 of very frequent occurrence in the Chaldee Tar- 
 
 gums, where it is employed interchangeably *ith 
 ‘ Glory,’ ‘ Glory of the Lord,’ ‘ Angels of the 
 Lord,’ and often with ‘Lord’ (Jehovah) itself 
 The citations that follow will more fully disclose 
 the usage in this respect : Ps. lxxii. 2, ‘ Remem- 
 ber thy congregation which thou hast purchased 
 of old, this Mount Zion wherein thou hast dwelt.’ 
 Targ. Exod. xxv. 8, ‘ Let them make me a taber- 
 nacle that I may dwell among them.’ Chal. ‘ I 
 will make my shekinah to dwell among them.’ 
 Arab. - I will make my light (or splendour) 
 to dwell among them.’ Haggai i. 8, * Go up to 
 the mountain, and bring wood, and build the 
 house, and I will take pleasure, and will 
 be glorified, saith the Lord.’ Targ. ‘ I will 
 make my shekinah to dwell there in glory.’ 
 Ps. Ixxxv. 10, ‘ His salvation is nigh them that 
 fear him, that glory may dwell in our land.’ 
 Thus explained by Aben Ezra, ‘ That the she- 
 kinah may be established in the land.’ It would 
 be easy to multiply these quotations to almost any 
 extent, but sufficient has been produced to illus- 
 trate the u us loquendi, and to show that we have 
 ample authority for employing the term with the 
 utmost freedom in reference to the divine theo- 
 phanies or manifestations. 
 
 From the tenor of these and a multitude of 
 similar texts, it is evident that the Most High, 
 whose essence no man hath seen, or can see, was 
 pleased anciently to manifest himself to the eyes 
 of men by an external visible symbol.* As to 
 the precise nature of the phenomenon thus ex- 
 hibited, we can only say, that it appears to have 
 been a concentrated glowing brightness, a preter- 
 natural splendour, an effulgent something, which 
 was appropriately expressed by the term * Glory;’ 
 but whether in philosophical strictness it was 
 material or immaterial, it is probably impossible 
 to determine. A luminous object of this descrip- 
 tion seems intrinsically the most appropriate sym- 
 bol of that Being of whom, perhaps in allusion to 
 this very mode of manifestation, it is said, that 
 ‘ he is light,’ and that ‘he dwelleth in light un- 
 approachable, and full of glory.’ The presence 
 of such a sensible representation of Jehovah seems 
 to be absolutely necessary in order to harmonize 
 what is frequently said of ‘seeing God’ with 
 the truth of his nature as an incorporeal and 
 essentially invisible spirit. While we are told 
 in one place that ‘ no man hath seen God at any 
 time,’ we are elsewhere informed that Moses and 
 Aaron, and the seventy elders, ‘ saw the God of 
 Israel,’ when called up to the summit, of the Holy 
 Mount.. So also Isaiah says of himself (Isa. vi. 
 
 1, 5) that ‘ in the year that king Uzziah died he 
 saw the Lord sitting upon Lis llirone,’ and that, 
 in consequence, he cried out, ‘ I am undone ; for 
 mine eyes have seen ihe Lord of hosts.’ In these 
 cases it is obvious that the object, seen was not 
 God in his essence, but some external visible 
 symbol, which, because it stood for God, is called 
 by his name. 
 
 * Even at the early period of the expulsion of 
 our sinning progenitors from Paradise, such a 
 manifestation seems to have been made in con- 
 nection with the cherubim which the Most High 
 placed (Heb. p8?' yishkan, shekinized) at the 
 east of the garden of Eden, and which, probably, ~ 
 constituted that ‘ presence of the Lord,’ from 
 which Cain lied after the murder of his brother.’ 
 
SHEK1NAH. 
 
 SHEKINAH. 
 
 74 1 ) 
 
 It seems beyond question that the divine ap- 
 pearances vouchsafed in the earlier ages of the 
 world, to the patriarchs and prophets, was under 
 the aspect, or with the accompaniment of light, or 
 fire, or that which conveys to the mind the idea 
 of ‘ Glory.’ Thus, in Stephen's account of the 
 call of Abraham (Acts vii. 2), ‘And he said, 
 men, brethren, and fathers, the God of Glory 
 appeared unto our father Abraham when he was 
 in Mesopotamia,’ &c. This is a phrase very un- 
 wonted in plain narrative prose, and doubtless 
 carries with it an allusion to the fact ot Gods 
 appearing ,n a glorious manner, with a bright 
 and overpowering effulgence, or, in other words, 
 by the symbol of the shekinah. So too when he 
 appeared to Moses in the burning bush, it was 
 doubtless by the usual symbol ; and this super- 
 natural light or fire, glowing with a lambent, and 
 vivid, but innocuous flame, was no other than 
 the splendour of the shekinah. To this august 
 phenomenon the apostle plainly alludes, when, 
 speaking of the distinguished prerogatives of the 
 covenanted race (Rom. ix. 4), ‘ to whom per- 
 taineth the adoption, and the glory , and the 
 covenants, and the giving of the law,’ &c. 
 
 But of all these ancient recorded theophanies, 
 the most signal and illustrious was undoubtedly 
 that which was vouchsafed in the pillar of cloud 
 that guided the march of the children of Israel 
 through the wilderness on their way to Canaan. 
 A correct view of this subject clothes it at once 
 with a sanctity and grandeur which seldom 
 appear from the naked letter of the narrative. 
 There can be little doubt that the columnar 
 cloud was the seat of the shekinah. We have 
 already seen that the term shekinizing is applied 
 to the abiding of the cloud on the summit of the 
 mountain (Exod. xxiv. 16). Within the tower- 
 ing aerial mass, we suppose, was enfolded the inner 
 effulgent brightness, to which the appellation 
 ‘ Glory of the Lord’ more properly belonged, 
 and which was only occasionally disclosed. In 
 several instances in which God would indicate 
 his anger to his people, it is said that they looked 
 to the cloud and beheld the ‘ Glory of the Lord ’ 
 (Num. xiv. 10; xvi. 19, 42). So when he would 
 inspire a trembling awe of his Majesty at the 
 giving of the Law, it is said, the ‘ Glory of the 
 Lord appeared as a devouring fire ’ on the summit 
 of the Mount. Nor must the fact be forgotten in 
 this connection, that when Nadab and Abihu, 
 die two sons of Aaron, offended by strange fire 
 in their offerings, a fatal flash from the cloudy 
 pillar instantaneously extinguished their lives. 
 The evidence would seem then to be conclusive, 
 that this wondrous pillar-cloud was the seat or 
 throne of the shekinah, the visible representa- 
 tive of Jehovah dwelling in the midst of his 
 people. 
 
 But it will be proper, in a matter of so much 
 importance, to enter somewhat more fully into 
 the genius of that mode of diction which obtains 
 in regard to the shekinah ; particularly the usage 
 by which the term ‘ Angel ’ is applied to this 
 visible phenomenon, deserves our investigation. 
 This term occurs frequently in the Arabic version 
 of those passages which speak of the divine mani- 
 festations, especially as made in connection with 
 the cloudy pillar. Thus, when we read (Exod. 
 xiii. 21), ‘That the Lord went before them in a 
 pillar of clo ud by day, and by night in a pillar 
 
 of fire,’ the Arabic translation has it, ‘ The 
 angel of the Lord went before them.’ This is 
 countenanced by the express language of Exod. 
 xiv. 19, ‘ And the angel of God which went be- 
 fore the camp of Israel, removed and went behind 
 them ; and the pillar of the cloud went from 
 before their face, and stood behind them.’ Here 
 it is obvious that the same object is set before us 
 under two different forms of expression ; the 
 ‘ Pillar of Cloud’ in the last clause being evi- 
 dently the same as ‘ Angel of God’ in the first. 
 In seeking the true solution of this phraseology, it 
 is necessary to bear in mind that ‘Angel,’ in the 
 Scripture idiom, is a term of office, ai d not of 
 nature [Angels] . It is by no means confined 
 to any order of rational, intelligent, ox personal 
 beings, whether celestial or terrestrial. Though 
 primarily employed to denote messengers, yet 
 nothing is clearer than that it is used in speaking 
 of impersonal agents, such as winds, fires, pes- 
 tilences, remarkable dispensations — any thing in 
 fact which might serve as a medium to make 
 known the divine will, or to illustrate the divine 
 working. • He maketli the winds his angels, and 
 the flaming fires his ministers.’ 
 
 From the wide and extensive use of the term 
 angel , in the language of Holy Writ, we are 
 prepared to recognise at once the propriety 
 of its appl i cation to the theophanies, or special 
 manifestations of the Deity, of which so much is 
 said in the Old Testament. We perceive that 
 we are furnished from this source with a key to 
 all those passages in which mention is made of 
 the appearance of the angel of the Lord , whether 
 to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Hagar, to 
 Moses, or any of the ancient worthies. So far 
 as the letter is concerned the intimation would 
 seem, in many cases, to be, that a created and 
 delegated angel was sent upon various messages 
 to the patriarchs, and became visible to their eyes 
 and audible to their ears. These celestial mes- 
 sengers have been supposed occasionally to speak 
 in the name, and even in the person, of Him whose 
 mandates they communicated. Thus, when 
 Abraham was about to offer up Isaac we are told 
 that the angel of the Lord called to him out of 
 heaveu, and said (Gen. xxii. 15-18), ‘ By myself 
 I have sworn, that in blessing I will bless thee, 
 and that in multiplying I. will multiply thy seed 
 as the stars of heaven,’ &c. This might seem at 
 first view to be the voice of an angel messenger 
 speaking in the name, and by the authority, of 
 him who sent him. But from the usage now 
 developed, we understand that it was the visible 
 object that appeared, which is called the angel. 
 So when it. is said that ‘ the angel of the Lord ap- 
 peared to Moses in the burning bush,’ we see it 
 was the burning bush itself that was called the 
 angel, because it was the medium of manifesta- 
 tion to Jehovah in making this communication to 
 his servant. The language which he utters on 
 that occasion is evidently not competent to any 
 created being, and must be considered as proceed- 
 ing from the shekinah, to which no other than 
 the infinite Spirit was present. The appropria- 
 tion, therefore, of this language to the majestic 
 pillar of cloud viewed as the shekinah of Jehovah, 
 receives a countenance which cannot be ques- 
 tioned. We see no room to hesitate iri believing, 
 that when it is said, ‘ the angel of God went be- 
 fore them,’ the meaning is, that the pillar of cloud 
 
T48 
 
 SHEKINAH. 
 
 SHEM. 
 
 went before them, or, in other words, that the 
 pillar is called 4 the angel.’ 
 
 In pursuance then of this train of investigation, 
 we advance to another phasis of the mystic 
 column that marshalled the way of the sojourning 
 nosts, in their march to Canaan. In Exod. xxiii. 
 2, it is said, ‘ Behold I send an angel before thee, 
 to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into 
 the place that I have prepared. Beware of him, 
 and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will 
 uot pardon your transgressions : for my name is 
 in him.’ The first impression, upon the perusal 
 of this, would perhaps be, that a created and 
 tutelary angel was intended, one whom, whether 
 visible or invisible, they used to treat, with the 
 greatest reverence as a kind of personal represent- 
 ative of Jehovah himself. This representative 
 and commissioned character would be apt to be 
 recognised in the phrase, ‘ My name is in him,’ 
 equivalent, as would be supposed, to the declara- 
 tion, ‘ My authority is in him.’ But then, on 
 the other hand, we have shown that the term 
 ‘ angel ’ is applied to the cloudy pillar, and as 
 we have no intimation of any other angel being 
 visibly present with the travelling tribes, the in- 
 ference is certainly a fair one, that the angel here 
 mentioned is but the designation of that glorious 
 object which stood forth to the eye of the congre- 
 gation, as having the shekinah essentially con- 
 nected with it. 
 
 And now with the light of this peculiar usage 
 to guide us, can we hesitate in regard to the 
 genuine scope of the following passage from 
 Isaiah, which we mu3t assuredly recognise as a 
 parallelism (Isa. lxiii. 8)? ‘ For he said, surely 
 they are my people, children that will not lie ; 
 so he was their Saviour. In all their afflictions 
 he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence 
 saved them : in his love and in his pity he re- 
 deemed them ; and he bore them and carried them 
 all the days of old.' The allusion is undoubtedly 
 to the same grand symbolical object which we are 
 now considering. After what has been said we 
 can have no difficulty in understanding why the 
 title, ‘ Angel of his presence,’ is applied to the 
 cloudy column of the wilderness. It was evi- 
 dently so termed, because it was the medium of 
 manifestation to the divine presence. The in- 
 visible Deity, in some mysterious manner, dwelt 
 in it, and was associated with it. It was called the 
 ‘Angel of the Divine Presence,’ or, more literally, 
 face ('IS), because, as the human face is the 
 grand medium of expression to the human spirit, 
 so the shekinah was the medium of manifestation 
 or expression to the Divine Spirit. Indeed Moses, 
 on one occasion, when apprehensive that the 
 guiding glory of his people would be withdrawn 
 on account of their transgressions, makes use of 
 this language, ‘ If thy presence go not with me, 
 carry us not up hence. And the Lord said, my 
 presence shall go with thee.’ So also in Deut. iv. 
 37, we find the wotA. presence or face used with a 
 personal import, ‘ And because he loved thy 
 fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, 
 and brought thee out in his sight (VIQH, with, 
 by, or through , his presence, i. e. the angel of his 
 presence), with his mighty power out of Egypt.’ 
 We see not, therefore, that anything is hazarded 
 in the position, that the angel of God's pre- 
 sence, of whom Isaiah speaks, is essentially the 
 fame with the angel of God's pillar, of which 
 
 Moses speaks, and which is invested with per 
 sonal attributes, because tlw' Israelites were taught 
 to view it in a personal character as a visible repre- 
 sentative of their covenant God. 
 
 But our conception of the subject is essentially 
 incomplete without the exhibition of another aspect 
 of the cloudy pillar. This is as the oracle of the 
 chosen people. So long as that sublime symbol 
 continued as the outward visible token of the 
 divine presence, it performed the office of an 
 oracle in issuing commands and delivering re- 
 sponses. ‘ They called upon the Lord,’ says the 
 Psalmist (Ps. xcix. 0, 7), ‘ and he answered them. 
 He spake unto them in the cloiidy pillar ;' that 
 is, the cloudy pillar was the medium of his com- 
 munications. This is indeed sufficiently express ; 
 but still more unequivocal is the language of 
 Exod. xxxiii. 9, ‘ And it came to pass, as Moses 
 entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar de- 
 scended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, 
 and talked with Moses.’ It is true indeed that 
 in our established version we read that ‘ the Lord 
 talked with Moses,’ but the words ‘ the Lord ' are 
 printed in italics to show that there is nothing in 
 the original answering to them. We have given 
 a literal translation ; still there is no special im- 
 propriety in supplying the words as above, if it 
 be borne in mind that the mystic pillar was re- 
 garded as a visible embodiment of Jehovah, and, 
 therefore, that in the diction of the sacred writer 
 the two terms are equivalentand convertible. This 
 is evident from what follows in the connection, 
 ‘ And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand 
 at the tabernacle door, and the Lord spake unto 
 Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his 
 friend.’ The ‘ Lord ’ here must unequivocally be 
 applied to the symbol of the Lord, or the shekinah , 
 which was the true organ of communication with 
 the people. It would be easy to carry out this 
 line of investigation to still further results : but 
 the considerations which have been offered will 
 suffice to indicate the general bearings of this 
 interesting subject. 
 
 See Lowman, On the Shekinah ; Taylor’s Let- 
 ters of Ben Mordecai ; Skinner’s Dissertatio7i oa 
 the Shekinah; Watts’s Glory of Christ ; Upliam, 
 On the Logos ; Bush’s Notes on Exodus ; Teni- 
 son, On Idolatry; Fleming's Christology. — G. B. 
 
 SHEM (DE^, name; Sept. 'S.yf), one of the 
 three sons of Noah (Gen. v. 32), from whom 
 descended the nations enumerated in Gen. x. 
 22, sq., and who was the progenitor of that great 
 branch of the Noachic family (called from 
 him Shemitic or Semitic) to which the Hebrews 
 belong. The name of Shem is placed first 
 wherever the sons of Noah are mentioned to- 
 gether: whence he would seem to have been 
 the eldest brother. But against this conclusion is 
 brought the text Gen. x. 21, which, according to 
 the Authorized, and many other versions, has 
 ‘Shem the brother of Japheth the elder;’ whence 
 it has been conceived very generally that Japheth 
 was really the eldest, and that Shem is put first 
 by way of excellency, seeing that from him the 
 holy line descended. But this conclusion is not 
 built upon a critical knowledge of the Hebrew, 
 
 which would show that. * the elder,’ must 
 
 in this text be referred not to Japheth but to Shem, 
 so that it should be read ‘Shem.... the elder 
 brother of Japheth.’ The current version of ths 
 
SHEMAIAH. 
 
 SHEMARIM. 
 
 749 
 
 text is sanctioned only by the Septuagint among 
 the ancient versions, and it is there supposed by 
 gome to be corrupt. The Samaritan, Syriac, 
 Arabic, and Vulgate, adopt the other interpreta- 
 tion, which indeed is the only one that the ana- 
 logy of the Hebrew language will admit. The 
 whole Bible oilers no other instance of such a 
 
 construction as that bv which ‘pvun ns* 
 becomes ‘ the brother of Japhet the elder,’ which 
 indeed would be an awkward phrase in any 
 language. The object of the sacred writer is to 
 mark the seniority and consequent superiority of 
 Shem. He had already told us (Gen. ix. 24) 
 that Ham was, if not the youngest, at least, a 
 younger son of Noah, and he is now careful to 
 acquaint us that Shem, the stem of the Hebrews, 
 was older than Japheth (See Baumgarten, Theolog. 
 Commentar zum Alien Test ; Geddes, Critical 
 Remarks : respecting the posterity of Shem see 
 Nations, Dispersion of). 
 
 1. SHEMAIAH (iTJJDEJ?-, whom Jehovah 
 hears ; Sept. 'Sap.a'ias), a prophet of the time of 
 Rehoboam, who was commissioned to enjoin that 
 monarch to forego his design of reducing the ten 
 tribes to obedience (1 Kings xii. 22-24). In 
 1 Chron. xii. 15, this Shemaiah is stated to have 
 written the Chronicles of the reign in which he 
 flourished. 
 
 2. SHEMAIAH, a person who, without autho- 
 rity, assumed the functions of a prophet among 
 the Israelites in exile. He was so much annoyed 
 by the prophecies which Jeremiah sent to Ba- 
 bylon, the tendency of which was contrary to his 
 own, that he wrote to Jerusalem, denouncing the 
 prophet as an impostor, and urging the authorities 
 to enforce his silence. In return he received new 
 prophecies, announcing that he should never 
 behold that close of the bondage which he 
 fancied to be at hand, and that none of his race 
 should witness the re-establishment of the nation 
 (Jer. xxix. 24-32). 
 
 SHEMARIM (D^Df, from shumar, 
 to keep, to preserve'). This term is generally un- 
 derstood to denote the lees or dregs of wine, and 
 it is asserted that the radical idea expresses the 
 fact that these preserve the strength and flavour 
 of the wine. There is evidently a reference 
 to this in Ps. lxxv. 8: — ‘For in the- hand of 
 Jehovah there is a cup, and the wine d" yayin) 
 is red (or thick and turbid, “iDn hhumar) : 
 it is full of mixture C?|DQ mesech ), and he 
 poureth out this ; but the dregs thereof (iTI^fc^ 
 c liemdreyha) all the rebels of the earth shall 
 press and suck in which verse we have four of 
 the terms rendered ‘ wine’ by the translators of the 
 English Bible. This verse is interesting, as in- 
 dicating accurately the import of the term 
 under discussion, at least in this particular pas- 
 sage. Shemdrim are here the sediments in a cup 
 compounded with articles, two of which, at 
 least, are designated by terms invariably used 
 in the Scriptures to designate something obtained 
 from the vine. Yayin is employed in the 
 Mishna (Tr. Nedarim, vi. 9) to designate a drink 
 obtained from apples (DTllBn J"); but this is dif- 
 ferent, from its Scriptural use. The inference is, that 
 shemdrim here denotes the dregs of wine. This 
 cannot be the meaning of the term, however, in 
 Isa. xxv. G, where, we think, it must refer to 
 
 some rich preserves appropriate to the feast of 
 which that text speaks ( Tirosh lo Yayin , iv. 8). 
 The verse may be rendered thus : — ‘ And Jehovah 
 of hosts shall make to all peoples in this moun- 
 tain a feast of fat things ( shemdnim ), a feast of 
 preserves {shemdrim), of the richest fatness, of 
 preserves well refined/ Considerable diversity 
 of opinion has obtained among biblical critics in 
 regard to both the literal meaning and prophetic 
 bearing of this text. The most usual interpre- 
 tation supposes a reference to wines on the lees ; 
 but there are strong objections to this view, the 
 most obvious of which is, that it is exceedingly 
 inappropriate. There is no mention of wine in 
 the original, but simply of dregs ; and interpreters 
 have been forced to suppose a reference to the 
 former, from a conviction that the latter was 
 altogether inapt. The mention of dregs does 
 not naturally call up (by synecdoche, as is sup- 
 posed, though dregs are not a part of the wine 
 which has been purified from them) the idea of 
 wine which has been drawn from them. The trope 
 here supposed is at variance with a fundamental 
 principle of figurative language, which takes 
 advantage of ‘that great variety of relations be- 
 tween objects, by means of which the mind is 
 assisted to pass easily from one to another ; and 
 by the name of the one, understands the other to 
 be meant. It is always some accessory idea, which 
 recalls the principal to the imagination; and 
 commonly recalls it with more force than if the 
 principal idea had been expressed’ (Blair’s Lec- 
 tures on Rhet. and Bell. Lett., lect. xiv.). Vi- 
 tringa, indeed, renders the language with apparent 
 literal propriety, a feast of dregs {convivium 
 f cecum), but he explains it of wine purified from 
 its dregs (ex vino defeecato, a faecibus purgato) 
 {Comm, in loc.). Vitringa may well say of 
 the expression as thus rendered : ‘ phrasi qui- 
 dem fateor singulari et insolente/ Munster sup- 
 poses very absurdly a reference to a highly in- 
 toxicating wine (‘ convivium vino unde omnes in- 
 ebriabuntur’), which would prove a curse rather 
 than a blessing, and refers to the supposed fulfil- 
 ment of the prophecy in Gog and Magog, when 
 ‘Dominus tanquam ebrios faciet eos ruere in mu- 
 tuam caedem’ {Critici Sacri, in loc.). Clarius, 
 Forerius, and Grotius render it, afedst of vine-fruit 
 (vindemise) ; but Clarius gives also the same 
 explanation as Munster. Our readers, we trust, 
 will agree with us in rejecting the idea of intoxi- 
 cation from this beautiful passage ; which, indeed, 
 has but few supporters. We agree with the great 
 majority of interpreters, that a signal blessing is 
 here referred to ; but we cannot agree with those 
 who suppose that wine drawn off from dregs is 
 made the emblem of that blessing. Such wine 
 would evidently not answer the purpose. It-was 
 not the best wine. In reference to the separation 
 of dregs and sediment from wine before it was 
 drunk, Professor Ramsay says, ‘ Occasionally a 
 piece of linen cloth {ffdiacos, saccus) was placed 
 over the rpuyonros or colum (Pollux, vi. 19; x. 
 75), and the wine {araKKias, saccatus) filtered 
 through (Martial, viii. 45). The use of the saccus 
 was considered objectionable for all delicate wines, 
 since it was believed to injure (Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 
 51), if not entirely to destroy, their flavour, and 
 in every instance to diminish the strength of the 
 liquor. For this reason it was employed by the 
 dissipated in order that they might he able to 
 
750 SHEMARIM. 
 
 sicaVow a greater quantity without becoming in- 
 toxicated' (Smith's Dictionary of Greek and 
 Rotnan Antiquities, art. Vinum). Vitringa ancl 
 others suppose that the wine in the passage before 
 as was prepared by the very method which Pro- 
 fessor Ramsay justly says was believed to injure , 
 if not entirely to destroy its flavour. Columella, 
 Cato, and Pliny, speak of wine made from dregs 
 or lees ; but none of them speak of it as of supe- 
 rior excellence : on the contrary, they mention 
 it as rather inferior. 
 
 These considerations have induced us to think 
 of another interpretation of the term. We regard 
 it as indicating something excellent in its kind, 
 and the best of its kind. It seems to refer to some 
 rich preserves made from grapes or other fruits. 
 We thus fall back on the radical idea of the word, 
 and connect that idea with its use in the present 
 passage, which is different from its use in other 
 texts. These preserves might be usually prepared 
 from the grape, but it is not necessary to limit 
 them to such a preparation ; thus we find D'Dy 
 asis, properly the juice of the grape (Joel i. 5), 
 used to denote the juice of the pomegranate 
 (Cant. viii. 2). 
 
 It is .difficult to say how these preserves were 
 prepared. £ In the East grapes enter very largely 
 into the provisions at an entertainment. Thus 
 Norden was treated by the Aga of Assaoun with 
 coffee, and some bunches of grapes of an excellent 
 taste ’ (Robinson’s Calmet , art. Vine). It is 
 probable, however, that some solid preparation of 
 the dried grape (‘ uva passa’) is here intended. The 
 very best grapes were anciently, and still are, 
 employed to make such preparations in Palestine. 
 The finest grapes in that country grow in the 
 vineyards around Hebron. ‘ The produce of these 
 vineyards,’ says Professor Robinson, ‘ is celebrated 
 throughout Palestine. No wine, however, nor 
 ’Arak is made from them, except by the Jews, 
 and this is not in great quantity. The wine is 
 good. The finest grapes are dried as raisins ; 
 and the rest, being trodden and pressed, the juice 
 is boiled down to a syrup, which, under the name 
 of Dibs (our author states in a note that. ‘ this 
 is the Hebrew word debhash, signifying 
 
 honey, and also syrup of grapes' ) is much used 
 by all classes, wherever vineyards are found, 
 as a condiment with their food. It resembles 
 thin molasses, but is more pleasant to the taste’ 
 (. Biblical Researches in Palestine , ii. 412). 
 The fact here stated regarding the use made 
 of the finest grapes, supplies us with an article 
 worthy of the feast mentioned in the text. Buck- 
 ingham, a well-known traveller, mentions the fol- 
 lowing interesting facts: — ‘By way of dessert, 
 some walnuts and dried figs were afterwards 
 served to us, besides a very curious article, pro- 
 bably resembling the dried wine of the ancients, 
 which they are sai 1 to have preserved in cakes. 
 They were of the size of a cucumber, and were made 
 out of the fermented juice of the grape formed 
 into a jelly, and in this state wound round a 
 central thread of the kernel of walnuts ; the 
 pieces of the nuts thus forming a support for the 
 outer coat of jelly, which became harder as it 
 dried, and would keep, it is said, fresh and good 
 for many months, forming a welcome treat at all 
 times, and being particularly well adapted for 
 sick or delicate persons, who might require some 
 grateful provisi ns capable of being carried in a 
 
 SHEMARIM. 
 
 small compass, and without risk of injury c* 
 a journey’ ( Travels among the Arabs , p. 137) 
 Whether this intelligent traveller is right in as- 
 serting that the article mentioned by him was 
 made out of the fermented juice of the grape, 
 we cannot determine. If so, it must have been 
 entirely different from our fermented wines, for 
 none of them could be ‘ formed into a jelly.' 
 The article, as he found it, was in a solid state, 
 having become hard as it dried, and was, pro- 
 bably, free of the intoxicating principle. 
 
 Were we able to say how the article designated 
 by shcmdrim v/as prepared, we could easily ex- 
 plain the force of the epithet D'ppTD mezukkd - 
 kirn. It is the passive participle of the pual (or 
 intensitive) species of the verb ppT zakak , which 
 is usually explained as signifying to purify , a 
 meaning sufficiently applicable in the present 
 case. The preserves might be purified by clear- 
 ing out the skins of the grapes, the stones, &c. 
 Hosenmiiller ( Scholia , in loc .), following Vit- 
 ringa, supposes here a reference to filtration, by 
 which the dregs were separated from the wine, 
 and by which consequently the wine was purified. 
 We have .already given a reason why this inter- 
 pretation must be rejected. The following remark 
 of Horace (Sat. ii. 4. 51) is directly opposed to it, 
 and shows that wine thus prepared would have no 
 ^claim to stand side by side with the rich delicacies 
 mentioned in the text : — 
 
 ‘ Massica si coelo suppones vina sereno, 
 Nocturna, si quid crassi est, tenuabitur aura, 
 Et decedet odor nervis inimicus: at ilia 
 Integrum perdunt. lino vitiata saporem.’ 
 
 * The sky serene, put out your Massic wine ; 
 
 In the night air its foulness shall refine, 
 
 And lose the scent, unfriendly to the nerves, 
 But filtrated, no flavour it preserves.’ 
 
 Francis. 
 
 Dr. E. Henderson (Notes on Isaiah') and Baines 
 (Notes on Isaiah) suppose that purification by 
 fermentation is here referred to; but these distin- 
 guished writers, to be thoroughly consistent, should 
 adopt the opinion of Munster. Some have sought 
 a resemblance between the process by which metals 
 are purified, and that employed to retine the she - 
 murim, the same word being used in connection 
 with each (Job xxviii. 1 ; 1 Chron. xxviii. 18; 
 xxix. 4 ; Ps. xii. 6 [ Heb . 7] ; Mai. iii. 3) ; 
 but probably the fact of refinement is all that 
 may be intended, without reference to the process. 
 Other interpretations (as that of Seb. Ravius, in 
 Diatribe de epulo funebri gentibus dando adJes., 
 cap. xxv. 0, 7, R; Traj. ad Rhen , 1747, p. 23, 
 sq. ; of J. D. Michaelis, in Supplem. ad Lex. 
 Hebr., p. ii. 642) we omit, as anticipated in the 
 preceding observations, or unworthy of notice. 
 
 After a full consideration of the subject, we 
 conclude that the shemurim of this text was a 
 solid article, different hom ashishah , 
 
 grape-cake (Gesenius, Heb. Lex., sub voc), as 
 not being pressed in any particular form, and 
 different from tsimmukim, dried grapes , 
 
 as being refined and prepared for being served up 
 at a sumptuous entertainment. 
 
 This subject might be further illustrated by a 
 consideration of the Hebrew taste in regard to 
 the produce of the vineyard. It will riot be de- 
 nied that the figurative language of the Scrip- 
 tures is to be illustrated by reference to Jewisii 
 
SHESH. 
 
 SHEMARIM. 
 
 customs. Those commentators, however, who 
 suppose that Isaiah here speaks of good old fer- 
 mented wine , advocate an article which is rather 
 offensive than agreeable to the Hebrew taste. 
 In Cant. ii. 4, the bricle says of the object of her 
 affection, ‘ He brought me to the house of grapes’ 
 (pn rvn), an arbour being referred to, probably 
 similar to those found in our gardens and or- 
 chards, or perhaps larger (Robinson s Palestine , 
 vol. i. p. 314), such houses or tents being common 
 in vineyards, and resorted to at the time of the 
 vintage. The sweetness of honey seems to have 
 been preferred in their wines; for in Cant. v. 1, the 
 bridegroom says, ‘I have eaten my honey (not 
 honey-comb, as ‘some have falsely arid carelessly 
 rendered it'— Gesenius) [Honey], with my grape 
 syrup •/ and the mildness of milk was also agree- 
 able, for he adds, ‘ I have drunk my wine with my 
 milk/ That which ‘ goeth down sweetly’ is ap- 
 proved of (Cant. vii. 9), as well as that which has 
 the flavour of spices, with the addition of the 
 juice of the pomegranate (Cant. viii. 2), or that 
 of other fruits. Wisdom, too (Prov. ix. 2), is 
 said to have ‘ mingled her wine/ a circumstance 
 which plainly indicates that the wine referred to 
 was thick and syrupy, and for use required to be 
 mingled with a quantify of water equal to that 
 which had been evaporated by boiling. The an- 
 cient Jews had two objects in view in mingling 
 their wine — one of which we have now mentioned, 
 and the other was by the mixture of drugs to 
 produce a highly-intoxicating drink (Isa. v. 22). 
 It would be no compliment, therefore, to a sober 
 Israelite to be promised an abundant supply of 
 old fermented wine at a rich entertainment ; in 
 fact, it would be regarded as a kind of mockery. 
 
 We may state briefly the results to which the 
 preceding observations conduct us : — 
 
 ( a .) The term shemarim does not naturally 
 call up the idea of wine. 
 
 (6.) It properly signifies preservers or pre- 
 serves. 
 
 (c.) There is a paronomasia in the text in 
 the words shemanim (delicacies) and sliemdrim 
 (preserves), the beauty of which is increased by 
 the repetition of these terms. 
 
 ( d .) The interpretation of rich preserves is the 
 only one that suggests an article worthy of being 
 placed side by side with the rich delicacies which 
 interpreters acknowledge to be designated by the 
 accompanying term. 
 
 (e.) Wine filtered or drawn off from the lees 
 was not in high repute. 
 
 (/.) The Hebrew taste was in favour of a solid 
 preparation of the grape. 
 
 Neither of the other passages (Jer. xlviii. 11, 
 Zeph. i. 12), which relate to shemarim, is in- 
 vested with special interest. The wine was sepa- 
 rated from the lees, sometimes at least, by being 
 drawn off' from one vessel to another, as appears 
 from Jeremiah xlviii. 11, which Bishop Lowth 
 renders thus : — 
 
 ‘ Moab hath been at ease from his youth, 
 
 And he hath settled upon his lees; 
 
 Nor hath he been drawn oft’ from vessel to vessel, 
 Neitner hath he gone into captivity : 
 
 Therefore his taste remaineth in him, 
 
 And his flavour is not changed/ 
 
 Moab is here represen ted *as spending a life of 
 auiet indifference, living undisturbed in sin. 
 Such, too, was the situation of those of whom 
 
 751 
 
 Jehovah says (Zeph. i. 12), ‘I will punish th« 
 men that are settled on their lees;’ that is, those 
 who disregarded his admonitions, and prose- 
 cuted their sinful courses, unmoved by kia 
 threatenings. — P. M. 
 
 SHEMEBER lofty fight; Sept 
 
 2o/iffj8(i/)), king of Zeboim, one of the five ‘ cities 
 of the plain ’ (Gen. xiv. 2). 
 
 SHEMER C")££^, lees; Sept. 'Zepnp), the 
 owner of the hill of Samaria, which derived its 
 name from him. Omri bought the hill for two 
 talents of silver, and built thereon the city, 
 also called Samaria, which he made the ca- 
 pital of his kingdom (1 Kings xvi. 24) [see 
 Samaria]. As the Israelites were prevented by 
 the law (Lev. xxv. 23) from thus alienating theii 
 inheritances, and as his name occurs without the 
 usual genealogical marks, it is more than pro- 
 bable that Shemer was descended from those Ca- 
 naanit.es whom the Hebrews had not dispossessed 
 of their lands. 
 
 SHEM1NITH. [Psalms.] 
 
 SIIEOL. [Hades.] 
 
 1. SHEPHATIAH (iTtpBfe?, whom Jehovah 
 defends; Sept. Samaria), a son of David by 
 Abital (2 Sam. iii. 4). 
 
 2. SHEPHATIAH, one of the nobles who 
 urged Zedekiah to put Jeremiah to death (Jer. 
 xxxviii. 1). 
 
 3. SHEPHATIAH, one of the heads of 
 families who settled in Jerusalem after the exile 
 (Neh. xi. 6). 
 
 4. SHEPHATIAH, the head of one of the 
 families, numbering three hundred and seventy- 
 two persons, of the returned exiles (Ezra ii. 4, 57). 
 
 The same name, with a slight variation in the 
 original (in'tDS&JO, but not in the Authorized 
 Version, occurs in the following: 
 
 5. SHEPHATIAH, a son of king Jehosha- 
 phat (2 Cliron. xxi. 2). 
 
 6. SHEPHATIAH, one of the chief of those 
 valiant men who went to David when at Ziklag 
 (1 Ghron. xii. 5). 
 
 7. SHEPHATIAH, the governor of the tribe of 
 Simeon in the time of David (1 Cliron. xxvii. 16). 
 
 SHEPHERD. [Pasturage.] 
 
 SHESH ( W ), also SHESIII, translated fine 
 linen in the Authorized Version, occurs twenty- 
 eight times in Exodus, once in Genesis, once in 
 Proverbs, and three times in Ezekiel. Con- 
 siderable doubts have, however, always been en- 
 tertained respecting the true meaning of the 
 word ; some have thought it signified fine wool, 
 others silk; the Arabs have translated it by words 
 referring to colours in the passages of Ezekiel and 
 of Proverbs. Some of the Rabbins state that it is 
 the same word as that which denotes the number 
 six, and that it refers to the number of threads of 
 which the yarn was composed. Thus Abarbanel 
 on Gen. xxv. says : ‘ Schesch est linum /Egypti- 
 acum, quod est pretiosissimum inter species lini. 
 Quum vero tortum est sex filis in unura, vocatur 
 schesch, aut schesch moschsar. Sin ex unico filo 
 tantum, dicitur bad' (Cels. Hierobot. ii. p. 260). 
 This interpretation, however, has satisfied but 
 few. The Greek Alexandrian translators used 
 the word fivcrcros, which by some has been sup- 
 posed to indicate ‘ cotton/ and by others ‘ liner.* 
 
SHESH. 
 
 SHESH. 
 
 753 
 
 In the article Byssus we have seen that the 
 word bad, translated linen, occurs in various 
 passages of the Old Testament, but that the word 
 butz, translated fine linen and white linen, is 
 employed only at a later period. Under the word 
 Karpas. used in Esth. i. 6, we have shown the 
 probability of its being derived from the Sanscrit 
 karpasum, and that it signifies ‘cotton.’ We 
 have there stated our opinion that cotton was 
 known to the Hebrews when in Persia, and that 
 butz , which is not used before the time when tire 
 book of Chronicles was written, probably also sig- 
 nifies cotton. Ethun, as well as oQoviov , appears 
 to have been applied either to linen or cottpn 
 cloth. Bad we conceive may mean linen only. 
 Pishtah, flax, we know was one of the great 
 productions of Egypt. 
 
 Shksh, however, must now be taken ixto con 
 sideration. In the several passages where we 
 find the word used, we do not obtain any in- 
 formation respecting the plant ; but it is clear it 
 was spun by women (Exod. xxx. 25), was used 
 as an article of clothing, also for hangings, and 
 even for the sails of ships, as in Ezekiel xxvii. 7, 
 ‘ Fine linen (shesh) with broidered work from 
 Egypt was that, which thou spreadest forth to be 
 thy sail.’ It is evident from these facts, that it 
 must have been a plant known as cultivated in 
 Egypt at the earliest period, and which, or its 
 fibre, the Israelites were able to obtain even when 
 in the desert. As cotton does not appear to have 
 been known at this very early period, we must 
 seek for shesh among the other fibre-yielding 
 plaflits, such as flax and hemp. Both these are 
 suited to the purpose, and were procurable in those 
 countries at the times specified. Lexicographers 
 do not give us much assistance in determining 
 the point, from the little certainty in their in- 
 ferences. The word shesh, however, appears to 
 us to have a very great resemblance, with the 
 exception of the aspirate, to the Arabic name of a 
 plant, which, it is curious, was also one of those 
 earliest cultivated for its fibre, namely, hemp. 
 Of this plant, one of the Arabic names is 
 
 j fc- husheesh , or the herb par excellence, 
 the term being sometimes applied to the powdered 
 leaves only, with which an intoxicating electuary 
 is prepared. This name has long been known, and 
 is thought by some to have given origin to our 
 word assassin or hassasin. Makrizi treats of the 
 hemp in his account of the ancient pleasure- 
 grounds in the vicinity of Cairo, ‘ famous above 
 all for the sale of the hasheesha, which is still 
 greedily consumed by the dregs of the people, 
 and from the consumption of which sprung the 
 excesses, which led to the name of “ assassin” 
 being given to the Saracens in the holy wars.’ 
 
 Hemp is a plant which in the present day is 
 extensively distributed, being cultivated in Eu- 
 rope, and extending through Persia to the southern- 
 most parts of India. In the plains of that 
 country it is cultivated on account of its in- 
 toxicating product, so well known as bang ; in 
 the Himalayas both on this account and for its 
 yielding the ligneous fibre which is used for sack 
 and rope-making. Its European names are no 
 doubt derived from the Arabic kinnab, which 
 is supposed to be connected with the Sanscrit 
 shanapee. There is no doubt, therefore, that it 
 might easily have been cultivated in Egypt 
 
 Herodotus mentions it as being employed by the 
 Thracians for making garments. ‘These were so 
 like linen that none but a very experienced 
 person could tell whether they were of heir p or 
 flax ; one who had never seen hemp would cer- 
 tainly suppose them to be linen.' Hemp is used in 
 the present day for smock frocks and tunics ; and 
 Russia sheeting and Russia duck are well 
 known. Cannabis is mentioned in the works of 
 Hippocrates on account of its medical properties. 
 Dioscorides describes it as being employed for 
 making ropes, and it. was a good deal cultivated 
 by the Greeks for this purpose. Though we are 
 unable at present to prove that it was cultivated 
 in Egypt at an early period, and used for making 
 garments, yet there is nothing improbable in its 
 having been so. Indeed as it was known to va- 
 rious Asiatic nations, it could hardly have been 
 unknown to the Egyptians, and the similarity of 
 the word husheesh to tire Arabic shesh would 
 lead to a belief that they were acquainted with 
 it, especially as in a language like the Hebrew 
 it is more probable that different names were 
 applied to totally different things, than that the 
 same thing had two or three different names. 
 Hemp might thus have been used at an early 
 period, along with flax and wool, for making 
 cloth for garments and for hangings, and would 
 be much valued until cotton and the finer kinds 
 of linen came to be known. 
 
 Fi.ax and Linen. Reference has been made 
 to this article from Byssus and from Pishtah ; 
 for an account of flax and the cloth made from it. 
 So many words are translated linen in the Au- 
 thorized Version of the Scriptures, that, it has been 
 considered doubtful whether they indicate only 
 different qualities of the same thing, or totally 
 different substances. The latter has by some 
 been thought the most probable, on account of 
 the poverty of the Hebrew language ; lienee, in- 
 stead of considering the one a synonym of the 
 oth^r, we have been led to enquire, as above, 
 whether shesh may not signify cloth made of hemp 
 instead offlax. This would leave bad and 2 >ishtah 
 as the only words peculiarly appropriated to linen 
 and flax. The passages in which bad occurs have 
 already been indicated [Byssus]. On referring 
 to them we find that it is used only when articles 
 of clothing are alluded to. It is curious, and 
 probably not accidental, that the Sanscrit word 
 pat signifies cloth made from flax-like substances. 
 It has been remarked that the official garments of 
 the Hebrews, like those of the Egyptians, were all 
 made of linen ; and we find in the several passages 
 where bad occurs, that linen garments and clothes, 
 linen breeches, linen girdle, linen ephod, linen 
 mitre, are intended; so in Exod. xxxix. 28, and 
 they made for Aaron and his sons ‘ a mitre of fine 
 linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen 
 breeches of fine twined linen.’ In the article 
 Cotton we have seen that the mummy cloths 
 are composed very generally, if not universally, 
 of linen cloth. 
 
 Pishtah no doubt refers to the flax 
 
 plant, if we may judge from the context, of the 
 passages in which it occurs. Thus, in Exod. ix. 
 31, in the plague of the hail storm, it is related, 
 
 ‘ And the flax ( pishtah ) and the barley was 
 smitten : for the barley was in the ear, and the 
 flax was boiled,’ or in blossom, according to 
 
SHESHACH. 
 
 SHEW -BREAD. 
 
 '63 
 
 Geaoniug. As (he departure of the Israelites took 
 place in the spring, this passage has reference no 
 doubt to the practice adopted in Egypt, as well 
 as in India, of sowing these grains partly in the 
 months of September and October, and partly in 
 spring, so that the wheat might easily be in blade 
 at the same time that the barley and flax were 
 more advanced. From the numerous references 
 
 tc flax and linen, there is no doubt that the plant 
 was extensively cultivated, not only in Egypt, but 
 also in Palestine. As to Egypt we have proof in 
 the mummy cloth being made of linen, and also 
 in the representations of the flax cultivation in the 
 paintings of the Grotto of El Kab, which repre- 
 sent the whole process with the utmost clearness ; 
 and numerous testimonies might be adduced from 
 ancient authors, of the esteem in which the linen of 
 Egypt was held. Flax continues to be extensively 
 cultivated in the present day. That it was also 
 much cultivated in Palestine, and well known to 
 the Hebrews, we have proofs in the number of 
 times it is mentioned; as in Josh. xi. 6, where 
 Rahab is described as concealing the two He- 
 brew spies with the stalks of flax which she 
 had laid in order upon the roof. In several pas- 
 sages, as Lev. xiii. 47, 48, 52, 59; Deut. 
 xxii. 11; Jer. xcii. 1; Ezek. xl. 3; xliv. 17, 
 18, we find it mentioned as forming different ar- 
 ticles of clothing, as girdles, cords, and bands. In 
 Prov. xxxi. 13, the careful housewife ‘ seeketh 
 wool and flax, and worketh it willingly with her 
 hands.’ The words of Isaiah (xlii. 3), ‘ A bruised 
 reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax 
 shall he not quench,’ are evidently referred to in 
 Matt. xii. 20, where \lvov is used as the name 
 of flax, and as tne equivalent of pishtak. But 
 there can be no doubt of this word being correctly 
 understood, as it has been well investigated by 
 several authors. (Cels. Hierobot. ii. p. 283 ; 
 Yates. Textrinum Antiqaorwn, p. 253 ) — J. F. R. 
 
 SHESHACH (y&V)), a name twice given by 
 Jeremiah to Babylon (Jer. xxv. 26; li. 41). 
 Its etymology and proper signification are doubt- 
 ful. The Jewish interpreters, followed by Je- 
 
 voi,. u. 49 
 
 rome, suppose Sheshach to stand for ^>22 
 
 Babel , according to the secret or cabbalistic mode 
 of writing called athbash , in which the alphabet 
 is inverted, so that ]"l, the last letter, is put. for 
 the first, the penultimate letter for 2 the se 
 cond, and so on ; and this they suppose was done 
 by the prophet for fear of the Chaldseans. Bu 
 Gesenius very properly asks, even supposing 
 these cabbalistic mysteries of trifling had been 
 already current in the time of Jeremiah, which 
 cannot by any means be admitted, bow comes it 
 to pass that Babylon is in the very same verse 
 mentioned under its own proper name? C. B. 
 Michael is ingeniously conjectures that 
 comes from shi/cshach, ‘ to overlay with 
 
 iron or other plates,’ so that, it might designate 
 Babylon as xaAK6-irv\os. Yon Bohlen thinks the 
 word synonymous with the Persian Shih-Shah , 
 i. e. ‘house of the prince;’ but it is doubtful 
 whether, at so early a period as the age of Jere- 
 miah, Babylon could have received a Persian 
 name that would be known in Judaea. 
 
 SHESHAN (JW- lily; Sept. 2c wav), a He- 
 brew, who during the sojourn in Egypt gave bis 
 daughter in marriage to his freed Egyptian slave 
 (1 Chron. ii. 3-1) [JarhahJ. 
 
 SHESHBAZZAR. [Zerubbabei..] 
 
 SFIETHAR pnK>; Pers., a star; Sept. 
 2 oc per ad cuo s), one of the seven princes of Persia and 
 Media, ‘ who saw the king's face, and sat the first 
 in the kingdom’ (Est. i. 14). 
 
 SHETHAR-BOZNAI ('^2 Pers., 
 
 shining star ; Sept. 3Zci9ap/3ov£avai), one of the 
 Persian governors in Syria, who visited Jerusalem 
 in company with Tatnai, to investigate the 
 charges made against the Jews (Ezra v. 3 ; vi. 6): 
 [Tatnai]. 
 
 SHEVA. [Skraiah.1 
 
 SREW-BREAD. In the outer apartment of 
 the tabernacle, on the right hand, or north- side, 
 stood a table, made of acacia (shittim) wood, two 
 cubits long, one broad, and one and a half high, 
 and covered with laminae of gold. The top of 
 the leaf of this table was encircled by a border 
 or rim of gold. The frame of the table, imme- 
 diately below the leaf, was encircled with a piece 
 of wood of about four inches in breadth, around 
 the edge of which was a rim or border, similar 
 to that around the leaf. A little lower down, 
 but at equal distances from the top of the table, 
 there were four rings of gold fastened to the 
 legs, through which staves covered with gold, 
 were inserted for the purpose of currying it (Exod. 
 xxv. 23-28 ; xxxvii. 1 0- 1 6). These rings were 
 not found in the table which was afterwards 
 made for the temple, nor indeed in any of the 
 sacred furniture, where they had previously been, 
 except in the ark of the covenant. Twelve un- 
 leavened loaves were placed upon this table, 
 which were sprinkled with frankincense (the 
 Sept, adds salt; Lev. xxiv. 7). The number: 
 twelve represented the twelve tribes, and was not 
 diminished after the defection of ten of the tribes 
 from the worship of God in his sanctuary, be- 
 cause the covenant with the sons of Abraham was- 
 not formally abrogated, and because there were 
 still many true Israelites among the apostatizing 
 tribes. The twelve loaves were also a constant 
 record against them, and served as a standing 
 
*64 SHIBBOLETH. 
 
 testimonial that their proper place was before the 
 forsaken altar of Jehovah. 
 
 The loaves were placed in two piles, one above 
 another, and were changed every Sabbath day by 
 the priests. The frankincense that had stood on 
 the bread during the week was then burnt as an 
 oblation, and the removed bread became the 
 property of the priests, who, as God's servants, 
 had a right to eat of the bread that came from 
 his table; but they were obliged to eat it in the 
 holy place, and nowhere else. No others might 
 lawfully eat of it ; but in a case of extreme emer- 
 gency the priest incurred no blame if he im- 
 parted it to persons who were in a state of 
 ceremonial purity, as in the instance of David 
 and his men (1 Sam. xxi. 4-6; Matt. xii. 4). 
 The bread was called D'33 DfD, ‘ the bread of 
 tire face,’ or, ‘ of the ’presence,' because it was set 
 fortli before the face or in the presence of Jehovah 
 in his holy place. This is translated 4 shew- 
 
 bread.’ It is also called nDTJJDfl BIT?, ‘ the 
 oread arranged in order,’ and VOD Df6, * the 
 perpetual bread,’ because it was never absent 
 from the table (Lev. xxiv. 6, 7 ; 1 Chron. 
 xxiii. 29). 
 
 Wine also was placed upon the table of 
 ‘ shew-bread,' in bowls, some larger, lYnyp, and 
 some smaller, TVlDD ; also in vessels that, were 
 covered, and in cups, which 
 
 were probably employed in pouring in and taking 
 out the wine from the other vessels, or in making 
 libations. Gesenius calls them 4 paterae libato- 
 riae ;’ and they appear in the Authorized Version as 
 4 spoons’ (See generally Kxod. xxv. 29, 30; 
 xxxvii. 1 0-1 G ; xl. 4, 24 ; Lev. xxiv. 5-9 ; Num. 
 5v. 7). 
 
 SHIBBOLETH (H^). The word means 
 4i stream or flood, and was hence naturally sug- 
 gested to the followers of Jephthah, when, having 
 seized the fords of the Jordan to prevent the re- 
 treat of the defeated Ephraimites, they sought to 
 ■distinguish them through their known inability to 
 utter the aspirated sound sh. The fugitives gave 
 instead the unaspirated s,sibboleth, on which they 
 were slain without mercy (Judg. xi'. 6). The 
 •certainty which was felt that the Ephraimites 
 could not pronounce sh, is very remarkable, and 
 strongly illustrates the varieties of dialect wjiich 
 had already arisen in Israel, and which perhaps 
 •even served to distinguish different tribes, as 
 similar peculiarities distinguish men of different 
 counties with us. If what is here mentioned as 
 the characteristic of a particular tribe had been 
 shared by other tribes, it would not have been 
 sufficiently discriminating as a test. [Hebrew 
 Language.] 
 
 SHIELD. [Arms.] 
 
 SHIKMOTH (Tripps) and SHIKMIM 
 (D'DpSjj), translated 4 sycomore,’ occur in several 
 passages of the Old Testament, but always in the 
 plural. From the context it is evident that 
 4 must have been a tree of some size, common in 
 the plains, unable to bear great cold, with wood 
 of inferior quality, but still cultivated and valued 
 on account of its fruit. It was not what is called 
 sycamore in this countr) , which is a kind of 
 taaple, and in some of its cnaracters the reverse of 
 oat a required. The Septuagint everywhere ren- 
 
 3HIKMOTIL 
 
 ders it (rvK&iuvos , which signifies the mulberry. In 
 the Arabic translation the word j^s»- jumeez is 
 
 used as synonymous. Now jumeez is applied 
 by the Arabs in the present day, and has been 
 so from ancient times to a great, tree of Egypt. 
 According to Abu’l Fadli, as translated by Cel 
 sius, ‘ Giummeis nomen est Syriacum arbori 
 simili ficui, sed foliis morum referenti/ These 
 few words would be sufficient 1o direct us to the 
 tree which was called avKo/xopos by the Greeks, 
 from <rvKrj , a fig, and ixopos , the mulberry tree, 
 and which is the Finis Sycomorus of botanists- 
 being a genuine specie of Ficus, to which the 
 ancient name has been added as the specific one. 
 The fruit in its general characters lesembles that, of 
 the fig, while the leaves resemble those of the mul- 
 berry tree. Prosper Alpinus says of it, 4 Arbor 
 vastissima ab ASgyptiis Zwnez vocata, in ^Egypto 
 proven it, quam nostri Sycotnorum, ac ficuir 
 ^Egyptiam appellant.’ 
 
 The ancients were well acquainted with it; and 
 it is common in Egypt as well as in Syria. In 
 Egypt, being one of the few trees indigenous in 
 that country, its wood was proportionally much 
 employed, as in making mnmmy-casos, though 
 it is coarse grained, and would not be valued 
 where other trees are more common. Thus, in 
 Isa. ix. 10, 4 The sycamores are cut down, but 
 we will change them into cedars.’ By this the 
 Israelites intimate that they will soon be able to 
 repair their losses, and rebuild in greater perfec- 
 tion than ever. So in 1 Kings x. 27 ; 2 Chton. 
 i. 15, the riches introduced by Solomon, and the 
 improvements made by him are, in like manner, 
 intimated by contrasting the cedar with the syca- 
 more : — ‘And the king made silver to be in 
 Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he as the 
 sycamore trees that are in the vale for abundance.’ 
 Though the wood of this sycamore is coarse 
 grained, it is yet very durable in a dry climate 
 like that of Egypt; hence the mummy-cases even 
 in the present day seem as if made with fresh 
 wood. This may no doubt be partly escribe?* 
 
SHILOH. 
 
 SHILOH. 
 
 755 
 
 to the preservative effects of the resinous coats, 
 paints, &c. with which they are impregnated. The 
 late Professor Don wa3 of opinion that this wood 
 was that ot Cordia Myaea, or the Sebesten tree; but 
 it, hardly grows large enough. The sycamore 
 being a tree abundant in Egypt must necessarily be 
 one suited to plains and vales, and hence would 
 also be one likely to be injured by cold, as in 
 Psa. lxxviii. 47, c He destroyed their vines with 
 hail, and their sycamore trees with frost.’ That 
 the sycamore was cultivated and esteemed in 
 Palestine we learn from 1 Chron. xxvii. 2S, 
 ‘ And over the olive trees and the sycamore trees 
 that were in the low plains was Baal-hanan the 
 Gederite.’ This was on account of its fruit, 
 which it bears on its stem and branches, like the 
 common fig, and continues to produce in succes- 
 sion for months. The fruit is palatable, sweetish 
 in taste, and still used as food in the East. 
 One mode of ripening the fruit is supposed to 
 be alluded to in Amos vii. 14, ‘I was an 
 herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit 
 but the latter part of the sentence is understood to 
 mean ‘ scraping or making incisions in the syca- 
 more fruit,’and to refer to the practice mentioned 
 by Hasselquist as existing even in modem times. 
 When the fruit has reached the size of an 
 inch in diameter, the inhabitants pare off a part 
 at the centre point. They say that without this 
 operation it would not come to maturity. The 
 same practice is mentioned by Theophrastus and 
 Pliny, &c. As the sycamore is a lofty, shady 
 tree, it was well suited for climbing up into, as 
 described in Luke xix. 4, where Zacchaeus ascends 
 one to see Jesus pass by. — J. F. R. 
 
 SHILOH (nHo, the epithet applied, in the 
 prophetic benediction of Jacob on his death-bed 
 (Gen. xlix. 10), to the personage to whom ‘ the 
 gathering of the nations should- be,’ and which 
 has ever been regarded by Christians and by the 
 ancient Jews as a denomination of the Messiah. 
 The oracle occurs in the blessing of Judah, and 
 is thus worded — The sceptre shall not depart 
 from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his 
 feet, until Shiloh come : and unto him the gather- 
 ing of the people shall be.’ The term itself, as 
 well as the whole passage to which it belongs, 
 has ever been a fruitful theme of controversy be- 
 tween Jews and Christians, the former, although 
 they admit for the most part the Messianic 
 reference of the text, being still fertile in expe- 
 dients to evade the Christian argument founded 
 upon it. Neither our limits nor our object will 
 permit us to enter largely into the theological 
 bearings of this prediction ; but it is perhaps 
 scarcely possible to do justice to the discussion as 
 a question of pure philology, without at the same 
 time displaying the strength of the Christian in- 
 terpretation, and trenching upon the province 
 occupied by the proofs of Jesus of Nazareth being 
 the Messiah of the Old Testament prophecies. 
 
 Before entering upon the more essential merits 
 of the question, it may be well to recite the ancient 
 versions of this passage, which are mostly to be 
 referred to a date that must exempt them from 
 the charge of an undue bias towards any but the 
 right construction. Influences of this nature 
 have, of course, become operative with Jews of a 
 late? period. The version of the Sept, is pe- 
 culiar—* A prince sliall not fail from Jfudah, nor 
 
 a captain out of his loins, eus &v eA0rj ra araicd' 
 /tern (xvtw, until the things come that are laid up 
 for him.' In some copies another reading is 
 found, <5 andfceiTai, for idiom it is laid up; 
 meaning, doubtless, in the kingdom, —for whom 
 the kingdom is laid up in reserve. This render 
 ing is probably to be referred to an enoneoiw 
 lection, 1^ whose it is. Targ. Onk., ‘One 
 
 having the principality shall not be taken from 
 the house of Judah, nor a scribe from his 
 children's children, until the Messiah come, 
 whose the kingdom is.’ Targ. Jerus., * Kings 
 shall not fail from the house of Judah, nor skil- 
 ful doctors of the law from their children's 
 children, till the time when the King’s Messiah 
 shall come.’ Syr., ‘ The sceptre shall not fail 
 from Judah, nor an expounder from between his 
 feet, till he come whose it is ;’ i. e. the sceptre, 
 the right, the dominion. Arab., ‘ The sceptre 
 shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a law- 
 giver from under his rule, until he shall come 
 whose it is.’ Sam., ‘ The sceptre shall not be 
 taken away from Judah, nor a leader from his 
 banners, until the Pacific shall come.’ Lat. 
 Yulg., ‘ The sceptre shall not be taken away 
 from Judah, nor a leader from his thigh — donee 
 veniet qui rr.ittendus est, until he shall come who 
 is to be sent.' This is evidently founded upon 
 
 mistaking in the original for rh'W, which 
 
 latter comes from the root signifying to send. 
 It is, however, adopted by Grotius as the truest 
 reading, the present form of the word being 
 owing, in bis opinion, to the error of transcribers 
 in substituting H for !“!• 
 
 Various other etymologies have been assigned 
 to the term, the advocates of which may be di 
 vided into two classes: those who consider the 
 
 word n b'W as a compound ; and those who deem 
 it a radical or simple derivation. Those of the 
 first class coincide, for the most part, with the 
 
 ancient interpreters, taking as equivalent to 
 and this to be made up of the contrac- 
 tion of who, and 1^, the dative of the third 
 
 personal pronoun. The rendering, accordingly, 
 in this case, would he cujus est, or cui est, whose 
 it is, to whom it belongs, i. e. the sceptre or do- 
 minion. This interpretation is defended by Jalm 
 ( Einl . in A. T. i. p. 507, and Vat. Mes. ii. p. 
 179). It is approved abo by Hess, De Wette, 
 Krummacher, and others. The authority of the 
 ancient versions, already alluded to, is the prin- 
 cipal ground upon which its advocates rely. But 
 to this sense it i3 a serious objection, that there is 
 no evidence that the abbreviation of into 
 
 was known in the time of Moses. There is no 
 cither instance of it in the Pentateuch, and it is 
 only in the book of Judges that we first meet with 
 it. However the rendering of the old translators 
 is to be accounted for, there is no sufficient 
 ground for the belief that the form in question 
 was the received one in their time. If it was, we 
 should doubtless find some traces of it in exist- 
 ing manuscripts. But though these copies ex- 
 hibit the reading not one of them girca 
 
 and but very few : which Hengstenberg 
 deems of no consequence, as the omission of tb* 
 yod was merely a defective way of writing, whsa^t 
 
SHILOH. 
 
 SHILOH. 
 
 756 
 
 often occurs in words of similar structure. An 
 argument for tliis interpretation has indeed 
 been derived from Ezek. xxi. 27, where the 
 words, ‘ until he shall come, whose is the domi- 
 nion. “1EJW, 1 are regarded as an ob- 
 
 vious paraphrase of ibi^ or n^E2. But to this it 
 may be answered, that while Ezekiel may have 
 had the present passage in his eye, and intended 
 an alluskm to the character or prerogatives of the 
 Messiah, yet there is no evidence that tin's was 
 designed as an interpretation of the name under 
 consideration. The reasons, therefore, appear 
 ample fir setting aside, as wholly untenable, the 
 explication of the time here propounded, without 
 adverting to the fact, that the ellipsis involved in 
 this construction is so unnatural and violent, that 
 no parallel to it can he found in the whole 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Another solution proposed by some expositors 
 is, to derive the word nb'I^ from child , and 
 
 the suffix H for 1. This will yield the reading, 
 * until his (Judah’s) son or descendant , the Mes- 
 siah, shall come.’ Thus the Targ. Jon., ‘ Until 
 the time when the king’s Messiah shall come, 
 the little one of his sons.' This view is favoured 
 by Calvin (in loc.') and by Knapp (Dogm. ii. 
 p. 138), and also by Dathe. But as this re- 
 solves into a synonym with after- 
 
 birth (Deut. xxviii. 57), rendered ‘ young one, 1 
 it requires us to adopt the unnatural supposition, 
 that the term properly denoting the secundines , 
 or the membrane that encloses the foetus, is taken 
 for the foetus itself. Besides, this exposition has 
 an air of grossness about it which prompts its in- 
 voluntary rejection. 
 
 The second class consists of those who con- 
 sider nb^ as a radical or simple derivative. Of 
 these we may remark, that it is principally among 
 the Jews that the opinion of Aben Ezra- finds 
 
 currency, who makes flb'E? here to be the name 
 of the place (Shiloh) where the tabernacle was 
 first fixed after the conquest of Canaan. The 
 sense of the oracle, according to this construction, 
 will be, that Judah was to be the leader of the 
 tribes during the whole journey to Canaan, until 
 they came to Shiloh. Subsequent to this event, 
 in consequence of the distribution of the tribes 
 according to the boundaries assigned them, it 
 was to lose its pre-eminence. But there is no 
 mention made of Shiloh elsewhere in the Penta- 
 teuch, and no probability that any such place 
 existed in the time of Jacob. It is, moreover, 
 scarcely conceivable that such a splendid train 
 of prediction should be interrupted by an allu- 
 9*1011 to such an inconsiderable locality. It is 
 so utterly out of keeping witli the general tone of 
 the prophecy, that it is surprising that any mind 
 not infatuated by Rabbinic trivialities, should en- 
 tertain the theory for a moment. Yet Teller, 
 Mendelsohn, Eichhorn, Ammon, Rosenmiiller 
 (in first edition), Kelle, and others have enrolled 
 themselves in favour of this crude conceit. 
 
 But an exposition of far more weight, both 
 from its intrinsic fitness, and from the catalogue 
 of distinguished name3 which have espoused it, 
 
 is that which traces the term to the root flb^ 
 psievit, to rest , to be at peace , and makes it 
 equivalent to Pacificator, Tranquillizer, or Great 
 
 Author of Pea re. This is a sense iccirdan* 
 with the anticipated and realised character oi 
 the Messiah, one of whose crowning denomina- 
 tions is ‘ Prince of Peace. 1 Still it is an objec- 
 tion to this sense of the term, that, it is not suffi- 
 ciently sustained by the analogy of forms. The 
 idea conveyed by the proposed interpretation, is 
 that, of causing or effecting peace ; an idea for 
 which the Hebrew has an appropriate form oi 
 expression, and which, in this word, would nor- 
 mally be mashliah. The actual form, 
 
 however, is wholly diverse from this, and though 
 several examples are adduced by the advocates 
 of this interpretation, of analogous derivations 
 from a tri-literal root, as TITO from TD, 
 from XO, "TlO'P from “Ittp, &c., yet it 
 is certain that the original characteristic of this 
 form is a jwssive instead of an active sense, 
 
 which obviously requires according to the 
 
 exegesis proposed. 
 
 In these circumstances we venture to suggest 
 another origin for the term. In our view the 
 
 legitimate derivation is from to ask , seek, 
 
 require , so that its true import is the desired , the 
 longed for one. The appropriate participial form 
 
 for this is or its equivalent ^'NE^, in 
 
 which the passive sense is predominant. In 
 words of this class the weak guttural K not enly 
 remits its vowel to the preceding letter, but falls 
 
 out in the writing, as 'Q for for 
 
 nw for rve\s“i, m for rw for 
 
 JYHNE^. We obtain by this process for 
 or the ashed, the desired, which leaves (lie 
 
 passive import unimpaired. We have then to 
 account for' the supplementary letters HI oh 
 
 It would perhaps be reason- 
 able to expect that the form would not be 
 
 retained in this connection, as it might he con- 
 founded with blfrEE?, hades, from the same root. 
 In order, therefore, to distinguish it, and at the 
 same time to convey in the word itself an inti- 
 mation of the divine character of the personage 
 announced, we may suppose that two of the 
 letters of the word niiT* Jehovah are appended ; 
 than which nothing is more common in (lie con- 
 struction of proper names in Hebrew. Tlius, in 
 the names of Abraham and Sarah we recognise 
 the insertion of the letter H as a fragment of the 
 divine title niiT' ; and it is well known that the 
 termination el and oh, in nearly all the proper 
 names of Scripture, are derived from the divine 
 designation (Simonis, Onomast. § x.). As there 
 is nothing then on the ground of strict, philology 
 which can be objected to this pedigree of the 
 term, and as the idea conveyed by it is wholly 
 in accordance with the character of the predicted 
 Messiah, we do not hesitate to give it the decided 
 preference over any other that has been assigned. 
 An expression in Abarbanel’s Commentary on 
 this passage, would seem to indicate that he had 
 at least a gleam of this as its true import. In 
 speaking of the requisite characters of the Mes- 
 siah, he say 3 , ‘ The eighth coi dition and attri- 
 bute to be found in the promised King is, tha» 
 
 the nations should require him, and that 
 
 hb rest should be glorious. 1 The reader who 
 
SHILOIL 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 751 
 
 would pursue the inquiry into this subject, may 
 consult with advantage Jacobi, Alting Schilo, 
 iii. 8 ; Hengstenberg, Christol. ch. ii. 1 a, p. 41, 
 Keith’s Transl. — G. 13. 
 
 2 . SHILOH, a city in the tribe of Ephraim, 
 •tuated among the hills to the north of Bethel, 
 eastward of the great northern road, where the 
 .abernacle and ark remained for a long time, 
 from the days of Joshua, during the ministry of 
 all the judges, down to the end of Eli s life 
 (Josh, xviii. 1; 1 Sam. iv. 3). To this circum- 
 stance Shiloh owed all its importance; for after 
 the loss of the ark — which never returned thi- 
 ther after it had been restored to Israel by the 
 Philistines — it sunk into insignificance. It was, 
 indeed, the residence of Ahijah the prophet (1 
 Kings xi. 29 ; xii. 15 ; xiv. 2), hut it is more than 
 once mentioned as accursed and forsaken (Ps. 
 Ixxviii. 60 ; Jer. vii. 12, 14; xxvi.fi). The last 
 mention of it in Scripture is in Jer. xli. 5, which 
 only shows that it survived the exile. Dr. Robin- 
 son identifies it with a place named Seilun, a city 
 surrounded by hills, with an opening by a narrow 
 valley into a plain on the south. The ruins con- 
 sist chiefiy of an old tower with walls four feet 
 thick, and of large stones and fragments of co- 
 lumns indicative of an ancient site (see Robin- 
 son’s Palestine , iii. 85-89). 
 
 SHIMEI renoioned ; Sept. 2ejuei), a 
 
 member of the family of Saul, residing at Bahu- 
 rim, who grievously insulted king David when 
 he fled from Absalom (2 Sam. xvi. 5-13). The 
 king not only saved him from the immediate 
 resentment of his followers, but on his triumphant 
 return by the same road after the overthrow of his 
 rebellious son, he bestowed on Shimei the pardon 
 
 which he implored (2 Sam. xix. 16). It seema 
 however, that it was policy which chiefly dictated 
 this course, for it was by the advice of David 
 himself (1 Kings ii. 8, 9) that Solomon, after his 
 father’s death, made Shimei a prisoner at large in 
 Jerusalem (l Kings ii. 36, 37). Three years 
 after he broke his parole by leaving Jerusalem in 
 pursuit of some runaway slaves, and was, on hi.* 
 return, put to death by order of the king (1 Kings 
 ii. 39-46). 
 
 SHINAR pyjK> ; Sept. TSemxap), the proper 
 name of Babylonia, particularly of the country 
 around Babylon (Gen. x. 10 ; xiv. 1 ; Isa. xi. 
 11 ; Dan. i. 2; Zech. v. 11); see Ba.byi.onia. 
 
 SHIP. In few things is there greater danger 
 of modern associations misleading the reader of 
 the Scriptures than in regard to the subject of the 
 present article. To an Englishman a ship calls 
 up the idea of ‘ the wooden walls of old England,’ 
 which have so long withstood the ‘ battle and the 
 breeze,’ and done so much to spread the fame and 
 the influence of the British nation throughout the 
 world. But both the. ships and the navigation of 
 the ancients, even of the most maritime states, 
 were as dissimilar as things of the same kind 
 can well be to the realities which the terms now 
 represent. Navigation confined itself to coast- 
 ing, or if necessity, foul weather, or chance drove 
 a vessel from the land, a regard to safety urged 
 the commander to a speedy return, for he had no 
 guide but such as the stars might afford under skies 
 with which he was but imperfectly acquainted. 
 And ships, whether designed for commercial or 
 warlike purposes, were small in size and frail 
 in structure, if our immense piles of oak and 
 iron be taken as the objects of comparison. 
 
 The Jews cannot be said to have been a sea- 
 faring people ; yet their position on the map of 
 the world is such as to lead us to feel that they 
 could not have been ignorant of ships and the 
 business which relates thereunto. Phoenicia, the 
 north-western part of Palestine, was unquestion- 
 ably among, if not at the head of, the earliest 
 cultivators of mari’ime affairs. Then the Holy 
 Land itself lay with one side coasting a sea which 
 was anciently the great highway of navigation, 
 and the centre of social and commercial enter- 
 prise. Within its own borders it had a navi- 
 gable lake. The Nile, with which river the 
 fathers of the nation had become acquainted in 
 their bondage, was another great thoroughfare for 
 ship* And the Red Sea itself, which con- 
 
 ducted towards the remote east, was at no great 
 distance even from the capital of the land. 
 Then at different points in its long line of sea- 
 coast there were harbours of no mean repute. 
 Let the reader call to mind Tyre and Sidon in 
 Phoenicia, and Acre (Acco) and Jaffa (Joppa) in 
 Palestine. Yet the decidedly agricultural bear- 
 ing of the Israelitish constitution checked such 
 a development of power, activity, and wealth, 
 as these favourable opportunities might have 
 called forth on behalf of seafaring pursuits. 
 There can, however, be no doubt that the arts 
 of ship-building and of navigation came to 
 Greece and Italy from the East, and immediately 
 from the Levant; whence we may justifiably 
 infer that these arts, so far as they were cult*- 
 
758 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 SHIP. 
 
 vated in Palestine, were there in a higher state of 
 ] erfection at an early period, at least, than in 
 the more western parts of the world (Ezek. xxvii. ; 
 Strabo, lib. xvi. ; Comenz, De Nave Tyrid). In 
 the early periods of their history the Israelites 
 themselves would partake to a small extent of this 
 skill and of its advantages, since it was only by 
 degrees that they gained possession of the entire 
 land, and for a long time were obliged to give up 
 the sovereignty of very much of their seaboard 
 to the Philistines and other hostile tribes. The 
 earliest history of Palestinian ships lies in impene- 
 trable darkness, so far as individual facts are 
 concerned. In Gen. xlix. 13 there is, however, 
 a prophecy, the fulfilment of which would con- 
 nect the Israelites with shipping at an early 
 period : ‘ Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of 
 the sea, and he shall be for a haven of ships, and 
 his border shall be unto Zidon* (compare. Dent, 
 xxxiii. 19; Josh. xix. 10, sq.) : words which 
 seem more fitly to describe the position of Asher 
 in the actual division of the laud. These local 
 advantages, however, could have been only par- 
 tially improved, since we find Hiram, King of 
 Tyre, acting as carrier by sea for Solomon, en- 
 gaging to convey in floats to Joppa the timber 
 cut in Lebanon for the temple, and leaving to 
 the Hebrew prince the duty of transporting the 
 wood from the coast to Jerusalem. And when, 
 after having conquered El at h and Ezion-geber on 
 the further arm of the Red Sea, Solomon pro- 
 ceeded to convert them into naval stations for 
 his own purposes, he was still, whatever he did 
 himself, indebted to Hiram for ‘shipmen that had 
 knowledge of the sea’ (1 Kings ix. 26 ; x. 22). 
 The effort, however, to form and keep a navy in 
 connection with the East was not lastingly suc- 
 cessful ; it soon began to decline, and Jehoshaphat 
 failed when at a later day he tried to give new 
 life and energy to the enterprise (l Kings xxii. 
 49, 50). 
 
 In the time of the Maccabees Joppa was a 
 Jewish seapo:t(l Macc. xiv. 5). Herod the Great 
 availed himself of the opportunities naturally af- 
 forded to form a more capacious port at. Caesarea 
 (Joseph. De Bell Jud ., iii. 9. 3). Nevertheless 
 no purely Jewish trade by sea was hence even 
 now called into being. Caesarea was the place 
 whence Paul embarked in order to proceed as a 
 prisoner to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2). His voyage 
 on that occasion, as described most graphically 
 in the Acts of the Apostles (ch. xxvii., xxviii.), 
 if it requires some knowledge of ancient maritime 
 allairs in order to be rightly understood, affords 
 also rich and valuable materials towards a his- 
 tory of the subject, and might, we feel convinced, 
 be so treated as of itself to supply many irre- 
 sistib.e evidences of the certainty of the events 
 therein recorded, and, by warrantable inferences, 
 of the credibility of the evangelical history in 
 general. No one but an eye-witness could have 
 written the minute, exact, true, and graphic ac- 
 count which these two chapters give. 
 
 The reader of the New Testament is well 
 aware how frequently he finds himself with the 
 Saviour on the romantic shores of the sea of 
 Gennesareth. There Jesus is seen, now addressing 
 the people from on board a vessel, ttA oiov (Matt, 
 xiii. 2; Luke v. 3) ; now sailing up and down 
 the lake (Matt. viii. 23; ix. 1; xiv. 13; John 
 ri. 17). Some of his earliest disciples were pro- 
 
 prietors of barks which sailed on jhis ?ult i l so* 
 (Matt. iv. 21 : John xxi. 3; Luke v. 3). These 
 ‘ ships’ were indeed small. Josephus designates 
 the ships here employed by the term andcbr). 
 They were not, however, mere boats. They 
 carried their anchor with them (De Bell. Jud., 
 iii. 10. 1 ; Vit. xxxiii.). There was too a kind of 
 vessel larger than this, called a by Jose- 
 
 phus, who narrates a sea-fight which took place 
 on the lake, conducted on the part of the 
 Romans by Vespasian himself (De Bell. Jud., 
 iii. 10. 9). It thus appears that the lake was 
 not contemptible, nor its vessels mean; and those 
 should hence learn to qualify their language who 
 represent the Galilean fishermen as of the poorest 
 class. 
 
 The vessels connected with Biblical history 
 were for the most part ships of burden, almost in- 
 deed exclusively so, at least within the period of 
 known historical facts, though in a remote an- 
 tiquity the Phoenician states can hardly fail to 
 have supported a navy for warlike, as it is known 
 they did for predatory, purposes. This peculi- 
 arity, however, of the Biblical ships exonerates the 
 writer from entering into the general subject of 
 the construction of ancient ships and their seve- 
 ral sub-divisions. A good general summary on 
 that head may be found in Smith s Dictionary of 
 Greek and Roman Antiquities , p. 875, sq. A 
 few details respecting chiefly ships of burden 
 may be of service to the Scriptural student. In 
 a ship of this kind was Paul conveyed to Italy. 
 They (naves onerariae) were, for the purposes to 
 which they were destined, rounder and deeper 
 than ships of war, and sometimes of great capa- 
 city. In consequence of their bulk, and when 
 laden, of their weight, they were impelled by 
 sails rather than by oars. On the prow stood the 
 insignia from which the ship was named, and by 
 which it was known. These in Acts (xxviii. 11) 
 are called 7rapd(T7)ij.oi ‘sign,’ which it appears 
 consisted in this case of figures of Castor and Pol- 
 lux — lucida sidera — brilliant constellations, aus- 
 picious to navigators (Horat. Od., i. 3 ; Liv. 
 xxxvii. 92; Tac. Ann. vi. 34; Ovid, Fast. i. 
 
 10. 1). Each ship was provided with a boat, 
 intended in the case of peril to facilitate escape, 
 aicdcpy (Acts xxvii. 16 ; xxx. 32 ; Cic. De Invent. 
 
 11. 51) ; and several anchors (Acts xxvii. 29,40 ; 
 Caes. Civ. i. 25); also a plumb line for sounding 
 (Acts xxvii. 28; Isidor. Orig. xix. 4). Among 
 the sails one bore the name of ap-eg^v, trans- 
 lated in Acts xxvii. 40, by ‘ mainsail ;’ but pc* 
 
SHIP. 
 
 SH ITT A II. 
 
 75f 
 
 libly the word may rather mean what is now 
 tamed the ‘topsail’ ( Schol . ad Juven. xii. 68). 
 
 Iu great danger it was customary to gird the 
 vessel with cables, in order to prevent her from 
 falling to pieces under the force of wind and sea 
 (Acts xxvii. 17 : Polyb. xxvii. 3. 3 ; Athen. v. 
 204; Hor. Od. i. 14. 0). The various expedients 
 that were employed in order to prevent shipwreck 
 are described to the eye in the passage in the 
 Acts. First, the vessel was lightened by throwing 
 overboard all lumber, luggage, and everything 
 that could be snared. The term employed by 
 Luke is (TKcwfi (xxvii. 19), one of a very wide 
 signification, which the words we have just 
 employed do not. we think, more than equal. If 
 the peril grew more imminent, the freight was 
 sacrificed (xxvii. 38). When hope or endur- 
 ance had come ro a period, recourse was had to 
 the boat, or efforts were made to reach the shore 
 on spars or rafts (xxvii. 38, 44). The captain 
 was denominated vavicAypos (xxvii. II), steers- 
 man, though he was a different person from him 
 who had the actual charge of the helm, who 
 bore the name of KvfieprijTps, which is the root 
 
 of our word ‘goiernor’ (Lat. gubernatcr, helms- 
 man). 
 
 The dangers of the ocean to sailors on board 
 such ships as these were, and in the then ignorance 
 of navigation, caused sailing to he restricted to 
 the months of spring, summer, and autumn ; 
 winter was avoided. To the Romans the sea was 
 opened in March and closed in November (Cass. 
 Bell. Gall. iv. 36 ; v. 23 ; Philo, Opp. iv. 548 ; 
 Acts xxvii. 9); and ships which towards the end of 
 the year were still at sea earnestly sought, a bar 
 hour in which to pass the winter (Acts xxvii. 12). 
 
 Schlozer, Vers, einer Ally. Geschichte d. 
 Handels u. d. Schiffart in den alt. Zeiten, 
 Rostock, 1760 ; La Marine des Ancims Peuples t 
 par le Roy, Paris, 1777 ; Bergbaus, Gesch. d. 
 Bchifartskunde, 1792; Benedict, Vers. e. Gesch. 
 d. Schiff. u. d. Handels hei den Alien , 1809; 
 Howell, On the H ar Galleys of the Ancients ; 
 A. Jal, Archeologie Navale, Paris, 1840; Bockh, 
 Urkunden uber das Seewesen des Attischen 
 Staales. — J. R. B. 
 
 SHISHA.K (pK^ ; Sept. ^oi/cra/a/z), akingot 
 Egypt contemporary with Jeroboam, to whom he 
 gave an asylum when he fled from Solomon (I 
 Kings xi. 40). This fras indicative of his politic 
 disposition to encourage the weakening of the 
 neighbouring kingdom, the growth of which under 
 David and Solomon was probably regarded by the 
 kings of Egypt with some alarm. After Jeroboam 
 had become king of Israel, and probably at his 
 suggestion, Shishak invaded the kingdom of 
 Judah, b.c. 971, at the head of an immense army ; 
 and after having taken the fortified places, ad- 
 vanced against Jerusalem. Satisfied with the 
 submission of Rehoboam, and with the immense 
 spoils of the Tempie, the king of Egypt withdrew 
 without imposing any onerous conditions upon 
 the humbled grandson of David (1 Kings xiv. 
 25, 26; 2 Chron. xii. 2-9). Shishak has been 
 identified as the Hist, king of the 22nd or Dios- 
 politan dynasty, the Sesonchis of profane history. 
 His name has been found on the Egyptian monu- 
 ments. He is saiii to have been of Ethiopian origin, 
 and it is supposed that, with the support of the 
 military caste, he dethroned the Pharaoh who 
 gave his daughter to Solomon (1 Kings iii. 1). 
 In the palace-temple of Karnak there still exists a 
 large bas-relief representing Sesonchis, who bears 
 to the feet of three great Theban gods the chiefs of 
 vanquished nations. To each figure is attached 
 an oval, indicating the town or district which he 
 represents. One of the figures, with a pointed 
 beard and a physiognomy which some decide to 
 be Jewish, bears on bis oval characters which 
 M. Cham poll ion interprets Yood/* Mki.chi, or 
 ‘kingdom of Judah," a name whose component 
 letters agree with the hieroglyphics, though Sir J. G. 
 Wilkinson and others think that the place it holds 
 is not sufficiently marked to satisfy the scruples 
 of a rigid sceptic. It is well to observe that this 
 figure has not, as some have hastily conceived, 
 been alleged to represent the king, but topersoniiy 
 the kingdom of Judah (Champollion, Sysieme 
 Hieroglyph, p. 205; Rosellini, Monumenti Sto - 
 rici, i. 85 ; Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, i. 37 ; Cory, 
 Chronological Inquiry , p. 5). 
 
 SHITTAH (HEP) and SHITTIM 
 occur in several passages of Exodus, and indi- 
 cate the kind of wood which was employed in 
 making various parts of the tabernacle while the 
 Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, it 
 
**60 
 
 SHITTAH. 
 
 SHOHAM. 
 
 is mentioned also as forming part of the offerings, 
 as in Exod. xxv. 5, ‘rams’ skins dyed red. and 
 badgers" skins and shittim wood and in xxxv. 
 7, 24. In I ia. xli. 19, it is mentioned as a 
 tree worthy of planting, ‘ I will plant in the wil- 
 derness the cedar, t\\eshittqji tree, and the myrtle, 
 and the oil tree,’ &c. But considerable doubts 
 have been entertained respecting the kind of wood 
 •or tree intended ; hence the great diversity of ren- 
 dering, some translators retaining the original 
 word. It is evident that the wood must either 
 have been brought to the coast of the Red Sea 
 from Egypt or some other country, or it must 
 have been one of the few timber trees indigenous 
 in the desert where the Israelites wandered. It is 
 curious that a wood has for many ages formed an 
 article of commerce from India to the Red Sea, 
 and that its name, sheeshum or seesicm , is very 
 similar in sound to the shittim of Scripture. 
 This wood we have already mentioned in the 
 article Hobnim, and identified it with the shee- 
 shum of Forskal, considering it as probably the 
 came as the sesamina of the Pet iplus of Arrian. 
 This would seem to alVord some grounds for the 
 opinion held by some authors, that the shittah 
 of. Scripture was some valuable foreign wood. 
 
 But there does not appear any proof that shit- 
 tim was an imported wood, and it is more probable 
 that it was the wood of a tree of the desert. Ro- 
 senmiiller (after Celsius, ii. p. 499) says : ‘the 
 Hebrew name, which is properly shintah, wa3 
 formed from the Egyptian word shant, the double 
 t being substituted for the nt, for the sake of sound 
 and an easier pronunciation.’ The Arabs also call 
 
 it kart or karazz, written also kharad. 
 
 The Arabs pronounce the Egyptian name sont. 
 This is a tree of the genus Acacia , found both in 
 Egypt and in the deserts of Arabia. Thus Pros- 
 per Alpinus ( De Plantis AZgypti, p. 6): ‘Aca- 
 cia, quam sant vEgyptii appellant, in ^Egypti 
 locis a mari remotis nascitur : hujusque arbores 
 ■sopiosissimae in inontibus Synai, pene rubrum 
 marepositis proveniunt.’ Celsius, moreover, quotes 
 Eugene Roger (T. S. p. 17) as stating, ‘ Le Se- 
 taim ne se trouve que dans l’Avabie deserte, et 
 
 eroist proche de la lerre des Madianites, peu 
 eloign^e du mont Sinai, e.n un lieu qu on apjielle 
 Sethim ou Sethe , soit que l’arbre tire son nom du 
 lieu, ou que 1’arbre donue le nom an lieu mesme 
 de sa naissance. Son bois est leger, de tres bonne 
 odeur, et incorruptible aussi bien que le bois de 
 cedre, c’est. du bois de sethim que fut fabriquee 
 l’arche ri’alliance.’ ‘ The acacia tree,’ says Dr. 
 Shaw, ‘ being by much the largest and most 
 common tree in these deserts (Arabia Petraea), we 
 have some reason to conjecture that the shittim 
 wood was the wood of the acacia, esjiecially as 
 its dowers are of an excellent smell, for the shit- 
 tah tree is, in Isa. xli. 19, joined with the myrtle 
 and other fragrant shrubs.’ Mr. Bruce, again, 
 as quoted by l)r. Harris, remarks, that ‘ the 
 acacia seems the only indigenous tree in the 
 Thebaid. The male is called the Sa-icl ; from it 
 proceeds the gum-arabic on incision with an axe. 
 This gum chiefly comes from Arabia Petraea, 
 where these trees are most numerous.’ Mr. Kitto 
 says : The required species is found in either the 
 Acacia gummifera , or in t tie A. Seycl, or rather 
 in both. They both grow abundantly in the 
 valleys of that region in which the Israelites 
 wandered for forty years, and both supply pro- 
 ducts which must have rendered them of much 
 value to the Israelites. We think the probability 
 
 is, that the A. Seycl supplied the shittim wood, 
 if, indeed, the name did not denote acacia wood 
 in general. This tree grows from fifteen to twenty 
 feet in height.’ So M. Bove : ‘ Le lendemain, 
 en traversant le Voode (Wady) Schen, je vis 
 un grand nomine d' Acacia Seyel ; cet arbre 
 s’eleve a la hauteur de vingt a vingt-cinq pieds. 
 Les Arabes font avec son Lois du charbon qu’ils 
 vont vendre a Suez." Robinson and Smith fre- 
 quently mention the Seyel as occurring in the same 
 situations. It is very probable therefore that it 
 yielded the shittim wood of Scripture. — J. F. R. 
 
 SHITTIM, a spot in the plain of Moab, east 
 of the Dead Sea, where the Israelites formed their 
 last encampment before passing the Jordan 
 (Num. xxv. 1 ; comp. Micah vi. 5). See 
 Wandering. 
 
 SHITTIM, VALLEY OF, mentioned in Joel 
 iii. 18. It must certainly have been west of the 
 Jordan, and probably in the neighbourhood of Je- 
 rusalem, although the particular vale cannot now 
 be distinguished. The name is probably to be 
 regarded as an appellative — ‘acacia vale" denot- 
 ing, perhaps, as that tree delights in a dry soil, 
 an arid, unfruitful vale. 
 
 SHOE. [Sandal.] 
 
 SHOHAM (Dnb>), a precious stone mentioned 
 in Gen. ii. 12; Exod. xxviii. 9, xxxv. 9-27; 
 Job xxviii. 16; Ezek. xxviii. 13. That it is 
 really unknown is evinced by the variety of 
 opinions which have been hazarded concerning 
 
 it. In the two last texts the Sept, makes it the 
 beryl (PgpvWioi/), and is followed .by the Vul 
 gate. Josephus also gives it the same name ( An* 
 tiq. iii. 7. 5). This is a great weight of authority; 
 and whether the beryl be the shoham or not, it is a 
 Scriptural stone by virtue of the mention of it ir 
 Rev. xxi. 20. There is no doubt that, the stone 
 which we call beryl is the substance to which the 
 ancients gave the same name. It is of a pale sea- 
 green colour, inclining sometimes to water blue^ 
 and sometimes to yellisw. In its crystalliwd 
 
SHUAL. 
 
 SHUAL. 
 
 76 *. 
 
 form » ; exhib ts sexagonal coli imns striped lon- 
 gitudinally. The shoham furnished the shoulder- 
 pieces in the breastplate of the high-priest, on 
 each of which six names were engraven, and for 
 this purpose the stalky beryl, consisting of long, 
 stout, hexagonal pieces, was peculiarly suited. 
 Beryls are found, but not often, in collections of 
 ancient gems. In Gen. ii. 12, the shoham is 
 named as the product of Havilah ; in Job 
 xxviii. 1(5, it is mentioned as a stone of great 
 value, being classed with the sapphire and the 
 gold of Ophir; in Kzek. xxviii 13, it appears as 
 a valuable article of commerce. 
 
 In Gen. ii. 12, the Sept, renders the word, 
 which it elsewhere gives as the beryl, by \l6os 6 
 npaaivos, or the k chrysoprasus,’ according to its 
 etymology ‘ leek -green stone;’ but as the an- 
 cients did notnicely distinguish between stones of 
 similar quality and colour, it is probable that the 
 beryl is still intended by the translator in this 
 text. The chrysoprasus (xpvaoirpaaos) is, how- 
 ever, a Scriptural stone, being named in Rev. xxi. 
 20. It is, as the name imports, of a greenish 
 golden colour, like a leek ; i. e. usually apple- 
 green, passing into a grass-green (Plin. Hist. Nat. 
 xxvii. 20, 21). 
 
 Luther, relying upon the authority of some 
 ancient versions, makes the shoham to have been 
 the onyx, an interpretation which Braun, Mi- 
 chael is, Eichhorn, and others support on etymolo- 
 gical grounds. This indeed is the stone usually 
 given for the Shoham in Hebrew lexicons, and 
 is the one which the Authorized Version has also 
 adopted. 
 
 SHUAL. s/mal , and •>& aye or ije, 
 
 jackal (?), are both somewhat arbitrarily inter- 
 preted by the word ‘ fox although that denomi- 
 • nation is not uniformly employed in different 
 texts (Judg. xv. 4; Neh. iv. *3; xi. 27; Ps. 
 lxiii. 10 ; Cant. ii. 15 ; Lam. v. 18 ; Ezek. xiii. 4). 
 Fox is thus applied to two or more species, 
 though only strictly applicable in a systematic 
 view to Taaleb, which is the Arabic name of 
 a wild canine, probably the Syrian fox, Vidpcs 
 Thaleb or Taaleb of modern zoologists, and the 
 only genuine species indigenous in Palestine. 
 Fox is again the translation of in Matt, 
 
 viii. 20 ; Luke ix. 5-8 ; xiii. 32 : but here 
 also the word in the original texts may apply 
 genetically to several species rather than to one 
 
 only. There is in the language of the ancients 
 a vague and often an inUiscriminating use of 
 zoological names ; while among the moderns the 
 contrary tendency exists, it being often attempted 
 to apply specifically those ancient terms which 
 in their original acceptation were more or less 
 generic ; and mere scholars, not familiar with 
 the principles which guide the reasoning of 
 
 systemafists, often disregard their conclusions, 
 and follow the still more fallacious inferences 
 drawn from arbitrary etymologies and the fancied 
 authority of similarity of names in kindred lan- 
 guages. Yet eveiy modern tongue of the west, 
 notwithstanding the greater attention that is paid 
 to a more definite terminology, abounds in similar 
 transferences of the same radical names from one 
 species to another, and often to genera totally 
 distinct. These remarks apply forcibly in the 
 present case ; for, of vulpine animals, though the 
 taaleb alone is considered indigenous, there is 
 the so-called Turkish fox (Cynalopex Turcicus ) 
 of Asia Minor, not unknown to the south as far 
 as the Orontes, and therefore likely to be an occa- 
 sional visitant at least of the woods of Libanus. 
 This animal is one of an osculant group, with the 
 general characters of vulpes, but having the pu- 
 pils of the eyes less contractile in a vertical direc- 
 tion, and a gland on the base of the tail, marked 
 by a dark spot. There, is besides, one of a third 
 group, namely, Thous anthus , or deeb of the 
 Arabs, occasionally held to be the wolf of Scrip- 
 ture, because it resembles the species in general 
 appearance, though so far inferior in weight, size, 
 and powers, as not to be in the least dangerous, 
 or likely to be the wolf of the Bible. The two 
 first do not howl, and the third is solitary and 
 howls seldom ; but there is a fourth ( Canis Syri - 
 acus, Ehrenb.) which howls, is lower and smaller 
 than a fox, has a long ill-furnished tail, small ears, 
 and a rufous-grey livery. This may be the Ca- 
 nis aureus, or jackal of Palestine, though cer- 
 tainly not the ppvoeos of Lilian. The German 
 naturalists seem not to have considered it identi- 
 cal with the common jackal ( Sacalius aureus'), 
 which is sufficiently common along the coast, is 
 eminently gregarious, offensive in smell ; howls 
 intolerably in complete concert, with all others 
 within hearing; burrows ; is crepuscular and noc- 
 turnal, impudent, thievish ; penetrates into out- 
 houses ; ravages poultry-yards more ruinously than 
 the fox ; feeds on game, lizards, locusts, insects, 
 garbage, grapes ; and leaves not even the graves 
 of man himself undisturbed. It may ultimately 
 turn out that Canis Syriacus is not a jackal, but 
 a chryseus, or wild dog, belonging to the group of 
 Dholes, well known in India, and, though closely 
 allied to, distinct from, the jackal. But whether 
 the last-mentioned is the 'fcs and is a ques- 
 
 tion which Bochart does not solve by making 
 
 thoes synonymous with awi, and beni-awi, 
 
 since that denomination is only a slight mutation 
 of U'aiva, the name applied to wild dogs in 
 India, China, and even in South America, being 
 an imitation of barking; while thoes, thos, the 
 Phrygian daus, Greek Odes, are of the same radi 
 cal origin as our dog, and Teutonic docke, dogue ; 
 and in Semitic tongues appears in tire forms of 
 tokla, tulke , til/ci, applied to species not of the 
 same genus. 
 
 Russell heard of four species of Can'dae at 
 Aleppo, Emprich and Ehrenberg of four in Liba- 
 nus, not identical with each other; nor are any of 
 these clearly included in the thirteen species which 
 the last-named writers recognise in Egypt. They 
 still omit, or are not cognizant of, wild dogs, 
 already mentioned in this work [Dogs], and like- 
 wise other wild species in Arabia and Persia ; 
 all, including foxes, having migratory habits, and 
 
762 
 
 SHUAL. 
 
 SHUMIM. 
 
 therefore not unlikely to visit Palestine. Some of 
 these inay have accompanied the movements of 
 the great invasions of antiquity, or the caravans, 
 and become acclimated ; and. again, may have 
 departed, or have been gradually extinguished by 
 local circumstances, such as the destruction of 
 the forests or of the inhabitants, and the conse- 
 quent reduction of the means of subsistence ; or 
 linally, they may have been extirpated since the 
 introduction of gunpowder. 
 
 We have therefore no proof that shual denotes 
 exclusively the fox, and that aye or ije and iyim, 
 and Kasselquist’s little foxes, refer solely to 
 jackals ; particularly as these animals were, if 
 really known, not abundant in Western Asia, even 
 during the first century of the Roman empire; 
 for they are but little noticed by the Greek writers 
 and sportsmen who resided where now they are 
 heard and seen every evening; these authorities 
 offering no remark on the most prominent cha- 
 racteristic of the species, namely, the chorus of 
 bowlings lasting all night — a habit so into- 
 lerable that it is the Invariable theme of all the 
 Semitic writers since the Hegira whenever they 
 mention the jackal. We may therefore infer 
 that shual, if a general denomination, and that 
 ajirn , if the etymology be just, is derived from 
 howling or barking, and may designate the jackal, 
 though more probably it includes also those wild 
 Canidae which have a similar habit. 
 
 Vulpes Taaleb, or Taleb , the Syrian fox, is of the 
 size of an English cur fox. and similarly formed ; 
 but the ears are wider and longer, the fur in 
 general ochry-rulbus above, and whitish beneath: 
 there is a faint black ring towards the tip of the 
 tail, and the back of the ears are sooty, with 
 bright fulvous edges. The species burrows, is 
 silent and solitary, extends eastward into South- 
 ern Persia, and is said to be found in Natolia. 
 Khrenberg’s two species of Taleb (one of which he 
 takes to be the Anubis of ancient Egypt, and 
 Geoffrey's Canis Niloticus, the Abou Hossein of 
 the Arabs) are nearly allied to, or varieties of the 
 species, but residing in Egypt, and further to the 
 same south, where it seems they do not burrow. 
 The Syrian Taleb is reputed to be very destructive 
 in the vineyards, or rather a plunderer of ripe 
 grapes ; but he is certainly less so than the jackal, 
 whose ravages are carried on in troops and with 
 less fear of man. 
 
 None of the explanations which we have seen 
 of the controverted passage in Judg. xv. 4, 5, 
 relative to the shualim , foxes, jackals, or other 
 canines, which Samson employed to set fire to 
 the corn of the Philistines, is altogether sa- 
 tisfactory to our mind. First, taking Dr. 
 Kennicott's proposed explanation of the case by 
 
 changing to thus reading ‘ foxes’ 
 
 instead of ‘sheaves,' and translating 33*). ‘ends,’ 
 instead of ‘tails,’ the meaning then would be, 
 that Samson merely connected three hundred 
 shocks of corn, already reaped, by bands or ends, 
 and thus burned the whole. We admit that this, 
 at first view, appears a rational explanation ; but 
 it should be observed that three hundred shocks 
 cf com would not make two stacks, and there- 
 fore the result would be quite inadequate, con- 
 sidered as a punishment or act of vengeance 
 upon the Philistine population, then predominant 
 ever the greater part of Palestine : and if we take 
 
 snocks to mean corn-stacks, then it may be asked 
 how, and for what object, were three hundred 
 corn-stacks brought together in one place from a 
 surface of country at least equal fo Yorkshire 1 ? 
 The task, in that hilly region, would have occu- 
 pied all the cattle and vehicles for several months • 
 and then the corn could not have been thrashed 
 out without making the whole population travel 
 repeatedly, in order finally to reload the grain 
 and take it to their threshing floors. 
 
 Reverting to the interpretation of foxes burning 
 the harvest by means of firebrands attached t& 
 their tails, the case is borne out by Ovid (Fasti* 
 iv. 681) — 
 
 ‘ Cur igitur missae junctis ardentia telis 
 Terga ferunt vulpes.’ 
 
 And again, in the fable of Apthonius, quoted by 
 Merrick ; but not, as is alleged, by the brick with 
 a bas-relief representing a man driving two foxes 
 with fire fastened to their tails, which was found 
 twenty- eight feet below the present surface of 
 London ; because tiles of similar character and 
 execution have been dug up in other parts of 
 England, some representing the history of Susanna 
 and the elders, and otheis the four Evangelists, 
 and therefore all derived from biblical, not pagan 
 sources. 
 
 Commentators, following the reading of the 
 Sept., have with common consent adopted the 
 interpretation, that two foxes were tied together by 
 their tails with a firebrand between them. Now 
 this does not appear to have been the practice of 
 the Romans, nor does it occur in the fable of 
 Aptlionius. We understand the text to mean, 
 that each fox had a separate brand ; and mosf 
 naturally so ; for it may be questioned whethei 
 two united would run in the same direction. 
 They would assuredly pull counter to each other, 
 and ultimately fight most fiercely ; whereas there 
 can be no doubt that every canine would run, with 
 fire attached to its tail, not from choice but ne- 
 cessity, through standing corn, if the field lay in 
 the direction of the animal’s burrow: for foxes 
 and jackals, when chased, run direct to then 
 holes, and sportsmen well know the necessity of 
 stopping up those of the fox while the animal is 
 abroad, or there is no chance of a chace. We 
 therefore submit that by the words rendered ‘tail 
 to tail ’ we should understand the end of the fire- 
 brand attached to the extremity of the tail. 
 Finally, as the operation of tying 300 brands to 
 as many fierce and irascible animals could not 
 be effected in one day by a single man, nor pro- 
 duce the result intended if done in one place, if 
 seems more probable that the name of Samson, 
 as the chief director of the act, is employed to 
 represent the whole party who effected his inten- 
 tions in different places at the same time, and 
 thereby insured that general conflagration of the 
 harvest which was the signal of open resistance on 
 the part of Israel to the long-endured oppression 
 of the Philistine people. These observations, 
 though by no means sufficiently answering all (he 
 objections, are the best we can offer on a difiiculi 
 question which could not be passed over altogetha 
 without notice [Dog ; Wolfj. — C. H. S. 
 
 SHUMIM (D'D-lt?) occurs only once in Scrip- 
 ture, and that in the passage which has already 
 been quoted under Abattachim, &c., where the 
 Israelites are described as murmuring, among 
 
SHUN KM. 
 
 SHUSH AN. 
 
 703 
 
 otnei things, for the leeks, the onions, and the 
 garlic ( shumim ) of Egypt. There can be no 
 doubt of its being coiTectly so translated, as the 
 
 Arabic (thorn) still signifies a species of 
 
 garlic, which is cultivated and esteemed through- 
 out Eastern countries. Ancient authors mention 
 that garlic was cultivated in Egypt. Herodotus 
 
 enumerates it as one of the substances upon which 
 a laige sum (1600 talents) was spent for feeding 
 labourers employed in building the Pyramids; 
 so also Pliny, who, moreover, states that it was 
 so highly esteemed, that ‘allium cepasque inter 
 Deos in jurejurando habuere olim vEgyptii.’ The 
 species considered to have been thus cultivated 
 in Egypt, is Allium Ascalonicum, which is the 
 most common in Eastern countries, and obtains 
 its specific name from having been brought into 
 Europe from Ascalon. It is now usually known 
 in tlie kitchen garden by the name of ‘ eschalot’ 
 or ‘ shallot,' and is too common to require a 
 fuller notice. — J. F. R. 
 
 SHUNEM (D3-1S^ ; Sept. 'S.ovvan), a town of 
 the tribe of Issachar (Josh. xix. IS), where the 
 Philistines encamped before Saul’s last battle (1 
 Sam. xxviii. 4), and to which belonged Abishag, 
 the last wife of David (1 Kings i. 3), and ‘ the 
 Shunamite woman,’ with whom Elisha lodged (2 
 Kings iv. 8-37; viii. L-6). Eusebius and Jerome 
 describe it as, in their day, a village, lying five 
 Roman miles from Mount Tabor towards the 
 south. They call it Sulem (Sou At)ju). It has of 
 late years been recognised in a village called 
 Solam, three miles and a half north of Zerin 
 (Jezreel), which is a small place on the slope of 
 a hill, Avhere nothing occurs to denote an ancient 
 site (Elliot, ii. 378; Schubert, iii. 165; Robin- 
 son, iii. 169, 170). 
 
 SHUR (“Vlty ; Sept. 2oup), a city on the con- 
 fines of Egypt and Palestine (Gen. xvi. 7 ; x,x. 
 1; xxv. 18; 1 Sam. xv. 7) ; xxvii. 8). Josephus 
 makes it the same as Pelusium (Antiq. vi. 7, 3; 
 comp. 1 Sam. xv. 7 ) ; but this city bore among 
 the Hebrews the name of Sin. More probably 
 Shur was somewhere in the vicinity of the modern 
 Sues. The desert extending from the borders of 
 
 Palestine to Shur, is called ir. Exod. xv. 22, 
 the ‘desert of Shur,’ but in Num. xxxiii. 8, 
 the ‘ desert of Etham.’ 
 
 SHUSHAN (|KW), also Shusiiannaii 
 (n3K , 15^ ; Sept, npivov ), occurs in several passages 
 of the Old Testament, and is translated lily in the 
 Authorized Version. In toe article Kuinon we 
 have mentioned that several plants have been 
 adduced as the lily of the New Testament, such 
 as Amaryllis lutea, Ixiolirion montanum , &c., 
 but that Lilium chalcedonicum , or the scarlet 
 martagon lily, appears to be the one alluded to 
 by our Saviour. Besides the above, there are no 
 doubt several other plants indigenous in Syria, 
 which might be grouped with them, and come 
 under the denomination of lily, when that name 
 is used in a general sense, as it often is by tra- 
 vellers and others. The term shoshun or sosun 
 seems also to have been employed in this sense. 
 It was known to the Greeks; for Dioscorides de- 
 scribes the mode of preparing an ointment called 
 susinon , which others, he says, call Kpivivov , that 
 is, lilinum. So Atbenseus, as translated by 
 Celsius : ‘ Suson enim id significare Persis, quod 
 Kpivov Grsecis.’ The Arabic authors also use the 
 word in a general sense, several varieties being 
 
 described under the head sosun. The 
 
 name is applied even to kinds of Iris, of which 
 several species, with various coloured flowers, are 
 distinguished. 
 
 505. [Lotus. Water-lily. J 
 
 The shushan of Scripture has been variously 
 interpreted by translators, being by some thought 
 to be the rose, by others the violet, or con- 
 vallaria, a jasmine, or some one or more of the 
 plants included under the general name of lily. 
 But it appears to us that none but a plant which 
 was well known and highly esteemed would be 
 found occurring in so many dillerent passages. 
 Thus, in 1 Kings vii. 19-26, and 2 Chron. 
 iv. 5, it is mentioned as forming the ornamental 
 work of the pillars and of the brazen sea, made 
 of molten brass, for the house of Solomon, by 
 Hiram of Tyre. In Canticles the word is fr* 
 quently mentioned ; and it is curious that 
 
?64 
 
 SHUSH AN. 
 
 SILAS. 
 
 five passages, Cant ii. 2 and 16 ; iv. 5 ; vi. 2 and 
 3, there is a reference to feeding among lilies: 
 which ap’KMrs unaccountable, when we consider 
 that the allusion is made simply to an ornamen- 
 tal or sweet-smelling plant. ; and this the shushan 
 appears to have been from the other passages in 
 which it is mentioned. Thus in Cant. ii. 1, 
 ‘ I am the rose of Sharon ami the lily of the val- 
 leys;’ ver. 2, ‘as the lily among thorns, so is 
 my love among the daughters;’ v. 13, ‘his lips 
 tike lilies , dropping sweet-smelling myrrh vii. 
 2, ‘ thy belly is like an heap of wheat set: about 
 with lilies’ If we consider that, the book cf Can- 
 ticles is supposed to have been written on the 
 occasion of the marriage of Solomon with a 
 princess of Egypt, it is natural to suppose that 
 some of the imagery may have been derived from 
 her native country, and that, the above lily may 
 he a plant of Egypt, rather than of Palestine. 
 And this appears to us to he the case, especially 
 as the water lily or lotus of the Nile seems 
 suitable to most of the above passages, as we 
 may endeavour on some future occasion to 
 prove. Thus Herodotus (ii. 92) says : ‘ When 
 the waters have risen to their extremest height, 
 and all the fields are overllowed, there ap- 
 pears above the surface an immense quantity 
 of plants of the lily species, which the Egyptians 
 call the lotus; having cut down these they 
 dry them in the sun. The seed of the flowers, 
 which resembles that of the poppy, they bake, 
 and make into a kind of bread: they also eat 
 the root of this plant, which is round, of an 
 agreeable flavour, a .d about the size of an apple. 
 There is a second species of the lotus, which 
 grows in the Nile, and which is not unlike a 
 rose. The fruit, winch grows from the bottom of 
 the root resembles a wasp's nest : it is found to 
 contain a number of kernels of the size of an 
 olive stone, which are very grateful either fresh 
 or dried.’ All this exists even to the present 
 day. Both the roots and the stalks form articles 
 of diet in Eastern countries, ami the large fari- 
 naceous seeds of both the nyrriphaea and nelum- 
 bium are roasted and eaten. Hence probably 
 the reference to feeding among lilies in the above 
 quoted passages. 
 
 In confirmation of this view we may adduce 
 also the remarks of Dr. W. C. Taylor in his 
 4 Bible illustrated by Egyptian monuments where 
 he says that the lilies of the xlv. and lxix. Psalms 
 have puzzled all Biblical critics. The title, 
 ‘To the chief musician upon Shoshannim,’ has 
 been supposed to he the name of some unknown 
 tone to which the Psalm was to be sung. But 
 Dr. Taylor says, ‘ the word Shoshannim is univer- 
 sally acknowledged to signify lilies, and lilies 
 have nothing to do with the subject of the ode. 
 But this hymeneal ode was intended to be 
 sung by the female attendants of the Egyptian 
 princess, and they are called “ the lilies,” not only 
 by a poetic reference to the lotus lilies of the 
 Nile, but by a direct allusion to their custom of 
 making the lotus lily a conspicuous ornament of 
 their head-dress.’ Tlius, therefore, all the pas- 
 sages of Scripture in which Shoshan occurs ap- 
 pear to be explained by considering it to refer to 
 ijie lotus lily of the Nile. — J. F. R. 
 
 2. SHUSHAN, or Susa, the chief town of Su- 
 s:ana, and capital of Persia, in which the kings of 
 Persia had their winter residence (Dan. viii. 2 ; 
 
 Neh. i. 1 ; Esther i. 2, 5). It was situated upon 
 the Euldeus or Choaspes, probably on the spot now 
 occupied by the vWlage Slius (Kennel, Gicg. oj 
 Herodotus ; Kinneir, Mem. Pers. Empire ; K. 
 Porter, Travels , ii. 4, 11; Ritter, Erdkunde 
 Asien, ix. 291 ; Pictorial Bible , on Dan. viii. 2). 
 Others believe the site to he that of Shuster (Vin- 
 cent, Commerce and Navig. of the Ancients ; 
 Yon Hammer, in Mem. of the Geog. Soc. oj 
 Paris, ii. 320, sq. ; 333, sq.). At Shus, which is 
 the more likely position, there are extensive ruins, 
 stretching perhaps twelve miles from one extre- 
 mity to the other, and consisting, like the other 
 ruins of this region, of hillocks of earth and rubbish 
 covered with broken pieces of brick and coloured 
 tile. At the foot of these mounds is the so-called 
 tomb of Daniel, a small building erected on the 
 spot where the remains of that prophet are locally 
 believed to rest. It is apparently modern ; but 
 nothing but the belief that this was the site of the 
 prophet's sepulchre could have led to its being 
 built, in the place where it stands (Malcolm, Hist, 
 of Persia, i. 255, 2o6) ; and it may be added 
 that such identifications are of far more value in 
 these parts, where occasion for them is rare, than 
 among the crowded ‘holy places’ of Palestine. 
 The city of Shus is now a gloomy wilderness, in- 
 fested by lions, hyaenas, and other beasts of prey. 
 It is in N. lat. 31° 56' and E. long. 48° 26'. 
 
 SIDON. [Zidon.] 
 
 SI IiON (jliTp, sioceping aicay ; i. e. a war- 
 rior sweeping all before him; Sept. '2,-r)xv), the 
 king of the Amorites, reigning at Heshbon, who 
 was destroyed, and his kingdom subjugated, in 
 the attempt to resist the progress of the Israelites 
 through his dominions (Nura. xxi. 21, 23, sq.) 
 [Amorites], 
 
 SI II OR (Tl’rm, Tlhp' ), more properly Stu- 
 CHOR, the Hebrew proper name for the Nile (Isa. 
 xxiii. 3; Jer ii. 18). The word means ‘black;’ 
 and a corresponding name or epithet (M e\as) 
 was by the Greeks applied to the same river 
 (Serv. ad Virg. Georg, iv. 291), on account of the 
 black slime left after the subsidence of the inun- 
 dation. In Josh. xiii. 3; 1 Chron. xiii. 5, Sihor 
 is put as the south-western limit of Palestine, 
 where one would rather expect ‘ the torrent of 
 Egypt;’ see River. 
 
 SIHOR-LIBNATII *YlW), a small 
 
 stream or river emptying itself into the sea in the 
 teriitory of Asher (Josh. xix. 26). Michaelis 
 (Hist. Vitri, § 2, in Com. Soc. Goti. iv.) trans- 
 lates it ‘glass-river,’ and identifies it with the 
 Belus, which joins the sea near Acre, and from 
 whose sands the first glass was made by the Phoe- 
 nicians (Strabo, xvi. p.758; Tacit. Hist. v. 7; 
 Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 2). 
 
 SILAS (St'Aas), a contraction of Sii.vanus 
 0 tiXovavis ), a distinguished Christian teacher in 
 the church at Jerusalem, who, with Barnabas, was 
 associated by that church with Paul (Acts xv. 22, 
 32), and accompanied him in his second journey 
 through Asia Minor to Macedonia (Acts xv. 40 ; 
 xvi. 19, 25 ; xvii. 4). He remained behind at Berea 
 for a short time, when Paul was obliged to flee from 
 that place (Acts xvii. 10, 14\ They metagain at 
 Corinth (Acts xviii. 5 ; comp. Thess. i. 1), where 
 Silas was active in the work of an evangelist (2 
 
SILO AM. 
 
 SIMEON. 
 
 763 
 
 Cor. i. ID). He is invariably called Silvanus iir 
 the Epistles, but the contraction Silas is always 
 used in the Acts. Whether this Silvanus is the 
 lame person who was the bearer of St. Peter’s 
 epistle to the churches in Asia Minor (1 Pet. v, 
 12), cannot be ascertained. The traditions (ap. 
 Dorothaeum et Hippolytum) regard Silas and Sil- 
 vai us as different persons, making the former 
 bishop of Corinth, and the latter bishop of Thes- 
 salonica. See Fabricius, Lux Evany, p. 117 ; 
 Cellarius, Diss. de Sila Tiro Apostol. 
 
 SILOAH. [Siloam.] 
 
 SILOAM (SiAwa^i), or Shiloah (1W). 
 The name Siloah or Siloam if found only three 
 times in Scripture as applied to water ; once in 
 ’saiah (viii. 6). who speaks of it as running water; 
 again, as a pool, in Nehemiah ii. 15; and lastly, 
 also as a pool, in the account of our Lord’s healing 
 the man who had been born blind (John ix. 7-1 1) 
 None of these passages affords any clue to the 
 situation of Siloam ; but this silence is supplied 
 by Josephus, who makes frequent mention of it as 
 a fountain ( De Bell. Jud. v. 4, § 1, 2), and indi- 
 cates its situation at. the mouth of the valley of 
 Tyropoeon, where the fountain, now and long 
 since indicated as that of Siloam, is still found. 
 He describes its waters as sweet and abundant. 
 Jerome ( Comment . in Esa. viii. 6), indicating its 
 situation more precisely, also mentions its ir- 
 regular flow — a very remarkable circumstance, 
 which has been noticed by most subsequent pil- 
 grims and travellers. This assures us that the 
 present fountain of Siloam is that which he had 
 in view; and that it is the same to which the 
 Scriptural notices refer there is no reason to doubt. 
 The pool of Siloam is within and at the mouth 
 cf the valley of Tyropoeon, and about eighty paces 
 above its termination is that of Jehoshaphat. 
 The water flows out of a small artificial basin 
 under the cliff, the entrance to which is excavated 
 in the form of an arch, and is immediately re- 
 ceived into a larger reservoir, fifty-three feet in 
 length by eighteen feet in width. A flight of 
 steps leads down to the bottom of the reservoir, 
 which is nineteen feet deep. This large receptacle 
 is faced with a wall of stone, now slightly out of 
 repair. Several columns stand out of the side 
 walls, extending from the top downward into the 
 cistern, the design of which it is difficult to conjec- 
 ture. The water passes out of this reservoir through 
 a channel cut in the rock, which is covered for a 
 short distance; but subsequently it opens and dis- 
 closes a lively copious stream, which is conducted 
 into an enclose l garden planted with fig-trees. It 
 is afterwards subdivided, and seems to be ex- 
 hausted in irrigating a number of gardens occu- 
 pied with figs, apricots, olive and other trees, and 
 some flourishing legumes. The small upper basin 
 or fountain excavated in the rock is merely the 
 entrance, or rather the termination of a long and 
 narrow subterranean passage beyond, by which 
 the water comes from the Fountain of the Virgin. 
 This has been established beyond dispute by Dr. 
 Rub’nson, who, with his companion, had the 
 hardihood to crawl through the passage. They 
 <6und it 17;0 feet in length, which, owing to its 
 windings, is several hundred feet more than the 
 iirect distance above ground. It is thus proved 
 .hat the water of both these fountains !s the same, 
 hough some travellers have pronounce 1 the water 
 
 of Siloam to be bad, and that of the other foun- 
 tain good. It has a peculiar taste, sweetish and 
 very slightly brackish, but not at all disagreeable. 
 Late in the season, when the water is low, it i* 
 said to become more brackish and unpleasant 
 The most remarkable circumstance is the ebb and 
 How of the waters, which, although often men- 
 tioned as a characteristic of Siloam, must belong 
 equally to both fountains. Dr. Robinson himself 
 witnessed this phenomenon in (he fountain of the 
 Virgin, where t lie water rose in five minutes one 
 foot in the reservoir, and in another five minutes 
 sunk to its former level. The intervals and the 
 extent of the How and ebb in this and the fountain 
 of Siloam, vary with the season; but the fact, 
 though it has not yet been accounted for, is be- 
 yond dispute (see Robinson’s Palestine, i. 460, 
 492-498; Olin’s Travels, ii. 153, 154 ; Williams's 
 Holy City, pp. 378, 379. 
 
 SILVANUS. [Silas.] 
 
 SILVER. There is no mention of this metal 
 in Scripture until the time of Abraham. Before 
 that time brass and iron appear to have been the 
 only metals in use (Gen iv. 22). Abraham was 
 rich in gold and silver, as well as in flocks and 
 herds, and silver in his day was in general circu- 
 lation as money. It was uncoined, and estimated 
 always by weight. Coined money was not in 
 use among the Israelites until an advanced period 
 of their history. The Romans are said to have 
 had only copper mpney until within five years of 
 the first Punic war, when they began to coin 
 silver(Pliny, l list. Nat. xxx. 3). Their coins were 
 extensively introduced into Judsea after it be 
 came a Roman province. 
 
 Silver, as well as gold, is frequently mentioned 
 in Scripture. They were both largely used by 
 the Jews in the manufacture of articles of orna 
 ment, and of various vessels for domestic pur 
 poses, and also for the service of the temple. 
 Many of the idols, and other objects belonging to 
 the idolatrous nations, are stated to have been of 
 silver. This metal was so abundant as to belittle 
 thought of in the days of Solomon, although it 
 was at that time, and both before and long after- 
 wards, the principal medium of exchange among 
 the Jews — the only recognised standard or mea- 
 sure of value [Metals]. — G. M. B. 
 
 SIMEON (fiyp^, favourable hearing ; 2u- 
 ps&v'), the second son of Jacob, born of Leah 
 (Gen. xxix. 33), and progenitor of the tribe of the 
 same name. He was the full brother of Levi 
 (Gen. xxxiv. 25 ; xxxv. 23), with whom he took 
 part in cruelly avenging upon the men of She- 
 chem the injury which their sister Dinah had 
 received from the son of Hamor (Gen. xxxiv. 
 25 30); see Dinah. The ferocity of character 
 thus indicated probably furnishes the reason that 
 Joseph singled Simeon out to remain behind in 
 Egypt, when his other brethren were the first 
 time dismissed (Gen. xlii. 24); but when they 
 returned he was restored safely to them (Gen. 
 xliii. 23). Nothing more of his personal history 
 is known. The tribe descended from Simeon 
 contained 59,300 able bodied men at the time of 
 tlie Exode (Num. i. 23), but was reduced to 
 22,000 before entering Palestine (Num. xxvi. 
 14). This immense decrease in the course of one 
 generation was greater than that sustained by all 
 tlie other tribes together, and reduced Simeon froai 
 
766 
 
 SIMEON. 
 
 SIMON. 
 
 rise third rank to the lowest of all in point of imm- 
 b*ers. It cannot well be accounted for but by sup- 
 posing that the tribe erred most conspicuously, 
 and was punished most severely in those transac- 
 tions which drew down judgments from God. As 
 it appeared that Judah bad received too large a 
 territory in the first distribution of lands, a portion 
 of it was afterwards assigned to Simeon. This 
 portion lay in the south-west, towards the borders 
 of Philistia and the southern desert, and contained 
 seventeen towns (Josh. xix. 1-9). However, the 
 Judahites must afterwards have re- appropriated 
 some of these towns ; at least Beersheba (1 Kings 
 
 ix. 3) and Ziklag (1 Sam. xxvii. 6) appear at a 
 subsequent period as belonging to the kingdom of 
 Judah. The remarkable passage in 1 Chron. iv. 
 41-43 points to an emigration of or from this tribe, 
 perhaps more extensive than the words would seem 
 to indicate, and suggests that when they ceased to 
 have common interes*s, this small tribe was obliged 
 to give way before the greater power of Judah and 
 the pressure of its population (com]). Gen. xlix. 7). 
 Nothing mure of this tribe is recoi Jed, although 
 its name occurs in unhistorical intimations (Ezek. 
 xlviii. 21 ; Rev. vii. 8). 
 
 2. SIMEON, the aged person who, when 
 Jesus was presented by his mother at the temple, 
 recognised the infant as the expected Messiah, 
 and took him in his arms and blessed him, glori- 
 fying God (Luke ii. 25-35). The circumstance is 
 interesting, as evincing the expectations which were 
 then entertained of the speedy advent of the Mes- 
 siah ; and important from the attestation which it 
 conveyed in favour of Jesus, from one who was 
 known to have received the divine promise that 
 he should ‘ not taste of death till he had seen the 
 Lord's Christ.’ It has been often supposed that 
 this Simeon was the same with Rahhan Simeon, 
 t lie son of the famous Ilillel, and father of Gama- 
 liel ; but this is merely a conjecture, founded on 
 circumstances too weak to establish such a con- 
 clusion. 
 
 SIMON (2 IfJLwv), the same name, in origin 
 and signification, as Simeon. 
 
 1. SIMON MACCA ILEUS. [Maccabjean 
 Famii.y.] 
 
 2. SIMON, the apostle, to whom Christ gave 
 the name of Peter, after which he was rarely 
 called by his former name alone, but usually 
 by that of Peter, or else Simon Peter [Petek], 
 
 3. SIMON, surnamed Zelotes 6 
 
 one of the twelve apostles (Luke \i. 
 15; Acts i. 13), and probably so named from 
 having been one of the Zealots. He is also called 
 4 The Canaanite’ (2i '.[xcov 6 Kavav'nris) in Matt. 
 
 x. 4; Mark iii. 18. This, however, is not, as is 
 usually the case, to be taken for a Gentile name, 
 but is merely an Aramaic word signifying ‘zeal,’ 
 and therefore of the same signification as Zelotes. 
 Simon is the least known of all the apostles, not 
 a single circumstance, beyond the fact of his 
 apostleship, being recorded in the Scriptures. He 
 is probably to be identified with Simon the son 
 of Cleophas ; and if so, the traditions concerning 
 that person, given by those who make them dis- 
 tinct, must be assigned to him. These traditions, 
 however, assign a different destiny to this Simon, 
 alleging that he preached the Gospel throughout 
 North Africa, from Egypt to Mauritania, and that 
 ke even proceeded to the remote isles of Britain. 
 
 4. SIMON, son of Cleophas and Mary, brothel 
 of the apostles James and Jude, and a kinsman 
 of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3). He is 
 probably the same with the Simon Zelotes above 
 mentioned, and in that case we must regard the 
 separate traditions respecting him as apocryphal, 
 and take those assigned to the present Simon as 
 proper to both. They amount, to this, that after 
 St. James had been slain by the Jews in a.d. 62, 
 bis brother Simon was appointed to succeed him 
 in the government of the church at Jerusalem, 
 and that forty-three years after, when Trajan 
 caused search to be made for all those who claimed 
 to be of the race of David, he was accused before 
 Atticus, the governor of Palestine, and after en- 
 during great torture was crucified, being then 120 
 years of age (Epiphanius, Hares, c. 14; Euseb. 
 hist. Eccles. iii. 32; Tillemont, hist. Eccles. ii. 
 204). 
 
 5. SIMON, father of Judas Iscariot (John vi. 
 71 ; xii. 4 ; xiii. 2, 26). 
 
 6. SIMON, a Pharisee who invited Jesus to 
 his house (Luke vii. 40, 43, 44). 
 
 7. SIMON THE LEPER, so called from having 
 formerly been afflicted with leprosy (Matt. xxvi. 
 6 ; Mark xiv. 3). He was of Bethany, and after 
 the raising of Lazarus, gave a feast, probably 
 in celebration of that event, at which both Jesus 
 and Lazarus were present (comp. John xii. 2). 
 He was, therefore, probably a near friend or rela- 
 tion of Lazarus: some suppose that lie was his 
 brother; others that he was the husband of Mary, 
 the sister of Lazarus, who at. this feast anointed 
 the Lord's feet, and that Lazarus abode with 
 them. But all this is pure conjecture. 
 
 8. SIMON THE CYRENIAN, who was 
 compelled to aid in bearing the cross of Jesus 
 (Matt, xxvii. 32; Mark xv.21 ; Luke xxiii. 26). 
 Whether this surname indicated that Simon was 
 one of the many Jews from Cyrene, who came to 
 Jerusalem at the Passover, or that he was origin- 
 ally from Cyrene, although then settled at Jeru- 
 salem, is uncertain. The latter seems the more 
 likely opinion, as Simon’s two sons, Alexander 
 and Rufus, were certainly disciples of Christ. ; 
 and it was perhaps the knowledge of this fact 
 which led the Jews to incite the soldiers to lay 
 on him the burden of the cross. The family of 
 Simon seems to have resided afterwards at Rome; 
 for St. Paul, in his epistle to the church there, 
 salutes the wife of Simon with tenderness and 
 respect., calling her his ‘ mother,’ though he does 
 not expressly name her: ‘Salute Rufus, and his 
 mother and mine’ (Rom. xvi. 13). 
 
 9. SIMON THE TANNER, with whom St. 
 Peter lodged at Joppa (Acts ix. 43; x. 6 ; xvii. 
 32). He was doubtless a disciple. His hou.se 
 was by the sea side, beyond the wall, as the trade 
 of a tanner was one which the Jews did not allow 
 to he carried on inside their towns. 
 
 10. SIMON MAGUS. In the eighth chapter 
 of the Acts we read that Philip the Evangelist, 
 whilst preaching the Gospel in a city of Samaria, 
 came in contact with a person of the name of 
 Simon, who had formerly exercised immense 
 power over the minds of the people by his skill 
 in the resources of magic. So high were the 
 pretensions of this impostor, and so profound the 
 impression he had made on the minds of flic 
 multitude, that they not only received with 
 readiness all that be taught, but admitted hi* 
 
SIMON. 
 
 SIMON. 
 
 7<J7 
 
 claim to be regarded as an incarnation of tbe de- 
 miurgic power of God. The doctrines of Philip, 
 however, concerning Christ as the true and only 
 incarnation of Deity, supported by the unparal- 
 leled and beneficent miracles which he per- 
 formed, had the effect of dispelling this delusion, 
 and inducing the people to renounce their alle- 
 giance to Simon and receive baptism as the dis- 
 ciples of Christ. On the mind of Simon himself 
 a deep impression was also produced. In h:s 
 former pursuits he had been probably not a little 
 of a dupe as well as a deceiver, for the belief in 
 the reality of magical power was so widely dif- 
 fused through the East that we can easily suppose 
 Simon to have been thoroughly convinced, not 
 only that the possession of such power was attain- 
 able, but that the charms of which he was mas- 
 ter actually conferred upon him a portion of 
 that power, though very far short of what he pre- 
 tended to have. To his mind, therefore, the 
 idea in all probability suggested by the miracles 
 of Philip, the reality of whieh he could not 
 doubt, was, that here was a magician of a higher 
 order than himself — one who was possessed of 
 charms and secrets more powerful and mysterious 
 than those which he had obtained. To Philip, 
 consequently, as a greater master of his science 
 than himself, he deemed it wise to succumb, in 
 the hope doubtless of being able ere long to par- 
 ticipate in his knowledge and to wield his power. 
 With this view he professed himself a disciple of 
 Jesus, and as such was baptised by Philip. 
 
 On the news of Philip’s success reaching Jeru- 
 salem, Peter and John went down to Samaria to 
 confer upon the new converts the spiritual gifts 
 which were vouchsafed to the primitive churches. 
 During their visit Simon discovered that by 
 means of prayer and the imposition of hands the 
 Apostles were able to dispense the power of the 
 Holy Ghost ; and supposing probably that in this 
 lay the much-prized secret of their superior 
 power, he attempted to induce the Apostles to 
 impart to him this power by offering them money. 
 This, which for such a man was a very natural 
 act, intimated to the Apostles at once his true 
 character (or rather, to express more accurately 
 our conviction, it enabled them to manifest to 
 the people and publicly to act upon what their 
 own power of discerning spirits must have al- 
 ready taught them of his true character) ; and 
 accordingly Peter indignantly repudiated his 
 offer, proclaimed his utter want of all true 
 knowledge of Christian doctrine (so we under- 
 stand the words ovk tern aoi gepls ovde icXrjpos 
 iv rep tovtu), ver. 21), and exhorted him to 
 
 repentance and to prayer for forgiveness. The 
 words of Peter on this occasion, it is justly re- 
 marked by Neander, * present the doctrine of 
 the Gospel, which so expressly intimates the abso- 
 .'ute necessity of a right state of mind for the re- 
 ception of all that Christianity conveys, in 
 direct opposition to the Magianism, which denies 
 all necessary connection between the state of 
 mind and that which is divine and supernatural, 
 brings down the divine and supernatural within 
 the sphere of ordinary nature, and imagines that 
 divine power may be appropriated by means of 
 something else than that which is allied to it in 
 man’s nature, and which supplies the only point 
 of union between the two’ ( Apostol . Zeitalt. i. 82). 
 The solemn aid threatening words of the Apostle 
 
 struck dread into the bosom of the impostor, srho 
 besought the Apostle to pray for him that none 
 of the tilings lie had threatened might come upon 
 him — an entreaty which shows that his mind 
 still laboured under what Neander above de- 
 scribes as the chief error of the Magian doctrine. 
 
 After this we read no more of Simon Magus 
 in ihe New Testament. By the ecclesiastical 
 writers, however, he is frequently referred to, and 
 several curious particulars are recorded concern- 
 ing him, some of winch must unquestionably he 
 abandoned to the region of fable, but many of 
 which are apparently true. According to Justin 
 Martyr ( Apol . i. § 26), Theodoret, ( Harrct . fab. 
 i. 1), Epiphanius ( Ilcer . xxi. 55), and others, he 
 was a native of Gitton or Gittum, a town of 
 Samaria. The Clementine Homilies (ii. 22), 
 inform us that lie studied at Alexandria; but 
 their authority is very doubtful. Josephus speaks 
 of a Simon Magus who was a dependant of 
 Felix and the minister of his vices ( Antiq . xx. 
 7. 2), and whom Neander regards as the same 
 person with ihe one now under notice ( Lib . cit. 
 p. 84). Justin says he went to Rome in the 
 reign of Claudius, where he attracted much at- 
 tention, and gained such reverence that he was 
 worshipped as a God. The same writer affirms 
 that he even saw a statue erected in the Tiber, 
 between the two bridges, to his memory, and 
 bearing the inscription ‘Simoni Deo Sancto/ 
 and this is repeated by many of tbe fathers. It 
 is now, however, very generally supposed that 
 Justin's partial acquaintance with the Latin 
 language and mythology led him to mistake a 
 statue of the Sabine deity, Semo, for one to 
 Simon, a supposirion which it is hardly possible 
 to resist when we know that a piece of marble lias 
 been found in an island of the Tiber actually 
 bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco Deo 
 Fidio Sacrum (Salmasius, Ad Spartianum , 
 p. 38 ; Van Dale, De Oraculis, p. 579 ; Burton, 
 Heresies of the Apostolic Age , p. 374, <^c.). 
 Eusebius adds (Hist. Eccles. ii. 13, 14), that the 
 popularity of the impostor was completely . de- 
 stroyed by St. Peter’s coming to Rome ; and later 
 writers give us a wonderful legend of his destruc- 
 tion by the miraculous power of the Apostle’s 
 prayers joined to those of St. Paul. All are 
 agreed in regarding these legendary accounts a9 
 fabulous, but Dr. Burton has with much inge- 
 nuily endeavoured to expiscate the truth which 
 may be involved in them. According to his 
 view it is probable that Simon, in endeavouring 
 to work something that should pass for a miracle, 
 and to maintain his credit against the Apostles, 
 met with an accident which ended in his death 
 (Lib. cit. p. 371). To us it appears more pro- 
 bable that 1 he whole is a mythic fable ; the 
 silence of all the earlier fathers regarding it is 
 sufficient to invalidate its pretensions to be viewed 
 as history. 
 
 Simon's doctrines were substantially those ui 
 the Gnostics, and he is not, without reason re- 
 garded as the first who attempled to engraft the 
 theurgy and egotism of the Magian philosophy 
 upon Christianity. He represented himself, ac- 
 cording to Jerome (In Matt Opp. iv. 114), as 
 the Word of God, the Perfection, the Paraclete, 
 "the Almighty, the All of Deity; and Irenseu* 
 (i. 20) tells us he carried with him a beautiful 
 female named Helena, whom he set forth as 
 
76S 
 
 SIN. 
 
 SINAI. 
 
 first idea (fpvoia) of Deity. If this be not ex- 
 aggerated fable on the part of bis enemies, we 
 must suppose that such modes of speech and re- 
 presentation were adopted by him as suited to 
 the highly allegorical character of Orientalism 
 in his day; for were we to suppose him to have 
 meant such utterances to be taken literally, we 
 should be constrained to look upon him in the 
 light of a madman. 
 
 Comp. Tillemont, Me moires , tom. i. p. 158, ft". ; 
 Beausobre, Hist, du Manichee, tom. i. ; Ittigius, 
 Hist. Eccles. Selecta Capita , v. 16, &c. ; Mos- 
 heim, Hist, of the Church , Cent. ii. 5, 12; De 
 Rebus Christianorum , &c. p 190 ft*. ; Burton's 
 Heresies of the Apostolic Age , Lect. iv. ; Milman, 
 Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 96, ft’., &c. — 
 
 W. L. A. 
 
 SIN (I'D ; Sept. 2ats), a city of Egypt, which 
 is mentioned in Ezek. xxx. 15, 16, ir< connection 
 with Thebes and Memphis, and is described as 
 ‘ the strength of Egypt,’ showing it to have been 
 a fortified place. The Sept, makes it to have 
 been Sais, but Jerome regards it as Pelusium 
 This latter identification lias been general!) 
 adopted, and is scarcely open to dispu’e. Sin 
 means ‘ mire," and Pelusium, from the Greek pelos , 
 has the same meaning, which is, indeed, preserved 
 in the modern name Tineh, ‘clay,’ all doubtless 
 derived from the muddy nature of the soil in 
 the vicinity. Sir J. G. Wilkinson, however, sup- 
 poses that the ancient native name more nearly 
 resembled the Peremoun or Phkromis of the 
 Copts; and the latter is, doubtless, the origin of 
 the Farama of the Arabs, by which it is still 
 known. Pelusium was anciently a place of great 
 consequence. It was strongly fortified, being the 
 bulwark of the Egyptian frontier on the eastern 
 side, and was considered the ‘ key,’ or, as the 
 prophet terms it, ‘ the strength’ of Egypt (Hist. 
 Bell. Alexand. p. 20, 27 ; Liv. xlv. 11 ; Joseph. 
 Antiq. xiv. 8. 1 ; De Beil. dud. i. 8. 7 ; i. 9. 3). 
 It was near this place that Pompey met his death, 
 being murdered by order of Ptolemy, whose pro- 
 tection he had claimed. It. lay among swamps and 
 morasses on the most easterly estuary of the Nile 
 (which received from it the name of Ostium Pelu- 
 siacum), and stood twenty stades from the Medi- 
 terranean (Strabo, xvi. p. 760; xvii. 801, 802; 
 PI in. Hist. Nat. v. 11). The site is now only 
 approachable by boats during a high Nile, or by 
 land when the summer sun lias dried the mud 
 left by the inundation : the remains consist only 
 of mounds anil a few fallen columns. The cli- 
 mate is very unwholesome (Wilkinson's Mod. 
 Egypt, i. 408, 411; Savary’s Letters on Egypt, 
 i. let. 24 ; Henniker's Travels). 
 
 SIN, the desert which ihe Israelites entered on 
 turning off from the Red Sea (Exod. xvi. 1 ; 
 xvii. 1 : Kum. xxxiii. 12) [Sinai]. 
 
 SINAI (\3'D ; Sept. Su'd). The Hebrew name, 
 denoting a district, of broken or cleft rocks, is de- 
 scriptive of the region to which it is applied. That 
 region, according to Exod. xix. 1 ; Lev. vii. 38 ; 
 Num. i. 1,3, 4, is a wild mountainous country in 
 Arabia Petraea, whither the Israelites went from 
 Rephidim, after they had been out of Egypt for the 
 space of three months. Here the law was given to 
 Moses, which fact renders this spot one of special 
 and lasting interest. From the magnitude and pro- 
 minence of the Sinaitic group of mountains, the 
 
 entire district of which it forms a part has leceived 
 the name of the peninsula of Sinai. This peninsula 
 may be roughly described as formed by a line 
 running from Suez to Ailah. all that lies on 
 the south of this line falling within the peninsula. 
 In the present day the name Sinai is given by 
 Christians to the cluster of mountains to which 
 we have referred ; but. the Arabs have no other 
 name (or this group than Jebel et-Tar, sometimes 
 adding the distinctive epithet Sina. In a stricter 
 sense the name Sinai is applied to a very lofty 
 ridge which lies between 1 he two parallel valleys 
 of Slier and el- Lega. Of this ridge the northern 
 end is termed Horeb, the southern Sinai, now 
 called Jebel Musa, or Moses’ Mount, The entire 
 district is a heap of lofty granite rocks, with steep 
 gorges and deep valleys. The several mountains 
 in the peninsula seem all to ascend gradually till 
 they reach their highest point in the group of 
 Sinai, which presents a wild aspect of broken, 
 cleft, and irregular masses, with pointed tops 
 and precipitous sides. The entire group is made 
 up of four huge ranges, which run south and 
 north with an inclination eastward. The ranges 
 are separated from each other by deep valleys or 
 watercourses. Of the four longitudinal masses of 
 mountain, Sinai lies the most easterly but one, 
 namely, Jebel ed-Deir. The range which lies on 
 the west of Sinai is designated at its southern 
 extremity Jebel Catharine, which is the highest 
 mountain in the district, for Sinai is 7033, 
 and Catharine 8063 Parisian feet above the 
 level of the Mediterranean (the highest point ol 
 Hermon being 10,000 feet). The Sinai ridge, in- 
 cluding Horeb, is at least three miles in length. 
 It rises boldly and majestically from the southern 
 end of the plain Rahali, which is two geographical 
 miles long, and ranges in breadth from one-third 
 to two-thirds of a mile, making at least one 
 square mile. This space is nearly doubled 
 by extensions of the valley on the west and 
 east. ‘ The examination convinced us,’ says 
 Robinson (Biblical Researches, i. 141), ‘that here 
 was space enough to satisfy all the requisitions 
 of the Scriptural narrative, so far as it relates to 
 the assembling of the congregation to receive the 
 law.’ Water is abundant in this mountainous 
 region, to which the Bedouins betake themselves 
 when oppressed by drought in the lower lands. 
 As there is water, so also is there in the valleys 
 great fruitfulness and sometimes luxuriance of 
 vegetation, as well as beauty. What was the 
 exact locality from which the law was given, it 
 may not be easy to ascertain. The book of 
 Deuteronomy (i. 6 ; iv. 18, &c.) makes it to be 
 Horeb, which seems most probable ; for this, the 
 north end of the range, rises immediately from the 
 plain of which we have just spoken as the head- 
 quarters of the Israelites. Sinai is, indeed, ge- 
 nerally reputed to be the spot, and, as we have 
 seen, the southern extremity of the range is deno- 
 minated Moses’ Mount ; hut this may have arisen 
 from confounding together two meanings of Si- 
 nai, inasmuch as it denotes 1, a district; 2, a 
 particular part of that district. It was no doubt 
 on Horeb, in the region of Sinai, that the law was 
 promulgated. Robinson imputes the common 
 error to tradition, and declaves that ‘ there is not 
 the slightest reason for supposing that Moses had 
 any thing to do with the summit which now bears 
 his name. It is three miles distant from the plain 
 
SINAI. 
 
 SINAI 
 
 70* 
 
 ora vtwxh the Israelites must have stood, and hid- 
 den fno.ir it by the intervening peaks of modern 
 Horeb. No part of the plain is visible from the 
 summit, nor are the bottoms of the adjacent val- 
 leys, nor is any spot to be seen around it where 
 the people could have been assembled.’ Robinson 
 also ascended the northern extremity of the 
 ridge, and had there a prospect which he thus 
 describes : — ‘ The whole plain, er-Rahah, lay 
 spread out beneath our feet with the adjacent 
 Wadys and mountains. Our conviction was 
 strengthened that here, or on some one of the ad- 
 jacent cliffs, was the spot where the Lord “ de- 
 scended in fire,” and proclaimed the law. Here 
 lay the plain where the whole congregation might 
 be assembled ; here was the mount that could be 
 approached and touched, if not forbidden ; and 
 here the mountain brow where alone the lightnings 
 
 and the thick cloud would he visible, and the 
 thunders and the voice of the trump be heard 
 when “the Lord came down in the sight of all the 
 people upon Mount Sinai.” We gave ourselves 
 uj) to the impressions of the awful scene, and 
 read with a feeling that will never be forgotten 
 the sublime account of the transaction and the 
 commandment, there promulgated.’ On descend- 
 ing, Robinson came to a convent (5366 feet above 
 the sea), his description of the vicinity of which 
 will impress on the reader’s mind what we have 
 before said as to the fruitfulness of spots in these 
 lofty regions. ‘ A large plantation of olive-trees 
 extends far above 'and below the convent along 
 the valley. Just around the buildings is also a 
 garden of other fruit trees, in which apple and 
 apricot trees were in blossom (March 26), and 
 not far oft* is a small grove of tall poplars, here 
 
 508. [The summit of Mount Sinai.] 
 
 cultivated for timber. In this garden too was a 
 rill of water. A family of serfs was here to keep 
 the garden. As we entered, the sweet voice of a 
 prattling Arab child struck my ear, and made 
 my heart thrill as it recalled the thoughts of 
 home’ (i. 159). Tradition seems to have been 
 busily a^d freely at work in the district. A rock 
 is pointed out as that whence Moses made the 
 water gush. It is in a narrow valley, and Ro- 
 binson affirms that there is not the slightest 
 ground for assuming any connection between it 
 and Rephidim ; but, on the contrary, every thing 
 against such a supposition. 
 
 Having thus given a general view of Sinai, we 
 shall now briefly trace the Israelites in their 
 journey to the mountain. Another article [Wav?- 
 DKniim] will follow their course into the Land 
 of Promise. If the reader will turn back to. 
 Exodus, he will find that we there conducted the 
 fugitive horde through the-Red Sea to the eastern 
 shore of the gulf of Suez. The Biblical autho- 
 rities for the portion of the task immediately be- 
 
 IX. 50 
 
 fore us may be found in Exod. xvi. 22 ; xviii. 
 xviii., xix., 1 and 2; and Num. xxiii. 8-15 
 When safe on the eastern shore, the Israelites, 
 had they taken the shortest route into Palestine, 
 would have struck at once across the desert- 
 in a south-easterly direction to el-Arish or Gaza. 
 But this route would have brought them into 
 direct collision with the Philistines, with whom 
 they were as yet quite unable to cope. Or they 
 might have traversed the desert of Paran, follow- 
 ing the pilgrim road of the present day to Elath, 
 and, turning to the north, have made for Pales- 
 tine. In order to accomplish this, however, 
 hostile hordes and nations would have to be en- 
 countered, whose superior skill and experience in 
 war might have proved fatal to the newly liberated 
 tribes of Israel. Wisely, therefore, did theiEleadei 
 take a course which necessitated the lapse of time, 
 and gave promise of affording intellectual and 
 moral discipline of the highest value. A regard 
 to this discipline chiefly determined Motes in the 
 selection of his route. He resolved to le&d his flock 
 
no 
 
 SINAI. 
 
 SINAI. 
 
 to Sinai m order that they might see the wonders 
 there to be exhibited, and hear the lessons there to 
 be given. At Sinai, and on the journey thither, 
 might the great leader hope that the moral brand 
 which slavery had imprinted on his people would 
 be effaced, and that they would acquire that self- 
 respect. that regard to God’s will, that capacity of 
 self-guidance, which alone could make liberty a 
 blessing to the nation, and enable Moses to realise 
 on their behalf the great and benign intentions 
 which God had led him to form. There were, 
 however, two ways by which he might reach 
 Sinai. By following a south-easterly direction, 
 and proceeding across the desert el-Tyh, he 
 would have reached at once the heart of the Si- 
 naitic region. This was the shorter and the more 
 expeditious road. The other route lay along 
 the shore of the Red Sea, which must be pursued 
 till an opening gave the means of turning sud- 
 denly to the east, and ascending at once into 
 the lofty district. The latter was preferable for 
 the reason before assigned, namely, the addi- 
 tional opportunities which it offered for the edu- 
 cation of the undisciplined tribes of recently 
 emancipated slaves. It, therefore, was wisely 
 adopted by Moses. 
 
 Moses did not begin his arduous journey till, 
 with a piety and a warmth of gratitude which well 
 befitted the signal deliverance that his people had 
 just been favoured with, he celebrated the power, 
 majesty, and goodness of God in a triumphal ode, 
 full of the most appropriate, striking, and splendid 
 images ; in which commemorative festivity he 
 was assisted by ‘ Miriam (he prophetess, the sister 
 of Aaron/ and her associated female band, with 
 poetry, music, and dancing. The nature of these 
 festivities gives us full reason to conclude, that if 
 the people at large were still slaves in intellect 
 and morals, there were not wanting individuals in 
 the camp who were eminently skilled in the best 
 refinements of the age. The spot where these re- 
 joicings were held could not have been far from 
 that which still bears the name of Ayun Musa, 
 'the fountains of Moses/ the situation of which is 
 even now marked by a few palm-trees. This was 
 a suitable place for the encampment, because well 
 supplied with water. Here Robinson counted 
 seven fountains, near which he saw a patch of 
 barley, and a few cabbage plants. Hence the 
 Israelites proceeded along the coast, three days’ 
 -journey, into what is termed the wilderness of 
 Shur. During this march they found no water. 
 The district is hilly and sandy, with a few 
 watercourses running into the Red Sea, which, 
 •failing rain, are dry. ‘ These Wadys/ says 
 Robinson, ‘ are mere depressions in the desert, 
 with only a few scattered herbs and shrubs, now 
 withered and parched with drought.’ At the end 
 of three days the Israelites readied the fountain 
 Marah, but the waters were bitter, and could not 
 be drunk. The stock which they had brought 
 with them being now exhausted, they began to 
 utter inurmurings on finding themselves disap- 
 pointed at Marah. Moses appealed to God, who 
 directed him to a tree, which, being thrown 
 into the waters, sweetened them. The people 
 were satisfied and admonished. About this sta- 
 tion authorities are agreed. It is identified with 
 the fountain Hawarah. The basin is six or eight 
 fuel in diameter, and the water Robinson found 
 ebeut iuo feat deep. Its taste is unpleasant, saltish, 
 
 and somewnat bitter. The Arabs pronounce it 
 bitter, and consider it as the worst water in all 
 these regions. Near the spring are numerous 
 bushes of the shrub ghurkud — a low, bushy, 
 thorny shrub, producing a small fruit, which 
 ripens in June, not unlike the blackberry, very 
 juicy, and slightly acidulous. It delights in a 
 saline soil, and is found growing near the brackish 
 fountains in and around Palestine, affording a 
 grateful refreshment to travellers. By means of the 
 berries, or, if they were not ripe, the leaves of this 
 plant, the bitterness may have been removed from 
 the waters of Marah. Not improbably the miracle 
 in the case lay in this, that Jehovah directed 
 Moses to use the tree (bush) itself, instead of what 
 was usual, the berries, as from the time of year, 
 shortly after Easter, they could hardly iiaye been 
 ripe. 
 
 The next station mentioned in Scripture is 
 Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and 
 three score and ten palm-trees. As is customary 
 with travellers in these regions, ‘ they encamped 
 there by the waters’ (Exod. xvi. 1). ■ The indica- 
 tions given in the Bible are not numerous, nor 
 very distinct. Neither time nor distance is accu- 
 rately laid down. Hence we can expect only 
 general accuracy in our maps, and but partial suc- 
 cess in fixing localities. Elim, however, is gene- 
 rally admitted to be Wady Ghurundel, lying 
 about half a day’s journey south-east from Marah. 
 The way from Egypt to Sinai lies through this 
 valley, and on account of its water and verdure 
 it is a chief caravan station at the present day. 
 From Elim the Israelites marched, encamping on 
 the shore of the Red Sea, for which purpose they 
 must have kept the high ground for some time, 
 since the precipices of Jebel Hummam — a lofty 
 and precipitous mountain of chalky limestone — 
 run down to the brink of the sea. They, there- 
 fore, went on the land side of this mountain to 
 the head of Wady Taiyikeh, which passes down 
 south-west through the mountains to the shore. 
 On the plain at the mouth of this valley was the 
 encampment ‘ by the Red Sea’ (Nura. xxxiii. 10). 
 
 According to Num. xxxiii. 11, the Israel- 
 ites removed from the Red Sea, and encamped 
 next in the wilderness of Sin. This Robinson 
 identifies with ‘ the great plain which, beginning 
 near el-Mhrkhah, extends with greater or less 
 breadth almost to the extremity of the peninsula. 
 In its broadest part it is called el-Ka-a’ (i. 106). 
 Thus they kept along the shore, and did not yet 
 ascend any of the fruitful valleys which run up 
 towardst.be centre of the district. They arrived 
 in the wilderness of Sin on the tifteenlh (lay of the 
 second mouth after their departure out of the 
 land of Egypt ; and being now wearied with their 
 journey, and tired of their scanty fare, they began 
 again to murmur. Indeed, it is not easy to see 
 how the most ordinary and niggard food could 
 have been supplied to them, constituting as they 
 did nearly two millions of persons, in such a 
 country as that into which they had come. It is 
 true that some provision might have been made 
 by individuals ere the march from Suez began. 
 It is also possible that the accounts of encamp- 
 ments which we have, are to be regarded as chiefly 
 those of Moses and his principal men, with a 
 chosen body of troops, while the multitude were 
 allowed to traverse the open country, and forage 
 in the valleys. Still the region was unfavour- 
 
SINAI. 
 
 SINAI. 
 
 771 
 
 able for the purpose, and we are brought, to the 
 conclusion that here we have one of those nu- 
 merical difficulties which are not uncommon in 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, and which make 
 us suspect some radical error in our conceptions 
 of the Hebrew system of numbers. The contrast 
 between the scant supply of the desert and the 
 abundance of Egypt, furnished the immediate 
 occasion of the outbreak of dissatisfaction. Bread 
 and flesh were the chief demand ; bread and flesh 
 were miraculously supplied; the former by manna, 
 the latter by quails. Manna grows in some of 
 the neighbouring valleys; but the Israelites were 
 in the wilderness, so that the supply could not 
 have proceeded from natural resources, even had 
 such existed to a sufficient extent for the purpose. 
 
 The next station mentioned in Exodus is 
 Rephidim ; but in Numbers Dophkah and Alush 
 are added. The two latter were reached after the 
 people had taken ‘ their journey out of the wil- 
 derness of Sin.’ Exact precision and minute 
 agreement are not to be expected. The circum- 
 stances of the case forbid us to look for them. In 
 a desert, mountainous, and rarely frequented 
 country, the names of places are not lasting. 
 There was the less reason for permanence in the 
 case before us, because the Israelites had not taken 
 the shorter and more frequented road over the 
 mountains to Sinai, but kept along the shore 
 of the Red Sea. It still deserves notice, that in 
 Exodus (xvii. 1) there is something like an inti- 
 mation given of other stations besides Rephidim 
 in the words ‘ after their journeys.’ Dophkah is 
 probably to |je found near the spot where Wady 
 Feiran runs into the gulf of Suez. Alush may 
 have lain on the shore near Ras Jehan. From 
 this point a range of calcareous rocks, termed 
 Jebal Hemam, stretches along the shore, near the 
 southern end cf which the Hebrews took a sudden 
 turn to the north-east, and going up Wady Hibran, 
 reached the central Sinaitic district. On the 
 opposite side, the eastern, the Sinaitic mountains 
 come to a sudden stop, breaking off, and present- 
 ing like a wall nearly perpendicular granite 
 cliffs. These cliffs are cut by Wady Hibran, 
 and at the point of intersection with the plain 
 which runs between the two ranges, lay Rephidim. 
 
 This was the last station before Sinai itself was 
 reached. Naturally enough is it recorded, that 
 ‘ there was no water for the people to drink.’ The 
 road was an arid gravelly plain ; on either side were 
 harren rocks. A natural supply was impossible. 
 A miracle was wrought, and water was given. 
 The Scripture makes it clear that it was from 
 the Sinaitic group that the water was produced 
 (Exod. xvii. 6). The plain received two de- 
 scriptive names: Massah, ‘Temptation;’ and 
 Meribah, ‘ Strife.’ It appears that the congregation 
 was not allowed to pursue their way to Sinai un- 
 molested. The Arabs thought the Israelites 
 suitable for plunder, and fell upon them. These 
 hordes are termed Amalek. The Amalekites may 
 have been out on a predatory expedition, or they 
 may have followed the Israelites from the north, 
 and^onjy overtaken them at Rephidim ; any way 
 no conclusion can be gathered, from this fact as 
 to the ordinary abode of these nomades. It ap- 
 pears, however, that the conflict was a severe and 
 doubtful one, which by some extraordinary aid 
 ended in favour of the children of Israel. This 
 VdSressidn on he part of Amalek gave occasion 
 
 to a permanent national hatred, which ended only 
 in the extermination of the tribe (Num. xxiv. 20 ; 
 Exod. xvii. 14-16). In commemoration of this vic- 
 tory Moses was commanded to write an account 
 of it in a book : he also erected there an altar to 
 Jehovah, and called the name of it ‘ Jehovah, 
 my banner.’ There is no occasion to inquire 
 whether or not there was space for a battle in the 
 spot where Moses was. It was a nomade hold* 
 that made the attack, and not a modern army 
 The fight was not a pitched battle. The word 
 Horeb, applied by Moses to the place whence 
 the watei was gained, suggests the idea that 
 Horeb was the general, and Sinai the specific 
 name ; Horeb standing for the entire district, and 
 Sinai for one particular mountain. Many pas- 
 sages sanction this distinction. But in the New 
 Testament Sinai only is read, having then ap- 
 parently become a general name, as it is at the 
 present day (Acts vii. 30-38 ; Gal. iv. 24). It 
 is a monkish usage which gives the name Sinai 
 to Jebel Musa, and Horeb to the northern part of 
 the same ridge. 
 
 The district of Sinai is remarkable for the nume- 
 rous inscriptions engraved on the face of the rocks. 
 They are found on all the routes which lead from 
 the west towards the mountain, as far south as 
 Tur, and extend to the very base of Sinai. The 
 spot where they exist in the greatest number is 
 the Wady, which hence derives its name, W 
 Mukatteb, ‘ Written Valley,’ through which the 
 usual road to Sinai passes before reaching Wady 
 Teiran. Here inscriptions occur by thousands on 
 the rocks, chiefly at such points as would form 
 convenient resting-places for travellers or pilgrims 
 during the noon-day sun. Many of them are ac- 
 companied by crosses. The characters are every 
 where the same, and till recently had defied all 
 the efforts of the ablest palaeographists. In the 
 year 1839, Professor Beer, of the university of Leip- 
 zig, succeeded in deciphering them. The charac- 
 ters of the Sinaitic inscriptions the Professor finds 
 to belong to a distinct and independent alphabet ; 
 some being wholly peculiar, others having more 
 or less affinity with the Cufic, which may have 
 been developed from them. The contents hitherto 
 ascertained (1839) consist of proper names, pre- 
 ceded by some such word as peace i blessed ; in 
 memory of' The word son often occurs between 
 the names. No Jewish nor Christian name has 
 been found. Beer thinks the writers were pil- 
 grims : it is probable, from the presence of the 
 cross, that they were also Christians. The in- 
 scriptions are ascribed to the fourth century, and 
 may have been made by the native inhabitants of 
 the mountains. The Leipzig Professor considers 
 them as the only remains of the language and cha- 
 racter once peculiar to the Nabathaeans of Arabia 
 Petraea. Inscriptions have also been discovered 
 on the rocks of Hisn Ghorab in Hadramaut, on 
 the southern extremity of Arabia, of which, and of 
 the deciphering of which, a very interesting ac- 
 count may be found in Forster’s recently pub- 
 lished and very valuable work, The Historical 
 Geography of Arabia , or the Patriarchal Evi- 
 dences of Revealed Religion , 2 vols. 8vo. Lond. 
 1844. Robinson’s work before referred to is a 
 classical one on the subject, though we are unable 
 to assent to all his views. The celebrated Raumer’a 
 Beitrdge to his Palestine should be studied in 
 connection with Robinson. Within the last ft? 
 
772 
 
 SINAPI. 
 
 SINIM. 
 
 yea.s very much has been done for laying open 
 the regions through which our minds have passed, 
 by Niebuhr, Burckhardt, and Laborde. See also 
 Biisching, Erdbeschreibung, v. ; andRosenmuller, 
 Alterthum. iii. 131, sq. — J. R. B. 
 
 SINAPI ( 2 iVa 7 rt), translated ‘mustard tree’ 
 in the Auth. Vers, of the New Testament, has 
 engaged the attention of many commentators, 
 great difficulty having been experienced in find- 
 ing a plant with the requisite characteristics, 
 notwithstanding the several attempts which have 
 been made. The subject was investigated by the 
 present writer in a paper read before the Royal 
 Asiatic Society, on the 16th March, 1844. Hav- 
 ing referred to the passages of the New Testament 
 in which the word occurs (Matt. xiii. 31 ; xvii. 
 20 ; Mark iv. 31 ; Luke xiii. 19 ; xvii. 6 ), he first 
 showed how unsuitable were the plants which had 
 been adduced to the circumstances of the sacred 
 narrative, and mentioned that his own attention 
 had been turned to the subject in consequence of 
 the present Bishop of Lichfield having informed 
 him that Mr. Amueny, a Syrian student of 
 King’s College, was well acquainted with the 
 tree. Mr. A. stated that this tree was found near 
 Jerusalem, but most abundantly on the banks of 
 the Jordan and round the sea of Tiberias ; that its 
 seed was employed as a substitute for mustard, and 
 that it was called khardal, which, indeed, is the 
 common Arabic name for mustard. In the writer's 
 MS. Materia Medica of the East , mentioned 
 in vol. i. p. 6 , he had enumerated, 1. Khardal, 
 Or common mustard ; 2. Khardal barree, or wild 
 mustard ; 3. Khardal rooniee, Turkish mustard. 
 The last appeared to be the plant referred to, but 
 nothing more than this name was known of it. In 
 his Illustrations of Himalayan Botany , he foumJ 
 a tree of N. W. India, which was there called 
 kharjal , and which appeared possessed of the re- 
 quisite properties, but he could not find it men- 
 tioned in any systematic work, or local Flora, as 
 a native of Palestine. The plant is Salvadora 
 Persica, a large shrub, or tree of moderate size, 
 a native of the hot and dry parts of India, of 
 
 Persia, and of Arabia. Dr. Roxburgh describes 
 the berries as mucn smaller than a grain of black 
 pepper, having a strong aromatic sttall, and a taste 
 much like that of garden cresses Dr. Lindley 
 
 informed the writer that he had seen them in a col- 
 lection made by Bove. Lastly, Irby and Mangle*, 
 in their travels, mention a tree which they suppose 
 to be the mustard tree of Scripture. They met 
 with it while advancing towards Kerek, from the 
 southern extremity of the Dead Sea. It bore its 
 fruit in bunches resembling the currant; and the 
 seeds had a pleasant, though strongly aromatic taste, 
 nearly resembling mustard. They say, ‘ We think 
 it possible that this is the tree our Saviour alluded 
 to in the parable of the mustard seed, and not the 
 mustard plant which we have in the north, and 
 which, even when growing large, can never be 
 called a tree, whereas the other is really such, and 
 birds might easily, and actually do, take shelter 
 under its shadow.’ On further inquiry, the wri- 
 ter learned that a specimen of the tree had been 
 brought home by Mr. W. Barker, and that it had 
 been ascertained by Messrs. Don and Lambert 
 to be the Salvadora Persica of botanists ; but both 
 had written against its claim to be the mustard 
 tree of Scripture, while Mr. Frost, hearing a con- 
 versation on the subject, had supposed the tree to 
 be a Phytolacea, and had hence maintained it to 
 be the mustard tree of Scripture, but without 
 adducing proofs of any kind. 
 
 The paper above referred to concludes by stating 
 it as an important, fact, that the writer had come 
 to the same conclusion as Irby and Mangles, by an 
 independent mode of investigation, even when 
 he could not ascertain that the plant existed in 
 Palestine ; which is, at all events, interesting, as 
 proving that the name kharjal is applied, even in 
 so remote a country as the north-west of India, 
 to the same plant which, in Syria, is called 
 khardal, and which no doubt is the chardal of 
 the Talmudists, one of whom describes it as a 
 tree of which the wood was sufficient to cover a 
 potter’s shed, and another says that he was wont 
 to climb into it, as men climb into a fig-tree. 
 Hence the author stated that he had no doubt but 
 that Salvadora Persica is the mustard tree of 
 Scripture. The plant has a small seed, which 
 produces a large tree with numerous branches, in 
 which the birds of the air may take shelter. The 
 seed is possessed of the same properties, and is used 
 for the same purposes, as mustard, and has a name, 
 khardal, of which sinapi is the true translation, 
 and which, moreover, grows abundantly on the 
 very shores of the sea of Galilee, where our Saviour 
 addressed to the multitude the parable of the 
 mustard seed. — J. F. R. 
 
 SINIM (D'O'D ; Sept. 717 n epawv), a people 
 whose country, ‘ land of Sinim,’ is mentioned 
 only in Isa. xlix. 12 , where the context im- 
 plies a remote region, situated in the eastern or 
 southern extremity of the earth. Many Bibli- 
 cal geographers think this may possibly denote 
 the Sinese or Chinese, whose country is Sina, 
 China. This ancient people were known to the 
 
 Arabians by the name of Sin, and to 
 
 the Syrians by that of Tsini ; and a 
 
 Hebrew writer may well have heard of them, espe- 
 cially if sojourning at Babylon, the metropolis, 
 as it were, of all Asia. This name appears to 
 have been given to the Chinese by other Asiatics; 
 for the Chinese themselves, though not unac- 
 quainted with it, do not employ it, either adopt* 
 ing the names of the reigning dynasties, or o^toa 
 
SINITE 
 
 SLAVE. 
 
 77» 
 
 tatiously assuming high-sounding titles, e. g. 
 Tchungkue, ‘ central empire.’ But when the 
 name was thus given by other nations, and whence 
 it was derived, is uncertain. The opinion of those 
 writers is possibly correct, who suppose that the 
 name D’O'D Sineses came from the fourth dynas- 
 ty, called Tshin, which held the throne from 219 
 to 206 b.c. (Du Halde, Descript, de la Chine , i. 
 
 § 1, p. 306; A. Remusat, Nouv. Melanges Asia- 
 tiques, ii. 334, sq. ; Klaproth, Journal Asiat. x. 
 53, sq.). A people called Tshinas are spoken 
 of in the laws of Menu, ancl the name of this 
 dynasty may have been known among foreign 
 nations long before it acquired the sovereign power 
 over all China. See this view more largely stated 
 by Gesenius ( Thesaurus , pp. 948-950). It is not 
 void of probability, but objections to it are obvi- 
 ous and considerable. Some, therefore, think that 
 by the Sinim the inhabitants of Pelusium (Sin) 
 are, by synecdoche, denoted for the Egyptians 
 (Bochart, Phaleg, iv. 27). But as the text seems to 
 point to a region more distant, others have upheld 
 the claims of the people of Syene, taken to repre- 
 sent the Ethiopians (Michaelis, Spicil. ii. 32, sq. : 
 Suppl. p. 1741, sq.). See Syene. If, however, 
 ‘the land of Sinim’ was named either from Sin 
 or Syene, it is remarkable that the Seventy, who 
 knew Egypt well, should have gone eastward in 
 search of it, even so far east as Persia ; and if 
 they considered it as lying in the remote eastern 
 parts of the Persian empire, which extended to 
 the borders of India, the great step which is thus 
 taken in the direction of China would give some 
 support to the identification of the Chinese with 
 the Sinim. 
 
 SINITE ('J'D; Sept. ’Ao-emuos), a people pro- 
 bably near Mount Lebanon (Gen. x. 17 ; 1 Chron. 
 i. 15). Strabo mentions a city in Lebanon called 
 Sinna ( Geog . xvi. 756). Jerome also speaks 
 of a place called Sini, not far from Area ( Qucest . 
 Heb. in Gen.). 
 
 SISERA (X^D'D, battle array ; Sept. ^Zicrdpa), 
 the general in command of the mighty army of 
 the Canaanitish king Jabin. As this is the only 
 instance in those early times of armies being com- 
 manded by other than kings in person, the cir- 
 cumstance, taken in connection with others, in- 
 timates that Sisera was a general eminent for his 
 abilities and success. He was, however, defeated 
 by Barak, and slain (Judg. iv. 2-22), under the 
 circumstances which have been described in the 
 article Jael. 
 
 SIVAN (lyp ; Sept. N nrav), the third month 
 of the Hebrew year, from the new moon of June 
 to the new moon of July. The name admits of a 
 Hebrew etymology ; but as it occurs only in 
 Esth. viii. 9, it is better to regard it as of Persian 
 origin, like the other names of months ; the cor- 
 responding Persian month being called Sefend- 
 artned ; Zend, Qpenti Armaiti ; Pehlv. Sapand- 
 omad. (Benfey, Monatsnamen, pp. 13,41, sq. ; 
 122, sq. ; Gesen. Thesaur. p. 946). 
 
 SKHINOS (2%?i/os) occurs only in the book 
 entitled Susannah, ver. 54, where one of the 
 elders says that he saw Susannah with a young 
 man, forb axivov, which is correctly translated 
 1 under a mastic-tree.’ The other elder replied, 
 kbat it was virb irplvev ‘ under a holm-tree,’ that is, 
 
 a species of oak. The mastic-tree was well known 
 to the Greeks by the name of axivos. It is the 
 Pistacia Lentiscus of botanists, and belongs to 
 the same genus as the l r istachio nut and tur- 
 pentine tree [Botnim and Alah]. The mastic* 
 tree is a native of the Mediterranean region, and 
 is found in different parts of Syria. It is a 
 moderate sized tree or large shrub. It is cele- 
 brated for producing mastic, a resin which exudea 
 from incisions made in the bark, chiefly in the 
 island of Scio. The hardened mastic, in the 
 form of roundish straw-coloured tears, is muel 
 chewed by Turkish women. It consists of resin, 
 with a minute portion of volatile oil : it Is 
 much used as a varnish, and sometimes as a me- 
 dicine, and by dentists in this country. — J, F. R. 
 
 SLAVE 05^; Sept. ■7 reus, SovAos, oiKerps ; 
 Yulg. servus ; Auth. Eng. Version, servant and 
 bondman; Fern. riDfcS and nfipp*, SooAtj, 7rat- 
 h'nTK7]i olniris , ancilla). The term slavery, 
 though frequently applied to the Jewish system 
 of servitude, is not wholly appropriate. Among 
 the GreeKS and Romans, it properly expressed 
 the legal condition of captives taken in war, 
 or the victims of the existing slave-trade, and 
 the offspring of female slaves. Those slaves 
 were held to be the absolute property of their 
 masters, and their slavery was regarded as per- 
 petual and hereditary. Nor does Jewish servitude 
 bear any resemblance to modern slavery, which, 
 however it may differ from the Greek and Roman 
 in some of its minor incidents, resembles it in its 
 essential principles. If under the Roman law 
 slaves were held ‘ pro nullis, pro mortuis, pro 
 quadrupedibus,’ so under the law of the United 
 States they are adjudged to be chattels personal 
 in the hand of their owners, to all intents, con- 
 structions, and purposes whatsoever; and then- 
 slavery, like that of the ancient Romans, is, as a 
 necessary consequence, perpetual and hereditary. 
 
 It is difficult to trace the origin of slavery. It 
 may have existed before the deluge, when violence 
 filled the earth, and drew upon it the vengeance 
 of God. But the first direct reference to slavery, 
 or rather slave-trading, in the Bible, is found in 
 the history of Joseph, who was sold by his brethren 
 to the Ishmaelites (Gen. xxxvii. 27, 28). In 
 Ezek. xxvii. 12, 13, we find a reference to the 
 slave-trade carried on with Tyre by Javan, Tubal, 
 and Mesbech. And in the Apocalypse we find 
 enumerated in the merchandise of pagan Rome 
 (the mystic Babylon) slaves (aupaTa) and the 
 souls of men (Rev. xviii. 13). 
 
 The sacred historians refer to various kinds of 
 bondage : — 
 
 1. Patriarchal Servitude. — The exact nature 
 of this service cannot be defined : there can be no 
 doubt, however, that it was regulated by principles 
 of justice, equity, and kindness. The servants of 
 the patriarchs were of two kinds, those ‘ born in 
 the house,’ and those ‘bought with money’ (Gen. 
 xvii. 13). Abraham appears to have had a large 
 number of servants. At one time he armed three 
 hundred and eighteen young men, ‘ born in his 
 own house,’ with whom he pursued the kings who 
 had taken ‘ Lot and his goods, and the women also, 
 and the people,’ and recaptured them (Gen. xiv. 
 1-16). The servants born in the house were per- 
 haps entitled to greater privileges than the others 
 Eliezer of Damascus, a home-born servai U wai 
 
77 * 
 
 SLAVE. 
 
 SLAVE. 
 
 Abraham’s steward, and, in default of issue, would 
 nave been his heir (Gen. xv. 2-4). This class of 
 servants was honoured with the most intimate 
 confidence of their masters, and was employed in 
 the most important services. An instance of this 
 kind will be found in Gen. xxiv. 1-9, where the 
 eldest or chief servant of Abraham’s house, who 
 ruled over all that he had, Was sent to Mesopo- 
 tamia to select a wife for Isaac, though then 
 forty years of age. The authority of Abraham 
 was that of a prince or chief over his patriarchate 
 or family, and was regulated by usage and the 
 general consent of his dependents. It could not 
 have been otherwise in his circumstances ; nor, 
 from the knowledge which the Scriptures give of 
 his character, would he have taken advantage of 
 any circumstances to oppress or degrade them : 
 ‘ for I know him, saith the Lord, that he will 
 command his children and his household after 
 him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, 
 to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may 
 bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken 
 of him ’ (Gen. xviii. 19). The servants of Abraham 
 were admitted into the same religious privileges 
 with their master, and received the seal of the 
 covenant (Gen. xvii. 9, 14, 24, 27). 
 
 There is a clear distinction made between the 
 ‘servants’ of Abraham and the things which con- 
 stituted his property or wealth. Abraham was very 
 rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold (Gen. xiii. 
 2, 5 ). But when the patriarch's power or great- 
 ness is spoken of, then servants are spoken of as 
 well as the objects which Constituted his riches 
 (Gen. xxiv. 34, 35). It is said of Isaac, ‘ And the 
 man waxed great, and went forward, and grew 
 until he became very great , for he had possession 
 of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store 
 )f servants' (Gen. xxvi. 13, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29). 
 When Hamor and Shechem speak to the Hivites 
 of the riches of Jacob and his sons, they say, 
 ‘ Shall not their cattle and their substance and 
 every beast of theirs be ours?’ (Gen. xxxiv. 23). 
 Jacob’s wives say to him, ‘ All the riches which 
 God hath taken from our father, tlrat is ours and 
 our children’s.’ Then follows an inventory of 
 property: ‘all his cattle,’ ‘all his goods,’ ‘the 
 cattle of his getting.’ His numerous servants are 
 not included with his property (comp. Gen. xxxi. 
 43 — 16, 18). When Jacob sent messengers to 
 Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his 
 state and sway, he bade them tell him not only 
 of his kiches, but of his greatness , and that he 
 had oxen and asses and flocks, and men-servants 
 and maid-servants’ (Gen. xxxii. 4, 5). Yet in 
 the present which he sent there were no servants, 
 though he manifestly selected the most valuable 
 kinds of property (Gen. xxxii. 14, 15 ; see also 
 xxxiv. 23 ; xxxvi. 6, 7). In no single instance 
 do we find that the jiatriarchs either gave away or 
 sold their servants, or purchased them of third 
 persons. Abraham had servants ‘ bought with 
 money.’ It has been assumed that they were 
 bought of third parties, whereas there is no proof 
 that this was the case. The probability is 
 that they sold themselves to the patriarcli for an 
 equivalent ; that is to say, they entered into vo- 
 luntary engagements to serve him for a longer or 
 shorter period of time, in return for the money 
 advanced them. It is a fallacy to suppose that 
 whatever costs money is money or property. The 
 ®hildren of Israel were required to purchase their 
 
 first-born (Num. xviii. 15, 16 ; .ii. 45, 51 ; Kxod 
 xiii. 13*, xxxiv. 20). They were, moreover, re- 
 quired to pay money for their own souls ; and 
 when they set themselves or their children apart 
 by vow unto the Lord, the price of release was 
 fixed by statute (Lev. xxvii. 2-8). Boaz bought 
 Ruth (Ruth iv. 10). Hosea bought his wife 
 (Hos. iii. 2). Jacob bought his wives Rachel 
 and Leah ; and not having money, paid for them 
 in labour, seven years a-piece (Gen. xxix. 16-23). 
 That the purchase of wives, either with money or 
 by service, was the general practice, is plain from 
 such passages as Exod. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. 
 xviii. 25. But the idea of property does not appear 
 in any of these purchases. For the various ways 
 in which the terms ‘bought,’ ‘buy,’ and ‘bought 
 with money,’ are used, consult Neh. v. 8; Gen. 
 xlvii. 18-26, &c. In Lev. xxv. 47, will be found 
 the case of the Israelite who became the servant 
 of the stranger. The words are, ‘ If he sell him- 
 self unto the stranger.’ Yet the 51st verse says 
 that this servant was ‘ bought,’ and that the price 
 of the purchase was paid to himself. For a further 
 clue to Scripture usage, the reader is referred to 
 1 Kings xxi. 20,25; 2 Kings xvii. 17 ; Isa. lv. 1 ; 
 lii. 3 : see also Jer. xxxiv. 14; Rom. vi. 16 ; vii. 
 14 ; John viii. 31. Probably Job had more ser- 
 vants than either of the patriarchs to whom 
 reference has been made (Job i. 2, 3). In 
 what light he regarded, and how he treated, 
 his servants, may be gathered from Job xxxi. 
 13-23. And that Abraham acted in the same 
 spirit we have the divine testimony in Jer. xxii. 
 15, 16, 17, where his conduct is placed in direct 
 contrast with that of some of his descendants, 
 who used their neighbour's service without wages, 
 and gave him not for his work (ver. 13). 
 
 2. Egyptian Bondage. — The Israelites were 
 frequently reminded, after their exode from Egypt, 
 of the oppressions they endured in that ‘ house of 
 bondage,’ from which they had been delivered by 
 the direct interposition of God. The design of 
 these admonitions was to teach them justice 
 and kindness towards their servants when they 
 should become settled in Canaan (Deut. v. 15; 
 
 viii. 14 ; x. 19 ; xv. 15 ; xxiii. 7, &c.), as well 
 as to impress them with gratitude towards their 
 great deliverer. The Egyptians had domestic 
 servants, who may have been slaves (Exod. 
 
 ix. 14, 20, 21 ; xi. 5). But the Israelites were 
 not dispersed among the families of Egypt ; they 
 formed a special community (Gen. xlvi. 34 ; 
 Exod. viii. 22, 24 ; ix. 26 ; x. 23 ; xi. 7 ; iv. 29; 
 ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14). They had ex- 
 clusive possession of the land of Goshen, ‘the best 
 part of the land of Egypt.’ They lived in perma- 
 nent dwellings, their own houses, and not in tents 
 (Exod. xii. 22). Each family seems to have had 
 its own house (Exod. xii. 4 ; comp. Acts vii. 20) ; 
 and judging from the regulations about eating 
 the Passover, they could scarcely have been small 
 ones (Exod. xii., &c.). They appear to have 
 been well clothed (Exod. xii. 11). They owned 
 ‘ flocks and herds, and very much cattle ’ (Exod. 
 xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38). Tliey had their cwn form 
 of government; and although occupying a pro- 
 vince of Egypt, and tributary to it, they pre- 
 served their tribes and family divisions, and their 
 internal organization throughout (Exod. ii. I j 
 xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 16> 
 They had to a considerable degree the dispose 
 
SLAVE, 
 
 SLAVE. 
 
 116 
 
 jtf th<tfr own time (Exod. iii. 16, 18 ; xii. 6 ; ii. 
 0; iv. 27, 29, 31). They were not unacquainted 
 with the fine arts (Exod. xxxii. 4 ; xxxv. 22, 35). 
 They were all armed (Exod. xxxii. 27). The 
 women seem to have known something of do- 
 mestic refinement. They were familiar with in- 
 struments of music, and skilled in the working 
 of fine fabrics (Exod. xv. 20 ; xxxv. 25, 26) ; 
 and both males and females were able to read 
 and write (Deut. xi. 18, 20; xvii. 19; xxvii. 3). 
 Their food was abundant and of great variety 
 (Exod. xvi. 3; Num. xi. 4, 5; xx. 5). The 
 service required from the Israelites by their task- 
 masters seems to have been exacted from males 
 only, and probably a portion only of the people 
 were compelled to labour at any one time. As 
 tributaries, they probably supplied levies of men, 
 from which the wealthy appear to have been 
 exempted (Exod. iii. 16; iv. 29; v. 20). The 
 poor were the oppressed ; ‘ and all the service 
 wherewith they made them serve was with rigour’ 
 (Exod. i. 1 1-14). But Jehovah saw their c afflic- 
 tions and heard their groanings,’ and delivered 
 them after having inflicted the most terrible 
 plagues on their oppressors. 
 
 3. Jeivish Servitude. — Whatever difficulties 
 may be found in indicating the precise nature of 
 patriarchal servitude, none exists in reference to 
 that which was sanctioned and regulated by the 
 Mosaic institutes. 
 
 The moral law is a revelation of great prin- 
 ciples. It requires supreme love to God and uni- 
 versal love among men, and whatever is incom- 
 patible with the exercise of that love is strictly 
 forbidden and condemned. Hence immediately 
 after the giving of the law at Sinai, as if to guard 
 against all slavery and slave-trading on the part 
 of the Israelites, God promulgated this ordinance : 
 ‘ He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he 
 be found i:i his hands, he shall surely be put 
 to death’ (Exod. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7). The 
 crime is stated in its threefold form, man -stealing > 
 selling , and holding ; the penalty for either of 
 which was death. The law punished the steal- 
 ing of mere property by enforcing restitution, in 
 some cases twofold, in others fivefold (Exod. 
 xxii. 14). When property was stolen, the legal 
 penalty was compensation to the person injured; 
 but when a man was stolen, no property compen- 
 sation was .allowed ; death was inflicted, and the 
 guilty offender paid the forfeit of his life for his 
 transgression; God thereby declaring the infi- 
 nite dignity and worth of man, and the inviola- 
 bility of his person. The reason of this may be 
 found in the great fact that God created man in 
 his own image (Gen. i. 26-28) — a high distinction, 
 more than once repeated with great solemnity 
 (v. 1; and ix. 6). Such was the operation of 
 this law, and the obedience paid to it, that we 
 rave not the remotest hint that the sale and pur- 
 chase of slaves ever occurred among the Israel- 
 ites. The cities of Judsea were not, like the 
 cities of Greece and Rome, slave-markets, nor 
 were there found throughout all its coasts either 
 helots or slaves. With the Israelites service was 
 either voluntary, or judicially imposed by the law 
 of God (Lev. xxv. 39, 47 ; Exod. xxi. 7 ; xxii. 3, 4; 
 Deut. xx. 14). Strangers only, or the descendants 
 of strangers, became their possession by purchase 
 (Lev. xxv. 44-46) , but, however acquired, the 
 law gave the Jewish servants many rights and pri- 
 
 vileges : they were admitted into covenant with 
 God (Deut. xxix. 10, 13); they were guests at 
 all the national and family festivals (Exod. xii. 
 43, 44; Deut. xii. 18; xvi. 10-16): they were 
 statedly instructed in morals and religion (Deut. 
 xxxi. 10-13; Josh. viii. 33-35 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 
 8, 9; xxxv. 3; xxxiv. 30; Nell. viii. 7, 8); 
 they were released from their regular labour 
 nearly one-half of their term of servitude, viz., 
 every seventh year (Lev. xxv. 3-6) ; every seventh 
 day (Exod. xx.) ; at the three annual festivals 
 (Exod. xxiii. 17; xxxiv. 23), viz., the Passover 
 and Feast of Weeks, which lasted each seven 
 days, and the Feast of Tabernacles, which lasted 
 eight. Also on the new moons, the Feast of 
 Trumpets, and the Day of Atonement. Besides 
 these were the local festivals (Judg. xxi. 19 ; 1 
 Sam. ix. 12, 22, &c.), and the various family 
 feasts, as the weaning of children, marriages, 
 sheep-shearing, and circumcisions ; the making of 
 covenants, &c. (1 Sam. xx. 6. 28, 29). To these 
 must be added the Feast of Purim, which lasted 
 three days, and the Dedication, which lasted eight. 
 The servants of the Israelites were protected by 
 the law equally with their masters (Deut. i. 16, 
 17; xxvii. 19; Lev. xix. 15; xxiv. 22; Num. 
 xv. 29); and their civil and religious rights were 
 the same (Num. xv. 15, 16, 29; ix. 14; Deut. 
 i. 16, 17 ; Lev. xxiv. 22). To these might be 
 added numerous passages which represent the 
 Deity as regarding alike the natural rights 
 of all, and making for all an equal provision 
 (2 Chron. xix. 7 ; Prov. xxiv. 23 ; xxviii. 21 ; 
 Job xxxiv. 19; 2 Sam. xiv. 14; Ephes. vi. 9). 
 Finally, these servants bad the power of changing 
 their masters, and of seeking protection where 
 they pleased (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16); and should 
 their masters by any act of violence injure their 
 persons, they were released from their engage- 
 ments (Exod. xxi. 26, 27). The term of Hebrew 
 servitude was six years, beyond which they could 
 not be held unless they entered into new engage- 
 ments (Exod. xxi. 1-1 1 ; Deut. xv. 12); while 
 that of strangers, over whom the rights of the 
 master were comparatively absolute (Lev. xxv. 
 44-46), terminated in every case on the return 
 of the jubilee, when liberty was proclaimed to 
 all (Lev. xxv. 8, 10. 54). On one occasion the 
 state of the sexennial slavery was violated, and 
 the result was fearful (Jer. xxxiv. 8-22). See 
 also Exod. xxi. 20; Lev. xix. 20-22; Tobit x. 10 
 ((TeS/uxTa) ; Ecclus. vii. 20, 21 ; x. 25 ; xxxiii. 
 24-31. 
 
 4. Gibeonitish Servitude. — The condition of 
 the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, 
 and Kirjath-jearim, under the Hebrew common- 
 wealth, was not that of slavery. It was volun- 
 tary (Josh. ix. 8-11). They were not employed 
 in the families of the Israelites, but resided in 
 their own cities, tended their own flocks and 
 herds, and exercised the functions of a distinct 
 though not independent community (Josh. x. 
 6-18). The injuries inflicted on them by Saul 
 were avenged by the Almighty on his descendants 
 (2 Sam. xxi. 1-9). They appear to have been 
 devoted exclusively to Ibe service of the ‘ house 
 of God’ or the Tabernacles, and only a few of 
 them comparatively could have been engaged at 
 any one time. The rest dwelt in their cities, 
 one of which was a great city, as one of tl>3 
 royal cities. The service they rendered may Li 
 
776 
 
 SLAVE. 
 
 SLAVE. 
 
 regarded as a natural tribute for the privilege of 
 protection. No service seems to have been re- 
 quired of their wives and daug’ iters. On the re- 
 turn from the Babylonish captivity they dwelt at 
 Ophel (Neh. iii. 26). See also 1 Chron. ix. 2; 
 Ezra ii. 43; Neh. vii. 24; viii. 17: x. 28; 
 xi. 21 [Nethinim]. 
 
 The laws which the great Deliverer and Re- 
 deemer of mankind gave for the government of his 
 kingdom, were those of universal justice and bene- 
 volence, and as such were subversive of every sys- 
 tem of tyranny and oppression. To suppose, there- 
 fore, as has been rashly asserted, that Jesus or his 
 apostles gave their sanction to the existing systems 
 of slavery among the Greeks and Romans, is to 
 dishonour them. That the reciprocal duties of 
 masters and servants (SooAoi) were inculcated, ad- 
 mits, indeed, of no doubt (Col. iii. 22 ; iv. 1 ; Tit. 
 ii. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 18; Ephes. vi. 5-9). But the per- 
 formance of these duties on the part of the masters, 
 supposing them to have been slave-masters, would 
 have been tantamount to the utter subversion of 
 the relation. There can be no doubt either that 
 * servants under the yoke,’ or the slaves of heathens, 
 are exhorted to yield obedience to their masters 
 (1 Tim. vi. 1). But this argues no approval of 
 the relation ; for, 1. Jesus, in an analogous case, 
 appeals to the paramount law of nature as super- 
 seding such temporary regulations as the ‘ hard- 
 ness of men's hearts ’ had rendered necessary (see 
 Slavery at the Cape of Good Hope , by the Rev. 
 W. Wright, M.A., 1831, p. 58) ; and, 2. St. Paul, 
 while counselling the duties of contentment and 
 submission under inevitable bondage, inculcates 
 at the same time on the slave the duty of adopt- 
 ing all legitimate means of obtaining his freedom 
 (1 Cor. vii. 18-20). We are aware that the ap- 
 plication of this passage has been denied by 
 Chrysostom, Photius, Theodoret, and Theophy- 
 lact, who maintain that it is the state of slavery 
 which St. Paul here recommends the slave to 
 prefer. But although this interpretation is in- 
 deed rendered admissible by the context, yet the 
 more received meaning, or that which counsels 
 freedom, is both more easily connected with the 
 preceding phrase, ‘ if thou mayest be mad e free, 
 use it rather,’ and is, as Neander observes, * more 
 in accordance with the liberal views of the free- 
 minded Paul ’ (Bilroth, Commentary on Co' 
 rinthians , in Bib. Cabinet'). Besides which, the 
 character of the existing slavery, to which we 
 shall now refer, was utterly inconsistent with the 
 entire tenor of the moral and humane principles 
 of the precepts of Jesus. 
 
 5. Roman Slavery. — Our limits will not allow 
 us to enter into detail on the only kind of slavery 
 referred to in the New Testament, for there is no 
 indication that the Jews possessed any slaves in 
 the time of Christ. Suffice it therefore to say 
 that, in addition to the fact that Roman slavery 
 was perpetual and hereditary, the slave had no 
 protection whatever against the avarice, rage, or 
 lust of his master. The bondsman was viewed 
 less as a human being, subject to arbitrary do- 
 minion, than as an inferior animal, dependent 
 wholly on the will of his owner. The master 
 possessed the uncontrolled power of life and death 
 over hia slave, — a power which continued at least 
 to the time of the Emperor Hadrian. He might, 
 srd frequently d’d, kill, mutilate, and torture his 
 
 slaves, for any or for no offence, so that slaves were 
 sometimes crucified from mere caprice. He might 
 force them to become prostitutes or gladiators; and, 
 instead of the perpetual obligation of the marriage 
 tie, their temporary unions ( contubernia ) were 
 formed and dissolved at his command, families 
 and friends were separated, and no obligation 
 existed to provide for their wants in sickness or 
 in health. But, notwithstanding all the barbarous 
 cruelties of Roman slavery, it had one decided 
 advantage over that which was introduced in 
 modern times into European colonies, both law 
 and custom being decidedly favourable to the 
 freedom of the slave ( Inquiry into the State oj 
 Slavery among the Romans, by W. Blair, Esq. 
 1833). The Mahommedan law also, in this re- 
 spect, contrasts favourably with those of the 
 European settlements. 
 
 Although the condition of the Roman slaves 
 was no doubt improved under the emperors, the 
 early effects of Christian principles were manifest 
 in mitigating the horrors, and bringing about the 
 gradual abolition of slavery. St. Onesimus, ac- 
 cording to the concurrent testimony of antiquity, 
 was liberated by Philemon (Phil. ver. 21) ; and 
 in addition to the testimonies cited in Wright’s 
 Slavery (ut supra, p. 60), see the preface ol 
 Eufhalius to this Epistle. The servile condition 
 formed no obstacle to attaining the highest dig- 
 nities of the Christian priesthood. Our space will 
 not allow us to pursue this subject. ‘ It was,' 
 says M. Guizot, ‘ by putting an end to the cruel 
 institution of slavery that Christianity extended 
 its mild influence to the practice of war ; and 
 that barbarous art, softened by its humane spirit, 
 ceased to be so destructive’ (Milman's Gibbon, 
 i. 61). ‘ It is not," says Robertson, ‘ the authority 
 
 of any single detached precept in the Gospel, but 
 the spirit and genius of the Christian religion, 
 more powerful than any particular command, 
 which has abolished the practice of slavery 
 throughout the world.’ Although, even in the 
 most corrupt times of the church, the operation 
 of Christian principles tended to this benevolent 
 object, they unfortunately did not prevent the 
 revival of slavery in the European settlements in 
 the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, together 
 with that nefarious traffic, the suppression of 
 which has rendered the name of Wilberforce for 
 ever illustrious. Modern servitude had all the 
 characteristic evils of the Roman, except, perhaps, 
 the uncontrolled power of life and death, while it 
 was destitute of that redeeming quality to which 
 we have referred, its tendency being to perpetuate 
 the condition of slavery. It. has also been sup- 
 posed to have introduced the unfortunate pre- 
 judice of colour, which was unknown to the 
 ancients (Linstant’s Essai, 1841). It was the be- 
 nevolent wish of the philosophic Herder ( History 
 of Man, 1788) that the time might come ‘ when 
 we shall look back with as much compassion on 
 our inhuman traffic in negroes, as on the ancient 
 Roman slavery or Spartan helots.’ This is now 
 no longer a hope, so far as England is concerned, 
 as she not only set the example of abolishing the 
 traffic, but evinced the soundness of her Christian 
 principles by the greatest national act of justice 
 which history has yet recorded, in the total abo- 
 lition of slavery throughout all her dependencies 
 
 W. W 
 
 SLIME. [Asphaetum.] 
 
SMITH. 
 
 SMYRNA. 
 
 777 
 
 SMITH (Bnn;, a workman in stone, wood, or 
 metal, like the Latin faber, but sometimes more 
 accurately defined by what follows, as 
 a workman in iron, a smith ; Sept. reKroou, tcktcop 
 aib'flpov, xaAtceur, tc)(Att)s ; \ ulg. faber and 
 faber j err arias (1 Sam. xiii. 19; Isa. xliv. 12; 
 liv. 16 ; 2 Kings xxiv. 14 ; Jer. xxiv. 1 ; xxix. 
 2). In 2 Chron. xxiv. 12, ‘ workers in iron and 
 brass’ are mentioned. The first smith mentioned 
 in Scripture is Tubal-Cain, whom some wiiters, 
 arguing from the similarity of the names, iden 
 tify witli Vulcan (Getli. Vossius, De Orig. Ido -■ 
 lol. i. 16). He is said to have been ‘ an in- 
 structor of every artificer in brass and iron (Gen. 
 iv. 22), or perhaps more properly, a whetter or 
 sharpener of every instrument of copper or iron. 
 So Montanus, ‘ acuentem omne artificium seris 
 et ferri ;’ Sept. acpvpoKoiros x<xA/ceus x^kov k<x\ 
 arib-fipov, Vulg. ‘ fuit maleator et faber in cuncta 
 opera seris et ferri.’ Josephus says that he first 
 of all invented the art of making brass ( Antiq . 
 i. 2. 2). As the art. of the smith is one of the 
 first essentials to civilization, the mention of its 
 founder was worthy of a place among the other 
 fathers of inventions. So requisite was the trade 
 of a smith in ancient warfare that conquerors 
 removed these artizans from a vanquished na- 
 tion, in order the more effectually to disable it. 
 Thus the Philistines deprived the Hebrews of 
 their smiths (1 Sam. xiii. 19; comp. Judg. v. 8). 
 So Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, treated 
 them in later times (2 Kings xxiv. 14 ; Jer. 
 xxiv. 1 ; xxix. 2). With these instances the 
 commentators compare the stipulation of Por- 
 senna with the Roman people, after the expul- 
 sion of their kings : ‘ Ne ferro, nisi in agricul- 
 tura, uterentur ’ (Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxi. 14). 
 Cyrus treated the Lydians in the same manner 
 (Herodotus, i. 142). "1JDD, smith, occurs in 
 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16; Sept. crvyuXeiovTa ; Jer. 
 xxiv. 1 ; xxix. 2; Vulg. ‘ clusor,’ or ‘inclusor.’ 
 Buxtorf gives ‘ claustrarius, faber ferrarius.’ 
 The root "DD, to close , indicates artizans 1 with 
 busy hammers closing rivets up ;’ which suits 
 the context better than other renderings, as 
 setters of precious stones, seal-engravers, &c. In 
 the New Testament we meet with Demetrius, 
 ‘ the silversmith,’ at Ephesus, apyvpoKdiros, ‘ a 
 worker in silver,’ Vulg. argentariics ; but the 
 commentators are not agreed whether he was 
 a manufacturer of small silver models of the 
 Temple of Diana, vaobs apyvpovs, or at least of 
 the chapel which contained the famous statue 
 of the goddess, to be sold to foreigners, or used 
 in private devotion, or taken with them by tra- 
 vellers as a safeguard ; or whether he made large 
 coins representing the temple and image. Beza, 
 Scaliger, and others, understand a coiner or 
 mintmaster (see Kuinoel in loc.). That the word 
 may signify a silver -founder, is clear from the 
 Sept, rendering of Jer. vi. 29. From Plutarch 
 {Opp. t. ix. pp. 301 and 473, ed. Reisk.) and 
 Hesychius it appears that the word signifies any 
 worker in silver or money. A coppersmith 
 named Alexander is mentioned as an opponent 
 of St. Paul (2 Tim. iv. 14) [Coal, Iron, Me- 
 tals]. — J. F. D. 
 
 SMYRNA ( 'Zgvpva ), a celebrated commercial 
 sity ot Ionia (Ptolem. v. 2), situated near the 
 
 bottom of that gulf of the an Sea which re- 
 ceived its name from it (Mela, i. 17 . 3), at the 
 mouth of the small river Meles, and 320 stades 
 north of Ephesus (Strabo, xv. p. 632). It is in N. 
 lat. 38° 26', E. long. 27° 7'. Smyrna was a very 
 ancient city, but having been destroyed by the 
 Lydians it lay waste 400 years, to the time of 
 Alexander the Great (Plin. v. 29 ; Pausan. vii- 
 5) ; or, according to Strabo, to that of Antigonus. 
 It was rebuilt at the distance of twenty stades 
 from the ancient city (Strabo, xiv. p. 646), and we 
 soon find it flourishing greally ; and in the time 
 of the first. Roman emperors it was one of the finest 
 cities of Asia (Strabo, iv. 9). It was at this 
 period that It became the seat of a Christian 
 church, which is noticed in the Apocalypse, as 
 one of ‘ the seven churches of Asia’ (Rev. i. 11 ; 
 ii. 8-11). It was destroyed by .an earthquake in 
 a.d. 177; but the emperor Marcus Aurelius 
 caused it to be rebuilt with even more than its 
 former splendour. It afterwards, however, suf- 
 fered greatly from earthquakes and conflagrations, 
 and must be regarded as having declined much 
 from its ancient importance, although from the 
 convenience of its situation it has still maintained 
 its rank as a great city and the central emporium 
 of the Levantine trade; and seeing the terrible 
 decay which has fallen upon the numerous great 
 aud beautiful cities of Asia Minor, its relative rank 
 among the existing cities of that region is probably 
 greater than that which it anciently bore. The 
 Turks call it Izmir. It is abetter built town than 
 Constantinople, and in proportion to its size there 
 are few {daces in the Turkish dominions which 
 have so large a population. It is computed at 
 130,000, of which the Franks compose a far 
 greater proportion than in any other town of Tur- 
 key; and they are generally in good circumstances. 
 Next to the Turks the Greeks form the most nu- 
 merous class of inhabitants, and they have a 
 bishop and two churches. The unusually large 
 proportion of Christians in the town renders it 
 peculiarly unclean in the eyes of strict Moslems, 
 whence it has acquired among them the name of 
 Giaour Izmir or Infidel Smyrna. There are 
 in it 20,000 Greeks, 8000 Armenians, 1000 Eu- 
 ropeans, and 9000 Jews : the rest are Moslems. 
 
 The prosperity of Smyrna is now rather on the 
 increase than the decline ; houses of painted wood 
 are giving way in all directions to mansions of 
 stone; and probably not many years will elapse 
 before the modern town may not unworthily repre- 
 sent that city which the ancients delighted to call 
 ‘ the lovely — the crown of Ionia — the ornament 
 of Asia.’ 
 
 Smyrna stands at the foot of a range of moun- 
 tains, which enclose it on three sides. The only 
 ancient ruins are upon the mountains behind the 
 town, and to the south. Upon the highest summit 
 stands an old dilapidated castle, which is supposed 
 by some to mark the previous (but not the most 
 ancient) site of the city; frequent earthquakes 
 having dictated the necessity of removing it to the 
 plain below, and to the lower declivities of the 
 mountains. Mr. Arundell says — ‘ Few of the 
 Ionian cities have furnished more relics of anti- 
 quity than Smyrna; but the convenience of 
 transporting them, with the number of investiga- 
 tors, have exhausted the mine; it is therefore 
 not at all wonderful that of the stoas and temples 
 the very ruins have vanished j and it is now ex 
 
778 
 
 SNAIL. 
 
 SODOM. 
 
 trtmely difficult to determine the sites of any of 
 the ancient buildings with the exception of the 
 stadium, the theatre, and the temple of Jupiter 
 Acrseus, which was within the Acropolis* (Dw- 
 eaveries in Asia Minor , ii. 407). Of the stadium 
 here mentioned the ground plot only remains, it 
 being stripped of its seats and marble decorations. 
 It is supposed to be the place where Polycarp, 
 the disciple of St. John, anil probably ‘ the angel 
 of the church of Smyrna ’ (John ii. 8), to whom 
 the Apocalyptic message was addressed, suffered 
 martyrdom. The Christians of Smyrna hold the 
 memory of this venerable person in high honour, 
 and go annually in procession to his supposed 
 tomb, which is at a short distance from the place 
 of martyrdom (Rosenmuller, Altertkum.sk. i. 2. 
 224, sq. ; Turner, Travels, iii. 138-141; 285- 
 29 1 ; Arundell, u. s. ; Richter, p. 495 ; Schu- 
 bert, i. 272-283 ; Narrat. of Scottish Mission , 
 pp. 328-336; Eotlien, cli. v.). 
 
 SNAIL (^-I^Dt^). Snails and slugs are not 
 very common in countries so dry in summer as 
 Palestine. Hence, perhaps, the fact, that there is 
 only one allusion to them in Scripture. This oc- 
 curs in Psalm lviii. 8, where the figure seems to 
 be more significant, if understood of snails without 
 shells, i. c. slugs, rather than shell -snails, though 
 true of both. ‘ Let them melt away ... as the 
 snail which melteth as it goeth.’ The name itself, 
 shabhil, from a verb signifying ‘ to smear’ or ‘soil,’ 
 has reference to the slime and moisture of this 
 animal (like Ae(ua|, from A et/3co). The Sept, does 
 not regard the word as denoting a snail at all, but 
 in the text cited translates it by Kypos, ‘ bees’ wax.’ 
 
 SO (KID ; Sept. 2-qy up), a king of Egypt, 
 whom Hoshea, the last king of Israel, called to 
 his help against the Assyrians under Shalmaneser 
 (2 Kings xvii. 4). It has been questioned whe- 
 ther this So was the same with Sahaco, the first 
 king of the Ethiopian dynasty in Upper Egypt, 
 or his son and successor Sevechus, the second king 
 of the same dynasty, and the immediate prede- 
 cessor of Tirhakah. Winer hesitates between them, 
 and Gesenius concludes for the latter. Sevechus 
 reigned twelve years, according to Manetho, four- 
 teen according to Syncellus. This name, in 
 Egyptian Sevech, is also that of the god Saturn 
 (Champollion, Panth. Egypt. No. 21, 22 ; Winer, 
 Real-Worterb. s. v. ; Gesenius, Comment, in Jes. 
 i. 696). 
 
 SOAP. [Bouith ; Neter.] 
 
 SODOM (DTp ; Sept. ~2,6bo/xa), a city in the 
 vale of Siddim, where Lot settled after his sepa- 
 ration from Abraham (Gen. xiii. 12; xiv. 12; 
 xix. 1). It had its own chief or ‘king,’ as had 
 
 but the last has awakened much discussion, and 
 may therefore require a larger measure of atten- 
 tion. The circumstances are these. In the first 
 place, we learn that the vale of Siddim, in 
 which Sodom lay, was very fertile, and every- 
 where well watered — ‘like the garden of the 
 Lord ;’ and these circumstances induced Lot to 
 fix his abode there, notwithstanding the wicked- 
 ness of the inhabitants (Gen. xiii. 10, 11). Next 
 it appears that this vale was full of * slime-pits.’ 
 This means sources of bitumen, for the word 
 is the same as that which is applied to the 
 cement used by the builders of Babylon, and 
 we know that, to have been bitumen or asphaltum 
 (Gen. xiv. 10; comp. xi. 3). These pits appear 
 to have been of considerable extent; and, indeed, 
 it was from them doubtless that the whole valley 
 derived its name of Siddim (D^Tp*). At length, 
 when the day of destruction arrived, ‘ the Lord 
 rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire 
 and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven ; 
 and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, 
 and all the inhabitants of those cities, and that 
 which grew upon the ground’ (Gen. xix. 24, 25). 
 In the escape from this overthrow, the wife ol 
 Lot * looked back, and became a pillar of salt ’ 
 (ver. 26). When Abraham, early that sama 
 morning, from the neighbourhood of his distanl 
 camp, ‘ looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, 
 and towards all the land of the plain, and beheld, 
 and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the 
 smoke of a furnace’ (ver. 27). These are the 
 simple facts of the case. It has usually been 
 assumed that the vale of Siddim occupied the 
 basin of what is now the Dead Sea, which did 
 not previously exist, but was one of the results d 
 this catastrophe. It has now, however, beet 
 established by Dr. Robinson, that a lake to re 
 ceive the Jordan and other waters must have oc 
 cupied this basin long before the catastrophe o* 
 Sodom: as all the geological characteristics o? 
 the region go to show that its present configuration 
 is in its main features coeval with the present 
 condition of the surface of the earth in general, 
 and is not the effect of any local catastrophe at a 
 subsequent period [Sea, Dead], But although 
 a lake must then have existed, to receive the 
 Jordan and other waters of the north, which could 
 not have passed more southward, as was at one 
 time supposed, and which must even, as is now 
 proved, have received the waters of the south 
 also, we are at liberty to assume, and it is neces- 
 sary to do so, that the Dead Sea anciently covered 
 a much less extent of surface than at present. 
 The cities which were destroyed must have been 
 situated at the south end of the lake, as it then 
 
 the other four cities of the plain (Gen. xiv. 2, 8, ^existed ; for Lot lied to Zoar, which was near 
 
 1 AN 1 1 ! 4.1 . iU ^ rw „ 1 a - A / L 1 — I //''l O A \ 1 7 1^.. ~ 1 ^ i 4.1 — 
 
 10), and was along with them, Zoar only excepted 
 destroyed by fire from heaven, on account of the 
 gross wickedness of the inhabitants ; the memory 
 of which event has been perpetuated in a name 
 of infamy to all generations (Gen. xix.). The 
 destruction of Sodom claims attention from the 
 solemnity with wdiich it is introduced (Gen. xviii. 
 20-22); from the .circumstances which pre- 
 ceded and followed - — the intercession of Abra- 
 ham, the preservation of Lot, and the judgment 
 which overtook his lingering wife (Gen. xviii. 
 25-33 ; xix.); and from the nature of the physical 
 agencies through which the overthrow was effected. 
 6Iosl of these particulars are easily understood ; 
 
 Sodom (Gen. xix. 20), and Zoar lay almost at the 
 southern end of ihe present sea [Zoar]. ‘ Even at 
 the present day,’ says Robinson, ‘ more living 
 streams How into the Ghor, at. the south end ol 
 the sea, from wadys of the eastern mountains, 
 than are to be found so near together in all 
 Palestine ; and the tract, although now mostly 
 desert, is still better watered through these streams, 
 and by the many fountains, than any other 
 district throughout the whole country ’ ( Bibl 
 Researches, ii. 603). The slime-pits, or wells ol 
 asphaltum, are no longer to be seen ; but it seem* 
 that masses of floating asphaltum occur only ie 
 the southern part of the lake; and as they are 
 
SODOM. 
 
 SOLOMON. 
 
 but rare.y, and immediately after earthquakes, the 
 asphaltum appears to he gradually consolidated 
 in the lake, and not being able to flow off, forms 
 by consequence a layer at the bottom, portions ot 
 which may be detached by earthquakes and other 
 convulsions of nature, and then appear on the 
 surface of the water or upon the shore. The 
 eminent geologist, Leopold von Buch, in his letter 
 to Dr. Robinson (Bibl. Researches, ii. 606-608), 
 thinks it quite probable that this accumulation 
 may have taken place in remote times, as well as 
 at the present day. Thus another circumstance 
 of importance is produced in coincidence with 
 the sacred accounts ; and again, with reference 
 to the southern portion of the present lake, 
 suggesting the probability that the remarkable 
 bay, or ‘ back water,’ at its southern extremity, 
 is the portion of it which did not in ancient 
 times exist, that it in fact covers the more 
 fertile vale of Siddim, and the site of Sodom and 
 the other cities which the Lord destroyed ; and 
 that, in the words of Dr. Robinson — ‘ by some 
 convulsion or catastrophe of nature, connected 
 with the miraculous destruction of the cities, 
 either the surface of this plain was scooped out, 
 or the bottom of the sea was heaved up, so as to 
 cause the waters to overflow, and cover perma- 
 nently a larger tract than formerly. The coun- 
 try is, as we know, subject to earthquakes, and 
 exhibits also frequent traces of volcanic action. 
 It would have been no uncommon effect of either 
 of these causes, to heave up the bottom of the an- 
 cient lake, and thus produce the phenomenon in 
 question. But the historical account of the 
 destruction of the cities implies also the agency 
 of fire. Perhaps both causes were therefore at 
 work ; for volcanic action and earthquakes go 
 hand in hand; and the accompanying electric 
 discharges usually cause lightnings to play and 
 thunders to roll. In this way we have all the 
 phenomena which the most literal interpretation 
 of the sacred records can demand.’ The same 
 writer, with the geological sanction of Leopold 
 von Buch, repeats the conjecture of Le Clerc and 
 others, that the bitumen had become accumulated 
 around the sources, and had perhaps formed 
 strata, spreading for some distance upon the plain ; 
 that possibly these strata in some parts extended 
 under the soil, and might thus approach the 
 vicinity of the cities: — ‘If, indeed, we might 
 suppose all this, then the kindling of such a heap 
 of combustible materials, through volcanic action 
 or lightning from heaven, would cause a confla- 
 gration sufficient not only to engulf the cities, 
 but also to destroy the surface of the plain, so that 
 ‘ the smoke of the country would go up as the 
 smoke of a furnace, and the sea rushing in, 
 wou d convert it to a tract of waters.’ The sup- 
 posiion of such an accumulation of bitumen, 
 with our present knowledge, appears less extra- 
 ordinary than it might in former times have 
 seemed, and requires nothing more than nature 
 presents to our view in the wonderful lake, or 
 rather tract, of bitumen, in the island of Trinidad. 
 The subsequent barrenness of the remaining por- 
 tion of the plain is readily accounted for by the 
 presence of the masses of fossil salt which now 
 abound in its neighbourhood, and which were 
 perhaps then, for the first time, brought to light. 
 These being carried by the waters to the bottom 
 of the valley, would suffice to take away its pro- 
 
 179 
 
 ductive power. In connection with this fact, the 
 circumstance that the wife of Lot ‘ became a 
 pillar of salt,' is significant and suggestive, what- 
 ever interpretation we may assign to the fact 
 recorded. 
 
 SOHERETH (ITTPID ; Tlt.pivos \l6os), a kind 
 of costly stone, used for tesselated pavements 
 (Esth. i. 6). It seems to have been either a species 
 of black marble, as a similar word in Syriac 
 would suggest ; or else marble marked with round 
 spots like shields, i. e. spotted or shielded marble. 
 This interpretation finds the meaning in the He- 
 brew word mUD soherah, which is the name for 
 a shield. It is however easier to discover the mean- 
 ing of the name than the application of it. We do 
 not feel satisfied with that which has been given ; 
 and still less with that of Hartmann ( Hebrderin , 
 iii. 363), who supposes the sohereth to have been 
 tortoise-shell, consisting as it were of shields ; for 
 tortoise-shell would hardly be interspersed in a 
 pavement with various kinds of marble. 
 
 ? SOLOMON (HbV, pacific; Sept. 'Zdhup&v). 
 The reign of Solomon over all Israel, although 
 second in importance only to that of David, has 
 so little variety of incident as to occupy a far 
 less space in the Bible narrative. Moreover, some 
 of the problems which that narrative suggests do 
 not admit of a solution sufficiently certain to 
 allow of our entering on the discussion. 
 
 In the declining age of David, his eldest sur- 
 viving son, Adonijah, endeavoured to place him- 
 self on the throne, by the aid of Joab the chief 
 captain, and Abiathar one of the chief priests, 
 both of whom had been associated with David’s 
 early sufferings under the persecution of Saul. 
 The aged monarch did not for a moment give 
 way to the formidable usurpation, but at the re- 
 monstrance of his favourite, Bathsheba, resolved 
 forthwith to raise Solomon to the throne. To 
 Joab he was able to oppose the celebrated name 
 of Benaiah ; to Abiathar his colleague Zadok 
 and the aged prophet Nathan. The plot of Ado- 
 nijah was at once defeated by this decisive mea- 
 sure ; and Solomon, being anointed by Nathan, 
 was solemnly acknowledged as king. The date 
 of this event is, as nearly as can be ascertained, 
 b.c. 1015. 
 
 The death of David would seem to have fol- 
 lowed very quick upon these transactions. At 
 least, no public measures in the interval are re- 
 corded, except Solomon’s verbal forgiveness of 
 Adonijah. But after the removal of David, the 
 first events of which we hear are the destruction 
 of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei son of Gera, 
 with the degradation of Abiathar. Those who 
 look for Christian perfection in the conduct of 
 Solomon do some violence to the facts in order to 
 explain these transactions ; which are in them- 
 selves clear enough. Despotic monarchs are 
 seldom found to forgive unsuccessful competitors 
 for the crown, or their assistants ; and their first 
 deed is not rarely to put to death even their inno- 
 cent brothers (2 Chron. xxi. 4). The promise of 
 Solomon to Adonijah, almost as much as his 
 command to Shimei (1 Kings ii. 37), was but a 
 deferring of vengeance to a more convenient 
 time ; and the same absolute power, which could 
 interpret into treason the humble suit for the hand 
 of a beautiful but obscure damsel, would h&rs> 
 
780 
 
 SOLOMON. 
 
 SOLOMON. 
 
 been sure sooner or later to find a plausible ex- 
 cuse for effecting the object determined on. In 
 fact, Abiathar is declared ‘ worthy of death,’ 
 clearly not for any new offences, but for his par- 
 ticipation in Adonijah’s original attempt ; and 
 Joab is put to death solely because he is alarmed 
 at the treatment of his associates (ver. 26-29). For 
 the wicked Joab no pity need be felt ; yet the 
 complexion of the whole affair proves that his 
 murder of two chief captains was rather a con- 
 venient excuse than the true ground of his death. 
 As for Shimei, the tyrannical restriction on his 
 innocent liberty, by which a pretence for his 
 death was found, is far less respectable than 
 simple violence; and almost makes David’s pub- 
 lic forgiveness of him (2 Sam. xvi. 9-12) and 
 solemn oath (xix. 21-23), appear like an ostenta- 
 tious catching at popularity, which concealed 
 implacable resentment. It is remarkable that 
 these three executions are all perpetrated by the 
 hand of Benaiah himself, who was head of Da- 
 vid’s body-guard, and after Joab's death chief 
 captain of the army. 
 
 After this, the history enters upon a general 
 narrative of the reign of Solomon ; but we have 
 very few notices of time, and cannot attempt to 
 fix the order of any of the events. All the in- 
 formation, however, which we have concerning 
 him, may be consolidated under the following 
 heads: (1) his traffic and wealth; (2) his 
 
 buildings ; (3) his ecclesiastical arrangements ; 
 (4) his general administration ; (5) his seraglio ; 
 (6) his enemies. 
 
 (1.) The overflowing wealth in which he is so 
 vividly depicted is not easy to reduce to a mo- 
 dern financial estimate ; partly because the num- 
 bers are so often treacherous, and partly because it 
 is uncertain what items of expenditure fell on tli-e 
 general funds of the government. In illustration 
 of the former topic, it is enough to observe, that 
 the money prepared for the temple by David, is 
 computed in 1 Chron. xxix. 4 at 3000 talents of 
 pure gold and 7000 of silver, while in xxii. 14 
 it is called 100,000 of gold and 1,000,000 of 
 silver : also the sum for which David buys the 
 floor of Araunah is, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 24, 50 she- 
 kels of silver; but this in 1 Chron. xxi. 25, is 
 become 600 shekels of gold. Efforts are made 
 to resolve the former difficulty ; but they are su- 
 perseded by the latter, and by numerous other 
 manifestly exaggerated figures. But abandoning 
 all attempt at numerical estimates, it cannot be 
 doubted that the wealth of Solomon was very 
 great ; and it remains for us to consider from 
 what sources it was supplied. 
 
 The profound peace which the nation enjoyed 
 as a fruit of David's victories, stimulated the in- 
 lustry of all Israel. The tribes beyond the Jordan 
 had become rich by the plunder of the Hagar- 
 enes, and had a wide district where their cattle 
 might multiply to an indefinite extent. The 
 agricultural tribes enjoyed a soil and climate in 
 some parts eminently fruitful, and in all richly 
 rewarding the toil of irrigation ; so that, in the 
 security of peace, nothing more was wanted to 
 develope the resources of the nation than markets 
 for its various produce. In food for men and 
 cattle, in timber and fruit trees, in stone, and 
 probably in the useful metals, the land supplied 
 of itself all the first wants of i s people in abun- 
 dance. For exportation, it is distinctly stated, 
 
 that wheat, ba ley, oil, and wine, were in chief n 
 demand ; to which we may conjecturally add^, i 
 wool, hides, and other raw materials. The king t 
 undoubtedly had large districts and extensive 
 herds of his own ; but besides this, he received 
 presents in kind from his own people and from ! 
 the subject nations ; and it was possible in this 
 way to make demands upon them, without severe 
 oppression, to an extent that is unbearable where 
 taxes must be paid in gold or silver. He was 
 himself at once monarch and merchant ; and we 
 may with much confidence infer, that no private 
 merchant will he allowed to compete with a prince J 
 who has assumed the mercantile character. By jj 
 his intimate commercial union with the Tyrians, 1 
 he was put into the most favourable of all posi- I 
 tions for disposing of his goods. That energetic 
 nation, possessing so small a strip of territory, 
 had much need of various raw produce for their 
 own wants. Another large demand was made 
 by them for the raw materials of manufactures, 
 and for articles which they could with advantage 
 sell again : and as they were able to furnish so 
 many acceptable luxuries to the court of Solo- 
 mon, a most active exchange soon commenced. 
 Only second in importance to this, and superior 
 in fame, was the commerce of the Red Sea, 
 which could not have been successfully prose- 
 cuted without the aid. of Tyrian enterprise and 
 experience. The navigation to, Sheba, and the 
 districts beyond — whether of Eastern Arabia or 
 of Africa — in spite of its tediousness, was highly 
 lucrative, from the vast diversity of productions j 
 between the countries so exchanging ; while, as 
 it was a trade of monopoly, a very disproportion- J 
 ate share of the whole gain fell to the carriers of 
 the merchandise. The Egyptians were the only J 
 nation who might have been rivals in the south- d 
 ern maritime traffic; but their religion and their J 
 exclusive principles did not favour sea- voyages ; | 
 and there is some reason to think that at this ;1 
 early period they abstained from sending their J 
 own people abroad for commerce. The goods fl 
 brought back from the south were chiefly gold, | 
 precious stones, spice, almug or other scented I 
 woods, and ivory; all of which were probably 1 
 so abundant in their native regions as to be a 
 parted with on easy terms ; and of course were 1 
 all admirably suited for re-exportation to Europe. ■;m 
 The carrying trade, which was thus shared be- 9 
 tween Solomon and the Tyrians, was probably M 
 the most lucrative part of the southern and east- .9 
 ern commerce. How large a portion of it went M 
 on by caravans of camels, is wholly unknown}* 
 yet that this branch was considerable, is certain. M 
 From Egypt Solomon imported not only linen j* 
 yarn, but even horses and chariots, which were | 
 sold again to the princes of Syria and of the I. 
 Hittites ; and were probably prized for the supe- 
 rior breed of the horses, and for the light, strong, * 
 and elegant structure of the chariots. Wine + 
 being abundant in Palestine, and wholly wanting | 
 in Egypt, was no doubt a principal means’ of re- .1 
 payment. Moreover, Solomon’s fortifying of j 
 Tadmor (or Palmyra), and retention of Thapsa- 
 cus on the Euphrates, show that he had an im- .• 
 portant interest in the direct land and river trade 
 to Babylon ; although we have no details on this 
 subject. The difficulty which meets us is, to 
 imagine by what exports, light enough to beai 
 land carriage, he was able to pay for his imports - . 
 
SOLOMON. 
 
 80L01Vf0N. 
 
 78i 
 
 We may conjecture that he sent out Tyrian 
 cloths and trinkets, or Egyptian linen of the 
 finest fabric ; yet in many of these things the 
 Babylonians also excelled. On the whole, when 
 we consider that in the case of Solomon the com- 
 mercial wealth of the entire community was con- 
 centrated in the hands of the government ; that 
 much of the trade was a monopoly ; and that 
 all was assisted or directed by the experience and 
 energy of the Tyrians ; ‘e overwhelming riches 
 of this eminent merchant-sovereign are perhaps 
 not surprising. 
 
 The visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon, 
 although not strictly commercial, rose out of 
 commercial intercourse, and may perhaps be 
 here noticed. The territory of Sheba, according 
 to Strabo, reached so far north as to meet that of 
 the Nabathaeans, although its proper seat was at 
 the southernmost angle of Arabia. The very 
 rich presents made by the queen show the extreme 
 value of her commerce with the Hebrew mo- 
 narch ; and this early interchange of hospitality 
 derives a peculiar interest from the fact, that in 
 much later age3 — those of the Maccabees and 
 downwards — the intercourse of the Jews with 
 Sheba became so intimate, and their influence, 
 and even power, so great. Jewish circumcision 
 took root there, and princes held sway who were 
 called Jewish. The language of Sheba is be- 
 lieved to have been strongly different from the 
 literate Arabic; yet, like the Ethiopic, it be- 
 longed to the great Syro-Arabian family, and 
 was n$t alien to the Hebrew in the same sense 
 that the Egyptian was; and the great ease with 
 which the pure monotheism of the Maccabees 
 propagated itself in Sheba, gives plausibility to 
 the opinion, that even at the time of Solomon 
 the people of Sheba had much religious supe- 
 riority over the Arabs and Syrians in general. 
 If so, it becomes clear, how the curiosity of the 
 southern queen would be worked upon, by seeing 
 the riches of the distant monarch, whose purer 
 creed must have been carried every where with 
 them by his sailors and servants. 
 
 (2.) Besides the great work which has ren- 
 dered the name of Solomon so famous — the Tem- 
 ple at Jerusalem — we are informed of the palaces 
 which he built, viz., his own palace, the queen’s 
 palace, and the house of the forest, of Lebanon, 
 his porch (or piazza) for no specified object, and 
 his porch of judgment, or law court. He also 
 added to the walls of Jerusalem, and fortified 
 Millo (‘in the city of David,’ 2 Chron. xxxii. 5), 
 and many other strong-holds. The temple seems 
 to have been of very small dimensions — 60 cu- 
 bits long, 20 broad, and 30 high (1 Kings vi. 3) 
 — or smaller than many moderate-sized parish 
 churches in England ; but it was wonderful for 
 the lavish use of precious materials. Whether 
 the three palaces were parts of the same great 
 pile, remains uncertain. The house of the forest 
 of Lebanon, it has been ingeniously conjectured, 
 was so called from the multitude of cedar pil- 
 I lars, similar to a forest. That Solomon’s own 
 I house was of far greater extent than the temple, 
 appears from its having occupied thirteen years 
 in building, while the temple was finished in 
 seven. In all these works he had the aid of the 
 Tyrians, whose skill in hewing timber and in 
 curving stone, and in the application of machines 
 'or conveying heavy masses, was of the first im- 
 
 portance. The cedar was cut from Mount Leba 
 non, and, as would appear, from a district which 
 belonged to the Tyrians ; either because in the 
 Hebrew parts of the mountain the timber was 
 not so fine, or from want of roads by which it 
 might be conveyed. The hewing was superin- 
 tended by Tyrian carpenters, but all the hard 
 labour was performed by Hebrew bondsmen. 
 This circumstance discloses to us an important 
 fact — the existence of so large a body of public 
 slaves in the heart of the Israel itish monarchy, 
 who are reckoned at 153,600 in 2 Chron. ii. 17; 
 see also 1 Kings ix. 20-23. During the prepara- 
 tion for the temple, it is stated (ver. 13-18) that 
 
 70.000 men were employed to bear burdens, 
 
 80.000 hewers of wood in the mountains ; be- 
 sides 3300 overseers. The meaning of this, how- 
 ever, is rather obscure; since it also states that 
 there was a ‘ levy’ of 30,000, of whom 10,000 at 
 a time went to Lebanon- Perhaps the 150,000 
 was the whole number liable to serve, of whom 
 only one-fifth was actually called out. From 
 the large number said to ‘ bear burdens,’ we may 
 infer that the mode of working was very lavish 
 of human exertion, and little aided by the 
 strength of beasts. It is inferred that, at least 
 the Hittites had recognized princes of their own, 
 since they are named as purchasers of Egyptian 
 chariots from Solomon ; yet the mass of these 
 nations were clearly pressed down by a cruel 
 bondage, which must have reacted on the op- 
 pressors at every time of weakness. The word 
 DD, which is translated ‘ levy’ and ‘ tribute,’ 
 means especially the personal service performed 
 by public slaves, and is rendered ■' task,’ in 
 Exod. i. 11, when speaking of the Israelites in 
 Egypt. 
 
 (3.) Until the temple was finished, the taber- 
 nacle appears to have continued at Gibeon, al- 
 though the ark had been brought by David to 
 Zion (2 Chron. i. 3, 4). [This distinction was 
 overlooked in a passage concerning David, i. 
 529 a. of this work.] David, it appears had 
 pitched a tent on purpose to receive the ark, where 
 Asaph and his brethren the Levites ministered 
 before it with singing, while Zadok and his 
 brethren the priests ministered before the taber- 
 nacle at Gibeon with sacrifices (1 Chron. xv. 
 16-24; xvi. 37-40). This shows that even in 
 David’s mind the idea of a single centre of 
 religious unity was not fully formed; as the co- 
 ordinate authority of Abiathar and Zadok indi- 
 cates that, no single high priest was recognized. 
 But from the time of the dedication of the tem- 
 ple, not only the ark, but all the holy vessels 
 from the tabernacle were brought into it (1 Kings 
 viii. 4), and the high priest naturally confined 
 his ministrations to the temple, Zadok having 
 been left without an equal by the disgrace of 
 Abiathar. Nevertheless, the whole of the later 
 history of the Jewish monarchy, even under the 
 most, pious kings, proves that the mass of the 
 nation never became reconciled to the new idea, 
 that ‘ in Jerusalem (alone) was the place where 
 they ought to worship.’ The ‘ high places,’ at 
 which Jehovah was worshipped with sacrifice, 
 are perpetually alluded to in terms which show 
 that, until the reign of Josiah, it was impossible 
 for kings, priests, or prophets, to bring about a 
 uniformity and central superintendence of tfef 
 nati )nal religion. 
 
782 
 
 SOLOMON. 
 
 SOLOMON. 
 
 After the death of Nathan and Zadok, those 
 faithful iriends of David, although Solomon 
 continued to celebrate with the same splendour 
 all the exterior ceremonies of worship, it is hard 
 to believe that much of that spirit of God which 
 was in his father animated Lis ecclesiastical pro- 
 ceedings. Side by side with the worship of Je- 
 hovah foreign idolatries were established ; and 
 the disgust which this inspired in the prophets of 
 Jehovah is clearly seen in the address of Ahijah 
 the Shilonite to Jeroboam, so manifestly exciting 
 him to rebel against the son of David (1 Kings 
 xi. 29-39). The priests were too much under 
 the direct domination of the crown to act an in- 
 dependent part ; the prophets had little sympathy 
 with the routine of pompous solemnities. Solo- 
 mon himself, with all his erudition and insight 
 into man’s nature, had little, as far as we are 
 aware, of that devotional character and susceptible 
 feeling which distinguished David ; and how- 
 ever well meant his ostentatious patronage of 
 divine worship, it probably could have produced 
 no spiritual fruit, even if he had not finally 
 neutralized it by his impartial support of hea- 
 then superstitions. 
 
 (4.) Concerning his general administration 
 little is recorded beyond the names of various 
 high officers. Among his chief ministers (1 
 Kings iv. 1-6) are named a son of Zadok, and 
 two sons of Nathan. There is a difficulty in 
 the list, since it names Abiathar and Zadok as 
 joint priests, at a time when Benaiah is already 
 ‘ over the host although the latter event could 
 not have been until after the death of Joab, and 
 therefore after the ejection of Abiathar. The 
 two sons of Nathan seem to be named as pecu- 
 liarly eminent; for one of them, Azariah, is said 
 to have been ‘ over the officers the other, Zabud, 
 is called ‘ principal officer and the king’s friend.’ 
 It is not likely that any other considerable 
 changes were made in his government, as com- 
 pared witli David’s, than such as peace and 
 commerce, in place of war, necessitate. Yet it 
 is probable that Solomon’s peculiar talents and 
 taste led him to perform one function which is 
 always looked for in Oriental royalty, viz., to 
 act personally as Judge in cases of oppression. 
 His award between the two contending mothers 
 cannot be regarded as an isolated fact : and 
 ‘ the porch of judgment’ which he built for him- 
 self may imply that he devoted fixed portions of 
 time to the judicial duties (see 2 Kings xv. 5 of 
 Jotham). In all the older civilization of the 
 world, the quality most valued in a judge is the 
 ability to detect truth in spite of the perjury of 
 witnesses, or defect of (what we should esteem) 
 legal evidence ; a defect which must be of daily- 
 occurrence where the art of writing is little used 
 for common contracts. The celebrity which So- 
 lomon gained for wisdom, although founded 
 mainly perhaps on his political and commercial 
 sagacity, must have received great popular im- 
 petus from his administration of law, and from 
 liis readiness in seeing through the entanglements 
 of affairs which arise in commercial transactions. 
 
 (5.) For the harem of Solomon — consisting of 
 700 wives and 300 concubines — no other apology 
 can be made, than the fact, that in countries 
 where polygamy is not disreputable, an unlimited 
 indulge \ce as to the number of wives is looked 
 •'pon hm the chief luxury of wealth, and the most 
 
 appropriate appendage to royalty. Permission V 
 once being given and the taste established, no* 
 thing but poverty can set a limit ; since &n esta- I 
 blishment of a hundred or a thousand wives is 1 
 perhaps more harmonious than one of two or 1 
 three. The only remarkable facts are, his max- I 
 riage with an Egyptian princess, and his esta I 
 blishment of his wives’ idolatry. 
 
 The commercial union of Tyre with Egypt, ii; U 
 spite of the vast diversity of genius between the' j I 
 two nations, was in those days very close ; and M 
 it appears highly probable that the affinity to JB 
 Pharaoh was sought by Solomon as a means ofl 
 aiding his commercial projects. Although his 
 possession of the Edomite ports on the gulf of 
 Akaba made him to a certain extent independent 
 of Egypt, the friendship of that power must have' 
 been of extreme importance to him in the dan-, 
 gerous navigation of the Red Sea; and was per-' 
 haps a chief cause of his brilliant success in so 
 new an enterprise. That Pharaoh continued for 
 some time on good terms with him, appears from 
 a singular present which the Egyptian king made 
 him (l Kings ix. 16): ‘Pharaoh had gone up 
 and taken Gezer, and burnt, it with fire, and slain 
 the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given 
 it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon’s 
 wife;’ in consequence of which, Solomon rebuilt 
 and fortified the town. In his declining years, a 
 very different spirit is manifested towards him by 
 Shishak, the new Egyptian king ; whether after 
 the death of the princess who had been the link 
 between the two kingdoms, or from a new vig\v 
 of policy in the new king, is unknown. 
 
 The proceedings of Solomon towards the reli-'B 
 gion of his wives has been mildly or approv*® 
 ingly regarded by various learned men, as being® 
 only what we have learned to name TolerationiU 
 But such a view seems to imply a want of die** 
 crimination between those times and our own gH 
 and besides, would require us to suppose the 
 statements in the history to be exaggerated, as 
 though they were highly improbable. The re-TJ 
 ligions of antiquity, being essentially ceremonial, 
 were of a most obtrusive kind. It is one thing 
 to allow men in private to hold their conscientious , 
 sentiments, or indeed by argument and discussion® 
 to aim at propagating them, and quite another 
 to sanction pubtrc idolatries, which appeal tQ 
 and allure the senses of the ignorant, and scan- 
 dalize the minds of the better taught; to say no- 
 thing of the impurities and cruelties with which ■ J 
 these idolatries were almost always connected.) I 
 The spirituality and individuality of religion were I 
 not as yet so developed as to allow of our ascrib- 
 ing Solomon's conduct to right and noble views 
 of toleration. Besides, he was under no neces- j 
 si ty to marry these foreign wives at all. Unless 
 prompted by mere voluptuousness (as in the case 
 of the concubines), he must have taken them j 
 from political motives; although distinctly know-^ 
 ing that the step would draw after it li% public • 
 establishment of heathen sin and superstition, •. 
 This is widely different from allowing foreigners, ; 
 who for trade resided in the country, to practise 
 their own religious ceremonies at their own 
 prompting and expense; and yet even this, if 
 permitted at all, would have been permitted only 
 within walled and separated streets appropriated ; 
 to the foreigners, by a king anxious to obey the* 
 law of Moses and of Jehovah in ever so lib&.'J 
 
SOLOMON. 
 
 SOSTHENES. 
 
 7CJ 
 
 Kid unconfined a spirit. This is a topic of prime 
 consequence in the history of the Jewish monarchy. 
 Modem commentators, impressed with the im- 
 portance of liberty of conscience, are naturally 
 prone to suspect that the prophetical or priestly 
 feeling under which the history of the kings was 
 composed, has misrepresented the more liberal 
 policy of these monarchs. But granting, as we 
 may, that it was not given to those prophets or 
 priests to understand the Christian rule of univer- 
 sal toleration, it is certain that the times were not 
 ripe for the application of that rule, and that the 
 most earnest, devout, and spiritually enlightened 
 men of those days were the most vehemently op- 
 posed to a public toleration of idolatry. Taking 
 this merely as a great and unalterable fact , it 
 was shortsighted policy in Solomon, as well as 
 worldly want of faith, to seek to conciliate the 
 foreign heathen, at the expense of the devoted 
 allegiance of God’s chosen ones in Israel. He 
 won at best a momentary gotd will from Ammon- 
 ites, Moabites, or Sidonians, by such an affinity, 
 and by such an introduction of their favourite 
 idols : he lost the heart of the prophets of J eho- 
 vah, and, as a result, he could not transmit to 
 his son more than a fraction of his kingdom. It 
 is no mere fiction of priestly prejudice, but a his- 
 torical certainty, thaf David owed his rise mainly 
 to the overruling and pervading power exerted on 
 him by the pure and monotheistic faith of the 
 prophets ; while Solomon lost (for his posterity) 
 the kingdom of the ten tribes, and perpetuated 
 strife, weakness, debasement, and superstition, 
 by preferring the attractive splendours of this 
 world to that godliness which would in the 
 end have been rewarded even in the present 
 life. 
 
 (6.) The enemies especially named as rising 
 against him in his later years, are Jeroboam, Ha- 
 dad the Edomite, and Rezon of Damascus. The 
 first is described as having had no treasonable in- 
 tentions, until Solomon sought to kill him, on 
 learning the prophecy made to him by Ahijah. 
 Jeroboam was received and fostered by Shishak, 
 king of Egypt, and ultimately became the provi- 
 dential instrument of punishing Solomon’s ini- 
 quity, though not without heavy guilt of his own. 
 As for Hadad, his enmity to Israel began from 
 the times of David, and is ascribed to the savage 
 butchery perpetrated by Joab on his people. He 
 also, when a mere child, was warmly received in 
 Egypt, apnarently by the father-in-law of Solo- 
 mon; but this does not seem to have been prompted 
 by hostility to David. Having married the sister 
 of Pharaoh’s queen, he must have been in very 
 high station in Egypt; still, upon the death of 
 David, he begged leave to depart into Edom, 
 and during the earlier part of Solomon’s reign 
 was probably forming his party in secret, and 
 preparing for that dangerous border warfare which 
 lie carried on somewhat later. Rezon, on the 
 contrary, seems to have had no personal cause 
 against the Hebrew monarchy ; but having be- 
 come powerful at Damascus and on its frontier, 
 sought, not in vain, to aggrandize himself at its 
 expense. In the long continuance of peace Da- 
 vid’s veterans had died, and no successors to 
 them can have been trained ; and considering the 
 other great expenses of the court, it may be confi- 
 dently inferred that the standing army had not 
 kept up in any efficiency. The revenues 
 
 which would have maintained it were spent on «t 
 thousand royal wives : the king himself was un- 
 warlike; and a petty foe, if energetic, was very 
 formidable. Such were the vexations which 
 darkened the setting splendours of the greatest 
 Israelitish king. But from within also his pros- 
 perity was unsound. Deep discontent pervaded 
 his own people, when the dazzle of his grandeur 
 had become familiar; when it had become clear, 
 that the royal wealth, instead of denoting national 
 well being, was really sucked out of the nation's 
 vitals. Having no constitutional organ to express 
 their discontent, they waited sullenly, until the 
 recognition of a successor to the crown should 
 give them the opportunity of extorting a removal 
 of burdens which could not permanently be 
 endured. 
 
 The picture of Solomon here drawn is far less 
 favourable than could be wished; yet an en- 
 deavour has been made to keep close to the facts. 
 Undoubtedly the book of Chronicles, — which 
 (contrary to custom) in this reign adds little or 
 nothing to that of the Kings, — by omission never- 
 theless gives a seriously altered view of this cele- 
 brated man : for not only are his numerous mar- 
 riages, his idolatries, his oppressions, his vexatious 
 enemies, and the grave rebuke of the prophet 
 Ahijah, left out of the narrative entirely, — but 
 his building of a special palace for his Egyptian 
 queen is ascribed to his pious objection to her 
 dwelling in the house of David, because of the 
 ark having passed through it (2 Chron. viii. 11). 
 From a mind of so sensitive scrupulosity no one 
 could have expected an establishment of heathen- 
 ish worship. This very circumstance will show 
 how tender was the feeling of the Levitica! body 
 towards him, and how little likely it is that the 
 book of Kings has in any way given a discoloured 
 and unfair view of his lamentable worldliness of 
 principle. — F. W. N. 
 
 SOLOMON, WISDOM OF. [Wisdom of 
 S oi.OMON.] 
 
 SOLOMON’S SONG. [Cantici.es.] 
 
 SONG. [Poetry.] 
 
 SOOTHSAYER. [Divination.] 
 SOPATER (2w7t arpos), a Christian at Beraea 
 and one of the party of brethren who accom- 
 panied Paul into Asia Minor from Greece (Acts 
 xx. 4). He is supposed to be the same with 
 the Sosipaler ( ^wa'nraTpos ) named in Rom. xvi. 
 21 ; and, if so, was a kinsman of St. Paul. 
 
 SORCERER. [Divination.] 
 
 1. SOREK (p*).^ ; Sept. o-ft>/>77/c), a vine of 
 the finest and noblest kind (Isa. v. 2 ; comp. Gen. 
 xlix. 11, where Hp“l^ sorekah, is translated a 
 ‘ choice vine ;’ and Jer. ii. 21, where pTlCJt sorek, 
 is rendered ‘noble vine’). [Vine.] 
 
 2. SOREK, a valley, probably so called from 
 its vineyards (Judg. xvi. 4). Eusebius and Je- 
 rome place it north of Eleutheropolis, and near 
 to Zorah. 
 
 SOSIPATER. [Sopater.] 
 
 SOSTHENES (Soxrfleiojs), the chief of the 
 synagogue at Corinth, when Paul was in that 
 city on his second journey inio Greece (Acts 
 xviii. 17). He was seized and beaten by the 
 people, Before the judgment-seat of Gallio, oa 
 account of the tumult raised by the Jews againat 
 Paul, of which he seems to have been one of ths 
 leaders. He is supposed to have been afterwards 
 
T84 
 
 SOUL. 
 
 SOUL. 
 
 converted to Christianity, as a Sosthenes is men- 
 tioned by Paul as ‘a brother,’ and coupled with 
 himself in 1 Cor. i. 1. This identity is, how- 
 ever, a pure conjecture, and not remarkably pro- 
 bable. Apart from it, however, we know nothing 
 of this second Sosthenes. Eusebius makes him 
 one of the seventy disciples, and later tradition 
 describes him as bishop of Kolophon. 
 
 SOUL. The present article is a sequel to that 
 cn Punishment, in which the literature only of 
 LW question concerning future punishment will 
 be briefly stated. It is frequently conceded that 
 we have not authority decidedly to say that any 
 other motives were held out to the ancient He- 
 brews to pursue good and avoid evil, than those 
 derived from the rewards and punishments of 
 this life (Jahn, Biblisches Archdologie , § 314). 
 It is, however, considered by some learned Jews 
 that one reference in the book of Genesis to 
 punishment in a future state has been over- 
 looked. God said to the Noachidae (ch. ix. 5), 
 4 And surely your own blood will 1 require,’ &c. 
 According to tradition, the first part of the text 
 is directed against suicide ; but it seems to us 
 more like the enunciation of the general sub- 
 ject, which afterwards descends to particulars. 
 Then follows the unintelligible rendering, ‘ at 
 the hand of every beast will I require it.’ Now 
 it is a surprising fact that, wherever, throughout 
 the Scriptures, we find iTTl (here rendered beast ) 
 applied to the brute creation, it is always in 
 conjunction with the word (cattle), 
 
 (reptile), or (bird), and that if none of 
 
 these words accompany it, the expression is 
 cither 1YTI (beasts of the earth), or HTl 
 
 rnE^n (beasts of the field), or IflTJ (beast 
 of the forest), or ilJH iVn (a wild beast); but 
 that whenever, as in this instance, no adjunct 
 is coupled with HTI, it invariably relates to 
 the soul of man . This rule is, by the best 
 Hebraists, allowed to be general, the only ex- 
 ception throughout the Scriptures being the text 
 now before us, in which the word HTl stands by 
 itself without any adjunct, but is nevertheless 
 made in our version to refer to the brute creation. 
 It would, however, remove these apparent diffi- 
 culties to suppose that the general rule holds 
 good in our text, as well as in every other part 
 of Scripture, and that the word here also means 
 the soul of man. Suppose then the first part of 
 the verse, ‘ Surely your own life-blood will I re- 
 quire,’ to be taken as a general prohibition against 
 the unauthorized destruction of human life, then 
 the following words may be understood as be- 
 ginning to particularise, first, the punishment of 
 suicide, ‘of every soul will I require it,’ that is, 
 of every soul will I require his own blood shed 
 by himself. Then follows the punishment of 
 homicide, ‘and at the hand of man, yea, at the 
 hand of every man, will I require the life of man 
 his brother literally, ‘and at the hand of the 
 man, at the hand of man his brother, will 1 
 require the life of many which words, as has 
 already been suggested, may be the foundation 
 of the law of blood-revenge [Punishment]. 
 Next follows, agreeably to the style of the book of 
 Genesis, an emphatical recapitulation of this pu- 
 nishment of homicide, and the reason of it (ver. 
 6) : ‘ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall 
 his blood be shed, for in the image of God made 
 Ha raftn.’ If then the rendering, ‘ at the hand of 
 
 every soul will I require it,’ be admitted, and this 
 part of the text be understood concerning suicides, 
 the meaning must necessarily be, ‘ from the soul 
 of the suicide will I require his blood.’ Hence 
 then we have the satisfaction to find in the Scrip- 
 tures this early and perfect indication of a punish- 
 ment to the soul alter death, and the necessary 
 sequitur — its immortality (Naphtaly Herz Wes- 
 seley, in the or Gatherer for Adar Rislion . 
 
 5548, p. 160; see also Menasseh Ben Israel’s 
 Nishmat Charjim, and the New Translation of the 
 Scriptures, with notes, by the Rev. I). A. De Sola, 
 &c., pp. 51, 52). The literature of the question 
 concerning the nature and duration of future 
 punishment consists of the following particulars. 
 First, its duration was believed by the heathens 
 to ! *' “temal, or more correctly speaking, at least 
 in our language, everlasting. For though these 
 two words are often used as synonymous, yet 
 strictness of use requires that, the word eternal 
 should be limited to that which has neither be- 
 ginning nor end ; and everlasting, to that which 
 has a beginning but no end. The duration of 
 the Deity alone is eternal ; that, of the souls of 
 men, angels, &c., everlasting. Thus Virgil, in 
 his well-known description of Tartarus, ‘Sedet, 
 ceternumque sedebit, Infelix Theseus.’ For the 
 Greeks reference is made to Lilian. Or. 941 B: 
 avrl paupov XP^ V0V too ribovris, aOdvaros 
 iiriKelaerai (rjpia. Lycoph. 907 ; aKTepiaTor eV 
 ntTpcus Aluva Kcanvcrovtnv qXoKitrpevoi ; and 928, 
 alavij &ebu Kvbavoixri. Secondly, there is a still 
 more striking similarity between the descriptions 
 both of the nature and duration of future punish- 
 ment given in the Apocryphal books and those of 
 the New Testament. Thus Judith xvi. 17 : ‘ Woe, 
 to the nations yvhich rise up against my kindred ; 
 the Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them 
 in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms 
 in their flesh ; and they shall feel them, and weep 
 for ever,’ etas aluuos (comp. Ecclus. vii. 17; 
 Mark ix. 44). These terms seem borrowed from 
 Isaiah’s description of a different subject (ch. lxvi. 
 24). Thirdly, Josephus describes the doctrine 
 of everlasting punishment as being held by the 
 Pharisees and Essenes : ‘ that the souls of the 
 wicked should be punished with perpetual pu- 
 nishment (aiSltp npupia), and that there was ap- 
 pointed for them a perpetual prison (elpypbs 
 atStos’). (De Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 11,14; Antiq. xviii. 
 1. 3). Josephus himself, in the discourse ascribed 
 to him on Hades, speaks of a subterraneous re- 
 gion, a lake of unquenchable fire, everlasting 
 punishment, and of a worm never dying ($ 2. 6) ; 
 but that homily, as Whisfon calls it, abounds 
 with other evidence that its author was a Christian. 
 For proofs that the Rabbinical writers held the 
 notion of infinite punishment, see the references 
 by Wetstein on Matt. xxv. 46. In the New 
 Testament the nature of future punishment is 
 almost always described by figures. The most 
 abstract description occurs in Rom. ii. 9-16: 
 
 ‘ Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man 
 that doeth evil, in the day when God shall judge 
 the secrets of men.’ Our Lord generally describes 
 it under figures suggested by some comparison 
 he had just before made, and in unison with it. 
 Thus, having described future happiness unde? 
 the figure of a midnight banquet, lighted up with 
 lamps, then the state of the rejected i3 described 
 under that of ‘ outer darkness ’ outside tlu* mv> 
 
SOUL. 
 
 SOUTH. 
 
 784 
 
 lion, and gnashing * or chattering * of teeth,' 
 from the extreme cold of an Oriental night (Matt, 
 viii. 12; Luke xiii. 28); though the phrase also 
 denotes rage and vexation (comp. Ecclus. xxx. 
 10). Our Lord employs the phrase ‘ wailing ’ or 
 ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth' no less than 
 seven times. If ‘the end of the world’ be de- 
 scribed by him under the figure of a harvest, then 
 the wicked, who are represented by the tares, are 
 accordingly gathered and burned. If his return 
 be represented by a master returning to take ac- 
 count of his servants, then the wicked servant is 
 cut asunder, or rather discarded — margin, ‘ cut 
 off’ (Matt. xxiv. 51); for in the same verse he 
 * is described as being still alive, and consigned to 
 the place of ‘ weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 
 Our Lord also frequently represents future punish- 
 ment under the idea of fire, which Calvin, on Isa. 
 lxvi. 24, remarks, must be understood metaphori- 
 cally of spiritual punishment. Indeed both the 
 nature and variety of the figures employed by 
 our Saviour in regard to the subject fully justify 
 Paley’s observation, ‘that our Lord's discourses 
 exhibit no particular description of the invisible 
 world. The future happiness of the good and the 
 future misery of the bad, which is all we want to 
 be assured of, is directly and positively affirmed, 
 and is represented by metaphors and comparisons 
 which were plainly intended as metaphors and 
 comparisons, and nothing more. As to the rest 
 a solemn reserve is maintained ’ ( Evidences of 
 Christianity, part ii. ch. ii.). The question of 
 the duration of future punishment chiefly turns 
 on the force of the words translated ‘ ever,’ ‘ ever- 
 lasting,’ ‘never,’ which our Lord and his apostles 
 apply to it, and which it is well known have some- 
 times a limited signification, and are very vari- 
 ously translated in the English version. Thus 
 the word aldu, as a substantive, occurs 128 times 
 in the Greek Testament ; and in our translation 
 is rendered 72 times ever, twice eternal, 36 times 
 world, 7 times never , 3 times evermore, twice 
 worlds, twice ages, once course, once world with- 
 out end, and twice it is passed over. The word 
 alwvioz, as an adjective, occurs 71 times, and is 
 once rendered ever, 42 times eternal, 3 times 
 world, and 25 times everlasting . It is furthermore 
 an important circumstance, that the terms of like 
 import in the Old Testament, and translated in 
 the Septuagint by these Greek words, when ap- 
 plied to the Mosaic law, as a ‘ statute for ever,’ 
 ‘ v6y.iy.ov auaviov, ’ were urged in proof of the ir- 
 revocable perpetuity of that law, by the Judaizing 
 teachers; yet St. Paul styles this argument ‘a 
 doting about questions, and a strife of words’ 
 (1 Tim. vi. 4), ‘fighting about words’ (2 Tim. 
 ii. 14); ‘foolish and untaught questions’ (see 
 Macknight’s comment on these passages, and 
 Archbishop Seekers Sermons, Serm. xvi. vol. 5, 
 Loud. 1771). Hence, therefore, it, is urged on the 
 one side, that, we can never settle the precise import 
 \ of these words, as applied in the New Testament 
 to the duration of future punishment, until we 
 shall be able also to answer the following ques- 
 tions; namely, Was it part of the commission of 
 Christ and his apostles to determine this matter? 
 and if so, In what sense were the terms they used 
 in regard to it meant by themselves, and under- 
 stood by their hearers — whether as denoting a 
 punishment of unknown duration, or one literally 
 coexistent with the duration of the Eternal God? 
 
 TOW II. 
 
 On the other side it is objected, that the same 
 word is applied both to the happiness of the 
 righteous and the misery of the wicked, though 
 varied in our translation of Matt. xxv. 46 : 
 ‘These shall go away into everlasting punish- 
 ment, but the righteous into life eternal;’ where 
 Rosenmiiller, reasoning from the context, infers 
 ‘ the loss of the rewards of virtue ’ to be meant, 
 which will necessarily be infinite. Various 
 opinions have been held concerning the nature 
 and duration of future punishment, ascending 
 from the doctrine of Edwards, — ‘Souls full of 
 dreadful grief, bodies and etary member of them 
 full of racking torture, without any possibility of 
 getting ease, without any possibility of moving 
 God to pity’ {Discourse on the Eternity of Hell 
 Torments, p. 28, &c.), through the various mo- 
 difications of the doctrine — punishment with pain, 
 literally everlasting, but proportioned to the de- 
 merit of the condemned ; punishment in the sense 
 of loss or damage (see Greek of Matt. xvi. 26) to 
 the same duration; punishment by pain, reme- 
 dial in its intention, limited in duration, but yet 
 followed by disadvantage literally everlasting- 
 up to the highest extreme on the opposite side, 
 namely, annihilation. Upon this truly important 
 subject we cordially acquiesce in the remark o» 
 Doddridge : ‘ Miserable are they who venture 
 fheir souls upon the possibility that the words in 
 question, when applied to future punishment, 
 may have a limited meaning.’ Among the an- 
 cients, the following held that punishments, at 
 least sensible ones, would some time cease : 
 Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Tatian, Arnobius, 
 &c. Grotius (apud Bloomfield, Recensio Syn- 
 optica, on Matt, xxv.) refers also, for the doubts 
 of certain ancients, to the end of Jerome's 
 Commentary on Isaiah. Among the more emi- 
 nent moderns who have maintained that the fu- 
 ture punishment of the wicked will be limited and 
 corrective, see Bishop Rust, Letter of Resolution 
 concerning Origen, 1661 ; Jeremy White (who 
 had been Chaplain to the Protector Cromwell), 
 On the Restoration of all Things, Lond. 1712; 
 Dr. Thomas Burnet (Master of the Charter House) 
 He Statu Mortuorum ; Newton (Bishop of Bris- 
 tol), Sixtieth Dissertation; Hartley, Observa- 
 tions on Man, 1791; Whiston, The Eternity of 
 Hell Torments considered; Southwood Smith, 
 On the Divine Government, Lond. 1826 ; and 
 the List of Authors mentioned in his Appendix. 
 
 J. F. D. 
 
 SOUTH. The country, or quarter of the 
 heavens, which the Shemite, standing with his 
 face to the east, supposes to be on his right 
 hand. It is denoted by seven Hebrew words 
 (I. 23.3; 2. DVVH; 3. jD'J-l ; 4 ppj; 5. “T^n ; 
 6, *7|np ; 7. D^D), nearly all of which refer to 
 some characteristic of the region to which they 
 are respectively applied. 1. 333 (noot 233 in 
 Syr. and Chald., to be dry), probably derived its 
 name from the hot drying winds which blow 
 annually into Syria, over Africa and Arabia. 
 ‘ In March,’ says Volney, ‘appear in Syria the 
 pernicious southerly winds, with the same cir- 
 cumstances as in Egypt, that is to say, their heat, 
 which is carried to a degree so excessive, that it 
 is difficult, to form an idea of it without having 
 felt it ; but one can compare it to that of a great 
 oven when the bread is drawn out ( Voyage en 
 
786 
 
 SOUTH. 
 
 SOUTH. 
 
 Syrte et Egypie , tom. i. p. 297 ; comp. p. 55 ; 
 Luke xii. 55, ‘ When ye see the south wind 
 blow ye say there will be heat;’ and see Kitto's 
 Physical History of Palestine , month of March, 
 pp. 221, 222). The word is occasionally applied 
 to a parched or dry tract of land. Caleb’s daughter 
 says to her father, ‘ Thou hast given me a south,’ 
 or rather ‘ dry land ;’ 333 !7 ^7^ (Vulg. terrain 
 arentem ) ; ‘ give me also springs of water ’ (Judg. 
 i. 15 ; comp. ver. 9). At other times the word 
 refers to those arid regions, notwithstanding their 
 occasional fertility, over which the south wind 
 blows into Syria. So the Sept, and Vulg. under- 
 stood the ‘ whirlwinds from the south ’ (Isa. xxi. 
 1 ; 8:’ eprjpov, turbines ab Aphrico). ‘ The burden 
 of the beasts in the south ’ is rendered tuv re- 
 rpanoSur t Sjv ev ry epijpcp (Isa. xxx. 6). At 
 other times the word is rendered by viros 
 and Aty, which latter is the Hellenized form of 
 Libs, Ventus ex Libya , the south-west wind, and, 
 by metonymy, the quarter whence it blows. In 
 several instances the Hebrew word is simply 
 put into Greek letters; thus, r bv N ayefi, Josh. x. 
 40 ; Trju yrjr Naye/3, Alex, rrju NayejS, al. Neye/3, 
 xi. 16; Naye/3, Cyr. \Aye/3, Obad. 19, 20; and 
 once, probably by a corruption, it is apyafi, l Sam. 
 xx. 41, al. veyhfi, veye/3, oil. epyafi. The 
 Vulgate renders the word by ‘ meridies, australis 
 plaga, terra meridiana, auster ab Aphrico, terra 
 australis.’ More than once the Sept, differs widely 
 from the present Hebrew text ; thus, in Ezek. xx. 
 47, it renders 333D by &7 t8 airpAiuTov 
 
 ea )s (Joppa ; Vulg. ‘ ab austro usque ad aqui- 
 lonem ;’ so also in Exod. xxvi. 8, 17333 J7ND 
 is rendered tt pbs fiojlfiav, Vulg. ‘ad austrum/ 
 It is also used in the geographical sense in Num. 
 xxxiv. 3; Josh. xv. 2; 1 Chron. ix. 24; 2Chron. 
 iv. 4; Ezek. xl. 2; xlvi. 9, &c. But a further 
 and important use of the word is as the name or 
 designation of the desert regions lying at the south 
 of Judaea, consisting of the deserts of Shur, Zin, 
 and Paran, the mountainous country of Edom or 
 Idumaea, and part of Arabia Petraea (comp. 
 Mai. i. 3; Shaw’s Travels, p. 438). Thus Abra- 
 ham, at his first entrance into Canaan, is said to 
 have ‘ gone on toward the south ’ (Gen. xii. 9); 
 Sept. eV rfj ep-ftpcp, Aquila v6tov 5e, Symmachus 
 els vfnov ; and upon his return from Egypt into 
 Canaan, he is said to have gone ‘ into the south ’ 
 (xiii. 1); Sept, els rbv epypov, Vulg. ‘ad 
 australem plagam,’ though he was in fact then 
 travelling northward. Comp. ver. 3, ‘ He went 
 from the south to Bethel ;’ Sept, els rrjv epgpov ; 
 Vulg. ‘ a meridie in Bethel.’ In this region the 
 Amalekites are said to have dwelt, ‘ in the land of 
 the south,’ when Moses sent the spies to view the 
 land of Canaan (Num. xiii. 29), viz., the locality 
 between Idumaea and Egypt, and to the east of the 
 Dead Sea and Mount Seir [Amalekites], The 
 inhabitants of this region were included in the 
 ■conquests of Joshua (x. 40). Whenever the Sept, 
 giies the Hebrew word in the Greek letters, 
 Nocye/J, it always relates to this particular district. 
 To the same region belongs the passage, ‘ Turn 
 ■our captivity as the streams in the south ’ (*Ps. 
 cxxvi. 4) ; Sept, us * v T $ ‘ as 
 
 winter torrents in the south’ (Vulg. ‘ sicut torrens 
 in Austro’); which sud lenly till the wady* or val- 
 leys during the season of rain (comp. Ezek. vi. 3 ; 
 ■sxxiv. 13 ; xxxv. 8 ; xxxvi. 4, 6). These are dry 
 4n summer (Job vi. 16-18). The Jews had, by 
 
 their captivity, left their country empty and deso- 
 late, but. by their return would ‘ flow again into it.’ 
 Through part of this sterile region the Israelites 
 must repass in their vain application to Egypt. 
 (Isa. xxx. 6 ; comp. Deut. viii. 15). It is called 
 the Wilderness of Judaea (Matt. iii. 1 ; Josh. xv. 
 61; comp. Ps. lxxv. 6, Hebrew or margin; see 
 also Jer. xvii. 26; xxxii. 44; xxxiii. 14; Ezra xx. 
 46, 47 ; xxi. 4 ; comp. Obad. xix. 20 ; Zech. ix. 
 7). Through part of this region lay the road from 
 Jerusalem to Gaza, ‘ which is desert' (Acts viii. 26). 
 Thus, as Drusius observes, the word often means 
 not the whole southern hemisphere of the earth, but 
 a desert tract of land to the south of Judaea. Some- 
 times it is used in a relative sense ; thus, the cities 
 of Judah are called ‘ the cities of the south ’ (Jer. 
 
 xiii. 19), relatively to Chaldaja, expressed by ‘the 
 north’ (i. 14; comp. iv. 6; vi. 1). Jerusalem 
 itself is called ‘ the forest of the south field,’ or 
 country , like the Latin ager (Ezek. xx. 46 ; comp. 
 Gen. xiv. 7) [Forest], Egypt is also called 
 ‘ the south thus, ‘ the king of the south ’ (Dan. 
 xi. 5) is Ptolemy Soter and his successors ; comp, 
 verses 6, 9, 11,15, 25, 29, 40 ; but in the last-named 
 verse, Mede understands the Saracen from Arabia 
 Felix (Works, pp. 674, 816). 2. D777, which, 
 according to Gesenius, is a word of uncertain 
 derivation. It is rendered by AliJ/, Sept., Deut. 
 xxxiii. 23; by v6tos, Eccles. i. 6; xi. 3; Ezek. 
 xl. 21, 27, 28, 44, 45 ; xii. 1 1 ; and by OaAAaoaa, 
 Ezek. xiii. 18. Vulg. ‘ meridies, auster, australis, 
 ventus australis.’ 3. jft'J7 audits adverb rDD'D, 
 strictl-y what lies to the right; Sept, voros, An// ; 
 and sometimes the word is simply put into Greek 
 letters ; thus, ©aipav (Hab. iii. 3). Indeed all the 
 three preceding words are so rendered (Ezek. xx. 
 46), 'Tie avOpwiTov, crppiaov rb Trpdcruvbr aov 
 eirl daipav, koL eVijSA exf/or enl dapbp, koI irpocprj- 
 reverou eVl bpvp.br yyovperov vayefi : where per- 
 haps the vocabulary of the translator did not 
 afford him sufficient variety. The Vulgate here 
 gives ‘ viam austri, ad aphricum, ad saltum agri 
 meridiani,’ and elsewhere renders the Hebrew word 
 by ‘ meridiana plaga, ad meridiem.’ It occurs in 
 Exod. xxvi. 35; Num. ii. 10; iii. 29; x. 6; Job 
 ix. 9; xxxix. 26; Ps. lxxviii. 26; Cant. iv. 
 16; Isa. xliii. 6; Hab. iii. 3; Zech. ix. 14; 
 
 xiv. 4. In Zech. vi. 6, it denotes Egypt. It is 
 
 poetically used for the south wind, like Shaks- 
 peare’s ‘ sweet south Ps. lxxviii. 26, v6tov , 
 Africum , and Cant. iv. 16, v6re ; for the ex- 
 planation of the latter see North. Observe tha 1 : 
 ri3D'n and 333 are interchanged in Exod. xxvi. 
 18; xxxvi. 23; Ezek. xlvii. 1. 4. . PD, also 
 
 meaning the right side and south. Thus, Ps. 
 lxxxix. 12, ‘Thou hast made the north and the 
 south ;’ Sept. 0aAa<r<ra; Vulg. mare. The word 
 is evidently here used in its widest sense, compre- 
 hending not only all the countries lying south, 
 but also the Indian ocean, &c., the whole hemi- 
 sphere. Aquila, Bopfiav ku\ 5e|idv ; Theodotion, 
 B oppeir teal N 6toi>. In some passages where our 
 translation renders the word right , the meaning 
 would have been clearer had it rendered it south 
 (1 Sam. xxiii. 19, 24 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5 ; Job xxiii. 
 9). 5. 7717, ‘ Out of the south cometh the whirl- 
 
 wind’ (Job xxxvii. 9), literally ‘chamber’ or ‘store- 
 house,’ eKrapieluv, interioribus. The full phrase 
 occurs in ch. ix. 9, jDJ7 '77 f7, rapeia v6tov , in- 
 teriora austri, the remotest south ; perhaps in both 
 these passages the word means the chamber* o* 
 
SPAIN. 
 
 SPICES. 
 
 787 
 
 ,*ts of the south wind. 6. “D'ltD, 1 Pro* 
 «emet.h not from the south ’ (Ps. lxxv. 6), 
 .>tcrally ‘wilderness,’ aivb ipjjgwy, desertis mon - 
 ixbus. 7 . O'D, ‘ And gathered them out of the 
 lands, and from the south 1 (Ps. evii. 3), OaKacraa, 
 mare ; where Gesenius contends that it ought to 
 be translated ‘ west,’ though it stands opposed to 
 j'.DVft, as it is indeed so translated under ex- 
 actly the same circumstances in Isa. xlix. 12. He 
 refers to Dent, xxxiii. 23, and Amos viii. 12. It 
 is also thus rendered in our version of the first of 
 these references ; and on the latter we can only 
 refer to Archbishop Newcome’s Version of the 
 Minor Prophets , Pontefract, 1809, pp. 51, 52. 
 In the New Testament we have v6ros in the geo- 
 graphical sense, @ci(rl\i(r<ra v6rov, regina austri, 
 Matt. xii. 42 [Sheba, Queen of], and Luke 
 xiii. 29 ; Rev. xxi. 13. The word geo-ypPpia is also 
 translated ‘ south ’ in Acts viii. 26, Kara gee rrjg- 
 fipiav, contra meridianum. It is used in the 
 same sense by Josephus (. Antiq . iv. 5. 2). In 
 Symmachus (1 Sam. xx. 41) for 222. Hesy- 
 chius defines MecnjgPplcr ra rov N orov glpr\ Kal 
 rb rrjs pgepas geerov. The south-west Alif/ occurs 
 in St. Paul’s dangerous voyage (Acts xxvii. 12) ; 
 ‘ a haven of Crete,’ PAeirov/a. Kara Aifia, respicien- 
 tem ad africum , by metonymy the wind, for the 
 quarter whence it blows. The south wind is 
 mentioned ver. 13, voros , auster, and xxviii. 13 
 [Winds].— J. F. D. 
 
 SOWER, SOWING. [Agriculture.] 
 
 SPAIN ( hirarla , Rom. xv. 24, 28 ; ‘ lairavia , 
 1 Macc. viii. 3). This name was anciently ap- 
 plied to the whole Peninsula which now com- 
 prises Spain and Portugal (Cellar. Notit. i. 51, 
 sq.). In the time of Paul Spain was a Roman 
 province, and many Jews appear to have settled 
 there. It seems clear from Rom. xv. 24, 28, that 
 Paul formed the design of proceeding to preach 
 the Gospel in Spain : that he ever executed this 
 intention is necessarily denied by those who hold 
 that the apostle sustained but one imprisonment 
 at Rome — namely, that in which the Acts of the 
 Apostles leave him ; and even those who hold 
 that he was released from this imprisonment can 
 only conjecture that, in the interval between it 
 and the second, he fulfilled his intention. There 
 is, in fact, during the three first centuries, no 
 evidence on the subject, beyond a vaguo intima- 
 tion by Clement, which is open to different ex- 
 planations [Paul] ; and later traditions are of 
 small value. 
 
 SPARROW (“VI 5 ¥ tzippor ) occurs in Gen. 
 vii. 14 ; Lev. xiv. 4 ; Ps. lxxxiv. 3 ; cii. 7 ; 
 erroovQlov, Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6, 7. The 
 Hebrew word includes not only the sparrow, but 
 also the whole family of small birds not ex- 
 clusively feeding on grain, but denominated 
 clean, or those that might be eaten according to 
 the law : hence the same word is also, in many 
 instances, translated ‘ bird,’ the Hebrew name 
 itself being evidently an imitation of the voice 
 of small birds, synonymous with the English 
 ( chirrup.’ Tzippor includes many insectivorous 
 and frugivorous species, all the thrushes we have 
 in Europe, and the rose-coloured ousel or locust- 
 bird, rare with us, but numerous and cherished in 
 the East, solely for the havock it makes among 
 locusts, and named Smurmur by the Arabs, in imi- 
 tation of it* voice, It also includes perhaps the 
 
 starlings (not Zarzir), the nightingale, all the Eu- 
 ropean larks, the wagtails, and all the tribe of 
 finches ; but not fly-catchers, nor indeed swal- 
 lows, which, there is reason to believe, were reck- 
 oned, along with night-hawks or goatsuckers, and 
 crows, among the unclean and prohibited species. 
 In Syria the sparrow is the same vivacious fa- 
 miliar bird we find it in Europe, and equally 
 frequents the residence of man. — C. H. S. 
 
 SPEAR. [Arms.] 
 
 SPICES. This word, which occurs very fre- 
 quently in our translation of the Scriptures, has 
 usually been considered to indicate several of the 
 aromatic substances to which the same general 
 name is applied in the present day. The Hebrew 
 words so translated are Necoth, Bosem, and 
 Sammirn , the corresponding Greek being dpuga. 
 These may indicate different things, as the two first, 
 words, or be merely different names, as spices and 
 aromatics in English may be applied to the same, 
 kind of substances. Sammim, rendered in Exod. 
 xxxv. 7 incense, and in ver. 34 spices , may be sup- 
 posed to mean drugs and aromatics in general. 
 When these are separately noticed, especially when 
 several are enumerated, their names may lead us 
 to their identification. Dr. Vincent has ob- 
 served that ‘ in Exod. xxx. we find an enu- 
 meration of cinnamon, cassia, myrrh, frankin- 
 cense, stacte, onycha, and galbanum, all of 
 which are the produce either of India or Arabia.’ 
 More correctly, cinnamon, cassia, frankincense, 
 and onycha, were probably obtained from India ; 
 myrrh, stacte, and some frankincense, from the 
 east coast of Africa, and galbanum from Persia. 
 Nine hundred years later, or about b.c. 588, in 
 Ezek. xxvii. the chief spices are referred to, with 
 the addition however of calamus. They are pro- 
 bably the same as those just enumerated. Dr. Vin- 
 cent refers chiefly to the Periplus, ascribed to Ar- 
 rian, written in the second century, as furnishing a 
 proof that many Indian substances were, at that 
 time, well known to commerce, as aloe or agila 
 wood, gum bdellium, the googal of India, cassia 
 and cinnamon, nard, costus, incense, that is, oliba- 
 num, ginger, pepper, and spices. If we examine 
 the work of Dioscorides we shall find all these, 
 and several other Indian products, not only men- 
 tioned, but described, as schoenantlms, calamus 
 aromaticus, cyperus, malabathrum, turmeric. 
 Among others, Lycium indicum is mentioned. 
 This is the extract of Barberry root, and is 
 prepared in the Himalayan mountains. (Royle 
 on the Lycium of Dioscorides, Linnean Trans.). 
 It is not unworthy of notice, that we find no 
 mention of several very remarkable products of 
 the East, such as camphor, cloves, nutmeg, betel 
 leaf, cubebs, gamboge ; all of which are so 
 peculiar in their nature that we could not have 
 failed to recognise them if they had been de- 
 scribed at all, like those we have enumerated 
 as the produce of India. These omissions are 
 significant of the countries to which com- 
 merce and navigation had not extended, at the 
 time when the other articles were well known 
 (. Hindoo Medicine , p. 93). If we trace these up 
 to still earlier authors, we shall find many of 
 them mentioned by Theophrastus, and even by 
 Hippocrates ; and if we trace them downwards to 
 the time of the Arabs [Spikenard], and from 
 that to modern times, we find many of them 
 described under their present names in work! 
 
788 
 
 SPIDER. 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 emrrent throughoi:!; the East, and in which their 
 ancient names are given as synonymes. We have, 
 therefore, as much assurance as is possible in sum 
 cases, that the majority of the substances men- 
 tioned by the ancients have been identified : and 
 that among the spices of early times were in- 
 cluded many of those which now form articles 
 of commerce from India to Europe. This has 
 been shown in the articles on tne different sub- 
 stances [Ahalim ; Ai.mug ; Chei.benah ; Hob- 
 nim ; Kaneh-bosem ; KxTZOii ; Kiddaii ; 
 Kinnemon ; Lebona; Lot; Mou ; Nard ; 
 Nataf ; Nkcoth]. 
 
 SPIDER ; Sept, aoaxvr ] ; Vulg. ara- 
 
 nea) occurs in Job viii. 14; Isa. lix. 5. In the 
 other instance in which the word is used in our 
 version (Prov. xxx. 28), and where the Hebrew 
 has the Sept. KaXa^urijs, and the Vulg. 
 
 gtelliOy there is most probably a mistranslation 
 [Semamith], In the first of these passages, the 
 reference seems clear to the spider’s web, or lite- 
 rally, house (mi), whose fragility is alluded to 
 as a fit representation of the hope of a profane , 
 ungodly , or profligate person ; for so the word 
 Cpn really means, and not ‘hypocrite,’ as in our 
 version. The object of such a person’s trust 
 or confidence, who is always really in imminent 
 danger of min, may be compared for its uncer- 
 tainty to the spider's web. ‘ He shall lean upon 
 his house (i. e. to keep it steady when it is shaken) ; 
 he shall hold it fast (i. e. when it is about to be de- 
 stroyed); nevertheless it. shall not endure (ver. 15). 
 In the second passage (Isa. lix. 5) it is said, ‘The 
 wicked weave the spider’s web’ ('Tip, literally, 
 
 * thin threads) ;’ but. it is added, ‘ their thin threads 
 shall not become garments, neither shall they 
 cover themselves with their works;’ that is, then- 
 artifices shall neither succeed, nor conceal them- 
 selves, as does the spider's web. This allusion 
 intimates no antipathy to the spider itself, or to 
 its habits when directed towards its own purposes; 
 but simply to the adoption of tho,se habits by 
 man towards his fellow-creatures. No expression 
 of an abstract, antipathy towards any creature 
 whatever is to be found in Scripture. Though 
 certain species, indeed, which for good and wise 
 reasons were prohibited as food, are so far called 
 
 * an abomination ;’ yet revelation throughout re- 
 cognises every living creature as the work of God, 
 and deserving the pious attention of mankind. 
 It is worthy of remark, that natural history, with 
 all its characteristic suj/eriority to prejudices and 
 antipathies, is indebted for its existence to reve- 
 lation. The Creator nimself first directed the 
 attention of man to inis science : — ‘ Out of the 
 ground the Lord God formed every beast of the 
 field, and every fowl of the air, and brought 
 them unto Adam, to see what he would call 
 them; and whatsoever Adam called every/ living 
 creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam 
 gave names to all c&icie. and to the fowl of the 
 air, and to every beast of the field’ (Gen. ii. 19, 
 20). The most anc.truc system or classification 
 of the natural world is to be found in the writings 
 of Moses (Gen. i. 20, oZc. ) ; a system recognised by 
 the writers of ScripWae in widely different times 
 (Gen. vi. vii. viii. ix. ; 1 Kings iv. 33 ; Ps.clxviii.; 
 Acts x. 12 ). Michaelis well observes that ‘ the 
 systematic division of quadrupeds given by 
 Moses is so excellent, as never yet, after all the 
 
 improvements in natural history, to have become 
 obsolete, but, on the contrary, is still considered 
 as useful by the greatest masters of the science ‘ a 
 fact,’ he adds, ‘ which cannot but be looked upon 
 as truly wonderful’ ( Commentary on the Laics 
 of Moses , Art. 204). It is recorded of Solomon, 
 that ‘ he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is 
 in Lebanon, unto the hyssop (moss) that spring- 
 eth out of the wall : he spake also of beasts, and 
 of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes’ 
 (1 Kings iv. 33). To revelation also the rise of 
 natural history, as a science, is to be attributed 
 among the Gentiles ; for there is good ground for 
 believing that Aristotle had seen the writings of 
 Solomon. It is revelation which, by teaching 
 that ‘ all things ’ proceed from one and the same 
 God, invests the science with interest to every dis- 
 cerning mind. 
 
 The study of insects is so new in this country, 
 that even at the distance of some years after the 
 death of Willughbv, an attempt was made to set 
 aside the will of a Lady Glanville, on the ground 
 of lunacy, because she had shown a strong par- 
 tiality for insects; and Mr. Ray had to appear 
 on the day of trial to bear testimony to her sanity 
 (see Memoir of Willughby, by Rev. J. F. Den- 
 ham, p. 1 32, Edinburgh, 1838 ; or in the Natural- 
 ist’s Library). Even poets, from Aristophanes to 
 Thomson, have too often contributed to the popu- 
 lar prejudices against insects. The latter stigma- 
 tizes spiders as 
 
 ‘ Cunning and fierce — 
 
 Mixture abhorred ;’ 
 
 but these epithets are in reality as unjustly ap- 
 plied to them (at least with reference to the mode 
 by which they procure necessary subsistence), as 
 to the patient sportsman, who lays snares for the 
 birds that are to serve for the dinner of his fa- 
 mily : while it can be further pleaded in behalt 
 of spiders, that they are actively serviceable to 
 the human race, in checking the superfecundity 
 of other insects, and afford in their various pro- 
 cedures the most astonishing displays of that 
 Supreme Intelligence by which they are directed. 
 
 J. F. D. 
 
 SPIKENARD. [Nerd.] 
 
 SPIRIT and HOLY SPIRIT. The word 
 for ‘spirit’ in the Hebrew is ITH ; in the Greek, 
 Tvvevga ; and in the German, geist. It is one 
 of the most generic terms in either the English, 
 Hebrew, or Greek language. A somewhat ex- 
 tended reference to the usus loquendi, both of the 
 Old and New Testament, is necessary, in order 
 to ascertain its Scriptural use and import. 
 
 Its leading significations may be classed under 
 the following heads : — 
 
 1. The primary sense of the term is wind. 
 
 ‘ He that formeth the mountains and createth the 
 wind ’ (fin, Amos iv. 13; Isa. xxvii. 8). ‘ The 
 
 wind (trvev/xa) bloweth where it listeth ’ (John iii. 
 8). This is the ground idea of the term ‘ spirit ’ — 
 air — ether — air refined, sublimated, or vitalized *. 
 hence it denotes — 
 
 2. Breathy as of the mouth. ‘ At the blast ot 
 
 the breath of his nostrils (1Qfc$ fTH) are they con- 
 sumed ’ (Job iv. 9 ). ‘ The Lord shall consume 
 
 that wicked one with the breath of his mouth ’ 
 (tg5 TrvevpaTi rov <rrSjuaTos f 2 Thess. ii. 8). 
 
 3. The vital principle which resides in and 
 animates the body. In the Hebrew, is the 
 
SPIRIT. 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 789 
 
 tcnin specific term for this. In the Greek it is 
 ♦"xi and in the Latin, anima. ‘ No man hath 
 power over the spirit (niT3) to retain the spirit’ 
 (Eccles. viii. 8; Gen. vi. 17; vii. 15). ‘Jesus 
 yielded up the ghost’ ( ouprjKe to n vevpa, Matt, 
 xxvii. 50). ‘And her spirit (tt vevpa ai/rrjs) came 
 dgain,’ &c. (Luke viii. 55). 
 
 In close connection with this use of the word is 
 another — 
 
 4. In which it has the sense of apparition — 
 spectre. ‘ They supposed that they had seen a 
 spirit,’ i. e. spectre (Luke xxiv. 37). ‘A spirit 
 hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have ’ 
 (ver. 39 ; Matt. xiv. 26). 
 
 5. The soul — the rational immortal principle, 
 
 by which man is distinguished from the brute 
 creation. It is the rb Trvevpa, in distinction from 
 the t] tyvxh- With the Latins it is the animus. 
 In this class may be included that use of the 
 word spirit in which the various emotions and 
 dispositions of the soul are spoken of. ‘ Into 
 thy hands I commend my spirit ’ (rb Trvevpa 
 pov, Luke xxiii. 46 ; Acts vii. 59 ; 1 Cor. v. 5 ; 
 vi. 20 ; vii. 34 ; Heb. xii. 9). ‘ My spirit hath 
 
 rejoiced in God my Saviour’ (Luke i. 47). 
 ‘ Poor in spirit ’ ( 7 rrcoxol rep rvevpari) denotes 
 humility (Matt. v. 3). ‘ Ye know not what 
 
 manner of spirit ye are of’ (Luke ix. 55), where 
 irvevpa denotes disposition or temper. ‘ He that 
 hath no rule over his own spirit’ (IITH, Prov. 
 xxv. 28; xvi. 32; Eccles. vii. 9). The moral 
 affections are denominated ‘ the spirit of meek- 
 ness ’ (Gal. vi. 1) ; ‘of bondage ’ (Rom. viii. 15) ; 
 ‘of jealousy’ (Num. v. 14); ‘of fear’ (2 Tim. 
 i. 7) ; ‘ of slumber ’ (Rom. xi. 8). In the same 
 way also the intellectual qualities of the soul 
 are denominated ‘ the spirit of counsel ’ (Isa. 
 xi. 2) ; ‘ the spirit of knowledge ’ (Isa. xi. 2) ; 
 ‘the spirit of wisdom’ (Eph. i. 17); ‘the spirit 
 of truth and of error’ (1 John iv. 6). 
 
 6. The race of superhuman created intelli- 
 gences. Such beings are denominated spiritual 
 beings because they have no bodies like ours. 
 To both the holy and the sinning angels the term 
 is applied. In their original constitution their 
 natures were alike pure spirit. The apostacy oc- 
 casioned no change in the nature of the fallen 
 angels as spiritual beings. 
 
 In the New Testament dsemonology Zaipoov, 
 baipdviov, irvevpa aKadaprov, Trvevpa irovfip6v t are 
 the distinctive epithets for a fallen spirit. Christ 
 gave to his disciples power over unclean spirits 
 ( 7 rv. aKaddpTwv, Matt. x. 1 ; Mark i. 23 ; Luke 
 iv. 36 ; Acts v. 16). The holy angels are termed 
 spirits : — ‘ Are they not all ministering spirits ’ 
 (\eirovpyiKa Trvevpara, Heb. i. 14)? ‘And from 
 the seven spirits (eirra irveupdrcov) which are be- 
 fore his throne’ (Rev. i. 4). 
 
 7. The term is applied to the Deity, as the 
 sole, absolute, and uncreated Spirit. ‘ God is a 
 Spirit’ (irveupa 6 0eJs). This, as a predicate, 
 belongs to the divine nature, irrespective of the 
 distinction of persons in that nature. But its 
 characteristic application is to the third person 
 in the Divinity, who is called the Holy Spirit 
 (Ilveu^a ayiov), because of his essential holiness, 
 and because in the Christian scheme it is his 
 peculiar work to sanctify the people of God. He 
 is denominated The Spirit, by way of eminence, 
 as the immediate author of spiritual life in the 
 hearts of Christians. The New Testament writers 
 
 are full and explicit in referring the principle of 
 the higher life to the Spirit. In the Old Testa- 
 ment the reference is more general. The Spirit 
 is an all-pervading, animating principle of life 
 in the world of nature. In the work of creation 
 the Spirit of God moved upon, or brooded over, 
 the face of the waters (Gen. i. 2; Job xxvi. 13). 
 This relation of the Spirit to the natural world 
 the ancients expressed as Ens extra — Ens super — 
 Ens intra mundanum. The doctrine of the Spirit, 
 as the omnipresent life and energy in nature, 
 differs from Pantheism on the one hand, and 
 from the Platonic soul of the world on the other. 
 It makes the Spirit the immanent divine causality, 
 working in and through natural laws, which work 
 is called nature ; as in the Christian life He is 
 the indwelling divine causality, operating upon 
 the soul, and through divine ordinances; and this 
 is termed grace. The Spirit in the world may 
 be considered as the divine omnipresence, sold be 
 classed among the doctrines which are mo e ]>e- 
 culiarly theological. But the indwelling and 
 operation of the Spirit in the heart of the belrtver 
 is an essential doctrine of Christianity. The one 
 province of the Spirit is nature, the other grace. 
 Upon the difference between the two, in respect to 
 the Spirit’s work, rests the Christian consciousness. 
 The general presence and work of the Spirit in 
 nature is not a matter of consciousness. The 
 special presence and work of the Spirit in the 
 heart of the believer, by the effects which are 
 produced, is a matter of which, from conscious- 
 ness, there may be the most consoling and de- 
 lightful assurance. 
 
 The words Spirit, and Holy Spirit, frequently 
 occur in the New Testament, by metonymy, for 
 the influence or effects of His agency. 
 
 a. As a procreative power — ‘ the power of the 
 Highest’ (Luke i. 35). 
 
 b. As an influence, with which Jesus was en- 
 dued (Luke iv. 4). 
 
 c. As a divine inspiration or afflatus, by w ich 
 the prophets and holy men wrote and spoke (ip 
 TrvevpaTi, 5ia irvexiparos, virb Trvevpa ros). ‘ Holy 
 men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost’ (2 Pet. i. 21 ; Num. xi. 26; Neh. 
 ix. 30; Ezek. iii. 12, 14). John in Patmos was 
 wrapped in prophetic vision — wa<£ iv mevp an 
 (Rev. i. 10; iv. 2; xvii. 3). 
 
 d. As miraculous gifts and powers, with which 
 
 the Apostles were endowed, to qualify them for 
 the work to which they were called. ‘ Jesus 
 breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive 
 ye the Holy Ghost’ (Adhere TIvevpa ayiov, John 
 xx. 22). ‘ And they were filled with the Holy 
 
 Ghost,’ &c. (Acts ii. 4). ‘ They were baptized 
 
 with the Holy Ghost’ (iv Uvevpan a ylep, Acts i. 
 5; comp. Joel ii. 28 with Acts ii. 16-18, where 
 the nn of the prophet is translated 7r vevpa by 
 the apostle). 
 
 But the phrase, Holy Spirit, is specially used 
 to denote a divine personal agent. The Holy 
 Spirit is associated, as a distinct person, with the 
 Father and the Son, in the baptismal formula 
 and the apostolical benediction. The Father 
 and Son are real persons. It is reasonable to think 
 that the spirit who is joined with them in this 
 solemn form of induction into the Christian 
 church, is also a personal agent, and not an ab- 
 straction — a mere power or influence. The sub- 
 ject is baptized into the belief of three persoMU 
 
790 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 agents. To suppose that, in this solemn profes- 
 sion of faith, he avows his belief in the Father and 
 the Son, and the power or influence of God, is 
 forced and frigid. 
 
 He is baptized into the name of each of the 
 three — els rb ovopa r ov irarpbs, kuI t ov vlov, noil 
 rod aylov irt/cvparos (Matt, xxviii. 19). The word 
 ovopa, Heb. Dk^, is the appellation of a person. 
 And when used tropically, as in Acts i. 5, ifc 
 stands for persons, and not for their influence, or 
 virtue, or power. So in the formula ovopa = aylov 
 irvfvparos , by the usus loquendi, is required to be 
 the designation of a personal agent. vVe are not 
 baptized into the name of an influence or a power, 
 but into the name of a person — of three real and 
 distinct subjects, the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 In the apostolical benedictions, the Spirit, as a 
 person, is associated in the same way with the 
 Father and Son. * The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the communion 
 of the Holy Ghost, be with you all’ (2 Cor. xiii. 
 13). In this uniting of the three there is the 
 recognition of the distinct personality of each, in 
 the separate charisma which is appropriated to 
 each. The x^P ls is from Christ, the aydirp from 
 God, t. e. the Father, and the noivwvla from the 
 Spirit The act of communion, of fellowship, 
 implies a divine personal agent as really as does 
 the grace or the love. The three are connected 
 in a similar way in 1 Cor. xii. 4-G. 
 
 Distinct personal acts and attributes are as- 
 cribed to the Holy Spirit too frequently and 
 fully to admit of explanation by the prosopo- 
 poeia. 
 
 The Holy Ghost speaks, by Esaias the prophet 
 (Acts xxviii. 25), expressly (1 Tim. iv. 1). He 
 teaches (Luke xii. 12). He reproves the world 
 of sin (John xvi. 8). The spirit helpelh our in- 
 firmities, and maketh intercession for the saints 
 (Rom. viii. 26, 27). He is grieved (Eph. iv. 
 30). 
 
 Apostles are set apart to him in the work of 
 the ministry, and he appoints them to that work 
 (Acts xiii. 2; xv. 28). 
 
 These are all acts which imply a personal 
 agent. Speaking, teaching, reproof, grief, inter- 
 cession, are predicable only of a personal subject, 
 except in the language of poetry or eloquence. 
 In serious didactic style, in the language of pre- 
 scription, of promise, of permanent institution 
 and instruction, where clearness and precision, 
 and not strong figures, are expected, they must 
 denote a person. 
 
 And these acts and attributes distinguish the 
 Spirit from the person of the Father on the one 
 hand, and from the personal subjects upon which 
 he acts on the other. 
 
 The Spirit, as a personal agent, comes from the 
 Father, is sent by the Father, and of course can- 
 not be the Father. As sent by the Father, he 
 maketh intercession for the saints, according to 
 the will of God, i. e. the Father from whom he 
 came. The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the 
 deep things of God .(l Cor. ii. 10). If there be 
 no distinct personality of the Spirit separate from 
 that of the Father, the real import of these 
 passages must be, that the Father comes from 
 himself, is sent by himself, makes intercession to 
 himself, according to the will of himself, and 
 that he searches the deep things of himself, — 
 
 which is a style of writing not to be ascribe, re 
 any rational man, and certainly not to inspired 
 apostles. Nor can the personality of the Spirit, 
 as Socinus affirms, be taken for the subjects who 
 are affected by the divine influence. He is ai 
 distinct from the disciples, to whom he was sent, 
 as from the Father, by whom he was sent. The 
 promise of Christ is, that the Father will give 
 them another comforter, one to take his place, 
 as a teacher and comforter. And that comforter, 
 he says, ‘which is the Holy Ghost, whom tho 
 Father will send in my name, he shall teach you 
 all things, and bring all things to your remem- 
 brance’ (John xiv. 16, 26). This UapaKXrjros, sent 
 from the Father, to teach, and guide, and comfort 
 the disciples, is as manifestly distinct from the 
 disciples whom he came to teach, as the Father 
 was, from whom he came, or as Christ was, who 
 had been their teacher. 
 
 The procession of the Spirit may be considered 
 as the intrinsic relation which he sustains to the 
 Father and the Son, or with respect to the mode 
 of his manifestation. In respect to the former, 
 the procession, tiarSpewis, of the Spirit has an 
 implied reference to the generation, yevvpais, of 
 the Son, and the ayevvpais of the Father. The 
 Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten ; the 
 Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, says the 
 Greek church, from the Father and Son, says the 
 Latin church. Christ says that the Spirit of truth 
 proceedeth from the Father, napa rod Uarpos 
 eniropeverai (John xv. 26). There is no such ex- 
 plicit statement in the Scriptures of the proces- 
 sion of the Spirit from the Son, yet equivalent 
 expressions of the doctrine are supposed to be 
 there. The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of 
 the Father, because he proceeds from the Father. 
 For the same reason he is called the Spirit of 
 Christ ; because he proceedeth from the Father 
 and the Son, because he is sent by both Father and 
 Son : hence the formula of the Latin church has 
 always been, ‘Spiritus S. a Patre et Filio, non 
 factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.’ 
 The addition of the Filioque to the Constantino- 
 politan confession of faith, by the Latin fathers, 
 occasioned the division of the church into the 
 eastern and western, or the Greek and Latin 
 branches. It is from the relation implied in the 
 procession, that the Spirit is called the third per- 
 son in the Godhead. The Father is considered as 
 first in the order, as the fountain and source of all 
 things. The Son is the second person, as being 
 begotten by the Father, and the Spirit is the third, 
 as proceeding from and sharing the nature of 
 both. ‘ These distinctive appellations denote,’ 
 says Augustine, ‘ the reciprocal relations of the 
 three persons to each other, and not the substance 
 .itself, which is but one.’ The order has relation 
 to the distinction of persons; the unity of the 
 divine nature has respect to the substance. The 
 homoousan includes the three. The hypostasis 
 applies to the distinctions. As to the homoousan, 
 there is but one God ; as to the hypostasis, there 
 are three persons. The subordination of the Spirit 
 does not imply inferiority, but is a term of office 
 or of relation. Thus it is that the Scripture doc- 
 trine, maintaining the unity of the divine nature 
 as belonging to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and 
 also the proper distinction between the three, 
 closes the door equally against Arianism and 
 Sabellianism. 
 
SPIRIT. 
 
 STANDARDS. 
 
 791 
 
 The Spirit cf God (1 Cor. ii. 1 1) is not a created 
 Spirit; and if uncreated, it must be divine in the 
 highest sense; but this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, 
 and a proper person ; hence he is God. 
 
 As the author of regeneration, or of the new 
 spiritual and incorruptible life in the heart of the 
 believer, he must be divine. This change, the 
 Scriptures abundantly declare, is wrought by the 
 Spirit and power of God. 
 
 Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only 
 6in for which there is no remission (Matt. xii. 31). 
 This sin against the Holy Spirit, in whatever it 
 may consist, is distinguished from all other sins 
 by a degree of guilt which renders it unpardon- 
 able. If he be not in his nature truly God, there 
 is nothing in him to give to sin against him such 
 a peculiar aggravation. Although it is not simply 
 because the Spirit is God that blasphemy against 
 him is unpardonable — for then would blasphemy 
 against the Father and the Son also be unpardon- 
 able — yet it is a sin against God, and, as being 
 against the third person of the Godhead, it is ag- 
 gravated to a degree of enormity which it could 
 not receive if committed against any other being 
 than God. 
 
 The divine and incommunicable attributes of 
 the Deity are ascribed to the Spirit. These attri- 
 butes belong exclusively to the divine nature ; he 
 who possesses them must have the divine nature 
 and honour as God (for proof texts, see Tri- 
 nity). 
 
 Works truly divine are attributable to the Holy 
 Spirit, as creation and preservation, and especially 
 the work of sanctification. There are diversities 
 of gifts, and there are differences of administra- 
 tions, but the same Spirit. ‘ All these worketh 
 that one and self-same Spirit, dividing to every 
 man severally as he will ’ (1 Cor. xii. 4-11). 
 Hence Peter calls the Holy Ghost, God (Acts v. 
 3, 4). 
 
 Of the office of the Holy Spirit, it is only ne- 
 cessary to say, that it is not ministerial, like that 
 of the angels and apostles, but it is the peculiar 
 work in the salvation of man which he performs, 
 as sent by the Father and the Son. Paul has 
 developed the functions or charismata of the office 
 with great clearness in 1 Cor. xii., in which he 
 shows that the diversities of gifts are all by the 
 same Spirit. Each charisma is the 4 manifesta- 
 tion of the Spirit’ (7) (pavepwcris t ov Tluev/xaTos). 
 This manifestation was in some particulars diffe- 
 rent in the apostolic age from what it was after 
 Christianity was established. The gifts which 
 were peculiar to that age, and which evinced the 
 presence of the Holy Spirit by some immediate 
 effect, remarks Neander, are called, in the New 
 Testament, Sui/ajj.e?s, (Tri/ieia, repara. That pe- 
 riod, he says, was peculiarly the creative epoch of 
 Christianity. Other gifts belong to the office and 
 operation of the Spirit in every age of the church, 
 for the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of 
 the body of Christ. 
 
 The views of the first Christians respecting the 
 Holy Spirit were vague and diverse. His power 
 had penetrated and pervaded the early church, 
 and yet, in general, no distinct and adequate con- 
 ceptions of him were formed in the mind. Baum- 
 gai ten says, ‘ The doctrine of the Holy Spirit 
 remained a long time undecided. It lay near 
 to the first church in a. practical respect only.* 
 *W« *ee fronii this,* says Neander, 4 how com- 
 
 pletely religion is a thing of life, before it can 
 obtain for itself an adequate form of developement 
 in definite conceptions.’ Some believed him to be 
 a mere power; some confounded the idea of 
 person with the charisn\i ; others supposed him 
 to be a creature; others believed him to be God ; 
 and others still were undecided. The practical 
 recognition of him, however, as the principle of 
 the divine life in man, was almost universal in 
 the early church. 
 
 The more distinct conceptions of the nature of 
 the Spirit arose out of the baptismal formula, and 
 the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, espe- 
 cially of the Arian controversy. Athanasius, 
 Basil, and the Gregories believed in the equality 
 of the Spirit, and contended that it was a common 
 church doctrine from the beginning. The Council 
 of Nice says, 4 We believe in the Holy Ghost.’ In 
 the Constant.inopolitan confession the deity of the 
 Spirit was affirmed with more distinctness, and 
 his procession from the Father alone implied. 
 The council at Antioch rejected the homoousan 
 in respect both to the Spirit and the Son. Under 
 Theodosius the Scripture doctrine was restored, 
 and it has since remained the catholic doctrine. 
 
 E. A. L. 
 
 SPOUSE. [Marriage.] 
 
 SPRING. [Palestine.] 
 
 STACHYS (2t axvs), an unknown person, from 
 his name apparently a Greek, a disciple at Rome, 
 and a friend of Paul (Rom. xvi. 9). 
 
 STACTE. [Natak.] 
 
 STANDARDS. Standards and ensigns are 
 to be regarded as efficient instruments for main- 
 taining the ranks and files of bodies of troops ; 
 and in Num. ii. 2 they are particularly noticed, 
 the Israelites being not only enjoined to encamp 
 4 each by the standard of his tribe and the ensign 
 of his father’s house,’ but, as the sense evidently 
 implies, in orders or lines. It is clear, when this 
 verse is considered in connection with the reli- 
 gious, military, and battle pictures on Egyptian 
 monuments, that the Hebrews had ensigns of at 
 least three kinds, namely ; 1. The great standards 
 of the tribes, serving as rallying signals for 
 marching, forming in battle array, and for en- 
 camping ; 2. The divisional standards (ninSE^D 
 mishpachoth ) of clans ; and, 3. Tiiose of houses or 
 families (niDX IVJ3 beth aboth)-, which after the 
 occupation of the Promised Land may gradually 
 have been applied more immediately to corps 
 and companies, when the tribes, as such, no 
 longer regularly took the field. That there were 
 several standards may be inferred from the uni- 
 form practice of the East to this day ; from 
 their being useful in manoeuvres, as already ex- 
 plained, and as shown in the Egyptian paintings; 
 and from being absolutely necessary ; for had there 
 been only one to each tribe, it would not have been 
 sufficiently visible to crowds of people of all ages 
 and both sexes, amounting in most cases lo 
 more than 100,000, exclusive of the incum- 
 brance of their baggage. Whole bodies, there- 
 fore, each under the guidance of the particular 
 clan ensign, knew how to follow the tribal standard ; 
 and the families offered the same convenience to 
 the smaller divisions. It may be doubted whether 
 these three were enough for the purpose ; for if they 
 were carried in the ranks of the armed liodies, it 
 must have been difficult for the household* to 
 
STANDARDS. 
 
 STANDARDS. 
 
 793 
 
 keep near them ; and if they were with the crowd, the shoulders of a row of men, surmounted by a 
 the ranks must have had others to enable them globe with an enormous double feather, appa* 
 
 to keep order, as we find that even in the Roman 
 legions, thoroughly trained as they were, numerous 
 vexilla were still held to be necessary. That 
 there were others might be inferred (Isa. xiii. 2 ; 
 Jer. li. 27) from the circumstance of their being 
 planted on the summit of some high place, to 
 mark the point where troops were to assemble : 
 these last, therefore, were not ensigns of parti- 
 cular bodies, but signals for an understood pur- 
 pose, such as both the Greeks and Romans em- 
 ployed when the general gave notice of his inten- 
 tion to engage, by hoisting above his tent a red 
 tunic, or when Agamemnon recalled his troops 
 in order to rally them, by the signal of a purple 
 veil. 
 
 But what the form, colours, materials, and 
 symbols of the Hebrew ensigns were it is more diffi- 
 cult to determine, chiefly because there has been 
 a great quantity of learned trifling among Rab- 
 binical writers and more modern heralds, all 
 equally bent upon fearless assertions, and with so 
 little true knowledge of the customs of antiquity, 
 that they have uniformly described these ensigns 
 as flags in shape like modern banners — a form not 
 yet shown to have existed in the west of Asia or 
 Europe anterior to the first invasion of the Huns, 
 excepting on some naval medals of the empire.* 
 In a collection of drawings, now before us, of 124 
 Egyptian, a considerable number of Persian, 
 Bactrian, Etruscan, and Greek ensigns, and a 
 very large series of Roman, all are effigies, spolia 
 of animals or plants, tablets, globes, vexilla, or 
 dragons. The vexillary or labarum form is 
 known to be of Oriental (Bactrian) origin, and 
 the dragon similarly originated among the eques- 
 trian nations of the East. It consisted of a head of 
 metal with an open mouth, which turned on a 
 spindle at the neck, where a long bag of coloured 
 stuff was sewn to it, and kept the open mouth to 
 the wind, filling the bag with air, and causing 
 it to flout and twist like a serpent’s tail. It was 
 the origin of the vane and pendant : when the 
 metal head was omitted on account of its weight 
 on the top of a spear, and the bag which formed 
 the body and tail was cut open, or reduced to one 
 breadth, the dragon became the flammula or 
 pennon of more recent times. The vexillum was 
 a substitute for a tablet ensign, being made of 
 cloth, and spread upon a short bar, placed cross- 
 wise on the summit of a pole. 
 
 As early as the days of the exode of Israel, 
 the Egyptians had ensigns of different kinds. 
 We observe on the monumentsf — 1. Thrones or 
 palanquins, indicating the great and sacred 
 centre of an army. 2. Royal fans attending 
 the sacred centre; they are the ‘ Efthoudehs of 
 India,’ always carried by princes, or sons of the 
 Pharaoh, on the summit of long poles, and 
 therefore intended as signs of honour, not for 
 use as umbrellas. 3. A long spar borne on 
 
 * In a work specially devoted to this subject, 
 the present writer intends shortly to publish the 
 result of many years’ investigation, with many 
 hundred drawings collected for the purpose : it 
 will show how much nations, religious opinions, 
 laws, authority, civilization, and war were in- 
 fluenced by the use of signa and symbols. 
 
 f See woodcut, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
 
 508. 1. Bactrian eagle; 2. Persian vexillum ; 3. Stan- 
 
 dard of Sesostris ; 4. Egyptian ensign set in a frame, 
 signal of castrametation' and of direction ; 5. Tele- 
 graphic ensign, varying with each Pharaoh; 6. Sub- 
 ordinate Egyptian ensigns; 7. Tribal tablet; 8. Plume 
 ensign used in temples. 
 
 rently twelve or fourteen feet high, and four or five 
 broad, coloured green, white, anti red. This has 
 been denominated the standard of Sesostris, and 
 was most likely the signal ensign of encamp- 
 ment, which was fixed before the royal tent, and 
 when set up must have been visible high above 
 all the other signa. 4. Standards of lower 
 elevation, always with two great feathers issuing 
 from a globe, and the foot set in a portable frame ; 
 which we take to be the signa ot castrametation 
 and of direction, serving as temporary guiding 
 posts, indications of wells, lines of front in camp, 
 &c. 5. We have found several tablets on poles, 
 
 similarly set in frames, but with particular sym- 
 bols above the tablet, and two, three, or four arms 
 holding objects that can be inserted or taken off, 
 and the arms themselves apparently moveable, the 
 whole having the appearance of a complete tele- 
 graph. 6. Besides these there are very many 
 varieties of effigial ensigns, with and without 
 shawls beneath them, ensigns of particular tem- 
 ples, idols, cities, nomes. 7. Square tablets on 
 poles borne by the file-leader of a tribe. 8. 
 Ostrich feather ensigns, carried as marks of honour 
 by princes, and sometimes seen stuck at the back 
 in a broad belt. . # 
 
 Ostrich feathers occur again as an ensign o ! 
 the Lebanon people, or a nation of Palestine, 
 
 f 
 
STANDARDS. 
 
 STAR IN THE EAST. 
 
 793 
 
 which is represented submitting to Sesostris. 
 These ensigns are not necessarily made of plumes 
 of the bird, and they occur white, white with a 
 black bar, and barred red and white, red, white 
 and black, and red, white, and green ; so that there 
 were many belonging to different, appropriations. 
 Indeed this ensign is still in use in Yemen and 
 the southern desert, where many sheiks have it 
 borne on bamboo poles as the cognizance of their 
 clans. 
 
 These details we have deemed necessary in order 
 to show that at the time when Israel departed out 
 of Egypt, most, if not all of these kinds of ensigns, 
 were well known, and that, therefore, it is likely 
 they were, under proper modifications, adopted by 
 that people when about to become wanderers over 
 desert regions where order and discipline, direct- 
 ing signals, telegraphs, and indications of water 
 would be most useful •, and as the Egyptians, in 
 common with other organized nations, had a 
 tensa deorum, or sacred centre for their gods and 
 the royal tent, so also had the chosen race a sacred 
 centre, the twelve tribes taking their well-known 
 stations around it — that centre rendered the more 
 awful and sublime by the cloud hovering, or the 
 light shining, above it [Encampment]. 
 
 From the kind of service which each class of 
 ensign was to render, we may take for granted, 
 
 that the tribal standard deghel), at all times 
 required to be distinguishable ‘ afar off,’ would be 
 elevated on high poles with conspicuously marked 
 distinctions, and that, therefore, although the mot- 
 toes ascribed to the twelve tribes, and the symbo- 
 lical effigies applied to them, may or may not have 
 been adopted, something like the lofty flabelliform 
 signa of Egypt most likely constituted their par- 
 ticular distinction ; and this is the more probable, 
 as no fans or umbrellas were borne, about the ark, 
 and, being royal, no chief, not even Moses him- 
 self, could assume them ; but a priest or Levite 
 may have carried that of each tribe in the form of 
 a fan, as the distinction of highest dignity, and 
 of service rendered to the Lord. They may have 
 had beneath them vittae, or shawls, of the par- 
 ticular colour of the stone in the breastplate of 
 the high-priest (although it must be observed that 
 that ornament is of later date than the standards) ; 
 and they may have been embellished with in- 
 
 509. 1. Egyptian fans of state attending the king, or 
 
 stuck upon the sacred arks; 2. Tablet ensign of the 
 Jew8(?), as represented on the arch of Titus ; 3. Globe 
 signum of Augustus ; 4. Dragon ensign, common to 
 many nations; 5. Parthian standard; 6. State um- 
 brella, on a coin of Augustus. 
 
 tcriptions, or with figures, which, at a time 
 rhen every Hebrew knew that animal forms 
 
 and other objects constituted parts of written hiero- 
 glyphic inscriptions, and even stood for sounds, 
 could not be mistaken for idols, the great law- 
 giver himself adopting effigies when he shaped 
 his cherubim for the ark and balls for the brazen 
 sea. In after ages we find typical figures ad- 
 mitted in the ships carved on t lie monuments 
 of the Maccabees, being the symbol of the tribe of 
 Zebulon, and not even then prohibited, because 
 ships were inanimate objects. As for the ‘ abo- 
 mination of desolation,’ if by that term the Ro- 
 man eagle was really meant, it was with the Jews 
 more an expression of excited political feeling 
 under the form of religious zeal, than of pure de- 
 votion, and one of the many signs which preceded 
 their national doom. 
 
 There is reason to believe that the mishpachoth, 
 or clan ensigns, and HIN aoth, were, at least in 
 the earlier ages, symbolical figures ; and that the 
 shekels ascribed to David, bearing an olive or 
 citron branch, to Nehemiah with three lilies, to 
 Herod Agrippa with three ears of corn, and to 
 Tryphon with a helmet and star, were so many 
 types of families* which may all have been borne 
 as sculptured figures, or, when the purism of later 
 times demanded it, may have been painted upon 
 tablets, like the supposed family or clan motto on 
 the ensign of the Maccabees ('HDD). The prac- 
 tice was equally common among the heathen 
 Egyptians, Persians, and Greeks ; and, perhaps, 
 the figures of those actually used in Jerusalem are 
 represented in the sculptured triumphal proces- 
 sion on the arch of Titus, where the golden can- 
 dlestick and other spoils of vanquished Judah are 
 portrayed. A circumstance which confirms the 
 meaning of the objects represented upon the 
 Jewish shekels is, that on the reverse of those of 
 Herod Agrippa is seen another sovereign ensign of 
 Asia, namely, the umbrella ( chattah , chutah of 
 India), always attending monarchs, and sculp- 
 tured at Chehel Minar , and at Nacshi-Boostan, 
 where it marks the presence of the king. It is 
 still the royal token through all the East and 
 Islam Africa ; and it appears that in the Mace- 
 donian era it was adopted by the Graeco-Egyptian 
 princes ; for Antony is reproached with joining 
 the Roman Eagles to the state umbrella of Cleo 
 patra : — 
 
 ‘ Interque signa (turpe !) militaria 
 Sol aspicit conopeum.’ — Hor. Epod. ix. 
 
 The ensign of the family or clan of the royal 
 house then reigning, of the judge of Israel, or of the 
 captain of the host, was no doubt carried before the 
 chief in power, although it does not appear that 
 the Hebrew kings had, like the Pharaohs, four of 
 them to mark their dignity ; yet from analogy 
 they may have had that number, since Ihe prac- 
 tice was also known to the Parthian kings subse- 
 quently to the Byzantine emperors, and even to 
 the Welsh princes. — C. H. S 
 
 STAR IN THE EAST. Matthew (ch. ii. 1, 
 sq.) relates that at the time of the birth of our 
 Lord there came wise men (magi) from the East 
 to Jerusalem, to inquire after the newly born 
 king of the Jews, in order that they might offer 
 him presents and worship him. A star, which 
 they had seen in the East, guided them to the 
 nouse where the infant Messiah was. Having 
 come into his presence, they presented unto hid 
 gifts — gold, and frankincense, and myrrh 
 
7»4 
 
 STAR IN THE EAST 
 
 STAR IN THE EAST. 
 
 The solid learning and free conjecture of 
 Christian divines have combined with the un- 
 friendly daring of infidelity to cast a heap of 
 difficulties on the particulars involved in this 
 passage of Holy Writ. Our space will not allow 
 us to review and examine what has been written by 
 friends and enemies (last of all, by Strauss, Leben 
 Jesu, i. 249, 4th'edit.) on the subject. We must 
 content ourselves with a brief statement of what 
 appears to us the right view of the case, referring 
 in justification to the authorities whence we have 
 drawn our materials. 
 
 These wise men were Chaldaean magi. During 
 many centuries the magi had been given to the 
 study of astronomy, and for some considerable 
 time before the birth of our Lord they had cor- 
 rupted and disfigured their scientific knowledge 
 by astrological speculations and dreams. A con- 
 viction had long been spread throughout the East, 
 that about the commencement of our era a great 
 and victorious prince, or the Messiah, was to be 
 born. His birth was, in consequence of words of 
 Sacred Scripture (Num. xxiv. 17), connected 
 with the appearance of a star. Calculations seem 
 to have led the astrological astronomers of Meso- 
 potamia to fix the time foV the advent of this king 
 in the latter days of Herod, and the place in the 
 land of Judaea. Accordingly, at the appointed 
 time two planets, Jupiter and Saturn, were in 
 conjunction under such circumstances as to ap- 
 pear one resplendent heavenly body, and to 
 marshal the way for the magi from their Own 
 nomes to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the inn. 
 
 But as this view is, we believe, novel in this 
 country, we will enter somewhat more into par- 
 ticulars. It owes its origin to no less a distin- 
 guished person than the astronomer Kepler. It 
 has been investigated and approved by some of 
 the soundest minds of Germany. Under the 
 influence of a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, 
 and Mars, which took place in the year 1604, 
 Kepler was led to think that he had discovered 
 means for determining the true year of our 
 Saviour’s birth. He made his calculations, and 
 found that Jupiter and Saturn were in conjunction 
 in the constellation of the Fishes (a fish is the astro- 
 logical symbol of Judaea) in the latter half of the 
 year of Rome 747, and were joined by Mars in 
 748. Here then he fixed the first figure in the 
 date of our era, and here he found the appearance 
 in the heavens which induced the magi to under- 
 take their journey, and conducted them success- 
 fully on their way. Others have taken up this 
 view, freed it from astrological impurities, and 
 shown its trustworthiness and applicability in the 
 case under consideration. It appears that Jupiter 
 and Saturn came together for the first time on 
 May 20th in the twentieth degree of the constel- 
 lation of the Fishes. They then stood before sun- 
 rise in the eastern part of the heavens, and so 
 were seen by the magi. Jupiter then passed by 
 Saturn towards the north. About the middle of 
 September they were near midnight both in oppo- 
 sition to the sun, Saturn in the thirteenth, Jupiter 
 in the fifteenth degree, being distant from each 
 other about a degree and a half. They then drew 
 nearer: on October 27th there was a second con- 
 junction in the sixteenth degree, and on Novem- 
 ber 12th there took place a third conjunction in 
 the fifteenth degree of the same constellation. In 
 tie two last conjunctions the interval between 
 
 u.e planets amounted to no more than a degree 
 so that to the unassisted eye the rays of the 
 one planet were absorbed in those of the other, 
 and the two bodies would appear as one. The 
 two planets went past each other three times, 
 came very near together, and showed themselves 
 all night long for months in conjunction with 
 each other, as if they would never separate again. 
 Their first union in the East awoke the attention 
 of the magi, told them the expected time had 
 come, and bade them set off without delay to- 
 wards Jud*a (the fish land). When they reached 
 Jerusalem the two planets were once more blended 
 together. Then, in the evening, they stood in 
 the southern part of the sky, pointing with their 
 united rays to Bethlehem, where prophecy de- 
 clared the Messiah was to be born. The magi 
 followed the finger of heavenly light, and were 
 brought to the child Jesus. The conclusion, in 
 regard to the time of the advent, is, that our Lord 
 was born in the latter part of the year of Rome 
 747, or six years before the common era. 
 
 We have not presented this view from any 
 leaning in favour of a rationalistic interpretation, 
 believing that God could, had he so pleased, have 
 created a heavenly body for the purpose. But it 
 must also be said that the divine Ruler of the 
 universe is frugal (absit invidia verbo ) of his 
 instrumentalities, and might well, in the case 
 before us, make use, for the gracious purposes of 
 his providence, of cosmical arrangements which 
 he had fixed ere the earth and heavens were made. 
 They are, however, facts which have been set 
 forth. As facts they explain a passage on which 
 many doubts and difficulties have lain. The 
 reader will determine whether he finds the ex- 
 planation satisfactory. Kepler's ideas may be 
 found in the essay De Jesu Christi servatoris 
 nostri vero anno natalitio, and more fully in De 
 vero anno quo ceternus Dei Jilius humanam 
 naturam assumpsit, Frankfurt, 1614. His view 
 was taken up, and presented with approbation to 
 the literary world, by a learned prelate of the 
 Lutheran church, Bishop Miinfer ( Der Stern der 
 Weisen, Kopenh. 1827). It also gained approval 
 from the celebrated astronomer Schubert, of Pe- 
 tersburg ( Vermischten Schriften, Stuttgart, 1823). 
 The learned and accurate ldeler ( Handbuch der 
 Chronologie , Berlin ; see vol. ii. p. 399, sq.) 
 reviewed the entire subject, and signified his 
 agreement. Hase and De Wette, however, have 
 stated objections. A recent writer of considerable 
 merit, Wieseler ( Chronolog . Synop. der 4 Evan- 
 gelien, Hamburg, 1843), has applied this theory 
 of Kepler’s in conjunction with a discovery that 
 he has made from some Chinese astronomical 
 tables, which show that in the year of Rome 750 a 
 comet appeared in the heavens, and was visible 
 for seventy days. . Wieseler’s opinion is, that the 
 conjunction of the planets excited and fixed the 
 attention of the magi, but that their guiding-star 
 was the aforesaid comet. The subject is worthy 
 of attention, and we shall be glad if this notice 
 of it should meet the eye of some distinguished 
 astronomer who would give the subject a thorough 
 investigation. The writer will be happy to supply 
 to any competent inquirer full details of what 
 has already been done. The literature connected 
 with the subject is abundant, but appears to the 
 writer to have lost much of its interest since 
 Kepler's views have found acceptance.. Those, 
 
STEPHANAS. 
 
 STEPHEN. 
 
 793 
 
 however, who wish to ascertain what works have 
 been written on the subject are referred to Walch, 
 Bibliotheca Theol. ii. 422, sq. ; Thiess, Krit. 
 Comment, ii. 350, sq. On the epoch of the birth 
 of Christ, See Professor Wallace’s Dissertation on 
 the True Age of the World (a work, however, to 
 which we uo not attach much value), p. 84, 
 London, 1844. — J. R. B. 
 
 STEPHANAS (2,Te<pavas), a disciple at Co- 
 rinth, whose household Paul baptized (1 Cor. 
 i. 16), being the first converted to Christianity in 
 Achaia (1 Cor. xvi. 15). From the last of these 
 texts it would appear that Stephanas and his 
 family, in the most exemplary manner, ‘ ad- 
 dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints 
 which some interpret of their having taken upon 
 them the office and duty qf deacons ; but which 
 seems to admit of a larger sense (without exclud- 
 ing this), namely, that all the members of this 
 excellent family ministered to the wants and 
 promoted the comfort of their fellow-Christians, 
 whether strangers or countrymen. As ‘ the house- 
 hold of Stephanas ’ is mentioned in both texts, it 
 has been supposed that Stephanas himself was 
 dead when Paul wrote ; but in verse 17 it is 
 said, ‘ I am glad of the coming of Stephanas.’ 
 
 STEPHEN (Sre^aros), one of the seven first 
 deacons, and the proto-martyr, of the Christian 
 church. It appears from his name that he was a 
 Hellenist, as it was not common for the Jews of 
 Palestine to adopt names for their children, except 
 from the Hebrew or Syriac ; though of what country 
 he was is unknown. He is represented by Epi- 
 phanius (xl. p. 50) as one of the seventy disciples 
 chosen by Christ ; but this statement is without 
 authority from Scripture, and is, in fact, incon- 
 sistent with what is there mentioned concerning 
 him. He is spoken of by others as one of the 
 first converts of Peter on the day of Pentecost ; but 
 this also is merely conjectural. Jerome (on Isa. 
 xlvi. 12) and others of the Fathers praise him as 
 a man of great learning and eloquence. The first 
 authentic notice we find of him is in Acts vi. 5. 
 In the distribution of the common fund that was 
 entrusted to the apostles (Acts iv. 35-37) for the 
 support of the poorer brethren (see Mosheim, De 
 Rebus Christ, ante Const, p. 118, and Dissert, 
 ad Hist. Eccles. pertin.), the Hellenistic Jews 
 complained that a partiality was shown to the 
 natives of Palestine, and that the poor and sick 
 among their widows were neglected. Whether 
 we conceive with Mosheim ( De Rebus, &c. p. 
 118), that the distribution was made by indivi- 
 duals set apart for that office, though not yet pos- 
 sessing the name of deacons; or, with the writer 
 in the Encyclopeedia Metropolitan a (art. ‘ Eccle- 
 siastical History see also Archbishop Wbately’s 
 Kingdom of Christ), we conclude that with the 
 office they had also the name, but were limited 
 to Hebrews ; or whether we follow the more com- 
 mon view, as set forth by Bohmer (Diss. vii. ; 
 Juris Eccles. Antiq.), does not materially affect 
 the present subject. The complaint of the Hel- 
 lenists having reached the ears of the apostles, im- 
 mediate directions were given by them with a view 
 to remove the cause of it. Unwilling themselves 
 to be called away from their proper employment 
 of extending the bounds of the Christian commu- 
 nity, they told the assembled multitude of be- 
 lievers to select seven men of their own number, 
 in whose faith and integrity they might repose 
 
 entire confidence, for the superinte: ilence of every 
 thing connected with the relief of the poor. The 
 proposal of the apostles met with the approba- 
 tion of the brethren, who proceeded at once with 
 the choice of the prescribed number of indivi- 
 duals, among whom Stephen is first mentioned ; 
 hence the title of first deacon, or first of the dea* 
 cons, is given to him by Irenams (Iren. i. 12). 
 He is distinguished in Scripture as a man ‘ full 
 of faith and of the Holy Ghost’ (Acts vi. 5). 
 The newly elected individuals were brought t a 
 the apostles, who ordained them to their office, 
 and they entered upon their duties with extra- 
 ordinary zeal and success. The number ol 
 the disciples was greatly increased, and many 
 priests were among the converts. In this work 
 Stephen greatly distinguished himself by the 
 miracles he performed before the people, and by 
 the arguments he advanced in support of the 
 Christian cause. From his foreign descent and 
 education he was naturally led to address him- 
 self to the Hellenists, and in his disputation* 
 with Jews of the Synagogue of the Libertine* 
 and Cyrenians, &c. [Synagogue and Liber- 
 tine], he brought forward views of the Chris 
 tian scheme that could not be relished by the 
 bigots of the ancient faith. As they were un- 
 able to withstand his powers of reasoning, theij 
 malice was excited; they suborned false wit- 
 nesses against him, and dragged him before th* 
 Sanhedrim as a blasphemer. The charge brought 
 against him was, that he had spoken against ths 
 law and the Temple, against Moses and against 
 God. This accusation was calculated to incite all 
 parties in the Sanhedrim against him (comp. Acts 
 xxii. 22) ; and upon receiving it the predetermined 
 purpose of the Council was not to be mistaken. 
 Stephen saw that he was to be the victim of the 
 blind and malignant spirit which had been ex- 
 hibited by the Jews in every period, of their his- 
 tory. But his serenity was unruffled; his con- 
 fidence in the goodness of his cause, and in the 
 promised support of his heavenly Master, im- 
 parted a divine tranquillity to his mind; and 
 when the judges fixed their regards upon him, 
 the light that was within beamed forth upon his 
 countenance, and ‘ they saw his face as if it had 
 been the face of an angel’ (Acts vi. 15). 
 
 Benson. ( History of the First Planting of the 
 Christian Religion) and others have considered 
 the testimony of the witnesses against Stephen as 
 in every respect false, and that we are not even 
 to suppose that he had stated that Christ would 
 change the customs which Moses delivered (Acts 
 vi. 14), upon the ground of the improbability of 
 more being revealed to Stephen than to the 
 apostles, as to the abolition of the Levitical cere- 
 monies. From the strain of the martyr’s speech, 
 however, a different conclusion may be drawn. 
 His words imply, in various passages, that external 
 rites were not essential, and that true religion was 
 not confined to the Temple service (Acts vii. 8, 38, 
 44, &c.). And there seems much plausibility in 
 the conjecture of Neander ( Planting and Train- 
 ing of the Christian Church, translated by 
 Ryland, vol. i. p. 56, sq.), that Stephen and the 
 other deacons from their birth and education were 
 less under the influence of Jewish prejudices than 
 the natives of Palestine, and may thus have been 
 prepared to precede the apostles themselves in 
 apprehending the libeity which the Gospel was 
 
796 
 
 STEPHEN. 
 
 STOICS. 
 
 to introduce. The statements of Stephen corre- 
 spond in more than one particular with what was 
 afterwards taught by St. Paul. 
 
 His speech is well deserving of the most dili- 
 gent study, and the more it is understood the 
 higher idea will it convey of the degree in which 
 he possessed the qualities ascribed to him in the 
 fifth chapter. Very different views have been 
 taken of it by commentators. Upon the whole 
 we are inclined to follow that which is given 
 by Neander in the work referred to. Even as a 
 composition it is curious and interesting from 
 the connection which may be discovered between 
 the various parts, and from the unity given to 
 the whole by the honesty and earnestness of the 
 speaker. Without any formal statement of his 
 object, Stephen obviously gives a confession of 1 
 his faith, sets forth a true view of the import of 
 his preaching, in opposition to the false gloss that 
 nad been put upon it, maintains the justness of 
 his cause, and shows how well founded were his 
 denunciations against the impenitent Jews. 
 
 He first enters upon a historical statement, in- 
 volving a refutation of the charges which had 
 been made against him of hostility to the Old 
 Testament institutions; but at the same time 
 showing that acceptance with God does not de- 
 pend upon outward relations. Under the same 
 form he illustrates the providential care exercised 
 by the Almighty in regard to the Jewish people, 
 along with the opposition exhibited by the Jews 
 towards those sent to them by God. And he 
 points the application of his whole discourse by 
 charging his carnal-minded hearers with resisting, 
 like their fathers, the Holy Ghost. The effect 
 upon his auditors was terrible. Conscience-smit- 
 ten, they united in wreaking their vengeance on 
 the faithful, denouncer of their guilt. They 
 drowned his voice with their clamorous outcries, 
 they stopped their ears against him, they rushed 
 on him with one accord in a tumultuary manner, 
 they carried him forth, and without waiting for 
 the authority of law, they stoned him to death as 
 a blasphemer [Stoning]. 
 
 The frantic violence of his persecutors did not 
 disturb the tranquillity of the martyr, and he died 
 praying that his murderers might be forgiven 
 fvii. 60). In his prayer he showed that a new 
 spirit had been introduced into the world, and 
 taught the Christians that the example of their 
 Divine Master was to be followed even in cir- 
 cumstances that they might have conceived to 
 be impossible. Nor was this prayer without effect. 
 Saul of Tarsus, who consented to his death (viii. 
 1), and kept the clothes of them that stoned him 
 (vii. 58), heard his words, mocking, doubtless, 
 like the rest. But the prayer was heard, and fo 
 it we owe the ministry of the apostle Paul (Til- 
 lemont, Memoires, vol. ii. p. 8). 
 
 The only other particular connected with Ste- 
 phen, mentioned in Scripture, is, that ‘ devout 
 men carried him to his burial, and made great la- 
 mentation over him’ (viii. 2). No information is 
 given respecting the time of his death, or the place 
 of his burial. In the fifth century (415), however, 
 the relics of the martyr were said to have been 
 miraculously discovered by a Greek priest of the 
 name of Lucian (Luciani Presbyteri Epistola 
 de Inventione S. Stepham, , and they were 
 brought to Europe by Orosius. Evodius, Bishop 
 of Myala, wrote a small treatise concerning the 
 
 miracles performed by them ; arid Severus, c 
 Bishop of the Island of Minorca, wrote a cir- 
 cular letter of the conversion of the Jews in that 
 island, and of the miracles wrought in that place, 
 by the relics which Orosius left there. These 
 writings are contained in the works of Augustine, 
 who gives the sanction of his authority to the 
 incredible follies they record ( De Civit. Dei , 
 xxii. 8). 
 
 Since the fifth century, Stephen’s day has been 
 celebrated on the 26 th of December. The date 
 is confessed by many Roman Catholic writers to 
 be arbitrary, and is wholly without authority. 
 
 STOICS AND EPICUREANS. A concise 
 notice of these celebrated sects is all that is re- 
 quired for the elucidation of the Christian history, 
 and all that the limits of the present work allow. 
 
 The Stoics derive their name from <rrod, ‘ a 
 porch because their founder Zeno was accus- 
 tomed to teach in a certain porch at Athens. 
 This Zeno, of Citium, in Cyprus, must not be 
 confounded with an earlier Zeno of Elea. The 
 younger and more celebrated philosopher of the 
 name was born from 360 to 350 years b.c., and 
 formed a system of tenets which combined much 
 of the harsh asceticism of the Cynics with the 
 noble moral aspirations and vexatious verbal 
 quibblings of the Platonists. The Greek stoical 
 schools produced the most elaborate speculations 
 on grammar which those ages could boast of, and 
 in moral teaching they showed a strong tendency 
 to a technical and over-systematic nomenclature. 
 Under such a covert a Jesuitical casuistry might 
 easily arise, and it is not to be supposed that the 
 asceticism and high pretensions of this sect uni- 
 formly implied virtuous conduct. Their most re- 
 volting paradoxes appear to be only exaggeration* 
 of truth : exaggerations into which they were pro- 
 bably forced by their intense controversy with tlv 
 Epicureans, in part through their resolute adhe- 
 rence to the deductions of fheirown logic, in part 
 from a certain love of eccentricity, with whicl 
 the Stoics were not unjustly charged. 
 
 Epicurus is said to have been born at Athens 
 b.c. 344, and to have opened a school (or rather » 
 garden) where he propagated his tenets, at a time 
 when the doctrines of Zeno had already obtained 
 credit and currency. In physics, in religion , in 
 politics , and in morals , the two systems espoused 
 directly opposite views. The Stoics, like the Pla- 
 tonists, were practically disinclined to what we 
 distinctively name physical philosophy, and ac- 
 quiesced in numerous vague dogmas concerning 
 it, which had no ground in experiment or cau- 
 tious observation, preferring mystical or moral 
 views, and such as well combined with popular 
 superstition. Thus they held the sun and stars to 
 be real gods, because composed of fire, which was 
 asserted to be a divine quality. The Epicureans, 
 on the contrary, pursued physics, in too hasty a 
 spirit, no doubt, but nevertheless, on the whole, with 
 much of the genius of the moderns, and, we mig it 
 add, with surprising success, if the followers of 
 Epicurus had followed in his steps by inquiring 
 as freely as he. With creditable discernment, 
 he adopted the Atomic theory of Democritus, a 
 philosopher of first-rate genius, though be rn before 
 his time ; who, when not a single sound principle 
 had been laid down in chemistry, or in errestrial 
 mechanics, seized on the grand idea of Newton 
 that the heavenly bodice a re regulated by the sat m 
 
STOICS. 
 
 STOICS. 
 
 7V1 
 
 laws as the minutest objects on the surface of the 
 earth, and taught, concerning the constituent par- 
 ticles of matter, a doctrine which Dalton and 
 Berzelius have developed and established. Ac- 
 cordingly, in the physics of Epicurus was found 
 an intense antagonism to existing prejudices and 
 popular superstitions. With him the sun was 
 »nly a large fire, and not a god ; the lightning 
 was guided by physical laws, and was not the 
 bolt of Jupiter to strike down the impious. Many 
 of the Epicurean explanations of physical pheno- 
 mena (as may be seen in Lucretii^) show the 
 school to have been much in advance of the 
 age; but as unfortunately they were not satis- 
 fied to learn gradually, they spoiled their best 
 ideas by mingling them with the crudest ab- 
 surdities. 
 
 It is in striking contradiction to what might 
 have been expected from each school, that while 
 Epicurus endowed his atoms with certain chance- 
 movements (an idea which he had superadded to 
 die theory of Democritus), the Stoics maintained 
 that the whole universe, including the gods, were 
 subject to an unalterable fate, which they also 
 called providence . That they subjected the gods 
 to this exterior force, is perhaps explained by 
 their material conception of godhead. 
 
 Since they studied to keep as close as possible 
 to the popular religion, the Stoics almost ne- 
 cessarily applied a system of mystical allegorizing 
 to all that was offensive in the current legends. 
 In no part of their tenets is their sincerity more 
 doubtful : nevertheless, if we may accept as any 
 fair representation of their devotional feeling the 
 hymn to Jupiter by the Stoic Cleanthes, which is 
 by far the noblest religious address in all anti- 
 quity, we shall set them on a much higher eminence 
 than any other sect. Cleanthes, while elevating 
 Jupiter to a position which may satisfy a strict 
 Monotheist, ascribes to him the purest moral cha- 
 racter, as being ‘ the cause of every thing, except 
 of Sin and concludes by fervent prayers for the 
 divine teaching to scatter all darkness from the 
 soul, and enable it to attain divine wisdom. The 
 Epicureans (in spite of the chance-movements 
 ascribed to atoms) pushed out to a great extent 
 the supremacy of general laws in the universe ; 
 and as they were strict Materialists, could make 
 no exception in favour of the moral world. Hence 
 they would admit of no interferences of the deities 
 in the concerns of man, whether by external visit- 
 ation or by secret spiritual influence on the heart. 
 The gods were represented as serene, majestic 
 beings, too distant, and too quietly comfortable, 
 to care about human concerns; so that while it 
 was proper to think of them with reverence and 
 admiration, to pray to them or worship them with 
 ceremonies was absurd. They undoubtedly are 
 such a nullity in the practical creed of Epicurus, 
 and the muscular weakness, which, in conse- 
 quence of the light and airy texture of their spi- 
 ritual form, he ascribes to them, wears so ridiculous 
 an aspect, as to give colour to the imputation that 
 his Theism was assumed to avoid the popular 
 odium which an undisguised Atheism would 
 hawe incurred. 
 
 Concerning politics no well-defined dogmas 
 seem to have been propounded by the Stoics ; but 
 the genius of their creed led them to patronise the 
 national religion in each country, and thereby to 
 give to their pupils a strong sentiment of special 
 
 citizenship. This is the first element of patriotio 
 exertion everywhere; and the early Stoics, how- 
 ever unsuited by many parts of their creed for 
 public life, maintained, in theory at least, that 
 their wise man was the best ruler of a state, and 
 ought 'upon occasion to devote property and life 
 in his country’s service. The Epicureans, from 
 their devotion to physical science, and their con- 
 tempt for general literature, were cosmopolitan 
 in their tendency, with too little concern for any 
 one particular state to make patriotic sacrifices. 
 Even the trouble of exercising power was generally 
 thought by them too heavy a burden. Whether 
 less or more voluptuous in personal life — a Pom- 
 ponius Atticus or a Mucianus — they were reso- 
 lute in refusing, or glad to get rid of, official 
 power, and to slip back into social comfort and 
 quiet speculation, like the gods whom they ad- 
 mired. This political selfishness was in strange 
 contrast with the unaffected and warm friendships 
 of their private life, in which they were capable, 
 if not of great sacrifices, yet of constant, amiable, 
 forbearing, and active affection. But it is pro- 
 bable that a prevalent neglect of historical read- 
 ing, joined with the distaste for the national bal- 
 lads which their scepticism » necessitated, could 
 not but render political pursuits, in Greece, un- 
 congenial to them. 
 
 The moral system of each school was in close 
 connection with their other views. Both taugbt 
 that we must live ‘ in harmony with Nature,’ but 
 they interpreted this differently. The Stoic theory 
 erected a noble fabric of virtue, which the wise 
 man would pursue at all events, and proclaimed, 
 that while virtuous, he was perfectly happy, what- 
 ever his external circumstances. This may be 
 forgiven, as only an over-statement of a valuable 
 truth. The same may be said of their do£ma, 
 that ‘ all sins are equal/ that £ the wise cannot fall 
 away/ and that ‘ he is a king, though in abject 
 poverty.’ But they to a great extent spoiled all 
 that was excellent in these ideas, sometimes by 
 sour asceticism and fanatical coxcombry, yet 
 oftener perhaps by the despicable logical cavilling 
 which they had inherited from Socrates and 
 Plato. Grammar and dialectics appear literally 
 to have been the curse of these schools, and utterly 
 incapacitated them from acting on the popular 
 intellect, to which their subtleties were unintel- 
 ligible, and their verbose reasoning a source of 
 merited disgust. Epicurus, on the contrary, like 
 modern physical philosophers, cared for things , 
 not for xoords ; and had at least the good sense 
 to know, that since morality belongs to the mass 
 of mankind, it must rest on broad foundations 
 which they can appreciate, and cannot need 
 lengthy and hairspun reasonings to adapt it to 
 practice. His contempt of rhetoric and of the art 
 of elegant composition may possibly not have 
 been more than is expected by us in every mathe- 
 matical work, but has exposed him to frequent 
 invectives from Cicero. The Epicurean theory of 
 morals was undoubtedly wholly selfish, and this 
 was its blight. Like the modern advocates of 
 the selfish system, he taught that ‘pleasing sensa- 
 tions’ constitute all that is good in anything; 
 even benevolence and generosity were resolved 
 into selfish affections, by supposing them to have 
 thei; spring in the ‘pleasure’ of him who exer- 
 cises them. This theory has been innocently 
 held by many Christians, in whom it is a fault rtf 
 
STOICS. 
 
 STORK. 
 
 7 *-* 
 
 the head, not of the heart. ; and the same may have 
 been tne case with numbers' of the Epicureans. 
 But it is impossible, without practical mischief to 
 the multitude, to confound under the single name 
 of ‘ pleasure ’ feelings so different as those of the 
 sailor who risks his life to save a stranger, and 
 those of the profligate who sacrifices the happiness 
 of others to his sensuality. Epicurus taught that 
 men should be amiable members of a family, en- 
 oying freely all innocent social pleasures, and 
 abstaining from all vice and crime, and his prac- 
 tice was as pure as his precepts ; but he also said, 
 that we should be thus virtuous, because this 
 would yield us most pleasure ; and by making 
 this his foundation, he gave currency to a great 
 debasing idea, which has always generated rot- 
 tenness. 
 
 Thus far we have spoken of Stoicism and Epi- 
 cureanism, chiefly as they were among the Greeks ; 
 but both systems underwent modification among 
 the Romans ; the former for the better, the latter 
 (it would seem) for the worse. Perhaps this must 
 in any case have happened. Stoicism, which had 
 in it some great anil true moral ideas, might have 
 been expected to clear itself of its asceticism, its 
 coxcombry, its love of paradox, its subtleties, its 
 mythological absurdities, by the wear and tear of 
 practical life, and by the ridicule of men. Epi- 
 cureanism, which inculcated (at least in appear- 
 ance) mere self-indulgence, would attract to 
 itself all the more grovelling natures, and the phi- 
 losophy itself would become deteriorated by the 
 practice and interpretation of its votaries. But 
 beside this, the Epicurean intellect miserably 
 stagnated through the insane idolatry directed 
 towards their founder. This is the more amazing, 
 considering how little was original in his system ; 
 for he had taken his morals from Aristippus and 
 Eudoxus, as his physics from Democritus: yet 
 they seem to have made no effort to improve upon 
 his theories, or perfect even his physical specula- 
 tions, but wasted all their labour in endless com- 
 mentaries on his work. Even the Roman poet 
 Lucretius, a genius far superior to Epicurus, pa- 
 negyrizes him in the most fulsome strains : — 
 
 * Deus ille fuit, Deus, inclute Memmi, 
 
 Qui princeps vitse rationem invenit earn, quae 
 
 Nunc appellatur Sapienti^,’ &c. 
 
 The Stoics were not so absurd, however great their 
 respect for their founder ; and, in consequence, 
 they from time to time received new views and 
 fresh light from several sources. 
 
 Moreover, it is probable that the genius of the 
 Roman people, and of all Western Europe, was 
 better fitted to improve Stoicism than Epicu- 
 reanism. Their more practical mind despised 
 and cast aside very much of the trashy logic which 
 disgraced the acute Greeks, and a mere riddance 
 from this was an immense gain to Stoicism. On 
 the contrary, their coarser natures, in adopting 
 such a theory, as, that ‘ pleasure was the chief 
 good,’ were likely to accept this in the worst 
 sense ; nor do they appear in general to have had 
 much taste for the tranquil ease and intellectual 
 retirement which was the paradise of the frugal 
 Epicurus. Men of weak passions and strong 
 mind may live virtuously under the selfish theory, 
 or by arguments of expediency ; but ambitious, 
 ardent, or passionate temperaments, as they are 
 capable of higher excellence, so are they in dan- 
 
 ger of deeper debasement, unless influenced by 
 some nobler ideal of excellence. The Roman Stoicf 
 were the very prime of the nation ; many of them 
 characters who must ever be thought of with re- 
 verence and admiration. But before their doc- 
 trine reached its culminating point, it had re- 
 ceived, wemay believe, amollifying influence from 
 Christianity, which had risen by its side. Epic- 
 tetus, a Greek, who is said to have flourished from 
 Nero to Hadrian, or even later, is one eminent 
 extant source of information concerning the im- 
 proved Stoicism of the day. Self-denial is his 
 great virtue, but a true and beautiful benevolence 
 animates it. His contemporary, Seneca, and that 
 best of emperors, Marcus Aurelius, are our au- 
 thentic informants what Roman Stoicism had 
 become. That they could not see Christianity to 
 be a supernatural system may be lamented; but 
 that they (consciously or unawares) drew much 
 instruction from it, ought surely to be praised, not 
 harshly censured, as it has been. Concerning the 
 Epicureans, the poem of Lucretius is our most 
 accessible source of knowledge; Laertius, Sextus 
 Empiricus, Cicero, and Plutarch, are very va- 
 luable to us for the doctrines of both sects. — 
 
 F. W. N. 
 
 STONING. [Punishments.] 
 
 STORAX (2ropa|) occurs only in Ecclesi- 
 asticus xxiv. 15, ‘I gave a sweet smell like 
 cinnamon and aspalathus, and I yielded a plea- 
 sant odour like the best myrrh,’ &c. Sweet sto- 
 rax is mentioned by various Greek writers, from 
 the time of Hippocrates to that of Dioscorides. 
 Several kinds of it were known, varying chiefly 
 in the form in which it was obtained, or the de- 
 gree of adulteration to which it had. been sub- 
 jected. Most of the kinds are still known in 
 commerce. It is obtained by incisions made 
 in the bark of the tree called styrax officinale 
 by botanists. This tree is a native of Greece, 
 Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, and is about 
 twenty feet high, with leaves like those of the 
 quince, and flowers somewhat resembling those 
 of the orange. Storax was, and is still, much 
 esteemed, both as an incense and for its medical 
 properties. It consists chiefly of resin, a volatile 
 oil, and some Benzoic acid. It has a grateful 
 balsamic odour, which no doubt made it valued 
 in ancient times. 
 
 STORK (HTpn chasidah). In Egypt, the 
 two species collectively are called Anaseh, the 
 white, more particularly, Belari ; in Arabic 
 Zakid, ZoAig (?), Abuhist , Ileklek, Ilegleg, and 
 Hadji Luglug , the three last-mentioned express- 
 ing the peculiar clatter which storks make with 
 their bills, and Hadji, or pilgrim, denoting their 
 migratory habits. This quality several of the 
 Western names likewise indicate, while our word 
 stork, albeit the Greek oTopyi) implies natural 
 affection, is an appellation which extends to the 
 Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, German, Hungarian, 
 Lette, and Wallachian languages, and is pre- 
 sumed originally to have been Stor Eger, i. e. 
 migrating Heron , with which the Greek agrees in 
 sound, but has no affinity of meaning, though it 
 corroborates the interpretation of Chasidah in 
 the Hebrew, similarly implying affection, piety, 
 mercy, and gratitude. This name results from 
 a belief, general through all ancient Asia, in the 
 attachment of these birds to each other j of th* 
 
STORK. 
 
 STORK. 
 
 799 
 
 young towards the old, and of the parents 
 towards their young. But the latter part of 
 this opinion is alone verified by the moderns, 
 in cases where the mother bird has perished while 
 endeavouring to save her progeny. This oc- 
 curred in the great fire at Delft, and more recently 
 at the battle of Fr iedland, where a fir-tree with a 
 stork’s nest in it being set on fire by a howitzer- 
 shell, the female made repeated efforts to extricate 
 her young, arid at length, as in the other case, 
 was seen to sink in the flames. Without, there- 
 fore, admitting the exaggerated reports, or the 
 popular opinions of the East, respecting the stork, 
 enough is shown to justify the identification of 
 Chasidah with that bird; notwithstanding that 
 some learned commentators have referred the 
 word to Heron, and to several other birds, though 
 none upon investigation are found to unite in the 
 same degree the qualities which are ascribed to 
 the species in Lev. xi. 19; Deut. xiv. 18; Job 
 xxxix. 13; Psa. civ. 17 ; Jer. via. 7 ; Zech. v. 9. 
 
 Storks are about a foot less in height than the 
 crane, measuring only three feet six inches from 
 the tip of the bill to the end of the toes, and 
 nearly the same to the end of the tail. They have 
 a stout, pointed, and rather long bill, which, to- 
 gether with their long legs, is of a bright scarlet 
 colour ; the toes are partially webbed, the nails 
 at the extremities flat, and but little pointed 
 beyond the tips ©f the joints. The orbits are 
 blackish, but the whole bird is white, with the 
 exception of a few scapulars, the greater wing 
 covers,, and all the quills, which are deep black : 
 they are doubly scalloped out, with those nearest 
 the body almost as long as the very foremost in 
 the wing. This is a provision of nature, enabling 
 the bird more effectually to sustain its after 
 weight in the air ; a faculty exceedingly im- 
 portant to its mode of flight with its long neck, 
 and longer legs equally stretched out, and very 
 necessary to a migrating species believed to 
 fly without alighting from the lower Rhine, or 
 even from the vicinity of Strasburg, to Africa, 
 and to the Delta of the Nile. The passage is per- 
 formed in October, and, like that of cranes, in 
 single or in double columns, uniting in a point 
 to cleave the air ; but their departure is seldom 
 seen, because they start generally in the night; they 
 rise always with clapping wings, ascending with 
 surprising rapidity out of human sight, and arriv- 
 ing at their southern destination as if by enchant- 
 ment. Here they reaid* until the last days of 
 March, when they again depart for the north, but 
 
 more leisurely and less congregated A feeling of 
 attachment, not without superstition, procure* 
 them an unmolested life in all Moslem countries, 
 and a notion of their utility still protects them in 
 Switzerland, Western Germany, and particularly 
 in Holland, where we have seen them (at Midde.- 
 burg) walking with perfect composure in a crowded 
 vegetable market Storks build their nests in 
 pine, fir, cedar, and other coniferous trees, but 
 seem to prefer lofty old buildings, lowers, and 
 ruins : there are always several located on the 
 tops of the isolated pillars at Persepolis ; and 
 they often obstruct the Muesim by nestling in 
 their way, about the summits of the minarets 
 which these servants of the mosques must ascend 
 to call the congregation to prayer. Several 
 modern writers still assert the filial affection of 
 young storks, whom they describe as assisting their 
 aged parents when they cannot any longer fly with 
 vigour, and as bringing them food when unable 
 to provide for themselves. Without entirely re- 
 jecting the fact of affectionate relations among 
 these birds, it may be remarked that storks live 
 to a good old age ; and as they have a brood (some- 
 times two) every year, the question is, which of 
 these takes charge of the decrepid parents? It 
 cannot be the youngest, not as yet of sufficient 
 btrength, nor those of preceding years, which are 
 no longer in their company. Besides, the weaker 
 birds remain and breed in the south. May it not 
 be conjectured that much of this belief is derived 
 from a fact, which we have ourselves had an op- 
 portunity of witnessing, though we could not 
 distinguish whether the flight was composed of 
 cranes or storks? In an exceedingly stormy day. 
 when their southward course had been suddenly 
 opposed by a contrary gale, we saw a column of 
 birds still persisting in their toil, but at a lower 
 elevation, and changing their worn-out leader ; 
 and the bird on taking his station in the rear was 
 clearly attended for a moment by three or four 
 others of the last, who quitted their stations as if 
 to help him to reach the wake of the line. With 
 regard to the snake-eating habits of the species, 
 the Marabbu, or adjutant bird of India, often 
 classed with storks, is undoubtedly a great de- 
 vourer of serpents, but not so much so as the com- 
 mon peacock ; and that domestic fowls are active 
 destroyers of the young of reptiles, may be ob- 
 served even in England, where they carry off 
 and devour small vipers. The chief resort how- 
 ever of storks, for above half the year, is in cli- 
 mates where serpents do not abound : and they 
 seem at all times to prefer eels, frogs, toads, 
 newts, and lizards ; which sufficiently accounts 
 for their being regarded as unclean (perhaps no 
 bird sacred in Egypt was held clean by the 
 Hebrew law). Storks feed also onfield mice; 
 but they do not appear to relish rats, though they 
 break their bones by repeated blows of their bills. 
 
 In conclusion, Agyst, the Russian (?) name 
 of the stork according to Merrick, does not ap- 
 pear to be related to the Hebrew, unless it could 
 be shown that the Esthonian Aigr or Aigro, applied 
 to the same bird, and the old Teutonic Aigel , Da- 
 nish Hegre, Italian and Provencal Arione, Aigron> 
 denominations of the common heron, are from the 
 same source, and not primitive appellatives ia 
 the great northern family of languages, which, ig 
 must be confessed, are not solitary examples ia 
 vocabularies so remote from each other. Of tfc* 
 
SUCCOTR. 
 
 SUPPER OF THE LORD. 
 
 SW 
 
 analler sized, more solitary black stork, no men- 
 tion need be made in this place, because it is 
 evidently not the bird referred to in the sac-rea 
 writers. — C. H. S. 
 
 STREETS. [Towns.] 
 
 STRIPES. [Punishments.] 
 
 1. SUCCOTH (lYDD, booths ; Sept. 2 
 
 the first encampment of the Israelites on the 
 Egyptian side of the Red Sea (Exod. xii. 37 ; 
 xiii. 20; Num. xxxiii. 5) [Exodus]. 
 
 2. SUCCOTH, a town in the tribe of Gad 
 (Josh. xiii. 27), on the east of the Jordan (Judg. 
 viii. 5 ; 1 Kings vii. 6). The spot in which the 
 town stood is called * the Valley of Succoth,’ and 
 must have been part of the valley of the Jordan. 
 The place derived its name from Jacob having 
 tarried some time there on his return from Padati- 
 aram, and made booths for his cattle (Gen. 
 xxxiii. 17). 
 
 SUMMER. [Palestine.] 
 
 SUPH (P]-1D), translated ‘ flags’ in the Auth. 
 Vers., means some aquatic plant. It is men- 
 tioned in Exod. ii. 3, 5 ; Isa. xix. 6 ; Jonah ii. 6 ; 
 but it is difficult to say whether it may not have 
 been used in a comprehensive sense, as sea-weed 
 is with us, rather than have been confined to one of 
 the plants growing in the sea. The word suph oc- 
 curs in several other passages : these, however, 
 have reference to the Red Sea, which by the He- 
 brews was called Suph Sea. Rosenmuller states 
 that this, ‘ in the Coptic version of the Pentateuch, 
 anti the Psalms, is called by its old Egyptian 
 name, the Shari Sea.’ But Shari, or, as the Greeks , 
 pronounced it, Sari, is the Egyptian name for tan- 
 gles or sea-weeds, of which there is great abund- 
 ance in that sea. In Jonah ii. 5, ‘ sea-weed was 
 wrapped around my head, 1 one of the fuci would 
 seem to be indicated. Lady Calcot.t selects zostera 
 marina, or sea wrack, which resembles them in 
 habit. It has by others been translated juncus , 
 arundo , carex , &c. Rosenmuller says, there is no 
 doubt that a species of sari is denoted by suph, 
 which, according to Pliny, grows on the banks of 
 the Nile. ‘Fruticosi est generis sari, circa Nilum 
 nascens, duorum ferme cubitorum altitudine, 
 pollicari crassitndine ; coma papyri, similique 
 mandilur modo.’ This is supposed to be some 
 reed, or grass-like plant. It is curious that the 
 names sar and sari extend even to India. There 
 is a species of saccharum growing in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Calcutta, which has been named S. 
 Sari by Dr. Roxburgh. — J. F. R. 
 
 SUPPER OF THE LORD (K vpuucSr iettr- 
 vov'), so called by St. Paul in his historical re 
 ference to the Passover Supper as observed by 
 Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed (1 
 Cor. xi. 20 ; Matt. xxvi. 20-31). As regards 
 the day on which our Lord observed the Passover, 
 it seems more proper to say, that the Pharisees, 
 the dominant party among the Jews, deferred its 
 observance a day in accordance with their tra- 
 ditions, than that Jesus anticipated it. What one 
 party considered the fourteenth Nisan, would to 
 the other be the thirteenth. This supposition seems 
 *>est to harmonize any apparent discrepancy in the 
 accounts of the evangelists. 
 
 Several controverted points may perhaps be best 
 adjusted by a connected harmony of the last Pass- 
 over of the Lord, constructed from the evangeli* 
 
 narratives alluding to it, but filling up the va- 
 rious omitted circumstances from the known 
 Passover rites [Passover]. 
 
 ‘ Now, when it was evening, Jesus sat down 
 with the twelve (Matt.) Apostles ’ (Maik). The 
 first customary washing and purifications being 
 performed, the blessing over the first cup of wine, 
 which began the feast, would be pronounced, 
 probably in the usual form — ‘ We thank thee, O 
 God, our Heavenly Father, who hast created the 
 fruit of the vine.’ Considering the peculiarity of 
 the circumstances, and the genius of tr.o new dis- 
 pensation about to be established— that the great 
 Teacher had already declared the superiority of 
 simple forms to the involved traditions of the 
 Jewish doctors, and that his disciples alone were 
 present on this occasion — it may be supposed 
 that, after the blessing over the herbs, the recital 
 of the liturgy (or haggadah) explanatory of the 
 redemption of their ancestors from Egyptian bond- 
 age, would be somewhat simplified, and perhaps 
 accompanied with new reflections. 
 
 Then probably the second cup of wine was 
 mingled, and with the flesh of the paschal lamb, 
 feast-offerings, and other viands, placed before the 
 LorcL ’ ‘ And he said unto them, With desire have 
 I desired to eat this Pascha with you before I 
 suffer ; for I aay unto you, I shall no more eat 
 thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 
 And he took the [second] cup, and gave thanks, 
 and said, Take this, and divide among you, for I 
 say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of the 
 fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall 
 come ’ (Luke). 
 
 When the wine distributed to each would l>e 
 drunk off, one of the unleavened cakes would 
 next be broken, the blessing said over it, and a 
 piece distributed to each disciple, probably with 
 the usual formula : — ‘ This is the bread of afflic- 
 tion which your fathers did eat in the land of 
 Egypt ’ — i. e., not the identical bread, transub- 
 stantiated, but a memorial or sign of it.. The 
 company would then proceed with the proper sup- 
 per, eating of the feast-offeriug, and, after a bene- 
 diction, of the paschal lamb. 
 
 ‘ And as they were at supper,* the Devil having 
 now put it into the heart of judas to betray him ; 
 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things 
 into his hands, and that he was come from God, 
 and was going to God, riseth from supper; and’ 
 after due preparations ‘ began to wash the disci- 
 ples’ feet.’ (John). After this striking symbolic 
 exhortation to humility and mutual service (John 
 xiii. 6-20), ‘ Jesus was troubled in spirit, and 
 bare witness, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, that one of you will betray me. Then the 
 disciples looked on one another, doubting of whom 
 he spake ’ (John). ‘ And they were very sorry, 
 and began each of them to say unto him, Lord, is 
 it I?’ (Matt.) ‘One of the disciples, leaning 
 back on Jesus's breast, saith unto him, Lord, is it 
 I? Jesus answered, He it is to whom 1 shall 
 
 * The translation of the phrase beiirrov yevo- 
 akvov by ‘ supper being ended,’ has much con- 
 fused the various narratives, and led many to 
 think that Judas was present at the Lord's Supper, 
 properly so called. The Irue reading probably is 
 yivogkvov (not yevogkvov), as understood by the 
 Arabic and Persic translators, in the sense 4 while 
 *upper wae about,’ or ‘ during supper-time.’ 
 
SUPPER OF THE LORD. 
 
 SUPPER OF THE LORD. 801 
 
 give a so}.', when I have clipped it. And after 
 dipping the sop he giveth it to Judas Iscariot. 
 Then Satan entered into him. Jesus saith unto 
 him, What thou doest, do quickly. Pie then, on 
 taking the sop, went immediately out; and it was 
 night’ (John). 
 
 The supper would then proceed, until each had 
 eaten sufficient of the paschal lamb and feast- 
 offering. 
 
 ‘And as they were eating, Jesus took the bread,’ 
 the other unleavened cake left unbroken, ‘and 
 blessed’ God ‘and brake it, and gave it to the’ 
 eleven ‘disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my 
 body (Matt., Mark), which is broken for you : 
 this do in remembrance of me ’ (Luke, Paul, 1 Cor. 
 xi. 24). 
 
 The supper being concluded, the hands were 
 usually washed the second time, and the third cup 
 or ‘ cup of blessing ’ (1 Cor. x. 16) prepared, over 
 which the master usually gave thanks for the 
 Covenant of Circumcision, and for the law given 
 to Moses. Jesus, therefore, at this juncture, an- 
 nounced, with peculiar appropriateness, his New 
 Covenant. 
 
 ‘ After the same manner, also, Jesus took the 
 cup after supper, and, having given thanks, gg.ve 
 it to them, saying. Drink all of you out of it ; for 
 this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed 
 for many for forgiveness of sins (Matt.): this do, 
 as oft as ye drink, in remembrance of me ’ (1 Cor. 
 xi. 24). But I say unto you, I shall not drink 
 henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day 
 when I drink it new (ucuv6v) with you in my 
 Father’s kingdom ’ (Matt.). 
 
 ‘ And when they had sung a hymn ’ (Matt.), 
 probably the Hallel, our Lord discoursed long 
 with his disciples about his approaching death 
 f.ud departure (John xiii. 31 ; xiv. 31), and when 
 he had finished lie said, ‘ xWise, let us go hence.’ 
 1 And they went out on to the Mount of Olives ’ 
 (Matt.). 
 
 A multitude of disputes and controversies 
 have existed in the church, from the earliest 
 ages of Christianity, regarding the nature, ob- 
 servance, and elements of the Lord’s Supper. On 
 these points the reader may consult the following 
 works: — Pierce, Waterl and. Cud worth, Hoadley, 
 and Bell, On the Eucharist ; Dr. Wiseman’s Ro- 
 man Calholic Lectures, and Dean Turton’s 
 Reply ; Orme's Lord's Supper Illustrated , Lond. 
 1832; Goodman, On the Eucharist, Lond. 1841 ; 
 Coleman's Christ. Antiq. ; Dr. Halley, On the 
 Sacraments, Lond. 1845 ; De Linde and Mearns’s 
 Prize Essays on the Jewish Passover and Chris- 
 tian Eucharist Lond. 1845. The early church 
 appears, from a vast preponderance of evidence, 
 to have practised communion weekly, on the 
 Lord’s day. The custom, which prevailed during 
 the first seven centuries, of mixing the wine with 
 water, and in the Greek church with hot water, 
 appears to have originated with the ancient Jews, 
 who mingled their thick, boiled wine with water 
 (Mishna, Tr. Ttroomoth, xi.).* The raisin-wine, 
 often employed both by the ancient and modem 
 
 ! 3T* — — 
 
 * Maimonides (in Chometz Vematzah , sect, 
 vii.) states, that the proportion of pure wine in 
 every cup must not be less than the fourth part 
 of a quarter of a hin, besides water which must 
 needs be mingled, tha the drinking of it may be 
 the more pleasant. 
 
 TOL. II 
 
 Jews ( Arbah Turim , §483, date 1300), contain* 
 water of course. Remnants of this custom are 
 still traceable in the East. The Nestorian Chris- 
 tians, as late as the sixteenth century, as we find 
 from the old travellers, celebrated the Eucharis* 
 in such wine, made by steeping raisins one nigh 
 in water, the juice being pressed forth (Osoriue, 
 De Pel. Emanuel, lib. iii. ; Boter, Pel., p. 3, lib. 
 ii. ; Odoard Barboso, ap. Ramum., v. i. p. 313; 
 Prof. Brerewood, On Div. Lang., 1622, p. 147). 
 The Christians of India (said to be converted by 
 St. Thomas) used raisin-wine, as also do some of 
 the Syrian churches at the present day (Ross’# 
 Panseheia 1683, p.492; W. Ainsworth’s Travels 
 in Asia Minor, 1842). The third Conned of 
 Braga would not permit the use of the pure ‘fruit 
 of the vine,’ for they condemned as heretics ‘those 
 who used no other wine but what they pressed 
 out of the clusters of grapes, which were then 
 presented at the Lord’s Table ’ (Bingham, Christ. 
 Antiq., V. ch. ii.). 
 
 It seems to us, however, that the language of 
 Jesus is conclusive on this point. Dr. De Wette 
 (on Matt. xxvi. 29) observes, that ‘ the wine is 
 called new here, in reference to t he future renova- 
 tion of all things at Christ's coming. It refers to 
 an ideal celebration of the supper in a glorified 
 state.’ This is true ; but this able critic should 
 have further explained why the wine must be 
 new rather than the bread. The reason is plainly 
 referable to the kind of wine which the disciples 
 were then drinking. Had Jesus been speaking oil 
 fermented wine he could not have used this lan^. 
 guage, because of such it is said that ‘ the old ik, 
 better than the new ’ (Luke v. 39). But the wine 
 here employed to symbolize the heavenly 02 >spiri T 
 tual feast was of a kind which is best when new, or, 
 as Clement of Alexandria designates it (P&d. ii.), 
 
 ‘ the blood of the vine ,’ which of course' is in its 
 best state when pure and fresh from the vintage. 
 The wine employed at the last Supper of our 
 Lord must, therefore, have been made either fi;ora 
 dried or preserved grapes, or from- the juice fire- 
 served by boiling or by preventing the access ofair. 
 
 As regards the bread, many of the Eastern 
 churches use unfermented bread in the Commu- 
 nion. ‘ The Greek church adopts a leavened 
 bread, but the Roman church has it unleavened; 
 and this difference has been the cause of much 
 controversy, though it seems easy to decide which 
 kind was used by Jesus, the last Supper having 
 been on one of the “ days of unleavened bread,” 
 when no other kind could be eaten in the land of 
 Judaea.’ The Protestant churches, generally, pay 
 little regard to the nature of the elements, but 
 use the ordinary bread, as well as wine, of the 
 country. It was probably from regarding in a 
 similar way the bread and wine as mere ordinary 
 beverage, that some of the ancient sects gave up 
 the wine altogether, and substituted other things. 
 Epiphanius r Hares. 49) and Augustine ( Hares . 
 28) mention an ancient sect of Christians in 
 Phrygia, called Artotyrites, because they used 
 bread and cheese. Others made use of bread and 
 water only; and the third Council of Biaga (ad. 
 675) condemn a custom of communicating in 
 bread and milk. If, however, the elements of 
 the Supper are to be regarded in a symbolic 
 sense, after the manner of the Jewish Passover— 
 if tire language of our Lord is to be applicable to 
 wine In the present day — it would seem that ar- 
 
 52 
 
S02 
 
 SWALLOW. 
 
 SWINE. 
 
 fent’un should he paid, not only to the name, 
 but to the nature of the elements; that the symbol 
 and the things symbolized should naturally cor- 
 respond, and still retain a reference to the ancient 
 Passover. ‘ For,’ as St. Paul observes, * Christ 
 our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let 
 us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with 
 the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with 
 the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth ’ 
 (1 Cor. v. 8).— F. R. L. 
 
 SUSA. [Shusiian.] 
 
 SUSANNAH. [Daniel, Apocryphal ad- 
 denda to.] 
 
 SWALLOW (D'D Sis, and *Y|YT Deror ). 
 The latter is sometimes translated ‘ turtle-dove,’ 
 but it is more properly the 4 swift’ or ‘ black mar- 
 tin,’ and, probably, the Dururi of Alexandria, 
 mentioned by Forskal. The first occurs only in 
 Isa. xxxviii. 14 ; Jer. via. 7 ; the second in Psa. 
 lxxxiv. 3 ; Prov. xxvi. 2, Sis, however, when 
 coupled with “VDJJ Ogur, is by some thought to 
 denote the crane, while the last-mentioned He- 
 brew word denotes the swallow. The Septuagint, 
 Vulgate, and three ancient manuscripts point out 
 the true meaning ; and Bochart with others have 
 established it by learned researches, which leave 
 little to be desired, although Rabbinical writers 
 produce Arabic authority to prove that Sis is the 
 name of a long-legged bird. Sis, however, is an 
 imitative name expressive of the swallow's voice 
 or twitter, and in Dr. Kennicott’s remark, that, in 
 thirteen Codices of Jerem. he read Isis for Sis, 
 we find the source of the ancient fable of the 
 Egyptian Isis being transformed into a swallow. 
 
 The species of Syria and Palestine, so far as 
 fney are known, appear all to be the same as those 
 of Europe: they are, 1. Hirundo rustica, or do- 
 mestica, the. chimney swallow, with a forked tail, 
 marked with a row of white spots, whereof llirundo 
 Syriaca, if at all different, is most likely only a 
 variety. 
 
 2. Hirundo Urbica, the martin or common 
 window swallow. These two are most likely the 
 species comprehended under the name of Sis. 
 
 3. Hirundo Riparia , sand-martin or shore-bird, 
 not uncommon in northern Egypt, near the 
 mouths of the Delta, and in southern Palestine, 
 about Gaza, where it nestles in holes, even on the 
 sea-shore. 
 
 4. Hirundo Assus, the swift or black martin, 
 distinguished by its larger size, short legs, very 
 long wings, forked tail, and by all the toes of the 
 feet turning forward : these, armed with small, 
 crooked, and very sharp claws, enable the bird to 
 hang against the sides of walls, but it cannot vise 
 from the ground on account, of the length of its 
 wings. The last two, but more particularly this 
 species, we take to be the Deror , on account of the 
 name Dururi, already mentioned; which was 
 most probably applied to it, because the swift 
 martin prefers towers, minarets, and ruins to build 
 in, and is, besides, a bird to which the epithet of 
 ‘ free’ is particularly applicable. On the Eu- 
 ropean coast of the Mediterranean it bears the 
 name of Barbota, anil in several parts of France, 
 
 ^including Paris, is known by the vulgar name of 
 Me Juif,’ the Jew ; and, finally, being the largest 
 and most conspicuous bird of the species in Pa- 
 lestine, it is the type of the heraldic martlet, 
 originally applied in the science of blazon as the 
 
 especial distinction of Crusader pilgrims, being 
 borrowed from Oriental nations, where the bird is 
 likewise honoured with the term Hadgi , or PU- 
 
 SH. [The Swift — Dururi.] 
 
 grim, to designate its migratory habits. The 
 Deror being mentioned as building on the altar, 
 seems to imply a greater generalization of the 
 name than we have given it ; for habits of nest- 
 ing in immediate contact with man belong only 
 to the house and window swallows ; but, in the 
 present instance, the expression is not meant to 
 convey a literal sense, but must be taken as re- 
 ferring to the whole structure of the temple, and 
 in this view the swift bears that character more 
 completely than the other. It is not necessary to 
 dilate further on the history of a genus of birds so 
 universally known. — C. H. S. 
 
 SWEARING. [Oath.] 
 
 SWINE (Ttn chazir ). We have already 
 
 noticed these animals [Boar], chiefly as they 
 occur in a wild state, and here refer to the do- 
 mesticated breeds only, because they appear to 
 have been repeatedly introduced and reared by 
 the Hebrew people, notwithstanding the strong 
 prohibitions in the law of Moses (Isa. lxv, 4). 
 
 Egyptian pictures, the parable of the Prodigal 
 Son, and Christ’s miraculous cure of the demo- 
 niac, when he permitted swine to be possessed 
 and destroyed by rushing over a precipice into 
 the sea of Galilee, furnish ample proofs that 
 during the dominion of the Romans they were 
 kept around the kingdom of Judah ; and the re- 
 strictive laws of Hyrcanus on this subject indicate 
 that, the Jews themselves were not altogether 
 strangers to this unlawful practice. Commentators 
 ascribe this abundance of swine to the numerous 
 Pagan sacrifices of these animals in the temples: 
 but we do not deem this to be a sufficiently cor- 
 rect view of the case, since hogs of every denomi- 
 nation were less used for that purpose than oxen, 
 goats, and sheep. May it not be conjectured that 
 in those days of a greatly condensed population 
 tie poor found in swine's flesh, and still more 
 ii Te fat and lard, melted for culinary purposes, 
 as it still is in every part of Pagan Africa, a most 
 desirable aliment, still more acceptable than the 
 salt fish imported from Sidon, to season their usual 
 vegetable diet? * When the melting fire burneth, 
 the fire causeth the w»#ers to boil’ (Isa. Ixiv. 2); 
 and, again, ‘ a broth of abominable things in their 
 vessels ’ (lxv. 4). For, although the Mosaic law 
 
SYCAMINE TREE. 
 
 SYENE. 
 
 803 
 
 justly condemned the use of swine’s flesh, at the 
 time of the departure of Israel out of Egypt, when 
 the state of slavery the people had been in, there 
 is reason to believe, had greatly multiplied leprosy, 
 and, moreover, when it was important to enforce 
 cleanliness among the multitude on many ac- 
 counts ; yet the reasoning of the ancients and of 
 lom men tutors, Rabbinical and medical, regard- 
 ing the unhealthiness of sound pork, in moderate 
 quantities, as a condiment, or more generally as 
 an article of food, is entirely erroneous. For in 
 some provinces of Ancient Persia, the practice 
 of curing animal food was known so early, that 
 the procession of tribute-bearing deputies from 
 the several satrapies, sculptured on the great 
 stairs at Persepolis, represents at least one nation 
 bringing preserved flesh meat, apparently hams, 
 and already, before the conquest of northern Gaul 
 by Caesar, pork and various sausages were ex- 
 ported from Belgium to the Roman capital. 
 Neither in the tropics, nor in the East, during the 
 first centuries of Christianity, or in the era of the 
 Crusades, or among the Christians of the present 
 day, are any ill effects ascribed to the use of swine’s 
 flesh; and the Moslem population, which is debarred 
 the use of this kind of food, is, perhaps, more 
 liable to disease and to the plague than others, 
 because it lacks the stamina of resistance to in- 
 fection, and that supply of digestive nutriment 
 which keeps the alimentary system in a healthy 
 condition. The rich Moslem supply the deficiency 
 by vegetable oils and butter, or ghee : hence, 
 while the wealthy official class multiplies, the 
 poorer classes, for want of a cheap supply of simi- 
 lar ingredients, diminish. As the Mosaic law was 
 abrogated by the Christian, it was plainly meant 
 .to be only temporary ; and if by the decrees of 
 Providence the Gospel is once more to triumph in 
 the land of the first Christian churches, it may 
 hereafter be found that this apparently insignifi- 
 cant agent has been a considerable instrument in 
 the event. — C. H. S. 
 
 SWORD. [Arms.] 
 
 SYCAMINE TREE {'S.vKapuvos) is mentioned 
 only once in the New Testament, in Luke xvii. 
 6, ‘ And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain 
 of mustard-seed, ye might say unto this sycamine- 
 tree,’ &c. From a slight similarity in name, this 
 tree has often been confounded with the sycamore , 
 both by ancient and modern writers. Botli trees 
 are, however, mentioned by the apostle, who must 
 have had the technical knowledge necessary for 
 distinguishing such things. Though the English 
 version avoids translating the word, there can be 
 little doubt of the mulberry-tree being intended; 
 and it is frequently so rendered. Thus, Dios- 
 corides says, Mopea 7 ) 2 vtcafuvea, &c., ‘Mulberry 
 or sycamine is well known.’ Celsius shows 
 ( Hicrobot . i. 290), by quotations from Athenseus, 
 Galen, &c., that the Greeks called it by both 
 names; and Corn. Celsus (De Medicina , iii. 18) 
 says expressly, ‘ Graeci morum avicapivov ap- 
 pellant.’ But still even ancient authors confound 
 it with the sycamore, and therefore modern writers 
 may be excused when so doing. Dr. Sibthorpe, 
 who travelled as a botanist in Greece, for the ex- 
 press purpose of identifying the plants known to 
 the Greeks, says that in Greece the white mul- 
 berry-tree is called fiovpea ; the black mulberry- 
 tree, crit (auev'ia. The mulberry, moreover, is a tree 
 which we might expect to find mentioned in 
 
 Scripture, since it is so common in Palestine. 
 It is constantly alluded to by old travellers, and 
 indeed is much cultivated in the present day, in 
 consequence of its affording food for the silk- 
 worm ; and it must have been common also in 
 
 early times, or the silk-worms would not have ob- 
 tained suitable food when first introduced. As 
 the mulberry-tree is common, as it is lofty and 
 affords shade, it is well calculated for the illus- 
 tration of the above passage of Luke. — J. F. R. 
 
 SYCAMORE is a species of fig, N. Ficus 
 Sycomonis of botanists, and the same as Shik- 
 MOL. J. F. R. 
 
 SYCHAR (2 vxap), a name of reproach ap- 
 plied by the Jews to Shechem [Sheckem]. 
 
 SYCHEM (2ux e V*)> name for Shechem in 
 Acts vii. 16, being that also used in the Septua- 
 gint version of the Old Testament [Shechem]. 
 
 SYENE (rDIp ; Sept. 2idp'?j) a city of Egypt, 
 situated in the Theba'is, on the southern extremity 
 of the land towards Ethiopia (Ptol. iv. 5 ; Plin. 
 Ilist. Nat. v. 10; xii. 8 ; Strabo, pp. 787, 815). 
 Ezekiel, describing the desolation to be brought 
 upon Egypt through its whole extent, says, 
 ‘ Thus saith the Lord, I will make the Land of 
 Egypt utterly desolate, from the tower of Syene 
 even to the border of Cush (Arabia),’ or, as some 
 read, is ‘ from Migdol to Syene,’ implying, ac- 
 cording to either version of the passage, the whole 
 length of the country from north to south. Syene 
 is represented by the present Assouan, which 
 exhibits few remains of the ancient city, except 
 some granite columns of a comparatively late 
 date, and the sekos of a small temple. This 
 building has been supposed by late travellers to 
 have contained the famous well of Strabo ( Geog . 
 xvii. p. 817), into which the rays of a vertical sun 
 were reported to fall during the summer solstice, 
 a circumstance, says the geographer, that proves 
 the place ‘ to lie under the tropic, the gnomon at 
 midday casting no shadow.’ But although exca- 
 vations have been carried on considerably below 
 
S04 
 
 SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 Wfm 
 
 the pavement, which has beem turned up in search 
 of the well it was thought to cover , no other re- 
 sults have been obtained than that this sekos was 
 a very improbable site for such an observatory, 
 even if it ever existed ; and that Strabo was 
 strangely misinformed, since the Egyptians them- 
 selves could never in his time have imagined this 
 city to lie under the tropic , for they were by no 
 means ignorant of astronomy, and Syene was, even 
 in the age of Hipparchus (b.c. 140, when the obli- 
 quity of the ecliptic was about 23° 51' 20"), very 
 far north of that line. The belief that Syene was 
 in the tropic was however very general in the time 
 of the Romans, and is noticed by Seneca, Lucan, 
 Pliny, and others. But, as Sir J. G. Wilkinson 
 remarks, 4 a well would have been a bad kind of 
 observatory if the sun had been really vertical ; 
 and if Strabo saw the meridian sun in a well, he 
 might be sure he was not in the tropic’ (Mod. 
 Egypt and Thebes , ii. 2S6). The same writer 
 adds, 4 Unfortunately the observations of the 
 ancient Greek writers on the obliquity of the 
 ecliptic are not so satisfactory as might be 
 wished, nor are we enabled, especially as La 
 Grange’s theory of the annual change of obliquity 
 being variable is allowed to be correct, to ascertain 
 the time when Assouan might have been within 
 the tropic, a calculation or traditional fact in 
 which, perhaps, originated the erroneous assertion 
 of Strabo.’ The latitude of Assouan is fixed by 
 Wilkinson at 24° 5' 30", and the longitude is 
 usually given as 32° 55'. 
 
 SYNAGOGUE (nD3pn 'PI?), a Jewish place 
 of worship. The Greek, from which the word is 
 immediately derived (away wy tj), denotes ‘ an 
 assembly being similar in meaning to eKKXpala, 
 whence our 4 church ’ is taken. Both terms ori- 
 ginally signified an assembly or congregation ; but 
 afterwards, by a natural deflection of meaning, 
 they both came to designate the building in which 
 such church or assembly met. The Hebrew phrase 
 ( 4 house of assembly’) is more strictly descriptive 
 of the place than were originally 4 synagogue’ and 
 ‘ church.’ The latter word retains its ambiguity ; 
 the former has lost it, signifying now and in the 
 time of our Lord exclusively a building. 
 
 The precise age of the introduction of syna- 
 gogues among the Israelites it does not appear 
 easy to determine. There is a natural tendency 
 among men, nor least among those who are given 
 to letters, to refer institutions back to very early 
 periods ; and the Rabbins surpassed all others in 
 this exaggerating propensity. Hence, we believe, 
 arose the traditionary and Targuminical stories of 
 the extreme antiquity of synagogues. Even a 
 patriarchal origin lias been ascribed to them. But 
 the statements made are unworthy as of credence, 
 so of investigation. It is quite certain that if 
 synagogues were in use in the days of Abraham, 
 we have no evidence to establish this as an histo- 
 rical fact ; and averments which rest on conjecture 
 or legends may well be passed in silence. A 
 passage in Acts (xv. 21) certainly speaks of the 
 antiquity of synagogues in the first century : 
 ‘ Moses of old (4k yeveutv apxaiuu) hath in every 
 city them that preach him, being read in the 
 tynagogues every Sabbath-day.’ But 4 of old ’ is 
 u relative term. The 4 ancient generations ’ here 
 spoken of may not reach back farther than the 
 csta*** from Babylon. If, indeed, Psalm lxxiv. 
 
 was written before the exile, synagogues wer# 
 known previously to that event. This, however, 
 would leave a long interval between the date cf 
 the psalm and the days of the patriarchs untouched 
 and unaffected. The words to which we refer are 
 found in ver. 8 : 4 They have burned up all the 
 
 synagogues of God 'TyiD) in the land.’ 
 
 Ewald (Die Poet. Bucher des Alten Bundes, 2 
 th. p. 293) refers this composition to the time 
 of Nehemiah (b.c. 445). Tholuck gives for its 
 date the year b.c. 5S8, when the kingdom of 
 Judah was overrun by the Cliuldaeans, and the 
 temple plundered and burnt down. The Hebrew 
 words, however, do not necessarily denote syna- 
 gogues. 4 Houses of God 1 is a general term, and 
 may refer to any sacred place. There may be here 
 a reference to the schools of the prophets, preserved 
 by the principle of reverence long after the spirit 
 of prophecy and the pursuits of learning had ceased 
 to fill them with eager pupils. If we might, from 
 2 Kings iv. 23, suppose that at least on festival 
 occasions pious Israelites resorted to the prophets 
 for prayer and advice, we could easily understand 
 how such a practice would spontaneously convert 
 the places where they abode into a species of syna- 
 gogue; and not improbably we may here find the 
 germ out of which the proper synagogue worship 
 arose. Psalm cvii. 32, 4 Let them exalt him also 
 in the congregation of the people, and praise him 
 in the assembly of the elders,’ affords words which 
 will correspond with that worship, but proves 
 nothing as to a prae-exilian custom, since it was 
 written after the return from captivity; for even 
 Tholuck says, ‘ Fredich nach dem Exil 1 (Psalmen 
 fur Geistliche und Laien , p. 343. Halle, 1843). 
 
 The earliest worship was offered to God in what 
 may with propriety be termed his own house — sub 
 divo — before the eye of Heaven, in the open air. 
 But such a temple was too vast for the human 
 mind, which lost, itself in the immensity of space, 
 and needed narrower limits, in order to concen- 
 trate, fix, and inflame its sympathies. Accord- 
 ingly, in the course of time, particular spots were 
 approved of God as worshipping places, till at 
 length one distinguished house of prayer was 
 chosen and established in Zion. The temple- 
 worship, as it was constituted in the days ot 
 David and Solomon, was grand, august, and 
 imposing. Yet can we easily understand how a 
 felt necessity would arise for a more intimate and 
 closer, if it must be also majestic, intercourse ] 
 with God, by the intermediation of certain so- 1 
 lemnities in which all and each of a congregation ij 
 would have an individual share. Nor would this j 
 feeling of want wait for any other condition than 
 an active and somewhat refined religious sense | 
 experienced in a population of which only a small j 
 number pould crowd and find room in the gates 
 of the national temple : so that there is nothing J 
 unreasonable nor imaginary in giving to the J 
 origin of synagogues an earlier date than the I 
 period of the exile. 
 
 To this epoch it is that the origin of synagogues | 
 is generally referred ; and beyond a doubt there J 
 were then peculiar circumstances which called 
 for their establishment. Yet the considerations ■ 
 into which we have gone may possibly warrant 
 the idea that the wish rather developed than ori- 
 ginated the influences out of which the worsnip 
 in question sprung. Unquestionably, however. 
 
SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 then, if not before, synagogues came into exist- 
 ence. A later date cannot well be assigned 
 Deprived of the solemnities of their national wor- 
 ship, yet still retaining their religious convictions, 
 and keenly feeling the loss they had endured, 
 earnestly, too, longing and praying for a restora- 
 tion of their forfeited privileges, the captive 
 Israelites could not help^meeting together for the 
 purposes of mutual sympathy, counsel, and aid, 
 or of prayer and other devout exercises. But 
 prayer makes every spot holy ground. Some 
 degree of secrecy, too, may have been needful in 
 the midst of scoffing and scornful enemies. Thus 
 houses of prayer would arise ; and the peculiar 
 form of the synagogue worship — namely, devotion 
 apart from external oblations — would come into 
 being. It has, indeed, been asserted (Bauer, 
 Gottesd. Verfassung, ii. 125) that synagogues 
 were not known till the time of Antiochus Epi- 
 
 phanes (n.c. 1 74), on the ground that it is then for 
 the first time that the term is used by Josephus — * 
 one more instance added to the hundreds which 
 already existed, of the folly which denies an histo- 
 rical reality to every thing for which positive 
 vouchers cannot be found in the Jewish historian. 
 Such arguments would have some force if Jose- 
 phus had professed to narrate every thing, and 
 left us as many volumes as he has left us chapters. 
 That he did not consider it ' set down in his duty ’ 
 to give an exact history of the origin and progress 
 of the synagogue- worship, may be inferred from 
 the fact that his mention of synagogues is only 
 occasional and en passant. 
 
 The authority of the Talmudists (such as it is) 
 would go to show that a synagogue existed 
 wherever there were ten families. What, how- 
 ever, is certain is, that in the times of Jesus 
 Christ synagogues were found in all the chief 
 
 513. [Jewish Synagogue in Amsterdam 
 
 cities and lesser towns of Palestine. These places 
 are then spoken of as well known, and therefore 
 long-established houses of worship, and obviously 
 formed an essential and recognised portion of the 
 national inheritance. There was a synagogue at 
 Nazareth (Luke iv. 16), one also at Capernaum 
 (Mark i. 21), as well as in the several cities of 
 Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, which had a 
 Jewish population (Acts ix. 2; xiii. 5 ; xiii. 42; 
 xiv. 1 ; xvii. 1, 10 ; xviii. 4 ; xix. 8 ; and see also 
 Joseph. Amiq. xix. 6. 3 ; De Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3). 
 The larger cities had several. In Acts ix. 2, we 
 find Paul asking for letters to Damascus ‘ to the 
 synagogues' 1 (ver. 20). In Jerusalem, one Rab- 
 binical authority (Meg ill. lxxiii.4) represents the 
 number to have been 480 ; another (T. Hieros. 
 Ctuboth, xxxv. 3) *iakes them 460. From 
 
 Acts vi. 9, it appears that every separate tribe 
 and colony had a synagogue in Jerusalem. The 
 reader must not confound synagogues with the 
 TTpoaeoxai, houses of prayer, oratoria, oratories, 
 chapels, places ‘ where prayer was wont to be 
 made’ (Acts xvi. 13), which, as in the place just 
 cited, were mostly near a piece of flowing water, 
 in order to afford the Jews means of observing 
 their custom of washing before prayer (Joseph. 
 Antiq. xiv. 10. 23 ; Deutsch, De Sacris Judceorum 
 ad litora frequenter exstruclis). Synagogues 
 were built sometimes on the outside of cities, but 
 more frequently within, and preferably on elevated 
 spots. At a later period they were fixed near 
 burial-places. A peculiar sanctity was attached 
 to these spots, even after the building had 
 fallen to ruin (Mishna, Megill. 3. 3). In the 
 
SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 
 Synagogue pious Israelites assembled every Sab- 
 bath and festival day, the women sitting apart 
 from the men (Philo, Opp. ii. 458, 630) ; and at a 
 later period, on every second and fifth day of' each 
 week (T. Hieros. Megill. 75. 1 ; T. Babyl. Babd. 
 Kama , 82. 1), for the purposes of common prayer, 
 and to hear portions of the sacred books read ; 
 which was performed sometimes by any one of 
 the company (Luke ii. 16), or, according to 
 Philo (Opp- ii. 630, ed. Mang.), by any one of 
 the priests or elders (tuv Upi W 5e ns 6 irapwv fj 
 Tuy yepouruiv els avayivuxTKei tovs lepovs vopovs 
 abrols Ka\ icaQ ’ cKacrrov e^yetrat), who, as the pas- 
 sage just quoted shows, expounded each particular 
 as he proceeded. The writings thus read aloud 
 and expounded were the Law, the Prophets, and 
 other Old Testament books (Actsxiii. 15; xv. 21 ; 
 Mishna, Megill. 3. 4 ; Eichhorn, Einleit. ins A. 
 T. ii. 458, sq.). The language in which the Scrip- 
 tural passages were read cannot be generally and 
 accurately determined. It doubtless varied ac- 
 cording to circumstances. Ezra (Neh. viii. 8), if 
 he read in the old Hebrew, gave the sense in the 
 Chaldee. The Septuagint translation was in very 
 common use in the time of our Lord, and may 
 have been employed in synagogues. It appears 
 (T. Hieros. .Soda, 7 ) that in Ctesarea, a city more 
 Graecian than Jewish, the prayers were uttered in 
 the Greek tongue. In synagogues out of Palestine, 
 the Greek translation seems to have been read 
 conjointly with the original text. The exposition 
 of the Scripture was doubtless made in each 
 nation in the vernacular tongue; accordingly, in 
 Palestine the worship of the synagogue was con- 
 ducted in Syro-Chaldee. In Egypt, from the 
 time of the Ptolemies, the Greek language was 
 customary in the services of the synagogue. 
 
 The expositor was not always the same person 
 as the reader (Philo, Opp. ii. 458, 476). A 
 memorable instance in which the reader and the 
 expositor was the same person, and yet one dis- 
 tinct from the stated functionary, may be found 
 in Luke iv. 16, sq., in which our Lord read and 
 applied to himself the beautiful passage found in 
 the prophecy of Isaiah (lxi. 4). Tiie synagogue, 
 indeed, afforded a great opportunity for preaching 
 the gospel of the kingdom ; and the reader may 
 well suppose that the novelties of doctrine which 
 weie then for the first time heard within its walls 
 created surprise, delight, wonder, and indignation 
 in the minds of the hearers of our Lord and his 
 apostles, according to their individual spiritual 
 condition. 
 
 After the reading and exposition were con- 
 cluded, a blessing was pronounced, commonly 
 by a priest. The people gave a response by utter- 
 ing the word Amen; when the assembly broke up 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 16). 
 
 Ai, the head of the officers stood the ‘ ruler of 
 the synagogue’ (upxicrwdytryos, HDJDn 
 who had the chief direction of all the affairs con- 
 nected with the purposes for which the syna- 
 gogue existed (Luke viii. 49 ; xiii. 14; Mark v. 
 35, seq. ; Acts xviii. 8 ; Vitringa, Archisynag. 
 Observat. novis Illustrat.'). Next in rank were 
 the elders (Luke vii. 3), called also ‘ heads of the 
 synagogue’ (Mark v. 22; Acts xiii. 15), as well 
 as ‘ shepherds ’ and ‘ presidents,’ who formed a sort 
 of college or governing body under the presidency 
 ef the chief ruler. There was in the third place 
 the "VD^n fW, legatus ecclesice, ‘ the angel of 
 
 SYNAGOGUE, GREAT. 
 
 the church,’ who in the synagogue meetings acttd 
 commonly as the speaker, or as the Protestant 
 minister, conducting the worship of the congre- 
 gation (Mishna, Bosh Hasshana, 4. 9), as well 
 as performed on other occasions the duties of se- 
 cretary and messenger (Schottgen, Hor. Ileb. i. 
 1089, sq.). Then came, fourthly, ‘ the minister ’ 
 (Luke iv. 20), the attendant who handed the 
 books to the reader, was responsible for the clean- 
 liness of the room, and for its order and decency, 
 and opened and closed the synagogue, of which he 
 had the general care. In addition, there probably 
 were almoners or deacons, ilpTV (Matt. vi. 
 2), who collected, held, and distributed the alms 
 of the charitable. 
 
 In regard to the furniture of the synagogue, 
 seats merely are mentioned in the New Testament 
 (Matt, xxiii. 6 ; James ii. 3). The ‘chief seats,’ 
 or rather ‘ front seats’ (irpwTOKaOebpiai), were oc- 
 cupied by the Scribes and Pharisees. The outfit 
 may have been more simple in the days of Christ ; 
 still there was probably then, as well as at a later 
 
 period, a sort of pulpit (£ rjpa, ^130), and 
 
 a desk or shelf (dip 177, 17317 or pTl), for holding 
 the sacred books (Mishna, Berach , v. 3 ; Bosh 
 Hassha?ia, 4.7; Meg ilia, 3. 1; Sabb. 16. 1). 
 Some sort of summary judicature seems to have 
 been held in the synagogues, and punishments of 
 flogging and beating inflicted on the spot (Matt, 
 x. 17; xxiii. 34; Mark xiii. 9; Luke xii. 11; 
 xxi. 12; Acts xxii. 19; xxvi. 11 ; 1 Cor. xi. 22). 
 The causes of which cognizance was here taken 
 were perhaps exclusively of a religious kind. 
 Some expressions in the Talmud seem to imply 
 that a sort of judicial triumvirate presided in this 
 court (Mishna, Sanhed. i. ; Maccoth, 3. 12). It 
 certainly appears from the New Testament that 
 heresy dnd apostacy were punished before these 
 tribunals by the application of stripes. 
 
 The reader may have been struck by some re- 
 semblance between this account and the arrange- 
 ments which prevailed in the early Christian 
 churches. The ‘ angel of the church ’ .(Rev. ii. 1), 
 the pastor, was obviously taken from the syna- 
 gogue. Winer, however, denies that ‘ the mes- 
 sengers of the churches’ (2 Cor. viii. 23) has any 
 connection with the legatus ecclesice. The words 
 ‘ because of the angels’ (1 Cor. xi. 10) have been 
 referred to this same office, — a reference which 
 Winer does not approve. Meier (Commentary 
 in loc.) holds that the allusion is to celestial 
 beings, an idea wlfich he thinks Paul derived 
 from Judaism (Septuagint, Ps. cxxxviii. 1 ; Tobit 
 xii. 12; Burt, Bynag. p. 15; Grotius, in loc.; 
 Eisenmeier, Entdeckt. Juclenth. ii. p. 193). 
 
 The work of Vitringa (De Synagoga Veterum ) 
 remains the chief authority on the subject, though 
 published in 1696. See also Burmann, Exercitt. 
 Acad. ii. 3, sq. ; Reland, Antiq. Sacr. i. 10; 
 Carpzov, Appar. p. 307, sq. ; Hartmann, Verbind. 
 des A. T. mit d. Neuen, p. 225, sq. ; Brown, Anti- 
 quities of the Jews, vol. i. p. 590, sq. — J. R. B. 
 
 SYNAGOGUE, GREAT (nVn|H HD 33), 
 the name applied in the Talmud to an assembly 
 or synod presided over by Ezra, and consisting 
 of one hundred and twenty men, alleged therein 
 to have been engaged in restoring and reforming 
 the worship of the Temple after the return of the 
 Jews from Babylon. We shall here furnisn the 
 evidences of the existence of this assembly. ‘ Tha 
 
SYRIA. 
 
 807 
 
 SYNAGOGUE, GREAT. 
 
 house of judgment of Ezra is that called the 
 Great Synagogue , which restored the crown to 
 its original condition ’ (Chron. j''D!T) ,, , fol. 13). 
 The crown, observes Buxtorf ( Tiberias , ch. x.), 
 ‘was triple, consisting of the law, the priesthood, 
 and the commonwealth f and he explains this by 
 adding that Ezra purified the law and the Scrip- 
 tures generally from all corruptions. Again in 
 the Jerusalem Talmud ( Cod . Megillah, 3) it is 
 said, ‘ When the men of the Great Synagogue 
 arose, they restored magnificence (i. e. the crown 
 of the law) to its pristine state.’ In Pirke Abotli , 
 cap. it is observed that Moses received the law 
 from Mount Sinai, gave it to Joshua, Joshua to 
 the elders, the elders to the prophets, and these to 
 the men of the Great Synagogue and in Tract 
 Yomah, lxix. 2, it is added, ‘ Why is this 
 called by the name of the Great Synagogue ? 
 Because they restored the crown to its pristine 
 state.’ In Megillah, fol. x. 2 : ‘ This is a tra- 
 dition from the men of the Great Synagogue ;’ 
 and in Baba Bathra, fol. 15 : ‘The men of the 
 Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the twelve (minor) 
 prophets, Daniel, and Esther and the glossator 
 explains this by saying ‘ that they collected the 
 books into one volume, and made new copies of 
 them, knowing that the prophetic spirit was about 
 to depart.’ In Pirke Abotli it is added that 
 Simeon the Just was the last survivor of the men 
 of the Great Synagogue. He is supposed to have 
 been contemporary with Alexander the Great (b.c. 
 332), and is said to have completed the canon by 
 adding the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and to 
 have survived forty years the building of the 
 second temple. 
 
 Abarbanel and some of the later Jewish com- 
 mentators have amplified these statements, and 
 some eminent Christian writers have adopted their 
 views in regard to the history of the text of 
 Scripture. We have already seen that several 
 of the fathers held that the books of the law, 
 having been destroyed at the burning of the 
 temple by Nebuchadnezzar, were miraculously 
 restored by Ezra [Esdras]. Buxtorf assumes 
 that the labours of the Great Synagogue con- 
 sisted only in restoring both the law and the 
 entire Scriptures to their integrity, separating the 
 false from the true, and removing corruptions. 
 Carpzov ( Introd . lib. i. ch. i.) observes, in re- 
 ference to this subject, that the account of the 
 restoration by Ezra of the law, which had been 
 burned by Nebuchadnezzar, is ‘ a fAble of the 
 Papists derived from the fathers, but impugned 
 by Bellarmine ( De Verb. Dei , ii. 1), and Natalis 
 Alexander, (Hist. Eccles .) [and others of the 
 Roman church]. Neither,’ he adds, ‘ did Ezra 
 correct and amend the Scriptures, which had 
 been corrupted during the captivity — a papist- 
 ical comment built up by Cornelius a Lapide, 
 (Proem. Com. p. 5), and refuted by our divines 
 (see Calovius) ; nor did he invent the present 
 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in place of the 
 Samaritan — a fable refuted by Buxtorf [Scrip- 
 ture, Holx]. But what Ezra really did was 
 this : he collected the copies of the Scriptures 
 into one volume, purified them by separating the 
 spurious from the genuine, fixed the canon of di- 
 vinely inspired books, and rejected all that was 
 heterogeneous, and finally examined the canonical 
 books, that nothing foreign or depraved should 
 be mixed v p with them, and pointed out the true 
 
 method of readn.g and expon tling them : in 
 which labour he had the assistance of Haggai, 
 Zechariah, Malachi, Nehemiah [Ezra, Mordecai, 
 Simon the Just], and the others, in all cme hun- 
 dred and twenty.’ ‘ It was,’ he observes, ‘ the 
 unshaken principle of both Jews and Christians 
 that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed 
 once for all by Ezra and the men of the Great 
 Synagogue.’ Bellarmine also (l. c.) maintains 
 that although some of the fat tiers supposed that 
 the whole Scriptures had been burned and mira- 
 culously restored by Ezra, as Basil, whose words 
 (Ep. ad Chilon.) are, ‘ Hie campus in quo 
 secessu facto Esdras omnes divinos libros ex 
 mandato Dei eructavit," yet that from the state- 
 ments of Chrysostom, ‘ that out of the remains of 
 the Sbripture Ezra recomposed it of Hilary 
 {Prof, in Psal.'), that ‘Ezra had collected the 
 Psalms into one volume and of Theodoret, that 
 ‘ the Scripture having been depraved in the time 
 of the exile was restored by Ezra — these fathers 
 did not mean to assert that Ezra had restored the 
 whole from memory, but only that he collected 
 into one body the different books which he had 
 found dispersed in various places, and amended 
 such parts as had been corrupted by the negli- 
 gence of transcribers. In opposition to all these 
 views, Le Clerc (Sentiments de quelques Thto- 
 logiens ) maintains that the whole history of the 
 Great Synagogue and t be Esdrine Recension was 
 a Talmudical fable ; in which he was followed 
 by Father Simon and many others. There cer- 
 tainly appears but a very slight foundation foi 
 the superstructure raised by Buxtorf (Tiberias), 
 Carpzov, and Prideaux [Esdras]. That the law 
 and the prophets, however, had not perished, but 
 were read by the Jews during the exile, appears 
 from Dan. ix. 1, 2, 6, 11, 12; comp. Ezra vi. 
 18; vii. 10. 
 
 Genebrard asserts that there were no less than 
 three Great Synagogues, one in a.m. 3610, or 
 b.c. 394, when the Hebrew canon, consisting ot 
 twenty-two books, was fixed; another in 386C 
 (b.c. 144), when Tobit and Ecclesiasticus were 
 added ; and a third in 3950 (b.c. 54), when the 
 whole was completed by the addition of the books 
 of Maccabees. But this statement, being un- 
 supported by any historical proof, has met with 
 no reception. — W. W. 
 
 SYNTYCHE ('ZvvTvxg), a female Christian 
 named in Phil. iv. 2. 
 
 SYRACUSE (hupanovcrai), a celebrated city 
 on the south-east coast of the island of Sicily, 
 It was a strong, wealthy, and populous place, to 
 which Strabo gives a circumference of not less 
 than one hundred and eighty stades. The great 
 wealth and power of Syracuse arose from its trade, 
 which was carried on extensively while it re- 
 mained an independent state under its own kings ; 
 but about 200. b.c. it was taken by the Romans, 
 after a siege rendered famous by the mechanical 
 contrivances whereby Archimedes protracted the 
 defence. Syracuse still exists as a considerable 
 town under its original name, and some ruins 
 of the ancient city yet remain. St. Paul spent 
 three days at Syracuse, after leaving Melita, when 
 being conveyed as a prisoner to Rome (Acts 
 xxviii. 12). 
 
 SYRIA (2upia). This great country is men- 
 tioned under the name of Aram in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, several parts of it being so designated. 
 
SYRIA. 
 
 SYRIA, 
 
 with the addition of a district name; and it is 
 only by putting together the portions thus sepa- 
 rately denominated, that we learn the extent of 
 country which the word indicated among the He- 
 brews [see Aram]. Aram is usually rendered 
 Syria in the Authorized and other versions : 
 and in the time of the kings it more frequently in- 
 dicates the kingdom of which Damascus was the 
 capital than the whole country, or any other part 
 of it. [Damascus.] In the Maccabees the 
 Greek text frequently employs the term * Syria ’ 
 to designate the empire of the Seleucidae ; and in 
 the New Testament it occurs as the name of the 
 Roman province (Matt. iv. 24; Luke ii. 2; 
 Acts xv. 23, 41 ; xviii. 18; xx. 3 ; xxi. 3; Gal. 
 i. 21], which was governed by presidents, and to 
 which Phoenicia and (with slight interruption) 
 Judaea also were attached; for in and after the 
 time of Christ, Judaea was for the most part go- 
 verned by a procurator, who was accountable to 
 the president of Syria. 
 
 The word Syria is of uncertain origin. Some 
 conceive it to be merely a contraction of Assyria, 
 which was sometimes considered as part of it ; 
 while others conjecture that it may have been 
 derived from Sur (Tyre), which may be re- 
 garded as the best known, if not the chief, town of 
 the whole country. The names of both Aram 
 and Syria are now equally unknown in the coun- 
 try itself, which is called by the Arabs Bar- 
 esh-Sham, or simply Esh-Sham, i. e. the country 
 to the left, in contradistinction to Southern 
 Arabia or Yemen, i. e. the country to the right; 
 because when, in order to determine the direc- 
 tion of the cardinal points, the eye is supposed 
 to be directed towards the east, Arabia lies on the 
 right hand, and Syria on the left. It is difficult 
 to define the limits of ancient Syria, as the name 
 seems to have been very loosely applied by the 
 old geographers. In general, however, we may 
 perceive that they made it include the tract of 
 country lying between the Euphrates and the 
 Mediterranean, from the mountains of Taurus and 
 Amanus in the north, to the desert of Suez and 
 the borders of Egypt on the south ; which coin- 
 cides pretty well with the modern application of 
 the name. Some ancient writers, such as Mela 
 (i. 11) and Pliny (v. 13), give to Syria a much 
 larger extent, carrying it beyond the Euphrates, 
 and making it include Mesopotamia, Assyria, 
 and Adiabene. Understood in the narrower and 
 more usual applications, Syria may be de- 
 scribed as composed of three tracts of land, of 
 very different descriptions. That which adjoins 
 the Mediterranean is a hot, damp, and rather un- 
 wholesome, but very fruitful valley. The part 
 next to this consists of a double chain of moun- 
 tains, running parallel from south-west to north- 
 east, with craggy precipitous rocks, devious val- 
 leys, and hollow defiles. The air is here dry and 
 healthy ; and on the western declivities of the 
 mountains arese^n beautiful and highly cultivat- 
 ed terraces, alternating with well-watered valleys, 
 which have a rich and fertile soil, and are densely 
 peopled. The eastern declivities, on the contrary, 
 are dreary mountain deserts, connected with the 
 third region, which may be described as a spa- 
 cious plain of sand and rock, presenting an ex- 
 tensive and almost unbroken level. 
 
 Spring and autumn are very agreeable in Syria, 
 sjad the heat of summer in the mountain districts 
 
 is supportable. But in the plains, as soon as the 
 sun reaches the equator, it becomes of a sudden 
 oppressively hot, and this heat continues till the 
 end of October. On the other hand, the winter 
 is so mild, that orange-trees, tig-trees, palms, and 
 many tender shrubs , and plants fiourish in the 
 open air, while the heights of Lebanon are glitter- 
 ing with snow and hoar-frost. In the districts, 
 however, which lie north and east of the moun- 
 tains, the severity of winter is greater, though the 
 heat of the summer is not less. At Antioch, 
 Aleppo, and Damascus, there are ice and snow for 
 several weeks every winter. Yet, upon the whole, 
 the climate and soil combine to render this coun- 
 try one of the most agreeable residences through- 
 out the East. 
 
 The principal Syrian towns mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture are the following, all of which are noticed 
 under their respective names in the present work : 
 — Antioch, Seleucia, Helbon, Rezeph, Tiphsah, 
 Rehoboth, Hamath, Riblah, Tadmor, Baal-Gad, 
 Damascus, Ilobah, Beth -Eden. 
 
 Syria, when we first become acquainted with 
 its history, was divided into a number of small 
 kingdoms, of which the most important of those 
 mentioned in Scripture was that of which Damas- 
 cus was the metropolis. A sketch of its history 
 is given under Damascus. These kingdoms were 
 broken up, or rather consolidated by conquerors, 
 of whom the first appears to have been Tiglath- 
 pileser. King of Assyria, about 750 B.c. After the 
 fall of the Assyrian monarchy, Syria came under 
 the Chaldsean yoke. It shared the fate of Baby- 
 lonia when that country was conquered by the Per- 
 sians ; and was again subdued by Alexander the 
 Great. At his death in B.c. 323, it was erected 
 into a separate monarchy under the Seleucidae, and 
 continued to be governed by its own sovereigns 
 until, weakened and devastated by civil wars be- 
 tween competitors for the throne, it was finally, 
 about B.C. 65, reduced by Pompev to the condition 
 of a Roman province, after the monarchy had sub- 
 sisted 257 years. On the decline of the Roman 
 empire, the Saracens became the next possessors of 
 Syria, about a.d. 622; and when the crusading 
 armies poured into Asia, this country became the 
 chief theatre of the great contest between the armies 
 of the Crescent and the Cross, and its plains were 
 deluged with Christian and Moslem blood. For 
 nearly a century the Crusaders remained masters 
 of the chief places in Syria ; but at length the 
 power of the Moslems predominated, and in 1180 
 Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, found himself in pos- 
 session of Syria. It remained subject to the sul- 
 tans of Egypt till, in a.d. 1517, the Turkish sul- 
 tan, Selim I., overcame the Memlook dynasty, 
 and Syria and Egypt became absorbed in the 
 Ottoman empire. In 1832, a series of successes 
 over the Turkish arms gave Syria t,o Mehemet 
 Ali, the Pasha of Egypt ; from whom, however, 
 after nine years, it again passed to the Turks, in 
 consequence of the operations undertaken for that 
 purpose by the fleet, under the command of Ad- 
 miral Stopford, the chief of which was the bom- 
 bardment of Acre in November 1840. The 
 treaty restoring Syria to the Turks was ratified 
 early in the ensuing year. See Rosenm filler's Bib. 
 Geograph ., translated by the Rev. N. Morren ; 
 Winer’s Real- Worlerb. s. v. ; Volney’s Travels , ii 
 289, 358 ; Modern Traveller , vol. ii • Napier a 
 War in Syria. 
 
SYRJAC VERSIONS. 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 
 
 m 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. The old Syriac version 
 of the Scriptures is often called the Peshito ; a 
 term in Syriac which signifies simple or single, 
 and which is applied to this version to mark its 
 freedom from glosses and allegorical modes of 
 interpretation (Havernick, Einleit. Erst. Theil. 
 zweite Abtheil. S. 90). The time when tire Peshito 
 was made cannot now be certainly known. Various 
 traditions respecting its origin have been current, 
 among the Syrians, which partake of the fabulous. 
 Jacob of Edessa, in a passage communicated by 
 Gregory Bar Hebraeus, speaks of c those translators 
 who were sent to Palestine by the apostle Thad- 
 deus, and by Abgarus king of Edessa’ (Wiseman, 
 Horce Syriacce, p. 103). This statement is not 
 improbable. There is no good ground for abso- 
 lutely rejecting it. It is true that other accounts 
 are repeated by Bar Hebraeus which must be pro- 
 nounced fabulous ; but the present does not wear 
 the same aspect. Ephrem the Syrian, who lived 
 in the fourth century, refers to the translation 
 before us in such a manner as implies its high 
 antiquity. It was universally circulated among 
 the Syrians in his time ; and accordingly he 
 speaks of it as our version , which lie would 
 scarcely have done had it not then obtained 
 general authority. Besides, it has been shown by 
 Wiseman that many expressions in it were either 
 unintelligible to Ephrem, or at least obscure. 
 Hence this father deemed it necessary to give an 
 explanation of many terms and phrases for the 
 benefit of his countrymen. Such circumstances 
 are favourable to the idea of an early origin. 
 Perhaps it was made in the first century, agreeably 
 to the tradition in Jacob of Edessa. 
 
 Its internal character favours the opinion of 
 those who think that the Old Testament part, of 
 which we are now speaking, was made by Chris- 
 tians. Had it proceeded from Jews, or one Jew, 
 as Simon supposed, it would not have been free 
 from the glosses in which that people so much 
 indulged. It would probably have resolved 
 anthropomorphisms and other figurative expres- 
 sions, as is done in the Sept. ; and have exhi- 
 bited less negligence and awkwardness in render- 
 ing the Levitical precepts (Hirzel, De Pentat. 
 vers. Syr. indole, Commentat. crit.-exeget., p 127, 
 et seq.). Besides, the Messianic passages show 
 that no Jew translated them. Dathe conjectured 
 that the author was a Jewish Christian, which is 
 not. improbable ; for the version does present evi- 
 dence of Jewish influences upon it — influences 
 subdued and checked by Christian opinions, 
 yet not wholly imperceptible. Hence some 
 have thought that use was made of the Targums 
 by the translator or translators. This can scarcely 
 be proved. The Jews were numerous throughout 
 Syria and Mesopotamia, as we learn from Jose- 
 phus ; and their modes of interpretation were 
 prevalent in consequence. There is therefore an 
 approach to the Chaldaic usus loquendi — a simi- 
 larity to Jewish exegesis. If the authors were 
 originally Jews, who had. afterwards embraced 
 Christianity, this indication of Jewish influence 
 is at once accounted for, without having recourse 
 to the supposition that they made actual use of 
 the Targums when translating the original. It 
 is now impossible to tell whether the Septuagint 
 was consulted by the authors of the Peshito. 
 There is indeed a considerable resemblance be- 
 tween i v’d our version, not so much in single 
 
 passages as in general tenor ; but it is not neces- 
 sary to assume that the Greek was used. Perhaps 
 it was afterwards employed in revising and cor- 
 recting the Peshito. The latter was sometimes 
 interpolated out of it in after times (Havernick, 
 p. 92; Hirzel, p. 100; Credner, p. 107). 
 
 It is certain that, it was taken from the original 
 Hebrew. In establishing this position, external 
 and internal arguments uiiite. 
 
 Eichhorn tried to show, from the parts of the 
 version itself, that it proceeded from several per- 
 sons. Without, assenting to all his arguments, or 
 attaching importance to many of his presumptive 
 circumstances, we agree with him in opinion. 
 Tradition, too, affirms t;lu same thing; and the 
 words of Ephrem are favY .irable where he says, 
 on Josh. xv. 28, ‘ since those who translated into 
 Syriac did not understand the signification of the 
 Hebrew wOrd,’&c. (Von Lengerke, Commentalio 
 Critica de Ephr. Syro s. s. interprete, p. 24). 
 
 The Peshito contains all the canonical books 
 of the Old Testament. The Apocryphal were not 
 originally included. They must, however, have 
 been early rendered into Syriac out of the Septua- 
 ginr, because Ephrem quotes them. In his day, 
 the books of Maccabees were wanting in the 
 Syriac ; as also the apocryphal additions to Daniel. 
 After the Syrian church had been divided into 
 different sections, various recensions of t he version 
 were made. The recension of the Ncstorians is 
 often quoted in the scholia of Gregory Bar 
 Hebrseus. According to W iseman, this recension 
 extended no farther than the points appended to 
 the Syriac letters. The Karkapbensian recension 
 is also cited by Bar Hebraeus. For a long time 
 this was supposed to be a separate version, till the 
 researches of Dr. Wiseman at Rome tine w light 
 upon its true character. From the examination 
 of two codices in the Vatican library, he ascer- 
 tained that it was merely a revision of the Peshito, 
 distinguished by a peculiar mode of pointing and 
 a peculiar arrangement of the books, but not de- 
 viating essentially from the common text. In 
 this recension, Job comes before Samuel ; and 
 immediately after Isaiah, the minor prophets. 
 The Proverbs succeed Daniel. The arrangement 
 in the New Testament, is quite as singular. It 
 begins with the Acts of the Apostles, and ends 
 with the four Gospels ; while the epistles of James, 
 Peter, and John come before the fourteen letters 
 of Paul. This recension proceeded from the 
 Monophysites. According to Assemani and 
 Wiseman, the name signifies mountainous, 
 because it originated with those living about 
 Mount Sagara, where there was a monastery of 
 Jacobit^ Syrians, or simply because it was used 
 by them. 
 
 The Peshito in the Old and New Testaments 
 is one and the same version, having been made in 
 the first century of the Christian era. Bishop 
 Marsh, in his notes to Michaelis’s Introduction to 
 the New Testament, contends that the New Testa- 
 ment part was not made till after the canon had 
 been formed, i. e. about the middle of the second 
 century. From the fact, however, of its wanting 
 the books that were not received at once by the early 
 Christians, viz., the second epistle of Peter, the 
 second and third of John, Jude, and the Apoca- 
 lypse, it claims a higher antiquity than th« 
 learned prelate assigns it. Had the version been 
 made in the third century, it is not probable 
 
810 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 
 
 that these epistles would have been wanting. 
 M ichael is therefore seems to have been right in 
 olacing it in the first century. Hug has endea- 
 voured to show that the Peshito hail originally 
 the Apocalypse and the four Catholic epistles 
 which are now wanting, and that they gradually 
 disappeared from the version in the fourth cen- 
 tury ; but his opinion is improbable, as has been 
 shown by Bertholdt and Guerike (Bertholdt, 
 E bile it. th. ii. s. 635 ; Guerike, Einleit. s. 44, 
 not. 1). 
 
 As the Old Testament part was made from the 
 original Hebrew, so the New Testament portion 
 was translated from the original Greek. 
 
 In consequence of the variety observable in the 
 mode of translating different books. Hug supposes 
 that the New Testament proceeded from different 
 hands. This, however, is scarcely probable. The 
 tradition of the Syrians themselves (Assemani, 
 Biblioth. Orient, ii. 4S6) refers it to one person ; 
 and such is the opinion of Eichhorn. The text 
 of it is somewhat peculiar Hug assigns it to the 
 itoivri iicboais. or unrevised text ; while Griesbach 
 thinks that it comes nearer the Occidental than any 
 of the other recensions. Scholz reckons it to the 
 Consiantinopolitan, although he admits that it 
 contains Alexandrian and singular readings. 
 
 The Old Testament Peshito was first printed in 
 the Paris Polyglott, with a translation by Gabriel 
 Sionita. The text is by no means accurate, for 
 the editor supplied deficiencies in his MSS. out. of 
 the Vulgate. It was afterwards printed in the 
 London Polyglott from various MSS. ; but Pro- 
 fessor Roediger pronounces the London edition to 
 have been more carelessly executed on the whole 
 than the Paris one ( Ilallische Lit. Zeit. 1832, 
 No. 5, p. 38). The edition published by Professor 
 Lee in 1823, 4to., for the use of the British and 
 Foreign Bihle Society, is the best. It was ably 
 reviewed by Roediger in the Hall. Lit. Zeit. for 
 1832, No. 4. The best lexicon is Michaelis’s re- 
 print and enlargement of Castell's, published in 
 two parts at Gottingen, 1788, 4to. 
 
 The New Testament Peshito was first made 
 known in Europe by Moses of Merdin, a Syrian 
 priest, who was sent by Ignatius, patriarch of 
 Antioch, in 1552, to Pope Julius III., to acknow- 
 ledge the supremacy of the Roman pontiff in the 
 name of the Syrian church, and also to superin- 
 tend the printing of the Syriac Testament. It 
 was first published at Vienna in 1555, by Albert 
 Widmanstadt, chancellor of Austria under Fer- 
 dinand I. Two MSS, were employed. L. de 
 Dieu subsequently published the Apocalypse from 
 an ancient MS. formerly in the library of the 
 younger Scaliger, and afterwards in that of the 
 university at Leyden, containing part of the 
 Philoxenian or younger Syriac version ; or rather 
 of the translation made by Thomas of Harclea. 
 (Lugd. Bat. 1627, 4to., reprinted witli a Latin 
 version and notes in his Critica Sacra, Amster- 
 dam, 1693, fol.). Pococke published the four 
 epistles, viz., second Peter, second and third John, 
 and Jude, from a MS. in the Bodleian library 
 (Lugd. Bat. 1630, 4to.). This is the only MS. 
 of the Peshito, so far as is yet known, which con- 
 tains these four epistles, together with the Acts 
 and the three Catholic epistles universally ac- 
 knowledged. The character of this version of the 
 four epistles does not generally correspond with 
 that of the Peshito ; on the contrary, it appears to 
 
 betray a later age, and probably belongs to tb« 
 Philoxenian orHeraclean, of which it apparently 
 forms a part. All the parts were collected and 
 printed in the Paris Polyglott along with the 
 Old Testament portion ; and transferred to the 
 London Polyglott, with corrections. The best 
 editions of the New Testament Peshito are the 
 second edition of Schaaf, Lugd. Bat. 4to., 1717 j 
 and that prepared by Professor Lee for the Bible 
 Society, London, 1816, 4to. The best. Lexicon, 
 which also serves as a concordance, is Schaaf’s, 
 in one quarto volume, published at Leyden, in 
 1709, 4to. 
 
 The style of this version is generally pure, the 
 original well translated, and the idioms trans- 
 ferred to the Syriac with ease, vigour, and pro- 
 priety. It need create no surprise that it differs 
 considerably from the Hebrew and Greek MSS. 
 of the Old and New Testaments, since it existed 
 much earlier than the oldest codices now extant. 
 Its assistance in the interpretation of the New 
 Testament is valuable and important Nor is it 
 wholly without its use in the criticism of the 
 same (Winer, De usu vers. Syriacce' N. T. critico 
 caute instituendo, Erlang. 1823, 4to.). See 
 Davidson’s Lectures on Biblical Criticism , the 
 various Introductions to the Old and New Tes- 
 taments, especially those of Havernick and De 
 Wette (last edition) to the Old, and those of 
 Hug, Michaelis (by Marsh), and De Wette (last 
 edition) to the New Testament ; Wiseman, 
 ITorce Syriacce , vol. i., Romae, 1828, 8vo. 
 For the Old Testament Peshito consult also 
 Hirzel, De Pentat. vers. Syr. quam vocant Pe- 
 schito, indole , Lips. 1825, 8vo. ; Credner, Dc Pro- 
 phet arum min. vers. Syr. quam Peschito vocant 
 indole, Gotting. 1827, 8vo. ; C. v. Lengerke, 
 De Ephrcemi Syr. arte hermencutica, Regiom. 
 1831, 8vo., and Comm. crit. de Ephr. Syro s. s. 
 interprete, Hal. 1828, 4to. ; Gesenius, Ueber 
 Jesaia, vol. i. ; Lee, Prolegomena to Bagster's 
 Polyglott; Simon, Ilistoire Critique du V. T. % 
 Paris, 1678, 4to. 
 
 For the New Testament Peshito see also J. G. 
 C. Adler, N. T. versiones Syriacce simplex , 
 Philoxeniana et Ilierosolymitana , denuo exami- 
 natce et ad Jiclem , &c., Halniae, 1789, 4to. ; G. C. 
 Storr, Observations super N. T. versionibus 
 Syriacis , Stuttg. 1772, 8vo. ; J. G. Reusch, 
 Syncs interpres cumfonte N. T. Grceco collatus , 
 Lips. 1741, 8vo. Various Arabic versions have 
 been made from the Old Testament Peshito. 
 These have been already mentioned [Arabic 
 Versions]. The Persian version of the Gospels 
 in the London Polyglott was also derived from 
 the Peshito. Hug thinks that it was made at 
 Edessa {Introduction, §§81, 82, 83). 
 
 Besides the Peshito, Gregory Bar Hehrseus, in 
 the preface to his Horreum Mysteriorum , men- 
 tions two other versions of the New Testament 
 the Philoxenian and the Hardean. 
 
 The Philoxenian was made from the origina 
 Greek into Syriac, in the city of Mabug. It is, 
 so called from Philoxenus or Xenayas, Bishop o\ 
 Mabug or Hierapolis, in Syria. There is some 
 uncertainty in relation to the part which this 
 bishop took in the version. The testimony of 
 Bar Hebraeus is not uniform. In one passage be 
 affirms that it was made in the time of Philo- 
 xenus ; in his Chronicon, that it was done by 
 desire of this bishop ; and in another place of the 
 
SYRIAC VERSIONS. 
 
 same work, that it was his own production. Aghe- 
 laeus (Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. tom. ii. p. 83) 
 states, that the author of it was Polycarp, rural 
 Bishop of Philoxenus. Again, in an Arabic MS. 
 quoted by Assemani, Philoxenus is said to have 
 translated the four Gospels into Syriac. Thus 
 all is uncertainty in regard to the authorship of 
 the version. It cannot be ascertained whether it 
 proceeded in whole, or in part only, from Philo- 
 xenus himself ; or whether Polycarp, acting under 
 his auspices and by his advice, deserves the ho- 
 nour of the work. One thing is certain, that it 
 was made between the years 485 and 518 of the 
 Christian era, most probably in 508. 
 
 No MS. of this version has been yet discovered, 
 either complete or otherwise, so that it is impos- 
 sible to ascertain its intrinsic merit. Bar He- 
 braeus does not quote it. Hence it would seem 
 to have been almost supplanted in his day. It is 
 known to the public only by a few fragments 
 constituting the marginal annotations of a very 
 ancient Vatican MS. examined by Wiseman and 
 numbered 153. The passages were first printed 
 by Wiseman in his Horce Syriacce , p. 178, 
 sq. As far as it is possible to judge from these 
 specimens, the version was much superior to the 
 Peshito, — conclusion which agrees with the 
 Syrian tradition respecting it. 
 
 The Harclean derives its name from Thomas 
 of Harkel or Heraclea, in Syria. Various notices 
 of Thomas’s life have been collected by Bern- 
 stein from ancient authors. He was bishop of 
 Mabug at the conclusion of the sixth and the 
 commencement of the seventh century. From 
 thence he fled into Egypt, and took up his abode 
 in a monastery at Alexandria, where he laboured 
 in amending the Syriac Philoxenian version of 
 the New Testament. From postscripts added by 
 himself it appears that he corrected the Gospels of 
 the Philoxenian after two (some MSS. have three ) 
 Greek MSS. ; the Acts and the Catholic epistles 
 after one. Having, revised and amended the en- 
 tire text with great care, rendering it as conform- 
 able as possible to the Greek copies which he had 
 before him, the work was completed and published 
 in the year of Christ 616. The basis of it was 
 the Philoxenian ; but the Peshito seems to have 
 been also consulted. Still it was not so much a 
 new recension of the Philoxenian, as an addi- 
 tional version of the New Testament; and ac- 
 cordingly it is described as a third translation by 
 Bar Hebraeus. The most complete MS. of this 
 translation which has yet been described, is that 
 which formerly belonged to Ridley, now in the 
 library of New College Oxford. Those who 
 wish to know more of this copy must consult 
 Ridley’s Dissertation concerning the Genius and 
 Use of Syriac Versions of the New Testament 
 (London, 1761), and White's preface io the 
 printed edition of it. It contains all the books of 
 the New Testament except the Apocalypse, and 
 from th® 27th verse of the eleventh chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, to the end of that epistle. 
 The edition of Professor White is the only one of 
 the Harclean version published. It is in four 
 volumes 4 to., Oxford, 1778-1803. The text 
 agrees generally with the Alexandrine family, as 
 might be inferred a priori from the place where 
 it was made. It is now impossible to determine 
 whether the Harclean version embraced originally 
 the entire New Testament. No MS. has yet been 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 8fi 
 
 found which has the Apocalypse. Gregory Bax 
 Hebraeus, who quotes and criticises the version, 
 has no citation from this book — a circumstance 
 favourable to the opinion that it never belonged 
 to the version in question. It is also impossible 
 to determine whether it ever extended to the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 The version is extremely literal. It seems 
 to have been the translator’s endeavour that not 
 a word or syllable of the original should be 
 lost. Accordingly, he has often sacrificed the 
 Syriac idiom to a rigid adherence to the Greek 
 text. The style is inferior to that of the Peshito. 
 Bernstein thus contrasts the two translations: 
 1 In ilia (Simplice) interpretatio est liberior, ver- 
 borum quodque non exprimens, sed sensum eorum 
 per ambitum magis, quam ad fidem enuntians, 
 oratio consuetudini sermonis Syriaci accommoda- 
 tior, elegantior, et inteflectu facilior; haec (Char- 
 klensis) ad verbum facta diligenter archetypum 
 reddit, sed oratio ejus ea ipsa de causa a com- 
 muni Syrorum usu loquendi saepe abhorret, lo> 
 cisque baud paucis obscura est et sine Graeco ex- 
 emplo rix apta ad intelligendum. Ilia Syrorum 
 istius temporis doctorum de Novi Testamenti 
 locis sententias et explicationes refert, bsec Grae- 
 corum praecipuae auctoritatis exemplarium, quae 
 exeunte seculo sexto Thomas Charklensis Alex- 
 andriae, illustri literarum illius temporis sede, in- 
 venit, effigiem mira similifudine exscriptam re- 
 praesentat ’ (p. 38). The same writer has printed 
 a specimen of it along with a speciiqen of the 
 old Syriac ; as also the readings quoted by Bar 
 Hebraeus in his Horreum Mysterioruni. 
 
 From the preceding description it will be seen, 
 that what is usually called the Philoxenian, 
 should be designated the Harclean version. The 
 two are quite distinct. Of the one we know ex- 
 ceedingly little; the other has been printed under 
 the superintendence of White, who erroneously calls 
 it the Philoxenian. (See Wiseman’s Horce Sy- 
 riacce ; Bernstein’s Commentatio de CharMensi 
 Novi Testamenti translatione Syriacd ; Ridley's 
 Dissertatio de Syriacarum Novi Foederis ver- 
 sionum indole atque usu ; Adler’s Novi Testa- 
 menti versiones Syriacce Simplex, Philoxeniana 
 et Ilierosolymitana, &c. ; White's edition of the 
 Harclean, vol. i.; Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal der 
 neuesten Theol. Literatur , tom. xiv. ; Loehnis’s 
 Grundz'uge, pp. 373-4 ; and Davidson’s Lectures 
 on Biblical Criticism.') 
 
 There is also another Syriac version of the 
 New Testament called the Jerusalem or Palces - 
 tino-Syriac , which was discovered by Adler in a 
 Vatican MS. (No. 19). The MS. seems, from 
 the subscription, to have been written in a mo- 
 nastery at Antioch, a.d. 1030. The language is 
 a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac, similar to that 
 of the Jerusalem Talmud, and the character em- 
 ployed is peculiar. The MS. consists merely of 
 a lectionary or evangelistarium , embracing no 
 more than lessons from the four Gospels for all 
 the Sundays and festivals in the year. Internal 
 evidence favours the idea, that this version was 
 made in some part of Syria, subject at the time 
 to the Romans ; probably in the fifth century. 
 The text agrees with the western family. The 
 story of the adulteress, though wanting in the 
 Peshito and Harclean, is given in this version, 
 almost in the same form as that in which it ap- 
 pears in the Codex Bezae. Specimens of it era 
 
81*2 
 
 SYRO-PHCENICIA. 
 
 TABERNACLE. 
 
 given by Adler in his Treatise an Syriac Ver- 
 sions, p. 137, sq. See also Eichhorn's All- 
 gem. Bib/ioth. ii., p. 498, sq. ; and Marsh's Notes 
 lo Mickaelis's Introduction. Dr. Scholz col- 
 lated it for his edition of the Greek Testament. 
 \ Davidson’s Lectures . pp. bo, 66.) — S. D. 
 
 SYRO-PHCENICIA. {XupocpoivUrj), or Phck- 
 .ojicia Proper, called Svro or Syrian Phoenicia, 
 from being included in the Roman province of 
 Syria. It includes that part of the coast of 
 Canaan, on the borders of the Mediterranean, in 
 which the cities of Tyre and Sidon were situated ; 
 and the same country, which is called Syro- 
 Phcenicia in the Acts, is in the Gospels called the 
 coasts of Tyre and Salon. The woman also 
 described as Syro Phoenician (2 vpocpoiviaaa ) in 
 Mark vii. 2-6, is in Matt. xv. 22 called a 
 Canaanitish woman, because that country was 
 still occupied by the descendants of Canaan, of 
 whom Sidon was the eldest son. 
 
 T. 
 
 TAANACH Cq^n ; Sept. QclAk), a royal 
 city of rfie Canaauites (Josh. xii. 21), in the ter- 
 ritory of Issachar, but assigned to Manasseh 
 (Judg. i. 27 ; v. 19 ; Josh. xvii. 11-21 ; 1 Kings 
 iv. 12). Schubert, followed by Robinson, finds it 
 in the modern Taannuk, now a mean hamlet on 
 the south side of a small hill, with a summit of 
 table-land. It lies on the south-western border 
 of the plain of Esdraelon, four miles south of Me- 
 giddo, in connection with which it is mentioned 
 in the triumphal song of Deborah and Barak 
 (Judg. v. 19). Schubert, Morgenland, iii. 164 ; 
 Robinson, Bib. Res. iii. 156 : Bib. Sacra, i. 76. 
 
 TABEAL God is good; Sept. 
 
 T father of the unnamed person on whom 
 Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekab, king of Israel, 
 proposed to bestow the crown of Judah in ease 
 they succeeded in dethroning Ahaz (Isa. vii. > . 
 Who ‘ Tabeal’s son’ was is unknown, but it is 
 conjectured that he was some factious and pow- 
 erful Kphraimite (perhaps Zichri, 2 Chron. xxviii. 
 7), who promoted the war in the hope of this result. 
 
 TABERAH, one of the stations of the Israel- 
 ites in the desert. [Wandering.] 
 
 TABERNACLE (1VV2 hriS, tent of assem- 
 bly, from the root “EA, to fix or appoint time and 
 place of a meeting'). Kimchi explains the name 
 thus : ‘ And thus teas called the “lyiD be- 
 
 cause the Israelites xoere assembled and congre- 
 gated there , and also because he (Jehovah) met 
 there with Moses,’ &c. It is also called 
 rrnyn, or nnyn tent of testimony, from 
 
 Tiy, testari, to witness. The Septuagint almost 
 constantly use3 the phrase cncTpd? too yaprupiov, 
 and in Kings viii., (TKyvcaya rev yaprvpiov, not dis- 
 tinguishing the roots I])' and *Tiy. The Vulgate 
 has tabernaculum foederis, tent of the covenant. 
 With this rendering agrees Luther's Stiftshiitte. 
 The Chaldee and Syrian translators have 
 N7DT pPB, tent of festival. 
 
 We may distinguish in the Old Testament 
 three sacred tabernacles : I. The Ante-Sinaitic, 
 which was probably the dwelling of Moses, and 
 
 was placed by the camp of the Israelites in th* 
 desert, for the transaction of public business. 
 Exod. xxxiii. 7, ‘ Moses took the Jabernacle, and 
 pitched it without the camp, afar off from the 
 camp, and called it the tabernacle of the congre 
 gation. And it came to pass, that every on# 
 which sought the Lord went out unto the taber- 
 nacle of the congregation, which was without the 
 camp. And it came to pass, when Moses went 
 out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose 
 up, and stood every man at his tent doth-, and 
 looked after Moses until he was gone into the 
 tabernacle. And it came to pass, as Moses en- 
 tered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar de- 
 scended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, 
 and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the 
 people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the taber- 
 nacle door : and all the people rose up and wor- 
 shipped, every one in his tent, door.’ 
 
 II. The Ante-Sinaitic tabernacle, which had 
 
 served for the transaction of public business 
 probably from the beginning of the Exodus, 
 was superseded by the Sinaitic : this was con- 
 structed by Bezaleel and Aholiab as a portable 
 mansion-house, guildhall, and cathedral, and 
 set up on the first day of the first, month in the 
 second year after leaving Egypt. Of this alone 
 we have accurate descriptions. Philo (Opera, ii. 
 p. 146) calls it lepbu (popyriv, and Josephus 
 ( Antiq . iii. 6. 1), vabs yera(pep6yevos kci) 
 avyiTepii/oaruv, a portable travelling temple. Ii 
 is also sometimes called ‘ temple’ (1 Sam. 
 
 i. 9, iii. 3). 
 
 III. The Davidic tabernacle was erected by 
 David in Jerusalem for the reception of the ark 
 (2 Sam. vi. 12), while the old tabernacle remained 
 to the days of Solomon at Gibeon, together with 
 the brazen altar, as the place where sacrifices were 
 offered (1 Chron. xvi. 39, and 2 Chron. i. 3). 
 
 The second of these sacred teuts is, as the most 
 important, called the tabernacle par excellence. 
 Moses was commanded by Jehovah to have it 
 erected in the Arabian desert, by voluntary con- 
 tributions of the Israelites, who carried it about 
 with them in their migrations until after the con- 
 quest of Canaan, when it remained stationary for 
 longer periods in various towns of Palestine. 
 
 The materials of which this tent was composed 
 were so costly, that sceptics have questioned 
 whether they could be furnished by a nomadic 
 race. The tabernacle exceeded in costliness and 
 splendour, in proportion to the slender means of a 
 nomadic people, the magnificence of any cathe- 
 dral of the present day, compared with the wealth 
 of t he surrounding population. It is, however, 
 remarkable that. Moses was directed by Jehovah 
 to collect, the means for erecting the tabernacle, 
 not by church-rates, but by the voluntary prin- 
 ciple. The mode of collecting these means, and 
 the design of the structure, are fully described in 
 Exod. xxv. to xxvii., and in xxxv. to xxxvii. ; 
 which the reader should peruse in connection 
 with the following remarks : ‘And the Lord spake 
 unto Mokes, saying, Speak unto the children of 
 Israel, that they bring me an offering : of every 
 man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye 
 shall take my offering. And this is the offering 
 which ye shall take of them ; gold, and silver, 
 and brass, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and 
 fine linen, and goats’ hair, and rams’ skins dyed 
 red, and badgers’ skins, and shitfim-wotd,’ &«v 
 
TABERNACLE. 
 
 TABERNACLE. 
 
 813 
 
 In addition to these voluntary contributions, the 
 half shekel redemption-money, which every adult 
 male paid in substitution of the first-born, was 
 applied to the casting of the sockets on which the 
 boards rested — in the whole 100 talents, and 1775 
 shekels. Of the 100 talents were cast 100 sock- 
 ets, and of the remaining 1775 shekels were made 
 hooks, platings, and bands for the pillars (Exod. 
 xxx. 13 ; xxxviii. 24-28). Public worship was 
 also maintained by various fines and trespass- 
 offerings (Lev. v. 15; xxvii. 3; Num. iii. 47 ; 
 vii. 55). 
 
 The graphic description given in Exodus indi- 
 cates that the framework of the tabernacle consisted 
 of perpendicular gilded boards of acacia wood. 
 These boards were fixed into silver sockets, and 
 were kept together by means of golden rings, 
 through which transverse bars were passed. Over 
 this wooden framework four coverings were spread, 
 the first of which consisted of byssus, or of a fine 
 cotton texture, dark blue, purple, and scarlet, 
 into which the representations of cherubim were 
 woven. The second was somewhat larger than 
 the first, and consisted of a texture made of the 
 very fine wool which grows between the hair of 
 some breeds of goats. The third covering was a 
 pall, made of red morocco leather; and the 
 fourth was also a pall of a stronger leather, more 
 capable of resisting inclement weather. It was 
 probably made of sealskins, which were furnished 
 by the Red Sea. The first and second of these 
 coverings consisted of several curtains, which 
 were connected with each other by means of 
 golden hooks and eyes. 
 
 In the pictorial illustrations the four coverings 
 of the tabernacle are usually represented as being 
 all spread over the wooden frame, so as to hang 
 down outside the boards. But this seems, as Ba.hr 
 remarks, not quite correct. The splendid cover- 
 ing of blue and purple byssus, with interwoven 
 images of cherubim, was suspended by ho6ks and 
 eyes within the boards, so that the inside of the 
 tabernacle was covered entirely as with costly 
 tapestry. 
 
 The entrance was turned towards the east, and 
 was closed by means of a splendid curtain 
 of byssus, into which figures were woven. This 
 curtain was supported by fine wooden columns, 
 which were plated with gold. Against incle- 
 ment weather the curtain was protected, ac- 
 cording to the statement of Josephus, by a 
 linen covering. The interior of the tabernacle 
 was divided into two rooms. The sanctuary was 
 twenty cubits long, ten cubits wide, and ten 
 high. The holy of holies was ten cubits square, 
 and ten high, and was separated from the sanc- 
 tuary by a curtain, into which the figures of 
 cnerubim were woven, and which was sup- 
 ported by four columns plated with gold. The ta- 
 bernacle was surrounded by a sort of court-yard, 
 which was one hundred cubits long and' fifty 
 cubits wide, and was surrounded by columns, 
 from which cotton curtains were suspended. The 
 entrance was twenty cubits wide, and was closed 
 by a suspended curtain. In the holy of holies 
 stood the ark of the covenant. In the sanctuary 
 was placed on the north the table with the twelve 
 loaves of shewbread, together with cups, saucers, 
 &c. ; opposite to this table towards the south 
 6tood the golden candlestick with six branches; 
 *« the middle, between the table and the candle- 
 
 stick, stood the altar of incense. In the court 
 under the open sky stood the altar of burnt offer- 
 ings, and between this altar and the sanctuary 
 was placed the brazen laver. 
 
 Among the pictorial il lustrations of the struc- 
 ture of the tabernacle, those lately published by 
 Captain W. llhind are distinguished by their 
 beauty. 
 
 The typology of the tabernacle has been ex- 
 plained by divines of former centuries in a rather 
 daring manner. Salomon Van Til, in his Com - 
 mentatio de Tabernaculo Mosis, is very explicit 
 in his typological statements. For instance : 
 
 ‘ Considerare oportet materiam quae est. lignum 
 fragile, ita quoque ecclesia colligitur ex homini- 
 bus ejusdem conditionis, dum omnes natura 
 fragiles sunt.’ The vjood of the tabernacle sig- 
 r.ifies the fragility of men constituting the 
 Church. ‘ Ornatus ab auro introductus est em- 
 blema correctae frag ili tat is, scilicet vocati sancti 
 intus gloriosi sunt propter dona spiritualia una 
 cum justitia Christi imputata..’ The golden or- 
 naments signify that the fragility of the saints 
 has been removed by the spiritual gifts and the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ. ‘Tegumenta 
 pellicea rubelacta inclemeutiae aeris exposita, 
 quidni nobis sint emhlemata martyrum sanguine 
 Christi et suo tinctorum? nam sicut tegumenta 
 pellicea ilia ex mactatis animalibus detracta 
 luerant, ita quoque martyres occisi etmactati per 
 memoriam martyrii sui ecclesiae quasi exuvias 
 reliriquunt perpetuo ostentandas, quod diligen- 
 tissime factum est in martvrologiis.’ The skins 
 dyed red arc emblems of the martyrs whose ex- 
 ample is exhibited in the martyrologies, &c. 
 
 Vestiges of typological interpretations occur 
 even in Philo (Opera, ii. p. 14G, sq.) ;. Josephus 
 (Antiq. iii. 7. 7); Clem. Alex. (Stromata, V. 
 p. 562, sq.), and Hieronymus (Ep. 64, ad Fabiol.) 
 Compare Witsii Miscellanea Sacra, i. 318, sq. ; 
 Kraft ii Observationes Sacrce, i. p. 136 ; and 
 Balir's Sytnbolik Medosas ischen Cultus. 
 
 We do not belong to those who either deny or 
 overlook the symbolism of the Old Testament in 
 general, or that of the tabernacle in particular. 
 It appears to us, however, that the interpretations 
 and applications of the t.ypologians are generally 
 more arbitrary and less cogent than the psycho- 
 logical and moral facts which the history of the 
 tabernacle places before our observation, and to 
 which the Epistle to the Hebrews refers. 
 
 Compare the cognate articles Aaron ; Altar ; 
 Akk; Cherubim ; Court; Elders ; Ei.eazar ; 
 Gershonites ; Incense ; Koiiathites ; Korah- 
 ites; Laver; Levites; Merarites ; Offer- 
 ings; Priests; Sacrifices; $hew-bread ; 
 Sea, Brazen; Uiiim and Thummim, &c. 
 
 Besides the works of S. van Til and Be hr, 
 compare also Eh. Conrad., De Generali Taber- 
 naculi Mosis Structura et Figura, Offenbach, 
 1712; Bh. Lamy, De Tabernaculo Foederis 
 libri septem, Paris, 1720 ; J. G. Tympe, Taber- 
 naculi e Monumentis Descript io, Jena, 1731 ; 
 Benzelii Dissertationes , ii. 97, sq.; Millii Mis- 
 cellanea Sacra, Amit. 1754, p. 329, sq. ; Teb. 
 Ran. De Us quce ex Arabia in usum Taberna - 
 culi fuerant petita, Ultraject. 1753, ed. J. M. 
 Schrockh, Lips. 1755 ; V. Meyer, Bibeldeutung, 
 p. 262, sq. ; Description de I'Egypte, Yol. i. 
 pi. ii. A. fig. 4; Michelangelo Lanzi, La Sacra 
 Scrittura illustrata con monum. Fenico Assiri 
 
814 TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. 
 
 ed Egiziani, Roma, 1827, fol. ; Winer, Real- 
 Worterbuch, art. ‘ Stiftshutte.’ — C. H. F. B. 
 
 TABERNACLES, FEAST OF (rilSDnan; 
 
 in Josephus aK-gvoirqyia ), one of the three great 
 festivals of the Jews, being that of the closing 
 year, as the Passover was of the spring. In Lev. 
 xxiii. 34-43, directions for observing the feast are 
 given in very clear terms. It was to commence 
 ou the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Tisri), 
 and consequently five days after the great day of 
 annual atonement ; it was to last for seven days ; 
 the first day and the following eighth day were 
 to be Sabbaths; seven days were offerings to be 
 made : ‘ And ye shall take you on the first day the 
 boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, 
 and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the 
 brook ; ye shall dwell in booths seven days, and 
 ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, when 
 ye have gathered in the fruit of the land ; that 
 your generations may know that I made the 
 children of Israel to dwell in booths when I 
 brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (comp. 
 Num. xxix. 13-34). The festival was therefore 
 commemorative of the divine goodness as exer- 
 cised towards the Jews when they were wandering 
 in the desert, as well as expressive of gratitude 
 for the supply of the rich fruits of the earth ; and 
 so was fitted t<s awaken the most lively feelings 
 of piety in the minds of the Hebrews in each 
 successive generation. Nor would it be a small 
 enhancement of the joy felt on the occasion that 
 the solemn purification of the day of atonement 
 had just taken place, leaving the heart open to 
 free and unrestrained emotions of pleasure. It is 
 equally clear that such an observance was a very 
 important element in that system of education, by 
 facts, customs, and institutions, which formed so 
 marked a peculiarity in Mosaism, and must have 
 proved most effectual for the religious and moral 
 training of the young, and for the confirming of 
 the mature and the aged in their great national 
 convictions and remembrances. That the influ- 
 ence of the Feast of Tabernacles was of a general 
 character appears from the fact that it required 
 the actual presence in Jerusalem of all Israelites 
 (Deut. xvi. 15, sq. ; xxxi. 10; Zech. xiv. 16; 
 John vii. 2). Still more to further the educa- 
 tional and religious aims of the observance, Moses 
 commanded that every Sabbatical year, ‘ in the 
 solemnity of the year of release, in the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear 
 before Jehovah thy God, thou shalt read this law 
 before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the 
 people together, men and women, and children, 
 and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that 
 they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear 
 Jehovah, and observe to do all the words of this 
 law ; and that their children, which have not 
 known [the event commemorated], may hear and 
 learn to fear Jehovah, as long as ye live in the 
 land, whither ye go over Jordan to possess it’ 
 (Deut. xxxi. 10-13). After reading a command 
 so full and emphatic as this, and after con- 
 templating the important purposes designed to 
 be promoted, one is not a little surprised to read 
 in Winer ( Real-Worterbuch , ii. 8) that this fes- 
 tival was not celebrated, or at least not legiti- 
 mately celebrated, before the Babylonish Captivity. 
 In the first place we complain of the vagueness 
 and uncertainty of such a sta ‘ement. Whether 
 
 TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. 
 
 does Winer mean that the feast was not jb 
 served at all ? or that it was only partially ob- 
 served? These are very different propositions, 
 and must rest on very different evidence. The 
 only authority for his statement to which Winer 
 refers is Neh. viii. 17, where, after a description of 
 the observance of the festival on the part of the 
 returned exiles, it is added, ‘ since the days of 
 Joshua, the son of Nun. unto that day hail not 
 the children of Israel done so.’ These words make 
 one thing clear, namely, that Winer is wrong 
 in saying that the feast was not kept before the 
 Captivity ; for they clearly imply that during the 
 days of Joshua, that which they deny to have 
 taken place after his days, did take place then. 
 But what do they deny? The observance of the 
 festival ? No, but the manner merely of such ob- 
 servance, which must have varied somewhat with 
 the lapse of time and the great changes that 
 were successively introduced into the solemnities 
 of the national worship. From the writings of 
 the Rabbins we learn, 1. That those who took 
 part in the festival bore in their left hand a branch 
 of citron, and in their right a palm branch, en- 
 twined with willows and myrtle. In 1 Sam. vii. 6, 
 we read that in Samuel’s days, with a view to 
 cleanse themselves from Baalim and Ashtaroth, 
 the Israelites gathered together to Mizpeh, and 
 drew water, and poured it out before Jehovah, 
 and fasted on that day, and said, ‘ We have 
 sinned against Jehovah.’ 2. A similar libation 
 of water took place on each of the seven days (Isa. 
 xii. 3; John vii. 37) ; at the time of the morning 
 oblation a priest drew from the fount of Siloam 
 water in a jar holding three logs, and poured it 
 out, together with wine, into two channels or 
 conduits, made on the west side of the altar, the 
 water into the one, the wine into theotner; in- 
 tending thereby, if we may judge from the terms 
 employed in the passage of the book of Samuel, to 
 signify ami pray for moral purification, and also, 
 not improbably, to bring to mind the value and 
 supply of water during the journey ings in the wil- 
 derness, while the grand choral symphonies of the 
 temple music and sacred song swelled and re- 
 verberated around. 3. In the outer court of 
 the women there began, on the evening of the first 
 day, an illumination on great golden candle- 
 sticks, which threw its light over the whole ,of 
 Jerusalem ; and a dance by torch-light (the torches 
 being made from the priest’s cast-off linen), at- 
 tended by song and music, was performed before the 
 candelabra. To this illumination our Lord has been 
 thought to allude, when he says, ‘ I am the litrht 
 of the world ’ (John viii. 12), as in his words, ‘ If 
 any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink ’ 
 (John vii. 37), he is supposed to have referred to 
 the libation on the seventh day (Succa, Mishna , 
 v. 2-4 ; Tosaphta, in Ugolini, Thes. tom. xviii. ; 
 Succa, iii. 12). From the passage in Nehemiah 
 (viii. 13, sq.) it appears that it was customary in 
 Jerusalem and all the cities to ‘ go forth unto the 
 mount and fetch olive branches and pine branches, 
 and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and 
 branches of thick trees, to make booths.’ It is 
 added, ‘ So the people made themselves booths, 
 every one upon the roof of his house, and in 
 their courts, and in the courts of the house of 
 God, and in the street of the water-gate, and the 
 street of the gate of Ephraim.’ From the details 
 given in this article, it appears that the Feast of 
 
TABITHA. 
 
 TABOR. 
 
 815 
 
 Tabernacle* was a season of universal joy. Je- 
 rusalem bore the appearance of a cam]). The 
 entire population again dwelt in tents, but not 
 with the accompaniments of travel, fatigue, and 
 solicitude ; all was hilarity, all wore a holiday 
 appearance ; the varied green of the ten thousand 
 branches of different trees ; the picturesque cere- 
 mony of the water- libation, the general illumina- 
 tion, the sacred solemnit.es in and before the 
 temple ; the feast, the dance, the sacred song ; the 
 full harmony of the choral music; the bright joy 
 that lighted up every face, and the gratitude 
 at ‘ harvest home,’ which swelled every bosom, 
 — all conspired to make these days a season 
 of pure, deep, and lively joy, which, in all its 
 elements, finds no parallel among the observances 
 of men. Plutarxh ( Sympos . iv. 5) has found in 
 the Feast of Tabernacles a Dionysian or Baccha- 
 nalian festival. He could trace any outward re- 
 semblance there was between the Jewish and his 
 own heathen festivals, but the deep and appro- 
 priate moral and spiritual import of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles he was unable to discern (Biel, 
 De Sacrificio aquce in scenar. festo vino misceri 
 solito , Vit. 1716; Reland, Antiq. Sacr. iv. 5; 
 Carpzov, Appar. p. 414, sq. ; Nicolaus, De Phyl- 
 iobolia , Thes. in Ugolini, tom. xxx.). 
 
 TABITHA (Ta/3i6d antelope ), the Aramsean 
 name of a Christian female, called in Greek 
 Dorcas (A ootids), resident at Joppa, whose bene- 
 volent and liberal conduct, especially in pro- 
 viding the poor with clothing, so endeared her to 
 the Church in that place, that on her death they 
 sent for Peter, then six miles off at Lydda, im- 
 ploring him to come to them. Why they sent is 
 not stated. It is probable that they desired his 
 presence to comfort and sustain them in their 
 affliction. That they expected he would raise 
 her from the dead is less likely, as the Apostles 
 had not yet performed such a miracle, and as 
 even Stephen had not been restored to life. But 
 the Apostle, after fervent prayer to God in the 
 chamber of death, bade the corpse arise; on which 
 Tabitha e opened her eyes, and when she saw 
 Peter, she sat up.’ This great miracle was not 
 only an act of benevolence, but tended to give 
 authority to the teaching of the Apostles, and to 
 secure attention for the doctrines which they 
 promulgated (see Acts ix. 36-42). 
 
 1. TABOR (TOFl ; TcuOfiap-, ©aficlop ; 'irafiv- 
 oiov , a mountain on the confines of Zebulun 
 and Naphtali, standing out in the north-east 
 border of the plain of Esdraelon, the name of which 
 appears among Greek and Roman writers in the 
 forms of Itabyrion and Atabyrion, and which is now 
 
 known by the name ofjjl? Jebel Tur. It 
 
 is mentioned in Josh. xix. 22; Judg. iv. 6 ; viii. 
 IS; Ps. lxxxix. 12; Jer. xlvi. 1-8; Hos. v. 1). 
 Mount Tabor stands out alone and eminent 
 above the plain, with all its fine proportions from 
 base to summit displayed atone view. It lies at 
 the distance of two hours and a quarter south of 
 Nazareth. According to the barometrical mea- 
 surements of Schubert, the height of Tabor above 
 the level of the sea is 1748 Paris feet, and 1310 
 Paris feet above the level of the plain at its base. 
 Seen from the south-west, it presents a semi- 
 globi lar appearance ; but from the north-west, it 
 more resembles a truncated cone. By an an- 
 
 cient path, which winds considerably, one may 
 ride to the summit, where is a small oblong 
 plain, with the foundations of ancient buildings. 
 The view of the country from this place is very 
 beautiful and extensive. The mountain is of 
 limestone, which is the general rock of Pales- 
 tine. The sides of the mountain are mostly 
 covered with bushes, and woods of oak trees (ilex 
 and ajgilops), with occasionally pistachio trees, 
 presenting a beautiful appearance, and affording 
 a fine shade. There are various tracks up its 
 sides, often crossing one another. The ascent 
 usually occupies an hour, though it has beer, 
 done in less time. The crest of the mountain is 
 table-land, of some six or seven hundred yards in 
 height from north to south, and about half as much 
 across; and a fiat field of about an acre occurs 
 at a level of some twenty or twenty-five feet lower 
 than the eastern brow. There are remains of 
 several small ruined tanks on the crest, which 
 still catches the rain-water dripping through the 
 crevices of the rock, and preserves it cool and 
 pure, it is said, throughout the year. The view 
 from the summit, though one edge or the other of 
 the table-land, wherever one stands, always in- 
 tervenes to make a small break in the distant 
 horizon, is declared by Lord Nugent to be the 
 most splendid lie could recollect having ever seen 
 from any natural height. This writer cites an 
 observation made many years ago, in his hearing, 
 by Mr. Riddle, that he had never been on any 
 natural hill, or rock, or mountain, from which 
 could be seen an unbroken circumference with a 
 radius of three miles in every part. This, his 
 lordship says, has been verified in all his own 
 experience, and it was so at Mount Tabor, although 
 there are many abrupt points of vantage ground 
 on the summit (. Lands Classical and Sacred , ii. 
 204, 205). 
 
 This mountain is several times mentioned in the 
 Old Testament (Josh. xix. 12, 22; Judg. iv. 6, 
 12, 14); but not in the New. Its summit has 
 however been usually regarded as the ‘ high 
 mountain apart,’ where our Lord was transfigured 
 before Peter, James, and John. But the proba- 
 bility of this is opposed by circumstances 
 which cannot be gainsaid. It is manifest that 
 the Transfiguration took place in a solitary place, 
 not only from the word ‘ apart,’ but from the 
 circumstance that Peter in his bewilderment pro- 
 posed to build ‘ three tabernacles ’ on the spot 
 (Matt. xvii. 1-8; Luke ix. 28-36). But we 
 know that a fortified town occupied the top of 
 Tabor for at least 220 years before and 60 years 
 after the birth of Christ, and probably much be- 
 fore and long after (Polybius, v. 70. 6; Joseph. 
 Antiq. xiv. 6. 3 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 8. 7 ; ii. 20. 1 ; 
 iv. 1. 8 ; Vita , § 37) ; and the tradition itself can- 
 not be traced back earlier than towards the end of 
 the fourth century, previously to which we have 
 in the Onomasticon notices of Mount Tabor, with- 
 out any allusion to its being regarded as the sit? 
 of the Transfiguration. It may further be re- 
 marked that this part of Galilee abounds with 
 ‘ high mountains apart,’ so that in removing the 
 scene of this great event from Tabor, there is no 
 difficulty in providing other suitable s^tes for it 
 (Robinson, Bibl. Researches , iii. 210-227 ; Lord 
 Nugent, u. s., ii. 198-204 ; Schubert, Morgenland , 
 iii. 174-180; Burckhardt, Syria, pp. 332-336, 
 Stephens, ii. 317-19 ; Elliot, ii. 364). 
 
81 G 
 
 TABOR. 
 
 TADMOR. 
 
 2. TABOR is also the name of a grove of oaks 
 in the vicinity of Benjamin, in 1 Sam. x. 3, the 
 topography of which chapter is usually much em- 
 barrassed by the groundless notion that Mount 
 Tabor is meant. 
 
 3. TABOR, a Levitical city in Zebulun, si- 
 tuated upon Mount Tabor (1 Chron. vi. 62). 
 
 TABRET. [Musical Instruments.] 
 
 TABRET. [Weights and Measures.] 
 TACHMAS (DDnri, Lev. xi. 16; Deut. xiv. 
 15) is mentioned as one of the unclean birds in the 
 Pentateuch, but so little characterised that no de- 
 cided opinion can be expressed as to what species is 
 really intended. Commentators incline to the belief 
 that the name imports voracity, and therefore indi- 
 cates a species of owl, which, however, we take to 
 be not this bird, but the lilith ; and as the 
 
 night-hawk of Europe ( Caprimulgus Europaus ), 
 or a species very nearly allied to it, is an inha- 
 bitant of Syria, there is no reason for absolutely 
 rejecting it in this place, since it belongs to a genus 
 highly connected with superstitions in all coun- 
 tries ; and though a voracious bird among moths 
 ( Phalence ) and other insects that are abroad 
 during darkness, it is absolutely harmless to all 
 other animals, and as wrongfully accused of 
 sucking the udders of goats, as of being an 
 indicator of misfortune and death to those who 
 happen to see it 11 y past them after evening twi- 
 light ; yet, beside the name of * goatsucker,' it is 
 denominated ‘night-hawk’ and ‘night-raven,’ as 
 if it were a bulky species, with similar powers of 
 mischief as those day birds possess. The night- 
 hawk is a migratory bird, inferior in size to a 
 thrush, and has very weak talons and bill ; but the 
 gape or mouth is wide; it makes now and then a 
 plaintive cry, and preys on the wing; it Hies with 
 the velocity and action of a swallow, the two 
 genera being nearly allied. Like those of most 
 night birds, the eyes are large and remarkable, 
 and the plumage a mixture of colours and dots, 
 with a prevailing grey effect. ; it is finely webbed, 
 and entirely noiseless in its passage through the 
 air. Thus the bright eyes, wide, mouth, sudden 
 and inaudible flight in the dusk, are the original 
 causes of the superstitious fear these birds have 
 excited; and as there are in southern climates 
 other species of this genus, much larger in size, 
 with peculiarly contrasted colours, strangely dis- 
 posed feathers on the head, or paddle-shaped 
 single plumes, one at 'each shoulder, projecting 
 in the form of two additional wings, and with 
 plaintive loud voices often uttered in the night, 
 all the species contribute to the general awe they 
 have inspired in every country and in all ages. 
 We see here that it is not the bulk of a species, 
 nor the exact extent of injury it may inflict, 
 that determines the importance attached to the 
 name, but the opinions, true or false, which 
 the public may have held or still entertain 
 concerning it. The goatsucker is thus confounded 
 with owls by the Arabian peasantry, and the 
 name massasa more particularly belongs to it. 
 But that the confusion with the lilith is not con- 
 lined to Arabia and Egypt, is sufficiently evident 
 from the Sclavonic names of the bird, being in 
 Russian, lilo/e, lelek ; Polish, lelek ; Lithuanian, 
 lehlis ; and Hungarian, egeli ; all clearly allied 
 to the Semitic denomination of the owl — C. H. S. 
 
 TADMOR n ; Sept. &ortp6p) or Ta- 
 mar (“1DD), a town built by King Solomon 
 (1 Kings ix. 18; 2 Clnon. viii. 4). The name 
 Tamar signifies a palm-tree, and hence the Greek 
 and Roman designation of Palmyra, ‘ city ©f 
 palms ;' but this name never superseded the 
 other among the natives, who even to this day 
 give it the name of Thadmor. The form Tamar 
 seems more ancient than that of Tadmor. It is 
 found in the text ( kethib ) of 1 Kings ix. 18, while 
 the latter stands in the margin (fieri): but in 
 the later historical book ‘ Tadmor, ’..having become 
 the usual designation, stands in the text without 
 any various reading. Palm trees are still found 
 in the gardens around the town, but not in such 
 numbers as would warrant, as they once did, the 
 imposition of the name. Tadmor was situated 
 between the Euphrates and Hamath, to the south- 
 east of that city, in a fertile tract or oasis of the 
 desert. It was built by Solomon probably with 
 the view of securing an interest in and com- 
 mand over the great caravan traffic from the 
 east, similar to that, which he had established in 
 respect of the trade between Syria and Egypt. 
 See this idea developed in the Pictorial Bible , 
 note on 2 Chron. viii. 4 ; where it is shown at 
 some length that, the presence of water in this 
 small oasis must early have made this a station 
 for the caravans coming west through the desert ; 
 and this circumstance probably dictated to So- 
 lomon the importance of founding here a garrison 
 town, which would entitle him — in return for the 
 protection he could give from the depredations of 
 the Arabs, and for offering an intermediate station 
 where the factors of the west might meet the 
 merchants of the east — to a certain regulating 
 power, and perhaps to some dues, to which they 
 would find it more convenient to submit than to 
 change the line of route. It is even possible that 
 the Phoenicians, who took much interest in this 
 important, trade, pointed out to Solomon the 
 advantage which he and his subjects might de- 
 rive from the regulation and protection of it, 
 by building a fortified town in the quarter where 
 it was exposed to the greatest danger. A most 
 important indication in favour of these conjec- 
 tures is found in the fact that all our information 
 concerning Palmyra from heathen writers, de- 
 scribes it as a city of merchants, who sold to the 
 western natives the products of India and Ara- 
 bia, and who were so enriched by the traffic that 
 the place became proverbial for luxury and 
 wealth, and for the expensive habits of its ci- 
 tizens. 
 
 We do not again read of Tadmor in Scripture, 
 nor is it likely that the Hebrews retained posses- 
 sion of it long after the death of Solomon. No 
 other source acquaints us with the subsequen' 
 history of the place, till it reappears in the ac- 
 count of Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 24), as a consider- 
 able town, which, along with its territory, formed 
 an independent state, between the Roman and 
 Parthian empires. In the time of Trajan, how- 
 ever, it was lying waste ; but it was rebuilt by 
 his successor Adrian, and from him took the 
 name of Adrianopolis. From Caracalla it re- 
 ceived the privileges of a Roman colony. Dur- 
 ing the weak administration of the emperors 
 Gallienus and Valerian, in the third century, 
 while independent governments were rising ia 
 
TADMOR. 
 
 TAD M OR. 
 
 sn 
 
 several provinces of the Roman empire, Oden- 
 jitus became master of Palmyra and the whole of 
 Mesopotamia, and assuming the regal title him- 
 self, also bestowed it upon his consort Zenobia, 
 and his eldest son Herod. After his death, Ze- 
 nobia, styling herself queen of the East, ruled 
 over most of the eastern provinces of the Roman 
 empire, as well as over her .own territories, with 
 so much firmness and policy, that Aurelian, who 
 vanquished her and led her in triumph to Rome, 
 could not withhold his admiration. On the 
 revolt of Palmyra shortly after, Aurelian, having 
 recovered possession of it, caused it to be levelled 
 with the ground, and the greater part of the inha- 
 bitants to be put to death. He, however, ordered 
 
 the temple of the sun to be restored, placed a gar- 
 rison in the town, and appointed a deputy over the 
 district attached to it. Diocletian adorned the 
 city with additional buildings ; and under the 
 Emperor Honorius it still had a garrison, and waa 
 the seat of a bishop. Justinian strengthened the 
 fortifications, and also constructed a very costly 
 aqueduct, the remains of which still exist. When 
 the successors of Mohammed extended their con- 
 quests beyond the confines of Arabia, Palmyra 
 was one of the first places which became sub- 
 ject to the klialifs. In the year 659, a battle 
 was here fought between the khalifs Ali and 
 Moawiyah, and won by the former. In 74 J 
 it was still so strongly fortified that it took th* 
 
 514. [Palmyra.] 
 
 khalif Merwan seven months to reduce it, the 
 rebel Solyman having shut himself up in it. 
 From this period it seems to have gradually 
 fallen into decay. Benjamin of Tudela, who 
 was there towards the end of the 12th century, 
 speaks of it as ‘ Thadmor in the desert, built by 
 Solomon of equally large stones (with Baalbec). 
 This city is surrounded by a wall, and stands in 
 the desert, far fiom any inhabited place. It is 
 four days’ journey from Baa’lath (Baalbec), and 
 contains 2000 warlike Jews, who are at war 
 with the Christians and with the Arabian sub- 
 jects of Noureddin, and aid their neighbours the 
 Mohammedans.’ In connection with this state- 
 ment, it may be remarked that the existing in- 
 scriptions of Palmyra attest the presence of Jews 
 there in its most flourishing period, and that 
 they, in common with its other citizens, shared 
 in the general trade, and were even objects of 
 public honour. One inscription intimates the 
 erection of a statue to Julius Schalmalat, a Jew 
 for having at his own expense conducted a cara- 
 van to Palmyra. This was in a.d. 258, not long 
 von. u. 53 
 
 before the time of Zenobia, who, according to 
 some writers, was of Jewish extraction. Irby and 
 Mangles ( Travels , p. 273) also noticed a Hebrew 
 inscription on the architrave of the gieat colonnade, 
 but give no copy of it, nor say what it expressed. 
 The latest historical notice of Tadmor which we 
 have been able to find is, that it was plundered 
 in 1400 by the army of Timur Beg (Tamer- 
 lane), when 200,000 sheep were taken (Ran- 
 kin, Wars of the Mongols'). And Abulfeda, 
 at the beginning of the fourteenth century (Arab. 
 Descript, p. 98), speaks of Tadmor as merely a 
 village, but celebrated for its ruins of old and 
 magnificent edifices. These relics of ancient art 
 and magnificence were scarcely known in Europe 
 till towards the close of the seventeenth century. 
 In the year 1678, some English merchants at 
 Aleppo resolved to verify, by actual inspection, 
 the re]>orts concerning these ruins which existed 
 in that place. The expedition was unfortunate ; 
 for they were plundered of every thing by the 
 Arabs, and returned with their object unaccom- 
 plished. A second expedition, in 1691, had 
 
818 
 
 TADMOR. 
 
 TAHPANHE3. 
 
 better success ; but the accounts which were 
 brought back received little credit : as it seemed 
 unlikely that a city which, according to their 
 report, must have been so magnificent, should 
 have been erected in the midst of deserts. When, 
 however, in th» year 1753, Robert Wood pub- 
 lished the views and plans, which had been taken 
 with great accuracy on the spot two years before, 
 by Dawkins, the truth of the earlier accounts 
 could no longer be doubted ; and it appeared 
 that neither Greece nor Italy could exhibit an- 
 tiquities which in point of splendour could rival 
 those of Palmyra. The examinations of these 
 travellers show that the ruins are of two kinds. 
 The one class must have originated in very remote 
 times, and consists of rude, unshapen hillocks of 
 min and rubbish, covered with soil and herbage, 
 such as now alone mark the site of the most 
 ancient cities of Mesopotamia and Babylonia, 
 and among which it would be reasonable to seek 
 any traces of the more ancient city of Solomon. 
 The other, to which the most gorgeous monu- 
 ments belong, bears the impress of later ages. 
 It is clear from the style of architecture that the 
 later buildings belong to the three centuries pre- 
 ceding Diocletian, in which the Corinthian order 
 of pillars was preferred to any other. 
 
 The ruins cover a sandy plain stretching along 
 the bases of a range of mountains called Jebel 
 Belaes, running nearly north and south, dividing 
 the great desert from the desert plains extending 
 westward towards Damascus, and the north of 
 Syria. The lower eminences of these mountains, 
 bordering the ruins, are covered with numerous 
 solitary square towers, the tombs of the ancient 
 Palmyrenes, in which are found memorials simi- 
 lar to those of Egypt. They are seen to a grfcat 
 distance, and have a striking effect in this desert 
 solitude. Beyond the valley which leads through 
 these hills, the ruined city first opens upon the 
 \iew. The thousands of Corinthian columns of 
 white marble, erect and fallen, and covering an 
 extent of about a mileatid abalf, present, an appear- 
 ance which travellers compare to that of a forest. 
 The site on which the city stands is slightly ele- 
 vated above the level of the surrounding desert 
 for a circumference of about ten miles ; which the 
 Arabs believe to coincide with the extent of the 
 ancient city, as they find ancient remains when- 
 ever they dig within this space. There are in- 
 deed traces of an old wall, not more than three 
 miles in circumference ; but this was probably 
 built by Justinian, at a time when Palmyra had 
 lost its ancient importance and become a deso- 
 late place ; and when it was consequently desirable 
 to contract its bounds, so as to include only the 
 more valuable portion. Volney well describes 
 the general aspect which these ruins present: — ‘In 
 the space covered by these ruins we sometimes 
 find a palace, of which nothing remains but the 
 court and walls ; sometimes a temple whose 
 peristyle is half thrown down ; and now a portico, 
 a gallery, or triumphal arch. Here stand groups 
 of columns, whose symmetry is destroyed by the 
 fall of many of them ; there, we see them ranged 
 in rows of such length that, similar to rows of 
 trees, they deceive the sight and assume the ap- 
 pearance of continued walls. If from this strik- 
 ing scene we cast our eye3 upon the ground, 
 another, almost as varied, presents itself : on all 
 rides we behold nothing but subverted shafts, 
 
 some whole, others shattered to pieces, or dishy 
 cated in their joints ; aod on which side soevei 
 we looked, the earth is strewed with vast stones, 
 half buried ; with broken entablatures, mutilated 
 friezes, disfigured reliefs, effaced sculptures, vio- 
 lated tombs, and altars defiled by dust.’ 
 
 It may be right to add, that the account which 
 has been more recently given of these ruins by 
 Captains Irby and Mangles, is a much less glow- 
 ing one than those of other travellers, English and 
 French. They speak indeed with admiration of 
 the general view, which exceeded anything they 
 had ever seen. But they add, ‘ Great, however, 
 was our disappointment when, on a minute exa- 
 mination, we found that there was not a single 
 column, pediment, architrave, portal, frieze, ot 
 any architectural remnant worthy of admiration.’ 
 They infirm us that none of the pillars exceed 
 four feetln diameter, or forty feet in height; that 
 the stone scarcely deserves the name of marble, 
 though striking from its snowy whiteness ; that 
 no part of the ruins taken separately excite any 
 interest, and are altogether much inferior to those 
 of Baalbec; and that the plates in the magnifi- 
 cent work of Messrs. Wood and Dawkins do far 
 more than justice to Palmyra. Perhaps this dif- 
 ference of estimate may arise from the fact that 
 earlier travellers found more wonderful and 
 finished works at Palmyra than their information 
 had prepared them to expect; whereas, in Ihe 
 latter instance, the finished representations in the 
 plates of Wood’s great work raised the expecta- 
 tion so highly, that their disappointment inclined 
 the mind to rather a detractive estimate of the 
 claims of this ruined city — Tadmor in the wil- 
 derness. The present Tadmor consists of num- 
 bers of peasants’ mud huts, clustered together 
 around the great temple of the sun. This temple 
 is the most remarkable and magnificent ruin of 
 Palmyra. The court by which it was enclosed 
 was 179 feet square, within which a double row 
 of columns was continued all round. They were 
 390 in number, of which about sixty still remain 
 standing. In the middle of the court stood the 
 temple, an oblong quadrangular building, sur- 
 rounded with columns, of which about twenty 
 still exist, though without capitals, of which they 
 have been plundered, probably because they were 
 composed of metal. In the interior, at the south 
 end, is now the humble mosque of the village. 
 
 The remains of Palmyra, not being of any 
 direct Scriptural interest, cannot here be more 
 particularly described. Very good accounts of 
 them may be seen in Wood and Dawkins, Ruins 
 of Palmyra , otherwise Tadmor in the Desert ; 
 Irby and Mangles, Travels ; Richter, IVallfahr - 
 ten ; Addison, Damascus and Palmyra. The 
 last work contains a good history of the place , 
 for which see also Rosenmiiller’s Bib. Geoy. 
 translated by the Rev. N. Morren ; and in particu- 
 lar Cellarius, Dissert, de Imp. Palmyreno, 1693. 
 Besides Wood’s great work, excellent views of 
 the place have been published by Cassas in bis 
 Voyage Pittoresque de la Syrie ; and more re 
 cently by Laborde in his Voyage en Orient. 
 
 TAHASH-SKINS. [Rams’-Skins, Red.] 
 TAHPANHES (DnjSpn), or Teha.pu- 
 nehes (Dnjjpnri), a city of Egypt. The for* 
 mer name is used by Jeremiah (ii. 16 ; xliii. 
 7-9; xliv. 1 : xlvi. 14), and the latter by Es* 
 
TAHPENES. 
 
 TALMUD. 
 
 619 
 
 fciel (xxx. 18). The Sept, render it by T d<pvn, 
 T dtpvcu, the name of a goddess, Tphnet (Cham- 
 pollion, pp.121, 123). This was doubtless Daphne, 
 a strong boundary city on thePelusiac arm of the 
 Nile (Herodot, ii. 30, 107). A mound called 
 Tel Defenneh, nearly in a direct line between the 
 moda-n Zan and Pelusium, is supposed from its 
 name and position to mark the site of Daphne 
 (Wilkinson, Mod. Egypt., i. 447). Isaiah (xxx. 
 4) names it in the abbreviated form Hanes. It 
 was to this place that Johanan and his part y re- 
 ]' aired, taking Jeremiah with them, after the 
 murder of Gedaliah. 
 
 TAHPENES (D\ibnn, head of the age , 
 Sept. ©e/ce/uVas), a queen of Egypt, consort of the 
 Pharaoh contemporary with David. Her sister 
 was given in marriage to Hadad, the fugitive 
 prince of Edom (1 Kings xi. 19) [HadadJ. 
 
 TaLMAI full of furrows ; Sept, 
 
 king of Geshur, and father of David’s 
 wife Maacah, the mother of Absalom (2 Sam. iii. 
 3 ; xiii. 37 ; 1 Chron. iii. 1, 2) [Geshur]. 
 
 TALMUD. The Talmud doctrine, 
 
 from TE&, to learn ) is the work which embodies 
 the civil and canonical law of the Jewish people. 
 It contains those rules and institutions by which, 
 in addition to the Old Testament, the conduct of 
 that nation is regulated. Whatever is obligatory 
 on them, besides the law, is recorded in this work; 
 Here doubts are resolved, duties explained, cases of 
 conscience cleared up, and the most minute cir- 
 cumstances relative to the conduct of life dis- 
 cussed with wonderful particularity. Hence the 
 contents of the Talmud are of a diversified cha- 
 racter, relating not merely to religion, but to phi- 
 losophy, medicine, history, jurisprudence, and the 
 various branches of practical duty. 
 
 The Jews have been accustomed to divide their 
 law into written and unwritten — the former being 
 contained in the Pentateuch ; the latter having 
 been handed down orally, until circumstances 
 compelled them to commit it also to writing. 
 The oral law is an interpretation of the written , 
 and constitutes the text of the Talmud. To the 
 oral law the same antiquity is assigned as be- 
 longs to the written. According to the Jews, 
 Moses received both on Mount Sinai. It was 
 received by Joshua from Moses ; Joshua again 
 delivered it to the seventy elders, from whom it 
 was received by the prophets, who transmitted it 
 to the men of the great synagogue, the last of 
 whom was Simon the Just. From the men of the 
 synagogue it was received by the Rabbins. After 
 the second destruction of Jerusalem under Adrian, 
 and the consequent dispersion of the Jews t hrough- 
 out the world, fears were entertained lest the oral 
 traditions which they held so sacred should be 
 lost, particularly as their number rendered it in- 
 convenient, or rather impossible, to preserve them 
 in the memory. Hence arose the necessity of 
 committing them to writing, that they might be 
 banded down from age to age as a national trea- 
 sure. It is generally agreed that Rabbi Judah 
 Hakkadosh (i. e. the holy ) made the first perma- 
 nent record of them, about 120 or 150 years from 
 the destruction of the Temple, a.d. 190 or 220. 
 Morin, however, has assigned a much later date, 
 Vi*, the sixth century, relying chiefly $n the fact 
 
 that Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, make no 
 mention of such a work ( Exercitationes Biblica , 
 lib. ii. exercit. vi. cap. 2, p. 294, sq.). But the 
 circumstances adduced by this learned and 
 ingenious writer are not conclusive in favour 
 of his peculiar opinion. R. Judah is said to 
 have lived under Antoninus Pius. Such was 
 the origin of the Mishna or text. It must not be 
 supposed, however, that all the traditional inter- 
 pretations or midrashim were embodied in the 
 official Mishna. Many others existed which were 
 not incorporated in that work. 
 
 A twofold commentary, or series of commen- 
 taries, was subsequently appended to it; one called 
 the Babylonian Gemara, the other the Jerusalem 
 Gemara. The former ^as begun by R. Asche, 
 who died a.d. 427, and was completed a.d. 500. 
 It is the work of several Rabbins, whose names 
 continue to be venerated by the learned Jews. 
 Morin indeed thinks that it was not finished till 
 the commencement of the eighth century ; but in 
 this sentiment he has not been followed. These 
 portions, committed to writing after the Mishna, 
 constitute notes on that text , and make up, toge- 
 ther with it, the Babylonian Talmud. 
 
 The Jerusalem Gemara proceeded from the aca- 
 demy at Tiberias, and embodied the comments of 
 the Palestinian Jews. It is said to have been 
 written chiefly by R. Jochanan, rector of that 
 academy. It is not agreed when R. Jochanan 
 lived ; but most writers follow Buxtorf, who places 
 him in a.d. 230. David Ganz prefers 270 ; while 
 Moses Maimonides, Abarbanel, Simeon Mikke- 
 non, and Elias Levita, fix upon a.d. 370. But 
 internal evidence shows that it was composed 
 towards the end of the last half of the fourth cen- 
 tury, which would agree nearly with the opinion 
 of Maimonides. Hence R. Jochanan could not 
 have been the principal author. Morin, Vossius, 
 and Pezronius, assign to this Gemara a later date. 
 According to Vossius, it was begun in a.d. 655, 
 and finished in 727. Morin refers it to the seventh 
 century ; while Pezronius fixes it between 6 1 4 and 
 628. Morin alludes to the occurrence of Gothic 
 and other barbarous words, and to the name Turcs 
 which is found in it. Such evidence is scarcely 
 conclusive. The Jerusalem Talmud has contri- 
 buted to the Babylonian, since there are evident 
 traces of it in the latter. 
 
 From this statement it will be seen that the two 
 Talmuds differ in their Gemaras or notes upon 
 the text, while both, have the same Mishna. The 
 term mishna* (H^D) signifies repetition, from 
 !W, to repeat, because it is, as it were, a repetition 
 of the written law, or a second law (Sevrepacris). 
 The word gemara (fcODjl), according to Buxtorf, 
 denotes completion or supplement, inasmuch as it 
 completes the work ; but it is better to regard it 
 as synonymous with talmud, ‘doctrine,’ from the 
 Aramaean T10J, to learn, equivalent to the Hebrew' 
 ^ID?. By the J ews the Babylonian is always pre- 
 ferred to the Jerusalem Talmud. It is far more 
 copious and abundant in its expositions. Hence, in 
 speaking of it, they call it the Talmud, while the 
 other is never mentioned without prefixing the name 
 Jerusalem. Yet Christians generally value the 
 Jerusalem Talmud more than the Babylonian : its 
 brevity and succinctness recommend it to them ; 
 besides, it is generally free from the absurdities 
 and fables of the other ; it is, however, more diiS 
 
820 
 
 TALMUD. 
 
 cult to be understood ; both, indeed, partake of 
 obscurity. The Mishna is written in the Hebrew 
 dialect, but the Gemara in Aramaean. The for- 
 mer is tolerably pure, and free from the admix- 
 ture of foreign terms, but the latter contains many 
 Persian, Greek, and Latin words — a circumstance 
 which contributes to the difficulty of understand- 
 ing it. The style of the Babylonian Gemara 
 differs from that of the Jerusalem commentary. 
 The latter is more in the Palestinian dialect, ap- 
 proaching to the Syriac. 4 The almost uncon- 
 querable difficulty of the style,' says Lightfoot, 
 
 ‘ the frightful roughness of the language, and the 
 amazing emptiness and sophistry of the matters 
 handled, do torture, vex, and tire him that reads 
 them (the Talmudic authors). They do every- 
 where abound with trifles in that manner, as 
 though they had no mind to be read; with obscu- 
 rities and difficulties as though they had no mind 
 to be understood ; so that the reader hath need of 
 patience all along, to enable him to bear both 
 trifling in sense, and roughness in expression.’ 
 
 The Mishna is divided into six parts, 
 DniD, or, in the abbreviated form, D 
 
 1. The first “HD seder, i. e. order, disposition , 
 division, is called D'JTlT VID seder zernim, the 
 order of seeds. It treats of sowing, the produc- 
 tions of the earth, herbs, trees, the uses of fruits, 
 of seeds, &c. &c. 
 
 2. The second is called Y1D seder moed, 
 the oi'der of festivals , and is occupied with a 
 statement of the times when the festivals should 
 begin and when they should terminate, as also of 
 the different rites and ceremonies to be observed 
 at such seasons. 
 
 3. “HD seder nashim, the order of too- 
 men. This section discusses the distinctive rights 
 of men and women, marriage, divorce ; the cus- 
 toms, inclinations, and sicknesses of women, &c. 
 
 4. D'iTT} “HD seder nezikim, the order of 
 damages. This division treats of the losses and 
 injuries which one may be the means of bringing 
 on another, of the damages done by cattle, of resti- 
 tution, of the punishment to be inflicted for such 
 offences or losses, &c. &c. 
 
 5. D'fcHp HD seder kodashim, the order of 
 holy things, treating of sacrifices, oblations, their 
 different species, &c. &c. 
 
 6. JVnnD T1D seder taharoth, the order of 
 purifications , relative to the purity and impu- 
 rity of vessels, to household furniture and other 
 things, and the way in which they should be pu- 
 rified. 
 
 Each of these D'TID is subdivided into several 
 JYlHDDD massictoth , treatises, or tracts, which 
 again are subdivided into D'p*l tiperakim, sections 
 or chapters. 
 
 i. tpjnt VID. 
 
 1. JYD^Q 1"I3D?0 masscceth berachoth, the 
 treatise of blessings, containing precepts relative 
 to prayers and thanksgivings for the fruits of the 
 earth and other blessings given by God ; instruc- 
 tions in relation to the times, places, and modes 
 in which such prayers should be offered up. This 
 treatise contains nine chapters. 
 
 2. HKD rDDD masseceth peak, treatise of the 
 earner. This treatise shows how corners of the 
 harvest fields should be left to the poor at the 
 tint of reaping, and how the fruits of the field 
 
 TALMUD. 
 
 should be gathered. Ht re there are eight chap 
 ters. 
 
 3. 'NET masseceth demai, treatise of the 
 doubtful. This treatise refers to things about 
 which some doubts may be raised whether tithes 
 should be paid from them or not. Here there 
 are seven chapters. 
 
 4. masseceth cilaim , treatise of the 
 heterogeneous, i. e. the mixing of several kinds 
 of seed, &c. Here there are nine chapters. 
 
 5. n'yOt? masseceth shebiith, of the seventh 
 year, i. e. the sabbatical year, In which the Jews 
 were forbidden to sow. In this treatise are ten 
 chapters. 
 
 6. riDlin masseceth terumah, oblation, treat- 
 ing of free-will gifts and offerings, what one must 
 take out of his own property and bring to tlm 
 priest, as also who ought and who ought not to 
 do so, &c. & c. This contains eleven chapters. 
 
 7. maasher rishon, the first 
 tenth or tithe, which belonged to the Levites, 
 and with what things it should be discharged. 
 Here there are five chapters. 
 
 8. “ItyyD maasher sheni, the second tenth, 
 which the Levites had to pay out of their tenth 
 to the priests. Here again there are five chap- 
 ters. 
 
 2. r6n challah, cake , i. e. the cake which the 
 women were required to bring of kneaded dough 
 to the priest, &c. This treatise has four chapters. 
 
 10. orlah, prepuce. Young trees were 
 so called ; for during the first three years their 
 fruit was reckoned impure and injurious, and 
 was thrown away. In the fourth year it was 
 consecrated to God. Here are three chapters. 
 
 11. D'YDl bicurim,- first-fruits. This trea- 
 tise is occupied with an examination of the things 
 of which first-fruits were to be brought into tlie 
 temple. Here are four chapters. 
 
 The entire seder consists of seventy-five chap- 
 ters. 
 
 ii. nyiD viD. 
 
 1. rDK* nDDID masseceth shabbath , of the 
 sabbath, its privileges and its sacredness ; of 
 lights, oil used on that day; of ovens in which 
 articles of food were warmed on the sabbath, and 
 the dress of men and women used on the same 
 day. This treatise has twenty-four chapters. 
 
 2. D'Q'niJ crubim, mixings. This treatise 
 shows how, on the evening of the sabbath, the food 
 collected by various neighbours should unite them 
 in such a manner as if they belonged to one 
 household. This was done lest persons living at 
 a distance should break the sabbath by too long 
 journeys. If they lived beyond the zechum 
 shabbath, i. e. the proper limits of a sabbath day’s 
 journey, the food was placed in such a position 
 as that an individual was allowed to go farther 
 than he otherwise might lawfully have done. 
 His eating it at the place where it was put was 
 reckoned equivalent to his eating it at home. 
 Here are ten chapters. 
 
 3. D^riDD pesachim, the Passover. This trea- 
 tise relates to the Passover, and all things con- 
 nected with the celebration of it. Here again 
 are ten chapters. 
 
TALMUD. 
 
 TALMUD. 
 
 4. otyw shekalim , shekels. This treatise is 
 occupied with a statement of the contributions 
 which individuals were to pay towards the daily 
 sacrifice, and the defraying of other expenses 
 connected with the temple worship. This treatise 
 has eight chapters. 
 
 5. KCI' yoma, the day of expiation or atone - 
 ment, a day spent by the Jews in fasting and 
 chastising the body in many ways. This treatise 
 has also eight chapters. 
 
 6. riDlD succah, the Feast of Tabernacles. 
 This treats of the form of the tents, the mode of 
 living in them, &c. &c. Here are five chapters. 
 
 7. nifO betzah, egg. This treatise begins with 
 the question, whether it be right to eat on the day 
 of a festival, or a lift D1' yom tob , the egg which 
 a hen has laid on the same day. It relates to 
 everything which a person should do or omit on 
 any feast-day except the sabbath. Here again 
 are five chapters. 
 
 8. rwn t^K"l rosh hashannah. This treatise 
 is occupied with remarks about the new year, the 
 beginning of the new year on the new moon of 
 the month Tisri, and the manner in which the 
 day should be kept. Here are four chapters. 
 
 9. rwyn taanith, fasting. This relates to 
 fasting and the different kinds of it. It has also 
 four chapters. 
 
 10. iT?3D megillah. This treatise refers to the 
 Feast of Purim, and is so called- because the me- 
 gillah of Esther is read at that time. Here are 
 four chapters. 
 
 11. ‘lyiD moed katon. In the present 
 treatise are discussed the minor festivals inter- 
 vening between the first and last days of the great 
 festival. Here are three chapters. 
 
 12. nran chagigah. This treatise is founded 
 on ttie command contained in Exodus xxiii. 17, 
 that all the males should appear three times in 
 the year before the Lord at Jerusalem. Here 
 again are three chapters. 
 
 The entire seder contains eighty-eight chapters. 
 
 III. D'tW Y!D. 
 
 1. JYltol* yebdmoth. This treatise concerns 
 the marrying of a deceased brother’s wife, who 
 has had no children by her husband. Here are 
 sixteen chapters. 
 
 2. rVQirD cethuboth. The present treatise 
 relates to matrimonial contracts, dowries, and 
 writings connected with marriage. Here are 
 thirteen chapters. 
 
 3. nedarim , votes, discussing what vows 
 are binding or otherwise ; who can make vows 
 and who not. Here are eleven chapters. 
 
 4. TVniJ neziroth. This treatise refers to the 
 vows of the Nazarites, and their mode of living. 
 It contains line chapters. 
 
 5. I'D'H gittin , respecting divorce, and the 
 writing given to the wife on that occasion, how 
 it must be written, &c. &c. This treatise con- 
 sists of nine chanters. 
 
 6. flDlD sotah. This treatise regards the adul- 
 teress, or rather the woman suspected of conjugal 
 infidelity ; how she must drink the bitter water 
 that causeth the curse, &c. &c. Here again are 
 nine chapters. 
 
 821 
 
 7. J'tPVTp kiddushin , respecting betrothmenL 
 Here are four chapters. 
 
 This third seder , or order, contains seventy-one 
 chapters. 
 
 iv. ppna no. 
 
 1. KDp Km baba kama , the frst gate , rela- 
 tive to the losses sustained by men and beasts 
 from one another. This treatise consists of tea 
 chapters. 
 
 2. Km baba metziah, the middle gate . 
 This treatise refers to things found or deposited, 
 usury, &c. &c. It has also ten chapters. 
 
 3. K“irn Km baba bathra , the last gate . 
 This treatise relates to commercial transactions, 
 buying and selling, inheritances, &c. &c. Here 
 again are ten chapters. 
 
 4. p-nrUD Sanhedrim. This is a most im- 
 portant treatise, relating to the great tribunal, to 
 various punishments, judges, witnesses ; who of 
 the Israelites shall have part in the future life, and 
 who not. It consists of eleven chapters or sec- 
 tions. 
 
 5. 1YDD maccoth. This treatise relates to the 
 forty stripes (Deuteron. xxv. 3) which were to be 
 inflicted on certain offenders. Here the reason is 
 explained why the expounders of the law omitted 
 one stripe of the forty (2 Cor. xi. 24). It contains 
 three chapters. 
 
 6. myim shebuoth, respecting oaths; who 
 can take an oath, and who not. This treatise con- 
 sists of eight chapters. 
 
 7. niHy edaioth, respecting witnesses and 
 witness-bearing. Here again are eight chapters. 
 
 8. miK aboth, or miK 'pm pirke aboth. 
 This treatise relates to the Jewish fathers who 
 handed down the oral law from the time of Moses. 
 It contains six chapters. 
 
 9. nmin horaioth, respecting the statutes and 
 other original documents, according to which 
 every man was required to judge in cases of trial ; 
 and how transgressors should be punished. The 
 present treatise contains three chapters. 
 
 10. mr minK abodah zarah , called also 
 
 D'Wk mmy abodath elilim, and also JYTQK 
 D'mi3 abodath cocabim, respecting idolatry, and 
 the avoiding of communion with the idolatrous 
 Christians. This treatise is wanting in the Basel 
 edition, because it has severe reflections upon 
 Jesus Christ and his followers. It is printed in 
 the Venice edition, and consists of five chapters. 
 The entire seder contains seventy-four chapters. 
 
 V. D'BHp VJD. 
 
 1. DTDT zebachim, sacrifices. This treatise 
 has fourteen chapters. 
 
 2. lYin^D menachoth , the evening sacrifices. 
 This treatise has thirteen chapters. 
 
 3. cholin. This treatise respects the 
 clean and unclean animals which the Jews were 
 required or forbidden to eat. Here are twelve 
 chapters. 
 
 4. rVlTim becoroth , respecting the first-born 
 of beasts. Here are nine chapters. 
 
 5. {'my eracin. This treatise relates to the 
 valuing and taxing of such things as are dedi- 
 cated to the Lord. It consists of nine chapters. 
 
 6. iTTllDn temurah. This treatise refers to the 
 putting of one sacrifice in place of another) 
 
TALMUD. 
 
 TALMUD. 
 
 M2 
 
 whether such a tiling is lawful or not. It con- 
 sists of seven chapters. 
 
 7. TVIJVTD cerithuth , the cutting off a soul 
 from a future life, and the sins which cause such 
 a punishment : thirty-six kinds of this excision 
 are enumerated. Here are six chapters. 
 
 s. nWo meilah, respecting sins committed 
 in offering up animals in sacrifice. This treatise 
 also has six chapters. 
 
 9. TEH tamicl , respecting the daily morning 
 and evening sacrifice. Here are six chapters. 
 
 10. nHD middoth. This treatise relates to 
 the measuring of the temple. It consists of five 
 chapters. 
 
 11. D'3p kinnim , relating to birds’ nests. The 
 treatise is divided into three chapters. 
 
 The whole seder has ninety sections. 
 
 vi. nnnD “no. 
 
 1. celirn , respecting measures, household 
 furniture, clothes, and their purification. This 
 treatise has thirty chapters. 
 
 2 . niipriK aholoth , respecting cottages or houses ; 
 how they become unclean, and how they must be 
 cleaned. This treatise has eighteen chapters. 
 
 3. negaim , regarding leprosy. Here are 
 fourteen sections. 
 
 4. mD parah, the red heifer (Num. xix.). 
 This treatise is divided into twelve chapters. 
 
 5. nnntD tahoroth , respecting purification, 
 when a person who has touched any object has 
 been made unclean. Here are ten chapters. 
 
 6. DINIpQ mikvaoth. This treatise concerns 
 those reservoirs of water in which the Jews washed 
 their bodies. It is divided into ten chapters. 
 
 7. HU niddah, respecting the uncleanness of 
 women. This treatise has also ten chapters. 
 
 8. mecshirin, of fluids and their pu- 
 rification. It consists of six chapters. 
 
 9. D'DT zabim, of nocturnal pollution. This 
 treatise is divided into five sections. 
 
 10. D1' tebul yom, respecting the washing 
 
 of the same day, or what is washed while it is yet 
 day. This treatise consists of four sections. 
 
 11. D'7' yadaim, respecting the washing of 
 hands. Here again are four chapters or sections. 
 
 12. oketzim, relative to the stalks of 
 fruits; and how they, by touching other fruits, 
 become unclean. This treatise has three chapters. 
 
 The entire seder has 126 chapters. 
 
 From the detailed account now given, it ap- 
 pears that the Talmud consists of six sedarim , or 
 orders, containing sixty-three massecoth , or trac- 
 tates, and five hundred twenty and four perakim , 
 or chapters. 
 
 The Babylonian Gemara extends to one trac- 
 tate of the first order, i. e. Berachoth, and to most 
 in the succeeding four orders except Shekalim in 
 the second order ; Aboth and Edaioth in the 
 fourth ; Middoth , Kinnim , and the half of Tamid 
 in the fifth. In Taharoth (the sixth order) there 
 is only a Gemara in both Talmuds to the tract 
 Nidda. 
 
 The Jerusalem Talmud originally extended to 
 the first five orders of the Mishna. It is now, how- 
 ever, incomplete. The order Kodashim is en- 
 tirely wanting. There is no Gemara to the four 
 
 last chapters of Shabbath, to the three last a 
 Maccoth, nor to Aboth and Edaioth. 
 
 Four treatises were afterwards added to th« 
 Talmud, viz. : 
 
 1. onaiD riDDD masseceth sopherim , con- 
 taining directions for the writers of manuscript 
 rolls. This treatise consists of twenty-one chap- 
 ters. 
 
 2. 'fill ebel rabbethe , or niriDt? DDDO 
 
 masseceth shemachoth. This treatise relates tc ' 
 mourning for the dead, and the manner in which 
 mourners should be comforted. It has fourteen 
 chapters. 
 
 3. rfo callah, how one should take a wife, 
 &c. &c. Here there is but one chapter. 
 
 4. pN “l“n DU Dp masseceth derek eretz, 
 about, modes of life, &c. This treatise is sepa- 
 rated into a greater and a less, the former con- 
 taining ten chapters, the latter six. To this is 
 appended a O'lipD* p“lS perek shalom , or chapter 
 of peace, by way of conclusion. 
 
 The earliest edition of the Jerusalem Talmud 
 was published at Venice by Bomberg, in one 
 volume folio, about the year 1523. No date is 
 attached to it. Another edition was published at 
 Cracow in 1609, folio; and another at Amster- 
 dam, in 1710, folio. The Babylonian Talmud was 
 published by Bomberg at Venice in twelve folio 
 volumes, in 1520-30. This edition contains 
 the comments of Rashi and others, as also various 
 appendices by different Rabbins. In the years 
 1578, 1579, 1580, the celebrated Froben of Basel 
 published the same work ; but passages which ca- 
 lumniated Christ were rejected by command of 
 the Tridentine bishops. Accordingly the Jews 
 prepared a new and complete edition at Cracow, 
 in 13 volumes folio, in 1603, and following 
 years. Another edition was prepared and pub- 
 lished at Frankfort and Berlin, 1715, in 12 vole 
 folio; and another at Amsterdam, 1763, in 18 vols. 
 folio, with additions and notes, besides various 
 passages not found in preceding impressions. This 
 last has been pronounced the best. 
 
 Various parts of the Talmud have also been 
 printed at different times by different editors; 
 sometimes with translations and commentaries, 
 ex. gr. by Coch, Schmidt, l’Empereur, Leusden, 
 Dachs, Wagenseil, &c. 
 
 The best edition of the Mishna is that of Suren- 
 husius, published at Amsterdam, 1698, and fol- 
 lowing years, in six folio volumes, with a Latin 
 version and copious commentaries by the Rabbins. 
 The Mishna was translated into Arabic by desire 
 of Alhachem, king of Ismael, at Corduba, in the 
 tenth century after Christ. It has also been 
 translated into German by Rabe, in six parts, 
 Anspach, 1760. No English version of it has 
 appeared ; much less has the whole Talmud been 
 translated into our language. The Greek words 
 have been collected by Landau in his lexicon en- 
 titled, Rabbinisch-aramiiisch-deutsches Worter - 
 buck zur Kentniss des Talmuds, der Targumim 
 und Midraschim, mit Anmerkungen fur Philo 
 logie , Geschichte, Archdologie, Geographic, Na 
 tur und Kunst, 5 Bande, 8vo. Lips. 1819 
 Reland has a dissertation on the Persian terms, 
 in the second volume of his Miscellaneous Dispu- 
 tations. The best lexicon to the Talmud is still 
 that of Buxtorf, Basel, 1639, folio. The raoderc 
 
TALMUD. 
 
 TALMUD. 
 
 62 ft 
 
 Work of Landau is a valuable accompaniment, 
 but cannot compensate for the want of BuxtorPs 
 volume. The celebrated Maimonides, in the 
 twelfth century, made a digest of all the laws and 
 ordinances contained in the Talmud. This ex- 
 cellent abridgment is sufficiently copious for most 
 readers, since it contains everything of value in 
 .he whole work. It is entitled Tad Ilachazakah , 
 seu manus fords quam fecit Moses in conspectu 
 Israel , and was hist published at Soncino, 1490, 
 folio; republished at Venice, 1521, 3 vols. folio; 
 and at Amsterdam, dated 54G1, 4 vols. folio. 
 Selections from it have also been published in 
 Hebrew and English, with notes, by Bernard, in a 
 book entitled, The main principles of the Creed 
 and Ethics of the Jews, exhibited in selections 
 from the Yad Ilachazakah of Maimonides, with 
 a literal English translation, copious Illustra- 
 tions from the Talmud , &c. Cambridge, 1832, 
 8vo. 
 
 The Jews set so high a value on the Talmud as 
 to place it generally above the inspired law. 
 Hence we find in the Masseceth Sopherim the 
 saying, ‘ The Biblical text is like water, and the 
 Mishna like wine, and the six orders (sedarim) 
 like aromatic wine.’ In another passage the fol- 
 lowing Avoids occur — * The Law is like salt, the 
 Mishna like pepper, but the six orders like fine 
 pices/ Again, ‘ The words of the scribes are 
 lovely, above the words of the Law ; for the words 
 of the Law are weighty and light, but the words 
 of the scribes are all weighty/ ‘ He that shall 
 gay there are no phylacteries, transgressing the 
 words of the law, is not guilty ; but he that shall 
 gay, There are five totaphoth, adding to the words 
 of the scribes, he is guilty ’ ( Hieros . Berac. fol. 3. 
 2). Such extravagant praises of their oral tradi- 
 tions correspond ivitli the Saviour’s words, ‘ Mak- 
 ing the word of God of none effect, through your 
 tradition which ye have delivered ’ (Mark vii. 
 13). But they do not harmonize with the real 
 nature of the Talmud itself; for the book contains 
 many fabulous, trifling, absurd, and irreverent 
 things. It unites the allegorizing propensity of 
 the East with a childish prying into the most 
 curious questions. It abounds with miraculous 
 stories, and with sentiments derogatory to the 
 majesty of God. Some, indeed, of the questions 
 proposed are merely ludicrous, but others belong 
 to the profane and impious. The following ex- 
 amples will justify the truth of our remarks. 
 
 A Rabbin was once in the midst of the ocean, 
 and seeing a bird standing up to its thighs in the 
 water, he said to his companions, i We will bathe 
 here.’ But a voice from heaven was heard, say- 
 ing, ‘ Do not so ; for seven years ago a person let 
 an axe fall from his hand into this water, and it 
 has not yet reached the deep bottom.’ 
 
 ‘ Is it right to kill a flea on the Sabbath ?’ 
 
 ‘We were once carried,’ says a Rabbin, ‘ in a 
 great ship, and the ship went three days and three 
 nights between the two fins of one fish. But per- 
 haps the ship sailed very slowly? The Rabbi 
 Dimi says, A rider shot an arrow, and the ship 
 flew .faster than the arrow ; and yet it took so 
 long time to pass between the two fins of this fish. 
 It is called Gildena ’ (Pitman’s Preface to the 
 octavo edition of Lightfoot's Works, pp. 43-45; 
 Allen’s Modern Judaism; and M ‘Caul’s Old 
 Paths). Several parts of the Tilmud, however, 
 form an exception to the fa olish and_ ridiculous 
 
 passages with which the work abounds. Thus the 
 treatise Pirhe Aboth, containing the moral 
 maxims and sentiments of the Jewish fathers, pre- 
 sents a favourable specimen of ethical philosophy. 
 
 The work before us has been applied to the 
 illustration of the New Testament by Lightfoot, 
 Schoettgen, and Meuschen ; and in various in- 
 stances it has served to throw light on the meaning, 
 especially where there is a reference to Jewish cus- 
 toms and manners. Here, however, its utility has 
 been over-estimated, as is apparent from the lan- 
 guage of Lightfoot in the dedication prefixed to 
 his Talmudical exercifations on Matthew, com- 
 pared with the exercitations themselves : ‘ Chris- 
 tians, by their skill and industry, may render 
 them (the Talmudic writings) most usefully 
 serviceable to their studies, and most eminently 
 tending to the interpretation of the New Testa- 
 ment ’ (Pitman’s edition of Lightfoot's Works , 
 vol. xi. p. 6, dedication). 
 
 The work has also been employed to illustrate 
 the meaning of the Old Testament, especially by- 
 Gill, who has frequently cited it where it throAvs 
 no light on the text. Nor is he alone in this 
 respect ; others have spent their time in the same 
 unprofitable task. 
 
 The Talmud is more useful in the criticism ol 
 the Old Testament text, although most of its cita- 
 tions from the original agree Avith the Masoretic 
 readings. Probably it has been conformed to the 
 Masoretic standard by the Rabbins. Criticism 
 therefore, can derive extensive benefit, from it only 
 by consulting MS. copies, not the printed text, 
 since it can scarcely be doubted that the latter 
 has been altered. The instances in which the text 
 of the work, even as printed, deviates from the 
 Hebrew Masoretic text, afford a presumption that 
 more of the same kind might be found, were 
 MSS. carefully collated. Frommann collected 
 fourteen various readings out of the Mishna ; but 
 Dr. Gill, Avhen collating the Mishna and Gemara 
 for Kennicott, found a thousand. Many of them, 
 properly speaking, are- not various readings, but 
 Avords added by the Rabbins for the purpose of 
 explanation ; Avhile not afeAV are of trilling conse- 
 quence. * 
 
 (See the preface of Maimonides, prefixed to 
 Surenhusius’s edition of the Mishna, and trans- 
 lated into Latin by Pocock ; BuxtorPs Recensio 
 operis Talmuclici, in his Liber de Abbreviations 
 Hebraicis ; Wolfius’ Bibliotheca Ilebrcea, ii. G57, 
 sq. ; Wot ton’s Miscellaneous Discourses relat- 
 ing to the Traditions and Usages of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees in our Saviour Jesus Christ's 
 time , i. 10, sq. ; Stehelin's Traditions of the 
 Jews, or the Doctrines and Expositions con- 
 tained in the Talmud and other Rabbinical writ- 
 ings, &c., 2 vols. 8 vo., London, 1742; Leusden’s 
 Philologies llebrceo-mixtus , p. 95, sq. ; Pri- 
 deaux's Connection, part i. ; Basnage’s llistoirc 
 des Juifs ; Bodenschatz's Aufrichtig deutsch - 
 redender Hebrder , Frankfort and Leipzig, 1756 ; 
 Loehnis’s Grundzuge der biblischen Hemeneutik, 
 u. s. av., p. 397, sq. ; Waehner’s Antiquitates 
 Hebrceorum , i. 256, sq. ; Aug. Pfeiffer's Critica 
 Sacra, also printed in the second volume of his 
 Works, Utrecht, 1704, 4to; Bartolocci’s Bibli- 
 otheca Rabbinica, iii. 85, sq. ; Reimann’s Ein- 
 leit. in die Geschichte der Theologie , p. 282, sq. ; 
 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vortr'dge der Judan. 
 p. 50, sq.). — S. D. 
 
TAMAR. 
 
 TAMAR. 
 
 824 
 
 1. TAMAR p£Pl) lias been universally ac- 
 knowledged to denote the * palm-tree/ sometimes 
 called the ‘ date-tree.’ Good says the radical 
 meaning of the word is straight or upright. The 
 date- tree is remarkable for its erect and cylin- 
 drical stem, crowned with a cluster of long and 
 feather-like leaves, and is as much esteemed for 
 its fruit, tiie ‘date,’ as for its juice, whether fer- 
 mented or not, known as ‘palm wine,’ and for the 
 numerous uses to which every part of the plant is 
 applied. The Arabic name of the date is tamr ; 
 thus the tamarind is called the Indian date, 
 tamr hindee. The name Tamar seems to have 
 been applied to the city which Solomon built 
 in the desert (1 Kings ix. 18; Ezek. xlvii. 19; 
 xlviii. 28), probably on account of the palm- 
 trees growing about it ; and the name Palmyra, 
 from palma, a palm, was no doubt applied to 
 it by the Romans on the same account. Abul- 
 feda, who flourished in the fourteenth century, 
 expressly mentions the palm-tree as common at 
 Palmyra in his time ; and it is still called by 
 the Arabs by the ancient name of Tadmr. The 
 family of palms is characteristic of tropical coun- 
 tries, and but few of them extend into northern 
 latitudes. In the old world, the species P. 
 dactylifera, genus Phoenix, is that found furthest 
 north. It spreads along the course of the Eu- 
 phrates and Tigris across to Palmyra and the 
 Syrian coast of the Mediterranean. It has been in- 
 troduced into the south of Spain, and thrives well 
 at Malaga; and is also cultivated at Bordaghiere 
 in the south of France, chiefly on account of its 
 leaves, which are sold at two periods of the year, 
 in Spring for Palm Sunday, arid again at 
 the Jewish Passover. In the south of Italy and 
 in Sicily, Lady Callcott states, ‘ that near Genoa 
 there is a narrow, warm, sandy valley full of 
 palms, but they are diminutive in growth, and 
 unfruitful, being cultivated only for the sake of 
 the leaves, which are annually sent to the pope’s 
 chapel at Rome, where they are blessed and dis- 
 tributed to the cardinals and other dignitaries, in 
 sign of the triumph of the church.’ 
 
 The peculiarities of the palm-tree are such that 
 they could not fail to attract the attention of the 
 writers of any country where it is indigenous, 
 and especially from its being an indication of the 
 vicinity of water even in the midst of the most 
 desert country. Its roots, though not penetrating 
 very deep, or spreading very wide, yet support a 
 stem of considerable height, which is remark- 
 able for its uniformity of thickness through- 
 out. The centre of this lofty stem, instead 
 of being the hardest part, as in other trees, is soft 
 and spongy, and the bundles of woody fibres 
 successively produced in the interior are regu- 
 larly pushed outwards, until the outer part be- 
 comes the most dense and hard, and is hence 
 most fitted to answer the purposes of wood. The 
 outside, though devoid of branches, is marked with 
 a number of protuberances, which are the points of 
 insertion of former leaves. These are from four 
 to six and eight feet in length, ranged in a bunch 
 round the top of the stem, the younger and 
 softer being ir. the centre, and the older and outer 
 series hanging dewn. They are employed for 
 covering the roofs or sides of houses, for fences, 
 fiame-work, mats, and baskets. The male and fe- 
 male flewers being on (Efferent trees, the latter re- 
 
 quire to be fecundated by the pollen of the former 
 before the fruit can ripen. The tender part of 
 the spatlia of the flowers being pierced, a bland 
 and sweet juice exudes, which being evaporated, 
 yields sugar, and is no doubt what is alluded to 
 in some passages of Scripture : if it be fermented 
 and distilled a strong spirit or arak is yielded. 
 The fruit, however, which is yearly produced in 
 numerous clusters and in the utmost abundance, 
 is its chief value; for whole tribes of Arabs and 
 Africans find their chief sustenance in the date, 
 of which even the stony seeds, being ground 
 down, yield nourishment to the camel of the 
 desert. 
 
 615. [1. Cluster of dates ; 8. flower ; 3. a date; 4 . sec- 
 tion of the same.] 
 
 The palm-tree is first mentioned in Exod. 
 xv. 27, when the Israelites encamped at Elim, 
 where there were twelve wells and threescore and 
 leu palm-trees. In the present day Wady Gho- 
 rendel is found the largest of the torrent beds on the 
 west side of the Sinai peninsula, and is a valley 
 full of date-trees, tamarisks, &c. Jericho was 
 called the City of Palm Trees, no doubt from 
 the locality being favourable to their growth. 
 Mariti and Shaw describe them as still existing 
 there, though in diminished numbers. The 
 palm-tree was considered characteristic of Judaea, 
 not so much probably because it was more 
 abundant there than in other countries, but be- 
 cause that was the first country where the Greeks 
 and Romans would meet with it in proceed- 
 ing southward. Hence the coins of the Roman 
 conquerors of Judaea have inscribed qn them a 
 weeping female sitting under a palm-tree, will) 
 the inscription “Judaea capta’ (vide Kempfer, 
 Amocnitates Exotica, and Celsius, Hierobot. i. 
 444-579). 
 
 2. TAMAR, a Canaanitish woman, espoused 
 successively to the two sons of Judah, Er and 
 Onan ; but as they both died childless, Judah 
 hesitated to give her his third sonShelah, as patri- 
 archal usage required. This set her upon the 
 contrivance described in Gen. xxxviii. ; and 
 two sons, Pharez and Zarah, thus became the 
 fruit of her criminal intercourse with Judah him- 
 self [Judah]. 
 
 3. TAMAR, daughter of David by Maacah, 
 who was also the mother of Absalom. The un- 
 happy consequences of the criminal passion 
 entertained for this beautiful damsel by her half- 
 brother Amnon, brutally gratified by him, and 
 terribly avenged by Absalom, formed the ground- 
 
TAMMUZ. 
 
 TARGUMS. 
 
 work of (lie family distractions which embittered 
 the latter years of David’s reign (2 Sam. xiii.) 
 [Absaj.om; Amnon; David]. 
 
 TAMMUZ (Wen ; Sept. Qa/xfJLOvQ, a Syrian 
 deity, for whom the Hebrew idolatresses were ac- 
 customed to bold an annual lamentation (Ezek. 
 viii. 14). This idol was the same with the Phoe- 
 nician Ad on or Adonis, and the feast itself such as 
 they celebrated. Silvestre de Sacy thinks that 
 the name Tammuz was of foreign origin, and 
 probably Egyptian, as well as the god by whom 
 it was borne. In fact, it would probably not be 
 difficult to identify him with Osiris, from whose 
 worship his differed only in accessories. The 
 feast held in honour of Tammuz was solstitial, 
 and commenced with the new moon of July, in 
 the month also called Tammuz ; it consisted of 
 two parts, the one consecrated to lamentation, and 
 the other to joy ; in the days of grief, they 
 mourned the disappearance of the god, and in the 
 days of gladness, celebrated his discovery and 
 return. Tammuz appears to have been a sort of 
 incarnation of the sun, regarded principally as in 
 a state of passion and sufferance, in connection 
 with the apparent vicissitudes in its celestial po- 
 sition, and with respect to the terrestrial meta- 
 morphoses produced, under its influence, upon 
 vegetation in advancing to maturity. See Lucian, 
 De Dea Syra , § vii. 19 ; Selden, De Diis Syris , 
 ii. 31 ; Creuzer, Symbolik, iv. 3 ; Fickenscher, 
 Erklar. d. Mythus Adonis. 
 
 TAPPUACH (n-iaPl), translated ‘apple’ in 
 the Authorized Version, has been the subject of' 
 considerable difference of opinion among authors 
 on Biblical Botany. Most admit that apple is not 
 the correct translation, for that fruit is indifferent 
 in Palestine, being produced of good quality 
 only on Mount Lebanon, and in Damascus. 
 Many contend that ‘quince ’ is the correct trans- 
 lation of Tappuach. Though somewhat more 
 suitable than the apple, we think that neither the 
 quince tree nor fruit is so superior to others as to 
 be selected for notice in the passages of Scrip- 
 ture where tappuach occurs. This word would 
 seem to have the same general signification as the 
 Arabic toph or toofa, which it so closely resem- 
 bles, and which is usually thought to be the 
 apple; but the Arabs themselves are but little 
 acquainted with that fruit. They no doubt use 
 the word occasionally in a generic sense, for 
 tappuach-al-shuetan, or ‘devil’s apple,’ is one of : 
 the names of Mandragora. So the Greek priXov, 
 and the Latin pomum, were used rather as generic 
 than as specific terms. Dioscorides, for instance, 
 jives the different kinds, under the heads of 
 Mala vulgaria, Cotonea, Persica, Armeniaca, and 
 Medica, sive Citria. The last, or citron, we 
 think, has the best claim to be considered the 
 Tappuach of Scripture, as it was esteemed by the 
 ancients, and known to the Hebrews, and con- 
 spicuously different, both as a fruit and a tree, 
 from the ordinary vegetation of Syria, and the 
 only one of the orange tribe which was known 
 to the ancients. The orange, lemon, and lime, 
 were introduced to the knowledge of Euro- 
 peans at a much later period, probably by the 
 Arabs from India (Royle, Himal. Bot.). The 
 citron, resembling the lemon in form, but distin- 
 guished by its thick rind, was the pr\Xov M rjdiuSv 
 
 Theophrastus, the Mt}5ik6v of Dioscorides, and 
 
 825 
 
 for which he gives as a synonyme H€$p6fn}Xov; 
 ‘Malus Medica et Assyria dicitur, utroque nomine 
 a regionibus ducto, ut habet Theoph. 4, Hist. 4. 
 Citrus apud Medos et Persas in prim is frequens, 
 dein Paladii diligentia in Italiam translata f'uit: 
 postea in Hispania,’ etc. (Bauhin. Pinax.) it 
 was called citria and citromela by the Romans, 
 though their citron wood was produced by Thuya 
 articulata [Thyinis Wood]. It is thus gra- 
 phically' described : ‘ Fert poma omnibus horis, 
 aliis decidentibus, aliis subnascentibus, aliis ma- 
 turescentibus.’ That the citron was well known 
 to the Hebrews we have the assurance in the fact 
 mentioned by Josephus, that at the Feast of Ta- 
 bernacles king Alexander Jannseus was pelted 
 with citrons, which the Jews had in their hands; 
 for, as he says, ‘ the law required that at that 
 feast, every one should have branches of the palm- 
 tree and citron tree ’ (Antiq. x iii. 13.5). From 
 this and other facts we conclude tb it the Etz 
 hadar of Lev. xxiii. 40 has reference to the 
 citron [Etz Hadar]. There is nothing impro- 
 bable in the Hebrews having made use of boughs 
 of the citron, as it was a native of Media, and 
 well known to the Greeks at a very early period ; 
 and indeed on some old coins of Samaria, the 
 citron may be seen, as well as the palm-tree ; 
 and it is not an unimportant confirmation that 
 the Jews still continue to make offerings of 
 citrons at the Feast of Tabernacles. Citrons, 
 accordingly, are imported in considerable quan- 
 tities for this purpose, and are afterwards sold, 
 being more highly esteemed after having been 
 so offered. 
 
 The tappuach , or citron-tree, is mentioned 
 chiefly in the Canticles, ch. ii. 3, ‘ as the citron 
 tree among the trees of the wood ;’ ver. 5, 
 ‘ Comfort me with citrons, for I am sick of love 
 vii. 8, ‘The smell of thy nose like citrons;’ so 
 in viii. 5. Again, in Prov. xxv. 11, ‘A word 
 fitly spoken is like apples of gold (or rather golden 
 citrons) in baskets of silver.’ In Joel i. 12, it 
 is enumerated with the vine, the fig-tree, the palm, 
 and pomegranate, as among the most valuable 
 trees of Palestine. The rich colour, fragrant 
 odour, and handsome appearance of the tree, whe- 
 ther in flower or in fruit, are particularly suited 
 to all the above passages of Scripture. — J. F. R. 
 
 TAPPUAH, or Beth-Tappuah, a city in the 
 tribe of Judah, not far from Hebron (Josh. xv. 53). 
 Robinson identifies it with an old village, called 
 Teffuh, which he found upon the hills north-west 
 of Hebron (Bi'6. Researches, ii. 428). 2. Another 
 Tappuah lay in the plain of Judah, apparently 
 in the vicinity of Zanoah, Jarmuth, Socoh, etc. 
 (Josh. xv. 34) : which of these was the place con- 
 quered by Joshua is not very clear (Josh. xii. 17 ; 
 comp. x. 6). 3. Another place of the same name 
 
 occurs on the confines of Ephraim and Manasset 
 (Josh. xvi. 8). 4. And in 1 Chron. ii. 43, a man 
 
 of this name appears. 
 
 TARES. [Zizanion.] 
 
 TARGUMS. Different accounts of the origin 
 of the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases, have been 
 given. Eichhorn and others endeavour to show 
 that they are not so ancient as has been generally 
 supposed, and that the earliest of them appeared 
 about the same time as *he Talmud, or the be- 
 ginning of the third century. This point is in 
 part connected with another, viz., the extinction 
 of the Hebrew as a living language. Eichhom 
 
targums. 
 
 TARGUMS. 
 
 8*26 
 
 and others believe that it did not cease to be 
 spoken during the Babylonish captivity, but 
 that it was still used after the return, and gra- 
 dually died away ; while the Buxtorfs maintained 
 that it then became entirely extinct as a living 
 tongue. It is most probable that the people ceased 
 to speak it in common before the termination of 
 the Captivity, but that the learned and educated 
 of the Jews retained it partially in conversation. 
 The latter would naturally adhere to it longer 
 than the mass of the people, not only from their 
 perusal of the sacred books, but their stronger 
 attachment to the usages of their fathers. The 
 decision of the question rests upon the meaning 
 assigned to the two words KHQO and IVTirP in 
 Nehemiah viii. and xiii. 24 respectively, as has 
 been already remarked by another contributor 
 [Hebrew Language]. Gesenius explains the 
 former term distinctly; but Hengstenberg ren- 
 ders it giving a version or translation. The 
 latter tern, is understood by Gesenius to mean 
 the Hebrew language , while Hengstenberg refers 
 it to the Aramaean, or that which the Hebrews 
 commonly used. It is difficult to decide be- 
 tween these conflicting expositions. There is 
 some reason for doubt in regard to the accuracy 
 of the meaning assigned by Hengstenberg to 
 tiHSQ. The entire verse, however, implies that 
 the people generally did not understand the law 
 when publicly read in the Hebrew language, so 
 that the priests and Leviteswere obliged to adopt 
 some expedient in order to make it intelligible. 
 Hence it is most natural to conclude that they 
 had ceased to speak the Hebrew tongue, and re- 
 quired explanatory comments in the Chaldee or 
 Aramaean. Probably the priests and Levites 
 gave a sort of running paraphrase on the words 
 of the law as they were read before the people, 
 putting these words into the Chaldee dialect with 
 which the hearers were acquainted. Such was 
 the origin of the Chaldee versions. At first they 
 were given orally , but subsequently they were 
 reduced to writing. The practice began in the 
 time of Ezra, and was afterwards continued. 
 
 Great importance was attached to the office of 
 interpreter or translator of the law. The Tal- 
 mudic canon asserts that as the law was given 
 by a mediator , so it could only be read and un- 
 derstood by a mediator. The custom of extem- 
 pore paraphrase seems to have occasioned palpable 
 abuses. Hence definite, hermeneutic rules were 
 laid down, in conformity with which the interpre- 
 tation ii the law should be conducted. The 
 licence of the paraphrast was curbed by canons, 
 which came to be universally binding. It is 
 easy to see how the value of written expositions 
 would become apparent when the freedom of the 
 interpreter was abridged by established regula- 
 tions. The nature of the exposition required 
 called for zoritten interpretations. Hence oral 
 gave rise to zoritten explanations, the necessity of 
 the latter becoming more visible when the liberty 
 taken by the extempore translator was narrowed 
 by rules to which he must rigidly adhere. The 
 surest and safest method of giving the meaning 
 was simply by reading a version that had been 
 written for the use of the people. 
 
 External circumstances were also favourable to 
 the existence of written explanations. The Hel- 
 lenistic Jews were already in possession of the 
 Law in their own tongue ; and in the first century 
 
 the Syrians had translated the Holy Wii mg# 
 into their dialect. Greek versions, in opposition 
 to the Alexandrine, also proceeded from the Jews 
 themselves, and obtained much approbation. In 
 the midst of so general a desire to have versions 
 of the Old Testament in different languages, it is 
 natural to suppose that the Jews who spoke 
 Aramsean should wish to possess translations of 
 the Scriptures in their living tongue. All the 
 circumstances of the case conspire to show that 
 there were written Targums of several Old Tes- 
 tament books in the time of the Maccabees. In 
 various parts of the Talmud mention is made of 
 a written Aramajan version of Job in the first 
 century, and it. is not likely that this was the first 
 book rendered into the language of the people. 
 Besides, there are also allusions to older Targums 
 (Zunz, j). 62). The silence of the early fathers 
 regarding such paraphrases is of no weight, be- 
 cause they were generally ignorant of Hebrew 
 and Hebrew literature. 
 
 The language of the older Targums agrees 
 substantially with that of the Chaldee sections in 
 Daniel and Ezra, though the orthography is some- 
 what different. The later abound with foreign 
 words. They depart much further from the 
 ancient orthography, and sometimes from the 
 grammatical principles, of the Chaldee. Theii 
 present punctuation is different from that found 
 in the Biblical Chaldee. It is probable that they 
 were written at first without the vowels. When 
 the vocalisation of the Hebrew Bible was enlarged 
 and perfected by the Jewish grammarians, the 
 same attention was not given to the Targums. 
 Subsequently the editors of these paraphrases 
 endeavoured tq bring the pointing of them nearer 
 to that of Daniel and Ezra. Buxtorf laboured 
 in this province with great, success. The repu- 
 tation of these Targums among the Jews has 
 always been high, because amid other things they 
 flatter their national pride, and abound with 
 Rabbinic fables. 
 
 The word Taz'gum is derived from a quaari- 
 literal root, and signifies interpretation or version. 
 
 At present we know of eleven, three of which 
 comprehend the live books of Moses. 1. The 
 Targum of Onkelos. 2. That of the Pseudo- 
 Jonathan. 3. The Jerusalem Targum. 4. That 
 of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Prophets. 5. That 
 of Joseph the blind or one-eyed, on the Hagio- 
 grapha (Job, Psalms, Proverbs). 6. A Targum 
 on the five Megilloth, i e. the books of Ruth, 
 Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and La- 
 mentations of Jeremiah. 7. A Targum on 1st 
 and 2nd Chronicles. 8, 9, and 10. Three on 
 Esther. 11. The Jerusalem Targum on the 
 Prophets. 
 
 Onkelos . — According to the Babylonian Tal- 
 mud, Onkelos was a disciple of Hillel, who died 
 CO years b.c. This Hillel was grandfather of 
 Gamaliel, Paul's instructor. Eichhorn, disre- 
 garding the Jewish tradition, places him much 
 later. 
 
 His version, containing the Pentateuch alone, 
 is incomparably the best of all the Targums- 
 The style is pure, approaching that of Daniel 
 and Ezra; it follows the original word for word, 
 except where figures of speech are occasionally 
 resolved in poetical passages, and anthropomor- 
 phic expressions removed or changed, le3t cor- 
 poreity should be attributed to the S'ipr«*i* 
 
TARGUMS. 
 
 TARGUMS. 
 
 637 
 
 Being. The work is particularly useful in cri- 
 ticism, because it is very literal closely adhering 
 to the original words. Wherever the translator 
 det iates from the Masorctic text, lie has almost 
 always the countenance of other ancient versions. 
 He refers only two passages to the Messiah (Gen. 
 xlix. 10; Num. xxiv. 17). Onkelos's reputation 
 among the Jews has always been great ; his ver- 
 sion is even used by them as a kind of dictionary 
 giving the significations of Hebrew words ; and 
 they have composed a Masora on it like that upon 
 the Hebrew Bible, called Masora ITattargum. 
 This paraphrase is given in the Paris and London 
 Polyglotts from Buxtorf’s edition of 1618; the 
 text, however, is not yet accurately printed after 
 good MSS. Luzzato has recently attempted to 
 revise it in his work entitled Philoxenus , sive 
 de Onkelosi paraphr. Chald., Wien. 1830, 8vo. 
 (See the Halle Literaturzeit. for 1832.) 
 
 Jonathan Ben TJzziel on the Prophets and 
 Historical Books. — The accounts of Jonathan's 
 life are obscure. It is generally said that he 
 was the most distinguished of Hillel’s eighty 
 disciples, and colleague of Simeon the Just ; and 
 thus he is represented as living a short time 
 before the birth of Christ. The grounds assigned 
 by Eichhorn and others in favour of a more recent 
 period are unsatisfactory. 
 
 This Targum, like that of Onkelos, is fre- 
 quently mentioned in the Talmud, and must 
 have been well known when the latter was 
 written. Some have supposed that in various 
 places Jonathan made use of Onkelos’s version ; 
 the contrary is as probable. Jonathan’s version 
 seems to have been made prior to Onkelos on the 
 law. It is more likely that the Jews would first 
 venture to translate the prophetic writings, in 
 which freer scope might be taken, than undertake 
 the difficult task cf giving a version of the Pen- 
 tateuch. In the latter ease, greater literalify was 
 required and stricter injunctions were to be ob- 
 served. 
 
 Some have erroneously looked upon this Tar- 
 gum as the composition of different authors, 
 because it is more literal in the historical books 
 than in the prophets; but external and internal 
 evidence coincide in proving the unity of the 
 whole. 
 
 It contains Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor 
 prophets. 
 
 The style is inferior to that of Onkelos ; it 
 contains several Greek words, but no Latin terms, 
 as Eichhorn affirms. We are aware that Haver- 
 nick, after Carpzov, asserts that the style agrees 
 in the main with Onkelos’s ; but it is certainly 
 less pure, freer, and more paraph rastical. 
 
 The utility of this Targum chiefly bears upon 
 the critical history of the Hebrew text, and it ge- 
 nerally harmonises with the Masoretie recension. 
 It is printed in the Bibles of BomfJerg and Bux- 
 torf, as also in the London Polyglott. 
 
 Pseudo- Jonathan on the Pentateuch . — This 
 paraphrase has been falsely ascribed to the same 
 Jonathan who translated the prophets and his- 
 torical books. Its language is much more im- 
 pure, being mixed with foreign words, such as 
 Persian, Greek, and Latin, a collection of which 
 oas been made by Petermann £ De indole Para- 
 hraseos, quai Jonathanis esse dicitur* (Berol. 
 829, p. 65, sq.) The mode of rendering is en- 
 
 tirely different ; it contains mm frous allegories, 
 fables, and dialogues, unlike the manner of the 
 real Jonathan. The dialect in which it is written 
 is that of Jerusalem ; and where the author abides 
 by the Hebrew text, he uniformly follows the 
 Rabbinical interpretation. Several circumstances, 
 especially the character of the style and the men- 
 tion of the Talmud, prove that it was made after 
 the sixth century of the Christian era. Zunz, 
 with great probability, assigns it to the latter half 
 of the seventh century. It appears to have been 
 compiled in part from former expositions. 
 
 The Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch . — 
 This version is styled the Jerusalem Targum, 
 either from having been made at Jerusalem, or 
 rather from its being executed in the dialect of 
 that place. It contains merely interpretations of 
 select passages, and generally agrees with Pseudo- 
 Jonathan. The fables of the Pseudo-Jonathan 
 are repeated, and Hebrew words are inserted 
 without any explanation. The language is im- 
 pure and barbarous ; whole chapters are occasion- 
 ally omitted ; and again, a series of successive ex- 
 planations is attached to a single word. It con- 
 sists of mere fragments. 
 
 Late investigations, conducted with great skill 
 and industry, have fully established the fact that 
 the Targum on the Pentateuch, falsely ascribed to 
 Jonathan, existed much earlier under the name of 
 the Jerusalem Targum ox the Targum of Pales- 
 tine. Thus the Pseudo- Jonathan is identified 
 with the Targum of Jerusalem. They are merely 
 recensions of the same work. There is also 
 ground for believing that the Jerusalem Targum 
 extended to the prophetic books, and even to the 
 other parts of the Old Testament (Zunz, p. 77, 
 sq.). Some of the Targums now existing on 
 several books of the Hagiographa appear to be- 
 long to it. (See Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Portrage 
 der Juden, Berlin, 1832, 8vo., and Havernick’s 
 Einleitung.') 
 
 These two Targums, which are substantially 
 one and the same, furnish extremely little aid in 
 the criticism of the Old Testament. They ex- 
 hibit the doctrinal system of the later Jews ; 
 indeed, all the post-Talmudic versions were de- 
 signed to furnish allegorical explanations agreeable 
 to the rules laid down in the Talmud, and to em- 
 body current traditions, legends, and tales. 
 
 The paraphrases on Job, Psalms, and Proveibs 
 possess a common character in regard to style 
 and language, and probably proceeded from the 
 same country, which Zunz conjectures to have 
 been Syria; that on Proverbs, however, adheres 
 closely to the Hebrew text, partaking more of the 
 character of a version, than a paraphrase , while 
 those on Job and Psalms are loose and legendary, 
 agreeably to the genius of the time in which they 
 were made. It has been frequently noticed that 
 the Targum on Proverbs has a remarkable agree- 
 ment with the Syriac version, so that some have 
 supposed the writer to have made use of that more 
 ancient translation ; this hypothesis, however, is 
 not very probable. The dialects in which both 
 are written were cognate ; the country to which 
 they owed their origin the same ; it is not neces- 
 sary, therefore, to conclude that the one was de- 
 rived in part from the other. The paraphrases of 
 the books of Psalms and Job appear to have been 
 written by the same person, as far as we can judge 
 from internal uniformity. Earlier Targuma oa 
 
828 
 
 TARGUMS. 
 
 TARSHISH. 
 
 Jot) must have existed, as they are mentioned by 
 some of the Rabbins. 
 
 The Targum on the Megilloth was probably 
 written by the same person ; it is exceedingly free 
 and full of adventitious matter. The part upon 
 Rutl? is the best; that on Solomon's Song the 
 most fabulous. The work must have been 
 written a considerable time after the Talmud. 
 In addition to the Targum on Esther, which 
 forms a part of this Targum on the five Megilloth, 
 and is also the oldest and best, there are two others 
 on the same book. The second is an enlargement 
 of this first, and was inserted in the London Poly- 
 glott ; it had been previously published by Tayler 
 in a Latin version, under the name of Targum 
 prius (Lond. 1655, 4to.). The third is still 
 longer and more full of fables; it was published 
 in Latin by Tayler, under the title of Targum 
 posterius, but the original has never been printed. 
 These three are properly different recensions of 
 one and the same work, which, having been com- 
 paratively brief and free from absurd stories, was 
 subsequently enlarged at two different times. 
 
 It was long thought that there was no Targum 
 on the books of Chronicles; Beck, however, found 
 such a paraphrase in a MS. belonging to the 
 library at Erfurt, and published it with learned 
 annotations in 1680-83. The MS. has several 
 chasms. It was afterwards published by Wilkins 
 from the Erpenian MS. at Cambridge, in 1715 ; 
 here the text is full and correct. This Targum 
 resembles the later works of the same kind; and 
 could not have been written before the ninth cen- 
 tury, from its references to the Jerusalem Targum. 
 
 The Targum on Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, 
 attributed to R. Joseph the Blind, is generally 
 considered not to have been written by the reputed 
 author. 
 
 In cod. 154 of Kennicott, there is a passage of 
 some length quoted in the margin at Zechariah, 
 xii. 10 (Bruns in Eichhom’s Repertorium , xv. 
 174). It is attributed to a Targum of Jerusalem 
 on the prophets. 
 
 As far as our present knowledge reaches, there 
 is no Chaldee version of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehe- 
 miah. The reason assigned in the Talmud for 
 not translating Daniel into Chaldee is, because 
 it reveals the exact time of Messiah’s advent. But 
 the true cause seems rather to have been the super- 
 stition of the Jews in supposing that if these books 
 were translated into Chaldee, the holy text of the 
 original should be mixed with that of the para- 
 phrase, inasmuch as there are in them Chaldee 
 sections. There are indeed no Chaldee pieces in 
 Nehemiah ; but it was taken along with Ezra as one 
 book, and hence no Targum of either was made. 
 
 The Targums are of considerable use in a cri- 
 tical view. They show the integrity of the present 
 Masoretic text. It is not denied that they con- 
 tain readings different from some now current 
 among the Jews, and that they appear to have 
 been occasionally altered in order to be conformed 
 to an altered original : neither should it be con- 
 cealed that the MSS. vary from one another and 
 from the printed copies. As to their having been 
 assimilated to the Hebrew, it remains to be proved 
 that this was done to any great extent, or that it 
 was uniformly practised. After all reasonable 
 deductions for probable deterioration, they still 
 afford a considerable amount of testimony in 
 favour of the general integrity of the Hebrew text 
 
 They may be advantageously used in a critical 
 edition of the Bible, as suggesting readings of rea. 
 importance and value. Onkelos on the law, and 
 Jonathan on the prophets, because of their 1 it©- 
 rality, will be most serviceable. 
 
 Besides the works referred to in the preceding 
 article, the following may be mentioned : the 
 Introductions of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and De 
 Wette ; Winer, De Onke/oso ejusque Paraphrasi 
 Chaldaica, 4to. Lips., 1819; Gesenius, Comment. 
 zuJesaia, tom. i. ; Walton, Prolegomena', Jost, 
 Geschichte der Israelii en, Berlin, 1824-9, tom. iii. 
 and iv. Winer has published a grammar and 
 Cbrestomathy to facilitate the reading of the 
 Targums, and Buxtorf’s folio Lexicon is the best 
 dictionary. -*-S. D. 
 
 TARSHISH (S5*Bhn), a celebrated part of 
 the ancient world, about the exact position of 
 which opinions are much divided. In this case, 
 however, as in many other Scriptural difficulties, 
 that is clear which is important, while the doubt- 
 ful or the hidden is of comparatively little mo- 
 ment. We may, or we may not, be able to ffx 
 with certainty the exact spot where Tarshish lay ; 
 but the particulars which Scripture supplies le- 
 specting it are too numerous and too definite to 
 allow any doubt as to what was the character and 
 condition of the place itself. Tarshish may be 
 described, and, therefore, may be known, though 
 we still remain in uncertainty on what point in 
 the map the name should be inscribed. And 
 while the exact locality is of small concern, the 
 important details which the Bible presents may, 
 nevertheless, render us aid in attempting to deter- 
 mine where Tarshish lay. 
 
 W r e will first give a summary of the notices 
 which the Scriptures afford respecting Tarshish. 
 In the great genealogical table (Gen. x. 4, 5) it 
 is placed among the sons of Javan ; ‘ Elishah and 
 Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. By these were 
 the islands of the Gentiles divided.’ This refers 
 the mind at once to the north-western parts of the 
 Mediterranean. To a similar conclusion does 
 other Scriptural language lead. In Ps. Ixxii. 10 it 
 is said, ‘ The kings of Tarshish and of the isles 
 shall bring presents;’ and in 2 Chron. ix. 21, 
 we read, ‘ The king's (Solomon) ships went to 
 Tarshish with the servants of Hiram ; every three 
 years once came the ships of Tarshish bringing 
 gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.’ 
 Now Hiram’s city, Tyre, lay on the Mediterranean 
 coast, and it is easy to see how Solomon's vessels 
 might be associated with his in a voyage towards 
 the west to fetch merchandise. In Isa. lxvi. 
 19, we find Tarshish mentioned in a way which 
 confirms this view : ‘And I will set a sign among 
 them, and I will send those that escape of them 
 unto the nations (or Gentiles) ; to Tarshish, Pul, 
 and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, 
 to the isles afar off.’ These passages make it clear 
 that Tarshish lay at a distance from Judaea, and 
 that that distance was in a north-westerly direction ; 
 and the mention of such names as Lud, Javan, and 
 the isles, carries the mind to the extreme north- 
 west, and suggests Spain as the place for Tarshish. 
 But Tarshish must have been on the sea-coast^ 
 for it was famous for its ships. ‘ The ships of 
 Tarshish ’ were celebrated under that designation, 
 which may have been used in that wide sense in 
 which we speak of an East Indiaman, reference 
 
TAHSHISK. 
 
 TARSHISH. 
 
 m 
 
 feeing made rather to the place whither the vessel 
 traded, than to that where it was bnilt; or the 
 phrase may have come to denotea particular kind 
 of vessel, i. e. trading or merchant ships, from 
 the celebrity of Tarshish as a commercial port 
 v 'l Kings x. 22; Ps. xlviii. 7 ; Isa. ii. 16; xxiii. 
 1-14; lx. 9; Ezek. xxvii. 25). Some six times 
 do we meet with the phrase, ships or navy of 
 Tarshish ; which of itself shows how noted a sea- 
 port we have under consideration, if it does not 
 prove also that in process of time the terms had 
 come to describe vessels according to their occu- 
 pation rather than their country, as we say 1 a 
 slaver,’ denoting a ship engaged in the slave-trade 
 (comp. Horat. ‘ ssevis Liburnis,’ Carm. i. 27 ; 
 
 ‘ Bit hyna carina’, i. 35; ‘ trabe Cypria,’ i. 1). 
 In Ezek. xxvii. 12-25, the place is described by 
 its pursuits and its merchandise: — ‘Tarshish 
 (here again in connection with a western country, 
 Javan, ver. 13) ‘ was thy (Tyre) merchant, in all 
 riches, with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded 
 in thy fairs. The ships of Tarshish did sing of 
 thee in thy market, and thou wast replenished 
 and made very glorious in the midst of the seas.’ 
 The last words are admirably descriptive of the 
 south-western coast of Spain. How could a 
 Hebrew poet better describe the locality where the 
 songs of the sailors of Tarshish made the name of 
 Tyre glorious 1 ? Let the reader turn to the map, 
 and cast his eye on the embouchure of the Gua- 
 dalquivir, and say if this spot is not pre-eminently, 
 when viewed from Palestine, ‘ in the midst of the 
 seas.’ There is a propriety too in the words found 
 in Ps. xlviii. 7 (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 26), ‘ Thou 
 bleakest the ships of Tarshish with an east wind,’ 
 if we suppose merchant vessels working eastwardly 
 up the Mediterranean towards Tyre, encountering • 
 an east or rather north-east gale, which is a very 
 violent and destructive wind to this day. Jere- 
 miah (x. 9) tells us that ‘ silver spread into plates ’ 
 was brought from Tarshish ; and from the con- 
 nection the silver appears to have been elaborately 
 wrought ; whence we infer that at one period 
 there was in Tarshish the never-failing connection 
 found between commerce, wealth, and art. An 
 important testimony occurs in Ezek. xxxviii. 13, 
 
 ‘ Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tar- 
 shish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say 
 unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil ? to carry 
 away silver and gold? to take away cattle and 
 goods, to take a great spoil? ’ whence it is clear 
 that Tarshish was an opulent 'place, abounding 
 in cattle and goods, in silver and gold. We are 
 not sure that the words ‘ the young lions thereof’ 
 are intended to be taken literally. They may 
 refer to the lion-hearted chiefs of the nation ; but 
 if they are understood as implying that lions 
 were literally found in Tarshish, they only concur 
 with other parts of Scripture in showing that the 
 name is to be taken in a wide acceptation, as de- 
 noting, besides modern Andalusia, those parts of 
 Africa which lay near and opposite to Spain. 
 Nor is it impossible that a part of the trade of 
 Tarshish lay in these and in other animals ; for we 
 certainly know that Solomon's ships brought .that 
 prince apes and peacocks : the lions may have 
 been caught in Africa, and conveyed in ships of 
 Tarshish to Tyre. Sheba and Dedan, however, 
 are mentioned here in connection with Tarshish, 
 and they were certainly eastern countries, lying 
 probably on the western side of the Persian gulf 
 
 in Arabia. But the object of the writer may 
 have been to mention the countries placed at the 
 extremities of the then known world — Tarshish 
 on the west, Sheba and Dedan on the east. In 
 Isa. xxiii. 1-14, we read, as a part of the burden 
 of Tyre, that the ships of Tarshish are called on 
 to howl at her destruction, because Tyre afforded 
 them no longer a commercial port and a haven ; 
 words which entirely agree with the hypothesis 
 which makes Tarshish a city on the sea- board of 
 Spain, trading up the Mediterranean to Tyre. 
 Nor are the words found in the sixth verse dis- 
 cordant : ‘ Pass ye over to Tarshish ; howl, ye 
 inhabitants of the isles.’ Let us now turn to the 
 book of Jonah (i. 1-3; iv. 2). The prophet was 
 commanded to go and prophesy against Nineveh 
 on the Tigris. For this he should, on quitting Je- 
 rusalem, have gone in an easterly direction ; but 
 he shunned the duty and fled. Of course he na- 
 turally fled in a direction the opposite of that in 
 which the avoided object lay: be proceeded, in 
 fact, to Tarshish. Tarshish then must have been 
 to the west, and not to the east, of Jerusalem. 
 In order to reach Tarshish he went to Joppa, and 
 took ship for the place of his destination, thus 
 still keeping in a westerly course, and showing that 
 Tarshish lay to the west. In Tarshish, indeed, 
 placed in the extreme north-west, he might well 
 expect to be distant enough from Nineveh. It is 
 also worthy of notice that, when he arrived at 
 Joppa on the coast of Palestine, ‘ he found a ship 
 going to Tarshish ;’ which fact we can well under- 
 stand if Tarshish lay to the west, but by no means 
 if it lay on the Red Sea. 
 
 Thus far all the passages cited agree, with more 
 or less of evidence, in fixing Tarshish somewhere 
 in or near Spain. But in 2 Chron. xx. 36, it is 
 recorded that Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined 
 himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, ‘ to make 
 ships to go to Tarshish, and they made the ships 
 in Ezion-geber,’ that is, on theElanitic gulf on the 
 eastern atm of the Red Sea. If then these ves- 
 sels, built at Ezion-geber, were to go to Tarshish, 
 that place must lie on the eastern side of Palestine 
 instead of the western ; for we cannot suppose they 
 circumnavigated Africa; not because such a 
 voyage was impossible, but, because it was long 
 and tedious, and not likely to be taken when a 
 nearer and safer way to Tarshish lay from the 
 ports of the Palestinian coast. But in the pa- 
 rallel passage, found in 1 Kings xxii. 49, ihese 
 vessels are described as ‘ships of Tarshish ’ (nun- 
 chant vessels), which were intended to go to Ophir , 
 not to Tarshish. This removes the difficulty at 
 once, for Ophir was in the east, and accounts for 
 the fact that the fleet was built on the Red Sea, 
 since it was an eastern not a western voyage 
 which was intended. The reference appears to be 
 to the same eastern trade of which mention is 
 made in 1 Kings x. 22, where we find Hiram and 
 Solomon importing from the East in ships of 
 Tarshish or merchantmen, gold and silver, ivory 
 apes, and peacocks. We have not space to entej 
 into the critical questions which this contrariety 
 between the books of Kings and Chronicles sug- 
 gests for consideration ; but we may remark that 
 in a case in which a diversity appears in the 
 statements of these two authorities, no competently 
 infonped theologian could hesitate to give me 
 preference to the former. 
 
 It appears then clear from this minute review 
 
830 
 
 TARSIIISH. 
 
 TARSUS. 
 
 sf the Scriptural accounts and allusions, that 
 Tarshish was an old, celebrated, opulent, culti- 
 vated, commercial city, which carried on trade in 
 the Mediterranean and with the sea-ports of 
 Syria, especially Tyre and Joppa, and that it most 
 probably lay on the extreme west of that sea. Was 
 there then in ancient times any city in these parts 
 which corresponded with these clearly ascer- 
 tained facts? There was. Such was Tartessus 
 in Spain, said to have been a Phoenician colony 
 (Arrian, Alex. iii. 86), a fact which of itself 
 would account for its intimate connection with 
 Palestine and the Biblical narratives. As to the 
 exact spot where Tartessis (so written originally) 
 lay, authorities are not agreed, as the city had 
 ceased to exist when geography began to re- 
 ceive attention ; but it was not far from the Straits 
 of Gibraltar, and near the mouth of the Guadal- 
 quivir, consequently at no great distance from 
 the famous Granada of later days. The reader, 
 however, must enlarge his notion beyond that of 
 a mere city, which, how great soever, would 
 scarcely correspond with the ideas of magnitude, 
 affluence, and power that the Scriptures suggest. 
 The name, which is of Phoenician origin, seems 
 to denote the district of south-western Spain, 
 comprising the several colonies which Tyre 
 planted in that country, and so being equivalent 
 to what we might designate Phoenician Spain. 
 We are not however convinced that the opposite 
 coast of Africa was not included, so that the word 
 would denote to an inhabitant of Palestine the 
 extreme western parts of the world. We seem, 
 however, authorized by considerations, besides 
 those which have been already elicited, in iden- 
 tifying the Hebrew Tarshish with the Spanish 
 Tartessus, whatever may have been the extent of 
 the neighbouring country over which the latter 
 held dominion, or possessed immediate influence. 
 Among these considerations we mention, 1st. that 
 the two names are similar, if they are not the same ; 
 the Greek T apTijaaSs, with the Aramaic pronun- 
 ciation, would be a fact which would of 
 
 itself seem to settle the question, in the absence 
 of conflicting evidence and claims ; 2nd. Spain 
 was one of the chief seats of Phoenician coloniza- 
 tion ; and if we unite therewith the north-west of 
 Africa, we shall have some idea of the greatness 
 of the power of Tyre in these parts, for Tyre is 
 reported to have founded not fewer than three 
 hundred cities on the western coast of Africa, and 
 two hundred in south-western Spain (Strabo, ii. 
 82). Here, then, was found the chief object of 
 the Phoenician sea trade. These countries were 
 to Tyre what Peru wa3 to Spain. Conlining our 
 remarks to Spain, we learn from Heeren that the 
 Phoenician colonies on the European side of the 
 sea were situated in the south of the present An- 
 dalusia. Here, with other important places, lay 
 Tartessus, a name which is borne by a river, an 
 island, a town, and a region. Heeren distinctly 
 says that to Orientalists the word indicated the 
 farthest west generally, comprising, of course, 
 many places. In the commercial geography of the 
 Phoenicians, he adds, the word obviously meant 
 ♦he entire of their colonial dependencies in southern 
 Spain. In the same general way we use the term 
 West Indies ; and thus arose the river, the town, 
 the district of Tartessus, since the country in- 
 cluded them all (Heeren, Ideen, ii. 44, sq.). 3rd. 
 It does much to confirm our view that all the 
 
 articles reported in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, to have 
 been brought from Tarshish, might have com# 
 from south-western Spain. Here there were mine* 
 of gold and silver, and Tartessus is expressly 
 named as affording the latter mineral (Strabo, iii. 
 p. 1 17 ; Diod. Sic. v. 35). Tin was brought by the 
 Phoenicians from Britain into Spain, and thence 
 carried to the Oriental markets. According to 
 Diodorus Siculus (v. 3S), tin was procured in 
 Spain also, as well as lead, according to Pliny 
 (Hist. Nat. iii. 4). Pliny’s words .are forcible; 
 ‘ Nearly all Spain abounds in the metals — lead, 
 iron, copper, silver, gold.’ 
 
 The view which has been taken in these ob- 
 servations was suggested to our mind by Winer's 
 excellent article on the subject (Real-icorterb. ii. 
 700), and on his authority some of our statements 
 rest; but we should not do justice to it, did we 
 not add, that though suggested by Winer, it i3 
 the unprejudiced result of our own investigation 
 of the several Scriptural passages which bear on 
 the subject. We add one or two corroborations. 
 Heeren (Ideen, ii. 64) translates Ezek. xxvii. 25, 
 ‘ The ships of Tarshish,’ &c., by ‘ Spanish ships 
 were the chief object of thy merchandise; thou 
 (Tyre) wast a full city, and wast honoured on the 
 seas.’ The Phoenicians were as eager in their 
 quest of gold and gold countries as were the 
 alchemists and the Europeans of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury. Tlie lu'st for gold urged them over the 
 deserts of Arabia, and the cliffs of the Red Sea, 
 as far as Yemen and Ethiopia; and the same 
 passion carried them westwardly to the coasts of 
 Spain and the pillars of Hercules. 11 Spain,’ 
 says Heeren, ‘ was once the richest land in the 
 world for silver ; gold was found there in great 
 abundance, and the baser metals as well. The 
 silver mountains were in those parts which the 
 Phoenicians comprised under the general name of 
 Tartessus or Tarshish. The immeasurable afflu- 
 ence of precious metals which on their first ar- 
 rival they found here, so astounded them, and 
 the sight, thereof so wrought on the imagination of 
 the people, that fact called fable to its aid, and 
 the story gained currency, that the first Phoenician 
 colonists not only filled their ships with gold, but 
 made thereof their various implements, anchors 
 not excepted.’ — J. It. B. 
 
 TARSHISH, a precious stone, so called as 
 brought, from Tarshish, as Ophir is also put for 
 the gold brought, from thence (Exod. xxviii. 20 ; 
 xxxix. 13; Ezek. i. 16; x. 9; xxviii. 13; Cant, 
 v. 14 ; Dan. x. 6). The Septuagint, followed by 
 Josephus, makes it the ‘chrysolite,’ i.e. the topaz 
 of the moderns, which is still found in Spain : so 
 Braun, De Vestitu Sacerd. ii. 17. Others sup- 
 pose it to be ‘amber;’ but this does not agree with 
 the passages in Exodus, which make the Tarshish 
 to have been one of the engraved stones of the 
 high-priest’s breast-plate. The word is translated 
 ‘ beryl ’ in the Authorized Version. 
 
 TARSUS (Tap<r6s), a celebrated city, the 
 metropolis of Cilicia, in Asia Minor, on the banks 
 of the river Cydnus, which flowed through it, and 
 divided it into two parts. Hence it is sometimes 
 by "Greek writers called Tapcro't in the plural, 
 perhaps not without some reference to a fancied 
 resemblance in the form of the two divisions o f 
 the city to the wings of a bird. Tarsus was a di»- 
 tinguished seat of Greek philosophy and literature, 
 and from the number of its schools and learned 
 
TARTAK. 
 
 TATNAI. 
 
 831 
 
 men, M as ranked by the side of Athens and Alex- 
 andria (Strabo, xiv., pp. 673, 674). Augustus 
 made Tarsus free (Appian, Bell. Civ.v. 7). This 
 seems to have implied the privilege of being 
 governed by its own laws and magistrates, with 
 freedom from tribute; but did not confer the jus 
 coloniarum, nor the jus civitcitis : and it was not 
 therefore, as usually supposed, on this account, 
 that Paul enjoyed the privilege of Roman citizen- 
 ship. Tarsus, indeed, eventually did become a 
 Roman colony, which gave to the inhabitants this 
 privilege; but this was not till long after the time 
 of Paul (Deyling, Observat. Sacr. iii. 391, sq. ; 
 comp. Citizenship ; Colony). We thus find 
 that the Roman tribune at Jerusalem ordered 
 Paul to be scourged, though he knew that he w r as 
 a native of Tarsus, but Resisted on learning that 
 
 he was a Roman citizen (Acts ix. 11 ; xxi. 89; 
 xxii. 24, 27). In the time of Abulfeda, that is, 
 towards the end of the thirteenth and beginning 
 of the fourteenth century. Tarsus was still large, 
 and surrounded by a double wall, and in the oc- 
 cupation of Armenian Christians {Tab. Syria 
 p. 133). It is now a poor and decayed town, 
 inhabited by Turks ; but it is not so much 
 fallen as many other anciently great towns of 
 the same quarter, the population being estimated 
 at 30,000. There are some considerable remains 
 of the ancient city (Heuma-nn, De Claris Tar- 
 sencnsib., Gott,. 1748 ; Altmann, Exerc. de Tarso. 
 Bern. 1731 ; Mannert, ii. 97, sq. ; Rosenmiiller, 
 Bib. Geog. iii. 38 ; Beaufort, Karamania ; Irby 
 and Mangles, Travels , pp. 502-506 ; see also the 
 articles Citizenship and Colony). 
 
 5’. 6. [Tarsus.] 
 
 TARTAK (p^HFl ; Sept. ©apflafc), an idol of 
 the Avites, introduced by them into Samaria 
 (2 Kings xvii. 31). In Pehlevi Tar-thakh might 
 mean ‘ deep darkness’ or ‘ hero of darkness.’ Ge- 
 eenius thinks that under this name some malign 
 planet (Saturn or Mars) was worshipped {Com- 
 ment. in Jes., ii. 348); but v/e are too little ac- 
 quainted with the Assyrian superstitions to be 
 able to identify this idol with certainty. 
 
 TARTAN (ifni!) ; Sept. Gapdav and Tcivddav), 
 an Assyrian general whom Sennacherib sent, ac- 
 companied by Rabsaris and Rabshakeh, to Jeru- 
 salem (2 Kings xviii. 17). It is not known whe- 
 ther this is the same officer who in a preceding 
 reign besieged and took Ashdod for his master 
 (Isa. xx. 1). 
 
 TATNAI ; Pers., perhaps gift; Sept. 
 
 GavQavat), a Persian governor, who succeeded Re- 
 hum in the rule of Samaria, arid probably of other 
 provinces north of Judaea. He appears to have 
 been a more just person, and more friendly to the 
 
 Jews, than his predecessor. An adverse report o. 
 their proceedings at Jerusalem reached him ; but he 
 resolved to suspend his judgment till he had ex- 
 amined into the matter on the spot. He accord- 
 ingly repaired thither, accompanied by another 
 great officer, named Shethar-boznai, and their col- 
 leagues, and finding that the Jews alleged the 
 authority of a royal decree for their proceedings, 
 he sent to the supreme government a temperate 
 and fair report, founded on the information he 
 had obtained, suggesting that the statement made 
 by the Jews as to the decree of Cyrus and other 
 matters should be verified by reference to the 
 archives at Babylon. Then, without one w r ord to 
 influence the decision or to prejudice the claim 
 advanced, Tatnai concludes with intimating that 
 he awaits the royal orders. This official letter of 
 the Persian governor is quite a model of exact- 
 ness, moderation, and truth, and gives a very 
 favourable idea of the administrative part of the 
 Persian government. This took place in the se- 
 cond year of Harms, b.c. 519. The rescript being 
 
833 
 
 TAXES. 
 
 TAVERNS, THE THREE. 
 
 favourable to the claim of the Jews, whose state- 
 ment had been verified by the discovery of the 
 original decree of Cyrus, Tatnai and his col- 
 leagues applied themselves with vigour to the 
 execution of the royal commands (Ezra v. and 
 vi.). 
 
 TAVERNS, THE THREE (Tpets Tafcpvar, 
 V ulg. Tres tabernae). The name of a small place 
 on the Appian way, mentioned Acts xxviii. 15. 
 The word rajSepva is plainly the Latin taberna 
 in Greek letters, and denotes a house made with 
 boards or planks, quasi trabena . Wooden houses, 
 huts, &c. are called tabernae. Thus -Horace, 
 ‘ pauperum tabernas regumque tunes,’ Carm. i. 
 1 4, 13. Hence the word also means shops, as distin- 
 guished from dwelling houses. Horace uses it for 
 a bookseller’s shop (Sat. i. 4. 71), and for a wine 
 shop ( Ep . i. 14.24). The shops at Pompeii are 
 booths, connected in almost every case with dwell- 
 ings behind, as they were in London three centu- 
 ries ago. When eatables or drinkables were sold 
 in a Roman shop, it was called taberna, tavern, 
 victualling-house. The place or village called 
 ‘ Three Taverns ’ probably therefore derived its 
 name from three large inns, or eating-houses, for 
 the refreshment of travellers passing to and from 
 Rome. Zosimus calls it. rpiu KatrrjXela (ii. 10). 
 Appii Forum appears to have been such another 
 place. Horace mentions the latler in describing 
 his journey from Rome to Brundusium, as ‘ dif- 
 fertum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis’ — - 
 stuffed with rank boatmen, and with vintners base 
 (Sat. i. 5. 3). That the Three Taverns was nearer 
 Rome than Appii Forum, appears from the con- 
 clusion of one of Cicero's letters to Atticus (ii. 
 10), which, when he is travelling south-easticards 
 from Antium to his seat near Formise, he dates 
 *Ab Appii Foro, hora quarta’ — from Appii Forum, 
 at the fourth hour ; and adds, ‘ Dederam aliam 
 paulo ante, Tribus Tabernis ’ — I wrote you an- 
 other, a little while ago, from the Three Taverns. 
 Grotius observes, that there were many places in 
 the Roman empire at -this time which had the 
 names of Forum and Tabernae, the former from 
 having markets of all kinds - of commodities, the 
 latter from furnishing wine and eatables. The 
 Itinerary of Antoninus places Appii Forum at 
 forty-three Roman miles from Rome, and the 
 Three Taverns at thirty- three. The place still 
 remains, and is called Tre Taverne. In Evekyn's 
 time (1645), the remains were ‘ yet very faire ’ 
 (Diarie, vol. i. p. 134). The Roman Christians 
 went in token of respect to meet St. Paul at these 
 places, having been probably apprised of his ap- 
 proach by letters or express from Puteoli (Acts 
 xxviii. 13-15) — one party of them resting at the 
 Three Taverns, and the other going on to Appii 
 Forum. When the apostle saw this unequivocal 
 token of respect and zeal, he took fresh courage. 
 In the fourth century there was a Bishop of Three 
 Taverns, named Felix (Optatus, lib. i.). — J.F.D. 
 
 TAXES of some kind must have been coeval 
 with the origin of civilized society. The idea of 
 the one is involved in that of the other; since 
 society, as every organization, implies expense, 
 which must be raised by the abstraction of pro- 
 •perty from the individuals of which it consists, 
 either by occasional or periodical, by self-im- 
 posed, or compulsory exactions. 
 
 Accordingly we find a provision of income 
 made at the very commencement of the Mosaic 
 
 polity. Taxes, like all other things in that 
 polity, had a religious origin and import. As a 
 ransom lor his soul unto the Lord, every Israelite 
 was to pay half a shekel yearly, from twenty 
 years old and upward, the rich not giving more,, 
 the poor not giving less, for the service of th# 
 tabernacle (Exod. xxx. 12, sq. ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 6). 
 From the latter passage it appears that the law 
 appointing this payment was in force in the dayi 
 of Joash (b.c. 878). This half shekel was the 
 tribute which our Lord was asked if he paid 
 (Matt, xv ii. 24). It is called in the Greek 
 ra Sldpaxp-n, and was in value about fifteen pence. 
 The way in which it is spoken of shows that it 
 was an established and well-known payment — 
 ‘ they that received the didrachm ’ — in rendering 
 which by ‘tribute,’ our translators have failed to 
 give the force of the original (comp. Joseph. 
 De Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6). This offering was obli- 
 gator}’ - on Jews who lived in foreign countries no 
 less than on those who lived at home, though fre- 
 quently the native princes tried to divert the 
 didrachm from the temple treasury to their own, in 
 which effort they were more than ouce arrested by 
 the Romans (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 9. 1). From 
 the Talmudical Tract Shekalim (Mishna, ii. 4), 
 the time of payment appears to have been between 
 the fifteenth and the twenty-fifth of the month 
 Adar, that is, in March. After the destruction of 
 the temple this didrachm was ordered by Vespa- 
 sian to be paid into the capitol, as, says Josephus, 
 * they used to pay the same to the temple at 
 Jerusalem ’ (De Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6). A special 
 provision seems to have been made, under peculiar 
 circumstances, of one-third of a shekel yearly, 
 ‘ for the service of the house of our God ’ (Neh. 
 x. 32). The Jews, at times, found the taxes 
 they had to pay very oppressive. The ten tribes 
 complained that they had found David’s yoke 
 heavy, and entreated Rehoboam that he would 
 lighten it. And the stoning to death of Adoram, 
 who ‘was over the tribute,’ shows to what an ex- 
 tent the question of taxes entered into the causes 
 of the revolt of the ten tribes (1 Kings xii. 4, 18). 
 When the Romans became masters of Palestine 
 the unhappy Jews had a double yoke to bear; 
 while it appears from Josephus that the yoke ot 
 the native princes was anything but light. The 
 income of Herod the Great seems to have been 
 about 1600 talents, which has been estimated at 
 680, 000£. sterling (Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 11. 4, note 
 in Whiston’s Translation). Agrippa II. had 
 revenues which amounted to twelve millions of 
 drachmae, which may have equalled nearly half 
 a million of our money. Nor was the recently 
 removed house-tax an exclusive English imposi- 
 tion, for Herod Agrippa is recorded to nave 
 ‘ released the Jews from the tax upon houses, every 
 one of whom paid it before ’ (Joseph. Antiq. xix 
 6. 3 ; 8. 2). 
 
 Besides the regular hail shekel ir.eie was a 
 considerable income derived to the Temple from 
 tithes, firstlings, &c. (2 Kings xii. 4). Consider- 
 ing the fertility of the land we cannot accoun< 
 these religious imposts as heavy. If we turn ta 
 the civil constitution, we find taxes first insti- 
 tuted at the time of the introduction of regal 
 power, whose exactions are forcibly described by 
 Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 10, sq.). They consisted 
 partly in personal service, partly in tithe in kind. 
 Occasionally a heavy poll-tax was imposed — ‘ of 
 
TEASHUR. 
 
 til the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty 
 shekels of silver’ (2 Kings xv. 20). On other 
 occasions an assessment was made, and a tax 
 raised from the people of the land generally (2 
 Kings xxiii. 35). Both these last cases, how- 
 ever, were provisions for a special need. Pre- 
 sents constituted a source of abundant income, 
 and can hardly be regarded in any other light 
 than as a sort of self-imposed tax (1 Sam. x. 27 ; 
 xvi. 20; 1 Kings x. 25 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 5). 
 Royal demesnes supplied resources (1 Kings iv. 
 22, sq.). There was also a transit-tax ‘ of the 
 merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice-mer- 
 chants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of 
 the governors of the country’ (1 Kings x. 15). 
 Ships and other public property belonged to the 
 king (1 Kings x. 28; ix. 26; xxii. 49): the 
 weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year 
 (independently of several sources) was 676 talents 
 (1 Kings x. 14).— J.R. B. 
 
 TEASHUR occurs in three places 
 
 in Scripture, but great uncertainty has alwfays 
 existed respecting its true meaning (Cels. Hiero- 
 bot. ii. 153) ; though it is now generally ac- 
 knowledged to denote the box-tree. There is no 
 philological proof of this conclusion, but yet 
 there is nothing in the tree indicated unsuitable 
 to the several contexts. Thus, with reference to 
 the future temple, it is said (Isa. lx. 13), ‘ The 
 glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir-tree, 
 the pine-tree, and the box together ;’ and at xli. 19, 
 4 1 will set in the desert the fir-tree, and the pine, 
 and the box together.’ Further in Ezek. xxvii. 6, 
 in the account of the arts and commerce of Tyre, 
 we read, 4 Of the oaks of Bashan have they made 
 
 tnine oars, and the benches of the rowa-s are made 
 of ashur-xoood, inlaid with ivory,’ as it is now 
 Tonally interpreted. The ashur-wood, moreover, 
 
 VOL. ii. 54 
 
 TEENAH. 933 
 
 is said to have been brought from the isle* oS 
 Chittim, that is, of Greece. 
 
 The box (buxus sempervirens) is a native of 
 most parts of Europe. It grows well in England, 
 as at Boxhill, &c., while that from the Levant is 
 most valued in commerce, in consequence of its 
 being highly esteemed by wood-engravers. Turkey 
 box is yielded by buxus Balearica, a species which 
 is found in Minorca, Sardinia, and Corsica, and 
 also in both European and Asiatic Turkey, and is 
 imported from Constantinople, Smyrna, and the 
 Black Sea. Box is also found on Mount Caucasus, 
 and a species extends even to the Himalaya 
 mountains. Hence it is well known to Asiatics, 
 and is the shumshad of the Arabs. It is much 
 employed in the present day by the wood en- 
 graver, the turner, carver, mathematical instru- 
 ment maker, and the comb and flute maker. It 
 was cultivated by the Romans, as described by 
 Pliny. Virgil (JEn. x. 135) alludes to the prac- 
 tice of its being inlaid with ivory — 
 
 Quale per artem 
 
 Inclusum buxo, aut Oriciii terebintho, 
 
 Lucet ebur. 
 
 The box-tree, being a native of mountainous 
 regions, was peculiarly adapted to the calcareous 
 formations of Mount Lebanon, and therefore 
 likely to be brought from theiice with the coni- 
 ferous woods for the building of the temple, and 
 was as well suited as the fir and the pine trees for 
 changing the face of the desert. — J. F. R. 
 
 TEBETH (n3tp), the tenth month (Esth. ii. 
 16) of the sacred year of the Hebrews, com- 
 menced with the new moon in December, and 
 terminated at the new moon in January. The 
 Egyptians called it To/3i or TwjSt, and it was 
 their fifth month. Hieronymus has the following 
 comment upon Ezek. xxix. 1 : 4 Decimus mensis, 
 qui Hebraeis appellatur Tebeth, et apud Aegyptios 
 Tvfii, apud Romanos Jauuarius.’ In Arabic it 
 is called fQHD, in Greek Tu/3 t or T^/3, and in 
 Sanscrit TArAs. — C. H. F. B. 
 
 TEENAH (iTIXF)) is universally translated 
 fig and fig-tree , in both ancient and modern ver- 
 sions, and, no doubt, correctly so : it has from the 
 earliest times been a highly esteemed fruit in the 
 East, and its present, as well as ancient Arabic 
 name, is teen. The fig-tree, though now success- 
 fully cultivated in a great part of Europe, even as 
 far north as the southern parts of England, is yet 
 a native of the East, and probably of the Persian 
 region, where it is most extensively cultivated. 
 The climate there is such that the tree must neces- 
 sarily be able to bear some degree of cold, and thus 
 be fitted to travel northwards, and ripen its fruit 
 where there is a sufficient amount and continuance 
 of summer heat. The fig is still extensively cul- 
 tivated in the East, and in a dried state, strung 
 upon cords, it forms an extensive article of com- 
 merce from Persia to India. Athenaeus, as 
 quoted by Rosenmiiller, states that. Amitrochates, 
 an Indian king, in a letter, begged Antiochus to 
 send him at his own expense, ‘sweet wine, dried 
 figs, and a sophist.' 
 
 The fig is mentioned in so many passages of 
 Scripture, that our space will not allow us to 
 enumerate them, but they are detailed by Celsius 
 {Hierobot. ii. p. 368). The first notice of it, how- 
 ever, occurs in Gen. iii. 7, where Adam and Evs 
 
934 
 
 TEIL TREE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 are dssc ribetl as sewing fig-leaves together, to make 
 themselves aprons. The common fig-leaf is not 
 
 •o well suited, from its lobed nature, for this pur- 
 pose ; but the practice of sewing or pinning leaves 
 together is very common in the East even in the 
 present day, and baskets, dishes, and umbrellas, 
 are made of leaves so pinned or sewn together. The 
 fig-tree is enumerated (Dent. viii. 8) as one of the 
 valuable products of Palestine, ‘ a land of wheat, 
 and barley, and vines, and fig-trees, and pomegra- 
 nates.’ The spies, who were sent from the wilder- 
 ness of Paran, brought back from the brook of 
 Eshcol, clusters of grapes, pomegranates, and figs. 
 The fig-tree is referred to as one of the signs of 
 prosperity (1 Kings iv. 25), ‘And Judah and Israel 
 dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under 
 his fig-tree.’ And its failure is noted as a sign of 
 affliction (Ps. cv. 33), ‘ He smote their fig-trees, and 
 broke the trees of their coasts.’ The very frequent 
 references which are made in the Old Testament 
 to the fig and other fruit trees, are in consequence 
 of fruits forming a much more important article 
 of diet in the warm and dry countries of the East, 
 than they can ever do in the cold and moist 
 regions of the North. Figs are also used medi- 
 cinally, and we have a notice in 2 Kings xx. 7, of 
 their employment as a poultice : ‘ And Isaiah said, 
 Take a lump of figs ; and they took and laid it on 
 the boil, and he recovered.’ The fig-tree is, more- 
 over, mentioned in the New Testament by its 
 Greek name ervurj ,by all the Evangelists. The 
 passages have been fully illustrated by the several 
 commentators. — J. F. R. 
 
 TEIL-TREE is the linden-tree, or Tilia Eu- 
 ropeans of botanists. It is mentioned in the 
 Authorized Version, in Isa. vi. 13, ‘as a teil- 
 tree, and as an oak ;’ but as in the Hebrew the 
 word alah, or turpentine tree, is used, there is 
 no reason for giving it a different signification in 
 this from what it has in other passages [Alah]. 
 
 TEKEL. [Mene, &c.] 
 
 TEKOA (yipW ; Sept, ©e/ewe), a city south 
 of Bethlehem, mi the borders of the desert to 
 
 which it gave name, and noted as the residenoi 
 of ‘ the wise woman ’ who interceded for Absa- 
 lom ; as one of the towns fortified by Rehoboam ; 
 and as the birthplace of the prophet Amos (2 Sam. 
 xiv. 2 ; 1 Chron. ii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xx. 20 ; Jer. 
 vi. 1 ; Amos i. 1). The site has long been known ; 
 it lies six miles south of Bethlehem, on an ele- 
 vated hill, not steep, but broad at the top, and 
 covered with ruins to tlie extent of four or five 
 acres. These consist chiefly of the foundations 
 of houses built of squared stones, some of which 
 are bevilled. The mMdle of the space is occupied 
 by the ruins of a Greek church. The site com- 
 mands extensive prospects, and towards the east 
 is bounded only by the level mountains of Moab. 
 Before and during the Crusades Tekoa was well 
 inhabited by Christians ; but in a.d. 1138 it was 
 sacked by a party of Turks from beyond the 
 Jordan, and nothing further is known of it till 
 the seventeenth century, when it lay desolate, as 
 it has ever since done (Robinson, Bib. Researches , 
 ii. 182-184; Raumer, Paliistina, p. 219; Turner, 
 Tour, ii. 210 ; Irby and Mangles, p. 344). 
 
 TELEM (D^tD), a city in Judah (Josh. xv. 
 24). According to Kimchi and others, it is the 
 same which is called Telaim in 1 Sam. xv. 4. 
 
 TEMA (NJp'Fl ; Sept. ©aupav), a tract and 
 people in the northern part of the Arabian desert, 
 adjacent to the Syrian desert, so called from 
 Tema, the son of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15 ; Job 
 vi. 19; Isa. xxi. 14; Jer. xxv. 23). This tfuct 
 
 is still called Ia**’ Tema , by the Arabs, and 
 
 corresponds to the ®a?pa of Ptolemy ( Geog . vi. 
 p. 179) [Arabia]. 
 
 TEMAN (jft'Fl; Sept. Qaipdv), a grandson 
 of Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 11, 15); also a city, region, 
 and people on the east of Idumaea sprung from 
 him (Gen. xxxvi. 42; Jer. xlix. 7; Ezek. 
 xxv. 13 ; Amos i. 1 1, 12 ; Obad. 9). Like off er 
 Arabs (1 Kings v. 12), the Temanites were cele- 
 brated for wisdom (Jer. xlix. 7 ; Bar. iii. 22, 2<* ; 
 comp. Job ii. 11 ; xxi. 1). 
 
 TEMANITE, one belonging to the tribe Qr 
 country of Tema (Job ii. 11; xxi. 1). 
 
 temple (^'nn, or pin; mp 
 
 nirp rva, rva, !?Nrv2). The word 
 
 is a participial noun from the root ^DJI, 
 caper e, excipere, and reminds us strongly of the 
 Roman templum, from repevos, rtpvu, locus libe- 
 ratus et effatus. When an augur had defined a 
 space in which he intended to make his observa- 
 tions, he fixed his tent in it (tabernaculum capere ), 
 with planks and curtains. In the arx this was not 
 necessary because there was a permanent augura - 
 culum. The Septuagint translation usually ren- 
 ders ‘ temple,’ by oIkos or va6s, but in the 
 
 Apocrypha and the New Testament it is gene- 
 rally called t b Up6v. Rabbinical appellation* 
 are KHpftH JV3, the house of sanctuary , 
 irmnn ITO, the chosen house, JV3, th« 
 
 house of ages, because the ark was not transferred 
 from it, as it was from Gilgal after 24, from Shiloh 
 after 369, from Nob after 13, and from Giboou 
 
TEMPLE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 after 50 years. It is also called jlJJD. After the 
 Israelites had exchanged their nomadic life for 
 ft life in permanent habitations, it was becoming 
 that they should exchange also their moveable 
 sanctuary or tabernacle for a temple. There 
 elapsed, however, after the conquest of Palestine, 
 several centuries during which the sanctuary con- 
 tinued moveable, although the nation became 
 more and more stationary. It appears that the 
 first who planned the erection of a stone-built 
 sanctuary was David, who, when he was inhabit- 
 ing his house of cedar, and God had given him 
 rest from all his enemies, meditated the design of 
 building a temple in which the ark of God might 
 be placed, instead of being deposited ‘ within 
 curtains,’ or in a tent, as hitherto. This design 
 was at first encouraged by the prophet Nathan ; 
 but he was afterwards instructed to tell David 
 that such a work was less appropriate for him, who 
 had been a warrior from his youth, and had shed 
 much blood, than for his son, who should enjoy 
 in prosperity and peace the rewards of his father’s 
 victories. Nevertheless, the design itself was 
 highly approved as a token of proper feelings 
 towards the Divine King (2 Sam. vii. 1-12; 1 
 Chron. xvii, 1-14; xxviii.). We learn, more- 
 over, from 1 Kings v., and 1 Chron. xxii., that 
 David had collected materials which were after- 
 wards employed in the erection of the temple, 
 which was commenced four years after his death, 
 about B.c. 1012, in the second month, that is, the 
 month of Siv (compare 1 Kings vi. 1 ; 2 Chron. 
 iii. 2), four hundred and eighty years after the 
 Exodus from Egypt. We thus learn that the 
 Israelitish sanctuary had remained moveable 
 more than four centuries subsequent to the con- 
 quest of Canaan. ‘ In the fourth year of Solo- 
 mon’s reign was the foundation of the house of 
 the Lord laid, in the month Siv : and in the 
 eleventh year, in the month Bui, which is the 
 eighth month, was the house finished through- 
 out all the parts thereof, and according to all the 
 fashion of it. So was he seven years in build- 
 ing it.’ 
 
 The site of the temple is clearly stated in 
 2 Chron. iii. 1 : 4 Then Solomon began to build 
 the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount 
 Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his 
 father, in the place that David had prepared in 
 the threshing-floor of Oman (or Araunah) the 
 Jebusite.’ In south-eastern countries the site of 
 the threshing-floors is selected according to the 
 same principles which might guide us in the se- 
 lection of the site of windmills. We find them 
 usually on the tops of hills, which are on all sides 
 exposed to the winds, the current of which is re- 
 quired in order to separate the grain from the 
 chaff. It seems that the summit of Moriah, 
 although large enough for the agricultural pur- 
 poses of Araunah, had no level sufficient for the 
 plans of Solomon. According to Josephus (De 
 Bell. Jud. v. 5), the foundations of the temple 
 were laid on a steep eminence, the summit of 
 which was at first insufficient for the temple and 
 altar. As it was surrounded by precipices it 
 became necessary to build up walls and buttresses 
 in order to gain more ground by filling up the 
 interval with earth. The hill was also fortified 
 by a threefold wall, the lowest tier of which was 
 in some places more than 300 cubits high ; and 
 the depth of the foundation was not visible, be- 
 
 835 
 
 cause it had been necessary in some parts to dig 
 deep into the ground in order to obtain sufficient 
 support. The dimensions of the stones of which 
 the walls were composed were enormous; Jose- 
 phus mentions a length of 40 cubits. It is, how- 
 ever, likely that some parts of the fortifications 
 of Moriah were added at a later period. The 
 characteristics of the site of the Solomonic temple 
 have undergone so many changes that it is at 
 present scarcely possible to discern them. Nie- 
 buhr gave an accurate description of what he 
 found, illustrated by a map, in the Deutsches 
 Museum , 1784, vol. i. p. 448, sq. ; ii. 137, sq. ; 
 and also in the third volume of his travels (eomp. 
 also Mishna, Middoth, ii? 4). 
 
 The workmen and the materials employed in 
 the erection of the temple were chiefly procured 
 by Solomon from Hiranrt, king of Tyre, who was 
 rewarded by a liberal importation of wheat. 
 Josephus states that duplicates of the letters 
 which passed between Solomon and king Hiram 
 were still extant in his time, both at Jerusalem 
 and among the Tyrian records. He informs us 
 that the persons employed in collecting and ar- 
 ranging the materials for the temple were ordered 
 to search out the largest stones for the foundation, 
 and to prepare them for use on the mountains 
 where they were procured, and then convey them 
 to Jerusalem. In this part of the business 
 Hiram’s men were ordered to assist. 
 
 Josephus adds, that the foundation was sunk 
 to an astonishing depth, and composed of stones 
 of singular magnitude, and very durable. Being 
 closely mortised into the rock with great ingenuity, 
 they formed a basis adequate to the support of the 
 intended structure. Josephus gives to the temple 
 the same length and breadth as are given in l Kings, 
 but mentions 60 cubits as the height. He says 
 that the walls were composed entirely of white 
 stone ; that the walls and ceilings were wainscoted 
 with cedar, which was covered with the purest 
 gold ; that the stones were put together with such 
 ingenuity that the smallest interstices were not 
 perceptible, and that the timbers were joined with 
 iron cramps. 
 
 The temple itself and its utensils are described 
 in 1 Kings vi. and vii., and 2 Chron. iii. 
 and iv. 
 
 Divines and architects have repeatedly en- 
 deavoured to represent the architectural propor- 
 tions of the temple, which was 60 cubits long, 
 20 wide, and 30 high. Josephus, however 
 ( Antiq . viii. 3. 2), says, ‘ The temple was 60 
 cubits high and 60 cubits in length ; and the 
 breadth was 20 cubits ; above this was another 
 stage of equal dimensions, so that the height of 
 the whole structure was 120 cubits.’ It is diffi- 
 cult to reconcile this statement with that given 
 in 1 Kings, unless we suppose that the words 
 leros rods fierpois, equal in measures , do not 
 signify an equality in all dimensions, but only 
 as much as equal in the number of cubits ; so that 
 the porch formed a kind of steeple, which pro- 
 jected as much above the roof of the temple as 
 the roof itself was elevated above its foundations. 
 As the Chronicles agree with Josephus in assert- 
 ing that the summit of the porch was 120 cubits 
 high, there remains still another apparent con- 
 tradiction to be solved, namely, how Josephua 
 could assert that the temple itself was 60 cubits 
 high, while we read in 1 Kings that its height w^a 
 
936 
 
 TEMPLE, 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 only 30 cubits. We supjxwe that in the book of 
 Kings the internal elevation of the sanctuary is 
 stated, and that Josephus describes its external 
 elevation, which, including the basement and 
 an upper story (which may have existed, con- 
 sisting of rooms for . the accommodation of 
 priests, containing also vestries and treasuries), 
 might be doubly the internal height of the 
 sanctuary. The internal dimension of the ‘holy,’ 
 
 which was called in preference was 40 
 
 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. 
 The holy was separated from the ‘ holy of holies ’ 
 (Y2*l) by a partition, a large opening in which 
 was closed by a suspended curtain. The holy 
 of holies was on the western extremity of the 
 entire building, and its internal dimensions 
 formed a cube of 20 cubits. On the eastern 
 
 extremity of the building stood the porch, 
 vp6va.os. At the entrance of tjiis pronaos stood 
 the two columns called. Jackin and Boaz, which 
 were 23 cubits high. 
 
 The temple was also surrounded by three 
 stories of chambers , each of which stories was 
 five cubits high, so that there remained above 
 ample space for introducing the windows, re- 
 quisite more for ventilation than for the admis- 
 sion of light into the sanctuary. Now the state- 
 ment of Josephus, who says, that each of these 
 stories of chambers (JYiy^V) was 20 cubits high, 
 cannot be reconciled with the biblical statements, 
 and may prove that he was no very close reader 
 of his authorities. Perhaps he had a vague kind 
 of information that the chambers reached half- 
 way up the height of the building, and taking 
 the maximum height of 120 cubits instead of the 
 internal height of the holy, he made each story 
 four times too high. The windows which are 
 mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 4, consisted probably 
 of lattice-work. 
 
 The lowest story of the chambers was five 
 cubits, the middle six, and the third seven cubits 
 wide. This difference of the width arose from 
 the circumstance that the external walls of the 
 temple were so thick that they were made to 
 recede one cubit after an elevation of five feet, so 
 that the scarcement in the wall of the temple 
 gave a firm support to the beams which supported 
 the second story, without being inserted into the 
 wall of the sanctuary ; which insertion was perhaps 
 avoided not merely for architectural reasons, but 
 also because it appeared to be irreverent. The 
 third story was supported likewise by a similar 
 scarcement, which afforded a still wider space for 
 the chamber of the third story. These observa- 
 tions will render intelligible the following bib- 
 lical statements : — ‘And against the wall of the 
 house he built stories round about, both of the 
 temple and of the oracle : and he made chambers 
 round about: the nethermost story was five 
 cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits 
 broad, and the third was seven cubits broad : for 
 without in the wall of the house he made 
 narrowed rests (JTljnSD, narrowings or rebate- 
 men ts) roundabout, so that the beams should not 
 be fastened in the walls of the house. The house, 
 when it was in building, was built of stone made 
 ready before it was brought thither : so that there 
 was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron 
 beard in the house while it was in building. The 
 
 door of the middle story was in the right side of 
 the house : and they went up with winding stair* 
 into the middle story, and out of the middle into 
 the third. So he built the house, and finished it; 
 and covered the house with beams and boards of 
 cedar. And then he built chambers against ail 
 the house, five cubits high : and they rested on 
 the house with timber of cedar ’ (1 Kings vi. 7). 
 
 From this description it may be inferred, tliat 
 the entrance to these stories was from without ; 
 but some architects have supposed that it was 
 from within ; which arrangement seems to be 
 against the general aim of impressing the Israel- 
 itish worshippers with sacred awe bv the seclu- 
 sion of their sanctuary. 
 
 In reference to the windows it should be ob- 
 served, that they served chiefly for ventilation, 
 since the light within the temple was obtained 
 from the sacred candlesticks. It seems from the 
 descriptions of the temple to be certain that the 
 oracle , or holy of holies, was an adytum 
 without windows. To this fact Solomon seems to 
 refer when he spake, ‘The Lord said that he 
 would dwell in the thick darkness* (1 Kings viii. 
 12 ). 
 
 The TO*!, oracle , had perhaps no other opening 
 besides the entrance, which was, as we may infer 
 from the prophetic visions of Ezekiel (which pro- 
 bably correspond with the historic temple of 
 Solomon) six cubits wide. 
 
 From 1 Kings vii. 10, we learn that the private 
 dwellings of Solomon were built of massive stone. 
 We hence infer, that the framework of the temple 
 also consisted of the same material. The temple 
 was, however, wainscoted with cedar wood, which 
 was covered with gold. The boards within the 
 temple were ornamented by beautiful carvings 
 representing cherubim, palms, and flowers. The 
 ceiling of the temple was supported by beams 
 of cedar wood (comp. Ekes ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. 
 xvi. 69). The wall which separated the holy 
 from the holy of holies, probably consisted not 
 of stone, but of beams of cedar. It seems, 
 further, that the partitions partly consisted of an 
 opus reticulatum ; so that the incense could 
 spread from the holy to the most holy. This we 
 infer from 1 Kings vi. 21 : ‘So Solomon overlaid 
 the house within with pure gold : and he made a 
 partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; 
 and he overlaid it with gold.’ 
 
 The floor of the temple was throughout of cedar, 
 but boarded over with planks of fir (1 Kings vi. 
 15). The doors of the oracle were composed of 
 olive-tree; but the doors of the outer temple had 
 posts of olive-tree, and leaves of fir (1 Kings vi. 
 31, sq.). Both doors, as well that which led into 
 the temple as that which led from the holy to the 
 holy of holies, had folding leaves, which, however, 
 seem to have been usually kept open, the aper- 
 ture being closed by a suspended curtain — a con- 
 trivance still seen at the church-doors in Italy, 
 where the church-doors usually stand open, but 
 the doorways can be passed only by moving aside 
 a heavy curtain. From 2 Chron. iii. 5, it appears 
 that the greater house was also ceiled with fir. It 
 is stated in ver. 9, ‘ that the weight of the nails 
 employed in the temple was fif y shekels of gold.* 
 And also that Solomon ‘ overlaid the upper cham- 
 bers with gold.’ 
 
 The lintel and side posts of the oracle seem to 
 bare circumscribed a space which contained oao- 
 
TEMPLE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 flLth of the whole area of the partition ; and the 
 posts of the door of the temple one-fourth of the 
 area of the wall in which they were placed. Thus 
 we understand the passage, 1 Kings vi. 31-35, 
 which also states that the door was covered wit'j 
 carved work overlaid witli gold. 
 
 Within the holy of holies stood only the ark of 
 the covenant; but within the holy were ten golden 
 candlesticks, and the altar of incense (comp, the 
 separate articles). 
 
 The temple was surrounded by an inner court, 
 which in Chronicles is called the Court of the 
 Priests, and in Jeremiah the Upper Court. This 
 again was surrounded by a wall consisting of cedar 
 beams placed on a stone foundation (1 Kings vi. 
 36) : ‘ And he built the inner court with three 
 rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams.’ 
 This inclosure, according to Josephus (. Antiq . 
 viii. 3, 9), was three cubits high. Besides this 
 inner court, there is mentioned a Great Court (2 
 Chron. iv. 9) : ‘Furthermore he made the court 
 of the priests, and the great court, and doors for 
 ‘lie court, and overlaid the doors of them with 
 )rass.’ It seems that this was also called the 
 Outward Court (comp. Ezek. xiv. 17). This 
 court was also more especially called the court of 
 the Lord’s house (Jer. xix. 12 ; xxvi. 2). These 
 courts were surrounded by spacious buildings, 
 which, however, according to Josephus (De Bell. 
 Jud. v. 5. 1), seem to have been partly added at a 
 period later than that of Solomon. For instance 
 (2 Kings xv. 35), Jotham is said to have built 
 the higher gate of the house of the Lord, in Jer. 
 xxvi. 10, and xxxvi. 10, there is mentioned a 
 New gate (comp, also Ezek. xl. 5-47 ; xlii. 1- 
 14). But this prophetic vision is not strictly his- 
 torical, although it may serve to illustrate history 
 (comp, also Joseph. Antiq. viii. 3. 9). The third 
 entry into the house of the Lord mentioned in Jer. 
 xxxviii. 14, does not seem to indicate that there 
 were three courts, but appears to mean that the 
 entry into the outer court was called the first, that 
 into the inner court the second, and the door of the 
 sanctuary the third. It is likely that these courts 
 were quadrilateral. In the divisions of Ezekiel 
 they form a square of four hundred cubits. The 
 inner court contained towards the east the altar 
 of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and ten brazen 
 lavers ; and it seems that the sanctuary did not 
 stand in the centre of the inner court, but more 
 towards the west. From these descriptions we 
 learn that the temple of Solomon was not distin- 
 guished by magnitude, but by good architectural 
 proportions, beauty of workmanship, and costli- 
 ness of materials. Many of our churches have 
 an external form not unlike that of the temple of 
 Solomon. In fact, this temple seems to have 
 been the pattern of our church buildings, to which 
 the chief addition has been the Gothic arch. 
 Among others, the Roman Catholic church at 
 Dresden is supposed to bear much resemblance 
 to the temple of Solomon. 
 
 It is remarkable that after the temple was 
 finished, it w*not consecrated by the high priest, 
 but by a layman, by the king in person, by means 
 of extempore prayers and sacrifices. The temple 
 remained the centre of public worship for all the 
 Israelites only till the death of Solomon, after 
 which ten tribes forsook this sanctuary. But even 
 in the kingdom of Judah it was from time to 
 time desecrated by altars erected to idols. For 
 
 instance, ‘ Manasseh built altars for all the host 
 of heaven in the two courts of the house of the 
 Lord. And he caused his son to pass through tin# 
 Ire, and observed times, and used enchantments, 
 and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he 
 wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord 
 to provoke him to anger. And he set a graven 
 image of the grove that he had made in the house/ 
 &c. Thus we find also that king Josiah com- 
 manded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests ol 
 the second order, to remove the idols of Baa) and 
 Asherah from the house of the Lord (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 4, 13) : ‘ And the altars that were on the top 
 of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of 
 Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh 
 had made in the two courts of the house of the 
 Lord, did the king beat down, and brake them 
 down from thence, and cast the dust of them into 
 the brook Kidron.’ In fact, we are informed that 
 in spite of the better means of public devotion 
 which the sanctuary undoubtedly afforded, the 
 national morals declined so much that the chosen 
 nation became worse than the idolaters whom 
 the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel (2 
 Kings xxi. 9) — a clear proof that the possession of 
 external means is not a guarantee for their right 
 use. It appears also that, during the times when 
 it was fashionable at court to worship Baal, the 
 temple stood desolate, and that its repairs were 
 neglected (see 2 Kings xii. 6, 7). We further 
 learn that the cost of the repairs was defrayed 
 chiefly by voluntary contribution, by offerings, 
 and by redemption money (2 Kings xii. 4, 5). 
 The original cost of the temple seems to have been 
 defrayed by royal bounty, and in great measure 
 by treasures collected by David for that purpose. 
 
 There was a treasury in the temple, in which 
 much precious metal was collected for the main- 
 tenance of public worship. The gold and silver 
 of the temple was, however, frequently applied to 
 political purposes (1 Kings xv. 18, sq. ; 2 Kings 
 xii. 18; xvi. 8; xviii. 15). The treasury of the 
 temple was repeatedly plundered by foreign in- 
 vaders. For instance, by Shishak (1 Kings xiv. 
 26); by Jehoash, king of Israel (2 Kings xiv. 
 14); by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 13); 
 and lastly, again by Nebuchadnezzar, who, hav- 
 ing removed the valuable contents, caused the 
 Temple to be burned down (2 Kings xxv. 9, sq.), 
 B.c. 588. The building had stood since its com- 
 pletion 417 or 418 years (Josephus has 470, and 
 Ruffinus 370 years). Tims terminated what the 
 later Jews called 1V3, the first house. 
 
 In many writers on the temple the biblical state- 
 ments concerning the first, or Solomon's temple, 
 are confounded not merely with the temple in the 
 prophetic visions of Ezekiel, but also with descrip- 
 tions of the tempi ; erected by Zerubbabel, and 
 even with the later structures of Herod. This 
 confusion we have endeavoured to avoid in the 
 foregoing statements. 
 
 The Second Temple. — In the year b.c. 536 
 the Jews obtained permission from Cyrus to colo- 
 nise their native land. Cyrus commanded also 
 that the sacred utensils which had been pillaged 
 from the first temple should be restored, and that 
 for the restoration of the temple assistance should 
 be granted (Ezra i. and vi. ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 22, 
 sq.). The first colony which returned under 
 Zerubbabel and Joshua Having collected the De> 
 cessary means, and having also obtained th3 
 
838 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 gistance of Phoenician workmen, commenced in 
 the second year after their return, b.c. 534, the 
 rebuilding of the temple. TheSidonians brought 
 rafts of cedar trees from Lebanon to Joppa. The 
 Jews refused the co-operation of the Samaritans, 
 who being thereby offended, induced the king 
 Artasashta (probably Smerdis) to prohibit the 
 building. And it was only in the second year of 
 Darius Hystaspis, B.c. 520, that the building was 
 resumed. It was completed in the sixth year of 
 this king, B.c. 516 (compare Ezra v. and vi. ; 
 and Haggai i. 15). According to Josephus 
 {Antiq. xi. 4. 7) the temple was completed in the 
 ninth year of the reign of Darius. 
 
 Tins second temple was erected on the site of 
 the former, and probably after the same plan. 
 According to the plan of Cyrus, the new temple 
 was sixty cubits high and sixty cubits wide. 
 It appears from Josephus, that the height is to be 
 understood of the porch, for we learn from the 
 speech of Herod which he records, that the second 
 temple was sixty cubits lower than the first, whose 
 porch was 120 cubits high (comp. Joseph. Antiq, 
 xv. 11. 1). The old men who had seen the 
 first temple were moved to tears on beholding 
 the second, which appeared like nothing in com- 
 parison with the first (Ezra iii. 12; Haggai ii. 3, 
 sq.). It seems, therefore, that it was not so 
 much in dimensions that the second temple was 
 inferior to the first, as in splendour, and in being 
 deprived of the ark of the covenant, which had 
 been burned with the temple of Solomon. The 
 temple of Zerubbabel had several courts (auAai) 
 and cloisters or cells {irpSdvpa). Josephus dis- 
 tinguishes an internal and external Up6v , and 
 mentions cloisters in the courts. This temple 
 was connected with the town by means of a 
 bridge {Antiq. xiv. 4). During thq wars from 
 B.c. 175 to b.c. 163, it was pillaged and dese- 
 crated by Antiochus Epiphanes, who introduced 
 into it idolatrous rites (2 Mac. vi. 2, 5), de- 
 dicating the temple to Jupiter Olympius, and the 
 temple on Mount Gerizim, in allusion to the 
 foreign origin of its worshippers, to Jupiter H evi6s. 
 The temple became so desolate that it was over- 
 grown with vegetation (1 Macc. iv. 38 ; 2 Macc. 
 vi. 4). Judas Maccabaeus expelled the Syrians 
 and restored the sanctuary, b.c. 165. He re- 
 paired the building, furnished new utensils, and 
 erected fortifications against future attacks (1 
 Macc. iv. 43-60 ; vi. 7 ; xiii. 53 ; 2 Macc. 
 i. 18; x. 3). Alexander Jannaeus, about B.c. 106, 
 separated the court of the priests from the external 
 court by a wooden railing (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 
 5). During the contentions among the later 
 Maccabees, Pompey attacked the temple from the 
 north side, caused a great massacre in its courts, 
 but abstained from plundering the treasury, al- 
 though he even entered the holy of holies, B.c. 63 
 (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 4). Herod the Great, with the 
 assistance of Roman troops, stormed the temple, 
 B.c. 37 ; on which occasion some of the surround- 
 ing halls were destroyed or damaged. 
 
 III. Temple ok Herod. — Herod, wishing to 
 ingratiate himself with the church and state party, 
 and being fond of architectural display, undertook 
 cot merely to repair the second temple, but to 
 raise a perfectly new structure. As, however, the 
 temple of Zerubbabel was not actually destroyed, 
 Wit only removed after the preparat ions for the 
 aew temple were completed, there has arisen some 
 
 debate whether the temple of Herod could pic* 
 perly be called the third temple. 
 
 The reason why the temple of Zerubbabel 
 was not at once taken down, in order to make 
 room for the more splendid structure of Herod, is 
 explained by Josephus as follows (Joseph. Antiq. 
 xv. 11. 2). The Jews were afraid that Herod 
 would pull down the whole edifice, and not be 
 able to carry his intentions as to its rebuilding 
 into effect ; and this danger appeared to them to 
 be very great, and the vastness of the undertaking 
 to be such as could hardly be accomplished. But 
 while they were in this disposition, the king en- 
 couraged them, and told them he would not pull 
 down their temple till all things were gotten 
 ready for building it up entirely. 
 
 And as Herod promised them this beforehand, 
 „ so he did not break his word with them, but got 
 ready a thousand waggons, that were to bring 
 stones for this building, and chose out ten thousand 
 of the most skilful workmen, and bought a thou- 
 sand sacerdotal garments for as many of the 
 priests, and had some of them taught the arts of 
 stonecutters, and others of carpenters, and then 
 began to build ; but this not till everything was 
 well prepared for the work. 
 
 The work was commenced in the eighteenth 
 year of the reign of Herod ; that is, about the 
 year 734-735 from the building of Rome, or 
 about twenty or twenty-one years before the 
 Christian era. Priests and Levites finished the 
 temple itself in one year and a half. The out- 
 buildings and courts required eight years. How- 
 ever, some building operations were constantly i:» 
 progress under the successors of Herod, and it 
 is in reference to this we are informed that the 
 temple was finished only under Albinus, the last 
 procurator but one, not long before the com- 
 mencement of the Jewish war in which the temple 
 was again destroyed. It is in reference also to 
 these protracted building operations that the Jews 
 said to Jesus, ‘Forty and six years was this tem- 
 ple in building’ (John ii. 20). The temple is de- 
 scribed by Josephus {Antiq. xv. 11, and De Bell. 
 Jud.v.5). With this should be compared the 
 Talmudic tract Middoth (Mishna, v. 10), which 
 has been edited and commented upon by C. 
 l’Empereur de Oppyck, Lugduni Bat. 1630, 4to. 
 Compare also vols. viii. and ix. of Antiquitates 
 Hebraicce , by Ugolino, which contain, in addition 
 to other dissertations, Mosis Maimonidis Constir 
 tutiones de domo electa ; Abraham ben David 
 De Templo. Compare also E. A. Schulze, De 
 variis Judceorum erroribus in descriptione tem- 
 pli secundi , prefixed to his edition of Reland, De 
 spoliis templi Hierosolymitani. 
 
 The whole of the structures belonging to the 
 temple were a stadium square, and consequently 
 four stadia (or half a Roman mile) in circum- 
 ference. The temple was situated on the highest 
 point, not quite in the centre, but rather to th# 
 north-western corner of this square, and was sur- 
 rounded by various courts, the innermost of 
 which was higher than the next outward, which 
 descended interlaces. The temple, consequently, 
 was visible from the town, notwithstanding its 
 various high enclosures. The cuiter court was 
 call JVnn "Iii, the mountain of the house, rb 
 opos tov Upov (1 Macc. xiii. 52). According: to 
 Middoth (i. 3) this mountain of the house had 
 five gates, two towards the south, and one towards 
 
TEMPLE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 830 
 
 «ach of the other quarters. The principal gate 
 was that towards the east : it was called the gate 
 Susan, and a representation of the town of Susa, 
 sculptured in relief, was affixed to it. This had 
 been preserved from the days of Zerubbabel, 
 when the Jews were anxious to express by all 
 means their loyal submission to the Persian 
 power. Most interpreters consider it the same 
 which in Acts iii. 2 and 10 is called irvXii wpala, 
 the beautiful gate. It seems, however, that be- 
 sides these five principal gates there were some' 
 other entrances, because Josephus speaks of four 
 gates on the west and several on the south. An- 
 nexed to the outer wall were halls which sur- 
 rounded the temple, and were thirty cubits wide, 
 except on the south side, where the fSauriXm)) aroa, 
 the royal hall , seems to have been threefold, or 
 three times wider than the other halls. The roofs 
 of these halls were of cedar-wood, and were sup- 
 ported by marble columns twenty-five cubits high. 
 The Levites resided in these halls. There was 
 also a synagogue where the Talmudic doctors 
 might be asked questions, and where their deci- 
 sions might be heard (Luke ii. 46). These halls 
 seem likewise to have formed a kind of lounge 
 for religionists ; they appear to have been spacious 
 enough to afford opportunities for religious 
 teachers to address knots of hearers. Thus we 
 find that Jesus had there various opportunities 
 for addressing the people and refuting cavillers. 
 
 Here also the first Christians could daily as- 
 semble with one accord (Acts ii. 46). Within 
 this outer court money-changers and cattle- 
 lealers transacted a profitable business, especially 
 luring the time of Passover. The priests took 
 )nly shekels of full weight, that is, shekels of the 
 sanctuary, even after the general currency had 
 Deen deteriorated : hence the frequent opportu- 
 nity of money-changers to accommodate for agio 
 the worshippers, most of whom arrived from 
 abroad unprovided with the right coin. The 
 profaneness to which this money-changing and 
 cattle-dealing gave rise caused the indignation 
 of our Lord, who suddenly expelled all these 
 sharks from their stronghold of business (Matt, 
 xxi. 12, sq. ; Mark xi. 15-17 ; Luke xix. 45,46; 
 John ii. 13-17). 
 
 The surface of this outer court was paved with 
 stones of various colours. A stone balustrade, 
 which according to some statements was 
 three cubits high, and according to Middoth ten 
 hands high, was several steps higher up the moun- 
 tain than this outer court, and prevented the 
 too near approach of the heathens to the next 
 court. For this purpose there were also erected 
 columns at certain distances within this balus- 
 trade, on which there were Greek and Latin in- 
 scriptions, interdicting all heathens, under penalty 
 of death, to advance farther (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. 
 vi. 2, 4 ; Philo, Opera , ii. 577). Compare Acts 
 xxi. 28, where Paul is accused of having brought 
 Greeks into the temple, and thus polluting the 
 holy place. 
 
 Higher up than this balustrade was a wall of 
 the court called PTl. This wall was from its 
 foundation forty cubits high, but from within 
 the court it appeared to be only twenty-five cubits 
 high. To this higher court led a staircase and 
 gate on the eastern side of the square. This 
 stairoase first led into the DtW, mtJJ, yvvaiua>- 
 rb rwv yvvautwv irepireixiapa, the court of 
 
 the women , which was 135 cubits square. Again, 
 fifteen, steps higher up was the principal entrance 
 to the miy, the court of the Israelites , 
 
 i. e. the men, on the eastern side of the temple, 
 On the other sides only five steps led up from 
 the court of the women to that of the men. But 
 the fifteen steps, each of which was lower than 
 each of the five steps, seem to have terminated 
 in the same level. Over the gates were struc- 
 tures more than forty cubits high, in which were 
 rooms. Each of the gates was adorned with two 
 columns, which were twelve cubits in circum- 
 ference. In these gates were folding-doors, each 
 of which was thirty cubits high and fifteen wide : 
 they were plated with gold and silver. The gate 
 towards the east, being the principal one, was of 
 Corinthian brass, and was higher, larger, and 
 more adorned with precious metal than the rest. 
 Within the walls of this court were halls sup- 
 ported by beautiful columns. The court of the 
 priests was separated from that of the Israelites 
 by a low stone balustrade one cubit high. The 
 whole space which was occupied by the court of 
 the Israelites and that of the priests, together with 
 the temple, was from east to west 187 cubits, and 
 from north to south 135 cubits. Each of these 
 courts was eleven cubits wide, in which measure- 
 ment that of the halls seems not to have been 
 included (comp. Middoth, ii. 6). The court of 
 the priests surrounded the whole temple. On the 
 northern and southern sides were magazines of 
 salt, wood, water, &c., and on the south side also 
 was the place of meeting for the Sanhedrin. To- 
 wards the east, with entrances from the court of 
 the women, were two rooms in which the musical 
 instruments were deposited ; towards the north- 
 west were four rooms in which the lambs for the 
 daily sacrifices were kept, the shewbread baked, 
 &c. (comp. 1 Chron. ix. 31, 32). In the four cor- 
 ners of the court of the women were lazarettos and 
 quarantine establishments for the reception of 
 persons suspected of leprosy and other infectious 
 diseases : there was also a physician appointed 
 to treat the priests who were unwell. There were 
 several alms-boxes within the various courts, 
 which had the shape of trumpets, and which some- 
 times are called ya^orpvXaKia, or also collectively 
 rb ya(o<pv\a.Kiov. All the courts were paved 
 with flat stones. From the various statements 
 concerning the court of the women, it is evident 
 that this appellation did not mean a place ex- 
 clusively devoted to the women, but rather a 
 place to which even women were admitted, to- 
 gether with other persons who were not allowed to 
 advance farther. The temple itself (o m6s) was 
 fifteen steps higher than the court of the Israelites, 
 and stood, not in the middle, but rather towards 
 the north-western corner of the court of the priests. 
 In the usual plans of the temple the passage in 
 Middoth (ii. 1) has been disregarded. This pas- 
 sage clearly states that the temple was riot in the 
 centre : ‘ The greatest space was from the south, 
 the next greatest from the east, the third from the 
 north, and the least from the west. The foundations 
 of the temple consisted of blocks of white marble, 
 some of which were forty-five cubits long, six cu- 
 bits wide, and five cubits high. The porch mea- 
 sured externally a hundred cubits in width ; the 
 remaining part of the building sixty or seventy 
 cubits.’ Thus it appears that the porch projected oo 
 each side from fifteen to twenty cubits. The difl» 
 
$40 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 ence of measurement between Josephus and the 
 Talmud may be accounted for by the difference of 
 internal and external width. The projections of 
 the porch were like shoulders (uxrirep 2>poi ). The 
 whole building was a hundred or a hundred and 
 ten cubits long, and a hundred cubits high. The 
 internal measurement of the porch was fifty cubits 
 by twenty, and ninety cubits in height. The 
 holy was forty cubits by twenty, and sixty cubits 
 high ; the holy of holies was twenty cubits square 
 and sixty cubits high. According to Middoth 
 the porch was only eleven cubits, the holy forty 
 cubits, the holy of holies twenty cubits, and be- 
 hind this last there was a vestry of six cubits. 
 The remaining twenty-three cubits were distri- 
 buted among the diameters of the several walls, 
 so that the whole was a hundred cubits long. In 
 the eastern front, which was a hundred cubits 
 square, was a proportionate gate, seventy cubits 
 high and twenty-five cubits wide. Above the 
 holy and holy of holies were upper rooms. On 
 the summit of the temple ( Kara Kopucp^v) were 
 spikes (ojSeAoi), which resembled our conductors 
 in shape, and were intended to prevent birds from 
 settling on the temple. Middoth (iv. 6) calls 
 
 these 'spikes, which were one cubit long, 
 
 scare-crows , or literally scare-ravens. It 
 seems that the roof was fiat, and surrounded by 
 a balustrade three cubits high. On the north 
 and south side of the temple were three stories 
 of chambers, which were much higher than 
 those of the Solomonic temple, but did not en- 
 tirely conceal the temple itself, because it pro- 
 jected above them. The spaces on the north and 
 south side of the porch contained the apparatus 
 for slaughtering the sacrifices, and were called 
 niQ^nn JV2, the house of knives. 
 
 The holy of holies was entirely empty, etceiTo 
 ovbhv '6\u)s iv avrtp (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. v. 5. 5) ; 
 however, there was a stone in the place of the ark 
 of the covenant, called iTTlfc^ pR, on which the 
 high-priest placed the censer. Before the entrance 
 of the holy of holies was suspended a curtain, 
 which was torn by the earthquake that followed 
 after the crucifixion. The rabbis talk of two 
 curtains, between which was a space of one cubit, 
 suspended before the holy of holies. The folding 
 doors between the porch and the holy were 
 twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide ; but the 
 entrance itself, with its mouldings, was fifty- five 
 cubits high and sixteen cubits wide. These doors 
 stood open ; there were, however, behind them 
 some other doors which were shut, and before 
 which a splendid Babylonian byssus curtain was 
 suspended, in colours and workmanship similar to 
 that of the Solomonic temple. The entrance to 
 the porch was externally seventy cubits high and 
 twenty-five cubits wide, with folding doors of 
 forty cubits higli and twenty cubits wide. These 
 doors were usually kept open. This entrance to 
 the porch was adorned by a colossal golden vine, 
 nnr |aa, whose grapes were as big as men 
 (Jani. De vite aurea templi Hierosolymitani, in 
 Ugolino, tom. ix,). This vine was a symbolical re- 
 presentation of the ‘noble vine ’ (Jer. ii. 21 ; Ezek. 
 xix. 10 ; Joel i. 7), and of the vineyard (Isa. v.), 
 under which the prophets represent their nation. 
 It )3 very likely that this vine also gave an oppor- 
 tunity to the parable of the vine (John xv.), aud 
 
 to the strange misconception of pagan scribblerf 
 that the Jews worshipped Bacchus. (Comp 
 Lakemacheri Observat. Philolog. i. 17. sq. ; Ro- 
 senmiil let’s Exegetisches Repertorium , i. 166, sq.) 
 
 Within the porch were a golden and a marble 
 table, on which the priest who entered the sanc- 
 tuary daily deposited the old and the new shew- 
 bread. Before the porch, towards the south, were 
 the *Y)'D, brazier or fire-pan, and the altar for 
 burnt- offerings ; towards the north were six rows 
 of rings attached to the pavement, to which the 
 sacrifices to be killed were fastened ; also eight 
 low columns overlaid with cedar beams, from 
 which the beasts that had been killed were 
 suspended in order to be skinned. Between these 
 
 columns stood 5W ^ nttrfe marble tables , 
 
 on which the flesh and entrails were deposited. 
 On the western side of the altar stood a marble 
 table, on which the fat was deposited, and a silver 
 table, on which the various utensils were placed. 
 
 The temple was situated upon the south-eastern 
 corner of Mount Moriah, which is separated to 
 the east by a precipitous ravine and the Kidron 
 from the Mount of Olives: the Mount of Olives 
 is much higher than Moriah. On the south, the 
 temple was bounded by the ravine which separates 
 Moriah from Zion, or the lower city from the 
 upper city. Opposite to the temple, at the fool 
 of Zion, were formerly the king's garden*, and 
 higher up in a south-westerly direction, the strong- 
 hold of Zion or the city of David, on a higher 
 level than the temple. The temple was in an- 
 cient warfare almost impregnable, from the ravines 
 at the precipitous edge of which it stood ; but it 
 required more artificial fortifications on its western 
 and northern sides, which were surrounded by 
 the city of Jerusalem ; for this reason there was 
 erected at its north-western coiner the tower of 
 Antonia, which although standing on a lower 
 level than the temple itself, was so high as to over- 
 look the sacred buildings with which it was con- 
 nected, partly by a large staircase, partly by a 
 subterraneous communication. This tower pro- 
 tected the temple from sudden incursions from 
 the city of Jerusalem, and from dangerous com- 
 motions among the thousands who were fre- 
 quently assembled within the precincts of the 
 courts ; which also were sometimes used for 
 popular meetings. Under the sons of Herod, the 
 temple remained apparently in good order, and 
 Herod Agrippa, who was appointed by the Em- 
 peror Claudius its guardian, even planned the 
 repair of the eastern part, which had probably 
 been destroyed during one of the conflicts between 
 the Jews and Romans of which the temple was 
 repeatedly the scene ( Antiq . xvii. 10). Many 
 savants have adopted a style as if they possessed 
 much information about the archives of the tem- 
 ple; there are a few indications from which we 
 learn that important documents were deposited in 
 the tabernacle and temple. Even in Deut. xxxi. 
 26, we find that the book of the law was deposited 
 in the ark of the covenant. 2 Kings xxii. 8, 
 Hilkiah rediscovered the book of the law in the 
 house of Jehovah. In 2 Macc. ii. 13, we find a 
 fitfiXioG-fiKr] mentioned, apparently consisting 
 chiefly of the canonical books, and probably de- 
 posited in the temple. In Josephus (De Bell. Jud. 
 v. 5) it is mentioned that a book of the law was found 
 in the temple. It appears mat the sacred writings 
 
TEMPLE. 
 
 TEMPLE. 
 
 8-11 
 
 rare kepi intne temple (Antiq. v. 1. .7). Copies 
 of j-olitical documents seem to have been depo- 
 sited in the treasury of the temple (1 Macc. xiv. 49). 
 
 This treasury, 6 Upbs dyaavpbs, was managed by 
 an inspector, ya(v(pvka£, "DTJ, and it contained 
 the great sums which were annually paid in by 
 the Israelites, each of whom paid a half shekel, 
 and many of whom sent donations in money, and 
 nrecious vessels, avaO-hpara. Such costly presents 
 were especially transmitted by rich proselytes, and 
 even sometimes by pagan princes (2 Macc. iii. 3 ; 
 Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 16. 4 ; xviii. 3. 5 ; xix. 6. 1 ; 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 3 ; v. 13. 6 ; c. Apion. ii. 5 ; 
 Philo, Opp. ii. 59, sq. ; 569). It is said especially 
 that Ptol. Philadelphus was very liberal to the 
 temple, in order to prove his gratitude for having 
 been permitted to procure the Septuagint trans- 
 lation (Aristeas, De Translat. LXX., 109, sq.). 
 The gifts exhibited in the temple are mentioned in 
 Luke xxi.5; we find even that the rents of the 
 whole town of Ptolemais were given to the tem- 
 ple (1 Macc. x. 39). There were also preserved 
 historical curiosities (2 Kings xi. 10), especially 
 the arms of celebrated heroes (Joseph. Antiq. xix. 
 C. 1) : this was also the case in the tabernacle. 
 
 The temple was of so much political importance 
 that it had its own guards ( <pvkanes tov Upov ), 
 which were commanded by a <rTpaTrjy6s. 
 
 Twenty men were required for opening and 
 shutting the eastern gate (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vi. 
 5. 3 : c. Apion. ii. 9 ; Antiq. vi. 5. 3 ; xvii. 2. 2). 
 The arparpyos had his own secretary (Antiq. xx. 
 6.2; 9. 3), and had to maintain the police in the 
 courts (comp. Acts iv. 1 and v. 24). He appears 
 to have been of sufficient dignity to be mentioned 
 together with the chief priests. It seems that his 
 Hebrew title was JYQn “IH the man of the 
 mountain of the house. 
 
 The priests themselves kept watch on three dif- 
 ferent posts, and the Levites on twenty-one posts. 
 
 It was the duty of the police of the temple to 
 prevent women from entering the inner court, and 
 to take care that no person who was Levitically 
 unclean should enter within the sacred precincts. 
 Gentiles were permitted to pass the first enclosure, 
 which was therefore called the Court of the Gen- 
 tiles ; but persons who were on any account 
 Levitically unclean were even not permitted to 
 advance thus far. Some sorts of uncleanness, for 
 instance that arising from the touch of a corpse, 
 excluded only from the court of the men. If an 
 unclean person had entered by mistake, he was re- 
 quired to offer sacrifices of purification. The 
 high-priest himself was forbidden to enter the 
 holy of holies under penalty of death on any 
 other day but the day of atonement (Philo, Opp. 
 ii. 591). Nobody was admitted within the pre- 
 cincts of the temple who carried a stick or a 
 basket, and who wanted to pass merely to shorten 
 his way, or who had dusty shoes ( Middoth , ii. 2). 
 
 The various office-bearers in the temple were 
 called (TTparriyol tov Upov, captains or officers of 
 the temple (Luke xxii. 52), while their chief 
 was simply designated aTparnyos. 
 
 During the final struggle of the Jews against 
 the Romans, a.d. 70, the temple was the last 
 soene of the tug of war. The Romans rushed 
 from the tower Antonia into the sacred precincts, 
 the halls of which were set on fire by the Jews 
 themselves. It was against the will of Titus that 
 a Roman soldier threw a firebrand into the north- 
 
 ern outbuildings of the temple, which caused the 
 conflagration of the whole structure, although 
 Titus himself endeavoured to extinguish the fire 
 (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vi. 4). ‘ One cannot but 
 
 wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto re- 
 lating; for the same month and day were now 
 observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house 
 was burnt formerly by the Babylonians. Now 
 the number of years that passed from its first 
 foundation, which was laid by King Solomon, till 
 this its destruction, which happened in the second 
 year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be 
 one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides 
 seven months and fifteen days ; and from the second 
 building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the 
 second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction 
 under Vespasian, there were six hundred and 
 thirty-nine years and forty-five days.’ 
 
 The sacred utensils, the golden table of the 
 shew-bread, the book of the law, and the golden 
 candlestick, were displayed in the triumph at 
 Rome. Representations of them are still to^be seen 
 sculptured in relief on the triumphal arch of 
 Titus (comp. Fleck's Wissenschaftliche Reise , 
 i. 1, plate i.-iv. ; and Reland, De spoliis Templi 
 Hierosolymitani in arete Titiano, edit. E. A. 
 Schulze, Tvaject. ad Rh. 1775. The place where 
 the temple had stood seemed to be a dangerous 
 centre for the rebellious population, until, in a.d. 
 136, the Emperor Hadrian founded a Roman 
 colony, under the name ./Elia Capitolina, on the 
 ruins of Jerusalem, and dedicated a temple to 
 Jupiter Capitolinus on the ruins of the temple of 
 Jehovah. Henceforth no Jew was permitted to 
 approach the site of the ancient temple, although 
 the worshippers of Jehovah were in derision com- 
 pelled to pay a tax for the maintenance of the 
 temple of Jupiter. Comp. Dion Cassius (Xiphil.) 
 lxix. 12 ; Hieron. ad Jes. ii. 9 ; vi. 1 1, sq. ; Euseh. 
 Hist. Eccles. iv. 6 ; Demonsiratio Evangelica, 
 viii. 18. Under the reign of Constantine the Great 
 some Jews were severely punished for having 
 attempted to restore the temple (comp. Fabricii 
 Lux Evangelii , p. 1 24) 
 
 The Emperor Julian undertook, a.d. 363, to re- 
 build the temple; but after considerable prepara- 
 tions and much expense, lie was compelled to 
 desist by flames which burst forth from the 
 foundations (comp. Ammianus Marcellinus, 
 xx iii. 1 ; Socrates, Ilist. Eccles. iii. 20 ; Sozomen, 
 v. 22; Theodoretus, iii. 15; Schi*ockh, Kirchen 
 Geschichte , vi. 385, sq.). Repeated attempts have 
 been made to account for these igneous ex- 
 plosions by natural causes ; lor instance, by 
 the ignition of gases which had long been 
 pent up in subterraneous vaults (comp. Mi- 
 chael is, Zerstr. kl. Schrift. iii. 453, sq.). A 
 similar event is mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. 
 xvi. 7. 1), where we are informed that Herod, 
 while plundering the tombs of David and So- 
 lomon, was suddenly frightened by flames 
 which burst out and killed two of his soldiers. 
 Bishop Warburton contends for the miraculousness 
 of the event in his discourse Concerning the 
 Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which de- 
 fended Julian's Attempt to rebuild the Temple 
 of Jerusalem. Comp, also J. G. Lotter, Ilis- 
 toria Instaurationis Templi Hierosolymitani 
 sub Juliano , Lips. 1728, 4to. ; J. G. Michaelia 
 (F. Holzfuss) Diss. de Templi Hierosolymitani 
 Juliani mandato per Judceos frustra tentata 
 
842 TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD. 
 
 reslitutione , Hal. 1751, 4to. ; Lardner’s Cot, ection 
 of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies , iv. 
 p. 57, sq. ; Ernesti, Theol. Bibl., ix. 604, sq.). R. 
 Tourlet’s French Translation of the works of 
 Julian, Paris, 1S21, tom. ii. p. 435, sq., con- 
 tains an examination of the evidence concern- 
 ing this remarkable event. See also Jost's 
 Geschichte der Israeliten, iv. p. 211 and 254, sq. ; 
 and Jost’s Alcgemeine Geschichte des Jiidischen 
 Volkes , vol. ii. p. 158. 
 
 A splendid mosque now stands on the site of 
 the temple. This mosque was erected by the 
 caliph Omar after the conquest of Jerusalem by 
 the Saracens, a.d. 636. It seems that Omar 
 changed a Christian church, that stood on the 
 ground of the temple, into this mosque, which is 
 called El Aksa, the outer , or northern , because it 
 is the third of the most celebrated mosques, two of 
 which, namely those of Mecca and Medina, are 
 iu a more southern latitude. 
 
 Compare on the whole subject Ugolino, tom. viii. 
 9 ; Lightfoot, Descriptio Templi Hierosolymitani, 
 Opp. i. p. 533, sq. ; J. Bapt. Villalpando et Pradi, 
 in Ezechiel; J. Jud. Leonis, libri quatuor, De 
 Templo Hieros. tam priori quam poster, ex Hebr. 
 Lat. vers, a J. Saubert, Helmst., 1665, 4to. ; L. 
 Capelli, TpiarayLov, sive Triplex Templi delineatio , 
 Amst. 1643, 4to. This is also inserted in the 
 Critici Anglicani , tom. viii., and in the firstvolume 
 of Walton’s Polyglott. Harenberg, in d. Brem. 
 u. Verdisch. Biblioih.. iv. 1. sq. ; 573, sq. ; 879, 
 sq. ; Bh. Lamy, De tabern. foed., urbe Hieros. et 
 de Templo, Par. 1720, sq. ; Hirt, Der Tempel 
 Salomons, Beil. 1809, 4to. m. 3 Kpfrn. ; 
 Stieglitz, Gesch. der Baulcunst, Niirmb. 1827, 
 p. 125, sq. ; and Less, Beitriige zur Geschich. 
 d. Ausbild. Baukunst , Leipz. 1831, i. 63, sq. ; 
 V. Meyer, Dei r Temple Salom. Berl. 1830; 
 inserted also in Blatter f. hohere Wahrneue 
 Fofge , i. ; Griineisen, im Kunstblatt z. Morgenbl. 
 1831, No. 73-75, 77-80. Some more works are 
 mentioned by Meusel, Biblioth. Histor., i. 
 ii. 113, sq. The best works on the antiquities 
 and history of the Jews contain also chapters 
 illustrative of the temple. Among the biblical 
 dictionaries, see especially Winer’s Real-fVorterb. 
 sub 1 Tempel Ezekiel's Temple, being an At- 
 tempt to delineate the Structure of the Holy 
 Edifice , its Courts, Chambers, and Gates , as 
 described in the last nine chapters of the Book of 
 Ezekiel, with plates, by Joseph Isreels, London, 
 1827.— C. H. F. B. 
 
 TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD (Matt. iv. 
 1-11 ; Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke iv. 1-12). The popu- 
 lar view of this undoubted portion of our Saviour's 
 history, is, that it is u narrative of outward trans- 
 actions ; that our Saviour immediately after his 
 baptism was conducted by the Spirit into the 
 wilderness — either the desolate and mountainous 
 region now called Quarantania by the people of 
 Palestine ( Kitto's Physical History, pp. 39, 40), 
 or the great desert of Arabia, mentioned in Deut. 
 Xxxii. 10 ; viii. 15 ; Hos. xiii. 5 ; Jer. ii. 6, &c. — 
 where the devil tempted him in person, appeared 
 to him in a visible form, spoke to him in an 
 audible voice, removed him to the summit ‘ of 
 an exceeding high mountain,’ and to the top of 
 * a pinnacle of the temple at Jerusalem whereas 
 the view taken by many learned commentators, 
 ancient and modern, is, that it is the narrative of 
 A vision^ which was designed to ‘supply that 
 
 TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD 
 
 ideal experience of temptation or trial, which it 
 was provided in the divine counsels for our Lord 
 to receive, previously to entering upon the actual 
 trials and difficulties of his ministry ’ (Bishop 
 Maltby, Sermons, vol. ii., Lond. 1822, p. 276). 
 Farmer also considers it a ‘ divine vision,’ and 
 endeavours with much learning and ingenuity, to 
 * illustrate the wise and benevolent intention of 
 its various scenes, as symbolical predictions and 
 representations of the principal trials attending 
 Christ's public ministry ’ (. Inquiry into the 
 Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation, 8vo., 
 London, Preface). On behalf of the popular 
 interpretation it is urged, that the accounts given 
 by the evangelists convey no intimation that they 
 refer to a vision; that the feeling of hunger could 
 not have been merely ideal ; that a vision of forty 
 days’ continuance is incredible; that Moses, who 
 was a type of Christ, saw no ‘ visions,’ and that 
 hence it may be concluded Christ did not ; that 
 it is highly probable there would be a personal 
 conflict between Christ and Satan, when the 
 former entered on his ministry. Satan had ruined 
 the first Adam, and might hope to prevail with 
 the second (Trollope’s Analecta, vol. i. Lond. 
 1830, p. 46). Why too, say others, was our 
 Lord taken up into a mountain to see a vision ? 
 As reasonably might St. Paul have taken the 
 Corinthians into a mountain to ‘ show them the 
 more excellent way of charity ’ (l Cor. xii. 31). 
 On the contrary side, it is rejoined, that the evan- 
 gelists do really describe the temptation as a 
 vision. St. Matthew says, awtix^ 7 ) €1>s T V epgpov 
 virb rod irrevparos ’, St. Mark, rb Ttvevpa avrbv 
 ixfiaWei ; and St. Luke, ijycTo iv rta nvcbpaTi. 
 Do these phrases mean no more than that Jesus 
 went by the guidance or impulse of the Spirit to 
 a particular locality ? Do they not rather import, 
 that Christ was brought into the wilderness under 
 the full influence of the prophetic spirit, making 
 suitable revelations to his mind? With regard 
 to the hunger, the prophets are represented as ex- 
 periencing bodily sensations in their visions (Ezek, 
 iii. 3 ; Rev. x. 10). Further arguments, derived 
 from an unauthorized application of types, are pre- 
 carious — that the first Adam really hud no personal 
 encounter with Satan ; that all the purposes of our 
 Lord's temptation might be answered by a vision, 
 for whatever might be the mode , the effect was 
 intended to be produced upon his mind and 
 moral feelings, like St. Peter’s vision concerning 
 Cornelius, &c. (Acts x. 11-17); that commen- 
 tators least given to speculate allow that the 
 temptation during the first forty days was carried 
 on by mental suggestion only, and that the vi- 
 sible part of the temptation began ‘ when the 
 tempter came to him ’ (Matt. iv. 3 ; Luke iv. 3 ; 
 Scott, in loc .) ; that, with regard to Christ’s 
 being ‘taken up into an exceeding high mountain,’ 
 Ezekiel says (xl. 2), ‘ in the visions of God, brought 
 he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a 
 very high mountain,’ &c. ; and that St. John says, 
 ‘ he carried me away in the spirit to a great and 
 high mountain, and showed me that great city 
 the holy Jerusalem ’ (Rev. xxi. 10). But cer- 
 tain direct arguments are also urged on the same 
 side. Thus, is it consistent with the saga- 
 city and policy of the evil spirit, to suppose that 
 he appeared in his own proper ]>erson to our 
 Lord, uttering solicitations to evil? Was no* 
 this the readiest mode to frustrate his own intea* 
 
TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD. 
 
 TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD. 843 
 
 hems? Archbishop Seeker says, ‘certainly he 
 did not appear what he was, for that would 
 have entirely frustrated his intent’ ( Sermons , 
 vol. ii. p. 114). Chandler says, ‘The devil 
 appeared not as himself, for that would have 
 frustrated die effect of his temptation’ ( Berm . vol. 
 iii. p. 178). Seeker supposes that ‘ Satan trans- 
 formed himself into an angel of light but was it 
 likely that he would put on this form in order 
 to tempt our Lord to idolatry? (Matt. iv. 9.) 
 Chandler thinks he appeared as ‘ a good man 
 but would it have served his purpose to appear 
 as a good man promising universal dominion ? 
 The supposition that the devil disguised himself 
 in any form might indeed constitute the tempta- 
 tion a trial of our Lord’s understanding, but not 
 of his heart. Besides, Christ is represented as 
 addressing him as ‘Satan’ (ver. 10). It is fur- 
 ther urged that the literal interpretation does but 
 little honour to the Saviour, whom it represents 
 as carried or conducted, ‘ by the devil at his 
 will,’ and therefore as accessory to his own tempt- 
 ation and danger ; nor does it promote the conso- 
 lation of his followers, none of whom could ever 
 be similarly tempted. Our Lord indeed sub- 
 mitted to all the liabilities of the human con- 
 dition; but do these involve the dominion of 
 Satan over the body, to the extent thus repre- 
 sented ? The literal interpretation also attributes 
 miraculous powers to the devil, who, though a 
 spiritual being, is represented as becoming visible 
 at pleasure, speaking in *an audible voice, and 
 conveying mankind where he pleases — miracles 
 not inferior to what our Lord’s preservation would 
 have been, had he cast himself headlong from 
 the temple. Suppose we even give up the old 
 notion, that ‘ the devil hurried Christ through the 
 air, and carried him from the wilderness to the 
 temple ’ (Benson’s Life of Christ , p. 35), and 
 say with Doddridge and others, that ‘ the devil 
 took our Lord about with him as one person 
 takes another to different places,’ yet how without 
 a miracle shall we account for our Saviour’s ad- 
 mission to the exterior of the temple, unless he 
 first, indeed, obtained permission of the autho- 
 rities, which is not recorded ? (Comp. Josephus 
 Antiq. xv. 11, § iii. 5, and De Bell. Jud. v. 5.) 
 The difficulty is solved by the supposition simply 
 of a change in our Lord's perceptions. And how 
 can we further understand, except by the aid of 
 a vision or a miracle, that the devil ‘ showed our 
 Lord all the kingdoms of the world and the 
 glory of them in a moment of time’ (iv ariygy 
 Xpovov), a phrase referring to the mathematical 
 point, and meaning the most minute and indi- 
 visible portion of duration, thatis, instantaneously; 
 yet in this space of time, according to the literal 
 interpretation, ‘ the devil showed our Lord all the 
 kingdoms of the world and all the glory of them’ 
 i. e. whatever relates to their magnificence, as 
 imperial robes, crowns, thrones, palaces, courts, 
 guards, armies, &c. Scott and Doddridge resort to 
 the supposition of ‘ an illusory show ;’ but it may 
 be asked, if one of the temptations was conducted 
 by such means, why not the other two ? Mac- 
 knight endeavours to explain ‘ all the kingdoms 
 of the world, and the glory of them ’ as relating 
 only to the land of promise ( Harmony of the 
 Gospels , Lond. 1822, p. 35U, note). Farmer 
 conceives that no mountain in Palestine com- 
 mands so extensive a prospect. It is a further 
 
 difficulty attending the literal interpretation, that 
 Satan represents all the kingdoms of the world 
 and their glory to be at his disposal; an assertion 
 not denied by our Lord, who simply rejects the 
 offer. It may readily be conceived that it would 
 answer all purposes that Jesus should seem to 
 have the proposal in question made to him. It 
 is next observed, that many things are spoken of 
 in Scripture as being done, which were only done 
 in vision. See the numerous instances collected 
 by Bishop Law (Considerations of the Theory 
 of Religion, Lond. 1820, pp. 85, 86). The reader 
 may refer to Gen. xxxii. 30 ; Hosea i. iii. ; Jer. 
 xiii. xxv. xxvii. ; Ezek. iii. iv. v. St. Paul calls 
 his being ‘ caught up into the third heaven and 
 into Paradise’ a vision and revelation of the Lord 
 (2 Cor. xii. 1-4). It is plain from this instance 
 in the case of Paul, and from that of St. Peter 
 (Acts xii. 7-9), who had already experienced 
 visions (x. 10, &c.), that neither of the apostles 
 could at first distinguish visions from impressions 
 made on the senses. In further illustration it is 
 urged that the prophets are often said to be car- 
 ried about in visions (Ezek. viii. 1-10 ; xi. 24, 25 ; 
 xxxvii. I ; xl. 1, 2). The phrases ‘ by the spi- 
 rit,’ &c., are equivalent to ‘ the hand of God,’ &c., 
 among the prophets (1 Kings xviii. 46 ; 2 Kings 
 iii. 15 ; Ezek. i. 3). A comparison of the parallel 
 phrases in the *Sept. of Ezekiel, and the evan- 
 gelists in regard to Christ’s temptation, casts 
 much light upon the subject. The phrase ‘ the 
 devil leaveth him,’ is equivalent to the phrase, 
 
 ‘ the vision I had seen went up from me (Ezek. xi. 
 24). Farmer’s theory respecting the intention of 
 this prophetic vision may be thus summarily 
 stated. The spirit, of God was its sole author, 
 making suitable revelations to the mind of Jesus, 
 with a view to his future trials. It is called a 
 temptation of the devil, because couched under 
 the figure of Satan coming to him and offering 
 him temptations. The first scene was proba- 
 tionary, serving to try the present turn and tem- 
 per of the Saviour’s mind; and also prophetical, 
 having reference to his future ministry, through 
 the whole course of which he was pressed with 
 the same kind of temptations, and resisted them 
 upon the same principles. This part of the vision 
 conveyed this general instruction, that Christ, 
 though the Son of God, was to struggle with hun- 
 ger and thirst, and dll other evils incidental to 
 the lowest of the sons of men, and that he was 
 never to exert his miraculous power for his own 
 personal relief, but with resignation and faith 
 wait for the interposition of God in his favour. 
 The second scene, in which he was tempted to 
 cast himself from the temple, though dazzling as 
 a proposal to demonstrate his Messiahship by a 
 mode corresponding to the notions of the Jewish 
 people, was intended to teach him not to prescribe 
 to God in what instances he shall exert his 
 power, nor rush into danger uncalled in depend- 
 ance upon divine aid, nor to dictate to divine wis- 
 dom what miracles shall be wrought for men's 
 conviction. Upon these principles he resisted 
 this suggestion, and accordingly we find him 
 ever after exemplifying the same principles. He 
 never needlessly exposed himself to danger in 
 reliance upon miraculous interposition, he cau- 
 tiously declined hazards, avoided whatever might 
 exasperate his enemies, enjoined silence with re- 
 gard to his miracles, when the publication of 
 
TENT. 
 
 TBRAPHIM. 
 
 844 
 
 them might have excited envy or commotion ; ba 
 opened his commission in Galilee, not in Jeru- 
 salem, courted privacy, avoided the great, con- 
 versed with the common people, &c. The 
 third scene presignified the temptation to 
 which he would be subject during the whole 
 course of his ministry, to prostitute all his mira- 
 culous endowments to the service of Satan, for 
 the sake of worldly honours, or for gratifying the 
 mistaken apprehensions of the Jewish people. It 
 is pleaded mat this explanation obviates all diffi- 
 culties, justifies the wisdom of God in this dis- 
 pensation, and confirms our confidence in Christ’s 
 divine mission and character, since we thus learn 
 that he was made acquainted with all he had to 
 suffer, and nevertheless persevered, and with final 
 success; and further, that through the various 
 exercises thus afforded to his moral principles 
 he learned ‘to succour' those that are tempted.’ 
 Farmer’s inquiry throughout is recommended to 
 the careful perusal of the student. For a com- 
 parison of the circumstances of the temptation 
 and of the crucifixion, see Encyclopedia Metro- 
 politana , vol. x., p. 604 ; for the coincidence 
 between the petitions of the Lord’s prayer and 
 the temptation, p. 605, note ; and for the analogy 
 between the temptation of our Lord in the wil- 
 derness and of Adam in Paradise, see Town- 
 send’s Chronological Arrangement , Lond. 1828, 
 vol. i. p. 92. — J. F. D. 
 
 TENT. The patriarchal fathers of the Israel- 
 ites were dwellers in tents, and their descen- 
 dants proceeded at once from tents to houses. 
 We therefore read but little of huts among them ; 
 and never as the fixed habitations of any people 
 with whom they were conversant. By huts we 
 understand small dwellings, made of the green or 
 dry branches of trees interwined, and sometimes 
 plastered with mud. In Scripture they are called 
 booths. Such were made by Jacob to shelter his 
 cattle during the first winter of his return from 
 Mesopotamia (Gen. xxxiii. 17). In after times 
 we more frequently read of them as being erected 
 in vineyards and orchards, to shelter the man 
 who guarded the ripened produce (Job xxvii. 18; 
 Isa. i. 8 ; xxiv. 20). It was one of the Mosaical 
 institutions that, during the Feast of Tabernacles, 
 the people should live for a week in huts made of 
 green boughs (Le7. xxiii. 42). 
 
 The Scriptures make us more familiar with 
 tents than with huts. They were invented before 
 the Deluge, and appear from the first to have been 
 associated with the pastoral life, to which a move- 
 able habitation was necessary (Gen. iv. 20). The 
 practice of the pastoral fathers was to pitch their 
 tents near wells of water, and, if possible, under 
 
 some shady tree (Gen. xviii. 4 ; Judg. iv. 5 1 
 The first tents were undoubtedly covered witn 
 skins, of which there are traces in the Pentateuch 
 (Exod. xxvi. 14); but nearly all the tents men- 
 tioned in Scripture were, doubtless, of goats’ hair, 
 spun and woven by the women (Exod. xxxv. 26 ; 
 xxxvi. 14); such as are now, in Western Asia, 
 used by all who dwell in tents ; hence their black 
 colour (Sol. Song, i. 5). Tents of linen were, 
 and still are, only used occasionally, for holiday 
 or travelling purposes, by those who do not ha- 
 bitually live in them. The patriarchal tents 
 were probably such as we now see in Arabia, of 
 an oblong shape, and eight or ten feet high in the 
 middle. They vary in size, and have, accord- 
 ingly, a greater or less number of poles to sup- 
 port them — from three to nine. An encampment 
 is generally arranged circularly, forming an en- 
 closure, within which the cattle are driven at 
 night, and the centre of which is occupied by the 
 tent or tents of the Emir or Sheikh. If he is a 
 person of much consequence, he may have three 
 or four tents, for himself, his wives, his servants, 
 and strangers, respectively. The two first are of 
 the most importance, and we know that Abra- 
 ham % wife had a separate tent (Gen. xxiv. 27). 
 
 It is more usual, however, for one very large 
 tent to be divided into two or more apartments 
 by curtains. The Holy Tabernacle was on this 
 model (Exod. xxvi. 31-37). 
 
 TERAH (mn, Sept. 0a/3/5a), son of Nahor 
 and father of Abraham, who, with his family, 
 quitted Ur of the Chaldees to go to the land 
 which God should show him, ‘ but tarried at \ 
 Haran in Mesopotamia, and there died at the 
 age of 205 years ’ (Gen. xi. 24-32 ; Acts vii. 
 2-4). From the latter text, it appears that the 
 first call which prompted them to leave Ur was 
 addressed to Abraham, not to Terah, as well as 
 the second, which, after the death of his father, 
 induced him to proceed from Haran to Canaan 
 [Abraham]. The order to Abraham to proceed 
 to Canaan immediately after Terah ’s death 
 seems to indicate that the pause at Haran was on 
 his account. Whether he declined to proceed 
 any further, or his advanced age rendered him 
 unequal to the fatigues of the journey, can only 
 be conjectured. It appears, however, from Josh, 
 xxiv. 2, 14, that Terah was given to idolatry, or 
 rather, perhaps, to certain idolatrous superstitions 
 retained together with the acknowledgment and 
 worship of Jehovah, such as existed in the family 
 in the time of his great-grandson Labau (Gen. 
 xxxi. 30). This may suggest that it was not in the 
 Divine wisdom deemed proper that one who had 
 grown old in such practices should enter the land 
 in which his descendants were destined to exem- 
 plify a pure faith. 
 
 TERAPHIM (D'Snn). The etymology and 
 meaning of this word may be inferred from the 
 various modes in which it is rendered by the 
 Greek translators, such as Oepcupeiv, 0epa<peir, or 
 Oepacpt v, reminding us of the etymological rela- 
 tion of PpD 5] "ID, nutrivit, to rpecp-cir. Its re- • 
 mote derivatives in modem languages, viz., the 
 Italian tarifa, French tariff and even the Eng- 
 lish tripe , throw a little light upon our subject. 
 
 According to its etymology the woud Teraphin 
 has been literally translated nutritores, nourishert 
 It seems that the plural form was used as a col 
 
TERAPHIM. 
 
 TERAPHIM. 
 
 845 
 
 Jcctive singular for the personified combination 
 3f all nourishing powers, as the plural Teraphim 
 •ignifies God, in whom all superior powers, to 
 be revered with reverential awe, are combined 
 (comp, the classical epithets of gods — Sol, Phoe- 
 bus, Ceres, Venus, Cybele, Pales, Trivia, Fides, 
 Sibylla, &c., (ilmus, bpirvios, rp6<pipos ). 
 
 The word Teraphim signified an object or objects 
 of idolatry, as we may learn from the renderings 
 of the Septuagint, efScoAov, y\vnr6v ; and that it 
 was in meaning similar to the Penates is indicated 
 by Kevoracpiov. Aquila renders it gopipw/xaTa, 
 Kporofiai, ayOwcpalpecris, iiriAvais, etSwAa ; Sym- 
 machus also translates it et5o>Aa. It seems there- 
 fore that D'DIH, and the feminine which occurs 
 5 in Rabbinical writers, niQ’in, were tutelar house- 
 hold gods, by whom families expected, for wor- 
 ship bestowed, to be rewarded with domestic pros- 
 perity, such as plenty of food, health, and various 
 necessaries of domestic life. 
 
 We have most remarkable proofs that the wor- 
 ship of Teraphim co-existed with the worship of Je- 
 hovah even in pious families ; and we have more 
 than one instance of the wives of worshippers of 
 Jehovah, not finding full contentment and satis- 
 faction in the stern moral truth of spiritual wor- 
 ship, and therefore carrying on some private 
 symbolism by fondling the Teraphim. It seems, 
 however, that this swerving from truth was com- 
 paratively innocent. It was never denounced 
 and suppressed with the same rigour as the wor- 
 ship of Moloch. 
 
 We find intern xxxi. 19, that Rachel stole the 
 images (teraphim) belonging to her father with- 
 out the knowledge of her husband, who, being 
 accused by his father-in-law of having stolen his 
 gods, answered, ‘ With whomsoever thou findest 
 thy gods, let him not live/ Laban searched, but 
 found not the images (teraphim). 
 
 It appears from Judg. xvii. 2-7, that the wor- 
 ship of the Lord, SVin\ was blended with that of 
 a graven image of teraphim, as intimately as at 
 present some forms of image-worship are blended 
 with the worship of God in spirit and in truth. 
 That such will-worship, howevei', was only com- 
 paratively innocent, and originated in an obsti- 
 nate pruritus of improving rather than obeying 
 God's revelation, Samuel clearly expressed in 
 reproving Saul (1 Sam. xv. 23): ‘Stubbornness 
 is as iniquity and idolatry literally teraphim. 
 We do not read that the stubbornness of Saul 
 led him literally to worship teraphim. How- 
 ever, his daughter possessed teraphim as big as a 
 man (1 Sam. xix. 13) : Michal took an image 
 (teraphim), and put it into the bed of David in 
 ?rder to conceal his flight : ‘ And behold an image 
 teraphim) in the bed ? (ver. 16). 
 
 On every revival of the knowledge of the writ- 
 ten revelation of God the teraphim were swept 
 away together with the worse forms of idolatry 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 24) : ‘ The workers with familiar 
 spirits, and the wizards, and the images (tera- 
 phim), and the idols, and all the abominations 
 that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jeru- 
 salem, did Josiah put away, that he might per- 
 form the words of the law, which were written in 
 the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the bouse 
 of the Lord/ 
 
 As, however, the worship of teraphim, like 
 that of the Penates and Lares among the Romans, 
 connected with nationality, it necessarily 
 
 perished with the nationality itself (Hosea iii. 4): 
 * For the children of Israel shall abide many days 
 without a king, and without a prince, and with- 
 out a sacrifice, and without an image, and with- 
 out an ephod, and (without) teraphim. After- 
 wards shall the children of Israel return and seek 
 tne Lord their God, and David their king, and 
 shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter 
 days.’ 
 
 The teraphim were consulted by persons upon 
 whom true religion had no firm hold, in order to 
 elicit some supernatural omina , similar to the 
 auguria of the Romans. 
 
 Zech. x. 2 : ‘ For the idols (teraphim) have 
 spoken vanity,’ &c. In connection with the ha- 
 raspicia, instituted by the king of Babylon, we 
 read (Ezek. xxi. 21, 26) that he consulted images 
 (teraphim). 
 
 According to the great Rabbi Eliezer, who was 
 the son of Hyrcanus, and the brother-in-law of 
 Gamaliel the Second, who seems to have been the 
 tutor of St. Paul (in 'pIS, and the Targum of 
 Jonathan on Gen. xxxi. 19), the worship of tera- 
 phim was connected with atrocities. ‘ The makers 
 of teraphim slaughtered a man who was a first- 
 born, cut his head oft' and salted it, and cured it 
 with spices and oil. After this, they wrote the 
 name of an impure spirit, and sentences of divina- 
 tion on a golden plate, which they placed under 
 the tongue of the head, which was fastened to 
 the wall, and lighted lamps before it, and knelt 
 down in adoration, upon which the tongue began 
 to utter divinations.’ Rabbi Salomo or Rashi 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 24) says, ‘the teraphim uttered 
 divinations by magical and horoseopic arts.’ On 
 1 Sam. xix. 13 sq., he adduces the opinion that the 
 teraphim were horoseopic . and astrological in 
 struments made of brass; but he confesses that 
 this opinion, to which he is himself much in- 
 clined, is not consistent with the account of 
 Michal, from which it is evident that the tera- 
 phim had the shape of man. On Gen. xxxi. Aben 
 Ezra adduces the opinion, that the teraphim were 
 automata , made by astrologers so as to show the 
 hours and to utter divinations. Hence the Per- 
 
 sian Tawas in Gen. xxxi. translates 
 
 astrolabia. Aben Ezra also adduces the opinion, 
 that Rachel stole the teraphim of Laban in order 
 to prevent him from idolatry, and from asking 
 the teraphim whither his children had fled. 
 Rabbi Levi ben Gersom (on Genesis) states that 
 the teraphim were human figures, by which the 
 imagination of diviners was so excited, that they 
 supposed they heard a low voice speaking about 
 future events with which their own thoughts were 
 filled, although the image did not speak, an ope- 
 ration which can only be performed by such na- 
 tural organs as God has provided for that purpose. 
 The book Zohar derives the name teraphim from 
 tpm, turpitude, but mentions also that Rabbi 
 Jehuda derives it from nS"l, to slacken , because 
 they slackened the hands of men in well-doing. 
 The Rabbi adds, that they uttered a 
 n5*7, prophetia laxa , inanis, vana, a loose sort 
 of prediction. Hence Rabbi Bechai says that 
 D'Q'in are the same as D'Sfl, feeble , objects not 
 to be depended upon. But in Tanchuma tha 
 former etymology is produced, since the tera» 
 phim were opus turpitudini-9 sju 
 
J46 
 
 TERTIUS. 
 
 THEBES. 
 
 faeditatis (see Buxtorfii Lex. Talmud, et Rabb. 
 Bub PpH, which root occurs in the Latin turpis ). 
 
 Onkelos renders Teraphim in Gen. xxxi. by 
 and Jonathan in Judges xvii. and xviii. 
 by f'XD”!, images. The Targum on Hosea iii. 4 
 has 'l riD, indicans, expounder of oracles, where 
 the Greek has SyAow ; and the Targum on 1 
 Sam. xv. 23, NmyD, idols. Goussetius, under 
 5pn, goes so far as to assert that the word 
 &v9pci)wos is formed from CiTinn. Lud. de 
 Dieu, and after him Spencer, in Leg. Bit. 
 Hebr. Dissert, (vii.” 1. 3, c. 3, s. 7), urges the 
 frequent interchange of the sounds T and S and 
 SH, in order to show that Teraphim and Seraphim 
 are etymologically connected. Hottinger in his 
 Smegma , and Athanasius Kircher in the first 
 volume of his C Edipus JEgyptiacus, exhibit the 
 etymological progression thus : Sou Apis (c&p air, 
 ark of the ox), Sarapis, Serapis, Terapis, 
 Teraphim. The Arabic author, Aben Neph, also 
 asserts the identity of Teraphim and Serapides. 
 Others appeal to Oepaireveiv, to heal (com- 
 
 pare Jo. Christ. Wichmannshausen, Dissertatio 
 de Teraphim ; Witsius, Aegyptiac. i. 8 ; Ugo- 
 lino, Thes. tom. xii. p. 7S6). 
 
 Coin, in his Biblische Theologie, derives 
 
 teraphim from the Syriac percontari. 
 
 Michaelis, in Commentationes Societati Gottin - 
 gensi oblatce , Brem., 1763, p. 5, sq., compares 
 the teraphim to the Satyri and Sileni, referring to 
 the statement of Pausanias (vi. 24. 6), that there 
 were graves of Sileni in the country of the He- 
 brews. Creuzer asserts ‘Theraphimis asininum 
 aliquid infuisse,’ that the Teraphim had some- 
 thing of asses in them ( Commentationes Herod. 
 i. 277 ; Symbolik, iii. 208, sq.). Creuzer appeals 
 also ( Symb . ii. 340) to Gen. xxxi., in order to prove 
 the fertilizing, or ralher fecundizing power of the 
 D'Sin, which scarcely can be proved from ver. 
 19 (comp, here Rosenmiilleri Scholia ; Jahn, iii. 
 506, sq.) The dissertations of Wichmannshausen 
 and of Pfeiffer, De Teraphim , are inserted in vol. 
 xxiii. of Ugolini Thesaurus. — C. H. E. B. 
 TEREB1NTHUS. [Alah.] 
 
 TERTIUS. We learn from Rom. xvi. 22 
 (‘ I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in 
 the Lord’), that the Apostle Paul dictated that 
 epistle to Tertius. Some writers say that Tertius 
 was bishop of Iconium (see Fabricii Lux Evan- 
 gelii , p. 117). F. Burmann and Lightfoot con- 
 jectured that Tertius and Silas were one and the 
 same person ; but this conjecture rests on an ex- 
 ceedingly feeble foundation, namely, the simi- 
 larity merely of the consonants in the Hebrew 
 
 numeral three, to the consonants in the 
 
 name Silas, while Tertius signifies in Latin the 
 third. However, 2iA.as is the usual Greek con- 
 traction of the Roman name Silvanus, meaning 
 nearly the same as the English name Forester or 
 Woodman , just, as A ovitas is a contraction of 
 Lucanus, the meaning of which is nearl / the 
 same as that of Silas, and may be compared with 
 the English name Graves. The scantiness of our 
 information about Tertius has been a fruitful 
 source of learned pedantry and petulant con- 
 jecture, such as that of F. Stosch in his Exerci- 
 tatio de Tertio qua esse eum non alium ac ipsum 
 Paulum probatur, p. 23 — in the Fortges. n'utzl. 
 Anmm. Samml. Compare also N. D. Briegleb, 
 
 De Tertio, scriba cpistohr Pauli ad Romanos^ 
 Jen. 1754, 4to. See the article Tertius in Winer’* 
 Real- Wort.— C. H. F. B. 
 
 TERTULLUS (TepryAAos), the Roman 
 orator or advocate employed by the Sanhedrim 
 to sustain their accusation against Paid befor® 
 the Roman governor (Acts xxiv. 1-8). The Jews, 
 as well as the other peoples subject to the Romans, 
 in their accusations and processes before the 
 Roman magistrates, were obliged to follow the 
 forms of the Roman law, of which they knew 
 little. The different provinces, and particularly 
 the principal cities, consequently abounded with 
 persons who, at the same time advocates and 
 orators, were equally ready to plead in civil actions 
 or to harangue on public affairs. This they did, 
 either in Greek or Latin, as the place or occasion 
 required. 
 
 TESTAMENT. [Bibi.e.] 
 
 TETRARCH (reTp<xpx> js), a prince or sove- 
 reign who holds or governs a fourth part of a 
 kingdom, without wearing the diadem, or bear- 
 ing the title of king. Such was the original im- 
 port of the word, but it was afterwards applied ta 
 any petty king or sovereign, and became synony- 
 mous with ethnarch. The titles of tetrarch and 
 king were often used indiscriminately. The 
 tetrarch was sometimes a prince who possessed a 
 half or only a third part, and though a mere 
 tetrarch, was from courtesy called a king. In 
 the same manner what was only a tetrarchy wan 
 sometimes called a kingdom. 
 
 In the reign of Tiberius CajsarNflerod’s king 
 dom of Judaea was divided into three parts, which 
 were called tetrarch ies, and the sovereigns te- 
 trarchs. His sons were made the heirs to his 
 kingdom. Archelaus became tetrarch of Judaea, 
 Samaria, and Idumaea; Philip of Trachonitis 
 and Ituraea ; and Herod Antipas of Galilee and 
 Peraea (Luke iii. 1). Herod Agrippa, the nephew 
 of Herod Antipas, who afterwards obtained the 
 title of king (Acts xxv. 13), was in the reign of 
 Caligula invested with royalty, and appointed 
 tetrarch of Abilene ; to which was afterwards 
 added Galilee and Peraea, Judaea and Samaria ; 
 until at length his dominion extended over the 
 whole land of Palestine [Herodian Family]. 
 The title of tetrarch was frequently conferred 
 upon the descendants of Herod the Great by the 
 Roman emperors (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 33). — 
 
 G. M. B. 
 
 THADD^EUS (0a55atoy), a surname of the 
 Apostle Jude, who was also called Lebbaeus (Matt, 
 x. 3; Mark iii. 18; comp. Luke vi. 16) [Jude], 
 
 THAMMUZ. [Tammuz.] 
 
 THEBES is a name borne by two of the most 
 celebrated cities in the ancient world, Thebes ir. 
 Boeotia, and Thebes in Egypt. Of the latter it is 
 that we have here to speak in brief, referring those 
 who wish for detailed information to the works of 
 Wilkinson, especially his Modern Egypt and 
 Thebes. 
 
 The name Thebes is corrupted from the Tap£ 
 of the ancient Egyptian language. In hiero- 
 glyphics it is written Ap, Ape, or with the femi- 
 nine article, Tape, the meaning of which appears 
 to be ‘ the head,’ Thebes being the capital of the 
 Thebais in Upper Egypt. By the Septuagint it 
 is generally termed AiiariroAis, Diospolis (Magna), 
 a name corresponding with that by which it u 
 
THEBES. 
 
 THEBES. 
 
 8tf 
 
 spoken of in the Bible — as in Ezek. xxx. 14, ‘I 
 will make Pathros (Pathyris, the western division 
 of the city) desolate, and will execute judgments 
 in No ’ (the name of the city, as it lay on the 
 eastern bank of tneNile); see verses 15, 16, and 
 compare xxix. 14, 15. So in Jerem. xlvi. 25, ‘ I 
 will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and 
 Egypt, with their gods and their kings ; and I will 
 deliver them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar.’ 
 Here Thebes is denominated by the term No ; in 
 Nahum iii. 8, the name is made more specific, 
 becoming Nc Amon, that is, the abode of Amon 
 or Amun, who may be roughly described as the 
 Egyptian Jupiter. There was indeed another 
 place bearing the same name in Lower Egypt, 
 just above Mendes, whose position near the Medi- 
 terranean would correspond very well with the 
 language of Nahum (iii. 8), who has been thought 
 
 by some (Kreenen, Nahumi Vaticinia Expov , 
 1808) to have intended this latter city ; but' the 
 language employed by the prophet would answer 
 equally well to the position of Thebes in Upper 
 Egypt, situated as it was on both sides of the river 
 Nile, still called el-Bahr, the sea, and having 
 canals cutting the land in all directions, the 
 waters of which (the Nile and its canals) would 
 not, only minister to the daily wants and to the 
 affluence of the city, but form in case of attack a 
 ‘ rampart ’ and a ‘ wall.’ The Thebes of Upper 
 Egypt, which lay on both the eastern and western 
 banks of the Nile, was probably the most ancient 
 city of Egypt, and the residence in very early 
 ages of Egyptian kings who ruled the land during 
 several dynasties. The plain was adorned not 
 only by large and handsome dwellings for man, 
 but by temples and palaces, of whose grandeur 
 
 .JACK SQN.Sc 
 
 
 520. [Thebes. — The palace-temple at Karnak.] 
 
 words can give but a faint conception. Of these 
 edifices there are still in existence ruins that 
 astound and delight the traveller. The most an- 
 cient remains now existing are in the immense 
 temple, or rather cluster of temples, of Karnak, 
 the largest and most splendid ruin of which either 
 ancient or modern times can boast, being the 
 work of a number of successive mouarchs, each 
 anxious to surpass his predecessor by increasing 
 the dimensions of the part he added. Osirtasen I., 
 the contemporary of Joseph, is the earliest mo- 
 narch whose name appears on the monuments of 
 Thebes. The wealth of these temples was as 
 ample as their architectural pretensions were 
 great. They were served by a numerous and 
 learned priesthood. On the western shore the 
 chief points of interest are the palace and temple of 
 Rameses II., erroneously called the Memnonium ; 
 the temples of Medinet Habu, the statue of Mem- 
 con, and the tombs of the kings. On the eastern 
 
 shore are the temple of Luksor, and the temple 
 of Karnak, already mentioned. ‘ It is impossible,’ 
 says Robinson (Bib. Researches, i, 29), ‘lo wander 
 among these scenes and behold these hoary yet 
 magnificent ruins without emotions of astonish- 
 ment and deep solemnity. Everything around 
 testifies of vastness and of utter desolation. Here 
 lay once that mighty city whose power and splen- 
 dour were proverbial throughout the ancient 
 world.’ Yet, like all earthly things, Thebes had 
 her period of death. She sprang up, flourished, 
 declined, and sank. Memphis rose to be her 
 rival when Thebes began to part with her glory. 
 She was plundered by Cambyses, and destroyed 
 by Ptolemy Lathyrus. In Strabo’s time the city 
 was already fallen ; yet its remains then covered 
 eighty stadia, and the inhabited part was divided 
 into many separate villages, as the ru'ns now are 
 portioned out between nine hamlets. Thebes ii 
 thus described by Homer : — 
 
THEBEZ- 
 
 S48 
 
 Not all proud Thebes* unrivalled walls contain, 
 The world’s great empress on th’ Egyptian 
 plain, 
 
 That spreads her conquests o’er a thousand 
 states, 
 
 And pours her heroes through a hundred gates. 
 Two hundred horsemen, and two hundred cars, 
 From each wide portal issuing to the wars. 
 
 But the countless generations of a city which well 
 deserved to have Homer for its herald, have now 
 
 E assed for ever away, leaving their mighty works 
 ehind, to tell to wanderers from distant and un- 
 Known climes the story of her greatness and her 
 fall. The desert hills around are filled with their 
 corpses : on one spot Irbv and Mangles counted 
 in the side of the Libyan hills fifty mummy -pits, 
 gaping with their open mouths, as if they would, 
 vomit forth their dusty contents, and showing how 
 vain were the efforts which the Thebans made to 
 preserve themselves from the dread decree — ‘Dust 
 thou art, and to dust thou shalt return.’ The 
 period in which Thebes enjoyed the highest pros- 
 perity Robinson considers to have been coeval 
 with the reigns of David and Solomon. This, how- 
 ever, appears too late a date. From the passage in 
 Nahum (iii. 8, sq.), it would seem that in his day 
 (according to Josephus, cir. 750 b.c.), the city had 
 suffered a terrible overthrow — how long previously 
 is not recorded, for we do not know what conquest 
 or what conqueror was here intended by the pro- 
 phet. The walls of all the temples at Thebes are 
 covered with sculptures and hieroglyphics re- 
 presenting in general the deeds of the kings who 
 founded or enlarged these structures. Many of 
 these afford happy illustrations of Egyptian his- 
 ( ory. An interesting scene is thought to record the 
 exploits of Sheshonk, the Sbishak of the Scrip- 
 tures, who made a successful expedition against 
 Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, 
 b.c. 97 1. These sculptures are on the exterior 
 of the south-west wall of the great temple of 
 Karnak.— J. R. B. 
 
 THEBEZ (15$ '* Sept. ©77/377$), a place near 
 Shechem, where Abimelech met his death (Judg. 
 ix. 50 ; 2 Sam. xi. 21). It seems to be the same 
 with the place now called Tubas. 
 
 THEOLOGY, BIBLICAL. The historical 
 contemplation of the Bible consists of three parts, 
 namely, first, of an examination of the Biblical 
 hooks themselves, or of what is called Introduc- 
 tion [Introduction] ; secondly, of the inter- 
 pretation of these writings [Interpretation] ; 
 and lastly, of the system of religious doctrines 
 contained in the Bible. We may define Biblical 
 theology as the scientific form of the religious 
 opinions contained in the Bible. Biblical theo- 
 logy belongs, therefore, entirely to the historical 
 branch of divinity and differs essentially from 
 Biblical dogmatics by keeping clear from all 
 doctrinal predilections. Biblical theology and 
 Biblical dogmatics are, however, so nearly related 
 that they have frequently been confounded. Bib- 
 lical dogmatics, in developing the religious system 
 of the Bible, assume the doctrine of inspira- 
 tion. Biblical theology, however, does not con- 
 sider inspiration to l>e an historical starting-point 
 of a science, but rather an ecclesiastical attribute 
 of the Bible to which a purely historical contem- 
 plation of the Bible may ultimately lead, but 
 which ought not to be pre-supposed. The basis 
 
 THEOLOGY, BIBLICAL. 
 
 of the investigation in Biblical theology is nothing 
 else but historical truth. The moral nature of 
 man claims a purely historical contemplation of 
 the Bible, although this is opposed by hierarchical 
 narrow-mindedness. 
 
 The Bible itself consists of a variety of writ- 
 ings, the date of whose origin differs by centuries. 
 Consequently, chronology is of great importance 
 in Biblical theology. The mere division into the 
 Old and New Testament does not suffice for the 
 purposes of Biblical theology. In the history of 
 Biblical literature before Christ, various periods 
 are discernible, and the transition from the Old to 
 the New Testament is such that we must supjxise 
 that there existed an intervening literature. 
 
 The great space of time to which the writings 
 of the Old Testament belong is conveniently 
 subdivided into the periods of Hebraism, 
 Mosaism, and Judaism. I. During the whole 
 history before the exile, that is, as long as the 
 Hebrews were an independent nation, we find no 
 allusion to the existence of the Mosaical law as 
 we have it in the Pentateuch. This is especially 
 remarkable in the earlier prophets. For this 
 reason the whole period of Hebrew national in- 
 dependence has been called the age of Hebraism, 
 or the Hebraic age. 11. Simultaneously with the 
 loss of national independence the Mosaic law 
 gradually makes its appearance, expelling the 
 freer religious enthusiasm which before that time 
 had prevailed in the nation in the form of Pro- 
 phetism. This period of the prevalence of the 
 Mosaical law is the period of Mosaism. 
 
 During this period of Mosaism a colony, chiefly 
 from the tribe of Judah, gradually proceeded to 
 Palestine ; and in this colony the ancestral reli- 
 gion was further developed. This religion did 
 not then seem the property of the whole nation, 
 but to be restricted to the Jews alone. 
 
 The new phasis into which the religion of the Old 
 Testament then entered is characterized by the 
 extinction of prophetic inspiration. Consequently 
 the period of Mosaism extends from the com- 
 mencement of the exile to the times immediately 
 after the latest prophets, Zechariah and Malachi, 
 or to about the year b.c. 400. 
 
 III. The age of Judaism commences about 
 the year b.c. 400. During this age the law and 
 its interpretation remained paramount ; but 
 tradition took the place of the free inspiration of 
 Jehovah. This tradition refers both to those writ- 
 ings which in the periods of Hebraism and 
 Mosaism expressed the prevalence of the Divine 
 Spirit, and also to some accounts said to be 
 orally preserved. The oval tradition, following 
 the spirit of the times, constantly imbibed new 
 elements, and brought into subjection both the 
 Mosaical law and the writings which were com- 
 posed during the period of the prevalence of thft 
 Divine Spirit. The period of Judaism exhibits 
 this new developement of the religion of the Old 
 Testament, first, in its growth, and then in its 
 maturity. There are no writings in the Old Tes- 
 tament canon which exhibit tradition in its ma- 
 turity. The Old Testament canon contains a 
 collection of the Mosaical laws, and of the books 
 which were written under the Spirit of Jehovah. 
 The Christian times, however, are directly con- 
 nected with the formation of Judaism in its second 
 stage, and the New Testament rests on the basis of 
 this latter form of contemplation. The Ne v 
 
THEOLOGY, BIBLICAL. 
 
 Testament presupposes, not so much the views 
 and opinions of Hebraism and of Mosaism, but 
 those of later Judaism, in which the canonical 
 portion of the Bible leaves a gap, partly but im- 
 perfectly filled up by the Old Testament Apo- 
 crypha, and the writings of Philo and Josephus. 
 Consequently we are frequently obliged to take 
 from the New Testament itself the proofs requisite 
 to convince us that certain opinions were prevalent 
 in the Judaism of those times. 
 
 The New Testament, containing a collection of 
 the writings of the Apostles, comprehends a much 
 shorter period than the Old Testament ; neverthe- 
 less, in these Christian writings also there is a 
 twofold mode of viewing religion, namely, the 
 particularistic or Judaizing, which chronologically 
 preceded the more universal or catholic, which is 
 embodied in the writings of St. Paul and St. 
 John. In exhibiting the doctrines of the New 
 Testament we ought to keep in view the difference 
 of these particularistic and catholic tendencies. 
 Consequently Biblical theology consists of the 
 following parts, which may be historically distin- 
 guished — Hebraism , Mosaism , Judaism , Juda- 
 izing Christianity, and Paulino- Johannic Chris- 
 tianity. From the union of the two Christian ten- 
 dencies proceeds tb* catholic and apostolic 
 church, the maxims pf which are in the New 
 Testament only indicated. 
 
 It is the problem of Biblical Theology, first, 
 to classify the Biblical books according to these 
 periods or tendencies ; secondly, to examine the 
 writings of each author and of each tendency as 
 muchas possible in chronological succession — each 
 by itself with reference to the religious doctrines 
 contained therein — and also to sum up the results 
 of each section, and thus to advance from Hebraism 
 »o Mosaism, and from Mosaism to Judaism, &c. 
 In this generical developement of Biblical doc- 
 trines, the investigator ought, to keep in view what 
 '» common to all Biblical books in all periods; 
 also what is characteristic in each author and 
 >1 each period ; and finally, he ought to render 
 prominent that in which all the authors of the New 
 Testament agree, because this alone constitutes 
 what is really essential in Christianity. 
 
 The science of Biblical theology, in this sense, 
 is only in its infancy. Its principles were disco- 
 vered after manifold errors and mistakes. A 
 work comprehending the results of the historical 
 investigation of the Bible, is still a desideratum. 
 There exist, however, excellent preparatory worJ<s. 
 The scientific description of Hebraism and Mo- 
 saism is further advanced than that of Judaism 
 and the Biblical theology of the. New Testament. 
 The true cause of this fact is the greater internal 
 definiteness of Hebraism and Mosaim. 
 
 Formerly, the expression Theologia Biblica 
 implied the whole sphere of exegetical divinity. 
 About the end of the seventeenth century the 
 term Theologia Biblica was employed in preference 
 in order to express the exegetical interpretation of 
 the dicta probantia, or those Biblical passages 
 by which divines defended their system. Spener 
 and his followers introduced the habit of con- 
 tradistinguishing Biblical theology and sym- 
 bolical dogmatics. About this period Biblical 
 theology consisted chiefly in strings of Biblical 
 passages. 
 
 Towards the end of the eighteenth century a 
 divine in Gottii gen, Gotthilf Traugott Zachariae, 
 vet. n. 55 
 
 THEOLOGY, BIBLICAL 64* 
 
 first attempted to bring Biblical theology into the 
 form of a system (comp. G. T. Zachariae, Bib- 
 lischer Th/.ologus oder Untersuchung des bib - 
 lischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischm 
 Lehren , first published at Gottingen in 1771, in 
 2 vols. The third edition was published in 1786, 
 in 4 vols , to which was added in the same year 
 a fifth volume by Vollborth. Similar works are W. 
 Fr. .tiufnagel's IJandbuch der biblischen Theo- 
 logie, band i., Erlangen, 17S2; band ii. Abtnei- 
 lung i., 1789; Ammon's Biblische Theologie, Er- 
 langen, 1792, band i. second euition, in 3 vols. 
 1801-1802; Storr’s Doctrines Christiana: pars 
 theoretica , e sacris literis repetita , Stutt gai t, 1793, 
 translated into German by T. Chr. Flatt, Stutt- 
 gart, 1803 : a second, but incomplete edition, ap- 
 peared in 1813. An English translation of this 
 work, with additions, was published at. Andover 
 in America, by Dr. Schumacker, in 1836. The 
 above works on Biblical Theology are too de- 
 void of science, and do not rest upon the basis 
 of a firm principle. F. Ph. Gabler, a pupil of 
 Griesbach, first attempted to avoid these defects, 
 in his Oratio de justo discrimine Theologia: Bib- 
 lica: et Dogmaticce regundisque recte utriusque 
 fnibus, Altorf, 1787; Opuscula, 1831, ii. 129, 
 sq. In this work Biblical theology is established 
 as a purely historical science. Gabler was fol- 
 lowed by Georg Laurenz Baur and G. Ph. Chr. 
 Kaiser, who, however, did not keep clear from 
 mixing up with Biblical theology several not 
 strictly historical, and therefore foreign, elements.. 
 Their works have been surpassed by those of De. 
 Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. These writes^,, 
 however, render history too much subservient to 
 their philosophical opinions; comp. W. M, da 
 Wette’s Biblischer Dogmatik des Alten und Neuen- 
 Testamentes , Berlin, 1813, third edit. 1830-, and, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius's Grundzuge der Biblischen 
 Theologie, Jena, 1828. 
 
 The idea of Biblical theology has been best, 
 understood and executed by Dan. Georg. Conrad 
 von Colin ( Biblische T'h.eologie'), Leipzig, 1836, 
 2 vols. The second volume, which relates to the 
 New Testament, is, however, much inferior to the 
 first. 
 
 The following works refer to parts of Biblical 
 theology : Gramberg's Kritische Geschichte der 
 Religions Ideen des Alten Testaments , Berlin, 
 1822 and 1830, 2 vols. ; Vatke's Biblische The- 
 logie wissenschaftlich dargestellt, Berlin, 1835. 
 Of this work the first volume alone has been pub- 
 lished, which refers to the Old Testament, and is 
 not so much an historical as a strictly Hegelian 
 book. G. Fr. (Elder’s Prolegomena zur Theolor 
 gie des Alten Testamentes, Stuttgart, 1845, is 
 more an ecclesiastico-dogmatical than an histo- 
 rical book ; Bertholdt, Christologia Judocorum 
 Jesu et Apostoloi'um cetate, Erlangae, 1811 ; 
 Aug. Gfrorer’s Philo und die Alexundrinische 
 Theosophie, Stuttgart, 1831, 2 vols.; A. F. 
 Dahne’s Geschichtliche Darstellung der judisch 
 Alexandrinischen Religions Philosophie, Halle, 
 1834, 2 parts ; George, Ueber die neuesten Gegen- 
 siitze in der Auffassung der jiidischen Religion , 
 philosophic, in 111 gen’s Zeitschrift fur histo- 
 rische Theologie, 1839, Heft 3 und 4; Usteri’s- 
 Entwickelung des Pauluiisclien Lehrbegriffes, 
 Zurich, 1824, 4th ed. 1832 ; Dahne, Entioickelung 
 des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, Hall*, 1834; 
 Frommann, Der Johanneischc Lehrbeariff, Leip- 
 
850 
 
 THEOPHILUS. 
 
 THESSALONIANS. 
 
 tig, 1839; K. R. Kostlin, Der Lehrbegriff des 
 Evangelii und der Briefe des Johannis , Berlin, 
 1843. This book also is rather too Hegelian. 
 In Matfhaei's Religions glaube der Apostcl ncich 
 seitiem Inhalte Ursprung und Werth, Gottin- 
 gen, 1826-1830, Hegelian ideas predominate.* — • 
 
 K. A. C. 
 
 THEOPHILUS (0eo<pi\os), a person of dis- 
 tinction, to whom St. Lake inscribed his Gospel 
 and the Acts of the Apostles (Luke i. 3; Acts i. 
 1). The word means ‘lover of God;’ whence 
 some have fancied that it was to be taken as a 
 general name for any or every lover of God. But 
 tnere seems no foundation for this opinion, as the 
 circumstance and style of address point to a par- 
 ticular person of honourable station, with whom 
 Juke was acquainted. The til le — KpuTurros , 
 •ranslated ‘most excellent,’ is the same which 
 i* given to governors of provinces, as Felix and 
 Festus (Acts xxiii. 26 ; xxvi. 25) ; whence he is 
 received by some to have been a civil magistrate 
 m some high office. Theophylact ( Argument . in 
 supposes that he was of the senatorian order, 
 and J~ivhaps a nobleman or prince. 
 
 THESSALONIANS, EPISTLES TO THE. 
 — *\ust Epistj.e. — ’T he authenticity and ca- 
 nonical authority of this epistle have been from 
 tb“ earliest ages admitted ; nor have these points 
 ever been called in question, either in ancient or 
 ^cdern times, by those who have received any 
 of Paul's epistles. Besides two probable quota- 
 '• Jns from it by Polvcarp (Lardner, ii. 96, 8vo. 
 ed.), it is certainly cited, and cited as the pro- 
 duction of the apostle Paul, by Irenseus (v. 6, 
 6 1), by Clement of Alexandria ( Paed . i. § 19, p. 
 lO 9, ed. Potter), by Tertullian (De Rcsur. Carnis, 
 c. 24), by Cains (up. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 
 CO), by Origen ( Cont . Cels. lib. iii.), and by 
 others oi die ecclesiastical writers (Lardner, ii. 
 pi. locc.). 
 
 This episile has generally been regarded as the 
 first written by Paul of those now extant. In the 
 Acts of the Apostles (xvii. 5, sq.) we are told that 
 Paul, after preaching the Gospel with success at 
 Thessalonica, had to flee from that city in conse- 
 quence of the malice of the Jews ; that he thence 
 betook himself to Berea, in company with Silas; 
 ♦hat, driven by the same influence from Berea, he 
 journeyed to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy 
 (the latter of whom had probably preceded him 
 to Berea) behind him ; and that after remaining 
 in that city for some time, he went to Corinth, 
 where he was joined by Timothy and Silas. It 
 appears also from this epistle (iii. 1, 2, 5), that 
 whilst at Athens he had commissioned Timothy 
 to visit the infant, church at Thessalonica; and 
 from Acts xvii. 15, 16, we learn that he expected 
 to be joined by Timothy and Silas in that city. 
 Whether this expected meeting ever took place 
 there, is a matter involved in much uncertainty. 
 Michael is, Eichhorn, De Wette, Koppe, Pelt, and 
 
 * In the English language there are scarcely 
 any works on Biblical Theology as defined in this 
 article, except one or two which have been trans- 
 lated in America from the German. There are 
 indeed several works of various merit on Biblical 
 dogmatics, that is to say, doctrinal rather than 
 nistorical, but they do not claim notice in this 
 olace, — E dit. 
 
 others, are of opinion that, at least as respects Ti- 
 mothy, it did take place; and they infer that Paul 
 again remanded him to Thessalonica, and that lit 
 made a second journey along with Silas to join 
 the apostle at Corinth, Hug, on the other hand, 
 supposes only one journey, viz., from Thessalo- 
 nica to Corinth ; and understands the apostle in 
 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, as intimating, not that he had 
 sent Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica, but 
 that he had pre vented his coming to Athens by 
 sending him from Berea to Thessalonica. Be- 
 tween these two opinions, there is nothing to 
 enable us to judge with certainty, unless we 
 attach weight to the expression of Luke, that 
 Paul had desired the presence of Timothy and 
 Silas in Athens ws raxarra, "as speed il y as pos- 
 sible.’ His desiring them to follow him thus, 
 without loss of time, favours the conclusion that 
 they did rejoin in Athens, and were thence sent 
 to Thessalonica. 
 
 But whatever view we adopt, on this point, it 
 seems indisputable that this epistle was not written 
 until Paul met Timothy and Silas at Corinth. 
 The ancient subscription, indeed, testifies that it 
 was written at Athens; but that this could not be 
 the case is clear from the epistle itself. 1. In 
 ch. i. 7, 8, Paul says that the Thessalonians had 
 become ‘ensamples to all that believe in Mace- 
 donia and Achaia : for from you (says he') sounded 
 out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia 
 and Achaia, but. also in every place your faith to 
 God-ward is spread abroad.’ Now, for such an 
 extensive diffusion of the fame of the Thessalo- 
 nian Christians, and of the Gospel by them, a 
 much longer period of time must have elapsed 
 than is allowed by the supposition that ir-'aul wrote 
 this epistle whilst at Athens ; and besides, his re- 
 ference particularly to Achaia seems prompted by 
 the circumstance of his being, at the time he wrote, 
 in Achaia, of which Corinth was the chief city. 
 2. Ilis language in ch. iii. 1, 2, favours the opinion 
 that it was not from Athens, but after he had left 
 Athens, that he wrote this epistle ; it is hardly the 
 turn which one living at. Athens at the time 
 would have given his words. 3. Is it likely that, 
 during the short time Paul was in Athens, before 
 writing this epistle (supposing him to have written 
 it there), he should have '•over and again y pur- 
 posed to revisit the Thessalonians, but have been 
 hindered? And yet such purposes lie had enter- 
 tained before writing this epistle, as we learn 
 from ch. ii. 18 ; and this greatly favours the later 
 date. 4. Before Paul wrote this epistle, Timothy 
 had come to him from Thessalonica with good 
 tidings concerning the faith and charity of the 
 Christians there (iii. 6). But had Timothy fol- 
 lowed Paul to Athens from Berea, what tidings 
 could he have brought the apostle from Thessalo- 
 nica, except such hearsay reports as would inform 
 the apostle of nothing he did not already know? 
 From these considerations, it follows that this epistle 
 was not written from Athens. It must, however, 
 have been written very soon after his arrival at 
 Corinth ; for, at the time of his writing, Timothy 
 had just arrived from Thessalonica (&pri tkBdv 
 tos TipoOeov, iii. 6), and Paul had not been long 
 in Corinth before Timothy and Sdas joined him 
 there (Acts xvii. 1-5). Michael is contends for a 
 later date, but his arguments are destitute oi 
 weight. Before Paul could learn that the fame 
 of the Thessalonian church had spread through 
 
THESSALONIANS. 
 
 THESSALONIANS. 
 
 m 
 
 Achais, and far beyond, it was not necessary, as 
 MichaC'lis supposes, that he should have made 
 several extensive journeys from Corinth ; for as 
 tnat city, from its mercantile importance, was the 
 resort of persons from all parts of the commercial 
 world, the apostle had abundant means of gather- 
 ing this information even during a brief residence 
 there. As little is it necessary to resort to the 
 supposition that when Paul says, that over and 
 again Satan had hindered him from fulfilling his 
 intention of visiting Thessalonica, lie must refer 
 to shipwrecks or some such misfortunes (as Mi- 
 chaelis suggests) ; for Satan has many ways of 
 Hindering men from such purposes, besides acci- 
 dents in travelling. 
 
 The design of this epistle is to comfort the 
 Thessalonians under trial, and to encourage them 
 to the patient and consistent profession of Christi- 
 anity. The epistle may be conveniently divided 
 into two parts. The former of these, which com- 
 prises the first three chapters, is occupied with 
 statements chiefly of a retrospective character: it 
 details the apostle’s experience among the Thes- 
 salonians, his confidence in them, his deep regard 
 for them, and his efforts and prayers on their be- 
 half. The latter part of the epistle (iv. 5) is, for 
 the most part, of a hortatory character : it contains 
 the apostle's admonitions to the Thessalonians to 
 walk according to their profession ; to avoid sen- 
 suality, dishonesty, and pride; to cultivate bro- 
 therly love, to attend diligently to the duties of 
 life, to take the comfort which the prospect of 
 Christ’s second coming was calculated to convey, 
 but not to allow that to seduce them into indolence 
 or idle speculations ; to render due respect to their 
 spiritual superiors ; and, by attention to a number 
 of duties which the apostle specifies, to prove them- 
 selves worthy of the good opinion he entertained 
 of them. He concludes the epistle by offering 
 fervent supplication on their behalf, and the usual 
 apostolic benediction. 
 
 Second Epistle. — The apostle’s allusion in 
 his former epistle to the second coming of Christ, 
 and especially his statement in cli. iv. 15-18, ap- 
 pear to have been misunderstood by the Thessa- 
 lonians, or wilfully perverted by some among 
 them, so as to favour the notion that that event 
 was near at hand. This notion some inculcated 
 as a truth specially confirmed to them by the 
 Spirit; others advocated it as part of the aposlolic 
 doctrine; and sonfe claimed for it the specific 
 support of Paul in a letter (ii. 2). Whether the 
 letter here referred to is the apostle’s former 
 epistle to the Thessalonians, or one forged in his 
 name by some keen and unscrupulous advocates 
 of the notion above referred to, is uncertain. The 
 latter opinion has been very generally adopted 
 from the time of Chrysostom downwards, and is 
 certainly somewhat countenanced by the apostle’s 
 statement in the close of the epistle as to his auto- 
 graph salutation being the mark of a genuine 
 letter from him (iii. 17). At the same time, it 
 must be admitted that the probability of such a 
 thing being done by any one at Thessalonica, is, 
 under all the circumstances of the case, not very 
 strong. 
 
 On receiving intelligence of the trouble into 
 which the Thessalonians had been plunged, in 
 consequence of the prevalence among them of 
 the notion (from whatever source derived) that 
 t&jfc second coming of Christ was nigh at hand, 
 
 Paul wrote to them this second epistle, in which 
 lie beseechingly adjures them by the very fact 
 that Christ is to come a second time, not to be 
 shaken in mind or troubled, as if that event wer© 
 near at hand. He informs them that much was 
 to happen before that should take place, and espe- 
 cially predicts a great apostacy from the purity 
 and simplicity of the Christian faith (ii. 5-12). 
 He then exhorts them to hold last by the traditions 
 they had received, whether by word or epistle, and 
 commends them to the consoling and sustaining 
 grace of God (ver. 1 5-17). The rest of the epistle 
 consists of expressions of affection to the Thessa- 
 lonians, and of confidence in them ; of prayers 
 on their behalf, and of exhortations and directions 
 suited to the circumstances in which they were 
 placed. As regards the disposition and arrange- 
 ment of these materials, the epistle naturally 
 divides itself into three parts. In the first (i. 
 1-12), the apostle mingles commendations of the 
 faith and piety of the Thessalonians, with prayers 
 on their behalf. In the second (ii. 1-17), he 
 dilates upon the subject of the trouble which had 
 been occasioned to the Thessalonians by the anti- 
 cipation of the near approach of the day of the 
 Lord. And in the third (iii. 1-16), lie accumu- 
 lates exhortations, encouragements, and directions, 
 to the Thessalonians, respecting chiefly the peace- 
 able, quiet, and orderly conduct of their lives, 
 which he follows up with a prayer on their behalf 
 to the God of peace. The epistle concludes with 
 a salutation from the apostle’s own hand, and the 
 usual benediction (ver. 17, 18). 
 
 There is the strongest reason for believing that 
 this second epistle was written very soon after the 
 first, and at the same place, viz. Corinth. The 
 circumstances of the apostle, while writing the 
 one, seem very much the same as they were whilst 
 writing the other ; nor do those of the Thessalo- 
 liians present any greater difference than such as 
 the influences referred to in the second epistle may 
 be supposed in a very short time to have produced. 
 What seems almost to decide the question is, that 
 whilst writing the second epistle, the apostle had 
 Timothy and Silas still witli him. Now, after 
 he left Corinth, it was not for a long time that 
 either of these individuals was found again in 
 his company (Acts xviii. 18, compared with xix. 
 22) ; and witli regard to one of them, Silas, there 
 is no evidence that he and Paul were ever together 
 at any subsequent period. At what period, how- 
 ever, of the apostle’s abode at Corinth this epistle 
 was written, we are not in circumstances accurately 
 to determine. 
 
 ‘ The genuineness of this epistle,’ remarks Eich- 
 horn, ‘ follows from its contents. Its design is to 
 conect the erroneous use which had been made 
 of some things in the first epistle ; and who but 
 the writer of that first epistle would have set him- 
 self thus to such a task % It however appears that 
 the author of the first must also be the author of 
 the second ; and as the former is the production 
 of Paul, we must ascribe the latter also to him. 
 It was essential to the apostle’s reputation that the 
 erroneous consequences which had been deduced 
 from his words should be refuted. Had he re- 
 frained from noticing the expectation built upon 
 his words, of the speedy return of Christ, hi# 
 silence would have confirmed the conclusion, that 
 this was one of his peculiar doctrines ; as such 
 it would have passed to the succeeding genera 
 
652 
 
 THESSALONICA. 
 
 THEUDAS. 
 
 tion ; anil when they perceived that in this Paul 
 had been mistaken, what confidence could they 
 (have had in other parts of his leaching? The weight 
 of this, as an evidence of the genuineness of this 
 Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, acquires new 
 strength from the fact, that of all the other ex- 
 pressions in the epistle, not one is opposed to any 
 point either in the history or the doctrine of the 
 apostle ‘ ( Einleit . ins N. T. iii. 69). 
 
 The internal evidence in favour of the genuine- 
 3ess of this epistle is equally strong with that 
 which attests the first. Polycarp ( Ep. ad Philip. 
 §11) appears to. allude to ch. iii. 15. Justin 
 Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (p. 193, 
 32, ed. Sylburg. 1593), speaks of the reigning 
 of the man of sin (t by rgs avoplas &y9pwjroy), 
 which seems to be an evident allusion to ch. ii. 
 3 ; and in a passage, quoted by Lardner (vol. ii. 
 p. 125), he uses the phrase 6 rrj s air ocrracrlas 
 &ydpct>Tros. The eighth verse of this second chapter 
 is formally cited by Irenaeus (iii. c. 7. § 2), 
 as from the pen of an apostle ; Clement of Alex- 
 andria specially adduces ch. iii. 2. as the words 
 of Paul (Strom, lib. v. p. 554, ed. Sylb.), and 
 Tertullian also quotes this epistle as one of Paul's 
 (De Resurrec. Carnis, c. 24). 
 
 Notwithstanding these evidences in its favour, 
 the genuineness of this epistle has been called into 
 doubt by the restless scepticism of some of the 
 German critics. The way here was led by John 
 Ernest Chr. Schmidt, who, in 1801, published in 
 his Bibliothek fur Kritik wad Exegese , a tract 
 entitled Vcrmuthungen iiber die Beiden Brief e 
 an die Thess a Ionic her , in which he impugned 
 the genuineness of the first twelve verses of the 
 second chapter. He afterwards, in his Einleitung, 
 p. 256, enlarged his objections, and applied them 
 to the whole epistle. De Wette took the same 
 side, and, in his Einleitung , has adduced a num- 
 ber of reasons in support of his opinion, drawn 
 from the epistle itself. His cavils are more than 
 usually frivolous, and have been most fully re- 
 plied to by Guericke (Beiiriige zur Hist. Krit. 
 Einl. insN. T. s. 92-99, Halle, 1828), by Reiche 
 (Authentic Post, ad Thess. Epist. Vindiciee , 
 Gott. 1829), and by Pelt in the Prolegomena to 
 his Commentary on the Ejnsties to the Thessa- 
 lonians (p. xxvii.). 
 
 Jewell, Bp., An Exposition upon the two 
 Epistles of the Apostle Saint Paid to the Thes- 
 salonians, Loud. 1583, 12mo., 1811, 8vo. ; YV. 
 Sclater, Exposition and Notes on the Epistle to 
 the Thess., Lond. 1619, 1629, 4to. ; J. Alph. 
 Turretin, Commentarius in Epp. Pauli ad Thess., 
 Basil, 1739, 8vo. ; Lud. Pelt, Epist. Pauli Apost. 
 ad Thess. perpetuo illust. Commentario, &c., 
 Gryphiswald, 1830, 8vo. — W. L. A. 
 
 THESSALONICA (©ecrcaXoviKt]), now called 
 Salonichi, is still a city of about sixty or seventy 
 thousand inhabitants, situated on the present gull 
 of Salonichi, which was formerly called Sinus 
 Thermaicus, at the mouth of the river Echedorus. 
 It was the residence of a presses, the principal 
 city of the second part of Macedonia, and was by 
 later writers even styled metropolis (Liv. xlv. 29, 
 sq. ; Cic. Pro Plane. 41). Under the Romans it 
 became great, populous, and wealthy (Strabo, vii. 
 
 323 ; Lucian, Osir., c. 46 ; Appian, Bell. Civ., 
 iv. 118; Mannert, Geographie, vii. 471, sq.). It 
 had it3 name from Thessalonice, wife of Cassander, 
 who built the city on the site of the ancient Ther- 
 
 maj. after which town the Sinus Thermaicus wm 
 called (Strabo, vii. p. 330 ; Herod, vii. 121 ; Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. iv. 17 ; Schol. Thuc. i. 61 ; comp. Steph 
 Byz. s. v. Tliessalonica). Thessalonice is said to 
 have been killed by her own son Antipater 
 Tliessalonica was 267 Roman miles east of Apol- 
 lonia and Dvrrachium, 66 miles from Amphi- 
 polis, 89 from Philippi, 433 west from Byzan- 
 tium, and 150 south of Sophia. A great number 
 of Jews were living at Tliessalonica in the tiim 
 of the apostle Paul, and also many Christian con- 
 verts, most of whom seem to have been either 
 Jews by birth or proselytes before they embraced 
 Christianity by the preaching of Paul. Jews 
 are still very numerous in this town, and possess 
 much influence there. They are unusually ex- 
 clusive, keeping aloof from strangers. The apos- 
 tolical history of the place is given in the pre- 
 ceding article. The present town stands on the 
 acclivity of a steep hill, rising at the north- 
 eastern extremity of the bay. It presents an im- 
 posing appearance from the sea, with which the 
 interior by no means corresponds. The principal 
 antiquities are the propylsea of the hippodrome, the 
 rotunda, and the triumphal arches of Augustus 
 and Constantine. — C. H. F. B. 
 
 THEUDAS, a Jewish insurgent, who was slain, 
 while a band of followers that he had induced to 
 join him were scattered and brought to nought. This 
 statement was made by Gamaliel at the meeting 
 of the Sanhedrim held about a.d. 33, to consider 
 what, measures should be taken for the suppression 
 of the Gospel now preached and recommended by 
 the virgin zeal of Peter and the apostles (Acts v. 
 29, 34, sq.). Josephus (Antiq. xx. 5. 1) tells 
 us of a Theudas who, under the procurator Pha- 
 dus (a.d. 44), set up for a prophet, and brought 
 ruin on himself and many whom he deluded. 
 Now the Theudas of Gamaliel appeared before 
 ‘ these days,’ that is, before the speech was deli- 
 vered, a.d. 33; and also before ‘Judas of Galilee 
 in the days of the taxing ;’ while the Theudas of 
 Josephus arose not before a.d. 44. This diflerence 
 of time would seem to show that the two were 
 difl'erent persons; but an undue desire to draw 
 from Josephus a corroboration of every fact men- 
 tioned in the New Testament led to the conversion 
 of this simple diversity into a contradiction. 
 Then came attempts at solution. Assuming that 
 the two authorities referred to the same Theudas. 
 expositors took two difl'erent ways of treating the 
 difficulty: 1. they imputed an omission to Jose- 
 phus ; 2. they imputed an error to Luke. Sup- 
 posing, however, that Josephus made no omission, 
 and that he meant the same Theudas who is men- 
 tioned by Gamaliel, might not the Jewish histo- 
 rian be wrong in his chronology ? If, however, hi* 
 Theudas appeared in the defined time, might not 
 the Theudas of Gamaliel have appeared before 
 Gamaliel’s days? Gamaliel, too, though ‘ a doctor 
 of the law, held in reputation,’ was not infallible, 
 He might have mistaken the name. Religiou* 
 insurgents were common. Several of them bore 
 the not greatly dissimilar name (V Judas. And 
 if Gamaliel committed an error, sorely it should 
 not be charged on Luke, who was no more respon- 
 sible for the erroneous history than for the lame 
 argument of that learned doctor’s speech, whicn 
 seems to affect a display of knowledge not un- 
 likely to lead into mistakes. If, however, any 
 error is fairly imputable to the writer of the Act* 
 
THIEF. 
 
 THIGH. 
 
 »f thq Arostbvs / Is too inconsiderable to occasion 
 concern tc tLc enlightened student of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 These remark* have been made to meet the 
 ordinary view of the case. But the name Theudas 
 : s an Aramaic fbrm of (he Greek ©edSoros, which 
 is a literal t-ansiation of the Hebrew ITTlD, Mat- 
 thias or Matthew. It is, then, of a Matthew that 
 Luke speaks; and in Josephus (Antiq. xvii. 6. 
 2-4) we find a detailed account of one Matthew, 
 a distinguished teacher among the Jews, who, in 
 the latter days of Herod the Great, raised a band 
 of his scholars to effect a social reform in the spirit 
 of the old Hebrew constitution, by ‘ destroying the 
 heathen works which the king had erected con- 
 trary to the law of their fathers.’ A large golden 
 eagle, which the king had caused to be erected 
 over the great gate of the Temple, in defiance of 
 the law that forbids images or representations of 
 any living creatures, was an object of their special 
 dfslike, which, on hearing a false report that 
 Herod was dead, Matthias and his companions 
 proceeded to demolish ; when the king’s captain, 
 supposing the undertaking to have a higher aim 
 than was the fact, came upon the riotous reform- 
 ers with a band of soldiers, and arrested the pro- 
 ceeding* of the multitude. Dispersing the mob 
 he apprehended forty of the bolder spirits, together 
 with Matthias and his fellow-leader Judas. Mat- 
 thias was burnt. 
 
 Now, had we used the term Theudas for the 
 term Matthias, the reader would at once have seen 
 that what we have just given from the more 
 minute narrative of Josephus, is only a somewhat 
 detailed statement of the facts of which Gamaliel 
 gave a brief summary before the Sanhedrim. 
 This chronological difficulty then disappears. 
 Matthias or Theudas appeared ‘ before these 
 days,’ before Judas of Galilee, and before the 
 census ; he appeared, that is, some four years an- 
 terior to the birth of our Lord. — J. R. B. 
 
 THIEF, PENITENT ON THE CROSS 
 (Luke xxiii. 39-43). It has been assumed 
 that this man had been very wicked ; that he con- 
 tinued so till he was nailed to the cross; that he 
 joined the other malefactor in insulting the 
 Saviour; and that then, by a miracle of grace, he 
 was transformed into a penitent Christian. But 
 this view of the case seems to involve some mis- 
 conception of the facts, which it may not be in- 
 expedient to indicate. Whitby says, ‘Almost all 
 interpreters that I have read here say that this thief 
 began his repentance on the cross.’ With regard to 
 his moral character, he is indeed styled by the 
 Evangelist one of the ‘ malefactors ( KaKovpyoi ) who 
 were led with Jesus to be put to death ’ (ver. 32) ; 
 but the word ia evidently used So^acrriKws, i. e. 
 malefactors as they were considered. St. Matthew 
 (xxvii. 44) and St. Mark (xv. 27) call them Kyarai ; 
 but this word denotes not only robbers, &c., but also 
 brigands, rebels, or any who carry on unauthorized 
 hostilities, insurgents (Thucyd. iv. 53). Bishop 
 Maltby observes, in his sermon on the subject, 
 tlmt ‘these KaKovpyoi were not thieves who robbed 
 all for profit, but men who had taken up arms 
 on a principle of resistance to the Roman oppres- 
 sion, and to what they thought an unlawful 
 burden, the tribute-money ; who made no scruple 
 to rob all the Romans, and when engaged in these 
 unlawful causes, made less difference between 
 lews and Romans than they at first meant to do’ 
 
 85o 
 
 ( Sermons , 1819-22, vol. i.). Insurrection was a 
 crime, but it was a crime a person might have 
 committed who had good qualities, and had main- 
 tained a respectable character. Again, this man’s 
 punishment was crucifixion, which was not in 
 use among the Jews, and inflicted by the Romans 
 not on mere thieves, but rebels. Barabbas had 
 been one of these, and though lie ‘ lay bound with 
 them that had made insurrection with him, who 
 had committed murder in the insurrection,’ Mark 
 (xv. 27) has the same word, Xycrrijs, ‘robber,’ 
 which is applied to him by St. John (xviii. 40). 
 It is most probable , that these ‘malefactors’ were 
 two of his companions. Our Lord was con- 
 demned under the same charge of insurrection 
 (Luke xxiii. 2), and the man whose case we are 
 considering says to his fellow-sufferer, ‘ thou art 
 under the same sentence ,' iv tw av t&S Kplpan, and 
 admits that they botli were guilty of the charge, 
 while our Lord was innocent of it (Luke xxiii. 40, 
 41). It is impossible then to determiuethe degree of 
 his criminality, without knowing what provocations 
 he had received under the despotic and arbitrary 
 rule of a Roman governor such as Pilate, how far 
 he had been active, or only mixed up with the sedi- 
 tion, &c. The notion that he was suddenly and in- 
 stantaneously converted on the cross is grounded 
 entirely upon the general statement of Matthew, 
 
 ‘ the thieves also which were crucified with him 
 cast the same in his teeth’ (xxvii. 44), whereas 
 St. Luke, in his relation of the incident, is more 
 exact. Instances of St. Matthew’s style of speak- 
 ing, which is called amplification , abound in the 
 Gospels, and in all writers. Thus, ‘ the soldiers 
 brought him vinegar* (Luke xxiii. 36; John xix. 
 29), ‘ one of them did so* (Matt, xxvii. 48 ; 
 Mark xv. 36). ‘ The disciples had indignation’ 
 
 (Matt. xxvi. 8), ‘some of them’ (Mark xiv. 4), 
 ‘one of them’ (John xii. 4). So in Mark xvi. 5; 
 Matt, xxviii. 2, there is mention of one angel 
 only; but ini Luke xxiv. 4; John xx. 12, there is 
 mention of two. It is also far from certain that 
 either his faith or repentance was the fruit of this 
 particular season. He must have knov^n some- 
 thing of the Saviour, otherwise he could not have 
 said ovSev 'o.tottov eirpa^e, ‘ he hath done nothing 
 amiss.’ He may have been acquainted with the 
 miracles and preaching of Jesus before he was 
 cast into prison; he may have even conversed 
 with him there. He was convinced of our Lord’s 
 Messiahship, ‘ Lord, remember me when thou 
 comest into thy kingdom.’ His crime possibly 
 consisted of oidy one act of insuboi'dination, and 
 he might have been both a sincere believer, and, 
 with this one exception, a practical follower of 
 Christ. Koecher (ap. Bloomfield, Reccn. Synop.') 
 tells us that it is a very ancient tradition that the 
 thief was not converted at the cross, but was pre- 
 viously imbued with a knowledge of t he Gospel. 
 See Kuinoel, Macknight, &c. — J. F. D. 
 
 THIGH, the part of the body from the legs 
 to the trunk, of men, quadrupeds, &c. (Heb. “p' ; 
 Sept. p.yp6s ; Vulg. femur). It occurs in Gen. 
 xxxii. 25, 31, 32; Judg. iii. 16, 21 ; Ps. xlv. 3; 
 Cant. iii. 8. Tutting the hand under the thigh 
 appears to have been a very ancient custom, upon 
 occasion of taking an oath to any one. Abraham 
 required this of the oldest servant of his house, 
 when lie made him swear that he would not take 
 a wife for Isaac of the daughters of the Canaan- 
 ites (Gen. xxiv. 2-9). Jacob required it of his 
 
THIGH. 
 
 THOMAS. 
 
 
 son Joseph, when he bound him by oath not to 
 bury him in Egypt, but with his fathers in the 
 land of Canaan (xlvii. 29-31). The origin, form, 
 and import of this ceremony in taking an oath, 
 are very doubtful. A ben Ezra says, ‘ It appears 
 to mi that it was the custom in that age for a 
 servant to place his hand on his master’s thigh, at 
 the command of the latter, to show that he con- 
 sidered himself subject to, and undertook his 
 master's bidding; and such is at present the cus- 
 tom in India.’ Grotius thinks that as the swo.d 
 was worn upon the thigh (comp. Judg. iii. 16, 
 21 ; Ps. xlv. 3 ; Cant. iii. 8) this custom was as 
 much as to say, If I falsify, kill me. Not a few 
 commentators, ancient and modern, explain it of 
 laying the hand on or near the sectio circumcisi- 
 onis , to protest by that solemn covenant of God, 
 whereof circumcision was the badge and type, in 
 the Abrahamic family. So R. Eleazar says, 
 4 Before the giving of the law, the ancient fathers 
 swore by the covenant of circumcision’ (Pirke, 
 cap. 49). The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel 
 explains it m'TM in seetione circum- 
 
 cisionis meae : the Jerusalem Targum, ITinn 
 'D'p, sub femore foederis mei. Dr. Adam Clarke 
 adopts the former of these two explanations (Com- 
 mentary on Gen. xxiv. 9). This interpretation 
 supposes a meiosis, or metonymy, such as is sup- 
 posed by some to attend the use of the word with 
 regard to the effect of the water of Jealousy 
 (Num. v. 21, 22, 27). Boc’rtart adduces many 
 similar instances ( Hierozoic . p. 2, lib. v. cap. 15). 
 We may also refer to the margin or Ileb. of 
 Gen. xlvi. 26; Exod. i. 5; Judg. viii. 30. No 
 further allusion to this ceremony in taking an 
 oath occurs in Scripture, unless the phrase 
 4 giving the hand under’ refer to it. See Hebrew 
 or margin of 1 Chron. xxix. 24, and ‘giving the 
 hand,’ 2 Chron. xxx. 8; Jer. 1. 15; Ezek. xvii. 
 18. Our translation states that ‘ the hollow of 
 Jacob's thigh was out of joint by the touch of the 
 angel who wrestled with him’ (Gen. xxxii. 25). 
 Some, however, prefer to render JJplYl, was 
 sprained, or wrenched , and adduce Jer. vi. 8 ; 
 Ezek. xxiii. 17, 18. The Sept u agin t renders it ical 
 ivdpKyac t b ttKoltos tov pppov ; the Vulg. tetigit 
 nervum fern oris ejus, et statim emarcuit. Some 
 such sense better suits ver. 31, where we find 
 Jacob limping on his thigh ; see Gesenius on 
 The custom of Jacob's descendants, founded upon 
 this incident, is recorded in ver. 32, which hits been 
 thus translated : ‘ Therefore the children of Yisrael 
 eat not of the nerve Nashe, which is upon the 
 hollow of the thigh, unto this day : because he 
 struck the hollow of Yaacob's thigh, on the nerve 
 Nash§’ (Sept, rb vevpoy, Vulg. nervus). The true 
 derivation of the word is considered by Dr. 
 Fiirst, in his Concordance , to be still a secret; 
 but, along with Gesenius, he understands the nerve 
 itself to he the ischiatic nerve , which proceeds 
 from the hip to the ancle. This nerve is still ex- 
 tracted from the hinder limbs by the Jews in 
 England, and in other countries where properly 
 qualified persons are appointed to remove it (New 
 Translation, &c., by the Rev. D. A. De Sola, 
 p. 333). The phrase ‘ hip and thigh' occurs 
 in Judg. xv. 8, in the account of Samson's slaugh- 
 ter of the Philistines. Gesenius translates in 
 this passage with, and understands it as a pro- 
 verbial expression for ‘ he smote them all.’ The 
 
 Chaldee paraphvast interprets it, « He smote both 
 footmen and horsemen, the one resting on their 
 legs (as the word pit? should be rendered), the 
 other on their thighs, as they sat on their horses.’ 
 Others understand that he smote them both on the 
 legs and thighs. Some give another interpretation. 
 Smiting on the thigh denotes penitence (Jer. xxxi. 
 19), grief, and mourning (Ezek. xxi. 12). A few 
 mistranslations occur. The word ‘thigh’ should 
 have been translated ‘ leg ’ in Isa. xlvii. 2, pit?, 
 Kvypas, crura. In Cant. vii. 1, ‘ The joints of thy 
 thighs,’ &c., the true meaning is^ the cincture pf thy 
 loins (i. e. the drawers, trovvsers) is like jewellery. 1 
 Lady Wortley Montagu describes this article of 
 female attire as ‘ composed of thin rose-coloured 
 damask, brocaded with silver fl outers’ ( Letters , 
 ii. 12; see Harmeir, On Solomon's Song, p. 110). 
 Cocceius, Buxtorf, Mercerus, and Junius, all 
 adopt this explanation. In Rev. xix. 16, it is 
 said ‘ the Word of God (ver. 13) hath on his ves- 
 ture and on his thigh a name written, King of 
 kings and Lord of lords.’ Schleusner thinks the 
 name was not written upon the thigh, but* upon the 
 sword. Montfaucon gives an account of several 
 images of warriors having inscriptions on the 
 thighs (Antiquiti Expliguee, vol. iii. part ii. pp. 
 268-9; Grupter, ?ii. 1189; and see Zornii Opus - 
 cvla S.S. ii. 759.) — J. F. D. 
 
 THISTLE. [Thorns.] 
 
 THOMAS (&u>yas). The word NONA is 
 equivalent to the Greek Albupos, twin. This 
 name occurs also on Phoenician inscriptions, in a 
 form which remi* ds us of the colloquial English 
 abbreviation, viz. and (Gesenii Mo- 
 
 numenta Phoenicia , p. 356). 
 
 The Apostle Thomas (Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii. 
 18; Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13) has been considered 
 a native of Galilee, like most of the other apostles 
 (John xxi. 2) ; hut according to tradition he was 
 a native of Antiochia, and had a twin-sister 
 called Lysia (Patres Apost. ed. Cotel. pp. 272, 
 50 1 ). According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. i. 13) 
 the real name of Thomas was Judas; and he 
 occurs under this name also in the Acta Thomce. 
 This Judas was deemed the same as Judas the 
 brother of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 55). It would seem 
 even that the surname AlSvjuos was understood to 
 mean that. Thomas was a twin-brother of Jesus 
 (Philo, ad Acta Thumoe, p. 94, sq.). 
 
 In the character of Thomas was combined, 
 great readiness to act upon his convictions, to be 
 faithful to his faith even unto death, so that he 
 even exhorted his fellow-disciples, on his last 
 journey to Jerusalem, ‘ Let us also go, that we 
 may die with him’ (John xi. 16), together with 
 that careful examination of evidence which will 
 be found in all persons who are resolved really 
 to obey the dictates of their faith. Whosoever is 
 minded, like most religionists who complain 
 of the scepticism of Thomas, to follow in the 
 common transactions of life the dictates of vulgar 
 prudence, may easily abstain from putting hit 
 hands ,into the marks of the nails and into the 
 side of the Lord (John xx. 25) ; but whosoever is 
 ready to die with the Lord will be inclined to 
 avail himself of extraordinary evidence for extra- 
 ordinary facts, since nobody likes to suffer mar- 
 tyrdom by mistake. These remarks are directed 
 against Winer anti others, who find in the dm* 
 ract’er of Thomas what they consider contradictor* 
 
THORNS and THISTLES. 
 
 THORNS and "THISTLES. 855 
 
 traits, viz-} inconsiderate faith, and a turn for 
 exacting the most rigorous evidence. We find 
 that a resolute and lively faith is always neces- 
 sarily combined with a sense of its importance, 
 and with a desire to keep its objects unalloyed ami 
 free from error and superstition. Christ himself 
 did not blame Thomas for availing himself of 
 all possible evidence, but only pronounced those 
 blessed who would be open to conviction even if 
 some external form of evidence should not be 
 within their reach (comp. Niemeyer’s Akade- 
 mische Predigten und Reden , p. 321, sq.). 
 
 Thomas preached the Gospel in Parthia (Ori- 
 gen, apud Euseb. Hist. Eecles. iii. 1 ; Socrat. i. 
 19; Clement, Recogn. ix. 29), and, according to 
 Jerome, in Persia ; and was buried at Edessa 
 (Rufin. Hist. Eccles. ii. 5). According to a later 
 tradition Thomas went to India, and suffered mar- 
 tyrdom there (Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxv.ad Arian. 
 
 р. 438, ed. Par. ; Ambrose, in Ps. xlv. 10 ; Hieron. 
 Ep. 148(59) ad Marcell. ; Niceph. Hist. Eccles. 
 ii. 40 ; Acta Thomce , c. i. sq. ; Abdiae Hist. Apost. 
 
 с. ix. ; Paulin. A. S. Bartholomaeo, India Orient. 
 Christiana, Rom. 1794). This tradition has been 
 attacked by Von Bolden ( Indien , i. 375, sq.). The 
 ancient congregations of Christians in India who 
 belong to the Syrian church, are called Thomas- 
 Christians, and consider the Apostle Thomas to 
 be their founder (Fabricii Lux Evangelii, p. 626, 
 sq. : Assemani, Biblioth. Orient., iii. 2. 435, sq. ; 
 Ritter’s Erdkunde , v. i. 601, sq.). Against this 
 tradition Thilo wrote in his edition of the Acta 
 Thomce, p. 107, sq. (comp. August!, Denkw'iir- 
 digkeiten , iii. 219, sq.). 
 
 The fathers frequently quote an Evangelium 
 secundum Thomam , -aud. Acta Thomce, the frag- 
 ments of which have "been carefully edited by 
 J. C. Thilo, in his Codex Apocryphus Novi Tes- 
 tamenti, i. 275 ; and the Acta Thomce separately, 
 L. 1823 ; and see Winer’s Real-W orterbuch, un- 
 der ‘Thomas.’ — C. H. F. B. 
 
 THORNS and THISTLES. We have re- 
 ferred to this article the various words which, 
 in the Authorized and other versions, have been 
 considered to indicate brambles, briers, thorns, 
 thistles. Rabbinical writers state that there are 
 no less than twenty-two words in the Bible sig- 
 nifying thorny and prickly plants; but some of 
 these are probably so interpreted only because they 
 are unknown, and may merely denote insignifi- 
 cant shrubs. V\ e shall enumerate them alphabeti- 
 cally, though not likely to throw any light upon 
 what has already baffled so many inquirers. 
 This does not arise from any deficiency of thorny 
 plants to which the Biblical names might be 
 applied, but from the want, of good reasons for 
 selecting one plant more than another ; for, as 
 Celsius has said, 4 Fuerunt in Judaea hand pauca 
 loca a spinis diversorum generum denominata, 
 quod esset haec terra non tantum lacte et melle 
 fluens, sed herbis quoque inutilibus, et spinis 
 multifariis passim infestata.’ As examples we 
 may mention the genera of which some of the 
 species are thorny, such as Acacia, Astragalus, 
 Acantbodium, Alhagi, Fagonia, Tribulus, Berbe* 
 ris, Prunus, Rubus, Crataegus, Solanum, Carduus, 
 Cnicus, Onopordon, Eryngium, Rhamnus, Zizy- 
 phus; and of species which are named from this 
 characteristic, Anabasis spinosissima, Paliurus 
 aculeatus, Ruscus aculeatus, Forskalea tenacissi- 
 tua, Aristida pungens, Salsola Echinus, Echinops 
 
 spinosus, Bunias spinosa, Lycium spinosum, Potc- 
 rium spinosum, Atraphaxis spinosa, Prenanthes 
 spinosa, Ononis spinosa, Smilax asper, Spartium 
 spinosum, Zizyphus Spina Christi. 
 
 Akantha (ci.Ka.v9a) occurs in Matt. vii. 16 ; 
 xiii. 7, 22 ; xxvii. 27 ; and also in the parallel 
 passages of Mark and Luke; and as forming the 
 crown of thorns, in John xix. 2, 5. The word is 
 used in as general a sense as * thorn ’ is with us, 
 anu therefore it would be incorrect to confine it 
 to any one species of plant in all the above 
 passages, though no doubt some particular thorny 
 plant indigenous in the neighbourhood of Jeru- 
 salem would be selected for plaiting the crown 
 of thorns. Hasselquist says of the Nabca Pali- 
 urus Athencei of Alpinus, now Zizyphus Spina 
 Christi , ‘ In all probability this is the tree which 
 afforded the crown of thorns put upon the head 
 of Christ. It is very common in the East. This 
 plant is very fit for the purpose, for it has many 
 small and sharp spines, which are well adapted 
 to give pain : the crown might easily be made 
 of these soft, round, and pliant branches ; and 
 what in my opinion seems to be the greater 
 proof is, that the leaves very much resemble those 
 of ivy, as they are of a very deep glossy green. 
 Perhaps the enemies of Christ would have a 
 plant somewhat resembling that with which em- 
 perors and generals were crowned, that there 
 might be a calumny even in the punishment.’ 
 Some have fixed upon Paliurus aculeatus, and 
 others upon Lycium horridum. 
 
 At ad, orATHAD (lOX), occurs in Gen. 1. 10: 
 Judg. ix. 14, 15 ; Ps. lviii. 9. In the first passage 
 it is said lhat 4 they came to the threshing-floor,’ or 
 the place of Atad. In the fable in Judg. ix. 14, 
 15, the atad , or bramble, is called to reign over 
 the trees. From Ps. lviii. 9, it is evident that 
 the atad was employed for fuel ; * Before you* 
 
THORNS and THISTLES. 
 
 R56 THORNS and THISTLES. 
 
 pots can feci the thorns.’ Athad is so similar to 
 
 the Arabic ausu J, t!iat ' lt has generally 
 
 been considered to mean the same plant, namely, 
 a species of buckthorn. This is confirmed by 
 atadmi being one of the synonymes of rhamnus, 
 as given in the supplements to Dioscorides. 
 A species of rhamnus is described both by Kelon 
 and by Rauvvolf as being common in Pales- 
 tine, and by the latter as found especially in the 
 neighbourhood of Jerusalem. It has been de- 
 scribed by Prosp. Alpinus as having an abun- 
 dance of long branches, on which are found many 
 long and very sharp thorns. So Rauvvolf: ‘It 
 puts forth long, slender, crooked switches, on 
 which there are a great many long, strong, and 
 acute thorns.’ As above mentioned, this has been 
 supposed by some to be the true Christ’s thorn, 
 Rhamnus , now Zizyphus Spina Christi. 
 
 Besha and Beshim, translated rosed and 
 thistles in Auth. Vers. [Besha]. 
 
 Barkanim (D'3p"D), translated briers in the 
 Auth. Vers., occurs in Judg. viii. 7, 16, where 
 Gideon is described as saying, ‘ then I will tear 
 your flesh with the thorns ( kozim ) of the wilder- 
 ness, and with osiers {barkanim).' The Seventy 
 in their version retain the original name. There 
 is no reason for believing that briers, as applied 
 to a rose or bramble, is the correct meaning ; but 
 there is nothing to lead us to select any one pre- 
 ferably from among the numerous thorny and 
 prickly plants of Syria as the barkanim of Scrip- 
 ture Rosenmiiller, however, says that this word 
 signifies ‘ a flail,’ and has no reference to thorny 
 plarrfs. 
 
 Batos {fidros). [Seneh.] 
 
 Charue, ‘ nettle.’ [Charue.] 
 
 Chedek (p*in) occurs twice in Scripture; in 
 Prov. xv. 19 : ‘ The way of the slothful is as a 
 hedge of thorns ' {chedek) ; and in Micah vii. 4 : 
 ‘ The best of them is as a brier {chedek). and the 
 most upright like a thorn-hedge.’ Chedek is 
 generally supposed to be as little known as the 
 other thorny and prickly plants, but there is an 
 
 Arabic word, chadak or hudak , which is 
 
 applied in the East to a species of solarium. 
 This is supposed by Rosenmiiller and others not 
 to be suitable to the above passages ; but some 
 species of solarium grow to a considerable size ; 
 others are among the most prickly plants of the 
 East, and very common in dry arid situations. 
 S. sanctum, the S. spinosum of others, is found 
 in Palestine. Dr..Harris is of opinion that chedek 
 is the colutea spinosa of Forskal, which is called 
 heddad in Arabic, and of which there is an en- 
 graving in Russell’s JSat. Hist, of Aleppo, tab. 5. 
 
 Choach (niH) is found in several places, and 
 is in the Auth. Vers, translated thistle in 2 Kings 
 xiv. 9 ; Job xxxi. 40 ; and thorns in Job xli. 2 ; 
 Prov. xxvi. 9; Isa. xxxiv. 13, &c. From the 
 context of the several passages, it is evident that 
 choach must have been some useless plant (Jr 
 weed of a thorny nature. Prov. xxvi. 9 : As a 
 thorn {choach) goeth into the hand of a drunkard, 
 &c. The Septuagint translates it by duavda, and 
 &Kav, that is, words which signify thorny plants 
 in general, and also by kulStj, ‘ a nettle.’ But it is 
 difficult in thi3, as in other instances, to ascertain 
 
 what particular plant is intended, and hence 
 choach has been variously translated. Celsius h&a 
 
 pointed out that the Arabic 
 
 
 khokh is 
 
 similar in nature and origin to the Hebrew word, 
 and is employed as its synonyme, and lhat 
 chucho is the Syriac version. Khookh is applied 
 in Arabic to the peach, and bur khookh, whence 
 we have apricock, &c. to the apricot. Choach may 
 therefore be considered as a generic term applied 
 to the plum tribe; and some of these, as the com- 
 mon sloe, Prunus spinosa, are well known to lie 
 of a thorny nature : ‘ Sylvestris prunus, humilis, 
 ac solidis spinis munitus est.’ Some kindred 
 species, as a thorny Crataegus, may supply its 
 place in Syria. Bove says of Mesteh, not far 
 from the Jordan, ‘ Les arbustes qui y croissent 
 m’ont paru des Rhamnees ou des Rosacees du 
 genre Prunus.’ 
 
 Dardar OTlI), translated thistles in the 
 Auth. Vers., occurs in Gen iii. 18, ‘Thorns also 
 and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;’ and 
 again in Hosea x. 8 ; in both of which passages 
 dardar is conjoined with koz. The Rabbins de- 
 scribe it as a thorny plant which they also call 
 accobita. The accub of the Aiabs is a thistle or 
 wild artichoke. The Septuagint, however, ren- 
 ders dardar by the Greek word rpifioXos in both 
 passages, and this will answer as well as any 
 other thorny or prickly plant. See below, Tri- 
 BULUS. 
 
 Kimosh, translated ‘nettles’ [Kimosh]. 
 
 Kotz or Koz (pp) occui'3 in several passages 
 of Scripture ; in two of which it is mentioned 
 along with dardar, where koz and dardar may 
 be considered equivalent to the English thorns 
 and thistles. The Septuagint translates it in 
 all the passages by dnavOa, and it. probably 
 was used in a general sense to denote plants 
 which were thorny, useless, and indicative of 
 neglected culture or deserted habitations, grow- 
 ing naturally in desert situations, and useful only 
 
 for fuel. But if any particular plant be mean', 
 the Ononis spinosa or ‘ Rest-harrow,’ mentioned 
 by Hasselquist, may be selected as fully charas 
 
THORNS and THISTLES. 
 
 THORNS and THISTLES. 
 
 857 
 
 terist.ic. ‘ Spinosissima ilia et perniciosa planta, 
 campos integros tegit ./Egypt i et Palestinae. Non 
 dubitandum quin banc indicaverint in aliquo 
 loco scriptures saoi.’ 
 
 Naazlz or N.» atzutz, supposed to be a species 
 of Zizyphus [Naazuz]. 
 
 Sallonim. [Sillon.] 
 
 Serebim (Ezek. ii. 6 ), supposed to be the 
 gadfly ’ or somethwsg of the kind. 
 
 ' Sen eh. [Sen eh.] 
 
 Shait occurs in several passages of 
 
 Isaiah: v. 65 " vii. 23, 21, 25 ; ix. 18; x. 17; 
 xxvii. 4, in all of which it is associated with 
 shamir, the two being translated thorns and 
 briers in the Authorized Version. From the con- 
 text of all the passages it is evident that some 
 weed-like plants are intended, either of a thorny 
 or prickly nature, or such as spring up in neg- 
 lected cultures and are signs of desolation, and 
 which are occasionally employed for fuel. No- 
 thing has, “however, been ascertained respecting 
 the plant intended by shait , and consequently it 
 lias been variously translated in the several ver- 
 sions of the Scriptures. 
 
 Shamir. occurs in all the same pass- 
 
 ages as the word shait , with the addition also of 
 Isa. xxxii. 13 : ‘ Upon the land of my people shall 
 come up thorns (kozim) and briers ’ (shamir). 
 Being associated with koz, it lias been inferred 
 that shamir must also mean some thorny plant. 
 
 
 samir, in Arabic, according to Celsius 
 
 ( Hierobot . xi. p. 188), from Abulfeda, is a 
 thorny plant, said to be a species of sldri, which 
 does not bear fruit. Sidr is another name of 
 Nabca, a species of Zizyphus. No plants are more 
 common in the warm and dry uncultivated parts 
 of the East than prickly species o^ Zizyphus , 
 which impede the path and choke up vegetation 
 and are therefore very suitable for the illustration 
 of the passages in which shamir occurs. This 
 kind of sidri not bearing fruit may be the Paliurus 
 aculeatus of botanists. 
 
 KS. [Zizyphus Paliurus.} 
 
 &ILLON (fib?) occurs in Ezek, xxviii. 24 : 
 And there shall be no more a pricking brier 
 
 (silloji) unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving 
 thorn ’ ( koz ). As sillon is here mentioned with 
 koz, it has been inferred that it must mean some- 
 thing of the same kind. Several Arabic words 
 resemble it in sound ; as seel, signifying a kind of 
 wormwood; silleh, the plant Zilla My ay rum ; 
 sillah , the rpdyos of the Greeks, supposed to be 
 Salsola ka/i and S. tragus ; sulal or su/alon, 
 which signifies the thorn of the date-tree, while 
 the Chaldee word sil'eta signifies a thorn simply. 
 It is probable, therefore, that sillon has something 
 of the same meaning, as also sallonim or sillonim, 
 which occurs in Ezek. xi. 6 along with serebim ; 
 but we are unable to fix upon any particular plant, 
 of Syria as the one intended. 
 
 Sikkim (D'2E^) is another of the words which 
 is considered to indicate thorny plants, as in 
 Num. xxxiii. 55: ‘Those which ye let remain 
 of them shall he pricks ( sikkim ) in your eyes and 
 thorns ( zinnim ) in your sides.' It occurs in the 
 feminine form sykkoth (1713^) in Job xli. 7, where 
 it is translated ‘ barbed irons.* Sikkim has 
 been variously translated, but its resemblance to 
 
 the Arabic shok , thorns , sufficiently indi- 
 
 cates the probability of its meaning something 
 of the same kind, though it has not been ascer- 
 tained whether it is used in a general sense, 
 as is probable, or applied to some particular 
 plant. 
 
 Sirim (D V VS) occurs in several passages, e.y. 
 in Eccles. xii. 6 , ‘ as the crackling of thorns (sirim) 
 under a pot,’ &c. ; Isa. xxxiv. 14, ‘And thorns 
 (sirim) shall come up in her palaces,’ &c. ; Hosea 
 xi. 6 ; Amos iv. 2 : Nahum i. 10. The Seventy 
 and other translators have employed words signi- 
 fying thorns, as conveying the meaning of sirim, 
 but nothing has been advanced to lead us to 
 "'elect one plant more than another. 
 
 Sirpad (ISTD) is mentioned only once by 
 Isaiah (lv. 13), ‘ And instead of the brier (sirpad) 
 shall come up the myrtle.’ Though this has ge- 
 nerally been considered a thorny and prickly 
 plant, it does not follow from the context that such 
 a plant is necessaiilv meant. It would be suffi- 
 cient for the sense that some useless or insignificant 
 plant be understood, and there are many such 
 in desert and uncultivated places. In addition 
 to Paliurus Carduus, JJrtica , Conyza, species of 
 Polygonum , of Euphorbia , &c., have been ad- 
 duced ; and also Ruscus aculeatus , or ‘ butcher’s 
 broom.’ 
 
 Tribolos or Tribulus (rplfioXos) is found in 
 Matt. vii. 16, 4 Do men gather figs of thistles’ 
 (rpifioXoovyi and again, in Heb. vi. 8 , ‘ But that 
 which beareth thorns and briers (TpifioXoi) is re- 
 jected.’ The name was applied by the Greeks 
 to two or three plants; one of which was, no 
 doubt, aquatic, Trapa natans ; of the others Tri- 
 bulus terrestris is undoubtedly one, and Fagonia 
 cretica is supposed to be the other. Both, or nearly 
 allied species, are found in dry and barren places 
 in the East; and as both are prickly and spread 
 over the surface of the ground, they are extremely 
 hurtful to tread upon. The word rpifioXos is 
 further interesting to us, as being employed in (lie 
 Septuagint as the translation of dardur. The 
 presence of species of Tribulus and of Fagonia 
 
THREE. 
 
 THREE. 
 
 8:8 
 
 Indicates a dry a^d barren uncultivated soil, co- 
 vered. with pri-ckly or thorny plants. 
 
 Zinnim (D'3y) and Zenenim (D'2'3¥) occur 
 in several passages of Scripture, asinNum. xxxiii. 
 55; Josh, xxiii. 13, where they are mentioned 
 along witli Sikkim ; also in Job v. 5, and Prov. 
 xxh. 5. The Sepluagint has rpi&oXos in Prov. 
 xxii. 5, and fiokfies in Num. xxxiii. 55, and 
 Josh, xxiii. 13. It has been supposed that 
 zinnim might be the Rhamnus Paliurus, but 
 nothing more precise has been ascertained re- 
 specting it. than of so many other of these 
 thorny plants; and we may therefore, with Mi- 
 chaelis, say, ‘Nullum simile nomen habent re- 
 liquae linguae Oriental es ; ergo fas est sapienti, 
 Celsio quoque, fas sit et. mihi, aliquidlgnorare. 
 Ignorantiae professio via ad inveniendum verum, 
 si quis in Oriente quaesieiit.’ — J. F. R. 
 
 THREE. &c., occur frequently 
 
 as cardinal numbers ; thus, three 
 
 years (Lev. xix. 23) ; as ordinals, 
 in the third year (2 Kings xviii. 1) ; in com- 
 bination with other numbers, as nw uhw, 
 tliirteen ; and they are also used in the plural 
 
 as ordinals for thirty, (1 Kings xvi. 23). 
 
 For other forms and uses of the words, see Lexi- 
 cons. The nouns and li- 
 
 terally, according to one derivation, a third man , 
 are used in the sense of a commander or general, 
 sometimes as connected with war-chariots or ca- 
 valry. Thus (Exod. xiv. 7), ‘ Pharaoh took 
 all the chariots of Egypt and captains 
 
 third men), over all this armament ? (li?D 
 not as in our translation, ‘ over every one of them.’ 
 Sept, rptcrraray hc\ navruv, tristatce over all ; 
 V ulg. duces toiius exercitus. So it. is said (xv. 
 4), that ‘the choice of all Pharaoh's captains’ 
 £*6^6?), or third men, were drowned ; Sept, ava- 
 jSdros TpuTTaras ; Vul g. principes. The Septua- 
 gint word seems chosen upon the assumed analogy 
 of its etymology to the Hebrew, quasi Tpiro- 
 
 crrdrTjs, ‘ one who stands third.’ According to 
 Origeti, tristates has this meaning, because there 
 were three persons in each chariot, of whom the 
 first fought, the second protected him with a 
 shield, and the third guided the horses. Wilkin- 
 son, however, says, ‘ there were seldom three per- 
 sons in an Egyptian war-chariot, except in tri- 
 umphal processions. In the field, each one had 
 his own car with a charioteer’ ( Manners and 
 Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i. 
 p. 335). Jerome, on Ezekiel xxiii., says, i Tristatce 
 among the Greeks is the name of the second rank 
 after the royal dignity.’ But it is possible that 
 the ideal meaning of the verb vfov}, may be to 
 rule or direct, as appears from its share in such 
 words as ‘ excellent things,’ or rather 
 
 ‘rules and directions’ (Prov. xxii. 20), and 
 
 ‘ a proverb,’ from ‘to rule,’ hence an authori- 
 tative precept. According to this sense, our 
 
 translation renders the word W'h'V), ‘ lord :’ ‘a lord 
 on whose hand the king leaned’ (2 Kings vii. 2; 
 comp. v. 17, 19). If the latter derivation of the 
 Hebrew word be admitted, it. will cease to con- 
 vey any allusion to the number three ; of which 
 allusion Gesenius speaks doubtingly of any in- 
 stance, but which he decidedly pronounces to be 
 unsuitable to the first passage, where the word 
 evidently stands in connection with war-chariots 
 (see Gesenius, s. v. D^S^). Three days and 
 three nights. ‘ For as Jonas was three days 
 and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the 
 Sou of man be three days and three nights in the 
 heart of the earth.’ The apparent difficulty in 
 these words arises from the fact that our Lord 
 continued in the grave only one day complete, 
 together with a part, of the (lay on which he was 
 buried, and of that on which lie ro^e again. The 
 Hebrews had no word expressly answering to the 
 Greek word wx^P^pov, or natural day of twenty- 
 four hours, an idea which they expressed by 
 the phrases a night and a day and a da,y and a 
 night. Thus ( Dan. viii. 14), ‘ Unto two thousand 
 and three hundred evening mornings (i. e. days, 
 as it is in our translation), then shall the sanctuary 
 be cleansed.’ Thus, also, what is called ‘ forty days 
 and forty nights’ in Gen. vii. 12, is simply ‘ forty 
 days’ in ver. 17 ; wherefore, as it is common in 
 general computations to ascribe a whole day to 
 what takes up only a part of it, when this was done 
 in the Jewish language, it was necessary to men- 
 tion both day and night ; hence a part of three 
 days was called by them three days and three 
 nights. Another example we have in 1 Sam. xxx. 
 12, where the Egyptian, whom David's men found 
 in the field, is said to have eaten no bread, nor 
 drunk any water, three days and three nights. 
 Nevertheless, in giving an account of himself, the 
 Egyptian told them that his master had left him, 
 ‘ because three days ago I fell sick ;’ in the 
 Hebrew it is, 1 fell sick this third day , that is, this 
 is the third day since I fell sick. Indeed, among 
 the Hebrews, things were said to be done after 
 three days , which were done on the third day 
 (comp. 2 Chron. x. 5 with ver. 12 ; Deut. xiv. 28 
 with xxvi. 2). Agreeably to these forms of speech, 
 the prophecy of our Lord’s resurrection from the 
 dead is sometimes represented as taking place after 
 three days, sometimes on the third day (see 
 Whitby, Macknight, Wakefield, Dr. Adana 
 
THRONE. 
 
 THUNDER. 
 
 $50 
 
 Clarke, in loc.). The phrase, ‘ three and four,’ so 
 often repeated (Amos i.), means abundance, any- 
 thing that goes on toward excess. It finds its 
 parallel in Virgil’s well-known words, O terque 
 quaterque beati — ‘Oh three and foui times 
 happy 1 ( JEn . i. 94 ; see also Odyss. v 306). 
 Three has also been considered, both by Jews 
 and Christians, as a distinguished or mystical 
 number , like ‘seven.’ Ainsworth, on Gen. xxii. 
 4. has collected many such instances, but they 
 all appear to us to be fanciful. — J. F. D. 
 
 THRESHING. [Agriculture.] 
 
 THRONE. The Hebrew word NDD is 
 generally thought to have for its root-meaning the 
 idea of covering ; hence it denotes a covered seat, 
 or throne. Fiirst, in his admirable Hebrew Con- 
 cordance, holds it to convey the notion of an 
 arched or curved body, and so to have come to sig- 
 nify a seat of dignity, having the elegance given to 
 it which curved lines can easily impart. Whatever 
 the original import of the term may have been, 
 or rather JTD^Dn, denoted the orna- 
 
 mented seat on which royal personages gave au- 
 dience on state occasions among the Hebrews (1 
 Kings ii. 19; xxii. 10; comp. Esth. v. 1). It was 
 originally a decorated arm-chair, higher than an 
 ordinary seat, so as to require a foot-stool 
 (D'Hi'l) to support the feet. Sometimes the throne 
 was placed on a platform ascended by steps (Isa. 
 vi. 1). Solomon made a throne of ivory overlaid 
 with gold, which had six steps, with six lions on 
 each side (1 Kings x. 18). Archelaus addressed 
 the multitude from ‘ an elevated seat and a throne 
 of gold ’ (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii.l. 1). A throne 
 became the emblem of regal power (Gen. xli. 40) ; 
 whence the phrases, ‘ to sit on the throne of his 
 kingdom’ (Deut. xvii. 18), that is, to rule as a 
 monarch ; and ‘ to sit on the throne of a person' 
 (l Kings i. 13 ; 2 Kings x. 30), which signifies, 
 to be his successor. — J. R. B. 
 
 THUMMIM. [Urim and Thummim.] 
 
 THUNDER (Qjn : Sept. Bpovr-i], passim ; 
 also ^ip, (pcnvi J). This sublimest of all the ex- 
 traordinary phenomena of nature is 'poetically 
 represented as the voice of God, which the waters 
 obeyed at the creation (Ps. civ. 7 ; comp. Gen. i. 
 9). For other instances see Exod. ix. 23 (Hebrew, 
 or margin); Job xxxvii. 4, 5 ; xl. 9; Ps. xviii. 
 13; and especially Ps. xxix., which contains a 
 magnificen t description of a thunder storm. Agree- 
 ably to the popular speech of ancient nations, the 
 writer ascribes the effects of lightning to the 
 thunder: 'The voice of the Lord break eth the 
 cedars’ (ve . 5; comp. 1 Sam. ii. 19). Thunder 
 is also introduced into the poetical allusion to the 
 passage of the Red Sea in Ps. lxxvii. 18. The 
 plague of hail on the land of Egypt is very natu- 
 rally represented as accompanied with ‘mighty 
 thunderiugs,’ which would be literally incidental 
 to the immense agency of the electric fluid on that 
 occasion (Exod. ix. 22-29, 33, 34). It accom- 
 panied the lightnings at the giving of the law 
 (xix. 16; xx. 18). See also Ps. Ixxxi. 7, which 
 probably refers to the same occasion : ‘ 1 answered 
 thee in the secret place of thunder,’ literally, ‘ in 
 the covering of thunder,’ DJH “inD3, i. e. the 
 thunder clouds. It. was also one of the grandeurs 
 attending the divine interposition described in 2 
 Sam, xxii. 14 ; co *.r . Ps. xviii. 13. The enemies 
 
 of Jehovah are threatened with destr. ttixn by 
 thunder; perhaps, however, lightning is included 
 in the mention of the more impressive pheno- 
 menon (1 Sam. ii. 10). Such means are repre- 
 sented as used in the destruction of Sennacherib’s 
 army (Isa. xxix. 5-7 ; con:]), xxx. 30-33). Bishop 
 Lowth would understand the description as me- 
 taphorical, and intended, under a variety of 
 expressive and sublime images, to illustrate the 
 greatness, the suddenness, the horror of the event, 
 rather . than the manner by which it was effected 
 (New Translation, and notes in loc.'). Violent 
 thunder was employed by Jehovah as a means of 
 intimidating the Philistines, in their attack upon 
 the Israelites, while Samuel was offering the 
 burnt-offering (1 Sam. vii. 10 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 17). 
 Homer represents Jupiter as interposing in a battle 
 with thunder and lightning (Iliad, viii. 75, &c. : 
 xvii. 594 ; see also Spence’s Polymetis, Dial, 
 xiii. p. 211). Thunder was miraculously sent 
 at the request of Samuel (1 Sam. xii. 17, 18). 
 It is referred to as a natural phenomenon subject 
 to laws originally appointed by the Creator (Job 
 xxviii, 26; xxxviii. 25; Ecclus. xliii. 17); and 
 introduced in visions (Rev. iv. 5 ; vi. 1 ; viii. 5 ; 
 xi. 19; xiv. 2; xvi. 18 ; xix. 6 ; Esther (Apoc.) 
 xi. 5). In Rev. x. 3, 4, ‘seven thunders’ 
 [Seven]. It is adopted as a comparison. Thus 
 ‘ as lightning is seen before the thunder is heard, 
 so modesty in a person before he speaks recom- 
 mends him to the favour of the auditors ’ (Ecclus 
 xxxii. 10 ; Rev. xix. 6, &c.). The sudden ruin 
 of the unjust man is compared to the transitory 
 noise of thunder (Ecclus. xl. 13) ; but see Arnald, 
 in loc. One of the sublimest metaphors in the 
 Scriptures occurs in Job xxvi. 14, ‘ Lo, these are 
 parts of his ways ; but how little a portion is heard 
 of him (yOW, a mere whisper) ; but the thunder of 
 his power who can understand ? ’ Here the whis- 
 per and the thunder are admirably opposed to 
 each other. If the former be so wonderful and 
 overwhelming, how immeasurably more so the 
 latter? In the sublime description of the war- 
 horse (Job xxxix.)he is said to perceive the battle 
 afar off ‘ by the thunder of the captains, and the 
 shouting ' (ver. 25). That part of the description, 
 however (ver. 19), ‘hast thou clothed his neck 
 with thunder?’ appears to be a mistranslation. 
 The word n£>jn from Dy“), ‘to be agitated,’ ‘trem- 
 ble,’ refers rather to the mane : ‘ Canst. thou clothe 
 his neck with the trembling mane?’ To the 
 class of mistranslations must be referred every 
 instance of the word ‘ thunderbolts ’ in our version, 
 a word which corresponds to no reality in nature. 
 Thus ‘ hot thunderbolts ’ (Ps. lxxviii. 48, Ij ,, E) 5J , *1) 
 means ‘ lightnings,’ rw irvpi, igni. * Then shall the 
 right-aiming thunderbolts go abroad ’ (Wisd. v. 
 21), j8oAi5es acTTpcnruiy, ‘flashes’ or ‘strokes of 
 lightning.’ ‘ Threw stones like thunderbolts ’ (2 
 Macc. i. 16), avveKepavvbooav. The word conveys 
 an allusion to the mode in which lightning 
 strikes the earth. Thunder enters into the appel- 
 lative or surname given by our Lord to James 
 and John — Boanerges; o iariu, viol /SpoLvijs, says 
 St. Mark, ‘sons of thunder’ (iii. 17). Schleusner 
 here understands, the thunder of eloquence, as in 
 Aristoph. ( Achar . 530). Virgil applies a like 
 figure to the two Scipios : ' Duo fulmina belli ’ 
 (PEn. vi. 842). Others understand the allusion to 
 be to the energy and courage, &c. of the two apostles 
 (Lardner s Hist, of the Apostles a nd Evangelists, 
 
THYATIRA. 
 
 THYINE WOOD. 
 
 ch. ix. § 1 ; Suic-er. Thesaurus , s. v. B povrq). 
 Theophylact says tliey were so called because they 
 were great preachers and divines, diy /te-yaAo- 
 KTjovitcis Kal OeoAoytKOT&Tovs. Others suppose 
 the allusion to be to the proposal of these apostles 
 to call fire from heaven on the inhospitable Sa- 
 maritans (Luke ix. 53, 51). It is not certain 
 when our Lord so surnamed them [Boanerges]. 
 
 The word simply ‘ voice,’ is often used for 
 thunder, as in Exod. ix. 23; Ps. xxix. 3; lxxvii. 
 18 ; Jer. x. 13. In the last of these passages the 
 production of rain by lightning is referred to : 
 
 ‘ When lie i ttereth his voice, there is a multitude 
 of waters in the heavens, he maketh lightnings 
 with (or for) vain.' It is related (John xii. 28) 
 that Jesus said, ‘ Father, glorify thy name. Then 
 came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have 
 both glorified it, and will glorify it again.’ Some 
 of the people that stood by, but had not heard the 
 words distinctly, said it had ‘thundered,’ for 
 the voice came from heaven ; others who had 
 caught the words, supposed that God had spoken 
 to Jesus by an angel, conformably to the Jewish 
 opinion that God had never spoken but by the 
 ministry of angels. Perhaps, however, thunder 
 attended the voice, either a little before or after ; 
 comp. Exod. xix. L(>, 19; Rev. iv. 5 ; vi. 1 
 [Bath Koi.].— J. F. I). 
 
 THYATIRA (©i/areipa, ra), a city on the 
 northern border of Lydia, about twenty seven 
 miles from Sardis, the seat of one of the seven 
 Apocalyptic churches (Rev. i. 11; ii. 18). Its 
 modern name is Ak-hissar, or the white castle. 
 According to Pliny, it was known in earlier times 
 by the names Pelopia and Euhippa (Hist. Nat. 
 v. 29). Strabo asserts that it was a Macedonian 
 colony (xiii. p. 928). The Roman road from Per- 
 gamus to Sardis passed through it. It was noted 
 for the art of dyeing, as appears from Acts xvi. 14. 
 Luke’s account has been confirmed by the dis- 
 covery of an inscription in honour of Antonius 
 Claudius Alphenus oy the corporation of dyers, 
 which concludes with the words oi /^cupels. It still 
 maintains its reputation for this manufacture, and 
 large quantities of scarlet cloth are sent weekly to 
 Smyrna. The town consists of about two thou- 
 sand houses, for. which taxes are paid to the 
 government, besides two or three hundred small 
 huts ; of the former 300 are inhabited by Greeks, 
 30 by Armenians, and the rest by Turks. The 
 common language of all classes is the Turkish : 
 but in writing it, the Greeks use the Greek, and 
 the Armenians the Armenian characters. There are 
 nine mosques and one Greek church. — J. E. R. 
 
 THYINE WOOD(£oAov Qvivov) is mentioned 
 as one of the articles of merchandise which would 
 cease to be purchased in consequence of the fall of 
 Babylon (Rev. xviii. 12). This wood was in con- 
 siderable demand by the Romans, being much 
 employed by them in the ornamental wood-work 
 of their villas, and also for tables, bowls, and vessels 
 of different kinds. It is noticed by most ancient 
 authors, from the time of Theophrastus. It was the 
 citron-wood of the Romans ; thus Salmasius : ‘ 0ua 
 Theophrasti est ilia citrus, quae citreas mensas 
 dabat Romanis inter lautissima opera’ (Cels. Hi - 
 erobot. vol. ii. p. 25). It was produced only in 
 Africa, in the neighbourhood of Mount Atlas, and 
 m Granada : ‘ citrum, arborem Africae peculiarem 
 esse, nec alibi nasci.’ It grew to a great size : 
 
 ‘ quarum amplitudo ac radices aestimari poesuri 
 ex orbibus ’ (Plin. Hist. Nat. xiii. 15). 
 
 This cedar or citron-wood was most likely pro* 
 duced by Caliitris quadrivalvis, the Thuja arti • 
 culata of Linmeus, which is a native of Mount 
 Atlas, and of other uncultivated hills on the coast 
 of Africa. In the kingdom of Morocco, according 
 to Broussouel, this tree produces the Sandarach resin 
 of commerce. Capt. S. E. Cook, in his Sketches in 
 Spai?i (vol. ii.), brought to light, the fact that the 
 woodwork of the roof of the celebrated mosque, 
 now the cathedral of Cordova, built in the 9th 
 century, is of this wood ; it had previously been 
 thought to be that of the larch, from the resem- 
 blance of the Spanish word alerce, which is 
 applied to the wood of Caliitris quadrivalvis in 
 Spain and Barbary, to the Latin word larix. 
 After carefully examining the wood in question, 
 Capt. Cook came to the conclusion that the 
 timber of the mosque was not of any Spanish, or 
 even European tree. * By a singular coincidence, 
 the subject had been undergoing investigation 
 about the same time in Africa. Mr. D. Hay, 
 the British Consul at Tangiers, had, by tracing 
 the Arabic etymology of the word alerce (no 
 doubt al arz or eves'), by availing himself ol 
 the botanical researches of the Danish Consul 
 in Morocco, and by collating the accounts of 
 the resident Moors, made out that the alerce was 
 the Thuja articulates, which grows on Mount 
 Atlas. In corroboration of his views, a plank of 
 its timber was sent to London. This plank, which 
 is in the possession of the Horticultural Society, 
 is 1 foot 8 inches in diameter. Capt. Cook says he 
 is perfectly satisfied of its identity with the parts 
 of the timber of the mosque at Cordova which he 
 examined. It is highly balsamic and odoriferous, 
 the resin, no doubt, preventing the ravages ol 
 insects, as well as the influence of the air.’ (Lw> 
 
TIBERIAS. 
 
 TIB NT. 
 
 m 
 
 don’s Arbont. iv. 2463). This, no doubt, was 
 also the citron or thyine-wood of the ancients, 
 and therefore that of the above cited passage of 
 the Revelation. — J. F. R. 
 
 TIBERIAS ( Tifcpids ; Talm. Arab. 
 
 
 is a small town situated about the middle 
 
 of the western bank of the lake of Gennesareth. 
 Tiberias was chiefly built, by theTetrarch Herodes 
 Antipas, and called by him after the Emperor Ti- 
 berius (Joseph. Antiq. xviii.2. 3). According to the 
 Life of Josephus (6 65), Tiberias was 30 stadia 
 from Hippo, 60 from Gadara, and 120 from 
 Scythopolis ; according to the Talmud, it was 13 
 Roman miles from Sepphoris; and Jolifl'e, in his 
 Travels , states that it is nearly 20 English miles 
 from Nazareth, and 90 miles from Jerusalem. 
 Others find it above two days’ journey from 
 Ptolemais. 
 
 From the time of Herodes Antipas to the com- 
 mencement of the reign of Herodes Agrippa II., 
 Tiberias was the principal city of the province (see 
 Joseph. Vita , § 9). Justus, son of Pistus, when 
 addressing the inhabitants of Tiberias, stated that 
 ‘ the city Tiberias had ever been a city of Galilee ; 
 and that in the days of Herod the Tetrarch, who 
 had built it, it had obtained the principal place; 
 and that he had ordered that the city Sepphoris 
 should be subordinate to the city Tiberias; that 
 they had not lost this pre-eminence even under 
 Agrippa, the father, but had retained it until 
 Felix was procurator of Judaea; but he told them 
 that now they had been so unfortunate as to be 
 made a present of by Nero to Agrippa; and that 
 upon Sepphoris’s submission of itself to the Ro- 
 mans, that city was become the capital of Gali- 
 lee, and that the royal treasury and the archives 
 were now removed from them.’ Tiberias was one of 
 the four cities which Nero added to the kingdom 
 of Agrippa (De Bell. Jucl. xx. 13. 2). Sepphoris 
 and Tiberias were the largest cities of Galilee 
 (Joseph, Vita, § 65). In the last Jewish war the 
 fortifications of Tiberias were an important mili- 
 tary station ( De Bell. Jud. ii. 20, 6 ;*m. 10, 1 ; 
 Vita, § 8, sq ). 
 
 According to Josephus ( Vita, 6 12), the inhabit- 
 ants of Tiberias derived their maintenance chiefly 
 from the navigation of the lake of Gennesaret h, and 
 from its fisheries. After the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem Tiberias was celebrated during several 
 centuries for its famous Rabbinical academy (see 
 Lightfoot’s Horae Heh. p. 140, sq.). 
 
 Not far from Tiberias, in the immediate neigh- 
 bourhood of the town of Emmaus, were warm 
 mineral springs, whose celebrated baths are some- 
 times spoken of as belonging to Tiberias itself 
 (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii. 21, § 6 ; Antiq. xviii. 2. 
 3 ; Vita, § 16 ; Mishna, Saob. iii. 4 ; and other 
 Talmudical passages in Lightfoot's Horae Heh. 
 p. 133, sq. Compare also Wichmannshausen, De 
 Thermis Tiberiensibus, in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 
 vii.) These springs contain sulphur, salt, and 
 iron; and were employed for medicinal pur- 
 poses. Compare the Travels of Yoluey and Scholz. 
 
 There is a tradition that Tiberias was built on 
 the site of the town Kinnereth. Compare 
 
 Hieronymi Onomasticon , sub voc. ‘ Chennereth :’ 
 ‘ Oppidum, quod in honorem Tiberii Csesaris He- 
 rodes rex Judaeae postea instauratum appcllavit 
 Tiberiadem, ferunt hoc primum appellatum no- 
 
 mine.’ Against this tradition it has been urged 
 that, according to Joshua (xix. 35), Chinneret.h 
 belonged to the tribe of Naphthali. Compare Re- 
 land (Balrestina, p. 161). It has also been said 
 that this tradition is contradicted by the following 
 statement of Joseph us {Antiq. xviii.2. 3): — ‘ Herod 
 the tetrarch, who was in great favour with Tibe- 
 rius, built a city of the same name with him, and 
 called it Tiberias. He built, it in the best part 
 of Galilee, at the lake of Gennesareth. There 
 are warm baths at a little distance from it, in a 
 village named Emmaus. Strangers came and 
 inhabited this city; a great number of the inha- 
 bitants were Galileans also, and many were ne- 
 cessitated by Herod to come thither out of the 
 country belonging to him. and were by force 
 compelled to be its inhabitants ; some of them 
 were persons of condition. He also admitted 
 poor people, such as those that were collected 
 from all parts to dwell in it. He was a bene- 
 factor to these, and made them free in great 
 numbers, but obliged them not to forsake the 
 city by building them very good houses at his 
 own expense, and by giving them land also; for 
 he was sensible that to make this place a habita- 
 tion was to transgress the Jewish ancient laws, 
 because many sepulchres were to be here taken 
 away, in order to make room for the city Tibe- 
 rias, whereas our law pronoun cesvt hat such inha- 
 bitants are unclean for seven days.’ 
 
 Others have identified Tiberias with Chamath ; 
 but it also belonged to the tribe of Naphthali, 
 and the graves mentioned by Josephus militate 
 agaifist it as much as against Chinnereth. Ac- 
 cording to the Rabbins, Tiberias was situated on 
 the site of Rakkath ( Hieros . Megil. fol. 701). 
 Compare Othonis, Lex. Babb. p. 755 ; but it too 
 was in the territory of Naphthali, and if tire 
 graves mentioned by Josephus are any objection 
 they must militate against this assumption like- 
 wise (Lightfoot, Chorog. Cent . cap. 72-74). 
 
 According to Jolifl'e ( Travels , pp. 48, 49, sq.) 
 the modern Tabaria has about four thousand in- 
 habitants, a considerable part of whom are Jews. 
 The hot springs are about thirty-five minutes from 
 Tabaria, and about twenty paces from the lake. 
 Compare the Travels of Mariti, Hasselquist, 
 Buckingham, Burckhardt, and Richter. The site 
 of the present, town does not fill the area of the 
 ancient Tiberias, of which there are still some 
 insignificant vestiges. Tabaria suffered greatly 
 by an earthquake on New Year’s day, 1837. Al- 
 most every building, with the exception of the 
 walls and some part of the castle, was levelled to 
 the ground. The inhabitants were obliged to live 
 for some time in wooden booths (Schubert, in d. 
 Munchn. Gelehrt. Anzeig. 1837, No. 191, p. 505 ; 
 Winer’s Real- Wbrterb.).— C. Id. F. B. 
 
 TIBERIUS (Tifiepios), the third Emperor of 
 Rome. He is mentioned by name only by St. 
 Luke, who fixes in the fifth year of his reign the 
 commencement of the ministry of John the Bap- 
 tist, and of Christ (Luke iii. 1). The other 
 passages in which he is mentioned under the title 
 of Caesar, offer no points of personal allusion, and 
 refer to him simply as the emperor (Matt. xxii. 
 17, sq. ; Mark xii. 14, sq. ; Luke xx. 22, sq. ; 
 xxiii. 2, sq. ; John xix. 12, sq.). 
 
 TIBNI ('J3P1, building of God ; Sept. &ap.v t), 
 one of those factious men who took a prominent 
 
862 
 
 TIDAL. 
 
 TIGRIS. 
 
 part in the troubles which followed the violent 
 death of Elah. He disputed the throne of Israel 
 with Omri, and the civil war which was thus 
 lcindled between the two factions lasted for about 
 three years with varying success, till the death of 
 Tibni left his adversary master of the crown, b.c. 
 929 (1 Kings xvi. 21-23). 
 
 TIDAL (^HR, veneration ; Sept. QapyaK), 
 one of the allies who with Chedorlaomer invaded 
 Palestine inthe time of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 1). 
 Tidal bears the somewhat singular title of ‘ king 
 of nations ’ or ‘ Gentiles ’ (CPU goyim). Some 
 make it almost a proper name here, as in Josh, 
 xii. 23, where we read of a ‘ king of the Gentiles, 
 ( goyim ) of Gil gal.’ Le Clerc and others take it for 
 Galilee, because in Isa. viii. 23, we meet with 
 ‘Galilee of the nations.’ But. there were reasons 
 for its having then acquired that name, which did 
 not exist in the time of Abraham, when all Pales- 
 tine and the neighbouring countries were as much 
 Gentile as Galilee. In fact, we cannot tell who 
 these Goyim were over whom Tidal ruled ; but it 
 seems probable that he was a chief of several con- 
 federated tribes, whose military force he contri- 
 buted to the expedition of Chedorlaomer. 
 
 TIDHAR ("lrnPl) is twice mentioned in 
 Scripture (Isa. xli. 19, and lx. 13), in both of which 
 places it is enumerated along with the Bkrosh 
 
 and Teashur, or cypress and box-tree, and i» 
 translated pine-tree in the Authorized Version. 
 But it has been variously interpreted, and even by 
 the same translator in the two passages. Thus 
 it. is rendered elm in one passage, and box or pine 
 in the other. In the Chaldee paraphrase, the word 
 murneyan , commonly thought to mean the elm, 
 is used as the synonyme of tidhar. But no simi- 
 lar'name having been discovered in any of the 
 cognate languages, no proofs can be adduced in 
 favour of one more than anot her. The name tid- 
 hara, meaning ‘ three-cornered,’ is applied in 
 India to a species of Euphorbia (E. antiquorum) ; 
 but this is not likely to be the plant, alluded to in 
 Scripture. Geseuius is of opinion that tidhar 
 siguities a durable tree, or one that yields durable 
 wood. It is difficult, therefore, to select from 
 among the trees of Lebanon that which is spe- 
 cially intended. — J. F. R. 
 
 TIGLATH-PILESER, the Assyrian king who 
 subjected the kingdom of Israel in b.c. 747. [See 
 Assyria, Israel.] 
 
 TIGRIS (fen ; Sept. T lypis), one of the four 
 rivers of Paradise, twice mentioned in Scripture 
 under the name of Hiddekel (Gen. ii. 14; 
 
 Dan. x. 4). In Aramaean it is called 
 Digla, in Arabic Diglat, in Zend T«ger t 
 
 585. [The Tigris at its junction with the Euphrates. Korna.j 
 
 tn Pehlvi Tegera, ‘stream;’ whence have arisen 
 both the Aramaean and Arabic forms, to which 
 also we trace the Hebrew De/cel divested of 
 the prefix Hid. This prefix denotes activity, 
 rapidity, vehemence, so that Hid-dekel signifies 
 ‘the rapid Tigris.’ From the introduction of the 
 prefix, it would appear that the Hebrews were not 
 entirely aware that Teger, represented by their 
 Hekty by itself signified velocity; so in the lan- 
 
 guage of Media, Tigris meant an arroio (Strabo, 
 ii. 527 ; PI in. Hist. Nat. vi. 27 ; comp. Pers.^J 
 
 teer, ‘arrow;’ Sanscrit tigra, ‘sharp,’ ‘ swift ’)• 
 hence arose such pleonasms as ‘king Pharaoh' 
 and ‘ Al-coran.’ 
 
 The Tigris rises in the mountains of Armenia* 
 about fifteen miles south of the sources of the Eue 
 ph rates, and pursues nearly a regular course south* 
 
TIMNA. 
 
 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 s®st till vis junction with that river at Korna, 
 fifty miles above Basrah (Basso rah). The Tigris is 
 Navigable for boats of twenty or thirty tons’ bur- 
 den as far as the mouth of the 0( lorn eh, but no 
 further; and the commerce of Mosul is conse- 
 quently carried on by rafts supported on inflated 
 sheep or goats’ skins. These rafts are floated down 
 the river, and when they arrive at Bagdad, the 
 wood of which they are composed is sold without 
 loss, and the skins are conveyed back to Mosul by 
 camels. The Tigris, between Bagdad and Korna, 
 is, on an average, about two hundred yards wide ; 
 at Mosul its breadth does not exceed three 
 hundred feet. The banks are steep, and over- 
 grown for the most part with brushwood, the 
 esort of lions and other wild animals. The 
 middle part of the river’s course, from Mosul to 
 Korna, onct he seat of high culture and the resi- 
 dence of mighty kings, is now desolate, covered 
 with the relics of ancient greatness in the shape of 
 fortresses, mounds, and 4>*rns, which had been 
 erected for the defence and irrigation of the 
 country. At the ruins of Nimrod, eight leagues 
 below Mosul, is a stone dam quite across the 
 river, which, when the stream is low, stands con- 
 siderably above the surface, and forms a small 
 cataract ; but when the stream is swollen, no part 
 of it is visible, the water rushing over it like a 
 rapid, and boiling up with great impetuosity. It is 
 a work of great skill and labour, and now vene- 
 rable for its antiquity. The inhabitants, as usual, 
 attribute it to Nimrod. It is called the Zikr- 
 nl-Aawaze. At some short distance below there 
 is another Zikr (dyke), but not so high, and more 
 ruined than the former. The river rises twice in 
 the year : the first and great rise is in April, and 
 is caused by the melting of the snows in the 
 mountains of Armenia; the other is in Novem- 
 ber, and is produced by the periodical rains. See 
 Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 448 ; Kinneir, Geog. 
 Mem. of Pers. Empire, pp. 9, 10 ; Rich’s Koor - 
 distan, which includes a minute and accurate 
 account of observations made in a voyage down 
 the river from Mosul to Bagdad, and of another 
 voyage up the river from Basrah to the same 
 place; being In fact a survey of the greater and 
 more interesting part of the Tigris. 
 
 TIMBRELS. [Musicat. Instruments.] 
 
 TIMNA (JDfpn, restraint ; Sept. ®apva), 
 a concubine of Eliphaz, the sou of Esau (Gen. 
 xxxvi. 12-22 ; 1 Chron. i. 36). From her the 
 name passed over - to an Edomitish tribe (Gen. 
 xxxvi. 40 ; 1 Chron. i. 51). 
 
 TIMNAH (n:Dn ; Sept. ®apvA), or TIM- 
 nath (J*D?pF)), an ancient city of the Ca- 
 naanites (Gen. xxxviii. 12), first assigned to the 
 tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 10-57), and afterwards 
 to Dan (Josh. xix. 43); but it long remained in 
 the possession of the Philistines (Judg, xiv. 1 ; 
 2 Chron. xxviii. 18; comp. Joseph. Antiq. v. 8. 
 5). It is chiefly noted as the abode of Samson's 
 bride, and the place where he held his marriage 
 feast. It is probably represented by a deserted 
 site now callefl. Tibneh, which is about one hour’s 
 journey south-west of Zerah, the residence of 
 Samson. Another Timnah lay in the mountains 
 of Judah (Josh. xxv. 57 ; Gen. xxviii. 12-14). 
 
 TIMNATH-HERES. [Timnath-serah.] 
 
 8f)3 
 
 TIMNATH-SERAH (nip"n3pn,;)orfto». oj 
 
 abundance, i. e. remaining portion ; Sept. 0a/u/ o- 
 aapax), a town in the mountains of Ephraim, 
 which was assigned to Joshua, and became the 
 place of his residence and burial (Josh. xix. 50 ; 
 xxiv. 30). In Judg. ii. 9, it is called Timnath- 
 heres ^portion of the sun)-, but the former is pro- 
 bably the correct reading, since a possession thus 
 given to Joshua after the rest of the land was dis- 
 tributed (.Tosh. xix. 49), would strictly be a por- 
 tion remaining. This was probably the same 
 with the Timnah (Qapva.) of Josephus (Antiq. iv. 
 iv-. 11. 12; De Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 5), the head of a 
 toparchy lying between those of Gophna and 
 Lydda j which seems to be recognised in a 
 place called Tibneh, lying north-west of Gophna 
 on the Roman road to Antipatris (Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, i. 483). The choice of Joshua was cer- 
 tainly not in the nest of the land. Jerome relates 
 that Paula, when travelling in these parts, mar- 
 velled that the distributor of the possessions of 
 the children of Israel should have chosen for 
 himself a situation so rough and mountainous 
 (Epitaph. Paulce, fol. 99). 
 
 TIMOTHY (T i/xoOeos), a young Christian of 
 Derbe, grandson of Lois, and son of Eunice, a 
 Jewess, by a Greek father, who was probably a 
 proselyte (Acts xvi. 1 ; xx. 4). He seems to 
 have been brought up with great care in his 
 family, and to have profited well by the example 
 of the 4 unfeigned faith’ which dwelt in rne ex- 
 cellent women named in 2 Tim. i. 5 ; iii. 15. 
 The testimonials which Paul received in Lvcao- 
 nia in favour of this young disciple, induced the 
 apostle to make him the companion of his jour- 
 neys and labours in preaching the Gospel (Acts 
 xvi. 2, 3 ; 1 Tim. iv. 12). He became his most 
 faithful and attached colleague ; and is frequently 
 named by Paul with truly paternal tenderness 
 and regard. He calls him 4 son Timothy’ (1 
 Tim. i. 18) ; 4 my own son in the faith’ (1 Tim. 
 i.2); 4 my beloved son’ (1 Cor. iv. 17); 4 my 
 workfellow’ (Rom. xvi. 21 ) ; 4 my brother’ (which 
 is probably the sense of Tipodtos 6 a5s\ (f>6s in 2 
 Cor. i. 1). Timothy appears to have been with 
 the apostle at Rome, and to have been, like him, 
 a prisoner thei'e, though liberated before him 
 (Heb. xi ii. 23). His subsequent history is, how- 
 ever, unknown. It appears from 1 Tim. i. 3, 
 that when Paul went into Macedonia he left 
 Timothy in charge of the church at Ephesus, and 
 there are indications that he was still at Ephesus 
 when the apostle was (as usually understood) a 
 second time captive at Rome, and without hope 
 of deliverance (1 Tim. iii. 14). The tradition 
 is, that Timothy retained the charge of the church 
 at Ephesus till his death, arrd eventually suf- 
 fered martyrdom in that city. 
 
 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. The com- 
 mon authorship of these two enistles has seldom 
 been denied ; nor, if denied, could the denial be 
 successfully maintained, so marked and so 
 numerous are the points of resemblance between 
 the two, except upon the assumption that the one 
 has been made up from the other. When, how- 
 ever, we proceed to inquire, By tchom were they 
 written? the question is one which has occa- 
 sioned in more recent times no small controversy. 
 
 If we defer to the testimer.-v of the early eccle- 
 siastical writers, no doubt will remain upon the 
 
864 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 point. For the high antiquity of these epistles, 
 the allusions to passages in them by Barnabas, 
 Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, suffi- 
 ciently vouch (Laniner, ii. t?0, 3$, 79, 9b). 
 That they are also to lie regarded as genuine pro- 
 ductions of the apostle whose name they bear, is 
 attested by Irenaeus (Ado, Hcer. lib. i., sub init. 
 iii. 3. 3) ; by Theophilus of Antioch, who quotes 
 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. along with Rom. xiii. 7, 8, as 
 part of ‘ the divine word ' ( Ad Autol. iii. 14); 
 by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, ii. 383) ; ibid. 
 
 р. 448); by Tertullian (De Proescr. Hceret. 
 
 с. 25) ; by Cains (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccics. vi. 
 20); by Origen, &c. (comp. Lardner, vol. ii. 
 To this weighty mass of external evidence, there 
 is nothing to oppose of the same kind, for the 
 omission of these epistles by JVIarcion from his 
 Apostolicon, is a fact, to which, from the well- 
 known caprice and prejudice of that heretic, no 
 weight can be attached. Unless, therefore, diffi- 
 culties of an insurmountable nature are presented 
 by the epistles themselves to our regarding them 
 as the productions of Paul, we must hold their 
 claim to rank as his to be unimpeachable. 
 
 That such difficulties are presented by these 
 epistles has been confidently maintained by Eich- 
 horn ( Einleit . iii. ff. 317), and De Wette ( Einlcit . 
 s. 2S3, ff.), as well as by some other scholars of 
 less note. The learned and acute Schleiermaclier 
 has also assailed the genuineness of the first epistle 
 in his Kritisches Sendschreiben an J. C. Gass 
 (Berlin, 1807); but -that of the second he ad- 
 mitted, and not only so, but was wont to censure 
 the attempts of those who rejected it and that to 
 Titus, as ‘ removing the occasion and the means 
 for the criticism of the first ’ (Liicke, Theol. Stud, 
 rind Krit., 1834, s. 768). To examine all the 
 cavils which these eminent men, in the exercise of 
 that micrologistic criticism, in which it seems 
 characteristic of their nation to delight, would be 
 a task altogether incompatible with the limits 
 within which we are confined. A succinct sur- 
 vey of the more weighty of their objections we 
 shall, however, attempt to supply ; beginning 
 with those which are common to Doth epistles, 
 and proceeding to such as are peculiar to each. 
 
 1. It is objecled that the general style of 
 
 these epistles is not Pauline. ‘ Has Paul’s lan- 
 guage in general,’ asks Eichhorn, ‘ the clearness 
 and ease of expression which we find in these 
 pastoral epistles? Is it not much more un- 
 polished, careless, and allied to a prose which has 
 been thrown together, rather than carefully ela- 
 borated ?’ &c. ‘ The force of such an objection,’ 
 
 Eichhorn adds, * it is very difficult to make 
 apparent to those who have not the natural gift of 
 discerning modes of writing.’ A most convenient 
 difficulty ! enabling the critic to retort the charge 
 of incapacity upon all who do not see the charac- 
 teristics of Paul's style in exactly the same light 
 as they are viewed by him. We shelter ourselves 
 behind the ample authority of Hug, who says of 
 the latter part of the objection, that it i is abso- 
 lutely false,’ and who replies to the former by 
 asserting for a letter, written by the apostle to a 
 friend so intimate as Timothy, the right to ex- 
 hibit a more free and flowing style than would 
 be proper in a letter addressed to a church 
 ( Introd . Fosdick’s transl. p. 569). 
 
 2 . Much stress is laid by all who have im- 
 pugned the Pauline origin of these epistles on the 
 
 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 occurrence in them of fiira£ \ey6ptv a, and forms 
 ot expression not elsewhere usual with PauL 
 But to this it may be replied that the same objec- 
 tion might be offered against many of the un- 
 questioned writings of the apostle, such, e. g., as 
 the epistle to the Cialat ians, in which 57 oira£ \ey6- 
 peva occur, and the epistle to the Philippians, in 
 which we find 54, &c. ; from which it appears 
 but fair to infer that the occurrence of such is,’ so 
 far as it can prove anything, an evidence for 
 ratfier than against the Pauline origin of these 
 epistles. All such reasonings, however, appear 
 to rest upon too precarious a basis to be allowed 
 much weight. W hen it is remembered how 
 much the style of a writer is affected by his sub- 
 ject, by his design, by the state of his mind at the 
 time of writing, by the circumstances of the 
 parties for whom his composition is intended, as 
 well as how much in, the course of a few years 
 the style of even a very careful writer alters, we 
 shall cease to be much moved by the occurrence 
 in the epistles of such a writer as Paul, of unex- 
 pected varieties and peculiarities of expression. 
 The only valid argument that can be urged against 
 the genuineness of a writing from such facts is, 
 when it can be shown that the writer has U3ed 
 phrases or words, which it is historically im- 
 possible that the party to whom the writing is 
 ascribed could have employed; as has been done 
 so successfully in several instances by Bentley, 
 in his work on the Epistles ascribed to Phalaris. 
 No attempt of this sort, however, is made by 
 those who have impugned the authenticity of the 
 Epistles, to Timothy ; * not one word has been 
 adduced which can be shown to be foreign to the 
 age of Paul ; not a single phrase has been pointed 
 out, of which either the outward form or the con- 
 ception on which it is based, belongs to a later 
 age’ (Planck, Bemerkungen, u. s. w. s. 17). 
 So far from this, Eichhorn himself admits * that 
 they have in their language much that is Pauline,’ 
 and that the allusion to the apostle’s persecuting 
 zeal before his conversion (1 Tim. i. 13), the prin- 
 ciples asserted respecting both the substance and 
 the form of Christianity, and the proofs adduced, 
 are highly Pauline (p. 318). 
 
 Besides these objections, which apply to both 
 epistles alike, there are some which affect each 
 epistle separately. 
 
 To the first epistle it is objected : 1. That it 
 presents Timothy in a light in which it is incon- 
 sistent with other notices of him in Paul’s epistles 
 to regard him. Here he appears as little better 
 than a novice, needing instruction as to the sim- 
 plest affairs of ecclesiastical order; whereas, in 
 the first epistle to the Corinthians, written earlier 
 than this, we find him (iv. 17) described by Paul 
 as ‘ My beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, 
 who shall bring you into remembrance of my 
 ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere 
 in every church;’ and in 1 Thess. i. 1-3, we are 
 told that the apostle had sent him to Thessalonica 
 to establish the believers there, and to comfort 
 them concerning their faith. If Timothy was so 
 well able to regulate the churches at Corinth and 
 Thessalonica, how, it is asked, can.it be supposed 
 that a short while afterwards he should require 
 such minute instructions for his conduct as this 
 epistle contains? To this it may be replied, 
 (1) that in visiting Corinth and Thessalonica 
 Timothy acted as the apostle's delegate, and had. 
 
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 doubtless*, received from him minute instructions 
 as to ho\» he should proceed among those to whom 
 he was seat; so that the alleged difference in the 
 circumstances of Timothy when sent to Corinth, 
 and when left in Ephesus, disappears ; (2) that 
 it does not necessarily follow, from the injunc- 
 tions given to Timothy in this epistle, that the 
 writer regarded him as a novice ; for they rather 
 respect the application of general principles to 
 peculiar local circumstances, than set forth in- 
 structions such as a novice would require ; and 
 (3) it is not to be forgotten that the apostle de- 
 signed through Timothy to present to the church 
 at. large a body of instruction which should be 
 useful to it in all ages of its existence. 
 
 2. It is objected that after the church at 
 Ephesus had enjoyed the apostle’s instructions and 
 presidency for three years, it could not have been, 
 at the time this epistle is supposed to have been 
 written by Paul, in such ignorance of eccle- 
 siastical arrangements as the injunctions here 
 given would lead us to suppose. But what is 
 there in the epistle that necessitates such a 
 supposition? It contains many directions to 
 Timothy how he should conduct himself in a 
 church, some of which are certainly of an ele- 
 mentary character, but there is nothing that leads 
 to the conclusion that they were all intended for 
 the benefit of the church at Ephesus, or that the 
 state of that church was such as to require that 
 injunctions of this kind should be given for its 
 sake alone. Timothy's sphere of evangelistic 
 effort extended greatly beyond Ephesus; and this 
 epistle was designed at once to guide him as to 
 what he was to do in the churches which he 
 might be called to regulate, and to supply his 
 authority for so doing. Besides, does it not 
 naturally occur that such minute injunctions are 
 just such as a person forging this epistle at a later 
 period in Paul’s name, would be most likely to 
 avoid ? 
 
 3. The absence of allusions to events in Ti- 
 mothy’s history has been alleged against the 
 Pauline origin of this epistle. A strange objec- 
 tion ! — and as untenable as strange ! This may 
 be seen by a reference to the following passages : 
 i. 18 ; iv. 14 ; v. 23 ; vi. 12. 
 
 4. It is alleged that the writer of this epistle 
 has made such a mistake as Paul could not have 
 made when he classes Alexander with Hymenaeus 
 (l Tim. i. 20) as a false Christian, whereas we 
 know from 2 Tim. iv. 14, that lie was not a 
 Christian at all. But where is the shadow of evi- 
 dence that the Alexander mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 
 20, is the same person with the Alexander men- 
 tioned in 2 Tim. iv. 14 ? Was this name so un- 
 common in Ephesus that we must needs suppose 
 a blunder, where a writer speaks of one so called 
 as a heretic, simply because in other passages 
 mention is made of one so called who was not a 
 heretic? Nothing can be more obvious than that 
 there were two Alexanders, just as there might 
 have been twenty, known to the apostle and Ti- 
 mothy; and that of these two one was a heretic 
 and troubler of the church at Ephesus, and the 
 other probably a heathen and an eneir r of the 
 apostle. 
 
 5. In 1 Tim. i. 20, mention is madfe of Hy- 
 menaeus as a heretic, whom the writer makes Paul 
 say he had excommunicated ; but this is a mis- 
 take, for in 2 Tim. ii. 17, we find Hymenaeus 
 
 VOL. II. 56 
 
 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES IX). 
 
 still a member of the church at Ephesus, 
 such a mistake could not have been made by 
 Paul. Here, however, it is assumed without 
 proof, (1) that the Hymenaeus of the one epistle 
 is the same as the Hymenaeus of the other; (2) 
 that being the same, he was still a member of the 
 same church; and (3) that it was impossible for 
 him, though excommunicated, to have returned 
 as a penitent to the church, and again to have 
 become a plague to it. Here are three hypotheses 
 on which we may account for the fact referred to, 
 and until they be all excluded it will not follow 
 that any blunder is chargeable upon the writer of 
 this epistle. 
 
 6. In 1 Tim. vi. 13, the writer refers to our 
 Lord's good confession before Pontius Pilate. 
 Now of this we have a record in John’s Gospel ; 
 but as this was not written in Paul's time, it is urged 
 that this epistle must be ascribed to a later writer. 
 It is easy to obviate any force that may appear 
 to be in this remark by the consideration that all 
 the prominent facts of our Lord’s life, and espe- 
 cially the circumstances of his death, were fami- 
 liarly known by oral communication to all the 
 Christians before the Gospels were written. 
 Though, then, John’s Gospel was not extant in 
 Paul’s time, the facts recorded by John were 
 well known, and might therefore be very natu- 
 rally referred to in an epistle from one Christian 
 to another. Of our Lord’s confession before Pi- 
 late we may readily suppose that Paul, the great 
 advocate of the spirituality of the Messiah's king- 
 dom, was especially fond of making use. 
 
 7. The writer of this epistle, it is affirmed, 
 utters sentiments in favour of the law which are 
 not Pauline, and teaches the efficacy of good 
 works in such a way as to be incompatible with 
 Paul’s doctrine of salvation by grace. This as- 
 sertion we may safely meet with a pointed denial. 
 The doctrine of this epistle concerning the law 
 is, that it is good if it be used vo/uifxws, as a law, 
 for the purposes which a moral law is designed to 
 serve ; and what is this but the doctrine of the 
 epistles to the Romans and Galatians, where the 
 apostle maintains that in itself and for its own 
 ends the divine law is holy, just, and good, and 
 becomes evil only when put out of its proper 
 place, and used for purposes it was never designed 
 to serve? (Rom. vii. 7-12; Gal. iii. 21, &c.) 
 What the writer here teaches concerning good 
 works is also in full harmony with the apostle 
 Paul’s teaching in his acknowledged epistles 
 (comp. Rom. xii., Ephes. v. and vi., &c.) ; and! 
 if in this epistle there is no formal exposition of.' 
 the Gospel scheme, but rather a dwelling upon, 
 practical duties, the reason may easily be found 
 in the peculiar character of this as a pastoral! 1 
 epistle — an epistle of official counsels and ex- 
 hortations to a minister of Christianity. 
 
 8. De Wette asserts that 1 Tim. iii. 16, bear* 
 marks of being a quotation from a confession or. 
 symbol of the church, of which there were none 
 in PauTs day. But what marks of this does the 
 passage present ? The answer is, the use of tlie 
 word d/AoKoyov/ievcos, a technical word, and the 
 word used by the ecclesiastical writers to de- 
 signate something in accordance with orthodox 
 doctrine. This is true ; but as technical words 
 are first used in their proper sense, and as the 
 proper sense of ofj.oXoyov/xei'us perfectly suits the 
 passage in question, there is no reason for sup- 
 
S66 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES T^. 
 
 posing any such later usage as De Wette suggests 
 Besides, His argument tells both ways, for one may 
 as well assert that the ecclesiastical usage arose 
 from the terms of this passage, as affirm that the 
 terms of this passage were borrowed from eccle- 
 siastical usage. 
 
 9. The writer of this epistle quotes ns a part 
 of Scripture a passage which occurs only in 
 Luke x. 7 ; but as Luke had not written his Gos- 
 pel at the time Paul is supposed to have written 
 this epistle, and as if is not the habit of the New 
 Testament writers to quote from each other in the 
 way they quote from the Old Testament, we are 
 bound to suppose that this epistle is the produc- 
 tion of a later writer. But does this writer quote 
 Luke x. 7, in the manner alleged? The passage 
 referred to is in ch. v. 18, where we have first a 
 citation from Deut. xxv. 4, introduced by the 
 usual formula, ‘The Scripture saith and then 
 the writer adds, as further confirmatory of his 
 position, the saying of our Lord, which is supposed 
 to be quoted from Luke’s Gospel. Now we are 
 not bound to conclude that this latter was ad- 
 duced by the writer as a part of Scripture. It 
 may be regarded as a remark of his own, or as 
 some proverbial expression, or as a well-known 
 saying of Christ’s, by which he confirms the doc- 
 trine he is establishing. We are under no ne- 
 cessity to extend the formula with which the verse 
 is commenced so as to include in it all that the 
 verse contains. The /cal by itself will not justify 
 this ; indeed we may go further, and affirm that 
 the use of /cal alone rather leads to an opposite 
 conclusion, for had the writer intended the latter 
 clause to be regarded as a quotation from Scrip- 
 ture as well as the former, he would probably have 
 used some such formula as /cal Tra\iv (comp. Heb. 
 5i. 13). 
 
 10. De Wette maintains that the injunction 
 in ch. v. 23, is so much beneath the dignity of 
 an apostle, that we cannot suppose it to have 
 proceeded from such a writer as Paul. But 
 what is there in such an injunction less dignified 
 than in many injunctions of an equally familiar 
 nature scattered through Paul’s epistles? And 
 in what is it incompatible with the apostolic cha- 
 racter that one sustaining it should enjoin upon 
 a young, zealous, and active preacher, whom he 
 esteemed as his own son, a careful regard to his 
 health ; the more especially when, by acting as is 
 here enjoined, Ire would vindicate Christian liberty 
 from those ascetic restraints by which the false 
 teachers sought to bind it. 
 
 Such are the principal objections which have 
 of late been urged against the Pauline authorship 
 of the first epistle to Timothy. Let us now turn 
 to glance with equal brevity at those which have 
 been urged against the second. Of these the most 
 weighty are founded on the assumption that this 
 epistle must be viewed as written during the 
 apostle's first imprisonment at Rome ; and as, for 
 reasons to be subsequently stated, we do not re- 
 gard this assumption as tenable, it will not be 
 necessary to occupy space with any remarks upon 
 them. We may leave unnoticed also those ol>- 
 yections to this epistle which are mere repetitions 
 of those urged against the first, and which admit 
 of similar replies. 
 
 1. In ch. iii. 11, tne writer enumerates a series 
 of persecutions and afflictions which befell him 
 fjfc Axsficch, J.conium, and Lystra, of which he 
 
 TIMOTHY, EPISTI.ES TO. 
 
 says Timothy knew. Would Paul, it h 
 in making such an enumeration, have committed 
 the mistake of referring to persecutions which he 
 had endured before his connection with Timothy, 
 and have said nothing of those which he endured 
 subsequently, and of which Timothy must have 
 known, whilst of the former he might be ignorant? 
 But there is no mistake in the matter. Paul has 
 occasion to refer to the knowledge Timothy had 
 of his sufferings for the Gospel. Of these some 
 had occurred before Timothy's connection with 
 him, whilst others had occurred while Timothy 
 was his companion and fellow-sufferer. Of the 
 latter, therefore, Paul makes no specific mention, 
 feeling that to be unnecessary; but of the former, \ 
 ot which Timothy could know only by hearsay, 
 but of which he no doubt did know, for we cannot 
 conceive that any interesting point in Paul’s 
 previous history would be unknown to his ‘ dear 
 son in the faith,’ he makes specific enumeration. 
 This fully accounts for his stopping short at the 
 point where Timothy’s personal experience could 
 amply supply the remainder. 
 
 2. The declaration in ch. iv. 7, &c. is incom- 
 patible with what Paul says of himself in Phil. iii. 
 12, &c. But respect must be had to the very dif 
 ferent circumstances in which the apostle was whei 
 he wrote these two passages. In the one case he 
 viewed himself as still engaged in active work, 
 and having the prospect of service before him ; 
 in the other he regards himself as very near to 
 death, and shortly about to enter into the presence 
 of his master. Surely the same individual might 
 in the former of these cases speak of work yet to 
 do, and in the latter of his work as done, without 
 any contradiction. 
 
 3. In ch. i. 6, and ii. 2, there are allusions to 
 
 ecclesiastical ceremonies which betray a later 
 age than that of Paul. This is said without 
 reason. The laying on of hands in the conferring 
 of a was altogether an apostolic usage ; 
 
 and the hearing of Paul’s doctrines was what 
 Timothy, as his companion in travel, could easily 
 enjoy, without our needing to suppose that the 
 apostle is here represented as acting the part of 
 professor in a school of theology. 
 
 A survey of these objections, to say nothing of 
 the petty cavils with which De Wette has crowded 
 his pages, and which one can only wonder that 
 such a man should for a moment have deemed 
 worthy of notice, will amply show that no real 
 and insuperable objection lies in the way of our 
 yielding full assent to the claims of these two 
 epistles to Timothy to rank among the produc- 
 tions of the apostle Paul. On the contrary, the 
 entire spirit, tone, character, and contents of these 
 epistles are so truly Pauline, that they carry the 
 evidence of their authenticity with them, and set 
 at defiance the idle ingenuity of men to whom 
 scepticism has become a habit, and who, indif- 
 ferent to all consequences, seek only to display 
 their learning or acuteness in their assaults upon 
 the sacred writings. 
 
 (Comp, the Introductions of Hug, Haenlein, 
 Michaelis, Eichhom, De Wette, Bertholdt, Gue- 
 ricke, Schott, &c. ; Schleiermacher, Ueb. den 
 sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den Ti - 
 motheos, ein Kritisches Sendschreiben an J. C 
 Gass , Beilin, 1807, 12mo. ; Planck, Bemerkwr 
 gen iiber d. ersten Paulin. Brief an d. Tim. % 
 Gott. 1808, 8vo. } Beckhaus, Specimen OLm. 
 
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 erif. exeget. de voccibidis air a| Xeyo/xevots in I. 
 ad Tim. Ep. Paulina obviis , authentia ejus 
 nihil detrahentibus, Ling®, 1810, 8vo. ; Curtius, 
 De tempore quo prior Pauli ad Tim. Epist. 
 exarata sit. Berol. 1828, 8vo., &c.) 
 
 Assuming that these epistles were written by 
 Paul, the question next to be considered respects 
 the time when each of them was composed. 
 
 With regard to the first, it is clear that it was 
 written not long aPer Paul had left Ephesus for 
 Macedonia (ch. i. 3). Now from Acts xx. 1, we 
 )earn that Paul left Ephesus after the uproar 
 mused by Demetrius, and went into Macedonia. 
 Shall we suppose, then, that it was at this time 
 -bis epistle was written? Many excellent critics 
 eply in the affirmative ; and upon the whole we 
 iiink this opinion the one to be preferred. It is 
 *ot, however, without difficulties ; the chief of 
 which lies in the fact that Timothy, to whom this 
 epistle is addressed, appears to have been with Paul 
 in Macedonia at this time (comp. 2 Cor. i. 1). 
 To obviate this objection, it has been suggested 
 that Paul might have written this epistle imme- 
 diately after leaving Ephesus, and the second to 
 the Corinthians not before the concluding period 
 of his stay in Macedonia ; so that Timothy might 
 have visited him in the interval. This appears 
 to remove the difficulty, but it does so by sug- 
 gesting a new one ; for how on this supposition 
 are we to account for the apostle’s delaying so 
 long to write to the Corinthians after the arrival 
 of Titus, by whose intelligence concerning the 
 state of the Corinthian church Paul was led to 
 address them ? [Second Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians.] It may be asked also if it be likely 
 that Timothy, after receiving such a charge as 
 Paul gives him in this epistle, would so soon 
 have left Ephesus and followed the apostle. 
 Pressed by these difficulties, many critics of note 
 have resorted to the hypothesis that this epistle 
 must have been written at a later period, subse- 
 quent to the apostle’s first imprisonment at Rome, 
 and upon a journey undertaken by him during 
 the interval between that and his final imprison- 
 ment. As the evidence that the apostle took such 
 a journey is purely hypothetical and inferential, 
 it must be admitted that the hypothesis built upon 
 it as to the date of this epistle rests at the best on 
 somewhat precarious grounds. This hypothesis, 
 besides, seems to assume the possibility of churches 
 remaining in and around Ephesus in a state of 
 defective arrangement and order for a greater 
 length of time than we can believe to have been 
 the case. It is opposed also by what Paul says, 
 ch. iv. 12, from which we learn that at the time 
 this epistle was written Timothy was in danger of 
 being despised as a youth ; but this could hardly 
 be said of him after Paul’s first imprisonment, 
 when he must on the lowest computation have 
 been thirty years of age. And, finally, this hypo- 
 thesis is directly opposed to the solemn declaration 
 of Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus 
 when he met them at Miletum : ‘ I know that ye 
 all shall see my face no more ’ (Acts xx. 25), for 
 it assumes that be did see them again and preached 
 to them. These difficulties in the way of the 
 hypothesis of a later date for this epistle seem to 
 us weightier than those which attach to the other 
 supposition. 
 
 W ith regard to the second epistle, it is certain 
 ihi-t it wae written at Rome, and whilst Paul was 
 
 TIMOTHY, EPISTLEis TO. 867 
 
 a prisoner there (i. 8, 16 ; ii. 9 ; i. 17 ; iv. 21); 
 but the question arises, was it during his first cr 
 his second imprisonment that this took place? 
 
 In favour of the first, the most weighty consi- 
 deration arises out of the fact that the apostle 
 appears to have had the same individuals as his 
 companions when he wrote this epistle, as he had 
 when he wrote the epistles to the Ephesians, Phi- 
 lippians, and Colossians, and that to Philemon, 
 which we know were written during his first im- 
 prisonment at Rome. ‘ At the beginning of the 
 imprisonment,’ says Hug, who has very forcibly 
 stated this argument in favour of the earlier hypo- 
 thesis, ‘ when the epistle to the Ephesians was 
 written, Timothy, who was not one of Paul’s com- 
 panions on the voyage to Italy (Acts xxvii. 2), 
 was not with him at Rome ; for Paul does not 
 add his name in the address with which the 
 epistle commences, as he always did when Ti- 
 mothy was at his side. Timothy afterwards 
 arrived ; and accordingly, at the outset of the 
 epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, his name 
 appears with the apostle’s (Col. i. 1 ; Phil. 1) ; 
 secondly, Luke was in Paul’s company (Col. iv. 
 
 Phil. 24); thirdly, Mark was likewise with 
 him (Col. iv. 10 ; Phil. 24) ; fourthly, Tychicus 
 was tht^i Paul’s Siaxovos and letter-bearer, and, 
 in particular, vras sent to Asia (Ephes. iv. 21 ; 
 Col. iv. 7, 8). All these circumstances are pre- 
 sented to viev in the second epistle to Timothy. 
 Timothy was not with Paul at first, but was 
 summoned to his side (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21); se- 
 condly, Luke was with him (iv. 11); thirdly, 
 he wishes Mark to come with Timothy, so that 
 he must have been with him in ihe course of his 
 imprisonment (iv. 11); fourthly, Tycnicus was 
 with him in the capacity of letter- bearer, and, 
 in particular, was sent to Asia (iv. 12). l\ow, 
 in order to suppose that Paul wrote this epistle 
 to Timothy during a second imprisonment &t 
 Rome, we must assume that the circumstances of 
 both were exactly the same, &c. We must also 
 assume that Paul at both times, even in the latter 
 part of Nero’s reign, was permitted to receive 
 friends during his confinement, to write letters, 
 dispatch messengers, and, in general, to have free 
 intercourse with everybody’ (. Introduction , p.556, 
 &c., Fosdick’s transl.). 
 
 The case, as here stated, it must be admitted, 
 is strongly in favour of our assigning the com- 
 position of this epistle to the time of Paul’s first 
 imprisonment at Rome. On the other hand, the 
 difficulties lying in the way of this seem in- 
 superable. Hug's reasoning assumes that the 
 epistle must have been written in the early part 
 of the apostle’s imprisonment, else Timothy 
 could not have been absent at the time of its 
 composition. But that this is utterly inad- 
 missible the following considerations show : — ■ 
 1 . When Paul wrote to the Colossians, the Phi 
 lippians, and Philemon, Demas was with him : 
 when he wrote this epistle to Timothy, Demas had 
 forsaken him, having loved this present world 
 and gone to Thessalonica (iv. 10). 2. When 
 
 Paul wrote to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philip* 
 pians, and Philemon, he was in good hopes of a 
 speedy liberation from his imprisonment ; when 
 he wrote this epistle to Timothy he had lost all 
 these hopes, and was anticipating death as near at 
 hand (iv. 6-8). 3. At the time this epistle wac 
 
 written Paul had been, if not oftener, at lotwt 
 
TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 *38 TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO. 
 
 once before (lie bar of the emperor, when he had 
 offered his apology (iv. 16). 4. Tychicus, the 
 
 bearer of the letters to the Colossians, had been 
 despatched from Rome before this epistle to 
 Timothy was written (iv. 12). 5. At the time 
 
 the epistles to the Colossians and Philemon were 
 written, Aristarchus was with Paul ; by the time 
 this was written Aristarchus had left Paul (iv. 
 11). All these circumstances forbid our suppos- 
 ing that this Second Epistle to Timothy was 
 written before the epistles above named, that is, 
 in the early part of Paul's first imprisonment at 
 Rome. Shall we then assign the epistle to a 
 later period of that same imprisonment ? Against 
 this also lie difficulties. Before we can admit 
 it we must suppose that Timothy and Mark, who 
 did not accompany Paul to Rome, had shortly 
 after followed him thither, and, after remaining 
 awhile, left Paul, and were again requested by 
 him in this epistle to return ; that during the 
 interval of their absence from Rome, Paul’s first 
 trial had occurred ; and that, yet even before be 
 sad so much as appeared before his judges, he 
 had written to his friends in terms intimating his 
 full confidence of a speedy release (Phil. i. 25 ; 
 ii. 24 ; Philem. 22). These circumstances may 
 perhaps admit of explanation; but there are 
 others which seem to present insuperable diffi- 
 culties in the way of the supposition, that this 
 epistle was written at any period of Paul’s first 
 imprisonment at Rome. 1. Paul’s imprison- 
 ment, of which we have an account in the Acts, 
 was of a much milder kind than that in which he 
 was at the time he wrote this epistle. In the 
 former case he was permitted to lodge in his own 
 hired house, and to receive all who came to him, 
 being guarded only by a single soldier; in the 
 latter he was in such close confinement that One- 
 siphorus had no small difficulty in finding him, 
 be was chained, he suffered evil even unto bonds 
 as a malefactor, his friends had mostly deserted 
 him, and he had narrowly escaped destruction 
 from the Roman tyrant (i. 16-18; ii.9; iv. 6, 7, 
 8, 18). 2. In c’n. iv. 13, he requests Timothy 
 
 to bring with him from Troas some books, parch- 
 ndenls, &c., which he had left at that place. If 
 we suppose the visit here referred to the same as 
 that mentioned in Acts xx. 3-7, we must conclude 
 that these documents had been allowed by the 
 apostle to lie at Troas for a space of seven or 
 eight years, as that length of time elapsed bet ween 
 tire visit to Troas, mentioned by Luke, and Paul’s 
 first imprisonment at Rome. This is surely very 
 unlikely, as the documents were plainly of value 
 to the apostle ; and if by g>ai\6vr]s , in this pas- 
 sage, he meant a cloak or mantle , the leaving of 
 it for so long a time unused, when it might have 
 been of service, and the sending so anxiously for 
 it, when it could be of little or none, as the 
 apostle's time of departure was at hand, must be 
 allowed to be not a little improbable. 3. In 
 eh. iy. 20, Paul speaks of having left Trophimus 
 sick at Miletus. Now this could not have been 
 on the occasion referred to in Acts xx. 15; for 
 subsequent to that Trophimus was with Paul at 
 Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 29). It follows that Paul 
 must have visited Miletus at a subsequent 
 period ; but he did not visit it on his way from 
 Jerusalem to Rome on the occasion of his first 
 imprisonment ; and this, therefore, strongly fa- 
 vours the hypothesis of a journey subsequent to 
 
 that event, and immediately antecedent to tho 
 writing of this epistle. The attempt to enfeeble 
 the force of this by translating uire\nrov f ‘ they 
 left ’ &c., and tinderstanding it of messengers 
 from Ephesus coming to visit Paul, is ingenious, 
 but can hardly be admitted, as no sound inter- 
 preter would forcibly supply a subject to a verb 
 where the context itself naturally supplies one. 
 4. In ch. iv. 20, the apostle says ‘ Erastug 
 abode in Corinth.’ Such language implies that 
 shortly before writing this epistle the apostle had 
 been at Corinth, where he left Erastus. But be- 
 fore his first imprisonment Paul had not been at 
 Corinth for several years, and during the interval 
 Timothy had been with him, so that he did not 
 need to write to him at a later period about that 
 visit (Acts xx. 4). Hug contends that epeivt 
 simply expresses the fact that Erastus was then 
 residing at Corinth, without necessarily implying 
 that Paul had left him there ; but would the 
 apdstle in this case have used the aorist? 
 
 On these grounds the hypothesis has been 
 adopted, that Paul, after his first imprisonment, 
 was set at liberty, resumed his missionary labours, 
 was again apprehended, and wrote this epistl* 
 during his second imprisonment. Whichevei 
 hypothesis we adopt we shall encounter diffi- 
 culties ; but the latter seems, upon the wholej 
 the preferable (comp, the Introductions of Horne. 
 Hug, Michaelis, Eichhorn; Hemsen’s Lebcn 
 Pauli ; Paley’s Ilorce Pauli nee, &c.). 
 
 The design of the first epistle is partly to in- 
 struct Timothy in the duties of that office with 
 which he had been intrusted, partly to supply 
 him with credentials to the churches which he 
 might visit, and partly to furnish through him 
 guidance to the churches themselves. It may be 
 divided into three parts, exclusive of the intro- 
 duction (i. 1, 2), and the conclusion (vi. 20, 21). 
 In the first of these parts (i. 3-20) the apostle 
 reminds Timothy generally of his functions, and 
 especially of the duties he had to discharge in 
 reference to certain false teachers, who were anxi- 
 ous to bring the believers under the yoke of the 
 law. In the second (ii.-vi. 2) he gives Timothy 
 particular instructions concerning the orderly 
 conducting of divine worship, the qualifications 
 of bishops and deacons, and the proper mode of 
 behaving himself in a church. In the third 
 (vi. 3-19) the apostle discourses against some 
 vices to which the Christians at Ephesus seem to 
 have been prone. 
 
 The design of the Second Epistle is partly to 
 inform Timothy of the apostle’s trying circum- 
 stances at Rome, and partly to utter a last warn- 
 ing voice against the errors and delusions which 
 were corrupting and disturbing the churches. It 
 consists of an inscription (i. 1-5) ; of a series of 
 exhortations to Timothy,' to be faithful in his zeal 
 for sound doctrine, patient uuder affliction and 
 persecution, careful to maintain a deportment 
 becoming his office, and diligent in his endea- 
 vours to counteract the unhallowed efforts ot the 
 false teachers (i. 6 ; iv. 8) ; and a conclusion in 
 which Paul requests Timothy to visit him, and 
 sends the salutations of certain Christians at Rome 
 to Timothy, and those of the apostle himself to 
 some believers in Asia Minor. 
 
 Commentaries: Mosheim, ErJcliirung der beyden 
 Brief e des Ap. Pauli an den Timotheum , Hamb. 
 1755, 4 to. ; Zachariae, Paraphrast. Erkldr. dir 
 
TIN 
 
 TIPHSA1I. 
 
 set 
 
 Br. an Tun., 1775. Wegscbeider, Der /. Br. 
 dcs Ap. P. an d. Tim. ubersetz and erklart. Gott. 
 1810, 8vo. ; Heydenreich. Die Pastor albriefe 
 Pauli erlaiitert. Hadamar. 1820-1828, 2 vols. 
 8vo. ; Mack, Comment, ub. d. Pastoralbr. 
 des Ap. Paulas , Tub. 1841, 8vo. ; Matthies, 
 Erkliir. d. Pastoralbr. Griefswald, 1840; Leo, 
 Pauli Epist. prima ad Tim. Grceca cum Com- 
 ment, perpetuo, Lips. 1838, 8vo. — W. L. A. 
 
 TIN (V"p bedil ; Sept. Kaatrirepos'). If this 
 substance be really intended by the Hebrew word, 
 which seems somewhat doubtful, it. is first men- 
 tioned among the metals which were to be puri- 
 fied by fire found among the prey taken from 
 die Midianites (Num. xxxi. 22). It is also 
 named among the articles of commerce which the 
 Tyrians received from Tarshish (Ezek. xxvii. 12) ; 
 and a levelling instrument of bedil used by 
 builders is noticed in Zech. iv. 10. The Hebrew 
 word also denotes the alloy of lead, tin, and other 
 inferior metals, combined with silver in the ore 
 and separated from it by smelting (Isa. i. 25). 
 
 TINSHEMETH (H D^fl). This name has 
 already been referred to the ‘ chamaeleon,’ but there 
 is no doubt that it also denotes a bird ; for it 
 occurs in the enumeration of unclean species 
 which the law forbade to be eaten, and we are 
 not at liberty to presume that a lizard could be 
 meant, where all the others are positively flying 
 creatures (Lev. xi. 18; Deut. xiv. 16). Bochart, 
 with his usual learning, endeavours to prove it to 
 be a species of owl ; but in that case not less than 
 three species of owls would be enumerated in the 
 series, while many other birds that cannot well 
 be assumed to be clean would be omitted. The 
 Sept, and the Vulgate understand a water-fowl 
 to be meant, the first rendering it Ttoptyvpiwv, 
 and the second, not comprehending the meaning 
 of this designation, rendering it ‘swan.’ Giggeius 
 wavered between these two ; and Dr. Mason Har- 
 ris, seemingly not better informed, and confound- 
 ing the American red species with the white one 
 of Africa, guessed that porphyrion must mean the 
 ‘flamingo.’ The swan, for which some recent 
 scholars contend, asserting that it was held 
 sacred in Egypt, does not occur, so far as we 
 have ascertained, in any Egyptian ancient picture, 
 and is not a bird which, in migrating to the 
 south, even during the coldest seasons, appears to 
 proceed further than Fiance or Spain, though 
 no doubt individuals may be blown onwards 
 in hard gales to the African shore. We recol- 
 lect only two instances of swans being noticed 
 so far to the south as the sea between Candia 
 and Rhodes : one where a traveller mentions his 
 passing through a flock reposing on the sea 
 during the night; the other recorded by Hassel- 
 quist, who saw one on the coast of Egypt; but we 
 conjecture that they mistook pelicans for swans, 
 particularly as the last mentioned are fresh-water 
 birds, and do not readily take to the true salt sea. 
 Parkhurst, deriving the word from DfcJO nasam, 
 'to breathe,’ was inclined to render Tinshemeth 
 by ‘ goose ;’ but as this bird is not by the pre- 
 sent Jews deemed unclean, it may be confidently 
 assumed that no mistake in this matter can have 
 occurred during any period, and consequently 
 that the goose cannot have been marked unclean 
 by the law, and afterwards admitted among the 
 clean birds, with its name transferred to another 
 
 species. The Hebrew dictionary by Selig New- 
 man, it is true, renders Tinshemeth ‘swan} 1 
 but the Polyglotts show the great uncertainty 
 there is in several of the names of both the 
 chapters in question. We prefer the rendering 
 of the Sept., because the porphyrion, or purple 
 gallinula, cannot have been unknown to the trans- 
 lators, as it was no doubt common in the Alex- 
 andrian temples, and was then, as it is now, seen 
 both in Egypt and Palestine. The circumstance 
 of the same name being given to the chamaeleon 
 may have arisen from both having the faculty of 
 changing colours, or being iridescent ; the first 
 when angry becoming green, blue, and purple — co- 
 lours which likewise play constantly on the glossy 
 parts of the second’s plumage. The porphyrion 
 is superior in bulk to our water-hen or gallinula, 
 has a hard crimson shield on the forehead, and 
 flesh-coloured legs; the head, neck, and sides are 
 of a beautiful turquoise blue, the upper and back 
 parts of a dark but brilliant indigo. 
 
 527. [The Porphyrion.] 
 
 The porphyrion is a remarkable bird, abound- 
 ing in the southern and eastern parts of Europe 
 and Western Asia, feeding itself standing on one 
 leg, and holding its food in the claws of the other. 
 It was anciently kept tame in the precincts of 
 pagan temples, and therefore perhaps was marked 
 unclean, as most, if not all, the sacred animals 
 of the heathens were. When in the decline of 
 idolatry the dog, peacock, ibis, the purple bird 
 in question, and other domesticated ornaments of 
 the fern pies, had disappeared, Gesner’s researches 
 show how early and long the writers of the middle 
 ages and of the revival of literature were per- 
 plexed to find again the porphyrion of the an- 
 cients, although modern naturalists have not the 
 shadow of a doubt upon the subject, the species 
 being, moreover, depicted upon Egyptian mo- 
 numents. We subjoin a figure of porphyrio 
 hyacinthinus, the species most common in Flu- 
 rope, although there are several others in Asia 
 and Africa ; porphyrio erythropus, abundant on 
 the south-east coast of Africa, appears to be that 
 which the pagan priests most cherished. — C. H. S. 
 
 TIPHSAH (npDJjl ; Sept, ©eerpd), a large and 
 opulent city on the western bank of the Eu- 
 phrates. It is doubtless the same as the Thapsacus 
 of the Greeks and Romans. The name means 
 ‘ ford and the town was, in fact, situated at the 
 lowest fording-place of the Euphrates ; whence 
 it became the point of trading-communication 
 between the natives east and west of the river. On 
 
870 
 
 TIRHAKAH* 
 
 TITHE. 
 
 this account, and as commanding the ford, the 
 possession of the place was deemed of great im- 
 portance by the ruling powers of the day (Xenoph. 
 Anab. i. 4-11; Arrian, ii. 13; iii. 7; Strabo, 
 xvi. p. 1082 ; Q. Curtius, x. 1-9). This circum- 
 stance explains the contentions of the kings of 
 Syria and Egypt respecting Carchemish, which 
 was a strong place a little lower down the river, 
 at the junction of the Chaboras. Solomon ob- 
 tained possession of Tiphsah (1 Kings iv. 21), 
 probably in connection with the series of opera- 
 tions (of which the building or fortification of 
 Tadmor was one) adopted by him for the purpose 
 of drawing the Eastern trade into his own do- 
 minions [Solomon ; Tadmor]. Nothing remains 
 of Tiphsah at the present day except the name ; 
 but the site is supposed to be marked by the village 
 of Ed-Deyr. The Tiphsah of 2 Kings xv. 16, is 
 usually identified with the above by Jewish 
 writers ; but it seems rather to have been in the 
 land of Israel, and not far from Tirzah. 
 
 TIRHAKAH, king of Cush (Ethiopia in the 
 Common Version), who in the days of Hezekiah 
 came out against Sennacherib when he was mak- 
 ing war on Judah (2 Kings xix. 9 ; Isa. xxxvii. 9). 
 He is the Tapai<6s of Manetho, the third king of 
 the twenty- fifth dynasty, and the TeapKcir of 
 Strabo (xv. 687), with whom the twenty-fifth 
 Ethiopic dynasty came to an end. According to 
 Strabo, he made his way victoriously as far as the 
 pillars of Hercules. The length of his reign is 
 fixed by Syncellus at eighteen, and by Eusebius 
 at twenty years. According to the first statement, 
 the period of his reign falls in the years 714-696 
 B.c. His successful opposition to the power of 
 Assyria is recorded on the walls of a Theban 
 temple, for at Medinet Habu are the figure and 
 the name of this king and the captives he took. 
 That Tirhakah ruled at Napata, now Gebel 
 Berkel, and in the Thebaid at the same period, 
 is proved by the additions he made to the temples 
 of Thebes, and by the monuments he built in 
 Ethiopia. That he was a very potent monarch is 
 evident from his defeat of Sennacherib, as well as 
 from the monuments he has left both in Egypt and 
 Ethiopia, and his maintenance of the Egyptian 
 possessions in Asia ; and although Strabo may have 
 exaggerated his power when he affirms that he 
 extended his conquests like Sesostris into Europe, 
 yet his authority is of use, as it leads to thqapon- 
 clusion that Tirhakah ruled Lower as well as 
 Upper Egypt [Sennacherib]. — J. R. B. 
 
 TIRSHATA (Nfitfpfi; Sept. dOepaaaed), a 
 title borne by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah as Per- 
 sian governors of Judaea (Ezra ii. 63 ; Neh. vii. 
 65, 70 ; viii. 9 ; x. 2). It seems to come from 
 
 the Persic torsh , ‘severe,’ and, in that 
 
 case, would be equivalent to ‘your severity:’ 
 comp. ‘ dread sovereign,’ and the German ‘ ge- 
 strenger Herr,’ a title formerly borne by the ma- 
 gistrates of the free and imperial German states. 
 
 TIRZAH (np.fi) is mentioned only once in 
 Scripture, namely in Isa. xliv. 14. ‘He (that is, 
 me carpenter, ver. 13) heweth him down cedars, 
 and taketh the cypress (tirzah'), for the purpose of 
 making an idol. There is no doubt but the wood 
 must have been of a texture fit to be worked, as 
 well as to retain the shape given to it. Though 
 translated * cypress,’ we have no proof that this tree 
 
 was intended, but it is well suited for the purpooa 
 indicated [Berosh]. The Greek translators^ 
 Aquila and Theodotion, have employed a word 
 which denotes the wild or forest oak ( aypio&d - 
 \avos). The oldest Latin version renders the 
 Hebrew word by ilex, ‘ the evergreen oak ’ (Rosen- 
 miiller, p. 317). As the wood of this species is 
 well-fitted for being worked into images, and was 
 so employed by the ancients, it is possible that 
 it may be that intended, though we have no 
 satisfactory proof of its being so. 
 
 TIRZAH (i“l]f*)fi ; Sept. Qepcrd), an ancient 
 Canaanitish city (Josh. xii. 24), pleasantly situ- 
 ated (Cant. vi. 4), which Jeroboam made the 
 capital of his kingdom, and which retained that 
 rank till Samaria was built by Omri (1 Kings x. ; 
 xv. 21 ; xvi. 24 ; 2 Kings xv. 4). It is nowhere 
 stated to what tribe this town belonged ; but 
 Adrichomius ( Theat . T. S., p. 74) and others 
 place it in Manasseh. Lightl'oot ( Chorograph . 
 Cent. c. 88) seems to suspect that Tirzah and 
 Shechem were the same ; for he says that ‘ if 
 Shechem and Tirzah were not one and the same 
 town,’ it appears that Jeroboam had removed 
 when his son died from where he was when he 
 first erected his idols (comp. 1 Kings xii. 25; 
 xiv. 17). It is not very probable that Shechem 
 and Tirzah were the same; but it would seem 
 that they were not very distant from each other. 
 Thq^jite is, however, entirely unknown. 
 
 TISHBITE ('ntpfi; Sept. ©ejrjSmjs), the 
 Gentile name of Elijah — ‘Elijah the Tishbite’ 
 (1 Kings xvii. 1, 2; xxi. 17) — derived from a 
 town called Tishbi in the tribe of Naphtali, the 
 name of which occurs only in Tob. i. 2, OiVjSTj 
 (see Reland, Palcestina, p. 1035). 
 
 TISRI (p&^fi, from a root which denotes 
 to begin) was the first month of the civil, and the 
 seventh month of the ecclesiastical year, in which 
 fell the Festival of Atonement and that of Taber- 
 nacles. In 1 Kings viii. 2, it is termed the month 
 of Ethanim, that is, the month of streaming rivers, 
 which are filled during this month by the au- 
 tumnal rains. It corresponds with our September 
 — October. Tisri is one of the six names of 
 months found in Palmyrene inscriptions ; which, 
 with other evidence, renders it very probable that 
 the Jewish names of months form a member in a 
 great series of names of months, whici. 'ere ex- 
 tensively in use in the eastern parts of tne world 
 (see Ueber die Monatsnamen emiger alter Volker 
 von T. Benfey und M. A.. Stern, Berlin, 1836). — 
 
 J R. B 
 
 TITHE, &c. p&?K>, Lev. xxvii. 30, 31, 32, 
 &c. ; Sept. Se/cctTTj, soil, fiotpa, ‘ a part Vulg. 
 decimce). The Hebrew word is plainly derived 
 from ‘ ten,’ which also means ‘ to be rich ;’ 
 
 hence ten is the rich number, because including 
 all the units under it. The same idea is retained 
 in the Greek; thus, 5e/c«, 5e'xo//,ai, ‘to receive,’ 
 ‘ hold,’ &c. Se/ca, ‘ ten,’ because the ten fingers 
 hold everything ; and in the Latin, teneo; 
 French, contenir ; English, contain, ten. Py- 
 thagoras speaks of the Decade, which is the 
 sum of all the preceding numbers 1+2-^3-M, 
 as comprehending all musical and antnme 
 tical proportions. For a view of his doctrine ot 
 numbers, and the probability of its Egyptian 
 origin, see W ilkinson’s Manners and CustorM cj 
 
TITHE. 
 
 TITHE. 
 
 871 
 
 the Ancient Egyptians, vol. tv. pp. 193-200 
 For Aristotle’s similar ideas of the number ten, 
 ree Probl. iii. 15. This number seems signifi- 
 cant of completeness or abundance in many pas- 
 sages of Scripture. Jacob said unto Laban, 
 ‘ Thou hast changed my wages these ten times ’ 
 (Gen. xxxi. 41) ; ‘ Am not I better to thee than 
 ten sons ’ (1 Sam. i. 8 ) ? ‘ These ten times have ye 
 reproached me’ (Job xix. 3) ; ‘ Thy pound hath 
 gained ten pounds’ (Luke xix. 16), &c. This 
 number, as the end of less numbers and beginning 
 of greater, and as thus signifying perfection, suffi- 
 ciency, &c., may have been selected for its suit- 
 ableness to those Eucharistic donations to reli- 
 gion, &c., which mankind were required to make 
 probably in primeval time 3 . Abraham gave to 
 Melchizedec, ‘ priest of the most high God,’ a 
 tenth of all the spoils he had taken from Chedor- 
 laomer (Gen. xiv. 20 ; Heb. vii. 4). The inci- 
 dental way in which this fact is stated, seems to 
 indicate an established custom. Why should 
 Abraham give tithes of the spoils of war, and not 
 of other things? For instances of the heathen 
 dedicating to their gods the tenth of warlike spoils 
 see Wetstein on Heb. vii. 4. Jacob’s vow (Gen. 
 xxviii. 22 ) seems simply to relate to compliance 
 with an established custom ; his words are, lite- 
 rally, ‘ And all that thou shalt give me, I will 
 
 assuredly tithe it unto thee’ “15^. 
 
 On the practice of the heathen, in various and 
 distant countries, to dedicate tithes to their gods, 
 tee Sir Henry Spelman, OnTithes , ch. xxvi. ; Sel- 
 len, c. iii. ; Lesley’s Divine Right of Tithes , 
 } 7 3 Wetstein on Heb. vii. 2. The Mosaic law, 
 therefore, in this respect, as well as in others, was 
 simply a reconstitution of the patriarchal religion. 
 Thus, the tenth of military spoils is commanded 
 (Num. xxxi. 31). For the law concerning tithes 
 generally, see Lev. xxvii. 30. &c., where they are 
 first spoken of as things already known. These 
 tithes consisted of a tenth of all that remained after 
 payment of the first-fruits of seeds and fruits, and 
 of calves, lambs, and kids. This was called the 
 first tithe, and belonged to God as the sovereign 
 and proprietor of the soil (Lev. xxvii. 30-32 ; 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 5, 6 ). The proceeds of this rent, 
 God, as king, appropriated to the maintenance and 
 remuneration of his servants the Levites, to be 
 paid to them in their several cities (Num. xviii. 
 21-24). A person might redeem or commute in 
 money his tithes of seeds and fruits, by adding 
 the value of a fifth part to them (Lev. xxvii. 31). 
 Out of this tithe the Levites paid a tenth to the 
 priests, called the tithe of tithes, or tithe of holy 
 things (Num. xviii. 26-2S) ; and another tithe 
 of the produce of the fields belonging to their 
 cities (ver. 29). The first tithe being paid, the 
 proprietor had to set apart out of the remainder 
 a second tithe, tojie expended by him in the 
 courts of the tabernacle, in entertaining the 
 Levites and his own family, &c. (Deut. xii. 18). 
 If the trouble and expense of transporting this 
 second tithe in kind to the tabernacle were too 
 great, he might turn it into money, but this he 
 must take in person, and expend there for the 
 appointed purpose (ver. 24-28). Some have sup- 
 posed that in addition to the first and second 
 tithe, there was another, to be paid every third 
 year to the poor, &c. (Deut. xiv. 28, 29), and 
 that it is referred to in Tobit i. 6-8 ( Tp'nrjv 
 
 Seicdryi', * the third tithe) but other* under- 
 stand the meaning to be, that every third year, 
 called “I^OrTn:^, ‘ the year of tithes,’ the 
 people made a feast of the second tithes in 
 their owti houses for the Levite, the stranger, 
 the fatherless, and the widow (Deut. xii. 26 ; 
 Jahn, Ribl. Arch. § 390), and that from being 
 put to this use every third year, it was called ‘ the 
 third tithe,’ and ‘poor man’s tithe.’ Josephus, 
 however, speaks positively of a third tithe every 
 third' year to those in viaa\\.{Antiq. iv. 8. 8, 22). 
 It seems that the people were left to their own 
 consciences in regard to the just payment of their 
 tithes, subject, however, to the solemn declara- 
 tion 1 before the Lord,’ which they were required 
 to make concerning it every third year (Deut. 
 xxvi. 12-16). Possibly the Levites were not pro- 
 hibited from taking due care that they received 
 their rights, inasmuch as in later times, at least, 
 they paid their own tithes to the priests under 
 sacerdotal supervision (Neh. x. 38). Upon exa- 
 mination it will be found that the payments re- 
 quired by Moses of the Jewish people were ex- 
 ceedingly moderate, and were no doubt easily 
 borne till they chose to incur the additional ex- 
 penses of a regal establishment. It pleased God, 
 while sustaining the relation to them of sovereign 
 and proprietor of the land, to require the same 
 quit-rent of one-tenth v^hicli was usually paid 
 to the kings in other nations (1 Sam. viii. 14, 15, 
 17 ; comp. 1 Macc. ii. 35). Aristotle speaks of 
 it as tc a\aibs v6pos, ‘ an ancient law’ at Babylon 
 {(Economic, lib. ii. sub fin.). In Egypt one- 
 fifth was paid to the king, which was more than 
 the first-fruits and first and second tithes put 
 together. This quit-rent God appointed to be 
 paid to the Levites for their subsistence, since 
 their festive share in the second tithes can hardly 
 be accounted part of their income. They had, 
 as a tribe of Israel, an original right to one- 
 twelfth of the land, for which they received no 
 other compensation than the tithes, subject to the 
 sacerdotal decimation, their houses, and glebes. 
 In return for these, they consecrated their time 
 and talents to the service of the public [Levites]. 
 The payment of tithes, &c. was re-established at 
 the restoration of religion by Hezekiah (2 Chron. 
 xxxi. 5, 6, 12), and upon the return from the 
 captivity by Nehemiah (x. 37 ; xii. 44 ; xiii. 5). 
 The prophet Malachi reproves the people for then- 
 detention of the tithes, &c., for which they had 
 brought a divine chastisement by famine upon 
 themselves, and promises a restoration of plenty 
 upon their amendment (iii. 8-12 ; comp. iii. 9 ; 
 Ecclus. xxxv. 9). In our Saviour’s time the 
 Pharisees scrupulously paid their tithes, but neg- 
 lected the weightier matters of the law. His 
 comment on their conduct conveys no censure on 
 their punctiliousness on this point, but on their 
 neglect of more important duties. ‘ These ought 
 ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone’ 
 (Matt, xxiii. 23 ; Luke xviii. 12). For an illustra- 
 tion of St. Paul’s reasoning on Abraham's pay- 
 ment of tithes to Melchizedec (Heb. yii. 4, &c.), 
 see Stuart, On the Hebrews ; Professor Wilson, On 
 the Priesthood of Christ. On the Jewish tithes, 
 see Hottinger, Dc decimis Judceorum , Lugdun. 
 Batav. 1713 ; Michaelis, On the Laws of Moses, 
 by A. Smith, Lond. 1814, vol. iii. pp. 141-146; 
 and On the Heathen Tithes ; Rose’s Inscrip - 
 tiones Grcecce , Lond. 1825, p. 215. — J. F. D. 
 
872 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 TITUS (Tiros), a Christian teacher, and com- 
 panion and fellow-labourer of St. Paul. He was 
 cf Greek origin, but was converted by the apostle, 
 who therefore calls him his own son in the faith (Gal. 
 ii. 3; Tit. i. 4). He was one of the persons sent by 
 the church of Antioch to Jerusalem to consult 
 the apostles, and it was not judged necessary that 
 he should receive circumcision (Acts xv. 2 ; Gal. 
 
 11. 1). After a time we find him in company 
 with Paul at Ephesus, whence he was sent to 
 Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18), where he was well re- 
 ceived, discharged with discretion the task con- 
 fided to him, and declined to suffer the chufch 
 to defray his expenses (2 Cor. viii. 13, sq. ; xii. 
 18). He then proceeded to Macedonia, and at 
 Philippi rejoined his master, who had vainly 
 been expecting him at Troas (2 Cor. vii. 6 ; ii. 
 
 12, 13). He was then employed by Paul in 
 preparing the collection for the poor saints in 
 Judaea, and, as an incident of this mission, became 
 the bearer of the second epistle to the Corinthians 
 (2 Cor. viii. 16, 17, 23). On a subsequent jour- 
 ney, Titus was left by the apostle in Crete, to 
 establish and regulate the churches in that island 
 (Tit. i. 5), and he was still there when he received 
 the epistle from St. Paul which bears his name 
 (Tit. iii. 12). He is therein desired to join the 
 apostle at Nicopolis ; and it is presumed that he 
 did so, and afterwards* accompanied him in his 
 last journey to Rome, whence he was sent into 
 Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10). Tradition states that 
 Titus eventually returned to Crete, and died 
 there at. an advanced age. 
 
 TITUS, EPISTLE TO. The genuineness of 
 this Epistle is attested by a large body of evi- 
 dence, and seems never to have been questioned, 
 except by the heretic'Marcion, and that upon the 
 most frivolous grounds (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. 
 v. 21), until, in recent times, it was attacked by 
 Eichhorn anti De Wette. It is manifestly quoted 
 by Clement of Rome ( Ep. ad Cor. cap. 2) ; and 
 it is referred to as the production of Paul by 
 Irenaeus (iii. 3. § 4); as part of the divine 
 word by Theophilus ( Ad Antol. iii. § 14) ; 
 as Paul s, by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, lib. 
 i. p. 299, and in many other places); by Tertul- 
 lian (De Preeser. Heer. c. 6) ; and by Origen, 
 in many places (Lardner, Works, vol. ii. 8vo.). 
 The objections of the German critics are founded 
 chiefly upon the difficulty of ascertaining the 
 proper date of this Epistle, and upon minute 
 peculiarities in its style and sentiments. The 
 latter class of objections are so much identical 
 with those already considered in reference to the 
 Epistles to Timothy, that it is unnecessary to enter 
 upon any examination of them here. To the 
 former the best reply will be furnished by ascer- 
 taining, if possible, when and where the Epistle 
 was written ; but even should we fail in this, it 
 would be strange were we to relinquish our con- 
 viction of the authenticity of an ancient writing 
 simply because, possessing very imperfect informa- 
 tion as to many parts of the alleged author’s his- 
 tory, we were unable to say with certainty when 
 he was in circumstances to compose it. 
 
 It is evident from the Epistle itself, that at the 
 time it was written Paul had recently visited 
 Crete (ch. i. 5) ; that, he was about to spend the 
 winter in Nicopolis (ch. iii. 12); and that Apol- 
 loa was about to visit Crete, on his way to some 
 5 thar plr,ce (ch. iii. 13). These points may serve, 
 
 TITUS, EPISTLE TO. 
 
 in some measure, if not as indices to tiv$ exact 
 time when this Epistle was written, at least as cri- 
 teria by which to test the truth of any hypothesis 
 that may be suggested on this subject. 
 
 We learn from the Acts of the Apostles that 
 Paul visited Crete on his voyage to Rome (ch. 
 xxvii. 7) ; but the shortness of his visit at that 
 time, the circumstances under which it was made, 
 and the improbability of his expecting to spend 
 the ensuing winter at Nicopolis, place it out o 
 the question to suppose that it. was to this visit he 
 refers in this Epistle. As this is, however, the only 
 visit recorded by Luke, in rejecting it we are 
 forced to suppose another visit, and to find some 
 period in the apostle's life when it was probable 
 that such a visit was paid. 
 
 It has been suggested by Hug that the period 
 referred to in Acts xviii. 18, 19 admits of our 
 placing this visit to Crete within it. Paul, at that 
 time, was on his journey from Corinth to Palestine, 
 but on some account or other landed at Ephesus. 
 This leads to the suggestion that the apostle must 
 either voluntarily have departed from the usual 
 course in order to visit some place lying between 
 Corinth and Ephesus ; or that he must have been 
 driven by stress of weather from the course he 
 meant to pursue. In either case the probability 
 of his visiting Crete at that time is strong. We 
 find, from the mention made by Paul in this 
 Epistle of Apollos, that he, on his way from Ephe- 
 sus to Corinth (Acts xviii. 24; xix. 1), was to 
 touch at Crete; which renders it not improbable that 
 it was customary for ships sailing between these 
 two ports to call at Crete by the way ; and Paul 
 may have availed himself of this practice in order 
 to visit Crete before going to Palestine. Or he 
 may have sailed in a ship bound directly from 
 Corinth to Palestine, and have been driven out of 
 his course, shipwrecked on Crete, and obliged to 
 sail thence to Ephesus as his only remaining me- 
 thod of getting to his original destination — a sup- 
 position which will not appear very improbable 
 when we remember that Paul must have, suffered 
 several shipwrecks of which Luke gives no ac- 
 count (2 Cor. xi. 25, 26) ; and that his getting to 
 Ephesus on his way from Corinth to Palestine is 
 a fact for which, in some way or other, we are 
 bound to account. 
 
 It was whilst staying on this occasion at Ephe- 
 sus that Hug supposes Paul lo have written this 
 Epistle. As confirmatory of this may be adduced 
 the two other facts above referred to as mentioned 
 in the Epistle itself, viz. the visit of Apollos to 
 Crete, and Paul’s intention to winter at Nicopolis. 
 From Acts xix. 1 we learn that during the time 
 Apollos was residing at Corinth, whence he had 
 gone from Ephesus, Paul was engaged in a tour 
 through the upper coasts (viz. Phrygia and Ga- 
 latia ; comp. Acts xviii. 23), which ended in his 
 return to Ephesus. This tour was commenced 
 after the apostle had been at Jerusalem and An- 
 tioch (ch. xviii. 22). It appears, therefore, that 
 Paul left Antioch much about the same time that 
 Apollos reached Corinth. But Apollos went to 
 Corinth from Ephesus, Paul went to Jerusalem 
 from Ephesus. At this city, therefore, they must 
 have met ; and before leaving it Paul probably 
 wrote this Epistle, and gave it to Apollos to deli- 
 ver to Titus at Crete, on his way to Corinth. 
 
 Further, Paul went up to Jerusalem to keep 
 the feast ; after which he visited Antioch, and ths3 
 
TOBIAH. 
 
 873 
 
 TITUS, EPISTLE TO. 
 
 travelled for some considerable time in Upper 
 Asia. He, therefore, probably spent the winter 
 somewhere in Asia Minor. Now there was a town 
 named Nicopolis, between Antioch and Tarsus, 
 near to which, if not through which, Paul must 
 pass on his way from Antioch to Galatia 
 (Strabo, lib. xiv. p. 465, ed. Casaubon, fol. 15S7). 
 May not this have been the very place referred to 
 in Tit. iii. 12? In such a locality it was quite 
 natural for Paul to desire to spend the winter ; 
 and as Titus was a native of Asia it would be well 
 known to him, especially if he knew what route 
 the apostle designed to pursue. All this supports 
 the hypothesis that Paul wrote this Epistle before 
 leaving Ephesus to go to Syria. 
 
 Another circumstance in favour of this hypothe- 
 sis is the close resemblance in sentiment and phra- 
 seology between this Epistle and the first Epistle 
 to Timothy. This resemblance is so close, and in 
 some particulars so peculiar, that we are naturally 
 led to conclude that both must have been written 
 whilst the same leading ideas and forms of ex- 
 pression were occupying the apostle’s mind. Now 
 the first Epistle to Timothy was most probably 
 written after Paul had left Ephesus the second 
 time to go into Macedonia [Timothy, Epistles 
 to], that is, about two years and a half after the 
 period when Hug supposes the Epistle to Titus to 
 have been written. To some this may appear too 
 long a time to justify any stress being laid upon 
 the similarity of the two epistles in this question 
 of their respective dates; but when it is remem- 
 bered that during the interval Paul had been 
 dealing at Ephesus with very much the same class 
 of persons, to whom a great part of both Epistles 
 refer, and that both are addressed to persons 
 holding the same peculiar office, the force of this 
 objection will be weakened. 
 
 Such is Hug’s hypothesis. To us it appears 
 worthy of all respect. The only one which 
 can compete with it is that which Benson, 
 Paley, Pearson, and several other British scholars 
 have adopted, viz. that this Epistle was written 
 after Paul's firstimprisonmentat Rome, and whilst 
 he was residing probably at Nicopolis in Mace- 
 donia. As this hypothesis, however, is formed 
 solely out of the Epistle itself it can be legiti- 
 mately resorted to only when no other, supported 
 by external authority, can be found. If H 
 hypothesis be not untenable, it must on this ac- 
 count claim the preference. 
 
 The task which Paul had committed to Titus, 
 when he left him in Crete, was one of no small 
 difficulty. The character of the people was un- 
 steady, insincere, and quarrelsome; they were 
 given to greediness, licentiousness, falsehood, and 
 drunkenness, in no ordinary degree ; and the JewS 
 who had settled among them appear to have even 
 gone beyond the natives in immorality. Among 
 such a people it was no easy office which Titus had 
 to sustain when commissioned to carry forward the 
 work Paul had begun, and to set in order the 
 affairs of the churches which had arisen there, 
 especially as heretical teachers had already crept 
 in among them. Hence Paul addressed to him 
 this Epistle the main design of which is to direct 
 nim how to discharge with success the duties to 
 which he had been appointed. For this purpose 
 the apostle dilates upon the qualifications of 
 dders, and points out the vices from which such 
 should be free (ch. i.1. He then describes the 
 
 virtues most becoming in aged persons, in tha 
 female sex, in the young, in servants, and in 
 Christians generally (ch. ii.). From this lie pro- 
 ceeds to enjoin obedience to civil rulers, modera- 
 tion, gentleness, and the avoidance of all idle and 
 unprofitable speculations (iii. 1-11). He then 
 invites Titus to join him at Nicopolis, commends 
 to him certain brethren who were about to visit 
 Crete, and concludes with the apostolic bene- 
 diction (ver. 12-15). 
 
 Commentaries. Most of those who have writ- 
 ten commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy 
 have written also on that to Titus. The follow- 
 ing works are on Titus alone : Taylor, Commen- 
 tary on the Epistle of St. Paul written to Titus. 
 Cambridge, 4to., 1612, fol., 1658; P. von Ha- 
 ven, Commentatio Analyt. in Ep. Pauli ad Ti- 
 tum , Hamb. 4to. 1742. — W. L. A. 
 
 TOB (210 ; Sept. Tcv/3), a region or district 
 beyond the Jordan into which Jephthah withdrew 
 when expelled from Gilead (Judg. xi. 5). As 
 the name occurs nowhere else, some doubt has 
 arisen in determining its position. Toh signifies 
 ‘ good,’ and the Targum and Abarbanel render 
 what we translate ‘land of Tob’ by ‘good land ; 
 while Kimehi and Ben Gerson look upon Tob 
 as the name of the lord or owner of the land. It 
 is, however, more usually regarded as the name 
 of a city or country, and some conjecture it to be 
 the same with Ish-tob, which was not far from 
 the land of the Ammonites, seeing that they sent 
 thither for assistance (2 Sam. x. 6). Jerome 
 makes it a country, but says nothing of its situa- 
 tion. Junius places it on the border of Arabia 
 Deserta ; which is likely, if Tob be the same with 
 the T ovfiiov or Tcafiiov of l Macc. v. 13. 
 
 TOBIAH, a base Samaritan, who, having 
 raised himself from a state of slavery to be a 
 trusted favourite of Sanballat, did his utmost to 
 gratify his master by resisting the proceedings of 
 Nehemiah in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. 
 With an affectation of scorn, he, after the manner 
 of Remus in the Roman legend, looked on the 
 constructions of the now hopeful and thriving 
 Jews, and contemptuously said, ‘Even if a fox 
 go up he will breakdown their stone wall’ (Neh. 
 iv. 3). This insult was the more disgraceful to 
 Tobiah, because his own conduct quickly exposed 
 the insincerity which lay at the bottom of it, for 
 he took a prominent and active part with San- 
 ballat in his unworthy courses against Nehe- 
 miah. In these treachery had its share ; which 
 Tobiah was enabled to carry on the more easily 
 because he had allied himself with the chief men 
 of Judah, having married the daughter of Shecha- 
 niah, the son of Arab, while his son Johanan had 
 taken to wife the daughter of Meslmllam, the son 
 of Berechiah (Neh. vi. 17, sq. ; comp. xiii. 41. 
 These dishonest practices and the use of threats 
 alike proved nugatory. Nehemiah, however, was 
 obliged to leave Jerusalem. By this absence 
 Tobiah profited, in order, with the aid of his re- 
 lative Eliashib, the priest, to get himself com- 
 fortably and splendidly established in ‘a great 
 chamber in the house of God’ (ch. xiii. 4). But 
 his glory was short-lived. Nehemiah returned 
 and caused him and his household- stuff to he 
 ignominiously cast out of the temple. This is 
 the last that we know of this member of that vile 
 class who are ready and unscrupulous tools in tbj 
 
B74 TOBIT, BOOK OF. 
 
 hands of their superiors for any dishonourable 
 undertaking.- — J. R. B. 
 
 TOBIT, BOOK OF (Sept. Tapir, 
 
 Vulg. Tobias , Tobis ) [Apocrypha], one of the 
 deutero-canonical books, containing the private 
 history of a venerable and pious old man of this 
 name, who was carried captive into Assyria by 
 Shalmaneser. The following is an abstract of 
 the narrative. 
 
 At the time of the destruction of Samaria and 
 the exile of the ten tribes [b.c. 734-678], there 
 lived a pious Israelite, of the tribe and city of 
 Naphtali in Galilee, named Tobit, or, according 
 to the Vulgate, Tobias, who was distinguished 
 above his compatriots for his piety and his strict 
 observance of the law. Instead of following their 
 example in sacrificing to the golden calves (1 
 Kings xii. 30), he went regularly to Jerusalem 
 to the feasts, paid his tithes and first-fruits, and 
 was distinguished by his charities. Upon the 
 conquest of Samaria by Shalmaneser, here called 
 Enemessar ('Evejj.fcrcrapos'), he was carried away 
 captive to Nineveh,* where he was intrusted by 
 that monarch with the high office of purveyor to 
 the court Having amassed considerable wealth, 
 he employs a portion of it in relieving the wants of 
 his fellow -exiles, and deposits ten talents of silver 
 with his kinsman Gabael (Ta$aT}\os) who resided 
 at Rages, in Media. Shalmaneser is succeeded at 
 his death by Sennacherib, the oppressor of the Is- 
 raelites, who displaces Tobit, and puts to death 
 several of the exiles, especially after the failure 
 of his unfortunate expedition against Hezekiah, 
 King of Judah. Tobit still devotes himself to 
 the protection of his unhappy countrymen, feed- 
 ing the hungry, clothing the naked, and burying 
 the dead. The circumstance of his performing 
 the last office for one of his murdered compatriots 
 having reached the ears of the irritated monarch, 
 Tobit conceals himself from his fury by flight, 
 until Sennacherib’s assassination by his own two 
 sons, when he returns to Nineveh under the pro- 
 tection of his kinsman Achiacharus, keeper of the 
 signet and cup-bearer to Esar-haddon. His pro- 
 perty meantime is taken away from him, and no- 
 thing left him but his wife Anna, and his son 
 Tobias. He still perseveres in burying the dead, 
 and upon one occasion having rendered himself 
 unclean by burying a strangled Israelite, he lies 
 all night outside the walls of his house, when he 
 has the misfortune to be deprived of the sight of 
 both his eyes by the hot dung of some swallows, 
 who had chanced to nestle over his head. He is 
 now maintained by Achiacharus until the depar- 
 ture of the latter for Elymais, and his wife is 
 forced to support herself by manual labour. His 
 scrupulous honesty during his state of poverty 
 draws down upon him the unjust reproaches of 
 his wife, who, like Job’s, upbraids him with his 
 integrity and his misfortunes. Tobit can endure 
 no more, and prays for death. 
 
 It happened on the same day that Tobit’s kins- 
 woman Sara, the daughter of Raguel, an exile at 
 Ecbatana,f in Media, had to sustain an equally 
 
 * The tribe of Naphtali was, however, carried 
 away captive, by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xv. 
 39), nearly twenty years before. Tobit must 
 therefore have remained behind his tribe, or an 
 historical inaccuracy be acknowledged. 
 
 f So tke Greek, old Latin, and Hebrew of 
 
 TOBIT, BOOK OF. 
 
 unmerited and cruel reproach under the followiu, 
 singular circumstances. She had been betrothea 
 at various times to seven different men, each of 
 whom was destroyed on the day of his nuptials 
 by the demon Asmodeus. Having punished one 
 of her female slaves, the latte- reproaches Sara 
 with being herself the murderess her seven hus- 
 bands. Sara’s indignation at these unmerited 
 taunts at first suggests to her the idea of putting 
 an end to her existence, but her filial duty sus- 
 tains her, and she prays for death or the vindica- 
 tion of her honour. She descends from her cham- 
 ber, where she bad been praying at her window, 
 and at the same moment Tobit enters his own 
 house. It appears from the sequel that the prayers 
 of both are heat'd. 
 
 Tobit, under the apprehension of death, sends 
 his son Tobias to Rages for the ten talents which 
 he had deposited with Gabael. A young stranger 
 of his kindred, named Azarias, offers himself as 
 his companion, and he sets out accompanied by 
 his dog. While bathing in the Tigris he is res- 
 cued, by the help of Azarias, from the jaws of an 
 enormous fish (supposed by Bochart to be a shark). 
 He drags the fish to shore, and by the advice of 
 his companion takes out the gall and liver to pre- 
 serve them for medicinal purposes. Upon arriving 
 at Rages, they proceed to the house of Raguel, 
 where Azarias brings about a marriage between 
 Tobias and his fair cousin Sara, and teaches him 
 to expel the demon by the fumes arising from the 
 heart and liver of the fish. Asmodeus now flees, 
 and is bound in (he deserts of Egypt. Azarias 
 meantime proceeds to Rages, and receives the ten 
 talents from Gabael, who accompanies him to 
 Ecbatana. Upon the conclusion of the festivi- 
 ties the bride and bridegroom veturn to Nineveh, 
 Tobias having received as his marriage dower 
 half the wealth of his father-in-law Raguel. 
 Tobias is now anxiously and hourly expected by 
 his parents. Their approach is first announced 
 by the appearance of the dog, who, according to 
 the Vulgate, shows his joy by fawning and wag- 
 ging his tail (blandimento suae caudae gaudebat). 
 Tobias greets his venerable father, and at the 
 same moment, by the advice of the faithful 
 Azarias, anoints his eyes with the gall of the fish, 
 by which his sight is restored. The joy of all is 
 now complete. Tobit proposes to reward Azarias 
 by giving him half the amount of the deposit, 
 when he concludes a beautiful admonition on the 
 advantages of prayer and almsgiving by the un- 
 expected announcement, ‘ I am Raphael, one of 
 the seven holy angels, which present the prayers 
 of the saints, and which go in and out before the 
 glory of the Holy One.’ Tobit and Tobias burst 
 out into a sublime song of thanksgiving, and the 
 former concludes with reiterating the prophecy of 
 Jonah respecting the destruction of Nineveh, and 
 adds a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 of the Babylonish exile, and of the rebuilding 
 of the second temple, to be succeeded by the uni- 
 versal return of the Jews from all places of their 
 captivity, the rebuilding of Jerusalem in splen- 
 dour, and of a glorious temple. Tobit dies at 
 Nineveh, at the advanced age of 158, according 
 to the Greek, or 102 according to the Vulgate, 
 having seen six grandchildren ; and Tobias, whc 
 
 Fagius. The Vulgate here, instead of Ecb&tano, 
 reads Rages. 
 
TOBIT, BOOK OF. 
 
 survives the destruction of Nineveh (Sept. xiv. 
 15), dies at Ecbatana, at the ag* of 127, or of 
 99 years according to the Vulgate, wherein it is 
 also stated that he saw his children’s children 
 as far as the fifth generation (Vulg., xiv. 15). 
 
 Character of the Narrative. — Tine question has 
 been first raised in modern times, whether this 
 book is a true history or a moral fiction. All 
 ancient writers looked upon it as historical and 
 authentic. As far as we have been able to 
 ascertain, Luther was the first who doubted its 
 historic truth. He does not at the same time 
 conceal his admiration of its contents. ‘ What we 
 have said of Judith,’ he observes (Pref. to 
 Tobit ), ‘ may be equally applied to Tobias. If it 
 be a history, it is a fine holy history; if it be a 
 fiction, it is a fine holy fiction. But if a fiction, 
 it is indeed a right beautiful, wholesome, profit- 
 able fiction, the play of a poet rich in fancy.’ 
 And again, ‘Would God the Greeks had learned 
 from the Jews their method of comedies and tra- 
 gedies as well as much of their other wisdom and 
 godliness, for Judith furnishes a good, serious, 
 gallant tragedy ; Tobit a fine, pleasant, devout 
 
 comedy. As Judith teaches that 
 
 blustering tyrants often meet with an ignominious 
 end, so Tobit shows that however ill it fares with 
 a pious burgher or peasant, who has much to 
 endure in the married state, God is ever at hand 
 to bring to a joyful issue the case of such as, with 
 prayer and good works, patiently support their 
 sufferings.’ 
 
 Paul Fagius agreed with Luther in represent- 
 ing the history of Tobit as a moral fiction, but 
 Eichhorn observes that he had but few followers. 
 Most of the moderns, among whom are Eichhorn, 
 Jahn, and Bertholdt, have, however, adopted 
 this view, to which, it has been observed, not 
 only its resemblance to the book of Job, but also 
 its historical and geographical difficulties, and 
 the significancy of its names, not a little con- 
 iribute (De Wette, Einleitung ). In this last 
 
 particular those writers have also Luther as their 
 precursor. ‘ The Greek text,’ observes this dis- 
 tinguished reformer and commentator, ‘ shows 
 that it is a drama, for it makes Tobit speak in the 
 first person. Subsequently a master reduced it 
 to a regular narrative. The names are a further 
 evidence of its being a fiction, for Tobias sig- 
 nifies “ a pious man"’ (PI'llD, goodness of God), 
 
 from whom proceeds a second Tobias 
 
 As misfortunes do not come alone, he becomes 
 blind, is at variance with his dear Anna .... 
 Anna means “ graceful.” . . . The devil, Asmo- 
 deus, means the “ destroyer,” and is the house- 
 devil, who spoils everything, so that all goes wrong 
 
 with children and servants Sarah means 
 
 “ heroine.” . . . Raphael signifies a “ physician ” 
 (NEH, see Gen. 1. 2), also called Azarias, that is, 
 “ helper,” son of the great Ananias, that is, the 
 chief helper or God. Without his help all goes 
 wrong through the power of Asmodeus.’ 
 
 Luther adds, that this book is, although the 
 work of a fine Hebrew poet, as profitable to the 
 Christian as it was to the Jew. Bertholdt, Eich- 
 horn, Jahn, and others, who consider the work a 
 pure fiction, do not entirely agree upon its main 
 object, although they lean to the opinion that the 
 moral is contained in the words of Raphael 
 (xii. 6-19). Seiler (§218, Wright’s Translation , 
 t. 312), supposes that the book of Tobit is de- 
 
 TOB1T, BOOK OF. 874 
 
 signed to convey, in the form of a moral tale, thn 
 following truth, — that the pious, notwithstanding; 
 all their zeal in good works, have often many 
 sufferings to undergo, but will be finally re- 
 warded by God.’ The author probably intended 
 to imitate the book of Job. 
 
 Others have maintained that the book is partly 
 historical and partly mythical. Among these is 
 Ilgen (fDie Geschichte Tobis nach 3 verschied. 
 Originalen , 1830), who supposes that Tobit is a 
 true but poetically adorned history, interspersed 
 •with beautiful and edifying discourses. Calmet, 
 although he does not go the length of these 
 writers (who consider the miraculous portions to 
 be designed merely as ornaments to the plot), 
 supposes that the narrative has been embellished 
 by various writers ; but it is amusing to hear him, 
 by way of supporting the historic truth of the 
 narrative, attaching some degree of credit to the 
 report that a monstrous serpent, which is still said 
 to reside in a cavern in Egypt, is no other than 
 the demon Asmodeus. Gutmann, a modern 
 Jewish Rabbi, in his learned work ( Die Apokry- 
 phen des Alten Test., Alton. 1841), adopts the 
 opinion that the book of Tobit is a fiction founded 
 on facts. Under any view he conceives the 
 moral of the book to be of a pure and exalted 
 character, and the book itself on this account 
 to be one of the most important among the Apo- 
 crypha. Alber maintains (as might be expected) 
 the literal historical truth of the whole book. 
 
 Author , Age, and Language. — The author 
 of the book is unknown. The old writers con- 
 sidered it to have been the work of Tobit and his 
 son Tobias (Huet, Demonst. Evang.). But this 
 opinion has no other authority than the fact that 
 Tobit (in the Greek) speaks in the fust person in 
 the first three chapters, and that in xii. 20, 
 Raphael says to Tobit, ‘ Write all things which 
 are done in a book.’ Calmet supposes that the 
 memoirs left by Tobias and his son were edited 
 by some later writer, who composed the history ; 
 but he does not attempt to determine in what age 
 he lived. Eichhorn ( Einleitung ) maintains that 
 the angelology of Tobit proves that it could not 
 have been written before the time of Darius 
 Hystaspes, and that the notice of the seven holy 
 angels (xii. 15) was derived from the practice 
 introduced in that monarch’s reign, of having 
 seven counsellors round the Persian throne. He 
 also maintains that the narrator presupposes an 
 acquaintance with the philosophy of good and 
 evil, guardian and national angels, which was 
 first introduced under the Persian rule during 
 and after the exile. Jahn ( Introd .) main- 
 tains that the Magian notions regarding Asmo- 
 deus, whom he conceives to be the same with 
 Ahriman (the destroyer) points to the Persian 
 period. Professor Stuart, however, who does not 
 appear to hold that the angelology and demon- 
 ology of the book of Tobit, ‘ one of the earliest, 
 most simple, and attractive of all the apocryphal 
 books’ ( Comment . on the Apocalypse ),* differ in 
 kind from those of the Old Testament, ascribes 
 the book to an early period of the exile ( Biblioth . 
 Sacra, vol. i.). The name Raphael, which first 
 
 * This new work contains a more recent 
 treatise on the names of the beast than that re- 
 ferred to in p. 650 of this vol. Prof Stuart con* 
 ceives the Emperor Nero to be the person indicated 
 
TOBIT, BOOK OF. 
 
 87* 
 
 occurs vn Toblt, is said in the Talmud ( Beres . 
 Rabba, and Jcr. Talm.') to have been derived from 
 the exile. De Wette, Gutmann, and most modem 
 critics conceive that the age of Tobit is negatively 
 determined by the mention of the city of Rages 
 (Ragae, see Medes), which, according to Strabo 
 ( Geog . p. 524), was founded by Seleucus Nica- 
 tor b.c. 300, and Jahn, in order to allow a rea- 
 sonable time for the name of the founder to have 
 been forgotten, supposes that the author lived b.c. 
 150 to 200. No nearer conjecture can be 
 formed. Seiler (tit supra ) says that the author 
 ‘seems to have lived among the Greek Jews after 
 the time of Alexander the Great.’ Eichhorn and 
 Jahn suppose that the work was written by a 
 Greek, but Ilgen, on the other hand, with whom 
 are De Wette and Gutmann, are satisfied, from 
 internal evidence, that the author was a Jew of 
 Palestine, who wrote in the Hebrew or Aramaic 
 language, but that the original text has been lost. 
 Ilgen ascribes the present contradictions to the 
 ignorance of the Greek translator, and is of opi- 
 nion that the hook in its pris' ine state was written 
 by Tobit himself. 
 
 Authority of Tobit. — Although this book is 
 never cited by Josephus (to whom, however, its 
 existence must have been known), and although 
 the first writer who gives it the character of 
 canonical was Augustine, at a time that, accord- 
 ing to De Wette (Einleitung), this term had 
 acquired the notion of an ecclesiastical decision, 
 its authority in the early Christian church is 
 beyond question. It is cited by Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus (Strom, ii.p. 503), ‘The Scripture says, 
 do that to no man which thou hatest ’ (Tob. 
 iv. 15), and ‘ prayer is good with fasting ’ (Tob. 
 xii. 8). Poly carp also (ad Phil.) cites the words 
 ‘ alms doth deliver from death ’ (Tob. xii. 9) ; but 
 some suppose them to be a citation from Prov. 
 xxi. 12. Tob. iv. 15 is also cited in the Aposto- 
 lical Constitutions — according to Ilgen, in aGreek 
 translation from the Vulgate of Jerome (but 
 comp. Lev. i. 18; Matt. v. 44-47; Mark xii. 
 32). Cyprian also (xii. 9) cites Tobit xiv. 14, 
 ‘ The Holy Spirit says in the Scriptures, “ alms 
 shall purge away all sin” — Eleemosynis et fide 
 purgantur delicta,’ or as in the Vulg. ‘ Elee- 
 mosyna purgat peccata.’ Some, however, refer 
 this citation to Prov. xvi. 6 : e’Ae7 yxoavvais Kal 
 ■niGTCffiv airoKadalpovTat a/xapnai. It is also 
 cited by Ambrose ( Hexaemeron , vi. 4. p. 88, 
 Paris, 1614 s — Talis canis viator et comes an- 
 geli est, quern Raphael in Libro Prophetico non 
 otiose sibi et Tobiae filio adjungendum putavit), 
 who considers Tobit a Prophet, no doubt because 
 of his allusion to the future destruction of Ni- 
 neveh (xiii. 1 4), or his prediction of the rebuilding 
 of Jerusalem (xiii. 16) according to the Greek, 
 for in the Vulgate it is liberavit Jerusalem civi- 
 tcdem suam (xiii. 19). Origen (De Orat. p. 47) 
 says that the Jews reject this book (tt> 8e rov 
 Toj/3tjt avTiKtyovcriv ot e/r trepiToprjs). In 
 
 the work attributed to Augustine, entitled Specu- 
 lum Scriptures , it is asserted that the Jews reject 
 Tobit, but that it is received by the Church of 
 the Saviour (Non sunt omittendi et hi, quos 
 quidem ante Salvatoris adventum constat esse 
 conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judaeis recipit 
 tamen ejusdem Salvatoris ecclesia). Tobit has 
 been at all times a favourite book in the church, 
 red its influence is stl 11 manifest in the Angli- 
 
 TOBIT, BOOK OF. 
 
 can liturgical forms, as in the Offertory (Tobit 
 iv. 7, 8) ; also in the Litany, ‘ ne vindictaro 
 sumas de peccatis meis, neque reminiscaris 
 delicta mea, vel parentum mecrum.’ In the 
 preface to the marriage service there is also a 
 manifest allusion to Tob. vi. 17, according to the 
 Vulgate: ‘ Hi qui conjugium ita suscipiunt, ut 
 Deum a se et a sua mente excludant, et suae 
 libidini ita vacent, sicut equus et mulus, quibus 
 non est intellectus.’ Chaps, i., ii., vii., and viii., 
 are read in the course of lessons, it has been 
 supposed from a comparison of Rev. xxi. 18 
 with Tobit xiii. 21, 22, that the author of the 
 Apocalypse must have been acquainted with the 
 book of Tobit. 
 
 Texts of Tobit. — Th^re have descended to us 
 no less than six different texts of the book of 
 Tobit. 
 
 1. Jerome's Latin text. — This is a translation 
 from the lost Chaldaean. ‘ I do not cease to 
 wonder at your urgency,’ says Jerome (Pref to 
 Tobit) ; ‘ you require of me to translate into 
 Latin a book written in Chaldee, the book of the 
 two Tobiases. ... 1 have done so at your request, 
 but. not of my own wish, for the zeal of the Jews 
 reproaches us for translating for Latin ears what 
 is opposed to their canon. But preferring to 
 displease the Pharisees rather than to decline the 
 command of my bishop, I have done as well as 1 
 could ; and as the Chaldee is nearly allied to 
 the Hebrew, I found a man perfectly acquainted 
 with both tongues, and giving one day to the 
 task, I procured the aid of an amanuensis, who 
 wrote down from my dictation in Latin what 
 the other uttered in Hebrew.’ It would seem 
 from this that Jerome considered the Chaldee 
 to be the original, for he says nothing of the Greek 
 text, with which, however, he must necessarily 
 have been acquainted. The Chaldee text has no,* 
 since been heard of, but judging from the hur- 
 ried work of Jerome, it must have differed widely 
 in several of its details from the present Greek. 
 
 2. The Gree7c text. — This is the text of the 
 Septuagint, from which the English version has 
 been made. Eichhorn, Jahn, and many others 
 consider the Greek as the original ; while tin's text 
 is more copious in the moral, the Latin of Jerome 
 is more detailed in the historical parts (comp, 
 chaps, i., ii., iii., iv., viii., ix., xi., and xiv.). 
 
 3. The Antehieronymian Latin Version , pub- 
 
 lished by Sabatier. This is from the Greek, and 
 Ilgen maintains that it was partly employed by 
 Jerome in his version. It ditl'ers however con 
 siderably from the Greek, both in omissions (see 
 chaps, v., vi., vii., viii., ix., x., xi.) and additions 
 (see i., vii., xi., xiv.). • 
 
 4. The Syriac Version. — This too is made 
 from the Greek, but is also distinguished by se- 
 veral additions and omissions after chaps, vii., xi. 
 
 5. The Hebrew text of Sebastian Munster . — 
 This was first published at Basel in 1542, and 
 again in Walton’s Polyglott. Nothing certain 
 is known respecting the history of this text. De 
 Wette considers it a free recension of the original 
 Hebrew. Ilgen thinks it the work of an 
 Italian Jey, who lived at latest in the 5th 
 century. He makes use of it to correct the 
 Greek. 
 
 6. The Hebrew text of Paul Fagius. — Pub- 
 lished first at Constantinople in 1517, and after- 
 wards by this learned Refoimer in 1542. It i? 
 
TOGARMAH. 
 
 TONGUE. 
 
 877 
 
 ixA properly a translation from the Greek, as some 
 haye supposed, but rather a mixed text formed 
 from the Greek, Italic, and other sources. It 
 altogether omits chapters xii. and xiii. — W. W. 
 
 TOGARMAH (HDim, nD13in, or in some 
 Codices transposed moilfl), is the Hebrew name 
 of Armenia, which in the Septuagint translation 
 is called Qopyapd, Qepyayd, Qvpyayd, and 
 &vpya/3d. According to Moses Chorenensis, 
 the Armenians consider themselves to be descended 
 from Gomer, through Torgom, and therefore they 
 call themselves the house of Torgom . The sons 
 of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah 
 (Gen. x. 3 ; 1 Chron. i. 6). The name for 
 
 Turk and Turkoman , reminds us of HDIJin. 
 
 Armenia was, according to Strabo (xi. 13. 9, 
 p. 529), distinguished by the production of good 
 horses (comp. Xenoph. Anab . iv. 5. 21 ; Herod, 
 vii. 40). This account harmonizes with the 
 statement that the house of Togarmah traded in 
 the fairs of Tyre in horses, and horsemen, .and 
 mules (Ezek. xxvii. 14). The situation of To- 
 garmah was north of Palestine : ‘ Gomer and all 
 his bands ; the house of Togarmah of the north- 
 quarters’ (Ezek. xxxviii. 6). The countries of 
 
 DUX and DD (M ivvas), and also ^IPI , were 
 contiguous to Togarmah (Joseph. Antiq. i. 1.6; 
 compare the articles Ararat, Armenia ; see also 
 Moses Chorenensis, Histories Armen, lib. iii., 
 Armen, edidit, lat. vert, notisque illuslr. W. el 
 G. Whistonii, Lond. 1736 ; Heeren, Ideen, i. 
 1, 305 ; D. Michaelis, Spicilegium Geographies , 
 tom. i. 67-78 ; Klaproth’s Travels, ii. 64). — 
 
 C. H. F. B. 
 
 TOMB. [Burial.] 
 
 TONGUE ; Sept. yAuxraa, <pwfi ; Vulg. 
 
 lingua, os), is used, 1. literally, for the human 
 tongue. ‘ Every one that lappeth the water with 
 his tongue, as a dog lappeth’ (Judg. vii. 5; Job 
 xxvii. 4; Ps. xxxv. 28; xxxix. 1, 3; li. 14; 
 lxvi. 17 ; Prov. xv. 2; Zech. xiv. 12; Mark vii. 
 33, 35; Luke i. 64; xvi. 24; Rom. iii. 13; 
 1 Cor. xiv. 9 ; James i. 26 ; iii. 5, 6, 8 ; 1 Pet. 
 iii. 10; Rev. xvi. 10; Ecclus. xvii. 6 ; Wisd. x. 
 21 ; 2 Macc. vii. 4; for the tongue of the dog, 
 Ps. lxviii. 23 ; of the viper, Job xx. 16 ; of idols, 
 Baruch vi. 8 ; the tongues of the seven brethren 
 cut out, 2 Macc. vii. 4, 10 ; comp. Prov. x. 20). 
 Various explanations have been offered, why 
 Gideon’s three hundred followers should have been 
 selected because they lapped water out of their 
 hands, standing or perhaps moving onward, 
 tvhile they who stayed and ‘ bowed down to drink’ 
 were rejected. Josephus says, that the former 
 thereby showed their timorousness and fear of 
 being overtaken by the enemy, and that these 
 poor-spirited men were chosen on purpose to illus- 
 trate the power of God in the victory {Antiq. v. 
 6. 3.) On Mark vii. 33, 35, Dr. A. Clarke offers 
 the interpretation, that it was the deaf and stam- 
 mering man himself who put his own fingers into 
 his ears to intimate his deafness; spat or emptied 
 his mouth, that the Saviour might look at his 
 tongue; touched his own tongue to intimate that 
 toe could not speak ; looked up to heaven as im- 
 ploring divine aid; and groaned to denote his 
 distress under his affliction; and that our Sa- 
 viour simply said ‘be opened’ ( Commentary ). 
 This explanation certainly clears the passage of 
 
 some obscurities. .Jame3 iii. 8, Dr. Macknight 
 translates, ‘ But the tongue of men no one can 
 subdue,’ that is, the tongue of other men, for the 
 apostle is exhorting the Christian to subdue his 
 own (comp. ver. 13). He observes that CEcume- 
 nius read the passage interrogatively, as much as 
 to say, Wild beasts, birds, serpents, marine ani- 
 mals, have been tamed by man, and can no man 
 tame the tongue ? 2. It is personified . ‘ Unto 
 
 me every tongue shall swear,’ that is, every man 
 (Isa. xiv. 23 ; comp. Rom. xiv. 1 1 ; Phil. ii. 1 1 ; 
 Isa. liv. 17). The tongue is said to rejoice (Acts ii. 
 26) ; to meditate (Ps. Iii. 2) ; to hate (Prov. xxvi. 
 28) ; to he bridled (James i. 26) ; to be tamed 
 (James iii. 8 ; comp. Ecclus. xxviii. 18, &c.). It 
 is apostrophized (Ps. cxx. 3). 3. It is used by 
 
 metonymy for speech generally. ‘ Let us not 
 love in tongue only’ (1 John iii. 18; comp. 
 y Acoacry <p'i\os, Theogn. lxiii. 13; Job vi. 30; xv. 
 5; Prov. vi. 24); ‘a soft tongue,’ i. e. soothing 
 language (xxv. 15). ‘ Accuse not a servant to his 
 
 master, 1 literally,* hurt not with thy tongue’ (Prov. 
 xxx. 10) ; ‘ the law of kindness is in her tongue,’ 
 
 i. e. speech (xxxi. 26 ; Isa. iii. 8 ; 1. 4 ; Wisd. i. 6). 
 4. For a particular language or dialect, spoken 
 by any particular people. ‘ Every one after his 
 tongue 1 (Gen. x. 5, 20, 31 ; Dent, xxviii. 49; 
 Esth. i. 22 ; Dan. i. 4; John v. 2; Acts i. 19; 
 
 ii. 4, 8, 11; xxvi. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 10 : xiii. 1; 
 
 xiv. 2; Rev. xvi. 16). 5. For the people speak- 
 
 ing a language (Isa. lxvi. 18 ; Dan. iii. 4, 7, &c. 
 Rev. v. 9; vii. 9 ; x. 11 ; xi. 9: xiv. 6; xvii, 
 15). 6. It is used figuratively for anything resem- 
 bling a tongue in shape. Thus, ‘ a wedge of gold,’ 
 literally a ‘ tongue’ (Josh. vii. 21, 24; yXdoaorm 
 pia xpwy > Vulg . regula aurea.) The French 
 still say un lingot d'or, ‘ a little tongue of gold,’ 
 whence, by corruption, our word ‘ ingot.’ * The 
 bay that looketh southward,’ literally ‘ tongue 1 
 (xv. 2; xviii. 19) ; ‘a tongue of fire 1 (Isa. v. 24 ; 
 comp. Acts ii. 3 ; Isa. xi. 15). 7. Some of the 
 
 Hebrew idioms, phrases, &c., formed of this 
 word are highly expressive. Thus, ‘an evil 
 
 speaker (Ps. cxl, 1 1 : |1.£2^ literally, ‘ a man 
 of tongue;' comp. Ecclus. viii. 3, and see Eccles. 
 x. 11, Hebrew', or margin); ‘a fro ward,’ or rather 
 ‘ false tongue’ (Prov. x. 31 ; DinGHri p8$6, ‘ a 
 tongue of revolvings’) ; ‘ a wholesome tongue ’ 
 
 (Prov. xv. 4 ; |1EJ^> literally, ‘ the healing 
 
 of the tongue,’ reconciliation, &c. ; Sept, iaai» 
 y\(t>o'(rr]s, lingua placabilis) ; ‘a backbiting tongue 
 (Prov. xxv. 23 ; IflD, ‘ secret ;* ‘ slow of speech 
 
 (Exod, iv. 10; |1EJ>^ 1H!D, literally, ‘heavy of 
 tongue,’ unfit to be an orator ; f}pa5vyA(ti<r(ros ; 
 contrast Ecclus. iv. 29) ; ‘ the tongue of the stam- 
 merer’ (Isa. xxxii. 4), i. e. rude, illiterate (comp, 
 xxxv. 6; on Isa. xxviii. 11, see Lowth). In 
 xxxiii. 19, it means a foreign language, which 
 seems gibberish to those who do not understand 
 it (comp Ezek. iii. 5) ; ‘ the tongue of the learned’ 
 (Isa. 1. 4), i. e. of the instructor. The lexicons will 
 point out many other instances. 8. Some meta- 
 phorical expressions are highly significant. Thws, 
 Hos. vii. 16, ‘ the rage of the tongue. 1 i. e. verbal 
 abuse ; ‘ strife of tongues 1 (Ps. xxxi. 26) ; ‘ scourge 
 of the tongue’ (Job v. 21 [Execration] ; comp. 
 Ecclus. xxvi. 6; xxviii. 17); ‘snare of the slan- 
 derous tongue’ (li. 2); on the phrase ‘straago 
 tongue’ (Isa. xxviii. 1 1), see Lowth notes on vcr. 
 
579 
 
 TONGUE. 
 
 9-12, and afterwards the vivid ’rendering of the 
 Vulg. ; ‘ to slip with the tongue' (Ecclus. xx. 18 ; 
 xxv. 8), t. e. use inadvertent or unguarded speech ; 
 
 ‘ they bend their tongues, their bows, for lies ’ 
 (Jer. ix.3), t. e. tell determined and malicious 
 falsehoods ; ‘ they sharpen their tongues’ (Ps. civ. 
 3), i. e. prepare cutting speeches (comp. lvii. 4) ; 
 
 * to smooth the tongue’ (Jer. xxiii. 31), employ 
 flattering language ; * to smite with the tongue’ 
 (Jer. xviii. 18), i. e. to traduce — if it should not 
 be rendered, ‘ on the tongue,’ alluding to a punish- 
 ment for false witness ; ‘ to lie in wait with the 
 tongue’ (Ecclus. v. 14); ‘ to stick out the tongue 
 (Isa. lvii. 4), i. e. to mock ; ‘ against any of the 
 children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue’ 
 (Exod. xi. 7), *. e. none shall hurt them ; but both 
 Sept, and Vulg. have, * not a dog belonging to 
 the children of Israel shall howl, which, as op- 
 posed to the ‘ great cry’ in Egypt over the first- 
 born, means, not one of the children of Israel shall 
 have cause to wail (Josh. x. 21 ; Judith xi. 9). 
 
 1 To hide under the tongue,’ means, to have in the 
 mouth, whether spoken of hidden wickedness 
 (Job xx. 12; comp. Ps. x. 7), or delicious lan- 
 guage (Cant. iv. 11); ‘the word of God in the 
 tongue,’ denotes inspiration (2 Sam. xxiii. 2) ; * to 
 divide the tongues of the wicked,’ is to raise up 
 dissensions among them (Ps. lv. 9; comp. 2 Sam. 
 
 xv. 34 ; xvii. 14, 15). ‘The tongue cleaving to 
 
 the palate,’ signifies profound attention (Job. xxix. 
 10), or excessive thirst (Lam. iv. 4 ; comp. xxii. 
 16) : ‘to cause the tongue to cleave to the palate,’ 
 is to inflict supernatural dumbness (Ezek. iii. 26 ; 
 Ps. cxxxvii. 6). 9. Some beautiful comparisons 
 
 occur. ‘ An evil tongue is a sharp sword’ (Ps. 
 lvii. 4) ; ‘the tongue of the wise is health’ (Prov. 
 xii. 18) ; ‘ like choice silver’ (x. 20), *. e. his words 
 are solid, valuable, sincere. 10. The vices of 
 the tongue are specified in great variety : flattery 
 (Ps. v. 9; Prov. xxviii. 33) ; backbiting (Ps, xv. 
 3), literally, * run about with the tongue’ (Prov. 
 xxv. 23); deceit (Ps. 1. 19) ; unrestrained speech 
 (lxxiii. 9); lying (cix. 2); ‘a lying tongue 
 hateth those that are afflicted by it’ (Prov. xxvi. 
 28 ; comp. Tac. ( Agr . 42) Proprium humani in- 
 genii est, odisse, quern laeseris). ‘ They have 
 taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary them- 
 selves to commit iniquity’ (Jer. ix.^6) — words 
 which beautifully illustrate the fact, that false- 
 hood and vice are not natural, but are a restraint 
 and compulsion upon nature : ‘ double-tongued’ 
 (l Tim. iii. 8), SiAoyos, saying one thing to this 
 man and another to that (comp. Ecclus. v. 9, 14 ; 
 xxviii. 13). The retribution of evil speakers 
 brought on themselves (Ps. lxiv. 8). 11. The 
 
 virtuous uses of the tongue are specified : ‘ keep- 
 ing the tongue’ (Ps. xxxiv. 13 ; 1 Pet. iii. 10 ; 
 Prov. xxi. 23) ; ‘ruling the tongue’ (Ecclus. xix. 
 6 fSTames i. 26) ; the origin of the right and 
 wrong use of the tongue traced to the heart 
 (Matt. xii. 34). 12. Mistranslations : as ‘ hold- 
 
 ing the tongue ;’ the Hebrews had no such idiom 
 (Ps. xxxix. 2 ; comp, the Bible and prayer-book 
 version of Habak. i. 13). In Ezra iv. 7, ‘ the Sy- 
 rian tongue,’ literally, ‘ in Syriac’ (Esth. vii. 4 ; 
 Ecclus. xx. i. 7). Our mistranslation of Prov. 
 
 xvi. 1, has misled many: ‘The preparations of 
 
 the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is 
 from the Lord,’ literally, ‘ Of man are the disposi- 
 tions of the heart, but a hearing of the tongue is of 
 the Lord. 1 3. The miraculous gift of tongues , as 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 well as its corresponding gift of interpretation, h.vi 
 been the subject of two opinions. It was promised 
 by Christ to believers : they shall speak y\d(r<jais 
 naivais (Mark xvi. 17}; and fulfilled at Pente- 
 cost, when the apostles and their companions ‘ be- 
 gan to speak trepeus y^cra'cus’ (Acts ii. 4, 11 ; 
 comp. Acts x. 46 ; xix. 6 ; 1 Cor. xii. 30 ; xiv. 
 2, 39). In the last passage we have ‘ to pray in a 
 tongue’ (ver. 14), ‘to speak words in a tongue’ 
 (ver. 19); ‘tongues’ (1 Cor. xii. 10,28; xiii. 8; 
 xiv. 22, 26). The obvious explanation of most of 
 these passages is, to speak in other living lan- 
 guages, the supernatural acquisition of which 
 demonstrated the truth of the Gospel, and was a 
 means of diffusing it. But some verses in 1 Cor. 
 xiv. have given rise to the notion of a strange , 
 ecstatic, inspired, unearthly language ; but these 
 all admit of a different solution. In ver. 2, ‘ he 
 who speaketh in a tongue’ evidently means, he 
 who speaks some foreign living language ; the 
 supplied word ‘ unknown’ in the Auth. Vers, is 
 needless, and misleads the English reader. It is 
 further said that ‘ he edifieth himself’ (which, as 
 Macknight justly pleads, required that he should 
 understand himself), and edifieth the church also 
 if an interpreter were present (ver. 28). The apostle 
 says (ver. 14), ‘If I pray in a tongue, my spirit 
 prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful,’ 
 which words in English seem to intimate that the 
 speaker might not understand himself; but the 
 words <5 8e vovs pov signify, ‘ my meaning 1 (comp. 
 1 Cor. ii. 16 ; Vulg. sensum doinini), or, as Ham- 
 mond and Schleusner say, ‘ my faculty of thinking 
 upon and explaining to others the meaning of what 
 I utter’ (comp. vers. 15, 19), though in ver. 15 
 some take 5 i foil as a dativus com modi, and. ren- 
 der, ‘ that others may understand.’ The key to the 
 difficulties of this subject is the supposed absence 
 of an inspired interpreter (ver. 28), in which case 
 the gift would not be profitable to the hearers. 
 The gift of tongues was to cease (1 Cor. xiii. 8). 
 See Macknight’s notes on 1 Cor. xiv. ; Olshau- 
 sen’s Comment, on Acts ii. 4 ; Neander’s Hist, of 
 the Apostolic Age , and in Bill. Repos., iv. p. 249, 
 &c. ; Stosch, Archceol. (Econ. N. T., p. 93 ; Ga- 
 taker, ad M. Anton., p. 120; and Ernesti, Lex. 
 Techn. Gr. Rhet., p. 62. — J. F. D. 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. We have 
 already touched upon this subject in the articles 
 Babel (vol. i. p. 266, col. 2), and Nations, Dis- 
 persion of (vol. ii. pp. 393-395). Trusting to 
 the favour of our readers to peruse those passages, 
 we shall now first cite the part of the primeval 
 history which relates the fact, so remarkable and 
 influential upon the subsequent fortunes of man- 
 kind ; and then we propose to offer observations 
 and opinions upon the narrative. 
 
 ‘ And all the earth was [in the use of] the same 
 language and the same words. And it was in 
 their migrating from the east that they discovered 
 a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled 
 there. And they spake each to other, Come, let 
 us make bricks, and let us bum them completely. 
 And the brick was to them for stone, and the 
 asphalt [bitumen] was to them for cement. And 
 they spake, Come, let us build for ourselves a 
 city and a tower, and its top in the sky, and let 
 ns make for ourselves a name [a designation of 
 eminence, and which may well denote a sign, 
 land-mark, or rallying point, as in Isa. lv. 13], 
 that we may not be dispersed over the face of taj 
 
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 ^rhole earth. And Jehovah descended to inspect 
 the city and the tower which the sons of men were 
 building. And Jehovah spake, Behold the people 
 is one, a*nd the language one to the whole of them ; 
 and this is their beginning for doing [i. e., accord- 
 ing to their own self-will], and now nothing what- 
 ever which they may take into their heads to do 
 will be prevented them. Come, let us descend, 
 and there put confusion into their speech, so that 
 they shall not understand the speech of each other. 
 And Jehovah dispersed them thence over the face 
 of the whole earth : and they ceased from build- 
 ing the city. For that reason its name was called 
 Babel, because there Jehovah put confusion into 
 the speech of the whole earth, and thence Jehovah 
 dispersed them over the face of the whole earth 1 
 (Gen. xi. 1-10). 
 
 Obs. Verse 1 : As the Hebrew word for one has 
 a plural, used in the second member of this sen- 
 tence, but which we cannot imitate, we have ren- 
 dered it in both cases the same , which sufficiently 
 expresses the idea. — Verse 3 : Literally, if we 
 might coin an English cognate verb, Let us brick- 
 make bricks. The existence of such a verb in 
 Hebrew pretty clearly indicates that this simple 
 and early art was in previously common use. — 
 Verse 4 : ‘ Top in the sky; 1 i. e., their intention 
 was to carry their tower to a great height. So the 
 cities of the Canaanites were described as e walled 
 up to heaven. 1 Also the expression indicates pride 
 and impiety. — Verse 6 : The exact sense of the 
 verb zamam is expressed by the common phrase of 
 taking into the head — an arbitrary fancy, an irra- 
 tional resolution. 
 
 I. This narration is given in the extreme style 
 of anthropopathic and anthropomorphic descrip- 
 tion (see vol. i. pp. 66, 161, 267 ; vol. ii. p. 394) 
 Not only was this style the best adapted, rather 
 we must say, the only one adapted, to the com- 
 prehension of mankind in the infantile state of our 
 race, but it awakens our minds to a deeper mean- 
 ing : it conveys the most explicit and expressive 
 idea of a communion of the creature with the 
 Creator, an intercourse of man with God, a 
 revelation of the Supreme Will as to purpose 
 and authority. Let it be expunged, and we have 
 no hold of the all-momentous reality of a mani- 
 festation from the Lord of the universe to the 
 mind of man, which shall be sure in its principle 
 and safe in its effects — the combination of moral 
 desert and invincible power in the Highest Being, 
 and of holiness and love in his administration. 
 Let it be expunged, and any assignable revelation 
 upon the duty and prospects of the creature would 
 be indistinguishable from the products of the mind 
 itself, the mere fabric of its own reasoning powers. 
 The mental picture of a celestial palace, of the 
 Deity coming down from it, of his exploring and 
 inspecting, of- his deliberating and weighing con- 
 tingencies, of his concluding and acting, — these 
 form the first and most childlike form of an ex- 
 hibition of God’s perfections, truth, and dominion. 
 Tin's is the representation which reigns in the 
 earliest Scriptures ; and though, in the subse- 
 quent records of revelation, we can trace a very 
 perceptible advancement, still the principle re- 
 mains in all its gradations of ascent to the very 
 last and highest forms of communication from 
 God to man. The style is ever, ‘ Thus saith the 
 Lord — the Lord spake — the Lord appeared — 
 God spake unto the fathers by the prophets, and 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 873 
 
 unto us by his Son — He who sitteth upon tha 
 throne, saith. 1 We add a passage from a German 
 essay, which, we humbly think, can scarcely be 
 too strongly recommended : ‘ The languages of 
 men, in the first ages of the world, comprised, of 
 natural necessity, but very few words. Those 
 words did not reach to the expression of that 
 which is not cognizable by the senses ; they for 
 the most part expressed only such objects as pre- 
 sent themselves to our organic perceptions, or are 
 felt in our inward experience. When, then, it 
 pleased God to impart to men the instruction 
 which they needed, by appearances, whether vi- 
 sions or manifestations, his wisdom saw fit, in 
 order to convey the knowledge of invisible things, 
 to avail itself of terms derived from sensible objects 
 and sensible perceptions. And, as men cannot 
 pass beyond the sphere of themselves and the 
 things which surround them, it was not possible 
 to bring within their comprehension a repre- 
 sentation of the exalted nature of the Deity in 
 any other way than that GOD should speak of 
 himself as if he were a human being, and 
 thought, and felt, and acted like a human being. 
 Only by means of this wise condescension of God, 
 placing his own attributes and counsels in a con- 
 stant comparison with the faculties and mental 
 operations of men, could mortals arrive at the 
 necessary, though as yet very feeble, knowledge 
 of the invisible and eternal Creator’ (Seiler, in 
 Pye Smith’s Script. Testimony to the Messiah , 
 vol. iii. Append, ii.). 
 
 Upon this principle of Bible interpretation, in 
 itself most important and incontrovertible, while 
 its application to any particular case must be 
 specially judged of, we conceive that the passage 
 before us may be resolved into a statement to this 
 effect : — 
 
 An orderly and peaceful distribution and mi- 
 gration of the families descended from Noah had 
 been directed by divine authority, and carried 
 into general effect (see p. 393 of this volume). 
 But there was a part of mankind who would not 
 conform themselves to this wise and benevolent 
 arrangement. This rebellious parly, having dis- 
 covered a region to their taste, determined to re- 
 main in it. They built their houses in conti- 
 guity, and proceeded to the other method describei 
 for guarding against any further division of thei 
 company. This was an act of rebellion agains. 
 the divine government. The omniscient and 
 righteous God therefore frustrated it, by inflicting 
 upon them a remarkable affection of the organs 
 of speech, which produced discord and sepa- 
 ration. 
 
 At the same time, we cannot dogmatically 
 affirm that this infliction was absolutely and 
 visibly miraculous. It is an undeniable cha- 
 racter of the Scriptural idiom, especially in the 
 Old Testament, that verbs denoting direct effi- 
 ciency are used when only mediate action is to 
 be understood, or permission, or declaration. 
 Instances are numerous : e. g., ‘ God caused me 
 to wander 1 (Gen. xx. 13) ; ‘I have made — given 
 — sustained 1 (xxvii. 37); the ‘hardening of 
 wicked men’s hearts 1 (Exoll. vii. ; Isa. vi., &c.); 
 ‘ I will come up into the midst of them 1 (Exod. 
 xxxiii. 5). See many examples in Mr. Hartwell 
 Horne’s Introd., 7th ed., vol. ii. p. 459. And all 
 such declarations are perfectly true. The Infi- 
 nitely Wise and Holy and Powerful worketh al.J 
 
880 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 things according to the counsel of his own will, 
 ss much when his operation is through the instru- 
 mentality of rational creatures and the free exer- 
 cise of their own faculties, as when there is a 
 miraculous intervention. Mr. Shuckford inclines, 
 at least, to the opinion that the whole was the 
 result of natural and moral second causes, fulfill- 
 ing the purposes of the Most High. ‘ The builders 
 of Babel were evidently projectors ; their designed 
 tower is a proof of it. And if they had one 
 project, and that an idle one, why might not 
 they have others ? Language was but one, until 
 they came to multiply the tongues ; but that one 
 was without doubt scanty, fit only to express the 
 early thoughts of mankind, who had not yet 
 “ subdued ” the world (Gen. i. 28), nor arrived at 
 a large and comprehensive acquaintance with the 
 things of it. Men now began to build towers, to 
 open to themselves views of a larger fame, and 
 consequently of greater scenes of action than their 
 ancestors had pursued. And why may net the 
 thought of finding new names for the things 
 which their enlarged notions offered to their con- 
 sideration, have now risen ? God is said to have 
 “ come down and confounded their language 
 but it is usual to meet with things spoken of as 
 immediately done by God which were effected, 
 not by extraordinary miracle, but by the course 
 of things permitted by him, to work out what he 
 would have done in the world. Language was 
 without doubt enlarged at some particular time ; 
 and if a great deal was attempted at once, 
 confusion would naturally arise. The men of 
 Shinar were got away from their ancestors, and 
 their heads were full of innovations ; and the pro- 
 jectors being many, the projects might be different, 
 and the leading men might make up several parties 
 amongst them. If we were to suppose the whole 
 number of them to be no more than a thousand, 
 twenty or thirty persons, endeavouring to invent 
 new words and spreading them amongst their com- 
 panions, might in time cause a deal of confusion, 
 it does indeed look more like a miracle to sup- 
 pose the Confusion of Tongues effected instantly, 
 in a moment ; but the text does not oblige us to 
 think it so sudden a production. From the be- 
 ginning of Babel to the dispersion of the nations 
 might be several years; and perhaps all this time 
 a difference was growing up, until at length it 
 came to such a height as to cause them to form 
 different companies, and so to separate’ {Connect, 
 of Hist. i. 133-135). 
 
 II. The date of this event we cannot satisfac- 
 torily place so early as at 100 years after the flood, 
 as it is in the commonly received chronology. 
 Every view that we can take of the previous 
 history inclines us to one of the larger systems, 
 that of the Septuagint, which gives 530 years, 
 or that of Josephus, adopted with a little emenda- 
 tion by Dr. Hales, which gives 600 years; and 
 thus we have at least five centuries for the inter- 
 vening period. Professor Wallace, in his ela- 
 oorate work, makes it more than eight centuries 
 ( Dissertation on the True Age of the World , 
 and the Chronology to the Christian Era , 1844, 
 p. 298). 
 
 III. Upon the question, Whether all of man- 
 kind were engaged in this act of concerted dis- 
 obedience, or only a part V we confess ourselves 
 unable to adduce irrefragable evidence on either 
 cide, but we think that there is a great prepon- 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 
 
 derance of argument on the part of the latt».: 
 supposition. The simple phraseology of tire text 
 wears an appearance of favouring the former : 
 but the extreme brevity and insulated character 
 of these primeval fragments forbid our arguing 
 from the mere juxtaposition of the first and the se- 
 cond sentence. It is a common idiom in Hebrew^ 
 that a pronoun, whether separate or suffixed, stands 
 at the introduction of a new subject, even when 
 that subject may be different, and remote from the 
 nearest preceding, and requires to be supplied by 
 the intelligence of the reader. Instances : Ps. 
 ix. 13 (12); xviii. 15 (14); xliv. 3 (2); Ixv. 
 10 (9) ; cv. 37. So far as the grammatical 
 structure is concerned, we may regard the two 
 sentences as mutually independent ; and that, 
 therefore, the question is open to considerations 
 of reason and probability. It is difficult to sup- 
 pose that Noah (who, according to the Hebrew 
 chronology, lived 350 years beyond the time of 
 the deluge; but this we do not urge, for we em- 
 brace a longer series of years), and Shem, and all 
 others of the descendants of Noah, were confe- 
 derates in this proceeding-! Hence the opinion 
 has been' maintained, more or less definitely, by 
 many critics and expositors, that, it was perpe- 
 trated by only a part of mankind, chiefly if not 
 solely the posterity of Ham, and upon the insti- 
 gation and under the guidance of Nimrod, who 
 (ch. x. 10) is declared to have had Babel for the 
 head place of his empire. The latter part of this 
 position is asserted by Josephus, and the whole 
 by Augustine and other ancients. Of modern 
 writers who have maintained this opinion, we 
 may specify Luther, Calvin by apparent impli- 
 cation, Cornelius & Lapide, Bonfrere, Poole in 
 his English Annotations, Patrick, Wells, Samuel 
 Clarke the annotator, Henry, by implication ; 
 narratives derived from Arabian and Hindoo 
 sources, in Charles Taylor’s Illustrations of 
 Calmet, Fragm. 528 ; and the late Jacob Bryant, 
 who, though too imaginative and sanguine a 
 theorist, and defective in his knowledge of the 
 Oriental tongues, often gives us valuable col- 
 lections of facts and sound reasonings from them 
 (see the passages quoted from him in p. 395 of 
 this volume). A considerable part of his cele- 
 brated work, the Analysis of Ancient Mythology , 
 i 3 occupied with tracing the historical vestiges of 
 the builders of Babel, whom, on grounds of high 
 probability at least, he regards as Cuthites 
 (assumed to be a dialectic variety for Cushites), 
 the descendants of Cush, the son of Ham, but 
 with whom were united many dissatisfied and 
 apostate individuals of the branches of Japheth. 
 Dr. Doig, in the article ‘Philology,’ in the Ency- 
 clopaedia Britannica (seven th edition, 1842) has 
 entered at some length into this question, and 
 arrives at the following conclusion : ‘ From these 
 circumstances, we hope it appears that the whole 
 mass of mankind was not engaged in building the 
 tower of Babel ; that the language of all the human 
 race was not confounded upon that occasion, and 
 that the dispersion reached only to a combination 
 of Hamites, and of the most profligate part of the 
 two other families who had joined their wicked 
 confederacy.’ 
 
 IV. Admitting, however, our inability to de- 
 termine, with absolute certainty, on which side 
 of this alternative the truth lies, no difierenco 
 accrues to the subject of this article, What wenj 
 
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 ta« phenomena of the case? In what did the 
 Confusion of Tongues actually consist t For the 
 answer a considerable variety of opinions has 
 Wen promulgated. 
 
 1. Some have supposed that the operation, pro- 
 luced either by a positively miraculous interven- 
 tion, or in the ordinary way of natural causes 
 ander the divine direction, was not upon the 
 words or the modes of speech at all, but upon 
 (lie tempers of the men concerned ; a discordance 
 of minds, an irreconcilable contradiction of 
 opinions and counsels, upon the operations and 
 various circumstances of the building, and con- 
 sequently an angry abandonment of the work 
 and disruption of the confederacy. Such a judg- 
 ment upon the minds of wicked men is expressed 
 in Ps. lv. 10 : ‘Swallow up [*'. e. demolish, frus- 
 trate] and divide [palag^ their tongues. 1 But 
 the declaration of verse 1 stands in apparent op- 
 position to this interpretation, and in verse 6, the 
 unanimity of the people and the identity of their 
 language are distinguished. The learned and 
 pious Vitringa explains and defends it at great 
 length. He places it in juxtaposition with the 
 hypothesis of a sudden impulse to new habits of 
 pronunciation , though the language remained 
 the same. He regards either of these interpreta- 
 tions as perfectly accordant with the sacred nar- 
 rative, but he seems to give the preference to the 
 former ( Observ . Sacrce, tom. i. Diss. i. cap. 9). 
 The quotation above from Shuck lord supports 
 this opinion. 
 
 2. Others suppose it to have referred to opi- 
 nion about religion ant£ worship; applying the 
 word saphah , ‘ lip,’ to signify confession as a 
 religious act, and affirming this meaning to be 
 supported by Ps. lxxxi. 6 (5); Isa. xix. 13, &c. 
 But that interpretation of those passages is, to say 
 the least, very disputable : also, the secondary 
 use of saphah to denote speech or language as a 
 mode or system of speaking, is abundantly esta- 
 blished in the Hebrew Scriptures ; and the con- 
 nection with the term words in the case before us 
 
 • (verse 1) determines that signification. 
 
 3. By many, probably most, learned and emi- 
 nent men, it is supposed that the - ; was a miracu- 
 lous infusion into the minds ai> l the practical 
 habit of the Babel-builders, of languages abso- 
 lutely new and possessing no affinity to each 
 other; or of divergence into varieties of dialect, 
 radically indeed the same, but mutually unin- 
 
 ® ' telligible; or of mere alterations in the pronun- 
 ciation, by permutation of the labial letters (for 
 instance) with the palatal. Some, among whom 
 was the distinguished divine Vitringa, conceive 
 the effect to have been transient, and to have gra- 
 dually worn away after the design was answered 
 by the dispersion ; others, that it was permanent, 
 producing a certain number of great stems of lan- 
 guage, from each of which others branched out 
 according to the ordinary laws of vocal deriva- 
 tion. ‘ The gwat affinity that still reigns among 
 the kindred dialects of the east and the remoter 
 of the west, leads us to suspect that the Confu- 
 sion of Tongues consisted rather in diversity of 
 pronunciation of the same words, than in the in- 
 troduction of new words expressing the same 
 ideas’ (Hales’s Analysis of Chronology , vol. i. 
 p. 365). For Mr. Bryant’s opinion, see this 
 volume, p. 39 ). 
 
 The hypothesis of a change in the pronuncia- 
 
 voi n. 57 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 881 
 
 tion leading to diversified results, some of which 
 might be of persistent influence, appears to us tc 
 have the most of probability and reason on its 
 side. 
 
 But perhaps we need not lose ourselves in the 
 invention of conjectural modes, of greater or less 
 probability, and in which imagination may per- 
 form a principal part. We will oiler only two 
 lines of consideration, as what we think appli- 
 cable to the inquiry. 
 
 1. The all- comprehensive providence of God, 
 — the great chain of dependent causes and effects, 
 each cause being an effect of a preceding cause, 
 and each effect being in its turn a new cause : in 
 a word, the universal government of the Supreme 
 Cause, is the product of infinite wisdom and rec- 
 titude, and can never stand in need of being 
 helped out, corrected, or remedied. Supernatural 
 events — miracles — are such only to our limited 
 perceptions ; they are not so to God. In his 
 purposes and their executive performance there is 
 no deviation from the pre-established, all-harmo- 
 nious course. They are signs and wonders to 
 men , inasmuch as they stand forth in prominent 
 distinction from the habitual appearance and 
 sequence of things ; but they are not so to ‘ Him 
 who worketh all things according to the counsel 
 of his own will — with whom there is no darkness 
 at all — no variableness nor the shadow of turning.’ 
 
 It follows, that we are not lightly to assume 
 the occurrence of supernatural events. Right 
 views of the divine perfections, the analogies of 
 nature and providence, and the current, evidence, 
 of Scripture, forbid our doing sc. The whole* 
 sum of events, supernatural (as, from our fee&le 
 faculties, we will call them) equally with, the 
 so-called natural, is but the unfolding of the 
 latent energies infused by the Creator into the. 
 system of his works when he gave them; exist* 
 ence, and continually operating under his all- 
 pervading afid Almighty activity. It follows* 
 also, that in any instance, we are not warranted 
 to assume an amount of deviation from the regu- 
 lar order of things beyond that which, is necessary. 
 to the effect. 
 
 Therefore, in the case of the Confusion of 
 Tongues , it was not necessary to the end designed 
 that any new language or languages should be 
 introduced into the mental conceptions or the 
 organic expressions of the persons affected : for 
 all that was requisite would be accomplished by 
 some differences in pronunciation, or by a few 
 further divergencies of meaning and shades of 
 meaning, like what we find in the provincialisms 
 and dialects of all living languages. The occur-- 
 rerice of such a condition of things between the 
 rulers and the ruled, the directors and the labour- 
 ers, and that aggravated by consequent mutual 
 irritations, would be quite sufficient to derange 
 their plans, inflame their animosities, and drive 
 them to separation and mutual avoidance. 
 
 2. To some such conclusion as this we are ledi 
 by the meaning of the verb, which occurs here 
 
 twice, balal, ‘ confound.’ Its signification 
 
 is to mingle things together so as to produce com- 
 pounds or heterogeneous masses. It occurs nearly 
 forty times in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers, where prescriptions are given for 
 the compounding of various substances (flour, 
 wine, and animal flesh) for the sacrificial rites* 
 
882 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 There are only two other places of its occurrence 
 in the Old Testament, and in them it is used 
 metaphorically. ‘ I shall he anointed [adverting 
 probably to the ceremonial mixtures] with fresh 
 oil’ (Ps. xcii. 10). ‘ Ephraim, he hath mixed 
 
 himself with the* [heathen and idolatrous] na- 
 tions' (Hosea vii. 8). In those passages, we have 
 the whole evidence from the usage of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures ; and it appears to the writer of this 
 article that the expression describes the conditibn 
 of men speaking different dialects of the same 
 original language ; and that it by no means re- 
 quires any further extension. ' 
 
 The case, however, is one in which we cannot 
 resume to expect positive evidence. The fol- 
 owing positions are what appear to the writer to 
 possess the higher degrees of probability. 
 
 1. That the whole scheme was an act of rebel- 
 lion against the plan of a well-regulated disper- 
 sion of families, or peaceful parties variously 
 organized — the plan which had been directed by 
 wisdom and benevolence, to accelerate the occu- 
 pation and culture of the earth, and the many 
 advantages consequent. Upon the urgent motives 
 for speedy occupation, see p. 393 of this volume. 
 To counteract, this beneficent arrangement the 
 lofty edifice was to be a signal-house , a rallying- 
 point; and probably on the site had been already 
 built, and around it speedily would be built, 
 groups of habitations, not mere tents, but houses 
 with brick walls; so that the adventurers had 
 both ‘ a city and a tower.’ 
 
 2. That the persons engaged in the project were 
 not the whole of mankind, but a body, probably 
 numerous but certainly powerful, of the descend- 
 ants of Ham, with an intermixture of some other 
 Darties. 
 
 3. That Nimrod was their chief instigator, 
 that he became their leader and commander, that 
 some of them remained after the dispersion, or 
 returned to the spot when their embarrassments 
 had iu a measure subsided, and that thus origi- 
 nated the most, ancient kingdom of Babylon. 
 This is strongly intimated in Gen. x. 9-11, where 
 Nimrod is expressly said to have been the foun- 
 
 ■ der of Babel. 
 
 4. That — still speaking under an humble sense 
 of difficulty, and disclaiming presumption and 
 dogmatism — we have not sufficient reason to be- 
 lieve that the differences in the Languages which 
 exist among mankind originated in this event. 
 This is a Held of inquiry far too vast to be at- 
 tempted in such an article as this; and, in addi- 
 tion to its extent, it abounds with entangled 
 thickets and dark places, which we cannot expect 
 to penetrate and enlighten. We venture only 
 upon a few observations. 
 
 1. It cannot with any show of reason be doubted 
 »that the antediluvian world possessed only one 
 language, and that that language passed through 
 the family of Noah to his descendants, and con- 
 tinued in their line down to the limes of sacred 
 and profane history. 
 
 2. We think it. more probable than any other 
 hypothesis, that this original language of men 
 was essentially the same as what modern scholars 
 generally call the Semitic, or Shetnitic, a term 
 comprehending the three divisions of the Hebrew, 
 the Aramaic (Chaldee and Syriac), and the 
 Arabic, which includes the Ethiopic. Of these 
 fcee, we judge the Hebrew to be the closest re- 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 presentative of the primeval language. Its radica. 
 words are few, yet fully adequate to the wants of 
 mankind in a state of such knowledge and happi- 
 ness as involved moral goodness unalloyed by 
 sin ; and it was adapted, by its expansive appli- 
 cations, to assist and sustain the course of im- 
 provement, and for the progress of discovery in the 
 cultivation of agricultural and otlier arts, which 
 would continually augment usefulness and de- 
 light. Those radical words are, to a large extent, 
 the offspring of an effort to produce, by the action 
 of utterance, or by the soimr/itself uttered (ono- 
 matopeeia'), some resemblance to the signification. 
 The letters are all consonants, vowels being sup- 
 plied in speaking. Very many of those primitive 
 words were originally formed by only twu'letters ; 
 and those which had three (the third being usually 
 a subsequent annexation) were made monosyl- 
 lables in pronunciation (see Nordheimer's Hebrew 
 Grammar , i. 74, 75, and Ewald’s Ileb. Gramm. 
 by Nicholson, § 10). All the proper names in the 
 antediluvian history are personally and historically 
 descriptive, and the verb or appellative which 
 forms the name really and always gives the sound 
 and meaning wanted ; which could not be if the 
 compositions which we have were a translation from 
 a prior document in a different, language. Thus: 
 ‘ Ishah, because she was taken from Ish ’ (Gen. ii. 
 23). ‘ Adam called the name of his Ishah, Havah , 
 because she was the mother of all Hai ’ (iii. 20). 
 ‘ Cain [obtained], because canithi [I have ob- 
 tained] a man from Jehovah ’ (iv. 1). ‘She called 
 his name Sheth [set, put, laid down instead of 
 something else], for God shath [hath set] for rne 
 another seed’ (ver. 20^* ‘He called his name 
 Noach [rest, quiet, comfort], saying,' '\\\\sjenacha- 
 menu [shall give us rest ; the verb lies in the 
 second syllable, and if expressed alone would be 
 mwch\ on account of our toils ’ (ver. 29). It must 
 be remembered that, in the early limes of pro- 
 bably all nations, the names of infants were often 
 modified or wholly changed, to be expressive of 
 some fact of personal or family interest. Of the 
 instances which lie here before us, Nod signifies 
 wandering, banishment , and grief ; Enoch (better 
 written llanoch ), cramming as of food into an 
 infant's mouth, and thence, making a beginning 
 to train tip, instructing, educating ; Irad, orna- 
 ment of the city, mentioned in the preceding sen- 
 tence as having been founded by Cain ; MUchu- 
 jael, smitten by God, perhaps with some deformity 
 or some personal afflict ion ; Methushael, weakness 
 from God, possibly having some reference to his 
 father, the last- mentioned, or it may denote man 
 of God, as one peculiarly favoured, in contrast to 
 his father’s calamity ; Lantech, strong young man, 
 probably to intimate his fighting and murdering 
 disposition (ver. 23), for which his son Tubal-cain 
 had provided him with a sword {%) ; Adah , greatly 
 adorned, very beautiful ; Zillah, shade, or tone 
 in music; Jabal, cattle-drover (see ver. 20); 
 Jubal, lively music , musician, he being the in- 
 ventor or most distinguished improver of both the 
 classes of musical instruments ; Tubal-caw,, the 
 man of progress in obtaining, but Dr. Fiirst 
 (< Concordant . Hebr. p. 1293, Leipzig, 1840^ gives 
 iron-smith ; Naamah, lovely . These examples 
 are all that occur in the account of the descend- 
 ants of Cain, in regard to most of whom there is 
 an intimation of the character or history. In the 
 line of Seth, and the genealogy descending from 
 
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 
 
 Noali, as all the names are significant, we should 
 undoubtedly find them the echo of some historical 
 description, if we had any such fragments of nar- 
 ration. In a few cases there does remain some 
 hint of exposition: ‘God will japliet [ enlarge , 
 cause to spread out far and wide\ Japheth ; and 
 will dwell [e. e. God will dwell] in the tents of 
 Shem " (vii. 27). This is the plain grammatical 
 construction, and we regard it as a prophecy that 
 the true God would be worshipped and honoured 
 by distinguished brandies of the posterity of Shem, 
 when all other nations would have apostatized to 
 polytheism and its attendant impieties ; and as 
 tli is was an effect of God's special grace and 
 mercy, it is, by a frequent Hebraistic phrase, 
 called his dwelling with the person so favoured. 
 It is Worthy of observation, that here we have the 
 first instance in the volume of revelation of the 
 Infinite One being called ‘the God of’ any spe- 
 cial person or persons; a testimony both to the 
 exemplary piety of Shem, and to that heavenly 
 condescension which is so wondrously manifested 
 in the subsequent promises of the Bible. The 
 word Shem \iiame, celebrity ] thus expresses that 
 favour and honour, in meaning, though not in 
 similarity of sound, and therefore we do not ad- 
 duce it as an instance parallel to the others ; but 
 it merits our especial observation as an anticipa- 
 tion of that line of Shem’s posterity in which all 
 the families of the earth shall be blessed. In this 
 view, also, we mention Ham , warm , dark-com- 
 plexioned, , even black (Fiirst, p. 1276), the chief 
 of whose posterity, and probably himself, moved 
 into the hottest regions then known. So Nimrod , 
 rebel, from mar ad, to rise up against. We have 
 already referred to Peleg , whose name comme- 
 morates the division of the earth. The word 
 Babel itself has propagated its onomatopceitic re- 
 presentatives to a wide extent among ancient and 
 modern languages ; in fSafidfa, fiapfiaivca, /3ap.- 
 fiaAiCw, fidpfiapos, balbutio, baldordd (Welsh), 
 babble (English), bobbel and bibbel (Dutch), 
 bain Her (French') ; and no doubt in other tongues 
 and dialects. The more we scrutinise this branch 
 of argument, the more its solidity appears. 
 
 In a word, we think that all the positive evi- 
 dence goes to substantiate the opinion, that the 
 primitive and universal language of mankind was 
 one of which the Shemitic, in its Hebrew form, 
 is the closest representative. We venture to sup- 
 pose that the primitive language bore a relation 
 to. the successive stages. of the biblical Hebrew, 
 analogous to that of the Latin of the T welve Tables 
 compared with the Roman classics. It might not 
 be a mere work of fancy to place the parallelism 
 thus : Moses and Job with Lucretius, David with 
 Horace, Isaiah with Virgil, and the prophets who 
 flourished about the times of the exile with the 
 Latin authors from Quintilian to Claudian. 
 
 3. From the history of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, it appears that no difference of language 
 obstructed their conversation with the inhabitants 
 of Egypt, Philistia, and Syria ; and the proper 
 names of the family are all Hebrew and signi- 
 ficant. Bed, in the latter part of this period, the 
 Syriac degradation of Hebrew had gained some 
 currency in parts far to the east (Gen. xxxi. 47) ; 
 and, in the next generation, the Hebrews and the 
 Egyptians spoke widely different languages. 
 
 V. If we now turn our attention to the vast 
 fieljl of the known languages of the ancient world 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 883 
 
 — freely confessing its appalling difficulties, 
 many of them probably insuperable — we are led 
 to put them into three primary divisions, Which 
 we may call classes. Let the first be that of all 
 the cultivated languages of which we have any 
 historical knowledge or documentary specimens; 
 or we. may describe them as the languages of na- 
 tions who had a considerable degree of science 
 and art, and a literature. The second shall be 
 the group of languages possessed by tribes or 
 nations whose abode lay to the east of the 
 Noachian settlements, and of which ancient 
 history gives us scarcely any information. The 
 third must comprehend those which lay at and 
 beyond the outskirts of civilization. 
 
 The first divides itself into two branches, the 
 Shemitic and the Sanscritic. 
 
 The Shemitic (or, as some write, Semitic), a 
 term brought into use by the late J. G. Eichhorn, 
 to express the relation of the Hebraistic family of 
 languages to the patriarch Shem. The term is 
 generally acquiesced in, though it is not strictly 
 applicable ; for it is undoubted that, besides the 
 posterity of Shem, other families and nations used 
 this language in one or other of its varieties. 
 One incontrovertible and very striking exception 
 is, that the Canaanitish tribes, descendants of 
 Ham by his worst son, spoke it, and, we have 
 good grounds of belief, in its primitive and purest 
 form. Dr. Prichard prefers, for this distinction, 
 the term Syro-Arabian ; but that has the disad- 
 vantage of throwing into the shade the most im- 
 portant branch of all ; it seems not logical to 
 merge the Hebrew in the Syriac. Our opinion, 
 but not dogmatical assertion, is, that this primi- 
 tive Shemitic was the universal language of men 
 before the flood, and for some ages after ; and that 
 its best and most unaltered form came forth in 
 the speech and writings of Job and Moses. Of 
 this language, the distinguished philologist Ewald 
 has said, thar ‘it stands one degree nearer [than 
 the Sanscrit] to the simplicity of nature and 
 antiquity ; but it possesses, on the other hand, the 
 warmest feeling, the most enchanting and child- 
 like truthfulness, with the most delightful natural- 
 ness and clearness. That primitive and natural 
 artlessness can be recognised in it more easily 
 than in any other language 1 ( Heb . Gramm., 
 transl. by Nicholson, § 16, 17). We see its early 
 state of majestic simplicity in the books of Moses, 
 its most polished condition in the period which 
 includes Davkl and Isaiah, and its decline in the 
 century before the captivity; after which humi- 
 liating and depressing event it ceased to be the 
 spoken language of the people ; and the last 
 compositions that we have in it are the narratives 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah, the prophecies of Daniel, 
 Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and probably a 
 number of the Psalms. In this period of twelve 
 hundred years, notwithstanding the course at 
 which we have hinted of advancement and decay, 
 the difference is more in the genius and spirit than 
 in the grammatical forms. The uniformity of the 
 language is preserved far more than in the history 
 of any European living language. Compare it, for 
 example, with the changes in English, German, 
 Dutch, or French, within only the last four hun- 
 dred years. But this high degree of fixedness is a 
 property of the Asiatic languages. The classical 
 Chinese of the present day is the very same aa 
 that of Confucius twenty-three centuries ago. 
 
884 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 In the countries north of Palestine, theShemitic 
 developed itself, or more probably degenerated, 
 into the harsh, impoverished, and clumsy Ara- 
 maic : and this again separated into two dialects, 
 the Eastern, usually called Chaldee, and the 
 Western, or Syriac. ‘ But,’ says Professor Ewald, 
 
 ‘ in the south, among the never-conquered Arabs, 
 it preserved greater purity and sweetness, and a 
 greater richness of formations and words ; many of 
 which excellences are found in the Ethiopic lan- 
 guage, a very old daughter of the Arabic ’ (Heb. 
 Gramm., § i ). 
 
 Our second division of cultivated languages we 
 venture to denominate Sanscritic, in order to in- 
 clude both that most remarkable phenomenon, the 
 Sanscrit, a language whose very existence was 
 scarcely known seventy years ago, whose origin 
 is concealed in remotest antiquity, and which 
 possesses the perfections of language, natural and 
 artificial, in a degree almost unrivalled; and the 
 Zend , supposed to be allied to the Sanscrit, and 
 to be the mother-form of the most ancient Persian. 
 To this division the late Professor Gesenius gave 
 the name of Itido- Germanic, which others have 
 improved into Indo-European. The researches of 
 that able philologist, and the not less distinguished 
 Professors A. W. Schlegel (treading in the path 
 opened by Carey and the oilier Serampore mis- 
 sionaries), Bopp, Rask, Burnouf, Bolden, Lassen, 
 Wilson, and other honoured names, have esta- 
 blished the fact that the principal languages of 
 India on this side the Ganges, the Persian, the 
 Armenian, and the stems of the great European 
 languages, Celtic, Gothic, Sclavonic, Greek, and 
 Latin, have been derived from this amazingly 
 fertile root. 
 
 A British nobleman, deservedly honoured for 
 his attainments and his services in science and 
 literature, has given the following summary of 
 the relations of the Sanscrit : ‘^'his language,’ 
 says Lord Francis Egerton, ‘ will tie found to in- 
 terest the philologer of every country in Europe. 
 The subjects of every government in Europe are 
 writing and speaking living derivatives of that 
 language — every university is occupied in teach- 
 ing its two noblest extinct varieties ; and philo- 
 logy must cease to exist as a study and a science, 
 when interest ceases to attach to the exploration 
 of a connection so curious and so extensive as that 
 which binds together the members of the Indo- 
 Germanic family. In this point of view, the 
 Sanscrit claims an indisputable preference, as a 
 subject of European research, over the two other 
 great streams of language which seem to have 
 descended from the Caucasus — the Semitic, and 
 the monosyllabic system which has pervaded 
 China 1 ( On the Study of Sanscrit, in the 
 Classical Museum, Oct. 1844, p. 248). 
 
 The question arises, Was there any affinity, or 
 other connection, between the Shemitic and the 
 Sanscrit, in their earliest stage of existence ? To 
 this inquiry we fear that a satisfactory answer can- 
 not be given. The existence and the extraordinary 
 characters of the Sanscrit literature form a pro- 
 blem which we do not hope to see resolved. That 
 there was some primeval affinity we can scarcely 
 doubt; but the vestiges of it have probably been 
 •bscured and obliterated in the wonderful pro- 
 cess of philosophical elaboration to which the 
 Sanscrit has been subjected, it is supposed under 
 tne influence of the court of Benares and the great 
 
 poets who there flourished a little before th* 
 Christian era. The following sentences from 
 Ewald indicate his opinion that, there really was 
 an original affinity : ‘ We learn, from the inves- 
 tigation of the primitive elements of the Semitic 
 language, that its beginnings or roots, line those 
 of all other languages, were short monosyllabic 
 words. Hence arises the great connection which 
 these roots have with Indo-Germanic roots; a 
 connection the less astonishing, as the territories 
 of both these families afterwards also bordered on 
 one another in Asia. Formation has become the 
 predominant principle of the Semitic language. 
 In this [system of] formation, the Semitic lan- 
 guage lias, it is true, more simplicity and fresh- 
 ness, and much that is finer and more regular, 
 than the Indo-germanic family ; but in general 
 it has not. reached the high degree of perfection 
 which distinguishes the latter. To the power of 
 composition [as in the Greek], a chief ornament 
 of the Sanscrit, family of language, the Semitic 
 has not advanced. Like the whole genius of the 
 Semitic nations, like their poetry and religion, 
 their language also, as opposed to the Indo-Ger- 
 manic, possesses rather keen sensibility of heart 
 and spirit, than rest and extended scope of 
 thought and fancy; more lyric and poetical, 
 than epic and oratorical elements. It is the 
 business of Hebrew grammar everywhere to 
 point out this central position of the Hebrew, 
 between the most unformed, e. g. Chinese, and 
 the most perfectly developed language, e. g. the 
 Indo- Germanic] (Hob. Gramm. § 13-17). 
 
 The Chinese spoken language (for the written 
 is only a rude system of picture-signs of ideas, 
 not of vocal sounds) has a striking character of 
 deficiency and powerless ness. It consists of a 
 few more than 300 monosyllables, each being a 
 consonant followed by a vowel. One might con- 
 jecture that, by combining some of these radicals, 
 compound words would be formed ; but this is 
 not the case. The multiplication of words is oniy 
 by varying the tone ; and of such variations there 
 are at least ten or twelve, some of which are with 
 difficulty perceivable by a foreign ear. The en- 
 durance of so miserable a method of intercourse, 
 for above three thousand years, however consistent 
 with the surprising fixedness of manners and 
 habits which characterizes the millions of China, 
 cannot but astonish us. Whence could be de- 
 rived that strange immutability, hostile to the 
 most rational interests' of our nature, checking 
 every tendency to improvement, and debasing 
 the soul of man to wretched servility? Is it not 
 a striking proof of a hateful usurpation, the do- 
 minion of the prince of darkness, ‘the spirit 
 which even now worketh in the children ofViso- 
 bedience?’ The same system subsists in other 
 tribes and nations bordering upon China properly 
 so called, the inhabitants of Cochin-China, Siam, 
 Japan, &c. But the origin of such a language 
 is as difficult to account for as its retention. Mr. 
 Shuckford has raised the hypothesis, and he is 
 followed by the authors of the Ancient Universal 
 History , tha.t before or at f he time of the Shinar 
 revolt, Noah with a party of his descendants, 
 most probably voluntary separatists from different 
 families, removed themselves eastwards ; and 
 that from them the whole population of which 
 we are speaking was derived. He adduces nt 
 contemptible reasons in support of this hypothesis. 
 
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 The Chinese traditions concerning Fohee, the 
 alleged founder and first monarch of their nation, 
 or, as Sir John Barrow deduces from the Chinese 
 traditions, the third, have remarkable points of 
 coincidence with the history of Noah. Shuck- 
 ford places the residence of the great patriarch, 
 after the deluge, in Thibet or Tartary, north of 
 the Coosh ai d the Himalaya mountains, and 
 supposes that his offspring spread down south- 
 ward to India, and eastward to China ; ‘ and so,’ 
 he adds, ‘ it is probable that they also peopled 
 Scythia [meaning no doubt Tartary], and after- 
 ward the more northern continent; and, if Ame- 
 rica be anywhere joined to it, perhaps all that 
 nart of the world came from these originals’ ( Con- 
 nection , vol. i. p. 104). In Mr. Shuck ford’s 
 time, Behring’s Straits were unknown; nor could 
 he know much of the * traits of resemblance in 
 the manners, laws, arts, and institutions of the 
 two nations [Chinese and Peruvians], which, in 
 our opinion, are too numerous, striking, and pe- 
 culiar, to be the effect of chance’ (Mr. Charles 
 Maclaren, in the Encyclop. Brit., vol. ii. p. 626, 
 7th ed.). 
 
 But there are languages, of unknown number 
 and variety, which cannot be reduced to any of 
 the classes and kinds of which we have been 
 writing. Such are those of the inhabitants of 
 India before the arrival of the Hindoo nations, 
 supposed to be now represented by mountain- 
 tribes in the Himalayas, the Siugalese, the inha- 
 bitants of the extreme nortn-east of Asia, the 
 people of Southern Africa, those of America, 
 from the frozen ocean of the north to the southern 
 extremity, and the Australian tribes. With re- 
 gard to these, we know most concerning the 
 American tribes or nations. They and their 
 languages form a very great number, probably 
 not fewer than four hundred, though many of 
 these may be dialects at a second or third stage 
 of derivation from an earlier form of speech. 
 The materials of which they are made (the sounds 
 of the radical words) differ much ; but they re- 
 semble each other in the extreme complication of 
 their forms. ‘ In America, from the country of 
 the Esquimaux to the banks of the Orinoko, and 
 again from those torrid banks to the frozen cli- 
 mate of the Straits of Magellan, mother-tongues, 
 entirely different with regard to their roots, have, 
 if we may use the expression, the same physio- 
 gnomy. Striking analogies of grammatical con- 
 struction have been recognised, not only in the 
 more perfect languages, as that of the Incas, the 
 Aymara, the Guarani, the Mexican, and the 
 Cora, but also in languages extremely rude. 
 Idioms, the roots of which do not resemble each 
 other more than the roots of the Sclavonian and 
 the Biscayan, have resemblances of internal me- 
 chanism, similar to those which are found in the 
 Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, and the German 
 languages’ (William von Humboldt, in Dr. 
 Prichard's Nat. Hist, of Man, 1843, p. 358). 
 ‘ Amidst that great diversity of American lan- 
 guages, considered ordy in reference to their vo- 
 cabularies, the similarity of their structure and 
 grammatical forms has been observed and pointed 
 out by the American philologists. The result 
 appears to prove that all the languages, not only 
 of our own [North American] Indians, but of 
 the native inhabitants of America, fnm the Arc- 
 tic Ocean to Cape Horn, have, as ar as they 
 
 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 885 
 
 have been investigated, a distinct character com- 
 mon to all, and apparently differing from any of 
 those of the other continent with which we are 
 most familiar’ (Gallatin’s A rchceol. Amer , quoted 
 by Dr. Prichard). ‘ There exist, in both Ame- 
 ricas, linguistic formula?, which Balbi refers to a 
 Semitic and even Hebrew affinity ; and many 
 words in the Carib tongue, particularly among 
 the trading, vagrant, and lighting Accawas, hate 
 striking resemblances to the languages of ancient 
 Syria and Carthage’ ( Col. Hamilton Smith, On 
 the Original Population of America , in the 
 Edinb. Philos. Journal, Jan. 1845, p. 11). 
 
 We have reason also to believe that there are a 
 few scattered fragments of tribes, situated in 
 fastnesses of hardly accessible regions in other 
 parts of the world, whose languages are little 
 known, and are therefore as yet incapable of being 
 brought into any classification. 
 
 We now shall conclude this disquisition by a 
 brief statement of the inferences which to us ap- 
 pear to possess the greatest degree of probability ; 
 premising that there are obscurities and difficulties 
 in almost every part of the subject, which we do 
 not pretend or hope to remove. 
 
 1. The original language of mankind wa3 a 
 form of that which was preserved in the post- 
 diluvian world, principally in the line of Shem ; 
 a form to which the subsequent Hebrew bore, 
 and, with its necessary changes and improvements, 
 still bears, the closest resemblance. 
 
 2. This was the universal language till many 
 centuries after the flood. 
 
 3. Deflections from it arose, in various modes 
 and degrees, after the general separation and wide 
 dispersion of clans and tribes; the causes and 
 occasions of those alterations were natural and 
 human, arising from physical and historical 
 causes, such as climate, peculiar conformation of 
 individuals, imitation of those erratic examples, 
 caprice, and the intercourse of tribes after sepa- 
 ration. 
 
 4. The variety of languages existing, or having 
 existed, among mankind, may be traced back, 
 with approximation to probability, to one source, 
 the family of Noah, as the representative of the 
 antediluvian world. 
 
 5. The dispersion of the Babel-builders was 
 attended by circumstances of discord and violence. 
 Some of them gained the mastery, and, under the 
 government of Nimrod, retained possession of the 
 city and the unfinished tower. The rest migrated, 
 probably in hostile parties, to different regions. 
 Whether the change in their speech affected the 
 substance of language, or consisted only in the 
 pronunciation, and whether it was temporary or 
 permanent, cannot be with certainty determined. 
 
 6. The greatest degree of alteration from any 
 assumed primeval standard, attaches to the Ame- 
 rican branches. Perhaps the conjecture might not 
 be dismissed as absurd, that the fugitives from 
 Shiuar, or their early descendants, were the first 
 settlers in America ; whether by making their way 
 to the north-east coast of Asia, or upon isthmuses 
 or chains of islands which have been since sub- 
 merged (not impossible nor improbable; and the 
 old traditions of Atlantis may have originated in 
 some fact of this kind), or by drifted canoes. 
 Hence a reason might be given for the monstrously 
 entangled forms of those languages. 
 
 7. The- whole question runs parallel to that 
 
886 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF. 
 
 concerning the derivation of all mankind from a 
 common ancestry, the family of Noah. The 
 range of argument and difficulty is nearly if not 
 entirely equal ; and we humbly think that the 
 resulting problems are insoluble by mortals in 
 the present state. 
 
 The following are the principal passages of 
 ancient authors, rescued from the wreck of time 
 by the quotations of Josephus and Eusebius. It 
 scarcely need be said that we do not adduce these 
 fragments as authorities, in any other sense than 
 that they repeat the traditional narratives which 
 had descended from the remotest antiquity among 
 the people to whom they relate. The ‘ Sibyl ’ 
 cited by Josephus is the fictitious appellation of 
 some unknown author, probably about the second 
 century nc. Alexander Cornelius Polyhistor 
 flourished about one hundred years before Christ. 
 Eupolemus was probably an Asiatic Greek, two 
 or three centuries earlier. Abydenus (if lie was 
 Palaephatus) lived in the middle of the fourth 
 century b.c. 
 
 ‘ Concerning this tower, and the discordance of 
 language among men, the Sibyl also makes men- 
 tion, saying thus : “All men having one language, 
 some of them built a very high tower, as if they 
 proposed by means of it to climb to heaven : but 
 the gods, by sending storms of wind, overthrew 
 the tower, and gave to each person a peculiar 
 language ;«and on this account the city came to 
 be called Babylon 1 ' 1 (Joseph. Antiq. i. 4. 3). 
 
 The Sibyl here quoted may be that very ancient 
 anonymous authority, to which we have obscure 
 references (in the discourse of Theophilus to Auto- 
 lycus) in Plutarch's Morals, in Virgil's Pollio, 
 and in the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus. 
 
 ‘ Alexander Polyhistor — a man of the highest 
 celebrity for talents and attainments, in the esti- 
 mation of those Greeks who are the most pro- 
 foundly and accurately learned — has the follow- 
 ing passage : “ Eupolemus, in his book concerning 
 the Jews of Assyria, says that the city of Babylon 
 was first built by those who had been preserved 
 from the deluge ; that they were giants [the 
 Greeks used this word to signify, not so much 
 men of enormous stature, as their mythological 
 heroes, of great prowess, and defying the gods] ; 
 that they also erected the tower of which history 
 gives account ; but that it was overthrown by the 
 mighty power from God, and consequently the 
 giants were scattered abroad over the whole 
 earth ■’ (Euseb., Prcepar. Evang., Col. 1688). 
 
 ‘Further, with respect to the narrative of Moses 
 concerning the building of the tower, and how, 
 from one tongue, they were confounded so as to 
 be brought into the use of many dialects, the 
 author before mentioned [Abydenus], in his book 
 concerning the Assyrians, gives his confirmation 
 in these words : “ There are some who say that 
 the first men sprung out of the earth ; that they 
 boasted of their strength and size ; that they con- 
 temptuously maintained themselves to be superior 
 to the gods ; that they erected a lofty tower, where 
 now is Babylon ; then, when it had been carried 
 on almost up to heaven, the very winds came to 
 assist the gods, and overthrew the vast structure 
 upon its’djuilders. Its ruins were called Babylon. 
 The men, who before had possessed one tongue, 
 were brought by the gods to a many-sounding 
 voice ; and afterwards war arose between Cronus 
 [Saturn] and Titan. Moreover, the place in 
 
 TOOTIl TEETH. 
 
 which they built the tower is now failed Babylon, 
 on account of the confusing of the prior clearness 
 with respect to speech ; for the Hebrews call con- 
 fusion Babel' 11 (Euseb., Prcepar. Evang, ix. 
 
 Abydenus, the Grecian historian of Assyria, is 
 known to us only by citations in Eusebius, Cyril 
 of Alexandria, and Syncellus; but they confirm 
 his respectability as a writer. — J. P. S. 
 
 TOOTH, TEETH (|^ ; Sept. dSois, quasi 
 iSovs, from e8u, ‘to eat; 1 Vulg. dens, quasi edens, 
 ‘eating'). The Hebrew word is usually derived 
 from Hjty, ‘ to change 1 or ‘ repeat, 1 because the 
 teeth are changed, or replaced by others. It occurs 
 first, with reference to the literal uiemher itself in 
 man, the loss of which, by violence, is specified 
 by Moses, in illustration of his law concerning 
 taliones, ‘ tooth for tooth 1 (Exod. xxi. 24). This 
 outrage occurring between freemen (or between an 
 Israelite and a foreigner, Lev. xxiv. 22) admitted, 
 like other cases of maiming, most probably of a pe- 
 cuniary compensation, and under private arrange- 
 ment, unless the injured party proved exorbitant 
 in his demand, when the case was referred to the 
 judge, who seems addressed in Deut. xix. 21. The 
 Targum of Jonathan renders the words, ‘the price 
 of a tooth for a tooth, 1 in Exod. xxi. 21 ; Lev. 
 xxiv. 20 ; and Deut. xix. 21 (comp. Josephus, 
 Antiq. iv. 8. 35, and the article Punisiimknt in 
 this work); but if a master inflicted this irrepa- 
 rable damage upon a servant, i. e. slave, of either 
 sex, he was punished by the absolute loss of his 
 slave's services (Exod. xxi. 27). The same law 
 applied, if the slave was a Gentile, notwithstanding 
 the national glosses of the Jewish doctors (Selden, 
 DeJtire Net. et Gent. iv. 1, p. 468). Our Lord’s 
 comment upon the law (Matt. v. 38), which 
 was mudi abused in his time (Horne’s Introd. 
 vol. ii. p. 377, 6th ed.), prohibits no more than 
 retaliation upon the injurer (to Trovrjpai), not 
 such a defence of our innocence as may consist 
 in words, but private revenge , and especially 
 with such a disposition as actuated the aggressor, 
 with impetuous rage or hatred. His, exhorta- 
 tions relate rather to those injuries which cannot 
 be redressed by the magistrate, or by course of 
 law : these we should bear, rather than resort to 
 revenge (see Uosenmuller, Grotius, and Whitby, 
 in loc.). Indeed the hermeneutics of our Lord's 
 precepts in his Sermon on the Mount require much 
 knowledge, care, and discrimination, in order to 
 avoid a primu facie interpretation of them, which 
 has often been given, at variance with his inten- 
 tion, subversive of the principles of natural justice, 
 and productive of false ideas of Christian dt|ty. 
 
 In Ps. iii. 7, we have TI^, for the human 
 jawbone; for that of an ass, Judg. xv. 15-17, 
 c nayova , ‘ maxillam, i. e. mandibulam 1 (which 
 becomes in ver. 19, rbv \dicKov t6v 
 
 iv rrj aiayovL, ‘ molarem dentem in maxilla 
 asini’) [Samson] ; and for that of leviathan, 
 Job xl. 14, to maxillam. A ‘broken 
 
 (or rather ‘bad, 1 njTl, that, is, decayed; Vulg. 
 dens putridus') tooth, 1 is referred to in Prov. xxv. 
 19, as furnishing an apt similitude of ‘confi- 
 dence in an unfaithful man in the time ot 
 trouble. 1 ‘The teeth of beasts, 1 or rather ‘tooth,’ 
 is a phrase expressive of devastation by wild 
 animals : thus, ‘ I will send the tooth of neaata 
 upon them 1 (Deut. xxxii. 24), oSovrns 
 
TOOTH, TEETH. 
 
 faiplwv, dentes bestiarum (comp. 2 Kings xvii. 
 25). The word is sometimes metaphorically used 
 for a sharp cl iff or summit of a rock (Job xxxix. 
 28) : thus, ‘ The eagle dwelleth and abideth upon 
 
 the footh of the rock eV e£oxp 
 
 rrerpas, inaccessis rupibus. So also (1 Sam. xiv. 
 4) : ‘ a sharp rock on the one side and a sharp rock 
 
 on the other side y^DiV|£2, oSovs irerpas, quasi 
 in modum dentium scopuli : these eminences 
 were named Bozez and Seneh. 
 
 Teeth, D’OSJ* oSovres, dentes , is found in 
 the dual number only, referring to the two rows, 
 yet used for the plural (1 Sam. ii. 13). The word 
 occurs first with reference to the literal organs 
 in man (Gen. xlix. 12) : ‘ His teeth shall be white 
 with milk,’ which the Sept, and Vulg. understand 
 to mean ‘whiteness greater than milk,’ -]) yd\a, 
 lactc candidiores (Nutn. xi. 33; Prov. x. 26; 
 Cant. iv. 2; vi. 6). Although be the 
 
 general word for teeth, yet the Hebrews had a dis- 
 tinct term for the molares or jaw teeth, especially 
 
 of the larger animals ; thus, Dlj/?Dft, Job xxix. 
 
 1 7 ; Ps. lvii. 4 ; Prov. xxx. 14 ; Joel i. 6 ; and by 
 transposition DI^D^D, Ps. Iviii. 6, pvX at, molcc 
 and molares. The apparent teeth of the leviathan, 
 gyrus dentium , are however called (Jobxli. 
 
 14). Ivory, ‘ elephants’ teeth," 1 Kings x. 22, is 
 simply D'OKJ; in Sept, deest ; Vulg. dentes ele- 
 phantorum: dens in Latin is sometimes so used. 
 In 2 Chron. ix. 21, the word is obovres 
 
 i\€(pduTiuoi, ebur, where evidently denotes a 
 tooth ; but the signification of the latter part, 
 COP!, is unknown, and Gesenius thinks that the 
 form of the word may be so corrupted as to dis- 
 guise its original meaning. May it not be of 
 foreign origin, imported with the material from 
 Ophir? [Ivory]. In other passages the reference 
 to teeth is metaphorical ; thus, ‘ a flesh-hook with 
 three teeth,’ that is, prongs (l Sam. ii. 13) 
 [Hooks]. ‘ The teeth of lions’ is a symbol of the 
 cruelty and rapacity of the wicked (Job iv. 10). 
 ‘To take one's flesh into one’s teeth,’ signifies to 
 gnaw it with anguish (Job xi ii. 14 ; comp. Rev. 
 xvi. 10. ‘ Tlie skin of his teeth," with which Job 
 
 says he had ‘escaped’ in his affliction, is under- 
 stood by the Vulgate, of the lips — ‘derelicta sunt 
 tantummodo labia circa dentes meos but Gese- 
 nius understands it as a proverbial expression, 
 meaning, I have scarcely a sound spot in my 
 body. ‘ To smite upon the jaw-bone" and * to break 
 the teeth,’ mean to disgrace, and to disable (Ps. 
 iii. 7 : comp. Mic. vi. 13 ; l Kings xx. 35 ; Lam. 
 iii. 30). The teeth of calumniators, &c., are com- 
 pared to ‘spears and arrows’ (Ps. lvii. 4 ; comp. 
 I Sam. xxiv. 9). To break the teeth of such per- 
 sons, means to disable them (Ps. Iviii. 6). To 
 escape the malice of enemies, is called an ‘ escape 
 from their teeth ’ (Ps. exxiv. 6 ; Zech. ix. 7). 
 Oppression is compared to ‘ jaw-teeth like swords, 
 and grladers like knives ’ (Prov. xxx. 14). Beau- 
 tiful ;i’3fh are compared to ‘sheep newly shorn 
 and washed" in Cant. iv. 2; vi. 6 ; but the re- 
 maining part of the comparison, ‘ whereof every 
 one beareth twins, and none is barren among 
 them,’ is much better rendered by Le Clerc, ‘all 
 of them twins, and none hath lost his fellow.’ To 
 break the teeth with gravel stones,’ is a most 
 lyuerbolical metaphor for inflicting the harshest 
 iisappointment (Lam. iii. 16). ‘Iron teeth* 
 
 TOPHET. 881 
 
 are the symbol of destructive power (Dan. rii. 7 , 
 19).. A nation having the teeth of lions, and t'h« 
 cheek-teeth of a great lion, denotes one which de- 
 vours with irresistible force (Joel i. 6 ; comp, 
 Ecclus. xxi. 2; Rev. ix. 8). ‘Prophets who bite 
 with their teeth, and cry Peace,’ are greedy and 
 hypocritical prophets (Mic. iii. 5). ‘ To take 
 
 away blood out of the mouth, and abominations 
 from between the teeth,’ means, to rescue the in- 
 tended victims of cruelty (Zech. ix. 7). ‘ Clean- 
 ness of teeth,’ is a periphrasis for hunger, famine 
 (Amos iv. 6); Sept. yop-fpiaafiv cbuvrwv’, Sym- 
 machus and Tlieodotion, Kadapiapou. Gnash- 
 ing of teeth means properly grinding the teeth 
 with rage or despair. The Hebrew word so ren- 
 dered is pin (Job xvi. 9; Lam. ii. 16 ; Ps. xxxv 
 16; xxxvii. 12; cxii. 10) : it is invariably ren- 
 dered in the Sept. Ppvx&, and in the Vulg. infre- 
 mo, fremo, frendo(see also Acts vii. 54 ; Ecclus. Ii. 
 2). In the New Testament it is said of the epilep- 
 tic child (Mark ix. 18), rpifci tovs bbovras, stridet 
 dentibus. The phrase, 6 fipvy/xbs tuu obovTuv, is in 
 the Vulgate ‘stridor dentium’ (Matt. viii. 12; xiii. 
 42, 50; xxii. 13; xxiv. 51 ; xxv. 30; Luke xiii. 
 28). Suidas defines Ppvypos’ Tpnrpbs bbovrwv. 
 Galen, 6 air 6 ruv bbovTwv avy KpovopAvuv \f/o<pos . 
 The phrase ‘ lest thou gnash thy teeth ’ (Ecclus. 
 xxx. 10), is yopcpidaeis tovs oborras aov. ‘To 
 cast in the teeth," is an old English phrase (for 
 the Hebrew has no such idiom), signifying to re- 
 proach ; thus ‘ the thieves who were crucified 
 with Jesus cast the same in his teeth,’ wvetSt- 
 (ov o.vtqv (Matt, xxvii. 44) ; Vulg. improperabant 
 ei ; compare also the Bible and Prayer Book ver- 
 sion of Ps. xiii. 11. DVD'S, ‘ a sharp threshing in- 
 strument having teeth," literally ‘edges' (Is. xli. 
 15). The action of acids on the teeth is referred 
 to in the proverb, ‘ the fathers have eaten sour 
 grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge’ 
 (Ezek. xviii. 2) : eyopcpiaaavy obstvpuerunt (Prov. 
 x. 26).— J. F. D. 
 
 TOPAZ. [PlTDAH.] 
 
 TOPHET (DSD ; Sept. Ta<p4Q ; Vulg. To- 
 pheth ), a place very near to Jerusalem, on the 
 south-east, in the valley of the children of Hin- 
 nom, where the ancient Canaanites, and after- 
 wards the apostate Israelites, made their children 
 to pass through the fire to Moloch (comp. Ps. 
 cvi. 38 ; Jer. vii. 31). If is first mentioned, in the 
 order of time, by Isaiah, who alludes to it as 
 deep and large, and having an abundance of fuel 
 (ch. xxx. 33). He here evidently calls the place 
 where Sennacherib’s army was destroyed (b.c. 
 710) Tophet, by a metonymy ; for it was probably 
 overthrown at a greater distance from Jerusalem, 
 and quite on the opposite side of it, since Nob is 
 mentioned as the last station from which the king 
 of Assyria should threaten Jerusalem (ch. x. 32), 
 where the prophet seems to have given a very 
 exact chorographical description of his march in 
 order to attack the city (Lowth’s Translation, 
 Notes on xxx. 33). In the reformation of 
 religion by King .losiah (b.c. 624), he causeo 
 Topheth to be defiled in order to suppress idolatry 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 10). The means he adopted for 
 this purpose are not specified, whether by throw- 
 ing all manner of filth into it, as well as by 
 overthrowing the altars, &c.. as the Syriac and 
 Arabic versions seem to understand it. The pro- 
 phet Jeremiah was ordered by God to announc* 
 
TOPHET. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 from this spot (ch. xix. 14) the approaching cap- 
 tivity, and the destruction, both by the siege of 
 the city and by famine, of so many of the people, 
 whose carcases should be here buried, as that it 
 should ‘ no more be called Tophet, nor the valley 
 of the son of Iiinnom, but the valley of slaugh- 
 ter’ (ch. vii. 31, 32; xix. 6, 11-14). The name 
 of this place is generally derived from ‘a 
 drum/ because, it is said, the rites of Moloch 
 were accompanied with the sound of that instru- 
 ment ; but, in the absence of any other evidence, 
 this assertion must be considered a mere Rab- 
 binical conjecture, derived from the etymon. 
 Some, with more probability, derive the word 
 from Chald. P]in, ‘ to spit out/ or ‘ vomit •/ hence 
 TlSn, ‘ that which causes loathing or abhorrence’ 
 (comp. Job xvii. 16. Hebrew). Others derive it 
 from the fire-stove (DDH) in which the children 
 were burnt to Moloch (2 Chron. xxviii. 3). The 
 place miglrt he called, even by the idolaters 
 themselves, nnSH. ‘the place of burning/ With 
 regard to its locality, Jerome, on Jer. vii. 31, 
 remarks, * Tophet signifies that place which is wa- 
 tered by the streams of Siloam ; it is pleasant, and 
 woody, affording horticultural pleasures/ Euse- 
 bius, in his Onomasticon, under the word Qa<pe6, 
 says, ‘ In the suburbs of Ailah is still shown the 
 place so called, to which is adjacent the fuller’s 
 pool and the potter's field, or the parcel of ground 
 Acheldamach.’ For an account of the modern 
 aspect of the place, see Kitto’s Physical History 
 of Palestine (pp. 122, 123). After the return from 
 the captivity, the Jews resumed the ancient name 
 for the whole valley, viz , the valley of Hinnom, 
 called in our Lord’s time by the Greek name 
 Ge Hinnom, by corruption Ttevv a [Gehen- 
 na] ; and in order to perpetuate the disgrace of 
 idolatry, they made it the common receptacle 
 of the filth, &c., of the city, in which ‘ fires’ were 
 continually kept burning, to consume the car- 
 cases of animals, executed criminals, & c., the 
 unconsumed portions of which, as well as the off- 
 scourings in general, became the nidus of insects, 
 whose larvae, or ‘ worms,’ revelled in the corrup- 
 tion. These circumstances furnished the most 
 apt representation to the Jewish mind of future 
 punishment (comp. Judith xvi. 17 ; Ecclus. vii. 
 17; see also Chaldee Par. on Isa. xxxiii. 4, where 
 
 vby npiD, ‘ everlasting burnings/ is rendered 
 ‘the Gehenna of everlasting fire’). Some writers, 
 however, restrict our Lord's allusions to Gehenna 
 (Matt. v. 22) entirely to temporal punishments. 
 Thus, ‘whosoever is angry with his brother with- 
 out a cause,’ i. e. captious, peevish, aibitrary, iras- 
 cible, ‘shall be in danger of the judgment,’ that 
 is, by indulging such an unreasonable disposition 
 shall be in danger of committing some act for 
 which he shall be cited before rj Kpiais, ‘ the 
 judgment,’ an inferior court, consisting of seven 
 presidents — taken before the magistrate for an 
 assault, as we should say: ‘and whosoever shall 
 say to his brother, Raca/ i. e. worthless, dissolute! 
 ‘shall be in danger of the council/ or Sanhedrim 
 — shall render himself liable, by the indulgence 
 of such a rancorous disposition, and by the use 
 of such injurious language, to be called to trial 
 for slander — cited before the spiritual court, as 
 we should say, for defamation : ‘ but whosoever 
 shall say, Moreh/ * thou atheistic wretch !’ eyo%os 
 it +at rts tt]u yeevvav rov Ttvpos, will betray a 
 
 likelihood of incurring capital punishment — com* 
 to the gallows, as we say- -through violence of dis- 
 position, and of his body being cast into Gehenna, 
 and exposed to its ‘fire’ and ‘worm/ Our 
 Lord’s object in the use of these several figures 
 is simply to exemplify the danger of unrestrained 
 anger. So also his illustration of the evil of un- 
 restrained concupiscence, &c. (Matt. v. 27-31) is 
 to be understood. The principle on which he 
 reasons is no doubt applicable to future punish- 
 ment ; namely, that self-denial, at any cost, is 
 preferable to the evils incurred by the neglefct 
 of it— J F. D. 
 
 TOWNS. We use the term in its general sig- 
 nification, so as to embrace any assemblage of 
 inhabited human dwellings of larger size than a 
 hamlet or a village, the only way in which we 
 can speak with correctness and advantage. 
 
 Towns are a natural result of the aggregative 
 principle in human nature. Necessity led the 
 early races of men to build their towns on lefty 
 spots, where, with the aid of the natural advan- 
 tages of the ground, they could easily protect 
 themselves against beasts of prey and human foes. 
 A town, and a stronghold or fort, would thus be 
 originally identical. As population increased 
 and agriculture spread, so some degree of security 
 came, which permitted the inhabitants of the 
 castle to diffuse themselves over the hill-side, and 
 take up their abode in the valley, and by the side 
 of the stream that lay nearest their acropolis ; still 
 the inhabitants kept at no great distance from the 
 centre of strength, in older not to be deprived of 
 its protection. The town, however, would thus be 
 enlarged, and as the necessity for self-defence still 
 existed, so would the place soon be surrounded 
 witli walls. Tlius would there be outer and inner 
 bulwarks, and in some sort two species of com- 
 munity — the townspeople, who tilled the ground 
 and carried on trade, and the soldiers, whose 
 business it was to afford protection : these two, 
 however, in the earliest stages of civilization were 
 one, the peasant and tradesman taking arms when 
 the town was put in -danger. How early towns 
 were formed cannot be determined by any general 
 principle : they were obviously a work of time . 
 The primary tendency in population was to dif- 
 fuse itself. Aggregation on particular spots would 
 take place at a later period. When then Cain is 
 said to have built a city (Gen. iv. 17), the first 
 city (Enoch, so called after Cain's son), we have 
 evidence which concurs with other intimations to 
 show that it is only a partial history of the first 
 ages that we possess in the records of the book of 
 Genesis. In the time of the Patriarchs we find 
 towns existing in Palestine which were originally 
 surrounded with fortifications, so as to make them 
 ‘ fenced cities.’ In these dwelt the agricultural 
 population, who by means of these places of 
 strength defended themselves and their property 
 from the nomad tribes of the neighbouring desert, 
 who then, as they do now, lived by plunder. Nor 
 were works of any great strength necessary. In 
 Palestine at the present day, while walls are in 
 most parts an indispensable protection, and agri- 
 culture can be advantageously prosecuted only so 
 far as sheltered by a fortified town, erections of a 
 very slight nature are found sufficient for the 
 purpose, the rather because the most favourable 
 localities offer themselves on all sides, owing to the 
 natural inequality of the ground. The ensuing el- 
 
TOWNS. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 889 
 
 tract ( Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land , &c., 
 by Rev. S. Olin, New York, 1843, vol. ii. 423, 
 424) throws light on the subject, : — ‘Continuing 
 our route over a well-wootled limestone ridge, we 
 came in sight of a large village which occupied a 
 hill directly before us, while farther to the right, 
 and upon a still loftier summit, was a ruinous 
 castle of great extent, and from its commanding 
 position, of very imposing appearance. The in- 
 tervening region and that to the right of the castle, 
 was undulating, fertile, and cultivated. We were 
 nearly an hour in reaching the base of the iso- 
 lated mount, which we passed to the right through 
 a deep ravine that divides it from another lofty 
 hill on the east, which is also surmounted with 
 what appeared to be a ruined fortress. We passed 
 round the acropolis to the north side, where we 
 obtained a good view of this ancient stronghold. 
 It embraces the entire summit of the mountain 
 within a massive wall, which, as well as the se- 
 veral towers by which it was strengthened, is in a 
 very dilapidated state. A little further west 
 another summit is occupied by ruinous bulwarks 
 and towers. The large village, called from the 
 castle, Tibinin, or Chibinin, lies in a valley be- 
 tween these two fortified hills. East of the prin- 
 cipal works is another elevation surmounted with 
 ruins, and farther in the same direction, beyond 
 the narrow valley we had just traversed, is a fourth 
 summit, the one I have already referred to as 
 having ruins upon its top.’ From this striking 
 passage, an illustration may be gathered of the 
 force of our Lord’s language, when he describes 
 his disciples as a city set on a hill, that cannot be 
 hid (Matt. v. 14). Jesus has been thought to 
 refer in this description to some particular city, 
 and the modern Safet has been fixed on and is 
 still traditionally regarded as the place which 
 lie had in view. This town, now in a ruinous 
 state, — one of the four cities — Hebron, Tiberias, 
 Jerusalem, Safet, regarded as especially holy — 
 occupies the summit of the highest mountain in 
 Galilee, and one of the highest in the Jewish 
 territories. It is conspicuously seen from a great 
 distance in all directions but the north. The 
 town does not occupy the precise summit of the 
 rounded mountain, but rather the sloping ground 
 immediately below it, a military castle or citadel 
 having been erected upon the highest point. The 
 hilly position of towns sometimes caused the 
 dwellings to be curiously placed relatively to each 
 other. Thus, in Safet, the traveller, as he sits on 
 tiis horse in the midst of the town, finds the smoke 
 jf a kitchen rise from the earth near him, and by 
 a little survey ascertains that the smoke issues 
 from the mouth of a chimney standing a few 
 inches above the ground at his horse’s feet : that 
 he and his animal are in reality on the flat roof 
 of ahouse; and that, as the hill-side is nearly per- 
 pendicular, the inhabitants have judged it the 
 easiest mode of building to place the houses one 
 upon another. 
 
 Of the ancient method of building in towns 
 and cities we have no accurate knowledge, any 
 fvrtner than we may gather information from the 
 ruins which still lie on the soil of Palestine. But 
 these ruins can afford only general notions, as, 
 though they are numerous, and show that the 
 Land of Promise was thickly peopled and highly 
 Sourishing in its better days, the actual remains 
 %f ancient, towns are to be ascribed to di Cerent 
 
 and very distant periods of history. The crusade* 
 left many strongholds which are now in a state 
 of dilapidation ; but the crusades are of modem 
 days compared with the times of the Saviour, 
 which themselves are remote from the proper 
 antiquity of the nation. The law of sameness, 
 however, which prevails so rigidly in Eastern 
 countries, gives us an assurance that a modern 
 town in Palestine may be roughly taken as a 
 type of its ancient predecessors. 
 
 At the gates of the town, which were frequented 
 as the court of justice, the town’s market, the 
 rendezvous for loungers, newsmongers, pleasure- 
 seekers, there were wide open places of greater or 
 less dimensions, where on important occasions the 
 entire population assembled for consultation or for 
 action (Nell. viii. 1, 16; 2 Cnron. xxxii. 6; 
 2 Sam. xxi. 12; Job xxix. 7; 2 Kings vii. 1). 
 The streets were not. so narrow as streets generally 
 are in modern Oriental towns. Their names were 
 sometimes taken from the wares or goods that were 
 sold in them : thus in Jer. xxxvii. 21, we read of 
 ‘the bakers' street.’ The present bazaars seem to 
 be a continuation of this ancient custom. The 
 streets of Jerusalem at least were paved (Joseph. 
 Antiq. xx. 9. 7) ; but the streets of most cities of 
 Palestine would not need paving, in consequence 
 of the rocky nature of the foundations on which 
 they lay. Herod the Great laid an open road in 
 Antioch with polished stone (Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 
 5. 3; comp. 1 Kings xx. 34). in regard to the 
 earlier periods, we find only a notice to the effect 
 that Solomon caused the fore-court of the temple 
 to be laid with flags. Besides paved streets, 
 Jerusalem before the exile had an extensive sys- 
 tem of watercourses or aqueducts, which seems 
 to have been rendered necessary by the natural 
 supply having been limited to one or two spots 
 in the immediate vicinity. This subject has been 
 handled by Robinson, and more fully by Olin 
 (ii. 139, sq. : see Isa. vii. 3 ; xxii. 9 ; 2 Kings 
 xx. 20; Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3. 2). Other cities 
 were contented with the fountains whose existence 
 had probably led to their formation at the first. 
 
 Palestine underwent constant changes in regard 
 to its towns, from the earliest ages ; one conse- 
 quence of which is, that there are names of towns 
 that belong exclusively to certain eras. The pe- 
 riod of the Roman domination gave existence, as 
 to structures of great splendour, so to many towns 
 and fortified places. Galilee was especially rich 
 in towns and villages, which, according to Jose- 
 phus (Vita, § 45), amounted in all to the number 
 of 201. The names of the Palestinian cities, for 
 the most part, have meaning, reference being made 
 to the nature of the locality, as Rama, Ain, 
 Jericho, Bethlehem, Gibeon, Mizpah. Many are 
 compounds formed with the aid of one of the fol- 
 lowing words, rV2 (house), “fy or JVTp (city),TVn 
 (court), pfty (valley), (a grass plot), TJQ 
 (well), py (fountain), '"123 ^namlet). To distin- 
 guish cities that, bore the same name, the name of 
 the tribe was added. In ‘ the latter days,’ especially 
 under the Herods, it was tne fashion to give to 
 ancient, towns new Greek names, as Diospolis, 
 Neapolis, Sebaste, Caesarea, Tiberias. Jerusa- 
 lem, at a later period, was denominated iEha 
 Capitolina. These innovations indicated the 
 slavish disposition of the age, and were tokens of 
 the bondage in which the nation was held ; aa 
 
890 TRACHONITIS. 
 
 much as the incorporation of the name (Baal), 
 at a much earlier era, pointed out the Canaan- 
 itish origin of a place, and gave reason to think 
 that it was originally addicted to idolatrous wor- 
 ship. The population of towns cannot, now be 
 ascertained with any degree of accuracy, for the 
 materials are not only scanty and disconnected, 
 hut in a measure uncertain. Respecting the go- 
 vernment of towns, we have no detailed informa- 
 tion relating to the ante-exilian periods, though it 
 was probably in the hands of the elders; and in 
 Deut. xv i. IS, Moses commands, ‘Judges (Heng- 
 stenberg translates the word ‘scribe’ or ‘writer,’ 
 Authentic des Pent, i.450) and officers shalt thou 
 make thee in all thy gates, and they shall judge 
 the people with just judgment.’ In the post- 
 exilian era magistrates occur under the name of 
 Council (Joseph. Vita, 6 14. 34, 61,68), at whose 
 head was a president or mayor (Joseph. Vita, § 
 27; De Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 3).— J. R. B. 
 
 TRACHONITIS (Tp«xwwr«; |imO) was, in 
 the days of the Herod ian dynasty, the name of 
 the country situated between the Antilibanus and 
 the Arabian mountains south of Damascus and 
 west of the provinces of Batanaea, Gaulonitis, 
 Iturasa, and Auranitis, under about the thirty- 
 third degree of northern latitude. Eusebius, in his 
 Onomasticon, s.v.. Ituraea, places Trachonitis be- 
 tween Rostra and Damascus Plin. (Hist. Nat. v. 
 16 ; Strabo, xvi. pp. 75 5, 756). This country had 
 its name from the Greek Tpax^v = Tpaxvs teal 
 TrerpuiSgs tottos. a rough and rocky place. Jo- 
 sephus sometimes uses the term Tpaxcor. instead 
 of Trachonitis ( Antiq . xiii. 16. 5; De Bell. Jud. 
 iii.3. 5). Strabo mentions two T pax&ves, which, 
 according to Burckhardt (R. I. 115), are the 
 summits of two mountain-ranges on the road from 
 Mecca to Damascus, near the village El Kes- 
 sue. Trachonitis is at. present called Ledja. 
 The eastern range of mountains is now called 
 Dshebel Manai , and contains great caverns in 
 chalk rocks. The southern portions of the an- 
 cient Trachonitis, or the present Ledja, consist 
 chiefly of basalt rocks. A Greek inscription found 
 at the modern Missema, one league and a half 
 from Sbaara, proves that the surrounding country 
 was part of Trachonitis (Burckhardt’s R. I. 201, 
 510; comp. Berghaus, Annalen, i. 556, ii. 453). 
 The inhabitants of Trachonitis are called by 
 Ptolemy (v. 15) ol TpaxuArai ''Apa/Hes, the Tra- 
 chonite Arabians, and are described by Josephus 
 (Antiq. xv. 10. l)as much addicted to robbery. 
 A very famous commander of banditti named 
 Zenodorus is mentioned by Strabo and Josephus. 
 Under him the robbers gave so much trouble, and 
 made the country so unquiet, that Augustus was 
 induced to put Trachonitis under the authority 
 of Herod the Great ; who forthwith took such 
 vigorous and decided measures as soon brought 
 the district into a state of security. 
 
 After the death of Herod the Great, Trachonitis 
 belonged to the tetrarchy of his son Philip (Joseph. 
 Antiq. xvi. 4. 6, and 9. 1; xviii. 5. 6; De Bell. 
 Jud. ii. 6. 3). At a later time it belonged to 
 Herod Agrippa (Antiq. xx. 6. I ; De Bell. Jud. 
 iii. 3. 5 ; Philo, Opp. ii. 593 ; comp. Rammer’s 
 Pdlastina, p. 158, sq. ; Winer’s Real- Worter- 
 \uch, under Trachonitis. — C. H. F. B. 
 
 TRANCE (nQT"fF) : Sept. e/c<rra<m, Vulg. 
 pypor ; Geu. ii. 21. &c.), a supernatural state of 
 
 TRANCE. 
 
 body and mind, the nature of which has been wel* 
 conjectured by Doddridge, who defines it — ‘Such 
 a rapture of mind as gives the person who falls into 
 it a look of astonishment, and renders him insen- 
 sible of the external objects around him, while in 
 the meantime his imagination is agitated in an 
 extraordinary manner with some striking scenes 
 which pass before it and take up all the attention.’ 
 He refers to some extraordinary instances of this 
 kind mentioned by Gualtperius in his note on Acts 
 x. It) (Family Expositor , in loc., note g.) Stock ins 
 also describes it as ‘ A sacred ecstasy, or rapture 
 of the mind out of itself, when the use of the ex- 
 ternal senses being suspended, God reveals some- 
 thing in a peculiar manner to prophets and 
 apostles, who are then taken or transported out of 
 themselves.’ The same idea is intimated in the 
 English word trance, from the Latin ‘ transitus * 
 the state of being . carried out. of oneself. The 
 Greek word, e Karacris , denotes the effect of any 
 passion by which the thoughts are wholly ab- 
 sorbed. In the Sept, it corresponds to ‘ a 
 
 wonderful thing ’ (Jer. v. 30) ; and pnEJ"l, ‘asto- 
 nishment ’ (Deut. xxviii. 28). In the New Tes- 
 tament it represents the absorbing effects of ad- 
 miration (Mark v. 42; Luke v. 26; Acts iii. 
 10); of terror, Mark xvi. 8. The Hebrew word 
 is used to denote the prophetic ecstasy. Thus 
 ‘ the deep sleep ’ which fell upon Adam during 
 the creation of Eve (Gen. ii. 21), and during 
 which, as appears from the narrative, he was made 
 aware of the transaction, and of the purport of the 
 attendant circumstances (21-24) [Marriage]. 
 It is applied again to the ‘deep sleep ’ which fell 
 upon Abraham (xv. 12, e/ccrracris, sopor), during 
 which the bondage of his descendants in Egypt 
 was revealed to him. Possibly all the accounts 
 recorded in that chapter occurred in ‘ vision ’ 
 (1-12), which ultimately deepened into the trance 
 (12-21). Compare verses 5, 12, where he is said 
 to have seen the stars, though the sun was not 
 gone down. The apparent objection, that Abra- 
 ham was ‘ brought forth abroad ’ to see the stars, 
 is only of the same nature with others explained 
 in the Art. Temptation ok our Lord. Some, 
 perhaps many things recorded in Scripture, belong 
 to this supernatural slate of trance, which are not 
 expressly referred to it. See the long list of such 
 supposed instances in Bishop Law’s Considera- 
 tion of the Theory of Religion (pp. 85, 86, Lond., 
 1820). Eisner includes in this list, the star seen 
 by the wise men (Comment, on Matt. ii. 9, 10, 
 &c.). In the narrative which Balaam gives of 
 himself our translators have rightly added the 
 words ‘into a trance ’ after the word ‘falling.’ 
 The incident of ihe ass speaking to him, &c., is 
 also understood by many learned Jews and 
 Christians to have occurred in a vision (Bishop 
 Law, u. s.). To the same mode of divine com- 
 munication must be referred the magnificent 
 description in Job iv. 13-21. Persons receiving 
 it. often fall to the earth. ‘ Abraham fell on his 
 face, and God talked with him ’ (Gen. xvii. 3, 
 &c. ; 1 Sam. xix. 24, Hebrew, or margin ; Ezek. 
 i. 28 ; Dan. viii. 18 ; x. 15, 16 ; Rev. i. 10, 17). 
 It is important to observe that in all these cases 
 the visions beheld are also related ; hence such 
 cases are distinguished from a mere deliquiuin 
 animi. We find cases of prophetical trance in tht 
 New Testament as that of St. Peter; ‘he fell 
 into a trance’ (or rather a ‘ trance fell upon him. 
 
TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 8S! 
 
 iirsTreaev *V aurW efccrrains), during which he 
 ‘ saw a vision, ' winch is therefore distinguished 
 from the trance (Acts x. 10 ; comp. St. Paul’s 
 trance, xxii. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 2, &c.). The reality 
 of the vision is established by the correspondence 
 of the event . The nearest approach we can make 
 to such a state is that in widen oor mind is so 
 occupied in the contemplation of an object as to 
 lose entirely the consciousness or the body — a state 
 in which the highest order of ideas, whether be- 
 longing to the judgment or imagination, is un- 
 doubtedly attained. Hence we can readily conceive 
 that such" a state might bo supernaturally induced 
 for the higher purpose cf revelation, &c. The 
 alleged phenomena of the Mesmeric trance and 
 clairvoyance, if they serve no higher purpose, may 
 assist our conceptions of it. — J. F. D. 
 
 TRANSFIGURATION. One of the most 
 wonderful incidents in the life of our Saviour 
 upon earth, and one so instructive that we can 
 never exhaus.t. its lessons, is the Transfiguration. 
 The apostle Peter, towards the close of his life, in 
 running his mind over the proofs ofi^Christ's ma- 
 jesty, found none so conclusive and irrefragable 
 as the scenes when he and others were with him 
 in the holy mount, as eye witnesses that he re- 
 ceived from God- the Father honour and glory, 
 when there came such a voice to him from the 
 excellent, glory, ‘ This is my beloved Son, in 
 whom I am well pleased.’ If we divide Christ's 
 public life into three periods — the first of miracles 
 to prove his divine mission, the second of parables 
 to inculcate virtue, and the third of suffering, first 
 clearly revealed and then endured, to atone for 
 sin — the transfiguration may be viewed as his 
 baptism or initiation into the third and last. He 
 went up the mount, of transfiguration on the 
 eighth day after he had bidden every one who 
 would come after him take up his cross, de- 
 claring that his kingdom was not of this world, 
 that he must suffer many things, and be killed, 
 &c. 
 
 The mount of transfiguration was long thought 
 to have been Mount Tabor; but as this height is 
 fifty miles from Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus 
 last taught, it is now supposed to have been a 
 mountain much less distant, namely, Mount Her- 
 mon. It may have been neither of them, and 
 nothing forbids us to imagine that it was that 
 exceeding high mountain where the devil showed 
 our Saviour the kingdoms of the world and the 
 glory of them in a moment of time. The only 
 persons thought worthy to ascend this mount of 
 vision were Peter, James, and John, three being 
 a competent number of witnesses, or they being 
 more faithful and beloved than any others. 
 Whatever the reason was, these three disciples 
 appear on more than one other occasion as an 
 elect triumvirate — as at the raising of Jairus’s 
 daughter, and during our Lord’s agony in the 
 garden. The disciples, in all probability, ascended 
 the mountain anticipating nothing more than that. 
 Jesus, as at other times (Luke vi. 12), would 
 continue all night in prayer to God. When the 
 curtains of night closed around them, they were 
 so worn out by their labours as to sink down in 
 sleep, till startled from their slumbers by the 
 glory of the Lord shining round about them ; for 
 as Jesus prayed, the fashion of his countenance 
 was altered, ‘and his face did shine as the sun, 
 and his raiment was white as the light.’ And 
 
 behold there talked with him two men, wnich 
 were Moses and Elias, who appeared in glory, 
 and spake of his decease, which he should accom- 
 plish at Jerusalem. Peter's words, ‘ Master, it is 
 good for us to he here,’ are a natural expression 
 of rapture; and his proposal to build three taber- 
 nacles indicated his desire both to keep his Lord 
 from going down to Jerusalem to die there, and 
 to prolong the blessedness of beholding with open 
 face the glory of God. Such is at least a plau- 
 sible interpretation of his language, while 4 he 
 wist not what to say.’ It is worthy of remark 
 that Peter had no thought of tents for himself 
 and his companions, his only desire being that 
 the beatific vision might endure for ever. While 
 he yet spake, heboid, a bright cloud oversha- 
 dowed them — not a black cloud, such as that 
 which rested on Mount Sinai, but a cloud glisten- 
 ing as the Shechinah, when the glory of the Lord 
 filled the tabernacle, or as the cloud that filled 
 the house of the Lord when the priests were come 
 out of the holy place. 4 And behold a voice out 
 of the cloud' — that is, out of the long-established 
 symbol of Jehovah's presence — 4 which said, This 
 is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased : 
 hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, 
 they fell on their face, and were sore afraid' — like 
 Daniel and all others who have felt themselves 
 entranced by revelations of God. 4 And Jesus 
 came and torched them, and said, Arise, and be 
 not afraid,’ — showing such gentleness as proved 
 him to be fitly named the Lamb of God. How 
 long the glorification of our Saviour continued 
 it were vain to inquire; but it appears from the 
 narrative of Luke that he did not lead down his 
 disciples till the day following that on which 
 they had ascended the height. As they de- 
 scended he bade his disciples keep what they had 
 seen a secret, till after his resurrection, — doubtless 
 because the whole vision, to those who had not 
 seen it, would have been a rock of offence, ap- 
 pearing as an idle tale. He also opened their 
 eyes to see that Elias whom they looked for in 
 the future was to he sought in the past, even in 
 John the Baptist, who was clothed with his spirit 
 and power. 
 
 The final causes of the transfiguration, although 
 in part wrapped up in mystery, appear to be 
 in part plain. Among its intended lessons may 
 be the following : — First, to teach that, in spite 
 of the calumnies which the Pharisees had heaped 
 on Jesus, the old and new dispensations are in 
 harmony with each other. To this end the author 
 and the restorer of the old dispensation talk with 
 the founder of the new, as if his scheme, even the 
 most repulsive feature of it, was contemplated by 
 theirs, as the reality of which they had promul- 
 gated only types and shadows. Secondly, to 
 teach that the new dispensation was superior to 
 the old. Moses and Elias appear as inferior to 
 Jesus, not merely since their faces did not, so far 
 as we know, shine like the sun, but chiefly be- 
 cause the voice from the excellent glory com- 
 manded to hear him , in preference to them. 
 Thirdly, to gird up the energies of Jesus for 
 the great agony which was so soon to excruciate 
 him; as in Gethsemane itself an angel appeared 
 unto him strengthening him; as the Holy Ghost 
 descended upon him in the likeness of a dove 
 before his temptation in the wilderness; and as 
 when the devil left him angels came and minis- 
 
TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 TRIBES. 
 
 •92 
 
 tered unto him. Fourthly, to comfort the hearts 
 of the disciples, who, being destined to see their 
 master, whom they had left all to follow, nailed 
 to a cross, to be themselves persecuted, and to 
 sutler the want, of all things, were in danger of 
 despair. But by being eye-witnesses of his ma- 
 jesty they became convinced that his humiliation, 
 even though he descended into the place of the 
 dead, was voluntary, and could not continue 
 long. Gazing at the glorified body of their 
 Master, they beheld not only a proof but an 
 express and lively image of his resurrection, 
 ascension, and exaltalion above the heavens. As 
 in a prophetic vision, they beheld him seated upon 
 clouds, and seen by every eye as the Judge of 
 the quick and the dead, or enthroned in heaven 
 amid the host of his redeemed. Henceforth they 
 ceased not questioning one another, what the rising 
 from the dead should mean. Fifthly, to teach 
 that virtue will not allow supine contemplation, 
 but demands the exercise and exertion of our 
 several powers. To some this lesson may seem 
 a refinement, hut it is ingeniously deduced by 
 Schleiermacher from the fact that while Pefer 
 yet spake in his extasy, the vision in which he 
 longed to wear out. his life vanished away : as 
 if the aim were to teach us that when we have 
 ascended the mount of vision on the cherub- 
 wings of contemplation, even if we burn to dwell 
 there in a perpetual sweetness, yet we must shun 
 all monastic seclusion, that we may mingle 
 among men and do them good ; even as the great 
 Exemplar would not let his chosen repose in rap- 
 turous musings, and had scarcely come down 
 from the mountain of his glory before he recom- 
 menced his works of usefulness. 
 
 The transfiguration is so line a subject for die 
 painter that we are not surprised to learn that it 
 employed Raphael’s best hours, and that his por- 
 traiture of it is confessedly the highest of all 
 efforts of pictorial genius. The original work, 
 still un faded, though more than three centuries 
 have passed over it, hangs in the Vatican. A 
 copy of it in mosaic, on a colossal scale, and 
 which might pass with most men for the original, 
 tills the head of the left aisle in St. Pettr's at 
 Rome. The design is as simple as the artless 
 narrative of the Evangelists. In the centre, and 
 in raiment white as the light, is He, the fashion of 
 whose countenance was altered. On either hand, 
 and floating on the air, appear in glory Moses 
 and Elias. Beneath, the disci pies, overshadowed , 
 by a bright cloud, their hands shielding their 
 dazzled eyes, are fallen on their faces, sore afraid 
 of the voice proceeding out of the cloud, hut 
 catching glimpses of Jesus transfigured before 
 them. Then, just below the brow of the hill, the 
 only son torn by a spirit, foaming, gnashing his 
 teeth, and pining away, is brought, to the dis- 
 ciples that they may cure him, *and they can- 
 not. The scribes are cavilling — physicians close 
 the books they, have consulted in vain — the dis- 
 ciples confess their impotence — the mother and 
 sister of the possessed are half frantic — and the 
 multitude have no hope; but the vision above'fis 
 on the point of bursting upon them, to amaze 
 them all at the mighty power of God. Some 
 «ay that the wild eyes of .the boy, rolling in 
 agpny, are already catching a glimpse of his 
 Redeemer transfigured in glory on high. 
 
 If, as is <ften said, no picture is worth seeing 
 
 which can be copied in language, what infatu*. 
 tiou were it to think of sketching the attitude, 
 grouping, colouring, and expression of the figure* 
 in a painting which shines unrivalled and inimi- 
 table !— J. D. B. 
 
 TRIAL. [Punishment.] 
 
 TRIBES (rVlLSO, QvAal, Iribwi ) i» 
 
 the name of the great groups of families into 
 which the Israelitish nation, like other Oriental 
 races, -was divided. The modern Arab’s, the Be- 
 douins, and the Berbers, and also the Moors on 
 the northern shores of Africa, are still divided into 
 tribes. The clans in Scotland are also analogous 
 to the tribes of the ancient Israelites. The divi- 
 sion of a nation into tribes differs from a division 
 into castes, since one is a division merely accord 
 ing to descent, and the other superadds a neces- 
 sity of similar occupations being prevalent among 
 persons connected by consanguinity. There 
 occurs, however, among the Israelites a caste also, 
 namely, that of the Levites. In Gen. xlix. the 
 tribes are enumerated according to their proge- 
 nitors; viz., 1, flEUBEN, the first-born ; 2, Simeon, 
 and 3, Levi, instruments of cruelty; 4, Judah, 
 whom his brethren shall praise; 5, Zabui.on, 
 dwelling at the haven of the sea; 6, Issachak, 
 the strong; 7, Dan, the judge; 8, Gad, whom a 
 troop shall overcome, but. who shall vanquish at 
 last; 9, Ashen, whose bread shall be fat ; 10, 
 Naphta), i, giving goodly words; II, Joseph, 
 the fruitful bough ; 12, Benjamin, the wolf ; all 
 these were originally the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 In this enumeration it is remarkable that the 
 subsequent division of the tribe of Joseph into 
 the two branches of Ephraim and Manasseh, is 
 not yet alluded to. After this later division of 
 the very numerous tribe of Joseph into the two 
 branches of Ephraim and Manasseh had taken 
 place, there were, strictly speaking, thirteen 
 tribes. It was, however, usual to view them as 
 comprehended under the number twelve, which 
 was the more natural, since one of them, namely, 
 the caste of the Levites, did not. live within such 
 exclusive geographical limits as were.assigned to 
 the others after they exchanged their immadic mi- 
 grations for settled habitations, hut dwelt in towns 
 scattered through all the other twelve tribes. It 
 is also remarkable that, the Ishmaelites as well as 
 the Israelites were divided into twelve tribes ; and 
 that the Persians also, according to Xenophon 
 ( Cyrojocedia , i. 2, 4 sq.), were similarly divided. 
 Among other nations also occur ethnological and 
 geographical divisions, according to the number 
 twelve. From this we infer that the number 
 twelve was held in so much favour that, when 
 possible, doubtful cases were adapted to it. 
 An analogous case we find even at a later period, 
 when the spiritual progenitors of the Christian 
 fiu)8eicd(pvAov, or the apostles, who were, after the 
 death of Judas, the election of Matthias, and the 
 vocation of Paul, really thirteen in number, but 
 were nevertheless habitually viewed as twelve : so 
 that wherever, during the middle ages, any divi 
 sion was made with reference to the apostles, the 
 number twelve, and not thirteen, was adopted, 
 whether applied to the halls of theological libraries, 
 or to the great barrels of costly wines in the cellar 
 of the civic authorities at Bremen. Concerning the 
 arrangement of these tribes on their march through 
 the wilderness, in their encampments around th« 
 
TRIBES. 
 
 TRIBUTE. 
 
 89 * 
 
 »rk, and in their occupation of the land of Canaan, 
 *ee the cognate articles, sucli as Exodus, En- 
 campment, Genealogies, Lbvites. Wander- 
 ing, and the names of the several tribes. We 
 confine ourselves here to a few words about that 
 inexhaustible source of theologico-historical char- 
 latanism, the Lost Tribes, on which there have 
 been written so many volumes that it would be 
 difficult to condense the contradictory opinions 
 adv anced in them within the limits of.a moderate 
 article. Suffice it to say, that there is scarcely 
 any human race so abject, forlorn, and dwindling, 
 located anywhere between the Chinese and the 
 American Indians, who have not been stated to 
 be the ten tribes which disappeared from history 
 during and after the Babylonian captivity. If 
 the books written on the Ten Tribes contained 
 much truth it would be difficult to say where 
 they are not. And although these books, ac- 
 cording to our opinion, generally bear stronger 
 evidence of their writers’ activity of imagination 
 than the strength of their judgment, they lead, 
 not individually but collectively, to some truth, 
 if they only impress ns with the fact that it is 
 difficult to say' where the ten' tribes are not. 1 This 
 result the author of Coningsby should have borne 
 in mind, when he lately tracked rather than 
 traced Hebrew-Arabian blood in all men of Euro- 
 pean celebrity. 
 
 However, among the various works about the 
 lost, tribes, the following, although written dif- 
 fusely, contains quite as much probability as any : 
 Our Israelitish Origin ; or, British Christians 
 a Remnant of the true Israelites ; with a Reply 
 to the Objections of the Rev. E. Bickersteth, by 
 •I. Wilson, a witness of the word of Prophecy; 
 London, 1844. We refer here especially to the 
 ninth and tenth lectures contained in this book, in 
 which the author endeavours to show that the 
 Saxons proceeded from Central Asia to the west 
 of Europe, and that in them the promises given lo 
 Israel are fulfilling. 
 
 The truth, however, of the matter seems rather 
 to be as follows. After the division of the Israel- 
 ites under Jeroboam and Rehoboam into the two 
 kingdoms of Judah and Israel, the believers in 
 whom the feelings of ancient theocratic legiti- 
 macy and nationality predominated, and especi- 
 ally the priests and Levites, who were connected 
 by many ties with the sanctuary at Jerusalem, had 
 a tendency to migrale towards the visible centre 
 of their devotions; whilst those members of the 
 tribes of Judah and Benjamin who had an in- 
 dividual hankering after the fbieign fashions 
 adopted in Samaria, and the whole kingdom 
 of Israel, had a tendency externally to unite 
 themselves to a state of things corresponding 
 with their individuality. After the political 
 fall of both kingdoms, when all the principal 
 families connected with the possession of the soil 
 had been compelled to emigrate, most Israelites 
 who had previously little feeling for theocratic 
 nationality gradually amalgamated by marriages 
 and other connections with the nations by which 
 they were surrounded ; while the former inhabit- 
 ants of the kingdom of Judah felt their nationality 
 revived by the very deprivation of public wor- 
 ship which they suffered in foreign lands. Many 
 of the pious members of those tribes which had 
 formerly constituted tire kingdom of Israel, un- 
 doubtedly joined the returning colonies which 
 
 proceeded by the permission of the Persian mo 
 narchs to the land of their fathers. However, 
 these former members of the other tribes formed 
 so decidedly a minority among tire members of 
 the tribe of Judah that henceforth all believers 
 and worshippers of Jehovah were called D'TliT, 
 'lovbaloi, JuuiEi, Jews. Thus it came to pass 
 that the best, although smaller, portion of the 
 ten tribes amalgamated with the Jews, some of 
 whom preserved their genealogies till after the 
 destruction of Jerusalem ; wjiile the larger pro- 
 portion of the ten tribes amalgamated with the 
 Gentiles of Central Asia, to whom they probably 
 imparted some of their notions and customs, which 
 again were, in a state more or less pure, pro- 
 pagated to distant, regions by the great national 
 migrations proceeding from Central Asia. We 
 are glad to find that this our historical conviction 
 has also been adopted by the most learned among 
 the Jews themselves. We may refer to Allgemeiue 
 Geschichte des Israelitischen Volkes, by Dr. J. 
 M. Jost, Berlin, 1832, vol. i. p. 407 sq., 416 sq. 
 
 That the name of the Jews became general 
 for all Israelites who were anxious to preserve 
 their theocratic nationality was the more natural, 
 since the political independence of the Ten 
 Tribes was destroyed long before that of the king- 
 dom of Judah. — C. H. F. B. 
 
 TRIBUTE (DD mas, from masas , ‘to melt’ or 
 ‘ liquify ;’ Gr. epopos), a tax which one prince or 
 state agrees, or is compelled, to pay to another, as 
 the purchase of peace, or in token of dependence. 
 
 The Hebrews acknowledged no other sovereign 
 than God; and in Exodus xxx. 12, 15, we find 
 they were required to pay tribute unto the Lord, 
 to give an offering of half a shekel to ‘ make an 
 atonement for their souls.’ The native kings and 
 judges of the Hebrews did not exact tribute. 
 Solomon, indeed, at the beginning of his reign 
 levied tribute from the Canaanites and others 
 who remained in the land and were not of Israel, 
 and compelled them to hard servitude (1 Kings 
 ix. 21-23; 2 Chron. viii. 9) ; but the children of 
 Israel were exempted from that impost, and em- 
 ployed in the more honourable departments and 
 offices of his kingdom. Towards the end of his 
 reign, however, he appears to have imposed tri- 
 bute upon the Jews also, and to have compelled 
 them to work upon the public buildings (L Kings 
 v. 13, 14; ix. 15; xi. 27). This had the effect 
 of gradually alienating their minds, and of pro- 
 ducing that discontent which afterwards resulted 1 
 in open revolt under Jeroboam, son of Nebat. 
 
 ‘ Thy father made our yoke grievous,’ said the 
 Israelites to Rehoboam : ‘ now, therefore, make 
 thou the grievous service of thy father and his 
 heavy yoke which he put upon us lighter, and 
 we will serve thee’ (1 Kings xii. 4). 
 
 The Israelites were at various times subjected 
 to heavy taxes and tributes by their foreign con- 
 querors. After Judaea was reduced to a Roman 
 province, a new poll of the people and an esti- 
 mate of their substance were taken by command 
 of Augustus, in order that he might more cor- 
 rectly regulate the tribute to be exacted (Joseph. 
 Antiq. xvii. 15). This was a capitation-tax 
 levied at so much a head, and imposed upon all 
 males from 14, and all females from 12 up to 65 
 years of age (Ulpian, Digest, de Censib. lib. iii. - 
 Fischer, De Nurnism. Census ). 
 
894 
 
 TRIBUTE-MONEY. 
 
 TURTLE-DOVE. 
 
 To oppose the levying of this tribute Judas the 
 Gaulonite raised an insurrection of the Jews, 
 asserting that it was not lawful to pay tribute to 
 a foreigner, that it was a token of servitude, and 
 that the Jews were not allowed to acknowledge 
 any for their master who did not. worship the 
 Lord. They boasted of being a free nation, and 
 of never having been in bondage to any man 
 (John viii. 33). These sentiments were exten- 
 sively promulgated, but all their efforts were of 
 no avail in restraining or mitigating the exactions 
 of their conquerors. 
 
 The Pharisees who sought to entangle Jesus in 
 his talk, sent unto him demanding whether it 
 was lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not; 
 but knowing their wicked designs he replied, 
 
 * Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?’ ‘Render 
 unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and 
 unto God the tilings that, are God's/ 
 
 The apostles Peter and Paul severally recom- 
 mended submission to the ruling powers, and 
 inculcated the duty of paying tribute, * tribute 
 to whom tribute is due' (Rom. xiii. 1-8; 1 Peter 
 ii. 13).— G. M. B. 
 
 TRIBUTE-MONEY. The money collected 
 by the Romans in payment of the taxes imposed 
 upon the Jews. The phrase may apply to money 
 of any description, coined or uncoined. The 
 piece shown to our Saviour at his own request, 
 was a Roman coin, bearing the image of one of 
 the Caesars, and must, have been at that time 
 current in Judaea, and received in payment, of the 
 tribute in common with other descriptions of 
 money. There is no reason to suppose that the 
 tribute was collected exclusively in Roman coins, 
 or that the tribute-money was a description of 
 coin different from that which was in general 
 circulation [Money]. — G. M. B. 
 
 TROAS (Too; dr), more fully Alexandria- 
 Troas, a city of northern or Lesser Mysia, in Asia 
 Minor, situated on the coast at some distance 
 southward from the site of Troy upon an emi- 
 nence opposite the island of Tenedos (Strabo, xiii. 
 p. 593; Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 33). Paul was twice 
 at this place (Acts xvi. 8, 9; xx. 6 ; 2 Cor. ii. 
 12; 2 Tim. iv. 13). The name Troas, or Troad, 
 strictly belonged to the whole district around 
 Troy. Alaxandria-Troas is represented by the 
 present Eski-Stamboul, and its ruins are now 
 concealed in the heart of a thick wood of oaks, 
 with which the country abounds (Pococke, pt. iii. 
 153 ; Richter, Wallfahrten, p. 462). 
 
 TROGYLL1UM ( TpwyuWiov ), a town and 
 promontory on the western coast of Asia Minor, 
 opposite Samos, at the foot of Mount Mycale 
 (Strabo, xiv. p. 636). It is mentioned in Acts 
 xx. 15. 
 
 TROPHIMUS (T pocpi/ios), a disciple of 
 Ephesus, who accompanied St. Paul into Judaea, 
 and was the innocent cause of the dangers which 
 the apostle there encountered ; for having been 
 recognised by some Jews of Asia Minor, and seen 
 in company with Paul, they took occasion to ac- 
 cuse Paul of having brought Greeks into the tem- 
 ple (Acts xx. 4; xxi. 29). His name does not 
 again occur till after, seemingly, the first impri- 
 sonment of Paul. In one of the ensuing journeys 
 he remained behind at Miletus sick (2 Tim. iv. 20). 
 This circumstance is regarded as furnishing a 
 strong fact to show that Paul was twice impri- 
 soned at Rome ; for Trophimus, in the first passage 
 
 to Miletus (Acts xx. 15), was not left behind, but 
 proceeded to Judaea; after which we do riot lose 
 sight of Paul for one day, and know that he was 
 not again at Miletus before his first. impfSsonmem 
 at Rome. 
 
 TRUMPET. [Musical Instruments.] 
 
 TRUMPETS, FEAST OF. [Festivals.] 
 
 TRYPHENA and TRYPHOSA ( Tp^aiva 
 uat Tpucpuca), female disci pies at Rome, who la- 
 boured to extend the Gospel and to succour the 
 faithful (Rom. xvi. 12). Their history is un- 
 known ; but, from their names, they were probably 
 sisters. 
 
 TUBAL (^n-in ; Sept. 6o/3eA), a son cf 
 Japhet, and a people descended from him (Gen. 
 x. 2; Isa. lxvi. 19; Ezek. xxvii. 13; xxxii. 26; 
 xxxviii. 2, 3 ; xxxix. 1), supposed to have been 
 settled in Asia Minor near the Euxine [Nations - , 
 Dispersion op.] 
 
 TUBAL-CAIN ()'p_ scoriarum faber; 
 
 Sept. &6l 3eA), son of Lamec’n and Zillah, to 
 whom the invention of the art of forging metals 
 is ascribed in Gen. iv. 22 [Smith]. 
 
 TURTLE-DOVE (Tin Tur, or Thor ; Gr 
 rpvycav ; Lat. Turtur ) occurs in Gen. xv 0 
 Lev. i. 14; v. 7, 11, &c. ; Luke ii. 24. 
 
 The birds of this subgenus are invariably 
 smaller than pigeons properly so called ; they 
 are mostly marked with a patch of peculiarly 
 coloured scutelated feathers on the neck, or 
 with a collar of black, aud have often other 
 markings on the smaller wing-covers. The spe- 
 cies Columba Turtur, with several varieties 
 merely of colour, extends from the west of Europe 
 through the north of Africa, to the islands south 
 of China. The turtle-dove of Palestine is spe- 
 cifically the same; but there is also a second, 
 we believe local : both migrate further south 
 in winter, but return very early ; when their 
 cooing voice in the woods announces the spring. 
 In the rites of the Hebrew law, full-grown or old 
 turtle-doves might be offered in pairs, but only 
 ( gozal ) the young of pigeons not full grown. 
 They were the usual offering of the poor, a cir- 
 cumstance, Bochart remarks, indicating the 
 humble station of the Virgin Mary, since at her 
 purification she offered a pair of turtle-doves in- 
 stead of a lamb. This, however, was the usual 
 practice on that and sundry other occasions : in- 
 deed, so constantly was either one or other species 
 wanted, that dealers in doves and turtle-doves 
 abounded within the precincts rf the temple, and 
 had an overseer appointed to superintend what 
 concerned them. — C. H. S. 
 
TYCHICUS. 
 
 TYRANNUS. 
 
 895 
 
 TYCHICUS (T vxiKbs 6 ’Aeriavbs) Is the name 
 of an assistant and companion of the Apostle 
 Paul, The name has nearly the same significa- 
 tion which we find in the Hebrew Gad, and in the 
 Latin Felix , or Fortunatus. Tychicus was a 
 native of Asia, who accompanied Paul on his 
 third missionary journey (Acts xx. 4), and was, 
 at a later period, the bearer of Paul's letter from 
 Rome to the Colossians. Paul styled him a be- 
 loved brother, faithful minister, and fellow-ser- 
 vant in the Lord, who should declare all his state 
 unto the Colossians, to whom he was sent that he 
 might know their estate and comfort their hearts 
 (Col. iv. 7, 8). For a similar purpose Tychicus 
 was sent to the Ephesians also (Eph. vi. 21, 22; 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 12), and employed in various mis- 
 sionary journeys (Tit. iii. 12). According to 
 tradition, Tychicus was made bishop of Chal- 
 cedon.— C. H. F. R. 
 
 TYPE (Gr. tv-itos), derivatively signifies the 
 print or mark which is made by beating. Thus, 
 in John xx. 25, rhy tvttov tuv i)X(av, which, lite- 
 rally translated, is ‘ the type of the nails.’ 
 
 Again, it denotes a model or example, placed 
 before us for imitation (see Phil. iii. 17; 1 Thess. 
 i. 7 ; 2 Thess. iii. 9 ; 1 Tim. iv. 12 ; Titus ii. 7 ; 
 
 1 Pet. v. 3 ; ii. 21 ; Acts xxiii. 25 ; Rom. vi. 17). 
 
 The word is used also by physicians to desig- 
 nate the particular form which diseases assume : 
 hence Galen wrote a work entitled Uep\ rwv tv- 
 7 to>v. But in its theological sense the best defini- 
 tion perhaps is that which Heb. x. 1 supplies : 
 a type is a shadow of good things to come, 
 j>r, as the apostle elsewhere expresses it (Col. ii. 
 17), ‘a shadow of things to come ; but the body 
 is of Christ.’ Adopting this definition as the 
 correct one, we proceed briefly to point out the 
 different types by which God was pleased in va- 
 rious ages to adumbrate the person and work ot 
 the Redeemer. It would be beside our present 
 purpose to inquire as to the reasons why Jehovah 
 developed his plan of human redemption in a 
 gradually progressive form — by visions, dreams, 
 voices, inspirations, impulses of his spirit, and by 
 miracle. It is enough for us to know that he 
 actually did speak (Heb. i. 1) ‘ at sundry times 
 and in divers manners to the fathers.’ 
 
 In tracing out rcho and what typified or sha- 
 dowed forth Christ and his salvation under the 
 antediluvian, patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensa- 
 tions, we must be careful not to substitute the 
 suggestions of our own imaginations for the inti- 
 mations of Scripture. We must endeavour to learn 
 the mind of God as to what actually constitutes a 
 type, either by the express declarations of Scrip- 
 ture, or by the obvious analogy which subsists 
 between things under the Gospel and its antece- 
 dent dispensations. 'Thus guarding ourselves , 
 we may notice the various types by which God 
 was pleased, at all times, in a sense, to preach 
 the Gospel to mankind. 1. Before the law, Adam, 
 Enoch, Noah, Melchizedec, Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Joseph were eminently typical of Christ. Again, 
 under the law, Moses, Joshua, Samson, David, 
 Solomon, Elijah., Elisha, Jonah, Zerubbabel, and 
 Joshua the high priest, were, in many points , 
 Angularly types of Christ. 
 
 2 . The first-born, the Nazarites, prophets, priests, 
 ind kings, were typical orders of persons. 
 
 3. Under the head of things typical may be 
 •oticed: Jacob’s ladder, the burning-bush, the 
 
 pillar of cloud and fire, the manna, the rock, and 
 the brazen serpent. 
 
 4. Actions typical were : the deliverance out 
 of Egypt, passage of the Red sea, sojourn in the 
 wilderness, passage over the Jordan, entrance into 
 Canaan, and restoration from Babylon. 
 
 5. Rites typical were : circumcision, various 
 sacrifices, and sundry purifications. 
 
 6. Places typical were: the land of Canaan, 
 the cities of refuge, the tabernacle, and the temple. 
 
 The above types were designed to shadow forth 
 Christ and the blessings of his salvation ; but 
 there were others also which pointed at our mise- 
 ries without him. There were ceremonial un- 
 cleannesses ; the leprosy, for instance, was a 
 type of our natural pollution; and Hagar and 
 lshmael a type of the covenant of works. 
 
 As there must be a similarity or analogy be- 
 tween the type and the antitype, so there is also 
 a disparity or dissimilitude between them. 
 
 It is not in the nature of type and antitype 
 that they should agree in all things; else, in- 
 stead of similitude, there would he identity. 
 Hence the apostle, whilst making Adam a type 
 of Christ, yet shows how infinitely the latter ex- 
 celled the former (1 Cor. xv. 47). So the priests 
 of old were types of Christ, though he infinitely 
 excelled them both as to his own person and as to 
 the character of his priesthood (see Heb. v ii., 
 vi ii. , ix., and x ). Chrysostom observes (Horn. 
 61, in Gen.) that there must be more in the type 
 than in the antitype. Hence the distinction 
 must be observed between total and partial types. 
 This distinction CEcumenius also draws, in com- 
 menting on vii. Heb. p. 829. He says : ‘Otuttoj 
 oh Kara iravra iaos ecrrl rfj aXydsia (eirel /cal ai»- 
 ros aXrfieia evpianeTca, kuI Tamdrys fxaXXov, f) 
 txjttos), dXX' et/edras exe/ rivas teal Iv SaXpara : — 
 
 ‘ A type does not express that which it represents 
 in every minute particular, for then instead of si- 
 militude there would be identity, but it contains 
 certain outlines and assimilations of the antitype.’ 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria in cap. vi. Amos p. 
 315, also observes on this subject: 'O rhnos ovk 
 aXydeia, popepeaexiv 8e paXXov rys aXyOeias 
 ew-cpepei : — A type is not the very truth itself, but 
 its representation. 
 
 Did the confined limits of this article permit, 
 it would be at once both easy and interesting to 
 trace out how conspicuously the wisdom and 
 goodness of God are displayed in adapting differ- 
 ent. modes of instruction to the state and con- 
 dition of his creatures in all ages; and how his 
 divine purposes, dimly portrayed by types, were 
 gradually developed from the moment the first 
 promise of salvation was giveff till the advent of 
 that Messiah, who was the theme of all the 
 prophets, and the substance of all the shadows 
 under each successive dispensation (See on this 
 interesting subject Tropologia, by Rev. B. Keach. 
 pp. 225 — 237 ; Suicer, Thesaur. vol. ii. p. 1337 ; 
 Types of the Old Testament, hv Sam. Mather; 
 Christ Revealed, by J. Taylor, D.D. ; also 
 M'Ewen, On the glory and fulness of Christ 
 revealed. — J. W. D. 
 
 TYRANNUS (T vpavvos), a sophist or rheto- 
 rician of Ephesus, who kept one of those schools of 
 philosophy and eloquence so common at that 
 period. St. Paul preached for two years daily 
 in his school after quitting the synagogue (Acta 
 xix. 9). This proves that the school was Greek, 
 
*96 
 
 TYRE. 
 
 TYRE. 
 
 not Jewish. It does not appear whether Tvran- 
 mis was himself a convert or not.; for it may 
 be that he let to the apostle the house or hall 
 which lie used : but it is more pleasant to suppose 
 that he was a convert, and that the apostle was 
 hospitably entertained by him and obtained the 
 use of the hall in which he himself taught. 
 
 TYRE. Besides its antiquity, manufactures, 
 colonies, and commerce, the city of Tyre claims 
 attention as frequently mentioned in biblical his- 
 tory, and still more on account of the prophecies 
 of its overthrow, and their exact, fulfilment. Its 
 Hebrew name, TTY 7Yr or Tsur. which means 
 a rock , was probably derived from its being at 
 first founded for purpose s of defence on a rocky 
 hill. Our word Tyre and its Latin form Tyrus, 
 which are used interchangeably (indifferently) 
 in the English version of the Scriptures, as well 
 as its Greek form Tu/jos, are only slightly changed 
 from the Aramaean form of the original 
 
 Hebrew name. 
 
 The original position of Tyre was on the east- 
 ern coast, of the Mediterranean, about midway 
 between Egypt and Asia Minor, near the north- 
 western frontier of Palestine. As it was a colony 
 of Zidon, Isaiah, by a well-known Hebraism, 
 styles it (xxiii. 12) ‘ daughter of Zidon,' and as 
 it was founded before the records of history, or, 
 as some say, 210 years before the building of 
 Solomon’s temple, Isaiah also speaks (xxiii. 7) of 
 its ‘ antiquity of ancient days A defensible 
 location, which was also favourable to commerce, 
 combined with other circumstances to make the 
 daughter surpass the mother city, becoming the 
 metropolis of Phoenicia, a mart of nations, and 
 t(lie planter of colonies. 
 
 As early as the eleventh century before the ad- 
 vent of Christ, the Tyrians had become famous 
 for skill in the arts. Apart from the statement 
 that the territory of Asher extended to theirs 
 (Josh. xix. 29), the first notice of tlrem in tne 
 Scriptures is, that about 1 142 b.c. (2 Sam. v. 11), 
 their king Hiram s^nt cedar-trees to Jerusalem, 
 and workmen who built. David a house. A gene- 
 ration later, when Solomon, preparing to build 
 the temple, sent to the same monarch for similar 
 assistance, he said to him (1 Kings v. G), ‘ Thou 
 knowest that there is not among us any that can 
 skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians.’ He 
 also (1 Kings vii. 13) sent and fetched Hiram 
 out of Tyre, a widow’s son, filled with cunning 
 to work all works in brass. At nearly the same 
 period, the Sidonians, of whom the Tyrians were 
 a branch, were often alluded to in Homer as 
 artists of everything elaborate and beauteous. In 
 subsequent, ages, every king coveted a robe of 
 Tyrian purple, and Ezekiel (xxvii. Ifi) speaks of 
 ‘ the multitude of wares of its making,' — eme- 
 ralds, purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, 
 and coral, and agate. 
 
 The commerce of Tyre was commensurate with 
 its manufactures. Situate at the entry of the 
 sea, it became a merchant of the people for many 
 isles. It was inhabited by seafaring knen, and 
 was styled by way of eminence ‘the merchant- 
 city,’ whose merchants were princes, whose traffick- 
 ers were the honourable of the earth (Isa. xxiii. 8). 
 When the ships of Solomon sailed away to Ophir 
 (1 Kings ix. 27). ‘ Hiram sent in the navy his 
 servants, ship-men that had knowledge of the sea, 
 with the servants of Solomon.' The Tyrians al- 
 
 ready adventured three years' voyages to Tarshish 
 beyond the pillars of Hercules. In its vicinity 
 they afterwards built Cadiz. Among their other 
 colonies, whither ‘ their own feet carried them afar 
 off to sojourn,’ were Cyprus, Utica, and Carthage 
 — the last so long the most formidable rival ot 
 Rome, the founding of which, so poetically treated 
 by Virgil, is placed bv antiquarians in the year 
 b c. S69. In the 27th chapter of Ezekiel, Syria, 
 Persia, and Egypt, Spain, Greece, and every 
 quarter of the ancient world, are portrayed has- 
 tening to lay their most precious things at the 
 feet of Tyre, who sat enthroned on ivory, covered 
 with blue and purple from the isles of Elishah; 
 while the Gammadims were in her towers, hanged 
 their shields upon her walls round about, and 
 made her beauty perfect. 
 
 Near the close of the eighth century before the 
 Christian era, Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria 
 who captured Samaria, was led by cupidity to 
 lay siege to Tyre. He cut. off its supplies of 
 wafer which aqueducts had furnished, but wells 
 within the walls supplied their place; and at the 
 end of five years he gave up his blockade as 
 hopeless. At this crisis, or even earlier, an island 
 half a mile from the shore was made a strong- 
 hold ^ for the riches of the city : the water, to a 
 nautical people, being the best bulwark against 
 the Assyrians, who had no maritime power. The 
 original city on the mainland was subsequently 
 named Palaio-Tyrus, or Old Tyre. 
 
 The Tyrians were naturally proud of having 
 successfully done battle with the mightiest king 
 of the East, and for a time played a part in the 
 ancient world like that, which Venice played in 
 the middle ages. Each was insular, colonial, 
 and continental — its borders in the midst of the 
 seas — the builders had perfected its beauty — 
 every precious stone was its covering. Each was 
 not only commercial and opulent, but a joyous 
 ciry, a pieasant place of all festivity — dance, 
 song, and harp. 
 
 It was against a city such as this, so confident, 
 and to all appearance so justifiably confident, of 
 sitting a queen for ever, that several prophets, 
 particularly Isaiah and Ezekiel, fulminated the 
 denunciations which Jehovah dictated. They 
 prophesied that, it should be overthrown by Ne- 
 buchadnezzar, that it should revive, but at. length 
 be destroyed and never rebuilt. 
 
 Before a generation had passed away, accord- 
 ing to Josephus, Philosfratus, and Seder Olam, 
 Nebuchadnezzar came up, as had been pre- 
 dicted (Ezek. xxvi. 7-13). making a fort, casting 
 a mount, and lifting up the buckler. At the end 
 of thirteen years (about a.m. 3422) he took the 
 city, at, least that on the mainland, and Tyre 
 was forgotten seventy years, as had been foretold 
 by Isaiah (xxiii. 15). In the year b.c. 332 Tyre, 
 which had again become a flourishing emporium 
 for all the kingdoms of the world upon the face 
 of the earth, ‘and heaped up silver as the dust, 
 and fine gold as the mire of the streets.’ was 
 assailed by Alexander the Great in the midst of 
 his Oriental career of conquest. It is doubtful 
 whether the city on the mainland had been re- 
 built; if so, it yielded at once to the youthful 
 conqueror. But the insular city sustained a 
 siege of seven months, and was at length taken 
 only by means cf a mole, by which the island 
 was turned into a peninsula, and rendered atr 
 
TYRE. 
 
 TZAPHTZAPHA. 
 
 CBasible by land forces. In constructing this 
 mole Alexander made use of the ruins of the old. 
 city, and thereby fulfilled two prophecies. One 
 was (Ezek. xxvi. 12), ‘And they shall lay thy 
 stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst 
 of the water.’ The other was (ver. 21), ‘ And 
 thou sha.lt be no more : though thou be sought 
 for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith 
 the Lord God.’ So utterly were the ruins of old 
 Tyre thrown into the sea, that its exact site is 
 confessedly undeterminable, although the ruins 
 of nearly fifty cities near Rome, which perished 
 almost 2500 years ago, testify that the extinction 
 of every trace of a city is a sort of miracle. 
 Moreover, Alexander laid Tyre in ashes: thus 
 accomplishing the prediction of Zechariah (ix. 4), 
 
 ‘ She shall be devoured with fire.’ Besides, as 
 ships from Tyre, out on a three years’ voyage, 
 returned to find that city razed to the ground 
 which they had left and looked to find once more 
 'n the perfection of beauty, there is a significance 
 in the prophecy of Isaiah not at first obvious 
 (xxiii. 1, 14): ‘Howl, ye ships of Tarshish ; 
 for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, 
 no entering in. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish, for 
 your strength is laid waste.’ 
 
 The more of Alexander has prevented Tyre 
 from becoming insulated again. The revival of 
 the city was long retarded by the rivalship of 
 the newly-founded Alexandria, and by other 
 causes, so that, although a ship in which Paul 
 sailed was there to unlade her burden (Acts xxi. 
 3), Pliny, who wrote in the first century, after 
 relating how great it had been, and that its ruins 
 were nineteen miles in circuit, adds, ‘ at this day 
 all its nobility consists in oysters and purple’ 
 (v. 17). But in the time of Jerome, the latter 
 half of the fourth century, it had so far revived 
 that he was embarrassed in commenting on Ezek. 
 xxvi. 14, ‘ Thou shalt be built no more;’ and at 
 last interprets the meaning to be, that it should 
 not again become an independent state, but re- 
 main subject to the Macedonian, Seleucian, Ro- 
 man, or some other power. But time was a better 
 commentator, or has now made Sabbath-school 
 children better commentators than St. Jerome. 
 
 The possession of Tyre was often afterwards 
 contested as if it were a key to unlock a king- 
 dom ; it was beleaguered more than once during 
 the crusades, was the burial-place of the German 
 Emperor Barbarossa, and, remaining in European 
 hands till 1291, was almost the last place in Asia 
 which the chivaliy of the West yielded to the 
 Moslems. Its fortifications, which were almost 
 impregnable, were demolished, and it has never 
 since been a place of consequence. Travellers 
 of every succeeding century describe it as a heap 
 of ruino, broken arches and vaults, tottering walls 
 and towers, with a few starveling wretches housing 
 amid the rubbish. A chief of the Druses, indeed, 
 attempted to rebuild it two hundred years ago, 
 but in vain. Maundrell, in 1694, found ‘ not so 
 much as one entire house left.’ In Pococke’s day 
 (1738) it was a place of export for grain, but 
 contained only two or three Christian families 
 and a few other inhabitants. In 1766 a part of 
 the peninsula was walled, and a town named Sur 
 founded, which still exists, and exports tobacco, 
 cotton, wool, and wood. Yet its population has 
 never exceeded three thousand souls. It cannot 
 compete with its neighbour Beirut; its harbour 
 von. 58 
 
 is navigable only by boats, and becomes more 
 anti moie shallow every year. It was hal*f ruined 
 by an earthquake in 1837. One of the best ac- 
 counts of its present appearance is given by the 
 American traveller Robinson, who spent a Sab- 
 bath there in 1838 (Biblical Researches, iii. 395) : 
 
 ‘ I continued my walk,’ says he, ‘ along the shore 
 of the peninsula, part of which is now unoccupied, 
 except as “a place to spread nets upon,” musing 
 upon the pride and fall of ancient Tyre. Here 
 was the little isle, once covered by her palaces 
 and surrounded by her fleets : but alas ! thy 
 riches and thy fame, thy merchandise, thy ma- 
 riners and thy piloN, thy caulkers, and. the oc- 
 cupiers of thy merchandise that were in thee, — 
 where are they ? Tyre has indeed become like 
 “ the top of a rock.” The sole tokens of her more 
 ancient splendour — columns of red and grey 
 granite, sometimes forty or fifty heaped together, 
 or marble pillars — lie broken and strewed beneath 
 the waves in the midst of the sea ; and the hovels 
 that now nestle upon a portion of her site present 
 no contradiction of the dread decree, “ Thou shalt 
 be built no more.” 
 
 The downfall and permanent desolation of 
 Tyre is one of the most memorable accomplish- 
 ments of prophecy which the annals of the world 
 exhibit. The sins which sealed its ruin were, in 
 the words of the sacred writers, these: ‘Because 
 that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she 
 is broken that was the gates of the people; she 
 is turned unto me ; I shall be replenished now 
 she is laid waste’ (Ezek. xxvi. 2). ‘ Because thy 
 
 heart is lilted up, and thou hast said, I am a 
 God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the 
 seas’ (xxviii. 2). ‘ The children also of Judah 
 
 and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto 
 the Grecians that: ye might remove them far from 
 their border’ (Joel iii. 6). — J. D. B. 
 
 TZAPHTZAPHA (flD^pY) occurs only in 
 Ezek. xvii. 5, and is usually translated ‘ willow- 
 tree :’ ‘ He took also of the seed of the land, and 
 planted it in a fruitful field ; he placed it by 
 great waters, and set it as a icilloxo-tree .’ Cel- 
 sius, however, thinks that the word means lo- 
 cus planus, planities, although he at the same 
 time gives all the evidence for the former mean- 
 ing. First, the Rabbins consider it to mean a tree, 
 
 ‘ et quidem sa/ix R. Ben Mele.ch says it is 
 ‘ species salicis, Arabibus Tziphtzaph dicta;’ while 
 ‘ Avicenna hoc tit. elicit Tziphtzaph esse Chilaf .’ 
 Travellers, also, give us similar information. 
 Thus Paul Lucas: ‘ Les Arabes le nomment sof- 
 saf \ qui signifie en Arabe saule.' Rauwolf (Tra- 
 vels, i. ch. 9), speaking of the plants he found near 
 Aleppo, remarks, ‘ There is also a peculiar sort of 
 willow-trees, called safsaf, & c. ; the stems and 
 twigs are long, thin, weak, and of a pale yellow- 
 colour; on their twigs here and there are shoots 
 of a span long, like unto the Cypriotish wild fig- 
 trees, which put forth in the spring tender and 
 woolly flowers, like unto the blossoms of the 
 poplar-tree, only they are of a more drying quality, 
 of a pale colour, and a fragrant smell. The in- 
 habitants pull of these great quantities, and distil 
 a very precious and sweet water out of them.* 
 This practice is still continued in Eastern coun- 
 tries as far as Northern India, and was, and 
 probably still is, well known in Egypt. The 
 species which is called chilaf by the Arabs is 
 
TZEBI. 
 
 TZERI. 
 
 called Salix JEgyptiaca by botanists ; and it is pro- 
 bable that it is also found in Syria, and may be 
 the above safsaf. Indeed, it was found by Hassel- 
 
 529. [Salix ^Egyptiaca._ 
 
 quist on nis journey from Acre to Sidon, as he 
 mentions it as S. Egyptiaca, v. S. Safsaf 
 [Orebim].— J. F. R. 
 
 TZEBI ('?¥ ; Sept. AopmLs'), Dorcas is ap- 
 plicable to the whole group of Gazelles properly 
 so called. We may here notice that Ant. Sub- 
 gutturosa may have been the typical animal 
 whence Thisbe, in the Babylonian legend of Py- 
 ramus and Thisbe, took her name ; and that the 
 Cervus Dama, or fallow-deer, said to have been 
 seen in Palestine by Hasselquist, was the same 
 species, or Cervus barbarus, which, when young, 
 has horns slightly palmated, and a speckled 
 livery [Antelope]. — C. H. S. 
 
 TZERI OV)) or Zeri, also Zori, translated 
 balm , occurs in Gen. xxxvii. 25 ; xliii. 11 ; and 
 in both passages is mentioned along with lot and 
 necoth, with the addition in the second of botnim 
 and shekadim. In Gen. xliii. 11, Jacob thus ad- 
 dresses his sons : ‘ Take of the best fruits in the 
 land in your vessels, and carry down the man a 
 present : a little balm ( tzeri ), and a little honey 
 ( debash ), spices ( tragacanth ) [Necoth] and 
 myrrh \ladanum ; Lot], nuts [Botnim] and 
 almonds’ [Shekadim]. In the separate articles 
 on these substances some general observations 
 have been made, which will equally apply to 
 tzeri. This, therefore, like the other substances 
 intended as presents, or forming articles of com- 
 merce, must have been a produce of Gilead, or 
 of the northern parts of Syria, and would thus be 
 suitable for conveying to Egypt on the occasion re- 
 ferred to. Balm or balsam [Basam ; Baal-she- 
 iibn], we have seen, was an Arabian and Abyssi- 
 nian plant cultivated in one or two places of 
 
 Palestine, hut at a later period than the rausac- 
 tions recorded in the book of Genesis. As we 
 have before said, ‘ It is probable, therefo. e, that 
 some other tree producing a balsamic secretion is 
 intended in the above passages, where the word 
 balm has been considered the equivalent of tzeri. ’ 
 
 But it is difficult to determine exactly what sub- 
 stance is intended : we may, however, adduce the 
 other passages in which the word is found. Eze- 
 kiel (xxvii. 17) mentions tzeri along with ‘wheat 
 of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil,’ as 
 merchandise which Judah brought to the market 
 of Tyre. That it was possessed of medicinal pro- 
 perties appears from Jer. viii. 22 : ‘Is there no 
 balm in Gilead i ' ‘ Go up into Gilead and take 
 
 balm' (xlvi. 11). ‘Take balm for her pain, if 
 so she may be healed’ (xli. 8). It has been 
 variously translated — cera, theriaca, cedri resina, 
 stacti unguenta, medicamenta, resina, colopho- 
 nia. * Celsius and others state that zuroo in 
 Arabic signifies mastic , and that tzeri there- 
 fore is this resin : in which he is followed by 
 Sprengel. In the Arabic and English Dictionary 
 
 is translated the gum of an Arabian tree, 
 
 which is called kamkam y and said to be found in 
 the mountains of Yemen. In the writer’s MS. 
 Materia Med ica, khushkhush y or\e of the names of 
 the poppy, is given as the synonyme of zuroo ; 
 hut this may be a mistake of transcribers. It is 
 curious, however, that Avicenna mentions zuroo 
 as a well-known gum brought to Mecca, as being 
 odorous, and having the power of laudanum. 
 
 zuree, moreover, means ‘bleeding profusely,’ 
 
 as a vein, or according to Rosenmulltr, ‘ fluid or 
 liquid in general, which equally applies to oil of 
 every kind.’ 
 
 We are unable, however, distinctly to connect 
 any of the above names with any product of 
 Gilead. But there is a product which, though 
 little known to Europeans, is highly esteemed by 
 the Arabs, according to the testimony of several 
 travellers. This is the oil of the zackum tree, 
 sometimes called the Jericho plum-tree, also the 
 Jerusalem willow, oleaster or wild olive-tree, or 
 Elseagnus angustifolius of Linnaeus. The fruit 
 of one species is much esteemed in Persia, and 
 known by the name of zinzyd. The Syrian fruit 
 is ovoid, but oblong, fleshy, having an olive-shaped 
 nut with a kernel containing oil. The oil is 
 separated by pressure and floating it on wate’*, 
 and a further portion by boiling. The Arabs 
 are described by Maundrell and Mariti as hold- 
 ing it in high esteem, and as preferring it to the 
 balsam of Mecca, because they found it very 
 efficacious against contusions and wounds. ‘ For- 
 merly, if not now, when the Christian caravan 
 advanced towards Jericho it used to be met by 
 crowds of Arab women, offering the salutary oil 
 for sale to the pilgrims, in small leather bottles ’ 
 (Kitto, Palestine, ccxxiii.). This is supposed by 
 some to be the Myrobalanus of Pliny and other 
 ancient writers ; but by some the fruit of Melia 
 azadirachta, and by others again that of Hyperan- 
 thera Moringa, or H. aptera,are considered the true 
 Myrobalanus of the ancients. Of the last it is said, I 
 ‘ Oleum, e cotyledonibus expressum, in omni ori- J 
 ente usitatum, ea propter praedicatur, quod non fa- 
 cile rancorem contrahat. 1 But, as we are uaable te 
 
TZIYIM. 
 
 UR. 
 
 89*3 
 
 •oanect any of these with the iztn of Scripture, 
 we need not further pursue this subject [Agrie- 
 j.aia]. — J. F. R. 
 
 TZIYIM (D^V)- Bochart, inclined to recog- 
 nise this word as a general term denoting cats, or 
 any kind of wild beasts that frequent dry places, 
 discovered an incongruity when it is opposed to 
 a single species, Iyim, which he translates 
 ‘ Thoes ’ (Isa. xxxiv. 14, and Jer. 1.39). Both 
 words are meant, it seems, to imitate the cry of 
 animals; and if he be right in regarding the first 
 as expressive of the mewing or screaming of wild 
 cats, with such other animals as the ancients in- 
 cluded in the feline tribe, and we now class 
 among viveridae and mustelidae, each including 
 several genera, more or less represented by species 
 residing in and around Palestine ; we then find the 
 opposition of the two words strikingly just, pro- 
 vided that, instead of the single Thoes of Bochart, 
 we make lyirn include also the various wild 
 canidae (dogs) of the same region, amounting to 
 at least twelve species, without including two 
 hyaenas [Weasel]. — C. H. S. 
 
 u. 
 
 ULAI ('^IK ; Sept. OujSaA), a river which 
 flowed by Susa [Shushan] into the united stream 
 of the Tigris and Euphrates. It is mentioned in 
 Dan. viii. 2. It is called by Pliny Eulaeus 
 (Hist. Nat. vi. 81), but is described by Greek 
 writers under the name of Choaspes (Herodot. 
 v. 49 ; Strabo, xv. p. 728), and is now known 
 by the name of Kerah, called by the Turks 
 Karasu. This river is formed by the junction of 
 many streams in the province of Ardelan, in 
 Kurdistan. It runs through the plain of Ker- 
 manshah, and being greatly increased in magni- 
 tude by the junction of two small rivers, proceeds 
 with a furious course towards Khuzistan, re- 
 ceiving numerous tributaries in its passage. It 
 passes on the west of the ruins of Shus [Susa : 
 see Shusan], and enters the Shat-ul-Arab about 
 twenty miles below Koma (Kinneir, Geog. Mem. 
 of the Persian Empire , pp. 96, 97). 
 
 UNCLEAN BIRDS. The species which the 
 law forbade the Israelites to use for food (Levit. 
 xi. and Deut. xiv.) include bats, because in the 
 most ancient classifications of animals, all flying 
 animals were considered to belong more to birds 
 than quadrupeds ; in other respects the list is 
 confined nearly to the same genera and species as 
 are at the present day rejected in all Christian 
 countries. There are only twenty named; but 
 in the text the additional words c of the like kind ’ 
 clearly imply sometimes even more than genera, 
 and the explanations of the law superadded by 
 human authority indicate several which do not 
 «»ccur in either list. Such are, for example (as 
 stated in the Chaldee Paraphrase), all long-legged 
 waders or stilters, and cursorial birds that have 
 the hind-toe or hallux wanting: no doubt an 
 extension of the prohibition of the ostrich; but 
 m this manner including most bustards, plovers, 
 &c., and giving rise to nice distinctions among 
 those gallinaceae which are nearly allied to 
 partridges, whrse hind-toe is found gradually to 
 be higher up the leg, and very much reduced in 
 
 size, till it becomes altogether wanting. This gra- 
 dation proceeds from the grouse species through 
 the pterocles or gangas, until its total absence is 
 observed in the turnix, as in the Andalusian or 
 Spanish and the Gibraltar, which nevertheless are 
 in other respects partridges or quails according to 
 the systems of Linnaeus and Latham : — 
 
 1. “12^3 Neser Eagles. 
 
 2. DID Peres Gypaeta, or bearded 
 
 V ulture. 
 
 3. iTOty Ozniya Osprey — Bacha. 
 
 4. nan, n&n Daah, Raah Glede — Black Kite. 
 
 5. m, H'N Ay ah, Day ah Vulture — Merlin 
 
 and allied species. 
 
 6. 
 
 my Oreb 
 
 Raven — Crow and 
 Congeners. 
 
 7. 
 
 my' Yaanah 
 
 Ostrich. 
 
 8. 
 
 DDiin Tachmas 
 
 Night Hawk, or Goat- 
 sucker. 
 
 9. 
 
 Shacaph 
 
 Cuckoo — Gull. 
 
 10. 
 
 |*3 Netz 
 
 Hawk and con- 
 geners. 
 
 11. 
 
 DID Chos 
 
 Owl. 
 
 12 . 
 
 Shalach 
 
 Caspian and Nilotic 
 Tern. 
 
 13. 
 
 Yanshuph 
 
 Owl (?), Nigtat Heron. 
 
 14. 
 
 Tinshemeth 
 
 Porphyrio. 
 
 15. 
 
 ntfp Kaath 
 
 Pelican. 
 
 16. 
 
 Dm Racham 
 
 White Carrion Vul- 
 ture Neophron. 
 
 17. 
 
 ilTDn Chasidah 
 
 Stork. 
 
 18. 
 
 HD3N Anaphah 
 
 Heron — Plover and 
 
 
 - 
 
 allied species. 
 
 19. 
 
 riD'an Dukiphah 
 
 Hoopoo. 
 
 20. 
 
 Fj^Dy Ataleph 
 
 Bat. 
 
 We confess that if it were not for the influence 
 which Rabbinical decisions have so long exer- 
 cised upon the opinion of Christian Hebraists, we 
 should have been greatly inclined to regard most 
 of the names here enumerated as arranged in 
 greater order of consimilarity than our versions 
 admit, and as more typical of what we now would 
 denominate families and genera than they appear 
 to show. Every ornithologist who reviews this 
 question with care will feel with Winer (Biblisch. 
 Beal- Worterbuch), that, with certain exceptions, 
 the proposed identifications cannot be regarded as 
 claiming entire confidence. — C. H. S. 
 UNICORN. [Reem.] 
 
 UPHAZ (TD-1N ; Sept. ’£2<|>aQ, a country from 
 which gold was obtained (Jer. x. 9; Dan. x. 5). 
 It is generally supposed to be a corruption of 
 Ophir, which would require the change of 
 only one letter, and there are other cases in 
 which “7 and t are interchanged. 
 UPPER-ROOM. [House.] 
 
 UR, of the Chaldees, was the native place of 
 the family of Abraham, whence he migrated first 
 to Haran and then to Canaan (Gen. xi. 28, 31 ; 
 xv. 7 ; Neb. ix. 7 ; Acts vii. 4). The Biblical 
 narratives supply only indirect implications as to 
 the locality intended. From these we conclude 
 that it was land lying to the East of Canaan, and 
 affording suitable pasture-grounds for a nomade 
 race that had made some considerable progress in 
 
m 
 
 URBAN. 
 
 URIM. 
 
 civilization. And as the Chaldees were originally 
 a tribe of mountaineers in the high lands of Ar- 
 menia, in those parts must we look for Ur of the 
 Chaldees. With this view the most recent geo- 
 graphical researches are substantially in agree- 
 ment. Ritter, in the last volume of his pro- 
 found, comprehensive, and invaluable work ( Erd - 
 ktinde, vii. 320, sq.), after a review of all that lias 
 been ascertained respecting the countries covered 
 by the Euphrates and the Tigris, from their sources 
 to their mouths, gives it as his opinion that Ur 
 was a district identical with the modern pachalic 
 of Urfa, to which 4here belong several districts, 
 among others Rouha, which is the ancient Edessa. 
 
 — J. R. B. 
 
 URBAN ( Ovpfiav6s ), a disciple at Rome, and 
 one of Paul’s companions in labour (Rom. xvi. 9). 
 Nothing is known of him; but his name shows 
 him to have been a Roman. 
 
 URIAH (nn-lX, flame of Jehovah; Sept. 
 Ovpfay), a Hittite, and therefore a descendant of 
 the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, whose name 
 occurs in the list of the ‘worthies’ or champions 
 of king David, in whose army he was an officer. 
 He was the husband of Bathsheba ; and while he 
 was absent with the army before Rabbah, David 
 conceived and gratified a criminal passion for his 
 wife. T^e king then directed Joab to send him 
 to Jerusalem, but failing to make his presence 
 instrumental in securing Bathsheba from the 
 legal consequences of her misconduct, he sent 
 him back with a letter directing Joab to ex- 
 pose him to the enemy in such a manner as to 
 ensure his destruction. This the unscrupulous 
 Joab accomplished ; and David then took the 
 widow into his own harem (2 Sam. xi. ; xxiii. 
 39) [David ; Bathsheba]. 
 
 1. URIJAH flame of Jehovah; Sept. 
 
 Oupias ), high priest of the Jews in the time of 
 king Ahaz. He received from this young prince, 
 who was than at Damascus, the model of an 
 altar which had there engaged his attention, with 
 arderg to make one like it at Jerusalem. It vjfas 
 ciis duty to refuse compliance with this dan- 
 gerous order; but he made such haste in his 
 obedience that the altar was completed by the 
 time Ahaz returned ; and he afterwards went, so far 
 in his subservience as to offer upon this new and 
 unauthorized altar the sacrifices prescribed by the 
 Jaw of Moses (2 Kings xvi. 10-12). He was 
 probably not so fully aware as he ought to have 
 been of the crime and danger involved in this 
 concession to a royal caprice, being a transgres- 
 sion of the law which fixed the form of the 
 Mosaical altar (Exod. xxvii. 1-8; xxxviii. 1-7): 
 for he appears to have been in intention a good 
 man, as he is one of the ‘ faithful witnesses’ 
 chosen by Isaiah (viii- 2) to attest one of his 
 prophecies. 
 
 2. URIJAH, a prophet, son of Shemaiah of 
 Kirjath-jearim in Judah, who, in the time of 
 Jehoiakim, uttered prophecies against Judaea and 
 Jerusalem of the same tenour as those which Jere- 
 miah was commissioned to deliver. Menaced 
 with death by the king, Urijah sought refuge in 
 Egypt; but Judaea was at that time subject to 
 Pharaoh-Necho, who had no interest in protecting 
 a proscribed fugitive wb foretold the conquests 
 of the Babylonians. He was therefore delivered 
 up on tl>e demand of Jehoiakim, who put him to 
 
 death, and ordered him to be buried dishonour* 
 ably in one of the graves of the meanest of tb« 
 people (Jer. xxvi. 20, 21). 
 
 URIM* and THUMMIM (D'SHI D'VIN ; 
 Sept. SiiXuats Ka\ aXydeia, & c. ; Vulg., Doctrina 
 et Veritas). The Hebrew words are generally 
 considered to be plurales excellentiae, denoting 
 light (i. e. revelation) and truth ; and as used by a 
 metonymy for the things or modes whereby the 
 revelation was given, and truth declared. They 
 may, however, be duals. A similar view of their 
 construction and meaning pervades the Sept, and 
 Vulg. renderings, under some varieties of expres- 
 sion. There are two principal opinions respecting 
 •the Urim and Thummim. One is, that these 
 words simply denote the four rows of precious 
 stones in the breastplate of the high-priest, and 
 are so called from their brilliancy and perfection ; 
 which stones, in answer to an appeal to God 
 in difficult cases, indicated his mind and will by 
 some supernatural appearance. Thus, as we know 
 that upon each of the stones was to be engraven 
 the name of one of the sons of Jacob, it has been 
 conjectured that the letters forming the divine 
 response became some way or other distinguished 
 from the other letters. It has been conjectured 
 by others that the response was given by an 
 audible voice to the high-priest arrayed in full 
 pontificals, and standing in the holy place with 
 his face turned towards the ark. The other prin- 
 cipal opinion is, that the Urim and Thummim 
 were two small oracular images, similar to the 
 Teraphim, personifying revelation and truth , 
 which were placed in the cavity or pouch formed 
 by the folds of the breastplate, and which uttered 
 oracles by a voice. [Priest, the breastplate ; 
 Teraphim.] We propose simply to lay before 
 the reader a statement of the facts connected with 
 this obscure but interesting subject. It is remark- 
 able that the first time the Urim and Thummim 
 are mentioned in Scripture, they are referred to 
 as things already known. After a minute de- 
 scription of the breastplate, which, as we have 
 shown in Priest, was to differ in several parti- 
 culars from that worn by the Egyptian priests, it 
 is simply added, ‘And thou shalt put in the 
 breastplate of judgment, the Urim and the Thum- 
 mim ’ (Exod. xxviii. 30). So indefinite, -how- 
 ever, is the preposition here translated ‘ in,’ 
 that it may also mean ‘on’ or ‘ near’ (Sept, 
 reads eV/). The Urim and Thummim are, 
 however, here clearly distinguished from the 
 breastplate itself, or from the four rows of gems, 
 unless we can imagine that the breastplate 
 should be so called before the gems, the essential 
 part of it, were put into their place. We observe 
 the like distinction made in the account of 
 Aaron's consecration (Lev. viii. 8 ; comp. Ecclus. 
 xlv. 10), and by Josephus ( Antiq . viii. 3. 8), 
 where he distinguishes the rb \oyeiov, or oracle, 
 from the precious stones. So does the Samaritan 
 text, which also states the Urim and Thummim to 
 have been made on the occasion. We think the 
 distinction indicated in these passages of Scrip- 
 ture sufficiently clear to withstand the inferenc* 
 which has been derived from comparing Exod. 
 xxviii. 29, with 30, and Exod. xxxix. 8, &c., with 
 Lev. viii. 8 ; namely, that the Urim and Thum- 
 mim were identical with the gems in the breast- 
 plate. In Num. xxvii. 21, the word 
 
URIM. 
 
 URIM. 
 
 901 
 
 done u med in a brief recapitulatory manner, 
 and, no doubt, including the Thummim, or else, 
 in the general sense of divine revelations, answers, 
 &c., by this method (Sept, f) Kpins rwu oiv evavn 
 
 Kvplov; comp. 1 Sam. xxviii. 6; Sept. ev rots 
 S^Aoiy, Vulg. per sacerdotes). The usual order is 
 reversed in Dent, xxxiii. 8, where it is Thummim 
 and Urim. The last mention of them occurs after 
 the return of the captivity, when ‘ the Tirshatha’ 
 decreed that certain claimants to the rights of the 
 priesthood, but who could not. produce their eccle- 
 siastical pedigree, should wait ‘till there stood up 
 a priest with Urim and with Thummim/ by whom 
 their claim might be infallibly decided (Ezra ii. 
 63 ; Sept, r o7s cfnari^ovai Kal ro7s reXelois ; Vulg. 
 sacerdos doctus atqnc perfectus ; Neh. vii. 65, 
 .epevs (pomow, sacerdos doctus et eruditus). 
 From these obscure statements of Scripture we 
 naturally turn to Josephus, the professed antiqua- 
 rian of his nation. He says, when intending to 
 treat of the subject, that ‘ God declared before- 
 hand by those twelve stones which the high-priest 
 bore on his breast, and which were inserted into 
 the breastplate, when they should be. victorious 
 in battle ; for so great a splendour shone forth 
 from them before the army began to march, that 
 all the people were sensible of God’s being pre- 
 sent for their assistance, and that the breast- 
 plate left oft' shining two hundred years before he 
 composed that book’ ( Antiq . iii. 8. 9 ; see Wins- 
 ton’s Notes in loc. ). On the contrary, Philo, 
 the learned contemporary of Josephus, represents 
 the Urim and Thummim as two images of the two 
 virtues or powers — 5^A«<rtV re /cal aK^Qeiav. The 
 full quotation is : ‘ Tb 5e \oye7ov (the pectoral or 
 breastplate) ; rerpdyuvov, bncKovv /car ecnc evader o, 
 wravel Paris, 7va Svo dp eras dyaKparocpopfj (that 
 they might carry the image of the two powers); 
 b^Kcocriu re Kal aArjQeiaV (De Vita Mosis, lib. iii. p. 
 152, t. 2, ed. Mangey). He also uses the following 
 words (De Monarch, lib. ii. p.824; Opp. vol. ii. p. 
 226), ’End rod \oyelov dirra vcpdrpara Karanot- 
 ulKKei, icporayopevuv rb per r b S’ a\i j- 
 
 Qeiav. Of the two statements, that of Philo is best 
 supported by certain external evidence, which will 
 now be produced. It. had been noticed by all 
 the old commentators, that a remarkable resem- 
 blance existed between the Urim and Thummim 
 of the Jewish high-priest, and the custom re- 
 corded by .(Elian of the Egyptian archjudge, who 
 was always a priest venerable for age, learning, 
 and probity, and who opened judicial proceed- 
 ings by suspending, by a gold chain hung round 
 his neck (comp. £»en. xli. 42), an image made 
 of a sapphire stone, which was called ’A^Geta, 
 *. e. ‘truth,’ and with which Diodorus Siculus 
 says lie touched (w pordeiro) the party who had 
 gained the cause. Certain traces of a similar 
 custom among the Romans had also been adverted 
 to, namely, that among the Vestal Virgins, at least 
 she that was called Maxima, and who sat in judg- 
 ment and tried causes, as the Pontifex Maximus 
 did, wore a similar antepectorale (Lipsius, De 
 Vestal, el Vestal; Syntagma Ant. ap. Plant. 
 1603. cap. ult.). But these resemblances among 
 the Egyptians were considered to have been 
 derived by them from the Jews, in consequence 
 of their correspondence with them after Solomon’s 
 marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (Patrick on 
 Exod. xxviii. 30). Subsequent discoveries, how- 
 bvmt, among the antiquities of Eg rpt lead to the 
 
 conclusion that these resemblances belong to a 
 much earlier period. Sir G. Wilkinson says the 
 figure of Truth which the Egyptian arch-judgo 
 suspended from his neck, was, in fact, a represen- 
 tation of the goddess who was worshipped under 
 the dual or double character of Truth and Justice, 
 and whose name, Thmei, the Egyptian or Coptic 
 name of Justice or Truth (compare the Greek 
 6epis), appears to have been the origin of the 
 Hebrew Thummim — ‘a word/ he remarks/ accord- 
 ing to the Sept, translation, implying truth, and 
 bearing a furtheranalogy in its plural termination.' 1 
 He also remarks that the word Thummim, being 
 a plural or dual word, corresponds to the Egyptian 
 notion of the ‘ two Truths,’ or the double capacity 
 of this goddess. ‘This goddess/ he says, ‘fre- 
 quently occurs in the sculptures in this double 
 capacity, represented by two figures exactly 
 similar, as in No. (530). It is/ he adds, ‘ fur- 
 
 ther observable that the chief-priest of the Jews, 
 who, before the election of a king, was also the 
 judge of the nation, was alone entitled to wear this 
 honorary badge. Does the touch of the successful 
 
 litigant with the figure, by the Egyptian arch-judge, 
 afford any illustration of such passages as Isa. vi. 
 7, Jer. i. 9, Est. v. 2, or of those numerous instances 
 in which touching is represented as the emblem 
 or means of miraculous virtue? Our authority 
 
URIM. 
 
 USURY. 
 
 902 
 
 for these Egyptian antiquities adds, that according 
 to some the Urim and Thummim signify ‘ lights 
 and perfections,’ or ‘light and truth’ — which last 
 presents a striking analogy to the two figures of 
 Re, the sun, and Thmei, truth, in the breastplate 
 worn by the Egyptians (No. 532). Here Thmei 
 
 is represented, as she is frequently, as a single 
 figure wearing two ostrich feathers, her emblem, 
 because all the wing-feathers of this bird were 
 considered of equal length, and hence meant 
 true or Correct’ ( Manners and Customs of the 
 Ancient Egyptians , ii. 27, &c. ; v. 28, &c. 
 London, 1842. See also other remark'3 on the 
 dual offices of Thmei, in Gallery of Antiquities, 
 selected from the British Museum by F. Arun- 
 dale and J. Bonomi). Upon a view of the pre- 
 ceding facts, we incline to Mr. Mede’s opinion, 
 that the Urim and Thummim were ‘things well 
 known to the patriarchs,’ as divinely appointed 
 means of inquiring of the Lord (Gen. xxv. 22, 
 23), suited to an infantine state of religion ; that 
 the originals were preserved, or the real use, at 
 least, among the Abrahamida;, and at the reform- 
 ation under Moses, were simply recognised ; that 
 the resemblances to them among the Egyptians 
 were but imitations of this primeval mode of 
 divine communication, as were the heathen aus- 
 pices of similar means originally connected with 
 the sacrifice of animals [Cain; Abel; Liver], 
 The speculations of learned Jews and Christians 
 connected with this subject, may be seen in 
 Winer’s Biblisck. Real-Wbrterbuch , Leips. 1835, 
 art. ‘ Urim und Thummim ;’ or in Robinson’s 
 Theological Dictionary, London, 1816 ; and some 
 of them in Cruden’s Concordance. Dr. Pri- 
 deaux maintains that the divine answer was given 
 by an audible voice to the high-priests arrayed, 
 and standing opposite to the ark ( Connection , i. 
 123. &c.) ; but when David consulted the oracle 
 by Abiathar (1 Sam. xxiii. 9, 11 ; xxx. 7,8), the 
 ark was at Kirjath-jearim, whereas David was in 
 the one case at Ziklag, and in the other in the 
 forest of Hareth. Jahn supposes that the answer 
 was given by the words yes and no inscribed on 
 two stones (a third being left blank for no answer ) 
 which the high-priest carried on his breastplate; 
 and consequently that the Urim and Thummim 
 was the sacred lot referred to in Prov. xvi. 33. The 
 lot. is cast (pTQ) into the bosom ; but the whole 
 judicial decision is of the Lord (comp, xviii. 18 ; 
 Archceol. § 370). Michaelis also considers it as 
 a lot, which was used in criminal cases to dis- 
 cover, not convict the criminal ; for the confes- 
 sions of the guilty are recorded in the only two 
 instances of this kind mentioned in Scripture 
 (Josh. vii. 14-18, and 1 Sam. xiv. 37-45). Ob- 
 serve the Hebrew or margin of ver. 41, in the 
 last reference. He remarks that the discovery of 
 an unknown murder was not left to these means 
 (Notes on Exod. xxviii. 30, and Laws of Moses, 
 
 art. 304). Braunius maintains the notion of Jo- 
 sephus as to the mode of the divine answer (De 
 Vestitu Sacer. Heb., ii. 20). Spencer maintains 
 that of Philo (De Legib. Heb. lib. iii. Diss.ult.); 
 but is opposed by Pocock (On Hosea iii. 4, p. 149). ' 
 See also Buxtorf, Historia Urim et Thummim, 
 in Exercitt. ad Hist. Basileae, 1659 ; Jennings, 
 Jewish Antiquities, i. 233 ; Witsius, sEgyptiaca, 
 c. 10, &c. Winer also refers to Norris’s Archceo- 
 logia, or Miscell. Tracts relating to Antiquity 
 iv. No. 19; Schroeder, Diss. de Urim et Thym- 
 7mm, Marb. 1744; Bellarmann, Urim u. Thum- 
 mim die altesten Gemmen, Berl. 1824; Stiebriz, 
 Diss. de Variis de Urim et Thummim Sententt. 
 Hal. 1753-4.— J. F. D. 
 
 USURY, an unlawful contract for the loan 
 of money, to be returned again with exorbitant 
 increase. By the laws of Moses the Israelites 
 were forbidden to take usury from their brethren 
 upon the loan of money, victuals, or anything 
 else, not, it has been observed by Michaelis, as 
 if he absolutely and in all cases condemned the 
 practice, for he expressly permitted interest to be 
 taken from strangers, but only out of favour to 
 the poorer classes. In other words, he did not 
 mean to represent that the taking of interest for 
 the loan of money was in itself sinful and un- 
 just; but as at that period the Israelites were 
 comparatively a poor people and strangers to 
 commerce, they borrowed, not with a view to 
 profit but from poverty, and in order to procure 
 the common necessaries of life. It would there- 
 fore have been a hardship to have exacted from 
 them more than was lent. The Israelites were, 
 however, permitted to take usury from strangers, 
 from the Canaanites, and other people devoted to 
 subjection. This was one of the many means 
 they adopted for oppressing and ruining the Ca- 
 naanites who remained in the land. After the 
 return of the Jews from captivity, they were re- 
 quired by Nehemiah to ‘ leave off this usury,' 
 and to restore to their brethren what they had 
 exacted from them — ‘ their lands, their vineyards, 
 their olive-yards, and their houses ; also the 
 hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the 
 wine, and the oil ’ (Neh. v. 10, 11). Our Sa- 
 viour denounced all extortion, and promulgated 
 anew law of love and forbearance: — ‘ Give to 
 every man that asketh of thee, and of him that 
 taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.’ 
 
 ‘ Love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, 
 hoping for nothing again ’ (Luke vi. 30, 35). 
 
 The practice of exacting an exorbitant rate of 
 interest for the loan of money is condemned by 
 all laws divine and human. It was first pro- 
 hibited in England during the reign of Edward 
 the Confessor ; but that law is considered to havi 
 become obsolete, as in 1126 usury was forbidden 
 only to the clergy, and in 1138 it was decreed 
 by the Council, that ‘ such of the clergy as were 
 usurers and hunters after sordid gain, and for the 
 public employment of the laity, ought to be de- 
 graded.’ In 1199, the last year of the reign of 
 Richard I., the rate of interest for money was re- 
 stricted to 10 per cent., which continued to be 
 the market rate until the reign of Henry VIII. 
 In 1311, Philip IV. fixed the interest that might 
 be exacted in the fairs of Champagne at 20 
 per cent. James I. of Arragon, in 1242, fixed 
 it at 18 per cent. In 1490 the rate of interest in 
 Placentia was 40 per cent. Charles V. fixed 
 
U3. 
 
 the rate of interest in his dominions at 12 per 
 eent. 1 1 1546 the rate in England was fixed at 
 10 per cent; in 1624 it was reduced to 8; in 
 1651 to 6; and in 1714 to 5 per cent., at which 
 it remained until 1833. By 3 and 4 Will. IV'., 
 c. 98, bills not having more than three months to 
 run were exempted from the operation of the 
 laws against usury ; and by the 1 Vic. c. 80, the 
 exemption was extended to bills payable at 
 twelve months. By the 2 and 3 Vic., c. 37, it 
 was enacted that bills of exchange and contracts 
 for loans or forbearance of money above 10/. shall 
 not be affected by the usury laws. Five per cent, 
 is still left as the legal rate of interest for money, 
 ml ess it shall appear that any different rate was 
 agreed upon between the parties. — G. M. B. 
 
 UZ *, Sept. Averins), a region and tribe 
 named in Job i. 1 ; Jer. xxv. 20 ; Lam. iv. 21, 
 now generally supposed to have been situated in 
 the south of Arabia Deserta, between Idumaea, 
 Palestine, and the Euphrates, called by Ptolemy 
 ( Geog . v. 19) A ler'nai, unless the reading ’AwcriTat 
 is to be restored [Nations, Dispersion of]. 
 The tribe seems to have been descended from Uz, 
 the son of Aram (Gen. x. 23), although it has 
 been sometimes doubted whether its o.igin might 
 not rather be referred to Huz, the son of Nahor 
 (Gen. xxii. 21), or to Uz, the Horite, son of 
 Dishan (Gen. xxxvi. 28). 
 
 UZAL (i?T-lN ; Sept. A IfSpX), a descendant of 
 Joktan, founder of one of the numerous tribes of 
 Joktanidae in Yemen (Gen. x. 27) [Nations, 
 Dispersion of]. 
 
 UZZ AH (H-ty, strength ; Sept. ’0£a), son of 
 Abinadab, a Levite, who, with his brother Ahio, 
 conducted the new cart on which the ark was 
 aken from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem. When 
 he procession reached the threshing-floor of 
 Nachen, the oxen drawing the cart became un- 
 *uly, and Uszab hastily put forth his hand to 
 day the ark, which was shaken by their move- 
 ments. For this the anger of the Lord smote 
 him, and he died cn the spot. This judgment 
 appeared to David so severe, or even harsh, that 
 he was much distressed, by it, and becoming afraid 
 to take the ark any farther, left it there, in charge 
 of Obed-edom, till three months after, when he 
 finally took it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. vi. 1-1 1). 
 The whole proceeding was very irregular, and 
 contrary to the distinct and far from unmeaning 
 regulations of the law, which prescribed that the 
 ark should be carried on the shoulders of the Le- 
 vites (Exod. xxv. 14), whereas here it was conveyed 
 in a cart drawn by oxen. The ark ought to have 
 been enveloped in its coverings, and thus wholly 
 concealed before the Levites approached it ; but 
 it does not appear that any priest took part in the 
 matter, and it would seem as if the ark was 
 brought forth, exposed to the common gaze, in 
 the same manner in which it had been brought 
 back by the Philistines (1 Sam. yi. 13-19). It 
 was the duty of Uzzah, as a Levite, to have been 
 acquainted with the proper course of proceeding : 
 he was therefore the person justly accountable 
 for the neglect ; and the judgment upon him 
 seems to have been the most effectual course of 
 ensuring attention to the proper course of pro- 
 ceeding, and of checking the growing disposition 
 to treat the holy mysteries with undue familiarity. 
 
 VAT. ifcJ 
 
 That it had this effect is expressly stated in 
 1 Chron. xv. 2, 13. 
 
 UZZEN-SHERAH (?VW Sept. 
 2er]pd), a small city, founded by Sherah, the 
 daughter of Ephraim (1 Chron. vii. 24). 
 
 UZZIAH (iT-ty, might of Jehovah; Sept. 
 ’O (las), otherwise called Azariah, a king of 
 Judah, who began to reign b.c. 809, at the age 
 of sixteen, and reigned fifty-three years, being, 
 with the sole exception of Manasseh’s, the longest 
 reign in the Hebrew annals. Uzziah was but five 
 years old when his father was slain. He was six- 
 teen before he was formally called to the throne : 
 and it is disputed by chronologers, whether to 
 count the fifty-two years of his reign from the be- 
 ginning or from the end of the eleven intervening 
 years. In the first half of his reign, Uzziah be- 
 haved well, and was mindful of his true place a8 
 viceroy of the Divine King. He accordingly pros- 
 pered in all his undertakings. His arms were 
 successful against the Philistines, the Arabians, 
 and the Ammonites. He restored and fortified 
 the walls of Jerusalem, and planted on them 
 engines for discharging arrows and great stones ; 
 he organized the military force of the nation 
 into a kind of militia, composed of 307,500 
 men, under the command of 2600 chiefs, and 
 divided into bands liable to be called out in 
 rotation ; for these he provided vast stores of all 
 kinds of weapons and armour, — spears, shields, 
 helmets, breastplates, bows, and slings. 
 
 Nor were the arts of peace neglected by 
 him : he loved and fostered agriculture; and he 
 also dug wells, and constructed towers in the 
 desert, for the use of the flocks. At length, when 
 he had consolidated and extended his power, and 
 developed the internal resources of his country, 
 Uzziah fell. His prosperity engendered the pride 
 which became his ruin. In the twenty-fourth 
 year of his reign, incited probably by the example 
 of the neighbouring kings, who united the regal 
 and pontifical functions, Uzziah, unmindful of 
 the fate of Dathan and Abiram, dared to attempt 
 the exercise of one of the principal functions of 
 the priests, by entering the holy place to burn in- 
 cense at the golden altar. But, in the very act, 
 he was smitten with leprosy, and was thrust forth 
 by the priests. He continued a leper all the rest 
 of his life, and lived apart as such, the public 
 functions of the government being administered 
 by his so'' Jotham, as soon as he became of suffi- 
 cient cge. (2 Xings xv. 27, 28 ; 2 Chron. xxvi.). 
 
 V. 
 
 VALE ; VALIA&Y [Palestine ; Plain.] 
 
 VASHTl (W1 ; P t?*. beauty ; Sept. ’AcriV), 
 the wife of Ahasuerus, king of Persia, whose re- 
 fusal to present herself uin.iled before the com- 
 potators of the king led to her degradation, and 
 eventually to the advancement of Esther (Esth. 
 i. 9-12) [Ahasuerus; Esther]. 
 
 VAT. The three Hebrew words translated 
 wine-fat , wine-press , and vat , are not well dis- 
 criminated in the common version of the Bible; 
 nor indeed, owing to their comparatively infre- 
 
VEIL. 
 
 SH>4 VAT. 
 
 |uent occurrence, are their original distinctions 
 very obvious. 
 
 1. Zip' yekeb or yekev, seems to denote the 
 fruit-house and wine-press as a whole, including 
 the press-vat and the receptacle for grapes in- 
 tended to be preserved ; just as 4 barn’ includes 
 both the corn-heap and the threshing-floor. The 
 word occurs sixteen times, in most of which it 
 evidently denotes the entire building appropriated 
 to vintage and orchard fruit (Deut. xvi. 13; 
 Judges vii. 25; Isa. v. 2; Hos. ix. 2; Hag. ii. 
 16; Zech. xiv. 10). In Joel iii. 13; iv. 13, 
 
 4 the press (gath) is full, the fruit-vats (yekeb) 
 overflow.’ This term is clearly distinguished 
 from the press-vat in which the grapes were 
 trodden. The apparent exceptions are Prow iii. 
 10 ; Joel ii. 24 ; but these texts are capable of a 
 better rendering. W e translate the former — 4 Thy 
 fruit-vats shall be heaped up with vintage-fruit.’ 
 Gesenius observes that ‘neither the wine-press 
 nor wine-vat can be said to burst from the quan- 
 tity of wine made, the figure applying only to a 
 cask or wine-skin’ (Lex. by Prof. Robinson, p. 
 879); hence he considers translated 4 over- 
 
 flow,’ as a verb of abundance — metaph. 4 to be 
 redundant with' The latter text is explained 
 under Fkuits. Olearius, in his Persian Travels , 
 1637, says, 4 they have a way to keep grapes by 
 wrapping them up in green reeds and hanging 
 them up in the roof of their chambers’ (lib. vi. 
 p. 310). It is a mistake to suppose that the yekeb 
 would be needed only during the vintage, since 
 the graj)€s are capable of preservation all the year 
 round, and it would therefore be useful as a store- 
 house. Ellis W. Delesser, Esq., of Florence, thus 
 describes to us the mode of keeping grapes adopted 
 in Italy : 4 The grapes are preserved in the state 
 in which they are cut from the vine, from the 
 time of the vintage till the month of March, by 
 spreading them out on hurdles, taking care to 
 leave sufficient space between the bunches, in 
 lofty and dry outhouses’ (Private Letter , 1844). 
 Gesenius considers that the yekeb was 4 the vat 
 or receptacle into which the must, or new wine, 
 flowed from the press Mj ;’ probably impressed 
 with the affinity between yekev and the root of 
 4 excavate.' But the fact is, that in the rudest 
 and original states of society amongst the Orien- 
 tals it was common to form storehouses by ex- 
 cavating, in which they kept their grain, grapes, 
 and other fruit. The name yekeb might origi- 
 nally have referred to this, and would afterwards 
 be retained in its application to more civilized 
 methods and structures. By this interpretation 
 Gesenius is compelled to give two distinct mean- 
 ings to the word — 1, the wine-vat; 2, the grape- 
 vat; whereas, by adopting our more generic but 
 inclusive definition, these and other difficulties 
 are obviated. 
 
 2. m)Q poorah , occurs but twice (Isa. lxiii. 
 3; Hag. ii. 16). It is derived from TlQ 4 to 
 break,’ and hence is applied to the vat in which 
 the grapes are crushed or broken. The vats were 
 generally large and deep, requiring several per- 
 sons to tread the grapes in them together. Hence 
 to ‘tread the wine-press alone’ indicated extreme 
 distress and desolation. Probably this term was 
 applied only to the wine-v at, as distinguished from 
 Gathshemen , the oil-press. 
 
 3. HI gath , occurs in five passages. It de- 
 »otes the vat (\rjv6s) in which grapes and olives 
 
 were trodden with the feet. These were either 
 formed with stones and covered with insoluble 
 cement, or were, in favourable localities, hewn 
 out of the rock, forming raised reservoirs, into 
 which the picked grapes were cast and trodden 
 upon by men to press out the must , or new wine, 
 which flowed out through gratings or spouts into 
 large vessels placed outside (inro\i]viov s ). In the 
 Egyptian paintings these vats are represented as 
 having a temporary beam extended over them, 
 with short ropes hanging down, by which the 
 treaders held fast, and which greatly helped them 
 in their labour, inasmuch as the beam acted as a 
 lever in its rebound, lifting them up from the 
 mass of grapes into which they sank. 
 
 533. [Wine-press.] 
 
 This work, although laborious, was performed 
 with great animation, accompanied by vintage- 
 songs, and with a peculiar shout or cry, and 
 sometimes by instrumental music (Isa. xvi. 9, 
 10; Jer. xxv. 30; xlviii. 32, 33). 
 
 The v-ko\t\mov referred to in Mark xii. 1, was 
 a vessel placed below the \rju6s, or vat, as a re- 
 ceptacle for the new wine or oil. A place was 
 digged for holding it, as well as sometimes for 
 the vat in which the fruit was trodden (Mark 
 xxi. 33).— F. R. L. 
 
 VEIL. There are several words denoting 
 veil in the Hebrew Scripture, showing that, as at 
 present, there were different kinds of this essential 
 article of an Eastern female's attire. These are 
 essentially of two descriptions. The first, and 
 which alone offer any resemblance to the veils 
 used among us, are those which the Eastern wo- 
 men wear iu-doors, and which are usually of 
 muslin or other light texture, attached to the 
 head-dress and falling down over the back. 
 They are of different kinds and names, some 
 descending only to the waist, while others reach 
 nearly to the ground. These are not used to con- 
 ceal the face. 
 
 The veils mentioned in Scripture were, nc 
 doubt, mostly analogous to the wrappers of dif* 
 
VEIL. 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 903 
 
 ferent kinds in which the Eastern women envelop 
 themselves when they quit their houses. These 
 
 are of great amplitude, and, among the common 
 people, of strong and coarse texture, like that in 
 which Ruth carried home her corn (Ruth iii. 15). 
 The word here is nn2tOO mitpachat , and is 
 rightly rendered ‘ veil' by our translators, although 
 6ome lexicographers, not understanding Eastern 
 veils, have considered it a mantle or cloak. The 
 cuts will show how sufficient the out-door ‘ veils’ 
 of the Eastern women are for such a use. The 
 word which indicates Ruth’s ample and strong 
 veil is that which also occurs in Isa. iii. 22, and 
 is there translated ‘ mantle.’ In the same verse 
 we find “PTl radid, which denotes another kind 
 of veil, probably of finer materials, from the 
 manner in which it is mentioned in this text and 
 in Cant. v. 7. The latter passage shows that it 
 was an out-door veil, which the lady had cast 
 around her when she went forth to seek her be- 
 loved. In Isa. iii. 22, this word is rendered by 
 the old English and now obsolete term ‘ wimple,’ 
 which means a kind of hood or veil in use at 
 the time the translation was made, and was not a 
 
 535. [Dress Veils, &c. In-door.] 
 
 bau representative of the original. The word 
 occurs in Spenser : — 
 
 4 For she had laid her mournful stole aside, 
 
 And widiw-like sad wimple thrown away.* 
 
 ‘ But (she) the same did r.ide 
 Under a veil that wimpled was full low ; 
 
 And over all a black stole she did throw, 
 
 As one that inly mourned.’ 
 
 Another kind of veil, called tzamah , ia 
 
 named in Cant. iv. 1, 3 ; vi. 7, and Isa. xlvii. 2, in 
 which places the word is rendered ‘ locks ’ in the 
 Auth. Vers.; but in these texts, according to the 
 best critics, we should read, ‘ Thou hast dove’s 
 eyes within thy veil not 4 within thy locks.’ 
 ‘ Thy temples within thy veil ;’ not 4 within thy 
 locks.’ 4 Raise thy veil not ‘ uncover thy locks.’ 
 And as these passages refer mostly to the effect of 
 the veil as connected with the head-dress, it may 
 perhaps have been one of those veils which have 
 been already described as a part of in-door dress ; 
 although it must be admitted that the expressions 
 are almost equally applicable to some kind of 
 street-veil. Of this the reader can judge from 
 the engravings. 
 
 Another veil, called tzaiph , is mentioned 
 
 in Gen. xxiv. 65 ; xxxviii. 14, 19, under circum- 
 stances which show that it was one of those ample 
 wrappers which women wore out of doors. The 
 
 etymology, referred to the Arabic sub 
 
 duplicavit, suggests that it was ‘ doubled * over 
 the shoulders, or folded about the body, in some 
 peculiar manner which distinguished it from other 
 veils. It is clear that it concealed the face, as 
 Judah could not. recognise Tamar when she had 
 wrapped herself in a tzaiph. 
 
 VEIL OF THE TABERNACLE AND 
 TEMPLE. [Tabernaci.e ; Temple.] 
 VERMILION. [Purple.] 
 
 VERSE (p-IDE) ; crrlxos, tcS/ipa ; ceesum , in- 
 cisiim, versus, versiculus ). An inquiry into the 
 origin of the verses into which the printed text 
 of the Bible in every language is at present di- 
 vided, will not, we trust, prove uninteresting to 
 the lovers of Biblical literature. As there was 
 no distinct work on the subject of these divisions, 
 the writer of this article attempted to supply 
 the deficiency in a series of papers published 
 in the year 1812 in the Christian Remem 
 brancer , but the subject was discontinued, a. 
 not being found adapted to the present cir- 
 cumstances of that periodical. We shall here 
 give the results of our inquiries, which are 
 not fully developed in the papers referred to 
 
VERSE. 
 
 VERSE, 
 
 C06 
 
 We shall first treat of the versicular divisions in 
 manuscripts of the Bible, viz. : — 
 
 1. Members of rhythmical passages. 
 
 2. Logical divisions in the prose books, pecu- 
 liar to the versions. 
 
 3. Logical divisions in the original texts. 
 
 The term verse ( versus , from verto, ‘ to turn '), 
 
 like the Greek arlxos, was applied by the Ro- 
 mans to lines in general, whether in prose or 
 verse, but more particularly to the rhythmical 
 divisions which generally commenced the line 
 with a capital letter. The custom of writing 
 poetical books in stanzas was common to the 
 Greeks, Romans, Arabians, and Hebrews. The 
 poetical books (viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ec- 
 clesiastes, and Canticles), in the oldest Hebrew 
 MSS., as the Paris, Bodleian, Cassel, and Regio- 
 montanus, are also thus divided, and the poetical 
 passages in the historical books are still given in 
 this form in our printed Hebrew Bibles. The 
 Alexandrian MS., and those of the Italic ver- 
 sion, are equally so written, and this division is 
 found in the Psalterium Turicense, the Verona 
 and St. Germain Psalters, and in Martianay’s 
 edition of Jerome. Athanasius applied the term 
 (tt'lxos to the passage in Ps. cxix. 62 : ‘ I arose 
 at midnight to praise thee for the judgment of 
 thy righteousness and Chrysostom observes, on 
 Ps. xlii., that ‘ each stich ( arlxos ) suffices to 
 afford us much philosophy.’ He also uses the 
 term ms in the same sense. The poetical 
 books are called by Epiphanius the five an- 
 
 xnp&- 
 
 The following example is from the Alexan- 
 drian MS. (Brit. Mus.): — [Job iii.] 
 
 AttoXoito ri rjpepa ev tj eyevvT) 9 r)v ev avTrj 
 
 Kat 7j ev 7 } enrov ibov apaev 
 
 Aireveyuoiro avrriv auoros 
 
 M77 enj e is 'ppepas eviavTov 
 
 M rjbe aptOpTjden} eis rjpepas pirjvwv. 
 
 Let the day perish wherein I was born, 
 
 And the night wherein it was said, There is a 
 man-child conceived. 
 
 As for that night, let darkness seize upon it: 
 
 Let it not be joined to the days of the year ; 
 
 Let it not come into the number of the months. 
 
 It is not improbable that this division may have 
 come from the original authors, which the nature 
 of the subject, and especially the parallelism of 
 the sentences, seems to require (Jebb's Sacred 
 Literature ). In the Cod. Alex, are equally di- 
 vided in this manner the songs of Mose3 and of 
 Hannah, the prayers of Isaiah, of Jonah, of Ha- 
 bakkuk, Hezekiah, Manasses, and Azarias ; the 
 Benedicite ; and the songs of Mary (theotokos), 
 Sifneon, and Zachariah, in the New Testament, 
 to which is added the Morning Hymn, or Gloria 
 in Excelsis. 
 
 A similar metrical division is found in the 
 Latin version. Jerome (Ep. ad Sunn, et Fret.) 
 applies the term versiculus to the words ‘ grando 
 et carbones ignis ’ (Ps. xviii, 13), assigning as a 
 reason why the Greeks had not this versicle after 
 the interposition of two verses, that it had been in- 
 serted in the Sept, from the Hebrew and Theodo- 
 tion's version (with an asterisk). He also.observes 
 that it was not easy to reply to the question, why 
 St. Paul, in citing the 13th Psalm, added eight 
 verses not found in the Hebrew. Martianay re- 
 
 marks that these eight verses, which form buf 
 three divisions in the Latin Psalters, are thus 
 found in an ancient Psalter of the Koiri} at>d the 
 Italic, in the Abbey of St. Germain des Prss : 
 
 Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum 
 
 Linguis suis dolose agebant [Ps. v. 9]. 
 
 Venenum aspidum sub labns eorum TPs. cxi 
 
 3]. 
 
 Quorum os maledictione et amaritudine pi* 
 num est [Ps. x. 7]. 
 
 Veloces pedes eorum ad effundendum Ban- 
 gui nem 
 
 Contritio et infelicitas in viis eorum 
 
 Et viam pacis non cognoverunt [Isa. lix. 7, 8] 
 
 Non est timor Dei ante oculos eorum [Ps. 
 xxxvi. 1]. 
 
 We need scarcely add that these eight stichs, 
 although found in Justin Martyr, in the Vatican 
 MS., and in the Vulgate, Arabic, and Ethiopic 
 versions, are an early interpolation from Rom. iii. 
 15-1 8. They are wanting in the Cod. Alex. 
 
 Jerome observes ( Pref to Job ) that the book 
 of Job commences with prose, glides into verse, 
 and again ends with a short comma in prose from 
 the verse ‘ Idcirco me reprehendo,‘et ago pceni- 
 tentiam in cinere et favilla' (the form assumed 
 also by the text of the oldest Hebrew MSS.). He 
 adds that there were 700 or 800 verses wanting in 
 the old Latin version of this book, and makes 
 mention of ‘ three short verses ’ in Ezek. xxi. and 
 Isa. lxiii. That a stichometrical arrangement per- 
 vaded the whole Latin Bible is further evident from 
 the Speculum Scriptures , attributed to Augustine, 
 which contains extracts from Psalms, Canticles, 
 Ecclesiastes, Job, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zepha- 
 niah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Wisdom, 
 Ecclesiasticus, the four Evangelists, 2Corinthians, 
 Philippians, Timothy, 1 John, and Hebrews. All 
 these passages will be found extracted in the 
 Christian Remembrancer (ut supra , vol. iii. 
 pp. 676-683) ; and although the first editors of 
 the Speculum seem to have misunderstood Au- 
 gustine's meaning (Simon’s Ilist. Critique), it is 
 beyond a doubt that the verses in the Speculum 
 (one of which was, ‘ Populus ejus et oves pascuae 
 ejus’), were of the character which we are now 
 describing. Jerome has not followed any of 
 the divisions of the present Hebrew text, except 
 in those passages where he couM not well l.ave 
 avoided it, viz., the alphabetical division in the 
 book of Lamentations, and the alphabetical 
 Psalms, but even here he differs from the present 
 divisions (Moririi Exerc. Bib/.* pars ii. cap. 2). 
 
 Jerome introduced a similar division into the 
 prophetical books and the books of Chronicles. 
 To this division he, in the prophetical books, 
 applies the terms cola and commata (or ‘ stanzfts ’ 
 and ‘hemistichs ’), while in the Chronicles he only 
 employs the colon, or longer period. ‘ No one ‘ 
 he observes, ‘ when he sees the Prophets divided 
 into verses ( versibus ), must suppose that they are 
 bound by metrical lines, or that, in this respect 
 they resemble the Psalms and the books of Solo- 
 mon ; but as the works of Demosthenes and Tully 
 are divided into colons and commas, although 
 written in prose and not verse, we have, for th« 
 
 * Of this learned work the only copy in ant 
 public institution in London is that in Mr. Dar« 
 ling's Clerical Library. 
 
VERSE 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 convenience of the reader, aho distinguished our 
 sew version by a new species of writing.’ The 
 Chronicles, he says, he divided into members of 
 verses (per versuum cola) in order to avoid an 
 ‘ inextricable forest of names.’ 
 
 The following specimens of Jerome’s divisions 
 are from Martianay : — 
 
 [Job iii.] 
 
 ‘ Pereat dies in qua natus sum 
 
 et nox in qua dictum est : Conceptus est 
 homo. 
 
 Dies ilia vertatur in tenebras 
 non requirat eum Deus desuper 
 et non illustretur lumine.’ 
 
 . [Isaiah xl.] 
 
 < Consolamini, Consolamini, popule mens, 
 dicit Deus v ester. 
 
 Loquimini ad cor Jerusalem, et advocate earn : 
 
 Omnis vallis exaltabitur, 
 
 et omnis mons et collis humiliabitur, 
 
 Et erunt prava in directa, 
 et aspera in vias planas. 
 
 Et revelabitur gloria Domini, 
 et videbit, &c. 
 
 Vox dicentis ; Clama. 
 
 Et dixi : 
 
 Quid clamabo? 
 
 Omnis caro foenum, 
 
 et omnis gloria ejus quasi flos agri.’ 
 
 [1 Chron. xiv.] 
 
 * Misit quoque Hiram rex Tyri nuntios ad Da- 
 vid, et ligna cedrina, et artifices parietum, 
 lignorumque, ut aedificarent ei domum. 
 
 Cognovitque David quod confirmasset eum 
 Dominus in regem super Israel, et sub- 
 levatum esset regnum suum super populum 
 cjus Israel. 
 
 Accepit quoque David alias uxores in Jeru- 
 salem : genuitque filios, et Alias.’ 
 
 A division of the prophetical books into cola , or 
 stichs, has been considered by some to have had its 
 origin before the time of Jerome. Eusebius ac- 
 quaints us (Hist. Eccles. vi. 16) that Origen, in his 
 Hexapla , divided the Greek and other versions into 
 Ku\a, which, however, Bishop Christopherson (in 
 Euseb. Eccles. Hist.) supposes to be the columns 
 containing the different texts into which Origen’s 
 Polyglott was divided. Hesy chius, who died in 
 a.d. 433, also published his <tt t^peis of the 
 twelve prophets, which he calls an invention of 
 the Fathers, in imitation of David and Solomon, 
 who had thus divided their rhythmical compo- 
 sitions. He observes that he had found a similar 
 division in the apostolical books. In this case 
 such division must have been anterior to the 
 stichometrical edition of Euthalius, if the date 
 assigned to his publication be correct, viz., a.d. 
 450 [Holy Scripture], It is not improbable 
 that the work of Hesychius was but an adaptation 
 of Jerome’s cola and commata to the Greek text. 
 This is also the opinion of Martianay. Epiphanius 
 (De Orth. Fid. iv ) adds the two books of Wis- 
 dom to the poetical books thus arranged. 
 
 We have seen that Jerome imitates the mode of 
 writing fte works of Demosthenes and Cicero in 
 his divisions of Chronicles. This custom of writing 
 icaro <ttIxovs appears to have been usual among 
 profane writers. Josephus observes that his own 
 An4auities consisted of sixty thousand <rTt%oi, 
 
 although in Ittigius’s edition there are only forty 
 thousand broken lines. Diogenes Laertius, in bis 
 Lives of the Philosophers, recounts the number of 
 stichs which their works contained. There have, 
 however, existed doubts as to what the arlxot 
 really were; some supposing them to be simply 
 lines, or lines consisting of a certain number of 
 words or letters, as in our printed books, while 
 others have maintained them to be lines of varied 
 length regulated by the sense, like the cola and 
 commata of Jerome. The fact is that there are 
 MSS. written in both kinds of verses or stichs, 
 with the number of the stichs placed at the end of, 
 each book ; and this is what is called stichometry , 
 or the enumeration of lines. The introduction of 
 lines regulated by the sense into the New Testa- 
 ment is supposed to have been a rude substitute 
 for punctuation. The second mode, resembling 
 our printed books, is also common ; it is that 
 adopted in the Charlemagne Bible, at the close of 
 each book of which will be found the number of 
 verses, that is, lines of equal length, but without 
 any regard to the number of words or letters. 
 
 We are not aware at what time or by whom 
 stichometry was adapted to the Gospels, but not 
 long after the time of Euthalius we find it in com- 
 mon use. The Cod. Bezse (C) and the Clermont 
 MS. (D) are thus written. The following is from 
 C [John i.] 
 
 Er apxy yr 5 \oyos Kai o Aoyos yr n pos top Qeov 
 Kai &eos yr 6 Aoyos. ovtos yv ep apxp tt pos top 
 Qeov 
 
 riai/Ta St avrov eyeper o kcu x w P l s avrov 
 Eyepero ovde ep 6 yeyopep’ ep avrep 
 Zuy yp Kai 7] fay 7]V TO (f>d)S TUP ApdpUTTUV 
 K at to <\>us ep ry crKOTia <paivei 
 Kai y (TKOTia avro ov Kare\a0ep 
 Eyepero apQpuiros airearaXpepos 
 Uapa Qeov, opopa avrov luarrys. 
 
 The following is from Acts xiii. 16, in Greek 
 and Latin : — (Kipling, p. 747). 
 
 A paaras de 6 UavKos — Cum surrexisset Paulus 
 Kai icaraaeiaas ry X ei P L eiirei/ — Et silentium 
 manu postulasset, dixit, 
 
 A pdpes larpayXirai, Kai oi (pofiovpepoi top Qeop — 
 Viri Istraheliti, et qui timetis Deum 
 AKovaare — Audite. 
 
 O 0eos t ov A aov rovrov, k. t. A. — Deus populi 
 hujus, &c. 
 
 Afterwards, in order to save parchment, it be- 
 came usual to write the stichometrical books 
 continuously, separating the stichs by a point, 
 but still placing their numbers at the end of each 
 book. The following is a specimen from the 
 Cod. Cypr. : — O Be eyepQeis. nrapeXafie to irai- 
 Siop. Kai ryp pyrepa avrov. Kat y\Qev eis yyp 
 lapayX. aKovcras Se. on ApxyXaos fiaaiXevae em 
 Tijs lovdaias. apri HpuSov rov irarpos avrov. e<po- 
 fiyOy €Kei aireA Qeip. 
 
 Sometimes, instead of the point, the stichs com- 
 menced with a capital, as in the Cod. Boerner., 
 which, however, seems to have been written by an 
 ignorant Irish scribe, unacquainted with the lan- 
 guages in which the MS. was written [Vulgate j. 
 
 Ut non quasi ex necessitate t em bonum tuunj 
 h/a. prj us KarapayKyp to ayadop aov. 
 sit. Sed voluntarium forsitan enim ideo 
 
 7j. AAAa KareKovaeiop. T axa yap. At* 
 
VERSE. 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 t propterea. Ad horam t ad tempus u* 
 
 rovro. Excopiadp. irpos copau Iva. 
 
 ■'ternura ilium t eum recipias non jam quasi 
 auvveiov avTov airex 1 ) 5 0VK eT€t 
 servura fratrem dilectum maxime milii 
 tiovAov. AdzA<pov. AyanTjTov. MaAAnrra ejxoi 
 
 quanto autem magis tibi et in came et in dno 
 
 flocr®. Se paAAov aoi kcu. ev. aapKet kcu ev kZ> 
 
 a igitur t ergo me habes socium accipe 
 
 ei ovv pe ex €ts koivwvov HpoaAafiot 
 illum sieut me. 77. Si autem aliquid nocuit t 
 7.\rrov us e/xat. Et Se .ti. rjSet- 
 Isasit te aut debet hoc mihi imputa ego 
 
 Kijcev <re ij. ocpeiAeirat. Tovto pot eAA oya Eyu 
 paulus scripsi mea manu ego reddam 
 
 vavAos. eypaipa rrj. ept] X l P et ' airoTetaoc. 
 
 ut non dicam tibi quod et te ipsum mihi 
 
 Ira p/j Aeyu aot. on kcu ere avrov. /xoi. 
 
 debes ita t utique frater ego te fruar 
 vpoaoeptAets. N at. Hai aSeA<pe. E^co aov. ovaippv. 
 in dno. 
 
 er. it*. [Philem. 14—20.] 
 
 The stichs were sometimes very short, as in Cod. 
 Laud. (E), in which there is seldom above one 
 word in each. The Clermont MS. (D) contains 
 a list of the stichs in all the Greek books of the 
 Old and New Testaments, and the Stichometry 
 of Nicephorus contains a similar enumeration of 
 the Canonical hooks, — the Antilegomena of the 
 Old and New Testament, — and of the Apocry- 
 phal books, as Enoch, the Testaments of the Pa- 
 triarchs, &c. &c. 
 
 Hug ( Introd .) observes that the Codex Alex- 
 andrinus might be easily mistaken for the copy 
 of a stichometrical manuscript, from the resem- 
 blance of its divisions to the <tt Ixoi, as, rjKovaa 
 8e tpuvps Aeyov<n)s fxoi. avacras llerpe. Ovaov kcu 
 ( bays, but these occur only in occasional pas- 
 sages. 
 
 distances • occur in other MSS. in which the 
 stanzas are numbered in the margin, as in the 
 Song of Moses, in Greek and Latin in the Psalter 
 of Sedulius of Ireland, who flourished in the 
 ninth century. The song consists of forty-two 
 commas or stichs, comprised in seven colons or 
 stanzas, with a Roman numeral prefixed to each- 
 all in the handwriting of Sedulius. The Latin 
 is Ante-hieronymian (Montfaucon, Palceogr. 
 Grcec.; also Christ. Rememb. ut supra, p. 687). 
 
 There is a Greek Stichometrical manuscript of 
 Isaiah, probably of the ninth century, in the 
 Bibliotheqne du Roi (1892), in which the stichs 
 do not commence with the line, but there is a 
 Greek numeral letter attached in the margin 
 opposite each stich, the enumeration recom- 
 mencing at the end of every hundred lines, iri this 
 form : — 
 
 1. The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which 
 
 he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in 
 the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and 
 Hezekiah, kings of 
 
 2. Judah. Hear, O heavens, and 
 
 3. give ear, O earth : for the Lord hath spoken. 
 
 4. I have nourished and brought up children, 
 
 and they 
 
 5. have rebelled against me. The ox knou ?th 
 
 6. his owner, and the ass his master’s crib : 
 
 7. but Israel doth not know, my people 
 
 8 . doth not consider. O sinful natnn, 
 
 9. a people laden with iniquity, a seed 
 
 10. of evil-doers, children that are corrupters; 
 
 they have forsa 
 
 11. ken the Lord, they have provoked the ha 
 
 1 y one of Israel to anger ; they are gone away 
 
 backward. Ye will revolt more and more,&c. 
 
 12. Why should ye be stricken any more? 
 
 Hug is of opinion that the SWchometrical sys- 
 tem gave rise to the continuous and regular 
 grammatical punctuation. Attempts at inter- 
 punction for the sake of the sense were, however, of 
 much greater antiquity in profane authors than 
 the era of Stichometry. Grammatical points are 
 said to have been first introduced by Aristophanes 
 of Byzantium about two centuries before the 
 Christian era. We have already seen that inter- 
 punction was in use in MSS. of the New Testament 
 before Euthalius, as in the Cod Alex. Isidore 
 of Spain acquaints us that the only note of divi- 
 sion in his t'ime was a single point, which, to 
 denote a comma , or short pause, was placed at 
 the bottom ; to denote a colon , or larger pa-use, in 
 the middle; and to denote a full pause, or period, 
 was placed at the top of the final letter of the 
 sentence. Manuscripts of the New Testament, as 
 the Zurich Cod. Bas. E., have come down to 
 us thus pointed. In others, as the Cod. Alex, and 
 Cod. Ephrem., the point is placed indifferently at 
 the top, bottom, or middle of the letter (Tischen- 
 dorf, Cod. Ephrem.'). Others, as L., use a cross for 
 the purpose of marking a period, and Colb. 700 
 makes use of no other mark. Hupfeld, however, 
 (Stud. u. Krit .), doubts whether thepoints'in Cod. 
 Cyprius are notes of the stichs, and denies any 
 distinction between grammatical and other in- 
 terpunction. 
 
 Originally there were no spaces between the 
 words, but in the eighth or ninth century they 
 began to be separated either by spaces* or by 
 points. About the same period the present marks 
 of punctuation began to be gradually and im- 
 perceptibly adopted, aud had become universal 
 in the tenth century. Michaelis (Introd. ch. xiii.) 
 says, ‘ that Jerome introduced the comma and 
 colon but this was not for the purpose of divid- 
 ing sentences [Vulgate], Cod. V., however, in 
 Matthaei, of the eighth century, has the comma and 
 the point, and Cod. Vat. 351, the colon. The 
 Greek note of interrogation came into use in the 
 ninth century. After the invention of print ing, the 
 Aldine editions fixed the punctuation, which was, 
 however, varied by Robert Stephens in his different 
 editions of the Bible. It is scarcely necessary to 
 observe that the punctuation of the Bible possesses 
 no authority, and that no critic hesitates to dissent 
 from it. The accents, or the writing kccto irpocrcp- 
 Slav. which were already in use in the Old Testa- 
 ment, were added by Euthalius to his edition, but 
 were not in general use before the tenth century. 
 
 The Hebrew MSS. all contain a versicular 
 division, marked with the accent called silluk, 
 and the soph pasuk (end of the verse). The word 
 pasuk, pIDD, is found in the Talmud, where it 
 denotes some division of this kind ; but whether 
 the Talmudical pesukim are identical with those 
 in the manuscripts, has been strongly contested 
 
 * In the Cod. Alex, blank spaces are fouad a*, 
 the end of the commas or sections, but nowrbe? 
 else (Marsh’s Michaelis). 
 
VERSE. 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 
 It is said in tract Kiddushun (30, c. 1), ‘Our 
 rabbins assert that the lajv contains 5888 (or, ac- 
 cording to Morinus, 8S88) pesukim,' while, ac- 
 cording to the division in our Bibles, there are 
 5845 verses. ‘The Psalms have 8 more.’ There 
 are at present 2527. ‘The Chronicles 8 less.’ 
 This division rather resembles the arixot in the 
 Sept., of which the Psalms contain 5000. In 
 the Mishna ( Megilla , iv. 1) it is said, ‘ He who 
 reads the law must not read less than three 
 pesukim. Let not more than one be read by the 
 interpreter, or three in the Prophets.’ The passage 
 in Isa. lii. 3-5 is reckoned as three pesukim. In 
 Taen (iv. 3), a precept is given for reading the 
 history of the creation according to the Parashes 
 and the verses in the law ; and in the B .b. Tal- 
 mud ( Baba Bathra, xiv. c. 2) the passage in Deut. 
 xxxiv. 5-12 is called ‘the last eight verses ( pesu- 
 kim ) in the law.’ It is evident, therefore, that . 
 some at least of our present verses correspond 
 with the Talmudical. The term D'pPD'Q pi- 
 sukim is also applied in the Gemara, as synony- 
 mous with D'DJ/D, to reading lessons in general, 
 and sometimes to short passages or half verses. 
 But no marks appear to have existed in the 
 text to distinguish these divisions, which were 
 doubtless preserved by oral teaching. The first 
 nutice of such signs is found in Sopherim (iii. 7), 
 in these words : ‘ Liber legis, in quo incisum est, et 
 in quo capita incisorum punctata sunt, ne legas 
 in illo.’ No such marks occur in the synagogue 
 rolls. The Sept, and Vulg. differ both from 
 the Hebrew and from each other in divisions of 
 this character. (Ps. xliii. 1 1, 12 ; xc. 2 ; Lam. 
 iii. 5 ; Jon. ii. 6 ; Obad. 9 ; Vulg. Cant. v. 5 ; 
 Eccles. i. 5.). Th e pesukim of the Talmud, which 
 are said there to have descended from Moses, 
 may have been possibly separated by spaces. 
 From a Targum on Cant. v. 13, it appears that 
 the decalogue was originally written in ten lines 
 ( tammim). All the pointed or Masoretic MSS. 
 contain the present verses, divided by the soph 
 pasuk (i). We ha ve already referred to the practice 
 of the Masorites in numbering these verses, which 
 was done at the end of each book. Thus at the 
 end of Genesis : ‘ Genesis has 1534 verses,’ &c. ; 
 and at the end of the Pentateuch : ‘The number 
 of verses ( pesukim ) in the book of Deuteionomy 
 is 955,’ its sign (which represents the same 
 number); the middle verse is, “And thou shalt do 
 according to the sentence” (xvii. 10) ; the num- 
 ber of parashes is 10, and of sidarim 27 ; and the 
 number of verses in the entire Pentateuch is 5245 
 
 [5?.5?J The number of verses in the 
 
 Psalms is 2527, the sign “JfDNN ; the middle 
 verse, “Nevertheless they flattered thee with their 
 mouth ” [Ixxviii. 36] ; the number of sidarim 19, 
 and the number of Psalms 150.’ The Venice 
 edition of Ben Chaijim, from which these divi- 
 sions are taken, omits them in Chronicles, but 
 they are supplied by two MSS. In the Penta- 
 teuch the number of verses in the greater sections, 
 or those marked by D D D and D O D, is also in- 
 dicated at the end of each section, thus : ‘ Bere- 
 shith has 146 verses, sign ; Noah has 153 
 
 verses, &c. The entire number of verses is 
 23,206.’ Before the Concordance of Rabbi 
 Nathan in the fifteenth century [Holy Scrip- 
 tuh.es], the Jews made their references by citing 
 in the Pentateuch the two first words of the Sab- 
 bath lessons, making no use of the shorter sidarim , 
 
 or of the open or shut parashes. Of these, which 
 are confined to the Pentateuch, there are 290 open 
 and 379 shut. Of the larger parashes, or Sabbath 
 lessons, Genesis contains 12, Exodus 1 1, Leviticus, 
 Numbers, and Deuteronomy 10 each. Of the 
 lesser sidarim Genesis contains 42, &c. These 
 always commence in the Pentateuch with an open 
 or closed section. From the time of Cardinal 
 Hugo's Concordance citations began to be made 
 by chapter and letter [Scripture, Holy]. All 
 MSS. of the Vulgate after this period began to 
 be thus marked, and we find Nicholas de Lyra 
 in the fourteenth century frequently citing them 
 in this manner. The citation of chapter and 
 verse was a Jewish improvement of the succeeding 
 century.* 
 
 The ancient Greek MSS. which have descended 
 to our times also contain a division into short 
 sentences, which have been sometimes called 
 ctiXoi and verses. They are regulated by the 
 sense, and each constitutes a full period. They 
 are frequently double or treble the length of the 
 verses in our present New Testament, although 
 sometimes they aie identical with them. The 
 Alexandrian, Vatican, Cambridge, Dublin, and 
 other ancient MSS., all contain similar divisions. 
 The following is from the Cod. Ephremi : — [1 
 Tim. iii. 12-16]. 
 
 A mkovoi earuoav / uas yvvaucos avSpes’ tckvcov 
 K a\(»s TTpoiarapevoi uai twv iSiuv oikkdv’ oi yap 
 KaXcDS SiaKovp<ravT€s’ fic.6p.ov eavrois KaXov 
 TrepiTToiowraL' kou ttoWtjv rrapppaiav tv 7ncrT6t 
 tt) ev Xw. ID* 
 
 TaoTa croi ypaefot eXir ifav eA Oeiv tt pos ere ev r a^et* 
 eav 8e fipadvva' iva eibps rras Set ev oiKcp Qov 
 avacrrpecpeoQar eiTis eernv eteicXperia Qov favros' 
 arvXos ical edpaicopa ttjs aXpQeias’ 
 
 Kca opoXoyovpevws peya eerriv to ttjs evffcfieias 
 pverrppiov' os^ecpavepudr] ev (rapier eSueaiwdei 
 iuTr uxpQp ayyeXois * eKppvx^'l ev zQveeriv' evia- 
 revOri ev Koapcp * aveXppcpQp ev 5o£p* 
 
 Versicular divisions in the printed Bibles . — 
 These, together with the numerical notation, are 
 generally attributed to Robert Stephen, or Ste- 
 phens {Etienne). Their origin is, notwithstand- 
 ing, involved in obscurity. Even those who 
 attribute the invention to Stephens are not agreed 
 as to their date. ‘We are assured,’ observes Cal- 
 met {Pref. to the Bible), ‘that it is Robert 
 Stephens who, in iiis edition of 1545, has divided 
 the text by verses, numbered as at present.’ This 
 division passed from the Latins to the Greeks and 
 Hebrews. ‘ Robert Stephens,’ says Du Pin {Pro- 
 log.), ‘ was the first who followed the Masorites 
 in his edition of the Vulgate in 1545.’ * Verses,’ 
 
 says Simon {Hist. Critique ), and after him Jahn 
 {Introd.), ‘were first introduced into the Vulgate 
 and marked with figures by Robert Stephens in 
 1548. Morinus {Exercit. Bibl.), who is followed 
 by Prideaux ( Connection ), attributes the verses 
 to Vatablus, without naming a date, while Che- 
 villier {Hist, de Vlmprimerie) and Maittaire 
 {Hisloria Stephanorum) assert that Stephens di- 
 
 * Mr. Gresly {Forest of Arden, ch. i.) is 
 guilty of an anachronism in making Latimer, in 
 1537, cite for his text the twentieth verse of the 
 tenth chapter of Matthew. The New Testament 
 was not referred to by verses until long after thia 
 period. 
 
910 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 sided the chapters into verses, placing a figure at 
 each verse, in the New Testament in 1551, and 
 in the Old in 1557. Chevillier adds that James 
 Faber of Estaples had introduced the practice in 
 his edition of the Psalms printed in 1509 by 
 Henry, father of Robert Stephens ; and he is fol- 
 lowed by Renouard (Annales des Etienne , 
 Paris, 1843), in supposing that Stephens took 
 his idea from this very work. But, not to 
 multiply instances, Mr. Home ( Introd . vol. ii. 
 p. i. ch. ii. s. iii. § 1) gives the following ac- 
 count of their introduction : * Rabbi Mordecai 
 Nathan .... undertook a similar Concordance 
 [to that of Hugo] for the Hebrew Scriptures 
 [Scripture, Holy], but instead of adopting the 
 marginal letters of Hugo, he marked every fifth 
 verse with a Hebrew numeral, thus, 1, H 5, &c. ; 
 retaining, however, the cardinal’s divisions into 
 chapters. . . . The introduction of verses into 
 the Hebrew Bible was made by Athias, a Jew of 
 Amsterdam [1661], . . . with the figures common 
 in use, except those which had been previously 
 marked by Nathan with Hebrew letters in the 
 manner in which they at present appear in the 
 Hebrew Bibles. By rejecting these Hebrew nu- 
 merals, and substituting for them the correspond- 
 ing figures, all the copies of the Bible in other 
 languages have since been marked.’ ‘ The verses 
 into which the New Testament is now divided 
 are much more modern [than the err tx ot ]» an< ^ 
 are an imitation of those invented for the Old Test- 
 ament by Rabbi Nathan in the fifteenth century. 
 Robert Stephens was the first inventor.’ In 
 another place (§ 2), Mr. Horne has observed 
 that the Masorites were the inventors of verses, but 
 without intimating that they are the same with 
 those now in use. Doubts were entertained on 
 this subject so early as the sixteenth century. 
 ‘Who first,’ observes Elias Levita, ‘ divided the 
 oooks of the Old and New Testament info 
 ? There are even some who entertain 
 ioubts respecting a matter but recently come 
 iito use, viz., who the person was who intro- 
 luced the division of verses into the Greek 
 »nd Latin Bibles.’ Serrarius (Proleg.) makes 
 the following allusion to the circumstance : 
 ‘ I strongly suspect that it is far from certain 
 who first restored the intermitted division info 
 verses. Henry Stephens, indeed, having once come 
 to Wurzburg, would fain have persuaded me 
 that his father Robert was the inventor of this 
 distinction in the New Testament; and I after- 
 wards observed this same statement in his preface 
 to his Greek Concordance , with the addition that 
 it was on his way from Paris to Lyons that he 
 made the division, a great part of it while riding on 
 horseback ’ (inter equitandum). ‘ This may, after 
 all, be an empty boast; but supposing it true, as 
 Catholics have used the versions of Aquila, Sym- 
 machus, and Theodotion, who were apostates or 
 heretics, so may we use this division of Robert 
 Stephens and, not able to conceal his mortifica- 
 tion that the honour should belong to a Protestant, 
 he significantly observes that Seneca had found 
 the best scribes (notarii) among the vilest 
 slaves. Henry Stephens, in the preface to his 
 Concordance , thus expatiates on his father’s in- 
 vention : ‘ As the books of the New Testament 
 had been alrea ly divided into the sections (tme- 
 mata) which we call chapters, he himself sub- 
 divided them into those smaller sections, called 
 
 by an appellation more approved of by othen 
 than by himself, v ersicles. He would have pro 
 ferred calling them by the Greek tmematia, on 
 the Latin sectiuncidce ; for he perceived that the 
 ancient name of these sections was now restricted 
 to another use. He accomplished this division oi 
 each chapter on his journey from Paris to Lyons, 
 and the greater part of it inter equitandum. A 
 short time before, while he thought on the matter, 
 every one pronounced him mad, for wasting his 
 time and labour on an unprofitable affair which 
 would gain him more derision than honour: but 
 lo ! in spite of all their predictions, the invention 
 no sooner saw the light, than it met with universal 
 approbation, and obtained such authority that all 
 other editions of the New Testament in Greek, 
 Latin, German, and other Vernacular tongues, 
 which did not adopt it, were rejected as un- 
 authorized.’ Henry Stephens had already stated 
 the same fact, in the dedication to Sir Philip 
 Sydney, prefixed to his second edition of the 
 Greek Testament (1576). We now proceed to 
 Stephens’s own statements. 
 
 Upon leaving the church of Rome, and em- 
 bracing Calvinism in 1551, in which year he 
 took refuge in Geneva, he published his fourth 
 edition of the Greek Testament, containing also 
 the Vulgate and the Latin version of Erasmus, 
 with the date in the title mdlxi., an evident 
 error for mdli. The x has been, in consequence, 
 erased in nearly all the copies. In the preface, be 
 observes : ‘ As to our having numbered this work 
 with certain versicles, as they call them, we have 
 herein followed the most ancient Greek and Latin 
 manuscripts of the New Testament, and have 
 imitated them the more willingly, that each 
 translation may be made the more readily to cor- 
 respond with the opposite Greek.’ Bishop Marsh 
 (notes to Michaelis), and after him Mr. Horne (ut 
 supra), asserts that * Beza split the Greek text into 
 the verses invented by Robert Stephens but the 
 bishop is evidently mistaken, as Stephens’s fourth 
 edition is divided into these breaks as well as 
 Beza’s (see fac-simile in Christ. Remembr., ut 
 supra). Each verse commences the line with a 
 capital, the figures being placed between the co- 
 lumns. 
 
 The fourth edition of the Greek Testament 
 was followed, in 1555, by the seventh of the Latin 
 Vulgate, in 8vo., containing the whole Bible, 
 having the present verses marked throughout with 
 numerals, and the following address to the reader : 
 .‘Here is an edition of the Latin Vulgate, ir. 
 which each chapter is divided into verses, accord- 
 ing to the Hebrew form of verses, with numerals 
 prefixed, corresponding to the number of the 
 verse which has been added in our new and com- 
 plete Concordance, after the marginal letters 
 A, B, C, D, E, F G, that you may be relieved 
 from the labour of searching for what these 
 figures will point out to you as with the finger.’ 
 The title-page bears Stephens’s olive ; and the 
 name of the printer, Conrad Badius, the son-in- 
 law of Stephens, with the date, 8 idibus Aprilis. 
 1555, shows where and when it was printed. It 
 was the first edition of the entire Bible printed 
 by Stephens since he left the church of Rome, 
 The text is continuous, the verses being separated 
 by a •[ , with the figures in the body of the text 
 
 The next edition of the Bible by Stephens is 
 that of 1 556-7, in three vols. foL f containing ths 
 
VERSE. 
 
 ■VERSE. 
 
 911 
 
 Vulgate, the version of Pagninus, vm! BezaN 
 Latin version of the New Testam *vt, now first 
 published. The notes are those com ^ionly ascribed 
 to Vatablus, with those of Claude Badwell in the 
 Apocryphal books. The text is broken up into 
 divisions, and there is a notice to the reader, 
 apprising him that this edition contains the text 
 divided into verses, as in the Hebrew copies. 
 
 Again, in the preface to Stephens’ Latin and 
 French New Testament, published at Geneva in 
 1552, which is also thus divided, but which we 
 have never seen cited, he observes : ‘ Et a fin de 
 plus aisement pouoir faire la dicte collation et 
 confrontement, avons distingue tout iceluy 
 Nouveau Testament comme par vers, a la fa£on 
 et maniere que tout le Vieil a este escript et dis- 
 tingue, soit par Moyse et les prophetes composi- 
 teurs et autheurs, ou par scavans Hebrieux suc- 
 cedans, pour la conservation des dictes Escriptures, 
 suyuans aussi en ce en partie la maniere de ceux 
 qui ont escript les premieres exemplaires Grecs, et 
 les vieulx escripts de la vielle tralation Latine 
 du diet Testament, qui de chasque sentence, ou 
 chasqpe moitie de sentence, voire de tout is les 
 parties d’une sentence en faisoyent comme des 
 versets. Et en la fin de chasque livre mettoyent 
 le nombre d iceulx versets : possible a fin que 
 par ce moyen on n’en peust rien oster, car on 
 l’eust apperceu en retrouvant le contenu du nom- 
 bre des diets versets.’ Stephens adds that he has 
 also given references to the verses in indexes and 
 concordances, not omitting the letters (letl lines) 
 by which the chapters had been divided by his 
 predecessors into four or seven parts, according to 
 their length, for the purpose of a concordance. 
 He makes reference to the chapters and verses in 
 his Harmonia Evangelica , taken from the work of 
 Leo Judah, and placed at the end of his edition of 
 the New Testament (1551). 
 
 Henry Stephens, in his preface to his Concord- 
 ance, states that it was this division which first 
 suggested to his father’s fertile mind the idea of 
 a Greek and Latin concordance to the New 
 Testament, in imitation of his Latin concord- 
 ance, Concordantiae Bibl., uiriusque Tesiamenti 
 vn Cal. Feb. 1555, fol. ;i in the preface to which 
 he says that he has followed the Hebrew mode of 
 numbering the verses. In the title-page he makes 
 an appeal to his brother printers not to ‘ thrust 
 their sickle into his harvest,’ not that he ‘ feared 
 such plagiary from well-educated printers, but 
 from the common herd of illiterate publishers, 
 whom he considered as no better than highway 
 robbers, no more capable of Christian integrity 
 than so many African pirates.’ ‘ Whether his 
 apprehensions were well founded,’ continues his 
 son, ‘ let the experience of others tell.’ Owing 
 to Stephens’s death, in 1559, his Concordance was 
 published by Henry Stephens, in 1594. 
 
 But it is far from being true that Stephens, as 
 has been commonly believed, was the first who 
 either followed the Masorites, or divided the 
 chapters into verses, or attached figures to each 
 verse. This had been done, not only in regard 
 to the Psalms, by James le Fevre, in his Psal- 
 teriurn Quincuplex in 1509, but throughout the 
 whole Bible by Sanctes Pagninus in 1528. The 
 Psalterium was beautifully printed by Henry, 
 father of Robert Stephens, each verse commencing 
 the line with a red letter, and a number prefixed ; 
 and we may here observe, that the Book of 
 
 P^lms was the firet portion of the Scriptures to 
 winch numbers were attached, by designating 
 each separate Psalm by its number. Some as- 
 cribe this numeration to the Seventy ; it is, we 
 believe, first referred to by St. Hilary ( Prej i), and 
 is found in the manuscripts of the Sept. Whe- 
 ther they were so numbered at the Christian era, 
 is somewhat doubtful. In Acts xiii. 33, die se- 
 cond Psalm is cited by its number, but in vome 
 of the best manuscripts the reading here is the 
 first Psalm. In ver. 35 ‘hi another’ is said, 
 without reference to its number; and Kuinoel is 
 of opinion that the true reading in ver. 33 is simply 
 iv ifiaA pep, — ‘ in a psalm.’ 
 
 In the year 1528 the Dominican Sanctes Pag- 
 ninus of Lucca published at Lyons, in quarts 
 his accurate translation of the Bible into Latin 
 from the Hebrew and Greek. This editi&h is 
 divided throughout into verses marked with 
 Arabic numerals in the margin, both in the Old 
 and New Testament. The text runs on conti- 
 nuously, except in ttae Psalms, where each verse 
 commences the line. There was a second edi 
 tion, more beautifully executed, but without the 
 figures and divisions, published at Cologne in 1541. 
 The versicular divisions in the Old Testament aiu 
 precisely the same with those now in use, — viz., 
 the Masoretic. Each verse is separated by a pe 
 culiar mark m 
 
 Masch ( Biblioth . Sac.), in reference to Stephens 
 statement that he had followed the oldest Greek 
 manuscripts, says that this assertion was made by 
 Stephens to conciliate those who were taking ail 
 methods of blackening him, for that the ancient 
 divisions were quite different. The reader will 
 judge from Stephens’ preface to his French trans- 
 lation above cited, whether this assertion is born* 
 out . Stephens there asserts that the authors of the 
 ancient (stichometrical) division reckoned by 
 whole books, and he only professes to imitate them 
 in part, as well as the Hebrew copies: which lie 
 did by making a versicular division of each 
 chapter, and prefixing a figure to each verse (as 
 in Nathan’s Concordance ), instead of adding th> 
 amount at the end of each book. observes 
 
 that it is really true that ancient MSS. of the New 
 Testament are sometimes divided into smaller 
 sections, which have some analogy to our verses, 
 instancing the Alexandrine, Vatican, and othei v \ 
 We have already given an example of this in C, 
 to which we shall here add one more instance — 
 viz., V. in Matthsei (Appendix to vol. ix. p. 265), 
 who observes that ‘ this MS. is stichometrically 
 arranged.’ His fac-simile contains eight of the 
 nine first verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, each of 
 which commences the line with a capital. All 
 but one are identical with those in Stephens, whoso 
 first two verses form but one in the Moscow MS. 
 
 It is, however, only in the canonical books of 
 the Old Testament that Stephens follows Pag- 
 ninus. In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Pagninus has 577 
 verses, and Stephens 1071. The number of verses 
 in each chapter in Stephens is often double, fre- 
 quently treble that in Pagninus. In John v. 
 for instance, Pagninus has 7 and Stephens 22 
 versfes. In the deutero-canonical books, into 
 which no Masoretic distinction had found its way, 
 Stephens has also a different division ; thus, in Tobit 
 he has 292 verses, while Pagninus has but 76 ; 
 and the same proportion prevails throughout the 
 odier books, only Pagninus has not the third and 
 
912 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 fourth hooks of Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses, 
 nor the addenda to Daniel. 
 
 There are two editions of the Bible contain- 
 ing this division, stated by Le Long to have 
 oeen published this year in Lyons, one by John 
 Frellon, the other by Antony Vincent. The 
 former is entitled Biblia Sacro-Sancta Veteris et 
 Novi Testamenti, Lugdun., apud Joannem Frel- 
 lonium, 1556, 8; the colophon of which has ‘Lug- 
 duni, ex officina typographic^ Michaelis Sylvii, 
 MDLV.,’ which, doubtless, induced Le Long to 
 assign to it the latter date. We have at present 
 a copy of tiiis rare edition before us, and there 
 was a second, which exactly represented it, pub- 
 lished in 1566, of which there is a copy in the 
 Brit. Museum. Masch, the continuator of Le 
 Long, observes of this edition (vol. iii. p. 202), that 
 tb^ublisher did not venture to ascribe the division 
 of verses to Stephens, but refers it to Pagninus. Le 
 Long places Stephens’ edition and Vincent’s toge- 
 ther among the Protestant versions ; thus : 
 
 ‘ Biblia Latina. Charactere minutissimo. R. 
 Stephanus lectori. En tibi Bibliorum Vulgata 
 &c. (ut sup. p. 910).) in 8vo. Oliva Rob. Ste- 
 phani, 1555. 
 
 ‘ Biblia Latina. Minutioribus characteribus, 
 versibus numerorum distinctione notatis, in 8vo., 
 Lugduni, Ant. Vincentii, 1555. 1556. Eadem 
 est prorsus editio. Ex monitione typographi : 
 “ Biblia Sacra quum jam non semel variis turn 
 typis turn formis emiserim, sicque passis ulnis 
 accepta, ut ne imum quidem aut. alterum nobis 
 superesset exemplar id operis minuti- 
 
 oribus quam antea unqam excudi placuit charac- 
 teribus Deinde quse ad sacrarum 
 
 sensum literarum pertinere visa sunt non omis- 
 suros, Hebraeorum secutus morem, versos quos- 
 
 libet notandos curavi quo sensa ipsa 
 
 certis distincta versibus clarius innotescerent, et 
 rninori negotio linguae sanctae candidati con- 
 cordantias, commentaria, &c., consul ere possent.” 
 
 utraque editio prima est his distincta 
 
 versibus,’ & c. 
 
 According to this statement of Le Long, it 
 would appear that the edition of Robert Ste- 
 phens and that of Antony Vincent were the 
 same. Masch, however, who nlaces Stephens' edi- 
 tion of 1555 in its chronological order (p. 209), 
 and does not transfer it to the Protestant editions, 
 notices Vincent’s thus : — 
 
 ‘ Biblia utriusque Testamenti, Lugduni, in aedi- 
 bus Antonii Vincentii, MDLV., &c. 
 
 Biblia . . . MDLV1. versibus distinct. Eadem 
 
 est prorsus editio utraque est (ut supra).’ 
 
 Now, whatever the word utraque or eadem here 
 refers to, the very extract from the preface given 
 by Le Long as Vincent’s (whose edition we have 
 never seen), commencing with ‘ Biblia Sacra 
 quum jam non semel,’ forms part of the pre- 
 face to Frellon ’s edition, of which Masch had 
 observed that the publisher did not venture to 
 assign the invention of the verses to Stephens, 
 but ascribed them to Pagninus. It was this 
 circumstance which led us to turn to this pre- 
 face, which also contains the identical assertion : 
 ‘ Et ne quern sua frustratum a nobis laude 
 quispiam clamitet, aut peculatus arguet, et 
 etiam ut institutum hoc nostrum plus ponderis 
 obtineat, ultro fatemur nos imitates Santem 
 ilium Pagninum Heb. linguae peritissimum, qui 
 et hoc ipsum ceu necessarium magnopere probans, 
 
 eo modo sua Imprimenda curavit/ No* it 
 seems clear that Frellon, whom, from the evidence 
 before us, we must believe to have been the true 
 author of this preface, wishes' to take credit to 
 himself for the introduction of the division of 
 verses into his Bible, and from his/ declaration 
 that he takes Pagninus for his model, in order 
 that none should complain of being defrauded, 
 we think it by no means improbable that he 
 meant this observation as a sly insinuation 
 against. Robert Stephens, who had, in the preface 
 to his Concordance just published, not only 
 protested against such frauds on the part o e 
 his brother printers, but had himself adopted 
 Pagninus’s figures without acknowledgment, 
 while it is equally evident that Frellon 
 adopts not Pagninus’ but Stephens’ division, 
 both in the New Testament and in the deutero- 
 canonical books of the Old ; for we presume from 
 the dates that Stephens’ edition was the earliest 
 printed ; and his Concordance , as we have seen, 
 was published so early as the month of January 
 in the same year. The verses in Frellon’s edition 
 are divided into breaks, with the figures on the 
 left margin. 
 
 The next edition containing this division into 
 verses is Stephens's eighth and last edition of the 
 Vulgate, 1556-1557, 3 vols. fol. This is one of 
 the editions called Vatablus’ Bibles, of which 
 there are three, viz., Stephens’ nonpareil (1545), 
 his eighth edition of which we are now treating, 
 and the triglott edition published at Heidel- 
 berg in 1599. It is the Bible which Morinus 
 ( Exercit . Bibl.\ Prideaux ( Connect . vol. i.), 
 and so many others, conceived to have been the 
 first containing the division of verses. Prideaux 
 observes that Vatablus soon after published a 
 Latin Bible after this pattern, viz., that of Rabbi 
 Nathan (1450), with the chapters divided into 
 verses. ‘ Soon ’ after, however, meant about a 
 century; Vatablus died 16th March, 1547. It 
 is evident also, from Prideaux’ note, that he was 
 not aware that Vatablus’ Bible was no other 
 than Stephens’ eighth edition. 
 
 There was a beautiful edition of the Psalter 
 published in 1555 by Robert Stephens, contain- 
 ing the Latin of Jerome, with that of Pagninus, 
 the numerals attached to each verse being placed 
 in the . centre column between perpendiculai 
 rubricated lines. It is entitled Liber Psalmorum 
 Davidis, Tralatio duplex , vetus et nova. Iicec 
 posterior Santis Pagnini , partim ab ipso Pag- 
 nino recognita partim et Francisco Fatablo, 
 in prcclectionibus emendata et exposita. The 
 title bears the date MDLV., but in the colophon 
 is the subscription : ‘ Imprimebat Rob. Stephanus, 
 in suS, officina, Anno MDLVII., Cal. Jan.’ 
 
 The form of printing the Bible in verses, with 
 numerals, now became established. It appeared 
 in 1556 in Hamelin’s French version. It found 
 its way the next year into the Geneva New Tes- 
 tament (English), printed by Conrad Badius, of 
 which a beautiful fac-simile has lately issued 
 from the press of Mr. Bagster. It was adopted, 
 by marking every fifth verse with a Hebrew nu- 
 meral, into the Hebrew Pentateuch, printed this 
 same year (1557) at Sabiouetta [Scripture, 
 Holy]. In 1559 Henfenius introduced Ste- 
 phens’s division and figures* into his correct 
 
 * * Biblia, etc., in quibus capita singula iia 
 
VERSE. 
 
 VERSE, 
 
 Antwerp edition ot the Vulgate; which wa« fol- 
 lowed by that of Planiin in 1569-1572, and 
 passed into the Antwerp Polyglott (1569). 
 
 The Sixtine edition of the Vulgate (1590) hav- 
 ing adopted this division, it was continued in the 
 Clementine (1592), and has been ever since used 
 in all editions and translations in the Roman 
 Catholic Church. Hentenius, however, having 
 printed the text continuously, with the figures 
 in the margin, and a mark (thus, ^) at the 
 commencement of each verse, this plan was 
 followed in the Clementine * * and Sixtine editions, 
 in which the verses are marked with an asterisk, 
 capitals being used only at the commencement 
 of a period, while the Protestant Billies of Basle 
 and Geneva commence the verse with the line, 
 and with a capital letter. In the Roman edi- 
 tions, the only exceptions are the metrical books 
 of Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, from the tenth 
 chapter. 
 
 This division appeared in the Geneva (Eng- 
 lish) Bible in 1560 and 1562, the Bishops’ Bible 
 (1568), and passed into the Authorized Ver- 
 sion in 1611. Some of the Protestant editions 
 followed the Roman in adopting a continued 
 text, of which it will be sufficient to name the 
 beautiful Ziirich edition of Osiander, in which 
 each verse is distinguished by an obelus in the 
 body of the text ; and it is to be regretted that 
 this practice has not been generally continued 
 either in Protestant or Roman Catholic Bibles. 
 We may add that Pagninus, Stephens, Frellon, 
 and the Roman editions, all slightly vary among 
 each other, both in the divisions and the placing 
 of the figures. Nor do the chapters, owing to a 
 diversity in the manuscripts, invariably coin- 
 cide, as the versicular divisions of the Psalms 
 in the Sept, and Vulgate are not always the 
 same with the Hebrew ; Stephens' figures some- 
 times occur in the middle of a verse in the 
 Roman editions. 
 
 The Roman edition of the Sept. (1587 and 
 1589) was printed without any division or fi- 
 gures ; and the present notation first appeared in 
 Plantin’s edition of the deutero canonical books, 
 Antwerp, 1584, from Tobit iv. 24 (the commence- 
 ment, to ch. iv. 23, being marked by decades). 
 The Frankfort edition of the Sept. (1597) has the 
 present numeration throughout,, but without any 
 notice of the fact by the editors. The numbers 
 are placed in the margin, but each verse com- 
 mences with a capital, while in Plantin they are 
 separated by spaces only. 
 
 From what has been said, the reader will, we 
 presume, be satisfied of the great inaccuracies 
 and misconceptions which have hitherto prevailed 
 on this subject. It will no longer be doubtful that 
 the figures were not introduced by Robert Stephens 
 into his edition of 1545, as asserted by Calmet, 
 nor ot 1548, as stated by Father Simon and Jahn 
 (in which latter year there was no edition pub- 
 lished). It is equally untrue tlrcit they first ap- 
 peared in Stephens’ edition of 1556-7, as stated by 
 
 versibus distincta sunt ut numeri prefixi lectorem 
 non remorantur, et loca quaesita tanquam digito 
 dsmonstrant.’ 
 
 * Maittaire and Chevillier are both mistaken 
 in asserting that the Sixtine and Clementine 
 adopted the division immediately from Ste- 
 phens’ ed. of 1557. 
 
 ritL. n. 
 
 9l» 
 
 Chevillier, Maittaire, and Pride&ux. Neither is it 
 altogether correct, as stated in Mr. Horne’s Intro- 
 duction, that the verses in the New Testament 
 were an imitation of those invented by Rabb. 
 Nathan, as Rabbi Nathan only referred in hi# 
 Concordance by numerals to the Masoretic verses. 
 Nor was it from the Hebrew Bible of Alhias, in 
 1662, that this notation came into the copies of 
 the Bible in other languages (Horne, l. c.), as 
 they had been in use in all editions for above a 
 century before. Equally far from the truth is 
 the statement of Du Pin, that Stephens was the 
 first who followed the distinction of the Masoretes 
 in his Latin Bibles, as this had been done by 
 Pagninus many years before Stephens published 
 any one of his numerous editions. 
 
 Having now succeeded in detecting the errors 
 of former writers, we are arrived at the more diffi- 
 cult task of eliciting the truth out of so many 
 contradictory statements. Our limits will not 
 allow us, however, to do more than offer the fol- 
 lowing view as the result of our inquiries. 
 
 Rabbi Nathan having in his Concordance (in 
 1450) commenced the practice of referring to a 
 versicular division of each of the Latin chapters 
 by the number of each masoretic verse in the 
 chapter, Arabic figures were, after the example 
 of Le Fevre’s edition of the Psalms, affixed to 
 each verse by Pagninus in his Latin Bible 
 in 1528. Pagninus introduced a somewhat 
 similar division into the New Testament and 
 Apocryphal books. His system was adopted by r 
 Robert Stephens in the New Testament in 1551, 
 and in the whole Bible in 1555, with scarcely any 
 alteration except in the deutero-canonical books 
 and the New Testament, wherein he introduced 
 a different division. This division was partly 
 founded on the practice of ancient manuscripts,., 
 and was partly kis own. But as his object was 
 to adapt his division to his Concordance , without 
 any reference to the sense, he unfortunatehy intro- 
 duced a much worse division than he found in 
 any of his models. And it is to be lamented that 
 his ‘wild and indigested’ system of breaking up,., 
 the text into what appear to the eyes, of the 
 learned and to the minds of the unlearned as so 
 many detached ( sentences (Michaelis’ Introd.), 
 has had a deleterious effect on the sense of Scrijh 
 ture, and perhaps given rise to some heresies* 
 (See Pref. to Bishop Lloyd's Greek Testament). 
 Michaelis supposes that the phrase ‘ inter equitan- 
 dum’ does not mean that Stephens accomplished, 
 his task whilst actually riding on horseback, but 
 that during the intervals of his journey he amused 
 himself by doing it at his inn. If his division 
 was a mere modification of that of Pagninus (see 
 Bible in Taylor’s ed. of Calmet ’3 Diet.), it 
 might easily have been done ‘ inter equitandum 
 a phrase wMch, however we understand it, not 
 inaptly rep sents the post-haste expedition with 
 which his work was executed. Whether Pagninus 
 himself adopted his division in the New Testa- 
 ment from manuscripts, or what his design was in 
 
 * Tholuck (see Robinson's Bibl. Sacra, 1844,. 
 vol. i. p. 354) conceives the omission of the 
 verses to be a defect in Lachmann’s edition;: 
 but Lachmann has inserted Stephens’s figures in 
 the body of the text, and has properly discarded 
 the use of cajitals, except at the commencement 
 of a period. 
 
*14 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 introducing it, must he the result of an investiga- 
 tion which we cannot now enter upon. Stephens, 
 it is true, never once refers to Pagninus’ system ; 
 but we could hardly suppose that he was unac- 
 quainted with it, even had we no evidence to this 
 effect. The evidence, however, does exist, for we 
 discovered, after the greater portion of this article 
 was written, that Stephens, in 1550, had in his 
 possession two copies of Pagninus* Bible. The 
 preface to his edition of 1557 contains the follow- 
 ing words : * In exteriori autem parte interpreta- 
 tionem Sanctis Pagnini (quam potissimum, ut 
 maxime fidam, omnes utio ore laudant), crassio- 
 ribus litteris excusam damns : sed hanc quidem 
 eerte multis partibus ea quam in aliis editionibus 
 Babes, meliorem. Nacti enim sumus duo ex 
 prinia illius editions ezemplaria, in quibus non 
 «olum typographica errata non pauca, nec levia, 
 manu propria i pse author correxerat, sed multos 
 -etiam locos diligentius et aceuratius quam antea 
 ^xaminatos, recognoverat.’ 
 
 Croiu6 (Observat ) states that he had seen very 
 ancient Latin MSS. containing Stephens's divi- 
 *ion, with the first letter of each verse rubri- 
 cated, but he does not designate bis MSS. We 
 believe this was a biassed assertion. We have 
 ourselves seen Latin MSS. with periods so 
 marked; hut they are not thesamewith Stephens’ 
 verses. There is in tiie British Museum also a 
 MS. of part, of the Sept. (Harl. 5021), dated in 
 1647, which is versiculated throughout, and marked 
 with figures; but the verses are much longer than 
 those of" Stephens's. Latin MSS. are found divided 
 in the same manner as the Greek, one of which is the 
 Cod. Bezae, which was collated by Stephens for his 
 edition of 1550. Dr. Laurence’s book of Enoch 
 is divided into verses, with numbers attached, as 
 a/ell as into chapters called Kef el. Dr. Laurence 
 Kiys that these divisions into verses are arbitrary, 
 4,11(1 vary in the different Ethiopic MSS. of Enoch. 
 The numbers, we presume, were added by the 
 translator. By a letter from Dr. Bandinel, 
 keeper of the Rodleian Library, we learn that that 
 Library possesses an Ethiopic MS. of the New 
 Testament divided into sections and paragraphs 
 •ntirely different, from ours, not. numbered, but 
 .separated by a peculiar mark. The verses in the 
 Gospel of the Templars [Gospels, Spurious], 
 •instead of spaces or figures, are separated by a 
 • horizontal line [ — 1 (Tliilo, Cod. Apoc .). 
 
 The MS. of the Syriac New Testament in the 
 British Museum (No. 7157), written at Belli- 
 ikuko, a.d. 768 (see Wright’s Seiler, p. 651, note), 
 contains a numerical division in the Gospels, 
 with the numbers in rubric inserted by a coeval 
 hand into the body of the text. Attached to 
 •each number is another in green, referring to 
 a canon of parallel passages on the plan of 
 that of Eusebius, but placed at the foot of each 
 page. The sections, which are called versi- 
 culi in the Catalogue, and have been mistaken 
 Yor verses, are more numerous than the Am- 
 monian, Mathew containing 426, Mark 290, 
 Luke 402, and John 27 i. There is a complete 
 capitulation also throughout all the books, the 
 chapters being separated in the text by a pecu- 
 liar ornament, with the number in the margin : 
 cf these chapters Matthew has 22, Mark 13, 
 Luke 22, John 20, Acts 25 ; of the Catholic 
 Epistles, James 1, and [i J John 6, and the Pau- 
 line have 54. After the first Gospel there is a 
 
 douh.e number, by which the former are reca- 
 pitulated, and a treble number from the Acts to 
 the end, 
 
 The numerical divisions into chapters and 
 verses were first adapted to liturgical use in tike 
 Anglican Church — the chapters in Edward VI. 's 
 first Book of Common Prayer (1549), and the 
 verses in the Scotch Liturgy (1637), from whence 
 they were adopted into the lust revision (1662). — 
 
 W. W. 
 
 VERSIONS. In the present article we pro- 
 pose to give some account of such versions as are J 
 
 not noticed in other places of this work. In doing j 
 
 so, it is not deemed necessary to mention all that 
 ought to be adduced, were a complete enumeration 
 attempted. We shall first describe ancient ver- 
 sions; and, secondly, modern English versions of 
 the Bihle. 
 
 1. Greek versions. — 1. Aquila. — Aquila was 
 a Jew of Pontus, who lived in the reign of Adrian, 
 and undertook a Greek version of the Old Testa- 
 ment about a.d. 160. It appears from Jerome 
 ( mEzeli . iii.) that there were two editions of this 
 version, the second more literal than the first. It 
 was very highly prized by the Jews, and much 
 preferred to the Septuagint, because the latter was 
 employed as an authorized and genuine document 
 by the early Christians in their disputations with 
 the Hebrew opponents of the new religion. The 
 very circumstance of its being adopted and 
 valued by the Jews would tend to create a pre- 
 judice against it among the Fathers, independently 
 of all perversion of Messianic passages. Irenteus, 
 the earliest writer who mentions Aquila, pro- 
 nounces an unfavourable opinion respecting Lia 
 translation ( Advers . Hceres. iii. 24, p. 253, ed. 
 Grabe). So also Eusebius ( Ad Psalm, xc. 4) 
 and Philastrius. Jerome speaks of him in va- 
 rious parts of his writings, sometimes disparag- | 
 ingly, and again in terms of commendation : the 
 former, in allusion to his doctrinal prepossessions ; 
 the latter, in reference to his knowledge of the 
 Hebrew language and exceeding carefulness in 
 rendering one word by another. He was early 
 accused of distorting several passages I'elating to 
 the Messiah, and Kennicott, in modem times, 
 lias re-echoed the censure. There is some ground 
 for the charge, but certainly not so much as Ken- 
 nicott imagines. A polemic tendency may be 
 detected in the work, but not to a greater degree 
 than in most translations. 
 
 The version before us is extremely, and even 
 unintelligibly, literal. It adheres most rigidly to 
 the original. So highly did the Jews esteem it, 
 that they called it t lie Hebrew verity. Its use in 
 criticism is considerable, but in interpretation it 
 is comparatively worthless. 
 
 2. Symmachus. — Symmachus appears to have 
 been an Ebionite (Fuseli, Hist. Eccles. vi.17 ; De- 
 monstr. Evang. vii. 1, Jerome, Prof, in Ezram ; 
 Assemani, Bibl. Orient, ii. 278 ; iii. 1,17). His 
 Greek version of the Old Testament was made 
 after thatofTheodotiori, as may be inferred from the 
 silence of Irenseus, and the language of Jerome in 
 his commentary on the xxxviii. chapter of Isaiah. 
 
 The style of the work is good, and the diction 
 perspicuous, pure, and elegant (Thieme, De puri- 
 tate Symmachi ; Hody, De Bibl. text. Original.'). 
 
 It is of less benefit in criticism than that of 
 Aquila, but of greater advantage in interpreta- 
 tion. It would seem from Jerome, that tbcr» 
 
VERSIONS. 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 was a second edition of it ( Comment in Jerem. 
 xxxii. ; in Nah. iii.). 
 
 3. Theodotion. — Theodotion, like Symmachus, 
 was an Ebionite. Irenaeus states ( Advers . Hceres. 
 iii. 24) tha. he belonged to Ephesus, and was a 
 Jewish proselyte. His Greek version of the Old 
 Testament appeared during the first half of the 
 second century, and is first mentioned by Ire- 
 meus. He follows the Septuagint very closely, so 
 that be appears to have intended to make a re- 
 visi “i of its text, rather than a new version. He 
 is not so scrupulously literal as Aquiia. nor so 
 free as Symmachus. He was certainly not well 
 acquainted with Hebrew, as the numerous errors 
 into which he lias fallen demonstrate. It. is pro- 
 bable, if credit can be given to Jerome, that there 
 were two editions of the translation (in Jerem. xxix. 
 17). His translation of Daniel was very early 
 adopted by the Christians in place of that belong- 
 ing to the Septuagint. The Jews do not seem to 
 have had much regard for this castigated edition 
 of the Seventy, alt.hough y Von Lengerke inclines 
 to the opposite opinion. 
 
 4, 5, 6. When Origen travelled into Eastern 
 countries collecting materials for his Polyglott, 
 he discovered three other Greek versions not extend- 
 ing to the entire Old Testament, but only to several 
 books. These are usually designated the fifth , 
 sixth, and seventh. The authors were unknown 
 to Origen himself. As far as we can judge, they 
 appear to have translated the original somewhat 
 freely and paraph rasti call y. The fifth compre- 
 hended the Pentateuch, Psalms, Song of Solomon, 
 and the twelve Minor Prophets, besides the books 
 of Kings. Jerome says that the author was a 
 Jew, meaning probably a Jewish Christian. The 
 sixth version contained the same books as the 
 filth, except those of the Kings. The author ap- 
 pears to have been a Jewish Christian also. This 
 inference has been drawn from his rendering of 
 Habak. iii. 13. The seventh embraced the 
 Psalms and minor prophets. Perhaps the author 
 was a Jew. The three translations in question 
 were made subsequently to those of Aquila, Sym- 
 machus, and Theodotion. Very few fragments of 
 them remain. (See Epiphanius, De Pond, et Mens. 
 cap. 17; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 16; Jerome, 
 Comment, in Tit., cap. 3 ; Apolog. contra Rufin. 
 ii. 34 ; Hody, p. 590, et sq.) 
 
 4. Grceco-Veneta. — In a MS. belonging to 
 St. Mark's Library at Venice, there is a Greek 
 version of several Old Testament books. Its in- 
 ternal character proves that the translation was 
 made directly from the Hebrew. It is more 
 literal than any other ancient version, even that 
 of Aquila, adhering with slavish scrupulosity to 
 the original words. In the Chaldee portions of 
 Daniel, the Attic dialect is changed for the Doric. 
 The style, however, is a singular compound. Attic 
 elegancies occur along with barbarous expres- 
 sions; high-sounding words used by the best 
 Greek writers, by the side of others contrary to 
 the genius of the Greek language. The origin of 
 the version cannot be placed higher than the 
 ninth century: the MS. itself was written in 
 the fourteenth. It is uncertain whether the 
 author was a Jew or a Christian. Gesenius ad- 
 duces several particulars in favour of the former 
 suf position (Geschichte der Heb. Sprache). It 
 is probable that it was made at Byzantium for 
 vate use?. The text seldom differs from the 
 
 m 
 
 Masoretic, and the translator consulted the Sep- 
 tuagint and othei Greek versions, besides ad- 
 hering, as he generally does, to the current ex®- 
 gefical tradition of the Jews. Criticism can never 
 derive much use from this version. Extracts 
 from it are given in Holmes’s edition of the Sep- 
 tuagint. The Pentateuch was published by Am- 
 mon, in three volumes, at Erlangen, in the years 
 1790-91. Different parts of the Pentateuch had 
 been previously published, along with Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Lamentations, Daniel, and 
 Canticles, by Villoison, at Strasburg, 1784. (See 
 Eichhorn’s Allgem. Biblioth. iii. p. 371, et sq. ; v. 
 p. 743, et sq. ; vii. p. 193, et .sq. ; Dahler, Ani- 
 madverss. in versionem Grtecam Proverbb., Ar- 
 gentor. 1786; the Introductions of Eichhorn 
 Bertholdt, De Wette, and Havernick; and Da- 
 vidson’s Lectures on Bib. Crit.) 
 
 II. Egyptian versions. — After the death of 
 Alexander the Great, the Greeks multiplied in 
 Egypt, and obtained important places of trust 
 near the throne of the Ptolemies. The Greek 
 language accordingly began to diffuse itself from 
 the court among the people, so that the proper 
 language of the country was either forced to 
 adapt itself to the Greek, as well ki construction 
 as in the adoption of new words, or was entirely 
 supplanted. In this way originated the Coptic, 
 compounded of the old Egyptian and the Greek. 
 There is aversion in the dialect of Lower Egypt 
 usually called the Coptic , or better the Mem - 
 phitic version ; and there is another in the dialect 
 of Upper Egypt, termed the Sahidic, and some- 
 times the Thebaic. 
 
 1. The Memphitic version of the Bible. — The 
 Old Testament in this version has been taken 
 from the Septuagint, and not. the original Hebrew. 
 It would appear from Miinter (Specim. verss. 
 Dan. Coptic. Romae, 1786), that the original was 
 the Ilesychian recension of the Seventy, then 
 current in the country. There is little doubt 
 that all the Old Testament Books were trans- 
 lated into the Coptic dialect, although many of 
 them have not yet been discovered. The Penta- 
 teuch was published by Wilkins (London, 1731, 
 4lo.); the Psalms at Rome (1744 and 1749) by 
 the Propaganda Society. A small part of Jere- 
 miah (ix. 17, to xiii.) was published by Mingarelli 
 at Bologna (1785), and the ninth chapter of 
 Daniel, in Miinter s work already quoted. Gre- 
 gory Bar Hehrseus quotes the version in the book 
 of Psalms ; and it seems to have been well known 
 to the Syrians. (Wiseman’s Iiorce Syriacce , pp. 
 144-5.) The New Testament, made from the 
 original Greek, was published by Wilkins, at 
 Oxford, with a Latin translation, a.d. 1716. Its 
 readings, as may be inferred from the place where 
 it was made, coincide with the Alexandrine 
 family, and deserve the attention of the critic. 
 Unfortunately, however, the version is not yet 
 correctly edited. It belongs to the third cen- 
 tury. 
 
 2. The Thebaic. — This version was also made 
 from the Greek, both in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, and probably too in the third century. 
 Only some fragmerts of the Old Testament part 
 have been printed by Miinter, Mingarelli, and 
 Zoega. In the New Testament it agrees gene- 
 rally, though not uniformly, with the Alexandrine 
 family. Not a few readings, however, are pecu- 
 liar ; and some harmonize with the Latin version®. 
 
916 VERSIONS. 
 
 Fragments of it have been published by Woide 
 and Ford. 
 
 3. The Bashmuric or Ammonicin . — Only some 
 fragments of such a version in the Old and New 
 Testaments have been published, and very little is 
 known concerning it. Scholars are not agreed as 
 to the nature of the dialect in which it is written ; 
 some thinking that, it does not deserve the name of 
 a dialect, while others regard the Bashmuric as a 
 kind of intermediate dialect between those spoken 
 in Upper anti Lower Egypt. Hug and De Wette 
 are inclined to believe that it is merely the version 
 of Upper Egypt transferred into the idiom of the 
 particular place where the Bashmuric was spoken. 
 The origin of this version belongs to the third or 
 fourth century. 
 
 III. TEthiopic version . — The sacred language 
 of the ./Ethiopians is called the Geez, in which 
 they have a translation of the entire Bible from 
 the Septuagint in the Old Testament, and from the 
 original in the New. The oldest allusion to it 
 of which we have any knowledge is by Chry- 
 sostom, in his second homily on John. Its an- 
 tiquity cannot be referred farther back than the 
 fourth century, during which Christianity wus 
 diffused among the people. Nothing certain is 
 known about the author, although there have 
 been various conjectures respecting him. It was 
 made by Christians, although the ./Ethiopian 
 Jews have also used it. The Old Testament 
 portion is extant in an entire state in various 
 MSS. throughout Europe, of which Ludolf has 
 given a list it) his Commentary on the History of 
 the ^Ethiopians. With this work may bp com* 
 pared T. Pell Platt's Catalogue of the Ethioptc 
 Biblical MSS. in various Libraries, published at 
 London, a.d. 1823. Some specimens only have 
 been printed, such as the Psalms, Canticles, 
 Ruth, Jonah, Joel, Malachi, and the first four 
 chapters of Genesis. 
 
 The different parts of the New Testament are 
 very unequal. The Gospels are the best exe- 
 cuted. Hug thinks that various versions , rather 
 than Greek MSS., were used in translating the 
 Gospels, though he does not deny that the latter 
 were also consulted. It is certain that it agrees 
 frequently with the Peshito and the Fetus Itala. 
 Its character is literal. The New Testament lias 
 not yet been correctly printed. It was first pub- 
 lished at Rome in 1548-9, 2 vols. 4to., and was 
 afterwards inserted in the London Polyglott, but 
 from a faulty MS. If it were edited in a more 
 correct form, it would be of considerable utility in 
 the criticism of the New Testament. It. generally 
 agrees with the Alexandrine family and the 
 quotations of Origen. 
 
 IV. Persian versions . — The Bible seems to 
 have been translated at an early period into the 
 Persian language. Both Chrysostom ( Second 
 Horn, on John') and Theodoret ( De civrand. 
 Grcec. Affect.) speak of a Persian translation ; 
 and, according to Maimonides, the Pentateuch 
 was translated many centuries before Mohammed 
 into this language (Zunz’s Gottesdienstlichen 
 Fortrdge , p. 9, note a). A Persian version of 
 the Pentateuch was first printed at Constantinople, 
 in Hebrew characters, a.d. 1546, as part of a 
 Polyglott Pentateuch; and afterwards inserted by 
 Walton in the London Polyglott, in the proper 
 Persian character'. It was made after the time 
 j(f the false prophet, and must have been later 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 than the eighth century. The text follows the 
 Hebrew very closely, according to the Masoretie 
 recension, retaining many of the original terms, 
 from the translator’s inability to render them 
 into Persian. Both Onkelos’s and Saadias's 
 versions appear to have been consulted by the 
 author. 
 
 If credit is to be given to the inscriptions, it 
 was made by Jacob, the son of Joseph Tawus, for 
 the use of the Persian Jews. Critics are, how- 
 ever, not agreed about the meaning of Tus oi 
 Tawus. Rosenmiiller (De Vers Pentat. Pers. 
 Lips. 1813, 4to.) assigns it to the ninth century; 
 Lorsbach ( Jena Allgem. Lit. Zeit. 1816, No. 58), 
 with less probability, brings it down to the six- 
 teenth. Walton, in his Prolegomena (ed. Dathe, 
 p. 694), speaks of two MS. copies of the Psalms 
 which he had, but both were very recent, and 
 taken from the Vulgate, not the kebrew. . Not 
 long since, Hassler discovered an immediate 
 version of Solomon’s writings existing in Parisian 
 MSS. (Studien und Kritiken for 1829, p. 469, 
 et sq.). 
 
 There are two Persian versions of the Gospels, 
 one of which is printed in the London Polyglott, 
 from a MS. belonging to Pocock, written in the 
 year of our Lord 1341. Its source is the Peshito , 
 as internal evidence abundantly shows. The 
 other version was made from the original Greek. 
 Wheloc, Professor of Arabic in the University of 
 Cambridge, began to print it with a Latin trans- 
 lation. After his death it jvas edited by Pierson, 
 London, 1652-57. The editors made use of the 
 Syro-Persian MS. of the Gospels from which that 
 in the Polyglott was printed. In consequence of 
 the confusion arising from their procedure, the 
 version is of little use either in the criticism or 
 interpretation of the text. 
 
 V. The Georgian version . — This translation 
 comprehends the entire Bible, made from the 
 Septuagint in the Old Testament, and from 
 Greek MSS. of the Constantinopolitan family in 
 the New. It belongs to the sixth century. The 
 author or authors are not known. The edition 
 published at Moscow, a.d. 1743, folio, was in- 
 terpolated by the Georgian princes, Arcil and 
 Wacuset, from the Slavonic version. This cir- 
 cumstance detracts from its authority and value, 
 since it is now impossible to separate the original 
 from the interpolated readings. 
 
 VI. The Slavonic version . — This translation, 
 embracing the Old and New Testaments, was 
 made by Cyril of Thessalonica and his brother 
 Methodius, who invented the Slavic alphabet. 
 In the Old Testament the Septuagint was fol- 
 lowed; and in the New the original Greek, in 
 MSS. belonging to the Constantinopolitan family. 
 According to Alter, the Old Testament portion 
 Was originally made from the Veins Itala, and 
 altered in the fourteenth century from Greek 
 MSS. Perhaps the entire text of the version ha* 
 been revised after the Latin. The translation is 
 very literal, so that the idiom of the Slavonic is 
 often violated for the sake of retaining the Greek 
 construction. Of the readings adopted by Gries- 
 bach, this version has at least three-fourths. In 
 consequence of its excellence, it is considered oi 
 great value in the criticism of the Greek Testa- 
 ment. The edition of the entire Eible publishea 
 at Ostrog, 1581, is the basis of all succeeding 
 impressions. 
 
VERSIONS. 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 917 
 
 VII. The Gothic version. — The Maeso-Goths 
 were a German tribe which settled on the borders 
 of the Greek empire, and their language is essen- 
 tially a German dialect. Their version of the 
 Bible was made by Ulphilas, in the fourth cen- 
 tury, after Greek MSS. in the New Testament, and 
 after the Seventy in the Old. The author is gene- 
 rally regarded as an Arian : but his peculiar 
 doctrinal sentiments do not seem to have in- 
 fluenced his translation. Of the Old Testament 
 portion, nothing but a fragment of Nehemiah has 
 been printed, although parts of other books have 
 been discovered. A great part of the New has 
 been published at different times in fragments. 
 The four Gospels exist in the very celebrated MS. 
 called the Codex Argenteus , now preserved in the 
 library of the university at Upsal, and minutely 
 described by Dr. E. D. Clarke and others. This 
 MS., however, has considerable chasms. The 
 Gospels have been several times printed from it, 
 but not very correctly. Kuittel discovered 
 fragments of Paul's Epistle to the Romans in a 
 codex rescriplus belonging to the Wolfenbiittel 
 library, which he published in 1762, 4to., and 
 which were republished by Zalm in the complete 
 edition of the Gospels issued in 1808, 4to. In 
 1817, Angelo Mai discovered important parts of 
 the Gothic version among five codices rescripti in 
 the Ambrosian library at Milan. They contain 
 for the most part the Pauline Epistles, with the 
 exception of that to the Hebrews ; and two frag- 
 ments of Matthew. Various portions were printed 
 by Mai in conjunction with Castillionaeus, in 
 1819. In 1 829 the latter published the frag- 
 ments of Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians. This version has been altered from the 
 Vulgate. 
 
 VIII. The Armenian version. — Armenian li- 
 terature begins with Miesrob, the inventor of the 
 Armenian alphabet, at the commencement of the 
 fifth century. Before that time, the Armenians 
 employed the Syriac letters. After making an 
 alphabet. Miesrob, assisted by two of his pupils, 
 undertook a translation of the Bible, which he 
 completed in a.d. 410. The Old Testament part 
 was made from the Greek ; in the book of Daniel, 
 from Theodotion ; and the text of the Seventy 
 which it follows appears to have been a mixed 
 one, for it agrees with none of the leading recen- 
 sions. It is said to have been interpolated in the 
 6i-xth century from the Peshito; but this is 
 doubtful. Gregory Bar Hebraeus gives it as a 
 mere conjecture. (Wiseman, Horce Syriacce, p. 
 142.) La Croze, Michaelis, and Bredenkamp 
 think that it was altered from the Vulgate in 
 the thirteenth century ; but Alter and Holmes 
 are opposed to that idea. The probability is on 
 the side of the former. In the New Testament it 
 was made from the original ; but here too it is 
 said to have been adapted to the Peshito. It is 
 likely that it has been, at least in this part, con- 
 formed to the Vulgate by Haitho or Hethom, 
 who rtigned over the lesser Armenia and Cilicia 
 from a.d 1224 till 1270. This entire version 
 was first published by Bishop Uscan or Osgan, at 
 Amsterdam, in 1776, 4to., who is also accused of 
 interpolating it The best edition is that of Dr. 
 Zohrab, published at Venice, a.d. 1805, 4 to., for 
 Which he consulted sixty-nine MSS. This edi- 
 tion was collated for the Greek Testament pre- 
 oared by Scholz, who think* that if we possessed 
 
 the genuine version, we should find its text to bt 
 a compound of the Constautinopolitan and Alex- 
 andrian families. 
 
 (See the various Introductions to the Scriptures, 
 especially those of Eiehhorn, Havernick, ami 
 De Wette, and the references there given. Com- 
 pare also Davidson's Lectures on Biblical Cri- 
 ticism.) 
 
 We shall now very briefly notice the principal 
 English versions of the Bible. Translations of a 
 portion of the Bible, or of separate books, must be 
 omitted. 
 
 1. Wycliffe's version of the entire Bible is ge- 
 nerally regarded as the first which was made into 
 the English language. This work, which must 
 have occupied him for many years, was finished 
 about the year of our era 1380. 
 
 The author of it, although a zealous reformer, 
 as well as an enlightened theologian and a man 
 of learning in his own time, was ignorant of the 
 Hebrew and Greek' languages, and therefore not 
 qualified for the task of translation from the ori- 
 ginals. Latin, however, was all but universal in 
 the fourteenth century; and the Latin Bible or 
 Vulgate was the only document which consti- 
 tuted the word of God in the estimation of men. 
 There are indications of his having had assistance 
 in the work, perhaps from various individuals. 
 ■ The version is remarkable for its fidelity and the 
 propriety of the words selected. Still it is but 
 the translation of a translation, and therefore 
 more important as illustrative of the state of our 
 language in the fourteenth century than as con- 
 tributing to the criticism or interpretation of the 
 Bible. 
 
 The Old Testament has not yet been pub- 
 lished, but it is now in course of publication 
 under the editorial care of Sir Frederick Madden 
 and the Rev. J. Forshall, of the British Museum. 
 The general opinion is that the New Testament 
 portion was published so long ago as the year 
 1731, and it is from this that our idea of Wy- 
 clifl'e as a translator is formed. The subject; 
 however, is involved in considerable obscurity; 
 and he that trusts to the common accounts given 
 of this early reformer as a translator of the Bible 
 may probably be misled in his opinions. Accord- 
 ing to Baber, another version was made in the 
 fourteenth century, posterior to Wycliffe's, with 
 which it is frequently confounded. The author 
 of it is said to have been the writer of ‘ Eluci- 
 darium Bibliorum, or Prologue to the Bible.’ 
 But this is a questionable statement. 
 
 It may be doubted whether Wycliffe’s version 
 has yet been published even as regards the New 
 Testament, although it is generally supposed that 
 it was first printed by Lewis in 1731, folio, and 
 afterwards by Baber (1810, 4to.) and Bagster. 
 A version of the New Testament is now being 
 published by Mr. Pickering of London from a 
 MS. in the possession of Lea Wilson, Esq., 
 which is apparently the early Wycliffite version. 
 That already published is a later version, in which 
 Wyclift'e could have had no concern, as it was 
 not made till after his death. It thus appears 
 that if the reformer had any concern in either of 
 the two versions of the New Testament ascribed 
 to him, it is to the earlier of them, and not to the 
 later, that this honour must be assigned. Both 
 are now being printed, as the Old Testament has 
 already been, in parallel columns, under tbs 
 
918 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 VERSIONS. 
 
 •uperiritendence of Sir F. Madden, by whom, 
 doubtless, some light will be thrown on their 
 comparative claims. The writer is indebted for 
 the information now communicated to the same 
 eminent antiquarian scholar. 
 
 2. Tyndale's translation. 
 
 William Tyndale, having printed at Hamburg 
 an edition of the Gospel by Matthew and an 
 edition of Mark, committed to the press at Co- 
 logne the first edition of his New Testament in 
 4tc., with a prologue and glosses. In conse- 
 quence, however, of the exertions of Cochlaeus, a 
 violent and crafty enemy to the printing of the 
 Scriptures, the edition was interrupted before it 
 was printed off. A precious fragment of it is 
 now in the library of the Right Hon. Thomas 
 Grenville. (Facsimiles are given by Mr. Ander- 
 son, in his ‘Annals of the English Bible’ (vol. i. 
 p. 64.) At Worms, whither he proceeded on 
 leaving Cologne, he commenced another edition 
 of the New Testament in 8vo. without the pro- 
 logue and glosses belonging to the 4to. A third 
 edition was printed at Antwerp in 1526, a fourth 
 at the same place in 1527, a fifth in 1529, a sixth 
 in 1534, and three editions in 1535. In 1536, 
 the year in which he was strangled at Vilvorde, 
 there were ten or twelve editions. He also printed 
 at different times the five books of Moses; and in 
 1531, the book of Jonah, with an admirable 
 prologue respecting the state of his country. In 
 addition to the Pentateuch, he translated other 
 parts of the Old Testament, at least as far as the 
 end of Chronicles. The Old Testament was 
 made from the original, not from Luther’s Ger- 
 man version ; for there is no evidence to show 
 that Tyndale was acquainted with German, or 
 indeed that he ever saw Luther, though there is 
 abundant testimony of his skill in Hebrew. Be- 
 sides, its internal character proves that it was 
 made from the original Hebrew and Greek. 
 
 The excellence of this version, the basis of all 
 subsequent English Bibles, has never been called 
 in question by candid and competent judges, 
 notwithstanding the severe opposition it encoun- 
 tered during the life of the honoured Tyndale, 
 and the peculiar circumstances in which he was 
 placed. The language is pure, appropriate, and 
 perspicuous. It is an astonishing monument of 
 the indomitable zeal and great learning of the 
 author. The New Testament part was printed in 
 Bagster's Hexapla. 
 
 3. Myles Coverdale. The English version of the 
 whole Bible made by Coverdale, is dated 1535, 
 in folio. Where it was printed is matter of con- 
 jecture. In the title-page it professes to be faith- 
 fully and truly translated out of the ‘Douche 
 (German) and Lafyn.’ This Bible was imported 
 into England in 1536, and various expedients 
 were tried in the way of altering the title-page 
 and the dedication, or of affixing a new title-page, 
 in order to procure it the royal approbation. 
 Another edition, in 4to., was issued in 1550, and 
 again in the same form reissued in 1553. This 
 Bible certainly owed its origin to Lord Crom- 
 well’s patronage. Coverdale states, that he had 
 five translations before him 1 to help him herein.’ 
 Although the author had the benefit of Tyndale’s, 
 his work must be reckoned inferior. In addition 
 to the culpable obsequiousness of Coverdale, he 
 was not so well skilled in the original languages 
 «f the Scriptures, and had therefore to rely more 
 
 on the German and Latin (Anderson, vol. i. p. 
 587). Tiiis translation was recently reprinted by 
 Bagster. 
 
 4. Mattheic's Bible. Although this version is 
 the same as Tyndale’s previously described, yet it 
 deserves to be separately spoken of. John Rogers, 
 an intimate friend of Tyndale, set. about the su- 
 perintendence of a new edition, soon after the 
 incarceration of the latter at Vilvorde. Where L 
 was printed cannot now be ascertained. Ham- 
 burg, Marburg, Paris, Antwerp, and Lubeck, 
 have all been named. When Rogers had pro- 
 ceeded with the printing as far as Isaiah, Richard 
 Grafton and Edward Whitchurch, the celebrated 
 printers, undertook to bring out the work as a 
 matter of trade. The New Testament entire, and 
 the Old as far as the end of Chronicles, are 
 Tyndale’s ; the remainder of the Old Testament 
 was done by Rogers himself, with the assistance 
 perhaps of Covevdale’s sheets. The whole was 
 finished in 1537. Why it bears the name of 
 Thomas Matthew is not clear. It. has been con- 
 jectured, however, that it may have been com- 
 menced at the request of a person of that name. 
 Archbishop Cranmer, without any previous con- 
 nection with the undertaking, was applied to by 
 Grafton to procure it royal patronage, which he 
 happily effected through Lord Cromwell. 
 
 In the year 1538, another edition was begun at 
 Paris, edited by Coverdale, which was inter- 
 rupted by an order of the Inquisition. It was 
 finished in London, in April, 1539. This book 
 was set forth and enforced by the highest autho- 
 rity in England, 
 
 5. Taverner's Bible. Richard Taverner, t lie 
 editor of this work, was a learned layman. His 
 Bible was published in London, 1539, folio. Two 
 other editions of it were issued in quarto. It 
 is not a new version, but a correction of Mat- 
 thew’s. 
 
 6. Cranmer' s Bible. The first great Bible, with 
 a prologue, by Cranmer, was published in 1540, 
 folio, printed by Whitchurch. Three subsequent 
 editions had the archbishop’s name affixed to the 
 title-page. The New Testament is printed in 
 Bagster's Hexapla. 
 
 7. Geneva Bible. The New Testament, in duo- 
 decimo, printed at Geneva by Conrad Badius, in 
 
 1557, is properly a revision of Tyndale’s from 
 the Greek, by William Whittingham. It was 
 merely preparatory, however, to the revision ot 
 the entire Bible by Whittingham and other exiles, 
 which appears to have been begun by January, 
 
 1558, and to have been continued till the 10th 
 April, 1560. Whittingham had for his associates 
 in the undertaking Anthony Gibby and Thomas 
 Sampson. Its size is quarto. This was the first 
 Bible printed in Roman letter, and the first in 
 verses. A patent relative to it was issued by 
 Elizabeth in favour of John Bodeleigh. The 
 work is a new translation from the original, not 
 simply a revision of any former version. It is 
 faithful and literal. The New Testament portion 
 was reprinted by Bagster in his Hexapla. 
 
 8. Archbishop Parker s, or the Bishops' Bible. 
 This Bible was published in 1568, at London, 
 in one folio volume. It was superintended by 
 Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, the text being 
 carefully revised after the originals, by upward 
 of fifteen scholars, eight of whom were bishops 
 Different portions were assigned to different in- 
 
VERSIONS. 
 
 VINE. 
 
 919 
 
 thriduals, the initials of whose names are placed 
 at the end of their several parts. It was not, as is 
 commonly supposed, undertaken at the royal 
 command The text of this translation is much 
 better than that of any preceding one. 
 
 9. Anglo-Romish version . — An English trans- 
 lation of the New Testament was published at 
 Rlieims in 1582, in a quarto volume. It is 
 made from the Latin Vulgate, not from the ori- 
 ginal, and is accompanied bv annotations. In 
 1609-10 the Old Testament was translated from 
 the Vulgate, and published at Douay in two 
 quarto volumes, also with notes. These three 
 volumes contain the standard version of Roman 
 Catholics. Many of the original Hebrew and 
 Greek words are retained, so that simplicity and 
 perspicuity are sacrificed. It has been conjec- 
 tured that this was done to render it as obscure 
 as possible to the common people. The New 
 Testament lias been lately reprinted in Bagster's 
 llexapla. 
 
 10. King James's Bible . — The proposal for this 
 new translation of the Bible originated with Dr. 
 John Rainolds, of Corpus Christi College, Ox- 
 ford. Forty-seven persons were engaged upon it, 
 doubtless the most eminent men for learning that 
 could then be procured. They met in companies 
 at different places, having their respective tasks 
 assigned them. According to the ordinary ac- 
 count, fourteen rules were given to the translators 
 for their guidance ; but another account states 
 that only seven were tinally prescribed. The 
 whole was revised by twelve men together, two 
 having been chosen out of each of the six com- 
 panies. The ultimate revision was made by 
 Dr. Miles Smith, who wrote the Preface, and 
 Dr. Bilson. It was first published, in a folio 
 volume, in 1611. The whole expense was de- 
 frayed by Barker, the patentee. In order to 
 judge of the real character of this work, which 
 has continued to be the authorized version down 
 to the present day, it is necessary to consider two 
 of the rules given to the editors or translators, 
 viz. the first and the fourteenth ‘ The ordi- 
 nary Bible read in the church, commonly called 
 the Bishops’ Bible, to be fallowed, ami as little 
 altered as the original will permit.’ Again : — 
 ‘ These translations to be used when they agree 
 better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: 
 viz. 1. Tyndale's; 2. Matthew's; 3. Coverdale’s ; 
 4. Whitclmrche's (Cranmer’s); 5. The Geneva.’ 
 From these instructions it may be inferred that 
 the Authorized Version is a revision of the 
 Bishops’ Bible, by a careful collation of the 
 originals and a comparison of existing transla- 
 tions. It was not a new and independent work, 
 but a laborious compilation from existing works 
 of the same kind, regulated in every case by the 
 Greek and Hebrew. 
 
 It is needless to pronounce a formal encomium 
 on our authorized version. The time, learning, 
 and labour expended on it were well bestowed. 
 It far surpasses every other English version of 
 the entire Bible in the characteristic qualities of 
 simplicity, energy, and purity of style, as also in 
 uniform fidelity to the original. 
 
 A revision of it, however, is now wanted, or 
 rather, a new translation from the Hebrew and 
 Greek, based upon it. Since it was made, criti- 
 cism has brought to light a great mass of ma- 
 terials, and elevated itself in the esteem of the 
 
 fundamental theologian as an important science. 
 Hermeneutics too have been cultivated, iso as to 
 assume a systematic, sc entific form. We require, 
 in consequence, a new English version, suited to 
 the present state of sacred literature. It need 
 scarcely be stated that King James’s translators 
 have failed to apprehend the true meaning in 
 many passages. Of the merit attaching to their 
 version a considerable share belongs to Tyndale. 
 Parker's Bible was the professed basis, and that 
 was a revision of Cranmer’s. Cranmer’s Bible 
 was chiefly a correction of Matthew’s, or, in ether 
 words, of Tyndale's, as far as Tyndale iiad trans- 
 lated. Thus King James’s translation resolves 
 itself at last, in no small measure, into Tyndale's ; 
 and when we consider the ad verse circumstances 
 continually pressing upon that, noble-minded man, 
 with the little assistance he could obtain, the work 
 which he produced assumes a pre-eminent position 
 amid the immortal monuments of human learning 
 and skill. # 
 
 Few men have since attempted an English ver- 
 sion of the entire Bible. They have contented 
 themselves with separate books, either of the Old 
 or New Testament. In point of style and dic- 
 tion Lowth's translation of Isaiah is the best. Dr. 
 Campbell translated the Gospels, and Macknight 
 the Epistles ; bnt the former scarcely equals the 
 expectations which a reader of the Preliminary 
 Dissertations would form, while the latter has not 
 commended itself to competent judges. 
 
 (See Johnson’s Account of the several English 
 translations of the Bible , Lond. 1730, 8vo., re- 
 printed in Bp. Watson’s Theological Tracts ; Bp. 
 Marsh’s History of the Translations which have 
 been made of the Scriptures, from the earliest to the 
 present age, Lond. 1812, 8vo. ; Lewis’s History 
 of the principal Translations of the Bible, Lond. 
 1739, 8vo. : Newcome’s Historical View of the 
 English Biblical translations, Dublin, 1792, 8vo.; 
 Colton’s List of Editions of the Bible, from the 
 year 1505 to 1820, Oxford, 1821, 8vo. ; Walter's 
 Letter on the Independence of the Authorized 
 Version of the Bible, Lond. 1823, 8vo. ; Todd's 
 Vindication of our Authorized Translation, &c., 
 Lond. 1819, 8vo. ; Whittaker’s Historical and 
 Critical Inquiry into the Interpretation of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, Spc., Lond. 1819, 8vo., and 
 Supplement, 1820; Townley’s Illustrations of 
 Biblical Literature , Lond. 1821, 3 vols. 8vo. ; 
 and especially Anderson's Annals of the English 
 Bible, Lond. 1845, 2 vols. 8vo., which must now' 
 be regarded as the standard work on the subject. 
 — S. D. 
 
 VINE, THE (|SS gepheii), with its fruit, the 
 Grape, amib, or yayin, as well as Wine, 
 is very frequently mentioned in Scripture, as 
 might be expected from its being a native of 
 the East, well known to ancient nations, and 
 highly esteemed for its various natural and arti- 
 ficial products. Homer and Herodotus mention 
 the vine ; Theophrastus and Dioscorides treat of 
 it in several chapters. But long before these times 
 it was known to the Egyptians : representations 
 of the careful culture of ihe vine, of the tread- 
 ing of the grapes and squeezing out its juice, 
 and of the storing of the wine in jars, being all 
 discovered in the paintings within their tombs. 
 Though cultivated at such early periods, the vine 
 was not a native of Egypt, nor probably of Syria; 
 
920 
 
 VINE. 
 
 VIRGIN 
 
 but both European and Asiatic writers mention it 
 as a native of the hilly region on the southern 
 shores of the Caspian, and in the Persian province 
 of Gliilan. In the districts of the Caucasus, as 
 well as in the elevated valley of Cashmere, the vine 
 climbs to the tops of the loftiest trees, and the 
 grapes are of tine quality and large size in many 
 places of the intermediate country. Every part 
 of the vine was and still continues to he highly 
 valued. The sap was at one time used in medi- 
 cine. Verjuice expressed from wild grapes is well 
 Known for its acidity. The late Sir A. Burnes 
 mentions that in Caubul they use grape powder, 
 obtained by drying and powdering the unripe 
 fruit, as a pleasant acid. When ripe, the fruit is 
 everywhere highly esteemed, both fresh, and in its 
 dried state as iaisins. The juice of the ripe fruit, 
 called must , is valued as a pleasant beverage. 
 By fermentation, wine, alcohol, and vinegar are 
 obtained ; the lees yield tartar ; an oil is some- 
 times expressed from the s&ds ; and the ashes of 
 the twigs were formerly valued in consequence of 
 yielding a salt, which we now know to be carbo- 
 nate of potash. 
 
 able products of Palestine, and of particularly fine 
 quality in some of the districts. Those of Eshcol, 
 Sorek. Jibmah, Jazer, and Abel, were particularly 
 distinguished. The men sent from Kadesh-barnea 
 to explore the Promised Land brought back as 
 a sign of its fertility, what would be sure to be 
 appreciated by men who had been sojourning in 
 the desert, a bunch of grapes from Eshcol, near 
 Hebron, which they carried between them on a 
 stick, probably to prevent its being bruised, but 
 no doubt also on account of its great size. 
 Modern travellers, as Dandini, Mariti, and La- 
 borde, have described some of the grapes of 
 Palestine as being of large size. Nau affirms 
 that in Syria he had seen clusters ten or twelve 
 
 pounds in weight ; and Schulz states that bfc 
 supped under a vine whose stem was about a foot 
 and a half in diameter, its height about thirty 
 feet, while its branches and brauchlets, which had 
 to be supported, formed a tent of upwards of 
 thirty feet square. But this will appear nothing 
 extraordinary to \those who have seen the vine 
 at Hampton Court, which covers a space of 2200 
 square feet. And we have it on record that, even 
 in our own country, a bunch of Syrian grape* 
 was produced at Welbeck, which weighed nine- 
 teen pounds, and measured in length twenty-three 
 inches, and nineteen and a half inches in its 
 greatest diameter. It was sent as a present from 
 the Duke of Portland to the Marquess of Rock- 
 ingham, and conveyed a distance of twenty miles, 
 on a staff, by four labourers, two of whom bore it 
 in rotation, thus affording a striking illustration 
 of the proceeding of the spies (Kitto, Physic. Geog. 
 of Palestine , p. cccxxx.). 
 
 A fruitful vine is often adduced as an emblem 
 of the Hebrew nation, and also the vine that was 
 brought out of Egypt. A period of security and 
 repose is figured by every one sitting under his 
 own vine and fig-tree; and prosperity by ‘Judah, 
 a lion's whelp, binding his foal to the vine, 
 and his ass's colt to the choice vine both in- 
 dications of Eastern manners, where sitting in 
 the shade is most pleasant, and tying cattle in 
 similar situations a common practice. Of the 
 vine there were no doubt several varieties, as of 
 all cultivated plants, but that of Sorek is espe- 
 cially distinguished (Gen. xlix. 11 ; Jer. xi. 21). 
 Rosenm tiller supposes this to be the variety called 
 serik or sori/i, which is cultivated not only in 
 Syria, but also in Arabia and in the north of 
 Africa. It appears to be the variety called hish- 
 mish , or the Persian bedana , which signifies 
 ‘ without seed. 1 
 
 The vine must have been cultivated in very 
 early times, as we are informed in Gen. ix. 20, 
 that Noah planted the vine immediately after the 
 deluge; and bread and wine are mentioned in 
 Gen. xiv. 18. In Egypt also we have early notice 
 of it (Gen. xl. 9, 10), as Pharaoh's chief butler 
 saw in a dream a vine with three branches ; anil 
 the Israelites complain (Num. xx. 5) that Moses 
 and Aaron had brought them out of Egypt, into 
 that dry and barren land, where there were neither 
 figs nor vines. The wines of Syria were in early 
 times also highly esteemed ; and though the growth 
 of the vine has much decreased, from the dimi- 
 nished population and the Mohammedan rule, yet 
 travellers still speak with enthusiasm of some of 
 the wines, as of the vino d’oro of Lebanon. As 
 space will not permit us to notice all the pas- 
 sages in which the vine, the grape, and wine are 
 mentioned, we must refer to Celsius, Hierobot. 
 vol . i. pp. 400-444; Calmet's Dictionary ; Rosen- 
 m filler's Biblical Bot. p. 220 ; and to Kitto'* 
 Physical History of Palestine, p. cccxxiv., in 
 all of which the subject is amply discussed anu 
 clearly elucidated. — J. F. R. 
 
 VINEGAR. [Wine.] 
 
 VIOL. [Musical Instruments.] 
 
 VIPER. [Serpent.] 
 
 VIRGIN Vulg. virgo). 
 
 The word occurs fifty times in the Old 
 
 Testament, and is translated by irapQtvos ia 
 
VIRGIN. 
 
 VOW, 
 
 <fie Sept., except in two instances. It is ren- 
 dered once by veavis (1 Kings i. 2), and once 
 by vvpeprj (Joel i. 8). See Gen. xxiv. 16; Exod. 
 xxii. 15, 16, 17; Lev. xxi. ; Dent, xxii., xxxii. ; 
 Judg. xxi., &c. occurs seven times, in 
 
 four of which it is rendered veavis, puella (Exod. 
 ii. 8; Ps. lxviii. 25; Cant. i. 3; vi. 8); in one 
 (Prov. xxx 19) veorgs, and in two (Gen. xxiv. 
 43 ; Isa. vii. 14) tt apdevos* The same word is 
 also rendered virgo in the Vulgate in ihese two 
 passages ; in Exod. ii. 8, puella ; in Ps. lxviii. 26, 
 juvencula ; in Cant. i. 3. and vi. 8, adolescentula ; 
 and in Prov. xxx. 19, ado'escentia, after the 
 Sept. The Syriac follows the Seventy in Isa. 
 vii. 14, but in all the %ther passages agrees 
 with Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, who 
 translate by veavis, not only in Ps. 
 
 lxviii. 26; Gen. xxxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8; Prov. 
 xxx. 19 (in which they agree with the Sept.), 
 but also in Isa. vii. 14. Justin Martyr (Dio/. 
 c. Tryph.') complains of the partiality of the 
 
 Greek translators in rendering n thy here by 
 reaves (a term which does not necessarily 
 include the idea of virginity), accusing these 
 Jewish writers of wishing to neutralize the ap- 
 plication to the Messiah of this passage, which 
 the Jews of his time referred to Hezekiah. Gese- 
 nius ( Comm.in Isa.) maintains, notwithstanding, 
 that i /eaves, not tt apdevos, is the correct ren- 
 dering in Isa. vii. 14, while he at the same time 
 agrees with Justin that the prediction cannot 
 possibly refer to Hezekiah, who was born nine 
 years before its delivery. Fiirst ( Concordance ) 
 explains by puella, virgo, nubilis ilia vel 
 
 nupta, tenera et florens aetate, valens ac vegeta; 
 but Hengstenberg ( Christology ), although admit- 
 ting that does not necessarily mean a vir- 
 
 gin (which he conceives is plain from Prov. xxx. 
 19), maintains that it is always applied in Scrip- 
 ture to an unmarried woman. St. Matthew (i. 
 23), who cites from the Seventy, applies the pas- 
 sage (Isa. vii. 14) tQ the miraculous birth of 
 Jesus from the blessed Virgin. Professor Robin- 
 son (GrJ and Eng. Lexicon ) considers tt apdevos 
 here to signify a bride, or newly married woman, 
 as in Homer (II. ii. 514) : 
 
 O us reitev ’ A(ttv6xV - • • • • tt apdevos alSo'nj’ 
 (‘Them bore Astyoche, a virgin pure’ 
 
 Cowper); 
 
 and considering it to refer apparently to the 
 youthful spouse of the prophet (see Isa. viii. 3, 4 ; 
 vii. 3, 10. 21), holds that, the sense in Matt. i. 23 
 would then lie : Thus was fulfilled in a strict and 
 literal sense that which the prophet spoke in a wider 
 sense and on a different, occasion. Jerome says 
 that thePunic for virgo is alma, although the word 
 is but twice so rendered in the Vulgate. 
 
 * In Rose’s edition of Parkhurst’s Lexicon of 
 the New Testament (18^9), irapdevos is said to 
 
 ‘ answer to in several passages in the Sept.’ 
 
 We can discover but these two instances. There 
 are four passages cited in the same edition and in 
 its reprint in 1845 (Gen. xxiv. 14, 16 ; xxxv. 3 ; 
 and Isa. vii. 4 [14?]), in not one of which does 
 the word nzby occur. In the three first it is 
 
 msa 
 
 The early Christians contended also for the per 
 petual virginity of Mary against the Jews, who 
 objected the use of the term ecvs (until, Matt, 
 i. 25) as implying the contrary ; but the Fathers 
 triumphantly appealed against the Jewish inter- 
 pretation to Scripture usage, according to which 
 this term frequently included the notion of per- 
 petuity (comp. Ps. cx. I ; Gen. viii. 7 ; Isa. 
 xlvi. 4; Ps. lxi. 7; Matt, xxviii. 20 ; and see 
 Suicer's Tnesaurus, and Pearson, On the Creed , 
 Art. iii.). Although there is no proof from Scrip- 
 ture that Mary had other children [James; 
 Jude], the Christian Fathers did not consider 
 that there was any impiety in the supposition 
 that she had (Suicer, ut supra). But. although 
 not an article of faith, the perpetual virginity of 
 Mary was a constant tradition of both the Eastern 
 and Western church. Tiie most distinguished 
 Protestant theologians have also adopted this 
 belief, and Dr. Lankier ( Credibility ) considered 
 the evidence in its favour so strong as to deserve 
 that, assent which he himself yielded to it. 
 
 The word irapdevos, virgin, occurs in Matt, 
 i. ; xxv.; Lukei.; Acts xxi.; 1 Cor. vii.; 2 
 Cor. xi. 2; and Apoc. xiv. 14. In 1 Cor. and 
 Apoc. it is applied to both sexes, as it frequently 
 is by the Fathers, who use it in the sense of coe- 
 lebs. It is sometimes metaphorically used in 
 the Old Testament for a country, and in the 
 New to denote a high state of moral purity. — 
 
 w. w. 
 
 VOW (TT?J is represented by a Hebrew word 
 which signifies to ‘ promise,’ and may therefore be 
 defined as a religious undertaking, either, 1. Po- 
 sitive, to do or perform ; 2. or Negative, to air- 
 stain from doing or performing a certain thing. 
 The morality of vows we shall not here discuss, 
 but merely remark that vows were quite in place 
 in a system of religion which so largely consisted 
 of doing or not doing certain outward acts, with 
 a view of pleasing Jehovah and gaining his fa- 
 vour. The Israelite, who had been taught by per- 
 formances of daily recurrence to consider par- 
 ticular ceremonies as essential to his possessing 
 the divine favour, may easily have been led to 
 the conviction which existed probably in the pri- 
 mitive ages of the world, that voluntary oblations 
 and self-imposed sacrifices had a special value in 
 the sight of God. And when once this conviction 
 had led to corresponding practice, it could not be 
 otherwise than of the highest consequence that 
 these sacred promises, which in sanctity differed 
 little from oaths, should be religiously and scru- 
 pulously observed. Before a vow is taken there 
 may be strong reasons why it should not be 
 made ; but when it is once assumed, a new obli- 
 gation is contracted, which has the greater force 
 because of its voluntary nature : a new element 
 is introduced, which strongly requires the ob- 
 servance of the vow, if the bonds of morality are 
 not to be seriously relaxed. The writer may b« 
 of opinion that total abstinence is in itself not a 
 virtue nor of general obligation, but he cannot 
 doubt that ‘ breaking the pledge,’ when once 
 taken, is an act of immorality that cannot be 
 repeated without undermining the very founda 
 tions of character: whence it obviously appears 
 that caution should be observed, not only in keep- 
 ing, but also in leading men to make, pledges, 
 vows, and promises. 
 
VULGATE. 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 S22 
 
 Vows, whbh rest on a human view of religious 
 obligations, assuming as they do that a kind of 
 recompense is to he made to God for good en- 
 joyed, or consideration offered lor good deside- 
 rated, or a gratuity presented to buy off' an im- 
 pending or threatened ill, are found in existence 
 in the antiquities of all nations, and present 
 themselves in the earliest Biblical periods (Gen. 
 xxviii. 20 ; Judg. xi. 30 ; 1 Sam. i. 11 ; 2 Sam. 
 xv. 8). With great, propriety the performance 
 of these voluntary undertakings was accounted a 
 highly religious duty (Judg. xi. 35; Eccles. v.4, 
 5). The words of the last, vow are too emphatic, 
 and in the present day too important, not to be 
 cited : * Better is it. that thou shouldest not vow, 
 than that thou shouldest vow and not pay’ (comp. 
 Ps. lxvi. 13, sq. ; lxxvi. 11; cxvi. IS). The 
 views which guided the Mosaic legislation were 
 not dissimilar to those just expounded. Like a 
 wise lawgiver, Moses, in this and in other par- 
 ticulars, did not. attempt to sunder the line of 
 continuity between the past and the present. He 
 found vows in practice; he aimed to regulate 
 what it would have been folly to try to root out 
 (Deut. xxiii. 2L, sq.). The words in the 22nd 
 verse are clearly in agreement with our remarks: 
 ‘If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin 
 in thee.’ — J. R. B. 
 
 VULGATE ( Vidgata ; icoirfi), the name ge- 
 nerally given to the Latin translation of the 
 Bible used in the Western Church. 
 
 Old Testament Version. There have been 
 Latin translations of the Bible from the first ages 
 of the Christian Church. Of these Augustine ob- 
 serves {De Doct. Christ, ii. 11) : ‘ Those who have 
 translated the Bible into Greek can be numbered, 
 but not so the Latin versions. For in the first 
 ages of the Church, whoever could get. hold of a 
 Greek codex ventured to translate it into Latin, 
 however slight his knowledge of either language.’ 
 Of these he prefers the Itala. as the most literal. 
 Bentley (see his Life by Monk) supposed that 
 Itala was an error for ilia, others (as Bishop 
 Potter) for usitata. But there seems no sufficient 
 reason for rejecting the common reading (Saba- 
 tier's Preface , ut inf). Augustine wrote to Jerome 
 ( Ep . 88) to acquaint him that he would confer a 
 great benefit by translating the version of the 
 Seventy, inasmuch as the readings of the Latin 
 manuscripts were so various that it was doubted if 
 any thing could be proved by them, observing that 
 ‘there are as many texts as there are copies.’ 
 Eichhorn is of opinion that all the quotations of 
 writers before Jerome belong to the same text, 
 which he conceives to have been made in the first 
 century, and in Africa. He founds this opinion 
 chiefly on the badness of the Latin, as well as on 
 the fact that Greek was too well understood in 
 Italy to render a Latin version necessary. In this 
 view he has been followed by Dr. Wiseman ( Letters 
 on 1 John v. 7), and by Lachmann ( Preface to 
 his edition of the New Testament ). De Wette, 
 however, is of opinion that there is no proof of 
 the African origin of this version. Some frag- 
 ments of it. still exist, which show it to have been 
 most literal, and made from the t:oirq, or the text 
 of the Septuagint which existed before Origen’g 
 Hexapla, whose defects it preserves, agreeingvery 
 closely with the Cod. Vaticanus. It is therefore 
 of the greatest use towards restoring the text 
 o£ the Severity. The parts extant are the Psalms, 
 
 Job, Ecclesiastes, and Tobit, with fragments ol 
 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hi«ea. These 
 fragments are found in citations from the Fathers, 
 in ancient manuscripts, and in psalters, missals, 
 and breviaries, from which they have been col- 
 lected with much care by Flaminius Nobilius 
 {Vet. Text. esc. LXX. Lat. redd., 1588), who 
 has endeavoured to supply the omissions; Sa- 
 batier ( Bibl . Sac. Lat. verss. antiq. 1749) ; 
 Jac. Faber Stapulensis ( Psalterium Quincuplex , 
 1509) [Verse] ; Blanch ini ( Psalter . Duplex , 
 ex insigni Cod. Grceco-Lat. Veron. uncial, ante 
 7m. su.fi.); and Mini ter (. Frngm . Antekieron , 
 e cod. rescript. Wirceburg. Hafn. 1809). In 
 the year 382 Jerome undertook a revision of this 
 text. He Hist corrected the Psalms, producing 
 what is called the lioman Psalter, which is still 
 used in the church of the Vatican, and in St. 
 Mark’s at Venice.* Afterwards, finding this 
 work corrupted by transcribers, he undertook a 
 second revision. This is the Gallican Psalter, 
 and is that contained in the Vulgate, and used 
 generally in the Church since its introduction by 
 Pope Paul IV. Jerome made this correction 
 with the aid of Origen’s Hexapla, adding aste- 
 risks, obelisks, commas, and colons [Verse]. 
 From the obelisk or asterisk to the colon was con- 
 tained something added from the Hebrew by 
 Theodotion, and the same with the comma denoted 
 that the Septuagint contained here more than 
 Jerome s Version. He afterwards revised in the 
 same way the rest of the Old Testament. ‘Rejoice,’ 
 he says, ‘ that you receive the blessed Job safe 
 and sound, who formerly, among the Latins, lay 
 prostrate in filth and worms; and as after his trial 
 and triumph all his possessions were restored to 
 him double, I have, in our own language, restoied 
 to him what he had lost.’ The book of Chronicles 
 he corrected with the help of a learned Jew of 
 Tiberias. To these he added Proverbs, Ecclesi- 
 astes, and Canticles : the rest of his labours 
 perished by fraud. Of this work the only parts 
 printed are the two Psalters and the book of Job. 
 It. acquired Jerome great, fame and not a little 
 obloquy, especially on the part of his quondam 
 friend Rufinus. 
 
 Jerome next, at the request, of his friends, un- 
 dertook a new version from the Hebrew, between 
 the years 385 and 405. This version was occa- 
 sioned by the controversies with the Jews, who 
 constantly appealed to the original, which the 
 early Christians did not understand. Jerome 
 commenced with Samuel, then proceeded to the 
 Psalms, the books of Solomon, Ezra, and Nehe- 
 miah, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and 
 Chronicles — together with Tobit and Judith from 
 the Chaldee. ]He afterwards translated Dani'el, 
 Esther, and Jeremiah, with their apocryphal 
 additions. It is to be lamented that he used 
 too much haste in some parts of his work, hav* 
 ing finished Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Can. 
 tides in three days, and Tobit in one. Notwith- 
 standing this, and his own observation that hie 
 
 * There is a Psalter different from both, used 
 in Milan. Mr. Bagster’s Hexaplar Psalter con- 
 tains the Roman and the Gallican Psalters, 
 together with Jerome’s version from tne Hebrew 
 that of the Seventy, the original Hebrew, and 
 the two authorized versions of the Anglicau 
 Church. 
 
VULGATE. 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 923 
 
 work would have been superfluous but for the 
 corruptions of the Septuagint, he produced the 
 best and noblest work of the kind ol which an- 
 tiquity can boast. He proceeded on the soundest 
 principles, and studied th« Hebrew language 
 under some learned Jews. ‘ From the reading of 
 Quinctilian and Cicero,’ he acquaints us, ‘ 1 en- 
 tered upon the irksome task of shutting myself 
 up in the mill of the Hebrew language, and en- 
 deavouring to pronounce its panting and creaking 
 Bounds ; when, at length, like one walking in a 
 dungeon, 1 discerned a faint light glimmering 
 from above.' His Hebrew copy was procured 
 from the Synagogue. His labours now procured 
 him only the most cutting railleries from his 
 friends. His teacher's name being Barhanina, 
 he was accused of having been taught by Barab- 
 bas. He did not translate too literally, lest lie 
 should not convey the sense, and occasionally 
 made use of. other versions, when they did not 
 materially differ from the Hebrew, lest he should 
 alarm his readers by too much novelty ; hut he 
 adhered to it in general very closely, lest, contrary 
 to his conscience, he should ‘ forsake the founda- 
 tion of truth, and follow the streamlets of opi- 
 nions.’ 
 
 H is work at first met with no flattering recep- 
 tion. It was by many condemned as heretical, 
 and even his friend Augustine feared to make use 
 of it, best it might offend by its novelty, introduce 
 variety between the Greek and Latin Churches, 
 and distract the minds of Christians who h_d 
 received the Septuagint from the Apostles. In 
 one instance, where an African bishop caused 
 the book of Jonah to be read in church in this 
 version, the people were panic-struck at hearing 
 the word hedera (Jon. iv. 6, 9) in place of the old 
 reading cucurbita. Augustine afterwards enter- 
 tained a more favourable opinion of it, although 
 he has not cited it in any of his acknowledged 
 works [John, Epistles of]. 
 
 About two hundred years after Jeromes death 
 his work had acquired an equal degree of respect 
 with the ancient Vulgate, and in the year 604 
 we have the testimony of Gregory the Great to 
 the fact, that ‘ the Apostolic see made use of both 
 versions.’ It afterwards became by degrees the 
 only received version, and this by its intrinsic 
 merits, for it received no oflicial sanction before 
 the Council of Trent. Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, 
 Wisdom, and Maccabees, were retained from t he 
 old version. 
 
 Jerome’s version soon experienced the fate of 
 its predecessor; it became sadly corrupted by 
 a mixture with the old version, and by the un- 
 critical carelessness of half-learned ecclesiastics, 
 as well as by interpolations from liturgical 
 writings and from glosses. In fact the old and 
 new versions were blended into one, and thus was 
 formed the Vulgate of the middle ages. 
 
 In the ninth century an attempt was made, but 
 not on the soundest principles, to correct the Vul- 
 gate. This was done by command of Charle- 
 magne, who intrusted the task to Alcuin. The 
 amended Vulgate was now introduced by royal 
 authority into all the churches of France. It is 
 still doubtful whether the correction was made 
 from the Hebrew original, or from ancient copies 
 of the Vulgate. 
 
 In t.lte eleventh century a new revision was un- 
 dertaken by Laufrano, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 
 and another in the succeeding century (at which 
 period Roger Bacon says that it was horribly cor- 
 rupted), by Cardinal Nicolaus the Deacon, a good 
 Hebrew scholar. About the same period appeared 
 in France the Epanorthotce, or Correctoria Bib * 
 lica, which were attempts to establish the true 
 text on the part of Abbot Stephen, Cardinal Hugo, 
 and others. From these corrections, however, it 
 appears that the corruptions were so numerous as 
 to render it almost vain to expect to recover the 
 true text. ‘ Every reader and preacher,’ says 
 Roger Bacon ( Epist . to Clem. IE.), ‘ changes 
 what lie does not understand : their correction is 
 the worst of corruptions, and God's word is de- 
 stroyed.’ This was the state of the text at the 
 time of the invention of printing, by which its 
 variations were more clearly brought to light, and 
 critical attempts made to amend it. 
 
 The earliest printed editions are without a 
 date. The first which has a date was published 
 at Mayntz in 1462, by Fust and Schoiflher. It 
 was afterwards printed in 1471, 1475, and 1476. 
 Critical editions appeared in 1496, 1497, 1501, 
 1501, 1506,1511, and 1517— the last that of the 
 Complutensian Polyglott, done with great care. 
 This was followed by the Antwerp Polyglott, 
 and the critical editions of Colinaeus, Rudel, 
 Benoist, Isidore Clarius, and Robert Stephens. 
 The variations of the text now appeared more 
 plainly than ever. Isidore Clarius (1542) cor- 
 rected more than 8000 errors (which some have 
 exaggerated into 80,000). Stephens’ beautifully 
 executed and amended text (1527) was con- 
 demned to be burned. This learned printer after- 
 wards collated several manuscripts, and pub- 
 lished editions in 1532, 1533, and 1540. This last 
 (the 4th) is called by Father Simon a master-piece. 
 Stephens’ edition of 1545 (the nonpareil) con- 
 tained a new version, that of the Old Testament 
 being made by Lew Judah, Bibliander, and Peter 
 Choi in. This is one of those called Vatable’s 
 Bibles. The translator of De Wette’s Einleitu^g 
 observes that Stephens’s sixth and seventh editions 
 (1546 and 1555) contain no important improve- 
 ments. The accurate De Wette, however, was 
 aware that the seventh edition contained the di- 
 vision into verses. Benoist (1541) made an unsuc- 
 cessful attempt to restore Jerome's text. Stephens’s 
 eighth and last edition has been already noticed 
 [Verse]. 
 
 In the mean time the Council of Trent passed 
 its famous decree (a.d. 1546, Sess. 4, Decret. 2) re- 
 specting the V ulgate : ‘ The most holy Synod, con • 
 sidering that no small advantage will accrue to the 
 church of God, if from all the Latin editions of the 
 sacred hooks which are in circulation, it should 
 determine which is to be received as authentic, 
 decrees and declares that the ancient Vulgate 
 version, which has been approved in the church by 
 the use of so many ages, should he used in public 
 readings, disputatious, sermons, and expositions, 
 as authentic, anti that none is to presume to reject 
 it under any pretence whatsoever.’ De Wette 
 (^Ein l titling) conceives that this decree shuts the 
 door against any exegetical inquiry into the doc- 
 trines of the church. Moehler ( Symbolik , p. 1, 
 ch. v. § xlii.), however, maintains that there 
 could he no such tiling as an exegetical in- 
 quiry into the doctrines of the church, which 
 declares her dogmas by her infallible authority 
 independently of Scripture, although she maj 
 
>24 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 apply and. even misapply testimonies from 
 Scripture to this purpose, being infallible in 
 the former case, but not in the latter.* The 
 most learned Roman Catholics differ mate- 
 rially as to the sense of the word authentic, 
 some Considering, as Morinus ( Exercit . Bibl .), 
 that the Vulgate is hereby pronounced to be an 
 inspired version, others (as Suarez) that the version 
 is placed above all existing texts of the originals. 
 Many contend that it was only meant to give it 
 a preference to any other Latin version then in 
 use (Rellarmin,f De Verbo Dei ; Calmet’s Dis- 
 sert. ; John's and Hug's Intrudd .). Some of the 
 Roman theologians hold it to be infallible only 
 so far as faith and morals are concerned (Dens, 
 Theologici). Hug considers the meaning of the 
 decree to be, that ‘as in civil affairs an authentic 
 instrument is valid evidence, so in public religious 
 matters the Vulgate is a document from which 
 valid arguments may be drawn, without prejudice, 
 however, to other documents [viz. the originals] ; 
 but this is not a prescription of doctrine, ami 
 from its nature it could not be; it is a temporary 
 decree of discipline.’ In fact few Roman Catho- 
 lics have maintained its exemption from error, 
 and the most learned and judicious Protestants 
 (Mill, Proleg.; Ben gel. Apparatus ; Lachmann, 
 Preface ) justly conspire in holding it in a 
 high degree of veneration. Jahn observes that 
 the Oriental Christians in communion with Rome 
 still use their own versions, the Greek, Armenian, 
 Syriac, and Arabic. 
 
 The Council of Trent not having declared any 
 particular manuscript or edition to contain the 
 true text of the Vulgate, a committee of six was 
 appointed to prepare a new edition, but the pope 
 prevented them from proceeding. The Louvain 
 theologians, seeing the confusion which prevailed 
 in the printed editions, as well as the persecutions 
 to which Robert Stephens was exposed for his 
 laudable undertakings, now undertook to correct 
 the text, and Hentenius was chosen to prepare an 
 edition. For this purpose he collated several of 
 the former ones, including Stephens's of 1540, and 
 about twenty manuscripts, the most modern of 
 which was of the fourteenth century. His edition 
 appeared in 1547, and after his death a still more 
 valuable one was prepared by the same theolo- 
 gians under the care of Lucas Brugensis and 
 others, which was printed by Plautin in 1573. 
 The papal chair now resolved on an edition, and 
 thus the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles, the va- 
 riations between which amounted to above 2000, 
 gave rise to the well-known attack of James 
 (Bell urn Papa/e ). Sixtus laboured on his own 
 edition, which was founded on the principle, that 
 wherever the most ancient manuscripts and 
 
 * ‘ Even a Scriptural proof in favour of a de- 
 cree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, 
 but only the dogma as defined.’ 
 
 + Bellarmin defends the use of the Vulgate, 
 Iron, the ignorance of the original languages 
 which prevailed in the Church, instancing the 
 Council of Ariminum, where, out of 40U bishops, 
 not one knew the meaning of 6p.oovcios , all ex- 
 claiming ‘not Homoousios, but Christ.’ Mr. Scri- 
 vener ( ut infra ) agrees with 'hose who maintain 
 *hat the Council ol Trent ‘raised the Vulgate to 
 that paramount authority which only belongs to 
 »he jriginal text.’ 
 
 printed editions agreed, their reading should b* 
 preferred. It appeared in 1590. By the decree 
 of Sixtus, whoever approved of any other edition, 
 if of the degree of a bishop, was to be excluded 
 from entering a church ; if of inferior rank, was to 
 be excommunicated — with other more dreadful 
 anaihemas. Notwithstanding this, Pope Urban 
 VII. found it so inaccurate that he attempted 
 to suppress it. His successor, Gregory XIV., 
 prepared a new revision, with the aid of some 
 eminent scholars, including Bellarmin and Fla- 
 .ninius Nobilius. This was first issued under 
 the papacy of Clement VIII. in 1592, and al- 
 though more modestly put forth, was founded on 
 much better principles than the former. But there 
 was a great difficulty to lie overcome in atlempt- 
 ing to reconcile the discrepancies of the two 
 editions with the authority of the papal chair. 
 ‘In this dilemma Bellarmin is said to have found 
 a middle course, by proposing that all the blame 
 should be laid upon the printer' (Hug's Introd .). 
 In the preface Bellarmin states, that ‘Sixtus, 
 having perceived the errors which had crept into 
 the press, ordered the edition to be cancelled, 1 (an 
 assertion which Van Ess, Pragmatisch- Geschicht. 
 der V'u/gut., declares to be false), ‘but from the 
 execution of this order both Sixtus and his succes- 
 sors, Urban VII. and Innocent IX. were prevented 
 by death. 1 It is further stated that ‘ although 
 in this revision no small labour was employed in 
 collating manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek, 
 and the writings of the Fathers, some things are 
 nevertheless designedly altered, and others, which 
 seemed to require alteration, designedly left un- 
 changed. 1 This preface is said to have led to 
 Bellarmin’s beatification (Hug, ut sup.). The 
 Clementine edition is the basis of all subsequent 
 ones, from those of Plantin, 1599-1650, to that of 
 Leander van Ess, published by authority of 
 Leo XII. in 1826. The present printed Vulgate 
 of the Old Testament is thus a mixed text, con- 
 sisting partly of the old Lat in, partly of Jerome’s 
 revision of the same, and partly of his new version 
 from the Hebrew. 
 
 Descendants of the Vulgate. There is still 
 extant, an Anglo-Saxon version, published by 
 Thwait.es ( Heptateuchus , 1698), of the Penta- 
 teuch, Joshua, Job, and a fragment of Judith. 
 This was the work of jElfric, i'n the tenth cen- 
 tury, and was formerly thought, but on insuffi- 
 cient grounds, to have been done from the Sept. 
 Ailfric also translated Esther, Maccabees, and 
 Kings. There was an earlier translation by Ad- 
 helm, in the beginning of the eighth century 
 (Lingard’s Anglo-Saxon Church). Bede is said 
 to have translated the entire Bible about the same 
 period. At the close of the thirteenth century it 
 was again translated by some one whose name has 
 not reached us. Wicklifie's translation appeared 
 in 1380 [Versions]. 
 
 The New Testament. The old Latin version 
 was made immediately from the Greek, and its 
 dead literalit.y is such as to render it in some places 
 quite barbarous, as where, for instance, the Greek 
 on is ‘almost uniformly, in defiance of grammar 
 and common sense, rendered quia or quoniam’ 
 ( e.g . ma,gister, scinuis quia verax es, Maf axii. 
 16; see Campbell, On the Gospels). Camp* 
 bell refers to the phrase panem nostrum super- 
 substantialem, in the Lord s Prayer, as an in- 
 stance of an etymological barbarism. Th*« 
 
VULGATE. 
 
 VULGATE, 
 
 926 
 
 remarks include the Old Testament as well as 
 the New. 
 
 Manuscripts and editions of the Italic. There 
 are some very ancient manuscripts of the old Latin 
 version of the New Testament still extant, which 
 are described by Blanchini ( ut supra) ; Iricus, 
 Milan, 1749: Dohrowsky ( Fragments of St. 
 Mark's Autography Prag. 1798)*, Alter ( Gold 
 and silver purple MSS. in the Imperial Library , 
 containing fragments of Luke and Mark) ; Fleck 
 ( Wissensch. Reise) ; Matthaei (Nov. Test.) ; and 
 Sabatier (Evany. Quadr.). The oldest of these is 
 probably the Cod. Vercellensis , published by Sa- 
 batier, supposed to have been written by the hand 
 of Eusebius. This version is also contained in the 
 Grajco-Latin MSS., the most ancient of which is 
 the Cod. Bezce [Manuscripts]. The Codex Boer- 
 nerianus, (G) published by Matthaei, at Meissen, 
 in 1791 (reprinted 1818), is a Graeco-Latin MS. 
 of the ninth century, preserved at Dresden, and 
 was first used by Bengel. Jt contains St. Paul’s 
 Epistles (omitting Hebrews). The interlinear 
 Latin is written in what some have supposed 
 to be the Anglo-Saxon, but is in reality that 
 modification of the Latin called the Irish cha- 
 racter. It lias been often desired by critics that 
 some Irishman would explain the words at the 
 bottom of fol. 23. We have therefore endeavoured 
 to decipher them (with the assistance of our friend 
 Mr. J. O'Donovan), and here present an attempt 
 at a translation of what appears to be a fragment 
 of a religious poem : — 
 
 Cefcljr bo ponp njorx rA]t>o. bejc ropbAj. 
 
 Nnf cbonbA] 5 j. ij. hipopf. njAtjjrpbepA L\rc 
 
 V] 
 
 STlop btxir, mop bAjle mop coll cejlle mop mips 
 o Utr A]P cbetp) rejcljc &o ecAjb. 
 bejel} fro ecojl rpAjc. m^tpe. 
 
 Coming to Rome, great wisdom, little profit; 
 
 THe King your Saviour you will not find, un- 
 less you take him with you. 
 
 Great, folly, great madness, great breach of 
 sense, great phrenzy, 
 
 When you set out to meet death, 
 
 To be under the displeasure of the Son of Mary. 
 
 From the notes in the margin it appears that 
 this manuscript had been in the possession of 
 Johannes Scotus of Ireland, for whom it was 
 probably written [Verse], The Cod. Sangal- 
 lonsis of the Gospels, of the same age and cha- 
 racter, (A) has been also published by Ilettig, 
 Turici, 1836. 
 
 The editions are those by Sabatier (ut sup. vol. 
 iii.) and Blanchini (Evany. Quadr.). Martianay 
 (Opp. Hieron.) gives the Gospel of St. Matthew 
 and the Epistle of St. James only. The only de- 
 scendant of this version is the Anglo-Saxon, which 
 is probably older than the translation of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 Jerome's recension. Jerome did not translate 
 the New Testament from the Greek, but at the 
 request ofDamasus, bishop of Roue, he amended 
 the old Latin, by comparing its corruptions and 
 various readings with the best Greek manuscripts, 
 making, however, no alteration, unless the sense 
 absolutely required it; but in his Commentary he 
 often departs from this text. The Vulgate of the 
 New Testament generally agrees with the oldest 
 MSS. of the Italic, and is one of the best critical 
 
 helps towirds restoring the true text of the Greek. 
 The text, has undergone the same fate, and 
 suffered the same corruption as that of the Old 
 Testament, and the various readings, though 
 numerous (Michaelis speaks of 80,000) are of 
 the same character with those of the Greek, 
 having crept, in through the negligence of tran- 
 scribers, and ‘very few of them bearing the marks 
 of having been made to serve a purpose ’ (Pre- 
 face to Mr. Bayster's Hexapla). Dr. Camp- 
 bell (On the Gospels) considers that as the last 
 v part of the Vulgate was completed MOO years 
 ago, and from MS-S. older probably than any now 
 extant, and at a time when there was no bias from 
 party zeal, at a time too when the modern contro- 
 versies were unknown, the Council of Trent acted 
 rightly in giving the preference to this, which 
 he designates ‘ a good and faithful version, re- 
 markable for purity and perspicuity, and by no 
 means calculated to support Roman views ;’ but 
 valuable as this text, is, it is to be lamented that 
 the ambiguity of the phrase ‘ authentic’ should 
 have furnished an occasion to some Roman pole- 
 mics of the last century, when criticism was not 
 so well understood as at. present, to depreciate the 
 original text. What, however, an accomplished 
 Roman Catholic divine has said respecting Col- 
 lins (see Scripture, Holy) may be equally ap- 
 plied here: ‘he took advantage of the dif- 
 
 ferences between Mill and Whitby about some 
 passages, and about the value of various readings 
 in general, to conclude that the entire New 
 Testament was thereby rendered doubtful. He 
 was soon, however, chastised by the heavy lash 
 of Bentley, who thoroughly exposed the fallacy 
 of Collins's assertions, and vindicated the con- 
 dition of the inspired text Nothing has 
 
 been discovered, not one single various read- 
 ing which can throw doubt upon any passage 
 before considered certain, or decisive in favour 
 of any important doctrine.’ (Wiseman, Lectures , 
 Led. x.) 
 
 A pure text of the Vulgate is a great deside- 
 ratum. Lucas Brugensis (Letter to Bellarmin) 
 pointed out no less than 4000 mistakes in the 
 Clementine edition. An edition of this text, in 
 the New Testament, was published in 1840 by 
 F. F. Fleck, who has added to it the various 
 readings of the Florentine uncial stichometrical 
 MS. of the sixth century, containing the Old 
 and New Testaments. This MS. was used by 
 the Clementine editors, but they differ from it 
 in many instances, one of which is 1 John v. 7, 
 which is not in the Florentine. Lachmann, 
 also, in his recent edition of the New Testament, 
 has furnished the text of the Vulgate from the 
 oldest MSS. written before the tenth century, es- 
 pecially the Fulda MS. But it can serve no 
 critical use to correct the entire of the Greek text 
 by conforming to the Vulgate, as has been re- 
 cently done, at the request of the Archbishop of 
 Paris, by Tischendorf (Nov. Test., Gr. et Lat., 
 Paris, 1842), wherever a single MS., however 
 worthless or modern, was found to support the 
 reading. (See The Book of Revelation in Greek , 
 by Samuel Prideaux, Tregelles, 1844.) 
 
 Manuscripts. For an account of the MSS. 
 of the Vulgate, we must refer the reader to Le 
 Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra, as well as to the variouf 
 editions already named. We shall here only 
 notice the most ancient in the British Islands. 
 
VULGATE 
 
 VULGATE. 
 
 There is a mutilated Latin MS. of the Gospels 
 in Ireland, described by Mr. Petrie in the 19th 
 vol. of the Transactions of the Royal Irish Aca- 
 demy, which that able antiquary assigns to the 
 fifth century. The Kells MS. of the Gospels, 
 preserved in Trinity College, Dublin, the writing 
 and illuminations of which are of incomparable 
 beauty, was written in Ireland in the sixth cen- 
 tury. This has been confounded by Dr. O’Co- 
 nor (Rerum Hib. Script.) with the Book of Dur- 
 row, preserved in the same College. The beautiful 
 Lindisfarne book of the Gospels (Nero D. 4) is 
 a sticnometrical uncial MS. of the seventh cen- 
 tury, with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version by 
 Aid red in the tenth. There are two MSS. of the 
 Gospels (the same to which allusion is made in 
 the Life of St. Augustine, by the Rev. F. Oake- 
 ley) said to have been brought to England by St. 
 Augustine. One of these is preserved in C. C. 
 College, Cambridge, and the other in the Bodleian 
 Library. To these is to be added St.. Cuthbert's 
 MS. of St. John’s Gospel, and the gospels of St, 
 Mullin, Dimma, Mac Durnan, Mac Regol, and 
 St. Chad. The Codex Armachanus, written by 
 an Irish scribe in the eighth century, now in pri- 
 vate hands, contains the entire New Testament, 
 with Pelagius’s prelaces. This MS. wants 1 
 John v. 7. The Cod. Augiens. (F), a Grteco- 
 Latin MS. containing St. Paul’s Epistles (that to 
 the Hebrews in Latin only) now in Trim Coll. 
 Cambridge, is probably an Irish MS. of the ninth 
 century (see Dr. O’Conor’s Rer. Hib. Script. ; 
 Sir W. Betham’s Antiq. Researches; Petrie's 
 Essay on the Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Ire- 
 land ; O’ Donovan’s Irish Grammar ; and West- 
 wood's Palceog. Sac. Pictoria). 
 
 Modern versions of the Vulgate. The versions 
 used in the Church of Rome have been all made 
 from the Vulgate, of which the first German 
 translation was printed in 1466, the Spanish 
 in 1478, and the Italian in 1471. Our limits 
 will allow us' only to refer to that in use in this 
 country, of which the Old Testament was printed 
 at Douai in 1609, and the New at Rheims in 
 1582. This is greatly inferior in strength and 
 elegance of expression to the Authorized Version 
 of 1611, but is highly commendable for its scru- 
 pulous accuracy and fidelity, which cannot be 
 predicated of all translations from the Vulgate 
 in other languages. It was altered and modern- 
 ized by Bishop Challoner in 1749, when the text 
 was conformed to that of the Clementine edition. 
 It has since undergone various alterations under 
 the care of the Irish Roman-catholic hierarchy, 
 and has been in some respects conformed to the 
 Authorized Version, even in passages which con- 
 troversialists of a bygone age had stigmatized as 
 heretical. But this has been done without any 
 departure from the text. The original transla- 
 tors, however, adhered so servilely to this, as to 
 employ such barbarous words and phrases as sin- 
 don (Mark xv. 46), zealators (Acts xx. 20), prae- 
 finition (Eph. iii. 1 1), contristate (iv. 60), agnition 
 (Philcm. 16), repropitiate (Heb. ii. 17), with such 
 hosts God is proinerited (xiii. 16), Ac. ‘Yet in 
 justice it must be observed, that no case of wilful 
 nerversion of Scripture has ever been brought 
 home to the llhemish translators '* (Scrivener's 
 
 * Some grave accusations against the Rhemish 
 version, which ap reared in the seventh edition of 
 
 Supplement to the Authorized Version ). Iffr, 
 Scrivener adds that ‘the Rhemish divines Twho 
 were evidently men of learning and ability], 
 may occasionally do us good service by furnish- 
 ing some hapuv phrase or form of expression 
 which had eluded the diligence of their more 
 reputable predecessors.’ (i'6 ) 
 
 The translators observe in their preface, that 
 they religiously keep the phrases word for word, 
 
 ‘ for fear of missing or restraining the sense 
 of the Holy Ghost to the fantasie ;’ in proof of 
 which they refer to such phrases as r( iuol teal 
 aol, yvyai (John ii. 4), which they render, ‘ What 
 to me and thee, woman ?’ explaining it in tlie 
 note by the phrase, ‘What bast thou to do with 
 me?’ But in some of the modern editions of the 
 Rhemish version this rule lias been departed from, 
 and the text altered into, ‘ What, is that to me or 
 thee?' (Dublin ed. 1791, 1824), or, ‘What is it to 
 me and thee?’ (Dublin, 1820); a reading inconsis- 
 tent with the t ranslation of the same words in Luke 
 viii. 28. The interpolation has been removed in 
 Dr. Murray’s edition of 1 825. In the ‘ .New Version 
 of the Four Gospels , by a Catholic’ [Dr. Lingard], 
 the words are rendered, ‘ What hast thou to do 
 with me?’ The whole passage is thus rendered 
 and commented on by Tittmann ( Meletemata 
 Sacra) : ‘ Mission me fac , o mca, “ Leave that 
 to my care, good mother.” It is not. the lan- 
 guage of reproof or refusal, hut rather of con- 
 solation and promise. This appears from the 
 words which follow, “ mine hour is not yet come.” 
 For in ihese words he promises his mother that at 
 
 the proper time he will gratify her wish. 
 
 But our Lord purposely delayed his assistance, 
 that the greatness of the miracle might he the 
 better known to all. The appellation yuvai, which 
 was employed by our Lord on other occasions 
 also (John xix. 26 ; xx. 15), was very honourable 
 among the Greeks, who were accustomed to call 
 their queens by this title, and may be rendered 
 “ my tieloved.” ’ 
 
 Professor Moses Stuart ( Commentary on the 
 Apocalypse, vol. i. p. 1 19) conceives that ‘ in the 
 translation ot‘ peravoelre by agite pccnitentiam 
 (Matt. iii. 2), the same spirit was operating which 
 led one part of the Church in modern times to 
 translate per aroelre by do penance.' But the 
 Latin phrase ‘ agere pcenitentiam,’ which is also 
 found in the old Italic, is evidently synonymous 
 with p€T avoeiv, * to repent.’ ‘ Agite pcenitentiam,’ 
 says Campbell, ‘was not originally a mistrans- 
 lation of the Greek peravoetTe.' Dr. Lingard (ut 
 supra) renders it ‘ repent.’ 
 
 We shall refer to one passage more, often ob- 
 jected to as proving that the Vulgate was altered 
 to serve a purpose. In Heb. xi. 21, the Vul 
 gate reads, as the translation of 'KpoaeKwgaev ew 
 to aKpov Tips oaSdov avrov : adoravit lastigiun 
 virgae ejus : ‘ worshipped the top of his (Joseph’s) 
 rod.’ If the present pointing of the Hebrew n&tl 
 (Gen. xlvii. 31) be correct, the Seventy, who 
 read it HtSD, ‘a stall'’ or ‘sceptre,’ must have been 
 
 Mr. Horne’s Introduction on the authority of an 
 anonymous writer ( Brief Hist. Dublin, 1830), 
 were shown to he without foundation (see W light a 
 translation of Seiler’s Hermeneutics, pp. 404- 
 407) ; they are omitted in Mr. Horne’s cighti 
 edition. 
 
VULTURE. 
 
 VULTURE. 
 
 91f 
 
 In an error, wherein they were followed by the 
 Syriac. Tholuck (Comm, on Hebr.) is of opi- 
 nion that the Latin translators did not (as 
 some suppose) overlook end, ‘ upon,’ and he con- 
 siders that, this preposition with the accusative 
 might easily lead to the acceptation in which 
 it is taken by the Vulgate, which is also that 
 adopted by Chrysostom and Theodoret, who ex- 
 plain the passage as if Jacob had foreseen Joseph’s 
 sovereignty, and gave a pi oof of his belief in it by 
 the act of adoration in the direction of his sceptre. 
 This is inTholuck’s opinion further confirmed by 
 the generally spread reading avrov (his), not avrov 
 (his own), and he doubts if the ins] ired writer 
 of the epistle did not himself so understand the 
 passage in the Sept., as being the more signifi- 
 cant. But should it be admitted, with Tholuck, 
 that * the Protestant controversialists have very 
 unjustly designated this passage of the Vulgate 
 as one of the most palpable of its errors,’ it 
 must be borne in mind that Onkelos, Jonathan, 
 Symmachus, and Aquila, follow the present read- 
 ing ; to which Jerome also gives a decided prefer- 
 ence, observing (on Gen. xlvii.31), ‘In this pas- 
 sage some vainly assert that Jacob adored the top 
 of Joseph’s sceptre ; . . . for in the Hebrew the 
 reading is quite different. Israel adored at the 
 head of the bed (adoravit Israel ad caput lec- 
 tuli).’ 
 
 It has been erroneously assumed that the trans- 
 lators of the English Bible followed invariably 
 Beza’s third edition. They acted independently, 
 sometimes following Stephens where his text dif- 
 fered from Beza’s, and sometimes the Vulgate in 
 opposition to both (Scrivener, ut svpra). The 
 translators of King James’s Bible have been 
 sometimes reproached with having adopted read- 
 ings in opposition to the authority of all texts, 
 and of the former English translations, as in 1 
 Cor. xi. 27, where the translation is, * whosoever 
 shall eat this bread, and drink this cup,’ &c., 
 while the Greek text reads fj, ‘ or drink.’ But 
 they were here preceded by the Geneva trans- 
 lators, who have ‘ and,' and this was supported 
 not only by some copies of the Vulgate, but by 
 the Syriac version (published in 155$), and by 
 the Clermont. MS. (E) which has /cal, as well 
 as by Clemens Alexandrinus, Cassiodorus, and 
 others. This reading had at a subsequent period 
 the additional testimony of the Corf. Alexandrinus. 
 Bengel, also, whom all unite with Dr. Wiseman 
 in considering ‘ an amiable and profound scholar,’ 
 and whom Dr. Wiseman himself calls ‘a noble 
 model of the principles in action which he has been 
 striving to inculcate through the course of his 
 Lectures’ (Wiseman, Lectures, ut sup-a), was so 
 satisfied of the truth of this reading, that he would 
 have introduced it into the text, but, for his canon 
 above referred to [Sckiptuke, Holy]. The 
 reading $, ‘or,’ however, being supported by the 
 best authority, has been retained by all other 
 editors, including Beza, Griesbach, Scholz, Lach- 
 mann, Tischendorf, and Schott, while the last 
 named writer, with many others, still considers 
 1 and ’ to be the true rendering. — W. W. 
 
 VULTURE (Hlfjn, daah). Notwithstanding 
 the assignation of the Hebrew daah to ‘ glede ’ 
 and ‘ black kite,’ it is clear that in various 
 texts IINT. JTK, and m, also translated 
 
 * merlin,’ all indicate raptorial birds of inferior 
 
 powers, that have been mixed up with notions 
 strictly belonging to the vulture ; while the 
 vulturidce in Egypt alone amount at least te 
 three species, exclusive of peres (the bearded 
 vulture), and racham (the white carrion vulture, 
 or neophron ) ; and in other passages, again, we 
 find neser (eagle) under circumstances leading to 
 a belief that vultures are meant, or, at least, are 
 not excluded. This intermixture of the distinc- 
 tive attributes of genera, which by scientific clas- 
 sification can now be readily discriminated, was 
 far from being understood by the ancients, and 
 is still incomprehensible to Oriental writers, who. 
 as well as the ancient Greeks, were so unac- 
 quainted with these characters, that they notice 
 as ‘ a terrible species of eagle’ a bird which is 
 now believed to be nothing more than tetrao 
 urogallus , ‘ the cock of the woods,’ or caper- 
 kalsie. Late Western commentators, anxious to 
 distinguish eagles from vultures, have assumed 
 that the first mentioned never feed on carcasses ; 
 and judging the whole family of vultures by the 
 group of carrion-eaters alone, have insinuated 
 that the latter do not attack a living prey. In 
 both ciises they are in error : with some excep- 
 tions, eagles follow armies, though not so abun- 
 dantly as vultures; and vultures attack living 
 prey provided with small means of defence or 
 of little weight ; but their talons having no 
 means of grasping with energy, or of seriously 
 wounding with the claws, they devour their 
 prey on the spot, while the eagle carries it aloft, 
 and thence is more liable to be stung by a 
 serpent not entirely disabled, than the vul- 
 ture, who crushes the head of all reptiles it preys 
 upon. 
 
 The species of vulture, properly so called, have 
 the head naked or downy, the crop external, and 
 very long wings; they have all an offensive smell, 
 and we know of none that even the scavenger-ants 
 will eat. When dead they lie on the ground un- 
 touched till the sun has dried them into mum- 
 mies. Those found in and about the Egyptian 
 territory are Vultur fulvus, V. gyps (Savigny), 
 V. JEgyptius (Savigny), V. monachus (Arabian 
 vulture), V. cinereus , V. Nubicus , and a black 
 species, which is often figured on Egyptian monu- 
 ments as the bird of victory, hovering over ihe 
 head of a national hero in battle, and sometimes 
 with a banner in each talon. It is perhaps the 
 gypaetus barbatus (peres), or lammer geyer, by 
 the Arabs called nesr ; for though neither a vul- 
 ture nor an eagle, it is the largest bird of prey of 
 the old continent, and is armed like the eagle 
 with formidable claws. The head is wholly 
 feathered ; its courage is equal to its powers, 
 and it has a strength of wing probably superior 
 to all raptorians, excepting the condor; it is con- 
 sequently found with little or no difference from 
 Norway to the Cape of Good Hope, and from 
 tire Pyrenees to Japan. Most of the above-named 
 species are occasionally seen in the north of 
 Europe. The voice varies in different species, 
 but those of Egypt, frequenting the Pyramids, are 
 known to bark in the night like dogs. Except- 
 ing the percnopterine or carrion vultures, all ihe 
 other species are of large siz€ ; some superior in 
 bulk to the swan, and others a little less. The 
 Nubian species has been figured in Kitto’s Pa- 
 lestine ; th e fulvus in Harris's Diet, of the Nat, 
 Hist, of the Bible. 
 
WAGES. 
 
 WANDERING. 
 
 938 
 
 W. 
 
 WAGES. The word rendered in the English 
 Version by this term, signifies primarily ‘ to pur- 
 chase,’ to obtain by some consideration on the part 
 of the purchaser ; thence to obtain on the part of 
 tne seller some consideration for something given 
 or done, and hence to hire, to pay, or receive 
 wages. Wages, then, according to the earliest 
 usages of mankind, are a return made by a pur- 
 chaser for something of value — specifically for 
 work performed, And thus labour is recognised 
 as property ; and wages as the price paid or ob- 
 tained in exchange for such property. In this 
 relation there is obviously nothing impro- 
 1 per or humiliating on the side either of the 
 buyer or the seller. - They have each a certain 
 thing which the other wants, and in the exchange 
 which they in consequence make, both parties are 
 alike served. In these fevv words lies the theory, 
 and also the justification of all service. The en- 
 tire commerce of life is barter. In hire, then, 
 there is nothing improper or discreditable. It is 
 only a hireling, that is, a mercenary, a mean sor- 
 did spirit, that is wrong. So long as a human 
 being has anything to give which another human 
 being wants, so long has he something of value in 
 the great market of life ; and whatever that some- 
 thing may be, provided it does not contribute to 
 evil passions or evil deeds, he is a truly respect- 
 able capitalist, and a useful member of the social 
 community. The Scriptural usage in applying 
 the term translated ‘ wages’ to sacred subjects — 
 thus the Almighty himself says to Abraham 
 (Gen. xv. 1), ‘I am thy exceeding great re- 
 ward’ — tends tc confirm these views, and to sug- 
 gest the observance of caution in the employ- 
 ment of the words ‘ hire ’ and ‘ hireling,’ which 
 have acquired an offensive meaning by no means 
 originally inherent in themselves, or in the He- 
 brew words for which they stand (Gen. xxx. 18, 
 32, 33). 
 
 Property, in all ages, has in practice disowned 
 the truth, that it has its duties as well as its 
 rights. This Jacob found in his dealings with 
 Laban. But in the iron age of the Jewish state, 
 injustice towards those who had no property but 
 such as their labour supplied, became very com- 
 mon, and conduced, with other crimes, to call 
 dovv-n the divine wrath — ‘I will be a swift wit- 
 ness against those that oppress tir e hireling in his 
 wages ’ (Mai. iii. 5). — J. 11. B. 
 
 WAGGON. [Cart.] 
 
 WAIL. [Mourning.] 
 
 WALLS. [Fortifications ; Towns.] 
 
 WANDERING. In our office of tracing the 
 steps of the Israelites from Goshen to Palestine, 
 we have conducted them across the Red Sea to 
 their first great station on its eastern bank, and 
 thence onward along the shore and over the cliffs 
 of that sea till, following them up Wady Hebron, 
 are placed and left them before Mount Horeb, in 
 tor capacious plain Rahah, which, having its 
 
 widest part in the immediate frort of that im- 
 mense mass of rock, extends as if with two arms, 
 one towards the north-west, the other towards the 
 north-east. The rrview of the plain by so compe- 
 tent a person &\a Robinson, is of great, consequence 
 for the interests of scientific geography and the yet 
 more important interests of religious truth; the 
 rathev because a belief prevailed, even among the 
 best informed, that there was no spot in the Sinaitic 
 district which answered to the demands of the 
 Scriptural narrative. Even the accurate. Winer 
 (Rea,/- Wort, in art. ‘Sinai,’ not ‘Horeb* as referred 
 to by Robinson, i. 17 ; ii. 5.00) says, ‘Which- 
 ever mountain may he considered as the place for 
 the promulgation of the law, the common repre- 
 sentation still remains false — t hat at the foot of the 
 hill there spreads out a great plain, on which the 
 people of Israel might assemble ’ (comp. Ro- 
 8enmiiller, A/terth. iii. 129). We shall therefore 
 transcribe Robinson’s words in extenso : ‘ We 
 came to Sinai with some iacredulity, wishing to 
 investigate the point, whether there was any pro- 
 bable ground, beyond monkish tradition, for fix- 
 ing upon the present supposed site. We were led 
 to the conviction that the plain er Rahah is the 
 probable spot where the congregation of Israel 
 were assembled ; and that, the mountain im- 
 pending over it, the present Horeb, was the scene 
 of the awful phenomena in which the law was 
 given. We were surprised as well as gratified to 
 find here in the inmost recesses of these dark 
 granite cliffs, this fine plain spread out before the 
 mountain, and 1 know not where I have felt a 
 thrill of stronger emotion than when, in first cross- 
 ing the plain, the dark precipices of Horeb rising 
 in solemn grandeur before us, we became aware of 
 the entire adaptedness of the scene to the purposes 
 for which it was chosen by the great Hebrew 
 legislator. Moses, doubtless, during the forty 
 years in which he kept the Hocks of Jethro, had 
 often wandered over these mountains, and was 
 well acquainted with their valleys and deep re- 
 cesses, like the Arabs of the present day. At any 
 rate, be knew and had visited the spot to which he 
 was to conduct his people — this adytwty in the 
 midst of the great circular granite region ; a secret 
 holy place, shut out from the world amid lone 
 and desolate mountains ’ (i. 175, sq.). We 
 subjoin what Robinson reports of the climate : 
 ‘ The weather, during our residence at. the coriven* 
 (of Sinai), as, indeed, during all our journey 
 through the peninsula (March and April), was 
 very fine. At the convent tne thermometer ranged 
 only between 47° and 67° F. But the winter 
 nights are said here to be cold ; water freezes as 
 late as February ; and snow often falls upon the 
 mountains. But the air is exceedingly pure, and 
 the climate healthy, as is testified by the great 
 age and vigour of many of the monks. And if 
 in general few of the Arabs attain to so great an 
 age, the cause is doubtless to be sought in the 
 scantiness of their fare, and their exposure to pri- 
 vations, and not to any injurious influence of the 
 climate ’ (p. 175). 
 
 After having been about a year in the midst of 
 this mountainous region, the Israelites broke up 
 their encampment and began their journey in the 
 order of their tribes, Judah leading the way with 
 the ark of the covenant, under the guidance of 
 the directing cloud (Num. ix. 15, sq. ; x. 11, 
 sq.). They proceeded down Wady Seikh, haviiif 
 
WANDERING. 
 
 'WANDERING. 
 
 929 
 
 the wilderness of Paran before them, in a north- 
 westerly direction ; but having come to a gorge in 
 the mountains they struck in a north-north-east- 
 erly direction across a sandy plain, and then over 
 the Jebel et-Tih, and came down Wady Zulakah, 
 to the station Taberah. It took the army three 
 days to reach this station. Whatever name the 
 place bore before, it now received that of Taberah 
 (fire), from a supernatural fire with which mur- 
 murers, in the extreme parts of the camp, were 
 destroyed as a punishment for their guilt. Here, 
 too, the mixed multitude that was among the Israel- 
 ites not only fell a-lusting themselves, but also 
 excited the Hebrews to remember Egyptian fish 
 and vegetables with strong desire, and to com- 
 plain of the divinely supplied manna. The dis- 
 content was intense and widely spread. Moses 
 became aware of it, and forthwith felt his spirit 
 misgive him He brings the matter before Jeho- 
 vah, and receives divine aid by the appointment of 
 seventy elders to assist him in the important and 
 perilous office of governing the gross, sensuous, 
 and self-willed myriads whom he had to lead to 
 Canaan. Mo-eover, an abundance of flesh meat 
 was given in a most profuse supply of quails. It 
 appears that there were now 600,000 footmen 
 in the congregation. 
 
 The next station was Kibroth-hattaavah, near 
 which there are fine springs and excellent pastur- 
 age. This spot, the name of which signifies 
 ‘graves of lust,’ was so denominated from a 
 plague inflicted on the people in punishment of 
 their rebellious disposition (Num. xi. 33 ; 1 Cor. 
 x. 6). Thence they journeyed to Hazeroth, which 
 Robinson, after Burckhardt, finds in el-Hud- 
 tiera, where is a fountain, together with palm- 
 trees. ‘ The determination of this point,’ says 
 Robinson, ‘ is perhaps of more importance in Bib- 
 lical history than would at first appear ; for if 
 this position be adopted for Hazeroth, it settles at 
 once the question as to the whole route of the 
 Israelites between Sinai and Kadesh. It shows 
 that they must have followed the route upon which 
 we now were to the sea, and so along the coast to 
 Akabah (at the head of the eastern arm of the Red 
 Sea), and thence, probably, through the great 
 Wady el-’Arabah to Kadesh. Indeed, such is the 
 nature of the country, that having once arrived 
 at this fountain, they could not well have varied 
 their course so as to have kept aloof from the sea, 
 and continued along the high plateau of the 
 western desert ’ (i. 223). At Hazeroth, where the 
 people seem to have remained a short time, there 
 arose a family dissension to increase the difficulties 
 of Moses. Aaron, apparently led on by his sister 
 Miriam, who may have been actuated by some 
 feminine pique or jealousy, complained of Moses 
 on the ground that he had married a Cushite, 
 that is, an Arab wife, and the malcontents went 
 so far as to set up their own claims to authority as 
 not less valid than those of Moses. An appeal is 
 made to Jehovah, who vindicates Moses, rebukes 
 Aaron, and punishes Miriam (Num. xii.). 
 
 ‘ And afterward the people removed from Haze- 
 roth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran,’ at 
 Kadesh (Num. xii. 16; xiii. 26). In Deut. i. 
 1 9-2 J. , we read, ‘And when we departed from 
 Horeb we went through a]l that great and terrible 
 wilderness which ye saw by the way of the moun- 
 tain of the Amorites, as the Lord our God com- 
 manded us; and we came to Kadesh-barnea. 
 
 VOL. II. 6 Q 
 
 And I said unto you, Ye are come unto the 
 mountain of the Amorites, which the Lord our 
 God doth give unto us. Behold, the Lord thy 
 God hath set the land before thee : go up anti 
 possess it; fear not, neither be discouraged.’ 
 Accordingly, here it was that twelve men (spies) 
 were sent into Canaan to survey the country, who 
 went up from the wilderness of Zin (Num. xiii. 
 21) to Hebron; and returning after forty days 
 brought back a very alarming account of what 
 they had seen. Let it, however, be remarked 
 that the Scriptures here supply several local data 
 to this effect: Kadesh-barnea lay not far from 
 Canaan, near the mountain of the Amorites, in 
 the wilderness of Zin, in the wilderness of Paran. 
 It is evident that there is here a great lacuna, 
 which some have attempted to fill up by turning 
 the route a little to the west to Rithmah, on the 
 borders of Idumsea, and then conducting it with 
 a sudden bend to the west and the south, into 
 what is considered the wilderness of Paran ( Re- 
 lievo Map of Arabia Petrcea, published by Dobbs, 
 London). In this view, however, we cannot 
 concur. Both Robinson and Raumer are of a 
 different opinion. At the same time it must be 
 admitted that so great a gap in the itinerary is 
 extraordinary. If, however, we find ourselves in 
 regard to the journey from Horeb to Kadesh pos- 
 sessed of fewer and less definite materials of 
 information, we have also the satisfaction of feel- 
 ing that no great Scriptural fact or doctrine is 
 concerned. It is certain that the narrative in the 
 early part of Numbers goes at once from Hazeroth 
 to Kadesh ; and although the second account 
 (in Num. xxxiii.) supplies other places, these 
 seem to belong properly to a second route and a 
 second visit to Kadesh. The history in the book 
 of Numbers is not, indeed, a consecutive narra- 
 tive ; for after the defeat of the Israelites in their 
 foolish attempt to force an entrance into Canaan 
 contrary to the will of God (Num. xiv. 45), it 
 breaks suddenly off, and leaving the joumeyings 
 and the doings of the camp, proceeds to recite 
 certain laws. Yet it offers, as we think, a clear 
 intimation of a second visit to the wilderness of 
 Zin and to Kadesh. Without having said a word 
 as to the removal of the Israelites southward, and 
 therefore leaving them in the wilderness of Zin, 
 at Kadesh, it records in the twentieth chapter (ver. 
 
 1 ), ‘ Then came the children of Israel, the whole 
 congregation, into the desert of Zin, in the first 
 month, and the people abode in Kadesh.’ And 
 this view appears confirmed by the fact that the 
 writer immediately proceeds to narrate the passage 
 of the Israelites hence on by Mount Hor south- 
 ward to Gilgal and Canaan. Robinson’s remarks 
 (ii. 611) on this point have much force : ‘I have 
 thus far assumed that the Israelites were twice at 
 Kadesh ; and this appears from a comparison of the 
 various accounts. They broke up from Sinai on the 
 twentieth day of the second month in the second 
 year of their departure out of Egypt, correspond- 
 ing to the early part of May ; they came into the 
 desert of Paran, whence spies were sent up the 
 mountain into Palestine, “ in the time of the first 
 ripe grapes ;"’ and these returned after forty days 
 to the camp at Kadesh. As grapes begin to ripen 
 on the mountains of Judah in July, the return 
 of the spies is to be placed in August or Septem- 
 ber. The people now murmured at the report of 
 the spies, and received the sentence frr«> Jehovah 
 
930 
 
 WANDERING. 
 
 nat their carcasses should fall in the wilderness, 
 anil their children wander in the desert forty years. 
 They were ordered to turn back into the desert 
 “ by the way of the Red Sea,” although it appears 
 that they abode “ many” days in Kadesh. The 
 next notice of the Israelites is, that in the first month 
 they came into the desert of Zin and abode again 
 at Kadesh ; here Miriam dies ; Moses and Aaron 
 bring water from the rock ; a passage is demanded 
 through the land of Edom, and refused ; and they 
 then journeyed from Kadesh to Mount Hor, where 
 Aaron dies in the fortieth year of the departure 
 from Egypt, in the first day of the fifth month, 
 corresponding to a part of August and September. 
 Here, then, between August of the second year 
 and August, of the fortieth year, we have an in- 
 terval of thirty-eight years of wandering in the 
 desert. With this coincides another account. 
 From Mount Hor they proceeded to Elath on the 
 Red Sea, and so around the land of Edom to the 
 brook Zered, on t,he border of Moab ; and from 
 the time of their departure from Kadesh (mean- 
 ing, of course, their first departure) until they 
 thus came to the brook Zered, there is said to have 
 been an interval of thirty-eight years. 
 
 In this way the Scriptural account of the jour- 
 neyings of the Israelites becomes perfectly har- 
 monious and intelligible. The eighteen stations 
 mentioned only in the general list in the book of 
 Numbers as preceding the arrival at Kadesh, are 
 then apparently to be referred to this eight and 
 thirty years of wandering, during which the people 
 at last approached Ezion-geber, and afterwards 
 returned northwards a second time to Kadesh, in 
 the hope of passing directly througn the land of 
 Edom. Their wanderings extended, doubtless, 
 over the western desert ; although the stations 
 named are probably only those head quarters 
 where the tabernacle was pitched, and where 
 Moses and the elders and priests encamped ; 
 while the main body of the people was scattered 
 in various directions. 
 
 Where, then, was Kadesh ? Clearly, on the 
 borders of Palestine’. We agree with Robinson 
 and Raumer in placing it nearly at the top of the 
 Wady Arabah, where, indeed, it is fixed by Scrip- 
 ture, for in Numbers xii. 16 we read, ‘Kadesh, 
 a city in the uttermost of thy (Edom) border.’ 
 The precise spot it may be difficult to ascertain, 
 but here, in the wilderness of Zin, which lay in the 
 more comprehensive district of Paran, is Kadesh 
 to be placed. Raumer, however, has attempted 
 to fix the locality, and in his views Robinson and 
 Schubert generally concur. Raumer places it 
 south from the Dead Sea, in the low lands be- 
 tween the mountain of the Edomites and that c>f 
 the Amorites. The country gradually descends 
 from the mountains of Judah southward, and 
 where thg descent terminates Raumer sets Ka- 
 desh. W ith this view the words of Moses entirely 
 correspond, when, at Kadesh, he said to the spies, 
 ‘ Get you op southward , and go up into the moun- 
 tain ’ (Num. xiii. 17). The ascent may have 
 been made up the pass es-Sufali ; up this the self- 
 willed Hebrews went, and were driven back by 
 the Canaanites as far as to Hermah, then called 
 Zeplath (Num. xiii. 17; xiv. 40-15 ; Judg. i. 
 17). The spot where Kadesh lay Robinson finds 
 in the present Ain el-Weibeh. Rut Raumer pre- 
 fers a spot to the north of this place — that where 
 the road mounts by W T adv el-Khurar to the pass 
 
 
 WANDERING. 
 
 Sufah. It ought, he thinks, to be fixed on a spot 
 where the Israelites would be near the paa6, and 
 where the pass would lie before their eyes. .This 
 is not the case, according to Schubert, at Ain el- 
 Weibeh. Raumer, therefore, inclines to fix on 
 Ain Hash, which lies near Ain el Khurar. This 
 is probably Kadesh. The distance from the pass 
 Sufah to Ain Hasb is little more than half the 
 length of that from the same pass to Ain el-Wei- 
 beh. According to the Arabs, there is at Ain 
 Hasb a copious fountain of sweet wate’", sur- 
 rounded by verdure and traces of ruins, which 
 must be of considerable magnitude, as they were 
 seen by Robinson at a distance of some miles. 
 These may be the ruins of Kadesh; but at Ain 
 el-Weibeh there are no ruins. 
 
 By what route, then, did the Israelites come 
 from Hazeroth to Kadesh ? We are here sup- 
 plied with scarcely any information. The entire 
 distance, which is considerable, is passed by the 
 historian in silence. Nothing more remains than 
 the direction of the two places, the general features 
 of the country, and one or two allusions 
 
 The option seems to lie between two routes. 
 From Hazeroth, pursuing a direction to the north- 
 east, they would come upon the sea-coast, along 
 which they might go till they came to the top of 
 the Ruhr Akabar, and thence up Wady Arabah 
 to Kadesh, nearly at its extremity. Or they 
 might have taken a north-western course and 
 crossed the mountain Jebel et-Tih. If so, they 
 must still have avoided the Western side of Mount 
 Araif, otherwise they would have been carried to 
 Beer-sheba, which lay far to the west of Kadesh. 
 Robinson prefers the first route; Raumer, the 
 second. ‘ I,’ says the latter, ‘ am of opinion that 
 Israel went through the desert et-Tih, then down 
 Jebel Araif, but not along Wady Arabah.’ This 
 view is supported by the words found in Deut. i. 
 19, ‘When we departed from Horeb we went 
 through all that great and terrible wilderness 
 which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the 
 Amorites, and we came to Kadesh-barnea.’ This 
 journey from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea took the 
 Hebrews eleven days (Deut. i. 2). 
 
 At the direct command of Jehovah the Hebrews 
 left. Kadesh, came down the Wady Arabah, and 
 entered the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea 
 (Num. xiv. 25). In this wilderness they wan- 
 dered eight and thirty years, but little can be set 
 forth respecting the course of their march. It 
 may in general be observed that their route would 
 not resemble that of a regular modern army. 
 They were a disciplined horde of nomades, and 
 would follow nomade customs. It is also clear 
 that their stations as well as their course would 
 necessarily be determined by the nature of the 
 country, and its natural supplies of the necessaries 
 of life. Hence regularity of movement is not to 
 be expected. How, except by a constant miracle, 
 two millions of people were supported for forty 
 years in the peninsula of Sinai, must, under the 
 actual circumstances of the case, ever remain 
 inexplicable ; nor do we conceive that such scanty 
 supplies as an occasional well or a chance oasis 
 do much to relieve the difficulty. In the absence 
 of detailed information, any attempt to lay down 
 the path pursued by the Israelites after their 
 emerging from Arabah can be little belter than 
 conjectural. Some authorities carry them quite 
 over to the eastern bank ©f the Red Sea ; but th# 
 
WAN DERING. 
 
 WANDERING. 
 
 931 
 
 expression ‘by the way of the Red Sea’ denotes 
 nothing more than the western wilderness, or the 
 wilderness in the direction ot the Red Sea. 
 
 The stations over which the Israelites passed 
 are set down in Num. xxxiii. 18, sq. (comp. Deut. 
 x. 6, 7), and little beyond the bare record can be 
 given. Only it seems extraordinary, and is much 
 to be regretted, that for so long a period as eight 
 and thirty years our information should be so 
 exceedingly small. Raumer, indeed, makes an 
 effort (j Beitrage, p. 11) to fix the direction in 
 which some of the stations lay to each other, l ut 
 we cannot find satisfaction in his efforts, and do 
 not, therefore, bring them before the reader. It 
 may be of more service to them to subjoin the 
 following table of the stations of the Israelites, 
 from the time of their leaving Egypt, which we 
 take from Robinson’s Researches in Palestine (ii. 
 678,679). 
 
 1. From Egypt to Sinai. 
 
 Exodus xii.-xix. 
 
 From Rameses, xii. 37. 
 
 1. Succoth, xii. 37 
 
 2. Etham, xiii. 20 
 
 3. Pi-hahiroth, xiv. 2 
 
 4. Passage through 
 the Red Sea, xiv. 
 22 ; and three days’ 
 march into the desert 
 of Shur, xv. 22 
 
 5. Marah, xv. 23 
 
 6. Elim, xv. 27 
 
 7. 
 
 8. t Desert of Sin, xvi. 1 
 
 9. 
 
 10 . 
 
 11. Rephidim, xvii. 1 
 
 12. Desert of Sinai, 
 .xix. 1 
 
 Numbers xxxiii. 
 From Rameses, ver. 3. 
 Succoth, ver. 5 
 Etham, ver. 6 
 Pi-hahiroth, ver. 7 
 Passage through the 
 Red Sea, and three 
 days’ march in the 
 desert of Etham, ver. 8 
 
 Marah, ver. 8 
 Elim, ver. 9. 
 Encampment by the 
 Red Sea, ver. 10 
 Desert of Sin, ver. 1 1 
 Dophkah, ver. 12 
 Alush, ver. 13 * 
 
 Rephidim, ver. 14 
 Desert of Sinai, ver. 15 
 
 2. From Sinai to Kadesh the second time. 
 
 Numbers x.-xx. 
 From the Desert of 
 Sinai, x. 12. 
 
 13. Taberah, xi. 3; 
 Deut. ix. 22 
 
 14. Kibroth-hattaavah, 
 xi. 34 
 
 15. Hazeroth, xi. 35 
 
 16. Kadesh, in the 
 desert of Paran, xii. 
 16; xiii. 26 ; Deut. 
 i. 2, 19. Hence they 
 turn back and wan- 
 der for 38 years. 
 Num. xiv. 25, seq. 
 
 17. 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 A L, 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 27 
 28. 
 29, 
 
 Numbers xxxiii. 
 From the Desert of 
 Sinai, ver. 16. 
 
 Kibroth-hattaavah, ver. 
 16 
 
 Hazeroth, ver. 17 
 
 Rithmah, ver. 18 
 Rimmon-parez, ver. 19 
 Libnah, ver. 20 
 Rissah, ver. 21 
 Kehelathah, ver. 22 
 Mount Shapher, ver. 23 
 Havadali, ver. 24 
 Makheloth, ver. 25 
 Tahath, ver. 26 
 Tarah, ver. 27 
 Mithcah, ver. 28 
 Hashmonah, ver. 29 
 Moseroth, ver. 30 
 
 30. Bene jaakan, vei. 31 
 
 31. Hor-hagidgad, ver. 32 
 
 32. Jotbathah, ver. 33 
 
 33. Ebronah, ver. 34 
 
 34. Ezion-gaber, ver. 35 
 
 35. Return to Kadesh, Kadesh, ver. 36 
 Num. xx. 1 
 
 3. From Kadesh to the Jordan. 
 
 Numbers xxxiii. 
 
 Num. xx., xxi. Deut. 
 i. ii. x. 
 
 From Kadesh, Num. 
 xx. 22. 
 
 36. Beeroth Bene-jaa- 
 kan, Deut. x. 6 
 
 37. Mount Hor, Num. 
 
 xx. 22 ; or Mosera, 
 Deut. x. 6, where 
 Aaron died 
 
 38. Gudgodah, Deut. 
 x. 7 
 
 39. Jotbath, Deut. x. 7 
 
 40. Way of the Red 
 Sea, Num. xxi. 4 ; 
 by Elath and Ezion- 
 gaber, Deut. ii. 8 
 
 41. 
 
 42. 
 
 43. Oboth, Num. xxi. 
 10 
 
 44. Ije abarim, Num. 
 
 xxi. 11 
 
 45. The brook Zered, 
 
 Num. xxi. 12 ; 
 
 Deut. ii. 13, 14 
 
 46. The brook Arnon, 
 
 Num. xxi. 13 ; 
 
 Deut. ii. 24 
 
 47. 
 
 48. 
 
 49. Beer (well) in the 
 desert, Num. xxi. 
 16, 18 
 
 50. Mattanah, xxi. 18 
 
 51. Nahaliel, xxi. 19 
 
 52. Bamotli, xxi. 19 
 
 53. Pisgah, put for the 
 range of Abarim, of 
 which Pisgah was 
 part, xxi. 20 
 
 54. By the way of 
 Bashan to the plains 
 of Moab by Jordan, 
 near Jericho, Num. 
 xxi. 33 ; xxii. 1 
 
 From Kadesh, ver. 37» 
 
 Mount Hor, ver. 37 
 
 Zalmonah, ver. 41 
 Punon, ver. 42 
 Oboth, ver. 43 
 
 Ije-abarim, or Jim, vex. 
 44, 45 
 
 Dibon-gad, ver. 45, now 
 DhibSn 
 
 Almon-diblathaim, ver. 
 46 
 
 Mountains of Abarim, 
 near to Nebo, ver. 47 
 
 Plains of Moab by Jor- 
 dan, near Jericho, ver. 
 48 
 
 There are a few events which must be recorded 
 in order to preserve, in a measure, the uniformity 
 of the narrative designed to trace the passage of 
 the Hebrews from the land of bondage to the 
 Promised Land. 
 
 When we begin to take up the thread of the 
 story at the second visit to Kadesh, we find time 
 had, in the interval, been busy at its destructive 
 work, and we thus gain confirmation of the view 
 which has been taken of such second visit. No 
 sooner has the sacred historian told us of the 
 return of the Israelites to Kadesh, than he records 
 the death and burial of Miriam, and has, at no 
 
982 
 
 WANDERING. 
 
 WAR. 
 
 great distance of time, to narrate that of Aaron and 
 Moses. While still at Kadesh a rising against 
 these leaders takes place, on the alleged ground of 
 a want of water. Water is produced from the 
 rock at a spot called hence Meribah (strife). 
 But Moses and Aaron displeased God in this pro- 
 ceeding, probably because they distrusted God’s 
 general providence and applied for extraordinary 
 resources. On account of this displeasure it was 
 announced to them that they should not enter 
 Canaan. A similar transaction has been already 
 spoken of as taking place in Rephidim (Exod. 
 xvii. 1). The same name, Meribah, was occa- 
 sioned in that as in this matter. Hence it has 
 l>een thought that we have here two versions of the 
 'same story. But there is nothing surprising, un- 
 der the circumstances, in the outbreak of discon- 
 tent for want of water, which may well have 
 happened even more than twice. The places 
 are different, very wide apart ; the time is differ- 
 ent ; and there is also the great variation arising 
 out of the conduct and punishment of Moses and 
 Aaron. On the whole, therefore, we judge the two 
 records to speak of different transactions. 
 
 Relying on the ties of blood (Gen. xxxii. 8) 
 Moses sent to ask of the Edomites a passage 
 through their territory into Canaan. The answer 
 was a refusal, accompanied by a display of force. 
 The Israelites, therefore, were compelled to turn 
 their face southward, and making a turn round the 
 end of the Elanitic gulf reached Mount Hor, near 
 Petra, on the top of which Aaron died. Finding 
 the country bad for travelling, and their food un- 
 pleasant, Israel again broke out into rebellious 
 disconteut, and was punished by fiery serpents 
 which bit the people, and much people died, when 
 a remedy was provided in a serpent of brass set on 
 a pole (Num. xxi. 4, sq.). Still going northward, 
 and probably pursuing the caravan route from 
 Damascus, they at length reached the valley of 
 Zared (the brook), which may be the present 
 Wady Kerek, that runs from the east into the Dead 
 Sea. Hence they ‘ removed and pitched on tdae other 
 side of Arnon, which is in the border of Moab, be- 
 tween Moab and the Amorites ’ (Num. xxi. 13). 
 Beer (the well) was the next station, where, find- 
 ing a plentiful supply of water, and being rejoiced 
 at the prospect of the speedy termination of their 
 journey, the people indulged in music and song, 
 singing ‘the song of the well ’(Num. xxi. 17, 
 18). The Amorites being requested, refused to 
 give Israel a passage through their borders, and 
 so the nation was again compelled to proceed still 
 in a northerly course. At length having beaten 
 the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan, they 
 reached the Jordan, and pitched their tents at a 
 spot which lay opposite Jericho. Here Balak, 
 king of the Moabites, alarmed at their numbers 
 and their successful prowess, invited Balaam to 
 curse Israel, in the hope of being thus aided to 
 overcome them and drive them out. The in- 
 tended curse proved a blessing in the prophet’s 
 mouth. While here the people gave way to the 
 idolatrous practices of the Moabites, when a ter- 
 rible punishment was inflicted, partly by a plague 
 which took off 24,000, and partly by the avenging 
 sword. Moses, being commanded to take the 
 sum of the children of Israel, from twenty years 
 upwards, found they amounted to 600,730, among 
 whom there was not a man of them whom Moses 
 and Aaron numbered in the wilderness of Sinai 
 
 (Num. xxvi. 47, 64). Moses is now directed t« 
 ascend Abarim, to Mount Nebo, in the land of 
 Moab, over against Jericho, in order that he might 
 survey the land which he was not to enter on ac- 
 count of his having rebelled against God’s com- 
 mandment in the desert of Ziu (Num. xxvii. 
 12; Deut. xxxii. 49). Conformably with the divine 
 command, Moses went up from the plains of 
 Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of 
 Pisgah, and there he died, atlhe age of 120 years : 
 ‘ His eye was not dim, nor his natural force 
 abated ’ (Deut. xxxiv.). Under his successor, 
 Joshua, the Hebrews were forthwith led across the 
 Jordan, and established in the Land of Promise. 
 
 Thus a journey, which they might have per- 
 formed in a few months, they spent forty 
 years in accomplishing, bringing on themselves 
 unspeakable toil and trouble, and in the end, 
 death, as a punishment for their gross and sensual 
 appetites, and their unbending indocility to the 
 divine will (Num. xiv. 23; xxvi. 65). Joshua, 
 however, gained thereby a great advantage ; inas- 
 much as it. was with an entirely new generation 
 that he laid the foundations of the civil and reli- 
 gious institutions of the Mosaic polity in Pales- 
 tine. This advantage assigns the reason why so 
 long a period of years was spent in the wilder- 
 ness. 
 
 The following works are valuable : Paldstina 
 und die Siidlich angrenzenden Lander ; German 
 edition of Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Pa- 
 lestine ; Reise in das Morgenland in 1836-7, 
 von Schubert ; Commeniaire Geographique sur 
 I’Exode, par L. de Laborde, Paris, 1841 ; Maps 
 Paldstina , von J. L. Grimm, Berlin, 1830; 
 Karten fu Robinson's Paldstina , von Kiepejt, 
 1840 ; Karte von Paldstina , von K. Ritter, 1842 . 
 Wandkarte von Paldstina , von Volter, 1843; 
 Louis Erbe, Relief Karte von Paldstina , 1842; 
 Plan von Jerusalem , von Helmuth, 1843. — 
 
 J. R. S. 
 
 WAR. The Hebrew nation, so long as it con- 
 tinued in Egyptian bondage, might be regarded as 
 unacquainted with military affairs, since a jealous 
 government would scarcely permit so numerous 
 and dense a population as the pastoral families 
 of Israel, which retained their seat in Goshen, 
 certainly were, to be in possession of the means of 
 resistance to authority ; but placed as this por- 
 tion of the people was, with the wanderers of the 
 wilderness to the south, and the mountain rob- 
 bers of Edom to the east, some kind of defence 
 must have been provided to protect its cattle, and 
 in a measure to cover lower Egypt itself from 
 foreign inroads. Probably the labouring popula- 
 tion, scattered as bondsmen through the Delta, 
 were alone destitute of weapons, while the shep- 
 herds had the same kind of defensive arms which 
 are still., in use, and allowed to all classes in 
 eastern countries, whatever be their condition. 
 This mixed state of their social position appears 
 to be countenanced by the fact that, when sud- 
 denly permitted to depart, the whole organization 
 required for the movement of such a multitude 
 was clearly in force ; yet not a word is said about 
 physical means to resist the pursuing Egyptians, 
 although at a subsequent period it does not ap- 
 pear that they were wanting to invade Palestine, 
 but that special causes prevented them from being 
 immediately resorted to. The Israelites were, 
 therefore, partly armed j they had their bow» and 
 
WAR. 
 
 WAR. 
 
 931 
 
 trrows, clubs and darts, wicker or ox-hide shields, 
 and helmets (caps) of skins, or of woven rushes, 
 made somewhat like our bee-hives. 
 
 These inferences are borne out by the fact, that 
 the Egyptian offensive weapons were but little 
 better, and that the materials, being readily acces- 
 sible and in constant use, could be manufactured 
 by the cattle-herds and dwellers in tents them- 
 selves. From their familiar knowledge of the 
 Egyptian institutions, the Israelites doubtless 
 copied their military organization, as soon as they 
 were free from bondage, and became inured to a 
 warlike life during their forty years’ wandering 
 in the desert; but with this remarkable difference, 
 that while Egypt reckoned her hundred thousands 
 of regulars, either drawn from the provinces or 
 nomes by a kind of conscription, such as is to he 
 seen on the monuments, or from a military caste 
 of hereditary soldiers, ihe Hebrew people, having 
 preserved the patriarchal institution of nomades, 
 werd embodied by families and tribes, as is plainly 
 proved by the order of march which was pre- 
 served during their pilgrimage to the Land of 
 Promise. That order likewise reveals a military 
 circumstance which seems to attest that the dis- 
 tribution of the greatest and most warlike masses 
 was not on the left of the order of movement, 
 that is, towards their immediate enemies, but 
 always to the front and right, as if even then the 
 most serious opposition might be expected from the 
 east and north-east — possibly from a reminiscence 
 of past invasions of the giant races, and of the 
 first conquerors, furnished with cavalry and cha- 
 riots, having come from those directions. 
 
 At the time of the departure of Israel, horses 
 were not yet abundant in Egypt, for the pursuing 
 army had oidy 600 chariots, and the shepherd 
 people were even prohibited from breeding or 
 possessing them. The Hebrews were enjoined to 
 trust, under Divine protection, to the energies of 
 infantry alone, their future country being chiefly 
 within the basin of high mountains, and the 
 march thither over a district of Arabia where to 
 this day horses are not in use. We may infer that 
 the inspired lawgiver rejected horses because they 
 were already known to be less fit for defence at 
 home than for distant expeditions of conquest, in 
 which it was not intended that the chosen people 
 should engage. 
 
 Where such exact order and instruction ex- 
 isted, it may not be doubted ' that in military 
 affairs, upon which in the first years of emanci- 
 pation so much of future power and success was 
 to depend, measures no less appropriate were 
 taken, and that, with the Egyptian model univer- 
 sally known, similar institutions or others equally 
 efficient were adopted by the Israelites. Great 
 tribal ensigns they had, and thence we may infer 
 the existence of others for subordinate divisions. 
 Like the Egyptians, they could move in columns 
 and form well ordered ranks in deep fronts of 
 battle, and they acted upon the best suggestions of 
 human ingenuity united with "physical daring, 
 except when expressly ordered to trust to Divine 
 interposition. The force of circumstances caused 
 in time modifications of importance to be made, 
 where doctrine had interfered with what was felt 
 to hinge on political necessities ; but even then 
 they were long and urgently wanted before they 
 took place, although the people in religion were 
 constantly disregarding the most important points, 
 
 and forsaking that God who, they all knew and 
 believed, had taken them out of bondage to make 
 them a great nation. Thus, although from the 
 time the tribes of Reuben arid Manasseh received 
 their allotment east of the Jordan, the possession 
 of horses became in some measure necessary to 
 defend their frontier, still the people persisted for 
 ages in abstaining from them, and even in the time 
 of David would not use them when they were ac- 
 tually captured ; but when the policy of Solomon 
 had made extensive conquests, the injunction was 
 set aside, because horses became all-important ; 
 and from the captivity till after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, the remnant of the eastern tribes were 
 in part warlike equestrian nomades, who struck 
 terror into the heart of the formidable Persian 
 cavalry, won great battles, and even captured 
 Parthian kings. When both the kingdoms of 
 Judah and Israel were again confined to the 
 mountains, they reduced their cavalry to a small 
 body; because, it may be, the nature of the soil 
 within the basin of the Libanus was, as it still is, 
 unfavourable to breeding horses. Another in- 
 stance of unwillingness to violate ancient insti- 
 tutions is found in the Hebrews abstaining from 
 active war on the Sabbath until the time of the 
 Maccabees. 
 
 There are, however, indications in their military 
 transactions, from the time Assyrian and Persian 
 conquerors pressed upon the Israelite states, and 
 still more after the captivity, which show the influ- 
 ence of Asiatic military ideas, according to which 
 the masses do not act with ordered unity, but trust 
 to the more adventurous in the van to decide the 
 fate of battle. Later still, under the Maccabees, the 
 systematic discipline of Macedonian importation 
 can be observed, even though in Asia the Greek 
 method of training, founded on mathematical 
 principles, had never been fully complied with, 
 or had been modified by the existence of new 
 circumstances and new elements of destruction ; 
 such, for example, as the use of great bodies of 
 light cavalry, showering millions of arrows upon 
 their enemies, and fighting elephants introduced 
 by the Ptolemies. 
 
 But all these practices became again modified 
 in Western Asia when Roman dominion had su- 
 perseded the Greek kingdoms. Even tlie Jews, as 
 is evident from Josephus, modelled their military 
 force on the Imperial plan ; their infantry becagne 
 armed, and was manoeuvred in accordance with 
 that system which every where gave victory by 
 means of the firmness and mobility which it im- 
 parted. The masses were composed of cohorts 
 or their equivalents, consisting of centuriae and 
 decurise, or subdivisions into hundreds, fifties, 
 and tens, similar to modern battalions, com- 
 panies, and squads ; and the commanders were 
 of like grades and numbers. Thus the people of 
 Israel, and the nations around them, cannot be ac- 
 curately considered, in a military view, without 
 taking into account the successive changes here 
 noticed ; for they had the same influence which 
 military innovations had in Europe between the 
 eras of Charlemagne and the Emperor Charles V., 
 including the use of cannon — that invention foe 
 a longtime making no greater alteration in the 
 constitution of armies, than the perfection of war 
 machines produced upon 'toe military institution* 
 of antiquity. 
 
 The army of Israel was chiefly composed e# 
 
WAR. 
 
 WAR. 
 
 *24 
 
 infantry, as before remarked, formed into a trained 
 body of spearmen, and, in greater numbers, of 
 siingers and archers, with horses and chariots in 
 small proportion, excepting during the periods 
 when the kingdom extended over the desert to 
 the Red Sea. The irregulars were drawn from 
 the families and tribes, particularly Ephraim and 
 Benjamin, but the heavy armed derived their 
 chief strength from Judah, and were, it appears, 
 collected by a kind of conscription, by tribes, like 
 the earlier Roman armies ; not through the in- 
 strumentality of selected officers, but by genealo- 
 gists of each tribe, under the superintendence of 
 tne princes. Of those returned on the rolls, a pro- 
 nortion greater or less was selected, according to 
 the exigency of the time ; and the whole male po- 
 pulation might be called out on extraordinary oc- 
 casions. When kings had rendered the system of 
 government better organised, there was an officer 
 denominated hashoter , a sort of muster- 
 
 master, who had returns ot the effective force, or 
 number of soldiers ready for service, but who was 
 subordinate to the TD'lbn hasopher, or scribe, a 
 kind of secretary of state. These officers, or the 
 DntX> shoterim , struck out, or excused from 
 service: — 1st, those who had built a house with- 
 out having yet inhabited it ; 2nd, those who had 
 planted an olive or vineyard, and had not tasted 
 the fruit — which gave leave of absence for five 
 years ; 3rd, those who were betrothed, or had 
 been married less than one year ; 4th, the faint- 
 hearted , which may mean the constitutionally 
 delicate, rather than the cowardly, as that quality 
 is seldom owned without personal inconvenience, 
 and where it is no longer a shame, the rule would 
 destroy every levy. 
 
 The levies were drilled to march in ranks (1 
 Cliron. xii. 38), and in column by fives (D'^Dn, 
 c/iamushim*) abreast (Exod. ^ xii i. 18); hence 
 it may be inferred that they borrowed from the 
 Egyptian system a decimal formation, two fifties 
 in each division making a solid square, equal 
 in rank and file : for twice ten in rank and 
 five in file being told off by right hand and left 
 hand files, a command to the left hand files to 
 lace about and march six or eight paces to the 
 rear, then to front and take one step to the right 
 would make the hundred a solid square, with 
 only the additional distance between the right 
 hand or unmoved files necessary to use the shield 
 and spear without hindrance ; while the depth 
 being again reduced to five files, they could face 
 to the right or left, and march firmly in column, 
 passing every kind of ground without breaking or 
 lengthening their order. The Pentastichous f 
 system, or arrangement of five men in depth, was 
 effected by the simple evolution just mentioned, 
 to its own condensation to double number, and at 
 
 * If this term could be satisfactorily shown to 
 mear. fifty, it would still contain the decimal 
 system, and equally necessitate the above forma- 
 tion ; but no army, except for a short manoeuvre 
 before battle, could march in column with a front 
 of fifty, though the companies were of fifty men ; 
 they must always have been doubled for sim- 
 plifying every efficient manoeuvre. There was 
 thus also an office* to command the front, and 
 another the rear. 
 
 f Taking ctLxos in its confined sense of a file 
 er row of men arranged behind each other. 
 
 the same time afforded the necessary space V«- 
 tween the standing files of spearmen oi light in- 
 fantry for handling their weapons without ob- 
 stacle, always a primary object in every ancient 
 system of training. Between the fifth ai i sixth 
 rank there was thus space made for the ensign 
 bearer, who, as he then stood precisely between 
 the companies of fifty each, had probably some 
 additional width to enable his ensign being sta- 
 tioned between the four middlemost men in the 
 square, having five men in file and five in rank 
 before, behind, and on each side ; there he was 
 the regulator of their order, coming to the front in 
 advancing. and to the rear in retreating; and this 
 may explain why gtixos, a file, and the Hebrew 
 deghel and nes, an ensign, are in many cases re- 
 garded as synonymous. Although neither the 
 Egyptian depth of formation, if we may judge 
 from their pictured monuments, nor the Greek 
 phalanx, nor the Roman legion, was constructed 
 upon decimal principles, yet the former wJs no 
 doubt so in its origin, since it was the model of the 
 Israelites, and the tetrastichal system, which after- 
 wards succeeded, shows that it was not the ori- 
 ginal, since even in the phalanx, where the files 
 formed, broke, and doubled by fours, eights, six- 
 teens, and thirty-twos, there remained names of 
 sections which indicated the first-mentioned divi- 
 sion : such was the pentacontarchy, denoting some 
 arrangement of fifty, while in reality it consisted 
 of sixty-four, and the decany and decurio, though 
 derived from a decimal order, signified an entire 
 file or a compact line in the phalanx, without re- 
 ference to number. 
 
 With centuries thus arranged in masses, both 
 moveable and solid, a front of battle could be 
 formed in simple decimal progression to a thou- 
 sand, ten thousand, and to an army at all times 
 formidable by its depth, and by the facility it 
 afforded for the light troops, chariots of war, and 
 cavalry, to rally behind and to issue from thence 
 to the front. Archers and siingers could ply their 
 missiles from the rear, which would be more cer- 
 tain to reach an enemy in close conflict, than 
 was to be found the case with the Greek phalanx, 
 because from the great depth of that body mis- 
 siles from behind were liable to fall among its own 
 front ranks. These divisions were commanded, it 
 seems, by ketsinim, officers in charge of 
 
 one thousand, who, in the first ages, may hav* 
 been the heads of houses, but in. the time of the 
 kings were appointed by the crown, and had a 
 seat in the councils of way ; but the commander 
 of the host fcQVn ?]} "W sar hat-tzaba, such 
 as Joab, Abner, Benaiah, &c., was either the 
 judge, or under the judge or king, the supreme 
 head of the army, and one of the highest officers 
 in the state. He, as well as the king, had an 
 armour-bearer, whose duty was not only to bear 
 his shield, spear, or bow, and to carry orders, but 
 above all, to be at the chief’s side in the hour of 
 battle (Judg. ix; |4; 1 Sam. xiv. 6 ; xxxi. 4, 5). 
 Beside the royal* guards, there was, as early at 
 least as the time of David, a select troop of 
 heroes, who appear to have had an institution 
 very similar in principle to our modern orders or 
 knighthood, and may have originated the dis- 
 tinctive marks already pointed out as used by the 
 Romans ; for it seems they strewed their hair with 
 gold dust [Arms.]. 
 
 In military operations, such as marches ia 
 
WAR. 
 
 WAR. 
 
 93* 
 
 «uest of, or in the presence of, an enemy, and 
 in order of battle, the forces were formed into 
 three divisions, each commanded by a chief cap- 
 tain or commander of a corps, or third part, 
 
 'V&'hti or shelish, as was also the case 
 
 with other armies of the east ; these constituted 
 the centre, and right and left wing, and durng 
 a march formed the van, centre, and rear. The 
 great camp in the wilderness was composed of 
 four of these triple bodies disposed in a quad- 
 rangle, each front having a tribal great central 
 standard, and another tribal one in each wing. 
 
 The war cry of the Hebrews was not intonated 
 by the ensign bearers, as in the West, but by a 
 Levite ; for priests had likewise charge of the 
 trumpets, and the sounding of signals ; and one of 
 them, called ‘the anointed for war,’ who is said 
 to have had the charge of animating the army 
 to action by an oration, may have been appointed 
 to utter the cry of battle (Dent. xx. 2). It was 
 a mere shout (1 Sam. xvii. 20), or, as in later 
 ages, Halelujah ! while the so-called mottoes of 
 the central banners of the four great sides of the 
 square of Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, and Dan, 
 were m(u:e likely the battle-songs which each of' 
 the fronts of the mightjf army had sung on com- 
 mencing the march or advancing to do battle 
 -(Num. x. 34, 35, 36 ; Deut. vi. 4). These verses 
 may have been sung even before the two books 
 wherein they are how found were written, and in- 
 deed the sense of the text indicates a past tense. 
 It was to these we think Jehoshaphat addressed 
 himself when about to engage the Moabites : he 
 ordered ‘ the singers before the Lord ’ to chant 
 the response (2 Chron. xx. 21), ‘ Praise the Lord, 
 for his mercy endureth for ever.’ With regard to 
 the pass-word, the sign of mutual recognition 
 occurs in Judg. vii. 18, when, after the men had 
 blown their trumpets and shown light, they cried 
 ‘ The sword of the Lord and of Gideon ' — a re- 
 petition of the very words overheard by that chief 
 while watching the hostile army. 
 
 Before an engagement the Hebrew soldiers 
 were spared fatigue as much as possible, and 
 food was distributed to them ; their arms were 
 enjoined to be in the best order, and they formed 
 a line, as before described, of solid squares of 
 hundreds, each square being ten deep, and as 
 many in’ breadth, with sufficient intervals be- 
 tween the files to allow of facility in the move- 
 ments, the management of the arms, and the 
 passage to the front or rear of slingers and 
 archers. These last occupied posts according to 
 circumstances, on the flanks, or in advance, but 
 in the heat of battle were sheltered behind the 
 squares of spearmen ; the slingers were always 
 stationed in the rear, until they were ordered 
 forward to cover the front, impede an hostile 
 approach, or commence an engagement, some- 
 what in the manner of modem skirmishers. 
 Meantime, the king, or his representative, ap- 
 peared clad in holy ornaments, ’HTH, hadri 
 kodesli (in our version rendered ‘the beauties 
 of holiness,’ Ps. cx. 3 ; 2 Chron. xx. 21), and 
 proceeded to make the final dispositions for 
 battle, in the middle of his chosen braves, and 
 attended by priests, who, by their exhortations, 
 animated the ranks within hearing, while the trum- 
 pets waited to sound the signal, it was now, with 
 tbs enemy at land* we may suppose, that the 
 
 slingeYs would be ordered to pass forward be- 
 tween the intervals of the line, and, opening 
 their order, would let fly their stone or leaden 
 missiles, until, by the gradual approach of the 
 opposing fronts, they would be hemmed in and 
 recalled to the rear, or ordered to take an appro- 
 priate position. Then was the time when the 
 trumpet-bearing priests received command to 
 sound the charge, and when the shout of battle 
 burst forth from the ranks. The signal being given, 
 the heavy infantry would press forward under- 
 cover of their shields, with the flDI romach 
 protruded direct upon the front of the enemy : 
 the rear ranks might then, when so armed, cast 
 their darts, and the archers, behind them all, shoot 
 high, so as to pitch their arrows over the lines 
 before them, into the dense masses of the enemy 
 beyond. If the opposing forces broke through 
 the line,- we may imagine a body of charioteers 
 reserve, rushing from their post, and charging in 
 among the disjointed ranks of the enemy, before 
 they could reconstruct their order ; or wheeling 
 round a flank, fall upon the rear ; or being en- 
 countered by a similar manoeuvre, and perhaps 
 repulsed, or rescued by Hebrew cavalry. The 
 king, meanwhile, surrounded by his princes, I 
 posted close to the rear of his line of battle, and in 
 the middle of showered missiles, would watch the 
 enemy and strive to remedy every disorder. Thus 
 it was that several of the sovereigns of Judah 
 were slain (2 Chron. xviii. 33; xxxv. 23), and 
 that such an enormous waste of human life 
 took place ; for two hostile lines of masses, at 
 least ten in depfh, advancing under the confi- 
 dence of breaslplate and shield, when once en- 
 gaged hand <o hand, had difficulties of no ordi- 
 nary nature to retreat; because the hindermost 
 ranks not being exposed personally to the first 
 slaughter, would not, and the foremost could not, 
 fall back ; neither could the commanders disen- 
 gage the line without a certainty of being routed. 
 The fate of the day was therefore no longer within 
 the control of the chief, and nothing but obstinate 
 valour was left to decide the victory; Hence, 
 with the stubborn character of the Jews, battles 
 fought among themselves were particularly san- 
 guinary ; such, for example, as that in which 
 Jeroboam king of Israel was defeated by Abijah 
 of Judah (2 Chron. xiii. 3-17), wherein, if there 
 be no error of copyists, there was a greater slaugh- 
 ter than in ten such battles as that of Leipsic, 
 although on that occasion three hundred and fifty 
 thousand combatants were engaged for three suc- 
 cessive days, provided with all the implements ol 
 modern destruction in full activity. Undei 
 such circumstances defeat led to irretrievable 
 confusion, and where either party possessed supe- 
 riority in cavalry and chariots of war it would 
 be materially increased ; but where the infantry 
 alone had principally to pursue a broken enemy, 
 that force, loaded with shields and preserving 
 order, could overtake very few who chose to 
 abandon their defensive arjnour, unless they were 
 hemmed in by the locality. Sometimes a part 
 of the army was posted in ambush, but this 
 manoeuvre was most commonly practised against 
 the garrisons of cities (Josh. viii. 12; Judg. xx. 
 38). In the case of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 15), 
 when he led a small body of his own people, 
 suddenly collected, and falling upon the guard 
 of the captives, released them, and recovered 
 
WASHING OF FEET. 
 
 WASHING OF FEET. 
 
 996 
 
 the booty, it was a surprise, not an ambush ; 
 nor is it necessary to suppose that he fell in with 
 the main army of the enemy. At a later period 
 there is no doubt the Hebrews formed their ar- 
 mies, in imitation of the Romans, into more than 
 one line of masses, and modelled their military in- 
 stitutions as near as possible upon the same system. 
 
 Such were the instruments and the institutions 
 of war, which the Hebrew people, as well as the 
 nations which surrounded them, apjiear to have 
 adopted ; but in the conquest of the promised 
 land, as regarded their enemies, the laws of war 
 prescribed to them were, for purposes which we 
 cannot now fully appreciate, more severe than in 
 other cases. All the nations of antiquity were 
 cruel to the vanquished, perhaps the Romans 
 most of all : even the Egyptians, in the sculptures 
 of their monuments, attest the same disposition — 
 the males being very generally slaughtered, and 
 the women and children sold for slaves. With 
 regard to the spoil, except in the special case 
 just referred to, the Hebrews divided it in part 
 with those who remained at home, and with the 
 Levites, and a portion was set apart as an obla- 
 tion to the Lord (Num. xxxi. 50). This right 
 of spoil and prey was a necessary consequence 
 cf military institutions where the army received 
 
 no pay. shalal, that is, the armour, clothes, 
 
 money, and furniture, and fTlppD malkoch, prey, 
 consisting of the captives and live stock, were 
 collected into one general mass, and then distri- 
 buted as stated above; or, in the time of the 
 kings, were shared in great part by the crown, 
 which then, no doubt, took care to subsist the 
 army and grant military rewards. [Arms ; 
 Armour; Encampment; Engines; Forti- 
 fications; Standards.] — C. H. S. 
 
 WARS OF THE LORD. [Scripture.] 
 
 WASHING. [Abi.ution.] 
 
 WASHING OF FEET. The custom of 
 washing the feet held, in ancient times, a place 
 among the duties of hospitality, being regarded 
 as a mark of respect to the guest, and a token of 
 humble and affectionate attention on the part of 
 the entertainer. It had its origin in circumstances 
 for the most part peculiar to the East. 
 
 In general, in warm Oriental climes, cleanliness 
 is of the highest consequence, particularly as a 
 safeguard against the leprosy. The East knows 
 nothing of the factitious distinctions which prevail 
 in these (countries between sanatory regulations 
 and religious duties ; but the one, as much as the 
 other, is considered a part of that great system of 
 obligations under which man lies towards God. 
 What, therefore, the health demands, religion is 
 at hand to sanction. Cleanliness is in conse- 
 quence not next to godliness, but a part of godli- 
 ness itself. 
 
 As in this Oriental view may be found the 
 origin and reason of much of what the Mosaic 
 law lays dowu touching clean and unclean, so 
 the practice of feet-washing in particular, which 
 considerations of purify and personal propriety 
 recommended, hospitality adopted and religion 
 sanctioned. 
 
 In temperate climes bathing is far too much 
 neglected*; but in the East the heat of the atmos- 
 phere and the dryness of the soil would render 
 the ablution of the body peculiarly desh \hle, and 
 make feet-washing i o less grateful than alutary 
 
 to the weary traveller. The foot, too, was Ima 
 protected than with us. In the earliest ages w 
 probably had no covering ; and the sandal worn 
 in later times was little else than the sole of our 
 shoe bound under the foot. Even this defence, 
 however, was ordinarily laid aside on entering a 
 house, in which the inmates were either barefoot 
 or wore nothing but slippers. 
 
 The washing of the feet is among the most 
 ancient, as well as the most obligatory, of the rites 
 of Eastern hospitality. From Gen. xviii. 4, xix. 
 2, it appears to have existed as early as the days 
 of the patriarch Abraham. In Gen. xxiv. 32, also, 
 ‘ Abraham s servant is provided with water to 
 wash his feet, and the men’s feet that were with 
 him. The same custom is mentioned in Judg. 
 xix. 21. From 1 Sam. xxv. 41, it appears that 
 the rite was sometimes performed by servants and 
 sons, as their appropriate duly, regarded as of a 
 humble character. Hence, in addition to its 
 being a token of affectionate regard, it was a sign 
 of humility. 
 
 The most remarkable instance is found in the 
 13th chapter of John’s Gospel, where our Saviour 
 is represented as washing the feet of his disciples, 
 with whom he had take# supper. Minute parti- 
 culars are given in the sacred narrative, which 
 should be carefully studied, as presenting a true 
 Oriental picture. From ver. 12, sq., it is clear 
 that the act was of a symbolical nature; designed 
 to teach, a fortiori , brotherly humility and good- 
 will. If the master had performed for his scholars 
 an act at once so lowly yet so needful, how much 
 more were the disciples themselves bound to con- 
 sider any Christian service whatever as a duty 
 which each was to perform for the other. The 
 principle involved in the particular act is, that 
 love dignifies any service; that all high and proud 
 thoughts are no less unchristian than selfish ; and 
 that the sole ground of honour in the church of 
 Christ is meek, gentle, and self-forgetting bene- 
 volence. 
 
 It was specially customary in the days of our 
 Lord to wash before eating (Matt. xv. 2 ; Luke 
 xi. 38). This was also the practice with the 
 ancient Greeks, as may be seen in Jliad, x. 577. 
 From Martial ( Epig . iii. 50, 3, Deposui soleas), 
 we see it was usual to lay aside the shoes, lest they 
 should soil the linen. The usage is still found 
 among the Orientals (Niebuhr, b. 54; Shaw, p. 
 202). But Jesus did not pay a scrupulous regard 
 to the practice, and hence drew blame upon him- 
 self from the Pharisees (Luke xi. 38). In this 
 our Lord was probably influenced by the supersti- 
 tious abuses and foolish misinterpretations con- 
 nected with washing before meat. For the same 
 reason he may purposely have postponed the act 
 of washing his disciples’ feet till after supper, lest, 
 while he was teaching a new lesson of humility, 
 he might add a sanction to current and baneful 
 errors [Ablution]. 
 
 Vessels of no great value appear to have been 
 ordinarily kept anil appropriated to the purpose. 
 These vessels would gain nothing in estimation 
 from the lowly, if not mean, office for which they 
 were employed. Hence, probably, the explanation 
 of Ps. lx. 8, { Moab is my wash-pot.’ Slaves, 
 moreover, were commonly employed in washing 
 the feet of guests. The passage, then, in effect 
 declares the Moabites to be the meanest of God’s 
 instruments. 
 
WATCH. 
 
 WATER. 
 
 as* 
 
 The upion of affectionate attention and lowly 
 service is found indicated by feet-washing in 
 1 Tim. v. 10, where, among the signs of the 
 widows that were to be honoured — supported, that 
 is, at the expense of the church— this is given, if 
 any one ‘ have washed the saints’ feet.’ 
 
 Feet-washing (pedilavium) became, as might 
 be expected, a part of the observances practised in 
 the early Christian church. The real signification, 
 however, was soon forgotten, or overloaded by su- 
 perstitious feelings and mere outward practices. 
 Traces of the practice abound in ecclesiastical 
 history, and remnants of the abuse are still to be 
 found, at least in the Romish church. The reader, 
 who wishes to see an outline of these, may consult 
 Siegel, Handbuch der ch. Altertkiimer, ii. 156, 
 sq. — J. R. B. 
 
 WATCH, in Hebrew denoting ‘to cut 
 
 into,’ thence ‘ to impress on the mind,’ ‘ to observe/ 
 
 * to watch or the original meaning of which 
 is ‘ to look out,’ thence ‘ to watch •/ as in English) 
 
 ‘ to keep a look out/ is a nautical phrase for ‘ to 
 watch.’ Watching must have been coeval with 
 danger, and danger arose as soon as man became 
 the enemy of man, or had to guard against the 
 attacks of wild animals. Accordingly we find 
 traces of the practice of watching in early portions 
 of the Hebrew annals. Watching must have 
 been carried to some degree of completeness in 
 Egypt, for we learn from Exod. xiv. 24, that the 
 practice had, at the time of the Exodus, caused 
 the night to be divided into different watches or 
 portions, mention being made of the ‘ morning 
 watch.’ ^Compare 1 Sam. xi. 11. In the days 
 of the Judges (vii. 19) we find ‘the middle 
 watch ’ mentioned. See Luke xii. 38. At a later 
 period Isaiah plainly intimates (xxi. 5, 6), that 
 there was a watch-tower in Jerusalem, and that 
 it was customary on extraordinary occasions to 
 set a* watchman. Watchmen were, however, 
 even at an earlier day, customarily employed in 
 the metropolis, and their post was at the gates 
 (2 Sam. xviii. 24> sq. ; 2 Kings ix. 17, sq. ; 
 Ps. cxxvii. 1; Prov. viii. 34), where they gave 
 signals and information, either by their voice or 
 with the aid of a trumpet (Jer. vi. 17 ; Ezek. 
 xxxiii. 6). At night watchmen were accustomed 
 to perambulate the city (Cant. iii. 3 ; v. 7). In 
 the New Testament we find mentiou made of the 
 second, the third, and the fourth watch (Luke 
 xii. 38; Matt. xiv. 25). The space of the na- 
 tural night, from the setting to the rising of the 
 sun, the ancient Jews divided into three equal 
 parts of four hours each. But the Romans, imi- 
 tating the Greeks, divided the night into four 
 watches ( vigiliae ), and the Jews, from the time 
 they came under subjection to the Romans, 
 following this Roman custom, also divided the 
 night into four watches, each of which consisted of 
 three hours: these four periods Mark (xiii. 35) 
 has distinguished by the terms 6 \pe, /lecoviKTiov, 
 akefcrpocpuvia, wpwf (Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud; Fis- 
 cherus, Prolus. de Vitiis Lex. N. Test .). The 
 
 terms by which the old Hebrew division of the 
 night was characterized are, 1. the first watch, 
 ITnO^N, beginning of the watches (Lam. 
 ii. 19); 2. ‘the middle watch/ rU’DTin miDE*K 
 (Judg. vii. 19); 3. ‘the morning watch/ 
 
 (Deut. xiv. 24; 1 Sam. xi. 11). The 
 
 first extended from sun-set to our ten o’clock, the 
 second from ten at night till two in tne .morn- 
 ing, and the third from that hour till sun-rise 
 (Ideler, Chronol. i. 486).— J. R. B. 
 
 WATER. No one can read far in the sacred 
 Scriptures without being reminded of the vast 
 importance of water to the Hebrews in Palestine, 
 and indeed in every country to which their 
 history introduces us ; and more particularly in 
 the deserts in which they wandered on leaving 
 Egypt, as well as those into which they before or 
 afterwards sent their flocks for pasture. A subject 
 of such importance necessarily, therefore, claims 
 considerable attention in a Biblical Cyclopaedia. 
 The natural waters have already been disposed 
 of in the articles Palestine and River ; and in 
 Cistern and Jerusalem notice has been taken 
 of some artificial collections. It now remains to 
 complete the subject, under the present head, by 
 the addition of such details as may not have 
 been comprehended under the articles referred to. 
 
 It has been shown that the absence of small 
 rivers, through the want of rain in summer, renders 
 the people of the settled country, as well as of the 
 deserts, entirely dependent upon the water derived 
 from wells, and that preserved in cisterns and 
 reservoirs, during the summer and autumn ; and 
 gives an importance unknown in our humid cli- 
 mate to the limited supply thus secured. 
 
 With respect to reservoirs, the articles to which 
 reference has been made, will supply all the in- 
 formation necessary, except that we may avail 
 ourselves of this opportunity of noticing the so- 
 called Pools of Solomon, near Bethlehem, which 
 being supplied from fountains, furnish some cha- 
 racteristics which distinguish them from cisterns, 
 and deserve attention as ancient works of pro- 
 bably Hebrew art. The tradition which ascribes 
 them to Solomon seems to be founded on the 
 passage in which the writer of Ecclesiastes (usu- 
 ally supposed to be Solomon) speaks of his un- 
 dertakings: ‘ I made me gardens and orchards, 
 and I planted in them trees of all kinds of fruits ; 
 I made me pools of zcater , to water therewith 
 the wood that bringeth forth trees’ (Eccles. ii. 
 5, 6). To these allusion is also supposed to be 
 made in Canticles (iv. 12): ‘ A garden en- 
 closed is my sister, my spouse ; a spring shut up, 
 a fountain sealed.’ In short we have here a 
 small secluded valley, obviously the site of an 
 ancient garden, with reservoirs of water supplied 
 by a ‘ shut up’ fountain. Hence the valley itself 
 goes among old travellers by the name of Hortus 
 Conclusus. It is also conceived to be the spot 
 mentioned by Josephus, who says: ‘There was 
 about fifty furlongs from Jerusalem a certain 
 place called Etham, very pleasant in fine gardens, 
 and abounding in rivulets of water, whither Solo- 
 mon was wont to go forth in the morning, sitting 
 on high in his chariot’ ( Antiq . 8. 7). Maundrell 
 (p. 86) thinks that the pools were very probably 
 made by Solomon ; but ‘ for the gardens/ he says, 
 ‘ one may safely affirm that if Solomon made them 
 in the rocky ground which is now assigned for 
 them/he demonstrated greater power and wealth 
 in finishing his design, than he did wisdom in 
 choosing the place for it.’ But Hasselquist (p. 
 145), a better judge, says: ‘The place will well 
 admit that Solomon might have formed a garden 
 here, though it is not by nature an agreeable situ- 
 ation, being in a bottom ; but perhaps this great 
 
WATER. 
 
 WATER. 
 
 138 
 
 prince might choose to improve nature by art, as 
 many other potentates have done.’ The fact is, 
 that a valley kept always verdant by the singular 
 abundance of water, afforded peculiar advantages 
 in this country for a pleasure-ground. Mariti re- 
 marks ( Voyage , ii. 388) : ‘Nature has still pre- 
 served its original fertility to the valley of IJortus 
 C'cnclusus. Although but little cultivated, the soil 
 still produces a tolerable quantity of cotton and 
 various kinds of grain. There are % also seen tine 
 plantations of fruit-trees, affording the most 
 juicy fruits of the country. Various (lowers and 
 many fragrant plants grow there naturally at 
 all seasons, among which are thyme, rosemary, 
 marjoram, sage,' absinthium, persil, rue, ranun- 
 culuses, and anemones.’ De Breves ( Voyage , p. 
 ISO) long bore similar testimony, though he was 
 there in the very unfavourable month of July ; he 
 describes the valley as ‘ always green,’ and, besides 
 the plants just named, cultivated by nature’s 
 own kindly hand, he adds oranges, citrons, and 
 pomegranates to the fruits which grow there. 
 Zuallart ( Voyage , iv. 3) says that several species 
 of rare plants were found in the valley, and 
 seems to insinuate the probability that they had 
 been propagated from exotic plants which Solo- 
 mon introduced into his gardens. 
 
 Of the pools a very good description is given 
 by Dr. Wilde ( Narrative , ii. 420) : ‘At the ex- 
 tremity of the valley we arrived at three enor- 
 mous tanks, sunk in the side of a sloping ground, 
 and which from time immemorial have been 
 considered to be the workmanship of Solomon ; 
 and certainly they are well worthy the man to 
 whom tradition has assigned their construction. 
 These reservoirs are each upon a distinct level, 
 one above the other, an^l are capable of holding 
 an immense body of water. They are so con- 
 structed, both by conduits leading directly from 
 one another, and by what may be termed anas- 
 tamosing branches, that when the water in the 
 upper one has reached to a certain height, the 
 surplus flows off into the one below it, and so on 
 into the third. These passages were obstructed 
 and the whole of the cisterns were out of repair 
 when we visited them, so that, there was hardly 
 any water in the lowest, while the upper one was 
 nearly full of good pure water. Small aqueducts 
 lead from each of these cisterns to a main one 
 that conducts the water to Jerusalem. They are 
 all lined with a thick layer of hard whitish ce- 
 ment, and a flight of steps leads to the bottom of 
 each, similar to some of those in the holy city. 
 "Where the lowest cistern joins the valley of Etham 
 it is formed by an embankment of earth, and has 
 a sluice to draw off the water occasionally. A 
 short distance from the upper pool I descended 
 into a narrow stone chamber, through which the 
 water passes from the neighbouring spring on its 
 course to the cisterns. This likewise has a tra- 
 ditionary tale to tell ; it is said to be the sealed 
 fountain to which allusion is made in the 4th 
 and 5th chapters of the Canticles. From an ex- 
 amination of this place, it appeared to me that 
 several springs empty themselves into these reser- 
 voirs, which are partly cut out of the solid rock, 
 and partly built with masonry. 
 
 ‘ Nigh to the upper part there is a large square 
 castle, apparently of an order of architecture be- 
 longing to the Christian era ; and in all proba- 
 bility so placed to guard these waterworks during 
 
 the period of the hoi'y war, for we know to what 
 extremities some of the early crusaders were re- 
 duced from the different wells being poisoned by 
 the enemy upon their approach to Jerusalem. 
 
 ‘ These fountains having been already de- 
 scribed by Maundrell, Pococke, and others, I 
 shall not dwell longer upon them, except to men- 
 tion two circumstances, that it appears extraordi- 
 nary they have not been adverted to by former 
 travellers ; the first is, their great similarity to the 
 fountains assigned to Solomon at Ras-el-Ain. 
 near Tyre; and the fact of botlf being natural 
 springs, that were pent up so as to raise the water 
 they contained to the level of its final destination. 
 The second is, that these springs were originally 
 collected into one stream, which must then have 
 formed a considerable rivulet, and running 
 through this valley, finally discharged its waters 
 into the Asphaltine lake. 
 
 ‘ On our return to the city we followed the track 
 of the aqueduct as far as Bethlehem, and after- 
 wards crossed it in several places on the road. It 
 is very small, but the water runs in it With con- 
 siderable rapidity, as we could perceive by the 
 open places left in it here and there. From the 
 very tortuous course that this conduit takes in 
 following the different sinuosities of the ground, 
 being sometimes above and sometimes beneath 
 the surface, it is difficult, to persuade oneself 
 that it dees not run up hill, as many have sup- 
 posed. Finally, it crosses over the valley of Re- 
 phaim, on a series of arches, to the north of the 
 lower pool of Gihon, and winding round the 
 southern horn of Zion, is lost to view in the ruins 
 of the city. It very probably supplied the pool 
 of Bethesda, after having traversed a cou®e of c©i- 
 tainly not less than from thirteen to fifteen miles.’ 
 
 To this very clear description we have only to 
 add the measurements of Dr. Robinson ( Bibl , 
 Researches, ii. 165) : — 
 
 Lower Pool. — Length, 582 feet ; breadth at 
 the east end, 207 feet; at the west end, 148 feet; 
 depth at the east end, 50 feet, of which 6 feet 
 water (in the month of May). 
 
 Middle Pool. — Distance above lower pool, 248 
 feet; length, 423 feet; breadth at the east end, 
 250 feet ; at the west end, 160 feet; depth at the 
 east end, 39 feet, of which 14 feet water. 
 
 Upper Pool. — Distance above middle pool, 
 160 feet ; length, 380 feet ; breadth at the east 
 end, 236 feet; at the west end, 229 feet; depth 
 at east end, 25 feet, of which 15 feet water. 
 
 Lord Nugent ( Lands Classical and Sacred t 
 ii. 11) makes the pools a few feet larger each 
 way, but admits that Robinson’s measurement 
 may probably have been more exact than his own. 
 
 With respect to wells, their importance is very 
 great, especially in the desert, where the means 
 of forming them are deficient, as well as the sup- 
 ply of labour necessary for such undertakings, 
 which, after all, are not always rewarded by the 
 discovery of a supply of water. Hence in such 
 situations, and indeed in the settled countries 
 also, the wells are of the utmost value, and the wa- 
 ter in most cases is very frugally used (Num. xx, 
 17-19; Deut. ii. 6, 28 ; Job xxii. 7). It is, how- 
 ever, not merely the value of the well itself, but 
 certain other considerations that explain the con- 
 tests about wells which we find in the histories of 
 Abraham and Isaac (Gen. xxi. 25 31; xxvi. 
 
 1 5-22). Here we see that the people of the country 
 
WATER. 939 
 
 dition. This is the law of the desert; but as its 
 application to the Scriptural questions respecting 
 the property of wells is important, we may be al- 
 lowed to introduce from the Pictorial History oj 
 Palestine (p. 61) a passage bearing strongly or 
 the subject : ‘ Abraham had digged a well near 
 his encampment, and of the use of this the “ ser- 
 vants ” (probably the herdsmen) of Abimelech had 
 violently deprived him. As men seldom act 
 without some reason, or show of reason, which is 
 deemed satisfactory to themselves, it may seem 
 likely that Abimelech’s people doubted the right 
 of Abraham to apply the law of the desert to the 
 common-lands of an appropriated territory, and 
 to claim the exclusive possession of the well he 
 had dug in such a land. If their view had been 
 up, and remains in this state for any length of just, however, it could only have entitled them to 
 time, the property in it lapses to the person or a share of the water, and not have justified them 
 tribe by whom it is restored to a serviceable con- in assuming that exclusive possession which they 
 
 538» [Solomon’s Pools.] 
 
 WATER. 
 
 »tr«nuonsly contested the right of the patriarchs to 
 the wells which they digged, and even went so far 
 as to fill up again (instead of leaving open for 
 their own use) the wells which Abraham had 
 opened. The fact is, however, that, at the present 
 day, to dig a well at a station remote from a sup- 
 ply of water, is the most difficult and arduous 
 operation which the chief of a tribe or clan under- 
 takes; and the benefits of such a work are so highly 
 appreciated, that the property in the well becomes 
 vested in him and in his heirs for ever. While 
 his clan is encamped near if, no persons not be- 
 longing to it can draw water from the well without 
 his leave. This right exists, however, only on the 
 understanding that the well is maintained in good 
 condition; for if it gets out of repair, or is choked 
 
 denied to the party at whose expense the benefit 
 had been secured. But taking into account, some 
 transactions of rather later date, we incline to 
 think that the cause of all the differences about 
 wells which we read of in the history of Abraham 
 and of Isaac, lay deeper than this account sup- 
 poses, and mpst be sought in a country more 
 similarly circumstanced, than the open deserts, to 
 that in which the patriarch was at this time so- 
 journing. The best analogy is offered in Persia. 
 There all waste lands — that is, all lands which are 
 uncultivable from wanting the means of irrigation 
 — are called ‘ God s lands and although the king 
 
 is regarded as the general proprietor of the soil, 
 such lands are free for any uses to which they can 
 be applied ; and whoever procures the means of 
 irrigation becomes the proprietor of the land which 
 he thus renders cultivable. Now, as among the 
 immemorially ancient usages of the East, none 
 
 are move ancient than those which relate to the 
 occupation of land, it is not too much to suppose 
 that a similar usage to this existed in the time of 
 Abraham ; and, if so, it is easy to conclude that 
 the anxiety of the Philistines about the wells dug 
 by Abraham arose from the apprehension that by 
 the formation of such wells he would be understood 
 to create a lien on the lands in which they lay, 
 and would acquire an indefeasible right of occu- 
 pation, or rather of possession ; and it might seem 
 to them inconvenient that so powerful a clan 
 should acquire such a right in the soil of so small 
 a territory as that which belonged to them. Hence 
 their care, when Abraham afterwards left their part 
 of the country, to fill up the wells which he had 
 digged ; and hence, also, the renewed and more 
 bitter strife with Isaac when he, on arriving there, 
 proceeded to clear out those wells and to dig new 
 ones himself. That Isaac also pursued cultiva® 
 
940 
 
 WATER. 
 
 WEASEL. 
 
 tion to some extent in the lauds for which he had 
 thus secured the means of irrigation, is a remark- 
 able corroboration of the view we now take, as he 
 certainly might, in this way, but we know not how 
 he could otherwise acquire such a proprietary 
 right as could alone entitle him to cultivate the 
 soil. 
 
 ‘ Abimelech, in reply to the complaint of Abra- 
 ham respecting the well, declared that the con- 
 duct of his servants had not been sanctioned by 
 him, and that, indeed, this was the first time lie 
 had heard anything of the matter ; and he made 
 no objection to the proposal of Abraham, that the 
 recognition of his (the patriarch’s) right to the well 
 should form a part of the proposed covenant. 
 This proposal, thus represented as the sole matter 
 for which Abraham himself took care to provide 
 in a solemn engagement with the king of the 
 Philistines, is, perhaps, as striking an indication 
 of the supreme importance of water in those 
 Eastern countries as can anywhere be found. Both 
 parties then swore to the covenant, the terms of 
 which have thus been staged ; and as a memorial 
 of the transaction, and in particular of his acknow- 
 ledged right to the well, the patriarch gave it the 
 name of Beer-sheba, the well of the oath. This 
 imposition of commemorative names upon places 
 was the principal of various methods which were 
 resorted to in these earliest ages to perpetuate the 
 memory of events and contracts, in the absence of 
 those written documents which were afterwards 
 found more suitable for such purposes.’ 
 
 It appears in Scripture that the wells were some- 
 times owned by a number of persons in common, 
 and that flocks were brought to them for watering 
 on appointed days, in an order previously arranged. 
 A well was often covered with a great stone, which 
 being removed, the person descended some steps 
 to the surface of the water, and on his return 
 poured into a trough that which he had brought 
 up (Gen. xxiv. 11-15 ; xxix. 3-10; Exod. ii. 16; 
 Judg. v. 11). There is, in fact, no intimation of 
 any other way of drawing water from wells in 
 Scripture. But as this could only be applicable 
 in cases where the well was not deep, we must 
 assume that they had the use of those contrivances 
 which are still employed in the East, and some 
 of which are known from the Egyptian monu- 
 ments to have been very ancient. This conclusion 
 is the more probable as the wells in Palestine are 
 mostly deep (Prov. xx. 5 ; John 1v. 11). Jacob’s 
 well near Shechem is said to be 120 feet deep, with 
 only fifteen feet of water in it (Maundrell, Journey , 
 March 24) ; and the labour of drawing from so deep 
 a well probably originated the first r eluctance of 
 the woman of Samaria to draw water for Jesus : 
 ‘Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well 
 is deep.’ From this deeper kind of well the water 
 M drawn by hand in a leathern bucket not too 
 
 heavy, sometimes by a windlass, but oftener, 
 when the water is only of moderate depth, by the 
 shadoof which is the most common and simple 
 of all the machines used in the East for raising 
 water, whether from wells, reservoirs, or rivers. 
 This consists of a tapering lever unequally balanced 
 upon an upright body variously constructed, and 
 from the smaller end of which is suspended the 
 bucket by a rope. This when lowered into the 
 well, is raised full of water by the weight of the 
 heavier end. By this contrivance the manual 
 power is applied in lowering the bucket into the 
 well, for it rises easily, and it is only necessary to 
 regulate the ascent. This machine is in use under 
 slight modifications from the Baltic to the Yellow 
 Sea, and was so from the most remote ages to the 
 present day. The specimen in the annexed wood- 
 cut occurs in the neighbourhood of Jaffa. The 
 water of wells, as well as of fountains, was by the 
 Hebrews called ‘living water,’ translated ‘ running 
 water,’ and was highly esteemed (Lev. xiv. 5 ; 
 Num. xix. 17). It was thus distinguished from 
 water preserved in cisterns and reservoirs. 
 WEAPONS. [Arms.] 
 
 WEASEL (“I^'n choled ). Although, under the 
 head Mole, we have given choled as its He- 
 brew synonyme, yet such is the vagueness of 
 Oriental denominations, and the necessity of no- 
 ticing certain species which, from their importance, 
 cannot well be supposed to have been altogether 
 disregarded in the Bible, that in this place a few 
 words descriptive of the species of Viverridce and 
 Mustelidce , known to reside in and near Pales- 
 tine, and supposed to be collectively designated 
 by the term tzigim, may not be irrelevant. 
 They appear, both anciently and among our- 
 selves, collected into a kind of group, under an 
 impression that they belong to the feline family ; 
 nencewe, like the ancients, still use the words civet- 
 cat, tree-cat, pole-cat, &c. ; and, in reality, a consi- 
 derable number of the species have partially retrac- 
 tile claws, the pupils of the eyes being contractile 
 like those of cats, of which they even bear the 
 spotted and streaked liveries. All sucli naturally 
 have arboreal habits, and from their low lengthy 
 forms are no less disposed to burrow ; but many 
 of them, chiefly in other hemispheres, are excellent 
 swimmers. One of these species, allied to, if not 
 the same as, yenetta harbara, is the Thela JElan, 
 by Bochart described as having ‘ various colours, 
 and as being spotted like a paid. In Syria it is 
 called sephka, in Arabia zebzeb , and lives by 
 hunting birds and sbaphans. There are besides, 
 in the same region, the nimse, ferret or pole- 
 cat ( putorius vulgaris ), for ihese two are not 
 specifically distinct; fert-el-heile, the weasel 
 ( mustela vulgaris Africana'), differing from ours 
 chiefly in its superior size and darker colours. 
 A paradoxurtis, identical with or nearly allied to 
 P. typus , occurs in Arabia; for it seems ihese 
 tdrimals are found wherever there are palmifera\ 
 the date-palm in particular being a favourite resi- 
 dence of the species. Two or three varieties, or 
 perhaps species, of nems occur in Egypt solely ; 
 for the name is again generical in the Arabian 
 dialects, and denotes the ichneumon. Arabia 
 Proper has several other animals, not clearly 
 distinguished, though belonging to the families 
 here noticed ; but whiih of these are the su w- 
 giab and the simur , or the alphanex of Iba 
 
WEAVING. 
 
 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 94i 
 
 Qmar-ben- Abdulbar, quoted by Bochart, is un- 
 determined; albeit they evidently belong to the 
 
 540. [Paradoxiirus Tvpus — the Palm-Martin.] 
 
 tribes of vermin mammals of that region, ex- 
 cepting as regards the last mentioned, now known 
 to be a kind of miniature fox {megalot is zerda, 
 Ham. Smith), or fennec of Bruce, who never- 
 theless confounded it with paradoxiirus typus , 
 
 ! cr an allied species which equally frequents palm- 
 trees; but ihe fennec does not climb. It is equally 
 impossible to point out the cats, tree-cats, and 
 j civet-cats noticed by the poet Nemesianus, who 
 was of African birth ; or by the Arabian Damir, 
 who makes no further distinctive mention of them 
 [Cat].— C. H. S. 
 
 WEAVING is too necessary an art not to have 
 existed in the early periods of the world. It ap- 
 pears, indeed, to have in all nations come into 
 existence with the first dawnings of civilization. 
 
 | The Egyptians had, as might be expected, already 
 made considerable progress therein when the 
 Israelites tarried amongst them ; and in this, as well 
 as in many other of the arts of life, they became 
 the instructors of that people. Textures of cotton 
 and of flax were woven by them ; whence we fead 
 of the ‘ vestures of fine linen ’ with which Pharaoh 
 arrayed Joseph (Gen. xli. 42 ) ; terms which show 
 that the art of fabricating cloth had been success- 
 fully cultivated. Indeed Egypt was celebrated 
 among the Hebrews for its manufacturing skill. 
 Thus Isaiah (xix. 9 ) speaks of ‘ them that work 
 in fine flax, and them that weave net-works.’ That 
 these fabrics displayed taste as well as skill, may 
 be inferred from Ezekiel xxvii. 7, ‘ Fine linen 
 with broidered work from Egypt.’ So in Prov. 
 vii. 16, ‘ I have decked my couch with coverings 
 of tapestry, with fine linen of Egypt.’ If, how- 
 ever, the Hebrews learnt the art of weaving in 
 Egypt, they appear to have made progress therein 
 from their own resources, even before they entered 
 Palestine ; for having before them the prospect of 
 a national establishment in that land, they would 
 naturally turn their attention to the arts of life, 
 and had leisure, as well as occasion, during their 
 sojourn of forty years in the wilderness, for prac- 
 tising those arts ; and certainly we cannot but un- 
 derstand the words of Moses to imply that the 
 skill spoken of in Exod. xxxv. 30, sq., came from 
 a Hebrew, and not a foreign impulse. Among the 
 Israelites, weaving, together with spinning, was 
 for the most part in the hands of females (Prov. 
 xxxi. 13, 19) ; nor did persons of rank and dis- 
 tinction consider the occupation mean (Exod. 
 xxxv. 25 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 7). But as in Egypt 
 
 males exclusively, so in Palestine men conjointly 
 with women, wove (Exod. xxxv. 35). From I 
 Chron. iv. 21, it may be inferred, that there 
 were in Israel a class of master-manufacturers. 
 The loom, as was generally the case in the an- 
 cient world, was high, requiring the weaver to 
 stand at his employment. 
 
 Connected with the loom, are 1. the shut- 
 tle (Job vii. 6) ; 2. “IT7D, the weaver’s 
 
 beam (1 Sam. xvii. 7; 2 Sam. xxi. 19); 3. 
 
 ‘UV, a weaver’s pin (Judg. xvi. 14). The 
 degree of skill to which the Hebrews attained, it 
 is difficult to measure; probably, as Egypt and 
 Babylon already supplied the finer specimens of 
 workmanship, the Hebrews would content them- 
 selves with a secondary degree of excellence; but 
 many passages conduce to prove that art preside d 
 over their weaving, as well as that the employ- 
 ment was very common (Lev. xiii. 48 ) ; Judg. 
 xvi. 13; Isa. xxxviii. 12). The stuffs which they 
 wove were of linen, flax, and wool. Among the 
 latter must be reckoned those of camels’ and 
 goats’ hair, which were used by the poor for 
 clothing, and for mourning (Exod. xxvi. 7 ; 
 xxxv. 6 ; Matt. iii. 4 ). Garments woven in one 
 piece throughout so as to need no making, were 
 held in high repute: whence the Jews have a 
 tradition, that no needle was employed on the 
 clothing of the high- priest, each piece of which 
 was of one continued texture. This notion throws 
 light on the language used by John xix. 23 — 
 
 ‘ the coat was without seam,’ — words that are ex- 
 plained by those which follow, and which Wet- 
 stein regards as a gloss — ‘ woven from the top 
 throughout.’ This seamless coat, x'rwr appaipos, 
 which has lately given occasion to the great re- 
 ligious reformatory movement begun by the 
 priest Ronge, would seem to indicate that our 
 Lord, knowing that his time was now come, had 
 arrayed himself in vestments suitable to the dig 
 nity of his Messianic office. — J. R. B. 
 
 WEDDING. [Marriage.] 
 
 WEEK. [Sabbath.] 
 
 WEEKS, FEAST OF. [Pentecost.] 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. This k a 
 subject on which our knowledge is by no means 
 complete and satisfactory. The notices respect- 
 ing it which the Bible supplies are fragmentary 
 and scattered; and though the Jewish authorities 
 and Josephus afford us useful aids, and though the 
 topic has received full and very careful investi- 
 gation, still difficulties remain, and there are 
 points on which we must be content either with 
 probable conjecture, or an approximation to the 
 truth. 
 
 So long, indeed, as the subject was insulated 
 from its natural connections, and Hebrew weights 
 and measures were studied apart from those of 
 other ancient nations, the difficulty and uncer- 
 tainty might well be considerable. Of late, how- 
 ever, a juster method of treatment has been origi- 
 nated in Germany. The Roman measures came 
 from Greece, the Grecian from Phoenicia, the 
 Phoenician from Babylon. Accordingly each 
 system will throw light on the other, and all may 
 be made to contribute something to the elucida- 
 tion of the Hebrew weights and measures. This 
 method of viewing the subject, and the satisfactory 
 lessons which have been hence deduced, are to be 
 ascribed to Bockh ( Metrologischen TJntersuch%m • 
 
912 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 
 
 gen , Berlin, 1S3S), who, availing himself of the 
 results ascertained by English, French, and 
 German scholars, and of the peculiar facilities 
 afforded by a residence in the midst of the pro- 
 found and varied erudition of the Prussian capital, 
 has succeeded, by the application of his unwearied 
 industry and superior endowments, in showing 
 that tine system of weights and measures of Baby- 
 lon, Egypt, Palestine, Phoenicia, Greece, Sicily, 
 and Italy, formed one great whole, with the most 
 intimate relationships and connections. Our 
 limited space permits only a very brief notice of 
 the results which the inquiries of Bockh and his 
 school seem to have ascertained. We will first 
 advert to the names of the Hebrew weights or 
 coins. 1. “133 is derived from a root signifying 
 round,’ so that the word denotes a circular-shaped 
 mass of metal. Thus, etymologically, it may be 
 rendered ‘ the circle.’ In 2 Kings v. 22 it is 
 translated 1 talent;’ the more exact determina- 
 tion of its import is fixed by the addition of an- 
 other noun, as ‘talent of silver’ (2 Kings v. 22, 
 23), and ‘talent of gold ’ (1 Kings ix. 14). 2. 
 
 PDD is a word of Shomitic origin, the Greek gva. 
 It occurs in the Coptic New Testament in the 
 forms amna and enina. In 1 Kings (x. 17) it is 
 rendered ‘ pound.’ 3. weight in the ab- 
 
 stract, the usual weight among not only the 
 Hebrews, but the Persians also — <t'lk\os. It varies 
 in its import, .and is rendered shekel by our trans- 
 lators, who have thus merely preserved the ori- 
 ginal word. 4. Vp3, ‘a bekah ’ (Exod. xxxviii. 
 26), is from a root which signifies * to divide ;’ hence 
 a moiety or half, ‘half a shekel ’ (Gen. xxiv. 22). 
 The word in this application is found only in the 
 Pentateuch. 5. m3, properly a grain, or, in par- 
 ticular, the bean, or St. John’s bread, carob ; 
 hence, the smallest weight. The word is retained 
 in the English translation; thus in Exod. xxx. 12, 
 ‘ a shekel is twenty gerahs.’ It is obvious that no 
 determinate and satisfactory unit in a system of 
 weights can be gained from a changeable object 
 like a grain. This difficulty, however, is not 
 peculiar to tke Hebrews. We have our grains, 
 and the Greeks had their oboli. 
 
 In order to determine the relations which the 
 “133, talent, bore to the smaller weights and coins, 
 we may have recourse to those passages which 
 speak of the formation of the sanctuary. Ac- 
 cording to Exod. xxx. 13, every Israelite above 
 twenty years of age had to pay the poll-tax of 
 half a shekel as a contribution to the sanctuary. 
 Exod. xxxviii. 26, tells us that this tax had to be 
 paid by 603,550 men. The sum amounted to 
 100 talents and 1775 sacred shekels (Exod. 
 xxxviii. 25), which are equal to 603,550 half, or 
 301,775 sacred shekels. Accordingly the talent 
 contained 3000 sacred shekels ; for by deducting 
 from 301,775 shekels 
 1,775 shekels 
 
 we ge,t 300,000 shekels 
 
 to be divided among 100 talents, making each 
 talent/equal to 3000 sacred shekels. 
 
 The value of the sacred shekel in regard to the 
 gerah is determined by Exod. xxx. 13 ; Lev. 
 xxvii. 25; Num. iii. 47; Ezek. xlv. 20, to be 
 twenty gerahs ; the half-shekel, bekah, is equal to 
 ten gerahs. 
 
 The determination of the relative value of the 
 
 maneh is not easy, for it depends on a passage 
 which in the Hebrew cannot be understood (Ezek, 
 xlv. 12), ‘Twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, 
 fifteen shekels shall be your maneh,’ but which 
 in the Septuagint {Cod. Alex.) seems to state that 
 a maneh was equal to fifty sacred shekels. Thus 
 there ensues this table : — 
 
 Kikkar 1 
 Maneh 60 
 Shekel 3000 
 Bekah 6000 
 Gerah 60,000 
 
 1 
 
 50 1 
 
 100 2 
 
 1000 20 
 
 1 
 
 10 1 
 
 The use of the precious metals as a medium of 
 exchange in commerce, dates back at a very early 
 period of history. A common, recognised, and i 
 invariable standard of value, by means of which i 
 goods, instead of being exchanged iri barter, might 
 be bought and sold, is indispensable in any but a 
 primitive state of trade. Accordingly Abraham J 
 buys a field by the intervention of silver. But 
 this silver or gold must have an acknowledged 
 value, else it cannot answer its purposes ; there 
 must also be a means of ascertaining easily that 
 the professed and ostensible is the real value of 
 any particular portion. Hence coins which bear 
 ‘ the image and superscription of Caesar,’ or some 
 token to assure traders that the piece of money is 
 right, both in quality and in quantity. In early 
 periods these tokens would obviously be imperfect. 
 
 The quantity was ascertained by weight, the 
 quality by inspection. If now we inquire how 
 soon the Hebrews possessed money of a fixed value, 
 we find Abraham himself buying a field for ‘ four 
 hundred shekels of silver current with the mer- 2 
 chant,’ which value was ascertained by weight. ‘ 
 Here the shekel is a recognised ordinary unit. 
 This, at least, is clear. The passage may also 
 imply that the purchase money was paid, not in 
 silver bars, but in silver pieces, shekels ; the 
 weighing being intended to ascertain that the 
 shekels were of the proper value, which was not 
 guaranteed by the fixed and invariable characters 
 of a coin. If we pass on to the time of Moses, we 
 find pieces of money of a fixed and recognised 
 value in circulation among the Israelites, and are 
 led to see that the amount of the circulating me- 
 dium must have been very considerable. In the 
 historical and prophetic writings of a later period 
 mention is made of the shekel and of other pieces 
 of money, so that their use in commerce before 
 the Babylonish captivity is placed beyond a 
 doubt. To term these pieces of money coin 
 might be to mislead,* since the word coin refers 
 the mind to the operations of a government mint; 
 but it is clear that as pieces of money of a fixed 
 and. recognised value they must have been of a 
 certain size, and borne some distinctive marks. 
 Hence the only difference between those pieces of 
 money and coin lies irt the quarter whence they 
 came — private or public, — and in the sanction 
 and authority winch tlrey accordingly carried 
 with them. The Talmud refers coin, strictly str 
 cajled, to the ante-exilian period. What the cir- 
 culating medium among the Hebrews was made 
 up of, may be inferred from what has gone before : 
 there was the shekel ; also the sacred shekel, if 
 this latter is to be distinguished from the former; 
 then the half-shekel, or bekah, which may be a 
 name for the ordinary shekel ; there was also a 
 quarter-shekel, ‘the fourth part of a shekel of 
 
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 943 
 
 silver’ (1 Sam. ix. 8); and, finally, the smallest 
 silver coin, namely the gerali. From the passage 
 m Samuel just cited it appears clear that those 
 pieces of money were used in the ordinary com- 
 nerce of life, and we have previously seen that 
 money was demanded in the service of religion. 
 In 1 Sam. ii. 36, a word occurs (miStf) dis- 
 guised in the English Version, under the phrase 
 ‘a piece of silver,’ which may have been the 
 current name for the coin that, from its weight, 
 was called a gerah. It is thus evident that there 
 prevailed among the Hebrews at an early period, 
 a very considerable and much employed metallic 
 circulating medium. 
 
 Of these corns the shekel is worth twenty gerahs ; 
 but there are three shekels mentioned in the Old 
 Testament — the ordinary shekel, the shekel of the 
 sanctuary (Exod. xxx. 13), and the shekel after the 
 king’s weight (2 Sam. xiv. 26). Are these three 
 different kinds? or are they different descriptions 
 for the same coin ? — thus, is the first, shekel, the 
 common name? the second, sacred shekel, the 
 coin according to the ecclesiastical standard? the 
 ihird, king’s shekel, the same according to the 
 regal standard, the function having passed from 
 the priests to the monarch ? No satisfactory 
 answer to these questions presents itself, and our 
 <pace forbids more discussion. 
 
 But how are we to gain a unit for estimating 
 the worth of the ante-exilian coins, of which not 
 one has come down to us ? Let us notice one or 
 two facts connected with the Jewish post-exilian 
 coins. During the exile the Israelites became 
 intimately acquainted .with the money-system 
 which prevailed in Babylon. After their return 
 home, and during the Persian dominion, we find 
 mention made of a Persian coin, UDDTl, the 
 darick (Ezra ii. 69 ; viii. 27 ; Neh. vii. 70), which 
 is Englished by ‘drachm/ in the Greek Spax P-'f]- 
 The coin was so named after Darius, son of Hys- 
 taspes. These coins were made according to a 
 foot, which was nearly the same as the Attic, and 
 the standard weight of each was 1644 Parisian 
 grains. In the Greek period, under the Ptole- 
 mies and Seleucidae, the Jews used the coins of 
 these princes (1 Macc. xv. 5, 6); but when they 
 gained a short national independence under the 
 Maccabees, they coined many of their own, as, for 
 instance, in the first year of Simon Maccabseus. 
 Coins of Simon and his followers are in existence, 
 and have been carefully studied. Confining our 
 remarks to the coins of Simon Maccabaeus, we 
 mention the following ascertained facts : they 
 bear the old Hebrew or Samaritan characters, 
 and not the square letter of the modern Hebrew, 
 which is derived from the former under the in- 
 fluence of tachygraphy and calligraphy. These 
 coins are exclusively of silver. The shekels and 
 half-shekels belong to the first and second years of 
 Simon’s reign. Doubts prevail as to the genuine- 
 ness of the coins bearing date the third and fourth 
 years of his rule, but the shekels of his third year 
 are admitted to be genuine. The coins of the first 
 
 year bear the inscription H&Hp ‘Holy 
 
 Jerusalem.’ The weight of the shekel varies some- 
 what. The heaviest weighs 271-| Parisian grains; 
 tne greater part from 266 to 268 Parisian grains. 
 The standard may approximate vely be taken at.274 
 Parisian grains, to which Bockh is led by com- 
 parison with other systems. Here, then, we have 
 
 the weight of the shekel ; tl lough we cannot say 
 with certainty thac it remained the same in every 
 period of the earlier history, yet this becomes very 
 probable when the retentiveness of customs which 
 characterizes the East is taken into account. Be- 
 sides, the change introduced by the Maccabees 
 was a restoration of the old constitution under in- 
 fluences which would cause the past to be rigidly 
 reproduced. The shekel in the Pentateuch and 
 Ezekiel is found equal to twenty gerahs. What 
 shekel? The inscription ‘ Holy Jerusalem’ makes 
 it likely that it was the sacred shekel. We thus, 
 then, arrive at these conclusions : — 
 
 Gerah 
 
 Bekah, or common 
 shekel 
 
 Sacred shekel 
 
 Maneh 
 
 Talent 
 
 3 3 
 3 3 
 3 3 
 
 13*7 Par. grains. 
 
 137 
 
 274 
 
 13,700 , , 
 
 822,000 ,, 
 
 These conclusions find corroboration by being 
 compared with the weig-hts of other Eastern na- 
 tions, and the whole inquiry authorizes the in- 
 ference that one general system prevailed in the 
 more civilized nations, being propagated from the 
 East, from an early period of history. 
 
 In the New Testament (Matt. xvii. 24) the 
 Temple-tax is a didrachm ; from other sources we 
 know that this e tribute’ was half a shekel ; and in 
 verse 27 the stater is payment of this tax for two 
 persons. Now the stater — a very common silver 
 Attic coin, the tetradrachm — weighed 328’8 Pa- 
 risian grains : thus not considerably surpassing 
 the sacred shekel (274 Parisian grains). Are we, 
 then, to hold the stater of the New Testament for 
 an Attic tetradrachm ? If so, its agreement with 
 the sacred shekel is striking. There is reason in 
 the passage of Matthew and in early writers for 
 regarding the two as the same. And the Attic 
 tetradrachm sank from its original weight of 328'8 
 to 308 and 304. This approximation must have 
 gone on increasing, for under the empire a 
 drachm was equal to a Roman denarius, which 
 ,jn the time of Tiberius weighed 69’8 Parisian 
 grains. Four denarii were equal to 279 Parisian 
 grains; so that, if the denarius is regarded as an 
 Attic drachm, the sacred shekel may be correctly 
 termed a tetradrachm. With this Josephus agrees 
 ( Antiq . iii. 8. 2), who says that the shekel (crncAos), 
 a Hebrew coin, contains four Attic drachms. 
 
 Names of measures of length are for the most 
 part taken from members of the human body, 
 which offered themselves, so to say, naturally for 
 the purpose, and have generally been used in 
 all times and places in instances where minute 
 accuracy was not demanded. And though, 
 within certain limits, these measures have ap- 
 proached to sameness — for the human foot, to 
 take it as an example, may have been slightly 
 over or somewhat under twelve inches, while it 
 never in any generation extended to twenty-four 
 inches — yet was there scope also for considerable 
 latitude and diversity, and nothing like a system 
 of normal measures can hence be gained, unless 
 means are found for determining the average 
 length of any one of these measures, or for fixing 
 the length which it waswntended to represent. 
 
 At the basis of the Hebrew system of measures 
 of length lies HEX, cubit, the fore arm, or the 
 distance from the point of the elbow to the tip of 
 the third finger. This is a word supplied by zxt 
 
944 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 Hebrew root, but derived from the Egyptian 
 Mahe, signifying ‘ cubit,’ which, with the same 
 meaning, is found in the Coptic in the form Mahi, 
 and with the prefix, Ammahi. 
 
 A longer measure, applied in measuring build- 
 ings, was the i“Op (Ezek. xli. 8; Apoc. xxi. 15), 
 rendered in the common version * reed,’ more pro- 
 perly ‘rod.' In Judg. iii. 16, Ehud’s sword (not 
 ‘ dagger’) is said to have been in length TDJ. 
 As he wore this weapon under his mantle, the 
 length of this measure may be approximatively 
 conjectured. 
 
 Smaller measures of length were, 1. JV1T, from a 
 root meaning to expand (the hand), heuce a 
 ‘ span.’ This word is found in the Egyptian, which 
 seems to have borrowed it from the Shemitic. 
 2. nSD, the breadth of the hand (1 Kings vii. 26 ; 
 Exod. xxv. 25). 3. the finger (Jerem. 
 
 Iii. 21), the denomination of the smallest measure 
 of length. Thus we have the breadth of the 
 finger, of the hand, of the span — the length from 
 the tip of the little fiuger to the point of the 
 thumb, — and the cubit. 
 
 In order to ascertain the length of these, we 
 take the cubit as our standard. The longer 
 measure, reed or rod, consists, in Ezek. xli. 8, of 
 six great cubits, that is, of six such cubits as were 
 a hand’s breadth longer than the common cubit 
 (Ezek. xl. 5 ; xliii. 13). The relation of zereth, 
 span ; tepach, hand’s breadth : and ezba, finger, 
 is not given in the Old Testament. By com- 
 paring together Exod. xxv. 10, with Josephus 
 (Antiq. iii. 6. 5), we find the span equal to half a 
 cubit, for the length, which Moses terms two 
 cubits and a half, Josephus designates five spans. 
 The relation of tepach (hand’s breadth) and 
 ezba (finger) to ammah (cubit) appears from 
 their several names and their import in othe^ 
 systems. The hand’s breadth is four fingers ; the 
 span contains three times the breadth of the hand, 
 or twelve fingers. This is the view which the 
 Rabbins uniformly take. We find a similar 
 system among the Greeks, who reckoned in the 
 cubit twenty-four fingers, six hands’ breadths, and 
 two spans. The same was 'the case with the 
 Egyptians. 
 
 But the ammah itself is •‘not a fixed unit, for 
 in Ezekiel we have found a cubit which was a 
 hand’s breadth longer than the common cubit. 
 The subject has been amply discussed, and opi- 
 nions are various [Cubit]. We may conclude 
 that there were two cubits, the sacred of seven, 
 the common of six hands’ breadth ; and thus 
 these two cubits were to each other as seven to 
 six, that is, the sacred cubit held seven hands’ 
 breadths of the ordinary cubit of six hands’ 
 breadth. There is no reason, however, to think 
 that the sacred cubit was divided into seven 
 parts. It was the older, and would be divided 
 according to the duodecimal method which pre- 
 vails in this matter, and accordingly would 
 contain six palms and twenty-four fingers, only 
 that its fingers and palms were greater than those 
 of the ordinary cubit. This is proved by the 
 express statements of the Talmud, according to 
 which the sacred, as well as the common cubit, 
 contained six hands’ breadths. 
 
 As we have no unit of measure given us in the 
 •Scriptures, nor preserved to us in the remains of 
 any Hebrew building, and as neither the Rabbins 
 nor Josephus afford the* information we want. 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 we nave no resource but to apply for information 
 to the measures of length used in other countries. 
 We go to the Egyptians. The longer Egyptian 
 cubit contained about 234*333 Parisian lines, 
 the shorter about 204*8. According to this, the 
 Hebrew measures of length were these: — 
 
 Sacred cubit . 234*333 Parisian lines 
 The span . .117*166 , 
 
 The palm . . 39 • 055 , , 
 
 The finger . . 9-7637 ,, 
 
 Common cubit 204*8 ,, 
 
 The span t . 102*4 ,, 
 
 The palm . . 34*133 ,, 
 
 The .finger . . 8*533 ,, 
 
 The two sets of measures, one for dry, another foi 
 liquid things, rest on the same system, as appears 
 from the equality of the standard for dry goods, 
 namely the ephah, with that for liquids, namely 
 bath. The difference in the names is merely 
 accidental. ")Dn (homer), denoting a heap, is 
 the name for the largest measure of dry goods 
 (Lev. xxvii. 16; Num. xi. 32; Ezek. xlv. 11). 
 In later times the homer was replaced by the 
 cor (Ezek. xlv. 14), which is found among the 
 Hellenists in the form n6pos. In Hosea iii. 2, 
 the *]rb, ‘ half homer,’ is mentioned, which the 
 Seventy render by rj/buSKopos, and the Vulgate 
 by ‘ corus dimidius.’ Another measure is HS'N, 
 which comes from an Egyptian root denoting 4 to 
 measure.’ il^D, found in the Septuagint, the 
 New Testament, and Josephus, under the form 
 aarov, is of uncertain origin. The Seventy trans- 
 late it sometimes by simply perpov, ‘measure’ 
 (Gen. xviii. 6), and the dual form by S I/lktoov 
 (2 Kings vii. 1). “ItOy, in its derivation and 
 meaning resembles “)DI1, but denotes a much 
 smaller mass. 2p (cab), the hollow, the bowl, 
 was adopted by the Greeks as Ka/3os. These are 
 measures for dry goods. We now pass on to 
 liquid measures. 1. DU, is from a root which 
 denotes ‘ to determine,’ ‘ to measure.’ It is put 
 in relation to the homer in Ezek. xlv. 11, 14; 
 whence we learn that the bath was applied to 
 fluids. 2. pn, is retained by the Seventy in the 
 forms efv, IV, iv. The word is of Egyptian 
 
 origin. 3. (log), is a word found only in 
 the Mosaic law regarding the cleansing of the 
 leper (Lev. xv. .12, ‘ the log of oil ’). It is refer- 
 able to an Arabic root which denotes ‘to press 
 into.’ The feminine form is found in the Syriac, 
 with the meaning of bowl. Log had the same 
 import as cab. 
 
 In order to determine the relations between 
 these measures, we take the ephah and bath, 
 which, in Ezek. xlv. 11, are declared to be of one 
 measure. They each contained the tenth part of 
 a homer (Ezek. xlv. 11, 14); thus the relation of 
 the homer to the bath and the ephah belongs to 
 a decimal division (Exod. xvi. 36). 
 
 The Seah, fierpov : the translation given by the 
 Septuagint of the Hebrew in Exod. xvi. 36, is as 
 follows : — rb 5e yopcbp rb benarov rcov rpiw’' 
 p.erpuv rfr , — ‘ the homer is the tenth part ol three 
 measures ’ (-^). With the Septuagint and the 
 Targum the ephah was equal to three seahs 
 (comp. Matt; xiii. 33, aara rpia, with Gen. xviii. 
 6, and Jerome on the former place). The same 
 relation is derived from a passage in Josenhua 
 (Antiq. lx. 4. 5), where the contents of the sea h are 
 
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 945 
 
 given as one Italian modius and a half, for the 
 modius held sixteen sextarii, and the ephah, ac- 
 cording to Josephus, twenty-two sextarii ; a 
 modius and a half is, therefore, the third part of 
 the ephah. The Rabbins entirely concur in these 
 views. The cab, according to Josephus ( Antiq . 
 ix. 4. 4 ; comp. 2 Kings vi. 25), is equal to four 
 xestae, for one-fourth of a cab he translates by 
 seventy-two of which make a perprirris , 
 a measure ; eighteen cabs then make an ephah, 
 and six a seah. In the same way the Rabbins 
 determine the proportion of the cab to the seah 
 (comp, the passage in Leusden, Phil. Mixtus , 
 p. 205). There remain the hin and the log. 
 The hin, according to Josephus (Antiq. iii. 9. 4), 
 ; .s an old Hebrew mass, which contained two 
 Attic which twelve went to the Attic 
 
 metretes ; therefore the hin is the sixth part of 
 the bath. The log, according to the Rabbins, 
 is the twenty-fourth part of the seah, consequently 
 file seventy-second part of the bath, and the 
 twelfth part of the hin (comp. Leusden, Phil. 
 Mixtus, p. 207). 
 
 There are two divisional systems found in 
 these measures : 1. A decimal ; and 2. A duo- 
 decimal, thus : — 
 
 Homer . . 1 
 
 Bath and ephah 10 1 
 
 Gomer . . 100 10 1 
 
 By putting together the measures for dry and 
 those for liquid articles, we obtain the duodecimal 
 division : — 
 
 Ephah or Bath 1 
 Seah ..31 
 Hin ... 6 2 1 
 
 Cab ... 18 6 31 
 
 Log . . . 72 24 12 4 1 
 
 Here all the numbers are divisible either by 
 twelve or by multiples of twelve. Such a duo- 
 decimal arrangement is found in the cubic mea- 
 sures of the Greeks and Romans. Hence the three 
 systems give and receive support. 
 
 We will now exhibit all these measures in re- 
 lation to the greatest, the homer : — 
 
 Homer . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Bath and Ephah 10 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Seah . . 
 
 30 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 Hin . . . 
 
 60 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Gqmer . 
 
 100 
 
 10 
 
 3* 
 
 1§ 
 
 Cab . . . 
 
 180 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 Log . . . 
 
 720 
 
 72 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 14 1 
 
 The duodecimal is the original principle, the 
 decimal system being introduced only to bring the 
 two methods iuto harmony. The homer did not 
 at first form a part of the Hebrew system fEzek. 
 xlv. 11). V 
 
 For the actual size of these measures we must 
 refer to Josephus, of whom Theodoret (In Exod. 
 xxix.) says : TriareuTfoi/ 8e iu tovtois Tcp ’ loo’ii'rrcp 
 aKpifiws too eduovs ra perpa Imarapei np, — ‘ follow 
 in these things Josephus, who well understood 
 the measures of the nation’ (comp. Antiq. viii. 
 3. 8). To the homer or cor Josephus ascribes 
 (Antiq. xv. 9. 2) twelve Attic medimni, where 
 the reading should be metretae. Bath and Ephah 
 are the same. Josephus (Antiq. viii. 2. 9) de- 
 termines each at seventy-two xestae, and makes 
 'hem equal to an Attic metretes. The saton is 
 
 VOL. XI. 
 
 twenty-four sextarii ; the hin is twelve sextarii , 
 the gomer, the tenth part of the ephah, must hold 
 seven and one-fifth sextarii ; the cab is equal to 
 four xestae. On the log Josephus gives no 
 information ; as the fourth part of the cab, it held 
 a xestes. The Attic metretes, which corresponded 
 with the Hebrew bath and ephah, contains 739,800 
 Parisian grains of rain-water, which would fill a 
 space of about 1985 Parisian oubic inches. 
 Thus we come to the following table : — 
 
 Size. 
 
 Weight in Water. 
 
 Par. < 
 
 •ub. in. 
 
 Par. gr. 
 
 Homer 
 
 19857-7 
 
 7398000 
 
 Ephah 
 
 1985-77 
 
 739800 
 
 Seah 
 
 661-92 
 
 246600 
 
 Hin 
 
 330-96 
 
 123300 
 
 Gomer 
 
 198-577 
 
 73980 
 
 Cab 
 
 110-32 
 
 41100 
 
 Log 
 
 27-58 
 
 10275 
 
 Bockh has proved that it is in Babylon wo are 
 to look for the foundations of the metrological 
 systems of the ancient world ; for the entire system 
 of measures, both eastern and western, must be 
 referred to the Babylonish foot as to its basis 
 Here is the root of the original system, and of the 
 individual systems which sprang from the ori- 
 ginal one. This important fact, ascertained and 
 established by Bockh, has been investigated and 
 confirmed by an independent inquirer of the 
 highest authority, namely, K. O. Muller. Not 
 only the metrological system, but with it other 
 knowledge went westward from Babylon. This 
 metrological system bears traces of having pro- 
 ceeded from the hands of Babylonian astrono- 
 mers. The ancient world was dependent for its 
 astronomy on Babylon. Herodotus (ii. 101) 
 says that the Greeks borrowed the division of the 
 day into twelve parts from the Babylonians, 
 calling to mind the duodecimal division which 
 we have spoken of. The Zodiac too is of 
 Asiatic, Ideler holds of Babylonian origin ; but 
 recent investigations have shown a striking agree- 
 ment between the astronomy of the Babylonians 
 and the Chinese, to say nothing of other nations 
 in the farther east (Ideler, Ueber die Zeitrechnung 
 der Chinesen , &c., Berlin, 1839; Biot, Journal 
 des Savans, Dec. 1839, Jan. and May, 1840; 
 Gottingen Gel. Anzeigen, 1840, p. 201, sq.). 
 Of this common knowledge several considerations 
 concur in referring the origin, not to the Chinese, 
 but to the Babylonians. Hence Babylon appears 
 as the land which was the teacher of the east and 
 the west in astronomical and mathematical know- 
 ledge, standing- as it were in the middle of the 
 ancient world, and sending forth rays of light 
 from her two extended hands. Palestine could 
 not be closed against these illuminations, which, 
 in their progress westward must have enlightened 
 its inhabitants, who appear to have owed their 
 highest earthly culture to the Babylonians and 
 the Egyptians. 
 
 The following works may be consulted : — 
 J. D. Michaelis, Eupplem. ad Lex. Hebr. y 
 p. 1521 ; Hussey, Essay on the Ancient Weights , 
 Money , &c., Oxford, 1836 ; FTP. Bayer, De 
 Nummis Hebrceo-Samaritanis , Valentiae Ede- 
 tanorum, 1781, written in reply to Die Unacht - 
 heit der Jiid. M'unzen, Biitzow, 1 779 ; Hupfeld, 
 Betrachtung dunkler Stellung der A. T. Textgc - 
 sckichte, in the Studien und Kritikcn. 1830 
 
946 
 
 WEST. 
 
 WEST. 
 
 2nd heft, p]u 247-301 ; G. Seyffarth, Beitrage 
 zur Kenntmss der Literatur, Kunst, Mythol. 
 und Gesch. des alien Aegypten; see especially 
 Bertheau, Zur Geschichte der Israelite n, Got- 
 tingen, 1842; Cumberlawd, Essay on Weights 
 and Measures ; Arbuthnot, Tables of Ancient 
 Coins, &c. Hussey's work, referred to above, 
 labours under the disadvantage of having been 
 compiled apart from auy acquaintance with the 
 best German writers ; and though it is a merito- 
 rious survey of much that has been written in 
 English and Latin on the subject, yet for want of 
 comprising the views of Bockh — as glanced over 
 in this article — it has little scholarlike value. 
 A thorough work on the subject in the English 
 language, embracing what has been recently ac- 
 complished on the Continent, is a desideratum. — • 
 
 J. R. B. 
 
 WELL. [Water.] 
 
 west oiriK, d i, aia, :nyp). 
 
 The Shemite, in speaking of the quarters of the 
 heavens, &c., supposes his face turned towards 
 the east; so that the east is before him, Dip, 
 strictly what is before, or in front ; the south on 
 Iris right hand,.|D'D, strictly what lies to the 
 
 right ; the north on his left hand, the left 
 
 side; and the west behind him, “YMN, literally 
 the hinder side. The latter Hebrew word, though 
 never translated ‘ west’ in our version, means so : as 
 in Isa. ix. 12, ‘the Philistines behind,’ opposed to 
 the Syrians, Dip ; Sept. a<p' rj\iov bvcrpuv ; Vulg. 
 ab occidente ; and in Job xxiii. 8. The words 
 (Deut. xi. 24), ‘ the uttermost sea,’ pinKH DM, 
 are rendered in Sept, ecos rrjs OaXdaays rrjs iirl 
 Svapui / ; Vulg. ad mare occidental (comp, 
 xxxiv. 2 ; Joel ii. 20). The more general use of 
 the word "llPiN for the west, was doubtless super- 
 seded among the inhabitants of Palestine by D*, 
 literally ‘the sea,’ that is, the Mediterranean Sea, 
 which lay to the west, and which, as a more pal- 
 pable object, became to them the representative of 
 t lie west generally, and chiefly associated with 
 their ideas of it. Accordingly this word D', and 
 its derivatives HD', &c., are thirty-two times ren- 
 dered by QdXacraa, in the Sept., and only once by 
 bvapal: in the Vulgate, by occidens and mare. 
 It is used to signify a quarter of the heavens, or 
 of the earth (Gen. xxviii. 14 ; Deut. xxxiii. 23 ; 
 1 Kings vii. 25 ; 1 Chron. ix. 24 ; 2 Chron. iv. 4 ; 
 Isa. xi. 14; xlix. 12; Ezek. xlviii. 1; Hos. xi. 
 10 ; Zech. xiv. 4). It is used adjectively in the 
 same sense; as, west border (Num. xxxiv. 6; 
 .Josh. xv. 12; Ezek. xlv. 7); western (Num. 
 xxxiv. 6) ; west quarter (Josh, xviii. 14); west 
 side (Exod. xxvii. 12; xxxviii. 12 ; Num. ii. 18 ; 
 xxxv. 5; Ezek. xlviii. 3-8, 23, 24); westward 
 (Gen. xiii. 14; Num. iii. 23; Deut. iii. 27; 
 Ezek. xlviii. 18; Dan. viii. 4) ; west wind (Exod. 
 x. 19). Those words of Moses, ‘ Naph tali, possess 
 thou the west, and the south’ (Deut. xxxiii. 23), 
 6eein to contradict the statement of Josephus, 
 that this tribe possessed the east and the north in 
 Upper Galilee ( Antiq . v. 1. 22); but Bochart 
 interprets ‘ the south,’ not with regard to the whole 
 land of Canaan, but to the Danites, mentioned 
 in ver. 22; and by ‘the west’ he understands 
 the lake of Tiberias, otherwise called the sea of 
 Tiberias, or Galilee, or Gennesaret ; for the portion 
 of Naph tali extended from the south of the city 
 called Dan or Laish, to the Sea of Tiberias, which 
 
 was in this tribe. So all the Chaldee paraphrast* 
 expound the word D\ here translated west; Sept, 
 OaXacrcrav teal A if}a\ Vulg. mare et meridiem. 
 
 ( Ilierozoic . pt. i. lib. iii. c. 18). In some passages 
 the word signifies the coasts of the Mediterranean 
 Sea, and ‘ the islands of the sea’ denotes the western 
 parts of the world, or European nations. Thus, 
 in regard to the future restoration of the Jews to 
 their own land, it is said (Hosea xi. 10), ‘when 
 the Lord shall roar, then the children shall trem- 
 ble (that is, hasten ; an allusion to the motion of 
 a bird’s wings in flying) from the west ’ (see ver. 
 11, and comp. Isa. xxiv. 14, 15, with Isa. xi. 11 ; 
 xxiv. 14). In the account given of the removal 
 of the plague of locusts from Egypt, we are told 
 (Exod. x. 19), ‘the Lord turned a mighty strong 
 west wind,’ DMTH, &repov anb Qa\a.a(Ti]s. Sup 
 posing that these were the very words of Moses, 
 or a literal rendering of his words, it follows that 
 the Egyptians made a similar reference to the 
 Mediterranean, since Moses, an Egyptian, would 
 no doubt use the language of his country in de- 
 scribing an event which occurred in it. If his 
 words do not i^fer to the Mediterranean, they 
 must refer to the far distant Atlantic, which, how- 
 ever, according to Herodotus, was not known to 
 the Egyptians till many ages afterwards. Moses 
 also represents God as saying to Abram , in the 
 land , ‘ Lift up thine eyes and look northward, 
 and southward, and eastward, and westward,’ 
 HD* (Gen. xiii. 14). The allusion to the sea in 
 the latter passage may be accounted for, upon 
 the supposition that the very words of God to 
 Abram had been preserved, ai*.d were inserted by 
 Moses in his history. In two passages (Ps. cvii. 
 3; Isa. xlix. 12) D'D stands opposed to 
 but ought still to be rendered ‘ the west comp. 
 Amos viii. 12 ; Deut. xxxiii. 23. The west is 
 also indicated by the phrase pK, 
 
 airb 77 is bvcru&v, de terra occasus solas. These words 
 are translated ‘ the west country’ in Zech. viii. 7, 
 literally, the country of the going down of the 
 sun, and are fully translated in Ps. 1. 1 ; cxi ii. 3; 
 Mai. i. 11; comp. Deut. xi. 30; Josh. i. 4; 
 xxiii. 4. Another word by which the west is 
 denoted, is 211^12, from D“lV> to remove, pass 
 away, disappear as the sun does ; hence the quar- 
 ter of the heavens, &c., where the sun sets, the 
 west. The same idea is conveyed in the Greek 
 word Svcr/Jial, from 5vw. It occurs in 1 Chron. xii, 
 15; Ps. lxxv. 6; ciii. 12; cvii. 3; Isa. xliii. 5; 
 xlv. 6 ; lix. 19: Sept. bvapal-, Vulg. occidens. 
 In Dan. viii. 5, Aty, occidens. It is used to de- 
 note the west quarter of the heavens or earth. In 
 the Apocryplij^ and New Testament the word 
 translated ‘ wfst’ invariably corresponds to Sua/xai 
 (Judith ii. 19 ; Matt. viii. 11 ; xxiv. 27 ; Luke 
 xii. 54; xiii. 29; Rev. xxi. 13; Vulg. occi- 
 dens, occasus. Our Lord’s memorable words, 
 
 ‘ They shall come from the east and the west/ & c. 
 (Matt. viii. 11), to which Luke adds ‘ and from 
 the north and the south’ (xiii. 29), signify all the 
 regions of the world ; as in classical writers also 
 (Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 3). Grotius thinks that this 
 passage refers to the promise to Jacob (Gen. 
 xxviii. 14). In our Lord’s prediction of the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem by the Romans (Matt, 
 xxiv. 27) — ‘ For as the lightning cometh out ol 
 the east and shineth even unto the west, so also 
 shall the comingof the son of man be’ — he is sup- 
 posed to have intimated the precise direction in 
 
WHALE, 
 
 WHEAT. 
 
 which the Roman army conducted the invasion. 
 His reference to the cloud, ve<p4\r]v, rising 
 out of the west, as the precursor of a shower 
 (comp. 1 Kings xviii. 43-46), still corresponds to 
 the weather in Palestine. Volney says, L'ouest ■ 
 et le soud-ouest, qui regnent (en Syrie et Pales- 
 tine) de Novembre en Fevrier, sont, pour meservir 
 de l’expression des Arabes, les peres des pluies : — 
 ‘The west and south-west winds, which in Syria 
 and Palestine prevail from November to February, 
 are, to borrow an expression of the Arabs, “ the 
 fathers of showers .” ’ ( Voyage en Syrie , tom. i. 
 p. 297 ; Shaw’s Travels , p. 329.) — J. F. D. 
 
 WHALE (jn than , and fOD thannin; Sept, 
 and Matt. xii. 40, ktjtos), occurs in several places 
 of the Old Testament, and once in the New Tes- 
 tament. In the passages where scales and feet are 
 mentioned as belonging to than , commentators 
 have shown that the crocodile is intended, which 
 then is synonymous with the leviathan ; and they 
 have endeavoured also to demonstrate, where than- 
 nin draw the dugs to suckle their young, that seals 
 are meant, although cetacea nourish theirs in a 
 similar manner. It may be doubted whether, in 
 most of the cases, the poetical diction points ab- 
 solutely to any specific animal, particularly as 
 there is more force and grandeur in a generalized 
 and collective image of the huge monsters of the 
 deep, not inappropriately so called, than in the 
 restriction to any one species, since all are in 
 Gen. i. 26 made collectively subservient to the 
 supremacy of man. But criticism is still more 
 inappropriate when, not contented with point- 
 ing to some assumed species, it attempts to ra- 
 tionalise miraculous events by such arguments ; 
 as in the case of Jonah, where the fact of whales 
 having a small gullet, and not being found in 
 the Mediterranean, is adduced to prove that the 
 tjuge fish JT dag was not a cetacean, but a 
 ihark ! Now, if the text be literally taken, the 
 sransaction is plainly miraculous, and no longer 
 within the sphere of zoological discussion ; and if 
 »t be allegorical, as some, we think, erroneously 
 issume, then, whether the prophet was saved by 
 means of a kind of boat called dagh , or it be a 
 mystical account of initiation where the neophite 
 was detained three days in an ark or boat, figu- 
 ratively denominated a fish, or Celtic avanc, the 
 transaction is equally indeterminate ; and it as- 
 suredly would be derogating from the high dig- 
 nity of the prophet’s mission, to convert the event 
 into a mere escape, by boat, or into a pagan legend 
 such as Hercules, Bacchus, Jemsheed, and other 
 deified heroes of the remotest antiquity, are fabled 
 to have undergone, and which all the ancient 
 mysteries, including the Druidical, symbolized. 
 It may be observed, besides, of cetaceous animals, 
 that though less frequent in the Mediterranean 
 than in the ocean, they are far from being unknown 
 there. Joppa, now Jaffa, the very place whence 
 Jonah set sail, displayed for ages in one of its pagan 
 temples huge bones of a species of whale, which the 
 legends of the place pretended were those of the 
 dragon monster slain by Perseus, as represented 
 in the Arkite my thus of that hero and Andromeda; 
 and which remained in that £pot till the conquer- 
 ing Romans carried them in triumph to the great 
 city. Procopius mentions a huge sea-monster 
 in the Propontis, taken during his praefecture 
 cf Constantinople, in the 36t,h year of Justinian,* 
 (l.D. 562), after having destroyed vessels at certain 
 
 947 
 
 Intervals for more than fifty years. Rondoletius 
 enumerates several whales stranded or taken on the 
 coasts of the Mediterranean : these were most likely 
 all ore as, physeters , or campedolios, i. e. toothed 
 whales, as large and more fierce than the mysti- 
 cetes, which have balein in the mouth, and at pre- 
 sent very rarely make their way farther south than 
 the Bay of Biscay ; though in early times it is pro- 
 bable they visited the Mediterranean, since the 
 present writer has seen them within the tropics. 
 In the Syrian seas, the Belgian pilgrim Lavaers, 
 on his passage from Malta to Palestine, incident- 
 ally mentions a ‘ Tonynvisch,’ which he further 
 denominates an ‘ oil-fish/ longer than the vessel, 
 leisurely swimming along, and which the seamen 
 said prognosticated bad weather. On the island of 
 Zerbi, close to the African coast, the late Com- 
 mander Davies, R.N., found the bones of a cacha- 
 lot on the beach. Shaw mentions an orca more 
 than sixty feet in length, stranded at Algiers ; and 
 the late Admiral Ross Donelly saw one in the Me- 
 diterranean near the island of Albaran. There are, 
 besides, numerous sharks of the largest species in 
 the seas of the Levant, and also in the Arabian 
 Gulf and Red Sea, as well as cetacea, of which 
 balwna bitan is the largest in those seas, and two 
 species of halicore or dugong, which are herbi- 
 vorous animals, intermediate between whales and 
 seals.— C. H. S. 
 
 WHEAT (ntpn ehittah) occurs in various 
 passages of Scripture, as enumerated by Celsius : 
 Gen. xxx. 14; Exod. ix. 32; xxix. 2; xxxiv. 
 22; Dent. viii. 8; xxxii. 14; Judg. vi. 11; 
 xv. 1; Ruth ii. 23; 1 Sam. vi. 13; xii. 17 - 
 2 Sam.iv. 6; xvii.28 ; 1 Kings v. 11 ; 1 Clirou 
 xxi. 20, 23 ; 2 Chron, ii. 15 ; xxvii. 5 ; Job 
 xxxi. 40; Ps. lxxxi. 16; cxlvii. 14; Cant. vii. 
 2; Isa. xxviii. 25; Jer. xii. 13; xii. 8; Ezek. 
 iv. 9; xxvii. 17 ; xlv. 13; and Joel i. 11. There 
 can be no doubt that ehittah , by some written 
 chittha, chetteth, cheteh , &c., is correctly trans- 
 lated 1 wheat,’ from its close resemblance to the 
 Arabic, as well to the names of wheat in other lan- 
 guages. Celsius says, ‘ ni3n, chittha , occultato J 
 in puncto dagesch, pro 1113311 chintha dicitur 
 ex usu Ebraeorum.’ This brings it still nearer 
 
 to the Arabic name of wheat, which in 
 
 Roman characters is variously written, hinteh , 
 hinthe, kenta, and by Pemplius in his translation 
 of Avicenna, hhinttha ; and under this name it 
 is described by the Arabic authors on Materia 
 
 Medica. As the Arabic ^ ha , is in many words 
 
 converted into £ kha, it is evident that the 
 
 Hebrew and Arabic names of wheat are the same, 
 especially as the Hebrew fl has the guttural sound 
 
 of Different derivations have been given of 
 
 the word ehittah : by Celsius it is derived from 
 ‘ 13311 chanathy protulit, produxit, fructum, ex 
 
 Cant. ii. 13 ;’ or the Arabic rubuit, quod 
 
 triticum rubello sit colore’ ( Hierobot . ii. 113). 
 The translator of the Biblical Botany of Rosen- 
 miiller justly observes that ‘ the similarity in 
 sound between the Hebrew word ehittah and the 
 English wheat is obvious. Be it remembered thit 
 the ch here is identical in sound with the Gaeli? 
 
WHEAT. 
 
 WIND. 
 
 34$ 
 
 gnttural, or the Spanish x. It is further remark- 
 able, that tl»e Hebrew term is etymologically 
 cognate with the words for wheat used by every 
 one of the Teutonic and Scandinavian nations 
 (thus we have in Islandic hveiti, Danish hvede , 
 Swedish hvete, Maesogoth. hwaite, German weizen ) ; 
 and that, in this instance, there is no resemblance 
 between the Scandinavian and Teutonic terms, 
 and the Greek, Latin, and Slavonic (for the 
 Greek word is irvpos , the Latin frumentum or 
 triticum , the Russian psienitsa, Polish pszemca) ; 
 and yet the general resemblance between the 
 Slavonic, the Thracian, and the Gothic lan- 
 guages is so strong, that no philologist now 
 doubts their identity of origin ’ (/. c. p. 75). 
 
 Rosenmiiller further remarks that in Egypt 
 and in Barbary kamich. is the usual 
 
 name for wheat (quoting Descrip, de I'Egypte , 
 t. xix. p. 45 ; Host’s Account of Maroko and Fez , 
 p. 309) ; and also, that in Hebrew, nDp kemach 
 denotes the flour of wheat (Gen. xviii. 6; Num. 
 v. 15). This, it is curious to observers not very 
 unlike the Indian name of wheat, kunuk. All 
 these names indicate communication between 
 the nations of antiquity, as well as point to a 
 common origin of wheat. Thus in his Hima- 
 layan Botany , the author of this article has 
 stated : ‘ Wheat having been one of the earliest cul- 
 tivated grains, is most probably of Asiatic origin, 
 as no doubt Asia was the earliest civilized, as 
 well as the first peopled, country. It is known to 
 the Arabs under’ the viame of hinteh , to the Per- 
 sians as gundoom , Hindu gehoon and kunuk. 
 The species of barley cultivated in the plains of 
 India and known by the Hindu and Persian 
 name juo , Arabic shaeer , is houmd hexaer - 
 stichum. As both wheat and barley are culti- 
 vated in the plains of India in the winter months, 
 where none of the species of these genera are in- 
 digenous, it is probable that both have been in- 
 troduced into India from the north, that is, from 
 
 the Persian, and perhaps from the Tartarian 
 region, where these and other species of barley 
 are most successfully and abundantly cultivated ' 
 (p. 419). Different species of wheat were no doubt 
 cultivated by the ancients, as triticum compositum 
 in Egypt, T. cestivum, T. hibemium in Syria &c. ; 
 but both barley and wheat are too well knowii to 
 require further illustration in this place. — J. F. R. 
 
 WHIRLWIND. [Winds.] 
 
 WIDOW. [Woman.] 
 
 WIFE. [Marriage ; Woman.] 
 WILDERNESS. [Deserts.] 
 
 WIMPLE. [Veil.] 
 
 WIND, &c. (n-V7 ; Sept. wevpa f &vep os; 
 Vulg. spiritus, ventus ). The Hebrew word sig- 
 nifies air in motion generally, as breath, wind, 
 &c. Both the Septuagint words occur in the fol- 
 lowing definition of wind by Aristotle (De 
 Mundo, c. 4) : ''A repos ov8e v iari nKhv a hp tt6\vs 
 £eW, octtis apa Kal irvevpa \ eysreu. — ‘Wind is 
 nothing else but a large quantity of air flowing, 
 which is called irvevpa. 1 So also Plato has 
 peyd\(f) tlvI Trvevpc m for a high wind ( Plicedon , 
 § 24, edit. Forster). Josephus also uses Trrevpa 
 fiiaiov for a violent wind (Antiq. xiv. 2. 2), as 
 Lucian also does, fiialw tt vedpari ( Ver. Hist. 
 lib. i. tom. i. p. 714). The Vulgate word spiri- 
 tus, from spiro, ‘to breathe,’ ‘blow,’ is applied 
 in like manner in Latin, as by Virgil (JEn. 
 xii. 365) : ‘ Boreae cum spiritus alto Insonat 
 yEgaeo,’ — ‘When the northern blast roars in the 
 jEgean.’ The Hebrew word is used, 1. for the 
 wind as a natural phenomenon (Gen. iii. 8; Job 
 xxi. 18; xxx. 15,22; xxxvii. 21; Ps. i. 4 ; ciii. 
 16; Prov. xxx. 4; Eccles. i. 6 ; xi. 4; Isa. vii. 
 2; xvii. 13; xl. 7; Jer. x. 13; li. 16; Amos 
 xiv. 13.) It is poetically ascribed to the imme- 
 diate agency of God (Ps. cxxxv. 7 ; cxlvii. 18; 
 comp. Baruch vi. 61). In the New Testament 
 it occurs in Matt. xi. 7 ; xiv. 24 ; Mark iv. 39 ; 
 John iii. 8 ; Acts xxvii. 4; Eph. iv. 14; James 
 i. 6; Rev. vi. 13; vii. 1). Throughout the New 
 Testament the word is drepos, except in our Lord’s 
 illustration. John iii. 8. In the Apocrypha arepos 
 occurs in Wisdom v. 14; xiii. 2, &c. ; but 
 irvevpa in xvii. 18; Ecclus. v. 9; xxii. 18; 
 Song of the Children xxvi. 42). We might per- 
 haps attribute the exclusion of the word rrpevpa f 
 for ‘the wind,’ from the New Testament, to its 
 having become almost entirely appropriated to 
 ‘ heavenly tilings.’ In Acts ii. 2, we have irvoi], 
 translated ‘ wind ;’ Vulg. spiritus. It means the 
 same in Homer (II. v. 697), ttpoiI] for irvoT) fiopeao, 
 
 ‘ the breath or blast of Boreas ;’ comp. Job xxxvii. 
 10, Sept. In Gen. iii. 8, ‘the cool of the day/ 
 or rather ‘ wind of the day/ indicates the even- 
 ing, since in the East a refreshing breeze arises some 
 hours before sunset; Vulg. ad auram post me • 
 nd<em. Comp. Cant. ii. 17 ; iv. 6 ; where the 
 words ‘until the day break and the shadows flee 
 away ’ should be rendered ‘ until the day breathe 
 or blow' ( i.e . till evening); Heb. Sept. 
 
 Siairpevar ) ; Vulg. aspiret. The eveniug breeze 
 is still called, among the Persians, ‘ the breeze of 
 the day’ (Chardin, Voyage , t. iv. p. 48). In 
 Amos iv. 13, God is said to ‘create the wind.’ 
 Although this idea is very conformable to the 
 Hebrew theory of causation, which does not re- 
 cognise second causes, but attributes e\ wy nature./ 
 
WIND. 
 
 WIND. 
 
 949 
 
 phcnotnen.ni immediately to the divine agency, 
 yet the passage may perhaps be directed against 
 the worship of the winds, which was common 
 among ancient nations. Comp. Wisdom xiii. 2. 
 Herodotus relates it of the Persians (i. 131). The 
 words of our Saviour, ‘a reed shaken with the 
 wind’ (Matt. xi. 7), are taken by some in the na- 
 tural, and by others in a metaphorical sense. The 
 former view is adopted by Grotius, Beza, Camp- 
 bell, Rosenm., Schleusner, and Wetstein; and is 
 confirmed, as Rosenmuller observes, by the anti- 
 thesis of the rich man, whose magnificence all 
 gladly survey. The comparison is adopted to re- 
 prove the fickleness of the multitude (comp. ver. 15, 
 and Eph. iv. 14). 2. The wind occurs as theme- 
 
 dium of the divine interposition, or agency (Gen. 
 i. 2; viii. 1; Ex. xv. 10; Num. xi. 31; 1 Kings 
 xviii. 45 ; xix. 11 ; Job i. 19 ; Isa. xi. 5 ; Jonah 
 i. 4). In the New Testament, the wind was super- 
 naturally employed at the day of Pentecost, like 
 the ‘sound’ and ‘fire’ (Acts ii. 3). Indeed our 
 Lord's illustration (John iii. 8), and the identity 
 of the Hebrew and Greek words signifying 
 breath, wind, and spirit, lead to the inference, 
 that the air in motion bears the nearest resem- 
 blance of any created object to divine influence, 
 and is therefore the most appropriate medium of 
 it. The idea is finely embodied by Thomson : 
 
 ‘To Him, ye vocal gales. 
 
 Breathe soft, whose spirit in your freshness 
 breathes.’ 
 
 [Spirit.] To this class of instances we refer Gen. 
 i. 2, ‘ and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
 the waters.’ Along with Patrick and Rosenmuller, 
 we construe the phrase, ‘ a wind of God/ a wind 
 employed as the medium of divine agency. 
 Rosenmuller compares Ps. civ. 30 : cxlvii. 8 ; Isa. 
 *1. 7. Dr. Lee refers to 1 Kings xviii. 12 ; 2 
 tings ii. 16; and Ps. xxxiii. 6; Isa. xi. 4. In 
 Jhe two latter passages, he observes that the word 
 equivalent to power , &c. The commotions of 
 4he elements, &c., through means of which the pe- 
 tulanceof Elijah was reproved (1 Kings xix. 11), 
 ere best understood as having occurred in vision 
 (comp. Dan. ii. 35 ; Zech. v. 9). 3. The wind 
 
 is used metaphorically in the following instances: 
 ‘The wings of the wind’ denote the most rapid 
 motion (2 Sam. xxii. 1 1), where the phrase may 
 be a poetical representation also of the incident 
 recorded (2 Sam. v. 24 ; Ps. civ. 3). The ono- 
 matopoeia in the two former passages, in Hebrew, 
 is remarkable. Anything light or trifling is called 
 wind (Job vii. 7; Isa. xli. 29; Ps. lxxviii. 39; 
 comp. Eph. iv. 14; Ecclus. v. 9). Violent yet 
 empty speech is called ‘ a strong wind,’ or a mere 
 tempest of words (Job viii. 2). ‘ Vain know 
 
 ledge’ is called niTTljn, knowledge of wind 
 (Job xv. 2) ; ‘ vain words,’ words of wind (xvi. 3). 
 Many expressive phrases are formed : with this 
 word. * To inherit the wind/ denotes extreme 
 disappointment (Prov. xi. 29) ; ‘ to hide the wind,’ 
 impossibility (xxvii. 16) ; to ‘ labour for the wind/ 
 to. labour jn vain (Ecc. v. 16); ‘to bring forth 
 wind/ great patience and pains for no purpose 
 (Isa. xxvi. 18; comp. Hos. viii. 7; xii. 1); ‘to 
 become wind/ to result in nothingness (Jer. v. 
 13). ‘ The four winds’ denote the four quarters 
 
 jf the globe (Ezek. xxxvii. 9); ‘ to scatter to all 
 winds/ to disperse completely (Ezek. v. 10; xii. 
 il ; Svii. 21)* ‘to cause to come from all 
 
 winds/ to restore completely (xxxvii. 9). ‘The 
 wind hath bound her upon her wings/ means 
 deportation into a far country (Hos. iv. 19) ; ‘ to 
 sow the wind and reap the whirlwind/ unwise 
 labour and a fruitless result (viii. 7); ‘to feed on 
 the wind/ to pursue delusory schemes (xii. 1); 
 
 ‘ to walk in wind/ to live and act in vain (Micah 
 ii. 11); ‘to observe the wind/ to be over cautious 
 (Eccles. ^i. 4); to ‘winnow with every wind/ to 
 be credulous, apt to receive impressions (Eccles. 
 v. 9). Comparisons. — Disappointment, after high 
 promise or pretension, is ‘as wind without rain’ 
 (Prov. xxv. 14) ; the desperate speeches of an af- 
 flicted person, are compared to wind (Job vi. 26). 
 Symbolically. — Empires are represented as having 
 wings, and ‘ the wind in their wings,’ denotes the 
 rapidity of their conquests (Zech. v. 9). The 
 wind is often used as the symbol or emblem of 
 calamities (Isa. xxxii. 2 ; xli. 16; lvii. 13; lxiv. 
 6); destruction by the Chaldaean army (Jer. 
 iv. 11, 12; comp. Wisd. iv. 4; v. 23; xi. 20). 
 
 ‘ The windy storm ’ (Ps. Iv. 8) denotes Absalom 
 and his party. The wind is the frequent emblem 
 of the divine chastisements (Isa. xxvii. 8 ; Jer. 
 xxii. 22; li. ],&c.). Beautiful expressions occur, 
 as in Isa. xxvii. 2, ‘ He stayethhis rough wind in 
 the day of the east wind ;’ that is, God doth not 
 aggravate the misfortunes of mankind by his 
 chastisements ; to ‘ make a weight for the winds ’ 
 (Job xxviii. 25). Mistranslations. — In Ps. 
 lxxviii. 39, ‘ He remembered that they were but 
 flesh, a wind that passeth away and cometh not 
 again/ should probably be rendered, ‘aspmigoing 
 away and not returning.’ All the versions make 
 the words relate to the soul of man. Homer has 
 a very similar description of death (II. ix. 408). 
 In Eccles. i. 5, 6, the translation is faulty, and the 
 sense further obscured by a wrong division of 
 verses. The passage should be read : ‘ The sun 
 also ariseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to 
 his place where he ariseth, going to the south and 
 circulating to the north. The wind is continually 
 whirling about, and the wind returneth upon its 
 whirlings.’ All the versions give this rendering ; 
 our version alone mistakes the meaning. The 
 phrase ‘ brought forth wind/ is understood by 
 Michaelis as an allusion to. the female disorder 
 called em pneumatosis, or windy inflation of the 
 womb ( Syntagma , Comment, vol. ii. p. 165). 
 The Syriac translator also understood the pas- 
 sage in this way : ‘ enixi sumus ut illse quae 
 ventos pariunt.’ 4. The east wind D'^lpTin, 
 & vepos v6tos, &V6/J.0S Kauaoor, v6tos, ventus 
 urens, spiritus vehemens, ventus auster. D*Hp, 
 Kavacav, ardor, aestus, ventus urens. Both forms 
 denote the natural phenomenon (Gen. xli. 6, 23 ; 
 Job xxxviii. 24 ; Ps. xl viii, 7 ; lxxviii. 26; Jonah 
 iv. 8)1 Considerable indefiniteness attends the 
 use of these words. Dr. Shaw remarks, that every 
 wind is called by the Orientals CHp, an east 
 wind, which blows from any point of the compass 
 between the east and north, and between the east 
 and south (Travels, p. 285). Accordingly the 
 Sept, often understands this word to mean the 
 south, as in Exod. x. 13; xiv. 21 (see Bochart, 
 Hierozoicon, pt. ii. lib. i. cap. 15). If the east 
 wind happens to blow a few days in Palestine dur- 
 ing the months of May, June, July, and August, 
 it occasions great destruction to the vines and 
 harvests on the land, and also to the vessels at so 
 on the Mediterranean (Hos. xiii. 15 ; Jonah iv 3 
 
Q50 
 
 WIND. 
 
 WINE. 
 
 Job xir. 2 ; xv. 2 ; Is. xl. 7 ; Gen. xli. 6, 23 ; 
 Ezek. xvii. 10, xix. 12 ; xxvii. 26 ; Ps. xlviii. 7 ; 
 ciii. 5). In Jonah iv. 8, the phrase occurs, 
 1711 ri'^nn D'lp, a still or sultry east wind. For 
 testimonies to the destructiveness of this wind in 
 Egypt and Arabia, see Niebuhr ( Beschreib . von 
 Arabien, p. 8); Thevenot ( Voyages, pt. i. liv. ii. 
 c. 31). It is accordingly often used to denote 
 any pernicious wind, as in Ps. xlviii. 7, where it 
 is rendered by Sept, irvevpa filai ov, Vulg. spiritus 
 vehemens. It is used metaphorically for perni-' 
 cious speech, a storm of words (Job xv. 2); cala- 
 mities, especially by war (Isa. xxvii. 8 ; Jer. xviii. 
 17; Ezek. xvii. 10; xix. 12; xxvii. 26; Hos. 
 xiii. 15). In this latter passage the east wind 
 denotes Shalmaneser king of Assyria ; m Ezek. 
 xxvii. 26, it denotes the Chaldaeans. Tyre is there 
 represented under the beautiful allegory of a ship 
 towed into deep waters, and then destroyed by an 
 east wind. A very similar representation is given 
 by Horace (Carm. i. 14). The east wind denotes 
 divine judgment (Job xxvii. 21). Phrases. — ‘To 
 follow the east wind,’ is to pursue a delusory and 
 fatal course (Hos. xii. 1*. 5. West wind, C 1717, 
 
 &vepos curb OaXatraps, ventus ab occidente [West] . 
 6. North wind, jlQV 1717 (Prov. xxv. 23), &vepos 
 fiopeas, ventus Aquilo [North]. 7. South wind, 
 Dill (Job xxxvii. 17), |D'n (Ps. lxxviii. 26), A ty, 
 ventus Africus (Luke xifc 55), viros (Sirocco), 
 Acts xxvii. 13) [South]! 8. The four winds , 
 ninn ra Te<r aapa Trveupara, ol reacrapes 
 
 &vepot, quatuor venti. The Hebrews speak only 
 of four winds ; and so Josephus ( Antiq . viii. 3. 5). 
 This phrase is equivalent to the four quarters of 
 the world (Ezek. xxxvii. 9 ; 2 Esdras xiii. 5), the 
 several points of the compass, as we should say 
 (Dan. viii. 8). Phrases. — ‘ Striving of the four 
 winds,’ is great political commotions (Dan. vii. 2 ; 
 comp. Jer. iv. 11, 12; li. 1); to ‘hold the four 
 winds,’ is by contrary to secure peace (Rev. vii. 
 I) ; ‘to be divided to the four winds,’ implies 
 utter dispersion (Dan. xi. 4 ; Jer. xlix. 32 ; Ezek. 
 v. 10, 12; xvii. 2). So also the phrase, 4k tup 
 rcaaiptav av4pa>v (Matt. xxiv. 31) means from 
 all parts of the world (Mark xiii. 27). 9. The 
 Hebrews, like other ancient nations, had but few 
 names of winds. Homer mentions only fiopeas, 
 pStos, £4(pvpos, and tdpos. Aul. Gellius, indeed, 
 complains of the infrequency of names of winds 
 in ancient writers ( Noct . Att. ii. 22). The same 
 indefiniteness appears in Herodotus (see Larcher’s 
 notes on i. 188). In the course of time the Greeks 
 and Romans added eight other winds to theoriginal 
 four, but that appearing too minute a division, 
 they reduced the additional ones to four, thus 
 making only eight in all. The names of these 
 may be seen in Larcher (ut supra ), or Pliny 
 (Hist. Nat., xviii. 34). Further information 
 may be found in Coray’s Translation of Hippo- 
 crates, De Aeribus, Aquis et Locis, Paris, 1800; 
 Discours Preliminaire ; and see index. Fora 
 comparative table of the English, Latin, and 
 Greek divisions of the winds, and their names, 
 amounting to more than thirty, see Beloe’s Hero- 
 dotus ( Polymnia , notes, vol. iii. p. 293, Lond. 
 1791). One Greek name of a wind occurs in Acts 
 xxvii. 14, EvpoKAvScDV, Euroclydon, a tempestu- 
 ous wind in the Mediterranean, now called a Le- 
 vanter. The Alexandrian M.S has EvpaKvAup; 
 Vulg. Euroaquilo ; Syriac p7*?p71K. The com- 
 mon reading, EvpoKAvZup , seems derived from 
 
 ESpos, Eurus, ‘ east wind,’ and kAvSup, ‘ a wa*r?/ 
 quasi an eastern tempest. Other MSS. read Evpv- 
 kAvZcdv, Euryclydon, from eupvs, ‘ broad,’ and 
 kAvZwv, ‘ a wave,’ or rough wavy sea; and then the 
 word would mean the wind which peculiarly 
 excites the waves. Shaw defends the common 
 reading, and describes the wind as blowing in 
 all directions from the N.E. round by the N. to 
 the S.E. ( Travels , p. 330, &c. 4to. ; see Bowyer’s 
 conjectures, and Doddridge, in loc.). The Ho 
 brews had no single terms indicating the relative 
 velocity of the air in motion, like our words 
 breeze, gale, &c. Such gradations they ex- 
 pressed by some additional word, as ‘ great/ 
 
 nn, ‘ a great wind’. (Jonah i. 4), ‘ rough/ 
 &c. Nor have we any single word indi- 
 cating the destructive effects of the wind, like 
 their verbs TJ?D and 7yb, as DiyDNI (Zech. vii. 
 14, &c.), and answering to the Greek word are- 
 p6cj)6opos (see Sept, of Gen. xli. 6, 23). Our 
 metaphorical use of the word storm comes 
 nearest. The phrase myD 171*7, ‘ stormy wind/ 
 Trvevpa KOLTaiyldos, spiritus procellce , occurs in 
 Ps. cvii. 25 ; cxlviii. 8. It is metaphorically used 
 for the divine judgments (Ezek. xiii. 11, 13). 
 The word myD is usually translated ‘whirl- 
 wind ;’ it means, however, more properly a 
 storm (2 Kings ii. 1, 11; Job xxxviii. 1 ; xl. 6 ; 
 Zech. ix. 14; Sept, avaaeiapZs, AaiAaif/, pesos', 
 Vulg. turbo; Ecclus. xliii. 17; avarporpi] irpev- 
 paros, xlviii. 9 ; AatAcurt n vp6s. The Hebrew 
 
 word is used metaphorically for the divine judg- 
 ments (Isa. xl. 24; xli. 16); and to describe 
 them as sudden and irresistible (Jer. xxiii. 19; 
 xxv. 32 ; xxx. 23). ‘ A whirlwind out of the 
 
 north’ (Ezek. i. 4) denotes the invasion from 
 Babylon. Another word, 17Q1D, is also trans- 
 lated ‘whirlwind/ and properly so. It occurs in 
 Job xxxvii. 9 ; Isa. xxi. 1. It is used as a simile 
 for complete and sudden destruction (Prov. i. 27) ; 
 and for the most rapid motion, ‘ wheels of war- 
 chariots like a whirlwind’ (Isa. v. 28 ; Jer. iv. 
 13). Total defeat is often compared to ‘chaff 
 scattered by a whirlwind’ (Isa. xvii. 13). It de- 
 notes the rapidity and irresistibleness of the 
 divine judgments (Isa. lxvi. 5). Th e phrase ‘to 
 reap the whirlwind ’ denotes useless labour (Hos. 
 viii. 7) ; ‘ the day of the whirlwind,’ destruction 
 by war (Amos i. 14). ‘ The Lord hath his way 
 
 in the whirlwind/ is probably an allusion to Sinai 
 (Nahum i. 3). A beautiful comparison occurs in 
 Prov. x. 25 : ‘ As the whirlwind passeth, so is the 
 wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlast- 
 ing foundation.’ — J. F. D. 
 
 WINDOW. [House.] 
 
 WINE. The Bible furnishes the earliest au- 
 thentic account concerning wine (Gen. ix. 21 ; 
 xix. 32). The instances of its use by the patri- 
 archs Noah and Lot, with its deplorable e beets, 
 have given rise to numerous conjectures from the 
 earliest periods ; and both the Rabbins and the 
 Christian Fathers indulge in much apologetic cri- 
 ticism on these points. Theodoret alleged that 
 the drunkenness of Noah came from inexperience, 
 for, being the first who pressed grapes, he was 
 ignorant of its properties, having been used for 
 600 years to drink water only ( Qucest. § 65). This 
 seems to be the most probable opinion, and is 
 adopted and elucidated by the contributor of 
 the article Noaii, p. 426 of this volume. Thj 
 
WINE. 
 
 WINE. 
 
 difficulty presented in the case of Lot is well 
 stated by an old writer. ‘ Whilst the daughters 
 sinned in giving him wine unto drunkenness, 
 what is to be thought of him for drinking so libe- 
 rally thereof? Some conjecture that it was 
 mingled with something apt to make him drunk- 
 en, although he took but a little, and so excuse 
 nim ’ (Dr. Mayer's Comment. Lond. 1653, vol. i. 
 p. 246). This conjecture is well illustrated by a 
 narrative of adulterous intercourse, recorded by 
 Linschoten (1584), and effected by means of 
 drugged wine administered to the husband : — 
 i They had caused him to drinke of a certaine 
 wine that was mingled with the hearbe deutroa 
 [datura], thereby to bereave poore Francis of his 
 wittes, and so to effect their accursed device 1 
 ( Voyages , b. i. p. 158). That the incest of Lot 
 was performed in an unconscious state, such as 
 is induced by many species of drugged drinks, 
 may be inferred from the repetition of the act. 
 In another part, again referring to such as had 
 drunk of. this drugged wine, Linschoten says, that 
 ‘ when the time cometh that he reviveth out of his 
 transe, lie knoweth nothing what was done, but 
 thinketh that hee had slept’ (p. 109). 
 
 On no point is the remark of the Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica concerning the Authorized Version of 
 the Bible more just than in reference to wine : — 
 ‘ One of its greatest faults is, that the translation 
 of the same original word is often improperly va- 
 ried at the expense of perspicuity ; while, on the 
 other hand, ambiguity is sometimes occasioned 
 by the rendering of two original words in the same 
 sentence by only one English word, which, how- 
 ever, is used in different meanings ’ (vol. iv. p. 
 619). Not only two, but thirteen distinct Hebrew 
 and Greek terms, are translated by the word 
 ‘wine,’ either with or without the adjectives ‘ new,’ 
 
 ‘ sweet,’ ‘ mixed,’ and ‘strong. 1 If the first rule 
 for a translation, as laid down by Dr. George 
 Campbell, be correct — that ‘ the translation should 
 give a complete transcript of the ideas of the 
 original ’ — the common version must, on this 
 point, be deemed exceedingly defective. We pro- 
 pose, therefore, in the present article, to attempt an 
 elucidation of the various Biblical terms translated 
 ‘ wine/ and to indicate what we regard as their 
 most probable meanings and distinctions. 
 
 1. yayin , olyos, wine, occurs in 141 in- 
 stances ; 21 times in connection with 
 
 shechar [Drink, Strong]. Its root was pro- 
 bably y avan , or yanah, the primary idea of 
 
 both being that of turbidness, or boiling up, so 
 characteristic of the appearance of the grape-juice 
 as it rushes foaming into the wine-vat. The able 
 writer of the article ‘ Wine ’ in the Penny Cyclo- 
 paedia, observes, that ‘ the juice of grapes, or ve- 
 getable juices in general, become turbid when in 
 contact with air, before fermentation commences, 
 and this turbidity is owing to the formation of 
 an insoluble precipitate of the same nature as 
 ferment’ (vol. xxvii. p. 455). Yayin , in Bible 
 
 use, is a very general term, including every spe- 
 cies of wine made from grapes ( ofros ajuir e\ivos), 
 though in later ages it became extended in its 
 application to wine made from other substances, 
 (a.) It is frequently used in the same compre- 
 hensive sense as the vinum of the Latins. Cato 
 (De lie Rustica, cxlvii.) speaks of the hanging 
 wine (vinum pendens). So in Num. vi. 4, 
 
 yayin stands for vine — the grape-vine. In Deut. 
 xxviii. 39, it is ranked amongst things to be suck- 
 ed, gathered, or eaten. In Isa. xvi. 10, it is used 
 for the grapes to be trodden. In Isa. lv. 1, it 
 probably signifies thick grape-syrup, or honey 
 (see Isa. vii. 22). The word syrup , it may be 
 here remarked, is derived from an Oriental term 
 for wine ; hence, in Turkey, shirab- jee signifies 
 ‘ wnne-seller ’ (see Turkey and the Turks, p. 1 97). 
 This species of wine is still called ‘honey 1 in the 
 East, and it is by the prophet appropriately con- 
 nected with milk, as a thing to be eaten. Yayin 
 is also used for ‘ grapes,’ or for ‘ wine in the clus- 
 ter/ in Jer. xl. 10, 12; xlviii. 33; and probably 
 also in Deut. xiv. 26. In this sense Josephus 
 (De Bell. Jud. vii.) employs the Greek equivalent, 
 when he enumerates amongst the stores in the 
 fortress of Massada, a it os, olvos, and eAai ov, and 
 adds, that the Romans found the remains of these 
 fruits (rhv icapirdv) uncorrupted. (6.) Yayin 
 signifies also ‘ the blood of the grape’ freshly ex- 
 pressed, as in Gen. xlix. 2 (comp, with Isa. Ixiii. 
 1-3), reference being there had to the juice of 
 the claret grape — ‘ His eyes shall be more beau- 
 tiful than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.’ 
 In this sense yayin denoted what the Greeks spe- 
 cifically called y\evKos (sweet wine), the term 
 used by Josephus in speaking of the grape-juice 
 expressed into Pharaoh’s cup (Gen. xl. 11). In 
 Cant. v. 1 (compared with vii. 9), it seems to 
 refer to a sweet innocent wine of this sort, which 
 might be drunk abundantly. In Ps. civ. 15, as 
 illustrated by Judg. ix. 13 ; Exod. xxii. 29 (28), 
 yayin probably designates the first ‘ droppings ’ 
 or tears of the gathered grapes, which were to be 
 offered fresh — without ‘ delay.’ (c.) In Prov. ix. 
 2, 5, yayin refers to a boiled wine, or syrup, the 
 thickness of which rendered it necessary to mingle 
 water with it previously to drinking. Wine pre- 
 served in this way was sometimes introduced into 
 the offerings for the use of the priests (Num. 
 xviii. 11), as appears from this passage in the 
 Mishna : — ‘ Wine of the heave-offering must not 
 be boiled, because it lessens it’ (Tr. Teroomah , 
 perek xi.). Bartenora, in a note, says, ‘ because 
 people drink less of boiled wine ’ — which is true 
 of it when drunk unmingled, since boiling renders 
 the wine more rich and cloying. But the Mishna 
 adds — ‘ Rabbi Yehuda permits it, because it im- 
 proves it.’ Such a wine Wisdom is aptly repre- 
 sented as mingling for her feast, because such 
 was esteemed the richest and the best w ne. (d,.) 
 Yayin also comprehends a mixed wine of a very 
 different character ; a wine made strong and in- 
 ebriating by the addition of drugs, such as myrrh, 
 mandragora, and opiates. ‘ Such/ observes Bishop 
 Lowth, ‘were the exhilarating, or rather, stupe- 
 fying ingredients which Helen mixed in the 
 bowl together with the wine for her guests op- 
 pressed with grief, to raise their spirits; the com- 
 position of which she had learned in Egypt.’ 
 (Horn. Odyss. iv. 220.) And how much -the 
 Eastern people to this day deal in artificial liquors 
 of prodigious strength, may be seen in a curious 
 chapter of Kempfer upon that subject ( Amam K 
 Exot. Fasc. iii. obs. 15). Thus the drunkard i3 
 properly described (Prov. xxiii. 30) as one ‘ that 
 seeketh mixed wine/ and is ‘ mighty to mingle 
 strong drink 1 (Isa. v. 22). And hence the 
 Psalmist took that highly poetical and sublime 
 image of the cup of God’s wrath, called by Jsaiah 
 
052 
 
 WINK. 
 
 WINE. 
 
 (li. 17) ‘the cup of trembling,* causing intoxica- 
 tion and stupefaction (see Chappelow’s note on 
 Hariri , p. 33) ; containing, as St. John (Rev. 
 xiv. 10) expresses in Greek this Hebrew idea with 
 the utmost precision, though with a seeming con- 
 tradiction in terms, KCKepa<rp.evov &Kparov, merum 
 mixtwn * ( Comment . on Isa. i. 22). (e.) Yayin 
 
 also includes every spec ; cs of fermented grape- 
 wine. The characteristics of fermentation are 
 well marked in Prov. xxiii. 31, where the wine is 
 first described as appearing turbid, in consequence 
 of the subsidence of the gluten ; that, absorbing 
 air, becomes ferment, or yeast, communicating its 
 own decay to the sugar of the grape, and which is 
 then converted into carbonic acid gas and alcohol, 
 the former rising up as a bubble or ‘ eye,’ and thus 
 producing an upward movement of the liquid. 
 
 ‘ Look not thou upon the wine when it is turbid, 
 
 When it giveth its bubble in the cup, moving 
 itself upward : 
 
 At the last it biteth like a serpent, 
 
 And stingeth like a basilisk.’ 
 
 Yayin. then, is a general term for ‘ all sorts of 
 wine ’ (Neh. v. 18). 
 
 2. D'DJJ ausis, occurs only in five texts; 
 Cant. viii. 2 ; Isa. xlix. 26 ; Joel i. 5 ; iii. (iv.) 
 18; Amos ix. 13. The name is derived from 
 coy asas, ‘ to tread down,’ and denotes the ex- 
 pressed juice of the grape or other fruit. By the 
 Greeks it is called yAevitos, by the Latins mus- 
 tum, from the Hebrew ‘ fresh,’ ‘sweet,’ ‘ pure,’ 
 by transposition of letters, as stum from must. 
 
 3. N3D sobhe or saba, from &QD sabho, ‘to 
 
 drink freely,’ because the inspissated wine which 
 it denoted was enticing, and might be freely 
 drunk when mingled with water. The term oc- 
 curs but thrice, probably because this sort of wine 
 is often expressed by the general term ‘ yayin,’ or 
 by ‘ debhash' [Honey]. It is the Latin sapa, 
 and the French sabe, ‘ vin cuit ,’ baked or boiled 
 wine. Syreon , hepsema , and defrutum, ac- 
 cording to Pliny, were species of it (Hist. Nat. 
 xiv. 9) : indeed, syreon, alpu/os oivos, and seria, 
 *a wine-jar,’ most likely derived their name from 
 the syr or caldron of the Jews (Nahum i. 10), 
 in which the sobhe was prepared. As boiling 
 would confer an additional sweetness on the 
 juices of fruits, the syr has probably some con- 
 nection with the Oriental term shir or sir, ex- 
 pressing ‘sweet juice,’ and from which the words 
 sherab , sirob, and syrup are derived. The 
 process of boiling appear^ to have been employed 
 for the preservation of vegetable juices, from the 
 earliest times, and is founded on a correct che- 
 mical principle. ‘ The property of organic sub- 
 stances,’ says Liebig, ‘ to pass into a state of 
 decay, is annihilated in all cases by heating to 
 the boiling point ’ (Lett, on Chemistry, ii. lett. 
 xi.). We have shown above, that it was under- 
 stood by the ancient Jews, and it is yet very ex- 
 tensively practised in the East in the preparation 
 of sherob, or ‘ rob of grapes.’ Baron Tavernier, 
 speaking of Shiraz, says — ‘ Of the wine there are 
 many vessels full, which are burnt for the benefit 
 of the poor travellers and carriers, who find it a 
 great refreshment to drink it with water ’ ( Persian 
 Travels, h. v. c. xxi. p. 248, Loud. 1684). The 
 same traveller, speaking of the Christians of St. 
 around Basrah, affirms, that ‘ in the Eu- 
 
 charist they make use of meal kneaded up witb 
 wine and oil. To make this wine they take 
 grapes dried in the sun, which tlrey call in their 
 language zebibes [ zaha or sa&a], and casting 
 water upon them let them steep for so long a 
 time’ (b. ii. c. viii. p. 91). This raisin-wine was 
 the passum of the Romans.* 
 
 The three texts in which sobhe occurs, answer 
 to the preceding description of it. In Isa. i. 22, 
 we read — ‘Thy silver is become dross, thy sobhe 
 (or boiled wine, is become) a thin wine mingled 
 with water.’ Professor Stuart justly observes, 
 that mahool, ‘ here rendered mixed, means cut, 
 cut round, circumcised.’ Varro uses a phrase 
 exactly parallel, applying to wine of the second 
 pressing the term ‘ circumcised tome,’ which, 
 being mixed with water, yields lora, the drink ol 
 the labourer in winter (De Re Rust. i. 54). Hence 
 the force of the text is this : — ‘ Thy silver is be- 
 come like dross ; thy sobhe (the rich drink of thy 
 nobles) is become like mahool, even as circum- 
 cised wine mixt with water, common lora, the 
 drink of a peasant.’ Rabbi D. Kimchi has tins 
 comment — ‘ The current coin was adulterated 
 with brass, tin, and other metals, and yet circu- 
 lated as good money. The wine also was adul- 
 terated with water in the taverns, and sold, not- 
 withstanding, for pure wine.’ 
 
 In Hosea iv. IS, it is said, ‘ Their sobhe is 
 sour.’ As this wine was valued for its sweetness, 
 it was of course spoilt by acquiring acidify. But 
 inspissated wines are peculiarly liable to this de- 
 generacy. ‘ Defrutum,' says Columella, ‘ how- 
 ever carefully made, is liable to grow acid ’ 
 (xii. 20). 
 
 Nahum i. 10, referring to the enemies of Je- 
 hovah, we should read as follows : — ‘ Like thorns 
 they are woven together, and like their boiled 
 wine the drunkard shall be devoured, (even) a 3 
 stubble fully dry,’ — the first metaphor referring 
 to thorns heaped up together for fuel, the second to 
 the burning of the sobhe in the syr or caldron 
 from neglect, and the third to the combustion of 
 stubble (fcomp. Ezek. xxiv. 6-14). 
 
 4. “Ipn chemer , occurs twice as a descrip- 
 tive; but in Isa. xxvii. 2, where it is applied to 
 the vineyard, some copies read *lDn, ‘ fruitful.’ 
 Chemer and chamar are derived from the verb 
 chamar, ‘ to foam,’ ‘ boil up,’ ‘ froth,’ or ‘ fer- 
 ment ’(the latter term signifying no more originally 
 than the former), and are used in reference to 
 waters and to the waves, as well as to leaven, 
 wine, &c. In Deut. xxxii. 14, chemer is applied 
 to ‘the blood of the grape,’ — as expressive of the 
 juice fresh and foaming from the vat, in its pure 
 but turbid state ; and we perceive no reason for re- 
 sorting to the very secondary sense, of ‘ red wine.’ 
 
 ‘HDfl chamar, the verb, in Ps. lxxv. 8 (9), is 
 applied to pure wine, unmixed wine filled with 
 
 * ‘ Nebeedh, prepared from raisins,’ says E. W. 
 Lane, ‘ is commonly sold in Arab towns, under 
 the name zebeeb, which signifies raisins. This I 
 have often drunk in Cairo, but never could per- 
 ceive that it was in the slightest degree fermented. 
 Other beverages, to which the name of nebeedh 
 has been applied — though, like zebeeb , no longer 
 called by that name — are also sold in Arab 
 towns ’ (Notes to Arabian Nights, vol. i. ch. iii. 
 p. 215. 18411. 
 
WINE. 
 
 WINE. 
 
 mixture, which exactly answers to the phrase of 
 St. John, ‘the mixed unmixed ’ (Rev. xiv. 10). 
 
 5. Nipn chamra, used by Daniel (v. 1, 2, 4, 
 23), and ‘lDPl chemar , by Ezra (vi. 9 ; vii. 22), 
 are Chaldee terms. Chemar we regard as used 
 for pure wine, in its fresh, foaming condition; 
 but chamra may have denoted some rich and 
 royal drink, made strong by the addition of drugs. 
 Tavernier refers to a drink of this sort, used by 
 the luxurious Grand Seignior on visiting the 
 seraglio, which seems to illustrate Daniel v. 23. 
 He says it is ‘a sort purposely prepared for the 
 Grand Seignior himself, called Muscavy ,’ but 
 that ‘ the principal persons about the court send 
 for it secretly to the halvagi-bachi ( Rel . of the 
 G. S. Seraglio, v ol. iii. p. 26, Loud. 1684). Such, 
 
 robably, was the wine which Belshazzar, with 
 is lords, wives, and concubines, drank in the 
 holy vessels, and which Daniel would not touch. 
 — The compilers of the Talmud considered 
 khamra as a ‘sweet wine.’ It is a question, 
 ‘What is Carcenam ? Iiabbi Abhoo explains 
 that khamroa (vinutn dulce) is so called, which 
 is brought hither from Asia.’ 
 
 6. mesech, once translated ‘mixture* 1 
 (Ps. lxxv. 8 (9)), once ‘mixed wine 1 (Prov. 
 xxiii. 30), and once ‘ the drink-offering ’ (Isa. 
 lxv. 11), is derived from masach , ‘to mingle;’ 
 whence miscere and mix. In the first text four 
 terms occur which are elsewhere all rendered 
 ‘ wine ’ — viz. yayin, khamar , mesech, shemarim. 
 It should be read— ‘ There is a cup in the hand 
 of Jehovah, and the unmrxed (or pure) wine is 
 full of mixture ; and he poureth out this, but all 
 the wicked of the earth shall wring and suck out 
 the dregs of it.’ An inebriating and disgusting 
 mixture seems to be denoted here. 
 
 The second text refers to drugged wine; either 
 pure wine made inebriating, or fermented wine 
 made stronger by the addition of spices and 
 drugs. This custom has prevailed? from the ear- 
 liest ages, and is still extant in the East. Bishop 
 Southgate states ‘ the reason why the Persians 
 adulterate their wines ; because, in their natural 
 state they are too weak to produce the desired 
 effect ’ ( Narrative of a Tour, & c. vol. ii. p. 326, 
 Lond. 1840). ‘Hence,’ says he, ‘it has been 
 the custom in Persia to fortify the wines by an 
 infusion of nux vomica and lime, in order to in- 
 crease that inebriating power which a hard- 
 drinking Persian is apt to esteem ’ (p. 325). 
 
 In the third (ext the idol- worshippers are really 
 said to * fill out a mixture to Meni ;’ the heathen- 
 ish custom of pouring out mixed wine to their 
 gods being contrasted with the worshippers of 
 Jehovah on his ‘ holy mountain,’ who were en- 
 joined not to delay the presentation of their first- 
 fruits and liquors, but to pour out ‘ the pure 
 blood of the grape ’ as their drink-offering. When 
 designed for the use of the priests, however, boiled 
 wine, as we have seen, was sometimes presented. 
 
 Though, in the three texts we have examined, 
 mesech refers to some reprobated or offensive 
 mixture, we must not therefore conclude that all 
 mixed wine was pernicious or improper. We 
 have already seen that there were two very oppo- 
 site purposes sought by the mixture of drinks ; 
 one mixture was for the purpose of sensuality, 
 the other for that of sobriety or use. While the 
 kicked sought out a drugged mixture (Prov. xxiii. 
 
 9*3 
 
 30), and was ‘mighty to mingle sweet drink 1 
 (lea. v. 22), Wisdom, on the contrary, ‘ mingled 
 her wine’ with water, or with milk (Prov. ix. 2, 
 5), merely to dilute it and make it properly 
 drinkable. Of the latter mixture Wisdom in- 
 vites the people to drink freely ; but on the use of 
 the former an emphatic woe is pronounced. 
 
 7. "Dfcy shechar, ‘ sweet drink,’ once translated 
 ‘strong wine’ (Num. xxviii. 7). It seems to 
 have formed an independent subject of offering, 
 Shechar is a generic term, including palm-wine 
 and other saccharine beverages, except those pre- 
 pared from the vine. That shechar was made in- 
 ebriating by being mingled with potent drugs 
 we have just seen : but, it may be asked, how 
 shall we explain Prov. xxxi. 6,7 ? — ‘ Give shechar 
 unto him who is ready to perish.’ The Rabbins 
 have generally referred this apparent command to 
 the stupefying cup administered to criminals with 
 the merciful intent of allaying their pains and 
 fears. But can we associate so barbarous a cus- 
 tom with Divine inspiration? The example of 
 the Redeemer is at least opposed to such a notion, 
 and the Spirit, of Christ, was the Spirit of Pro- 
 phecy also, and they ought therefore to harmonize. 
 Nevertheless, when ‘they gave him to drink 
 wine mingled with myrrh ’ (Mark xv. 23), ‘ he 
 received it not.’ Besides, this supposition does 
 not account for the language of the seventh verse. 
 The writer of a series of elaborate articles on ‘ the 
 Wines of Scripture,’ in an English periodical, 
 contends that the advice is given ironically . 
 Lemuel’s mother warns her royal son against the 
 deceitful influences of inebriating beverages, and 
 represents them as being especially injurious in 
 their operation on the personal and official cha- 
 racter tf kings ; and then, in a strain of evident 
 irony, points to the wretch who vainly dreams 
 the Lethean draught will rid him of the burden of 
 
 , anxiety and sorrow which his own profligacy and 
 intemperance have imposed (Truth - Seeker, 
 1845-6). A third view of this difficult passage 
 is given in the present work, in the article Drink, 
 Strong, to which the reader is referred for a full 
 discussion of the whole subject. 
 
 8. tirosh, ‘ vintage fruit. 1 The usual 
 definition of this term is. absurd, viz. that be- 
 cause it, is derived from KH' yarash, ‘ to possess,’ 
 ‘to inherit,’ it signifies ‘a strong wine which is 
 able to get possession of a man, and drive him 
 out of himself! ’ With Bythner, in his Lyra 
 Prophetica, we would adopt the simple deriva- 
 tion of tirosh from its passive quality of being pos- 
 sessed, but apply it rather to ‘vintage-fruit,’ than 
 to any liquid whatever. Consult article Fruit. 
 
 9. shemarim, ‘ preserves,’ or ‘jellies,’ 
 derived from the verb shamar, ‘ to preserve.’ It 
 is translated ‘ wines on the lees,’ in Isa. xxv. 6 ; 
 but in the three other passages in which it occurs, 
 by ‘dregs’ or ‘lees’ alone. Dregs of wine, 
 however, can form no part of a delicious feast ; 
 while in the East various species of ‘ preserves ’ 
 are highly esteemed. Mr. Buckingham records 
 that at Adjeloon he was treated with wine-cakes 
 ( Trav . among the Arab Tribes, p. 137). Our 
 older translators so understood the word. Covei- 
 dale renders the passage ‘ sweet and most pure 
 things;* the Bishops’ Bible (1568), ‘delicate 
 things,’ and ‘ most pleasant dishes’ [Shemarim]. 
 
 A passage from Tavernier's curious Relatic 3> 
 
95i 
 
 WINE. 
 
 WINE. 
 
 of the Grand Seignior’s Seraglio serves to show 
 what an important place in Eastern entertain- 
 ments preserves and confections occupy : ‘ The 
 offices where the conserves and sweetmeats are 
 made (there being six or seven of them) are above 
 the kitchens, and served by four hundred Hel- 
 vagis. They are perpetually at work in those 
 seven offices, and there they prepare all sorts of 
 conserves, dry and liquid, and several sorts of 
 syrups.' ‘ In the same offices they also prepare 
 the ordinary drink of the Turks, which they call 
 sherbet , and it is made several ways.’ ‘ They make 
 also another sort of drink which they call magion 
 \el-majoon\ composed of several drugs, whereby 
 it is made hot 1 (Lond. 1684, chap. iii. p. 26). 
 
 10. eshishah, once translated ‘flagon ’ 
 
 only ; in three passage? ‘ flagon of wine and 
 once ‘ flagon ’ with grapes joined to it in the ori- 
 ginal, as noticed in the margin (Hosea iii. 1). 
 The Sept, renders it in four different ways, viz. 
 \dyavov airb rpyavov, ‘ a cake from the frying- 
 pan’ (2 Sam. vi. 19); in another part, which 
 narrates the same fact, apopl tt)v & prov, ‘a sweet 
 cake of fine flour and honey ’ (1 Chron. xvi. 3); 
 nreppara pera aracpibosS a cake made with raisins ’ 
 (Kos. iii. 1), ‘ raisins ’ here corresponding to 
 ‘ grapes ’ in the Hebrew ; and by one copy apvpois, 
 ‘ sweet cakes ’ (Cant. ii. 5) ; but in others pvpois, 
 1 unguents.’ In the Targum to the Hebrew 
 mVBS tzappikhith, m in Kxod. xvi. 31, the 
 Chaldee term is eshishan , ‘ a cake,’ ren- 
 
 dered in our version by ‘ wafers. 1 Eshishah has 
 been supposed to be connected with ash, ‘ fire,* 
 and to denote some sort of ‘ sweet cake 1 prepared 
 with fire; but the second part of the word has not 
 been hitherto explained. 
 
 Perhaps the following extract from Olearius 
 (1637) may throw light on the kind of prepara- 
 tions denoted by shemarim and eshishah : * The 
 Persians are permitted to make a sirrup of sweet 
 wine, which they boyl till it be reduc’d to a sixth 
 part, and be grown as thick as oyl. They call 
 this drug duschab [ debhash~\ , and when they 
 would take of it, they dissolve it with water. 1 
 ‘ Sometimes they boyl the duschab so long that 
 they reduce it into a paste, for the convenience of 
 travellers, who cut it. with a knife, and dissolve 
 it in water. At Tabris they make a certain con- 
 serve of it, which they call hehoa \el-magin~\ , 
 mixing therewith beaten almonds, flour, &c. 
 They put this mixture into a long and narrow 
 bag, and having set it under the press, they make 
 of it a paste, which grows so hard that a man 
 must have a hatchet to cut it. They make also a 
 kind of conserve of it, much like a pudding, 
 which they call zutzuch, thrusting through the 
 middle of it a small cotton thread to keep the 
 paste together 1 ( Ambassador’s Travels, b. vi. 
 p. 311). The Tartars consumed a similar pre- 
 paration ; ‘ They have certain cakes made of 
 meal, rice, and millet, fry*d in oil or honey ’ (b. 
 iv. p. 173). Amongst the presents received by 
 the ambassadors there is enumerated ‘ a bottle of 
 scherab [syrup] or Persian wine 1 (p. 175). This 
 zutzuch is but a harsh corruption of the Hebrew 
 eshishah. and is by others called hashish and 
 achicha. Even this substance, in course of time, 
 was converted into a medium of intoxication by 
 means of drugs. ‘ Hemp is cultivated and used 
 ca a narcotic over all Arabia. The flowers, when 
 
 mixed with tobacco, are called hashish Thj 
 higher classes eat it (hemp) in a jelly or pasta 
 called maajoun \el~magin\ , mixed with honey, 
 or other sweet drugs 1 (Crichton's Arabia, voi. ii. 
 p. 413). Lempriere says — ‘Instead of the in- 
 dulgence of opium by the Moors, they substitute 
 the achicha, a species of flax’ ( Tour to Morocco , 
 1794, p. 300). The leaves of the garden hemp 
 ( shahdanaj ), says El-Kazweenee, are the benj 
 (bange), which, when eaten, disorders the reason. 
 De Sacy and Lane derive the name of the Eastern 
 sect of ‘Assassins’ ( Hashshasheen ), ‘hemp- 
 eaters, 1 from their practice of using shahdanaj to 
 fit them for their dreadful work. El-Idreesee, 
 indeed, applies the term Hasheesheeyeh to the 
 ‘Assassins. 1 
 
 11. fDn chometz, u£os [Leaven], rendered 
 ‘ vinegar’ (i. e. sick or sour wine) in the common 
 version. The modern Jews still employ this 
 phrase to denote wine spoiled by acidity. It 
 seems, however, in its general use, to have sig- 
 nified anciently a thin acidulated beverage, as 
 well as to comprehend ‘ vinegar, 1 in the modern 
 sense of the word. In Ruth ii. 14, it is named as 
 the drink of the reapers of Boaz, and probably 
 corresponded to the posca (from post-escam) given 
 to the Roman legions. A very small wine, 
 called pesca and sera (from seor , ‘sour’), is still 
 used by the harvesters in Italy and the Penin- 
 sula. This term is employed by the Psalmist 
 in lxix. 21, ‘They gave me also gall for my 
 meat ; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to 
 drink, 1 — a prediction actually fulfilled at the Cru- 
 cifixion of the Messiah. Thus the o|os mingled 
 with gall (Matt, xxvii. 34) is the same as the 
 olvos mingled with myrrh (Mark xv. 23), a 
 bitter substance [Rosh]. 
 
 12. Olvos, the Greek generic term for wine, 
 from the Hebrew yayin. It comprehended new 
 wine ( olvos veos ), luscious wine (y\ evKos), pure 
 or unmingled wine (jxKparov), and a thin sour 
 wine (tiljos). The adjective veos distinguished 
 olvos from 7ra\atos, old wine (Matt. ix. 17; 
 Mark ii. 22 ; Luke v. 37). Florentinus, in the 
 Geoponica , counsels the husbandman often to 
 taste both his new and his old wine, so that the 
 slightest sign of acidity might be detected at its 
 commencement (lib. vii. cap. 7). In Luke v. 
 37-8, ‘No man putteth veos olvos into old 
 bottles, else the veos olvos will burst the bottles 
 and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish; but 
 veos olvos must be put into new bottles, and both 
 are preserved, 1 — the allusion is to the large skin 
 bottles of the East, into which the fresh grape- 
 juice ( mustum or yXevuos) was frequently put 
 for preservation. Job alfectingly refers to tint 
 custom, when he says, ‘ I am as wine which hath 
 no vent — ready to burst, like new bottles 
 his heart was full to bursting, so that the bodily 
 frame could hardly resist the internal working’. 
 of the afflicted spirit. If, however, the bottli. 
 happened to be old, the wine would commencx 
 fermentation, and the bottle would actually burs!, 
 and both would perish. ‘The force of termer.* 
 ing wine is very great; being able, if closdh 
 stopped up, to burst through the strongest casi. 
 (Chambers 1 Cyclopcedia, vol. ii.art.‘ Wine,’175C% 
 The phenomena referred to have been fully ex- 
 plained by the chemical researches of Liebig. 
 Fermentation depends upon the access of ail 
 
WINE. 
 
 WINE. 
 
 95 6 
 
 to the grane-juice, the gluten of which absorb* 
 oxygen and becomes ferment or yeast, communi- 
 cating its own decomposition to the saccharine 
 matter of the grape, which becomes transformed 
 into alcohol and carbonic acid gas. It is the ex- 
 pansion of the gas thus liberated which bursts the 
 bottles, when the fermentation has once fairly 
 started. Old bottles would have portions of the 
 sediment of former wine adhering to their sides, 
 which must have absorbed oxygen, and thus 
 have become converted into fermenting matter. 
 From age and exposure to the heat, old bottles 
 would become dry and full of cracks and minute 
 crevices, which would give admission to the air. 
 Thus, as Burckhardt informs us, speaking of the 
 Beyrouk honey of the Syrians, ‘ They use it in 
 rubbing their water-skins, in order to exclude the 
 air’ ( Travels in Syria , p. 129). Hence our 
 Lord, adverting to the difficulty of young dis- 
 ciples bearing all at once his new doctrines and 
 commandments, intimates that the earthly or 
 fleshly vessel was noc yet fitted for their full re- 
 ception ; that their minds must be first cleansed 
 from the remnants and leaven of the old doctrine, 
 and gradually renewed by the power of the truth. 
 
 13. rxevKos, must, in common usage, ‘sweet’ 
 or ‘ new wine.’ It only occurs once in the New 
 Testament (Acts ii. 13). Josephus applies the 
 term to the wine represented as being pressed out 
 of the bunch of grapes, by the Archi-oino-choos, 
 into the cup of the royal Pharaoh. It seems to 
 have been applied to wine in its sweetest state. 
 Its derivation, indeed, denotes ‘ lusciousness :’ 
 hence Homer ( Odyss . xx. 68) applies a word of 
 kindred origin, y\vK€p6s, ‘luscious,’ to honey, but, 
 in the same line, pbvs, ‘ sweet,’ to wine. The 
 writers of the Geoponica constantly use ykevicos 
 in the sense of must. Diophanes, who was a 
 good Latinist, puts mustum into a Grecian dress, 
 in order the better to express his meaning. See 
 Geoponica (ix. 20), where he says, ykevuovs, 
 TouTearl rov Kakovpevov govarov , — ‘ of gleukos , 
 that is, what is called mouston .’ In the same 
 way the Romans distinguished must as dulce, 
 
 ‘ luscious,’ but the wine made from it only as 
 suave , ‘ sweet.’ Pliny »ays, ‘ Medium inter dulcia 
 vinum est, quod Greeci aigleucos vocant, hoc est, 
 semper mustum. Id evenit cura, quoniam fervere 
 prthibetur : sic enim appellant musti in vina tran- 
 situm ’ (Hist. Nat. xiv. 9) : — ‘ That which holds 
 the middle place among the sweet wines is what 
 th*» Greeks call aigleucos, that is, always must. 
 Tnat comes out with care [being the first pres- 
 sure of the ripe grapes], by which it is for- 
 bidden to ferment : for so they call the passing of 
 must into [intoxicating] wine.’ Tkevuos was 
 often preserved by being put into jars closely 
 stopped up, which were placed in cool cellars, 
 and sometimes it was buried in vessels beneath 
 the earth, a custom still followed in the East. 
 Formerly in France a similar plan of keeping 
 sweet wine obtained. The Nouveaux Secrets 
 concetnans lesArtset Metiers gives this receipt : 
 
 ‘ To preserve the wine in the must one year. 
 Take the first wine which runs from the grapes, be- 
 fore tl ey have been pressed ; put it in the barrel, 
 and having stopt the mouth well and pitched it 
 over, bo that the water cannot penetrate, then put 
 (lie bai^el in a cistern sufficiently full of water 
 o cover it entirely ; at the end of forty days with- 
 Iraw it. and the wine will preserve its liquor all 
 
 .he year’ (vol. ii. p. 371, Nancy, ‘.721). This 
 would resemble the celebrated Hungarian wine 
 called Tokay JEssenz, and be little liable to the 
 alcoholic fermentation, since, from the gentle 
 pressure of the grapes themselves, the albumen of 
 the grape, contained in the central division of the 
 fruit, would not be pressed out, and upon this 
 the fermentation partly depends. The ancients 
 preserved some of their wines by depurating them. 
 ‘ The must or new wine,’ says Mr. T. S. Carr, 
 ‘ was refined with the yolks of pigeons’ eggs ’ 
 (Rom. Antiq. p. 323), which occasioned the sub- 
 sidence of the albumen or ferment. But on the 
 new wine being allowed to stand, this principle 
 would subside by natural gravity : hence the 
 ancients poured off tlfe upper and luscious por- 
 tion of the wine into another vessel, repeating the 
 process as often as necessary, until they procured 
 a clear sweet wine which would keep.* If the 
 precautions we have referred to were neglected, 
 as was probably the case sometimes with ykevuos, 
 intended for speedy consumption, the wine would 
 of course ferment. Perhaps such a species might 
 be referred to in Acts ii. 13. 
 
 Tiie Latin translator of Galen, with others, has 
 confounded ykeGuos with ykvuv, or ykv kos, a 
 very different sort of wine, corresponding to the 
 Roman passum. It was a sort of natural sapa 
 concocted with the heat of the sun. Didymus, 
 one of the Geoponic authors, thus describes the 
 mode of making it in Bithynia : ‘ Thirty days 
 before the vintage they twist the twigs which bear 
 the clusters, and strip off the foliage, so that the 
 sun, striking down, may dry up the moisture, 
 and make the wine sweet, just as we do by boil- 
 ing.* ‘ Some persons, after they have bared the 
 bunches from the leaves, and the grapes begin to 
 wrinkle, gather them together in the clusters, and 
 expose them to the sun until they have all become 
 uvce passes. Lastly, they take them up when the 
 sun is at the hottest point, carry them to the 
 upper press, and leave them there the rest of the 
 day and the following night, and about daylight 
 they tread them’ (Geop. lib. vii. c. 18, p. 503, 
 Leipsic ed. 1781). Hesychius identifies the 
 ykvuv with hepsema and siraion : — eif/pga, Unep 
 evioi 'S.lpaiov uakovaiv, akkoi Ykvuv. 
 
 Besides the various kinds we have considered, 
 two other wines are mentioned in Scripture, which 
 derive their name from the locality of their 
 growth. 
 
 The Wine of Helbon. — We have no inti* 
 mation of the character of this wine; but as the 
 pleasant smell of the grapes is noticed in Cant, 
 ii. 13, we may infer that the wine also had a 
 fragrant scent. It has been generally regarded 
 
 * Chardin observes that * they frequently pour 
 wine from vessel to vessel in the East ; for when 
 they begin one, they are obliged immediately to 
 empty it into smaller vessels, or into bottles, or it 
 would grow sour' (Harmer’s Observ. vol. ii. p. 
 155). Reference is made to this custom in Jer. 
 xlviii. 11 — ‘ Moab hath not been emptied from 
 vessel to vessel ; his taste remaineth in him, and his 
 scent is not changed.’ Fermentation, excited by 
 the lees, completely changes the character of the 
 wine ; the luscious saccharine fruit of the vine 
 be< omes transformed into other substances (alco- 
 hol, cenanthic ether, essential oils, &e.), of ^ 
 pungent taste and powerful odour. 
 
WINS. 
 
 WISDOM OF SOLOMON. 
 
 as tftt Chttlyhonium vinum of the ancients, and 
 wag sold at the marts of Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 18). 
 As Judah and Israel supplied this celebrated 
 mart with ‘ wheat of Minnith and Pannag, and 
 i lebkash, and oil, and balm,’ so the Syrian wine of 
 Helbon, as the choicest of the country, being car- 
 ried to Damascus, would find its way hence to 
 Tyre, and, through the Tyrians, become known 
 to the Greeks and Romans.. As the land car- 
 riage to Damascus, and thence over the shoulder ot 
 Mount Lebanon, to Tyre, must have considerably 
 enhanced the price, it seems natural to suppose 
 that this wine was of the concentrated or inspis- 
 sated sort. Such the Chalybonium vinum was 
 in fact. In truth, as Mr. Carr observes, ‘ the 
 application of the fumarium * to the mellowing 
 of wines, was borrowed from the Asiatics ; and 
 thus exhalation would go on until the wine was 
 reduced to the state of a syrup ’ (Rom. Antiq. 
 ]). 323). ‘Such preparations,’ says Sir Edward 
 Barry, ‘ are made by the modern Turks, which 
 they frequently carry with them on long journeys, 
 and occasionally take as a strengthening and re- 
 viving cordial’ ( Obs . on Ancient Whies , ch. v. 
 Lond. 1775). Dr. Bowring, in his Report on 
 the Commerce of Syria , says that ‘ the habit of 
 boiling wine is almost universal, and destroys 
 its character’ (p. 17). Dr. A. Russell, in his 
 Natural History of Aleppo (the ancient Helbon ), 
 considers its wine to have been a species of sapa. 
 
 4 The inspissated juice of the grape, sapa vini, 
 called here dibbs , is brought to the city in skins, 
 and sold in the public markets ; it has much the 
 appearance of coarse honey, is of a sweet taste, 
 and in great use among the people of all sorts * 
 
 (p. 20). 
 
 The Wine of Lebanon is remarked as famous 
 for its fragrant scenf(Hos. xiv. 7). We understand 
 ‘ grapes’ to be meant here, but some of the wine 
 made from them might also be odoriferous. The 
 20,000 bottles of wine which Solomon supplied 
 to Hiram for the labourers in Lebanon (2 Chron. 
 ii. 10), was probably a thin weak drink, a species 
 of o|os or khomets, a common drink in Syria 
 and Southern Europe at this day. Rauwolf, 
 D’Arvieux, La Roque, Le Bruyn, Buckingham, 
 and Bowring, all speak of the modern wines of 
 Lebanon as excellent. There are two species of 
 the sweet fermented wines : one red, and so 
 unctous that it adheres to the glass ; the other 
 of the colour of muscadine, called vino d’oro. 
 Cyrus Redding states that ‘ on Mount Libanus, 
 at Kesroan, good wines are made, but they are 
 for the most part vins cuits. The wine is pre- 
 served in jars’ (Hist, of Modern Wines , p. 282). 
 Paxton, who witnessed the vintage in Libanon, 
 says, ‘ The juice that was extracted when I visited, 
 the press, was not made into [what is now called] 
 wine, but into what is called dibs' (p. 215). 
 
 Much light may be obtained concerning an- 
 cient wines, by consulting the Greek and Roman 
 writers on this subject ; and a most able summary 
 of the information they contain will be found in 
 
 * When the Mishna forbids smoked wines from 
 being used in offerings (Menachoth f viii. 6, et 
 comment.), it has chiefly reference to the Roman 
 practice of fumigating them with sulphur, the 
 vapour of which absorbed the oxygen, and thus 
 arrested the fermentation. The Jews carefully 
 vchewed the wines and vinegar of the Gentiles. 
 
 Dr. Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
 Antiquities , under the article ‘ Vinum,’ by Pro- 
 fessor Ramsay ; vide also Tirosh lo Yayin, Lond. 
 1841; Athenaeum for 1836; and a series of 
 elaborate articles in the Truth- Seeker, 1845. 
 
 The annexed engraving of the Thermapolium 
 is copied from the scarce work of Andreas 
 Baccius (He Nat. Vinorum Hist. Romae, 1597, 
 lib. iv. p. 178). The plan was obtained by him- 
 self, assisted by two antiquaries, from the ruins 
 of the Diocletian Baths. Nothing can more 
 clearly exhibit the contrast between the ancient 
 wines and those of modern Europe, than the 
 widely different modes of treating them. ‘ The 
 hot water,’ observes Sir Edward Barry, ‘ was 
 often necessary to dissolve their more inspissated 
 and old wines.’ 
 
 Oil and Wine ( i\aiov na \ oluov , Luke x. 33, 
 34). in this passage, signifies ‘ pouring 
 
 upon.’ Galen mentions an article called olveXaioi /, 
 ‘oil-wine,’ or wine compounded with oil; and 
 Africanus, in the Geoponica , directs the young 
 branches of the fig-trees, after pruning, to be 
 anointed with it. In the Latin translation ap- 
 pended, the single compound word of the original 
 is translated vino et oleo. Pliny, in the chapter 
 relating to medicated oils, gives to one the title of 
 oleum gleucinum , made by incorporating ‘must’ 
 and ‘ oil ’ (Hist. Nat. xv. 7 ; Columella, xii. 51). 
 
 p R JL 
 
 WINNOWING. [Agriculture.] ’ 
 WINTER. [Palestine.] 
 
 WISDOM OF SOLOMON (2o<pla 2a\o- 
 p.6vTos [Apocrypha], is the name of one of the 
 deuterocanonical books, and one of those to 
 which, with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Wis- 
 dom of Jesbs son of Sirach, the term libri so* 
 pientiales has been generally applied. As in the 
 book of Ecclesiastes, of which this is an imitation, 
 the anonymous author personates King Solomon, 
 whom he introduces as speaking. From the ci- 
 tations (according to the Septuagint) of the JO 
 
WISDOM OF SOLOMON. 
 
 pheta Isaiah and Jeremiah, it may be inferred 
 that the writer had no intention of giving it to 
 be understood that it was written by Solomon ; but 
 that he only followed a common custom of Greek 
 and other writers, in employing the name of this 
 distinguished royal penman. Athanasius, or the 
 author of the Synopsis , and Epiphanius ( De 
 Ponder .) give it the name of Panaretos, or ‘ the 
 treasure of virtue.’ It is divided into two, or, 
 according to some, into three parts. The first 
 six chapters contain encomiums on Wisdom, 
 which all, and especially kings, are admonished 
 to acquire, as the true security against present 
 evils, and as leading to future glory and immor- 
 tality, while a contrary course tends to misery 
 here, and still greater misery hereafter. This, 
 observes Jahn ( Introd .), is the first express men- 
 tion of a future state of rewards and punishments. 
 In chaps, vii. and viii. Solomon is introduced, 
 teaching how wisdom is to be acquired ; and in 
 chap. x. is given his pi-ayer for this inestimable 
 gift. Chaps, x.-xix. contain historical examples, 
 drawn from the Old Testament, showing the hap- 
 piness which had resulted from the pursuit of wis- 
 dom, and the fatal consequences of sin, especially 
 the sin of idolatry. The book concludes with 
 divers pious and philosophical observations. De 
 Wette ( Einleitung , 6 312) observes that this book 
 embodies the ethi co-religious notions of the 
 Alexandrian Jews, in which the philosophy of 
 the Greeks and further Asiatics was engrafted 
 on Mosaism. From the author’s invectives 
 against unbelieving and oppressive rulers, as well 
 as his strongly-marked nationality, it has been 
 inferred that some special object may have given 
 occasion to the work. Jahn ( l . c.) and De Wette 
 ( l . c.) both defend the unity of the book against 
 some who have endeavoured to show, from the 
 variety in the style and subjects, that it was the 
 composition of more than one author. 
 
 The Book of Wisdom has been always * ad- 
 mired for the sublime ideas which it contains of 
 the perfections of God, and for the excellent 
 moral tendency of its precepts ’ (Horne’s Introd.). 
 Its style, observes Bishop Lowth, after Calmet, 
 
 ( is unequal, often pompous and turgid, as well 
 c.s tedious and diffuse, and abounds in epithets di- 
 rectly contrary to the practice of the Hebrews : it 
 is, however, sometimes temperate, poetical, and sub- 
 lime.’ Calmet supposes that the author had read 
 the works of the Greek poets and philosophers. 
 
 Language of Wisdom. — Although there have 
 not been wanting individuals who have con- 
 tended for a Hebrew, Syriac, or Chaldee original, 
 at least of some parts of the book, these hypo- 
 theses are now considered to be entirely without 
 foundation. The Hebraisms admit of an easy 
 explanation. The assonances and verbal allu- 
 sions, and the Greek colouring throughout, be- 
 speak a Greek original (De Wette, l. <?.). That 
 the book never existed in Hebrew we have also 
 the testimony of Jerome, who observes that ‘ the 
 style savours of the Greek eloquence’ ( Prcef . in 
 Lib. Salom.). 
 
 Author and Age. — The book was ascribed to 
 Jesus Sirach by Augustine (De Doct. Christ.), 
 who afterwards withdrew this opinion ( Retract .); 
 to Zerubbabel by J. Faber, and to Solomon him- 
 self by Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Lac- 
 tantius, and others of the fathers; but their con- 
 jectures were witnout a shadow of foundation. 
 
 WISDOM OF JESUS SIRACH. 957 
 
 Jerome (. Prcef . in Lib. Salom.) calls it a pseudepi- 
 graphal book, commonly ascribed to Solomon, 
 He adds that some of the ancients assigned it to 
 Philo, an opinion favoured by Augustine (De 
 Civit. Dei) and adopted by Nicholas de Lyra 
 and Luther (Pref. to Wisdom). But both the 
 style and the philosophical views are altogether 
 repugnant to this hypothesis (De Welte, ut sup.), 
 Others have ascribed it to an elder Philo, men- 
 tioned by Josephus, who flourished under the 
 second temple, and wrote a book De Anima : 
 but this Philo was a heathen. All that can be 
 concluded with any degree of probability is, that 
 the author was an Alexandrian Jew, who lived 
 after the transplanting of the Greek philosophy 
 into Egypt, and who seems to refer to the oppres- 
 sions of the later Ptolemies. Jahn (Introd.) con- 
 ceives that the book was written at the close of 
 the first, or beginning of the second, century before 
 the Christian era, and that the persecution of the 
 * son of God ’ points to the time of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes. From the striking resemblance to the 
 history of the persecution of Jesus, it has been 
 erroneously supposed to have been written, or, at 
 least, interpolated, after the Christian era. 
 
 Church Authority of Wisdom. — It is cited 
 with the highest degree of respect by Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom.), Tertullian (De Prescript.), 
 Rufinus, and others. It is declared canonical by 
 the third council of Carthage, and included 
 among the five books of Solomon. Jerome (ut 
 sup.), however, says that he refrained from cor- 
 recting the old Latin version of it, as he only 
 desired to amend the canonical Scriptures. Au- 
 gustine observes that, from long prescription, it had 
 deserved to be heard with veneration in the church 
 of Christ (De Prcedesl. Sanct. i. 14), and tha* 
 it was therefore read from the step of the readers, 
 &c. Bishop Cosin (Scholast. Hist, of the Canon) 
 deduces from this an implied inferiority to the 
 universally received books, inasmuch as the 
 reader was an inferior officer ; and supposes that 
 the Scriptures of the higher class were read by the 
 priests and bishops from the ambo. But we con- 
 ceive that Augustine only meant to show that this, 
 with the other books of the same class, was 
 honoured by being read in the church at the 
 same place and by the same functionary as the 
 canonical Scriptures. Some have supposed that 
 Wisdom is cited in the New Testament. Comp, 
 iii. 7, with Matt. xiii. 43; ii. 18, Matt, xxvii, 
 46; xiii. 1, Rom. i. 20 ; ix. 13, v. 18, 19, vii. 
 26, Rom. xi. 34, Eph. vi. 13, 14, 17, Heb. i. 3. 
 
 Versions. — There are three ancient versions ex- 
 tant — the Syriac, Arabic, and Latin. Jerome 
 did not revise the Latin [Vulgate]. — W. W. 
 
 WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH 
 (Gr. ZZotyia TtjctoD viov leipax, Lat. Ecclesias- 
 ticus) [Apocrypha], one of the books of the 
 second canon [Deuterocanonical], consists of 
 a collection of moral sentences after the manner 
 of the Proverbs of Solomon (i. — ix. xxiv. comp, 
 with Prov. i. — ix.) The work is arranged upon 
 no systematic plan, but abounds in directions re- 
 lating to religion and human conduct. Wisdom 
 is represented here, as in Proverbs, as the source 
 of human happiness, and the same views of human 
 life, founded on the belief of a recompense, per- 
 vade the instructions of this book also, wherein, 
 however, a more matured reflection is perceptible 
 (De Wette’s Einleitung). It is in fact the com* 
 
958 WISDOM OF JESUS SIRACH. 
 
 WISDOM OF JESUS SIRACH. 
 
 position of a philosopher who had deepTy studied 
 the fortunes and manners of mankind, and did 
 not hesitate to avail himself of the philosophy of 
 older moralists; xii. 8 — xiii. 23 ; xv. 11 — 20; 
 xv i. 26 — xvii. 20; xix. 6 — 17 ; xxiii. 16 — 27 ; 
 xxvi. 1 — 18; xxx. 1 — 13; xxxvii. 27; xxxviii. 
 15, 24 — xxxix. 1 1, &c. ( lb .). It abounds in grace, 
 wisdom, and spirit, although sometimes more par- 
 ticular in inculcating principles of politeness than 
 those of virtue (Cellerier, Introd. d la Lecture 
 des Liv. Saints ). It is not unfrequently marked 
 by considerable beauty and elegance of expres- 
 sion, occasionally rising to the sublimest heights 
 of human eloquence ( Christ . Remembrancer, vol. 
 ix.). It has been observed of it by Addison 
 (see Horne’s Introd., vol. iv.) that ‘ it would be 
 regarded by our modern wits as one of the most 
 shining tracts of morality that are extant, if it 
 appeared under the name of a Confucius or of 
 any celebrated Grecian philosopher.’ 
 
 Language. — The original of the book was 
 Hebrew. This is attested by the Greek trans- 
 lator in his preface, as well as by the idiomatic 
 character of the version, the author of which 
 (as has been shown by Drusius and Eichhorn) 
 jas sometimes even misunderstood his original. 
 Jerome (Prof, in Lib. Salom.') asserts that he 
 nad seen it in Hebrew : ‘ There is also carried 
 about the Panaretos of Jesus, son of Sirach, and 
 another pseudepi graph al book, which is inscribed 
 The Wisdom of Solomon. The first of these I 
 have seen in Hebrew, styled, not Ecclesiasticus, 
 
 as in Latin, but the Parables (D'^D mishlim ) ; 
 to which were united Ecclesiastes and Canticles, 
 (hat it might resemble Solomon not only in the 
 number, but the character of the subjects.’ It has 
 been, however, questioned whether the work which 
 Jerome saw was not an Aramaic version. 
 
 Author and Age. — The author calls himself 
 Jesus, son of Sirach, of Jerusalem, but we know 
 nothing further of him. George Syncellus ( Chro - 
 nogr.') calls him high priest of the Jews; but 
 there appears to be no sufficient authority for this 
 and other conjectures respecting him. 
 
 The age of the book is not easily determined. 
 The author eulogizes the high priest Simon, son 
 of Onias, in terms which seem to indicate a con- 
 temporary ; and the author’s grandson, who trans- 
 lated it, states in his preface that he had arrived 
 in Egypt in the thirty-eighth year , in the reign 
 of King Euergetes. But there were two high 
 priests of the same name, Simon the Just, who 
 lived in the reign of Ptolemy Lagus (about b.c. 
 290), and another, the contemporary of Ptolemy 
 Philopator (b.c. 221). There were also two sove- 
 reigns called Euergetes , the first of whom was the 
 son and successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus (b.c. 
 247), and Euergetes II. or Ptolemy Physcon 
 (b.c. 169). Prideaux ( Connection ) and Eich- 
 horn maintain that Simon the Second is the priest 
 referred to, that the oppressions presupposed by 
 the prayer in chap. 1. correspond with the reign 
 of Ptolemy Philopator, and that the translator 
 came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the 
 reign of Euergetes II. (Physcon). Jahn, on the 
 other hand, observes, that the first Euergetes 
 reigned only twenty-four, and the second twenty- 
 rune years, and that the thirty-eighth year refers 
 to the age of the translator. Jahn further ob- 
 rorvco, that the eulogies on Simon do not corre- 
 
 spond with the character of Simon II., but tba- 
 they are in every respect applicable to Simon tha 
 Just. He therefore infers that the author com- 
 posed this work about the year b.c. 300, and that 
 his grandson translated it about b.c. 280. Winer 
 (De utr. Sirac. atate , and Real-Worterbuch ) 
 maintains that Simon the Just is the person re- 
 ferred to, but that it is not necessary to conclude 
 that the author was his contemporary. He still 
 thinks idiat, although the grammatical construc- 
 tion rather requires erei tg3 iirl rov Evepyerov 
 to refer to the age of the monarch’s reign, Euer- 
 getes the Second was the king in whose reign the 
 translation was made, as the canon could not 
 have been yet closed under the reign of the first 
 Euergetes, as implied in the preface, — ‘ the law, 
 the prophets, and the other books.’ The ‘ thirty- 
 eighth year of his reign,’ although not applicable 
 to the first Euergetes, may refer to the second, if 
 his regency be included. According to this, 
 which De Wette conceives the most probable 
 hypothesis, the translator lived b.c. 130, and the 
 author b.c. 180. 
 
 Church Authority of Ecclesiasticus. — Rufinus 
 (in Symb.) observes that ‘ The Wisdom of the Son 
 of Sirach is called in Latin Ecclesiasticus, which 
 signifies not the name of the author, but the qua- 
 lity of the writing,’ and that it, with the other 
 ecclesiastical books, including the Shepherd of 
 Hermas, was read in the Church, but not. em- 
 ployed to confirm the authority of the faith.’ 
 Calmet ( Preface ) concludes that it was called 
 Ecclesiasticus from its supposed resemblance to 
 Ecclesiastes, as well as to denote its inferior 
 authority before it was finally received into the 
 canon. Jerome, although rejecting it from the 
 canon, cites it as divine Scripture : ‘ Divina Scrip- 
 tura loquitur : musica in luctu in tempestivanar- 
 ratio’ (Ecclus. xxii. 6). It is cited in the Epistle 
 of Barnabas : ‘ Let not thine hand be stretched out. 
 to receive,' &c. (Ecclus. iv. 31), in the first Epistle 
 of Clement, and by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Origen, Tertullian, and most of the fathers. 
 Augustine (De Doct. Christ, c. 8) says that se- 
 veral of the fathers cite it under the name of 
 Solomon, not because it was his, but from a cer- 
 tain resemblance to his writings. Allusions to 
 this book have been supposed to be not unfre- 
 quently discernible in the New Testament. Com- 
 pare, especially, Ecclus. xxxiii. 13 ; Rom. ix. 
 21; xi. 19; Luke xii. 19, 20; v. 11; James i. 
 19, &c. ; xxiv. 17, 18; Matt. xi. 28-9; John 
 iv. 13, 14; vi. 35, &c. 
 
 We may observe, in conclusion, that all 
 which applies to the authority of this book is 
 equally applicable to the other books of the 
 second canon. In the early ages of the Church, 
 the protocanonical books, or those received by the 
 Jews, and preserved in Hebrew, were alone con- 
 sidered as canonical, at least until the time of 
 Augustine, when the term ‘ canonical ’ seems to 
 have acquired a new meaning. But some of the 
 most distinguished teachers of the same period 
 considered all the books in the Alexandrian ver- 
 sion, if not canonical, as inspired, and cite them 
 as authorities. At the period of the Reformation 
 the Protestants reverted to the Jewish canon* 
 Learned Roman Catholics, even since the decision 
 of the Council of Trent, have considered them- 
 selves at liberty to make a distinction betw^o 
 the books of the first and second canon, pod to 
 
WITCH. 
 
 WITCHCRAFTS. 
 
 hold the tatter as of inferior authority ; whilst in 
 recent times there have not been wanting voices 
 raised in the Reformed Church in favour even of 
 their inspiration (Cellerier, ut sup.). Mr. Robin- 
 son, the translator of Moehler’s Symbolik , is mis- 
 taken in his statement (§ xlii., note) that the 
 Anglican Church agrees in the canon of Scripture 
 with the French Protestants. The Church of 
 England, as has been already seen [Deutero- 
 canonical], has adhered, in respect to the Old 
 Testament, to the only canon which was known 
 to the Church before the Council of Hippo ; and 
 while she excludes the Greek books from the 
 canon, has passed no definitive judgment respect- 
 ing their authority or inspiration. 
 
 In the Libri Symbolici Ecclesice Orientalis, 
 Jena, 1843, there are two canons given, one in 
 the Confession of Faith of Cyril Lucaris, patriarch 
 of Constantinople, 1631, comprehending only the 
 twenty-two books of the Old Testament from the 
 canon of Laodicea, and rejecting the ‘ Apocry- 
 phal,’ so called, because they have not received 
 the same authority and approbation from the 
 Holy Spirit with those properly and beyond con- 
 troversy accounted canonical the other, that of 
 Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, who presided 
 at the synod held in that city in 1672, which 
 charges Cyril with applying the term apocryphal 
 foolishly and ignorantly, or rather maliciously, 
 to the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, the 
 history of the Dragon, and of Susanna, the Mac- 
 cabees, and the Wisdom of Sirach, which, although 
 they do not perhaps seem to be included by all, 
 the Council of Jerusalem holds, notwithstanding, 
 to be genuine and integral parts of the same 
 Scriptures, 
 
 Versions of Ecclesiasticus . — We have already 
 seen that Jerome did not translate this book. The 
 old Latin version frequently differs from the 
 Greek, and has several additions, besides some- 
 times reversing the order of the text. Athanasius, 
 or the author of the Synopsis Scriptures, considers, 
 but without sufficient grounds, the fifty-first chap- 
 ter to have proceeded from the Greek translator. 
 The Greek MSS. differ considerably from each 
 other. The Authorized English version is taken 
 from the same text with that in the London Poly- 
 glott, which is not so pure as the Vatican text. 
 The Syriac version, contained in the same Poly- 
 gloft, differs also in many places from the Greek ; 
 and Bendsen (Exercit. Crit .) maintains that it is 
 derived immediately from the Hebrew. The 
 Arabic in the same work seems to be a descendant 
 from the Syriac. The Sentences of Ben Sirach , 
 cited in the Talmud ( Sanhed . Gem. xi. 42 ; 
 Bereschith Rabba , viii. f. 10 ; Baba Kama, f. 92, 
 c. 2), and published in Latin by Paul Fagius 
 (1542), and in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Latin, by 
 Drusius (1597), though sometimes similar to 
 those in Ecclesiasticus, are upon the whole a 
 different work (Eichhorn’s and Bertholdt’s Intro- 
 ductions). — W. W. 
 
 WITCH. The fern. HD&OP ( a sorceress), is 
 
 found in Exod. xxii. 18 ; Sept. (pappaicSs; Vulg. 
 m&lefica ; the mas. (a sorcerer or magi- 
 
 cian), in Exod. vii. 11; Deut. xviii. 10; Dan. 
 ii. 2; Mai. iii. 5; Sept. (pappaKos ; Vulg. male- 
 ficus ; and in Jer. xxvii. 9. In the New 
 Testament 4 sorcerer ;’ (pappaicis ; Vulg. male- 
 Hcns, occurs in Rev. xxi. 8; xxii. 15. 
 
 m 
 
 WITCHCRAFTS (D W3) occurs in 2 King* 
 ix. 22; Isa. xlvii. 9, 12; Mic. v. 12; Nah. iii. 
 4; Sep i. (pappaiee'ia, (pappana", Vulg. venefeium, 
 maleficium. In the Apocrypha ‘ witchcraft,’ 
 4 sorcery ;’ (pappaKzia ; veneficium , Wisd. xii. 4 ; 
 xviii. 13 ; and in the New Testament, Gal. v. 20 ; 
 Rev. ix. 21 ; xviii. 23. As a verb C]t^3, ‘ he 
 used witchcraft,’ occurs in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6; 
 iepappartevero, maleficis artibus inserviebat. This 
 verb, in Arabic, signifies ‘to reveal' or ‘discover;’ 
 in Sv;-iac ethpaal, according to Gesenius, ‘ to 
 pray ;’ but this word, he observes, like many other 
 
 sacred terms of the Syrians, as D’HDD &c., 
 
 is restricted by the Hebrews to idolatrous ser- 
 vices : hence PjKO means ‘ to practise magic,’ 
 literally ‘to pronounce or mutter spells.’ The 
 word (pappaKos is derived from epappaneia, to ad- 
 minister or apply medicines as remedies or poi- 
 sons ; (o use magical herbs, drugs, or substances, 
 supposed to derive their efficacy from magical 
 spells ; and thence to use spells, conjurations, or 
 enchantments ; hence cpappands means, in the 
 classical writers, a preparer of drugs, but generally 
 of poisons, or drugs that operate by the force of 
 magical charms; and thence a magician, an en- 
 chanter of either sex. It occurs in the latter 
 sense in Josephus ( Antiq . xvii. 4. 1), and is ap- 
 plied by him to a female, tV pTjrepa avrov 
 (pappaKbi/ ical irSpvrjv anoKaAeacu, (Antiq. ix. 6. 3). 
 This word also answers in the Sept, to 
 ‘ magicians’ (Exod. ix. 11), cpappaKol, malefici. 
 The received text of Rev. xxi. 8, reads (pappa - 
 tcevs ; but the Alexandrian, and sixteen later MSS., 
 with several printed editions, have 'pappaKos, a 
 reading embraced by Wetstein, and by Gries- 
 bach received into the text. Gappcucevs occurs in 
 the same sense as (pappaKos , in Lucian (Dial. 
 Deor. xiii. 1 ; Joseph. Vita , § 31). The word 
 < papuaKfla is used of Circe by Aristophanes (Plut. 
 302), and in the same sense of enchantment, &c., 
 by Polybius (vi. 13. 4 ; xl. 3. 7). It corresponds 
 in the Sept. to.D'Dn^, ‘enchantments’ 
 
 (Exod. vii. 11, 22). The verb epappaiteva) is 
 employed in the sense of using enchantments by 
 Herodotus (vii. 114), where, after saying that 
 when Xerxes came to the river Strymon, the magi 
 sacrificed white horses to it, he adds, (pappanev - 
 eravres Se ravra is rbv Trorapbv, Kai c»AAa 7roAAa 
 7rpbs Tovroiai , — ‘ and having used these enchant- 
 merits and many others to the river,’ &c. The 
 precise idea, if any, now associated with the word 
 ‘ witch,’ but, however, devoutly entertained by 
 nearly the whole nation in the time of our trans- 
 lators, is that of a female, who, by the agency of 
 Satan, or rather, of a familiar spirit or gnome ap- 
 pointed by Satan to attend on her, performs 
 operations beyond the powers of, humanity, in 
 consequence of her compact with Satan, written 
 in her own blood, by which she resigns herself to 
 him for ever. Among other advantages result- 
 ing to her from this engagement, is the power of 
 transforming herself into any shape she pleases; 
 which was, however, generally that of a hare ; 
 transporting herself through the air on a broom- 
 stick, sailing ‘ on the sea in a sieve,’ gliding 
 through a keyhole, inflicting diseases, &c., upon 
 mankind or cattle. The belief in the existence cf 
 such persons cannot be traced higher than the 
 middle ages, and was probably derived from the 
 wild and gloomy mythology of the northern nv 
 
WITCHCRAFTS. 
 
 WITCHCRAFTS. 
 
 vGO 
 
 tiong, amongst whom the Fatal Sisters, and other 
 impersonations of destructive agency in a female 
 form, were prominent articles of the popular creed. 
 This comparatively modern delusion was strength- 
 ened and confirmed by the translators of the Bible 
 into the Western languages; a popular version of 
 the original text having led people to suppose that 
 there was positive evidence for the existence of 
 such beings in Scripture. Bishop Hutchinson 
 declares that our translators accommodated their 
 version to the terminology of King James’s Trea- 
 tise on Demonologie ( Encyclopcedia Metropoli- 
 tana , art. * Witch,’ &c.). For an account of the 
 appalling atrocities perpetrated against supposed 
 witches in Germany, England, and Scotland, see 
 Quarterly Revieio (vol. xi.), or Combe’s Consti- 
 tution of Man (2nd ed., Edin. 1835, p. 390). A 
 very different idea was conveyed by the Hebrew 
 word, which probably denotes a sorceress or magi- 
 cian, who pretended to discover, and even to 
 direct the effects ascribed to the operation of the 
 elements, conjunctions of the stars, the influence 
 of lucky and unlucky days, the power of in- 
 visible spirits, and of the inferior deities (Graves's 
 Lectures on the Pentatetich, pp. 109, 110, Dub- 
 lin, 1829). Sir Walter Scott well observes, that 
 * the sorcery or witchcraft of the Old Testament 
 resolves itself into a trafficking with idols and 
 asking counsel of false deities, or, in other words, 
 into idolatry’ {Letters on Demonology and Witch- 
 craft , London, 1830, Let. 2). Accordingly, sor- 
 cery is in Scripture uniformly associated with 
 idolatry (Dent, xviii. 9-14; 2 Kings ix. 22; 
 2 Chron. xxxiii. 5, 6, &c. ; Gal. v. 20 ; Rev. 
 xxi. 8). The modern idea of witchcraft, as in- 
 volving the assistance of Satan, is inconsistent 
 Scripture, where, as in the instance of Job, 
 Satan is represented as powerless till God gave 
 him a limited commission; and when ‘Satan de- 
 sired to sift Peter as wheat,’ no reference is made 
 to the intervention of a witch. Nor do the actual 
 references to magic in Scripture involve its 
 reality. The mischiefs resulting from the pre- 
 tension, under the theocracy, to an art which 
 involved idolatry, justified the statute which 
 denounced it with death ; though instead of the 
 
 unexampled phrase flTin ‘ thou shalt not 
 
 suffer to live,’ Michaelis conjectures iTilD 
 ‘snail not be’ (Exoa. xxii. 18), which also better 
 suits the parallel, ‘ There shall not be found among 
 you, &c.,a witch’ (Deut. xviii. 10). Indeed, as 
 ‘ we know that an idol is nothing in the world, 
 and that there is none other gods but one’ (l Cor. 
 viii. 4), we must believe all pretensions to traffic 
 with the one, or ask counsel of the other, to be 
 equally vain. Upon the same principle of sup- 
 pressing idolatry, however, the prophets of Baal 
 also were destroyed, and net because Baal had any 
 real existence, or because they could avail any- 
 thing by their invocations. It is highly probable 
 that the more intelligent portion of the Jewish 
 community, especially in later times, understood 
 the emptiness of pretensions to magic (see Isa. 
 xliv. 25; xlvii. 11-15 ; Jer.xiv. 14 ; Jonah ii. 8). 
 Plato evidently considered the mischief of magic 
 to consist in the tendency of the pretension to it, 
 and not in the reality {De Leg. lib. 11). Divi- 
 nation of all kinds had fallen into contempt in 
 the time of Cicero: ‘ Dubium non est quin haec 
 disciplina et ars augurum evanuerit jam et ve- 
 
 tustate et negligentia ’ {De Legibus, ii. i3\ 
 Josephus declares that he laughed at the very 
 idea of witchcraft ( Vit. § 31). For the very early 
 writers who maintained that the wonders of the 
 magicians were not supernatural, see Universal 
 Hist. (vol. iii. p. 374, 8vo. ed.). it seems safe to 
 conclude from the Septuagint renderings, and 
 their identity with the terms used by classical 
 writers, that the pretended exercise of this art in 
 ancient times was accompanied with the use of 
 drugs, or fumigations made of them. No doubt 
 the skilful use of certain chemicals, if restricted 
 to the knowledge of a few persons, might, in 
 ages unenlightened by science, along with other 
 resources of natural magic, be made the means of 
 extensive imposture. The natural gases, exhala- 
 tions, &c., would contribute their share, as ap- 
 pears from the ancient account of the origin of the 
 oracle at Delphi. The real mischiefs ever effected 
 by the professors of magic on mankind, &c., may 
 be safely ascribed to the actual administration of 
 poison. Josephus states a case of poisoning under 
 the form of a philtre or love-potion, and says that 
 the Arabian women were reported to be skilful in 
 making such potions {Antiq. xvii. 4. 1). Such 
 means doubtless constitute the real pernicious- 
 ness of the African species of witchcraft called 
 Obi, the similarity of which word to the Hebrew 
 DIN, inflation , is remarkable. Among the Sand- 
 wich Islanders, some, who had professed witch- 
 craft, confessed, after their conversion to Chris- 
 tianity, that they had poisoned their victims. 
 The death of Sir Thomas Overbury is cited as 
 an instance in this country, by Sir Walter Scott, 
 {utsupray. There was, indeed, a wide scope for 
 the production of very fantastic effects, short of 
 death, by such means. The story of ‘the witch 
 of Endor,’,as she is commonly but improperly 
 called, is, under the article Saul, reterred to 
 witchcraft. She indeed belongs to another class 
 of pretenders to supernatural powers [Divina- 
 tion]. She was a necromancer, or one of those 
 persons who pretended to call up the spirits 
 of the dead to converse with the living (see Isa. 
 viii. 19; xxix. 4; Ixv. 3). A full account is 
 given of such persons by Lucan (vi. 591, &c.), 
 and by Tibullus (i. 2. v. 45 ), where the preten- 
 sions of the sorceress are thus described — 
 
 Haec cantu finditque solum, Manesque 
 sepul chris & 
 
 Elicit, et tepido devocat ossa rogo. 
 
 Of much the same character is the Sibyl in the 
 6t.h book of Virgil’s JEneid. It is related as the 
 last and crowning act of Saul’s rebellion against 
 God, that he consulted ‘a woman who had a 
 familiar spirit’ (1 Sam. xxviii. 7), literally ‘a 
 mistress of the Ob,' — an act forbidden by the 
 divine law (Lev. xx. 6), which sentenced the 
 pretenders to such a power to death (ver. 27), and 
 which law Saul himself had recently enforced 
 (1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9), because, it, is supposed, they 
 had freely predicted his approaching ruin ; al- 
 though after the well-known prophecies of Sa- 
 muel to that effect, the disasters Saul had already 
 encountered, and the growing influence of David, 
 there ‘ needed no ghost to come from the grave to 
 tell them, this.’ Various explanations of this 
 story have been offered. It has been attempted 
 to resolve the whole into imposture and collusion* 
 Saul, who was naturally a weak and excitahh 
 
WITCHCRAFTS. 
 
 WITCHCRAFTS. 
 
 man, had Income, through a long series of vexa- 
 tions and anxieties, absolutely ‘ delirious,’ as 
 Patrick observes : ‘ he was afraid and his heart 
 greatly trembled,’ says the sacred writer. In 
 this state of mind, and upon the very eve of his 
 last battle, he commissions his own servants, to 
 seek him a woman that had a familiar spirit, 
 and, attended by two of them, he comes to her 
 ‘.by night,’ the most favourable time for imposi- 
 tion. He converses with her alone, his two 
 attendants, whether his secret enemies or real 
 friends, being absent, somewhere , yet, however, 
 close at hand. Might not one of these, or some 
 one else, have agreed with the woman to per- 
 sonate Samuel in another room? — for it appears 
 that Saul, though he spoke with, did not see 
 the ghost (ver. 13, 14) : who, it should be ob- 
 served, told him nothing but what his own at- 
 tendants could have told him, with the exception 
 of those words, ‘ to-morrow shalt thou and thy 
 sons be with me’ (ver. 19) ; to which, however, 
 it is replied, that Saul's death did not occur 
 upon the morrow, and that the word so trans- 
 lated is sufficiently ambiguous, for though “HID 
 means ‘ to-morrow ’ in some passages, it means the 
 future, indefinitely, in others (Exod. xiii. 14, and 
 see the margin ; Josh. iv. 6. 21 ; comp. Matt, 
 vi. 34). It is further urged, that her ‘ crying 
 with a loud voice,’ and her telling Saul, at the 
 same time, that she knew him, were the well-timed 
 arts of the sorceress, intended to magnify her pre- 
 tended skill. It is, however, objected against 
 this, or any other hypothesis of collusion, that 
 the sacred writer not only represents the Pytho- 
 ness as affirming, but also himself affirms, that 
 she saw Samuel, and that Samuel spoke to Saul, 
 nor does lie drop the least hint that it was not the 
 real Samuel of whom he was speaking. The 
 same objections apply equally to the theory of 
 ventriloquism, which has been grounded upon 
 the word used by the Sept., lyyaarpivv^os. 
 Others have given a literal interpretation of the 
 story, and have maintained that Samuel actually 
 appeared to Saul. Justin Martyr maintains this 
 theory, and in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 
 urges this incident in proof of the immortality of 
 the soul (p. 333). The same view is taken in the 
 additions to the Sept, in 1 Ghron. x. 13, naL cbre- 
 Kpivaro dv T<j3 2cty*oid?A. d vpocpTiTps ; and in 
 Ecclus. xlvi. 9, 20, it is said, ‘and after his death 
 Samuel prophesied, and showed the king his end,’ 
 &c. Such also is the view Josephus takes ( Antiq . 
 vi. 14. 3. 4), where he bestows a laboured eulo- 
 gium upon the woman. It is, however, objected, 
 that the actual appearance of Samuel is incon- 
 sistent with all we are taught by revelation con- 
 cerning the state of the dead ; involves the possi- 
 bility of a spirit or soul assuming a corporeal 
 shape, conversing audibly, &c. ; and further, 
 that it is incredible that God would submit the 
 departed souls of his servants to be summoned 
 back to earth, by rites either utterly futile, or else 
 defjvirig their efficacy from the co-operation of 
 i Satan. So Tertullian argues (De Anima, cap. 
 lvii.), and many other of the ancients. Others 
 have supposed that the woman induced Satan or 
 some evil spirit to personate Samuel. But this 
 theory, beside other difficulties, attributes nothing 
 less than miraculous power to the devil ; for it 
 supposes the apparition of a spiritual and incor- 
 poreal being, and that. Satan can assume the ap- 
 YOL. ti. 62 
 
 pearance of any one he pleases. Again, the hi» 
 torian (ver. 14) calls this appearance t>j Saul, 
 
 N1H ‘Samuel himself' (the latter word 
 
 is entirely omitted by our translators) ; whicn he 
 could not with truth have done if it was no other 
 than the devil; who, besides, is here represented as 
 the severe reprover of Saul’s impiety and wicked- 
 ness. The admission that Satan or an evil spirit 
 could thus personate an individual at pleasure, 
 would endanger the strongest evidences of Chris- 
 tianity. Others have maintained another interpre- 
 tation, which appears to us at once tenable, and 
 countenanced by similar narratives in Scripture, 
 namely, that the whole account is the narrative of a 
 miracle, a divine representation or impression , 
 partly upon the senses of Saul, and partly upon those 
 of the woman, and intended for the rebuke and pu- 
 nishment of Saul. It is urged, from the air of the 
 narrative in ver. 11, 12, thatSamuel appeared be- 
 fore the woman had any time for jugglery, fumi- 
 gations, &c. ; for although the word ‘ when ’ (ver. 
 12) is speciously printed in Roman characters, it 
 has nothing to answer to it in the original, which 
 reads simply thus, beginning at ver. 11 : ‘Then 
 said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto 
 thee ? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. And 
 the woman saw Samuel, and cried with a loud 
 voice.’ No sooner then had Saul said, ‘ Bring me 
 up Samuel,’ than Samuel himself was presented 
 to her mind — an event so contrary to her expecta- 
 tion, that she cried out with terror. At the same 
 time, and by the same miraculous means, she 
 was made aware of the royal dignity of her visit- 
 ant. The vision then continues in the mind of 
 Saul, who thereby receives his last reproof from 
 heaven, and hears the sentence of his approach- 
 ing doom. Thus God interposed with a miracle 
 previously to the use of any magical formulae, 
 as he did when the king of Moab had recourse 
 to sorceries to overrule the mind of Balaam, so 
 that he was compelled to bless those whom Balak 
 wanted him to curse (Num. xxiii.) ; and as God 
 also interposed when Ahaziah sent to consult 
 Baal-zebub his god, about his recovery, when by 
 his prophet Elijah he stopt the messengers, re- 
 proved their master, and denounced his death 
 (2 Kings i. 2, 16). It may also be observed that 
 Saul was on this occasion simply sentenced to the 
 death he had justly incurred by having recourse 
 to those means which he knew to be unlawful. 
 Of the same nature of divine representation or 
 vision, we think, was the reproof administered tc 
 Elijah, at Mount Horeb, when ‘a great and strong 
 wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces 
 the rocks before the Lord,’ and was succeeded 
 by ‘an earthquake,’ &c. (1 Kings xix. 11, &c.). 
 Of the same nature, also, was the Temptation of 
 our Lord (see the article, and other instances of 
 divine vision not expressly specified as such, in 
 Bishop Law’s Theory of Religion , pp. 85, 86, 
 London, 1820). Farmer is of opinion that the 
 suppression of the word ‘himself’ (ver. 14), 
 and the introduction of the word ‘ when ’ (ver. 
 12), are to be ascribed to the prejudices of our 
 translators. If they do not betray a bias on then 
 minds, these instances support the general re- 
 mark of Bishop Lowth, upon the Englisn transla* 
 tion, ‘ that in respect of the sense, and accuracy 
 of interpretation, the improvements of which it is 
 capable are great and numberless 1 ( Preliminary 
 
$62 
 
 WITNESS. 
 
 WITNESS. 
 
 Dissertation to Isaiah, ad finem). Some other 
 mis-translations occur in reference to this subject. 
 In 1 Sam. xv. 23, ‘ rebellion is as the sin of witch- 
 craft, 1 should be of ‘ divination.’ In Deut. xviii. 
 10, the word PjJiOD does not mean * witch, 1 but, 
 being mascul ne, ‘ a sorcerer. 1 In Acts viii. 9, 
 the translation is exceedingly apt to mislead the 
 mere English reader : ‘ Simon used sorcery, and 
 bewitched the people of Samaria 1 — 'S.lpcav irpovirrip - 
 X* v & rf} r.6Xu paydnav /cal rb (6vos rrjs 
 
 Hapapdas — i. e. * Simon had been pursuing magic, 
 and perplexing (or astonishing) the people, 1 &c. 
 See also vcr. 1 1 , and comp, the use of the word 
 i^i(TTT)fju, Matt. xii. 23. In Gal. iii. 1, ‘ Foolish 
 Galatians, 1 r is vpas ifiacKave, ‘who hath fasci- 
 nated you ? 1 (For the use of the words fiaanavla 
 and (pappattda in magic, among the Greeks, see 
 Potter’s Archeeologia Grceca , vol. i. ch. xviii. 
 p. 356, &c., Lond., 1775.) It is considered by 
 some, that the word ‘ witchcraft 1 is used meta- 
 phorically, for the allurements of pleasure, Nah. 
 iii. 4; Rev. xviii. 23, and that the ‘sorcerers’ 
 mentioned in ch.xxi.8, may mean sophist ica tors of 
 the truth. The kindred word <pa.pp.ao oca is used by 
 metonymy, as signifying ‘ to charm, 1 ‘ to persuade 
 by flattery, 1 &c. (Plato, Sympos. § 17), ‘ to give a 
 temper to metals 1 ( Odyss . ix. 393). The last 
 named theory concerning the narrative of Samuel’s 
 appearance to Saul is maintained with much 
 learning and ingenuity by Hugh Farmer {Disser- 
 tation on Miracles , p.472, & c. Lond. 1771). It 
 is adopted by Dr. Waterland ( Sermons , vol. ii. 
 p. 267), and Dr. Delaney in his Life of David; 
 but is combated by Dr. Chandler with objections, 
 which are, however, answered or obviated by 
 Farmer. On the general subject see Michaelis’s 
 Laics of Moses, by Dr. A. Smith, London, 1814, 
 vol. iv. pp. 83-93 ; Banier's History of Mythology, 
 lib. iv. ; Winer’s Biblisches Real- Worterbuch, 
 art. ‘ Zauberei. 1 — J. F. D. 
 
 WITNESS. It is intended in the present 
 article to notice some of the leading and peculiar 
 senses of this voluminous word. It occurs, 1st, 
 in the sense of a person who deposes to the occur- 
 rence of any fact, a witness of any event, Sept. 
 
 paprvs or paprvp ; Vulg. testis. The Hebrew 
 word is derived from to repeat. The Greek 
 is usually derived from pelpca, to ‘divide,’ 
 
 ‘ decide,’ &c., because a witness decides contro- 
 versies (Heb. vi. 16) ; but Damm (Lex. Horn. col. 
 1495) derives it from the old word papri, ‘the 
 hand,’ because witnesses anciently held up their 
 hands in giving evidence. This custom among 
 the ancient Hebrews, is referred to in Gen. xiv. 
 22; among the heathens, by Homer (II. x. 321), 
 and by Virgil (AEn. xii. 196). God himself 
 is represented as swearing in this manner (Deut. 
 xxxii. 40; Ezek. xx. 5, 6, 15; comp. Num. 
 xiv. 30). So also the heathen gods (Pindar, 
 Olymp. vii. 119, 120). These Hebrew and Greek 
 words, with their various derivations, pervade the 
 entire subject. They are applied to a judicial 
 witness in Exod. xxiii. 1 ; Lev. v. 1 ; Num. v. 
 13; xxxv. 30 (comp. Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15; 
 Matt, xviii. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 1); Prov. xiv. 5; 
 xxiv. 28; Matl. xxvi. 65; Acts vi. 13 ; 1 Tim. 
 v. 19; Heb. x. 28. They are applied, generally , 
 to a person who certifies, or is able to certify, to 
 any fact which has come under his cognizance 
 (Josh. xxiv. 22; Isa. viii 2; Luke xxiv. 48; 
 
 Acts i. 8, 22: 1 Hess. ii. 10; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 1 
 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 5\ So in allusion to those 
 who witness the public games (Heb. xii. 1). They 
 are also applied to any one who testifies to the 
 world what God reveals through him (Rev. xi. 3). 
 In the latter sense the Greek word is applied to our 
 Lord (Rev. i. 5; iii. 14). It is further used in 
 the ecclesiastical sense of martyr [Martyr], 
 Both the Hebrew and Greek words are also applied 
 to God (Gen. xxxi. 50 ; 1 Sam. xii. 5 ; Jer. xlii. 
 5 ; Rom. i. 9 ; Phil. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. ii. 5) ; to ina- 
 nimate things (Gen. xxxi. 52 ; Ps. lxxxiv. 37). 
 The supernatural means whereby the deficiency 
 of witnesses was compensated under the theo- 
 cracy, have been already considered under the ar- 
 ticles Adultery, Trial of; Urim and Thum- 
 mim. For the punishment of false witness and the 
 suppression of evidence, see Punishment. For 
 the forms of adjuration (2 Chron. xviii. 15), see 
 Adjuration. Opinions differ as to what 
 is meant by ‘ the faithful witness in heaven * 
 (Ps. lxxxix. 37). Some suppose it to mean 
 the moon (comp. Ps. lxxii. 5, 7 ; Jer. xxxi. 
 35, 36 ; xxxiii. 20, 21 ; Ecclus. xliii. 6) ; others, 
 the rainbow (Gen. ix. 12-17). — 2. The witness 
 or testimony itself borne to any fact, is expressed 
 by TT ; paprvpla ; testimonium. They are used 
 of judicial testimony (Prov. xxv. 18; Mark 
 xiv. 56, 59). In ver. 55, Schleusner takes the 
 word paprvpla for pdprvp, the abstract for the 
 concrete (Luke xxii. 71 ; John viii. 17 ; Joseph 
 Antiq. iv. 8. 15). It denotes the testimony to 
 the truth of anything generally (John i. 7, 19; 
 xix. 35) ; that of a poet (Tit. i. 13). It occurs 
 in Josephus ( Cont . Apion. 1. 21). In John iii. 11, 
 32, Schleusner understands the doctrine, the thing 
 professed ; in v. 32, 36, the proofs given by God 
 of our Saviour’s mission ; comp. v. 9. In viii. 13, 
 14, both he and Bretschneider assign to the word 
 the sense of praise. In Acts xxii. 18, the former 
 translates it teaching or instruction. In Rev. i. 9, 
 it denotes the constant prof ession of Christianity, 
 or testimony to the truth of the Gospel (comp. i. 
 
 2 ; vi. 9). In 1 Tim. iii. 7, paprvp'iav KaX-pv 
 means a good character (comp. 3 Ep. John 12; 
 Ecclus. xxxi. 34; Joseph. Antiq. vi. 10. 1). In 
 Ps. xix. 7, ‘ The testimony of the Lord is sure * 
 probably signifies the ordinances , institutions, &c. 
 (comp. cxix. 22, 24, &c.) Those ambiguous words, 
 ‘He that believeth in the Son of God hath the 
 witness in himself 1 (1 John v. 10), which have 
 given rise to a variety of fanatical meanings, are 
 easily understood, by explaining the word exei,, 
 
 ‘ receives, 1 ‘ retains, 1 &c., i. e. the foregoing testi- 
 mony which God hath given of his Son, whereas 
 the unbeliever rejects 'it. The whole passage is 
 obscured in the English translation by neglecting 
 the uniformity of the Greek, and introducing 
 the word ‘record, 1 contrary to the profession cf 
 our translators in their Preface to the Header 
 (ad finem). The Hebrew word, with uaprvpiov, 
 occurs in the sense of monument, evidence, & c. 
 (Gen. xxi. 30 ; xxxi. 44 ; Deut. iv. 45 ; xxxi. 
 26; Josh. xxii. 27; Ruth iv. 7; Matt. viii. 
 4; Mark vi. 11 ; Luke xxi. 13; James v. 3). 
 In 2 Cor. i. 12, Schleusner explains paprvpiov , 
 commendation. In Prov. xxix. 14 and Amos 
 
 i. n. nh is pointed to mean perpetually, for 
 ever but the Septuagint gives els paprupw, 
 Aquila ds eri ; Symmachu? eU ad ; Vulg. on 
 
WOLF 
 
 WOLF. 
 
 wlernum. In Act* vii. 4 4 and Rev. xv. 5, we find 
 »/ rov fxapi vplov, and this is the Sept. 
 
 rendering for (which really mean* 
 
 ‘ the tabernacle of the congregation') in Exod. 
 xxix. 42, 44 ; xl. 22, 24 — deriving from YlJJ, 
 
 ‘ to testify,’ instead of from ‘IV, * to assemble.’ 
 On 1 Tim. ii. 6, see Bowyer’s Conjectures. In 
 Heb. iii. 5, Schleusner interprets els papripiov 
 ruu \(t\riQr}(rofx€vo)V, ‘ the promulgation of those 
 things about to be delivered to the Jews.’ — 3. To 
 be or become a xcitness, by testifying the truth of 
 what one knows. Thus the Sept, translates 
 (Gen. xliii. 3), paprvpeco, to bear witness , and 
 Amos iii. 13 : see also 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13. In 
 John i. 7 ; xv. 26 ; xviii. 23, Schleusner gives 
 as its meaning, to teach or explain ; in John 
 
 iv. 44; vii. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 13, to declare; in 
 
 \cts x. 43 ; Rom. iii. 21, to declare prophetically. 
 With a dative case following, the word sometimes 
 means to approve (Luke iv. 22). So Schleusner 
 understands Luke xi. 48, ‘ ye approve the deeds 
 of your fathers,’ and he gives this sense also to 
 Rom. x. 2. In like manner the passive paprv- 
 peopbu, ‘ to be approved,’ ‘ beloved,’ ‘ have a good 
 character,’ &c. (Acts vi. 3 ; 1 Tim. v. 10 ; comp. 
 3 John 6, 12.) ‘ The witness of the Spirit,’ al- 
 
 luded to by St. Paul (Rom. viii. 16), is explained 
 by Macknight and all the best, commentators, as 
 the extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit 
 concurring with the filial dispositions of con- 
 verted Gentiles, to prove that they are * the chil- 
 dren of God,’ as well as the Jews. — 4. ‘ To call or 
 t ike to witness,’ ‘ to invoke as witness,’ papTi/popai 
 (Acts xx. 26 ; Gal. v. 3 ; Joseph. De Bell. Jud, 
 iii. 8. 3). A still stronger word is biapap'rvoopai, 
 which corresponds to "PJJn (Deut. iv. 26). It 
 means ‘ to admonish solemnly,’ * to charge ear- 
 nestly,’ ‘ to urge upon’ (Ps. Ixxxi. 8; Neh. ix. 
 26 ; Luke xvi. 28 { Acts ii. 40). In other pas- 
 sages the same words mean to ( teach, eame ytly.’ 
 In Job xxix. 11, a beautiful phrase occurs, 
 ‘ When the eye saw me it gave witness to me.’ 
 The admiring expression of the eye upon behold- 
 ing a man of eminent virtue and benevolence, is 
 here admirably illustrated. The description of 
 the mischief occasioned by a false witness, in 
 Prov. xxv. 18, deserves notice ; ‘ a man that bear- 
 eth false witness against his neighbour, is a maul, 
 and a sword, and a sharp arrow.’ Few words 
 afford more exercise to discrimination, in conse- 
 quence of the various shades of meaning in which 
 the context requires they should be understood. 
 -J. F. D. 
 
 WIZARD. [Divination.] 
 
 WOLF (3fc$J zeeb ; Arab, zeeb ; Coptic, 
 ounch; Gen. xlix. 27 ; Isa. xi. 6 ; lxv. 25; Jer. 
 
 v. 6, &c. ; A vkos, Matt. vii. 15 ; x. 16 ; Luke 
 x. 3; John x. 12; Acts xx. 29; Ecclus. 
 viii. 17), a fierce carnivorous animal, very 
 nearly allied to the dog, and so well known in 
 Europe as to require no particular description, 
 excepting as regards the identity of the spe- 
 cies in Palestine, which although often asserted, 
 is by . no means established ; for no professed 
 zoologist has obtained the animal in Syria, 
 while other travellers only pretend to have seen 
 it Unquestionably a true wolf, ora wild canine 
 with very similar manners, was not infrequent in 
 that country during the earlier ages of the world, 
 
 963 
 
 and even down to the commencement of our era. 
 The prophets, as well as the Messiah, allude to it 
 in explicit language. At this day the true wolf is 
 
 still abundant in Asia Minor, as well as in the 
 gorges of Cilicia, and from the travelling disposi- 
 tion of the species, wolves may be expected to re- 
 side in the forests of Libanus ; yet, except we rely 
 on mere rumours, wild and contradictory asser- 
 tions, or decided mistakes as to the species, none 
 are at present found in the Holy Land. Hemprich 
 and Ehrenberg, the most explicit of the naturalists 
 who have visited that region, notice the did or 
 
 zeb i,„ A. under the denomination of cants lu- 
 
 paster , and also, it seems, of lupus Syriacus : they 
 describe it as resembling the wolf, but smaller, with 
 a white tip on the tail, &c. ; and give for its syno- 
 nyme canis anthus, and the wolf of Egypt, that 
 is, the A vkos of Aristotle, and thoes anthus of Ham. 
 Smith. Tiiis species, found in the mummy state 
 at Lycopolis, though high in proportion to its bulk, 
 measures only eighteen inches at the shoulder, 
 and in weight is scarcely more than one-third of 
 th-t cf a true wolf, whose stature rises to thirty 
 and thirty-two inches. It is not gregarious, does 
 not howl, cannot carry off a lamb or sheep, nor kill 
 men, nor make the shepherd flee; in short, it is 
 not the true wolf of Europe or Asia Minor, and is 
 not possessed of the qualities ascribed to the species 
 in the Bible. The next in Hemprich and Ehren- 
 berg ’s description bears the same Arabic name ; 
 it is scientifically called canis sacer , and is th e pi- 
 seonch of the Copts. This species is, however, 
 still smaller, and thus cannot be the wolf in ques- 
 tion. It may be, as there are no forests to the south 
 of Libanus, that these ravenous beasts, who never 
 willingly range at a distance from cover, have 
 forsaken the more open country ; or else, that the 
 derbonn , now only indistinctly known as a species 
 of black wolf in Arabia and southern Syria, is the 
 species or variety which anciently represented the 
 wolf in Syria: an appellation fully deserved, 
 if it be the same as the black species of the Pyre- 
 nees, which, though surmised to be a wild dog, is 
 even more fierce than the common wolf, and is 
 equally powerful. The Arabs are said to eat the 
 derbonn as game, though it must be rare, since 
 no European traveller has described a specimen 
 from personal observation. Therefore, either the 
 true wolf, or the derbonn, was anciently more 
 abundant in Palestine, or the ravenous powers 
 of those animals, equally belonging to the hyaena 
 an.l to a great wild dog, caused several species 
 to be included in the name [Dog].*— C. H. S 
 
y? i 
 
 TV OMAN. 
 
 WOMAN. 
 
 WOMAN, in Hebrew nj^K, which is the femi- 
 nine form of as among the ancient. Romans 
 
 mra (found still in virago) from vir ; and in 
 Greek avdpls from avf]p : like our own term wo- 
 man, the Hebrew is used of married and unmar 
 ried females. The derivation of the word thus 
 shows that according to the conception of the 
 ancient Israelites woman was man in a modified 
 form — one of the same race, the same genus, as 
 man; a kind of female man. How slightly 
 modified that form is, how little in original struc- 
 ture woman differs from man, physiology has 
 made abundantly clear. Different in make as man 
 and woman are, they differ still more in character ; 
 and yet the great features of their hearts and 
 minds so closely resemble each other, that it re- 
 quires no depth of vision to see that these twain 
 are one ! This most important fact is character- 
 istically set forth in the Bible in the account 
 given of the formation of woman out of one of 
 Adam's ribs : a representation to which currency 
 may have the more easily been given, from the 
 apparent space there is between the lowest rib and 
 the bones on which the trunk is supported. ‘ And 
 Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh 
 of my flesh : she shall be called Woman, because 
 she was taken out of man.’ An immediate and 
 natural inference is forthwith made touching the 
 intimacy of the marriage-bond : ‘ Therefore shall 
 a man leave his father and his mother, and shall 
 cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh ’ 
 (Gen. ii. 21-24). Those who have been pleased to 
 make free with this simple narrative, may well be 
 required to show how a rude age could more effec- 
 tually have been taught the essential unity of man 
 and woman — a unity of nature which demands, 
 and is perfected only in, a unity of soul. The 
 conception of the Biblical writer goes beyond even 
 this, but does not extend farther than science and 
 experience unite to justify. There was solid 
 reason why it was not good for Adam ‘ to be 
 alone.’ Without an help meet he would have 
 been an imperfect being. The genus homo con- 
 sists of man and woman. Both are necessary to 
 the idea of man. The one supplements the qua- 
 lities of the other. They are not two, but one 
 flesh, and as one body so one soul. 
 
 The entire aim, then, of the narrative in Genesis 
 was, by setting forth certain great physical facts, 
 to show the essential unity of man and woman, 
 yet the dependance of the latter on the former ; 
 and so to encourage and foster the tenderest and 
 most considerate love between the two, founded 
 on the peculiar qualities of each — pre-eminence, 
 strength, intellectual power, and wisdom on the 
 one side ; reliance, softness, grace, and beauty on 
 the other, — at the same time that the one set of 
 excellences lose all their worth unless as existing 
 in the possession of the other. 
 
 It will at once be seen that under the influence 
 of a religion, at the bottom of which lay those 
 ideas concerning the relations of the sexe3 one to 
 another, slavery on the part of the woman was 
 impossible. This fact is the more noticeable, and 
 it speaks the more loudly in favour of the divine 
 origin of the religion of the Bible, because the 
 Kast has in all times, down to the present day, 
 kept woman everywhere, save in those places in 
 which Judaism and ^Christianity have prevailed, 
 m a state of low, even if in some cases gilded, 
 
 bondage, making her the mere toy, plaything, 
 and instrument, of man. Nothing can be more 
 painful to contemplate than the humiliating con- 
 dition in which lslamism still holds its so-called 
 free women — a condition of perpetual childhood 
 — childhood of mind, while the passions receive 
 constant incense ; leaving the fine endowments of 
 woman's soul undeveloped and inert, or crushing 
 them when in any case they may happen to ger- 
 minate; and converting man into a self-willed 
 haughty idol, for whose will and pleasure tlie 
 other sex lives and suffers. 
 
 It will assist the reader in forming a just con- 
 ception of Hebrew women in the Biblical periods, 
 if we add a few details respecting the actual 
 condition of women in Syria. Mr. Bartlett 
 ( Walks about Jerusalem , p. 291, sq.) visited the 
 house of a rich Jew in the metropolis of the holy 
 land. We give the substance of his observations : 
 
 ‘ On entering his dwelling we found him seated 
 on the low divan, fondling his youngest child ; 
 and on our expressing a wish to draw the costume 
 of the female members of his family, he com- 
 manded their attendance, but it was some time 
 before they would come forward ; when however 
 they did present, themselves, it was with no sort 
 of reserve whatever. Their costume is chastely 
 elegant. The prominent figure in the room was 
 the married daughter, whose little husband, a 
 boy of fourteen or fifteen as he seemed, wanted 
 nearly a head of the stature of his wife, but was 
 already chargeable with the onerous duties of a 
 father. An oval head dress of peculiar shape, 
 from which was slung a long veil of embroidered 
 muslin, admirably set off the brow and eyes; 
 the neck was ornamented with bracelets, and the 
 bosom with a profusion of gold coins, partly 
 concealed by folds of muslin ; a graceful robe of 
 striped silk, with long open sleeves, half-laced 
 under the bosom, invested the whole person, over 
 which is worn a jacket of green silk with short 
 sleeves, leaving the white arm and braceleted 
 hand at liberty. An elderly person sat on the sofa, 
 the mother, whose dress was more grave, her tur- 
 ban less oval, and of blue shawl, and the breast 
 covered entirely to the neck, with a kind of orna- 
 mented gold tissue ; and over all was seen a 
 jacket of fur: she was engaged in knitting, wiiile 
 her younger daughter bent over her in conversa- 
 tion; her dress was similar to that of her sister, 
 but. with no gold coins, or light muslin folds, and 
 instead of large ear-rings, the vermilion blossom 
 of the pomegranate formed an exquisite pendant, 
 reflecting its glow upon the dazzling whiteness of 
 her 8k in. We were surprised at the fairness and 
 delicacy of their complexion, and the vivacity 
 of their manner. Unlike the wives of Oriental 
 Christians, who respectfully attend at a distance 
 till invited to approach, these pretty Jewesses 
 seemed on a perfect footing of equality, and 
 chatted and laughed away without intermission. 
 Many of the daughters of Judah, here and at 
 Hebron, are remarkable for their attractions. 
 Mr. Wolff describes one of them with enthu- 
 siasm, and no small unconscious poetry— ■“ the 
 beautiful Sarah,” whom his lady met at a “ wed- 
 ding-feast.” ‘She was scarcely seated when she 
 felt a hand upon hers, and heard a kind greeting. 
 She turned to the voice and saw a most beautiful 
 Jewess, whom I also afterwards saw, and I nev«f 
 beheld a more beautiful and well-behaved WV 
 
WOMAN. 
 
 WOMAN. 
 
 960 
 
 in my l<fe, except the beautiful girl in the valley 
 of Cashmere; she looked like a queen in Israel. 
 A lovely lady she was ; tall, of a fair com- 
 plexion and blue eyes, and around her forehead 
 and cheeks she wore several roses. No queen 
 had a liner deportment than that Jewess had.’ 
 
 544. [Syro- Arabian costume. Indoor dress.] 
 
 Mr. Bartlett was also admitted into f he abode 
 of a Christian family in Jerusalem, of whom he 
 thus speaks (pp. 205-6): — ‘ The interior of their 
 houses is similar to those of the Jews. In our 
 intercourse with them we were received with 
 more ceremony than among the former. The 
 mistress of the family is in attendance with her 
 children and servants, and besides pipes and 
 coffee, the guest is presented with saucers of 
 sweetmeats and small glasses of aniseed ; which, 
 when done with, are taken from him by his fair 
 hostess or her servant, who kiss his hand as they 
 receive them. They are more reserved, often 
 standing during the visit. Their dress is more 
 gorgeous than that of the Jewish women, but not 
 so chastely elegant; it suits well with the languor 
 of their air, their dusky complexion, and large 
 black eyes. The head-dress has a fantastic air, 
 
 like that of a May-day queen in England, and 
 the bust is a little in the style of 
 
 “ Beauties by Sir Peter Lely, 
 Whose drapery hints we may admire freely.” 
 
 A heavy shawl is gracefully wreathed round the 
 
 figure, and the dress, when open, displays long 
 loose trowsers of muslin and small slippers. The 
 ensemble, it must, be admitted, is very fasci 
 nating, when its wearer is young and lovely.’ 
 
 We now pass to the peasantry, and take from 
 Lamartine a sketch of the Syrian women as seen 
 by him at the foot of Lebanon, on a Sunday, 
 after having with their families attended divine 
 service, when the families ‘return to their houses 
 to enjoy a repast somewhat more sumptuous than 
 on ordinary days : the women and girls, adorned 
 in their richest clothes, their hair plaited, and 
 all strewed with orange-flowers, sca.let wall- 
 flowers, and carnations, seat themselves on mats 
 before the doors of their dwellings, with their 
 friends and neighbours. It is impossible to de- 
 scribe with the pen the groups so redolent of the 
 picturesque, from the richness of their costume 
 and their beauty, which these females then com- 
 pose in the landscape. I see amongst them daily 
 such countenances as Raphael had not beheld, 
 even in his dreams as an artist. It is more than 
 the Italian or Greek beauty ; there is the nicety 
 of shape, the delicacy of outline, in a word, all 
 that Greek and Roman art. has left us as the 
 most finished model ; but it is rendered more 
 bewitching still, by a primitive artlessness of ex- 
 pression, by a serene and voluptuous languor, 
 by a heavenly clearness, which the glances front 
 the blue eyes, fringed with black eyelids, cast 
 over the features, at it by a smiling archness, a 
 harmony of proportions, a rich whiteness of skin, 
 an indescribable transparency of tint, a metallic 
 gloss upon the hair, a gracefulness of movement, 
 a novelty in the attitudes, and a vibrating silvery 
 tone of voice, which render the young Syrian 
 girl the very houri of the visual paradise. Such ad- 
 mirable and varied beauty is also very common : 
 1 never go into the country for an hour without 
 meeting several such females going to the foun- 
 tains or returning, with their Etruscan urns upon 
 their shoulders, and their naked legs clasped with 
 rings of silver.’ 
 
 The ordinary dress of the women of Palestine 
 is not perhaps much fitted to enhance their natu- 
 ral charms, and yet it admits of ease and dignify 
 in the carriage. Dr. 01 in thus describes the 
 customary appearance of both male and female i 
 1 The people wear neither hats, bonnets, nor 
 stockings; both sexes appear in loose flowing 
 dresses, and red or yellow slippers ; the men 
 wear red caps with or without turbans, the women 
 are concealed by white veils, with the exception 
 of the eyes’ (vol. ii. p. 437). 
 
 The singular beauty of the Hebrew women, 
 and the natural warmth of their affections, have 
 conspired to throw gems of domestic loveliness 
 over the pages of the Bible. In no history can 
 there be found an equal number of charming 
 female portraits. From Hagar down to Mary 
 and Martha, the Bible presents pictures of wo- 
 manly beauty, that are unsurpassed and rarely 
 paralleled. But we should very imperfectly re- 
 present in these general remarks the formative 
 influence of the female character as seen in the 
 Bible, did not we refer these amiable traits of 
 character to the original conceptions of which 
 we have spoken, and to the pure and lofty reli- 
 gious ideas which the Biblical books in general 
 present. If woman there appears as the coca- 
 pan ion and friend of man, if she rises above tfcf 
 
WOMAN. 
 
 WOMAN 
 
 CCS 
 
 condition of being a bearer of children to that 
 noble position which is held by the mother of a 
 family, she owes her elevation in the main to 
 tbs religion of Moses and to that of Jesus. The 
 first system — as a preparatory one — did not and 
 could not complete the emancipation of woman. 
 
 546. [Young lady in full dress.] 
 
 The Oriental influence modified the religious so 
 materially, as to keep women generally in some 
 considerable subjection. Yet the placing of the 
 fondest desires and the glowing hopes of the na- 
 tion on some child that was to be born, some son 
 that was to be given, as it made every matron's 
 heart beat high with expectation, raised the tone 
 of self-respect among the women of Israel, and 
 caused them to be regarded by the other sex with 
 lively interest, deep regard, and a sentiment 
 which was akin to reverence. There was, how- 
 ever, needed the finishing touch which the Great 
 Teacher put to the Mosaic view of the relations 
 between the sexes. Recognising the fundamental 
 truths which were as old as the creation of man, 
 Jesus proceeded to restrain the much-abused fa- 
 cility of divorce, leaving only one cause why the 
 marriage-bond should be broken, and at the same 
 time teaching that as the origin of wedlock was 
 divine, so its severance ought not to be the work 
 of man. Still further — bringing to bear on the 
 domestic ties his own doctrine of immortality, 
 he made the bond co-existent with the undying 
 soul, only teaching that the connection would be 
 refined with the refinement of our affections and 
 our liberation from these tenements of clay in 
 which we now dwell (Matt. v. 32 ; xix. 3, sq. ; 
 xxii. 23, sq.). With views so elevated as these, 
 and with affections of the tenderest benignity, 
 the Saviour may well have won the warm anti 
 gentle hearts of Jewish women. Accordingly, 
 the purest and richest human light that lies on 
 the pages of the New Testament, comes from the 
 band of high-minded, faithful, and affectionate 
 women, who are found in connection with Christ 
 from his cradle to his cross, his tomb, and his re- 
 surrection. These ennobling influences have 
 operated on society with equal benefit and power. 
 Woman, in the better portions of society, is now 
 a new being. And yet her angelic career is only 
 just begun. She sees what she may, and what 
 under the Gospel she^ ought to be ; and ere very 
 j oog, we trust, a way will be found to employ in 
 
 purposes of good, energies of the finest nature 
 which now waste away from want of scope, in 
 the ease and refinements of affluence, if not in 
 the degradations of luxury — a most precious 
 offering made to the Moloch of fashion, but 
 which ought to be consecrated to the service of 
 that God who gave these endowments, and of 
 that Saviour who lias brought to light the rich 
 capabilities, and exhibited the high and holy vo 
 cation, of the female sex. — J. R. B. 
 
 Women appear to have enjoyed considerably 
 more freedom among the Jews than is now 
 allowed them in western Asia, although in other 
 respects their condition and employments seem to 
 have been not dissimilar. At present, women of 
 all ranks are much confined to their own houses, 
 and never see the men who visit their husbands or 
 fathers ; and in towns they never go abroad with- 
 out their persons and faces being completely 
 shrouded : they also take their meals apart from 
 the males, even of their own family. But in the 
 rural districts they enjoy more freedom, and often 
 go about unveiled. Among the Jews, women 
 were somewhat less restrained in their intercourse 
 with men, and did not generally conceal their 
 faces when they went abroad. Only one instance 
 occurs in Scripture of women eating with men 
 (Ruth ii. 14); but that was at a simple refection, 
 and only illustrates the greater freedom of rural 
 manners. 
 
 The employments of the women were verj 
 various, and sufficiently engrossing. In tin 
 earlier, or patriarchal state of society, the 
 daughters of men of substance tended their 
 fathers’ flocks (Gen. xxix. 9 ; Exod. ii. 16). In 
 ordinary circumstances, the first labour of the 
 day was to grind corn and bake bread, as already 
 noticed. The other cares of the family occupied 
 the rest of the day. The women of the peasantry 
 and of the poor consumed much time in collect- 
 ing fuel, and in going to the wells for water. 
 The wells were usually outside the towns, and 
 the labour of drawing water from them was by 
 no means confined to poor women. This was 
 usually, but not always, the labour of the even- 
 ing ; and the water was carried in earthen vessels 
 borne upon the shoulder (Gen. xxiv. 15-20; 
 John iv. 7, 28). Working with the needle also 
 occupied much of their time, as it would seem 
 that not only their own clothes but those of the 
 men were made by the women. Some of the 
 needlework was very fine, and much valued 
 (Exod. xxvi. 36 ; xxviii. 39 ; Judg. v. 30 ; Ps. 
 xlv. 14). The women appear to have spun the 
 yarn for all the cloth that was in use (Exod. 
 xxxv. 25; Prov. xxxi. 19); and much of the 
 weaving seems also to have been executed by 
 them (Judg. xvi. 13, 14; Prov. xxxi. 22). The 
 tapestries for bed-coverings, mentioned in the 
 last-cited text, were probably produced in the 
 loom, and appear to have been much valued 
 (Prov. vii. 16). 
 
 We have no certain information regarding the 
 dress of the women among the poorer classes ; bu« 
 it was probably coarse and simple, and not mate- 
 rially different from that which we now see 
 among the Bedouin women, and the female 
 peasantry of Syria. This cc*sV« of drawers, and 
 a long and loose gown of cecrv blue linen, with 
 some ornamental bordering swutj.h't with the 
 
WOMAN. 
 
 WOMAN. 
 
 967 
 
 cccdle, m another colour, about the neck and 
 boson. The head is covered with a kind of 
 
 547. [Matron in full dress.] 
 
 turban, connected with which, behind, is a veil, 
 which covers thg neck, back, and bosom [Veil]. 
 We may presume, with still greater certainty, 
 that women of superior condition wore, over their 
 inner dress a frock or tunic like that of the men, 
 but more closely fitting the person, with a girdle 
 formed by an unfolded kerchief. Their head- 
 dress was a kind of turban, with different sorts of 
 veils and wrappers used under various circum- 
 stances. The hair was worn long, and, as now, 
 was braided into numerous tresses, with trinkets 
 and ribands (1 Cor. xi. 15 ; 1 Tim. ii. 9 ; 1 Pet. 
 iii. 3). With the head-dress the principal orna- 
 ments appear to have been connected, such as a 
 jewel for the forehead, and rows of pearls (Sol. 
 Song i. 10; Ezek. xvi. 12). Ear-rings were also 
 
 *rom (Isa. iii. 20 ; Ezek. xvi. 12), as well as a 
 oncs-jewel, consisting, no doubt, as now, either of 
 
 a ring inserted in the cartilage of the rose, or an 
 ornament like a button attached to it. The nose- 
 jewel was of gold or silver, and sometimes set 
 with jewels (Gen. xxiv. 47 ; Isa. iii. 21). Brace- 
 lets were also generally worn (Isa. iii. i9 ; Ezek. 
 xvi. 11), and anklets, which, as now, were pro- 
 bably more like fetters than ornaments (Isa. iii. 16, 
 20). The Jewish women possessed the art of stain- 
 ing their eye-lids black, for effect and expression 
 (2 Kings ix. 30; Jer. iv. 30; Ezek. xxiii. 40); 
 and it is more than probable that they had the 
 present practice of staining the nails, and the 
 palms of their hands and soles of their feet, of an 
 iron-rust colour, by means of a paste made from 
 the plant called henna (Lawsonia inermis). 
 This plant appears to be mentioned in Sol. Song 
 i. 14, and its present use is probably referred to 
 in Deut. xxi. 12; 2 Sam. xix. 24. 
 
 The customs concerning marriage, and the cir- 
 cumstances which the relation of wife and mother 
 involved, have been described in the article Mar- 
 riage. 
 
 The Israelites eagerly desired children, and 
 especially sons. Hence the messenger who first 
 brought to the father the news that a son was 
 born, was well rewarded (Job iii. 3 ; Jer. xx. 15). 
 The event was celebrated with music ; and the 
 father, when the child was presented to him, 
 pressed it to his bosom, by which act he was 
 understood to acknowledge it as his own (Gen. 
 1. 23 ; Job iii. 12 ; Ps. xxii. 10). On the eighth 
 day from the birth the child was circumcised 
 (Gen. xvii. 10) ; at which time also a name was 
 given to it (Luke i. 59). The first-born son was 
 highly esteemed, and had many distinguishing 
 privileges. He had a double portion of the estate 
 (Deut. xxi. 17) ; he exercised a sort of parental 
 authority over his younger brothers (Gen. xxv. 
 23, &c. ; xxvii. 29 ; Exod. xii. 29 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 
 3); and before the institution of. the Levitical 
 priesthood he acted as the priest of the family 
 (Num. iii. 12, 13 ; viii. 18). The patriarchs 
 exercised the power of taking these privileges 
 from the first-born, and giving them to any other 
 son, or of distributing them among different sons; 
 but this practice was overruled by the Mosaical 
 law (Deut. xxi. 15-17). 
 
 The child continued about, three years at the 
 breast of the mother, and a great festival was 
 given at the weaning (Gen. xxi. 8 ; 1 Sam. i. 
 22-24; 2 Chron. xxxi. 6; Matt. xxi. 16). He 
 remained two years longer in charge of the wo- 
 men ; after which he was taken under the especial 
 care of the father, with a view to his proper train- 
 ing (Deut. vi. 20-25 ; xi. 19). It appears that 
 those who wished for their sons’ better instruction 
 than they were themselves able or willing to give, 
 employed a private teacher, or else sent them to a 
 priest or Levit.e, who had perhaps several others 
 under his care. The principal object was, that 
 they should be well acquainted with the law of 
 Moses ; and reading and writing were taught in 
 subservience to this leading»object. 
 
 The authority of a father was very great among 
 the Israelites, and extended not only to his sons, 
 but to his grandsons — indeed to all who were de- 
 scended from him. His power had no recognised 
 limit, and even if he put his son or grandson to 
 death, there was, at first, no law by which he 
 could be brought to account (Gen. xxi. 14; 
 xxxviii. 24). But Moses circumscribe l thb 
 
960 
 
 WORD OF GOD. 
 
 WORD OF GOD. 
 
 power, by ordering that when a father judged his 
 son worthy of death, he should bring him before 
 the public tribunals. If, however, he bad struck 
 or cursed his father or mother, or was refractory 
 or disobedient, he was still liable to capital pu- 
 nishment (Exod. xxi. 15, 17 ; Lev. xx. 9 ; Deut. 
 axi. 18-21).— Ed. 
 
 WOOL. [Sheep.] 
 
 WORD OF GOD. The mystical dogma of 
 emanations is at once the most universal and 
 most venerable of traditions ; so ancient that its 
 source is hidden in the grey mists of extreme an- 
 tiquity ; so universal that traces of it may oe 
 found throughout the whole world. Under every 
 form, Persian or Egyptian, Greek or Roman, 
 whether half hidden in the mythological folds of 
 ancient fables, or more clearly expressed in the 
 speculations of philosophers, whether blended 
 with the law of Moses in the Cabbala and by 
 Philo, or with the Gospel of Christ by the Gnos- 
 tics and the Manichseans, in ail forms and lan- 
 guages the mystic dogma of emanations intimates 
 the same great truth — -that the many proceeded 
 from the one, or, in plainer language, that every- 
 thing good and fair, the universal frame of 
 things and all that it contains, material and cor- 
 poral, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, all pro- 
 ceed from One Divine Mind, and are a manifest- 
 ation of His power, wisdom, and goodness. This 
 venerable dogma teaches us further, that of the 
 Divine Essence we can know nothing (for how can 
 the finite comprehend the infinite?); but that of 
 the power, wisdom, and goodness, and also of the 
 will of God, sufficiently plain indications are 
 made to us in the works and plan of creation. 
 Such is the meaning of the dogma of emanation 
 in every form. But this venerable tradition has 
 unhappily been blended with contradictory at- 
 tempts to account for the origin of evil. Our 
 extracts from Professor Burton's Lectures on the 
 Heresies of the Apostolic Age (in our articles on 
 Gnosticism and Logos) have exhibited but a 
 small part of the mass of presumption, supersti- 
 tion, and er*-or, which have arisen from this 
 source, pouri ig a muddy and unwholesome 
 stream, not only into mythology and mysticism, 
 but into the language of philosophy. Let us 
 add, that Professor Burton has treated the mys- 
 tical dogma of emanations (its meaning, origin, 
 progress, and developments, together with its 
 bearings on the more mysterious doctrines of 
 Christianity) with a learning, moderation, and 
 fairness, which must make his work a storehouse 
 both of valuable information and judicious criti- 
 cism, equally deserving the attention of the 
 scholar, philosopher, and divine. 
 
 From this whole body of evidence it appears 
 that a constant tradition had come down from 
 the most remote antiquity ; that long before the 
 time of the Gnostics, of Plato, or even of the Egyp- 
 tians, this venerable tradition had its origin, and 
 that a term expressive of this tradition was ap- 
 plied to Christ by tl*e earliest converts to Chris- 
 tianity, and was afterwards adopted by St. John. 
 In what sense and for what object the term logos 
 was admitted by the apostle into Christianity, 
 may be made matter )f inquiry ; but the fact of 
 its having been, so derived and so applied is esta- 
 blished by the text, the notes, and the scriptural 
 quotations in Professor Burton’s work, beyond the 
 poccibility of doubt 
 
 Both the fact itself and the object of the 
 apostle are briefly stated by Professor Burton in 
 the following words: — ‘ St. John was as far as 
 possible from being the first to apply the term 
 logos to Christ. I suppose him to have found it 
 so universally applied (that is, both by Gnostics 
 and Christians) that he did not attempt to stop 
 the current of popular language, but only kept 
 it in its proper channel, and guarded it from ex- 
 traneous corruptions’ (see Inquiries, p. 220). 
 
 What those corruptions were may be seen in 
 our article on Gnosticism, and in the works ot 
 Cud worth, Mosheim, Blacker, Beausobre, Matter, 
 and Professor Burton, and in the remarks ol 
 Michaelis on the Gospel of St. John. Professor 
 Burton’s facts and inferences respecting the logos 
 in St. John’s Gospel are summed up in. his 
 seventh lecture, and in a series of valuable notes, 
 and, we may add, that the conclusion at which 
 the learned author arrives respecting the logos of 
 St. John is borne out by the following passage in 
 Bishop Burnet's work upon the articles of our 
 church. 
 
 ‘ There are indeed points of a very ancient tra- 
 dition in the world, of three in the Deity, called 
 the Word or the Wisdom, and the Spirit or the 
 Love , besides the fountain of both these, God : 
 this was believed by those from whom the most 
 ancient philosophers had their doctrines. The 
 author of the Book of Wisdom, Philo, and the 
 Chaldee Paraphrasts, have many things that show 
 that they had received these traditions from the 
 former ages ; but it is not easy to determine what 
 gave the first rise to them 1 (see Burnet, On the 
 Articles , p. 47). 
 
 If these views are correcl, the term logos, as 
 applied to Christ, represents one of the most an- 
 cient. universal, and venerable of traditions. 
 Professor Burton argues that if St. Paul, when he 
 saw at Athens ‘ altars to the unknown God, 
 might fairly take occasion to reprove the Athe- 
 nians as too much given to superstition, and im- 
 mediately added, ‘ Him whom ye ignorantly 
 worship declare I unto you,’ there seems no reason 
 why a similar course might not be taken by St. 
 John with the Gnostic, as if he had in effect 
 said, that Word or Wisdom of God whom you 
 ignorantly seek declare I unto you. Tims also 
 the Christian missionary in India might take as 
 his text the opening verses of St. John's Gospel, 
 and might preach to them ‘ Christ the power of 
 God and the wisdom of God.’ Now can there 
 be a doubt, were the word of God preached thus 
 to the Indian, with a zeal according to know- 
 ledge, that he would in deed and in truth find 
 the words of the Apostle verified, ‘As many as 
 receive him, to them gave he power to become 
 the sons of God, even to them that believe in his 
 name.’ And if it is thus with the Indian con- 
 vert to Christianity in our own day, so also was it 
 in the case of converts from the ‘ endless genea- 
 logies’ of Gnostic mysticism to ‘ the only begotten 
 Son of God.’ And when we ourselves view the 
 more mysterious articles of our faith in relation 
 to the primary objects, the primary means, and 
 the primary effects of Christianity, many doubts 
 and difficulties which have been raised respecting 
 the character, history, and doctrines of Christ, 
 will be obviated or removed, so that having ob- 
 tained a more perfect understanding of the mean- 
 ing and spirit of the Scriptures, we shall be Iwfa 
 
WORD OF GOD. 
 
 WORLD. 
 
 likely to find objections to the expression and the 
 letter, when we read, « And the Word was made 
 flesh, and dwelt amongst us (and we beheld his 
 glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
 Father) full of grace and truth.’ 
 
 Ti»e conclusion to which we are biought, by the 
 series of remarks winch are embodied in our ar- 
 ticles Gnosticism, Logos, and Greek Philo- 
 sophy, is, that, an inquiry into the primary 
 objects and effects of Christianity not only esta- 
 blishes a large body of evidence respecting the 
 benefits wrought out by Christianity, to wit, 
 the removal of the three great evils, heathen 
 sensualism, Gnostic mysticism, and Jewish cere- 
 monialism, throwing much light cn the means by 
 which this was effected, that is, upon the cha- 
 racter, history, and doctrines of Christ, but that 
 such knowledge tends to draw attention to the 
 yet only in part accomplished objects of Chris- 
 tianity, and to the means by which they are still 
 to be carried out. Such inquiries tend also to 
 prevent our mistaking means for ends, and warn 
 us against that greatest of errors, which would 
 introduce the very evils Christianity was intended 
 to cure (sensualism, mysticism, and ceremonial- 
 ism) under the disguise of remedies. Lastly, an 
 inquiry into the primary objects, primary means, 
 and primary effects of Christianity, draws our 
 attention to whatever was in its nature peculiar 
 to those times, and which requires to be so 
 treated whenever its application to our own times 
 is considered. It is, we repeat, by inquiring, in 
 the first place, what were the evils for which 
 Christianity was primarily and immediately in- 
 tended to be the cure, that we shall best discover 
 what are the evils for which Christianity is still 
 the remedy ; and it is by inquiring what were 
 the means by which Christianity overcame those 
 “vils, that we may hope to understand more 
 dearly what are the means which Christianity 
 possesses for resisting and overcoming like evils 
 in the present times ; and it will be found that 
 by adopting this mode of treatment, division, and 
 •order, we are most likely to remove from our 
 own minds, and from the minds of others, diffi- 
 culties and doubts respecting the character, the 
 history, and the doctrines of Christ. 
 
 To refer once more to the work of the learned 
 theologian to whose labours we have been so 
 much indebted. Assuredly there is nothing in 
 Dr. Burton’s theory respecting the application of 
 the term logos to Christ to astonish the scholar, 
 or to perplex the divine, or to alarm the Chris- 
 tian. Doubtless, to repeat a remark which can- 
 not be too often insisted on, there is an absolute 
 meaning in each of the texts of Scripture quoted 
 by Dr. Burton, which is as true now as it was 
 true tiien ; but in order to get at this absolute 
 meaning we must attend to the relative meaning 
 of each text, as it applied to the opinions, prac- 
 tices, and persons to whom and to which it pri- 
 marily related. If this is confessedly true re- 
 specting the texts of Scripture which are con- 
 nected with Judaism, why should it not be true 
 in the case of texts which relate to Gnosticism ? 
 And why should not a knowledge of the history, 
 philosophy, and language of the gentile converts 
 to Christianity be useful to the scholar, divine, 
 and Christian, in explaining all the texts of 
 Scripture which Dr. Burton has illustrated with 
 equal learning, moderation, and respect for the 
 
 articles of our creed 1 ? It is thus that we may 
 hope to obtain a better understanding of the 
 meaning, and a fuller conviction of the truth, ot 
 the text which has so often been misunderstood 
 and misapplied: ‘After that in the wisdom of 
 God, the world by wisdom knew not God ; it 
 pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to 
 save them that be-lieve.’ — J. P. P. 
 
 WORLD is the English term by which our 
 translators have rendered four Hebrew words : 1. 
 
 , which is erroneously supposed by some to 
 have arisen by transposition of letters from l/H, 
 comes from a root which signifies ‘ to rest,’ to ‘ dis- 
 continue,' and hence ‘ to cease from life,’ ‘ to be at 
 rest •/ and as a noun, ‘ the place of rest,’ ‘ the grave.' 
 The word occurs in the complaint uttered by He- 
 zekiah when in prospect of dissolution, and when 
 he contemplates his state among the inhabitants, 
 not of the upper, but the lower world (Isa. xxxviii. 
 1 1) ; thus combining with many other passages to 
 show that the Hebrews, probably borrowing the 
 idea from the Egyptian tombs, had a vague con- 
 ception of some shadowy state where the manes of 
 their departed friends lay at rest in their ashes, re- 
 taining only an indefinable personality in a land 
 of darkness and ‘ the shadow of death’ (Job x. 
 
 21 , 22 ). 2 . ibn means ‘ to conceal/ and deriva- 
 tively ‘any hidden thing/ hence ‘age/ ‘anti- 
 quity/ ‘ remote and hidden ages •/ also ‘ the world,’ 
 as the hidden or unknown thing (Ps. xlix. 1) ; in 
 
 a similar manner, 3. D b)V (in the New Testament, 
 aluv), the root-signification of which is ‘ to hide/ 
 denotes a very remote, indefinite, and therefore 
 unknown period in time past or time to come, 
 which metaphysicians call eternity a parte ante, 
 and eternity 3, parte post. In Ps. Ixxiii. 12, 
 it is rendered ‘ world ;’ but in this and in the 
 previous instance, it may be questioned whether 
 the natural creation is really meant, and not 
 rather ‘ the world ’ in our metaphorical use of the 
 term, as denoting the intelligent world, the ra- 
 tional inhabitants of the earth, and still more 
 specifically that portion of them with which we 
 
 are immediately concerned. 4. bn comes 
 from a radix that signifies ‘ to flow/ and as wafer 
 is the unfailing cause of fertility in the East, it 
 denotes ‘ to be productive/ ‘to bear fruit and as 
 a noun, ‘ the fruit-bearer,’ that is, the earth. This 
 word is frequently rendered ‘world’ in the common 
 version, but if more was intended than the earth 
 on which we dwell, it may be doubted if the pas- 
 sages in which it occurs will justify the trans- 
 lators. 
 
 In truth, the Hebrews had no word which com- 
 prised the entire visible universe. When they 
 wanted to speak comprehensively of God s crea- 
 tion, they joined two words together and used the 
 phrase ‘heaven and earth ’ (Gen. i. 1). We have 
 already seen that they had a<n idea of an under 
 world ; the meaning of their ordinary term for 
 earth, which signifies the ‘ lower/ shows that 
 they also regarded the earth as beneath the sun ; 
 while the term for heaven, denoting ‘ what 
 
 is elevated/ indicates that their view was that 
 the heavens, or the heights, were above. Above, 
 below, and under — these three relations of sp&cc 
 comprehend their conception of the world. 
 
WORM. 
 
 WORM 
 
 *70 
 
 WORM (HEn, yVm ; Sept. ctkco\t}^, aairpla , 
 rfj if/is; Vulg . vermis, putredo, tinea. No distinc- 
 tion is observe^! in the use of the Hebrew words. 
 For instance, is applied to the creature bred 
 in the manna (Exod. xvi. 24); to that which preys 
 on human flesh (Job vii. 5; xvii. 14; xxi. 26; 
 xxiv. 20 ; Isa. xiv. 1 1) ; and y^1D, to the creature 
 bred in the manna (Exod. xvi. 20); to that which 
 preys on human flesh (Isa. xiv. 11 ; lxvi. 24); on 
 vegetables, as on the gourd of Jonah (iv. 7) ; and 
 on vines (Deut. xxviii. 39). The ancient Hebrews 
 applied these words as indeterminately as the 
 common people now do the words ‘worm,’ ‘ fly,’ &c. 
 The only distinction occurring in the Bible is 'JK* 
 ny^in, the insect which furnished the crimson 
 dye [Purple]. Similar indeterminateness at 
 tends the Septuagint and Vulgate renderings. 
 Aristotle also applies the word <r/c« Arj| to the larva 
 of any insect — rUrei 5e iravra aKcvAyna, ‘ all 
 insects produce a worm’ (Hist. Nat. v. 19). 
 The insect which the manna is said to have 
 ‘ bred, when kept, till the morning ;’ HID"), 
 a-KU) \r)£, vermis (Exod. xvi. 20, 24), whatever it 
 was, must be considered as miraculously pro- 
 duced as a punishment for disobedience, since 
 the substance now understood to be the same, 
 keeps good for weeks and months, nor did the 
 specimen laid up in the ark breed worms 
 [Manna]. An insect is alluded to as in- 
 juring vines and grapes (Dent, xxviii. 39) ; 
 
 <tk<&X 7}£, vermis. The Greeks had a dis- 
 tinct name for this insect, and probably as early 
 as the Septuagint translation of Exodus was 
 made, ver. Yi]/ and ?£ (Theophrastus, De Causis , 
 iii. 27). It was called by the Latins invol- 
 volus, convolvulus, and volvox (Plautus, Cis- 
 tell. Act iv. Sc. 2; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xvii. 
 28). Rosenm filler thinks it to have been the 
 
 scarabceus hirtellus, or the scarabaus muticus 
 hirtus testaceo-nigricans of Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. 
 tom. i., pt. iv. p. 1577). Forskal calls it the 
 pyralis vitana, or py rails fasciana. A species 
 of beetle, lethrus cephalotes , is injurious to the 
 vines of Hungary ; other species of beetles do 
 similar mischief (rynchites, bacchus , cumolpus). 
 Vine-leaves in France are frequently destroyed 
 by the larva of a moth, tortrix vitana. In 
 Germany another species does great injury to the 
 young branches, preventing their expansion by 
 the webs in which it involves them ; and a third 
 species, tortrix fasciana, makes the grapes them- 
 selves its food (Kirby and Spence, Introduction 
 to "Entomology, vol. i. p. 205, London, 1828). It 
 may serve as an illustration of the looseness of 
 popular diction respecting insects, to remark, that 
 what the farmers call ‘ the fly ’ in the turnip, is 
 in reality a small species of jumping beetle, for 
 which turnip-flea would be a more appropriate 
 name. In Job vii. 5, the patriarch complains 
 that bis ‘ flesh is clothed with worms and clods 
 of dust,’ flD"l, aairpla aKibAr/Kwv ; and in 2 Macc. 
 ix. 9, it is stated to be the fate of Antiochus, that 
 while he lived ‘worms’ (aKdoXrjKas) ‘rose up out 
 of his body ;’ and St. Luke records this disorder 
 to have been inflicted on Herod (Acts xii. 23, 
 UK<a\r,K&fip<tiTOS : comp. Joseph. Antiq. xix. 8. 2 ; 
 xvii. 6. 5 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 33. 5). It has been 
 attempted to explain all these instances as cases 
 of phthiriasis, or the lousy disease • but the 
 
 conjecture is inconsistent with the words em« 
 ployed in the several narratives ; and since they 
 are instances of persons being devoured by 
 worms while alive, contrary to the order ol 
 nature, we are compelled to ascribe the pheno- 
 menon to divine agency. For the account ol 
 insects infesting the human frame, from disease, 
 see Kirby and Spence (Introduction to Entomo- 
 logy, vol. i. p. 84). Allusion is made in varipus 
 passages to ‘worms’ preying upon the dead. 
 Thus Job, in the anticipation of death, says, ‘ 1 
 have said<4o the worm, Thou art my mother, and 
 my sister (Job xvii. 14; comp. xxi. 26; xxiv. 
 20 ; Isa. xiv. 1 1 ; lxvi. 24; Ecclus. x. 11 ; xix. 
 3; 1 Mac. ii. 62). In one apparent instance of 
 this nature (Job xix. 26), ‘ though after my skin 
 worms destroy this body,’ the word ‘ worms’ is 
 supplied by our translators. These passages, and 
 especially the latter, have contributed to the po- 
 pular impression in this country, that the human 
 body, when buried in the grave, is consumed by 
 worms. The Oriental method of burial in wrap- 
 pers, and of depositing the corpse in caves, &c., 
 would no doubt often afford the spectacle of the 
 human body devoured by the larvae of different 
 insects ; but the allusions in Scripture to such 
 sights do not apply to burial in this country, ex- 
 cept where the body, as was the case in London 
 till lately, is buried in a wooden coffin only, in 
 vaults which have communications with the ex- 
 ternal air, when even in the centre of the metropo- 
 lis, the writer has found swarms of a species of fly, 
 of a cimex aspect, which insinuates itself between 
 the lid and lower part of the coffin, and whose lar- 
 vae battened in the corpse within, while the adult 
 insect sported in the lurid atmosphere of the vault. 
 The ‘ gourd ’ of Jonah is said to have been de- 
 stroyed by ‘ a worm’ (Jon. iv. 7) ; aKdbAi)^, 
 
 vermis. The identity of the gourd with the 
 ricinus communis seems to be well established 
 [Kikayon] ; and llumphius (Herbar. Am- 
 boinens., tom. iv. p. 95) testifies to the ravages of 
 a species of black caterpillar upon it. These are 
 produced, he says, in great quantities in the 
 summer time, during a gentle rain, and eat up 
 the leaves of the Palma Christi, and gnaw its 
 branches to the pith in a single night (Michaelis, 
 Suppl. ad Lexic. Hebraic., p. 2187). Allusions to 
 the worm in wood occur in the Septuagint of 
 Prov. xii. 4, and xxv. 20; eV .w <r/cct>A7?£; 
 Vulg. vermis ligno ; which words have nothing 
 corresponding to them in the present Hebrew text 
 (see Vulgate of 2 Kings xxiii. 8). The word 
 ‘ worm ’ occurs metaphorically (Job xxv. 6), ‘ how 
 much less man that is a worm’ (HD“), aairpla, 
 putredo ), ‘ and the son of man which is a worm ;' 
 njtan, anwAr ) £, vermis (Ps. xxii. 6; Isa. xii. 
 14). Homer also compares a man of inferior con- 
 sequence to a worm, Share aKcoAr)£ eirl yah) ueiro 
 radels (II. xiii. 654). It is possible that the word 
 
 jtan was also given as a proper name ; thus 
 ‘ Tola ’ occurs among the descendants of Issachar 
 (Gen. xlvi. 13), and was also the name of a person 
 of the same tribe (Judg. x. 1). Bochart conjec- 
 tures that the name was given to these child reu 
 by their parents because the tribe of Issachar was 
 one of the meanest, and they were themselves in 
 needy circumstances, or that these were very 
 sickly children when born. He remarks, how- 
 ever, that the first Tola became a great 
 
WRITING. 
 
 WORMWOOD, STAR OF. 
 
 the head of the Tolaites (Num. xxvi. 23), who, 
 in the days of David, amounted to 22,600 (I 
 Chron. vii. 2); and that the latter judged Israel 
 twenty years (Judg. x, 1,2). ‘ Worm’ occurs in 
 
 the New Testament in a figurative sense only 
 (Mark ix. 44, 46, 48), ‘ Thei< worm dieth not, 
 and the fire is not quenched;’ words borrowed 
 from Isa. lxvi. 24, which originally relate to a 
 temporal state of tilings, but which had also 
 become, in our Lord’s time, the popular repre- 
 sentation of future punishment (Judith xvi. 17 ; 
 Ecclus. vii. 17) [Soul ; Tophet]. Origen 
 here understands ‘ worm’ in a metaphorical sense, 
 as denoting ihe accusation of conscience; but 
 Austin, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theo- 
 phylact, &c., contend that the word should be 
 understood literally. Several mistranslations 
 occur. In Isa. li. 8, ‘ and the worm shall eat 
 them like wool,’ the word DD, means a species of 
 moth [Moth]. In Mic. vii. 17, the words, ‘like 
 
 worms of the earth, literally, * creepers 
 
 in the dust,’ ‘ serpents ;’ Vulg. reptilia terrse (comp. 
 Deut. xxxii. 24). In 1 Macc. ii. 62, ‘ Fear not 
 the words of a sinful man, for his glory shall be 
 dung and worms;’ instead of Koirpia , ‘ dung,’ 
 should be read crairpla, ‘rottenness,’ as in the 
 Sept, of Job vii. 5 ; xxv. 6. So also in Ecclus. 
 xix. 3, ‘Moths and worms shall have him that 
 cleaveth to harlots,’ instead of arjres, ‘ moths,’ 
 read * rottenness.’ Bochart ( Hierozoicon , 
 
 ed. Rosenmuller, Lips. 1793-1796, vol. iii. ; De 
 Vermibus). — J. F. D. 
 
 WORMWOOD, STAR OF (Rev. viii. 10, 
 11), the Apocalyptic appellation for the national 
 demon of Egypt, set forth in the vision of Patmos 
 as a luminous idol presiding over ‘ the third part 
 of the waters.’ The vocation of this star was to 
 destroy by poison, not by fire, sword, or famine ; 
 hence the Talmudic phrase ‘ poison in Egypt ’ is 
 put in opposition to food or ‘corn in Ephraim ’ 
 as the symbol of blasphemy and idolatry (Bab. 
 Talmud in Menacoth , fol. 85. 1). Philo also, 
 speaking of Helicon, ‘ the scorpion-like slave,’ 
 represents him as having cast up rbv AlyvirTianbv 
 ibv, ‘the Egyptian venom,’ against the dwellers 
 in Palestine ( De Legat. p. 102, ed. Turneb.). 
 Daniel gives a clear intimation of his acquaint- 
 ance with the prevalent belief that, like Persia, 
 Greece, and Judaea, every nation had a celestial 
 prince or patron, sar, or sire (Dan. x. 21). 
 This sar lame-ala, ‘ prince on high,’ of the Rab- 
 bins had also a representative image in the ma- 
 terial firmament (Rabbi Salomon on Dan. xi. 1), 
 some helel ) glittering son of the morning 
 
 (Isa. xiv. 12), or ‘light of lights’ ( more red) 
 among the splendid stars or intercessors above 
 (M-litzim ; Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8), who were ‘dark- 
 ened ’ when Pharaoh was extinguished. Eusebius 
 (Demonstr. Evangelic, iv. 8. 10) and Iamblichus 
 (De yEgyptiorum Mysteriis, § v. c. 25) both men- 
 tion ‘ the angels who preside over the nations ;’ 
 and Rabbi Solomon, the chief of the Gallican 
 synagogue in his day, affirms that ‘ before God 
 wreaks his vengeance on a people he punishes 
 their prince , because it Is written, “ The Lord 
 shall punish the host of the high ones on high,” 
 and then follows “ and the kings of the earth upon 
 the earth;” and, moreover, it is written, “How 
 art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” ’ 
 ' Comment . on Isa. xiii. 13). Hence, as the 
 
 ©71 
 
 literal fulfilment of Isa. xxiv. 21, the Jews y«t 
 anticipate ‘the extirpation of all the Gentiles, 
 with their princes on high and their [pretended] 
 Gods’ (JS’izzehon, p. *255, in Wagenseil’s Tela 
 Ignea). 
 
 St. John seems to employ this symbol of 
 Egyptian poison and bitterness, as the prototype 
 of a great Anti-Christian Power, which would 
 poison and embitter the pure waters of Christian 
 life and doctrine, converting them into ‘ worm- 
 wood,’ mitzraim being a figure of apostasy and 
 rebellion. — F. R. L. 
 
 WRESTLING. [Games.J 
 
 WRITING is an art by which facts or ideas 
 are communicated from one person to another by 
 means of given signs, such as symbols or letters. 
 It has been a generally received and popular 
 opinion that writing was first used and imparted 
 to mankind when God wrote the Ten Command- 
 ments on the tables of stone ; but the silence of 
 Scripture upon the subject would rather suggest 
 that so necessary an art had been known long before 
 that time, or otherwise the sacred historian would 
 probably have added this extraordinary and divine 
 revelation to the other parts of his information 
 respecting the transactions on Mount Sinai. 
 
 After the gift of language (which was indis- 
 pensable to rational creatures), it would seem that 
 writing was the most highly beneficial and im- 
 portant boon which could be conferred on men 
 possessed of intellect and understanding, who from 
 their circumstances must divide and spread over 
 the whole earth, and yet be forced from various 
 necessities to maintain intercourse with each other. 
 
 In the earliest times families must have sepa- 
 rated : the pastoral life required much room for 
 flocks and herds ; and as the wealth of each house- 
 hold increased, the space between them must have 
 become greater, and every year would compel 
 more distant migrations from these unfailing 
 causes (Gen. xiii.). 
 
 But even in the first ages of the world it would 
 be requisite not only to preserve unimpaired the 
 knowledge of God, but it would be desirable to 
 have some method of transmitting and receiving 
 intelligence from the scattered communities, of a 
 more certain nature than verbal messages ever 
 can be ; nor is it probable that events which were 
 destined to act upon all time should be left to 
 float upon the uncertain stream of tradition, when 
 by the art of writing they might be accurately 
 conveyed without addition or diminution to the 
 latest posterity. It is scarcely possible that the 
 wondrous gift of writing was withheld until the 
 world had been twice repeopled, and 2513 years 
 had rolled by. 
 
 The working in iron and the construction of 
 musical instruments are recorded in Gen. iv. 21, 
 22 ; whilst neither before nor after that period is the 
 origin or discovery of writing any more alluded 
 to than is the origin of language itself. Is it then 
 too much to believe that God by revelation imme- 
 diately imparted to mankind the power of writing ? 
 For it does not appear that any person ever in- 
 vented an alphabet who had not previously heard 
 of or seen one ; and every nation which possessed 
 the art always professed to have derived its know- 
 ledge from a God. Without writing, no informa* 
 tion could have been conveyed to remote nations 
 with accuracy. Few persons repeat a thing in the 
 precise words in which a detail was given to them, 
 
972 
 
 WRITING. 
 
 WRITING. 
 
 and the most trifling change in an expression may 
 throw tiie whole into error and confusion, or en- 
 tirely destroy the sense. But such cannot be the 
 case if writing be the means of communication, 
 for whatever is thus definitely stated may be 
 equally well understood by those to whom it is 
 addressed as by those who write it. God never 
 works unnecessary miracles ; but that must have 
 been the case if, for upwards of two thousand years, 
 the memory and speech of various men were alone 
 the depositaries of His dealings with mankind. 
 
 It was a matter of the utmost consequence that 
 the most exact accounts should have been pre- 
 served of the creation, the fall of man, and many 
 prophecies of deepest interest to unborn genera- 
 tions. The ages and genealogies of the patriarchs ; 
 the measures of the ark ; the first kingly govern- 
 ment in Assyria; the history of Abraham and his 
 descendants for 430 years, including minute cir- 
 cumstances, changes, and conversations, in many 
 different countries ; could scarcely have been per- 
 fectly preserved by oral descent for twenty cen- 
 turies, unless the antediluvians and their imme- 
 diate posterity did not partake of the failings of 
 Christians in the defects of forgetfulness and 
 exaggeration ; but allowing the art of writing to 
 have been given with language , there is no diffi- 
 culty, and it becomes obvious that each transac- 
 tion would be recorded and kept exactly as it was 
 either revealed or happened. 
 
 It is not a vain thing to suppose that the his- 
 tory of creation, and all following events, as 
 briefly related by Moses, were taken from ancient 
 documents in the possession of the Israelites: 
 this opinion is maintained by Calmet ( Commen - 
 taire Litteral , vol. i. part i. p. 13). The gifts 
 of inspiration, like those of nature, are never 
 superfluous. When God had once revealed to the 
 Patriarchs what was ‘ in the beginning,’ there 
 was no further need for a new revelation ; and 
 the Hebrew historian might compile from pre- 
 vious records, what was sufficient for mankind to 
 know respecting the origin of ‘ things which are 
 seen.’ 
 
 In the fifth chapter of Genesis it is said, ‘ This 
 is the book of the generations.’ If there had been 
 merely a traditionary recollection of ‘ the genera- 
 tions of Adam,’ preserved only by transmis- 
 sion from one memory to another for more than a 
 thousand years, the term book would have been 
 most inapplicable, and could not have been used ; 
 and to suppose that a written document had been 
 referred to, cannot be deemed as forcing the con- 
 struction of the word in this instance, more than 
 when it is also believed that ‘ the book of the 
 generation of Jesus Christ’ (Matt. i. 1) was like- 
 wise copied from a national register, and not 
 given by a new revelation or old tradition, for 
 the genealogies in the New Testament were not 
 of less importance than those of the sons of Shem 
 (Gen. xi.), and yet the former were taken from 
 ublic records. Why, then, should a miracle 
 ave been wrought to preserve the latter? 
 
 The book of Job is considered to be the most 
 ancient written document extant, and is deemed 
 an authentic narrative and not an imaginative 
 poem (James v. 11). By some persons it is 
 thought to be the work of Moses (see Mason Good’s 
 Dies, to Translation of Job)\ but this is de- 
 nied by Bishop Lowth ( Lectures on Hebrew 
 Potfjrfy Lightfoot and others think Elihu was 
 
 the author. This is the more credible opinion 
 for it is scarcely possible to be’ieve that long con- 
 versations between several persons in the land of 
 Uz should have been orally preserved for perhaps 
 several centuries, and then recorded with minute 
 accuracy by an individual who spoke a different 
 language, and who received it from the lips of 
 strangers and foreigners. 
 
 Hales asserts that Job lived at most two hun- 
 dred years before the Exode. Our version of the 
 Scriptures fixes the time of Job at b.c. 1520, 
 which allows but twenty-nine years between his 
 era and that of the departure of the Israelites 
 from Egypt. Be that as it may, the declarations 
 of Job prove that letters and books were known 
 to him and his countrymen, who were a people 
 quite distinct from the Hebrews. 
 
 in the nineteenth chapter of Job (ver. 23, 24) 
 it is said, ‘ Oh, that my words were now written ! 
 Oh, that they were printed in a book! that they 
 were graven with an iron pen P Also Job xxxi. 35, 
 
 ‘ mine adversary had written a book.’ Such ex- 
 pressions could not have been used, and would 
 have had no meaning, if the art of writing had been 
 unknown; nor could there have been such terms 
 as book and pen, if the things themselves had not 
 existed. 
 
 If, then, it be granted that the Book of Job 
 was written , and such expressions were current 
 before the Exode, it becomes evident from sacred 
 history, that writing was not only in use before 
 the law was given on Mount Sinai, but that it 
 was also known amongst other patriarchal tribes 
 than the children of Israel. The supposed writer, 
 Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite (Job xxxii. 
 2), was a descendant of Nahor, the brother ot 
 Abraham (Gen. xxii. 20, 21), and might thus be 
 possessed of whatever arts the family of Terah 
 had inherited from Noah. Another singular 
 phrase is found in Job : * My days are swifter 
 than a post’ (ix. 25). This would imply the re- 
 gular transmission of intelligence by appointed 
 messengers from place to place ; and although it 
 does not follow as a necessary consequence that 
 such a person on all occasions carried letters , it 
 is more than probable that such a mode of con- 
 veying important communications was established 
 in civilized countries, where books , pens , and 
 writing were known. 
 
 Before the law was given by God to Moses, he 
 had been commanded to write the important trans- 
 actions which occurred during the progress of the 
 Israelites from Egypt to Canaan ; for in Exod. 
 xvii. 14, it is recorded, ‘And the Lord said unto 
 Moses, write this for a memorial in a book.’ An 
 account of the discomfiture of the Amalekites is 
 the first thing said to have been written by Moses. 
 This battle was fought ere the people left Rephi- 
 dim (Exod. xvii. 13), from whence they departed 
 into the wilderness of Sinai (Exod. xix. 2); and, 
 therefore, that writing was drawn up before the 
 events on the mount took place. The law was 
 ‘written by the finger of God’ (Exod. xxxi. 18), 
 B.c. 1491, and since that time there is no question 
 as to the existence of the art of writing. The com- 
 mandments were written on two tables of stone 
 (Exod. xxxi v. 1); but immediately afterwards, 
 when Moses was interceding with God for the 
 sinning idolaters, he says, ‘ Blot me out of thy 
 book Which thou has written’ (Exod. xxxii. 32)® 
 If writing in alphabetical characters had bseo 
 
WRITING. 
 
 WRITING* 
 
 973 
 
 j©jci by Moses for the first time on the ‘ tables of 
 stone,’ he could not from these have had the 
 faintest conception of a book, which is a thing 
 composed of leaves or rolls, and of"which the 
 stones or slates could have given him no idea. 
 
 Forty years after the law was written, the 
 Israelites took possession of the land of Canaan, 
 where the ‘cities were walled and very great ’ 
 (Num. xiii. 28). Amongst other places which 
 were conquered was one called by them Debir, 
 but whose original name was Kirjath-sepher, or 
 the City of Books, or Kirjath-sannah, the City of 
 Letters (Jos. xv. 49 ; Judges i. 1 1). The Canaan- 
 ites could not have gained their knowledge of 
 letters or of books from the Hebrews, with whom 
 they were entirely unacquainted or at war, and 
 must, therefore, have derived them from other 
 sources. The Canaanites being the descendants 
 of Canaan, a son of Ham, had probably preserved 
 and cultivated the same arts and sciences which 
 Misraim, another son of Ham, carried into Egypt 
 (Gen. x. 6). 
 
 ‘The Book of Jasher’ (Josh. x. 13), is men- 
 tioned by Joshua, but whether as a chronicle of 
 the past or present is uncertain. 
 
 Books and writing must have been familiar to 
 Moses, ‘ who was learned in all the wisdom of 
 the Egyptians’ (Acts vii. 22), for at the time of 
 his birth that people had arrived at a high pitch 
 of civilization. Since the penetration of Dr. 
 Young discovered the key by which the hitherto 
 mysterious hieroglyphics can be deciphered, it 
 has been found that from the earliest era Egypt 
 possessed a knowledge of writing. Without cre- 
 diting the very distant period given by some 
 chronologists, which fixes the beginning of the 
 first regal dynasty there 58G7 years b.c., or as M. 
 Prisse, the learned hieroglyphist, says, in his 
 private accounts, ‘ unnumbered ages before the 
 erection of the pyramids,’ it is not presuming too 
 much to think that the chronology adopted by 
 Usher is too short to include many Scriptural 
 transactions. Chronology is a matter of opinion, 
 founded on data supplied by various sources of 
 information, and not an article of faith: it may 
 therefore be altered and improved in conformity 
 with well-ascertained facts and legitimate evidence. 
 
 Hales, agreeing with Josephus, says that Menes, 
 the first king of the first Egyptian dynasty, 
 began his reign b.c. 2412 years (Chronology ) ; 
 but previous to his assuming the royal dignity, 
 Egypt had been long ruled by a succession of 
 priests, and in their theocracy Thoth or Hermes, 
 a god , was considered by them to be the inventor 
 of letters (the Egyptians never acknowledged 
 demi' gods); and in no instance is the discovery 
 of the art of writing ever attributed to men 
 (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, v. 2). 
 
 There were three kinds of writing practised in 
 Egypt: — 1st. The hieroglyphical, or sacred sculp- 
 tured characters ; 2d. The hieratic, or sacerdotal, 
 which was abbreviated; 3rd. The demotic, or 
 enchorial, which became the hand in general use. 
 Leipsius, in The Annals of Archaeological Cor- 
 respondence, Rome, 1837, maintains that the 
 Egyptians had two colloquial dialects in use, 
 which were very distinct; the classical or sacer- 
 dotal, and the popular. The sacred, or hiero- 
 glyphic writing, as well as the hieratic of all 
 ages, presents the former, whilst the demotic pre- 
 sents the common dialect. Wilkinson thinks 
 
 the hieroglyphical was the sole mods of writing 
 in the more ancient times, yet allows the hieratic 
 to have been employed in remote ages ; but if M. 
 Prisse’s discovery be true, of a papyrus said to be 
 written in the reign of an hitherto unknown king 
 in the first Memphite dynasty, and in the hieratic 
 character, its extreme antiquity will be found 
 coeval with the hieroglyphical. 
 
 If there be no enchorial writing found (foJ 
 monuments or tombs which were sacred could 
 not have common characters upon them) until 
 about B.c. 600, that circumstance does not prove 
 that such a mode of writing was unknown in the 
 earliest times ; for from the account of the burial 
 of Jacob (Gen. 1. 9), and from the Song of Moses 
 (Exod. xv. 1, and xiv. 26), it is clear that horsemen 
 were a part of the Egyptian army, and yet there 
 is but one solitary specimen of a man on horse- 
 back amongst the infinite variety of sculptured 
 representations of their manners and customs 
 (Wilkinson, vol. i. p. 289). The priestly rulers 
 of Egypt had continued, like the framers of caste 
 in India, to bind down by certain definite and 
 established laws (even to the meagre delineation 
 of the human body in painting) every mode of 
 action, and from that circumstance it may be 
 inferred that the manner in which trials before 
 the judges were carried on, was not an innovation 
 of later times. There were royal and priestly 
 scribes, but there must have been a different grade, 
 employed by other classes, as in their law-courts 
 the complainant always stated his case in writing, 
 and the defendant also replied in writing ; from 
 which circumstance (were there none other) 
 it may be inferred that there was some common 
 popular writing for such purposes, besides that 
 of the sacred hieroglyphics, or sacerdotal mode. In 
 the paintings which represent the judgment after 
 death, Thoth, who is called the ‘ Secretary of Jus- 
 tice,’ is always portrayed with his tablet and style, 
 just beginning to write. 
 
 The Memnonium is said to have been built 
 about the time of Moses (b.c. 1571); over the 
 entrance gateway to the library was inscribed, 
 ‘ Remedy, or Balsam for Souls.’ Over the moul- 
 dering door which led to the bibliothetical reposi* 
 tory, Champollion read, written over the heads of 
 Thoth and Safkh (who were the male and female 
 deities of arts, sciences, and literature), the re- 
 markably appropriate titles of c President of the 
 Library,’ and ‘ Lady of Letters.’ In the Sanc- 
 tuary at Luxor, erected 200 years before the birth 
 
974 
 
 WRITING. 
 
 WRITING. 
 
 of Moses, there is an inscription over Thoth, which 
 begins, ‘ Discourse of the Lord of the Divine 
 Writings/ The number of works ascribed to 
 Thoth is stated to have been 36,525. 
 
 The great Pyramid is supposed to have been 
 erected at least 2123 years b.o. ; in a.d. 1837, 
 Col. Howard Vyse found in the low chamber the 
 name of Suphis (Cheops) scored in red ochre on 
 the rough stones behind the front facing of the 
 room (see Ancient Egypt , by G. R. Gliddon, 
 Vice-consul at Cairo; Boston, U. S. 1844). 
 
 ‘ In Egypt nothing was done without writing. 
 Scribes were employed on all occasions, whether 
 to settle public or private questions, and no bar- 
 gain of any consequence was made without the 
 voucher of a written document' (W T ilkinson, 
 vol. i. p. 183). On a tomb said to have been 
 built about the time the Pyramids were erected, 
 is seen the representation of a steward giving 
 an account of the number of his master’s flocks 
 and herds (vol. iv. p. 131). The scribes and 
 stewards, who were employed in domestic suits, 
 conveyancing, and farming, could not have used 
 the sacred characters for their affairs, nor could 
 they have been understood by the people gene- 
 rally if they had ; it may therefore be concluded 
 that the enchorial writing was that in popular 
 practice. 
 
 Pliny is in error in saying that papyrus was not 
 used for paper before the time of Alexander the 
 Great, for papyri of the most remote Pharaonic 
 period are found with the same mode of writing 
 as that of the age of Cheops (Wilkinson, vol. iii. 
 p. 150). A papyrus now in Europe, of the date 
 of Cheops, establishes the early use of written 
 documents, and the antiquity of paper made of 
 the byblus, long before the time of Abraham 
 {Ancient Egypt, p. 13). As papyrus was ex- 
 pensive, few documents of that material are found, 
 and these are generally rituals, sales of estates, 
 and official papers (papyrus was used until about 
 the seventh century of our era). A soldier's leave 
 of absence has been discovered written upon a 
 piece of broken earthenware. 
 
 No one can dispute the extreme antiquity of 
 Egypt as a nation, nor that, at the time of Moses, 
 its inhabitants were in a state of advanced civil- 
 ization. From the researches of travellers and 
 hieroglyphists in late years, it is proved beyond 
 doubt that many of the hieroglyphical inscrip- 
 tions were written before the Exodus of the He- 
 brews, and that writing must therefore have been 
 in use at or before that period ; but it yet remains 
 to be said from whence the art was derived. 
 
 ‘ The earliest and surest data’ (respecting al- 
 phabetical language) ‘ are found in the genuine 
 palaeographical monuments of the Phoenicians/ 
 ‘ Amongst the most ancient coins yet known is 
 one supposed to be b.c. 394’ [Alphabet] ; but 
 these ancient specimens of engraving or writing 
 prove nothing as to the origin of the thing itself. 
 It is possible that written characters can be traced 
 no higher than from a Phoenician stock, for they 
 were the immediate posterity of Noah’s family. 
 The argument here stated, as to the credible sup- 
 position that writing was given with language, is 
 not at all invalidated by gems or coins which 
 exhibit the oldest or most primitive form of writ- 
 ten characters known. 
 
 The Hindoos and Chinese profess to have had 
 Amongst them the art of writing from time imme- 
 
 morial ; hut although they cannot esrablish the 
 truth of their endless chronologies, yet it is highly 
 probable that they have been acquainted with that 
 mode of communicating and transmitting ideas 
 from remote ages. Eight Chinese bottles have 
 been found in different tombs at. Thebes; on five 
 of them is written the same inscription, ‘ The 
 flower opens, and lo ! another year.’ In China 
 writing is still symbolical, there being 80,000 
 characters, to which there are 214 radical keys. 
 
 Letters are generally allowed to have been intro- 
 duced into Europe from Phoenicia, and to have 
 been brought from thence by Cadmus into Greece, 
 about fifteen centuries before Christ, which time 
 coincides with the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty; 
 but whilst none may deny such to have been the 
 origin of European alphabetical characters, it 
 does not prove the Phoenicians to have been the 
 inventors of writing. That people occupied 
 Phoenicia in very early times after the Deluge, 
 and if the patriarch and his sons possessed the 
 knowledge of letters, their posterity would doubt- 
 less preserve the remembrance and practice of 
 such an invaluable bequest, which would be con- 
 veyed by their colonists into Greece and Africa. 
 In the New World it was found that the Peru- 
 vians had no system of writing, whilst the Mex- 
 icans had made great advances in hieroglyphical 
 paintings. 
 
 The Aztecs, who preceded the Mexicans, had 
 attained much proficiency in the art, such as was 
 adequate to the wants of a people in an imperfect 
 state of civilization. ‘ By means of it were re- 
 corded all their laws, and even their regulations 
 for domestic economy ; their tribute rolls, speci- 
 fying the imposts of the various towns ; their 
 mythology, rituals, and calendars, and their po- 
 litical annals carried back to a period long be- 
 fore the foundation of the city. They digested a 
 complete system of chronology, and could spe- 
 cify with accuracy the dates of the most important 
 events in their history, the year being inscribed on 
 the margin against the particular circumstances 
 recorded ’ (Prescott’s Conquest of Mexico, i. 88). 
 
 A Mexican MS. usually looks like a collect 
 lion of pictures, each forming a separate study. 
 Their materials for writing were various. Cotton 
 cloth, or prepared skins, were used, but generally 
 a fine fabric made from the leaves of the aloe 
 {Agave Americana ), from which a sort of paper 
 was prepared, somewhat resembling Egyptian 
 papyrus, which could be made more soft and 
 beautiful than parchment. When written, the 
 documents were either made up into rolls or else 
 into volumes, in which the paper was shut up like 
 a folding screen, which gave the appearance of a 
 book. When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico, 
 great quantities of these MSS. were in the coun- 
 try ; but the first Christian archbishop, Zurmar- 
 raga, caused them to be collected from every 
 part of the country, and had the whole burnt ! 
 (Prescott). 
 
 In later times there have been two instances in 
 which persons in semi-barbarous countries have 
 constructed an alphabet, from having heard that 
 by such means ideas were communicated in many 
 lands. A man of theGreybo tribe, on the African 
 coast, and a Cherokee, are said to have formed a 
 series of letters adapted to their respective lan- 
 guages ; but in neither case was it the result of 
 intuitive genius (Gliddon, p. 17). 
 
YANSHUPH. 
 
 YANSHUPH. 
 
 579 
 
 Vaiious have been the materials and imple- 
 ments used for writing. As was before observed, 
 paper made from the papyrus is now in existence 
 which was fabricated 2000 years b.c. Moses 
 hewed out of the rock two tables of stone on 
 which the Commandments were written (Exod. 
 xxxiv. 1). After that time the Jews used rolls of 
 skins for their sacred writings. They also en- 
 graved writing upon gems or gold plates (Exod. 
 xxxix. 30), 
 
 Before the discovery of paper the Chinese wrote 
 upon thin boards with a sharp tool. Reeds and 
 canes are still used as writing implements amongst 
 the Tartars ; and the Persians and other Orientals 
 write for temporary purposes on leaves, or smooth 
 sand, or the bark of trees. The Arabs in ancient 
 times wrote their poetry upon the shoulder-blades 
 of sheep. 
 
 The Greeks occasionally engraved their laws 
 on tables of brass. Even before the days of Homer 
 table-books were used, made of wood, cut in thin 
 slices, which were painted and polished, and the 
 pen was an iron instrument called a style. In 
 later times these surfaces were waxed over, that 
 the writing might be obliterated for further use. 
 Table-books were not discontinued till the four- 
 teenth century of the Christian era. 
 
 At length the superior preparations of paper, 
 parchment, and vellum, became general, and 
 superseded other materials in many, and all en- 
 tirely civilized, nations. 
 
 The European mode of writing, with its perfect 
 and complete apparatus of pen, ink, and paper, is 
 too well known to need description in these pages, 
 and would be irrelevant in an article like the 
 present. — S. P. 
 
 Y. 
 
 YANSHUPH ; Lev. ii. 17 ; Dent 
 
 xiv. 16; Isa.xxxiv.il). In the Septuagint and 
 Vulgate it is translated ‘Ibis,’ but in our version 
 * Owl ;’ which last Bochart supports, deriving 
 the name from nesheph , ‘ twilight ’ [Own]. 
 It may be remarked that ‘ Ibis’ in Europe, and 
 even in mediaeval and modern Egypt, was a very 
 indefinite name, until Bruce first pointed out, 
 and Cuvier afterwards proved, what we are to 
 understand by that denomination. All reason- 
 ing therefore upon the question by interpreters 
 of the Hebrew anterior to the establishment of 
 this fact must of necessity be inconclusive; and 
 though Parkhurst asserts that in Coptic Yan- 
 suph was rendered by hip and ip, his inference 
 remains without force so long as he and the Copts 
 are ignorant what bird these names really in- 
 dicate, It is not, as the older commentators 
 believed, a great bird of the heron or stork 
 tribes ( Ardea of Linn, and Hasselquist) ; nor, as 
 was subsequently the opinion, a Tantalus , though 
 correct in its former definition. The real bird is 
 not the Tantalus Ibis of Linnaeus^ or Abu-ba- 
 Rara, but one of smaller dimensions, probably 
 the Abou-hannes of Bruce, and certainly the 
 Ibis religiosa of Cuvier, who discovered speci- 
 mens in the mummy state, such as are now not 
 uncommon in museums, and, by comparison, 
 proved them to be identical with Ins sacred ibis. 
 
 This species is in size somewhat less than a fowl, 
 has the head and heck bare, and a curved bill 
 resembling that of a curlew, all black ; the feet 
 and quill-feathers the same; and from the rump 
 there are projected over the tail a number ot 
 black, delicate, unbarbed feathers, giving a 
 marked character to the biid, which in all the 
 rest of its plumage is white. The species is no- 
 where abundant ; it occurs, in the season, on the 
 Upper Nile, a few in company, seldom coming 
 down into Lower Egypt, but extending over 
 central Africa to the Senegal. A bird so rare 
 about Memphis, and totally unknown in Pales- 
 tine, could not be the Yanshuph of the Penta- 
 teuch, nor could the black ibis which appears 
 about Damiet.ta, nor any species, strictly tenants 
 of hot and watery regions, be well taken for it. 
 Bochart and others, who refer the name to a 
 species of owl, appear to disregard two other 
 names ascribed to owls in the 16th verse of the 
 same chapter of Leviticus. I f, therefore, an owl 
 was here again intended, it would have been placed 
 in the former verse, or near to it. In this diffi- 
 culty, considering that the Seventy were not 
 entirely without some grounds for referring the 
 Hebrew Yanshuph to a wader ; that the oldej 
 commentators took it for a species of ardea ; ana 
 that the root of the name may refer to twilight, 
 indicating a crepuscular bird ; we are inclined to 
 select the night heron, as the only one that unites 
 these several qualities. It is a bird smaller than 
 the common heron, distinguished by two or three 
 white plumes hanging out of the black-capped 
 nape of the male. In habit it is partially noc- 
 turnal. The Arabian Abou-onk ?, if not the iden 
 
 tical, is a close congener of the species, found in 
 every portion of the temperate and warmer cli- 
 mates of the earth : it is an inhabitant of Syria, 
 and altogether is free from the principal objections 
 made to the ibis and the owl. The Linnsean 
 single Ardea nycticorax is now typical of a genus 
 of that name, and includes several species of night 
 herons. They fly abroad at dusk, frequent the 
 sea shore, marshes, and rivers, feeding on mol- 
 lusca, Crustacea, and worms, and have a cry of a 
 most disagreeable nature. This bird has been 
 confounded with the night hawk, which is a goat- 
 sucker (caprimulgus), not a hawk. — C. H. S. 
 
m 
 
 YEAR. 
 
 . YSOP. 
 
 YEAR (i"l3t^). The Hebrew year consisted 
 of twelve unequal months, which, previously to 
 the exile, were lunar, as may be seen from the 
 
 names of the moon, £2*1 H and PIT, which sig- 
 nify respectively a month (so with us moon from 
 month, German mond) ; though Credner, relying 
 too much on hypothesis, especially on the as- 
 sumption of the late origin of the Pentateuch, has 
 endeavoured to show that, until the eighth cen- 
 tury before Christ, the Israelites reckoned by 
 solar years. The twelve solar months made up 
 only 354 days, constituting a year too short by 
 no fewer than eleven days. This deficiency 
 would have soon inverted the year, and could 
 not have existed even for a short period of time 
 without occasioning derangements and. serious 
 inconvenience to the Hebrews, whose year was so 
 full of festivals. At an early day then we may 
 well believe a remedy was provided for this evil. 
 Thri course which the ancients pursued is un- 
 known, but Ideler (Chronol. i. 490) may be con- 
 sulted for an ingenious conjecture on the subject. 
 The later Jews intercalated a month every two, 
 or every three years, taking cave, however, to avoid 
 making the seventh an intercalated year. The 
 supplementary month was added at the termina- 
 tion of the sacred year, the twelfth month (Fe- 
 bruary and March), and as this month bore the 
 name of Adar, so the interposed month was called 
 /eadar (“nX’l), or Adar the Second. The year, 
 as appears from the ordinary reckoning of the 
 months (Lev. xxiii. 34; xxv. 9; Num. ix. 11 ; 
 2 Kings xxv. 8 ; Jer. xxxix. 2 ; comp. 1 Macc. 
 iv. 52; x. 21), began with the month Nisan (Esth. 
 iii. 7), agreeably to an express direction given by 
 Moses (Exod. xii. 2; Num. ix. 1). This com- 
 mencement is generally thought to be that of 
 merely the ecclesiastical year ; and most Jewish, 
 ami many Christian authorities, hold that the 
 civil year ofiginally began, as now, with the 
 month Tisri; the Rabbins conjecturally assigning 
 as the reason that this was the month in which 
 the creation took place. Josephus’ statement is 
 as follows : ‘Moses appointed that Nisan should 
 lie the first month for their festivals, because he 
 brought them (the Israelites) out of Egypt in that 
 month ; so that this month began the year, as to 
 all the solemnities they observed to the honour of 
 God, although he preserved the original order of 
 (he months as to selling and buying and other 
 ordinary affairs ( Antiq . i. 3. 3). YViner, however, 
 is of opinion that the commencement of the year 
 with Tisri, together with the beginning of the 
 sacred year in Nisan, is probably a post-exilian 
 arrangement, designed to commemorate the first 
 step of the return to the native soil of Palestine 
 (Esth. iii. 1 ; Neh. vii. 73 ; viii. I, sq.); an idea, 
 however, to which they only can give assent who 
 hold that the changes introduced on the return 
 from Babylon were of a constructive rather than 
 a restoratory nature — a class of authorities with 
 which the writer has few bonds of connection. 
 The reader should consult Exod. xxiii. 16 ; 
 xxxiv. 22. But the commencement of the civil 
 year with Tisri, at whatever period it originated, 
 had after the exile this advantage, — that it ac- 
 corded with the era of the Seleucidae, which began 
 in October. The ancient Hebrews possessed nc 
 such thing as a formal and recognised era. Their 
 year and their months were determined and regu- 
 
 lated, not by any systematic rules of astroiiom/ ; 
 but by the first view or appearance of the moon. 
 In a similar manner they dated from great national 
 events, as the departure from Egypt (Exod. xix. 
 
 1 ; Num. xxxiii. 38; 1 Kings vi. 1); from the 
 ascension of monarchs, as in the books of Kings 
 anil Chronicles ; or from the erection of Solo- 
 mon’s temple (1 Kings viii. 1 ; ix. 10) ; and at 
 a later period, from the commencement of the 
 Babylonish captivity (Ezek. xxxiii. 21; xl. 1). 
 When they became subjects of the Graeco-Syrian 
 empire they adopted the Seleucid era, wnich 
 began with the year B.c. 312, when Seleucus 
 conquered Babylon. — J. R. B. 
 
 YSOP or HYSSOP. Reference was from 
 Hyssop to the German form of the name, as the 
 author was engaged in a course of investigation, 
 which he hoped would lead to some satisfactory 
 information. The result he communicated in a 
 paper read before the Royal Asiatic Society, and 
 published in their Journal for November, 1844. 
 From the passages in which esobh and hyssop 
 are mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, 
 and which are enumerated in the article Hyssop, 
 the author inferred that any plant answering to 
 all that, was required should, in the first place, be 
 found in every one of the places and situations 
 where it is mentioned as existing in Scripture. 
 Thus it should be found in Lower Egypt (Exod. 
 xii. 22); in the desert of Sinai (Lev. xiv. 4, 6, 
 and 52; Num. xix. 6, 18); in the neighbourhood 
 of Jerusalem (John xix. 29) ; secondly, that it 
 should be a plant growing on walls or rocky 
 situations (1 Kings iv. 33); and, finally, that it 
 should be possessed of some cleansing properties 
 (Ps. li. 7) ; though it is probable that in this 
 passage it is used in a figurative sense. It should 
 also be large enough to yield a stick, and it ought, 
 moreover, to have a name in the Arabic or cognate 
 languages, similar to the Hebrew name. This, we 
 have before seen, is written Esob and Esobh, also 
 Esof ; and in the Chaldee version it is Esofa. 
 The author stated that his attention had been 
 drawn to the subject when collating the list of 
 drugs in his MS. catalogue, mentioned vol. i. 
 p. 6, with that in the great work, entitled Con- 
 thins, of Rhages, by finding that the Arab author 
 described two kinds of hyssop, one of them grow- 
 ing on the mountain of the temple, that is, of 
 Jerusalem. Celsius, indeed ( IJierobot . i. 407), 
 mentions the same plant — Hyssopus in montibus 
 Hierosolymorum, or in Arabic Zoofa bujebal al 
 kuds. Jerusalem is now called by the Arabs 
 El Kuds, * the Holy,’ and by Arabian writers 
 Bcit-el-Mukdis, or Beit-al-Mukuddus, ‘ the 
 Sanctuary.’ In connection with this the author 
 observed, that Burckhardt had described a plant, 
 called alsef, which he had met with in several 
 wadeys about Mount Sinai, creeping up the 
 mountain side like a parasitic plant, its branches 
 covered with small thorns. From the name and 
 description the aulnor inferred that this must be 
 the coper plant ( capparis spinosa of botanists), 
 or some closely allied species. For he found on 
 investigation, that though habir is the ordinary 
 Arabic name of the caper, it is also called asaf, 
 as may be seen in the Alfag. Udioich , translated 
 by Mr. Gladwin. So in the Kamus , asub is a» 
 kubbas ; in Frey tag’s Lexicon Arabico-Laiinum , 
 asafis translated capparis, Sue. The similarity 
 in name being sufficiently great, the author pro* 
 
ZABAD. 
 
 ZACCHEUS. 
 
 <w>edg to show' that the caper bush corresponds in 
 nearly every thing that is required. 
 
 Thus tiie caper plant is well known to be indi- 
 genous in Lower Egypt, as mentioned by De Lile, 
 Forskal, and Prosper Alpinus, &c. Bove says, 
 
 ‘ Le Mont Sainte Catherine est au sud-sud-ouest 
 du Mont Sinai. Dans les deserts qui environ- 
 nent. ces montagnes j'ai trouve capparis spinosa.’ 
 He also found it among the ruins near Jerusalem, 
 as Belon and Rauwolf had done previously. 
 That it grows upon walls is sufficiently well 
 known. De Candolle says it is found ‘ in muris 
 et rupestribus Europae Australis et Orientis.’ 
 That it possessed, or was supposed to possess, 
 cleansing or detergent properties, may be seen in 
 the various accounts of it from the time of Hip- 
 pocrates. Pliny remarks especially, that it is use- 
 ful in a skin disease nearly allied to leprosy. It is 
 not a little remarkable, that it was in the cere- 
 monies of purification from this disease that esof 
 was employed by the Israelites. It remains only 
 to see whether the caper plant would yield a 
 stick long enough for a man with his outstretched 
 arm to be able to raise the sponge dipped in vi- 
 negar to the lips of our Saviour. The cross, to 
 be sufficiently strong, could not have been very 
 lofty, to admit being borne along ; and therefore 
 an ordinary sized stick would be long enough for 
 the purpose. Such a stick a shrub like the caper 
 plant, growing in a congenial climate, would sup- 
 ply. Pliny describes the capparis as a shrub of a 
 hard and woody substance. The term calamus 
 was, however, used in a much more general sense 
 than is generally supposed [Kaneh], and Pliny 
 employs the phrase ‘ imprimere calamum,’ to sig- 
 nify grafting ; as ‘ kalm lugana ’ is used in the pre- 
 sent day in India. Besides this, every part of the 
 caper plant was preserved in vinegar in ancient 
 times (Pliny) ; which may explain the pre- 
 sence of the vessel full of vinegar; and a reed 
 may have been employed in collecting the flowei 
 buds, or fruit of the caper bush, growing on walls 
 or the sides of rocks. If such a stick were em- 
 ployed, it would naturally be called the caper, 
 or hyssop stick. 
 
 Hence the author concludes, that as the caper 
 ulant has an Arabic name, asuf, similar to the 
 Hebrew esob or esof, as it is found in Lower 
 Egypt, in the deserts of Sinai, and in New 
 Jerusalem ; as it. grows upon rocks and ’walls, 
 was always supposed to be possessed of cleansing 
 qualities, is large enough to yield a stick ; and as 
 its different parts used to be preserved in vinegar, 
 as its buds now are ; he ys warranted, from the 
 union of all these properties in this plant, corre- 
 sponding so closely to those of the original esof, 
 in considering it as proved that the caper plant 
 sa the hyssop of Scripture. — J. F. R. 
 
 z. 
 
 1. ZABAD (*DT 5 God- given ; Sept. Za£e5), a 
 }>erson of the tribe of Juddi, mentioned in 1 
 Chron. ii. 36, among the descendants of Sheshan, 
 oy the marriage of his daughter with an Egyptian 
 servant [Jarha; Sheshan]. 
 
 2. ZABAD, a grandson of Ephraim, who, with 
 others of the family, was killed during the life 
 
 VOL. II. 63 
 
 071 
 
 time of Ephraim, by the men of Gath, in an 
 attempt which the Hebrews seem to have made 
 to drive off their cattle (1 Chron. vii. 21). [See 
 Ephraim.] 
 
 3. ZABAD, son of an Ammonitess named Shi 
 meath, who, in conjunction with Jehozabad, the 
 son of a Moabitess, slew King Joash, to whom they 
 were both household officers, in his bed (2 Kings 
 xii. 21 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 25, 26). In the first of these 
 texts he is called Jozachar. The sacred historian 
 does not appear to record the mongrel parentage 
 of these men as suggesting a reason for their 
 being more easily led to this act, but as indi- 
 cating the sense which was entertained of the 
 enormity of Joaslfs conduct, that even they, though 
 servants to the king, and though only half Jews by 
 birth, were led to conspire against him ‘ for the 
 blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest.’ It 
 would seem that their murderous act was not 
 abhorred by the people ; for Amaziah, the son of 
 Joash, did not venture to call them to account 
 till he felt himself well established on the throne, 
 when they were both put to death (2 Kings xiv. 
 5, 6 ; 2 Chron. xxv. 3, 4). 
 
 4. ZABAD, qne of the persons who, at the in- 
 stance of Ezra, put away the foreign wives they 
 had laken after the return from captivity (Ezra 
 x. 27). 
 
 ZABUD (‘T'QT, bestoiced ; Sept. ZafiovO), a 
 son of Nathan the prophet, who held under Solo- 
 mon the important place of ‘king’s friend,’ or 
 favourite (1 Kings iv. 5), which Hushai»hati 
 held under David (1 Clnon. xxvii. 33), anti 
 which a person named Elkanah held under Ahaa 
 (2 Chron. xxviii. 7). Azariah, another son of 
 Nathan, was ‘ over all the (household’' officers’ of 
 king Solomon ; and their advancement may doubt- 
 less be ascribed not only to the young king's re- 
 spect for the venerable prophet, who had' been his 
 instructor, but to the friendship he had contracted 
 with his sons during the course of education. 
 The office, or rather honour, of ‘ friend of the 
 king,’ we find in all the despotic governments of 
 the East. It gives high power, without the public 
 responsibility which the holding of a regular office 
 in the state necessarily imposes. It implies the 
 possession of the utmost confidence of, and familiar 
 intercourse with, the monarch, to whose person 
 ‘ the friend’ at all times has access, and whose 
 influence is therefore often far greater, even in, 
 matters of state, than that of the recognised mi-- 
 nisters of government.. 
 
 ZABULUN. (Zebulun.] 
 
 ZACCHEUS ('K3T ; ZaKxaios, justns ?), a su- 
 perintendent of taxes at Jericho. Having heard 
 of the Redeemer, he felt a great desire to see him 
 as he drew near that place : for which purpose he 
 climbed up into a sycamore-tree, because he was, 
 little of stature. Jesus, pleased with this mani- 
 festation of his eagerness, and knowing that it 
 proceeded from a heart not far from the kingdom 
 of God, saw fit to honour Zaccheus by becoming 
 his guest. This offended the self-righteous Jews, 
 who objected that ‘ he was gone to be a guest, with 
 a man that is a sinner.’ This offensive imputa- 
 tion was met by Zaccheus in the spirit of the 
 Mosaic conception of goodness — ‘ The half of my 
 goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken, 
 anything from any man by false accusation, X 
 restore him fourfold.’ He that knew the heart ol 
 
178 
 
 ZADOK. 
 
 ZAIT. 
 
 man knew, not cnly the truth of this statement, 
 out that the good works of Zaccheus emanated 
 from right motives, and therefore terminated the 
 conversation with the words, ‘ This day is salva- 
 titn come to this house, forsomudi as he also is 
 a son of Abraham’ — a declaration which, whether 
 Zaccheus was by birth a Jew or not, signifies 
 that he had the same principle of faith which was 
 imputed to Abraham, the father of the faithful, 
 for righteousness (Luke xix. 2, sq.). 
 
 Tradition represents Zaccheus as the 6rst Chris- 
 tian bishop of Ca?sarea. — J. R. B. 
 
 ZACHARI AH. [Zechariah.] 
 
 ZACHARIAS. [Zechariah.] 
 
 ZADOK, derived from the root pTV, corre- 
 sponding with the Latin justus. There are 
 several men of this name mentioned in the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 1. In the reign of David, Zadok (the son of 
 Ahitufc and father of Ahimaaz (1 Chron. vi. S) 
 and Ahimelech were the priests (2 Sun. viii. 
 17). Zadok and the Levi'es were with David 
 when, after the middle of the eleventh century 
 B.C., he lied from Absalom ; but the king ordered 
 Zadok to carry back the ark of God into the city 
 (2 Sam. xv. 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 30 ; xviii. 19, 22, 
 27). The king, also, considering Zadok a seer, 
 commanded him to return to the city, stating 
 that he would wait in the plain of the wilderness 
 until he should receive such information from 
 him and his son Ahimaaz, and also from the 
 son of Abiathar, as might induce him to remove 
 farther away. On hearing that Ahithophel had 
 joined Absalom, David requested Hushai, his 
 friend, to feign himself to be also one of the con- 
 «pirators, and to inform Zadok and Abiathar of 
 the counsels adopted by Absalom and his rebel- 
 lious confederates. The request of David was 
 •complied with, and the plans of the rebels made 
 known to David by the instrumentality of Zadok 
 and the others. 
 
 After Absalom was vanquished, David sent to 
 Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, saying, ‘Speak 
 •unto the elders of Judah. Why are ye the last to 
 bring the king back to his house?’ & c. (2 Sam. 
 xix. 1 1 ; xx. 25). When Adonijah attempted to 
 succeed to the throne, Abiathar countenanced 
 him, but Zadok was not called to the feast at 
 winch the conspirators assembled. King David 
 / nt for Zadok and Nathan the prophet to anoint 
 Solomon king (1 Kings i. 32-45). 
 
 2. In 1 Chron. vi. 12, and Neh. xi. 11, an- 
 other Zadok is mentioned, the father of whom 
 was also called Ahitub, and who hegat Shallum. 
 This Zadok descended from Zadok the priest in 
 ihe days of David ami Solomon, and was the an- 
 cestor of Ezra the scrihe (Ezra vii. 2). We learn 
 from Ezek. xl. 46; xliii. 19; xliv. 15; xlviii. 
 11, that the sons of Zadok were a pre-eminent 
 sacerdotal family. 
 
 3. Zadok was also the name of the father-in- 
 law of Uzziah and the grandfather of king Jotham, 
 who reigned about the middle of the eighth cen- 
 tury before Christ (2 Kings xv. 33 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxvii. 1). 
 
 4 and 5. Two priests of the name of Zadok 
 are mentioned in Neh. iii. 4-29, as having as- 
 sisted in rebuilding th? wall of Jerusalem about 
 h.c. 445. 
 
 The Zadok mentioned in Neh. x. 22 as having 
 sealed the covenant, and Zadok the scribe named 
 
 in Neh. xiii. 13, are probably the same wh« 
 helped to build the wall. — C. rl. F. B. 
 
 ZAIT, or SAIT (JVt), is universally ac. 
 knowledged to be the Olive-tree. The Latin 
 author Ammianus Mar cellinus, as quoted by 
 Celsius (vol. ii. p. 331), was acquainted with it, 
 for he says of a place in Mesopotamia, * Zaitam 
 venimus locum, qui Otea arbor interpretafur.’ 
 Zaitoon is the Araoic name by whicn th<» olive 
 is known from Syria to Cauhul, and described in 
 the works of both Arabic and Persian authors. 
 It. is more than probable that it was introduced 
 from Asia into Europe. The Greeks, indeed, 
 had a tradition that the first branch of it was 
 carried by a dove from Phoenicia to the temple 
 of Jupiter in Epirus, where the priests received 
 and planted it; and Pliny states that, there were 
 no olive-trees in Italy or Spain before the 173rd 
 year from the foundation of the city of Rome. 
 Though the olive continues to be much culti- 
 vated in Syria, it is yet much more extensively 
 so in the south of Europe, whence the rest of the 
 world is chiefly supplied with olive-oil. 
 
 No tree is more frequently mentioned by 
 ancient authors, nor was any one more highly 
 honoured by ancient nations. By the Greeks it 
 was dedicated to Minerva, and even employed 
 in crowning Jove, Apollo, and Hercules, as 
 well as emperors, philosophers, and orators, and 
 ‘ qui vis alii, caeteros mor tales virtute et industria 
 supergressi, olea coronantur.’ By the Romans 
 also it was highly honoured. ‘ 01eae,’says Pliny, 
 * honorem Rnmana majestas magnum prsebuit;' 
 and Columella describes it as ‘ prima omnium 
 arbornm.’ It is not wonderful that almost all 
 the ancient «,utnors, from the time of Homer, so 
 frequently mention it, and that, as Horace says 
 (Cam. i. 7) — 
 
 ‘ sunt quibus unum opus est 
 
 Undique decerptam f'ronti praeponere olivam.’ 
 
 The olive-tree is of slow growth, but. remarkable 
 for the great age it attains. It never, however, 
 becomes a very large tree, though sometimes two 
 or three stems rise from the same root, and 
 reach from twenty to thirty feet high. The 
 leaves are in pairs, lanceolate in shape, of a dull 
 green on the upper, and hoary on the under 
 surface. Hence in countries where the olive is 
 extensively cultivated, the scenery is of a dull 
 character from this colour of the foliage. The 
 fruit is an elliptical drupe, with a hard stony 
 kernel, and remarkable from the outer fleshy part 
 being that in which m\§ch oil is lodged, and not, 
 as is usual, in the almond of the seed. It ripens 
 from August to September. 
 
 Of the olive-tree two varieties are particularly 
 distinguished ; the long-leafed, which is cultivated 
 in the south of France and in Italy, and the 
 broad-leafed in Spain, which has also its fruit 
 much larger than that of the former kind. The 
 wild olive-tree, as well as the practice of grafting, 
 has been noticed in tiie article Agrileia. That 
 the olive grows to a great age, has. long been 
 known. Pliny mentions one which the Athenians 
 of his time considered to be coeval with their city, 
 and therefore 1600 years old. Near Terni, in 
 the vale of the cascade of Marmora, there is a 
 plantation of very old trees, supposed to consist 
 of the same plants that were growing there in thi 
 time of Pliny. Lady Calcott states that at 
 
ZA1T. 
 
 ZAMZUMMIMS. 
 
 S79 
 
 eoncio, on the mountain-road between Tivoli and 
 Palestrina, tnere is an ancient olive-tree of large 
 dimensions, which, unless the documents are pur- 
 posely falsified, stood as a boundary between two 
 possessions even before the Christian era, and in the 
 second century was looked upon as very ancient. 
 The difficulty on this point arises from a fresh tree 
 springing up from the old stump. Chateaubriand 
 says: ‘Those in the garden of Olivet (or Geth- 
 semane) are at least of the times of the Eastern 
 empire, as is demonstrated by the following cir- 
 cumstance. In Turkey every olive-tree found 
 standing by the Mussulmans, when they con- 
 quered Asia, pays one medina to the Treasury, 
 while each of those planted since the conquest is 
 taxed half its produce. The eight olives of which 
 we are speaking are charged only eight medinas .’ 
 By some, especially by Dr. Martin, it is supposed 
 that these olive-trees may have been in existence 
 even in the time of our Saviour. Dr. Wilde 
 describes the largest of them as being twenty-four 
 feet in girth above the roots, though its topmost 
 brand) is not thirty feet from>the ground ; Bove, 
 who travelled as a naturalist, asserts that the 
 largest are at least six yards in circumference, 
 and nine or ten yards high ; so large, indeed, that 
 he calculates their age at 2000 years. 
 
 The wood of the olive-tree, which is imported 
 into this country from Leghorn, is described by 
 M. Holtzapflel to be ‘like that of the box, but 
 softer, with darker grey coloured veins. The 
 roots have a very pretty knotted and curly 
 character ; they are much esteemed on the con- 
 tinent for making embossed boxes, pressed into 
 engraved metallic moulds.’ Furniture is made 
 of the olive-tree in Italy, anl the closeness of the 
 grain fits it even for painfeis’ pallettes. A resin-like 
 exudation is obtained from it, which was known 
 to the ancients, and is now sometimes called 
 
 olive-gum ; but the fruit, with its oil, is that 
 which renders the tree especially valuable. The 
 green unripe fruit is preserved in a solution of 
 salt, and is well known at our desserts. The 
 fruit when ripe is bruised in mills, and the oil 
 pressed out of the paste. Different qualities arc 
 known in commerce, owing partly to variations 
 in the fruit, but more to the greater or less care 
 bestowed in the collection of it, and in the sub- 
 jecting of it. to pressure. 
 
 The olive is one of the earliest of the plants 
 specifically mentioned in the Bible, the fig being 
 the first. Thus, in Gen. viii. 1 1, the dove is de- 
 scribed as bringing the olive-branch to Noah. It 
 is always enumerated among the valued trees of 
 Palestine ; which Moses desc»ibes (Deut. vi. 11; 
 viii. 8) as ‘ a land of oil-olive and honey 1 (so in 
 xxviii. 40, &c.); and (2 Chron. ii. 10) Solomon 
 gave to the labourers sent him by Hiram, king 
 of Tyre, 20,000 baths of oil. Besides this, im- 
 mense quantities must have been required for 
 home consumption, as it was extensively used as 
 an article of diet, for burning in lamps, and for 
 the ritual service. The olive still continues one 
 of the most extensively cultivated of plants. Mr. 
 Kit.fo mentions that in a list he had made of 
 references to all the notices of plants by the dif- 
 ferent travellers in Palestine, those of the presence 
 of the olive exceed one hundred and fifty, and 
 are more numerous by far than to any other tree, 
 or plant. The references to vines, fig-trees, mul- 
 berries, and oaks, rank next in frequency. Some- 
 thing of this must, however, depend upon the 
 knowledge of plants of the several travellers. 
 Botanists, even from Europe, neglect forms with 
 which they are unacquainted, as, for instance,' 
 some of the tropical forms they meet with. 
 Not only the olive-oil, but the branches of the 
 tree were employed at the Feast of Tabernacles. 
 The wood also was used (1 Kings vi. 23) by Solo- 
 mon for making the cherubim (vers. 31, 32), and 
 for doors and posts ‘ for the entering of the oracle,’ 
 the former of which were carved with cherubim, 
 and palm-trees, and open flowers. The olive 
 being an evergreen was adduced as an emblem 
 of prosperity (Ps. lii. 8), and it has continued, 
 from the earliest ages, to be an emblem of peace 
 among all civilized nations. The different pas- 
 sages of Scripture are elucidated by Celsius 
 ( Hierobot . ii. p. 330), to whom we have been 
 much indebted in most of the botanjcal articles 
 treated of in this work, from the care and 
 learning which he lias brought to bear on the 
 subject. — J. F. R. 
 
 ZALMON (jlD^V I Sept. 2eAju^)» a moun- 
 tain in Samaria near to Shecliem (Judg. ix. 48). 
 Many suppose this to be the same with the Zal- 
 mon of Ps. lxviii. 15: ‘where the Almighty 
 scattered kings in it (the land), there was snow as 
 in Zalmon i. e. the fields were whitened with 
 the bones of the slain. So Gesenius : but Ro- 
 binson says ‘ The only high mountains around 
 Shechem are Ebal and Gerizim, and these would 
 be first covered with snow." True : but may not 
 Zalmon be another name for either Ebal or 
 Gerizim’? 
 
 ZALMUNNA. [Zebah and Zalmunna.] 
 
 ZAMZUMMIMS (D'BfPt ; Sept. 
 a race of giants dwelling ancien Jy in the territotf 
 
 
ZANOAH. 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 9m 
 
 afterwards occupied by the Ammonites, but ex- 
 tinct before the time of Moses (Deut. ii. 20). 
 
 ZANOAH (DiJT, marsh, bog), one of the 
 towns of Judah 4 in the valley ’ (Josh. xv. 34) ; 
 which Jerome identifies with a village called in 
 his time Zanua, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, 
 on the road to Jerusalem ( Onomast. s. v. 4 Zano- 
 hua*). The name of Zanua is still connected 
 with a site on the slope of a low hill not far east 
 of Ain Shems (Beth-shemesh). 
 
 ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH ( 
 
 Sept. 'VovOofxfpavnx), an Egyptian name given by 
 Pharaoh to Joseph in reference to his public 
 office. The genuine Egyptian form of the word 
 is supposed to have been more nearly preserved 
 by the Sept, translator, as above; in which both 
 Jablonsky ( Opusc . c. 207-216) and Rosellini 
 (Mon. Storici, i. 185) recognise the Egyptian 
 Psotmbenbh, 4 the salvation,’ or 4 saviour of the 
 age;’ which corresponds nearly enough with 
 Jerome’s interpretation, 4 Salvator mundi.’ Ge- 
 senius and others incline, however, rather to 
 regard its Egyptian form as Psontmeeneh, 
 
 4 sustainer of the age,’ which certainly is a better 
 meaning. This, in Hebrew letters, would pro- 
 bably be represented by flJDQ H3VQ, Paznath- 
 Paaneah ; but in the name as it now stands the 
 letters ¥D are transposed, in order to bring it 
 nearer to the Hebrew analogy. Concerning the 
 Egyptian root snt, sustentare , tueri, see Champol- 
 iion, Gramm, p. 380 ; Pezron, Lex. Copt. p. 207. 
 
 ZAREPHATH. [Sarepta.] 
 
 ZEALOTS. The followers of Judas the Gau- 
 lonite or Galilean [Judas]. Josephus speaks of 
 them as forming the 4 fourth sect of Jewish philo- 
 sophy, 1 and as distinguished from the Pharisees 
 chiefly by a quenchless love of liberty and a con- 
 tempt of death. Their leading tenet was the 
 unlawfulness of paying tribute to the Romans, 
 as being a violation of the theocratic constitution. 
 This principle, which they maintained by force 
 of arms against the Roman government, was soon 
 converted into a pretext for deeds of violence 
 against their own countrymen; and during the 
 last days of the Jewish polity, the Zealots were 
 lawless brigands or guerrillas, the pest and terror 
 of the land. After the death of Judas, and of his 
 two sons, Jacob and Simon (who suffered cruci- 
 fixion), they were headed by Eleazar, one of his 
 descendants, and were often denominated Sicarii , 
 from the use of a weapon resembling the Roman 
 Sica (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1 ; De Bell. Jud. iv. 
 1-6 ; vii. 8 ; Lardner’s Credibility, pt. i. b. i. ch. 
 6, 9; Kitto’s Palestine, pp. 741, 751). — J. E. R. 
 
 ZEBAH AND ZALMUNNA, chiefs of the 
 Midianites, whom Gideon defeated and slew 
 [Gideon]. 
 
 ZEBEDEE (ZejSeScuos; in Hebrew, '’IQT 
 Zabdi, HH2T, Jehovah's gift), husband of Sa- 
 lome, and father of the apostles James and John 
 (Matt. x. 2 ; xx. 20 ; xxvi. 37 ; xxvii. 56 ; Mark 
 iii. 17 ; x. 35; John xxi. 2). He was the owner 
 of a fishing boat on the lake of Gennesaret, and, 
 with his sons, followed the business of a fisher- 
 man. He was present, mending the nets with 
 them, when Jesus called James and John to fol- 
 low him (Matt. iv. 21 , Mark 1.19; Luue v. 10) ; 
 *nd as he offered no obstacle to their obedience, 
 Q$xt remained alone without murmuring in the 
 
 vessel, it is supposed that he had been previously 
 a disciple of John the Baptist, and, as such, knew 
 Jesus to. be the Messiah. At any rate, he mus 4 
 have known this from his sons, who were certainly 
 disciples of the Baptist. It is very doubtful 
 whether Zebedee and his sons were of that very 
 abject condition of life which is usually ascribed 
 to them. They seem to have been in good circum- 
 stances, and were certainly not. poor. Zebedee 
 was the owner of a 4 ship.’ or fishing smack, as we 
 should call it — and, perhaps, of more than one ; 
 he had labourers under lnm (Mark i. 20) ; his 
 wife was one of those pious women whom the 
 Lord allowed 4 to minister unto him of their sub- 
 stance ;' and the fact that Jesus recommended 
 his mother to the care of John, implies that he 
 had the means of prpviding for her ; whilst, a still 
 further proof that Zebedee’s family was not alto- 
 gether mean, may be found, perhaps, in the fact, 
 that John was personally known to the high- priest 
 (John xviii. 16). 
 
 1. ZEBOIM (D'yh¥; Sept. a valley 
 
 and town in the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 
 18; Neh. xi. 34). 
 
 2. ZEBOIM (Dnsh?; Sept. Seflcoef/i), a 
 city in the vale of Siddim, destroyed along with 
 Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. x. 19; xiv. 2 
 Hos. xi. 8). [Sodom.] 
 
 ZEBUL (^Ilt, a dwelling ; Sept. Ze/3 ovX), an 
 officer whom Abimelech left in command at 
 Shechem in his own absence; and who dis- 
 charged with fidelity and discretion the difficult 
 trust confided to him (Judg. ix. 29-41). See the 
 particulars in Abimei.ech. 
 
 ZEBULUN habitation ; Sept. Za- 
 
 /3ou \d>v), the sixth and last son of Jacob by 
 Leah (Gen. xxx. 19, seq. ; xxxv. 23), who, in 
 the order of birth, followed his brother Issachar, 
 with whom, in history, as in the promised land, 
 he was closely connected (Deut. xxxiii. 18). 
 Zebulunwas the founder of the tribe which bore 
 his name (Gen. xlvi. 14), and which, while yet 
 in the wilderness, was respectable for numbers 
 (Num. i. 30; xxvi. 26). Zebulun obtained its 
 lot in north Palestine between Naphtali on the 
 north and Issachar on the south, while Asher 
 stretched along both it and Naphtali on the 
 west (Josh. xix. 10, seq.). The country of the 
 Zebulonites bordered towards the east on the 
 south-western side of the lake of Tiberias, and 
 was connected with the Mediterranean by means 
 of Carmel (Gen. xlix. 13). Its inhabitants in 
 consequence took part in seafaring concerns 
 (Joseph. Antiq. v. 1. 22). They failed to expel 
 all the native race, but made those of them that 
 remained tributaries (Judg. i. 30). One of the 
 judges of Israel, Elon, was a Zebulonite (Judg. 
 xii. 11). A city lying on the borders of Ash'r 
 also bore the name of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 27).- 
 
 J. R. F. 
 
 ZECHARIAH (?V*pT, whom Jehovah re 
 members ; Sept, and N. T. Za^a/nas), a verj 
 common name among the Jews, borne bv the 
 following persons mentioned in Scripture. 
 
 1. Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II., and four- 
 teenth king of Israel. He ascended the throne in 
 b.c. 772, and reigned six months. It has bee* 
 shown in the article Israel, that from undue 
 deference to a probably corrupted uumber, wni*i 
 
ZECHARIAH. 
 
 ZECHAR.AII. 
 
 Mcribes 11 years to the reign of Jeroboam II., 
 chronologers have found it necessary to suppose 
 anarchy or an interregnum of 11 years, during 
 which his son Zechariah was kept from the 
 throne. But there is no appearance of this in the 
 sacred narrative, and it was not likely to follow a 
 reign so prosperous as Jeroboam’s. The few 
 months of Zechari all’s reign just sufficed to evince 
 his inclination to follow the bad course of his 
 yredecessors ; and he was then slain by Shallum, 
 vho usurped the crown. With his life ended the 
 dynasty of Jehu (2 Kings xiv. 29 ; xv. 8-12). 
 
 2. Zechariah, high priest in the time of 
 Joash, king of Judah. He was son, or perhaps 
 grandson, of Jehoiada and Jehosheba ; the latter 
 was the aunt of the king, who owed to her his 
 crown, as he did his education and throne to her 
 husband [Joash]. Zechariah could not bear to 
 see the evil courses into whicli the monarch even- 
 tually fell, and by which the return of the people 
 to their old idolatries was facilitated, if not en- 
 couraged. Therefore, when the people, were as- 
 sembled at one of the solemn festivals, he took 
 the opportunity of lifting up his voice against the 
 growing corruptions. This was in the presence 
 of the king, in the court of the temple. The 
 people were enraged at his honest boldness, and 
 with the connivance of the king, if not by a di- 
 rect intimation from him, they seized the pontiff, 
 and stoned him to death, even in that holy spot, 
 ‘ between the temple and the altar.’ His dying 
 cry was not that of the first Christian martyr, 
 * Lord, lay not this sin to their charge ’ (Acts vii. 
 60), but ‘The Lord look upon it, and require it ’ 
 (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22). It is to this dreadful 
 affair that our Lord alludes in Matt, xxiii. 35 ; 
 Luke xi. 51. At least, this is the opinion of the 
 best interpreters, and that which has most proba- 
 bility in its favour. The only difficulty arises from 
 his being called the son of Barachias, and not of 
 Jehoiada : but this admits of two explanations — 
 
 / either that Zechariah, though called the ‘ son’ of 
 Jehoiada in the Old Testament, was really his 
 grandson, and son of Barachias, who perhaps died 
 before his father ; or else that, as was not uncom- 
 mon among the Jews, Jehoiada had two names, 
 and Jesus called him by that by which he was 
 usually distinguished in his time, when the Jews 
 had acquired a reluctance to pronounce those 
 names which, like that of Jehoiada, contained 
 the sacred name of Jehovah. See Doddridge, Le 
 Clerc, Kuinoel, Wetstein, and others, on Matt, 
 xxiii. 35. 
 
 3. Zechariah, described as one ‘who had un- 
 derstanding in the visions of God’ (2 Chron. 
 xxvi. 7). It is doubtful whether this eulogiurft 
 :ndicates a prophet, or simply describes one emi- 
 nent for his piety and faith. During his lifetime 
 Uzziah, king of Judah, was guided by his coun- 
 sels, and prospered : but went wrong when death 
 had deprived him of his wise guidance. Nothing is 
 known of this Zechariah’s history. It is possible 
 that he may be the same whose daughter became 
 the wife of Ahaz, and mother of Hezekiah (2 
 Kings xvi. 1, 2; 2 Chron. xxix. 1). 
 
 4. Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah, a person 
 whom, together with Urijah the high priest, Isaiah 
 took as a legal witness of his marriage with ‘ the 
 prophetess’ (Isa. viii. 2). This was in the reign 
 of Ahaz, and the choice of the prophet shows that 
 Zechariah was a person of consequence. Some 
 
 981 
 
 confound him with the preceding ; but the dis- 
 tance of time will not admit their identity. He 
 may, however, have been the descendant ot 
 Asaph, named in 2 Chron. xxix. 13. 
 
 5. Zechariah, the eleventh in order of the 
 minor prophets, was ‘ the son of Berechiah, toe 
 son of Iddo, the prophet.’ The meaning of the 
 word has been disputed, some affirm- 
 
 ing that Iddo was not the grandfather , as the 
 formula seems to indicate, but the father ot 
 Zechariah, and thus rendering the clause with 
 Jerome, ‘filium Barachiae. filium Addo,’ or with 
 some MSS. of the Septuagint, tIv toC Bapaxtov, 
 vtbv ’A85c6. Jerome likewise refers to his pecu- 
 liar rendering in his notes. Others of the fathers 
 also adopted it, such as Cyril of Alexandria, 
 who attempts to solve the difficulty created by it 
 by maintaining that the one was the natural, 
 the other the spiritual parent, of the prophet — 
 Berechiah being his father Kara ryv crap/ca, and 
 Iddo the prophet, Kara iwevpa. Others have jus- 
 tified this translation by assigning both names to 
 Zechariah’s father, as if he had worn them succes- 
 sively at different periods of his life, or as if one of 
 them had been a cognomen. But the version of 
 Jerome and the Seventy i§ a false one. Analogy 
 declares against it, and its origin is to be traced 
 to Ezra v. 1, and vi. 14, where the prophet is 
 named only ‘ Zechariah the son of Iddo.’ The 
 words N’ny-'-Q denote merely ‘ grandson of Iddo ’ 
 (Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 216), and the paternal 
 name may have been omitted, because of its com- 
 parative obscurity, while the grand-paternal name 
 is inserted, because of its national popularity, it 
 was a very foolish mistake of Jerome to confound 
 the Iddo named in connection with this prophet 
 as his ancestor with Iddo the seer, who flourished 
 some centuries before under Jeroboam, first king 
 of Israel (Hieronym. Comment, ad Zachf. The 
 term in the first verse belongs, not to Iddo, 
 but to Zechariah, as the Septuagint and Vulgate 
 properly render it, or as it appears in Henderson’s 
 version — 1 The word of Jehovah was communi- 
 cated to Zechariah (the son of Berechiah, the son 
 of Iddo) the prophet.’ The probability is, that 
 Iddo is the person mentioned in Nehemiah xii. 4, 
 as one of the sacerdotal prophets, who had re- 
 turned from Babylon with Joshua and Zerubbabel. 
 Berechiah, son of Iddo, and father of Zechariah, 
 seems to have died young, for in Nehemiah xii. 
 16, Zechariah is said to be Iddo’s successor, under 
 Joiakim, son of Joshua. Thus the prophet’s de- 
 scent is, in Ezra, traced at once from his grand- 
 father. Compare Gen. xxix. 5, and xxxi. 28 — 
 55. Should this theory be correct, Zechariah 
 exercised the priestly as well as the prophetical 
 office. The name signifies one whom Jehovah 
 remembers — a name very common among the 
 Jews (three others bearing it. seem also to have 
 been prophets), and not therefore specially given to 
 this inspired agent, as Jerome thought, because 
 in his days pt'tip.r] Kupiov, remembrance of God 
 and of his kindness prevailed intensely among 
 the returned exiles. 
 
 Zechariah seems to have entered upon his 
 office in early youth (Zech. ii. 4). The period 
 of his introduction to it is specified as the eighth 
 month of the second year of Darius, a very short 
 time later than the prophet Haggai. The mission 
 of Zechariah had especial reference to the affaire 
 
ZECHARIAH. 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 §82 
 
 of the nation that had been restored to its terri- 
 tory. The second edict, granting permission to 
 rebuild the temple, had been issued, and the office 
 of Zechariah was to incite the flagging zeal of the 
 people, in order that the auspicious period might 
 be a season of religious revival, as well as of ec- 
 clesiastical re-organization ; and that the theo- 
 cratic spirit might resume its former tone and 
 energy in the breasts of all who were engaged in 
 the work of restoring the ‘ holy and beautiful 
 house/ where their fathers had praised Jehovah. 
 The prophet assures them of success in the work 
 of re-erecting the sacred edifice, despite of every 
 combination against them ; for Zerubbabel ‘should 
 bring forth the head stone with shouting, Grace, 
 grace unto it — comforts them with a solemn pledge 
 that, amidst fearful revolutions and conquests by 
 which other nations were to be swept away, they 
 should remain uninjured ; for, says Jehovah , ( He 
 that toucheth you toucheth the apple of mine 
 eye’ — sketches in a few vivid touches the bless- 
 ings and glory of the advent of Messiah — im- 
 parts consolation to those who were mourning 
 over their unworthiness, and pronounces a heavy 
 doom on the selfish and disobedient, and on such 
 as in a remote age, imbibing their spirit, ‘should 
 fall after the same example of unbelief.’ The 
 pseudo-Epiphanius records some prodigies 
 wrought by Zechariah in the land of Chaldaea, 
 and some wondrous oracles which lie delivered ; 
 and he and Dorotheus both agree in declaring 
 that the prophet died in Judaea in a good old age, 
 and was buried beside his colleague Haggai. 
 
 Book. — The book of Zechariah consists of four 
 general divisions. 
 
 I. The introduction or inaugural discourse (ch. 
 
 i. 1-16). 
 
 II. A series of nine visions, extending onwards 
 to ch. vii., communicated to the prophet in the 
 third month alter his installation. These visions 
 were, 
 
 1. A rider on a roan horse among the myrtle- 
 trees, with his equestrian attendants, who report to 
 him the peace of the world, symbolizing the fit- 
 ness of the time for the fulfilment of the promises 
 of God, his people's protector. 
 
 2. Four horns, symbols of the oppressive ene- 
 mies by which Judah had been on all sides sur- 
 rounded, and four carpenters, by whom these horns 
 are broken, emblems of the destruction of these 
 anti-theocratic powers. 
 
 3. A man with a measuring-line describing a 
 wider circumference for the site of Jerusalem, as 
 its population was to receive a vast increase, fore- 
 showing that many more Jews would return from 
 Babylon and join their countrymen, and indi- 
 cating the conversion of heathen nations under 
 the Messiah, when out of Zion should go forth 
 the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 
 
 4. The high-priest Joshua before the angel of 
 the Lord, with Satan at his right hand to oppose 
 him. The sacerdotal representative of the people, 
 clad in the filthy garments in which he had re- 
 turned from captivity, seems to be a type of the 
 guilt and degradation of his country ; while for- 
 giveness and restoration are the blessings which 
 the pontiff symbolically receives from Jehovah, 
 when he is reclad in holy apparel and crowned 
 with a spotless turban, the vision at the same time 
 dtretehing into far futurity, and including the 
 adv«nt of Jehovah's servant the Branch. 
 
 5. A golden lamp-stand fed from two olive* 
 trees, one growing on each side, an image of the 
 value and divine glory of the theocracy as now 
 seen in the restored Jewish church, supported, 
 not ‘ by might nor by power, but by the Spirit of 
 Jehovah/ and of the spiritual development of the 
 old theocracy in the Christian church, which en- 
 lightens the world through the continuous influ- 
 ence of the Holy Ghost. (Dr. Stouard, in his 
 Commentary on Zechariah , without foundation 
 supposes that this candelabrum had twice seven 
 lamps, seven on each side, emblematizing the 
 church of God in both dispensations, Jewish and 
 Christian.) 
 
 6. A flying roll, the breadth of the temple- 
 porch, containing on its one side curses against 
 the ungodly, and on its other anatnemas against 
 the immoral, denoting that the head of the theo- 
 cracy, the Lord of the temple, would from his 
 place punish those who violated either the first or 
 the second table of his law (Hengstenberg's 
 Christol: ii. 45). 
 
 7. A woman in an ephah (at -length pressed 
 down into it by a sheet of lead laid over its 
 mouth), borne along in the air by two female 
 figures with storks' wings, representing the sin 
 and punishment of the nation. The fury, whose 
 name is Wickedness, is repressed, and trans- 
 ported to the land ofShinar; i.e. idolatry, in the 
 persons of the captive Jews, was for ever removed 
 at that period from the Holy Land, and, as it 
 were, taken to Babylon, the home of image-wor- 
 ship (for another meaning, see Jahns Introduc- 
 tion, Turner’s translation, p. 428). 
 
 8. Four chariots issuing from two coppei 
 mountains and drawn respectively by red, black, 
 white, and spotted horses, the vehicles of the four 
 winds of heaven, a hieroglyph of the swiftness 
 and extent of divine judgments against the former 
 oppressors of the covenant people. Judgments 
 seem issuing from God's holy habitation in the 
 midst of the ‘ mountains which are round about! 
 Jerusalem/ or from between those two hills, the 
 ravine dividing which forms the valley of Jeho- 
 shaphat, directly under the temple mountain, 
 where dwelt the head of the theocracy. 
 
 9. The last scene is not properly a vision, but 
 an oracle in connection with the preceding visions, 
 and in reference to a future symbolical aft to be 
 performed by the prophet. In presence of a de- 
 portation of Jews from Babylon, the prophet was 
 charged to place a crown on the head of Joshua 
 the high-priest, a symbol which, whatever was its 
 immediate signification, was designed to prefigure 
 the royal and sacerdotal dignity of the man 
 whose name is Branch, who should sit as ‘a 
 priest upon his throne.’ 
 
 The meaning of all the preceding varied images 
 and scenes is explained to the prophet by an at 
 tendant any elus interpres. 
 
 III. A collection of four oracles delivered at 
 various times in the fourth year of Darius, and 
 partly occasioned by a request of the nation to be 
 divinely informed, whether, now on their happy 
 return to their fatherland, the month of Jerusa- 
 lems overthrow should lie registered in, their sacred 
 calendar as a season of fasting and humiliation. 
 The prophet declares that these times should 
 in future ages be observed as festive solemnities. 
 
 IV. The 8th, 9th, 10th, and 1 1th chapters con- 
 tain a variety of prophecies unfolding the fortunas 
 
ZECIIARIAH. 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 083 
 
 tf the people, their safety in the midst of Alexan- 
 der’s expedition, and their victories under the 
 Maccabaean chieftains, iucluding the fate of many 
 of the surrounding nations, Hadrach (Persia), 
 Damascus, Tyre, and Philistia. 
 
 V. The remaining three chapters graphically 
 portray the future condition of the people, espe- 
 cially in Messianic times, and contain allusions 
 to the siege of the city, the means of escape by 
 die cleaving of the Mount of Olives, with a sym- 
 bol of twilight breaking into day, and living 
 water issuing from Jerusalem, concluding with a 
 blissful vision of the enlarged prosperity and 
 holiness of the theocratic metropolis, when upon 
 the bells of the horses shall be inscribed ‘ holiness 
 unto the Lord.’ 
 
 Integrity. — The genuineness of the latter por- 
 tion of Zechariah, from ch. ix. to xv., has been 
 disputed. Among the first to suggest doubt on 
 this subject was Joseph Mede, who referred chaps, 
 ix., x., and xi. to an earlier date, and ascribed 
 them to Jeremiah. Remarking on Matt, xxvii. 
 9, 10, he says : ‘ It, may seem the Evangelist would 
 inform us that, those latter chapters ascribed to 
 Zachary, namely, the ninth, tenth, eleventh, &c., 
 are indeed the prophecies of Jeremy, and that the 
 Jews had not rightly attributed them. Certainly, 
 if a man weigh the coutents of some of them, 
 they should in likelihood he of an elder date than 
 the time of Zachary, namely, before the capti- 
 vity ; for the subjects of some of them were scarce 
 
 in being after that time As for their being 
 
 joined to the prophecies of Zachary, that proves 
 no more they are his than the like adjoining of 
 Agur’s proverbs to Solomon's proves that they are 
 therefore Solomon’s, or lhat. all the psalms are 
 David’s because joined in one volume with Da- 
 vid’s psalms’ ( Epist . xxxi.). His opinion was 
 adopted in England by Hammond, Kidder, New- 
 come, Whiston, and Seeker, and has been fol- 
 lowed, with variations, oil the continent by 
 Fliigge ( Die Weissagung, D. p. Zaeh. ubersetzt, 
 &c., 1784); by Bertholdt (Einleit. p. 1701); by 
 Rosenmuller in his Scholia, though in the first 
 edition he defended the genuineness of these 
 chapters; by Eichhorn (Einleit.') ; Corrodi (Be- 
 leuchtung des Eibelcanous, i. 107) ; and De Wette, 
 in the earlier editions of his Einleitung, though 
 in the last edition he says in the preface, ‘ I feel 
 constrained to adhere to Koester s opinion of the 
 second part of Zechariah Hifzig (Stud, und 
 Krit.f 1830); Credner (Joel, 07); Knobel (Der 
 Prophetism, &c. Th. ii. s. 284); Forherg (Com- 
 ment, in Zach. Vaticin., pars i ). Pye Smith 
 (Principles of Interpretation applied to the Pro- 
 phecies, p. 65), and Davidson (Sacred Herme- 
 neutics'), also deny these later chapters to be the 
 production of Zechariah. 
 
 On the other hand, the integrity of this portion 
 of Zechariah lias been defended by Jahn ( Intro- 
 duction , pt. ii. § 161), Carpzov (Critica Sacra , 
 p. 848), Beckliaus (Integriii.it d. Proph. Schrif- 
 ten, p. 337), Koester (Meletemata Crit. ezExeget. 
 in Zach. part. post. p. 10), Hengstenberg (d. In - 
 tegniat d. Sacharjah , in his Beitrdge , i. 361), 
 and Blayney (Minor Proph. p 362). The theory 
 of Mede was suggested by the difficulty arising 
 Irom the quotation in Matthew, and. rejecting 
 tither hypotheses, lie says: — ‘It is certain that. 
 Jeremiah’s prophecies are digested in no order, 
 Nut only as it seems they came to light in the 
 
 scribes’ hands. Hence sometimes all j 8 ended 
 with Zedekiah, then we are brought, back tc 
 Jehoiakim, then to Zedekiah again, &c. Where- 
 by it. seems they came not to light to he enrolled 
 secundzim ordinem temporis, nor all together, 
 but as if happened in so distracted a time. And 
 why might not. some not he found till the return 
 from captivity, and he approved by Zechariah, 
 and so put to his volume according to the time 
 of their finding and approbation hv him, ami 
 after that some other prophecies yet added to hisT 
 (Epist. lxi.) The others who deny the genuine- 
 ness of these chapters are by no means agreed as 
 to the real authorship of them. Eichhorn ascribes 
 one portion to the time of Alexander, and the 
 other sections to a period before the exile ; while 
 Corrodi places the fourteenth chapter as low as 
 the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. Bertholdt sup- 
 poses the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters to he 
 the production of Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, 
 referred to in Isaiah viii. 2, and the remaining 
 three to he the composition of an anonymous 
 author who lived under Josiah, and of course 
 before the captivity. Rosenmuller is of opinion 
 that the whole second part is the work of one 
 authqr who lived under Uzziah. Flugge arbitrarily 
 divides it into no less than nine sections, referring 
 them to different times and authors, hut yet 
 ascribing the ninth chapter to the Zechariah 
 spoken of in 2 Chron. xxvi. 5. Newcome places 
 the first three chapters, as to date of authorship, 
 before the overthrow of Israel, and the last three 
 before the captivity of Judah. Hifzig and Cred- 
 ner carry hack the period of their authorship to 
 the age of Ahaz, or before it. Knobel finds in 
 them a diversity both of authors and times; and 
 his opinion is partly adopted by Dr. Davidson. 
 This great variety of opinion is proof that these 
 conflicting views are the result of peculiar tastes 
 and fancies. 
 
 Many of the arguments against the genuineness 
 of this latter portion of Zechariah rest on peculiar 
 interpretations of his language, making it refer 
 to events that happened prior to the time when 
 the prophet flourished. But this exegesis is not 
 in all points correct. Ephraim is indeed spoken 
 of, though that kingdom was overthrown 186 years 
 before the return of the Jews from Babylon ; 
 and it, is inferred that, the author of such oracles 
 must have lived when Ephraim was an inde- 
 pendent sovereignty. It may he said, in reply, 
 that vast numbers of the ten tribes returned witli 
 their brethren of Judah from captivity; and we 
 find (ch. xii. 1) Israel used as a name for all the 
 tribes. In Malaclii, too, we find Israel used after 
 the captivity in contrast to Jerusalem. Zechariah 
 never characterizes Ephraim as a separate poli-, 
 tical confederation; nor, as Henderson remarks, 
 
 ‘ is there any thing, hut the contrary, to induce the 
 conclusion that a king reigned in Judah in the 
 days of the author.’ The predictions in this latter 
 part, supposed by some to refer to past events, are 
 most correctly interpreted to refer to the Egyptian 
 expedition of Alexander, the sufferings of the 
 Messiah, and the final overthrow of Jerusalem. 
 The prophets before the Babylonian captivity 
 threatened a deportation to Babylon; Zechariah* 
 living after that event, menaces a Roman invasion 
 and slavery. Little force can he placed in any 
 argument based on an imagined difference of 
 style in the former and latter ehajtersof this 
 \ 
 
>84 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 prophecy The introductory notices to the separate 
 oracles recorded in the early, portion of the hook, 
 are either not found in the last section, or are very 
 different in form (comp. i. 1*7 ; iv. 8; vi. 9, with 
 Lx. 1 ; xi. 4). But we are too ignorant of many 
 circumstances in the prophet’s history to speculate 
 on the causes of such change ; or if we are unable 
 to discover any cssthetical or religious reasons for 
 the alteration, it is surely rash to come on such 
 grounds to a decision of diversity of authorship. 
 Introductory formulae as different as those in 
 Zechariah occur in other books, whose sameness 
 of style is admitted as proof of identity of author- 
 ship, as in Amos, where the application of the same 
 principles of criticism would ‘ dismember it,’ and 
 assign its composition to three different authors. 
 Nor is the difference of style of the former and lat- 
 ter portions of Zechariah greater than the different 
 topics treated would lead us to expect. The 
 difference of style is not very striking; and such 
 difference is often a fallacious ground of judg- 
 ment. Would the difference of style in such 
 volumes as Ancient Christianity and the Na- 
 tural History of Enthusiasm warrant us to de- 
 clare them the works of different authors i It is 
 also a presumption in favour of the genuineness 
 of this portion of Zechariah, that the arranger and 
 editor of the Hebrew canon gave it the place 
 which it now occupies; for it is also found in the 
 Septuagint, executed three centuries before the 
 composition of Matthew's Gospel. The chief ar- 
 gument against the genuineness of these chapters, 
 and that which seems to have suggested all the 
 varied hypercritical judgments on the text, is that 
 expressed by Mede-: ‘ There is no Scripture saith 
 they are Zechariah’s, bnt there is Scripture saith 
 they are Jeremiah's’ (Works, p. 786). The ques- 
 tion, then, resolves itself into the consideration of 
 the passage in Matt, xxvii. 9, referred in our text 
 to Jeremiah, but now found in Zechariah. We 
 cannot accede to the supposition of Dopke 
 (Hermeneutik, p. 212) and Kuinoel (Comm., 
 in loc.), that Matthew quoted some unpub- 
 lished apocryphal Jeremiah, perhaps such a one 
 as that to which Jerome rel'ers, as having found 
 it among the Nazarenes, and of which a por- 
 tion containing analogous language is yet extant 
 in a Sahidic lectionary in the Codex Hunting - 
 tonianus, 5, in the Bodleian Library, and in the 
 Coptic language in a MS. in the library of St. 
 Germain in Paris. This passage, as given by 
 Dr. Henderson, at once betrays itself to be a 
 clumsy imitation, designed to solve the very dif- 
 ficulty on which we are writing. We must also 
 dismiss at once all the neological theories which 
 rest on any supposed error of quotation made by 
 the Evangelist, condemning utterly the remark of 
 Frirzshe, that the discrepancy arose on the part of 
 the Evangelist, ‘ per memoriae errorem’ (Comment, 
 in Matt., p. 801). Nor is there any extrication from 
 the difficulty in supposing, with Eisner, that the 
 reference of the Evangelist is to the transaction 
 recorded in Jer. xxxii. 8, or in hinting, with 
 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. x. 4), that the oracle 
 cited has been falsified by the Jews. Another 
 conjecture without warrant is to affirm that the 
 name Jeremiah was the technical appellation of 
 the third great division of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 and that any quotation from the minor prophets 
 taay be referred to him, not as its author, but as 
 Wm title of tk at collection, from one of the books 
 
 of which it is taken (Lightfoot’s Works, oy Pii 
 man, vol. xi. p. 344). Such hypotheses plainly 
 lead us to look for some corruption in the text. 
 That there is a difference of reading was a fact 
 early known. It may be that the proper name 
 was omitted altogether, or rather not inserted at 
 all by the Evangelist, that he only wrote 5ia reo 
 Trpo(j)T)Tou. Augustine testifies that MSS. were 
 found in his days wanting the word 'Upeytov. It 
 is not. found either in the most ancient and faith- 
 ful version, the Syriac, nor in the Verona and 
 Yercelli Latin MSS. It is wanting also in MSS. 
 33, 157, and in the Polyglott Persic, in the mo- 
 dern Greek, and in a Latin MS. of Luc. Brug. 
 Other codices and versions read Z axapiov, such 
 as MS. 22, and the Philoxenian Svriac in the 
 margin — a reading which was approved of by 
 Origen and Eusebius. Griesbach (Nov. Test., in 
 loc.), Dr. Henderson, and others, believing that 
 Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, 
 think the original was simply *YO, ‘ by 
 
 the prophet,’ and that the Greek translator mis- 
 taking the T fur *7 in the word TQ, read T3, and 
 thinking it. a contraction for 'TTUD’YQ, rendered it 
 5 ia 'UpeyLov rod irpo<p-f]Tov ; but this theory vests 
 upon a foundation which we do not regard as te- 
 nable, viz., that the original of Matthew was com- 
 posed in Aramaic, and that our present Gospel is 
 only an anonymous translation. If the authority 
 of MSS. be now in favour of the insertion of the 
 name 'I epe/Aiov, then the error may have arisen on 
 the part of some early copyist meeting with the 
 contracted form Z piov, and mistaking it for Iptou. 
 The various opinions of the fathers and the differ- 
 ent lections in MSS. and versions, seem to point to 
 some such change and error in the course of early 
 transcription. Or, lastly, we may refer to the 
 theory of Hengstenberg (Christologie, ii. 189), 
 who imagines that Matthew names Jeremiah, and 
 not Zechariah, on purpose to turn the attention of 
 his readers to the fact that Zechariah’s prophecy 
 was but a reiteration of a fearful oracle in Jer. 
 xviii., xix., which was to be fulfilled in the utter 
 destruction and abandonment of the Jewish people. 
 It is not our province to enter into any exegesis of 
 the passage, so as either to vindicate or refute the 
 view of Hengstenberg ; only, to make it intelligible, 
 we add, that in his opinion Jeremiah had already, 
 by the breaking of a potter's vessel, portrayed the 
 fearful ruin of the people in Nebuchadnezzar’s 
 invasion ; and as the oracle of Zechariah is a vir- 
 tual repetition of this fearful commination to be 
 inflicted again in Messianic times, and in conse- 
 quence of the national rejection of the Son of God, 
 so the evangelist wishes to remind bis readers that 
 the field of blood, now purchased by the ‘reward 
 of iniquity,’ in the valley of Hinnom, had been 
 long ago a scene of prophetic doom, in which 
 awful disaster had been symbolically predicted ; 
 that the present purchase of that field with the. 
 traitor's price renewed the prophecy and revived 
 the curse — a curse pronounced of old by Jeremiah, 
 and once fulfilled in the Babylonian siege, a 
 curse reiterated by Zechariah, and again to be 
 verified in the Roman desolation. Such a theory 
 is at least preferable to that of such critics as 
 Glassius and Erischmuth, who believed that the 
 quotation in Matthew is made up of a mixture of 
 oracles from Jeremiah and Zechariah, while Je- 
 remiah only is named as the earlier and »oi* 
 illustrious of the two. 
 
ZEDEKIAH. 
 
 ZEMER. 
 
 983 
 
 Style. — The language of Zechariah has no? the 
 purity and freshness of a former age. Some of its 
 solecisms are noticed by De Wette ( Einleit . 
 $249). A slight tinge of Chaldaism pervades 
 the composition. The symbols with which he 
 abounds are obscure, and their prosaic structure 
 is diffuse and unvaried. The rhythm of his poetry 
 is unequal, and its parallelisms are inharmonious 
 and disjointed. His language has in many phrases 
 a close* alliance with that of the other prophets, 
 and occasional imitations of them, especially of 
 Ezekiel, characterize his oracles. He is also pe- 
 culiar in his introduction of spiritual beings into 
 his prophetic scenes. 
 
 Commentaries. — Der Proph. Zach. Ausgelegt 
 durch , Mart. Luthern. Vitemberg, 1528; Phil. 
 Melanchthonis Comment, in Prcph. Zach. 1553 ; J . 
 J. Grynaei Comment, in Zach. Geneva?, 1581 ; 
 J. H. Ursini Comment, in Proph. Zach. 1652; 
 C. Vitrjpga, Comment, adlib. Proph. Zach. 1734; 
 11. G. Flngge, Die Weissagungen welche bey 
 den Schrift. des Proph. Zach. beygebogen sind, 
 6(C. 1788 ; F. Venema, Sermones Academ. in lib. 
 Proph. Zach. 1789; Koester, Meletemata Crit. 
 &;c. 1818 : Forberg, Comm. Crit. et Exeget. in 
 Zach. 1824; Rosenmulleri Scholia , pars sept. 
 1828 ; Hengstenberg’s Christology, Keith’s trans- 
 lation, vol. ii. 1839 ; B. Blaney, New Translation 
 of Zech. Oxf. 1797 ; W. Newcome, Minor Pro- 
 phets, 1785; Comment, on the Vision of Zecha- 
 riah the Proph., by John Stouard, D.D., 1824; 
 Rabbi David Kimchi, Comment, on the Proph. of 
 Zech., translated, with Notes, &c., by A. M‘Caul, 
 A.M., 1837 ; Henderson, On the Minor Prophets, 
 1845.— J.E. 
 
 6. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. 
 .See John the Baptist. 
 
 ZEDEKIAH, son of Josiah, the twentieth and 
 last king of Judah, was, in place of his brother 
 Jehoiakim, set on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who changed his name from Mattaniah to that 
 by which he is ordinarily spoken of. As the 
 vassal of the Babylonian monarch, he was com- 
 pelled to take an oath of allegiance to him, 
 which, however, he observed only till an oppor- 
 tunity offered for throwing off’ his yoke. Suc- 
 cess in 6uch an undertaking was not likely to 
 attend his efforts. His heart was not right be- 
 fore God, and therefore was he left without di- 
 vine succour. Corrupt and weak, he gave him- 
 self up into the hands of his nobles, and lent an 
 ear to false prophets ; while the faithful lessons 
 of Jeremiah were unwelcome, and repaid by in- 
 carceration. Like all of his class, he was unable 
 to follow good, and became the slave of wicked 
 men, afraid alike of his own nobility and of his 
 foreign enemies. By his folly and wickedness he 
 brought the state to the brink of ruin. Yet the 
 danger did not open his eyes. Instead of looking 
 to Jehovah, he threw himself for support on 
 Egypt, when the Chaldsean came into the land 
 and laid siege to his capital. The siege was be- 
 gun on the tenth day of the tenth month in the 
 ninth year of his reign. For a year and a. half 
 did Jerusalem effectually withstand Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. At the end of that time, however, the 
 city was stormed and taken (b.c. 588), when 
 Zedekiah, who had fled, was captured on the road 
 to Jericho. Judgment was speedily executed : his 
 •on* were slain before his eyes, and he himself 
 
 was deprived of sight, and sent in chains to II®- 
 bylon, where he died in prison (2 Kings xxiv. 17 
 seq. ; xxv. 1, seq. ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, sq. ; 
 Jer. xxviii. ; xxxiv. ; xxxvii.; xxxviii. ; xxxix.; 
 lii. ; Ezek. xvii. 15). — J.R. B. 
 
 ZELOPHEHAD, son of Hepher, a descendant 
 of Joseph, who had no sons, but five daughters. 
 These came to Moses and Eleazar when now at the 
 edge of the promised land, to lay their case before 
 them for adjudication. Their father had died in 
 the wilderness, leaving no male child. The 
 daughters thought themselves entitled to take 
 their father’s share of the land. Moses on this 
 brought their cause before Jehovah, who ordered 
 that they should receive their father’s inheritance, 
 taking occasion to establish the general rule : ‘ If a 
 man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause 
 his inheritance to pass unto his daughter,’ and 
 failing daughters, to his next of kin fNum. xxvi. 
 33; xxvii. 1, sq. Compare Josh. xvii. 3, sq.) — 
 
 J. R. B. 
 
 ZEMER. In our version of Dent. xiv. 5 , 
 “IDT zemer, is rendered Chamois; .Sept. Ka/zij- 
 \oirdpba\is ; Vulg. Camelopardalus ; Luther, in 
 his German translation, adopts Elend, or ‘ Elk ;' 
 and the old Spanish version, from the Hebrew, 
 has ‘ Cabra montes.’* All, however, under- 
 stand zemer to be a clean ruminant ; but it is 
 plain that the Mosaic enumeration of clean ani- 
 mals would not include such as were totally out 
 of the reach of the Hebrew people, and at best 
 only known to them from specimens seen in 
 Egypt, consisting of presents sent from Nubia, «r 
 in pictures on the walls of temples. The Ca- 
 melopardalis or Giraffe is exclusively an inha- 
 bitant of Southern Africa, and therefore could not 
 come in the way of the people of Israel. The 
 same objection aj plies to the Elk, because that 
 species of deer never appears further to the south 
 than Northern Germany and Poland; and with 
 regard to the Chamois, which has been adopted in 
 our version, though it did exist in the mountains 
 of Greece, and is still found in Central Asia, there 
 is no vestige of its having at any time frequented 
 Libanus or any other part of Syria. We may, 
 therefore, with more propriety refer to the rumi- 
 nants indigenous in the regions which were in the 
 contemplation of the sacred legislator, and we 
 may commence by observing that “ttDt zemer is 
 a term which, in the slightly altered form of 
 zammer, is still used in Persia and India for 
 any large species of ruminants, particularly those 
 of the stag kind, which are commonly denomi- 
 nated Rusa, a subgenus of deer established in 
 Griffith’s translation of Cuvier's ‘ Animal King- 
 dom.’ In the sacred text, however, the word 
 zemer is not generical, but strictly specific. Ail, 
 or ‘ stag,’ is mentioned at the same time, and, as 
 well as several Antilopidse, in the same verse : we 
 must, therefore, look for an animal not hitherto 
 noticed, and withal sufficiently important to merit 
 being named in so important an ordinance. 
 
 The only species that seems to answer to the 
 conditions required is a wild sheep, still not 
 uncommon in the Mokattam rocks near Cairo, 
 found in Sinai, and eastward in the broken ridgee 
 
 * Biblia en lengua Espanola traducida p*- 
 labra por palabra da la verdad Hebrayca pc* 
 muy excellentes letrados, fol. No date. 
 
ZENAS. 
 
 ZEPIIANIAH. 
 
 9ZQ 
 
 of Stony Arabia, where it. is known under the name 
 of Kebsch, a slight mutation of the old Hebrew 
 Cheseb, or rather BO 3 Chebes , which is 
 applied indeed to a domestic sheep, one that 
 g-azed; while Zemer appears to be derived from 
 a root denoting ‘ to crop ’ or ‘ feed on shrubs.’ 
 
 This animal is frequently represented and hiero- 
 glyphically named on Egyptian monuments, but 
 we question if the denomination itself be phoneti- 
 cally legible. The figures in colour leave no doubt 
 that it is the same as the Kebsch of the modern 
 Arabs, and a sjjecies or a variety of Ovis Trage- 
 la|thus, or bearded sheep, lately formed into a 
 separate group by Mr. Blyth under the name of 
 Ammotragus Bar bat us. The Spanish version ot 
 the Hebrew text, before quoted, appears alone to 
 be admissible, for although the species is not 
 strictly a goat, it is intermediate between that 
 genus and the sheep. It is a fearless climber, and 
 secure on its feet, among the sharpest and most 
 elevated ridges. In stature the animal exceeds a 
 large domestic sheep, though it is not more bulky 
 of body. Instead of wool, it is covered with 
 close fine rufous hair : from the throat to the 
 breast, and on the upper arms above the knees, 
 there is abundance of long loose reddish hair, 
 forming a compact protection to the knees and 
 brisket, and indicating that the habits of the species 
 require extraordinary defence while sporting 
 among the most rugged cliffs ; thus making the 
 name Zemer , ‘ one that springeth,’ if that in- 
 terpretation he trustworthy, remarkably correct. 
 The head and face are perfectly ovine, the eyes 
 are hluish, and the horns, of a yellowish colour, 
 are set on as in sheep; they rise obliquely, and 
 are directed backwards and outwards, with the 
 points bending downwards. The tail, about nine 
 inches long, is heavy and round. It is the Mouflon 
 d’Afrique and Mouflon & Manchettes of French 
 writers, probably identical with the Tragelaphus 
 of Caius, whose sj>eeimen came from Barbary. 
 See bearded Argali in Griffith's ‘ Animal King- 
 dom 5 of Cuvier. We figure a specimen in the 
 Paris Museum and one in Wilkinson’s Egypt , 
 vol. iii. p. 19- — C. H. S. 
 
 ZENAS (Ztjvus), a disciple who visited Crete 
 with Apollos, bearing seemingly the epistle to 
 Titus, in which Paul recommends the two to his 
 
 attentions (Tit. iii. 13). He is called ‘the Jaw 
 ver and as his name is Greek, it seems douotfui 
 whether he is so called as being, or having been, 
 a doctor of the Jewish law, or as being a pleader at 
 the Roman tribunals. The most probable opinion 
 is, perhaps, that which mattes him an Hellenistic 
 Jew, and a doctor of the Mosaical law. 
 
 ZEPIIANIAH (fTOQV ; Sept. Zofovtas), the 
 ninth in order of the minor prophets, both in the 
 Hebrew and Greek copies of the Scriptures 
 (Hieronym. Prolog, ad Paul, et Eustoch.). 
 
 Author . — The name of this prophet has been 
 variously explained. Disputes upon it arose as 
 early as the time of Jerome, for in his Com- 
 mentary on this book he says, ‘Nomen Sophonia*, 
 alii speculam, alii arcanum Dei, transtulerunt.’ 
 The word was thus derived either from HSV, he 
 saw beyond , or JSlf, he hid , with the common 
 affix H'. The old father made it a matter of 
 indifference which etymon he adopted, as both, 
 according to him, give virtually the same sense, 
 — the commission of a prophet being virtually 
 that of a watchman or seer, and the burden of his 
 message, some secret revealed to him by God. 
 Aharbanel ( Prcej in Ezc/c.') adheres to the latter 
 mode of derivation, and the pseudo-Dorotheus, 
 following the former, translates the prophet's 
 name by the Greek participle aKoirevuv. Hiller 
 and Simonis ditfe ralso in a^similar way — Hiller, 
 taking the term from renders it ‘ abscondidit 
 se, i. e. delituit Jehovah’ ( Onomast . sub voce), 
 as if the name had contained a mystic reference 
 to the character of the age in which the prophet, 
 lived, when God lmd withdrawn himself from his 
 apostate people; but Simonis ( Onomast . V. T .) 
 gives the true signification, one sanctioned by 
 Gesenius — ‘abscondidit, i. c. custodivit Jehovah,’ 
 Jehovah hath guarded, the verb being used 
 of divine protection in Ps. xxvii. 5; and lxxxiii. 
 4. The name seems to have been a common one 
 among the Jews. Contrary to usual custom the 
 pedigree of the prophet is traced back for four 
 generations — ‘ the son of Cushi, the son ot 
 Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of 
 Hizkiah.’ This formal record of his lineage 
 has led many to suppose that Zephaniah had 
 sprung from a noble stock (Cyril, Preef. ad 
 Zeph .), and the occurrence of the highest name 
 in the list, which in the Hebrew text is spelled 
 and pointed in the same way as that rendered 
 Hezekiah in the hooks of Kings and Chronicles, 
 has induced some to identify it with that of the 
 good king Hezekiah, and to pronounce the 
 prophet a cadet of the royal house of Judah. 
 Kimchi is very cautious in his opinion, and leaves 
 the point undecided ; but Aben-Ezra. ever ready 
 to magnify his nation, at once concludes tha* 
 Zephaniah was descended from Hezekiah ; and 
 his opinion has been followed by Huet ( Demon - 
 strut. Evangel. Propos. iv. 303), and partially 
 by Eichhorn ( Einleit . § 593). The conjecture 
 ha 3 little else to recommend it than the mere 
 occurrence of the royal name. But it was not a 
 name confined to royalty; and had it been I lie 
 name of the pious monarch to which Zephaniah’s 
 genealogy is traced, certainly his official designa- 
 tion, ‘ king of Judah,* would have been subjoined, 
 in order to prevent mistake. Such an addition is 
 found in connection with his name in Prov. xxv. 1, 
 and Isa. xxxviii. 9. It forms no objection to thia 
 
ZEPHANIAH. 
 
 ZEPHANIAH. 
 
 gtatement. lo affirm Lhat the phrase ‘ kin" of Judah ’ 
 i* added to Josiah, and to amid repetition may- 
 have been omitted after Hizkiah, for such regard 
 to euphony, s ich finical delicacy, is no feature of 
 Hebrew composition. The argument of Carpzov 
 ( Introd . p. 414), copied by Rosenmiiiler ( Froae - 
 tnium in Zeph.), against the supposed connection 
 of the prophet with the blood royal, is of no great 
 weight. These critics say that from Hezekiah to' 
 Josiah, in whose reign Zephaniah flourished, are 
 only three generations, while from Hezekiah to 
 Zephaniah four are reckoned in the first verse of 
 the prophecy. But as Hezekiah reigned twenty- 
 nine years, and his successor sat on the throne no 
 less than fifty-five years, there is room enough in 
 such a period for the four specified descents ; and 
 ! Amariali, though not heir to the crown, may have 
 j been much older than his youthful brother Ma- 
 i nasseh, who was crowned at the age of twelve. 
 
 Asr there was at least another Zephaniah, a con- 
 ! spicuous personage at the time of the captivity, 
 the parentage of the prophet may have been 
 recounted so minutely to prevent any reader 
 from confounding the two individuals. The 
 Jews absurdly reckon that here, as in other super- 
 scriptions, the persons recorded as a prophet’s 
 ancestors were themselves endowed with the pro- 
 I phetic spirit. The so-called Epiphanius ( De 
 I Vitis Prophet, cap. xix.) asserts that Zephaniah 
 [ was of the tribe of Simeon, of the hill Sarabatha, 
 &7 t2> ooovs 'Sapa&add. The existence of the pro- 
 phet is known only from his oracles, and these 
 have no biographical sketches ; so that our know- 
 ' ledge of this man of God comprises only the fact 
 ' and the results of his inspiration. It may be 
 | safely inferred, however, that he laboured with 
 Josiah in the pious work of re-establishing the 
 I worship of Jehovah in the land. 
 
 Age. — It is recorded (ch. i.) that the word of 
 the Lord came to him 4 in the days of Josiah, the 
 son of Amon, king of Judah.’ We have reason for 
 J supposing that he flourished during the earlier 
 portion of Josiah 's reign. In the second chapter 
 I (vers. 13-15) he foretells the doom of Nineveh, 
 
 ! and the fall of that ancient city happened about 
 the eighteenth year of Josiah. In the commence- 
 ment of his oracles also, he denounces various 
 forms of idolatry, and specially the remnant of 
 Baal. The reformation of Josiah began in the 
 twelfth, and was completed in the eighteenth year 
 of his reign. So thorough was his extirpation of 
 the idolatrous rites and hierarchy which defiled 
 his kingdom, that he burnt down the groves, 
 
 . dismissed the priesthood, threw down the altars, 
 and made dust of the images of Baalim. Zepha- 
 niah must have prophesied prior to this religious 
 I revolution, while some remains of Baal were yet 
 I secreted in the land, or between the twelfth and 
 eighteenth years of the royal reformer. So Hitzig 
 I (Die 12 Klein Prophet.) and Movers ( Chronih . 
 
 [ p. 234) place him ; while Eichhorn, Bertholdt, 
 
 . and Jaeger, incline to give him a somewhat later 
 i date. At all events, he flourished between the 
 | years bc. 642 and b.c. 611 ; and the portion of 
 ! his prophecy which refers to the destruction of the 
 | Assyrian empire, must have been delivered prior 
 1 o the year b.c. 625, the year in which Nineveh 
 ell (Henderson, On the Minor Prophets , p. 326). 
 The publicati w of these oracles was, therefore, con- 
 tain porary wi b a portion of those of Jeremiah, 
 tor ik ' word of the Lord came to him in the 
 
 ©81 
 
 thirteenth year of the reign of Josian. Indeed, tha 
 Jewish tradition is, that Zephaniah had for hia 
 colleagues Jeremiah and the prophetess Huldah, 
 the former fixing his sphere of labour in the tho- 
 roughfares and market-places, the latter exer- 
 cising her honourable vocation in the college in 
 Jerusalem (Carpzov, Introd. p. 415). Koestei 
 ( Die Propheten, iii.) endeavours to prove that 
 Zephaniah was posterior to Habakkuk. His argu- 
 ments from similarity of diction are very trivial, 
 and the more so when we reflect that all circum- 
 stances combine in inducing us to fix the period 
 of Habakkuk in the reign ofJehoiakim [Habak- 
 kuk], immediately before the dial dsean invasion. 
 
 Contents. — The book consists of only three 
 chapters. In the first, the sins of the nation are 
 severely reprimanded, aifd a day of fearful retri- 
 bution is menaced. The circuit of reference is 
 wider in the second chapter, and the ungodly and 
 persecuting states -in the neighbourhood of Judaea 
 are also doomed; but in the third section, while 
 the prophet inveighs bitterly against Jerusalem 
 and her magnates, he concludes wifli the cheering 
 prospect of her ultimate settlement and blissful 
 theocratic enjoyment. It has been disputed what 
 the enemies are with whose desolating inroads he 
 threatens Judah. The ordinary and most probable 
 opinion is, that the foes whose period of invasion 
 was ‘ a day of the trumpet and alarm against the 
 fenced cities and against the high towers’ (ch. i. 
 16), were the Chaldaeans. Hitzig especially, Cra- 
 mer too, and Eichhorn, supposed the prophet to 
 refer to a Scythian invasion, the history of which 
 they imagine has been preserved by Herodotus 
 (i. 105). But the general style of the oracle, 
 and the sweeping vengednce which it menaces 
 against Assyria, Philistia, Ammon, and Cush, as 
 well as against Judah, by some great and un 
 named power, point to the Chaldaean expedition 
 which, under Nebuchadnezzar, laid Jerusalem 
 waste, and carried to Babylon its enslaved popu- 
 lation. The contemporary prophecies of Jeremiah 
 contemplate the musterings, onset, and devasta- 
 tions of the same victorious hosts. The former 
 part of Zephaniah’s prediction is ‘a day of clouds 
 and of thick darkness,’ but in the closing section 
 of it light is sown for the righteous: ‘The King 
 of Israel, the Lord, is in the midst of thee ; lie will 
 rejoice over thee with joy; He will rest in his 
 love.’ 
 
 Style. — We cannot by any means award so 
 low a character to Zephaniah’s style as is done 
 by I)e Wette ( Enleit . ^ 245), who describes it as 
 being often heavy and tedious. It has not the 
 sustained majesty of Isaiah, or the sublime and 
 original energy of Joel : it has no prominent fea- 
 ture of distinction ; yet. its delineations are gra- 
 phic, and many of its touches are bold and 
 striking. For example, in the first chapter the 
 prophet groups together in his descriptions of the 
 national idolatry several characteristic exhibition 
 of its forms and worship. The verses are not 
 tame and prosaic portraiture, but form a series of 
 vivid sketches. The poet seizes on the more 
 strange peculiarities of the heathen worship — ut- 
 tering denunciations on the remnant of Baal, the 
 worshippers of Chemarim — the star-adorers, the 
 devotees of Malcham, the fanatics who clad 
 themselves in strange apparel, and r.hon» who in 
 some superstitious mummery leapt uprn tbe 
 threshold (Bochart, Hier. cap. 36). Not a fear 
 

 ZEPHaTH. 
 
 ZERED. 
 
 verse* occur in the course of the prophecy which, 
 lu tone and dignity, are not unworthy to be as- 
 sociated with the more distinguished effusions of 
 Hie Hebrew bards. A few paronomasiae occur 
 (i. 15 and ii. 1-4); and occasionally there is a 
 peculiar repetition of a leading word in the forma- 
 tion of a climax (ii. 15). Jahn ( Introd . § 132) and 
 Eiehhorn assert that Zephaniah has borrowed to 
 a considerable extent from the earlier prophets, 
 especially from Isaiah; yet the similarity of such 
 passages as Isa. xxxiv. 11 to Zeph. ii. 14, or 
 Isa xlvii. 8 to Zeph. ii. 15, or Isa. xviii. 1 
 to Zeph. iii. 10, or Isa. xvi. 6 to Zeph. ii. 8, 
 is not sufficient evidence that Zephaniah was 
 Isaiah's imitator. The clauses of resemblance 
 are idiomatic in nature, and seem to have been 
 of proverbial force and currency, so that both 
 prophets may have taken them from the national 
 usus loquendi. Coincidences of expression have 
 also been noted between Zephaniah and some of 
 lis contemporaries, particularly Jeremiah (Eich. 
 Einleit. § 595 ; Rosen. Prooem. vi.) Between 
 Zeph. i. 5 and Jer. viii. 2, we can perceive little 
 similarity of language, though the same supersti- 
 tious custom is referred to, and a comparison of 
 Zeph. i. 12 with Jer. xl viii. 11, leads to such a 
 conclusion as we have already stated, as the phrase 
 common to both passages — ‘settled on the lees' — 
 must have been one in wide circulation in a wine 
 country like Judaea. It was altogether ground- 
 less, therefore, in some of the older critics, such 
 as Isidore and Schmid ius ( Prolegom . in Sophon.), 
 to style Zephaniah the abbreviator of Jeremiah. 
 Resemblances have also been traced between 
 Zephaniah and Amos, and between him and his 
 successor Ezekiel ; but to call these imitations, is 
 rash indeed, if we reflect on the similarity of the 
 topics discussed, the peculiar range of imagery 
 and phraseology which is common lo Hebrew pro- 
 phetic poetry, and which was the stereotyped lan- 
 guage of the inspired brotherhood. The language 
 of Zephaniah is pure : it has not ihe classic ea se 
 and elegance of the earlier compositions, but it wants 
 the degenerate feebleness and Aramaic corruption 
 of the succeeding era. Zephaniah is not expressly 
 quoted in the New Testament ; but clauses and 
 expressions occur which seem to have been formed 
 from his prophecy (Zeph. iii. 9; Rom. xv. 6, &c.). 
 He was, in fine, as Cyril of Alexandria terms him 
 ( Prcefat . in Soph. tom. iii.), ‘a true prophet, 
 and tilled with the Holy Ghost, and bringing bis 
 oracles from the mouth of God.’ 
 
 Commentaries. — Martini Lutheri Comment, 
 in Sophon. Prophet. Opera Latina, t. iv. ; Mart. 
 Buceri Sophonice Explicatio, 1528; Noltenii 
 Dissertatio Exeget Prcelim. in Proph. Zeph- 
 1719 ; Cramer, Scythische Denkmaler in Palees- 
 tina , 1777, contains a Comment on Zephaniah; 
 Don A. Coelln, Spicileg. Observat. Exeget. Critic, 
 ad Zeph. Vaticinia , 1-8 1 8 ; Maurer, Comment. 
 Grammat. Hist. Crit. in Prophetas Minor es, 
 p. 373, 1840; Ilandbuch Exeget . z. A. T. die 
 12 kleinen Prophet, erklaert von F. Hitzig, 
 1838; Rosenmulleri Scholia in Proph. Min. \ ol. 
 iv. ; Dr. E. Henderson, On the Tioelve Minor 
 Prophets , 1845. — J. E. 
 
 ZEPHATH (HSV j Sept. 2 «f>ed), a Canaan- 
 itixh city, afterwards called Hormah (Judg. i. 
 17 ). The ancient design it ion is perhaps retained 
 ie the modern Sufah, the lame of a difficult pass 
 
 leading up from the Arabah tc the south of 
 Judah (Robinson, Bibl. Researches, ii. 592- 
 616 ). 
 
 ZEPHATHAH (finBX Sept. B oftav M«- 
 frr]<rd), sk valley at Mareshaii, in the tribe of Judah 
 (2 Cliron. xiv. 10), where Asa defeated Zerah the 
 Cushite. Maresnah was near Eleutheropolis 
 ( Onomast ., s. v. 4 Masera 1 ), and Robinson thinks 
 the valley may have been the broad wady which 
 comes down from Beit Jibrin (Eleutheropolis) 
 towards Tell es-Saifeh; in which last name a 
 trace of Zephathah may perhaps be recognised 
 (Robinson, Bibl. Researches , ii. 361). 
 
 1. ZERAH (rnj, a rising ; Sept. Zapu), son 
 of Judah and Tamar, and younger but twin 
 brother of Pharez (Gen. xxxviii. 30 ; Matt. i. 3). 
 Geddes, in his Critical Remarks (pp. 126, 127), 
 has some interesting medical testimony in illus- 
 tration of the remarkable circumstances attending 
 the birth of the twins. 
 
 2. ZERAH, son of Reuel and grandson of 
 Esau (Gen. xxxvi. 13, 17). 
 
 3. ZERAH, son of Simeon and founder of a 
 family in Israel (Num. xxvi. 13). He is called 
 Zohar in Gen. xlvi. 10 : his descendants aro 
 called Zarhites in Num. xxvi. 13, 20. 
 
 4. ZERAH, the Cushite king or leader who 
 invaded Judah in the tenth year of king Asa (n.c. 
 941), with an army of ‘ a thousand thousands’ 
 (i. e. very many thousands) of men, and three 
 hundred chariots. Asa defeated them in the 
 valley of Zephathah at Mareshah, utterly routed 
 them, pursued them to Gerar, and carried back 
 mucli plunder from that, neighbourhood. We 
 are left uncertain as to the country from which 
 Zerah came. The term Cushite or Ethiopian 
 may imply that he was of Arabian Cush ; the 
 principal objection to which is, that history affords 
 no indication that Arabia had at that epoch, or 
 from its system of government could well have, 
 any king so powerful as Zerah. That he was of 
 Abyssinia or African Ethiopia, is another con- 
 jecture, which is resisted by the difficulty of 
 seeing how this ‘huge host 1 could have obtained 
 a passage through Egypt, as it must have done to 
 reach Judaea. If we could suppose, with Cham- 
 poll ion ( Precis , p. 257), whom Coquerel follows 
 (Biog. Sacr. s. v.), that Zerah the Cushite was 
 the then king of Egypt, of an Ethiopian dynasty, 
 tiiis difficulty would be satisfactorily met. In 
 fact it is now often stated that he was the same 
 with Osorkon I. (of whom there is a statue in the 
 British Museum, No. 8), the son and successor of 
 the Shishak who invaded Judaea twenty-five 
 years before, in the time of Rehoboam. This is 
 a tempting explanation, but. cannot be received 
 without question, and it is not deemed satisfac- 
 tory by Rosellini, Wilkinson, Sharpe, and others. 
 Jahn hazards an ingenious conjecture, that Zeralt 
 was king of Cush on both sides of the Red Sea, 
 that is, of both the Arabian and African Ethiopia ; 
 and thus provides him a sufficient power without 
 subjecting him to the necessity of passing through 
 Egypt. This also is not without serious difficulties. 
 In fact no conclusion that can be relied upon has 
 yet been exhibited. 
 
 ZERED, the name of a valley (Num. xxi. »2) 
 and of the stream flowing through it, east of tb« 
 Dead Sea [River] 
 
ZE11EDA. 
 
 ZIKLAG. 
 
 889 
 
 ZEREDA (flTYJf ; Sept, 2ap7j8a0<£), a city 
 i>f Manasseh, near Beth-shan (1 Kings xi. 26 ; 2 
 Chron. iv. 17). This is, probably through an er- 
 roneous reading, the Zererath (nriTlV) of Judg. 
 vii. 22 ; and, perhaps, the Zaretan (jm¥) of Josh, 
 iii. 16; 1 Kings iv. 12 J vii. 46). 
 
 ZERESH (S5HT ; Pers. gold ; Sept. Zuadpa), 
 the wife of Haman (Esth. v. 10; vi. 13), and 
 well worthy of him, if we may judge from the 
 advice she gave him to prepare a gibbet and ask 
 the king’s leave to hang Mordecai thereon [Ha- 
 man; Mordecai], 
 
 ZERUAH (ny-lTV, leprous; Sept. ~2,apipa), 
 the widowed mother of Jeroboam (1 Kings xi. 
 26). 
 
 ZE RUBE ABEL sown in Babylon ; 
 
 Sept. Zopoj8d/3eA), called also ‘ Sheshbazzar, 
 prince of Judah * (Ezra i. 8), son (comp. 1 Chron. 
 iii. 17) of Shealtiel, of the royal house of David 
 (1 Chron. iii.), was the leader of the first colony 
 of Jews that returned from captivity to their 
 native land under the permission of Cyrus, car- 
 rying with them the precious vessels belong- 
 ing to the service of God. With the aid of 
 Joshua and his body of priests, Zerubbabel pro- 
 ceeded, on his arrival in Palestine, to rebuild the 
 fallen city, beginning with the altar of burnt- 
 offerings, in order that the daily services might 
 be restored. The Samaritans, however, having 
 been offended at being expressly excluded from 
 a share in the land, did all they could to hinder 
 the work, and even procured from the Persian 
 court an ordei that it should be stopped. Ac- 
 cordingly, everything remained suspended till the 
 second year of Darius Hystaspis (a.c. 521), when 
 the restoration was resumed and carried to com- 
 pletion, according to Josephus, owing to the in- 
 fluence of Zerubbabel with the Persian monarch 
 {Antiq. xi. 3 , Ezra; llaggai i. 1-14; ii. J .) 
 
 — J. R. B. 
 
 ZERUIAH (rpjmv, wounded ; Sept.Sapouia), 
 daughter of Jesse, sister of David (1 Chron. ii. 
 16), and mother of Joab, Abishai, and Asahel 
 (2 Sam. ii. 18: iii. 39 ; viii. 16; xvi. 9). 
 
 ZIBA (fcO 1 ''!?, statue ; Sept. 2tj3a), a servant 
 of the house of Saul, of whom David inquired 
 if there was any one left of the house of Saul to 
 whom the monarch might show favour. Mephi- 
 bosheth was in consequence found, and having 
 been certified of David’s friendship, Ziba, who 
 was at the head of a large family, having fifteen 
 sons and twenty slaves, was appointed to till 
 the land for the prince, and generally to con- 
 stitute his household and do him service (2 
 Sam. ix. 2-10). This position Ziba employed 
 for his master’s harm. When David had to 
 tly from Jerusalem in consequence of the rebel- 
 lion of Absalom, Ziba met the king with a 
 large and acceptable present : — ‘ But where is 
 Mephibosheth?’ asked the fugitive monarch ; ‘ in 
 Jerusalem,’ was the answer; * for he said, To-day 
 shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom 
 of my father.’ Enraged at this, which looked 
 like ingratitude as well as treachery, David 
 thereupon gave to the faithless Ziba all the pro- 
 perty of Mephibosheth (2 Sam. xvi. 1, sq.). On 
 David's return to his metropolis an explanation 
 took place, when Mephibosheth accused Zioa of 
 %)ving slandered him ; and David, apparently 
 
 not being perfectly satisfied with the defence, 
 gave his final award, that the land should be 
 divided between the master and his servant (3 
 Sam. xix. 24, sq.). — J. It. B. 
 
 ZIBEON (|iyil¥, dyed; Sept. 2e)3 rywy), a 
 son of Seir, phylarch or head of the Hivites (Gen. 
 xxxgi. 2, 20, 24, 29). 
 
 ztCH III ('"pT, renowned ; Sept. Zexpl), an 
 Ephraimite, probably one of the chiefs of the 
 tribe, and one of the generals of Pekah king of 
 Israel. It has been supposed that he took advan- 
 tage of the victory of this monarch over the army 
 of Judah to penetrate into Jerusalem, where he 
 slew one of the sons of Ahaz, the governor of the 
 palace, and the king's chief minister or favourite. 
 It is difficult without this supposition to explain 
 2 Chron. xxviii. 17. There is some probability 
 in the conjecture, that he was the ‘ Tabael’s son’ 
 whom Pekah and Rezin designed to set upon the 
 throne of Judah [Tabael]. 
 
 ZIDON (ffPV; 5iS^v). 1. The eldest son 
 
 of Canaan (Gen. x. 15). 2. One of the most 
 
 ancient cities in Phoenicia. Justin derives the 
 name from the Phoenician word for fish, ‘ piscem 
 Phoenices sidon vocant’ (xviii. 3) ; but Josephus, 
 from the son of Canaan ( Antiq . vi. 2). It had 
 a very commodious harbour, which is now nearly 
 choked up with sand (Strabo, xvi.p. 756 ; Joseph 
 Antiq. xiv. 10. 6): it was distant one day s 
 journey from the fountains of the Jordan (Joseph. 
 Antiq. v. 3. 1), 400 stadia from Berytus. and 
 200 stadia from Tyre (Strabo, xvi. pp. 756, 757). 
 It was situated in the allotment of the tribe of 
 Asher, but never conquered (Judg. i. 31) ; on 
 the contrary, it was sometimes a formidable enemy 
 (Judg. x. 12), Even in Joshua’s time it was 
 called Tsidon-Rabba, or Great Zidon (Josh. xix. 
 28). It was noted in very early times for its 
 extensive traffic (Isa. xxiii. 2 ; Ezek. xxvii. 8) 
 and manufactures, particularly glass (Plin. v. 
 20; Strabo, xvi. 10). Frequent reference to it 
 occurs in Homer (i7, vi. 290 ; xxiii. 743 ; Odyss . 
 xiii. 285 ; xv. 425). The best vessels in the 
 fleet of Xerxes were Sidonian (Herodotus, vii. 
 99. 128). Its modern name is Saide. In Has- 
 selquist’s time (1750) its exports to France were 
 considerable ( Travels , p. 166); but at present 
 its traffic is chiefly confined to the neighbouring 
 towns; the population is about 15,000 (Man- 
 nert’s Gengraphie, vi. 1, p. 291 ; Pictorial Bible, 
 notes on Deut. xxxiii., Josh. xix.). — J. E. R. 
 
 ZIF (IT BHh, bloom-month ), an ante-Exilian 
 name of the second Hebrew month (1 Kings vi. 
 1 -37), corresponding with our April and May. 
 This, the second month of the sacred, was the 
 eighth of the civil year. The second month bore 
 also the name lyar. — J. R. B. 
 
 ZIKLAG 5 Sept. SexeAcuc), a city be- 
 
 longing to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. xv. 31 ; 
 xix. 5), but at times subject to the Philistines of 
 Gath, whose king, Achisli, bestowed it upon 
 David fora residence ; after which it pertained to 
 Judah (1 Sam. xxvii. 6; xxx. 1, 14, 26; 2 Sum. 
 i. 1 ; 1 Chron. iv. 30 ; Neh. xi. 28). 
 
 While David was absent with his men to join 
 Achish, Ziklag was burned and plundered by 
 the Amalekites ; and on his return, after receiv- 
 ing the spoil from them, he remained here till 
 called to assume the crown after the death vi 
 
9SQ 
 
 ZILLAH. 
 
 Z1MRL 
 
 553. [Zidon.J 
 
 Saul. It was during hi* stay in this place that 
 he was joined by. many considerable and valiant 
 persons, whose adhesion to his cause was of much 
 importance to him, and who were ever after held, 
 in high esteem in his court and army. 
 
 ZILLAH (nW, shade ; Sept, 2eAAa), one of 
 the wives of Lamech, and mother of Tubal-cain 
 (Gen. iv. 19) [Lamech]. 
 
 ZILPAH (HQ^T, a dropping; Sept. ZeA .(pa), 
 a female servant of Laban, whom he gave to Leah 
 on her marriage witli Jacob (Gen. xxix. 24), and 
 whom Leah eventually induced him to take as a 
 concubine-wife; in which capacity. she became 
 the mother of Gad and Asher (Gen. xxx. 9-13 
 xxxv. 26 ; xxxvii. 2; xlvi. 18). 
 
 Z1MRAN (HPT, sung , i.e. celebrated in song ; 
 Sept. ZopPpai’), a son of Abraham by Keturah, 
 and the name of an Arabian tribe descended 
 from him (Gen. xxv. 2; 1 Chron. i. 32). This 
 name may perhaps be connected with the Zabram 
 mentioned by Ptolemy as a city with a king 
 situated between Mecca and Medina. 
 
 ZIMRI(HP.T), a proper name in the Old 
 Testament, which is derived from the root. IDT, 
 carpere, especially carpere vites=putare vites, 
 ‘ to prune ; and also carpere fides=pulsare , can- 
 tare, ‘ to play,’ ‘ sing.’ It is very remarkable that 
 the Greek if/aAAetv also occurs in both these accep- 
 tations, which appear at first sight to be so very 
 heterogeneous — to scrape, pull , pluck, and to 
 sing. Compare the Latin carpere, which is ety- 
 mologically connected, as well with the Greek 
 &f>Tni, sickle , as with the English harp; and 
 the English colloquial and vulgar expressions, 
 
 ' Jo scrape the violin,’ ‘ to pull away at the piano,’ 
 and k to pull out a note. If we consider the 
 striking coincidence of the Greek with the Hebrew, 
 «e are led to suppose that the link of the ideas is 
 
 as we have stated, and cease to be surprised that 
 Fiirst translates the name 'IDT by the German 
 Winzer= vine-dresser, but Gesenius by carmine 
 celebratus , i. e. a man celebrated by song, or a 
 man of celebrity in general. 
 
 The Septuagint imitates the Hebrew sound by 
 Zapfipl, and Josephus ( Antiq . viii. 12. 5) by 
 Zagdprjs. 
 
 Four men are called Zimri in the Old Testa- 
 ment : — 
 
 1. A son of Zerah, who was a son of Judah by 
 Tamar (1 Chron. ii. 6). 
 
 2. The name of the Israelite slain, together 
 with the Midianitish woman, in Shittim, by 
 Phinehas, was Zimuj, the son of Salu, a prince 
 of a chief house among the Simeonites (Num. 
 xxv. 14). 
 
 3. King Saul begat. Jonathan, who begat 
 Merib-baal, who begat Micah, who begat Aha/, 
 who begat Jehoadah, whose sons were Alemeth, 
 Azmaveth, and Zimiii. Zimri begat Moza, &c. 
 (1 Chron. viii. 36; ix. 42). 
 
 4. In the twenty-sixth year of Asa, king of 
 Judah, Elah, the son of Baasha, began to reign 
 over Israel in Tirzah. After lie had reigned two 
 years, Zimri, the captain of half his chariots, con- 
 spired against him when he was in Tirzah, drunk, 
 in the house of his steward. Zimri went in and 
 smote and killed him, and reigned in his stead, 
 about b.c. 928 ; and he slew all the house of 
 Baasha, so that no male was left. Zimri reigned 
 only seven days at Tirzah. The people who were 
 encamped at Gibbethon, which belonged to the 
 Philistines, heard that Zimri had slain the king. 
 They made Omri, the captain of the host, king 
 over Israel in the camp. Omri besieged Tirzah 
 and took it. Zimri, seeing that the city was taken, 
 went into the king's palace, set it on tire, and 
 perished in it for his sins in walking in the way 
 of Jeroboam, and for making Israel to tis 
 (1 Kings xvi. 1-20; 2 Kings ix. 311. 
 
ZIN. 
 
 ZIPPORIS. 
 
 991 
 
 5. The kings of Zimri, mentioned hi .Ter. xxv. 
 25, seem to have been the kings of the Zimranites, 
 the descendants of Zimran, son of Abraham by 
 Keturah (fieri, xxv. 2: l Cliron. i. 32). It 
 seems that in Jer. xxv. 25, '"IDT is a contraction 
 for The town Zabram, mentioned by 
 
 Ptolemy as situated between Mecca and Medina, 
 cerhaps had its name from the tribe of Zimran. — 
 
 C. H. F. B. 
 
 ZIN (|V i Sept. 2 iv), a desert on the south 
 sf Palestine, and westward from Idumaea, in 
 which was situated the city of Kadesh-barnea 
 (Num. xiii. 22 ; xx..l: xxvii. 14). Its locality 
 is therefore fixed by the considerations which de- 
 termine the site of Kadesh to the western part of 
 the Arabah south of the Dead Sea. 
 
 ZION. [Jerusalem.] 
 
 ZIPH (f|'T ; Sept. Zup), the name of a city 
 in the tribe of "Judah (Josh. xv. 55; 2 Chron. 
 xi. 8), and of a desert in its vicinity (1 Sam. 
 xxiii. 14, 15). It is mentioned by Jerome ( Ono - 
 mast. s. v.), but had not been since noticed till 
 Dr. Robinson found the name in the Tell Zif 
 j^Hill of Zif), which occurs about four miles and 
 a half S. by E. from Hebron, and is a round 
 eminence about a hundred feet high, situated in 
 a plain. A site also called Zif, lies about 
 ten minutes east of this, upon a low hill or ridge 
 between two small wadys, which commence here 
 and run towards the Dead Sea. There is now little 
 to be seen besides broken walls and foundations, 
 mostly of unhewn stones, but indicative of solidity. 
 
 ZIPPORAH (rn'S)^> little bird; Sept. Zeir- 
 </>wpa), one of the seven daughters of Reuel 
 (comp. Exod. xviii,), priest of Midian, who, 
 in oonsequence of aid rendered to the young 
 women when, on their going to procure water 
 for their father’s flocks, they were set on by a 
 party of Bedouins, was given to Moses in mar- 
 riage (Exod. ii. 16, sq.). A son, the fruit of this 
 union, remained for some time after his birth un- 
 circumcised ; but an illness into which Moses fell 
 in a khan when on his way to Pharaoh, being ac- 
 counted a token of the divine displeasure, led to the 
 circumcision of the child, when Zipporah, having, 
 it appears, reluctantly" yielded to the ceremony, 
 exclaimed, ‘ Surely a bloody husband thou art 
 to me’ (Exod. iv. 26). This event seems to have 
 caused some alienation of feeling, for Moses sent 
 iris wife back to her father, by whom she is again 
 brought to her husband while in the desert, when 
 a reconciliation took place, which was ratified by 
 religious rites (Gen. xviii. 1, sq.). — J. R. B. 
 
 ZIPPORIS, or Sepphoris, «'as, about the be- 
 ginning of the Christian era, a principal and 
 strongly fortified city of Galilee, under latitude 
 32° 44k Rabbinical writers call it J'TlS'V, 
 
 d nas, mav, or sPaRrow, 
 
 the radicals of which are transposed in the Latin 
 PaSseR, from the root *7SV, to pipe like a bird , 
 the German ZiRPen. According to Bab. Me- 
 gillah, fol. 6. 1, Zipporis had its name from 
 being perched on a mountain like a bird, “Vl27f2. 
 The name occurs also beginning with T instead 
 Josephus and Suidas give Zipporis in the 
 form of XeTr<peopis, and Pto)emy, according to the 
 present reading, in that of ’AnQovpel. At a later 
 period it was called Diocaesarea. Ol iv Aieicat- 
 trapeta rfj s UaXaiarluvs ’louScuoi Kara P copaiw* 
 tasAa ut'T'hpow. ‘ The Jews of Dines area in 
 
 Palestine took up arms against the Romans 
 (8ocrates, Hist. xi. 31). Sozomen (Hist. ir. 
 7) adds that Gall us Ceesar, who wa3 then at 
 Antioch, destroyed Dioc.esahea, dvaerrarow 
 iiroipae. Epiphanins uses both the narnes,— 
 Diocaesarea and Sepphoris. The same city 
 which ( Adversus Ilcereses , p. 128) he calls 
 AioKaiaapeia, he mentions (p. 136) under the 
 name of i$iir(pcopis. It is also called Sephorum, 
 and described as contiguous to Mount Carmel 
 and Cana, and six miles west of Nazareth. It 
 is considered to be the birthplace of Joachim, 
 the brother of the Virgin Mary. According to R. 
 Benjamin, Zipporis was distant, from Tiberias 
 niNDIQ i"l, or twenty miles. The distance of 
 Zipporis from Mount Tiberias is indicated in 
 Echa Rabbati, fol. 75. 2 : — ‘ Adrian had a vine- 
 yard forming a square of eighieen miles, which 
 is the distance from Tiberias to Sepphoris.’ 
 Tapeio-lpps was twenty stadia from Zipporis. Zip- 
 poris is celebrated in the works of Josephus as 
 a military station, and in the Talmud on ac- 
 count of its famed rabbinical academy. Rabbi 
 Judah Hakkadosh, or the Saint, resided seven- 
 teen years in Zipporis, and he used frequently to 
 say that Jacob sojourned in Egypt seventeen years, 
 and Judah in Zipporis seventeen years ( Hieros . 
 Ke/aim, fol. 32, col. 2). He* resided also in 
 Beth-shaarim, but died in Zipporis ( Jnchasin, 
 fol. 2, col. 2). . 
 
 According to the Gloss, in Tal. Babylon. ( San- 
 hedrim , fol. 47, col .1), Rabbi Judah died in Zip- 
 poris, but was buried in Beth-shaarim. When dying 
 he commanded his sons, — ‘ in carrying me to the 
 grave, weep not in the small towns through which 
 you pass, but in the great cities.’ Nevertheless, 
 Rabbi Benjamin, in his Itinerarium, supposed he 
 saw the sepulchre of Rabbi Judah, and that of 
 Rabbi Chaija, and of the prophet Jonas, on a 
 mountain at Zipporis. 
 
 Eighteen synagogues lamented at the burial of 
 Rabbi Judah, but it. is doubtful whether all these 
 belonged to Zipporis ( Hieros . Berac, fol. 6, col. 
 1 ; fol. 9, col. 1. Nazir, fol. 56, col. 1 ; Shabb., 
 fol. 3, col. 1). 
 
 Among the celebrated rabbis of Zipporis, there 
 occur in the Talmud Rabbi Honna Rabba, R. 
 Abudma, R. Bar Kaphra, and, R. Chaninah. It 
 appears, however, that the number of Gentiles at 
 Zipporis was so great that they could stir up per- 
 secutions against, the Jews for affixing to the doors 
 the prescribed sacred sentences (Babylon- Joma, 
 fol. 11, col. 1). 
 
 It seems that R. Akibah also died in Zipporis, 
 about forty years before the academy was trans- 
 ferred thither (Abodah Zarah , fol. 41, col. 2) , 
 but here the spelling is I'TlDT. To Zipporis also 
 belonged Ben Elam, who, when the high-priest 
 was not. clean on the day of atonement, and there- 
 fore unable to perform his functions, went him- 
 self into the holy of holies and did duty for him. 
 According to Hieros. Biccurim, fol. 64. 2, for 
 sixteen miles round Zipporis the country every- 
 where flowed with milk and honey ; an expres- 
 sion which denotes the greatest degree of fertility 
 and prosperity. Among the numerous synagogues 
 in Zipporis two were especially celebrated, viz., 
 Synagoga Gophnitica.. iOQlin NDKOD, and Sy- 
 nagoga Babylonica, ( Hieros. B&- 
 
 rachoth , fol. 6. 1, and 9. 5s). 
 
 Ziliruivirf —» EJ— " »*— j ‘tw* Ration 
 
992 
 
 ZIPPORIS. 
 
 ZIZANION. 
 
 and decision of legal niceties ( Hieros . Jevamoth , 
 fol. 15. 3). Josephus mentions Sepphoris fre- 
 quently as the greatest town of Galilee, and built 
 in a well fortified situation : heiupccpis peyiaTij rrjs 
 Tu\i\aias ir6\is, epoporanp de eireKTKrixevri X U P^V 
 ( De Bell. Jud. iii. 2; Antiq. xiii. 21 ; xvii. 12). 
 Sepphoris, Jerusalem, Jericho, Gadara, and 
 Amathus, were the five cities in which the assem- 
 blies of the Synedrium were held (Antiq. xiv. 10). 
 In this passage the name has undergone some 
 modification, as we read h? 'S.apupopois. After 
 Sepphoris was taken by Varus, it was made 
 the chief city of Galilee, and strongly fortified 
 by Herod Antipas (Antiq. xviii. 3). Herod 
 Agrippa junior obtained Zipporis as a present 
 from the emperor Nero (Joseph. Vita). 
 
 Before this period Tiberias was considered to be 
 the first city in Galilee. Sepphoris was surrounded 
 by many villages, and situated near Mount Asa- 
 mon, iti the centre of Galilee (De Bell. Jud. ii. 
 23), in a very strong and secure situation (De 
 Bell. Jud. iii. 1). One of the small towns near 
 Zipporis was called Jeshenah ( Kidduschin , 
 
 cap. iv. 5) ; another was called m¥p, K’zarah 
 (Gloss, in Erachim, cap. ix. 6). Sepphoris was 
 destroyed a.d. 339, in consequence of the rebel- 
 lion of its citizens. ^ 
 
 Theophanes relates (page 33, ed. Par.) ; Tovrip 
 Tip erei ot Kara HaKaiorturju ’I ovSaioi aurrjpav koX 
 sroAAoCs twv dWoedvuv 'E KX-fjvwy re /cal 2 agapei - 
 tu)v aueiXov" Kal avrol 8e i rayyevel ('Jrayyevrj, 
 Cedrenus) inrb rov err par ov 'P upaixv drypeByany, 
 Kal t) avrwv Aiotcaiadpeia yipavlarOi) : — ‘ In 
 
 this year (the 25th of Constantine) the Jews in 
 Palestine rebelled, and killed many of other 
 nations, both Greeks and Samaritans ; but they 
 were themselves extirpated by the Roman army, 
 and their town Diocaesarea entirely destroyed.’ — 
 Cedrenus has the same account (Comp. Ilistor. 
 299). It is remarkable that a similar fatality be- 
 tel the town of Caesarea in Cappadocia, for which 
 Gregorius Nazianzenus interceded, in a letter to 
 Olympius, which still exists in his works, (tom. 
 i. p. 809). 
 
 In the acts of the Concilium Constantinopoli - 
 tanum , among the bishops of Palestine is men- 
 tioned MapKeWii/os NeoKaurapelas (Concil. tom. 
 v. p. 192). 
 
 Reland, in his Palaestina, under Sepphoris, con- 
 jectures that NeoKaicrapelas is an erratum for 
 AioKbuaape'ias, which latter town is omitted in the 
 above list of bishops, although we have clear 
 proof that it was rebuilt, and had at a later pe- 
 riod a bishop; as we learn from the list of bi- 
 shops in the Acta Concilii Hierosolymitani , a.d. 
 536, where mention is made of Kvpiaubs Aio- 
 Kataapelas, but not of any bishop of Neocsesarea ; 
 nor does there occur any ancient notice of such 
 a town in Palestine. Hence we infer that Neo- 
 cesarea is nothing but an editorial blunder, as 
 well in the Acts quoted, as also in the Itinera- 
 rium Antonini Martyris, where we read : De Tho- 
 lomaide maritima venimus in fines Galilaeae in 
 civitatem Neocesaream, in qua adoravimus 
 prse veneratione molam et canistellum Sanctae 
 Marise, in quo loco est cathedra in qua sedebat, 
 quando ad earn venit Gabriel Archangelus : — 
 ‘From Ptolemais at the sea-ooast we came into 
 the borders of Galilee, to the town of Neocse- 
 sarea, where we adored with veneration the mo/a, 
 a ^d the little basket of St. Mary. In that place 
 
 is also the chair in which she was seated when the 
 Archangel Gabriel came to her.’ We have re- 
 tained here the word mola , since we would leave 
 it uncertain whether Antoninus Martyr adored the 
 hand-mill, molar tooth, or the jawbone, or even a 
 more delicate part of the virgin. Mola dicitur 
 in uteris mulierum massa cornea sine ossibus et 
 visceribus, ex imperfecta conceptione concre- 
 scens (PI in. Hist. Nat. vii. 15. 13). Let it lie 
 decided by others which object of adoration at 
 Zipporis should be preferred. The Greek pv\r, 
 occurs in the same acceptation with mola t 
 
 It is also remarkable that in the seventh cen- 
 tury the place where Gabriel met St. Mary was 
 shown at Nazareth ; but it is clear from the pro- 
 gress of the journey that Antoninus, by the name 
 Neocsesarea, meant Diocsesarea or Sepphoris, be- 
 cause this was the first city on the road from 
 Ptolemais into Galilee. We therefore read in 
 Johanns Phocas (Descript. Palestine, §10): 
 UpuTos ovv Kara t)}v IlTO\ep.uiba early 77 2eR- 
 (pcopl, rrjs raA.tA.odas 7icu"rp &oikos axeSby 
 
 prj 5k \el\pavoy rrjs irpilyy avrrjs evdaipovlas 
 <f>alyovaa : — ‘ After Ptolemais, one awives first at 
 Semphori, a town of Galilee, which is now en 
 tirely uninnabit.ed, and shows no remains of its 
 former prosperity.’ 
 
 Some old coins are extant with the inscription 
 2Eri4>flPHNflN. One of these, belonging to the 
 reign of Domitian, is mentiwned by Vaillant, 
 (p. 23); and (p. 31) he produces another with a 
 similar inscription, belonging to the reign of Tra- 
 jan, of which Patinus furnishes an engraving 
 (Numm. eer. Imperatorum , p. 146). Comp. 
 Hadriani Relandi Palcestina , sub Sepphoris, and 
 Othonis Lexicon Rabbinicum , sub Zipporis; 
 Lightfoot, Centuria Geographica , cap. lxxxii., 
 lxxxiii. ; Nicol. Santon, Index Geographic tut, 
 sub Sephoris. — C. H. F. B. 
 
 ZIZ I Sept. ’A atrels), a cliff or pass lead- 
 ing up from the Dead Sea towards Jerusalem, by 
 which the bands of the Moabites and Ammonites 
 advanced against Jehoshaphat (2 Chrom xx. 16). 
 They seem to have come round the serfith end of 
 the Dead Sea, and along the western shore as far 
 as Engedi, where there is a pass which leads out 
 northward towards Tekoa (Robinson, Bibl. Res. 
 ii. 215). This is the route which is taken by the 
 Arabs in their marauding expeditions at the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 ZIZANION (Zi^aviov). This word occurs in 
 Matt. xiii. 25, and several of the following verses, 
 and is translated weeds by Luther, and tares in 
 the Auth. Vers. ; but it is not found in any 
 Greek author. It is therefore supposed that, as 
 the Gospel of Matthew was (as some think) first 
 written in Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular name of 
 some particular plant was adopted, and thus intro- 
 duced into the Greek version. This seems to 
 be confirmed by the existence of a plant, which 
 is suitable to the above passage, and of which 
 the Arabic name is very similar to zizatiiun. 
 Thus, in the parable of the man who sowed 
 good seed in his field, it is said, ‘ But whila 
 men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares 
 among the wheat: when the blade sprung uj 
 and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tarei 
 also/ From this it is evident that the wheal 
 and the zizanion must have had considerabl# 
 resemblance *0 each other in the herbaceous parts, 
 
ZOAN. 
 
 ZOAR. 
 
 993 
 
 which could hardly be the case, unless they were 
 Doth of the family of the grasses. That such, 
 
 nowever, is the case, is evident from what Volney 
 says, that the peasants of Palestine and Syria do 
 not cleanse away the seeds of weeds from their 
 corn, but even leave that called Siwan by the 
 Arabs, which stuns people and makes them giddy, 
 as he himself experienced. This no doubt is 
 
 the <A) Zawan, or Ziwan , of Avicenna, and 
 which Buxtorf, in his Rabbinical Lexicon, says 
 was by the later Hebrews called ('Oil Zonin. 
 Avicenna describes two kinds of Ziwan; one 
 ‘quidpiam tritico non absimile,’ of which bread 
 is made ; the other, ‘ res ebrietatem inducens, 
 pravae naturae, atque inter fruges provenit.’ The 
 Ziwan of the Arabs is concluded to be our Darnel, 
 the ivraie of the French, the Lolium temulentum 
 of botanists, and is well suited to the palate. It is 
 a grass often found in corn-fields, resembling the 
 wheat until both are in ear, and remarkable as 
 one of the very few of the numerous family of 
 grasses possessed of deleterious properties. These 
 have long been known, and it is to this plant that 
 Virgil alludes {Georg, i. 154) : — 
 
 ‘ Interque nitentia culta 
 
 Infelix lolium et steriles dominantur avense.’ 
 
 ZOAN (|y¥ ; Sept. T avis), an ancient city of 
 Lower Egypt, situated on the eastern side of the 
 Tanitic branch of the Nile, called in Egyptian 
 or Gane or Gani, 
 
 i. e. ‘low region,’ whence both the Hebrew name 
 Zoan, anti the Greek Tanis, are derived ; as t3 
 also the Arabic San, by which name the site is 
 still known. Zoan is of considerable Scriptural 
 interest. It was one of the oldest cities in 
 Egypt, having been built seven years after Hebron, 
 which already existed in the time of Abraham 
 CNum, xiii. 22; comp. Gen. xxii. 2). It seems 
 also to have been one of the principal capitals, or 
 royal abodes, of the Pharaohs (Isa. xix. 11, 13; 
 xxx. 4) ; and accordingly, ‘ the field of Zoan,’ or 
 
 von. u. 64 
 
 the fine alluvial plain around the city, is described 
 as the scene of the marvellous works which God 
 wrought in the time of Moses (Ps. Ixxviii. 12, 
 33). The destruction predicted in Ezek. xxx. 
 14, has long since befallen Zoan. The ‘ field’ is 
 now a barren waste ; a canal passes through it. 
 without being able to fertilize the soil; ‘fire lias 
 been get in Zoan ;’ and the royal city is now 
 the habitation of fishermen, the resort of wild 
 beasts, and infested by reptiles and malignant 
 fevers. The locality is covered with mounds of 
 unusual height and extent, full of the fragments of 
 pottery which such sites usually exhibit. These 
 extend for about a mile from north to south, by 
 about three quarters of a mile. The area in which 
 the sacred enclosure of the temple stood, is about 
 1500 feet by 1250, surrounded by the mounds of 
 fallen houses, as at Bubastis [Pi-bkskth], whose 
 increased elevation above the site of the temple 
 is doubtless attributable to the same cause — 
 the frequent change in the level of the houses to 
 protect them from the inundation, and the un- 
 altered position of the sacred buildings. There 
 is a gateway of granite and fine grit stone to the 
 enclosure of this temple, bearing the name of 
 Raineses the Great. Though in a very ruinous 
 condition, the fragments of walls, columns, and 
 fallen obelisks, sufficiently attest the former 
 splendour of the building to which they belonged. 
 The obelisks are all of the time of Rameses the 
 Great (b.c. 1355), and their number, evidently 
 ten, if not twelve, is unparalleled in any Egyptian 
 temple. The name of this king most frequently 
 occurs; but the ovals of his successor Pthamen, 
 of Osirtasen III., and of Tirhakah, have also been 
 found. The time of Osirtasen III. ascends nearly 
 to that of Joseph, and his name, therefore, corro- 
 borates the Scriptural account, of the antiquity of 
 the town. Two black statues, and a granite sphinx, 
 with blocks of hewn and occasionally sculptured 
 granite, are among the objects which engage the at- 
 tention of the few travellers who visit this desolate 
 place. The modern village of San consists of mere 
 huts, with the exception of a ruined kasr of modern * 
 date (Wilkinson's Modern Egypt , i. 449-452 ; 
 Narrative of the Scottish Deputation , pp. 72-76). 
 
 ZOAR (“itfif and ; Sept. Zyydo, Z 6yo- 
 pa), a town originally called Bala, and one, of 
 the five cities of the plain of Siddim. It was 
 doomed with the rest to destruction ; but spared 
 at the intercession of Lot as a place to which he 
 might escape. He alleged the smallness of the 
 city as a ground for asking this favour; and 
 hence the place acquired the name of Zoar, or 
 ‘smallness’ (Gen. xiii. 10; xiv. 2, 8; xix. 20, 
 22, 30). It is only again mentioned in Deut. 
 xxxiv. 3 ; Isa. xv. 5 ; Jer. xlviii. 34 ; which 
 passages indicate that it belonged to the Moabites, 
 and was a place of some consequence. Eusebius 
 and Jerome describe it as having in their day 
 many inhabitants, and a Roman garrison 
 ( Onomast s. v. ‘ Bala’). Stephen of Byzantium 
 calls it a large village and fortress (Reland,, 
 Palcest. p. 1065). In the Ecclesiastical Notitia 
 it is mentioned as the seat of a bishop of the- 
 Third Palestine, down to the centuries preceding- 
 the Crusades (Reland, pp. 217, 223, 226, 230) 
 The Crusaders seem to have found it under th* 
 name of Segor, as in the Sept., and they describe 
 the place as pleasantly situated, with many palm 
 
094 
 
 ZOBAH. 
 
 ZUZIMS.. 
 
 trees ( Will. Tyr. x. 8). Abulfeda repeatedly 
 speaks of Zoghar as a place adjacent to the Dead 
 Sea and the Ghor {Tab. Syr. pp. 8 , 9, 11, 148), 
 and indeed calls the Dead Sea itself the Lake of 
 Zoghar (pp. xii. 148, 156). This is the same 
 name as JtY ; the apparent difference in Ro- 
 man types arising from the fact, that the letter 
 V ain in the Hebrew word is treated as mute, but 
 in Arabic is represented by gh. Dr. Robinson 
 {Bib. Researches , ii. 480, 481 ; 648 — 651) has 
 much argument to show that Zoar must have 
 Iain on the east of the Dead Sea ; which seems 
 clear enough from its having been in the territory 
 of Moab : and he thinks that Irby and Mangles 
 have rightly lixed its position at the mouth of the 
 W ady Kerak, at the point where the latter opens 
 upon the isthmus of the long peninsula which 
 stands out from the eastern shore of the lake 
 towards its southern end. At this point Irby and 
 Mangles discovered the remains of an ancient 
 town. Here * stones that have been used in 
 building, though for the most part unknown, are 
 strewed over a great surface of uneven ground, 
 and mixed with bricks and pottery. This ap- 
 pearance continues without interruption, during 
 the space of at least half a mile, quite down to 
 the plain, so that it would seem to have been a 
 place of considerable extent. We noticed one 
 column, and we found a pretty specimen of an- 
 tique variegated glass. It may possibly be the 
 site of the antient Zoar’ ( Travels , p. 448). 
 
 ZOBAH (nili¥ ; Sept. 2ou£a), a Syrian 
 Kingdom, whose king made war with Saul (1 
 Sam. xiv. 47), with David (2 Sam. viii. 3 ; x. 
 6 ), .and with Solomon (2 Chron. viii. 3). Re- 
 specting its situation, see Ah am. 
 
 1. ZOHAR (*inV, whiteness ; Sept. 2aap), a 
 son of Simeon [Zerah]. 
 
 2. ZOHAR, the father of Ephron the Hittite 
 /Gen. xxiii. 8 ; xxv. 9). 
 
 3. ZOHAIl (in Keri ; in Chetib Je- 
 
 Eoar), a descendant of Judah (l Chron. iv. 7). 
 
 -ZOPHAR sparrow? Sept. "Xucpdp), 
 
 one of Job’s three friends and opponents in argu- 
 ment (Job ii. 11 ; xi. 1 ; xx. 1 ; xlii. 9). He is 
 called a Naamathite, or inhabitant of Naamah, 
 a place whose situation is unknown, as it could 
 not be the Naamah mentioned in Josh. xv. 41. 
 Wemyss, in his Job and his Times (p. Ill), well 
 characterizes this interlocutor : — ‘ Zophar exceeds 
 the other two, if possible, in severity of censure ; 
 he is the most inveterate of the accusers, and 
 speaks without feeling or pity. He does little 
 uarjre than repeat and exaggerate the arguments 
 
 of Bildad. He unfeelingly alludes (ch. xi. 15, 
 to the effects of Job’s disease as appearing in hit 
 countenance. This is cruel and invidious. Yet 
 in the same discourse how nobly does he treat of 
 the Divine attributes, showing that any inquiry 
 into them is far beyond the grasp of the human 
 mind ! And though the hortatory part of the 
 first discourse bears some resemblance to that of 
 Eliphaz, yet it is diversified by the fine Imagery 
 which he employs. He seems to have had a full 
 conviction of the providence of God, as regulat- 
 ing and controlling the actions of men; but he 
 limits all his reasonings to a present life, and 
 makes no reference to a future world. This cir- 
 cumstance alone accounts for the weakness and 
 fallacy of these men's judgments. In his second 
 discourse there is much poetical beauty in the 
 selection of images, and the general doctrine is 
 founded in truth; its fallacy lies in its applica- 
 tion to Job’s peculiar case. The whole indicates 
 great warmth of temper, inflamed by misappre- 
 hension of its object and by mistaken zeal.’ 
 
 It is to be observed that Zophar has but two 
 speeches, whereas the others have three each. 
 When Job had replied (oh. xxvi.-xxxi.) to the 
 short address of Bildad (ch. xxv.), a rejoinder 
 might have been expected from Zophar ; but lie 
 said nothing, the three friends, by common con- 
 sent, then giving up the contest in despair (ch. 
 xxxii. 1) [Job]. 
 
 ZOItAH (Hiny, hornets' toivn ; Sept. 2apaa), 
 a town reckoned as in the plain of Judah (Josh, 
 xv. 33), but inhabited by Danites (xix. 41), not 
 far from Eshtaol, and chiefly celebrated as (he 
 birthplace of Samson (Judg. xiii. 2 , 25; xviii. 
 2, 8 , 11 ; comp. 2 Chron. xi. 12; Neh. xi. 29). 
 The site may still be recognised under the name 
 of Surah, situated upon a spur of the mountains 
 running into the plain north of Beth-shemesh 
 (Robinson, ii. 339; iii. 18). 
 
 ZUllIEL God is my rock; Sept. 
 
 ^.ovprrjA), son of Abihail, and family chief or 
 genesarch of the Merarites at the organization of 
 the Levitical establishment (Num. iii. 35). It 
 does not appear to which of the two great divi- 
 sions of the Merarites he belonged. 
 
 ZUZIMS (D'T-IT 5 Sept. iQv t] ierx^pa), one ot 
 the ancient tribes or nations conquered by Che- 
 dorlaomer and his allies (Gen. xiv. 5). Ths 
 Zuzims were settled beyond the Jordan, and are 
 perhaps the same as the Zamzummims of Deut. 
 ii. 20. The Syriac and Onkelos, like the Septua- 
 gint, take the word for an appellative, signifying 
 * strong’ or ‘ valiant.’ 
 
 THE END. 
 
fesi 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA